Mileage Tax in Infrastructure Bill.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Data monitoring combined with a kill switch in the hands of a Bureaucrat leads to total control.

I just go a mailer from my electric company, they're wanting to hang a smart meter on the house but we don't have wifi so I'm not sure if it's doable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
We have smart meters here and they do not use wifi. The info is transmitted over the existing electrical wires.
 
A "for instance," I see you're in Wyoming,
a state with very low to no taxes. Yet the
state ranks 12th in having a budget
of 31.51% relying on federal assistance.

You mention the District of Columbia, but
its reliance on federal assistance for its
budget is 23.97%.

Could it be that people in NYC and LA
are helping carry your load of services?

Wyoming ranks #36 on the list of spending per person by the Federal government at $670. Meanwhile, Virginia is #1 at $10,301 and Connecticut last at -$4000 (yes, that minus $4000!). New York is also in the negative numbers at -$1762 and California is a whopping $12.

But.... as is the case when citing numbers, they can be manipulated to show whatever one wants them to show. For example, when you look at total dollars spent here's what it looks like for those same states: Wyoming: $7.1B, Virginia: $1.77B, Connecticut: $41.1B, New York: $220.6B and California: $436.1B.

So pick whatever numbers you want. :D
 
When was the last time one tax was cancelled because another took its place? The fuel tax is going nowhere.
 
I know that here in WA they are proposing replacing the state gas tax with a mileage tax for the reasons you cite above.

As far as the impact being greater on rural vs urban drivers, I don't see it. If you live rural and drive lots of miles you're paying X per mile in gas taxes per mile on the gas you're buying anyway. For example: if the gas tax is 40 cents a gallon and you get 20 mpg, you're paying 2 cents tax every mile you drive. So if they replace that with a 2 cents a mile tax you're still paying 2 cents tax every mile you drive.

The same math applies whether the miles are driven in the city making 5 mile round trips or if they are driven in the country making 50 mile round trips. 2 cents a mile is 2 cents a mile either way. So I don't get the argument that it discriminates against one demographic or favors the other. I guess there is a slight penalty for rural drivers because the same car gets better mileage driving on rural highways than it will in the city. So the rural driver pays a tiny bit less per mile in gas tax than they would with a per-mile tax, but the difference is really small since the mpg difference between city and highway is generally only about 10% and in the real world both rural and urban drivers will be getting something in between city and highway mpg since they will be doing "mixed" driving.

Now, if the same tax rate is applied to all vehicles, then it actually penalizes people who drive economy cars because now they get charged the same tax per mile as the guy driving a gas guzzler. If you drive a car that only gets 10 miles per gallon then the 40 cents per gallon tax example above costs you 4 cents per mile, and replacing that with the 2 cent per mile tax from the example above actually means you pay less road taxes. That's the opposite of a per gallon tax that gets lower per mile the more miles your vehicle gets per gallon. Since the higher mpg vehicles are lighter they theoretically create less wear and tear on the roads, so in all fairness, they really should pay less per mile in taxes, so THAT part of the tax-per-mile system seems kinda backwards.

Where it evens things up is that the electric cars finally get to help pay for the roads, instead of getting a free ride by not paying any gas taxes at all.

The only way I can see this being made fair to everyone is for your per-mile rate to be tied to the vehicle weight. Heavier gas guzzlers continue to pay more per mile, lighter gas sippers pay less per mile, and electrics pay a rate per mile equivalent to a gas vehicle of comparable weight that would create a comparable amount of wear and tear on the roads.

The big issue is the tracking, but even that can be resolved pretty easily. Modern cars all have an function in the computer that tells how many miles are on the odometer. In areas with emissions testing (most cities) you have to go to an emissions testing facility for a test to renew your tabs. The same type of system could be used to determine mileage every year. They don't need to know WHERE you've driven - just how many miles you've driven, and the tax bill gets based on that annual miles driven.

In WA the vehicle emissions requirements law just phased out because it had a 20 year sunset provision and we met the emissions goals. BUT when it was in effect whenever you bought a car you had to get it emissions tested to get the new tabs transferred into your name. Under a tax-per-mile system they could do essentially the same thing and you would have to get the vehicle mileage checked and recorded when you SOLD the car - to pay your year's worth of mileage taxes before someone else assumes ownership and responsibility for future mileage taxes. They were already recording mileage every time you got an emissions test, and of course they record mileage every time the vehicle is sold at the point of the title being transferred.

Under a system like that the reduction in privacy issues would be pretty much nil, taxes would be fairly apportioned, and even the electrics would pay their fair share. Of course that means they would never implement a system that way.


How will they tax all the boats and lawn equipment and snowmobiles and ATVs etc using gas?
 
For anyone who has bothered to look, the American Rescue Plan is nothing more than a trillion dollar giveaway of YOUR tax dollars, and it's already a done deal.

You misspelled 4.5 Trillion which is what it will be when it comes back from the house requiring only 50 senate votes to pass...
 
This is a disguised way of tracking folks wherever they go, and is not necessary to actually pay for roads.
Here in Virginia, our vehicles must have an annual safety inspection, which is a good thing, IMHO. It keeps cars with bald tires, no brakes and burned out lights off the road. At that inspection, the inspector must note the odometer mileage on the inspection decal and the receipt, so there's an easy way for all to pay for the roads they use in proportion to their use. Put in a factor for vehicle weight and pay that at the inspection, and it's an utterly equitable way to pay for roads, regardless of whether the car is gas, diesel, electric or pedal. The inspections are conducted throughout the year, so there would be a reasonably even cash flow year round, just like the gas tax.
I'd probably faint if the gas tax were eliminated though. I'd fully expect this tax to be in addition to a fuel tax. No government likes to repeal a tax.
 
This is a disguised way of tracking folks wherever they go, and is not necessary to actually pay for roads.
Here in Virginia, our vehicles must have an annual safety inspection, which is a good thing, IMHO. It keeps cars with bald tires, no brakes and burned out lights off the road. At that inspection, the inspector must note the odometer mileage on the inspection decal and the receipt, so there's an easy way for all to pay for the roads they use in proportion to their use. Put in a factor for vehicle weight and pay that at the inspection, and it's an utterly equitable way to pay for roads, regardless of whether the car is gas, diesel, electric or pedal. The inspections are conducted throughout the year, so there would be a reasonably even cash flow year round, just like the gas tax.
I'd probably faint if the gas tax were eliminated though. I'd fully expect this tax to be in addition to a fuel tax. No government likes to repeal a tax.
I've never needed the government to tell me when my car needed new brakes, new tires or new bulbs. Good reason not to live in Virginia.
 
There is a method to this madness...

For the last decade, even before this green deal stuff, many and not just in government have been trying to wein people away from private cars and toward public transportation.

Electric cars, while they do have their benefits, are a long way from having the range of a gasoline or diesel powered machine.

The area where I work has been whispering about making certain streets "pedestrian only" and restricting cars to large parking areas and taking buses in. I have told some of these people that such an action will effectively destroy the area and the commerce it brings...this was met with a shrug on every instance.

I figure that within the next two decades that not ONLY will their be "mileage taxes" on the books but that using any and all freeways and major highways in the US will require a toll or a special permit. Many years ago, a Houston mayor made comment that he wanted to do this. Unfortuantely was it UNPOPULAR but the current interstate highway system forbids it. That won't be the case forever.

It isn't a matter of "if" as much as "when".
 
They already know where you go. Ever heard of a cell phone? Mine tells me how far to whet i parked and how far back home. How autos already have the little black box. Not sure what info it stores.
 
If the gasoline tax is replaced by a mileage tax, how will the rich people with yachts and private planes pay their "fair share"?
 
This is a disguised way of tracking folks wherever they go, and is not necessary to actually pay for roads.
Here in Virginia, our vehicles must have an annual safety inspection, which is a good thing, IMHO. It keeps cars with bald tires, no brakes and burned out lights off the road. At that inspection, the inspector must note the odometer mileage on the inspection decal and the receipt, so there's an easy way for all to pay for the roads they use in proportion to their use. Put in a factor for vehicle weight and pay that at the inspection, and it's an utterly equitable way to pay for roads, regardless of whether the car is gas, diesel, electric or pedal. The inspections are conducted throughout the year, so there would be a reasonably even cash flow year round, just like the gas tax.
I'd probably faint if the gas tax were eliminated though. I'd fully expect this tax to be in addition to a fuel tax. No government likes to repeal a tax.


I moved from Illinois to Indiana 45yrs ago. Illinois had truck inspections including all GVW PU'S. State inspection sites were surrounded by every type of (like leaches) repair shop you'd need if your truck failed inspection. Obuma sponsored that clunker buy up a few years back. I do not see many old oil burners anymore. Too bad they destroyed a lot of restorable oldies in the rush to save the Earth. I begin to question if the planet is worth saving.
 
We have smart meters here and they do not use wifi. The info is transmitted over the existing electrical wires.


According to pamphlet it goes meter to line to WAN to company, WAN is wireless area network, maybe that's not wifi but there ain't one out here that I'm aware of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Instead of always looking for ways to take more money, I wish government would look for ways to spend less. They could, you know ...

Have you seen the condition of the average American highway, roadway, bridge, etc. lately? You can complain about the taxes or about the crumbling infrastructure - but not both. How long until the national speed limit is lowered because the highways can't sustain current speeds, or traffic across bridges is metered because it won't support full weight?

I'm just happy that we finally (FINALLY!) managed to pass an infrastructure bill - but I'm a little ticked that it took this long. :mad:
 
This is only secondarily about revenue. It's really about control. Killing the suburbs and forcing people into urban living is the objective. Same thing with "self-driving" cars. They sell it as safety, but controlling where and when you can travel is the ultimate objective.

I'm not seeing it. Just exactly why would "they" want to force people into cities? In almost every metric, urban living costs more than suburban or rural living so that argument doesn't make sense. There are a lot easier - and more palatable - ways for the government to get your money...

As for self-driving cars, if they were available I would buy one TODAY for my parents because I want them to have their freedom of mobility but don't really want to subject anyone out there to my 92 y/o father's driving! :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top