CBO: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

This would be a tax on the miles you drive.

Original story is here

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance at a time when federal funds are short.

The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles.

Not incidentally, once you compute how many miles you drive, it's trivial to figure out where you drive to. Each vehicle would have a transponder code. Miles charges would be automatically deducted from your debit account every month.

Sweet.

reply to post by schuyler


How about they stop spending our tax dollars on wars that make rich bastards richer, and make said rich bastards pay higher taxes. I think it would be fair if they took the average Americans total expenditure on taxes of all kind as a percentage of income and then applied that same percentage to the rich.

And corporations need to pay too.

This is just another regressive tax on the middle class.

Edit to add not to mention another excuse to hook up devices to your vehicle. Which could be used for tracking or who knows what else.

reply to post by schuyler


It's illegal. As far as I know and I am not a lawyer but I am well read, it is illegal to double dip. You pay taxes on the gas you buy, to tax per mile would be an additional tax on an existing tax. I could be wrong, but I would fight it and if they change the laws to allow this kind of double dipping, then you might want to organize.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by schuyler

 

How about they stop spending our tax dollars on wars that make rich bastards richer, and make said rich bastards pay higher taxes. I think it would be fair if they took the average Americans total expenditure on taxes of all kind as a percentage of income and then applied that same percentage to the rich.

I actually love that approach and appreciate you bringing it up. Right now this is how it falls out:

From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of income earners grew by nearly half, from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent.

Over that same time, the burden of the bottom 50 percent of earners was almost halved from 6.5 percent to 3.3 percent. Here yoiu can see why it is so difficult to give "equivalent" tax cuts and why the government is always accused of favoring the rich with tax cuts. It's hare to give people a tax cut if they don't pay any taxes in the first place.

OK: To summarize, then.

The top 1% pay over a third of the taxes.
The top 50% pay about 96% of the taxes.
The bottom 50% pay a little over 3% of the taxes with 43 million returns paying NOTHING at all.

So, you see, if we use your approach the "rich" will pay far fewer taxes which is bucking the trend to already tax the rich "more." In fact, statistically speaking, there's a very good chance those advocating "taxing the rich" don't pay any taxes at all themselves.

You also mentioned taxing the corporations. The US already has the highest corporate tax in the industrialized world. Because this tax is not levied against individuals, it is effectively levied against the price of goods and services, which must be raised to accommodate the higher tax. In other words, it is the consumer who ultimately pays the corporate taxes. It also retards growth, which means jobs in the orivate sector. If you want to make sure we stay in a recession, just raise taxes. It's a guaranteed solution. Works every time.

This is just another regressive tax on the middle class.

The tax would be based strictly on mileage, so it is regressive only in the sense that high-mileage drivers would pay more than low-mileage drivers. You'd have to make the case that high mileage equates to lower income to call this regressive.

Edit to add not to mention another excuse to hook up devices to your vehicle. Which could be used for tracking or who knows what else.

I believe I said that in my opening statement. Thanks for confirming it. I'm actually more interested in the technical and tracking capabiliies of this issue than I am about the tax itself.

reply to post by schuyler


Well we dont want to make it work out well for the top one percent, so maybe we should just line them up with rifles pointed at them and take all their money and use it to fix the roads.

The "let them eat cake" tax.

I have to admit Im too lazy at this point to go do the research and pull up all the figures, but I will say that I seriously doubt that 3.3% is the percentage of anyones income spent on taxes. Just the sales tax in my state is higher than that, and food is one of the biggest expenditure of many poor people, many of them double that percentage of their income spent in taxes at the grocery store alone.

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by schuyler

 

It's illegal. As far as I know and I am not a lawyer but I am well read, it is illegal to double dip. You pay taxes on the gas you buy, to tax per mile would be an additional tax on an existing tax. I could be wrong, but I would fight it and if they change the laws to allow this kind of double dipping, then you might want to organize.

Nice try, but, no, it's not illegal in the least. There area many examples of taxes on taxes in commerce today. I just found a link to the complete report, a PDF. See it here!

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by schuyler

 

Well we dont want to make it work out well for the top one percent, so maybe we should just line them up with rifles pointed at them and take all their money and use it to fix the roads.

The "let them eat cake" tax.

Yeah, I figured that was your approach. And my guess is you would figure the top 5% is pretty much the same as the top 1% of wage earners. That's why you will find people such as myself quite well armed. Besides, every time you revolutionarties get the upper hand you wind up eating your own babies anyway. The idea of 'equality' doesn't last to the end of the driveway. Then your next ruler will be Napolean. What could possibly go wrong?

BTW, the phrase "Let them eat cake," though attributed to Maria Antionette, was written by Jean Jacques Rosseau when Antionette was 13 years old. But accuracy doesn't matter in those kinds of circumstances. The end justifies the means and the means is to enflame with impunity regardless of the truth of the matter.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


We're talking apples and oranges here. I was referring to the federal income tax only. Sorry I didn't pick up on that. The CBO was Federal, so I jumped on Federal--not local.

reply to post by schuyler


You know the difference between you and I? I never mind paying my taxes.

I am grateful for everything I have, and not only do I not cry and whine about paying my taxes and try to get my politician to lower them, I actually dont even take any of the frivolous tax write offs I am entitled too, like for charity. Charity should be charity, not a write off.

You know who I admire? Bill Gates, who sent his father on television when Bush was first implementing the tax cuts to let people know his son opposed them and felt the rich SHOULD pay their fair share in the country that made it possible for them to be rich.

Thats the difference between you and I. I dont know how much you make, but Im not poor. I grew up poor, so I know what its like, but I have done ok for myself. Im just not a greedy ungrateful chump who wants to use up every resource my country offers me and figure out a way to get others to pay for it.

I dont care how well armed you are. Gross inequity tends to lead to the exploiters paying the big tax.

reply to post by schuyler


This is a second tax on my vehicle as I already as does everyone who buys Fuel pays a GAS TAX.

NO MORE MONEY, cut back employees, wages, and such but no more money

This seems like a logistical nightmare that is not only unneeded but redundant.

The gasoline tax, which is already charged federally in most (if not all) states and in some localities), not only is indirectly a mileage tax but it additionally punishes those who have lower mpg vehicles by increasing their tax burden.

I know adding to the gas prices would be political suicide at the moment, but wouldn't it be easier to move to a something a bit more simple rather than adding to an already staggeringly complex system?

These guys are really stupid.

Peace
KJ

If they tax per mile by special chip link to your bank account, whats to stop them tracking the movements of where you go.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

It's illegal. As far as I know and I am not a lawyer but I am well read, it is illegal to double dip. You pay taxes on the gas you buy, to tax per mile would be an additional tax on an existing tax. I could be wrong, but I would fight it and if they change the laws to allow this kind of double dipping, then you might want to organize.

Cheers - Dave

When has that ever stopped the bastards before.

Netherlands here,

As the Netherlands is the test-Garden of the NWO they also tried to implement this last year.

Their arguments:

- Traffic jam control
- More honoust as the current fuel and road tax
- Envirement

Well.. all thos arguments are rubbish, but guess what? Politcians push them anyway and the press askes the wrong questions.

There is only ONE reason they want this:

As alternative fuels/electric etc. is around the corner, they need alternativ ways of getting your money!

They do not want you to be able to travel for free!

The future will be :

Whenever the "system" registers that you have moved from one point to oneother, regardless the way you got there, you will have to PAY !

reply to post by schuyler


I think they already do charge by the mile. they tax by the gallon.

"Revenue Enhancement" lol.,,

Latest Newspeak edition is out, i guess. Doubleplus *uck.

reply to post by ISRAELdid911


Indeed.. But what if you would be able to drive on HHO from your own solar panel?

No tax income.

So the future will be:

Taxation of every movement of good or person. That is there ultimate goal.

This is not new. I read about this years ago. It’s already in the works. It will be done. Just don’t know when yet. With GPS & Satellite systems it's a reality.

Any new vehicle tax, especially a 'pay per mile' tax, would have to be a replacement tax, rather than an additional one.

Here in the UK, we pay approximately 70-80% tax on our vehicle fuels. Every £1.00 we pay at the pump, 70 - 80p (%) goes straight to the government. An average fuel tank holds about 60 litres, that means @ £1.40 per litre, it would cost to fill a vehicles fuel tank £84.00, and from that payment £58.80 goes to the government (minimum!) in fuel tax, and only £25.20 worth of actual fuel goes in the tank!

Bloody outrageous.

Then on top of that 70-80% fuel tax, we have to pay road tax. There is a sliding scale of charges depending on the type of vehicle you drive. It ranges from £0.00 for electric vehicles all the way up to £940.00 per year, for vehicles over a certain CO2 limit in g/km.

The average road tax is about £200.00 per year.

Then we have to buy an MOT certificate every year, which costs about £40.00 (a test of road worthiness).

Then we have to pay yearly vehicle insurance (minimum is third party insurance, but comprehensive is common) at a cost of anything from £100.00 per year for older drivers with small cars, to £1000's for young drivers.

Then we have 'Insurance premium tax' on top of the insurance. (yes they charge us a tax on the insurance we are required to purchase!)

The cost of parking is bloody outrageous too.

Not that taking public transport is any cheaper. A season train ticket to London from Kent costs about £6000.00 per year.
So as per usual, a new tax will not affect the wealthy, as they would hardly notice it, yet the poor will struggle.

If another or replacement tax is introduced, for the sake of equality, it should be means tested or only applied at a rate that is consummate with your wealth or lack of.

If you have millions of £/$/E, then it's fair you pay proportionately more vehicle tax than someone who has a couple of hundred £/$/E.

This is just the 'problem of the commons' reachings its destructive climax. Any reasonable road system would charge its customers according to the load they bear on the system, just as private roads in days of yore would charge more for more wheels on a stagecoach, and the width of their wheels. Totally reasonable that those who drive during peak times and degrade the road through heavier vehicles would pay more.

Not possible under statist public control. Since costs are spread out to users and non users alike, and a monopoly of transportation exists, you can reasonably expect the most inefficient roads possible. No incentive exists for people, and the businesses they work for, to stagger road usage into more effecient patterns. IE if i was a business serviced by private roads that charged for peak usage, the very first cost cutting measure i would implement would be to have my employees arrive an hour late to avoid the overhead of traffic congestion. No such realtime feedback is possible in a common ownership situation.

reply to post by Neo_Serf

Since costs are spread out to users and non users alike

In reality there are *no* non road users.

Everyone gets a benefit by proxy. Vehicles deliver goods and services, and while a non driver may not directly travel on the road system, they benefit from goods and services delivered or made possible by vehicles that do.