Revamp the federal fuel tax

[Donald]

An article in the NYT today talked about how the federal fuel tax is not keeping up with funding of highway and bridge projects. And we are all aware of the bridges and highways in poor condition. With more fuel efficient vehicles this is only going to get worse with more and more money needed from the general fund.

So a way to modernize funding of the federal highway fund is to charge people on an annual basis a fee per ton-mile. It would be recorded at annual inspection time from the odometer. Light cars that do less damage to the roads would pay less than heavy vehicles.

At the end of the day, we (Americans and businesses) need to pay for building and repairing highways. This is just an option to do it a little fairer.

At a high level, this seems reasonable.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: Donald
An article in the NYT today talked about how the federal fuel tax is not keeping up with funding of highway and bridge projects.


I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the government is not keeping up with using 100% of the fuel tax to pay for the roads. In other words, if history repeats itself, the fuel tax is being used to pay for a bunch of other projects. IBTL.

 

[Tdbo]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: Donald
An article in the NYT today talked about how the federal fuel tax is not keeping up with funding of highway and bridge projects.


I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the government is not keeping up with using 100% of the fuel tax to pay for the roads. In other words, if history repeats itself, the fuel tax is being used to pay for a bunch of other projects. IBTL.


+1. Doesn't matter how much money you give them, the last thing they will do is be prudent with it.

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: Donald
An article in the NYT today talked about how the federal fuel tax is not keeping up with funding of highway and bridge projects.


I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the government is not keeping up with using 100% of the fuel tax to pay for the roads. In other words, if history repeats itself, the fuel tax is being used to pay for a bunch of other projects. IBTL.


not doubting you, but any proof there?

 

[Shannow]

Problem is that taxes "sound" targetted, when thy really just go into the slush fund that buys the nuff-nuffs new TVs.

If what Aussies pay in fuel excises, and what are supposed to be direct taxes (2c/l to have roads of national importance duplicated by 1988, 3cx3yrs road levy that's been going on for 13 years now)...we'd have gold plated roads by now.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: Donald
An article in the NYT today talked about how the federal fuel tax is not keeping up with funding of highway and bridge projects.


I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the government is not keeping up with using 100% of the fuel tax to pay for the roads. In other words, if history repeats itself, the fuel tax is being used to pay for a bunch of other projects. IBTL.


not doubting you, but any proof there?


Did the government spend the cigarette company lawsuit revenue like the way they said they would?

 

[blackman777]

2 c/liter sounds cheap. We pay about Americans pay 15-20c/liter.

Last time I saw published figures (10 years ago) the amount of money collected matched the amount of money spent by the U.S. DOT. So it wasn't misdirected to other junk like trains or subways.

And basing a tax on the odometer could lead to odometer changes/fraud. Also how many citizens are prepared to be hit by a $500 bill at inspection time? (Politicians don't like doing that... it leads to complaints/lost votes.)

Also let's not forget many states don't have inspections. I can easily see Marylanders rising-up and saying "F___ no!" to getting their cars inspected every year. They already complain about the emissions inspection, and that's only once every five years. The U.S. government cannot force states to have annual inspections if the states (or their citizens) do not want to do it (see Amendment 10).

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: Kruse

Did the government spend the cigarette company lawsuit revenue like the way they said they would?


so, in other words, no.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I suspect a lot of vehicles will have failing speed sensors.

 

[JayhawkRoy]

Here's the short version of the problem. BLUF: we are spending more than the taxes currently take in.

Congressional testimony by CBO rep Kim Cawley, July 2013:

According to CBO’s estimates, the revenues derived from
existing excise taxes will fall far short of covering the
spending that would result from continuing to obligate
funds in the amounts provided for 2013, as adjusted for
inflation.
Summary
My testimony today makes three points:
1. The current trajectory of the Highway Trust Fund
is unsustainable. Starting in fiscal year 2015, the
trust fund will have insufficient resources to meet all
of its obligations, resulting in steadily accumulating
shortfalls.
2. Since 2008, the Congress has avoided such shortfalls
by transferring $41 billion from the general fund
of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund. The
Congress has enacted an additional transfer of
$12.6 billion that is scheduled to occur in 2014.
If lawmakers chose to continue authorizing such
transfers, they would have to transfer an additional
$15 billion in 2015 and increasing amounts in subsequent
years to prevent future shortfalls, if spending
was maintained at the 2013 level, as adjusted for
inflation.
3. Lawmakers could also address the projected annual
shortfalls by substantially reducing spending for surface
transportation programs, by boosting revenues, or
by adopting some combination of the two approaches.
Bringing the trust fund into balance in 2015 would
require entirely eliminating the authority in that year
to obligate funds (projected to be about $51 billion),
raising the taxes on motor fuels by about 10 cents per
gallon, or undertaking some combination of those approaches.

 

[blackman777]

Just raise the dang gasoline tax. Even if it went to $1 per gallon, that's still far less than the $4/gallon paid by EU citizens.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I suspect a lot of vehicles will have failing speed sensors.


I have several vehicles that have a simple speedometer cable. Does anybody realize just how easy that is to disconnect? I suspect all vehicles will have to have a mandated GPS system, similar to OnStar.

 

[eljefino]

This wouldn't go anywhere in or past committee. They just float these trial balloons to get you all riled up.

Then when they up the tax by 18 cents it seems so non-dramatic by comparison.

Since road wear goes up by the fourth power of axle weight, 18 wheelers aren't paying anywhere near what's fair, even though they pay $5k a year or so.

And +2, fuel taxes pay 1/3 to 1/2 of road maintenance... look it up.

 

[Subdued]

You know, yo try to be responsible and buy a vehicle that has much lower emissions and fuel cost, and these people turn around and want to punish you for that.

You know what? No. This is unacceptable. I'll take a 10c increase in gas tax far sooner than I'd accept any sort of mileage tax. And yes, it's absolutly because I put 5k miles a month on two vehicles.

I sucked it up and downsized in order to lower my fuel costs, and lower emissions. My reward for being responsible shouldn't be paying yet another tax.

 

[JHZR2]

Ton-mile is sensible. Per mile isnt.

 

[Number21]

Originally Posted By: blackman777
Also how many citizens are prepared to be hit by a $500 bill at inspection time?

Funny somebody from California would say that! How much does it cost to register a car there?

I'm not going to say anything about the current tax rate or how they use it, but, the way they collect it, is completely broken and stupid. We just had this discussion in another thread. My diesel F350 could get upwards of 20mpg on the highway. On the other hand, the same truck with a V10 gas engine might only get 9mpg in the city. Now you are paying more than double the gas tax for the same amount of wear to the road! That is not fair.

And then there are the people driving hybrids, electric cars, and burning biodiesel. That is flat out tax evasion - yet they still get a tax CREDIT for buying them! All of you driving those little tiny cars should thank the guys driving big trucks for subsidizing your road taxes. Why don't we have an electric road tax? Every other fuel that could be used to "propel" a vehicle on a public road is taxed.

The state of Oregon already has a pilot program for paying by the mile, and I support it 1000%. Another benefit to that would be that it would be very easy to buy tax free gas for your lawnmower, generator, etc...

 

[artificialist]

What bothers me is that not all states have the same need for road repairs, so it wouln't seem right if a state that has well maintained roads loses and a state with bad roads gets extra from such a tax.

 

[Number21]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
What bothers me is that not all states have the same need for road repairs, so it wouln't seem right if a state that has well maintained roads loses and a state with bad roads gets extra from such a tax.

Individual states set their own tax rates.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: Number21
Originally Posted By: artificialist
What bothers me is that not all states have the same need for road repairs, so it wouln't seem right if a state that has well maintained roads loses and a state with bad roads gets extra from such a tax.

Individual states set their own tax rates.

Federal excise taxes were discussed here, that is why I mentioned this in the thread.

 

[BISCUT]

I'm against the mile per tax or any additional taxes I already pay a hefty gas tax and here in NY most spring/summers I have plenty of road signs covered by overgrown vegetation and plenty of potholes in the winter/spring and the list goes on.

We can take this to sooo many levels. Why not tax urban dwellers the difference as they are in close proximity to substantial mass transit systems affording them an opportunity NOT to have to use a MV.


Just a thought.....


Noble idea to spread tax burden fairly; BUT most govt's have an atrocious record at doing jus tthat.