CourtJester

Just my view folks. I know I’m on a bike forum here, but I also have 12 gas consuming vehicles and I damn sure like to drive. Fast. It just seems like an add on tax due to wasteful spending to me. I pay state taxes that go toward roads, I pay federal taxes that go towards roads, I pay tax on every ounce of gasoline that I put on my motorcycles, cars, and trucks, and I pay the DMV more than enough for my vehicles each year. I even paid a gas guzzler tax on a few of my cars.



I’m totally okay with taxes. There is a cost to the government in the same way that there is a cost to my company. But if they aren’t going to completely remove the gas tax, the gas guzzler tax, or the high DMV cost, and reduce state and federal taxes; then why does anyone need a per mile “use tax”? I think I’m already paying enough “use taxes”. Folks in down town Portland may not have cars; they aren’t paying the VAST MAJORITY of those taxes already. But my employees that choose to drive 30 miles one way ARE paying those taxes already. Why pay more just to go to work to support your family every day?


The next time you want to make a two week 2000 mile family vacation; do you really want to have to figure your taxes into the cost? Someone that takes the bus to work every day came up with that idea, and it's a bad idea that hasn't been given enough thoughton American society as a whole. And anyone that agrees with it either isn’t looking at the big picture or lives a very sheltered life. Just my .02.

Roody

OK thanks.

Robert C

I remember this being looked into about ten years ago, when I worked in Oregon. A concern I have is that, while it would be easy to do, I do not see the tax being adjusted to GVW&HP, as it should be.

Not only does this increase the tax burden for road upkeep to those who do the most damage; it also continues to encourage the purchase, and use of, lighter, generally more fuel efficient, vehicles. As said, it is easy to implement. It is simply a matter of political will.

As far as it being "just another tax." It is more about reducing externalities. A simple question, What dollar vale do you consider it to be reasonable for auto owners to demand of me, a non-auto owner, so that they can enjoy their auto, which provides no benefit to me?

That is the basic question of externalities, costs borne by a third party. In a system that lacks externalities I would pay the amount that I benefit. With externalities, I pay for that which I receive no benefit. Programs like this are aimed at fairly reducing externalities, they will never be perfect; but, while I oppose many use taxes*, this is one that, with some adjustment, may help.



. . . As I look at my use tax rules, I start to wonder . . . it is the very poor that are not only required to have cars for work; but also have to drive long distances for work. I do feel that GVW&HP indexing of this tax would be essential for it to be something I would strongly support. Considering that I am no longer in Oregon, it is a bit hypothetical at this point; however, I still support it for its attempt to target externalities.




*my opinions on use taxes can be summarized with three basic questions:

1. Do they have a defined purpose?
2. Do they do what they are supposed to do, as stated in the purpose?
3. If they work perfectly, as designed, do they help, or hinder, people in the struggle to escape poverty?

Roody

Like most motorists, you want great roads, you say you're willing to pay for them, but when it comes down to it, you think somebody else should pick up the tab. If you really want lower taxes, think about driving less. This is a carfree forum, where you can pick up lots of great tips about how to become less dependent on your cars. So good luck with that! Maybe you will set a goal of getting rid of at least one of your 12 cars, and driving the other 11 somewhat less.

CourtJester

Wont hapen, but to each their own.

Roody

Well, at least be more willing to pay for your car hobby, including your 2,000 mile family vacation that you think your fellow citizens should subsidize with their own taxes.

I-Like-To-Bike

You also posted about use of such fuel in street equipment and the reason for such use to be illegal due to sulfur content:
Street use is illegal because of the tax issue. Glad to hear that you are not one of those lawbreakers

CourtJester

Couldn't keep quiet here Rood

Alright dude; seriously??? I’m not a fan of political, but I do like factual.


So to my point; It wasn’t too long ago that I started my own business. You want to point a finger at me paying for my next vacation? I paid $1,200,000 in taxes last year. That’s just me personally. And I’ll pay more next year. How much of the road do you use? Let’s say they apply the same tax to bikes. I’ll get to ride more than most while they walk. Well, until they start taxing steps. You wanna use the sidewalk until you have to pay for it; don’t you? Right?


BUT WAIT!!!!!! THERE’S MORE!!!!!! My business paid about five times that. And that was with an exception. I have 15 employees and I hired them away from my competitors. I pay each of them nearly twice the industry average. I expect a lot, but they are top notch and perform perfectly. I haven’t done the math on their taxes, but my lowest paid employee makes $240,000 a year, and we are in a very rural area where the median income is $49,000 a year. What do they pay in taxes? I’d bet that they are paying more taxes for roads you ride on than they use. They don’t ride bikes, but you and I do. Are you willing to be billed more for that? That’s a serious question man. Or woman. I don’t know who you are.


Now you’re riding your bike on a road that I paid more for. So you shouldn’t be able to ride as much as I do. Right? Owe snap. Roads are for cars so you’re planning to get a mountain bike. Right? You’ve set limitations, right? I mean, you’ve paid less taxes I’m sure. I’ve paid more, I should get to use it more. Is that how it works? If my house catches on fire, is the fire department going to get here sooner? Do my kids get more education at school? Is that how we are looking at this? You only get what you pay for???? Seriously???

How much did you pay in taxes? I’d really like to know. I bet we have equal bikes. How many miles did you ride? I’d assume more than me, but I’ve likely paid more taxes than you.

The next step is a tax on cycling right? Or am I looking too far ahead for you? They will add, but they will never take away.


I’m all about cycling. But think big picture buddy.








~~~OHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! And you owe me for what you’ve used and I paid for.

CourtJester

Was planning on Yellow Stone with the family in the next two weeks. Never mind though. May as well stip mine it. Mpst people wouldn't be able to travel there with a per mile tax.

Roody

wow. Couldn't read it all, but wow.

chewybrian 

You have a valid point that taxes are often added and seldom removed. You could make a good case for a national sales tax to replace income taxes. But, the benefit is lost if we simply add sales tax and leave the current income tax system in place. In the same sense, a per mile tax is no benefit unless it replaces the current patchwork, back door system of paying for roads.

The benefit of a per mile tax would be to redistribute costs to the people incurring them. It's less an issue of fairness (to me) than of letting the economy run its course, so we don't create waste. Let people understand what driving really costs, and use as much of it as they are really willing to buy, rather than pretending it costs less than it does and using more. As a businessman, surely you can appreciate this view. You would not like to see competing products subsidized and going against yours with a stacked deck, right?

Roody

He or she probably owns a business that is related to automobiles. That would explain ownership of 12 of them, at any rate.

CliffordK

We already have a tax that people see whenever they fill up their gas tank.
It encourages tuning up the vehicle and running it efficiently.
It encourages choosing fuel efficient economy cars.

They could change the marketing of it to make it more obvious if one wants.

And the tax could certainly be increased to manipulate fuel use. Or, manipulated to tune fuel prices and economic demands.

The only thing it doesn't capture is those very few vehicles on the road that don't use gasoline, or are use both plug-in electric AND gasoline.

In a state that receives about 73% of our energy as renewable energy, nobody has ever demonstrated whether the electric vehicles are environmentally sound. However, this is not a good time to start hammering the early adopters with higher taxes.

To be environmentally friendly with the new technology, they could do much better by requiring timed chargers, smart meters, and more renewable energy investment. Some electric companies even have a silly optional renewable energy offset fee which could be required for EV users.

fietsbob

Eisenhauer era Top tier tax rates built the stuff thats falling apart now

but now the top income people Now lend money to the governments

buying Bonded debt instruments, with the money they keep, by having paid politicians to cut that top rate by over 2/3rds..

chewybrian 

I'm only suggesting *removing* manipulation from the process. We should be very careful about inserting our metaphoric crow bars into the free economy (see: housing bubble, 2008). Good intentions can lead to unexpected consequences, even if said consequences should have been expected.

The market for driving now has at least two crow bars in place:

1. We subsidize the production of fuel and building of roads by paying for them, in part, with general fund taxes or debt; people have to pay, whether they use the road a little or a lot, or benefit from its use a little or a lot.

2. Most of the costs are fixed, sunk costs from the POV of the driver. The only marginal pain of turning the key is the cost of fuel, which is artificially low.

An ideal system would charge by the mile, including road costs, insurance, anything that can reasonably be paid by the mile. The closer the marginal cost gets to the true, total cost per mile, the more likely we will see a voluntary reduction in miles driven.

I am not suggesting any artificial penalty for driving, or a subsidy for bikes, etc. Just let people see and pay the real cost, and drive as they see fit. Real economics would have a profound effect, I think, on the number of cars, miles driven, housing choices (as relates to distance from work), etc. We might see some of the big box stores go away, and a decrease in some less necessary items that must be shipped, like bottled water.

The government should not be making these choices for folks. Give them real prices and let them decide for themselves.

Walter S

Right. I posted that I used to buy it. I never meant to imply that I used it for an illegal purpose. Others here seemed to infer that.

Mobile 155

So if all of the other taxes are kept in place and then they add a per mileage tax on top of that because people followed the suggestion and bought more fuel efficient cars then who in reality will be the most effected by this tax? Who is more likely to have to drive more? Could it be the working poor with two jobs on different sides of town? After all they are the least likely to be living close to work. Even working students might be hard pressed by this tax. will truck drivers be assessed this tax? More than likely they will or if not more people would simply get a commercial tag for their SUV.


It seems to me the people that can least afford a new Hybrid or fuel efficient car will be paying more for gas and so a higher gas tax in the first place and will have to commute father so they will have more miles on their vehicle as well.

Two valid points have already been made. We should be careful placing a crowbar in the free market. We should be careful about attacking business creators who can expand the middle class so that they don't move off shore or build robots to replace workers. A truism is there is no free lunch and often there are unintended consequences to this Robin hood taxation ideology. Saying that some don't pay their fair share for the roads they use sounds good I suppose but is that idea applied across the board? Do we apply it to buses? What happened when we tried that with health care? For me my health care went up 30 to 40 percent right away. Did everyone's go up that much? Was that intended? I would hope not but it happened. I have been reading that the cities that passed the $15.00 minimum wage have driven some to have to request fewer hours because they are no longer eligible for some housing and childcare benefits because of their new tax bracket. Do I think that was the intention? No. But we are getting close to killing the goose that laid the golden egg and at some point the goose may die. Making a tax that punishes someone for getting a EV or Hybrid could backfire quite easily. If it is no different tax wise if I drive a V-12 Jag from LA to Vegas or a Honda Civic Hybrid I sure as heck am not driving the Honda.

Roody

I agree almost entirely. A per mile tax or per gallon tax are both rationing by price. Both hit poorer people much harder than they hit higher income people. They don't gather enough revenues to maintain the roads, and neither has been very effective at reducing driving or gas usage.

I would vote for two alternatives that might be more effective for states like Oregon that want to experiment:

1. Actual gas rationing with no cash buyouts.
2. Revenue neutral fuel tax--Put an extremely high tax on gas, but use the revenues to give everybody--whether they drive a lot or not at all--a big rebate on their taxes. Those who want to drive can use the rebate to buy more gasoline. Sensible people will use the rebate to buy other things they want or need.

One big problem with these plans is that they don't raise money for the roads.

enigmaT120

This thread is about a pilot mileage tax in Oregon. It has nothing to do with the federal fuel taxes. By your numbers your vehicle gets 15 mpg. If you signed up for Oregon's pilot mileage program you would be paying your $7.87 in mileage tax in lieu of paying Oregon's $.30/gallon gas tax, which would be $10.50 for you. You would save money. Anybody who gets more than 20 mpg will pay more under the mileage program than they pay in state gas tax now. Anybody who gets less than 20 mpg will pay less. People in KS won't be affected at all.

CourtJester

From a previous post; Yes my business does serve the automotive industry. We do clay design work.


I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind here. I just ask that you think big picture.

What happens when car drivers pay more per mile? It would stand to reason that driving would reduce. It also goes without saying that everything you buy from a bottle or water, to the food that you eat, all the way up to new furniture or home improvement products will inevitably reflect the increased costs to move that product to the store.

Now, as driving will reduce, so too will tax revenues. Does anyone truly believe that any roads will be closed? The national infrastructure will still need to remain functionally intact. Who’s going to pay for that? Everyone. There would be less fuel taxes coming in, less DMV payments being made, fewer taxes paid by insurance companies, reduced jobs in the automotive market, so fewer income taxes paid there, fewer jobs in the areas and local economies that support the automotive market, so fewer income taxes there too. So we’ll all pay more for what we buy on top of increased taxes to maintain the roads that we currently have but use less.

I live in Michigan so I pay 41.4 cents in taxes per gallon of gas. I don’t track all of my mileage but I drove 59,460 miles last year for work alone. BMW is one of my clients and one of my better mileage cars. I drive it hard, but on average it’s about 21 miles per gallon with how I drive. It’s closer to 30 if I accelerate slower but that’s no fun. Plus it doesn’t hurt the road and I pay more taxes by doing it. It’s a win/win. So that’s, 2,831 gallons which figures to about near $2000 just in fuel tax for my job. Figure in the other miles I drive on top of the millions of other folks that drive more. I pay several thousand to the DMV and insurance companies as well.

Now let’s step away from the cost of roads for a minute then bring it back around. For the trillions already paid; why should anyone need to pay more? What is the cost of the social entitlements? What is each of us paying for the poor spending so that politicians can get votes at their next election? School lunches, welfare, healthcare? Couldn’t that money be better spent; let’s say partially on roads that WE ALL USE? People can lean on their family for the other stuff. Not the government. Not a popular opinion, but that’s mine.

Okay, At least two things will happen. So let’s bring it back. Now we have reduced vehicle use by adding a tax but at the same time, we expect to maintain and possibly increase what we currently have. Long term question; where will that funding come from? Cars have to pay for their road use and fuel use. Eyes will turn to bikes. How long before you have to pay $500 a year for a little license plate and/or sticker on your bike? It’s sold as a big do-gooder tax to begin with. Now you’re paying more taxes, paying more for your everyday goods and needs, and paying for the right to ride your bike on the roads that we all use. Think it won’t happen, give it ten or so years. I’d be a huge advocate for that one though. I only have one bike and I can afford it. But is it proper considering where the current dollars are going? Hell no. But it’ll happen in time. Keep supporting it. You use the road. Someone will make you pay for it.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT HERE… The vast majority of us ride out on county roads and back country roads. The same could happen in the middle of the city though. When the 30something year old county boy had a bad day at work and is already having trouble paying his bills and now he’s strapped with a per mile tax that a bunch of liberal cyclists cheered for. You’re using a road that he’s paying for and you’re not. How safe are you going to feel with that blinking red light on the back of your bike when he is the only one around that sees it and has you beat by 2000 lbs and 40 or 50 mph? "Oh my God!!! He just swerved to the left officer!!! I couldn't avoid him!!!" We all better pray it’s not a semi driver. A bunch of cyclists pushing a per mile tax will cost the average truck driver a fortune. A high speed semi doesn’t have to even hit a cyclist to cause some serious damage.

I’m one of the largest donors to Rails to Trails in my area and did 55 miles on the local trail yesterday. If that law hits my area, I won’t ride on the road at all. If it becomes a law, I’d encourage you to start donating yourself so you have a safe place to ride. That is after you pay a per mile tax to drive to the closest trail.

Do what you will. That's just my .02

Roody

If you live in Michigan, you know that law isn't likely to affect us at all. Michigan is just going to let its roads crumble because its Tea Party legislature is totally stymied at trying to finance them. Also, remember that truckers (diesel users) have always had a pretty big tax break when it comes to fuel taxes in Michigan, considering that they do much more damage to the roads than all the cars put together.

Most people in the auto industry are supportive of better funding for highways. They think their livelihood is long-term dependent on having good roads. Michigan historically had the best roads in the world because of industry ties. Innovations like concrete pavement, traffic control systems, and yes, funding structures for highways, were all developed in Michigan. Now, alas, we will soon have some of the worst roads in the country.

BTW, I have not been supporting the per-mile tax that Oregon is trying. But I do applaud a state like Oregon which is willing to try innovative financing, just as I despair for Michigan with its legislatures cowardice when it comes to maintaining something as basic as highways.

(BTW, you say that your ideas are "not popular". Sorry, but here in Michigan, this stuff is very popular, and the state is being run into the ground by it.)

tandempower

Think about how much less everything would cost if automotive costs were, say, 1/3 of what they currently are in the economy.

Many roads could be privatized and toll-funded, yes. Many local roads could be used as foundations for buildings and/or closed to motor-traffic, which would slow their degeneration and eliminate the need to maintain them. Ultimately, they may serve as foundations for much narrower bike roads, which cost less to build and maintain.

What you're arguing for is to try to reduce road-costs as a percentage of total economic revenues by promoting more driving, but that is a bubble-expansion scenario at the most concrete level (literally).

Driving harder does more damage to roads. Acceleration and deceleration put lateral force on the pavement. You can pat yourself on the back for all the money you're spending or you could think of how people could be happier with less pavement and parking lots all around. It's two different views of economic happiness.

Everyone consumes food, housing, etc. The costs of the general social welfare rise and fall based on the total costs of running the economy. You can't lower those costs by cutting social entitlements except to the extent cutting budgets tightens the economy and fights inflation. Cutting funding for road projects would have a stronger anti-inflationary effect, as would cutting wages to levels that prevent everyone from affording to drive.

This is unnecessary. Bike riding doesn't generate the kinds of costs that automotive society does. You don't expect to subsidize automotive society with bike costs, do you?

We need to differentiate between the costs of society due to automotive transportation vs. the costs due to cyclist/pedestrian living. Yes, cyclists/pedestrians require economic trade and shipping. We need to establish what that basic level of commerce is, though, and how much it costs relative to current budgetary norms.

The problem is that whenever we seriously consider saving costs and cutting budgets, labor and business interests complain about economic losses due to reduced spending. It's a catch-22 so we need to just bite the bullet and figure out ways to cut spending without destroying lives in the process. Bike riding can help a lot in this.

Professional drivers are less of a threat to cyclists and other automotivists than non-professional drivers who take more liberties.

Mobile 155

Tandempower:
Have you ever been to a country that has done as you suggest?

I wonder if you build on a roadway and eliminate vehicle use how you suggest goods and services will get to the population? By bicycle? How much greater will the cost of food be if it is transported manually? How will building supplies be delivered? How would emergency services be provided.

I have visited African nations that have been forced into your auto less condition and it is not better than what we have.

tandempower

Why do you and other critics of increasing car-free economic activity always imply that the only two choices are totally car-free or totally car-dependent? The cost of food and everything else would be much less if 50% or more of employees in every business lived car-free. Automotive costs are built into the cost of everything in every part of every supply chain. Food and supplies don't have to be transported everywhere manually for large numbers of people to live car free. Building supplies and emergency services are already available by truck/ambulance in most places. This discussion has been had many times. People who afraid of losing driving as a majoritarian norm say things like this to spread fear about the idea of cutting driving back to a minority of transportation.

Really? What cities have you visited? How do people suffer due to living car free exactly? Please explain how everyone driving there would improve living conditions.

Mobile 155

It may be because of the hyperbole expressed about running out of fuel and sources of energy proposed by so many in this forum. If they run out of energy as some have suggested in this forum it will be gone for commercial use as well. If you build your cities on the roadways the food and supplies will have to be delivered by some other means.

When the British left Kenya and many of the other African nations they left the roads intact with no way to maintain them. The roads outside of the main cities might as well be dirt. Weather and vegetation reclaim the old highways. Still like that today. People start out walking to market almost every day. When they get a little money they get a bike called a Boda Boda. Make more money and they get a cart and donkey. The next step is a small diesel car. But moving food is always a problem and the farther from the road the harder it is to get food to your Village.

Now I have explained where I have been and what I have seen. Where have you seen your suggestions being adopted? Because the farther away you are from the easy delivery points of food and supplies the more you are charged when the food or supplies are delivered manually in my experience.

Ps. I also spent tree days working in a Medical clinic and everyone there was car free. They left their homes in the dark to walk the 10 to 15 miles to the clinic so they could line up for medical care when it opened at day break and be seen before dark again. How has being car free assisted them?