Washington Post: East Coast states want to tax drivers' travel, not their gas (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/east-coast-states-want-to-tax-drivers-travel-not-their-gas/2016/06/25/9d4d1488-395c-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html)
QuoteA group of East Coast states wants to help overhaul the way America pays for its decaying roads, and it's starting with Monopoly money.
QuoteDelaware, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New Hampshire are proposing pilots to figure out how they might charge motorists a fee for the miles they travel – rather than taxing their gas, as state and federal officials do today.
QuoteThe I-95 Corridor Coalition, which represents transportation officials from 16 states and the District of Columbia, applied for a federal grant last month to test the idea.
QuoteOfficials would stitch together the policies and technologies needed to count the miles driven by 50 recruits from each of the four states, including state legislators, transportation officials or other willing guinea pigs. They would send out "faux invoices" monthly. And they would collect the data that legislatures – and the driving public – would require to decide if the change makes sense.
NO! This is bad for people who drive long distance to work and others that travel by car to destinations.
Just an excuse for government track our travels
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2016, 11:45:18 PM
Just an excuse for government track our travels
Incredibly ironic when you consider New Hampshire is in on this and what it says on their license plates......
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2016, 11:45:18 PM
Just an excuse for government track our travels
Which they have numerous methods to do already.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 25, 2016, 11:23:23 PM
NO! This is bad for people who drive long distance to work and others that travel by car to destinations.
But good for people who travel just a few miles to work.
If they're already driving far distances to work, they're buying a lot of gas and already paying a lot in taxes.
Whether it's stated or not, tracking you IS one of the quietly hidden benefits of such a system. Because the first thing it needs is confirming, for a fact, that you've crossed state lines. Which would mean GPS tracking of some kind. Once they have that, it's not hard to prove where you are within that state as your 'marker' is always reported properly.
It also adversely affects the idea of trying to get fuel saving cars. If your tax, which in PA is now exorbitant, for fuel doesn't decrease due to efficiency, it doesn't give as much weight in the decision on whether to get the Suburban or the Prius. Even though the rest of the fuel price rises or fall, cutting out the state tax doesn't.
Secondly, there's an 'out-of-sight-out-of-mind' aspect to fuel tax. The reason W-2 earners don't pay taxes quarterly and instead rely on employer deductions is because if they had to write that check every quarter, there's a good chance either they'll have spent it on necessities or not factored in the expected cost when the bill is due, OR they would revolt if they had to sign over the sum of money the government was requesting.
When you pay at the pump, the taxes are all included, and you simply 'bought gas'. If you now don't pay the state tax (the federal tax is still another issue), then you run into the issue of people seeing a Taxi-Meter like aspect of driving not previously contemplated. That each mile driven becomes another few cents adding up.
Thirdly, unless it were nationwide, you run into 'cross-over'. If you're in this Eastern Bloc of states and fuel outside those states, you're paying tax to one jurisdiction and then driving it in your jurisdiction where you're getting charged by the mile. If you buy fuel in one jurisdiction that charges by the mile, your per-gallon gas is tax-free, and you then can drive it back in your home state at a marked discount.
And fourthly, this brings up the hidden cost of compliance. Now you have invoicing and billing. Collections. What penalties are there for non-payment? Maintaining proof of payment? Now millions of people filing their 'gas tax' every month or quarter.
The old system: A few thousand gas stations and fueling centers simply calculating how many gallons they sold that month and then sending the check to the appropriate agency in that state. No 'shorting miles' on an odometer, no false claims of out-of-state driving, etc. And no privacy concerns by the general public about when and where they drive.
This goes back to the 'starve the beast' attitude a lot have with politics. They can't implement the changes they want directly, so they simply starve the beast until the only 'reasonable option' is the draconian measure they wanted in the first place. Want to get rid of Social Security or Medicare? Just make sure it's underfunded until the potential cost of keeping up with it is so untenable that the 'prudent thing to do is just get rid of it or cut it'. Can't maintain roads? The prudent thing to do is up the charge by the same mechanism they've been charging the public. But, keep saying 'a gas tax hike is not going to pass' and then slap an even higher 'mileage tax' that also adds in the cost of compliance and the cost of your rights.
Two simple fixes to the gas taxes: COLA and CAFE adjustments quarterly. As the cost of repairing and maintaining and building new roads go up, the COLA aspect (cost of living adjustment) raises or lower one metric, and then CAFE standards (average fuel mileage of cars on the road) raise or lower. As the general public buys more fuel efficient vehicles, the tax raises per gallon. Better the efficiency (or zero cost for all electrics), better the price. Want to drive the big pickup or ancient gas guzzling 1983 Buick LeSabre? You'll pay more in tax because your MPG dictates it.
The first complaint that comes up is "As people ditch gas for electric, the revenue goes down". Not necessarily. It just makes owning the gas (or diesel) vehicle that less economical. As more are replaced, the burden is put more on the gas/diesel vehicle owners. Once you've reached a culture shift away from gas/diesel and toward electric, THEN you can start calculating how to tax for roads. Which, given the government, would be a blanket tax on energy consumption overall once electric vehicles reach 60-70% of the market share.
And for those thinking that's onerous, here's the numbers:
If 100% of the vehicles are gas/diesel, they pay 100% of the fuel tax (let's say 24cpg for the average state). If 78% of the vehicles are gas/diesel, they pay 100% of the fuel tax (.24/.78), or now 30.76cpg. If 19% of the vehicles are gas/diesel, they pay 100% of the fuel tax (.24/.19) or $1.26 per gallon tax. The higher the turnover to electric, the greater the burden on those holding on to the ancient technology. This doesn't even factor the cost increase in gas/diesel as more consumers move away from it. The fewer gallons sold, the heavier the cost of the infrastructure needed to produce, refine, and ship that much gas and diesel nationwide would result in price increases. Regardless of supply.
There's some industries where switching to electric will probably not be feasible. Such as long-haul trucking. A diesel engine is still highly efficient for moving upwards of 45,000 pounds of payload per pound from singular location to singular location. Trains can do bulk very well, but, unless it's from one facility capable of hosting a train to another facility capable of hosting a train, there's going to be off-loading, re-loading, and transporting on local trucks to and from the rail yard. Which ups the transportation cost considerably.
And that's forgetting produce and meat, which move on refrigerated trucks and really aren't much for train traffic, as the shelf-life is already ticking the moment it's picked or butchered and the additional stop to and from a refrigerated train car just adds to the days available to sell it (Lettuce, for instance, goes bad quickly).
In the end, we ALL use roads. Even if we never drive a car on one. We're all responsible for paying for them because we all benefit from their existence. Everything you buy from a store comes there in some form of transportation. We can either all figure out a way to pay for it in the least intrusive and cheapest overhead way possible, or we can simply go back to the pony-express and horse carriages for the wealthy and rural folks and everyone else walks.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2016, 12:14:19 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2016, 11:45:18 PM
Just an excuse for government track our travels
Which they have numerous methods to do already.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 25, 2016, 11:23:23 PM
NO! This is bad for people who drive long distance to work and others that travel by car to destinations.
But good for people who travel just a few miles to work.
If they're already driving far distances to work, they're buying a lot of gas and already paying a lot in taxes.
Depending on if that state has an excise tax (such as MA). Where the excise tax far exceeds any state gas taxes they'll pay if they're driving just a few thousand miles a year.
In MA, you pay $25 for every $1000 your car is worth (list price), based on a percentage on how old it is. 90% for new, 60%, etc, until year 5 and beyond is 10%. So, if you buy a $20,000 car, your excise tax is ($25*20*.9) $450 for just the first year you own it. $300 for Year 2 (60%), $200 for Year 3 (40%), $125 for Year 4 (25%) and $50 for Year 5 and every year after (10%).
So, if you buy a car and keep it eight years, valued at $20,000 list price, you'll pay $1,275 for eight years of ownership. If you drive it 5,000 miles a year (low mileage driver) and get 25mpg (figure with city driving predominantly), you'll buy 1600 gallons over 8 years. At MA gas tax rates of 25.64cpg, you'll pay $424.64 in eight years of gas tax. Drive 10,000 miles, you'll pay 849.28. Get better mileage? Your rate goes down.
But, not that excise tax. And with the Mass Pike tolls AND excise tax, MA still raised their fuel taxes a few years ago because they couldn't pay for roads (manual labor must be expensive in areas with high costs of living... who knew). But, it's obvious that some states get way more money from registration/excise fees than they do fuel taxes for most drivers.
From end of July 2016 (when I bought my car) until today, I've put just under 22,000 miles on it. Though I've driven all over, based on the 38mpg I tend to get in it, at Ohio's 28cpg fuel tax, I've paid $162 for state tax and $106 for federal gas tax. It's not really a high expense when you think of it (and registration in my county/township isn't unreasonable, it was less than $70 I remember right, when I renewed it at my birthday (thanks Ohio!)). So, grand total, I spent about $350 (not counting tolls, which I generally try to avoid) for the year for the roads I drive on. Which seems rather pathetic when you think about it. And that's not counting local roads that aren't funded through state/federal gas taxes but general funds of the cities (also why some of them are in horrible disrepair).
In the end, gas taxes could double, and that $268 I paid last year, on average, wouldn't really affect me any more at $536. And I'm probably in the upper level of annual drivers out there (I believe the nationwide average is about 12,000 miles per year).
Trucks have to log miles in each state for IFTA already.
From Wikipedia
"As commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) buy fuel, any fuel taxes paid to the states is credited to that licensee's account. At the end of the fiscal quarter, the licensee completes their fuel tax report, listing all miles traveled in all participating jurisdictions and lists all gallons purchased in the same. Then the average fuel mileage is applied to the miles traveled to determine the tax liability to each jurisdiction. Three states–Kentucky, New Mexico, and New York–have "weight-mile" taxes in addition to the standard fuel tax. Oregon has just a weight-mile tax. Any amount of fuel taxes due (or refund due) is then paid to (or 'by' in the case of a refund) the base jurisdiction who issued the license. The member jurisdictions then take care of transferring the funds accordingly. Audits are conducted only by the base state and fuel bonds are rarely required."
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 26, 2016, 12:59:30 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2016, 12:14:19 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2016, 11:45:18 PM
Just an excuse for government track our travels
Which they have numerous methods to do already.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 25, 2016, 11:23:23 PM
NO! This is bad for people who drive long distance to work and others that travel by car to destinations.
But good for people who travel just a few miles to work.
If they're already driving far distances to work, they're buying a lot of gas and already paying a lot in taxes.
Depending on if that state has an excise tax (such as MA). Where the excise tax far exceeds any state gas taxes they'll pay if they're driving just a few thousand miles a year.
In MA, you pay $25 for every $1000 your car is worth (list price), based on a percentage on how old it is. 90% for new, 60%, etc, until year 5 and beyond is 10%. So, if you buy a $20,000 car, your excise tax is ($25*20*.9) $450 for just the first year you own it. $300 for Year 2 (60%), $200 for Year 3 (40%), $125 for Year 4 (25%) and $50 for Year 5 and every year after (10%).
So, if you buy a car and keep it eight years, valued at $20,000 list price, you'll pay $1,275 for eight years of ownership. If you drive it 5,000 miles a year (low mileage driver) and get 25mpg (figure with city driving predominantly), you'll buy 1600 gallons over 8 years. At MA gas tax rates of 25.64cpg, you'll pay $424.64 in eight years of gas tax. Drive 10,000 miles, you'll pay 849.28. Get better mileage? Your rate goes down.
But, not that excise tax. And with the Mass Pike tolls AND excise tax, MA still raised their fuel taxes a few years ago because they couldn't pay for roads (manual labor must be expensive in areas with high costs of living... who knew). But, it's obvious that some states get way more money from registration/excise fees than they do fuel taxes for most drivers.
From end of July 2016 (when I bought my car) until today, I've put just under 22,000 miles on it. Though I've driven all over, based on the 38mpg I tend to get in it, at Ohio's 28cpg fuel tax, I've paid $162 for state tax and $106 for federal gas tax. It's not really a high expense when you think of it (and registration in my county/township isn't unreasonable, it was less than $70 I remember right, when I renewed it at my birthday (thanks Ohio!)). So, grand total, I spent about $350 (not counting tolls, which I generally try to avoid) for the year for the roads I drive on. Which seems rather pathetic when you think about it. And that's not counting local roads that aren't funded through state/federal gas taxes but general funds of the cities (also why some of them are in horrible disrepair).
In the end, gas taxes could double, and that $268 I paid last year, on average, wouldn't really affect me any more at $536. And I'm probably in the upper level of annual drivers out there (I believe the nationwide average is about 12,000 miles per year).
In New Jersey if you buy a new car, or a used car, you pay 7% sales tax to the MVC directly.
I bought my 1996 thunderbird, it cost 2000 dollars. Thanks to being 19 years old when i took it there, they did not check to see the true value of it. They take your word for it.
On a newer car they would go "so you really paid 1000 bucks for a 2010 Kia?"
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 01:00:26 AM
Trucks have to log miles in each state for IFTA already.
From Wikipedia
"As commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) buy fuel, any fuel taxes paid to the states is credited to that licensee's account. At the end of the fiscal quarter, the licensee completes their fuel tax report, listing all miles traveled in all participating jurisdictions and lists all gallons purchased in the same. Then the average fuel mileage is applied to the miles traveled to determine the tax liability to each jurisdiction. Three states–Kentucky, New Mexico, and New York–have "weight-mile" taxes in addition to the standard fuel tax. Oregon has just a weight-mile tax. Any amount of fuel taxes due (or refund due) is then paid to (or 'by' in the case of a refund) the base jurisdiction who issued the license. The member jurisdictions then take care of transferring the funds accordingly. Audits are conducted only by the base state and fuel bonds are rarely required."
I'm well aware of how fuel taxing in trucks work. It's still based on MPG and the tax per gallon in each state. That wouldn't change how taxing in my proposal would work. IFTA just makes it impossible for a truck to fuel (and pay tax) in one state, and then drive in another state and skirting their fuel taxes (especially with trucks capable of 200-300 gallons of diesel at once, and driving 6-7mpg, they could get from Oklahoma City to Boston in one tank of fuel. IFTA ensures that the fuel is taxed 'where it's burnt' not where it's 'bought'.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 26, 2016, 12:59:30 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2016, 12:14:19 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2016, 11:45:18 PM
Just an excuse for government track our travels
Which they have numerous methods to do already.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 25, 2016, 11:23:23 PM
NO! This is bad for people who drive long distance to work and others that travel by car to destinations.
But good for people who travel just a few miles to work.
If they're already driving far distances to work, they're buying a lot of gas and already paying a lot in taxes.
Depending on if that state has an excise tax (such as MA). Where the excise tax far exceeds any state gas taxes they'll pay if they're driving just a few thousand miles a year.
In MA, you pay $25 for every $1000 your car is worth (list price), based on a percentage on how old it is. 90% for new, 60%, etc, until year 5 and beyond is 10%. So, if you buy a $20,000 car, your excise tax is ($25*20*.9) $450 for just the first year you own it. $300 for Year 2 (60%), $200 for Year 3 (40%), $125 for Year 4 (25%) and $50 for Year 5 and every year after (10%).
So, if you buy a car and keep it eight years, valued at $20,000 list price, you'll pay $1,275 for eight years of ownership. If you drive it 5,000 miles a year (low mileage driver) and get 25mpg (figure with city driving predominantly), you'll buy 1600 gallons over 8 years. At MA gas tax rates of 25.64cpg, you'll pay $424.64 in eight years of gas tax. Drive 10,000 miles, you'll pay 849.28. Get better mileage? Your rate goes down.
But, not that excise tax. And with the Mass Pike tolls AND excise tax, MA still raised their fuel taxes a few years ago because they couldn't pay for roads (manual labor must be expensive in areas with high costs of living... who knew). But, it's obvious that some states get way more money from registration/excise fees than they do fuel taxes for most drivers.
From end of July 2016 (when I bought my car) until today, I've put just under 22,000 miles on it. Though I've driven all over, based on the 38mpg I tend to get in it, at Ohio's 28cpg fuel tax, I've paid $162 for state tax and $106 for federal gas tax. It's not really a high expense when you think of it (and registration in my county/township isn't unreasonable, it was less than $70 I remember right, when I renewed it at my birthday (thanks Ohio!)). So, grand total, I spent about $350 (not counting tolls, which I generally try to avoid) for the year for the roads I drive on. Which seems rather pathetic when you think about it. And that's not counting local roads that aren't funded through state/federal gas taxes but general funds of the cities (also why some of them are in horrible disrepair).
In the end, gas taxes could double, and that $268 I paid last year, on average, wouldn't really affect me any more at $536. And I'm probably in the upper level of annual drivers out there (I believe the nationwide average is about 12,000 miles per year).
In New Jersey if you buy a new car, or a used car, you pay 7% sales tax to the MVC directly.
I bought my 1996 thunderbird, it cost 2000 dollars. Thanks to being 19 years old when i took it there, they did not check to see the true value of it. They take your word for it.
On a newer car they would go "so you really paid 1000 bucks for a 2010 Kia?"
In OH (and PA, for that matter) you still pay sales tax on the vehicle. Amongst family, I've bought and sold many cars for $100 and paid the $6 or $7 sales tax on it. Though both states DO allow direct transfer between direct family members (parent to child, brother to sister, etc) without paying tax. It's not based on vehicle value (like an excise tax). Though anything from a dealer to a person must show the sales receipt for tax purposes. Though, a new car dealer handles that all for you already (and registers and temp tags the car as well, such as my new car).
The tax is also rolled into your loan, as well. Which makes it a 'hidden tax' just as the payroll and gas taxes currently are. It'd be much different if someone went to be a $30,000 car and had to sign a check to the state for $2,100 right then and there for the sales tax.
also worth mentioning, Delaware and New Hampshires' main limited-access highways are tolled (Route 1, Delaware Turnpike, Everett Turnpike, Spaulding Turnpike, NH Turnpike) so theyre already hitting you with an extra fee to use them.
None of this will ever pass, at least not for a very long time. Notice how none of these ideas ever gain traction. A mileage tax would be very unpopular among regular (most) citizens in this country that care little to none about roads. Just raise the gas tax a few cents and be done with it. It's so much easier that way. I don't understand what is so hard about paying the tax when you pay for the gas.
Also I don't believe that the mileage tax will substitute the gas tax. The mileage tax will end up being another tax you pay on top of the gas tax. Anyone who actually believes that the mileage tax will replace the gas tax is crazy. I drive 25,000 miles per year on average and I don't have the money to pay an additional $750 per year (if the mileage tax was 3 cents per mile). I also don't like the fact that the government would be tracking me with GPS. If we lived in communist China it would be okay, but we live in a free America.
Lastly this new revenue will go in a general fund and not to the roads. Once again, anyone who believes otherwise is crazy. When was the last time that Social Security hasn't been used for something else, but Social Security?
Quote from: US 41 on June 26, 2016, 06:46:35 AM
None of this will ever pass, at least not for a very long time. Notice how none of these ideas ever gain traction. A mileage tax would be very unpopular among regular (most) citizens in this country that care little to none about roads. Just raise the gas tax a few cents and be done with it. It's so much easier that way. I don't understand what is so hard about paying the tax when you pay for the gas.
Also I don't believe that the mileage tax will substitute the gas tax. The mileage tax will end up being another tax you pay on top of the gas tax. Anyone who actually believes that the mileage tax will replace the gas tax is crazy. I drive 25,000 miles per year on average and I don't have the money to pay an additional $750 per year (if the mileage tax was 3 cents per mile). I also don't like the fact that the government would be tracking me with GPS. If we lived in communist China it would be okay, but we live in a free America.
Lastly this new revenue will go in a general fund and not to the roads. Once again, anyone who believes otherwise is crazy. When was the last time that Social Security hasn't been used for something else, but Social Security?
Agreed. This mileage tax idea is a crock of shit, IMO. I hope the idea crashes and burns.
Minorities should be up in arms about the concept due to the need for location tracking. "Mr. Stewart, you're black, so why were you in that mostly-white neighborhood when the crime was committed?"
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 26, 2016, 08:05:09 AM
Minorities should be up in arms about the concept due to the need for location tracking. "Mr. Stewart, you're black, so why were you in that mostly-white neighborhood when the crime was committed?"
As if they don't already have enough excuses to pull that on a regular basis.
One thing that none of you have touched on in the housing situation and how it would change under a mileage tax vs gas tax scenario.
In a mileage tax scenario anyone who lives in the exurbs OR anyone who works a second or third shift job is going to have a major problem over time. Why the hell would I want to buy this beautiful house 30 or 40 miles away from downtown if it's going to cost me significantly more to get back and forth to work, especially when in most major cities with transit systems they either quit running routes or run on a reduced schedule on evenings and nights? Telling your employer that you've been late for work because the bus/light rail/subway didn't run on time is an invitation to find yourself unemployed.
Not to mention that if you have to leave the area and sell your home, the only buyers you're going to have for it will be people who work within a reasonable distance from your home...and you know they're gonna jawbone you down on the cost; unless you intend to be an absentee landlord with all those potential headaches.
Yep, what's that saying about "no good deed goes unpunished?"
Quote from: DeaconG on June 26, 2016, 08:53:14 AM
One thing that none of you have touched on in the housing situation and how it would change under a mileage tax vs gas tax scenario.
It was touched on about 9 hours prior to your post:
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 25, 2016, 11:23:23 PM
NO! This is bad for people who drive long distance to work and others that travel by car to destinations.
Quote from: DeaconG on June 26, 2016, 08:53:14 AM
In a mileage tax scenario anyone who lives in the exurbs OR anyone who works a second or third shift job is going to have a major problem over time. Why the hell would I want to buy this beautiful house 30 or 40 miles away from downtown if it's going to cost me significantly more to get back and forth to work, especially when in most major cities with transit systems they either quit running routes or run on a reduced schedule on evenings and nights? Telling your employer that you've been late for work because the bus/light rail/subway didn't run on time is an invitation to find yourself unemployed.
I don't understand how this rant has anything to do with a gas or mileage tax. Today, it's nearly impossible to find good public transit to a location 30 or 40 miles away already and would take incredibly long to travel anyway. This isn't going to change just because of a mileage based gas tax.
well, when gas tax idea was born, most vehicles had MPG dependent on their weight, and gas tax was somewhat proportional to road wear.
Now if you drive a very heavy car, like GMC Yukon or Tesla, you still pay more tax for Yukon, but zero for Tesla...
And being able to afford a new high MPG car does entitle owner to pay less for gas used for driving same mileage - not for free groceries for a year, discounted road use rates for life, or poor people kissing Great Guy ass for saving their environment.
Realistically, I would say integrate some tamper proof mileage counters, and base charges on that. Not GPS, except for,maybe, checking which state car is driving. Especially for plug-in and all-electric cars. Those are newer, and those can be factory installed without extra hassle, and there are no gas taxes paid
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 26, 2016, 03:00:27 AM
also worth mentioning, Delaware and New Hampshires' main limited-access highways are tolled (Route 1, Delaware Turnpike, Everett Turnpike, Spaulding Turnpike, NH Turnpike) so theyre already hitting you with an extra fee to use them.
Agreed. My preference is more overtly tolled roads as an alternative to taxing with GPS or something else.
Quote from: US 41 on June 26, 2016, 06:46:35 AM
Lastly this new revenue will go in a general fund and not to the roads. Once again, anyone who believes otherwise is crazy. When was the last time that Social Security hasn't been used for something else, but Social Security?
Not only that, but some municipalities (I can name several in Maryland and nearby) will find imposing an extremely high per-mile tax on motorists (especially non-resident motorists) to be irresistible, much in the style of the Hopewell, Virginia speed trap operation on I-295.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 26, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 26, 2016, 06:46:35 AM
Lastly this new revenue will go in a general fund and not to the roads. Once again, anyone who believes otherwise is crazy. When was the last time that Social Security hasn't been used for something else, but Social Security?
Not only that, but some municipalities (I can name several in Maryland and nearby) will find imposing an extremely high per-mile tax on motorists (especially non-resident motorists) to be irresistible, much in the style of the Hopewell, Virginia speed trap operation on I-295.
That won't work because towns that have more cars passing through, even if the road is unimportant to them, (example: a freeway has one mile of roadway in the town, but no exit is nearby) will get much more revenue than others.
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2016, 01:51:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 26, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 26, 2016, 06:46:35 AM
Lastly this new revenue will go in a general fund and not to the roads. Once again, anyone who believes otherwise is crazy. When was the last time that Social Security hasn't been used for something else, but Social Security?
Not only that, but some municipalities (I can name several in Maryland and nearby) will find imposing an extremely high per-mile tax on motorists (especially non-resident motorists) to be irresistible, much in the style of the Hopewell, Virginia speed trap operation on I-295.
That won't work because towns that have more cars passing through, even if the road is unimportant to them, (example: a freeway has one mile of roadway in the town, but no exit is nearby) will get much more revenue than others.
Well, at rates of about 2 cents/mile - which is most likely what we're talking about - town would have too much pain billing passing motorists 5 cents each...
The idea of a mileage tax is a big one in urban planning circles, and we all know that urban planners want to discourage driving. I wouldn't be surprised if the factor discouraging driving if people got invoices for their tax instead of having it be invisible is, in fact, an intended "benefit".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2016, 09:41:01 AM
Quote from: DeaconG on June 26, 2016, 08:53:14 AM
In a mileage tax scenario anyone who lives in the exurbs OR anyone who works a second or third shift job is going to have a major problem over time. Why the hell would I want to buy this beautiful house 30 or 40 miles away from downtown if it's going to cost me significantly more to get back and forth to work, especially when in most major cities with transit systems they either quit running routes or run on a reduced schedule on evenings and nights? Telling your employer that you've been late for work because the bus/light rail/subway didn't run on time is an invitation to find yourself unemployed.
I don't understand how this rant has anything to do with a gas or mileage tax. Today, it's nearly impossible to find good public transit to a location 30 or 40 miles away already and would take incredibly long to travel anyway. This isn't going to change just because of a mileage based gas tax.
Except nobody cares right now. They will care a lot when they're trying to avoid tax invoices.
Quote from: 1 on June 26, 2016, 01:51:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 26, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 26, 2016, 06:46:35 AM
Lastly this new revenue will go in a general fund and not to the roads. Once again, anyone who believes otherwise is crazy. When was the last time that Social Security hasn't been used for something else, but Social Security?
Not only that, but some municipalities (I can name several in Maryland and nearby) will find imposing an extremely high per-mile tax on motorists (especially non-resident motorists) to be irresistible, much in the style of the Hopewell, Virginia speed trap operation on I-295.
That won't work because towns that have more cars passing through, even if the road is unimportant to them, (example: a freeway has one mile of roadway in the town, but no exit is nearby) will get much more revenue than others.
But that's exactly why they want want to jack up the tax: to get more revenue. What town has ever said "no, we can't do that, we'd get too much money relative to the other towns"? NONE!!! Here in NY, we have towns claiming private driveways as public roadways just to try to get a little more of the pot of money given to the municipalities for highway paving each year!
Quote from: vdeane on June 26, 2016, 07:33:55 PM
The idea of a mileage tax is a big one in urban planning circles, and we all know that urban planners want to discourage driving. I wouldn't be surprised if the factor discouraging driving if people got invoices for their tax instead of having it be invisible is, in fact, an intended "benefit".
Three thoughts:
(1) Not everyone in that field believes in that as passionately as some;
(2) The unions that represent hourly transit workers see this as a jackpot for their members
(an unlimited and dedicated funding source for
them); and
(3) Along with the transit unions, small and smaller municipalities would love this as a way to collect a lot of money from drivers passing through, even if those drivers never drive one milimeter on streets or roads maintained by that municipality.
As far as location tracking, why can't it be like the income tax? You self-report how much you drive in each state. They can audit you occasionally, and get a reasonable estimate of how often you visit each state and for how long.
Quote from: US 41Also I don't believe that the mileage tax will substitute the gas tax.
In the mileage tax testing that has gone on in Oregon, testers get reimbursed for the gas tax they pay.
Quote from: cpzilliacus(3) Along with the transit unions, small and smaller municipalities would love this as a way to collect a lot of money from drivers passing through, even if those drivers never drive one milimeter on streets or roads maintained by that municipality.
This will depend on the state. In several states, the local municipality still maintains the main highway through the town/municipality. I know this is the case in several locations in Vermont, New York, Mississippi, and Wisconsin.
Privacy and "tax" concerns aside, a mileage tax would be the most direct way to correlate driving with the cost of maintaining the roads. You drive a lot? You'll pay a lot. Drive only a few miles (as jeff mentions), you won't pay much. While we do have the gas tax, it is an increasingly imperfect proxy to gauge travel distance for reasons kalvado mentioned.
As for being "tracked"....if you don't like it, I'd suggest getting rid of any GPS units, smart phones, or tablets you may have...
Look a mileage tax is not going to happen for a long long time. States would lose money on it if they replaced the gas tax with the mileage tax. Look at all the money these states get in the gas tax from out of state drivers.
And yes I firmly believe that the mileage tax would be an additional tax based on what I just wrote above. That's the only way it would actually work.
Another point I'd like to make is that Canadian and Mexican drivers would be able to use our roads tax free if there was no longer a gas tax.
Lastly your 4 cylinder cars are not tearing up the highways. The 60 ton semi trucks are. If anything is going to be done raise the gas tax a few cents and be done with it. It's really is that simple.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 27, 2016, 09:22:47 AM
As far as location tracking, why can't it be like the income tax? You self-report how much you drive in each state. They can audit you occasionally, and get a reasonable estimate of how often you visit each state and for how long.
We have that now. Some states have a line item for Use Tax, when purchases are made outside the state to be brought home and used in their home state.
As you can figure, that line isn't filled in that often.
I don't disagree with the self-reporting...you can easily fill in odometer readings from your car. But it can get dicey. No one's going to remember every state they visited if they did a lot of traveling, and I'd bet people would default their miles to a state with a lower tax rate.
It can also mean a very hefty tax bill. Taking the average state and fed gasoline taxes at 48 cents, if that was used to determine someone's tax bill at the end of the year, a motorist driving 12,000 miles a year would owe a very hefty $5,760...definitely a tax bill they are not going to be prepared to pay. They can take additional deductions out of their paychecks every week, but we're just circling around to paying it on a regular basis anyway...which they do today at the pump.
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
It promotes odometer fraud. And a sticker shock for annual tax is definitely there: at 2 cents/mile and 12000 miles that would be $240 due, and that is on a lower end of spectrum.
Out of state cars is another can of worms.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 27, 2016, 10:41:19 AM
It can also mean a very hefty tax bill. Taking the average state and fed gasoline taxes at 48 cents, if that was used to determine someone's tax bill at the end of the year, a motorist driving 12,000 miles a year would owe a very hefty $5,760...definitely a tax bill they are not going to be prepared to pay. They can take additional deductions out of their paychecks every week, but we're just circling around to paying it on a regular basis anyway...which they do today at the pump.
Your math is off - $0.48 tax per gallon at 24 MPG (to make calculations easier) is 2 cents a mile, $2 per 100 miles, or $20 per 1000 miles.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
How does this handle paying the tax to other states you've driven in? Does the state make these payments on your behalf based on your "exemptions"? What about if you live in a state that doesn't have a mileage tax, but drive in a state that does?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
Are there still states that don't require annual vehicle inspections? (Kentucky, maybe?)
Mileage is always recorded as an element of annual vehicle inspection in Texas. Most states could incorporate an official mileage reading by some sort of state certified mechanic / inspector as a part of the annual vehicle inspection/emissions testing, I should think. Of course, they would charge us for this new service, but I still think it could work.
Quote from: US 81 on June 27, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
Are there still states that don't require annual vehicle inspections? (Kentucky, maybe?)
Mileage is always recorded as an element of annual vehicle inspection in Texas. Most states could incorporate an official mileage reading by some sort of state certified mechanic / inspector as a part of the annual vehicle inspection/emissions testing, I should think. Of course, they would charge us for this new service, but I still think it could work.
According to Wiki, vehicle inspection in one way or the other is less than common requirement in US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States
Quote from: US 81 on June 27, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
Are there still states that don't require annual vehicle inspections? (Kentucky, maybe?)
A lot of states don't, with a few exceptions for emissions. For example, Illinois does not, with the exception of emissions every two years on cars at least five years old in eight counties (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will, Madison, and St. Clair).
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2016, 11:23:05 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 27, 2016, 10:41:19 AM
It can also mean a very hefty tax bill. Taking the average state and fed gasoline taxes at 48 cents, if that was used to determine someone's tax bill at the end of the year, a motorist driving 12,000 miles a year would owe a very hefty $5,760...definitely a tax bill they are not going to be prepared to pay. They can take additional deductions out of their paychecks every week, but we're just circling around to paying it on a regular basis anyway...which they do today at the pump.
Your math is off - $0.48 tax per gallon at 24 MPG (to make calculations easier) is 2 cents a mile, $2 per 100 miles, or $20 per 1000 miles.
Hmmmph...so you're right! Do'h!!!
Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2016, 11:50:25 AM
Quote from: US 81 on June 27, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
Are there still states that don't require annual vehicle inspections? (Kentucky, maybe?)
A lot of states don't, with a few exceptions for emissions. For example, Illinois does not, with the exception of emissions every two years on cars at least five years old in eight counties (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will, Madison, and St. Clair).
Indiana does not. How does an emissions test even work?
Quote from: US 41 on June 27, 2016, 12:58:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2016, 11:50:25 AM
Quote from: US 81 on June 27, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
Are there still states that don't require annual vehicle inspections? (Kentucky, maybe?)
A lot of states don't, with a few exceptions for emissions. For example, Illinois does not, with the exception of emissions every two years on cars at least five years old in eight counties (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will, Madison, and St. Clair).
Indiana does not. How does an emissions test even work?
Actually, Indiana does have emission tests in Lake and Porter Counties.
https://secure.in.gov/bmv/2655.htm
Here's the Illinois program, run by the IEPA:
http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/air-quality/mobile-sources/vehicle-emissions-testing/index
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2016, 11:19:59 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
It promotes odometer fraud. And a sticker shock for annual tax is definitely there: at 2 cents/mile and 12000 miles that would be $240 due, and that is on a lower end of spectrum.
Out of state cars is another can of worms.
I agree, there would be a risk of odometer fraud, mainly by the person "reading the meter". Odometer tampering on modern cars is difficult to pull off.
Only in-state vehicles would be required to pay the tax. Revenue from out-of-staters could be generated from tolls.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 01:34:05 PM
I agree, there would be a risk of odometer fraud, mainly by the person "reading the meter". Odometer tampering on modern cars is difficult to pull off.
Only in-state vehicles would be required to pay the tax. Revenue from out-of-staters could be generated from tolls.
How do you enforce out-of-state tolls? For example, I have a friend who was on assignment in NYS while maintaining Oregon legal residence. For 3 or 4 years, don't remember for sure.
What I can see is a mileage tax with credit for taxes on in-state gas purchases. Driving out of state - other state still gets the gas tax. THere will be some double-dipping for longer haul, and that is not good.
But how to implement that... I am not sure there is a simple way.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 01:34:05 PM
Only in-state vehicles would be required to pay the tax. Revenue from out-of-staters could be generated from tolls.
At that point you might as well have an I-Pass (EZ Pass) type system for all vehicles, in-state and out-of-state.
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2016, 01:56:28 PM
How do you enforce out-of-state tolls? For example, I have a friend who was on assignment in NYS while maintaining Oregon legal residence. For 3 or 4 years, don't remember for sure.
What I can see is a mileage tax with credit for taxes on in-state gas purchases. Driving out of state - other state still gets the gas tax. THere will be some double-dipping for longer haul, and that is not good.
But how to implement that... I am not sure there is a simple way.
New York State already requires residents to pay New York sales tax on items purchased and taxed in another state, so it's probably only a matter of time before NY will require us to pay NY fuel tax on gas bought in another state.
Quote from: Sam on June 27, 2016, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2016, 01:56:28 PM
How do you enforce out-of-state tolls? For example, I have a friend who was on assignment in NYS while maintaining Oregon legal residence. For 3 or 4 years, don't remember for sure.
What I can see is a mileage tax with credit for taxes on in-state gas purchases. Driving out of state - other state still gets the gas tax. THere will be some double-dipping for longer haul, and that is not good.
But how to implement that... I am not sure there is a simple way.
New York State already requires residents to pay New York sales tax on items purchased and taxed in another state, so it's probably only a matter of time before NY will require us to pay NY fuel tax on gas bought in another state.
But how many actually do? I'd bet an extremely small percentage actually pay up.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 01:34:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2016, 11:19:59 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
It promotes odometer fraud. And a sticker shock for annual tax is definitely there: at 2 cents/mile and 12000 miles that would be $240 due, and that is on a lower end of spectrum.
Out of state cars is another can of worms.
I agree, there would be a risk of odometer fraud, mainly by the person "reading the meter". Odometer tampering on modern cars is difficult to pull off.
Only in-state vehicles would be required to pay the tax. Revenue from out-of-staters could be generated from tolls.
In PA (and maybe other states do this), whenever a car (no matter how old) enters a mechanic's shop, they will perform the service you need and will then write the mileage on your odometer onto a sticker placed on your windshield. That would be the mileage at the time of service, and this also happens at each oil change.
States that don't have a mileage tax could still write the mileage down. In the case that out-of-state people drive in a state with a mileage tax, they would be taxed for the number of miles they traverse in a state, but depending on population density and land area (of said state), they would be taxed less if they have driven a long distance through sparsely populated states (and large), such as Montana, but taxed equal to/more if they have passed through a smaller state, such as Delaware, or has driven around a large city while traveling in a state. In cases such as Texas, it would depend if they would have a smaller or larger tax to pay at the end of their travels due to several large metropolitan areas.
Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2016, 01:03:45 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 27, 2016, 12:58:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2016, 11:50:25 AM
Quote from: US 81 on June 27, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
Are there still states that don't require annual vehicle inspections? (Kentucky, maybe?)
A lot of states don't, with a few exceptions for emissions. For example, Illinois does not, with the exception of emissions every two years on cars at least five years old in eight counties (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will, Madison, and St. Clair).
Indiana does not. How does an emissions test even work?
Actually, Indiana does have emission tests in Lake and Porter Counties.
https://secure.in.gov/bmv/2655.htm
Here's the Illinois program, run by the IEPA:
http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/air-quality/mobile-sources/vehicle-emissions-testing/index
I looked at Indiana's program. I guess it isn't that bad since it is free, but I'd still oppose it in my area because it would be a little inconvenient and in my opinion unnecessary. Then again I'm not a big "green" person and I do think global warming is a fraud and not real.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 27, 2016, 03:29:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 01:34:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2016, 11:19:59 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
I developed a relatively loose concept for a mileage-based tax last summer. It would work in a similar manner to how emissions tests are conducted. Every other year, the taxpayer receives a letter in the mail notifying them that their mileage tax is due. A form is included with basic information (name, address, vehicle tax is due upon, that vehicle's VIN, etc) as well as the previous collection year's odometer reading. Then you go to a certified emissions inspection station to have your odometer read for that. The technician writes the reading down on the form, subtracts it from the previous collection year, and the result is the number of miles eligible to be taxed. He signs the form, stamps it or notarizes it in some way, and the taxpayer includes that form in their state income tax form for that year (in NH or other states with no income tax, the tax is mailed directly to the DMV). It is then up to the taxpayer to claim exemptions from whatever miles were driven out-of-state, for business, or for other reasons a state could dictate be exempt from the mileage tax.
There would be no need for GPS tracking with this system, but it puts a burden of trust on the taxpayers not to lie about their exempted miles.
It promotes odometer fraud. And a sticker shock for annual tax is definitely there: at 2 cents/mile and 12000 miles that would be $240 due, and that is on a lower end of spectrum.
Out of state cars is another can of worms.
I agree, there would be a risk of odometer fraud, mainly by the person "reading the meter". Odometer tampering on modern cars is difficult to pull off.
Only in-state vehicles would be required to pay the tax. Revenue from out-of-staters could be generated from tolls.
In PA (and maybe other states do this), whenever a car (no matter how old) enters a mechanic's shop, they will perform the service you need and will then write the mileage on your odometer onto a sticker placed on your windshield. That would be the mileage at the time of service, and this also happens at each oil change.
States that don't have a mileage tax could still write the mileage down. In the case that out-of-state people drive in a state with a mileage tax, they would be taxed for the number of miles they traverse in a state, but depending on population density and land area (of said state), they would be taxed less if they have driven a long distance through sparsely populated states (and large), such as Montana, but taxed equal to/more if they have passed through a smaller state, such as Delaware, or has driven around a large city while traveling in a state. In cases such as Texas, it would depend if they would have a smaller or larger tax to pay at the end of their travels due to several large metropolitan areas.
I love all the confusion. Why can't we just all admit that a mileage tax is very bad idea? The gas tax works great, just raise it a few cents and use the money for road maintenance only.
Quote from: Sam on June 27, 2016, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2016, 01:56:28 PM
How do you enforce out-of-state tolls? For example, I have a friend who was on assignment in NYS while maintaining Oregon legal residence. For 3 or 4 years, don't remember for sure.
What I can see is a mileage tax with credit for taxes on in-state gas purchases. Driving out of state - other state still gets the gas tax. THere will be some double-dipping for longer haul, and that is not good.
But how to implement that... I am not sure there is a simple way.
New York State already requires residents to pay New York sales tax on items purchased and taxed in another state, so it's probably only a matter of time before NY will require us to pay NY fuel tax on gas bought in another state.
So-called "use taxes" are pretty common, though usually they purport to require you to pay tax on (1) an item you bought out-of-state without paying sales tax or (2) an item you ordered and on which you weren't charged sales tax. As has been noted, very few people pay these. I've often wondered about the constitutionality of category (1) because it seems to me that if, say, you go to Delaware to buy clothes because they have no sales tax, that is a matter between you and Delaware and your home state has no say in the matter–if they try to tax you, isn't that tantamount to an import duty on something bought in another state?
Regarding the final point "US 41" makes, it's important to recognize the problems the gas tax creates with alternative-fuel vehicles like Teslas. Those vehicles' owners should certainly pay some sort of road maintenance tax.
I'm not sure how either category is legal. If I live in NY but buy something from a website based in PA, I fail to see how it is any different than if I drove to PA to buy the product.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 05:11:23 PM
Regarding the final point "US 41" makes, it's important to recognize the problems the gas tax creates with alternative-fuel vehicles like Teslas. Those vehicles' owners should certainly pay some sort of road maintenance tax.
I totally agree. My resolution would be to charge way more for the registration/plate renewals for those cars that are 100% electric. Anyone that can afford a car like that can definitely pay a lot more for plates.
Quote from: vdeane on June 27, 2016, 06:30:53 PM
I'm not sure how either category is legal. If I live in NY but buy something from a website based in PA, I fail to see how it is any different than if I drove to PA to buy the product.
It's not quite that simple because one issue has to do with whether the retailer has any "brick and mortar" facilities in your state. A good example would be a place like Staples since they're so ubiquitous. If you buy from staples.com instead of going to the store, they will almost always charge you sales tax because just about every state with a sales tax will require them to do so, regardless of where the site is hosted or where the warehouse is. The reason, of course, is to prevent the loss of sales tax revenue that would occur if you simply ordered from their site (or catalog, in the pre-Internet days) and didn't have to pay tax.
Other than that issue, though, I generally agree with your comment.
Quote from: US 41 on June 27, 2016, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 05:11:23 PM
Regarding the final point "US 41" makes, it's important to recognize the problems the gas tax creates with alternative-fuel vehicles like Teslas. Those vehicles' owners should certainly pay some sort of road maintenance tax.
I totally agree. My resolution would be to charge way more for the registration/plate renewals for those cars that are 100% electric. Anyone that can afford a car like that can definitely pay a lot more for plates.
Virginia tried that a few years ago. Alternative-fuel vehicles, including hybrids, were charged a special tax of something like $64 a year. People squawked and it was repealed. Once again, the politicians did a TERRIBLE job explaining it. Everybody focused on the hybrids and gave into the "I did the right thing by buying a fuel-efficient car" argument instead of focusing on the problem of wear and tear on the roads and the conundrum caused by vehicles that do not run on either gas or diesel. (To be fair, Tesla was mostly unknown and other EVs were very rare, and the number of vehicles that run on CNG or propane was, and is, fairly small, although it's a decent niche market due to the Virginia HOV exemption many people erroneously call the "hybrid exemption.")
Any time they try to reform the tax, people are going to yell about how it's a good thing for people to use less fuel–which, of course, is true. The politicians need to focus on a more reasoned explanation.
Quote from: US 41The gas tax works great
If it really worked great, we wouldn't be having this thread/discussion/argument. And "a few cents" doesn't even come close to meeting the need/demand. If this nation really wanted to get transportation funding back on its feet via the gas tax, an increase in the order of 20-30 cents/gallon would be necessary. Yes...that's how bad things have gotten.
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2016, 10:51:10 PM
Quote from: US 41The gas tax works great
If it really worked great, we wouldn't be having this thread/discussion/argument. And "a few cents" doesn't even come close to meeting the need/demand. If this nation really wanted to get transportation funding back on its feet via the gas tax, an increase in the order of 20-30 cents/gallon would be necessary. Yes...that's how bad things have gotten.
But the result of the discussion is there's no easy alternative. Many possibilities involve tracking people where they go which is never popular or self reporting their mileage which isn't going to easily or accurately happen. People wanting to change the gas tax seems to be the result of people trying to find a solution to a problem where one doesn't exist. It's the amount of money getting to the states to fix their roads is the problem...not how were collecting the tax.
Why not figure out a way to tax electric vehicles in a way thats similar to the current fuel tax if they are worried about declining revenues from people buying less fuel?
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 28, 2016, 12:26:57 AM
Why not figure out a way to tax electric vehicles in a way thats similar to the current fuel tax if they are worried about declining revenues from people buying less fuel?
Well, we could have people pay for it when they use a Tesla supercharger. Swipe/chip to activate and pay the equivalent fuel tax right then and there.
Just a little comparison between gas tax and mileage based tax that I put together on a spreadsheet after a similar discussion last year.
NC's fuel tax is 37.5 cents a gallon, and I did not factor in the federal tax (the discussion we were having was about states implementing the tax). And although I did purchase a small quantity of fuel in VA, WV, KY, SC, and TN I just went with NC's tax as its the highest rate, and it simplified my formulas. For the mileage tax I assumed 2 cents a mile.
My wife and I combined for 28,631 miles driven in 2015 (11,911 in my wife's car, 16,720 in mine) and we purchased 1381.41 gallons of 93 octane fuel for our 2 Mustangs (the cars eat better than we do, lol).
We paid $518.03 in taxes at the pump ($229.29 for the wife's car, $288.74 for mine). Using the mileage based formula it would have been $572.62 total ($238.22 for hers, $334.40 for mine), which is a combined $54.59 increase.
The beauty of the mileage system is that it would be the same for the guy with the plug-mobile of your choice, and for the lady with the hybrid as it is for me. I don't know about y'all, but I'm getting a little tired of taxation for behavior modification. Just because my cars averaged a combined 20.73 real world, all condition mpg in 2015 doesn't mean that that they did any more damage to the roadways than someone getting infinity MPG because they plug into an electrical outlet.
The drawbacks of a mileage system are those stated by many before me: sticker shock, big brother tracking our every move, and apportionment.
I guess we could fix two of those issues by having all the money go to the state that the vehicle is registered in. We wouldn't need GPS tracking then. Maybe the several states could get into a revenue sharing agreement similar to what some professional sports leagues do for their smaller market teams, in order to help the states like Delaware that wouldn't have the vehicle registration base of a Pennsylvania or New Jersey. Or maybe (and I can hear the gasps now) all the money should go to the feds for disbursement to the states (pretty sure that I don't like this idea either, just throwing it out there).
Or we could just stick with what we have and raise the taxes at the pump.
Quote from: Brandon on June 28, 2016, 05:54:42 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 28, 2016, 12:26:57 AM
Why not figure out a way to tax electric vehicles in a way thats similar to the current fuel tax if they are worried about declining revenues from people buying less fuel?
Well, we could have people pay for it when they use a Tesla supercharger. Swipe/chip to activate and pay the equivalent fuel tax right then and there.
I agree with you. Either that or make them pay a certain fee every year when they register their cars.
What about taxing trucks only, at 10¢ per mile for 18-wheelers and 5¢ per mile for other trucks?
Quote from: 1 on June 28, 2016, 09:33:57 AM
What about taxing trucks only, at 10¢ per mile for 18-wheelers and 5¢ per mile for other trucks?
It's a cost that'll simply be passed on to a consumer anyway.
Also, how do you know when a trucker is an 18 wheeler vs. cab only?
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2016, 10:51:10 PM
Quote from: US 41The gas tax works great
If it really worked great, we wouldn't be having this thread/discussion/argument. And "a few cents" doesn't even come close to meeting the need/demand. If this nation really wanted to get transportation funding back on its feet via the gas tax, an increase in the order of 20-30 cents/gallon would be necessary. Yes...that's how bad things have gotten.
No, sir, no! Before I get into this topic, I know what I'm going to say is going to strike a nerve with a lot of posters on this site but it needs to be said.
The reason why we are having this discussion is because salaries in the public sector have become over bloated. Think about it, the richest state in the US currently is Maryland, and well it's not exactly hard to see why that is the case.
US41, you seem to be aware of how the system works, at least you seem to be one of the most rational and skeptical people on the forums on these such issues, if you actually think that an increase of the fuel tax will actually solely be used for the maintenance of the roads, oh boy you have a lot to learn.
I may live in Canada but please listen to what I have to say. In my province of Ontario, they have a public sector salary disclosure of ALL provincial and city level public sector workers in Ontario who make over $100,000 a year. In the media, this list is reported as the "sunshine list", and you can see this disgusting list for yourself right here:
https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure-2015-all-sectors-and-seconded-employees (https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure-2015-all-sectors-and-seconded-employees)
Remember that government payroll comes from the money earned in the private sector. If you look at the ones involving GO Transit, there are some people on this list who are simply bus drivers making that insane amount.
Now let's do some simple math, this year 115,431 public sector workers at the city or provincial level made over 100,000 a year. Obviously, the mean salary on the sunshine list is higher, but let's just assume in our case that everyone makes 100,000 who is on this list.
This comes out to a whopping 11 billion dollars per year on salaries alone who make 100,000 a year. Consider that the median income in Ontario for one person is 46,000, even if we took 10,000 from every sunshine list earner, they'd still be in great shape. A figure of 10,000 on 115,000 employees comes out to be 1.1 billion in revenue per year. God knows what you could do with that much per year.
Governments never shrink, they always grow larger, and what has this lead to, more big corporations jumping ship from Ontario as taxes have gotten higher to feed the public sector salaries, obviously I don't see this ending positively. There's gonna come a point where this system can't go on anymore.
QuoteThe reason why we are having this discussion is because salaries in the public sector have become over bloated.
Not really related to transportation projects, unless you're one of those who think that transportation should be funded from a state/province/nation's general fund.
And one could make an argument that the big public sector salaries you are railing against are a response to the HUGE increase in private-sector executive salaries, which make public sector pay pale in comparison.
Quoteif you actually think that an increase of the fuel tax will actually solely be used for the maintenance of the roads, oh boy you have a lot to learn.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Some entities have a lockbox on such revenues. Of course, going with a literal translation of your statement, there are plenty of jurisdictions that spend increased revenue on new highway projects instead of road maintenance.
Yeah, the highly paid public workers are MANAGEMENT, and private sector management makes EVEN MORE. The majority of rank and file state workers don't make even close to that. I think an amount that the majority of NYSDOT employees can expect to make at the END of their careers is about $60k (those people being maintenance workers who do things like bridge inspections, materials testing, etc.). Office workers can expect to TOP OUT at $90-100k (if they even pass $80k - hiring considerations get political very fast after someone has been promoted into a supervisory role, even when the titles are still officially civil service, and it's gotten worse since even I started - way back when, only upper management was political (SG 29 and higher); it then trickled down to SG 27 and now it's even down to SG 23). The higher amounts are appointed titles that are politically connected. In fact, the size of the public workforce in NY has decreased a LOT over the past couple decades (a hiring freeze was instituted after 9/11, and there have only been a few very brief thaws since), and many people today do the work of 5-6 people just 10 years ago, resulting in lower quality work for the taxpayers.
I don't know how Canada has been about keeping up with costs, but in the US, there hasn't been an increase in the federal gas tax in 20-25 years, so it's lost 1/3 of it's purchasing power to inflation. People may not be noticing inflation because wages are stagnant, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 28, 2016, 09:38:39 AM
US41, you seem to be aware of how the system works, at least you seem to be one of the most rational and skeptical people on the forums on these such issues, if you actually think that an increase of the fuel tax will actually solely be used for the maintenance of the roads, oh boy you have a lot to learn.
This is why I have opposed a raise in the gas tax over and over again. But I'd much rather see a raise in the gas tax by a few cents than a mileage tax. (BTW thanks for the compliment.)
A mileage tax is just too complex to work and even worse it's a way for the government to directly track you. The gas tax is not perfect, but no system is ever going to be 100% perfect. IMHO the gas tax is still the best option. The problem with a mileage tax is that you cannot just get rid of the gas tax. It wouldn't be fair for people in Indiana to pay a mileage tax and not a state gas tax, because people from everywhere else across the country would get to drive in Indiana basically tax free. Even if all 50 states adopted a mileage tax and dropped the gas tax it still wouldn't work, because people from Canada and Mexico would get to drive tax free in the US. It also wouldn't be fair to me if I was driving in a foreign country and I was still having to pay a mileage tax for those foreign miles. I would also be paying a gas tax on top of that in Canada / Mexico. The best way to collect taxes for the roads is to collect the money where the gas is purchased. Anything other than a gas tax gets way too complex to actually work fairly.
The thing with the gas tax is it's very difficult for the average person to circumvent. It's also very little 'bookwork' that needs to be done. Each state handles a few thousand fueling stations submitting paperwork and tax money to them.
If you want Ohio to switch over to several million 'accounts', one each for each registered vehicle, that requires every person to either be tracked or honestly admit which states they drive in, without much in the way of being able to prove or disprove their 'statements'.
The gas tax is an easy way for the state to gather the tax revenue. It's not perfect. Someone driving from Ohio to PA may gas up in Ohio and PA gets nothing. But, it can also work the other way. Even with states with huge imbalances in price/tax, there's this interesting factor of supply/demand affecting pump price, rather than 'cost plus tax'. Which is why one state may have a gas tax 20 cents higher than their neighbor, but each state has the same, or almost exactly the same, pump price. Because the cheaper state just pays more.
In Ohio, Hubbard (last exit on I-80) has almost identical prices to Sharon/Hermitage, just north of I-80 in PA. Yet, PA's gas tax is a lot more. Move a little further from the border, and the PA tax more accurately reflects the cost difference. But, either PA is getting a 'price discount' or Ohio is getting a 'because people will pay more just across the border' increase.
But in the end, with 11 million people, the loss of the cross-border drivers and through traffic that might have filled up in another state, etc, average out. You're not going to see all 11 million crossing the state line every time they want to fill up, nor are you. And even then, you factor that into your tax per gallon price.
The problem with the "raising the gas tax is untenable' yet they're insistent on trying out the mileage tax, is that they're hoping the general public don't realize they're about to be charged a lot more before it's too late to go back.
Why would they be switching? Because they're going to get the same revenue with a lot more overhead (billing, collections, enforcement, reimbursements for out-of-state purchases, etc)? No. Because they're going to set the tax to get the amount needed for the funding they require for the roads. The same amount they could get if they just raised the gas tax. Don't be fooled, they will be collecting more, and it's not just going to be on the backs of the 'electric car owners'.
It's decades of increasing fuel mileage, inflation, and increasing cost of road construction (design standards, quality of construction, longevity of what's built, re-construction being more than new construction from the 50s) have left the current prices below the amount needed.
A long time ago, narrow shoulders on bridges, one-time use bridges that had to be entirely reconstructed, the cost of rebuilding a road while handling heavy traffic on that route takes more time (see why Knoxville just closed the road for a few years instead of years upon years of moving lanes, handling keeping lanes and exits open, etc). It costs more.
You can also complain about how expensive 'construction workers' are today, but would you do it for crap pay? East coast, risk of death from idiot drivers on cell phones and texting, a lot of overnight work, etc, etc, or get an office job making similar wages, in air conditioning, with the greatest risk of life and limb might be a bizarre run-in with the copier that garners you on the Darwin Awards list.
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 28, 2016, 10:15:40 PM
You can also complain about how expensive 'construction workers' are today, but would you do it for crap pay? East coast, risk of death from idiot drivers on cell phones and texting, a lot of overnight work, etc, etc, or get an office job making similar wages, in air conditioning, with the greatest risk of life and limb might be a bizarre run-in with the copier that garners you on the Darwin Awards list.
Maybe not exactly relevant.. Tapan Zee bridge in NY is currently being rebuilt. Project cost is $3.9B. Original bridge was built in 1950s for $81M, or $800M in today prices.
Something costs a lot more than 50 years ago - and I doubt that wages for welders and riggers went up that much...
Given that the original Tappan Zee was built during a steel shortage and had to cut a lot of corners just to get built at all, it strikes me as an apples to oranges comparison. Plus the new bridge is significantly larger than the old one. I think it also got built before Governor Rockefeller increased the pay scales to improve the quality of the state workforce. Back in the 50s, state jobs paid so little that one needed a second job just to pay the bills. Rockefeller changed that because he didn't want to have to rely on contractors - he wanted the best of the best working for the state, doing everything in house (sadly, the state has been moving away from that mindset; there's a lot less flexibility with contractors - for example, if we need a traffic count done immediately, we can't do it; there's a month (minimum) lag to schedule when the contractor will go out, get the count, and then process it, and our interests have to compete with the other Regions and Main Office).
The descriptions of potential mileage tax implementations in this thread seem to be as complex as the income tax. I don't want to have to do a ton of paperwork for something that is now automatically paid when I fill up my gas tank, and I don't want to have to be in the business of guessing/tracking mileage; I will be very, very happy to get out of that business when I buy out my car lease, in fact!
Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2016, 01:32:42 PM
Given that the original Tappan Zee was built during a steel shortage and had to cut a lot of corners just to get built at all, it strikes me as an apples to oranges comparison. Plus the new bridge is significantly larger than the old one. I think it also got built before Governor Rockefeller increased the pay scales to improve the quality of the state workforce. Back in the 50s, state jobs paid so little that one needed a second job just to pay the bills. Rockefeller changed that because he didn't want to have to rely on contractors - he wanted the best of the best working for the state, doing everything in house (sadly, the state has been moving away from that mindset; there's a lot less flexibility with contractors - for example, if we need a traffic count done immediately, we can't do it; there's a month (minimum) lag to schedule when the contractor will go out, get the count, and then process it, and our interests have to compete with the other Regions and Main Office).
Well, looks about right - $70 and $92 /hour (including benefits) rates probably reflect on costs...
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 05:11:23 PM
Quote from: Sam on June 27, 2016, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2016, 01:56:28 PM
How do you enforce out-of-state tolls? For example, I have a friend who was on assignment in NYS while maintaining Oregon legal residence. For 3 or 4 years, don't remember for sure.
What I can see is a mileage tax with credit for taxes on in-state gas purchases. Driving out of state - other state still gets the gas tax. THere will be some double-dipping for longer haul, and that is not good.
But how to implement that... I am not sure there is a simple way.
New York State already requires residents to pay New York sales tax on items purchased and taxed in another state, so it's probably only a matter of time before NY will require us to pay NY fuel tax on gas bought in another state.
So-called "use taxes" are pretty common, though usually they purport to require you to pay tax on (1) an item you bought out-of-state without paying sales tax or (2) an item you ordered and on which you weren't charged sales tax. As has been noted, very few people pay these. I've often wondered about the constitutionality of category (1) because it seems to me that if, say, you go to Delaware to buy clothes because they have no sales tax, that is a matter between you and Delaware and your home state has no say in the matter–if they try to tax you, isn't that tantamount to an import duty on something bought in another state?
Regarding the final point "US 41" makes, it's important to recognize the problems the gas tax creates with alternative-fuel vehicles like Teslas. Those vehicles' owners should certainly pay some sort of road maintenance tax.
The legality issue is likely gotten around by the verbiage. It's not an import tax, it's a tax on the privilege of using a taxable item in your resident state. There would be no tax on anything you used in Delaware, just on the items you buy or use in your resident state.
As a practical matter, in a decade of public accounting and working on individual returns, I have seen precisely 2 clients report Ohio Use Tax on our IT-1040.
XT1585
Quote from: vdeane on June 27, 2016, 06:30:53 PM
I'm not sure how either category is legal. If I live in NY but buy something from a website based in PA, I fail to see how it is any different than if I drove to PA to buy the product.
Many sales and use taxes are "destination" based, such that the purchase is taxed based on the tax rates of where the transfer of taxable property took place.
XT1585
Quote from: exit322 on July 03, 2016, 12:14:32 AMAs a practical matter, in a decade of public accounting and working on individual returns, I have seen precisely 2 clients report Ohio Use Tax on our IT-1040.
The Kansas Department of Revenue claims (without citing any figures) that Kansas taxpayers are very honest about declaring untaxed out-of-state purchases and paying Kansas use tax (which is the same as sales tax) on them.
My last out-of-state purchase of something expensive that did not otherwise require registration (like a car) was a laptop through Amazon. I had the option of buying through Amazon itself, which would have meant paying sales tax since Amazon has logistics centers in Kansas, or from one of several Amazon sellers based out of state. I went for the latter, accepting a longer lead time on delivery, because the Kansas legislature had just passed a couple of TRAP bills I violently disagreed with and which were later found to be unconstitutional. I refused to give the state the sales or use tax revenue (amounting to about $100 under rates then in effect) to waste on defending laws I believed should not have been passed in the first place.
The biggest problem with MBUF (mileage-based user fee) is one that most here can relate to - it is very expensive to implement, and the cost of collecting revenue is significantly higher than motor fuel taxes or electronic toll collection (I am deliberately not including cash toll collection, which is eventually going to go away).
Fuel taxes and electronic toll collection are easy and simple to collect.