Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

Gordon McGrew · Jan 10, 2009

Lets see if I understand this. I live in Oregon and I have two vehicles,
one weighs 2,000 LB, the other weighs 3,000 LB. one gets 20 MPG, and the
other gets 35 MPG, doing 60 MPH on the interstate. I pay MORE in gas taxes
for the one than the other, per 100 miles driven, right?

The one that gets 35 MPG has only two seats, the other seats seven. I
have a wife and four children, all of us can NOT travel in the one that gets
20 MPG. If I must take us all, 100 miles away, to my in-laws house. I
need to make five trips in both directions with one, at total of ten trips
and only one each way with the other, for a total of two.

Now my question is, which situation would cause the most damage when I'm on
that trip and should I sell the one that weighs 2,000 LB and gets 20 MPG to
pay the per mile tax and keep the other because I have a wife on four
children or should just keep the one that weighs 2,000 LB and gets 20 MPG
and just leave my wife and kids, as well as Oregon?
Click to expand...

Take the bus.

Sharx35 · Jan 10, 2009

Scott in SoCal said:

In Canada they raised the cigarette tax so high at one point that
people actually <gasp!> cut back on their smoking and revenue started
to fall off. They promptly lowered the tax.

But our addiction to oil is much, much worse than our addiction to
nicotine. For most people, it's MUCH easier to cut back on smoking
than it is to cut back on driving.
Click to expand...

Smoking is totally nonessential. SOME driving is essential. However, in my
observation, ONE trip
a week to buy groceries is all that is needed. Fess up, how many of you make
MORE than one driving trip a week
to buy groceries? Clue: one does NOT need fresh lettuce every frigging
day--it WILL keep for a fair while in the fridge.
I buy gas every TWO weeks, groceries every TWO weeks, except for milk which
I buy ONCE a week. Library trips are ONCE a week. No need to rent or buy
DVD's etc..I get them on my WEEKLY library trips..which I often walk to,
BTW.

Commuting for hours is pure bullshit most of the time. Surely, you can MOVE
closer if the job has any permanence at all. I have NO sympathy for those
who commute for HOURS year, after year, after year. Live closer to where you
work, damnit.

Studemania · Jan 10, 2009

Smoking is totally nonessential. SOME driving is essential. However, in my
observation, ONE trip
a week to buy groceries is all that is needed. Fess up, how many of you make
MORE than one driving trip a week
to buy groceries? Clue: one does NOT need fresh lettuce every frigging
day--it WILL keep for a fair while in the fridge.
I buy gas every TWO weeks, groceries every TWO weeks, except for milk which
I buy ONCE a week. Library trips are ONCE a week. No need to rent or buy
DVD's etc..I get them on my WEEKLY library trips..which I often walk to,
BTW.

Commuting for hours is pure bullshit most of the time. Surely, you can MOVE
closer if the job has any permanence at all. I have NO sympathy for those
who commute for HOURS year, after year, after year. Live closer to where you
work, damnit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...

Unintentionally, I have always lived within a mile of the shops, Bing
70 years ld (Japoanese style) I still will often walk a miles to get
to some businesses where there won't be a heavy load to tote.

Elmo P. Shagnasty · Jan 10, 2009

Sharx35 said:

Fess up, how many of you make
MORE than one driving trip a week
to buy groceries? Clue: one does NOT need fresh lettuce every frigging
day--it WILL keep for a fair while in the fridge.
I buy gas every TWO weeks, groceries every TWO weeks, except for milk which
I buy ONCE a week. Library trips are ONCE a week. No need to rent or buy
DVD's etc..I get them on my WEEKLY library trips..
Click to expand...

So you don't have any kids in your house. Big whoop. Put a couple
growing kids in your house and see how your grocery runs get. Every two
weeks? hahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jeff · Jan 10, 2009

Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer
– Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET

PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring
ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of
how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring
devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as
Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric
hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely
with gasoline taxes.

"I'm glad we're taking a look at it before the potholes get so big that
we can't even get out of them," said Leroy Younglove, a Portland driver
who participated in a recent pilot program.

The proposal is not without critics, including drivers who are concerned
about privacy and others who fear the tax could eliminate the financial
incentive for buying efficient vehicles.

But Oregon is ahead of the nation in exploring the concept, even though
it will probably be years before any mileage tax is adopted.

Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has
envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007.

The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure
Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways,
bridges and transit programs in good shape.

But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should
consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more
fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

As cars burn less fuel, "the gas tax isn't going to fill the bill," said
Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.

The next Congress "could begin to set the stage, perhaps looking at some
much more robust pilot programs, to begin the research, to work with
manufacturers."

Gov. Ted Kulongoski has included development money for the tax in his
budget proposal, and interest is growing in a number of other states.

Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would
require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles.

In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a
quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge
of the state's effort, said he's also heard talk of mileage tax
proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota.

"There is kind of a coalition that's naturally forming around this," he
said.

Also fueling the search for alternatives is the political difficulty of
raising gasoline taxes.

The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and nearly two dozen
states have not changed their taxes since 1997, according to the
American Road & Transportation Builders Association.

In Oregon's pilot program, officials equipped 300 vehicles with GPS
transponders that worked wirelessly with service station pumps, allowing
drivers to pay their mileage tax just as they do their gas tax.

Whitty said the test, which involved two gas stations in the Portland
area, proved the idea could work.

Though the GPS devices did not track the cars' locations in great
detail, they could determine when a driver had left certain zones, such
as the state of Oregon. They also kept track of the time the driving was
done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage.

The proposal envisions a gradual change, with manufacturers installing
the technology in new vehicles because retrofitting old cars would be
too expensive. Owners of older vehicles would continue to pay gasoline
taxes.

The difference in tax based on mileage or on gasoline would be small —
"pennies per transaction at the pump," Whitty said.

But the mileage tax still faces several major obstacles.

For one, Oregon accounts for only a small part of auto sales, so the
state can't go it alone. A multistate or national system would be needed.

Another concern is that such devices could threaten privacy. Whitty said
he and his task force have assured people that the program does not
track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and
cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies.

"I think most people will come to realize there is really no tracking
issue and will continue to buy new cars," Whitty said, noting that many
cell phones now come equipped with GPS, which has not deterred customers.

Others are worried that a mileage tax would undermine years of
incentives to switch toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.

"It doesn't seem fair," said Paul Niedergang of Portland, that a hybrid
would be taxed as much as his Dodge pickup. "I just think the gas tax
needs to be updated."

Lynda Williams, also of Portland, was not immediately sold on the idea
but said it was worth consideration.

"We all have to be open-minded," she said. "Our current system just
isn't working."
Click to expand...

I don't understand the subject line. I don't see fuel efficiency being
taxed. Just people being held to pay for the resources (road repair
and building) that they use.

Jeff

Sharx35 · Jan 10, 2009

Elmo P. Shagnasty said:

So you don't have any kids in your house. Big whoop. Put a couple
growing kids in your house and see how your grocery runs get. Every two
weeks? hahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

Typical fucking LIEbrawl DEMONrats--their KIDS rule the house.

Mike Hunter · Jan 10, 2009

The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass transit
users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that they
use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for the
resources (road repair and building) that they use?

Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer
– Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET

PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring
ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of
how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring
devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as
Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric
hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely
with gasoline taxes.

"I'm glad we're taking a look at it before the potholes get so big that
we can't even get out of them," said Leroy Younglove, a Portland driver
who participated in a recent pilot program.

The proposal is not without critics, including drivers who are concerned
about privacy and others who fear the tax could eliminate the financial
incentive for buying efficient vehicles.

But Oregon is ahead of the nation in exploring the concept, even though
it will probably be years before any mileage tax is adopted.

Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has
envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007.

The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure
Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways,
bridges and transit programs in good shape.

But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should
consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more
fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

As cars burn less fuel, "the gas tax isn't going to fill the bill," said
Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.

The next Congress "could begin to set the stage, perhaps looking at some
much more robust pilot programs, to begin the research, to work with
manufacturers."

Gov. Ted Kulongoski has included development money for the tax in his
budget proposal, and interest is growing in a number of other states.

Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would
require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles.

In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a
quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge
of the state's effort, said he's also heard talk of mileage tax
proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota.

"There is kind of a coalition that's naturally forming around this," he
said.

Also fueling the search for alternatives is the political difficulty of
raising gasoline taxes.

The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and nearly two dozen
states have not changed their taxes since 1997, according to the
American Road & Transportation Builders Association.

In Oregon's pilot program, officials equipped 300 vehicles with GPS
transponders that worked wirelessly with service station pumps, allowing
drivers to pay their mileage tax just as they do their gas tax.

Whitty said the test, which involved two gas stations in the Portland
area, proved the idea could work.

Though the GPS devices did not track the cars' locations in great
detail, they could determine when a driver had left certain zones, such
as the state of Oregon. They also kept track of the time the driving was
done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage.

The proposal envisions a gradual change, with manufacturers installing
the technology in new vehicles because retrofitting old cars would be
too expensive. Owners of older vehicles would continue to pay gasoline
taxes.

The difference in tax based on mileage or on gasoline would be small —
"pennies per transaction at the pump," Whitty said.

But the mileage tax still faces several major obstacles.

For one, Oregon accounts for only a small part of auto sales, so the
state can't go it alone. A multistate or national system would be needed.

Another concern is that such devices could threaten privacy. Whitty said
he and his task force have assured people that the program does not
track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and
cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies.

"I think most people will come to realize there is really no tracking
issue and will continue to buy new cars," Whitty said, noting that many
cell phones now come equipped with GPS, which has not deterred customers.

Others are worried that a mileage tax would undermine years of
incentives to switch toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.

"It doesn't seem fair," said Paul Niedergang of Portland, that a hybrid
would be taxed as much as his Dodge pickup. "I just think the gas tax
needs to be updated."

Lynda Williams, also of Portland, was not immediately sold on the idea
but said it was worth consideration.

"We all have to be open-minded," she said. "Our current system just
isn't working."
Click to expand...

I don't understand the subject line. I don't see fuel efficiency being
taxed. Just people being held to pay for the resources (road repair
and building) that they use.

Jeff

Elmo P. Shagnasty · Jan 10, 2009

So you don't have any kids in your house. Big whoop. Put a couple
growing kids in your house and see how your grocery runs get. Every two
weeks? hahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

Typical fucking LIEbrawl DEMONrats--their KIDS rule the house.
[/QUOTE]

What the **** are you talking about?

Kids eat. A lot. Preaching about "just go to the grocery store every
two weeks" is done out of ignorance of how things are in the real world.

As for my politics...I don't think I mentioned them, did I? So how did
you (a) decide what political persuasion I am (all on your own!), and
(b) change this from "going to the grocery every two weeks" into a
discussion on politics?

You're an idiot, an asshole, and ignorant--all in one fell swoop. Mr.
Hat Trick, that's what you are.

Scott in SoCal · Jan 10, 2009

"Elmo said:

So you don't have any kids in your house. Big whoop. Put a couple
growing kids in your house and see how your grocery runs get. Every two
weeks? hahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

Not to meniton daily trips to and from the school (that is 3 blocks
away), soccer practice (at the schoolyard), piano lessons, gymnastics,
ballet...

Scott in SoCal · Jan 10, 2009

In message

Jeff said:

I don't understand the subject line. I don't see fuel efficiency being
taxed. Just people being held to pay for the resources (road repair
and building) that they use.
Click to expand...

"But that's so *unfair!*"

- Quote from a random customer at a gas station being asked by a TV
reporter how he felt about a proposed gas tax rate increase.

Nate Nagel · Jan 10, 2009

Jeff said:

I don't understand the subject line. I don't see fuel efficiency being
taxed. Just people being held to pay for the resources (road repair
and building) that they use.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax.
The latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would
a) be much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less
impact on the average road user.

nate

CharlesTheCurmudgeon · Jan 10, 2009

Nate Nagel said:

Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax. The
latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would a) be
much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less impact on
the average road user.

nate
Click to expand...

Why doesn't the state learn to budget, like normal people have to do? I
don't support all my cronies, my dad's old cronies, or his party's cronies
and the Outfit besides.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

Elmo P. Shagnasty · Jan 10, 2009

Nate Nagel said:

Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax.
The latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would
a) be much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less
impact on the average road user.

nate
Click to expand...

trim your quotes before posting

Doug Miller · Jan 10, 2009

trim your quotes before posting[/QUOTE]

Take your own advice...

Jeff · Jan 10, 2009

The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass transit
users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that they
use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for the
resources (road repair and building) that they use?
Click to expand...

That is a valid question.

In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
what would happen if mass transit stopped?

From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
into and out of NYC) were still running.

Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
not enough roads in NYC without it.

So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
public transportation so that the system continues to work.

Jeff

John David Galt · Jan 10, 2009

Sharx35 said:

Commuting for hours is pure bullshit most of the time. Surely, you can
MOVE closer if the job has any permanence at all. I have NO sympathy for
those who commute for HOURS year, after year, after year. Live closer to
where you work, damnit.
Click to expand...

Make the urban-planning assholes allow enough homes to be built so I can
live there without having more money than God, and I'll do it.

CharlesTheCurmudgeon · Jan 10, 2009

John David Galt said:

Make the urban-planning assholes allow enough homes to be built so I can
live there without having more money than God, and I'll do it.
Click to expand...

It's not the urban planning assholes, it's the un-real estate agents.
They've been pumping the bubble with happy gas for over a decade now.
Unfortuntely, in order to keep pumping the bubble, they had to sell to
people that were basically unable to really pay their prices, and finally
the bubble burst. They forgot the law of retail gravity. Eventually what
goes up must come down.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

L Alpert · Jan 10, 2009

Sharx35 said:

Typical fucking LIEbrawl DEMONrats--their KIDS rule the house.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Why would someone want to feed their kids?

Arif Khokar · Jan 10, 2009

Jeff said:

The problem for the state is that if the vehicle fleet becomes more
efficient and the CAFE (for lack of a better illustration) goes from
17.5 to 22.5, then there will be fewer taxes collected. (I pulled those
numbers out of my ass, what the numbers are and what they go to does not
really matter. All that matters is our cars are getting more efficient,
so fewer gas taxes are being collected.)
Click to expand...

Except that the premise that fewer gas taxes are collected for a given
VMT figure isn't true. The CAFE has remained virtually the same for the
last 25 years.

Alan Baker · Jan 10, 2009

Jeff said:

That is a valid question.

In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
what would happen if mass transit stopped?

From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
into and out of NYC) were still running.

Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
not enough roads in NYC without it.

So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
public transportation so that the system continues to work.
Click to expand...

The fact that stealing is useful doesn't make it any less stealing.

Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

Gordon McGrew Guest

Sharx35 Guest

Studemania Guest

Elmo P. Shagnasty Guest

Jeff Guest

Sharx35 Guest

Mike Hunter Guest

Elmo P. Shagnasty Guest

Scott in SoCal Guest

Scott in SoCal Guest

Nate Nagel Guest

CharlesTheCurmudgeon Guest

Elmo P. Shagnasty Guest

Doug Miller Guest

Jeff Guest

John David Galt Guest

CharlesTheCurmudgeon Guest

L Alpert Guest

Arif Khokar Guest

Alan Baker Guest

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

Anybody want a 1994 SL1 parts car? Minnesota Area

Just bought 2001 SL1 want service manual

Car will barely start/run when fuel gage hits 1/4 full?

Will my SL2 overheat on a long drive across states?

want some extra cash, try this

fuel guage/fuel pump

squeak/whine noise from the front drivers side wheel

I want to break my saturn

Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

Gordon McGrew Guest

Sharx35 Guest

Studemania Guest

Elmo P. Shagnasty Guest

Jeff Guest

Sharx35 Guest

Mike Hunter Guest

Elmo P. Shagnasty Guest

Scott in SoCal Guest

Scott in SoCal Guest

Nate Nagel Guest

CharlesTheCurmudgeon Guest

Elmo P. Shagnasty Guest

Doug Miller Guest

Jeff Guest

John David Galt Guest

CharlesTheCurmudgeon Guest

L Alpert Guest

Arif Khokar Guest

Alan Baker Guest

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

Useful Searches