• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

So now the government thinks it has the right to know how much I drive. Putting this kind of technology in my vehicle is an invasion of privacy and another example of big brother is watching you. Another move closer to a police state

CBO: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement - The Hill's Floor Action

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance at a time when federal funds are short.

The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles.

"In the past, the efficiency costs of implementing a system of VMT charges — particularly the costs of users' time for slowing and queuing at tollbooths — would clearly have outweighed the potential benefits from more efficient use of highway capacity," CBO wrote. "Now, electronic metering and billing are making per-mile charges a practical option."

Why do you think that CSA 2010 is going to mandate qualcoms for all commercial vehicles, by 2014? Taxing mileage was part of the plan all alone.
 
The main purpose of a gas tax is to discourage consumption? You do realize you are incorrect with that statement. The main purpose of a gas tax is to raise revenue.

Well, its purpose is to raise revenue to pay for the externalities associated with gas use itself (which it fails to do). But it's never going to be a big money-maker for the federal government. If a gas tax accelerated the shift from fossil fuels to alternative energy, I doubt that very many proponents of the gas tax would be lamenting the loss of gas tax revenue.
 
Because of the push for people to buy high MPG cars. The government with pushing Global Warming and Hybrid cars has screwed itself so they need another way to screw us.

I'd just switch to public transport... as soon as the rail is built.. :)
 
I drive 40-50,000 miles a year....between something like this and the Gas Prices....I wouldn't be able to afford it.
 
Why not just quit putting the gas tax money into the general fund? It's a fee collected to pay for the costs of roads and bridges. It should be used to build and maintain roads and bridges. That seems simple. Then, if there isn't enough money to properly maintain roads and bridges, there is a rationale for raising the tax.
 
The main purpose of a gas tax is to discourage consumption? You do realize you are incorrect with that statement. The main purpose of a gas tax is to raise revenue.

For some in Washington the main purpose is to push us into green energy, such as mass transit. They don't want people to have the freedom to come and go as they please, IMO.
They want the cost of driving to hurt you in your wallet, so you'll stop it. Then you'll agree that yea, I guess my state could use public transit an high speed rail.

Steven Chu Eases Up on the Gas Price Pedal - NYTimes.com

He had told the Wall Street Journal last September , “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” a statement likely to give some commuters a case of road rage. I think that is around $10 gal.Mr. Chu draws wide approval for stressing energy efficiency and new technology as approaches to the problems of energy prices and global warming. But his science-based frankness sometimes contrasts with ordinary energy politics, which are often more centered on narrower economic interests.
For example, in a presentation at Berkeley in April, 2007, now preserved on YouTube, he declared, “coal is my worst nightmare,” words previous energy secretaries would be unlikely to utter.
“We have lots of fossil fuel,’’ he said. “That’s really both good and bad news. We won’t run out of energy but there’s enough carbon in the ground to really cook us.’’


UPDATE: Meanwhile, McCain, who supports a summer-long suspension of the federal gas tax, is trying to capitalize on Obama's remarks that a "gradual" increase in prices at the pump could encourage a badly needed change in US energy policy.This was when gas was $4 a gal.
Asked on CNBC about whether high prices could end up helping, Obama replied, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now."
That prompted this missive this morning from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds:
"Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."
 
For some in Washington the main purpose is to push us into green energy, such as mass transit. They don't want people to have the freedom to come and go as they please.

Um... with public transit I can use it whenever I want to go wherever I want...

What are you talking about?
 
Just wait until technology advances to the point that they can measure the oxygen you take in from the atmosphere. They will meter your breathing and tax you for that as well.

Soda, Big Macs, Cigarettes, and ammunition. Tax 'em all, I say.

But don't touch my coffee.:shock:
 
Um... with public transit I can use it whenever I want to go wherever I want...

What are you talking about?
Of course you can't but you can take it where ever you.
 
Last edited:
For some in Washington the main purpose is to push us into green energy, such as mass transit. They don't want people to have the freedom to come and go as they please, IMO.
They want the cost of driving to hurt you in your wallet, so you'll stop it. Then you'll agree that yea, I guess my state could use public transit an high speed rail.

Steven Chu Eases Up on the Gas Price Pedal - NYTimes.com

He had told the Wall Street Journal last September , “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” a statement likely to give some commuters a case of road rage. I think that is around $10 gal.Mr. Chu draws wide approval for stressing energy efficiency and new technology as approaches to the problems of energy prices and global warming. But his science-based frankness sometimes contrasts with ordinary energy politics, which are often more centered on narrower economic interests.
For example, in a presentation at Berkeley in April, 2007, now preserved on YouTube, he declared, “coal is my worst nightmare,” words previous energy secretaries would be unlikely to utter.
“We have lots of fossil fuel,’’ he said. “That’s really both good and bad news. We won’t run out of energy but there’s enough carbon in the ground to really cook us.’’


UPDATE: Meanwhile, McCain, who supports a summer-long suspension of the federal gas tax, is trying to capitalize on Obama's remarks that a "gradual" increase in prices at the pump could encourage a badly needed change in US energy policy.This was when gas was $4 a gal.
Asked on CNBC about whether high prices could end up helping, Obama replied, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now."
That prompted this missive this morning from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds:
"Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."

While the reduction and modification of our driving habits may very well be the goal of the liberal elite of today, the fact remains that the initial impetus behind the Federal Gas Tax was and still remains revenue. Here is a brief history behind the current 18.4 cents per gallon tax:
-The Revenue Act of 1932 approves a 1 cent per gallon tax on gasoline which was set to expire in June of 1934
-National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which President Hoover approved on June 6, 1933, extended the tax and increased it to 1.5 cents. So much for a temporary tax.
-The Revenue Act of 1934 (May 10, 1934) rescinded the half-cent increase. The 'temporary' 1 cent per gallon tax increase remains!
-Revenue Act of 1941 (September 20, 1941) made the gas tax permanent and increased it to 1.5 cents a gallon to help pay for the country's defense buildup.
-The Revenue Act of 1951 (October 21, 1951) increased the gas tax to 2 cents as a revenue source during the Korean War that began in June 1951, with the increase to be repealed on April 1, 1954. There we go with another 'temporary tax', anyone want to bet if it will be repealed?
- Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954 (March 31, 1954), which extended the tax to April 1, 1955, and the Tax Rate Extension Act of 1955 (March 30, 1955), which extended it again to April 1, 1956. I win the bet (twice).
-Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1959 (September 21, 1959) increased the tax, but only to 4 cents on a temporary basis.
-The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961, which President John F. Kennedy approved on June 29, 1961, the 5th anniversary of the 1956 Act, retained the 4-cent tax and extended it through September 30, 1972. Another broken promise of a temporary tax increase.
-The tax remained 4 cents a gallon until the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which President Ronald Reagan approved on January 6, 1983. The Act increased the tax to 9 cents, but the legislation created two separate accounts in the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Account would receive 8 cents of the revenue while the new Mass Transit Account would receive 1 cent of the gas tax.
-The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (October 17, 1986) added 0.1 cent tax on gasoline for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
-On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It embodied a compromise the Republican President had reached with the Democratic-controlled Congress to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The Act increased the Federal gas tax by 5 cents, with half the increase going to the Highway Trust Fund, the other half to deficit reduction.
-The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.
-This is where our gas tax is today.

As you can plainly see, our gas tax has a rich and storied past but none of which was to influence or suggest that we should moderate our consumption. To suggest otherwise is a complete re-write of our own recent history and only perpetuates the liberal agenda.
 
No, this only exposes the stupidity of the Progressive Agenda..they are far different.

While the reduction and modification of our driving habits may very well be the goal of the liberal elite of today, the fact remains that the initial impetus behind the Federal Gas Tax was and still remains revenue. Here is a brief history behind the current 18.4 cents per gallon tax:
-The Revenue Act of 1932 approves a 1 cent per gallon tax on gasoline which was set to expire in June of 1934
-National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which President Hoover approved on June 6, 1933, extended the tax and increased it to 1.5 cents. So much for a temporary tax.
-The Revenue Act of 1934 (May 10, 1934) rescinded the half-cent increase. The 'temporary' 1 cent per gallon tax increase remains!
-Revenue Act of 1941 (September 20, 1941) made the gas tax permanent and increased it to 1.5 cents a gallon to help pay for the country's defense buildup.
-The Revenue Act of 1951 (October 21, 1951) increased the gas tax to 2 cents as a revenue source during the Korean War that began in June 1951, with the increase to be repealed on April 1, 1954. There we go with another 'temporary tax', anyone want to bet if it will be repealed?
- Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954 (March 31, 1954), which extended the tax to April 1, 1955, and the Tax Rate Extension Act of 1955 (March 30, 1955), which extended it again to April 1, 1956. I win the bet (twice).
-Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1959 (September 21, 1959) increased the tax, but only to 4 cents on a temporary basis.
-The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961, which President John F. Kennedy approved on June 29, 1961, the 5th anniversary of the 1956 Act, retained the 4-cent tax and extended it through September 30, 1972. Another broken promise of a temporary tax increase.
-The tax remained 4 cents a gallon until the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which President Ronald Reagan approved on January 6, 1983. The Act increased the tax to 9 cents, but the legislation created two separate accounts in the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Account would receive 8 cents of the revenue while the new Mass Transit Account would receive 1 cent of the gas tax.
-The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (October 17, 1986) added 0.1 cent tax on gasoline for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
-On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It embodied a compromise the Republican President had reached with the Democratic-controlled Congress to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The Act increased the Federal gas tax by 5 cents, with half the increase going to the Highway Trust Fund, the other half to deficit reduction.
-The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.
-This is where our gas tax is today.

As you can plainly see, our gas tax has a rich and storied past but none of which was to influence or suggest that we should moderate our consumption. To suggest otherwise is a complete re-write of our own recent history and only perpetuates the liberal agenda.
 
No, this only exposes the stupidity of the Progressive Agenda..they are far different.

You may be right. Liberal or progressive, I see them both as peas in the same pod. Both need to continually re-write history to massage it to fit their agenda. While the progressive movement may very well be the intellectual force we need to combat, it is the liberal's and their blind ideology that is the scourge of this country. To draw an analogy; liberals are the foot soldiers, stupid but with the ability to win elections. Progressives are the field generals, smart but no numbers to effectively be a force of change. They both need each other to survive.
 
Why isn't the fuel tax sufficient enough to tax us based on the mileage we drive? It just seems repetitive...

Think of it like income and sales tax. They tax you when you make the money and when you spend the money. In this case, they tax you when you buy the gas and when you use the gas.
 
I'd just switch to public transport... as soon as the rail is built.. :)

That's great. So...where's that money going to come from? And...how are we going to replace the revenue lost from you travelling on the high-speed rail vice buying gas?
 
Well, less gas used is part of the idea. The main purposes of a gas tax are to discourage gas consumption, and to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the externalities associated with gas use. It's never going to be more than a small source of revenue for the government.

So they want us to pay more for driving less? Better idea is to balance the budget and spend less
 
Why do you think that CSA 2010 is going to mandate qualcoms for all commercial vehicles, by 2014? Taxing mileage was part of the plan all alone.

CSA 2010 is about control and money. I do not have a computer in my truck I think my company will fight this. All communication is still done by phone.
 
Think of it like income and sales tax. They tax you when you make the money and when you spend the money. In this case, they tax you when you buy the gas and when you use the gas.

Isn't that double taxation? I thought that was supposed to be illegal.
 
Ya. The current gas tax isn't really sufficient to pay for all the externalities associated with driving though, but it would be far easier to simply raise it than to create an entirely new type of tax. Especially one as cumbersome and impractical as a mileage tax.

Its plenty sufficient.....we dont have revenue probelms....we have spending problems.....

gasoline-tax.png

.
.
.
.
 
Its plenty sufficient.....we dont have revenue probelms....we have spending problems.....

gasoline-tax.png

.
.
.
.

8% +_ in 1967 was about 30% of the cost of a gallon of regular (25.9cents). 37 cents +_ in 2008 was about 9% of the cost ($4 a gallon more or less at that time)
 
Well Democrats already tried taxing exhalation.........so your probably right.....
.
.
.

Actually, Republicans in Minnesota raised taxes on inhaling and exhaling. If your mouth had a cigarette in it, anyway.

So when Tim Pawlenty's running for President (which he is), and he comes and says he didn't raise taxes, it's BS. He called it a "health impact fee," but it was raising the tax on a pack of smokes.

I don't want you all saying that he would make a good President because he didn't raise taxes. I'm saving you now from looking like an ass in a year.
 
Scary thoughts:

1. They put these sensors in, then decide that you should ONLY have to drive XX miles a week/month. If you drive more then that, they increase the taxes paid.
 
Not a fan of this, enforcement would be too complicated.
 
I'm sure one day the gov't will tax us every time we use toilet tissue and/or have sex.
 
Back
Top Bottom