"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
news:n9GdndZjb_THDPvUnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@ptd.net...
> 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?
>

You currently pay more in one than the other by virtue of one needing more
gas than the other to get where you want to go.

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.)

If they go to a GPS-based taxation system, then presumably all motorists
will be taxed on the distance they travel, not the gas it takes to get
there -- as is the current tax model. Part of the current consumer
motivation to move toward fuel efficient cars is causing the state to
collect fewer taxes.

If gas taxes are $0.20 per gallon, and your Suburban gets 15 mpg while a
Yaris gets 30 mpg, the Surbuban will pay $1.33 in gas taxes to go 100 miles,
the Yaris will pay $0.67. With a GPS-based system, all drivers can be forced
to pay $1.33, defeating (at least in part) the whole purpose of buying a
Yaris.