Pay per mile rather than the state gas tax

[MillCreek]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/washington-state-to-test-pay-by-the-mile-as-a-way-to-fund-highways/

We pay around 50 cents per gallon in state gas taxes.  Due to better fuel efficiency and the increasing numbers of electric vehicles, the state is looking at alternative means of collecting enough money to maintain the highway system.  At 2.4 cents per mile, this would collect the same amount of money as would the current gas tax for a vehicle with average gas mileage, but will also collect revenue from electric and hybrid vehicles.  The infrastructure for monitoring and collecting a mileage tax will be expensive, though, as opposed to paying at the pump.

[Fly320s]

I wonder if they will pro-rate the taxes based on vehicle weight.

[MillCreek]

I wonder if they will pro-rate the taxes based on vehicle weight.

I thought about this very thing in regards to my motorcycle.

[BobR]

I thought about this very thing in regards to my motorcycle.

They already have a weight based fee on the vehicle registration. According to the DMV my motorcycle is the same weight class as my Jeep Grand Cherokee so I don't expect much common sense when applying a weight fee to the "pay per mile" if they decided to try that at all.

bob

[Ben]

I know a couple that lives in Moscow, ID and works at Washington State University. Most of their miles are in WA.

I know that is a not common example, but there are also people who put in a lot of out of state miles on their vehicles. I also still hate the idea of a mileage monitor in my vehicle.

[230RN]

Oh, yeah.  Taxes piled on taxes piled on taxes piled on taxes.  Aren't you already paying a tax on electrical consumption?

Et friggin' cetera.

An acquaintance of mine says he only gets clear of his total tax burden about mid-June of each year.

REF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day

[MillCreek]

They already have a weight based fee on the vehicle registration. According to the DMV my motorcycle is the same weight class as my Jeep Grand Cherokee so I don't expect much common sense when applying a weight fee to the "pay per mile" if they decided to try that at all.

bob

My WA license tab renewals this year were $ 65 for the 2012 Suzuki DL650 and $ 81 for the 2016 Toyota Tacoma. The Tacoma outweighs the Suzuki by ten times or so.

[K Frame]

Didn't Washington or Oregon a couple of years ago propose something similar only using what would have been mandated GPS devices?

And it nearly caused riots and tarring and feathering?

[BobR]

My WA license tab renewals this year were $ 65 for the 2012 Suzuki DL650 and $ 81 for the 2016 Toyota Tacoma. The Tacoma outweighs the Suzuki by ten times or so.

My 2013 Triumph Rocket 3 and the 2008 Jeep were both 83 dollars, my 2008 F350 is 101 dollars. Granted this is dirt cheap compared to a lot of states but the fact they keep piling on fees because they can't increase the cost of tabs as much as they want gets kind of frustrating.

bob

[MillCreek]

Didn't Washington or Oregon a couple of years ago propose something similar only using what would have been mandated GPS devices?

And it nearly caused riots and tarring and feathering?

In the commercial auto insurance market, some of the insurers are offering fleet discounts if the vehicles are equipped with a GPS monitor that reports back on mileage, routes, hard acceleration, hard braking, time of day driven and number of trip segments.  It is essentially a portable (plugs into the OBD port) black box for the vehicle, and can be accessed far more easily than the vehicle manufacturer black box.  Use of these monitors may become mandatory in the future if you want to have commercial auto insurance at all.  Some companies are also experimenting with this in the private auto insurance market.

I asked about this when I renewed my fleet coverage this summer, but my insurer said that I have too few vehicles and they don't drive enough miles to warrant the device.  Trucking, logistics, rental cars, taxis and large fleets of delivery vehicles are the target markets.

[TechMan]

My 2013 Triumph Rocket 3 and the 2008 Jeep were both 83 dollars, my 2008 F350 is 101 dollars. Granted this is dirt cheap compared to a lot of states but the fact they keep piling on fees because they can't increase the cost of tabs as much as they want gets kind of frustrating.

bob

That makes Ohio's renewal fees look expensive, I renewed each of my cars for $54.50/year.

[RevDisk]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/washington-state-to-test-pay-by-the-mile-as-a-way-to-fund-highways/

We pay around 50 cents per gallon in state gas taxes.  Due to better fuel efficiency and the increasing numbers of electric vehicles, the state is looking at alternative means of collecting enough money to maintain the highway system.  At 2.4 cents per mile, this would collect the same amount of money as would the current gas tax for a vehicle with average gas mileage, but will also collect revenue from electric and hybrid vehicles.  The infrastructure for monitoring and collecting a mileage tax will be expensive, though, as opposed to paying at the pump.

Only reason to collect mileage would be for other non-related purposes. Increasing the gas tax would be the smarter thing. Or shockingly, find cheaper, better ways of maintaining the roads.

[230RN]

In the commercial auto insurance market, some of the insurers are offering fleet discounts if the vehicles are equipped with a GPS monitor that reports back on mileage, routes, hard acceleration, hard braking, time of day driven and number of trip segments.  It is essentially a portable (plugs into the OBD port) black box for the vehicle, and can be accessed far more easily than the vehicle manufacturer black box.  Use of these monitors may become mandatory in the future if you want to have commercial auto insurance at all.  Some companies are also experimenting with this in the private auto insurance market.

I asked about this when I renewed my fleet coverage this summer, but my insurer said that I have too few vehicles and they don't drive enough miles to warrant the device.  Trucking, logistics, rental cars, taxis and large fleets of delivery vehicles are the target markets.

I tried one of those nanny-boxes to get a discount on my auto insurance -- Hartford, but I think other companies have this option.

After on-line review of my record, I could not understand how they derived some of the "ding" points on the computer record.  Even normal driving practices resulted in an "aggressive driving" ding.  Now, listen, I haven't had a ticket in well over 25 years, and only one accident where somebody rear-ended me in stop-and-go traffic (he was talking on his cell phone).

That kind of makes me the safe driving poster boy, I guess.  About thirty years ago I learned to drive, as opposed to merely operating a vehicle with consummate skill.

So I analyzed some of the "hard braking" "dings," and it turned out decelerations greater than only 7 mph per second got you a finger-shaking from their computers.  

Hey, a safe moderately hard stop with nobody behind you on a yellow light dings you?

There were other totally outrageous "dings" I started to correlate with my actual trips at the stated times.  For a while I wondered who had stolen my car and roared around town and then put it back in my parking space.

Specific example? One Saturday trip to the grocery store, where I had to cruise around the parking lot looking for a space, resulted in several "hard turn" and "too many starts and stops" "aggressive driving" offenses.

The real offense there was my stupidity in going shopping on a Saturday.

I got off that discount program within three weeks and sent the nanny box back with a very diplomatic and "Safe For Work" note describing in particulars and details how ridiculous their "safe driving" parameters were.

My conclusion was that driving as required within the nanny box parameters would result in creating hazards simply because you could not conform to other drivers' expectations while operating within those parameters.

Terry, 230RN

[griz]

Reminds me of the drivers who will never go over the speed limit and seem to think anything other than mild braking is unsafe, so they routinely run red lights.

Anyway, back to the tax topic.  States have been stuck for a while because the gas tax is per gallon and doesn't adjust for inflation.  Many states, mine included, have jacked up the tax when the price of gas dropped quickly so it wasn't as obvious.  But combined with the much better fuel economy of newer cars they still get less revenue even though people drive more.  This is just a way to catch up.  A per mile tax will start as comparable to a per gallon tax, but it will quickly grow.

[just Warren]

So how about a transponder connected to an anonymous payment method like a cash card you keep inserted in the transponder but that you can buy and load without giving any details to the state?

Transponders would be sold at DMV offices and other places certified by the DoT. But they would not be registered to any particular vehicle only to types of vehicles. So no one knows who has what and you can switch between vehicles in the same class.

Different types of vehicles would have different rates dependent on their total cost to use the highway system. That's everything from wear on the surface, to how much they factor in traffic jams, how many accidents and how bad those accidents are, to average passengers per mile carried and so forth. Some math whizzes will do the algorithm.

Suitable penalties for trying to defraud the system of course.

The DoT then puts readers on highway signs or overpasses and they ding your card X amount as you pass. During high-traffic times they could also increase rates to encourage people to take another route, or if possible to try another form of transportation entirely.

Any car that passes that the reader does not get money from has it's picture taken and the local HP units are notified. They might not catch the person that day but they'll get him eventually.

You do pay but they don't track you as they don't know who bought the card or transponder.

To encourage people to use they system rather than try to cheat you could also do a lottery. Every month X number of people win a $1000 or so. Every time you pass a reader is an entry. The winning transponder number is publicized and the winner goes to the DMV to get paid rather than pay. To prevent fraud it would be a two-number system. The DMV would only publish one number, keeping the other to themselves. When the winner shows up he has to provide the other number to collect. Winnings would be in cash and payable out of any DMV office. So again they could not track you or start a file on winners. 

[MechAg94]

I think it is far easier to regulate gas pumps and force the gas stations to pay the gas taxes than it would be to enforce and extract taxes for miles driven. 

As far as other sources of revenue for roads, I thought they were already trying that with toll roads.  Houston is full of them now.  Gives them a mechanism to pay for the useless commuter trains they insist are needed.

[RoadKingLarry]

So how about a transponder connected to an anonymous payment method like a cash card you keep inserted in the transponder but that you can buy and load without giving any details to the state?

Transponders would be sold at DMV offices and other places certified by the DoT. But they would not be registered to any particular vehicle only to types of vehicles. So no one knows who has what and you can switch between vehicles in the same class.

Different types of vehicles would have different rates dependent on their total cost to use the highway system. That's everything from wear on the surface, to how much they factor in traffic jams, how many accidents and how bad those accidents are, to average passengers per mile carried and so forth. Some math whizzes will do the algorithm.

Suitable penalties for trying to defraud the system of course.

The DoT then puts readers on highway signs or overpasses and they ding your card X amount as you pass. During high-traffic times they could also increase rates to encourage people to take another route, or if possible to try another form of transportation entirely.

Any car that passes that the reader does not get money from has it's picture taken and the local HP units are notified. They might not catch the person that day but they'll get him eventually.

You do pay but they don't track you as they don't know who bought the card or transponder.

To encourage people to use they system rather than try to cheat you could also do a lottery. Every month X number of people win a $1000 or so. Every time you pass a reader is an entry. The winning transponder number is publicized and the winner goes to the DMV to get paid rather than pay. To prevent fraud it would be a two-number system. The DMV would only publish one number, keeping the other to themselves. When the winner shows up he has to provide the other number to collect. Winnings would be in cash and payable out of any DMV office. So again they could not track you or start a file on winners.  

How about NO!
We have enough overly complicated, corruption filled government schemes already.

Instead how about we keep putting pressure on our elected leaders to do the *expletive deleted*ing job we elected them to do.
If they can't or won't do the job run them out of town on a rail, literally. Tar and feathers optional.
Being polite little Eloi has gotten us to the point we are at now, it's well passed time to start putting the boot to the Morlocks.

I'm taxed more than enough already, 23% right off the top before I ever see a penny of my paycheck, Federal, State, FICA Medicare Et al.
I have a modest home, it's paid for, my kids are grown and on their own. I don't have all kinds of deductions I can take, I've set up my payroll deductions to pretty well come out even at the end of the year.
Add in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, various excise taxes and what ever other taxes and fees I'm required to pay from what they deem I'm allowed keep to after the first cut and the total is coming damn close to 50% of what I earn going back to the government so they can piss it away on socialist bullshit and keeping welfare leeches in beer and smokes. *expletive deleted*ck them, I'm tired of it. I don't want to pay more taxes because the *expletive deleted*tards in Washington and the state capitol are too corrupt, too stupid or a combination of both to provide the basic functions of government with what they already have taken from me and those like me.  

[Ben]

How about NO!
We have enough overly complicated, corruption filled government schemes already.

Instead how about we keep putting pressure on our elected leaders to do the *expletive deleted*ing job we elected them to do.
If they can't or won't do the job run them out of town on a rail, literally. Tar and feathers optional.
Being polite little Eloi has gotten us to the point we are at now, it's well passed time to start putting the boot to the Morlocks.

I'm taxed more than enough already, 23% right off the top before I ever see a penny of my paycheck, Federal, State, FICA Medicare Et al.
I have a modest home, it's paid for, my kids are grown and on their own. I don't have all kinds of deductions I can take, I've set up my payroll deductions to pretty well come out even at the end of the year.
Add in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, various excise taxes and what ever other taxes and fees I'm required to pay from what they deem I'm allowed keep to after the first cut and the total is coming damn close to 50% of what I earn going back to the government so they can piss it away on socialist bullshit and keeping welfare leeches in beer and smokes. *expletive deleted*ck them, I'm tired of it. I don't want to pay more taxes because the *expletive deleted*tards in Washington and the state capitol are too corrupt, too stupid or a combination of both to provide the basic functions of government with what they already have taken from me and those like me.  

I'll let RKL's high blood pressure post speak for me so I can keep my blood pressure lower. 

It really comes down to, how about they first show us that they're actually using the money they get now for roads, on roads. Until I see 100% use of current road funds used for roads, I'm in no hurry to see another scheme activated.

Infrastructure is a vital government function everyone but anarchists support. If we're running low on infrastructure money, divert what you need from social programs first. Roads before Obamaphones.

[just Warren]

Well, my system would replace any existing road or fuel taxes. Not add another one. Roads have to be paid for some how. I'm trying to come up with one that has the lowest costs for all involved.

[MechAg94]

Well, my system would replace any existing road or fuel taxes. Not add another one. Roads have to be paid for some how. I'm trying to come up with one that has the lowest costs for all involved.

Do we have any past examples of a new tax replacing and fully ending a previous tax?  We talk about that in these discussions, but I can't think of any real world examples. 


I just think a per mile tax would be hard to measure and hard to enforce accurately and the underground black market tax evasion would end up being enormous (people would find a way).  It would be like rearranging the state sales taxes to require each individual to track their spending and write a check.  The tax receipts at the state and local level would drop like a rock.  And that ignores the personal privacy aspects.


The only other question I would mention is who causing the real wear and tear on the roads?  Is my F150 pickup really putting wear and tear on the roads?  If you compare it to the heavy dump trucks and 18 wheelers, I don't think so.  With a fuel tax, those vehicles at least generally pay more.  I remember hearing others talk about transportation engineering classes where they would point out the deformation in a typical asphalt/concrete road when a loaded 18 wheeler passes by.  Then they would go through the numbers comparing the cost of allowing those heavy trucks on the roads to the economic benefits it provides. 

[MechAg94]

I admit some of my resistance to the idea is based in sticking with what I am used to.     I guess that isn't unusual. 

However, I do think that a general principle is true with taxes.  They are easier to track and enforce if they are done at a level apart from the individual consumer.  I think about the effort and time Americans spend on income taxes both personal and professional and I can't help but think I don't want other taxes being transferred to that level also.  I figure politicians don't want that either.

[just Warren]

In Japan and Sweden the government does your taxes for you. All you have to do, and only if you want, is to check their work.

Of course given the competence level of the IRS I would probably find out I owed them 8 billion dollars.

[MechAg94]

In Japan and Sweden the government does your taxes for you. All you have to do, and only if you want, is to check their work.

Of course given the competence level of the IRS I would probably find out I owed them 8 billion dollars.

And I am sure our politicians would love for us to let them handle [what they consider] their money and let us have a little back if we were nice. 

It is one of the reasons I sort of like the idea of scrapping the income tax and going with some sort of sales tax.  However, I can never get away from the primary problem that the govt is way too big and spends way too much money.  As long as we cannot trust our politicians to fix the spending problem, we most certainly cannot expect them to create a better system of taxation.

[just Warren]

It's all the benevolences that are used to buy votes. Without those, people would barely notice the government.

Next on the list is all the over paying for things. We view it as waste but those on the receiving end don't. I've come to believe that we don't spend money to build a road, we build a road to spend money and the overruns are the very point of the project.

And then there's all the things the government does that entrepreneurs or co-ops of charities or dedicated individuals could do without spending a single tax dollar.

I can't put an exact number on these but it has to be a least 75% of spending.

Get that under control and there would be no need for income taxes. Tariffs and excises and maybe dinging the states for a certain amount would cover the nut.

[Scout26]

I just think a per mile tax would be hard to measure and hard to enforce accurately and the underground black market tax evasion would end up being enormous (people would find a way).  It would be like rearranging the state sales taxes to require each individual to track their spending and write a check.  The tax receipts at the state and local level would drop like a rock.  And that ignores the personal privacy aspects.

For the past few years, (and continuing this year, I'm sure), the State of Illinois asks you to tote up all your on-line purchases that you didn't pay any sales taxes on and send 6.25% of that amount onto your Income Tax form.   Not one person I've ever done taxes for has has said "Yes, I bought stuff and didn't pay Illinois Sales Tax on it."

Do I owe Illinois Use Tax?

You owe Illinois Use Tax if you purchase an item

    for use or consumption in Illinois,
    from an out-of-state retailer who charges no Illinois Sales Tax or charges sales tax at a rate lower than the Illinois rate, and
    on which sales tax would normally be collected if you bought it from a retailer in Illinois.

Examples include

    purchases from an internet site that does not charge Illinois Sales Tax;
    catalog purchases from an out-of-state retailer who does not charge Illinois Sales Tax;
    purchases through an out-of-state home shopping television network that does not charge Illinois Sales Tax; and
    items purchased while you were
        in another state from a retailer who charged sales tax at a lower rate than the Illinois rate or
        in a foreign country.

In addition, if you purchase an item for use or consumption in Illinois from an Illinois retailer and you do not pay tax to the retailer, you owe Illinois Use Tax.
Why should I voluntarily pay use tax?

If you use goods in Illinois that were purchased tax free or at lower rates outside Illinois, you owe use tax to the department. If you do not pay, it is unfair (Boo-*expletive deleted*ing-hoo, it your fault we have such high taxes) to Illinois retailers, consumers, and taxpayers in the following ways:

    Illinois retailers, who must charge sales tax, are put at a competitive disadvantage as compared to out-of-state retailers, who charge no sales tax, or charge tax at rates less than Illinois rates.
    Illinois must make up these lost revenues or curtail state services provided to consumers and taxpayers.

Illinois is aggressively focusing upon collecting this tax.

    Illinois gathers sales information from other states and bills Illinois residents for unpaid tax, penalty, and interest.
    Illinois gathers information on overseas purchases from the U.S. Customs Service.

Note:  By voluntarily paying, on time, all of the Illinois Use Tax you owe, you will avoid being billed for unpaid tax and additional penalty and interest charges.

The Illinois Department of Revenue can assess use tax owed by taxpayers who do not pay voluntarily. For taxpayers who do not have records to document their use tax liability, the department will estimate liability. Taxpayers have the right to refute the department’s estimates by following established protest procedures.
What are the Illinois Use Tax rates?

Illinois Use Tax rates are 6.25 percent of the purchase price of general merchandise and 1.00 percent of the purchase price of qualifying food, drugs, and medical appliances.

The 1.00 percent rate applies to

    food that has not been prepared for immediate consumption (such as most food sold in grocery stores, excluding hot foods, alcoholic beverages, candy, and soft drinks),
    prescription medicines and nonprescription items that claim to have medicinal value (such as aspirin and cough medicine, excluding nonprescription grooming and hygiene products), and
    medical appliances that replace a malfunctioning part of the human body (such as wheel chairs and hearing aids).

Sadly, Amazon and other on-line retailers have knuckled under and are now collecting state and local sales taxes.   Which is why I rarely use them.  I now have access to AAFES, so orders over $50 ship free and there's no sales tax.  (States can't tax the Feds.)


But to answer the question.  One reason that gasoline taxes have raised to as high as they are is to "Encourage Conservation".  Alrighty then.  Carmakers are producing more fuel efficient cars (driven by consumer demand and CAFE standards), so less fuel per vehicle is being consumed.  Resulting is less fuels being used.   Sooooo less tax revenue, because they achieved one of their goals....reduced consumption.   Just like how they tout that raising cigarette taxes will reduce the numbers of smokers (and smoking related diseases), yet when the numbers of smokers drops, they scream that they have to raise taxes because the cigarette tax isn't bringing in enough revenue (HELLO Cook County Beverage Tax !!!!)