A Mileage-based Transportation Tax?

[BurgundyNGold]

Such a proposal was shot down by the Obama administration almost as soon as it came up in conversation, but it is an interesting concept...


LaHood Talks of Mileage-Based Tax
White House Dismisses Controversial Idea to Fund Transportation Projects

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood suggested yesterday that the Obama administration might embrace a new and controversial way to pay for highway and transit projects: charging motorists a tax for every mile they drive.

But no sooner was the idea being batted around by cable commentators and commuters than spokesmen for the White House and LaHood's own department shot it down -- hard.

"It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said when asked at his daily briefing about LaHood's remarks, which were made in an interview with the Associated Press.

...

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003331.html?hpid=topnews)

I, for one, am not immediately against it for the purposes of discussion. It would likely negatively (albeit marginally) impact the cost of goods and services due to transportation costs. Also, it someone taxes the right to the cornerstone American freedom of movement. However, it is a pay-as-you-go tax which would ask those who use the highways most to burden the largest share to help maintain them. Variations of such a tax could be extended as incentivisors such that higher rates might apply to vehicles that pollute more.

Thoughts?

[akhhorus]

If you were to do something along these lines, you would have to scale it for more polluting vehicles to pay higher taxes. I don't like the concept since freedom of movement is highly cherished, and this would cut down on day trips dramatically. I have a feeling that this was leaked to make another proposal look better.

[Ibleedburgundy]

IMO, the problem with a tax like this is that it makes travel even more difficult for folks with lower incomes while making our tax codes even more complicated than they already are.

If revenues need to be increased, do it through income taxes.

[BurgundyNGold]

IMO, the problem with a tax like this is that it makes travel even more difficult for folks with lower incomes while making our tax codes even more complicated than they already are.

If revenues need to be increased, do it through income taxes.
So they can be offset through clever accounting that higher income folks can afford to pay for? Toll booths don't care how much money you have and I haven't heard it said that they're oppressive to the poor.

Besides, I wouldn't think that $0.01/mile would be too bad for truck drivers. That would be $1,000/100K miles. For the rest of us, maybe they do $0.01/5 miles. That would be $200/100K miles. Since the average person drives less than 30K miles/year, that would be about $60/year.

Then again, I get the impression that taxes on gasoline effectively do the exact same thing.

[CNYSkinFan]

i actually think there should be a nationwide commuter tax to help urban areas. Too often large cities are the employment centers but so many people flee to the suburbs the cities are forced to maintain the roads for suburban motorists that do not pay property taxes. Of course working for my city's DPW transportation dept makes me a a little biased on this issue.

[akhhorus]

So they can be offset through clever accounting that higher income folks can afford to pay for? Toll booths don't care how much money you have and I haven't heard it said that they're oppressive to the poor.

Besides, I wouldn't think that $0.01/mile would be too bad for truck drivers. That would be $1,000/100K miles. For the rest of us, maybe they do $0.01/5 miles. That would be $200/100K miles. Since the average person drives less than 30K miles/year, that would be about $60/year.

Then again, I get the impression that taxes on gasoline effectively do the exact same thing.

Set a high minimum standard for gas efficiency and tax on a sliding scale any gas companies who offer fuel below that efficiency level. That might be a good idea.

[PyroGenic]

So they can be offset through clever accounting that higher income folks can afford to pay for? Toll booths don't care how much money you have and I haven't heard it said that they're oppressive to the poor.

Isn't that because they have alternatives when it comes to toll roads? A tax like this doesn't really have any.

[BurgundyNGold]

Set a high minimum standard for gas efficiency and tax on a sliding scale any gas companies who offer fuel below that efficiency level. That might be a good idea.
I can get with that. It might eventually replace the current fuel tax. The problem would be enforcement.

[BurgundyNGold]

Isn't that because they have alternatives when it comes to toll roads? A tax like this doesn't really have any.
True enough. But after watching some news shows this morning, I don't think this would be much different than the current fuel tax applied at the pump. The way it currently work is, the more you drive the more you pay in taxes. The argument could be made that the current system is unfair to low income drivers, as well.

[akhhorus]

I can get with that. It might eventually replace the current fuel tax. The problem would be enforcement.

Easy enough to test the companies' fuel for octane/environmental rating, then retroactively tax them for what they're selling on the streets. I would set the ratings very high to encourage them to start putting out what they should have been selling all along.

Also, I agree with David Frum's idea for setting up some sort of industrial/corporate carbon tax in exchange for dumping the payroll tax. Both sides of the aisle should be behind that.

[BurgundyNGold]

Easy enough to test the companies' fuel for octane/environmental rating, then retroactively tax them for what they're selling on the streets. I would set the ratings very high to encourage them to start putting out what they should have been selling all along.

Also, I agree with David Frum's idea for setting up some sort of industrial/corporate carbon tax in exchange for dumping the payroll tax. Both sides of the aisle should be behind that.
I can get behind that for sure. That's one of the biggest clubs hitting small business over the head twice a month.

[shally]

Such a proposal was shot down by the Obama administration almost as soon as it came up in conversation, but it is an interesting concept...


Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003331.html?hpid=topnews)

I, for one, am not immediately against it for the purposes of discussion. It would likely negatively (albeit marginally) impact the cost of goods and services due to transportation costs. Also, it someone taxes the right to the cornerstone American freedom of movement. However, it is a pay-as-you-go tax which would ask those who use the highways most to burden the largest share to help maintain them. Variations of such a tax could be extended as incentivisors such that higher rates might apply to vehicles that pollute more.

Thoughts?

why would anyone be surprised at this trial balloon ?

it is part of the "european" model of doing things.. dovetails with concepts like charging to come into center cities, like london..

not much could stop the obama administration dead in the water-- but that could

besides, it is one thing to do that when there is viable public transportation options.. in most american cities, there simply isnt one..

but this is typical left sided thinking.. punish people for attempting to be productive and working hard.. perhaps i can get a tax rebate for sitting at home on my A$$ ??

[shally]

i actually think there should be a nationwide commuter tax to help urban areas. Too often large cities are the employment centers but so many people flee to the suburbs the cities are forced to maintain the roads for suburban motorists that do not pay property taxes. Of course working for my city's DPW transportation dept makes me a a little biased on this issue.

i think that is changing. a lot of companies have moved to the suburbs because the rental rates are cheaper there..

[CNYSkinFan]

i think that is changing. a lot of companies have moved to the suburbs because the rental rates are cheaper there..
large employers still exist in the cities...Lawyers need to be near the courthouse, doctors need to be at the hospitals

While there has been some suburban flight of some white collar buisness like insurance companies and the like, the employment center of any company with an urban area still tends to be within the city propers.

[shally]

large employers still exist in the cities...Lawyers need to be near the courthouse, doctors need to be at the hospitals

While there has been some suburban flight of some white collar buisness like insurance companies and the like, the employment center of any company with an urban area still tends to be within the city propers.
yes and no...

i can only speak from my own experiences where most of the hospital beds downtown were empty, while the suburban ones were routinely filled.
with the advent of specialty hospitals, they are nearly all inthe suburb chasing those patients with good insurance coverage.
you just about cant find a doctor's office building downtown that isnt half empty or more.

in seattle, there is a definite movement of a lot of state government agencies to the suburbs. not all of course, but it isnt like the way it used to be

some lawyers do want to be near courthouses, but again, those days have changed a lot and many of the biggest firms in new orleans moved to the suburbs decades ago

in some cities, there is essentially no downtown shopping anymore-- it has all gone to the suburbs.

so, while you are correct to a point, things arent what they used to be in this regard..and i think it would vary from city to city.. chicago, for example has a vibrant downtown. portland as well. detroit, cleveland, st louis and many other
dont. atlanta has shifted population centers to the north dramatically, even though there are still some larger corporations downtown

so if there is already a dynamic of movement outwards, charging people to come back downtown is foolish.. unless you have some regional authority, cities are losing the battle to the suburbs, and that wont change any time soon