Your Take 
91
comments

Your Take: A Driving Tax?

Email  Print Print  

TaxesThere are reports of an undated draft of a plan to tax car drivers based on how many miles they drive. The White House was quick to say that it wasn’t an Administration proposal, just an idea that’s been floating around but never formally circulated. In other words, it’s just an idea. While pundits on both sides will try to spin this issue one way or another, the question of whether we should be taxing drivers based on mileage is a good one. I don’t know if the draft is worth reading since it doesn’t go into many details, just creates a group that would study the feasibility of a “user fee” like this.

I personally think it’s a good idea but the wrong time to bring it up, since so many families are already in such a financially precarious position (then again, there is never a good time to bring up a new fee or tax!). I think that a user fee would better represent the costs of driving since so much of the cost is an externality. It would also be an incentive for people to use mass transportation and that, hopefully, would spur the construction of a more robust system.

What do you think of a driving tax?

(Photo: alancleaver)

{ 91 comments, please add your thoughts now! }

Related Posts


RSS Subscribe Like this article? Get all the latest articles sent to your email for free every day. Enter your email address and click "Subscribe." Your email will only be used for this daily subscription and you can unsubscribe anytime.

91 Responses to “Your Take: A Driving Tax?”

  1. lostAnnfound says:

    How would they keep track of how many miles one would be driving?

    • Texas Wahoo says:

      In Singapore all vehicles have to have a EZ-Tag looking thing that you load money on to and it is automatically charged when you drive into different parts of the country.

      It would be more complicated to implement in a country the size of the US (how many zones would there be?), but it could be done.

      • Strebkr says:

        I was in Philly for work not to long ago and they charge to get into the city during certain hours. They use EZ-Pass. At first I thought it was just a toll on the bridge, but its only to get in. You are free to leave anytime you want. Its their way of keeping cars out.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      In Oregon they’ve piloted a system that keeps track of miles only (not location) through a device. I’m not sure the other details, but I believe when you fill up at a gas station, the number of miles is provided to the pump and you pay the fee there.

  2. thunderthighs says:

    If such a nefarious program were put into place, I would not comply. I’m not sure how the government would take an account of mileage, but people have been tweaking odometers for decades. When there’s a will there’s a way. This would unfairly punish people in rural areas, who have no access to public transportation and rely upon our cars to function day-to-day. No surprise that the nannies in DC are too cowardly to sign their names to this garbage.

    • Glenn Lasher says:

      People in rural areas are already punished by road-related taxes, of which they pay a greater share because it is often necessary to have 4WD/AWD vehicles, which use more fuel. Change to a mileage-based tax, and the rural burden might actually go down a tad for some (think drivers of Subarus and old AMC Eagles) because the cost would now be associated with the actual road wear and tear, not on the fuel consumption.

      • cubiclegeoff says:

        I disagree. They may pay more because they drive more (although that is their choice), but overall, they benefit much more than they pay. Urban areas provide significantly more in revenue for the gas tax than they receive in money for their roadways. More money is spent on rural roadways that are less used and benefit fewer people.

        • mannymacho says:

          Urabn areas also accumulate more of the pollution from fossil-fuel vehicles. So maybe a road tax wouldn’t unfairly tax rural areas, but instead would move things closer to equal…

        • JJ says:

          Agree with you here cubiclegeoff. There are any number of things that the rural population take advantage of (similar gas/electric/cable/phone rates even though there is a longer run of cable to support a smaller number of people).

          This mileage tax is a great idea. It’s time the people who CHOOSE to live out in the sticks begin to pay what it costs to bring the grid to them.

        • MikeZ says:

          I’m curious where your facts come from here. As a ‘rural’ customer that is stuck paying a toll that was supposed to be phased out years ago to pay for an 15 BILLION Dollar intercity tunnel that I have never used so naturally I’m a skeptic here. It certainly seems difficult to measure, where exactly do inner city people drive? Either they don’t drive much so don’t generate a lot of tax revenue, or they are driving outside the city, and they SHOULD be generating ‘extra’ tax revenue to subsidize those rural roads they end up driving on.

      • MikeZ says:

        Well that assumes the mileage tax would replace the gas tax. I’d guess this new tax is in addition to, not in place of the gas tax.

        Still I’d disagree even if it was a replacement, I think our dependence on Foreign Oil is a bigger problem than road maintainence. So I like the fact that the Hummer owner pays more in taxes than my subcompact.

    • James says:

      I heard that transponders will have to be installed in every vehicle. So tweaking a odometer wouldn’t work.
      What else can they tax us on?
      I realize that electric cars and high gas prices will lower demand for gas therefore lowering tax money brought in through gas sales.
      But if things keep going the way they are then we will be paying over half or more of our incomes toward taxes.
      If we would control the foolish spending in this country then we wouldn’t have to worry about being taxed to death.
      This country spends Billion of taxpayer dollars on foolishness and it needs to stop.

  3. NateUVM says:

    Isn’t there already a driving tax, vis-a-vie the taxes that are built into gas prices? Doesn’t that tax you based on how far you drive, adjusted according to how good of a mileage you get on your car?

    Seems like that’s already a pretty fair system of taxation. You get better mileage, you pay fewer taxes per mile…

    • Strebkr says:

      Agree – gas prices are the best way to tax drivers. You need gas to go places so you get taxed on it. This helps people who drive less and use mass transit because they won’t have to pay for the gas and taxes. Its easy, less government involvement, etc.

      • cubiclegeoff says:

        Problem comes with hybrids and electrics that use significantly less fuel or no fuel at all, but still use the roadways.

        • mannymacho says:

          Bigger problem than that, is the semi trucks that use maybe 4x the amount of fuel but easily cause 1,000 times the damage on a road that a passengar car does.

        • NateUVM says:

          Not sure that this is really a “problem”, though. Incentivizing the use of less fuel is a perfectly reasonable goal for a particular tax. The use of hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles merely places one higher on the mile/gallon of conventional fuel spectrum. You invest more in your vehicle and how much (or little) fuel it uses, you get the benefit of paying fewer taxes per mile.

          That, and I’m not sure the post/rumored legislation was coming form the perspective of road maintenance. If that were the case, I WOULD be in favor of a usage tax, of some sort, as long as road-use considerations were removed from the gas tax.

          • cubiclegeoff says:

            The point of the bill, as I understand it, is to increase highway revenues, which are currently collected through the gas tax and used for roadway construction and maintenance. This wouldn’t be used as a revenue tool. Also, the tax could be set up in a way to provide an incentive to drive less destructive vehicles, or vehicles that use less fuel. The gas tax itself was never meant as an incentive program.

          • Bobby says:

            That is the problem. One tax is never removed when a new one is added. So any tax road-use portion of a gas tax would be left in the gas tax and the new road-use tax would be added.

            NO! To any and all new taxes. Government should stop wasting the money that is taken from the people first.

        • MikeZ says:

          Sure but then the Hybrid owners can rightfully claim they shouldn’t have to subsidize the cost of the War effort in the Oil-Rich arab country of the day.

        • Strebkr says:

          But thats the best part. The gvt wants more hybrids and electrics on the road, so in addition to giving purchase incentives, they get a break on the road taxes because they are driving “green” vehicles. Gas taxes weren’t meant to be 100% fair on a car by car basis.

    • Steph says:

      I agree as well and this would appear to be double taxing. I suppose this is something I would consider fair only if we stopped using gas.

  4. No Debt MBA says:

    I agree with Nate that the gas tax is a slightly more elegant solution and offers incentives for more fuel efficient cars. Is that done at a federal level?

    The one problem with the gas tax is that even electrical cars still have an environmental impact and definitely cause wear and tear on roads which a mileage tax would tackle.

    • freeby50 says:

      Yes we do have gas tax at the federal level and it is 18.4 cents per gallon IIRC.

    • J. Munoz says:

      I agree-its the same premise as telling people to stop using so much water and turn off lights, when the electrical companies started to see less money because HELLO people cut back…then they just went and raised their rates (specially speaking of GRU in Gainesville, FL). But the same thing-people bought hybrids and such to save on fuel, and no surprise, they paid less in gas so less in gas-tax, so they want their money one way or another. its not about saving the environment its about money.

  5. Glenn Lasher says:

    I think my feelings on it are dependent on implementation . . .

    First, I don’t want a GPS or other tracking device in my car. I don’t however, have a problem with it if they want to just check my odometer once to four times a year, and when the car changes hands. That’s fine because it gets them the data they actually need to execute this, but leaves me with my privacy intact.

    Second, I would advocate for different tax rates based on vehicle weight and number of wheels on the ground, because these are relevant to road wear and tear. Trailers would also need to be fitted with odometers in order to account for them.

    Meet those conditions, and I’m good with the concept and we can go on to discussion of the actual rate, and, of course, the accompanying repeal of the taxes on gasoline. Oh, you weren’t going to repeal those? Sorry, deal’s off.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      Different rates depending on weight of car and axles makes sense. As for how to monitor it, a system that only records miles driven, and ignores location information is what would probably be used since people don’t like the idea of being tracked. The government would never be able to pass that.

    • Andy says:

      “I don’t however, have a problem with it if they want to just check my odometer once to four times a year, and when the car changes hands. That’s fine because it gets them the data they actually need to execute this, but leaves me with my privacy intact.”

      In states that have mandatory safety/emissions inspections, this would be almost no additional labor. IIRC they already record the mileage when the inspection is done and log it in the state-wide DMV database – it’s just a matter of doing some subtraction from last year’s number and sending you the bill.

  6. bRobert says:

    Dumb idea. Just tax fuel. The more you drive, the more you pay.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      this doesn’t work for electric and hybrid cars, and since the money is needed for our roadways (which are already behind in maintenance), a more reasonable system of taxation is necessary.

      • NateUVM says:

        I’m not sure road maintenance was the goal of this proposal. Maybe it should be. Maybe it was. But if the goal was merely to tax “driving” as a source of revenue… Again, I think the gas tax covers it.

        Interesting discussion. Sounds like it’s all hypothetical, though.

        • cubiclegeoff says:

          As the money would be for highway revenues, maintenance and construction are what they’re used for.

  7. Funny that the same people who are for these types of consumption taxes are against a national sales tax. I don’t like either one, and would like to see us move towards less taxes, less government intrusion, which could be afforded via less government spending.

    • Jim says:

      Do you really feel like the government is all that intrusive? I think it’s an easy thing to complain about but I don’t feel like the government involves itself in my life all that often. In fact, smaller government is often considered a conservative idea but it runs counter to pro-life, another conservative idea. That said, I’d also love to see less government spending but it seems silly that Congress is arguing over political budget items (NPR, Planned Parenthood) while still maintaining involvement in multiple wars overseas.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      Consumption taxes that are linked to some service are important, and I see no problem with them. As for government intrusion, I don’t think the government really intrudes that much, and there is a good deal that’s necessary. And since we already pay so little in taxes in comparison, I don’t think less taxes will improve anything.

      • Strebkr says:

        I think people can very easiliy link the gas tax to the miles they drive and they see the service they get in the roads, bridges, etc they drive on every day.

  8. qixx says:

    There are many different jurisdictions that collect taxes from gas; Federal, State, County, City. For all of these to collect based on mileage would require GPS tracking and lots of cameras to photo licenses plates so they know who to collect from. Tracking via GPS tracking would reduce speeding (It would show how fast you were going and you know that data would be given to various police departments so they could mail out tickets). Most locations (other than federal) would likely just increase vehicle registration fees if they lost at the pump taxes.

    The most likely would be a federal and state mileage tax collected with vehicle registration and county and city would still tax gas sales. This would be the easiest to implement. The mileage tax would be paid in advance (say pre-paid taxes for 20,000 miles of driving) and registration next year would include taxes for miles over the limit (20,000 in this example) plus next years amount. Don’t drive the allotted miles each year – oh well, thanks for paying.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      The system that has been used and would probably be used for this is significantly easier. It would use GPS just to track miles (not for location finding or speeding issues).

      • Bobby says:

        The problem that qixx alluded to is that as taxes on gas are already collected at these various levels and these various levels have responsibility for different roads. GPS would have to be used on every car all the time to determine how much you drive on city roads, county roads, state roads, and federal roads so the tax money could be allocated based on the usage of drivers. Within a 1 mile radius of most peoples homes you will find all 4 types of these roads that usage will need to be tracked upon.

        For instance, you have someone who lives just 1 mile inside NJ but works 10 miles in NY. They buy their gas in NJ, but most of their driving occurs in NY – so most of the road damage they cause is in NY. Some of those tax dollars collected in NJ should be allocated to NY. This is a nightmare waiting to happen.

        And we haven’t even talked about the cost of all the satellite communication for the GPS devices which will be pinging the position of 200 million? 500 million? or more cars constantly.

        • cubiclegeoff says:

          I think the majority of roadwork is done with fed money, although state money is a big contributor also. If it was done at one level and distributed from there, which is what happens now, this isn’t a big deal.

  9. Heidi says:

    We are already paying stae and federal taxes when we fill up our tanks, so this would be ANOTHER tax, in addition– I read that you would be forced to PAY to install this on your own car. No more big gov’t intrusiveness! Let your state representative know you object to this proposed act.

  10. freeby50 says:

    I don’t see the need to tax per mile. We already tax gasoline and that works fine as is. Taxing by mile would just shift who pays the taxes around some and add unnecessary overhead costs for the monitoring. Plus depending on how the monitoring is done it would raise privacy concerns.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      Gas taxes are ok for the moment, but they’ll start to cause problems. Revenues for highways have not kept up with the maintenance requirement, and it will only get worse if cars are more efficient, or don’t use gas at all.

  11. mikec says:

    As someone who currently lives 160 from his wife for a year, and will be living 90 miles apart as she commutes to her final year of school next year, I feel as though I pay enough. Gas is taxed heavily, and there is the “gas guzzler” tax that takes care of vehicles with far lower mileage, so we basically are already taxed per mile we drive.
    Also, with having to pay for school and between the two of us driving about 40,000 miles a year to see each other, family, go to work and school, plus everything else there is to pay for, I don’t think I could afford paying even more for these things.

    • JJ says:

      Why should I have to pay for your CHOICE of living so far from your wife?

    • seanm says:

      mikec – what you are doing SHOULDN’T be affordable by a normal person. That is simply too much driving. Think of how much of the world’s resources YOU are using versus others? What if everyone in the world used resources like that? Your habits are the problem, not the cost.

      By the way, I recognize that all Americans, not just you, are over-consumers as compared to the world, but this is precisely what needs to change.

      • Bey says:

        Pretty judgemental crowd around here . . .

        Don’t immediately assume that mikec’s situation is his ideal choice, or that he hasn’t tried to mitigate travel expenses. Some of do what we have to do to support our families now, and some of our current choices are made with an eye to the future.

        We’re already paying for too many people’s poor life choices through Social Security, Medicare, WIC, etc. — at least it looks as if mikec and his wife are trying to make better choices.

  12. zapeta says:

    It makes sense to me to tax mileage rather than fuel given the number of hybrid/full electric vehicles that will be entering the roads soon. The owners shouldn’t be able to avoid paying for road maintenance simply because they don’t buy gas.

    • Jim says:

      That’s a good point I didn’t think about… if the goal is to tax the actual use of roads, then a gasoline tax doesn’t accurately capture that since people use different amounts of gas. Then again, I feel like someone should be rewarded for using a more efficient car.

      • NateUVM says:

        My point exactly.

      • Brian says:

        The reason this proposal is floating around is because people are using more fuel efficient cars. The Government gets used to a certain level of revenue and when that revenue starts to decline they start looking for ways to maintain or increase the status quo.

      • skylog says:

        that is the problem i have with it as well. although, some would point to tax credits given for the purchase of the more efficient car.

  13. Jennifer Lissette says:

    There already is a mileage tax, it’s called gasoline tax. To tax both the gasoline and the miles you drive using the gasoline just seems over the top to me.

    • JJ says:

      Totally disagree. If I drive and electric I pay no tax even though my car will still do wear and tear on the roads. If I drive a semi, I need to pay a higher tax (via gas tax) for the increased wear and tear due to weight/fumes.

      Mileage tax makes perfect sense.

  14. cdnap says:

    Just another way for the american “big brother” goverment to track your movement.

    • Strebkr says:

      Yes, in that sense I am against it. Buying gas is a good way to tax because it keeps you anonymous in terms of tracking where you are and when.

  15. John says:

    RE “How would they keep track of how many miles one would be driving?”

    In North Carolina you take your car in once a year for an inspection and the odometer reading goes into the computer and transfers to the state to prove validity. To transfer it to a Fed computer would take a keystroke, not very hard to implement!

    • Bobby says:

      Government would find some way to screw it up royally.

    • James says:

      The last time I took my pickup truck to have it inspected, someone at the service station fat-fingered my mileage (typed something around 145,000 instead of around 148,000). According to the information in their database I drove about -3,000 miles during that year. Would that mean I would get a mileage tax refund? Would I then get a much larger than normal mileage tax bill the following year?

  16. Twinndaddy says:

    Has anyone considered the impact to small businesses? Service related businesses must travel to clients houses. you can’t seriously expect us to take our tools onto public transportation. Fact of the matter is that if such a tax were put into place the cost would eventually be passed on to the consumers. Rather than add another tax, eliminate government waste.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      If they are using the roadways they can pay their share for the wear and tear. You could have tried to make the same argument about the gas tax. It’s all a part of doong business.

  17. gz says:

    President Obama made fun of the people who drive vehicles that get 8 mpg when the pice of gas went up. Is he now going to make fun of the people who drive, if this tax goes into effect?

    Anybody remember the Big Dig in Massachusetts, with all of the fraud and cost overrides? This is what happens when tax money is freely available. More tax money means more waste and fraud.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      Like any large business dealing with lots of different companies, there was some fraud and waste, but far less than the perception. The cost overruns were doing to changes based on political views, and when you change a large project in the middle it requires a lot of money. And anyone that thinks the Big Dig was a waste never experienced traveling through Boston without it, or conveniently forgot the mess it was. Boston is an economically stronger city with the Big Dig.

  18. skylog says:

    this will be an unpopular comment…but i look to europe. they pay much much more for gasoline, yet, they have vastly superior mass transit and generally are very much ahead of the united states in renewables.

    i am a horrible example, as i hardly drive, but i be willing to put up to have such things.

  19. Bey says:

    I’m sorry a few of you don’t feel that the government is intrusive, because most of us do. This discussion provides a perfect example. Raising or inventing taxes to pay for something is the big government way of dealing with a problem created by the government – when the government controls something either directly or through subsidies, that something invariably gets more expensive. Hence roads aren’t getting any cheaper. I’m personally tired of watching my state’s highway employees standing around talking, while the projects they’re paid to be working on go months over schedule and hundreds of thousands of dollars over budget. And after all the aggravation of detours which cost me more in time and gas dollars, plus the privilege of paying higher vehicle taxes than the surrounding counties, I drive on some of the crappiest roads around.

    In this poor economy, I can hardly demand a raise from my employer, and the government shouldn’t be demanding one from me. Instead of trying to extract more money from citizens, the government should be looking at ways to reduce costs. In the case of road construction and maintenance, the work should be outsourced to private companies with contracts that A) provide adequate incentives and penalties relating to the timely completion of projects, and B) require those companies to maintain the road for a set number of years – encouraging a high degree of quality in the original work.

    We have to avoid raising the cost of fuel and transportation at all costs, because if we don’t, all costs will go up – everything will become more expensive starting with food, and will place an unnecessary burden on people least able to afford it. We’ve already seen some of this due to commodity prices, and now the government seems bent on making things worse (as usual).

    • Ryan says:

      Bingo! At this moment, I don’t see a problem that absolutely warrants increasing federal spending. Government programs are becoming more and more inefficient and ineffective. The only problem they have is that they cannot seem so stop spending. Throwing money at a problem has never proven to fix anything, let the market work it’s course even if that means we all have to lower our standard of living (even drastically). Whoever thinks that giving more money to the government is going to fix the world’s problems is either blind or misinformed. When the government decides that it can perform more efficiently than the free market more people become more dependent upon the government, and when we become more dependent upon the government it becomes that much more difficult to reverse the path. I do not think this is a good idea.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      Most major roadwork is done by private companies, not government workers. Private companies have to bid for the woek. only minor maintenance is generally done by government workers.

      also,the gas tax, which is used for roadways hasn’t been increased in a long time and cars have gotten more efficient, yet we want more roads and better roada, but the government hasn’t been bringing in the revenue to pay for it. people don’t want to pay taxes and so the services the government provides and needs to do since they won’t or can’t be done by private business, lose money and sevice goes downhill. i don’t see this tax as an intrusion, it’s the government adapting to the reality of having to pay for something that is important for our economy and well-being

      • Ryan says:

        No shit cubiclegeoff, thank you for laying out how road projects are bid, worked, and staffed. I thought all those lazy asses standing on the side of the road were Marines. Damn dude. My point is more general, but you were not able to make the connection. My basis is that they aren’t going to only use this mileage tax as a bank for interstate and road projects. They’re going to dip into this money anytime they need to pay for anything else they’re falling short on. If all the money we’ve ever paid into Social Security was only used for Social Security, then the SS program wouldn’t be as bad off as we are. Instead when something runs a surplus, Congress dips their hands into it and doles out the cash to fund something that we don’t need. Congress doesn’t even know how to balance their own checkbooks, and you expect me to believe that they’re going to handle OUR money correctly, efficiently, and honestly? You are mistaken.

        • Bobby says:

          Exactly. And I’m sure that if any analysis was done on the usage of gas-tax revenues at any level of government, you would quickly see that money being used to pay for all sorts of projects unrelated to road maintenance which is what is was for to begin with.

        • cubiclegeoff says:

          If the law is written correctly, it would be earmarked for infrastructure, just like the highway money is at the moment. I’ve never heard of highway money being used for something other than for work related to roadways, and probably won’t be since there isn’t enough.

  20. Bryan says:

    One thing I’m surprised I haven’t seen mentioned yet is tolls. Yes there is the gas taxes that may or may not get put towards road maintenance. Tolls on the other hand are generally collected by DOT and injected directly into their road maintenance budget. I don’t know if other states have that but if you drive I-90 in the northeast, it costs you X to go from exit A to B, Y to go from exit C to D. The toll is already based on number of axles to figure in how much damage you are doing. Obviously noone likes tolls, but for major roadways it really does make sense to cover the maintenance directly based on use and abuse.

    • cubiclegeoff says:

      Certain interstates built with federal money are not allowed to have tolls (most if not all i think).

    • Bey says:

      Sorry, Bryan, I think toll roads are detrimental to local communities. Contrast I-80/90, a toll highway, to I-75, a freeway. On the east-west road you have few stops, and at those toll road “oases” you’re captive to higher fuel prices and crappy food choices. Sure, you can get off any time to find these resources – and drive 5 to 10 miles out of your way to gas up or eat. Heading south from Michigan, you can breeze on and off the highway in a matter of minutes, and you can do this every two miles in many places. It’s easier to build an interchange on the freeway as opposed to the toll road, because of the additional costs of extra pavement, toll booths, manpower and/or automated collection equipment. Anywhere you find an interchange on I-75, you’ll find not only gas stations and fast-food restaurants, but retail stores, hotels, tourist attractions, etc., which all pump money into local economies. Toll roads stunt revenue, freeways generate revenue.

  21. Mike says:

    The only reaason this is being presented is that the oil companies want to to keep all of that $4.00 they are getting per gallon. If we charge per mile gas stays the same price oil companies make a mint and we pay more in taxes and oil for using the roads. Plus it becomes a system like income tax where it get automatically deducted from our accounts. meaning that we peons put up less of a fight everytime they increase the tax. meawhile the super rich get to fly their jets without having to pay an oil tax. Now an suv and prius who drive the same amount of miles get taxed at the same rate even though that suv is causing more dmage. Don’t be stupid and fall for this trick. its just a way for the government to take money out of working people’s hands and place it in the banks of the uber rich.

  22. Mike says:

    how much damage do you think a prius will actually do to a road over the course of its life. probably not much more than a bike does as opposed to the damage a truck does. Have you ever seen city streets that are regularly used by trucks. The damage is extensive. and I think that switching to mileage wouldn’t really cover that cost. A local hauler would make out better than a long haul, even though the local is probably doing more damage. It’s also a really bad idea for privacy. How long do you think it owuld take for people to circumvent the tech. For a long haul trucker it would make economic sense to try to beat the system. So we’d have more things like tazers and radar detectors only they’d be used to shield mileage. And as we get more tech on the cars it will be easier and easier to roll back. As it is now it only costs $75 to roll the odometer back.

  23. JT says:

    The government is already ripping off the citizens of the USA. The money wasted by our law makers boggles the mind.
    If there is a way to squeeze more $$ out of us they will find it.
    This country is getting out of control & the last thing this the American public (Drives) need is another tax.
    Bunch of crooks running this country.
    NO BAMA!!!!

  24. daenyll says:

    I agree to some extent with the needs of covering infrastructure costs, if those costs are adequately distributed. I remember growing up seeing major construction every 2-5 years on the main roads(work that should have lasted at least 10 with normal wear) while lesser roads were neglected for years of even basic maintenance. It would also depend on the method of implementing such a tax. I don’t like the idea of GPS tracking, but could see something based on vehicle type(including trailers and such) at registration with odometer readings.

  25. Bailey says:

    I ALREADY pay tax on my gas (consumption goes up as you drive.) I have a two hour commute to work every day which I hate. My company moved my reporting location to an area way too expensive for me to move my family to, and that commute is costing me thousands a year already. I’m well over 50 years old and stuck. I know the government is going to get more money out of me one way or another, but to tax me for the worst thing in my life — my misery-inducing commute — is more than I can stomach.


Please Leave a Reply
Bargaineering Comment Policy


Previous Article: «
Next Article: »
Advertising Disclosure: Bargaineering may be compensated in exchange for featured placement of certain sponsored products and services, or your clicking on links posted on this website.
About | Contact Me | Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights | Terms of Use | Press
Copyright © 2014 by www.Bargaineering.com. All rights reserved.