Honda Car Forum

Chuck Olson wrote:

> "Tim Howard" <tim.howard@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > 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.
>
> How about taxing based on a combination of gasoline per gallon, with a
> multiplier related to the gross vehicle weight, to account for the real
> cause of road deterioration - - tonnage.

More like axle weight combined with speed actually I think.

Graham

Mike Hunter wrote:

> 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?

If you lived in Europe, your MPV (as we call them)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-purpose_vehicle

Would probably get 30 mpg and have a nice torquey diesel engine. And the state
would get even less tax.

My opinion. Roads should be provided as essential infrastructure and not ties
too taxes.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> If you lived in Europe, your MPV (as we call them)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-purpose_vehicle
>
> Would probably get 30 mpg and have a nice torquey diesel engine. And the state
> would get even less tax.
>
> My opinion. Roads should be provided as essential infrastructure and not ties
> too taxes.
>
> Graham
>

Oooh, troll fight!

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"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.

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "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.

Right, and if we want to encourage people to who don't need Suburbans to
drive Yarises, this is a bad idea. Far better to simply raise gas taxes
until the required revenue for infrastructure maintenance is collected.

Then, if someday we find that a significant portion of the fleet is
running on fuels that aren't taxed, we should revisit this discussion.
Until then, no need to make it any more complex than it has to be.

nate

(you do realize you were replying to Mike Hunt, right?)


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 2009-01-09, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tim Howard wrote:
>
>> Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
>
> The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just the USA)
> is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only nominal.
>
> The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full scale
> revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government poking its nose
> into stuff it has no business in.

Nanny state finally went after something you care about?

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:gk65ou02u1h@news5.newsguy.com...
> nate
>
> (you do realize you were replying to Mike Hunt, right?)


Yes.

I can't see it working.

Everytime the goverment gets involved it adds a management and regulatory
burden that will become unmanageable.

Just suck it up and raise the gas tax.

No new technology burden please.

Plus the feds and the states will have to settle on a standard system.
Hah!!!



"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-395AA2.13502908012009@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <timmcn-34B0CD.09002708012009@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> The damage each driver causes to the roads is based on how many miles
>> they drive and only vaguely on how much gasoline they burn; from that
>> perspective a mileage tax makes more sense than a gasoline tax.
>
> In one of my college economics classes way back when, the professor
> discussed the fairness of weighing your salad bar puchase and paying per
> ounce vs. per plateful. Interestingly enough, many students used the
> "it's not fair" cry on the per ounce method...

On 2009-01-09, Jay Giuliani <jrgiuliani@verizon.net> wrote:
> Just suck it up and raise the gas tax.

Better yet, the government could stop diverting gas tax funds to
purposes other than keeping up the roads.

In article <49669478.3D4D96F7@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Tim Howard wrote:
>
> > Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
>
> The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just
> the USA) is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only
> nominal.
>
> The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full
> scale revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government
> poking its nose into stuff it has no business in.

How can that be? The right wing has controlled at least two branches of
the US government for 26 of the past 28 years. They've told us that
government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem. They
shrunk the size of government (just ask them), eliminated reams of
burdensome regulations, they've spent billions of dollars protecting
delicate corporations from the hoi polloi. Are you saying that the
Republicans were *wrong?*