How mileage-based fees should work

[jeffandnicole]

How mileage based fees should work is that they should be added to the purchase price of a new car. Let's say the tax is 2 cents a mile, multiply by 150,000 miles design life of the car and... that's $3,000 you have to add to the sticker price. There. Done.

I would not support any road use tax that requires the individual driver to pay it directly, simply because this creates a massive amount of unnecessary administrative burden. Currently, governments only have to worry about collecting gas tax from gas stations, which are considerably fewer in number than individual drivers. In order to preserve this efficiency in collection, we need to keep the number of points of collection down.

My method shifts the points of collection from gas stations to car dealerships, but preserves the same basic idea that no individual ever has to actively pay the tax, only a certain type of business does and then they simply pass the cost on to the consumer. Compared to collecting from individuals this is less work to keep track of and easier to enforce.

There are so many things wrong with this proposal:

Let's go with car ownership: Per an article on AutoTrader, a car will last about 11.4 years, with the original owner keeping it about 6 years.  So while some people will keep a car for it's entire life, many won't.

Let's go with the 2 cent per mile estimate.  150,000 miles (number made up) equals $3,000 tax.  Per WSJ article, an estimated 15.7 million cars were sold in 2015.  15.7 million times $3,000 equals $47.1 Billion in tax money.  Very decent money, considering approximately $30 Billion is collected via the Federal Gas Tax.  But, each state has an individual gas tax that averages about 30.2 cents a gallon, which brings in another $50 Billion.  So that's about $80 Billion collected in total.  This proposal brings in just over half that. 

Now, let's continue with the $3,000 estimate above.  Let's say that's rolled into a loan.  For some people, that would make a car cost-prohibitive.  Someone may barely qualify for a $15,000 vehicle loan.  $3,000 would make it an $18,000 loan, possibly putting them out of the ability to finance a car.

Also, many people won't own a car its entire life.  So you paid $3,000 based on 150,000 miles.  But if you only keep the car for 50,000 or 100,000, you're out that additional money.

What if the car is totaled?  You might have only driven 10,000 miles.  The insurance company will (hopefully) pay you the value remaining on your loan, but they're not going to pay off the tax money you still own.  If you're 2 years in to your 5 year loan, that's $1,800 in tax money you still need to pay off. 

What about used cars?  Do used car buyers not have to pay at all? That would create a high demand for used cars, pushing their values up, as people can avoid the gas tax that way.  Or do you charge used car buyers a gas tax as well, creating a double taxation situation?

And why would car dealerships want to take the brunt of taxation?  They would fight it tooth and nail.  Nothing like telling a potential customer that their $20,000 vehicle is now $23,000!

[SP Cook]

The easiest way to enforce a mileage tax is to collect it right where the current gallonage tax is collected.  At the pump.  You just  issue a smart card for each vehicle that must be swiped at the pump followed by the driver entering the mileage which would be deducted from the previous mileage and the appropriate fee added to the sale price.  Enforcement would be a simple matter of a not very complex computer program (if you claim to be getting 100s of MPGs, the computer spits you out as an outlayer and the cops come by for an odometer inspection) and an annual inspection of your odometer as a part of the registration renewal or "sticker" process. 

Most fleet credit cards require you to enter your mileage when you fill up now, as a way to keep employees from filling up gas cans for personal use.  If you get really low mileage, the boss is alerted.

[Rothman]

What about used cars?  Do used car buyers not have to pay at all? That would create a high demand for used cars, pushing their values up, as people can avoid the gas tax that way.  Or do you charge used car buyers a gas tax as well, creating a double taxation situation?

Simple:  You remove the mileage that you purchase it at from 150,000.  Piece of cake.

And why would car dealerships want to take the brunt of taxation?  They would fight it tooth and nail.  Nothing like telling a potential customer that their $20,000 vehicle is now $23,000!

Well, we do already pay taxes on cars we buy as is, so I think this is rather moot.  Your $20,000 price is never what you pay due to taxes and fees.

...

I also think Duke just spat out the 2 cents figure as a heuristic.  Make it 4 cents.  Whatever.

[jeffandnicole]

What about used cars?  Do used car buyers not have to pay at all? That would create a high demand for used cars, pushing their values up, as people can avoid the gas tax that way.  Or do you charge used car buyers a gas tax as well, creating a double taxation situation?

Simple:  You remove the mileage that you purchase it at from 150,000.  Piece of cake.

Then the other computed numbers are off, so the gas tax revenue goes down as refunds are issued.

And why would car dealerships want to take the brunt of taxation?  They would fight it tooth and nail.  Nothing like telling a potential customer that their $20,000 vehicle is now $23,000!

Well, we do already pay taxes on cars we buy as is, so I think this is rather moot.  Your $20,000 price is never what you pay due to taxes and fees.

...

I also think Duke just spat out the 2 cents figure as a heuristic.  Make it 4 cents.  Whatever.

So 4 cents is $6,000 at the dealership.  5 year loan = $100 a month.  Big money.  Not everyone is rich as you.   Imagine the laughter at at a proposal when a car's cost increases nearly 25%.  Sure, it's not as bad if someone can afford a $75,000 Mercedes.  Most people can't. 

$20,000 may become $21,500 with sales taxes and fees.  At 4 cents for a fuel tax, you're talking $27,500.  Way, way different league there.

[Rothman]

Eh, make it 6 cents.

[formulanone]

My method shifts the points of collection from gas stations to car dealerships, but preserves the same basic idea that no individual ever has to actively pay the tax, only a certain type of business does and then they simply pass the cost on to the consumer. Compared to collecting from individuals this is less work to keep track of and easier to enforce.

Why should someone buying a new/used vehicle have to pay, while those with existing vehicles pay nothing? It's a disproportionate way to do tax it, since he average vehicle ownership duration is between 5-10 years old. That means the first year of car buyers have an unfair burden (if they'd actually pay 4 times as much as everyone else the first go around). Dealers would see far less traffic, and manufacturers would see a major decline; they'd lobby to the end of time against that proposal.

The only fair way to do it is through tags, registration, or licensing, or just hike up the damn gas tax and be done with it. Sure, that's also disproportionate on non-drivers, but everything gets passed down to consumer, no matter what you call the increase in price/tax/fee. On the other hand, lots of people probably can't come up with the scratch for a $500 driver's license or a $700 tag fee. If you're going increase everything but fuel, it ought to be gradually increased, or it's not going to end well.

Some folks also don't drive as many miles as planned; I might drive 6000 miles one year, and 12000 the next. Damn right I'll want a reimbursement based on someone else's average. And no, I don't want my mileage tracked; it's not up to the insurance companies to decide whether an incident to the way to work is any more of a risk than an incident on some paved back-road.

[jeffandnicole]

Eh, make it 6 cents.

5.5 cents. And a free oil change. Final offer.

[vdeane]

But are cars REALLY getting more fuel efficient though?  Even now, old 70s/80s cars from before various safety and emissions mandates still get better gas mileages than modern cars.  Hybrids and electric cars are an insignificant part of the current market, and electric is the future anyways, and an electricity tax could easily replace the gas tas (and to those who say the batteries could be jumped: I would proposed making the battery terminals inacessible to all but the car dealer except through a computerized meter that records charging and when/where it was charged; charging stations would collect tax and have chip telling the meter the tax was paid; charging at home would be require that one declare the number of kilowatts on their federal income tax form and pay all applicable taxes there, and failure to do so would lead to one's arrest when the chip is read the next time one is getting service, buying/selling the car, inspection, or pulled over (this would be MANDATORY)).  Hybrids are ultimately a dead end transitionary tech, a way for rich people to reduce the amount of gas they use while still retaining the benefits of a gas engine while the kinks in electricity storage are worked out.

[formulanone]

But are cars REALLY getting more fuel efficient though?  Even now, old 70s/80s cars from before various safety and emissions mandates still get better gas mileages than modern cars.  Hybrids and electric cars are an insignificant part of the current market, and electric is the future anyways, and an electricity tax could easily replace the gas tas (and to those who say the batteries could be jumped: I would proposed making the battery terminals inacessible to all but the car dealer except through a computerized meter that records charging and when/where it was charged; charging stations would collect tax and have chip telling the meter the tax was paid; charging at home would be require that one declare the number of kilowatts on their federal income tax form and pay all applicable taxes there, and failure to do so would lead to one's arrest when the chip is read the next time one is getting service, buying/selling the car, inspection, or pulled over (this would be MANDATORY)).  Hybrids are ultimately a dead end transitionary tech, a way for rich people to reduce the amount of gas they use while still retaining the benefits of a gas engine while the kinks in electricity storage are worked out.

As total fleet averages, cars are more fuel-efficient than ever before. There were outlier cars in the 1980s which had good-to-great fuel economy numbers, but they did not sell in the same great numbers that vehicles are moved today. Economy cars didn't sell tremendous numbers years ago, and now they represent a far greater market share. Greater numbers of light truck an SUV sales also slowed the trend. Manufacturers followed up with larger and heavier vehicles due to changes in crash-testing and vehicle safety, coupled with a demand for ever-faster and more powerful engines (which rarely emphasized fuel economy).

So while there were 30mpg cars in the 1980s, they weren't popular. Automakers also offered less engine options for the same model; so the option of a 4-cylinder over a V6 exists only in a few mid-market models. It took the market forces of expensive fuel to change things back to that course.

[Rothman]

Why should someone buying a new/used vehicle have to pay, while those with existing vehicles pay nothing? It's a disproportionate way to do tax it, since he average vehicle ownership duration is between 5-10 years old. That means the first year of car buyers have an unfair burden (if they'd actually pay 4 times as much as everyone else the first go around). Dealers would see far less traffic, and manufacturers would see a major decline; they'd lobby to the end of time against that proposal.

I think you are exaggerating the elasticity of demand for cars.  People need cars.  They will buy them.  There may be a slight dip in sales as the extra tax is considered by consumers, but I doubt it would be anywhere near the apocalypse that you're describing.

[formulanone]

Why should someone buying a new/used vehicle have to pay, while those with existing vehicles pay nothing? It's a disproportionate way to do tax it, since he average vehicle ownership duration is between 5-10 years old. That means the first year of car buyers have an unfair burden (if they'd actually pay 4 times as much as everyone else the first go around). Dealers would see far less traffic, and manufacturers would see a major decline; they'd lobby to the end of time against that proposal.

I think you are exaggerating the elasticity of demand for cars.  People need cars.  They will buy them.  There may be a slight dip in sales as the extra tax is considered by consumers, but I doubt it would be anywhere near the apocalypse that you're describing.

Except individuals and corporations typically operate out of short-term desires; due to fear and stockholders, respectively.

In 5-7 years, I'd guess that 80% would buy another vehicle by then, and pay their fair amount. It's the initial hump that nobody will like.

While it's not a huge market now, private-party vehicle transactions might pick up a bunch. 

[PHLBOS]

So while there were 30mpg cars in the 1980s, they weren't popular. Automakers also offered less engine options for the same model; so the option of a 4-cylinder over a V6 exists only in a few mid-market models. It took the market forces of expensive fuel to change things back to that course.

As one who remembers the late 70s/early 80s very well; I beg to differ.  Back then & for what it's worth, small-compact cars like Chrysler's K-cars (Aries/Reliant), Ford's original Escort, GM's J-cars (Cavalier, (J-)2000/Sunbird/Skyhawk/Firenza), GM's X-bodies ('80-'85 Citation/Phoenix/Skylark/Omega, before getting plagued with recalls), VW's original Rabbit, Toyota's Corolla & Celica, Honda's Civic & Accord, and the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon & its variants sold very well during the early 80s (some of the above were even in the Top 10 selling category) until gas prices started crashing down (to below $1/gallon in some areas& instances) circa 1985.

The above-listed models all had 4-cylinders as standard engines and only a few (the above-listed GM models) offered a V6 as an option.  Toyota's first Camry, that rolled out in 1984, initially only offered a 4-cylinder engine.  A V6 would be added as an option a couple years later.

Ford's first Taurus, that rolled out as a 1986 model, had a standard 4-cylinder engine (with optional V6s, that most opted for) up through the 1989 model year.  Its Mercury Sable twin only offered the standard 4-banger in its first model year (1986).

While your statement might be true for the latter half of the 80s; it certainly wasn't for the first half.  We still had long gas lines going on during the beginning of 1980.

[formulanone]

So while there were 30mpg cars in the 1980s, they weren't popular. Automakers also offered less engine options for the same model; so the option of a 4-cylinder over a V6 exists only in a few mid-market models. It took the market forces of expensive fuel to change things back to that course.

As one who remembers the late 70s/early 80s very well; I beg to differ.  Back then & for what it's worth, small-compact cars like Chrysler's K-cars (Aries/Reliant), Ford's original Escort, GM's J-cars (Cavalier, (J-)2000/Sunbird/Skyhawk/Firenza), GM's X-bodies ('80-'85 Citation/Phoenix/Skylark/Omega, before getting plagued with recalls), VW's original Rabbit, Toyota's Corolla & Celica, Honda's Civic & Accord, and the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon & its variants sold very well during the early 80s (some of the above were even in the Top 10 selling category) until gas prices started crashing down (to below $1/gallon in some areas& instances) circa 1985.

The above-listed models all had 4-cylinders as standard engines and only a few (the above-listed GM models) offered a V6 as an option.  Toyota's first Camry, that rolled out in 1984, initially only offered a 4-cylinder engine.  A V6 would be added as an option a couple years later.

Ford's first Taurus, that rolled out as a 1986 model, had a standard 4-cylinder engine (with optional V6s, that most opted for) up through the 1989 model year.  Its Mercury Sable twin only offered the standard 4-banger in its first model year (1986).

While your statement might be true for the latter half of the 80s; it certainly wasn't for the first half.  We still had long gas lines going on during the beginning of 1980.

My mistake; you're correct. I meant to say we have less engine choices now.

I don't edit on my phone very well.

[PHLBOS]

I meant to say we have less engine choices now.

That's largely due to the newer CAFE restrictions now taken effect/being imposed.  Such essentially put the kibosh on many mid-sizes offering optional V6 engines in recent years as well as a reduction in available V8 offerings.  The Dodge Charger, Chrysler 300 & Cadillac CTS-V are the only domestic-branded sedans that now offer such.

[jwolfer]

They will still collect gas tax AND miles driven tax.

[formulanone]

I meant to say we have less engine choices now.

That's largely due to the newer CAFE restrictions now taken effect/being imposed.  Such essentially put the kibosh on many mid-sizes offering optional V6 engines in recent years as well as a reduction in available V8 offerings.  The Dodge Charger & Chrysler 300 are the only domestic-branded sedans that now offer such.

We went through a second wave of cylinder deactivation, although that seems to be on the decline again, as shift logic and the various switchable "Eco Modes" can be enabled/disabled when the driver wants to. I don't think they offer much in the way of fuel savings, just throttle response changes.

[PHLBOS]

We went through a second wave of cylinder deactivation,

V8-6-4 anyone?  While most car historians or those who were around remember the first wave of such quite well (and that such plagued Cadillac for several years due to reliability issues); many do forget that such was brought back (though more quietly) with Cadillac's Northstar V8 engines.  I'm not sure whether the CTS-V sedan or the Escalades currently offer such on their V8s.  Similar was (not sure if it's still) offered on some Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger V8s as well.

If such is on the decline again; it's now just due to less vehicles offering V8s.  All of Cadillac's current cars (excluding the CTS-V and including the upcoming XT6 sedan) don't even offer a V8 anymore.

[Pete from Boston]

So while there were 30mpg cars in the 1980s, they weren't popular. Automakers also offered less engine options for the same model; so the option of a 4-cylinder over a V6 exists only in a few mid-market models. It took the market forces of expensive fuel to change things back to that course.

As one who remembers the late 70s/early 80s very well; I beg to differ.  Back then & for what it's worth, small-compact cars like Chrysler's K-cars (Aries/Reliant), Ford's original Escort, GM's J-cars (Cavalier, (J-)2000/Sunbird/Skyhawk/Firenza), GM's X-bodies ('80-'85 Citation/Phoenix/Skylark/Omega, before getting plagued with recalls), VW's original Rabbit, Toyota's Corolla & Celica, Honda's Civic & Accord, and the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon & its variants sold very well during the early 80s (some of the above were even in the Top 10 selling category) until gas prices started crashing down (to below $1/gallon in some areas& instances) circa 1985.

The above-listed models all had 4-cylinders as standard engines and only a few (the above-listed GM models) offered a V6 as an option.  Toyota's first Camry, that rolled out in 1984, initially only offered a 4-cylinder engine.  A V6 would be added as an option a couple years later.

Ford's first Taurus, that rolled out as a 1986 model, had a standard 4-cylinder engine (with optional V6s, that most opted for) up through the 1989 model year.  Its Mercury Sable twin only offered the standard 4-banger in its first model year (1986).

While your statement might be true for the latter half of the 80s; it certainly wasn't for the first half.  We still had long gas lines going on during the beginning of 1980.

My 1987 Honda Accord, a hugely popular car, got 36 on the highway.  It was the best mileage of any vehicle I've owned, including two successively newer and larger Accords.

[MikeTheActuary]

I'd think that concerns of equity, administration, and concerns about interstate travel (and fuel purchases across state lines) really should doom both fuel and mileage taxes.

A more manageable system would involve tolling major highways and/or perhaps adding a highway maintenance surcharge (varying by weight/class of vehicle) to vehicle registration fees or insurance premiums.

[vdeane]

I meant to say we have less engine choices now.

That's largely due to the newer CAFE restrictions now taken effect/being imposed.  Such essentially put the kibosh on many mid-sizes offering optional V6 engines in recent years as well as a reduction in available V8 offerings.  The Dodge Charger, Chrysler 300 & Cadillac CTS-V are the only domestic-branded sedans that now offer such.

Another thing the CAFE restrictions did is cause the discontinuation of station wagons and the invention of SUVs.  These two things are basically an accounting trick to raise the average car fuel efficiency (SUVs are classified as light trucks whereas stations wagons were classified as cars).

[corco]

It should be noted that the 4-cylinder engines of today put out more power than the V-6s from 1985. You can blame it on CAFE, but you can also blame it on the fact that engine technology has just improved.

For instance, I've had the pleasure of owning both a base model 1990 Dodge Colt and a 2015 VW Golf. Both are small, 3-door cars with  4-cylinder engines. While the Colt, admittedly, got about 3 or so MPG better than the Golf, the Colt barely wheezed by with an 82 HP 1.5 liter 4-banger. Even as a car that weighed under 1 ton, it still took 12-15 seconds to get to 60 MPH. My Golf has 180 HP out of its 1.8 liter 4-banger, and gets to 60 in around 6.8 seconds, with a weight of just under 3000 lbs.

So, sure. Engines are smaller and cars are heavier. Even with those changes, cars today are way, way more powerful than they were 30 years ago, and have significantly better fuel efficiency.

You used to have to buy a  wheezy, underpowered Geo Metro to get a 4-cylinder that could crank out 40-50 MPG. Now you can buy a Chevy Malibu that does gets around 40, with an engine that doesn't feel underpowered. To say that cars haven't improved in fuel efficiency is bonkers. Your Dad's 1985 Chevy Celebrity couldn't do anything close to that.

With all due respect to the Iron Duke, the 90 hp or so 4-banger that came in the 85 Celebrity was terrible - not nearly enough engine for that car, and fuel economy suffered. Certainly sucked massive amounts of gas at more than 55 MPH, given that the 1985 Chevy Celebrity wasn't that light and that engine was tiny. The V-6 sucked gas, but at least wasn't dangerously slow. 

In 1985, a 4-cylinder engine in anything other than the smallest of cars meant you were driving a poverty-mobile that could barely merge onto the freeway safely. In 2015, it's a perfectly normal, powerful engine available in cars of all sizes.

[wxfree]

It may help to define our terms and distinguish fuel efficiency from fuel economy.  Everyone knows what fuel economy is, expressed in miles per gallon.  It does not account for weight or hills, but gives standardized measurements that can be roughly compared based on vehicle weight and capability.  Fuel efficiency is more complex.  I think of it in a way that is simple, but not entirely technically correct.  If two engines run and produce, for example, 50 horsepower for one hour, the one that used less fuel is more efficient in that test.

Engines tend to be more efficient when they work harder, so a big powerful engine would be less efficient than a smaller one at low power outputs, such as the 50 hp test.  In cars, efficiency tends to be the opposite of economy.  Good economy (high MPGs) comes from low-power moderate speed cruising, but high efficiency (more work done - power - per unit fuel) is had when the engine is working hard and getting low MPGs.  If an engine is moving a heavier car it may be both more efficient and less economical.

Modern engines are much more efficient, capable of doing more work per gallon of fuel.  How economical they are depends on the vehicle weight and the manner of driving.  A heavier vehicle with more safety feature that's capable of good acceleration that gets 35 or 40 MPG is much more efficient than a featherweight deathtrap that can barely get into traffic that gets 50 MPG.

[wxfree]

On the main topic, I think the fuel tax should be increased to fund roads.  It won't work forever, but it works well now, would cost virtually nothing to implement, and could start raising revenue tomorrow.  The fact that it won't work forever means we need to look at other options, but doesn't mean we have to abandon it by failing to maintain it at suitable levels.  If people a hundred years ago had realized that the fuels wouldn't be used forever, and decided that they shouldn't be taxed to pay for roads, we would have lost a century of a good and fairly equitable funding source.  It has life left in it yet.

To me, a mileage tax should be efficient to collect, difficult to evade, and not distort travel patterns.  It can be efficient by combining collection with an existing transaction.  I like that idea of collecting the tax at the retail fuel level, for those vehicles that use chemical fuels.  This would make the stations, rather than wholesalers, the ones who pay the tax, but that's still a lot fewer payers than all of the car owners.  The individual transactions would be piggybacked onto existing fuel sale transactions.

I oppose system-wide tolling of the Interstates, because I'm from Texas.  Here, tolls are expensive; it can cost $5 to drive 30 miles ($140 to cross the state on I-10 at that rate, for cars, and $560 for trucks).  Also, a lot of the state has parallel routes that are lightly traveled but would be overburdened by people avoiding the tolls.  This isn't a mountainous state where the backroads are twisted and treacherous.  Likewise, I wouldn't want the tolls to be imposed by increasing the mileage tax on the best roads.  It would increase traffic on less direct and less safe roads and make the whole system less efficient and less safe.

The tax should either be flat, or possibly higher in certain regions, such as big cities, but not based on road type.  If you buy fuel in a different state, you'd pay that state's mileage tax.  That may not be entirely equitable, especially if you mostly travel in one state and buy fuel in a different state (perhaps because of lower taxes and prices), but it's no worse than the current fuel tax system that's worked for a long time.  If that's too much of a concern, part of the tax could be federal to balance out the state-of-purchase inequity.  Your payments would be tank-by-tank, not a yearly or otherwise periodic lump-sum.

How to prevent evasion is difficult.  Fuel taxes are hard to evade because today's gasoline engines are very picky about fuel and won't run on homemade brew.  Disconnecting the vehicle speed sensor, to keep the odometer from recording miles, is very easy.  I'd have no problem with GPS recording, as long as it recorded only miles and perhaps regions or states, not times and exact locations, but there would be ways to block its GPS reception or cut its power or somehow bypass it.  I've seen cars on my region's toll roads with license plate covers that are obviously meant to prevent photography, and that's out for everyone to see.  Many more people would find ways to prevent paying if it could be done in a way no one could see.  This is a big part of the reason I think we should keep studying the problem, but still make full use of the unevadable fuel tax for as long as it's practical.  Even if we use an additional means of taxation for non-chemically fueled or super-efficient vehicles as they become more common, the old, well-proven fuel tax will be good for a long time.

[Duke87]

I also think Duke just spat out the 2 cents figure as a heuristic.  Make it 4 cents.  Whatever.

It was a number for the sake of having an example. A real world implementation would set the tax at whatever level necessary to replace the revenue from the abolished gas tax (which yes, I am assuming this would be instead of, not in addition to).

As for the issue of what to do if a car is sold or totaled before 150,000 miles... again, I just threw that number in there because a number was necessary as a back of napkin calculation.

I don't really see this as a mileage based fee. It's a lump sum tax applied to the purchase of a new vehicle, I was showing that calculation merely for the sake of demonstrating how it is mathematically equivalent - number of vehicles sold and number of miles driven are proportionally related. Someone who drives more miles will contribute more revenue by virtue of the need to replace their vehicle more often.
If it makes the purchase of a new vehicle financially out of reach for some who currently can afford it, it will push more people to want to buy used - which, in turn, will raise the trade-in value of a used car, so anyone selling a car used will get some of their tax money back indirectly.

As for the matter of a vehicle being driven in different states, I don't see why this is something worth fussing over. People travel across state lines in both directions, if both states handle things the same way it's a wash. The tax goes to the jurisdiction in which the vehicle is purchased, and that's that. No need to make it more complicated. The entire point of this idea is to apply the KISS principle!