• fb_1062099260 avatar Peter Posted: 1/10/2013 3:20pm PST

    Maybe we should charge the so called" job provider's" who tear up our roads with there big rig's.The Koch brother's of the world think there not getting anything for there tax but there getting a free pass on our infrastructure that make there business possible.

  • ModernMode avatar ModernMode Posted: 1/10/2013 1:39pm PST

    So if you start taxing people based on mileage driven eventually only rich people will be able to afford to travel by car.

  • fr8bil avatar fr8bil Posted: 1/10/2013 12:47pm PST

    Like most out-of-touch politicians, McDonnell is wrong on two out of three revenue producing proposals. Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation in existence hurting those the worst who can least afford them. And it's real intelligent to propose taking money from schools (maybe a good idea from school Administrator's obscene salaries ?) and Mental Health programs. Perhaps some of the FAT should be cut from State budgets like private enterprise has been forced to do ?

  • fb_1826998396 avatar Kennon Posted: 1/10/2013 12:19pm PST

    Thanks for the article.

    For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues worldwide, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.org ....

  • Gas Guzzler avatar Gas Guzzler Posted: 1/10/2013 12:07pm PST

    State Gas Consumption Fee; Placed on the bill of sale of new and used autos that would go to that State's fund for roads repair, etc.

    $150 fee on autos getting less that 10 overall MPG EPA.
    $100 fee on autos getting less that 15 overall MPG EPA.
    $75 on autos getting less that 20 overall MPG EPA.
    $50 on autos getting less that 25 overall MPG EPA.
    $25 on autos getting less that 30 overall MPG EPA.
    $0 Fee on autos getting over 30 overall MPG EPA.

  • fb_1207840663 avatar Howard Posted: 1/12/2013 9:54am PST

    Nice idea for new cars, maybe used.. However, the average person keeps their car for 10-11 years. The older the car, the worse the mileage. Also implementing this system would cost millions. Sorry, I still think raising the gas tax would be the cheapest to implement.

  • dbalkwell avatar dbalkwell Posted: 1/10/2013 11:38am PST

    (cont) still does nothing to address the "free ride" enjoyed by electric (and to a lesser extent by hybrid) vehicles. It also does not address the complaints of "fairness" advocates who properly point out that any of these systems is regressive, in that the poor will pay a greater proportion of their income than will the wealthier (the argument being whether or not that really is unfair, on which I have no position). The only viable way that comes to mind for addressing that would be a state/federal income tax exemption based upon fuel taxes paid, further complicating the tax code. I don't claim to have all of the answers, but I believe that these are concerns that should be considered prior to imposing any new taxes. Sorry for the leng

  • fb_1207840663 avatar Howard Posted: 1/12/2013 9:52am PST

    Don, I agree the electric and hybrid cars get somewhat of a "free ride". However, they are only 1.5% of total car sales. All taxes seem to be regressive. The majority of cars would be included.

  • dbalkwell avatar dbalkwell Posted: 1/10/2013 11:27am PST

    (Continued) The sales tax does not, and (unless it is only levied on fuel purchases, in which case it is a de facto fuel tax) does not even relate to the amount of damage caused. The same is true of a tax on vehicle miles driven. The fuel tax is not perfect, in that it does not consider fuel efficiency (a 4000 pound vehicle getting 30 mpg will pay the same as a 2500 pound vehicle getting 30 mpg, even though the heavier vehicle will cause more damage), but maybe that can be overlooked on the basis of the public good of encouraging greater fuel efficiency. This leaves us with the current system, with the only way to increase revenues being an increase in state and federal fuel taxes (gasoline and diesel, including commercial vehicles), but

  • ae_vette avatar ae_vette Posted: 1/10/2013 11:19am PST

    I am amazed at all the fixes they come up with and what they plan to do. The mileage checking would cost millions to implement. No one thinks of that. Why are they afraid to just add 50ยข per gallon of gas and make mandatory that it go for roads and bridges. That would be the simplest resolution.

  • richard avatar Richard Posted: 1/10/2013 11:52am PST

    That's an interesting idea, but it would involve Congress increasing taxes, which many, many politicians are loathe to do.

    Complicating matters: as gas prices go up, usage goes down -- either because people travel less, or because they opt for more fuel-efficient cars, or both. So even if the tax passed, it's doubtful that the government would gain a full 50 cents per gallon.

    But it's a thought.

  • fb_1207840663 avatar Howard Posted: 1/12/2013 9:48am PST

    Richard, you are right. It seems to be political suicide to propose a gas tax increase. All taxes are regressive. However, we need some tax for roads. Some ideas cost more than others to implement.

  • dbalkwell avatar dbalkwell Posted: 1/10/2013 11:13am PST

    The theory of "user pays", which is valid and appropriate, is based upon the idea that the "user pays in proportion to the cost that he is responsible for creating"; i.e., the road maintenance and repair costs associated with his usage of the roads. Given that damage to the road is somewhat proportional to the weight of the vehicle (a moped or a Honda Fit will not cause as much damage to the road surface or the roadbed as will an F450 pulling a 32 foot fifth-wheel RV). This fact is recognized and incorporated into the fuel taxes paid by 18-wheelers, and is just as valid and appropriate for passenger vehicles. The gas tax also takes this into account (heavier vehicles generally use more fuel than lighter vehicles), but sales taxes do hot.

  • reconltd avatar reconltd Posted: 1/10/2013 9:43am PST

    Rich - why not just add $100 to the annual auto registration and eliminate all the GPS 'hoccus pocus?' Although no one likes the idea of paying more for anything, I would rather pay an annual flat fee than create another level of government which could lead to their temptation of putting all the 'neat' info they'll gather, about where and when we all are driving, to uses never intended! After all, just because I'm not necessarily a conspiracy theorist, there is a lot of evidence out there that I could very well be wrong ;>)

  • richard avatar Richard Posted: 1/10/2013 10:23am PST

    While that could work in theory, it would be fairly complicated. Auto registration is done at the state level, so that every state would have to pass legislation upping its auto registration fee. If that money goes to the feds, there's still the problem of maintaining state roads. If it goes to the state, what happens to federal highways? Not an easy problem to fix, unfortunately.