Taxed by the Mile?

[BS-87]

The CBO is proposing a VMT tax, or tax on miles driven.

 

They're proposing putting a tracking device in all vehicles and having the tax collected at fill stations.

 

There is no way that this can be serious... and yet it seems the Obama administration may move this slowly towards legislation...

 

This would be a punishing and debilitating tax for rural America...

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

 

wow...

[Eagledad]

The idea has been proposed for a few years because cars are burning less gas. But it hasnt been pushed hard until recently by a couple of states. Nationally it wont go far because it is such an obvious tax grab and raising taxes isnt really politically correct right now. But the idea is going to stay out there for awhile. I think what you will see legislated before mileage taxes is a requirement for installing tracking devices in all cars. Most car manufacturing companies are already installing them in most of their cars, but there will be a push to do them all. Once that happens, then a lot of things will happen.

 

Barry

 

[Beavah]

Yeh really should get out more, BS-87.

 

I reckon da key fine print in da article that you missed was:

 

"This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the presidents senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.

 

Nice nonsense fearmongering, though.

 

Easiest and best thing to do would be a hefty gas tax. Doesn't take any additional hardware to collect, and taxes the proper thing that we want to reduce: use of foreign oil which funds our enemies. Unlike a mileage tax, it rewards those who keep their cars in tune or purchase more efficient vehicles. I'd support such a tax in a heartbeat, especially if it was phased in in a slow and steady manner. It would be the most significant thing we've done in 20 years to safeguard national security.

 

Beavah

 

[BS-87]

I read the fine print. The administration cannot politically support this VMT yet.

 

How soon until an administration does though?

 

 

There's already a hefty gas tax.

 

Oil is Freedom's lubricant. Makes sense Beavah would oppose lubricating freedom. (totally joking btw)

 

 

What's appalling is that the CBO is even suggesting something like this...

[Eagledad]

>>It would be the most significant thing we've done in 20 years to safeguard national security

[The Blancmange]

So BS-87, by his own admission, intentionally misrepresented the substance of the article.  His statement:

 

and yet it seems the Obama administration may move this slowly towards legislation

After being confronted with the language in the article which states unequivocally that the administration does not support this becomes:

 

The administration cannot politically support this VMT yet. How soon until an administration does though?

Good to know.

[skeptic]

Barry; Not building refineries is the decision of the oil companies, not a government one. They keep saying it is too expensive up front, and so they do not want to do it. Maybe, they could take a little of the obscene profits and do it, rather than continuing to say they cannot afford it. Heaven forbid they make a little less, while the rest of us perhaps have a bit of relief.

[BS-87]

Blancmage -

 

The Obama administration does not unequivocally deny this ever being an option. Their current stance does prove that we won't have answers on this question until 2013 or later.

 

Tracking vehicles and taxing them accordingly starts sounding a little bit too statist for almost every American's tastes. Judging from how the government as a whole is moving towards the statist end of the spectrum, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama doesn't start talking seriously about it. If he doesn't, his successor is sure to unless his successor is libertarian leaning.

 

With how angry the Tea Party would get about something like this, a VMT cannot be even mentioned in passing by the President until 2013.

 

When the 2012 debates and town halls come around, somebody had better get Obama on the record saying he'd oppose a VMT. Until then, it can only be assumed his intentions aren't far from the suggestions of the CBO.(This message has been edited by BS-87)

[jrush]

BS-87, urban dwellers have long wanted to shift more of the burden for maintaining rural roads from themselves to the rural and suburban community. A mileage tax would do that.

 

However, I doubt there's enough politicial will for tracking devices in cars in the House and Senate.

 

What you probably will see is increasing federal, state and local taxes on gasoline and deisel, and increasing taxes on vehicles of a certain fuel consumption and curb weight..

[CalicoPenn]

You know what's great about the internet? Having the ability to check out stories like this with other sources.

 

CBS News reported on this back at the end of March when the CBO report was released. It was requested by Kent Conrad (D) - Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and Senator from North Dakota. North Dakota isn't exactly known as an urban state.

 

It came out of a congressional hearing with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood where Conrad was pondering the question of how to pay for some transportation projects. Conrad asked "Do we do gas tax?" - apparently wondering if there were other ways to raise fund than raising the gas tax.

 

He also asked - and this is a quote "Do we move to some kind of an assessment that is based on how many miles vehicles go, so that we capture revenue from those who are going to be using the roads who aren't going to paying any gas tax, or very little, with hybrids and electric cars?" I have to admit, he's got a good point about the hybrids and electric cars.

 

Ray LaHood responded that instituting more tolling on roads (toll roads for those that live in states without them) was an option in some states - and added that "the president has made it clear that he's not in favor of raising the gas tax when we have 9% unemployment in this country"

 

According to the report, LaHood ® had suggested a mileage tax in 2009, but President Obama rejected the idea - with then press secretary Gibbs telling the media that "It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration". This seems to me a pretty unequivocal statement that a VMT is not an option.

 

What The Hill is reporting on in it's blog is likely to be a rough draft provided as a courtesy to various senators and house members to gather opinions, and not the actual proposal, as the White House has stated, and that it was added in for Conrad's benefit.

 

The oil refinery question was answered - now the drilling. The oil companies are sitting on hundreds of thousands of acres of oil leases where they already have permits to drill. No one is preventing them from drilling where they have these existing permits except the oil companies themselves.

 

 

[Beavah]

Ahh, the opinion of the self proclaimed conservative.

 

You betcha!

 

Actually Beavh, the most significant thing we could do is let our oil companies drill in the US and build more refineries. We have the resources.

 

The oil companies can drill in da U.S., and can build more refineries.

 

What yeh don't seem to understand is that oil is a commodity, eh? It's traded on a worldwide market. It doesn't pay for the oil companies to drill more here, because it's much harder (i.e. more costly) to extract oil here than in many other areas of the world.

 

Of course if we waved our magic wand and suddenly we had full pumping access to 100% of the known and projected oil reserves in da U.S., it could be simply offset in the world market by the Saudis reducing output by 15%.

 

In other words, what you're proposing wouldn't achieve a thing. We just don't have anywhere near enough easy-to-access/easy-to-refine oil in the U.S. to even put a dent in our current demand. Which is why our private sector is not pursuing it in the way you would like. The market knows best.

 

Now you neo-conservatives, like the liberals, would much prefer federal subsidy. Seems like there's nary a corporate welfare system yeh don't love, no matter how much debt it puts us in. So yah, sure, if the taxpayer foots the bill and the risk for drilling while givin' the oil company the profit, that kind of market distortion might yield a domestic drilling increase. At least for the drillers that have cozied up to their congressman. It still wouldn't mean jack to the worldwide supply.

 

So us real, old-fashioned conservatives look at that and conclude that when there is a limited supply of a commodity compared to our demand, and the supply is controlled by our enemies or those who might easily become our enemies, it is necessary to reduce demand in order to ensure our own security. And the best way to do that is not to have the government pick winners or subsidize one approach over another, it's simply to create a market pressure that companies can rely on to make competitive decisions. Like a steadily increasing gas tax.

 

Yeh ever read da OPEC statements in detail? For 30 years they've consciously set oil production quotas so as to deliberately prevent U.S. conservation/demand reduction efforts.

 

That's not lubricating freedom, eh? That's our enemies manipulating us into depending on them, so that we risk our sons and daughters and national treasury on defending their lands.

 

Us real, old-fashioned conservatives don't like being dependent on folks like that.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

Thanks to Calico for runnin' that other silliness to ground. I figured it was just some congressman making a request of CBO. That's what da CBO is there for, eh? To give congressmen financial data and projects they ask for.

 

But there's nuthin' that can't be turned into mindless hysteria if yeh work at it.

[Eagledad]

>>What yeh don't seem to understand is that oil is a commodity, eh? It's traded on a worldwide market. It doesn't pay for the oil companies to drill more here, because it's much harder (i.e. more costly) to extract oil here than in many other areas of the world.

[Beavah]

Oh, those regulations like worker safety and no dumping of toxins into da groundwater supply? Or the ones that require blowout preventers on underwater rigs so that da fisheries of entire states aren't destroyed for several years?

 

You're right, I don't want to give those up. Like all old-school conservatives, I believe there's a role for government in creating and enforcing laws so that unscrupulous people don't cut corners or try to shift costs of doin' business onto others. Law enforcement is the proper role of government in society. I don't believe it should be left to individual families to try to sue oil producers for damage incurred, any more than it should be left to private citizens to investigate and prosecute grand theft auto. We believe in a system of common laws, eh?

 

Leastways, I thought we did. Me thinks you've been hittin' the neo-con Koolaid a bit hard there, eh? Us old-schoolers are OK with sacrifice for the common good.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

Sheesh! How many times do I have to say it? It's Flavor Aid! Jim Jones and his crew drank Flavor Aid, NOT Kool-Aid! What do I have to do to get through to you guys about this?