AARoads Forum

Coming from the shit stain called Illinois, lawmakers here want to replace the gas tax with a new mileage tax. Essentially you'd be taxed for every mile you drive with a device in your car. This is a result of the gas tax fluctuating due to lower prices and more gas friendly cars gaining popularity.

Just out of curiosity, has any other state proposed or enacted such a law?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17322.msg2121885#msg2121885

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15448.msg2062025#msg2062025

BTW, you're already taxed for driving.

All for it.  Let the odometer tampering begin! :D

First, they have to be able to prove you're inside the state to be taxed by the state. A GPS unit could be argued as unconstitutional. Because we know once every car has one, authorities are going to want access to the GPS markers that prove where you were and when.

Secondly, gas taxes don't 'wildly' fluctuate. The gas prices do. And the taxes aren't a percentage of the pump price. hey're a fixed rate. If MPG goes up or down, FOR ALL VEHICLES IN THE STATE significantly, or the cost of maintaining the roads goes up or down significantly, then that means the price charged per gallon isn't enough.

This isn't the 80s, prices have risen thanks to inflation and car MPG has risen thanks to both the market (people want to spend less on gas to go where they want) and the government (make lighter, safer cars that are more efficient and less pollution).

But, the 'raising taxes' boogyman is an easy trope to get what the government really wants: GPS tracking.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 13, 2016, 07:23:14 PM
Secondly, gas taxes don't 'wildly' fluctuate. The gas prices do. And the taxes aren't a percentage of the pump price. hey're a fixed rate.

Not entirely true for Illinois, where there is a 6.25% sales tax on gas on top of the fixed rate.

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 13, 2016, 08:23:02 PM

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 13, 2016, 07:23:14 PM
Secondly, gas taxes don't 'wildly' fluctuate. The gas prices do. And the taxes aren't a percentage of the pump price. hey're a fixed rate.

Not entirely true for Illinois, where there is a 6.25% sales tax on gas on top of the fixed rate.

I bet that is treated as "regular" sales tax, not "gas" tax, and doesn't go to any road fund (at least directly).
And issue of heavy electric car (curb weight of Tesla is about 2x as heavy as Accord, by the way) not paying gas taxes grows as number of those electric cars increases.

It's only logical. Even driving an all-electric car is still putting that vehicle on the road, straining existing infrastructure that will need to be maintained and improved. How will a gas tax pay for that in a more fuel-efficient world?

Quote from: kalvado on April 13, 2016, 08:38:02 PM

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 13, 2016, 08:23:02 PM

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 13, 2016, 07:23:14 PM
Secondly, gas taxes don't 'wildly' fluctuate. The gas prices do. And the taxes aren't a percentage of the pump price. hey're a fixed rate.

Not entirely true for Illinois, where there is a 6.25% sales tax on gas on top of the fixed rate.

I bet that is treated as "regular" sales tax, not "gas" tax, and doesn't go to any road fund (at least directly).
And issue of heavy electric car (curb weight of Tesla is about 2x as heavy as Accord, by the way) not paying gas taxes grows as number of those electric cars increases.

Charge more to register cars , perhaps surcharge for electric cars.

Florida charges more for heavier cars. In the past when Florida used County codes. W after the county code meat it was over a certain weight. W/W where it was little letters stacked like Maryland tags was an even heavier car.. Like a 1970 Chrysler 300..

My friend had one that stalled in a left turn lane... It sucked big time to push off the road

California was pushing something like that just a year back or so, I lost track of the legislation.  I just don't how a system like taxing miles is practical over more traditional income and sales taxes?  The problem with these kind of tax laws usually is that there is huge political agenda in the name of environmentalism behind them.  Basically these laws are often designed to stop people from driving when that's often just not an option for most people or attempt to influence the type of car they buy. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2016, 11:32:19 PM
The problem with these kind of tax laws usually is that there is huge political agenda in the name of environmentalism behind them.  Basically these laws are often designed to stop people from driving when that's often just not an option for most people or attempt to influence the type of car they buy.

Actually, one of the arguments against mileage taxes has been the environmental angle.  Mileage taxes have been proposed because fuel-efficient vehicles pay less gas tax, and some DOTs see them as "freeloaders" as a result.

ODOT was pretty much the first on this nonsense bandwagon.  I don't know how they have it set with the current OReGO pilot, but one of their original ones set it such that the mileage tax was equivalent to what the gas tax would be for a 20mpg vehicle, which basically means that a mileage tax would effectively encourage people to buy large SUVs.  Someone driving an 8mpg Hummer would effectively get a tax break under this scheme, whereas someone in a 40mpg vehicle would see their taxes double.

Some of the Oregon mileage tax proponents response to the complaints that it discouraged people from buying fuel-efficient vehicles was "we'll just charge them a lower rate", which completely defeats the supposed reasons of switching from gas to mileage.  It's silly on so many levels--typical for ODOT.

I'm personally in favor of gradually shifting the funding burden for road funding over to general funds.  Roads are vital infrastructure that everyone directly or indirectly uses, and going to general funds would provide considerably more stability than a fluctuating stream of funding like gas or mileage taxes.

Quote from: Tarkus on April 14, 2016, 12:55:38 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2016, 11:32:19 PM
The problem with these kind of tax laws usually is that there is huge political agenda in the name of environmentalism behind them.  Basically these laws are often designed to stop people from driving when that's often just not an option for most people or attempt to influence the type of car they buy.

Actually, one of the arguments against mileage taxes has been the environmental angle.  Mileage taxes have been proposed because fuel-efficient vehicles pay less gas tax, and some DOTs see them as "freeloaders" as a result.

As always, most meaningless argument is the one most used in tax discussions. (putting my whining hat on) Right now those driving old gas grizzles are taxed most - those, who can least afford that! And 1% driving Prius or Tesla are enjoying a free fide! (hat off)
We're talking about 5-6 cents a mile at most (NY has highest gas tax in lower 48 - 62 cents a gallon right now, or ~3 cents per mile at 20 MPG). IRS personal car use reimbursement rate is 60 cent a mile or so.
Weight adjusted mileage tax  seem fair enough, although collecting that consistently seems mission impossible.

Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2016, 06:52:40 AM
As always, most meaningless argument is the one most used in tax discussions. (putting my whining hat on) Right now those driving old gas grizzles are taxed most - those, who can least afford that! And 1% driving Prius or Tesla are enjoying a free fide! (hat off)
We're talking about 5-6 cents a mile at most (NY has highest gas tax in lower 48 - 62 cents a gallon right now, or ~3 cents per mile at 20 MPG). IRS personal car use reimbursement rate is 60 cent a mile or so.
Weight adjusted mileage tax  seem fair enough, although collecting that consistently seems mission impossible.

If you want to make the tax as progressive as possible, lower the gas tax and jack up the excise tax on vehicle registration.  The more your car is worth, the more is costs to register it.

Quote from: Tarkus on April 14, 2016, 12:55:38 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2016, 11:32:19 PM
The problem with these kind of tax laws usually is that there is huge political agenda in the name of environmentalism behind them.  Basically these laws are often designed to stop people from driving when that's often just not an option for most people or attempt to influence the type of car they buy.

Actually, one of the arguments against mileage taxes has been the environmental angle.  Mileage taxes have been proposed because fuel-efficient vehicles pay less gas tax, and some DOTs see them as "freeloaders" as a result.

ODOT was pretty much the first on this nonsense bandwagon.  I don't know how they have it set with the current OReGO pilot, but one of their original ones set it such that the mileage tax was equivalent to what the gas tax would be for a 20mpg vehicle, which basically means that a mileage tax would effectively encourage people to buy large SUVs.  Someone driving an 8mpg Hummer would effectively get a tax break under this scheme, whereas someone in a 40mpg vehicle would see their taxes double.

Some of the Oregon mileage tax proponents response to the complaints that it discouraged people from buying fuel-efficient vehicles was "we'll just charge them a lower rate", which completely defeats the supposed reasons of switching from gas to mileage.  It's silly on so many levels--typical for ODOT.

I'm personally in favor of gradually shifting the funding burden for road funding over to general funds.  Roads are vital infrastructure that everyone directly or indirectly uses, and going to general funds would provide considerably more stability than a fluctuating stream of funding like gas or mileage taxes.

I would be interested to see how the pilot rate is set up.  It sounds like they didn't really think out their legislative proposals very well on it.  20 MPG is a way on the low side for projected EPA ratings on vehicles that are being produced today.  If you are going to try to influence people to buy something it should be a newer vehicle since that would help probably a lot more with fuel economy with all the increases in CAFE that are supposed to be coming in the next decade. 

Quote from: cabiness42 on April 14, 2016, 08:11:43 AM

Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2016, 06:52:40 AM
As always, most meaningless argument is the one most used in tax discussions. (putting my whining hat on) Right now those driving old gas grizzles are taxed most - those, who can least afford that! And 1% driving Prius or Tesla are enjoying a free fide! (hat off)
We're talking about 5-6 cents a mile at most (NY has highest gas tax in lower 48 - 62 cents a gallon right now, or ~3 cents per mile at 20 MPG). IRS personal car use reimbursement rate is 60 cent a mile or so.
Weight adjusted mileage tax  seem fair enough, although collecting that consistently seems mission impossible.

If you want to make the tax as progressive as possible, lower the gas tax and jack up the excise tax on vehicle registration.  The more your car is worth, the more is costs to register it.

That's how Arizona does things.  The gas tax is very low, especially compared to California right next door.  My registration fees were completely based off the accessed value of my vehicle meaning that was paying about $200 and $450 for my two cars the last couple years I was there.

Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2016, 06:52:40 AM

Quote from: Tarkus on April 14, 2016, 12:55:38 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2016, 11:32:19 PM
The problem with these kind of tax laws usually is that there is huge political agenda in the name of environmentalism behind them.  Basically these laws are often designed to stop people from driving when that's often just not an option for most people or attempt to influence the type of car they buy.

Actually, one of the arguments against mileage taxes has been the environmental angle.  Mileage taxes have been proposed because fuel-efficient vehicles pay less gas tax, and some DOTs see them as "freeloaders" as a result.

As always, most meaningless argument is the one most used in tax discussions. (putting my whining hat on) Right now those driving old gas grizzles are taxed most - those, who can least afford that! And 1% driving Prius or Tesla are enjoying a free fide! (hat off)
We're talking about 5-6 cents a mile at most (NY has highest gas tax in lower 48 - 62 cents a gallon right now, or ~3 cents per mile at 20 MPG). IRS personal car use reimbursement rate is 60 cent a mile or so.
Weight adjusted mileage tax  seem fair enough, although collecting that consistently seems mission impossible.

The vehicle tax should be set up to reward people who drive efficient vehicles.  If you want to give the poor a break, lower their general income tax.

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2016, 09:10:13 AM
The vehicle tax should be set up to reward people who drive efficient vehicles.

That's how the tax is set up today.  And that's why our nation's roads are in such poor shape.

We don't have a ton of hybrids/electric cars on the road yet, so as of right now, difficulty in funding transportation is a result of lawmakers refusal to raise the gas tax as needed over the years to keep parity.  I don't think we should reward legislative stonewalling with the GPS tracking that the national security state craves.

I still think that an electricity tax assessed on electric vehicles at supercharger stations is the way to go.  We could even put a meter on it to tax charging at home and design technology to prevent people from charging while bypassing the meter (perhaps requiring a licensed mechanic to get at the battery at all save for perhaps specially designed terminals that would go through the meter to allow the car to be jump started if needed).  I expect that hybrids are a dead end tech that won't stick around once all-electric cars are sufficiently improved and reduced in price.

I find it a little odd that some of the same people that heavily oppose tolls on interstates, will strongly support a mileage tax. So basically you want every road to be a toll road. That affects the "lower income" population more than just tolling all of the interstates, so I'm a little confused by that logic.

IMO toll the interstates or raise the gas tax a little. A mileage tax would be extremely unpopular especially for rural residents. I kind of doubt that the mileage tax ever becomes a widespread thing in the US. People in the US seem to be extremely concerned about their privacy (but those same people will post their lives on Facebook, go figure) and I think tracking people's mileage and where they drive would raise a big red flag among most people.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2016, 09:33:52 AM

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2016, 09:10:13 AM
The vehicle tax should be set up to reward people who drive efficient vehicles.

That's how the tax is set up today.  And that's why our nation's roads are in such poor shape.

No, they're in such bad shape because voters would rather have crappy roads and low taxes than good roads and medium taxes.  The Federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and as a per gallon tax its value declines with inflation.

The problem with upping vehicle registration is that the cost of the vehicle doesn't equate to the cost of the damage it does to the roads it travels on. If I own  $50k car but bike most places and only drive it 300 miles a month, why should I have to pay $1000 a year to register the car while the guy who owns a 1988 Corsica driving 2000 miles a month (how, I wouldn't know) gets to pay $50 excise tax to register his car?

The problem with the gas tax is that, while it's progressive in nature, it has never self-corrected. Someone said upstream that the current setup is why we can't fund our roads. But in actually, it's the lack of adjusting for the changing whims of the automobile market and how we drive said cars that has led to us unable to fund our roads. Yes, heavier vehicles should be some sort of weight tax on registration. Which for the bigger trucks already happens (both state and federal). Fuel taxes at the pump are for the general mileage the vehicle will run.

If the entire country improved MPG by 1mpg, then the gas tax, at both the national and state level, would need to adjust for that one MPG. But, instead we've never corrected it for how long the average vehicle can travel one one tax unit, and we've never adjusted it to both inflation and newer, more stringent design standards of roads.

Part of the cost of repairs is tied to losing money through inflation. But it's also because these roads built years ago aren't 'safe' to use today. We won't build an interstate bridge without a wide shoulder. We are practically deadset against cloverleaf interchanges unless they're on a collector/distributor setup. We add signage, more lighting, rumble strips, reflective tabs in the road, side markers, traffic cameras, traffic monitors, automatic de-icing, safer bridges to withstand Earthquakes and accidents. All those 'improvements' cost money. They have to be factored in. Labor costs are higher. Material costs are higher. Mandatory letting of contracts rather than letting the state have their own work force for anything bigger than a pothole filling or the like.

We've been paying well under the going rate for road repair for years through the fuel tax. Adjusted for inflation, we should be paying well higher than we are. And some of the states have started to realize this. New York, Pennsylvania, etc, have finally just went all in with a huge increase. Even states I never though would go for it, Arkansas and Wyoming, both upped their fuel tax rates.

The federal tax has to change as well. And be pegged to Cost of Living increases, inflation, MPG/CAFE, etc.

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2016, 09:10:13 AM
The vehicle tax should be set up to reward people who drive efficient vehicles.  If you want to give the poor a break, lower their general income tax.

I would argue that same unit price for everyone is the most fair approach. You don't get to buy milk cheaper because you add just a little bit in your coffee. Why road usage should be different? Same base price,  more  for XXL cars (even more for trucks). As simple as it gets (colleting that is a completely different story)

Quote from: US 41 on April 14, 2016, 04:43:45 PM
I find it a little odd that some of the same people that heavily oppose tolls on interstates, will strongly support a mileage tax. So basically you want every road to be a toll road. That affects the "lower income" population more than just tolling all of the interstates, so I'm a little confused by that logic.

I, for one, oppose toll collection methods, not toll concept.
However, wonderful state of NY happily collects both gas tax and toll (and would gladly collect mileage tax on top of that without reducing first two) - and then sends money elsewhere.  If you have a tax with very long and specific name, be sure money will be used elsewhere.  (recent example: "law enforcement fee" charged with insurance has 75% of collected fund drained through bottomless general fund)

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2016, 07:38:57 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2016, 09:33:52 AM

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2016, 09:10:13 AM
The vehicle tax should be set up to reward people who drive efficient vehicles.

That's how the tax is set up today.  And that's why our nation's roads are in such poor shape.

No, they're in such bad shape because voters would rather have crappy roads and low taxes than good roads and medium taxes.  The Federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and as a per gallon tax its value declines with inflation.

There's kind of a double-whammy with the gas tax right now. The gas tax has to go up in order to, effectively, stay the same, due to inflation (as you said). But now it has to go up even faster because cars are too efficient. As cars become more and more efficient, the gas tax has to go up faster and faster to compensate for the reduced refueling rate. Something that taxes people based on miles driven, instead of the energy source of their vehicle, is far more sustainable. People buy more fuel efficient vehicles when gas prices go up; this has nothing to do with gas taxes. People aren't trading in their Suburbans for Prii because the gas tax goes up 7 cents. They do it because they go the same distance at completely different prices, gas taxes notwithstanding.

FWIW: Before taxes, a 2015 Suburban costs ~$45 to fill up. A 2015 Prius costs ~$15.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 14, 2016, 09:01:05 AM
That's how Arizona does things.  The gas tax is very low, especially compared to California right next door.  My registration fees were completely based off the accessed value of my vehicle meaning that was paying about $200 and $450 for my two cars the last couple years I was there.

NY has registration price in based on weight, although amounts are fairly low. I pay something like $10/year extra for CRV compared to civic. Basically nothing compared to about $300/year in taxes on 500 gallon annual fuel burn.

The greater fuel efficiency of the fleet is largely due to rising fuel economy standards, not people flocking to hybrids/electric.  Hybrids are a TINY percentage of the market and only the rich can afford them anyways.

Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 12:42:51 PM
The greater fuel efficiency of the fleet is largely due to rising fuel economy standards, not people flocking to hybrids/electric.  Hybrids are a TINY percentage of the market and only the rich can afford them anyways.

Gradually the return on investment is coming down but it's usually a good 7-8 years that it will take a hybrid to pay you back on your investment in regards to mark up.  The Chevy Volt was the worst offender when it came out because it was still a $33,000 dollar compact car after tax credits, a regular compact well equipped would have cost around $20,000.  Your return on investment is even slower if you drive a lot of high speed roads over 60 MPH or go more than 40 miles, they are designed for maximum efficiency at low speeds. 

I think you hit on this already but the hybrids are more of a stop gap until electrical cars become more cost effective.  Although I can see spreading use of hybrid technology in smaller scale capacities to meet the EPA target for passenger cars to average 43 MPG by 2025.  Basically you couple increased fuel economy with a stagnant gas tax it's no wonder the revenue stream is drying up for infrastructure repairs.  And the irony to gas prices is that if you look at inflation the national average for prices is very low at the moment.  If you look at the roughly $1.50 people paid in 1980 that would be roughly $4.50 in today's money.  While I'm not in favor of taxing per mile there needs to be something done to increase revenue streams for infrastructure.  It can be increased gas taxes, increased sales taxes or even income taxes.  The problem is that almost no politician or legislative member will get behind it because the general populace is generally naive to how taxation and government funding actually works.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2016, 01:02:30 PM
[ think you hit on this already but the hybrids are more of a stop gap until electrical cars become more cost effective.

And the question is if electric cars have to pay for the road use?
With charging options  like personal solar cells, and possible use of batteries to smooth the grid load, per-kilowatt tax doesn't seem reasonable, mileage makes more sense as a metric.
Since those electric cars are heavily computer controlled, it may be possible to make that computer a taxation device.. And let the hacking contest begin along with "which state collects" lawsuits.

Quote from: kalvado on April 15, 2016, 01:26:25 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2016, 01:02:30 PM
[ think you hit on this already but the hybrids are more of a stop gap until electrical cars become more cost effective.

And the question is if electric cars have to pay for the road use?
With charging options  like personal solar cells, and possible use of batteries to smooth the grid load, per-kilowatt tax doesn't seem reasonable, mileage makes more sense as a metric.
Since those electric cars are heavily computer controlled, it may be possible to make that computer a taxation device.. And let the hacking contest begin along with "which state collects" lawsuits.

Would it not just be simpler to incorporate higher taxes for utilities then and increase the gas tax at the same time?   The great irony is that all these coal burning power plants that are so wide spread are pretty much the closet big heavy polluter right up there with gas powered cars.  Taxing increases in both utilities and gas would probably dissuade excessive usage to an extent with some people. 

Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 08:41:33 PM

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2016, 07:38:57 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2016, 09:33:52 AM

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2016, 09:10:13 AM
The vehicle tax should be set up to reward people who drive efficient vehicles.

That's how the tax is set up today.  And that's why our nation's roads are in such poor shape.

No, they're in such bad shape because voters would rather have crappy roads and low taxes than good roads and medium taxes.  The Federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and as a per gallon tax its value declines with inflation.

There's kind of a double-whammy with the gas tax right now. The gas tax has to go up in order to, effectively, stay the same, due to inflation (as you said). But now it has to go up even faster because cars are too efficient. As cars become more and more efficient, the gas tax has to go up faster and faster to compensate for the reduced refueling rate. Something that taxes people based on miles driven, instead of the energy source of their vehicle, is far more sustainable. People buy more fuel efficient vehicles when gas prices go up; this has nothing to do with gas taxes. People aren't trading in their Suburbans for Prii because the gas tax goes up 7 cents. They do it because they go the same distance at completely different prices, gas taxes notwithstanding.

FWIW: Before taxes, a 2015 Suburban costs ~$45 to fill up. A 2015 Prius costs ~$15.

But, the issue is tax collection. At the pump is easy. It's simple. It's inclusive of the price. It's practically 'out of sight, out of mind' and even then people complain about it.

Switching to mileage-based presents several logistical issues. First, how do you keep track? Odometer readings during annual inspections or registrations? Okay, great. Let's make people, who vastly are unable to save money, pay hundreds of dollars in one payment just to keep driving their cars legally. But, then you run into tampering with the odometer. Especially on older cars that people intend to 'drive to the junk yard' and have no intention of ever selling to upgrade. Those will be most willing to simply 'turn back' the gauge.

What about cars with faulty or 'Exceeds Mechanical Limitations' odometers? Suddenly we're going to require those vehicles to replace or repair their odometers? My sister had a Pontiac Grand Prix she bought used when she went to college. Less than a year later, the transmission went out (Reverse gear started slipping), so she brought it home and my dad and I took it to get the transmission replaced. The only one at the junk yard was from a different car model, but fit. The problem was the gears were a different ratio. Which meant switching the guage to KM instead of MI on the display was closer to accurate mileage and speed than the miles (i.e., if the km/h said you were doing 60km/h you were probably doing right around 60mph). But, if you went by gauges marked properly, my sister would've paid a lot less for a mileage tax going by the miles gauge.

And then, less than a year later after that, her display panel went (all electronic). We got it working, but the odometer/trip meter never worked again. She did get her speedometer, but that was it. She drove the car for two more years before she traded it in for her first 'new car'. All in all, that one vehicle highlights two of the problems with the mileage tax.

Because, to combat that, you would require a device in the car to track you. Which will probably be unconstitutional once it's brought before the Supreme Court. BECAUSE if a state instituted this, they would need to only charge you for the state you drive in. Outside drivers would drive for free on their roads, as they couldn't mandate out-of-state vehicles temporarily purchase/attach a device to their car to be billed by that state.

Which is the biggest problem, this would have to be an all-or-nothing switch. Oregon couldn't do it because suddenly California and Washington drivers would be driving on their roads for free. They could argue that 'well, some people will cross the state line to buy gas and then return home', but that is an outlier that can be corrected by appropriately pricing their fuel tax to cover their needs based on the gallons purchased annually.

And, as mentioned repetitively, it takes away some of the benefit of switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle. Sure, you still save the gas price, but the tax price is part of the savings. Adjusting the rate to account for the higher MPG, you, by design, start upping the price of driving a gas-guzzler. Slowly culling them from the herd, as people move to more and more fuel efficient vehicles to avoid the onerous price per mile expense of low MPG.

And as that happens, the tax will continue to adjust. Always accounting for it. Those at the leading edge of technology will see a benefit, while those at the backend suffer. And, SUVs are the bane of money conscious consumers. They're a status symbol. After high school, I worked a simple job for a few years, and one of my co-workers (who made about twice minimum wage at the time) had just bought a brand new Suburban. Within days she started complaining about the price of gas and how expensive it was. Not a peep from her before purchasing that vehicle about gas prices. I'd like to consider it an 'idiot' tax as much as a 'gas tax'.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2016, 01:41:36 PM

Would it not just be simpler to incorporate higher taxes for utilities then and increase the gas tax at the same time?   

I pay about 15 cents for 1 kWt-h of electricity with all charges fees and taxes included, and it is often said that 1 kWt-h is equal to 1 cup of gas energy wise.
1 gallon is 15 cups, give or take, so you would talk about 4 cents of taxes per kWt (in NYS total of gas taxes is 60 c/gallon) - and that needs to go up. Double my electric bill this way? I am not sure I wouldn't appeal to second amendment.


As for pollution, coal is the only real thing we actually have right now.

Quote from: kalvado on April 15, 2016, 01:26:25 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2016, 01:02:30 PM
[ think you hit on this already but the hybrids are more of a stop gap until electrical cars become more cost effective.

And the question is if electric cars have to pay for the road use?
With charging options  like personal solar cells, and possible use of batteries to smooth the grid load, per-kilowatt tax doesn't seem reasonable, mileage makes more sense as a metric.
Since those electric cars are heavily computer controlled, it may be possible to make that computer a taxation device.. And let the hacking contest begin along with "which state collects" lawsuits.

I'd tax them at the supercharger station.  If you force the car to charge through a proprietary cable that includes a meter and can wirelessly send the data to one's utility company, the tax can be added there.

Quote from: kalvado on April 15, 2016, 01:56:42 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2016, 01:41:36 PM

Would it not just be simpler to incorporate higher taxes for utilities then and increase the gas tax at the same time?   

I pay about 15 cents for 1 kWt-h of electricity with all charges fees and taxes included, and it is often said that 1 kWt-h is equal to 1 cup of gas energy wise.
1 gallon is 15 cups, give or take, so you would talk about 4 cents of taxes per kWt (in NYS total of gas taxes is 60 c/gallon) - and that needs to go up. Double my electric bill this way? I am not sure I wouldn't appeal to second amendment.


As for pollution, coal is the only real thing we actually have right now.

But on the flip side that's pretty much how anyone feels when they are the group that is picked to get a tax dumped on them.  Say hypothetically one day 25% of the vehicles on the road become full electric they there has to be a way to compensate for the lost tax revenue from gas taxes.  A simple way would be to have metered cabling at home and at service stations that would recharge electric vehicles.  So it may not exactly affect the non-electric vehicle user but they'll have to pay the gas tax still...assuming they drive at all.  Bottom line is that the gas taxes need to go up across the board, this whole mileage tax is just lipstick on a pig masking the real problem.

And as far as utility alternatives they do exist depending on your location and in what is considered passe these days.  Nuclear power basically has lost all it's momentum due to the negative press it receives.  On a large scale nuclear is about the only big alternative that could regularly replace coal but it would take a huge change in mindset politically in the eyes of the public for that ever to become a thing again.  The problem that states like NY, PA and WV have is that they are traditionally in the coal belt.  But out west especially there are widespread options of hydroelectric, solar and even in some cases wind.  Granted it would take a lot more power stations for each of the three but they can for the most part be built, especially in desert states.

Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 02:09:43 PM

Quote from: kalvado on April 15, 2016, 01:26:25 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2016, 01:02:30 PM
[ think you hit on this already but the hybrids are more of a stop gap until electrical cars become more cost effective.

And the question is if electric cars have to pay for the road use?
With charging options  like personal solar cells, and possible use of batteries to smooth the grid load, per-kilowatt tax doesn't seem reasonable, mileage makes more sense as a metric.
Since those electric cars are heavily computer controlled, it may be possible to make that computer a taxation device.. And let the hacking contest begin along with "which state collects" lawsuits.

I'd tax them at the supercharger station.  If you force the car to charge through a proprietary cable that includes a meter and can wirelessly send the data to one's utility company, the tax can be added there.

This

Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 02:09:43 PM
I'd tax them at the supercharger station.  If you force the car to charge through a proprietary cable that includes a meter and can wirelessly send the data to one's utility company, the tax can be added there.

One of big points of all-electric is ability to charge even from the standard outlet, if nothing else is available. Somewhat similar to bringing a gallon of gas in 2 cola bottles to someone who ran out of gas at 2 AM in the middle of nowhere.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2016, 02:42:01 PM
But on the flip side that's pretty much how anyone feels when they are the group that is picked to get a tax dumped on them.  Say hypothetically one day 25% of the vehicles on the road become full electric they there has to be a way to compensate for the lost tax revenue from gas taxes.

Thing is, taxation should ideally be more or less fair. What "fair" means is a difficult question, but I definitely feel that I don't have to contribute specifically to road fund for a cold weather outside, when I need to fire up that room heater...

concept of "driver pays for road use" is more or less accepted, and probably "fair" enough, whatever that mean.

And I am not willing to talk about energy in general, as that would be way off topic.

I doubt total electric cars ever take off and are big in the market especially if you can't charge them from home. It takes like 5 minutes max to fill up a car, pay for the gas, etc. It will probably take 30 minutes to fully charge a car. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

1) You pay income taxes every paycheck.
2) Every time you buy something you pay sales tax.
3) When you get gas you pay a gas tax.
4) You renew your vehicle registration once a year and pay more taxes.
5) You pay taxes on your cable / phone / internet bill.
6) Every April you might get to pay the government more income taxes.
7) If you own land you'll pay property taxes.
8) Almost forgot. You pay taxes on your electric bill as well.
9) All the tens of thousands of other taxes you or someone else might pay. We also have the highest corporate taxes of any developed country.
10) You want to add a mileage tax too? Are you joking?

So tell me again why we need new taxes or why old ones need to be raised. If the government can't get by with all the money they collect then that's their fault, not mine. I already pay more than my fair share in taxes.

What's the optimal amount of taxes then?

Quote from: US 41 on April 15, 2016, 03:30:48 PM
I doubt total electric cars ever take off and are big in the market especially if you can't charge them from home. It takes like 5 minutes max to fill up a car, pay for the gas, etc. It will probably take 30 minutes to fully charge a car. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

1) You pay income taxes every paycheck.
2) Every time you buy something you pay sales tax.
3) When you get gas you pay a gas tax.
4) You renew your vehicle registration once a year and pay more taxes.
5) You pay taxes on your cable / phone / internet bill.
6) Every April you might get to pay the government more income taxes.
7) If you own land you'll pay property taxes.
8) Almost forgot. You pay taxes on your electric bill as well.
9) All the tens of thousands of other taxes you or someone else might pay. We also have the highest corporate taxes of any developed country.
10) You want to add a mileage tax too? Are you joking?

So tell me again why we need new taxes or why old ones need to be raised. If the government can't get by with all the money they collect then that's their fault, not mine. I already pay more than my fair share in taxes.

The end result of that is infrastructure that falls apart or basically the current state of affairs that the road networks are currently in today.  Believe me as someone who drives 30,000 plus miles a year (granted by choice instead of commuting) I would not to have to pay something like five cents on the mile.  Now the thing that I am willing to accept and in fact plan my monthly budget for is $4 dollars a gallon of gas.  Basically the money has to come from somewhere and if it isn't going to come from taxes it's going to come from private companies which leads to things like toll hikes or even toll roads. So basically it's pick your poison because the cost is going to come out of your pocket somewhere.  The primary problem I have with how these tax per mile proposals are set is that they aren't tabled by vehicle weight.  These proposals tend to be a blanket rate for everyone when these proposals come up which tells me there is something behind the scenes going on to not encourage people to drive or force mass transit on them.

Basically this isn't really any different than any other local legislative proposal that comes up on a ballot.  Nobody likes increased taxes but something they are in fact necessary and need to happen.  I often find myself voting "yes" on at least one or two a year but they usually have some sort of nominal sales tax or something of the like attached to them.  Now that isn't to say that the infrastructure issues across the country are universal through out.  I certainly wouldn't tell you a state like Nevada or Arizona needs the level of tax payer funding for repairs as opposed to state like Michigan does where the infrastructure has not been maintained properly.  I guess it just really depends on where you live, what is going to get through the local legislature and what isn't.

In fact Arizona and Nevada are a good example.  Some of the early proposals for I-11 had it as a toll road built by private contractors simply due to the fact the tax payer bases had such a strong opposition to the idea of an increased tax.  At the end of the day toll road or tax someone is going to have to pay the bills.  It basically comes down to which hand do you want to take that money out of for funding?

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 15, 2016, 01:44:03 PM
SUVs are ... a status symbol.

I have a family of five and only one vehicle, and we regularly make long-distance trips that include driving off-pavement.  My SUV is not a status symbol; it is practical.

Quote from: US 41 on April 15, 2016, 03:30:48 PM
I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

Well, we get a lot of money funneled through the government. Most countries have about 1/3 of GDP going through the government coffers. Those spending include a lot of things, from military and space flight to unemployment and social security, from pens in social security office to major bridges. That "1/3" number slowly grows: in US for example it went from about 15% 100 years ago to about 40% today. It is the reality of life. (I wonder what would happen once government wants more than 100% of GDP.. well, that is off-topic.)
Now, you don't want to put everything into a single tax - learning to evade single tax is easier than dozen different ones.

Now, why specialized taxes IMHO make more sense: if I know what exactly I am getting for that tax, I feel that my money can be spent wisely - or I know who is at fault. Property tax buys you city/town services: e.g.  police and firefighter coverage. Do you want more police officers on patrol? You will pay more. You think crime is low? Suggest reducing your town force, and don't complain once your car end up with some removed parts.  Gas tax buys you roads. Sales tax... Often disappears in "general fund".
If you drive more or less often, you know that roads need money, roadwork season is around the corner. And guess who is paying? "government"?

Now our good governments love to raid such specialized funds. A few bucks from road funds can buy them some votes, but.. OK, I'll stop right here.

Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 03:55:27 PM

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 15, 2016, 01:44:03 PM
SUVs are ... a status symbol.

I have a family of five and only one vehicle, and we regularly make long-distance trips that include driving off-pavement.  My SUV is not a status symbol; it is practical.

The primary problem with modern SUVs is that a large percentage of the families who own them "would" be better served by a smaller vehicle.  Back in the 80s I was part of a family of five as well and we had at least four or five 1,500 plus mile trips.  Back in that era you had plenty of fuel efficient options available like a wide variety of mini-vans and even the dreaded station wagon.  Most families aren't going to be doing some off-roading on the family trip, most won't ever in general but they persist in getting a vehicle that is ill suited for their needs and sometimes budget.  Granted the options with CUVs are becoming much better and more fuel efficient but to me they are more a Mini-Van/Station Wagon hybrid rather than a true SUV. 

But I would say that there tends to be a failure upon this adult generator to budget finances appropriately and blingafied SUV craze of the early 2000s was part of it.  I remember my Dad being crushed that he had to sell his 82 Corvette and 69 RS/SS to make way for a K-Car and Vista Cruiser but he did what he had to when my sister was on the way.

Granted this is coming from someone who has two cars in the garage just for him and the wife has her own.  :-D  I've told her repeatedly the Sonic and the Focus will make due just fine for the one kid we got and at least one more if it ever came down to that.

When we traded our 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan for a 2007 Nissan Pathfinder a couple of months ago, we only took about a 2 to 3 MPG hit.  A minivan, in our case, wasn't a whole lot better in terms of fuel economy.

Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 04:37:54 PM
When we traded our 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan for a 2007 Nissan Pathfinder a couple of months ago, we only took about a 2 to 3 MPG hit.  A minivan, in our case, wasn't a whole lot better in terms of fuel economy.

The biggest problem the whole vehicle class has had that it has fallen out of popularity and basically you have out dated/over weight platforms being used for the few that remain.  The Mazda 5 was about the most innovative Mini-Van (micro van?) that came around since the original Caravan but it's going away because of bad sales.

I had considered buying a Mazda5 (especially because they sold them with a stickshift), but it is nowhere near off-pavement-worthy.  Seeing them drive down the highway, I'm glad I decided against it:  the back end bounces at the slightest pavement irregularity.  Fully loaded, driving over speed bumps and gravel potholes in México, it wouldn't last a week.

That last bit brings up another thing to consider paying tax based on odometer reading.  Forget out-of state drivers for a minute.  What about people who have cars registered in, say South Dakota, but actually live in Canada or México on a visa?  Then they'd be paying tax based on mileage that was nearly 100% driven in a foreign country.

Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 04:45:28 PM
I had considered buying a Mazda5 (especially because they sold them with a stickshift), but it is nowhere near off-pavement-worthy.  Seeing them drive down the highway, I'm glad I decided against it:  the back end bounces at the slightest pavement irregularity.  Fully loaded, driving over speed bumps and gravel potholes in México, it wouldn't last a week.

That last bit brings up another thing to consider paying tax based on odometer reading.  Forget out-of state drivers for a minute.  What about people who have cars registered in, say South Dakota, but actually live in Canada or México on a visa?  Then they'd be paying tax based on mileage that was nearly 100% driven in a foreign country.

Yeah my wife has been talking about getting a new vehicle lately and one that I have my eye on is the Renegade Trailhawk.  It looks like it's plenty small, still averages something like 30 MPG and most importantly has some off-road ability.  Granted I have my own agenda since moving back west I have a gap in my vehicle line up for moderate off-roading.

It also begs the question what if you are a resident of even one of those states but the majority of your miles are out of said state?  When I had a territory over 5 western states I would estimate that 70% of the miles were not in my home state.  So basically it appears on the surface the way some of these laws are written that I would have been taxed for everything mileage wise regardless of where it was driven.

I agree that it seems like the mileage tax is being used to discourage driving (note that the people proposing it are often the same people who support freeway removals, for example) , and I am certain that the possibility of GPS tracking is a factor in its support.

Quote from: kalvado on April 15, 2016, 03:16:28 PM
One of big points of all-electric is ability to charge even from the standard outlet, if nothing else is available. Somewhat similar to bringing a gallon of gas in 2 cola bottles to someone who ran out of gas at 2 AM in the middle of nowhere.

And I'm not taking that away.  All I propose is that the cord used to plug the car into the wall have a meter on it.  The user would get a card from their electric company that they would insert into the meter.  The meter would then transmit the amount of electricity supplied to the car to the electric company, who would then charge the appropriate tax on your next bill.  If you attempt to charge without the card inserted, the meter would block the current.  The car's charging port would be made such that only the government approved metered cables could be used to charge the car (perhaps including software in the car to disable it if a user attempted to use an unapproved electric connection).  Your wall outlet would be unaffected.

Quote from: US 41 on April 15, 2016, 03:30:48 PM
I doubt total electric cars ever take off and are big in the market especially if you can't charge them from home. It takes like 5 minutes max to fill up a car, pay for the gas, etc. It will probably take 30 minutes to fully charge a car. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

1) You pay income taxes every paycheck.
2) Every time you buy something you pay sales tax.
3) When you get gas you pay a gas tax.
4) You renew your vehicle registration once a year and pay more taxes.
5) You pay taxes on your cable / phone / internet bill.
6) Every April you might get to pay the government more income taxes.
7) If you own land you'll pay property taxes.
8) Almost forgot. You pay taxes on your electric bill as well.
9) All the tens of thousands of other taxes you or someone else might pay. We also have the highest corporate taxes of any developed country.
10) You want to add a mileage tax too? Are you joking?

So tell me again why we need new taxes or why old ones need to be raised. If the government can't get by with all the money they collect then that's their fault, not mine. I already pay more than my fair share in taxes.

You're not factoring in inflation, which erodes the buying power of fixed taxes (as opposed to percentage-based taxes) over time, and is chronically under-reported.

You're also not factoring in improving technology.  I'm sure the length of time to charge an electric car will go down over time (heck, my smartphone takes less time to charge than my dumb phones or iPods ever did), as will the range of the vehicles, and I'm sure the cost will go down (actually, it is already, with Tesla set to release an electric car priced within typical consumer range soon).

Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 07:50:16 PM
All I propose is that the cord used to plug the car into the wall have a meter on it.  The user would get a card from their electric company that they would insert into the meter.  The meter would then transmit the amount of electricity supplied to the car to the electric company, who would then charge the appropriate tax on your next bill.  If you attempt to charge without the card inserted, the meter would block the current.  The car's charging port would be made such that only the government approved metered cables could be used to charge the car (perhaps including software in the car to disable it if a user attempted to use an unapproved electric connection).  Your wall outlet would be unaffected.

Now we have at least 4 points which can be hacked: card, cable, car computer, and data transmission. One of those links will be weaker than others... And what if I live in the area without cell coverage? What if I have no utility contract, living off-grid?  What if car get exported to the country other than where it was sold?
System complexity will grow pretty fast... I can see some ways to enforce things, but it wouldn't be simple..

Quote from: US 41 on April 15, 2016, 03:30:48 PM
I doubt total electric cars ever take off and are big in the market especially if you can't charge them from home. It takes like 5 minutes max to fill up a car, pay for the gas, etc. It will probably take 30 minutes to fully charge a car. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

I also don't understand the raise / add taxes theory. Apparently most of you don't pay taxes. Here is why I don't support raising taxes. Each step beyond step 1 is an additional tax you pay.

1) You pay income taxes every paycheck.
2) Every time you buy something you pay sales tax.
3) When you get gas you pay a gas tax.
4) You renew your vehicle registration once a year and pay more taxes.
5) You pay taxes on your cable / phone / internet bill.
6) Every April you might get to pay the government more income taxes.
7) If you own land you'll pay property taxes.
8) Almost forgot. You pay taxes on your electric bill as well.
9) All the tens of thousands of other taxes you or someone else might pay. We also have the highest corporate taxes of any developed country.
10) You want to add a mileage tax too? Are you joking?

So tell me again why we need new taxes or why old ones need to be raised. If the government can't get by with all the money they collect then that's their fault, not mine. I already pay more than my fair share in taxes.

So by the simple logic of your last paragraph, you don't ever need a raise in salary at your job.  Because if you can't get by with the money your employer is already paying you, that's your fault.  Right?

Calling every item on your list an "additional" tax is a bit disingenuous (and by the way, #1 and #6 together are the same thing).  There are a zillion and one different taxes partly in an attempt to spread the burden fairly (I'll pass on debating what is "fair") and partly because if if your entire tax liability was presented at once you'd go apoplectic.  What counts in the end is one's total tax burden.  You're correct that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates of any developed country.  It's also true that as a percentage of gross domestic product, U.S. taxes overall are among the lowest of any developed country.   It's all a matter of which statistics you want to go with and the total amount of taxes you pay.

And while I don't advocate blindly opening my wallet every time someone wants more funding, the "I already pay more than my fair share in taxes" mantra is beyond tired.  Really, have you actually added it all up?  Some studies suggest that on the basis of adding up the value of all government services one receives and comparing it to the amount of taxes one pays, the majority of Americans don't pay their own way and are on the mooch.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 15, 2016, 01:44:03 PM
Which is the biggest problem, this would have to be an all-or-nothing switch. Oregon couldn't do it because suddenly California and Washington drivers would be driving on their roads for free. They could argue that 'well, some people will cross the state line to buy gas and then return home', but that is an outlier that can be corrected by appropriately pricing their fuel tax to cover their needs based on the gallons purchased annually.

I don't know about the latest iterations but IIRC when this was first proposed the idea was that gas stations in Oregon would all have to be fitted with the ability to wirelessly read every car's GPS log. If you have a GPS log, the tax for the number of miles you've driven in Oregon since the last time you got gas in Oregon gets added to the price of your fuel transaction. If you're from out of state and don't have a GPS log, you get a per gallon gas tax added to your transaction instead.

They were also insistent that the logger would only keep track of miles traveled in Oregon and would not save its traced paths. But I wouldn't fault anyone for not trusting that that's true.

Even still, the system can be made "fair" and the privacy concerns would be more workable if not for our government being notorious for abusing such privileges. Another concern which can't be worked around? All those GPS logging devices cost money. The administrative burden of operating a VMT tax by such means would be substantial. That alone makes me question the wisdom of it.

Quote from: kalvado on April 15, 2016, 01:56:42 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2016, 01:41:36 PM

Would it not just be simpler to incorporate higher taxes for utilities then and increase the gas tax at the same time?   

I pay about 15 cents for 1 kWt-h of electricity with all charges fees and taxes included, and it is often said that 1 kWt-h is equal to 1 cup of gas energy wise.
1 gallon is 15 cups, give or take, so you would talk about 4 cents of taxes per kWt (in NYS total of gas taxes is 60 c/gallon) - and that needs to go up. Double my electric bill this way? I am not sure I wouldn't appeal to second amendment.


As for pollution, coal is the only real thing we actually have right now.

A quick lookup of power plant output. Just the coal-fired power plants in this country from April 2012 to March 2013, produced a total output of 1,517,203 gigawatt hours of electricity (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants). Which, according to the source, was 37.4% of all electric generation in this country. Which means, combined, from all forms of production: wind, solar, hydro, coal, and nuclear, the power plants in this country during that time produced a staggering 4,056,692,513,368 kWh of power.

If we followed your math (and, just so you're clear, 1gal = 16cups), that would be 4c/kWh, or a $162,267,700,534.72 tax, annually. $162 BILLION. Or, roughly 12 Big Digs a year.

The problem with your math, was that you were factoring ALL electric use to be taxes when really you would just account for the offload of car charging taking the place of the traditional gas purchases.

For instance, if the average car got 30mpg and the average driver traveled 1,000 miles per month (all non-commercial/non-business vehicles), that would be an average of 400 gallons purchased a year. Using your estimate at 60cpg tax in NYS, that would be $240 of expected tax revenue over the course of the year. If everyone magically switched from gas to electric tomorrow, the expected tax increase on electricity (kWh) would be whatever rate would equal a $20 monthly increase in your electric bill. Not doubling it. Unless you were decked out in solar panels or lived like a hermit.

The truth is, energy production at a power plant is exceedingly efficient compared to millions of little tiny power plants mounted under the hoods of cars.  What's easy? Carrying one 5 gallon bucket a hundred feet or making 80 trips with one cup? That's why the cost of charging your electric car is so unbelievably inexpensive when not out on the road. The electricity needed to propel your vehicle is cheap. It's you creating your own power from gasoline or diesel that is expensive. And burdensome.

But that doesn't alter your wear and tear on the road beneath your wheels. And at some point those expenses must be paid.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 16, 2016, 03:32:31 AM

A quick lookup of power plant output. Just the coal-fired power plants in this country from April 2012 to March 2013, produced a total output of 1,517,203 gigawatt hours of electricity (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants). Which, according to the source, was 37.4% of all electric generation in this country. Which means, combined, from all forms of production: wind, solar, hydro, coal, and nuclear, the power plants in this country during that time produced a staggering 4,056,692,513,368 kWh of power.

As I mentioned, this is way way off-topic..
Yet..
You conveniently omitted natural gas firing facilities, which have roughly same share as coal from the discussion...  Do you really want to continue discussion on the topic you don't know?

What I think is outrageous is that we spend a little over 1 trillion (668 billion federal, the rest state / local) dollars per year total on welfare programs. I'm sorry, but that number needs to be cut significantly. As a country we pay more each year for welfare than our military, yet everyone talks about cutting military funds, but no one ever talks about cutting welfare funds. We didn't become the greatest country in the world because of people sponging off the system. It's unfair that my taxes pay for Fred's food, housing, insurance, college, etc, and then expect me to pay more because the government didn't have enough money to spread around. I say Fred should go work at McDonalds and pay his own way. I understand helping people that truly need help, but I don't understand helping people that are just too lazy to go get a job. I work hard for my money and I feel like if someone else wants money they should go work for it too. There's many more areas we could significantly cut in too. I think that needs to happen before we just start handing more and more money to the government and rewarding them for wasting "our" money. That's my opinion.

Quote from: US 41 on April 16, 2016, 01:29:11 PM
What I think is outrageous is that we spend a little over 1 trillion (668 billion federal, the rest state / local) dollars per year total on welfare programs. I'm sorry, but that number needs to be cut significantly. As a country we pay more each year for welfare than our military, yet everyone talks about cutting military funds, but no one ever talks about cutting welfare funds. We didn't become the greatest country in the world because of people sponging off the system. It's unfair that my taxes pay for Fred's food, housing, insurance, college, etc, and then expect me to pay more because the government didn't have enough money to spread around. I say Fred should go work at McDonalds and pay his own way. I understand helping people that truly need help, but I don't understand helping people that are just too lazy to go get a job. I work hard for my money and I feel like if someone else wants money they should go work for it too. There's many more areas we could significantly cut in too. I think that needs to happen before we just start handing more and more money to the government and rewarding them for wasting "our" money. That's my opinion.

It's interesting to take a look back at how things were pre-New Deal in America.  A lot of what went into what most people consider making America great came from some heavy duty top ended tycoons of the late 1800s and 1900s.  If you had money back then you could do anything and if you didn't....well you were for all intents and purposes you were almost 100% on your own to make it or break it.  Granted this was the era of abusive employers, predatory banks, rampant racism and sexism the likes which nobody born after at least...I'm saying this VERY conservatively...the 1980s has witnessed.  Basically you had so much abuse across the board that it led to things like the social services you see today.  Also what are your thoughts on Social Security which is the grand daddy of social welfare programs or California going nuts with all this $15 dollar per hour minimum wage stuff?

With that said, times change.....and basically you are starting to see the backlash.  Unions have lost a lot of their power due to fair work place laws and it becoming obvious that a lot of them were equally as corrupt as the companies who led to their creation.  It's very clear that there is vast abuse in the social welfare systems and it's something coming to a head.  Some states are even proposing cut backs or requiring mandatory drug tests for those applying for welfare.  The damn shame of it all is that there is a small minority that still needs these programs but they are basically invisible in comparison with the swath of cautionary abuse stories that have become so prevalent.  But with that in mind, the problems of the present won't ever be the same as they were in the past or the future.  It's impossible to predict 70 years down the line what impact a law passed today might have and that will never change.  With all that in mind there probably hasn't been an era in this country's history that's been to grow up in because it's about as close a level playing field as it ever has been.  I'm not saying things are perfect....far from....but holy crap they could be infinitely worse than watching Fox News and CNN to see the ultra left or right complain about the other side like it was the end of the world.

But with that said, yes some cuts are in order but they won't be the big draw we're all looking for in regards to infrastructure development but then again every dime counts.  I don't foresee a catch all solution to any funding problem...much less road development and repair, it's more of something that would have to be chipped away at.  Not to mention we're not even touching on things like energy reliance, pollution, public safety and education which all need a piece of the pie as well.  So many multi-pronged approach like a nominal tax on mileage driven in-state (certainly not $0.05 per mile), expanded tolls, increased gas, sales and income taxes are better than a single one?  Basically about the best you can do is be educated about who you elect and what proposals are hitting the legislature then vote accordingly.

I thought this article was kind of topical considering where the conversation tends to be swinging:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/15/if-sweden-and-germany-became-u-s-states-would-they-be-among-the-poorest-states/

Kind of interesting how short-sighted Americans can be when it comes to what the state of rest of the world might be by comparison.  Hell even Canada has their own issues despite what most Americans might believe.  Just imagine what mandatory snow tires would do to the pre-existing road networks of states like Michigan?...provinces like Quebec have to contend with that every year.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 16, 2016, 03:32:31 AM
If we followed your math (and, just so you're clear, 1gal = 16cups), that would be 4c/kWh, or a $162,267,700,534.72 tax, annually. $162 BILLION. Or, roughly 12 Big Digs a year.

The problem with your math, was that you were factoring ALL electric use to be taxes when really you would just account for the offload of car charging taking the place of the traditional gas purchases.

The other problem with the math here is that the assertion 1 kWh equals 1 cup of gasoline is... wrong. It's actually equal to slightly less than half a cup.

1 kWh = 3412 BTU. There are roughly 115,000 BTU of chemical energy in a gallon of gasoline, or about 34 kWh worth. So if you added 2 cents per kWh in taxes for electricity used to charge your car (not all electricity), you'd have the equivalent of 68 cents per gallon of gas, already a slight hike.

Quote from: US 41 on April 16, 2016, 01:29:11 PM
What I think is outrageous is that we spend a little over 1 trillion (668 billion federal, the rest state / local) dollars per year total on welfare programs. I'm sorry, but that number needs to be cut significantly. As a country we pay more each year for welfare than our military, yet everyone talks about cutting military funds, but no one ever talks about cutting welfare funds. We didn't become the greatest country in the world because of people sponging off the system. It's unfair that my taxes pay for Fred's food, housing, insurance, college, etc, and then expect me to pay more because the government didn't have enough money to spread around. I say Fred should go work at McDonalds and pay his own way. I understand helping people that truly need help, but I don't understand helping people that are just too lazy to go get a job. I work hard for my money and I feel like if someone else wants money they should go work for it too. There's many more areas we could significantly cut in too. I think that needs to happen before we just start handing more and more money to the government and rewarding them for wasting "our" money. That's my opinion.

Actually, propping up the military/industrial complex dwarfs welfare spending by a VERY large margin.

Also: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/mcdonalds-sample-budget-sheet-is-laughable-but-its-implications-are-not-cm261920

Quote from: vdeane on April 16, 2016, 05:52:17 PM

Quote from: US 41 on April 16, 2016, 01:29:11 PM
What I think is outrageous is that we spend a little over 1 trillion (668 billion federal, the rest state / local) dollars per year total on welfare programs. I'm sorry, but that number needs to be cut significantly. As a country we pay more each year for welfare than our military, yet everyone talks about cutting military funds, but no one ever talks about cutting welfare funds. We didn't become the greatest country in the world because of people sponging off the system. It's unfair that my taxes pay for Fred's food, housing, insurance, college, etc, and then expect me to pay more because the government didn't have enough money to spread around. I say Fred should go work at McDonalds and pay his own way. I understand helping people that truly need help, but I don't understand helping people that are just too lazy to go get a job. I work hard for my money and I feel like if someone else wants money they should go work for it too. There's many more areas we could significantly cut in too. I think that needs to happen before we just start handing more and more money to the government and rewarding them for wasting "our" money. That's my opinion.

Actually, propping up the military/industrial complex dwarfs welfare spending by a VERY large margin.

Also: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/mcdonalds-sample-budget-sheet-is-laughable-but-its-implications-are-not-cm261920

Not to mention that some of the branches haven't been this small since the second World War.  Makes you wonder where the money saving is being allocated or if money is being saved at all with fiascos like the F35? 

Yeah...McDonald's math...ugh...yeah I really hope I can discourage my kid to stay away from slop houses like that when she comes of age.  I don't know....something about the current generation doesn't seem to be very goal/career oriented.  I couldn't fathom not knowing what I wanted to do with my career or demeaning myself to the level of McDonald's....but such is life.  I never would have thought staying at home until my mid-20s was acceptable either but it appears 25 is the new 18 for people growing up today.  Maybe it's just a sign that I'm getting old....one thing is for certain you can't survive off entry level jobs like that.

A lot of people didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives when they entered college, so they just picked something that interested them (not that liberal arts degrees are bad... it's perfectly possible to be successful with them, but it takes a LOT more planning because the jobs for those majors are fewer in number and more specialized).  Honestly, though, even a STEM degree is no guarantee of success... first of all, everyone's getting those degrees because they're believed to be a path to riches, and second, most people leaving college aren't qualified for "entry level" jobs because the employers decided to stop training people in the recession and now require five years of experience just to fetch coffee for everyone (and they're trying to weed out American workers in favor of H1B visa holders that can't quit and will accept crap wages).  I have a computer science degree from a good school, and after my first job (which I lost because wasn't a good fit for me and the company wasn't in good financial circumstances, so no other positions were open), I couldn't even get so much as an interview in my field.

Anyways, this is drifting quite far from infrastructure spending...

For me it was a lot more straight forward, it was either police or military from the word go.  I suppose that I was lucky in that those careers fields value career experience much more than having a degree alone.  But then again that kind of thing comes with a price and I know full well it really isn't for everyone...in fact I had a family of business majors who tried to dissuade me throughout high school.  It's rare that you see anyone succeed these days with just career experience or just college but the prevailing theory that a degree alone will make you success remains for some reason.  Not mention the hyperinflation that the college system has seen has far out paced inflation in almost everything else leading to a bunch of college students with massive debt. 

But I digress, seems like the conversation kind of dead ended on finding a viable solution to the tax per mile question at hand.  I still am of the mindset that there are far better approaches to increase revenues for infrastructure than the dogmatic approach of taxing per mile.  For me the rate per mile proposals are far too excessive and there are privacy concerns about how the programs would be run, even though they are relatively small.  Seems to me that marginal tax increases in income, sales, gas, property and business taxes would accomplish the need far more efficiently than these per mile proposals ever could...the problem is that they are usually earmarked for general fund usage.  So with that it mind it always brings me back to my initial point that most of these laws seem to have some sort of motivation of discouraging drives or pushing mass transit.  I guess it would have to be up to the individual to decide if those arguments are good or bad, my view is that they bad for more people than not.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 16, 2016, 02:34:31 PM

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 16, 2016, 03:32:31 AM
If we followed your math (and, just so you're clear, 1gal = 16cups), that would be 4c/kWh, or a $162,267,700,534.72 tax, annually. $162 BILLION. Or, roughly 12 Big Digs a year.

The problem with your math, was that you were factoring ALL electric use to be taxes when really you would just account for the offload of car charging taking the place of the traditional gas purchases.

The other problem with the math here is that the assertion 1 kWh equals 1 cup of gasoline is... wrong. It's actually equal to slightly less than half a cup.

1 kWh = 3412 BTU. There are roughly 115,000 BTU of chemical energy in a gallon of gasoline, or about 34 kWh worth. So if you added 2 cents per kWh in taxes for electricity used to charge your car (not all electricity), you'd have the equivalent of 68 cents per gallon of gas, already a slight hike.

What are your assumed values of efficiency for different engines? Without that calculations are somewhat irrelevant.
Or, if you will, we can come from the other side: Tesla consumes 0.3 kWh/mile give or take, so assuming  such car would get 25 MPG, it is  7.5 kWh/gallon, or 17.5 oz gas per kWh. All very rough.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 16, 2016, 02:34:31 PM

So if you added 2 cents per kWh in taxes for electricity used to charge your car (not all electricity), you'd have the equivalent of 68 cents per gallon of gas, already a slight hike.

more like 4 cents.. and once again - how do you enforce that tax on car charging only? I don't see a simple way - without giving tax collector enough powers so they can also check if your wife assumes proper positions at night...

To make things even worse, supercharges are the free perk Tesla provides to owners as a way to spread the product. Free charge for any Tesla  - and I am not sure they will be willing to shoulder the tax portion of it...

Quote from: kalvado on April 16, 2016, 12:14:09 PM

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 16, 2016, 03:32:31 AM

A quick lookup of power plant output. Just the coal-fired power plants in this country from April 2012 to March 2013, produced a total output of 1,517,203 gigawatt hours of electricity (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants). Which, according to the source, was 37.4% of all electric generation in this country. Which means, combined, from all forms of production: wind, solar, hydro, coal, and nuclear, the power plants in this country during that time produced a staggering 4,056,692,513,368 kWh of power.

As I mentioned, this is way way off-topic..
Yet..
You conveniently omitted natural gas firing facilities, which have roughly same share as coal from the discussion...  Do you really want to continue discussion on the topic you don't know?

Whether I omitted natural gas fired plants from the list of other sources of energy does not take away from the math needed to figure out total electric production. If the source I provided (with a link) was that coal fired equals 37.4% of all electric output, and we know the total coal-fired output, then it's rather simple to do the algebra needed to figure out total production. Which doesn't change whether I listed a particular form of energy or not.

It's interesting that you feel compelled to argue I missed one form of power, though it's still included in the total energy output.

Essentially not changing the fact at all.

It's like arguing a missing notation in the bibliography of a 4,000 page report, rather than arguing against the 4,000 page report. Are you questioning my numbers? It doesn't appear so. Or else I would think you'd have argued something 'you know' than argued something you 'don't know'.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 16, 2016, 09:01:29 PM
Essentially not changing the fact at all.

which fact? That you need to burn something to charge another Tesla? sure...

Quote from: kalvado on April 16, 2016, 09:09:59 PM

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 16, 2016, 09:01:29 PM
Essentially not changing the fact at all.

which fact? That you need to burn something to charge another Tesla? sure...

That electric output, as calculated, was correct. Regardless of how many kWh are needed to power a Tesla or any other electric or hybrid car. Power generated at a large generation station is far superior in terms of efficiency than having hundreds of thousands of little generation stations under the hoods of hundreds of thousands of cars. Not just in fuel costs, but purchase and maintenance costs.

I still find it insane that we seem to want to raise registration fees and implement some system to charge electric vehicle owners more (to make them pay their share) while at the same time giving them huge tax credits for buying the car and "saving the environment."

I feel like its time to end the tax credit, put that money towards the highway fund, and let them benefit through not having to pay the gas tax. That way, there is still a tax incentive to buy an electric or hybrid vehicle, and I think in general, the amount of gas a vehicle consumes tends to actually pretty accurately portray the wear and tear on the road. Things less likely to drag, less weight, less fluids dripping on the surface, less fumes spewing out the back we have to be concerned about, etc. If we have the raise the gas tax a little bit to avoid more registration fees, so be it. If demand goes down, gas prices will drop, and we can raise the tax again and help us reduce our dependency on oil if its actually feasible to do so, without having to subsidize the actual electric cars and trying to force people into them.

The gas tax isn't high enough to drive many people (heh) to buy electric vehicles.

Raise the tax, reduce (but retain) the benefits, then switch to a VMT tax or something later on.

Quote from: Bruce on April 17, 2016, 11:33:31 PM
The gas tax isn't high enough to drive many people (heh) to buy electric vehicles.

Raise the tax, reduce (but retain) the benefits, then switch to a VMT tax or something later on.

See the main problem for me with an electric car is the premium of price over something equal with a combustion engine plus the shortness of range.  Once the price and range of electrics come down I'll probably be interested, until then if all these governments want me to buy one they'll need to wave some tasty rebates in my face.  You'll probably start to see the gas tax really start to spike if there ever comes a day when electric cars take a significant chunk of the market share followed by additional charging fees and possibly mileage charges for road repair taxes.

Quote from: Bruce on April 17, 2016, 11:33:31 PM
The gas tax isn't high enough to drive many people (heh) to buy electric vehicles.

Raise the tax, reduce (but retain) the benefits, then switch to a VMT tax or something later on.

The gas tax will never be high enough for most people to buy electric vehicles.  The problem with electric vehicles is twofold.

1. Range.  A Nissan Leaf can only go about 100 miles.  A Tesla Model S can do 270 miles, but that's it.  By contrast, gasoline vehicle have a range of 300-400 miles, and Diesel fuel vehicles have a range of 500 miles or more.
2. Recharging Time.  It takes hours for something like a Leaf to fully recharge.  Tesla claims you can recharge in 10 minutes from one of their proprietary recharging station, but you only get another 100 miles out of it.  By contrast, a gasoline or Diesel fuel vehicle can refuel for full range in as little as 5 minutes.

If both are addressed, with greater range and lower charging time to a full charge, then yes, electric vehicles will be viable.  Until then, no.

Quote from: Brandon on April 18, 2016, 01:23:42 PM

2. By contrast, a gasoline or Diesel fuel vehicle can refuel for full range in as little as 5 minutes.

It is astonishing to me how many advocates of electrical vehicles miss this single point.  I've had people point out the Tesla as having a comparable range has having equaled gas-powered vehicles -- it's like that's the only measure that's being focused on currently.

I'm waiting on new technology to fix the long recharge problem.  Of course, it's less of an issue if you can get to work and back and don't ever drive beyond the vehicle's range in a day.  Basically, roadgeeks should wait for better batteries/capacitors that can recharge in a reasonable amount of time.  For urban/suburban commuters that think anything more than a couple hour drive should be taken by airplane, electric cars are probably fine as soon as the price comes down.

Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 02:41:53 PM

Quote from: Brandon on April 18, 2016, 01:23:42 PM
2. By contrast, a gasoline or Diesel fuel vehicle can refuel for full range in as little as 5 minutes.

It is astonishing to me how many advocates of electrical vehicles miss this single point.  I've had people point out the Tesla as having a comparable range has having equaled gas-powered vehicles -- it's like that's the only measure that's being focused on currently.

Most people drive less than 40 miles a day (AAA (http://goo.gl/vueZMf)). For longer trips, there's no trumping gas-powered vehicles. But short-range, around-town trips can easily be handled by both electric and petrol. The average number of vehicles per household is basically two (USDOT (http://goo.gl/HHWXQz)). Replacing just one of these vehicles with an electric vehicle, leaving the other for lengthier trips, is not that crazy.

Off topic, but IDK why, but whenever I see the title of this thread, I think it says "Texed for driving".

Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2016, 03:08:32 PM
Most people drive less than 40 miles a day (AAA (http://goo.gl/vueZMf)). For longer trips, there's no trumping gas-powered vehicles. But short-range, around-town trips can easily be handled by both electric and petrol. The average number of vehicles per household is basically two (USDOT (http://goo.gl/HHWXQz)). Replacing just one of these vehicles with an electric vehicle, leaving the other for lengthier trips, is not that crazy.

In my case - and I assume I am not alone - second one is a 16 year old, 150k miles  clunker which gets around 2000 miles/year. Replacing that with a shiny electric one makes no sense if price tag is above $5k at most.  And I would like to keep a good one ready for a longer trip....

Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2016, 04:12:22 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2016, 03:08:32 PM
Most people drive less than 40 miles a day (AAA (http://goo.gl/vueZMf)). For longer trips, there's no trumping gas-powered vehicles. But short-range, around-town trips can easily be handled by both electric and petrol. The average number of vehicles per household is basically two (USDOT (http://goo.gl/HHWXQz)). Replacing just one of these vehicles with an electric vehicle, leaving the other for lengthier trips, is not that crazy.

In my case - and I assume I am not alone - second one is a 16 year old, 150k miles  clunker which gets around 2000 miles/year. Replacing that with a shiny electric one makes no sense if price tag is above $5k at most.  And I would like to keep a good one ready for a longer trip....

Nothing's cheaper than a clunker. We're talking about new cars here, not old ones. Eventually every car needs replacing. If people are looking for a new car, and they already have more than one car, they ought to consider an electric vehicle for short runs around town, which I'd reckon is the vast majority of most people's daily endeavor.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2016, 04:23:11 PM
Nothing's cheaper than a clunker. We're talking about new cars here, not old ones. Eventually every car needs replacing. If people are looking for a new car, and they already have more than one car, they ought to consider an electric vehicle for short runs around town, which I'd reckon is the vast majority of most people's daily endeavor.

No, my message is somewhat different - in many cases "second car" for the short runs is an older of two, and replacing that with a new electric makes little sense. In my case, "second car" was a "first car" a few years ago - and as such had to be suitable for 500 mile one-way trips. Our current "first car" will eventually become a second one, and so on.. You suggest that I keep two new ones - for approximately triple price? Well, thank you for the offer... maybe I will call you back...

Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2016, 05:54:38 PM
No, my message is somewhat different - in many cases "second car" for the short runs is an older of two, and replacing that with a new electric makes little sense. In my case, "second car" was a "first car" a few years ago - and as such had to be suitable for 500 mile one-way trips. Our current "first car" will eventually become a second one, and so on.. You suggest that I keep two new ones - for approximately triple price? Well, thank you for the offer... maybe I will call you back...

If the process ain't for you, it ain't for you. No one I know purchases vehicles in that manner. Most people I know have two cars, each with its own task. Usually one is a smaller car, mainly for ferrying one of the heads of household to and from work or the train station. The other is a larger car, perhaps for ferrying the kids to and from school, or for longer journeys where luggage might be an issue. I'm suggesting that an electric car would be a good replacement for the smaller car. This vehicle is not used for long-distances at all, only for BS'ing around town.

The reason the electric car has taken off in the US, more so than in many other countries, is because Americans often own more than one car. In Europe, so far as I am aware, households may only have one vehicle, so buying an electric car doesn't make much sense, because you limit yourself in how far you can ever drive.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2016, 06:15:12 PM
If the process ain't for you, it ain't for you. No one I know purchases vehicles in that manner. Most people I know have two cars, each with its own task. Usually one is a smaller car, mainly for ferrying one of the heads of household to and from work or the train station. The other is a larger car, perhaps for ferrying the kids to and from school, or for longer journeys where luggage might be an issue. I'm suggesting that an electric car would be a good replacement for the smaller car. This vehicle is not used for long-distances at all, only for BS'ing around town.

The reason the electric car has taken off in the US, more so than in many other countries, is because Americans often own more than one car. In Europe, so far as I am aware, households may only have one vehicle, so buying an electric car doesn't make much sense, because you limit yourself in how far you can ever drive.

If that was the common case, there would be quite a few low mileage few year old cars on secondary market. A low mileage car would have a relatively high value and probably would hit the market before rusting through.
I don't see that as a common offer, though...

Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2016, 06:30:42 PM
If that was the common case, there would be quite a few low mileage few year old cars on secondary market. A low mileage car would have a relatively high value and probably would hit the market before rusting through.
I don't see that as a common offer, though...

:confused: The age of the replaced vehicle is not relevant to the type of car which is being purchased.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2016, 08:32:45 PM

Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2016, 06:30:42 PM
If that was the common case, there would be quite a few low mileage few year old cars on secondary market. A low mileage car would have a relatively high value and probably would hit the market before rusting through.
I don't see that as a common offer, though...

:confused: The age of the replaced vehicle is not relevant to the type of car which is being purchased.

if you think there are a lot of brand new cars purchased as a "second car" for short commutes, you would see ample amount of 10 year, 50 k miles - or 7 years, 35 k miles on the market. That is the mileage I would expect from those low-mileage, commute only cars. Interestingly enough, most second hand cars are at least double that, and lease returns are usually at the higher end of permissible mileage as well.  So, I don't see the pattern you advertise for electric replacement: brand new car bought as a second low mileage vehicle.

Quote from: kalvado on April 16, 2016, 07:19:19 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on April 16, 2016, 02:34:31 PM
The other problem with the math here is that the assertion 1 kWh equals 1 cup of gasoline is... wrong. It's actually equal to slightly less than half a cup.

1 kWh = 3412 BTU. There are roughly 115,000 BTU of chemical energy in a gallon of gasoline, or about 34 kWh worth. So if you added 2 cents per kWh in taxes for electricity used to charge your car (not all electricity), you'd have the equivalent of 68 cents per gallon of gas, already a slight hike.

What are your assumed values of efficiency for different engines? Without that calculations are somewhat irrelevant.
Or, if you will, we can come from the other side: Tesla consumes 0.3 kWh/mile give or take, so assuming  such car would get 25 MPG, it is  7.5 kWh/gallon, or 17.5 oz gas per kWh. All very rough.

Ah. I was wondering if your number was attempting to consider difference in efficiency, but you didn't say you were so I assumed you weren't and ran with it from there.

Apologies if I seem nitpicky, I see statements like "1 kWt-h is equal to 1 cup of gas energy wise" and my work brain kicks in. If your post were submitted as energy savings calculations with an application for incentives I'd be rejecting it for not being detailed enough. :-D

Quoteand once again - how do you enforce that tax on car charging only? I don't see a simple way - without giving tax collector enough powers so they can also check if your wife assumes proper positions at night...

I don't either, but I also don't see this being resolved as "add 4 cents per kWh to everything". Certainly not for all customers (the extra cost that would mean for a high rise office building could top a million dollars a year). For residential customers only... maybe, but it'd be a revenue windfall to the government doing it even then.

Quote from: vdeane on April 16, 2016, 05:52:17 PM

Quote from: US 41 on April 16, 2016, 01:29:11 PM
What I think is outrageous is that we spend a little over 1 trillion (668 billion federal, the rest state / local) dollars per year total on welfare programs.

Actually, propping up the military/industrial complex dwarfs welfare spending by a VERY large margin.

The $1 trillion / $668 billion figure appears to come from a Cato institute report (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/american-welfare-state-how-we-spend-nearly-$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail). Which does indeed have a long list of over 100 federal programs that add up to $668 billion, including many things not traditionally thought of as "welfare" ($55 billion in refunds for the earned income tax credit, close to $4 billion for foster care, etc.). So, the answer to the question of how much we spend on welfare depends a lot on how broadly or narrowly you define "welfare", and whether you count foregone revenue from tax credits as "spending".

Military spending for 2015 was $598 billion (according to this page full of graphs) (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/), of which $64 billion is to directly fund ongoing wars. It is worth noting that while military spending is still higher than it was in the 90s, it has been trending downwards for the past six years (graphs are fun!) (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/how-military-spending-has-changed/).

Regardless of the details, though, federal funding on transportation (all transportation, not just roads) was $26 billion in 2015. If you cut 5% from either of the above items and redirected it to transportation, you'd have more than doubled transportation funding. So yes, we could drastically increase infrastructure spending without breaking the bank, if it were made a higher priority.

Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2016, 08:42:31 PM
if you think there are a lot of brand new cars purchased as a "second car" for short commutes, you would see ample amount of 10 year, 50 k miles - or 7 years, 35 k miles on the market. That is the mileage I would expect from those low-mileage, commute only cars. Interestingly enough, most second hand cars are at least double that, and lease returns are usually at the higher end of permissible mileage as well.

Your numbers don't make any sense. 5,000 miles/year (50000/10 or 35000/7) is 13.7 miles a day; hardly even a one-way commute for most people. I already mentioned upthread an article from AAA which clearly states that most Americans travel around 29 miles/day, which is well within the range of most electric vehicles anyway. Even 15,000 miles/year is 41 miles/day, which is, again, still well within the range of most electric vehicles.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2016, 03:08:32 PM
Most people drive less than 40 miles a day (AAA (http://goo.gl/vueZMf)).

AAA's numbers suggest an average yearly mileage of 10,658 miles/year. If you want to dispute AAA's numbers, be my guest.

Update: Illinois drops the driving tax idea, after it was used to spark debate over how to pay for the infrastructure

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Illinois-Lawmakers-Drop--376210181.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Illinois-Lawmakers-Drop--376210181.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand)

The tax-for-mile discussion will be revived, though.  I guarantee it.  The closer we get to emission-free cars, the farther we are from a gas tax that's worth anything.  Our roads have to be paid for somehow.  I think it'll come down to getting our cars annually inspected like some states already require.  Odometers will have to be hack-proof and adherent to some kind of government standard.  Maybe they can lump an annual inspection process in with getting our license plate stickers every year.

Quote from: ET21 on April 19, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Update: Illinois drops the driving tax idea, after it was used to spark debate over how to pay for the infrastructure

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Illinois-Lawmakers-Drop--376210181.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Illinois-Lawmakers-Drop--376210181.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand)

So what did "on a base of 30,000 miles" mean?  Does that mean they were planning in the proposal to charge for 30,000 miles regardless if you drove that much or not?  $0.015 per mile is a lot more sensible than the $0.05 that was being thrown out earlier in the thread....privacy issues aside of course.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 19, 2016, 09:13:01 PM

Quote from: ET21 on April 19, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Update: Illinois drops the driving tax idea, after it was used to spark debate over how to pay for the infrastructure

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Illinois-Lawmakers-Drop--376210181.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Illinois-Lawmakers-Drop--376210181.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand)

So what did "on a base of 30,000 miles" mean?  Does that mean they were planning in the proposal to charge for 30,000 miles regardless if you drove that much or not?  $0.015 per mile is a lot more sensible than the $0.05 that was being thrown out earlier in the thread....privacy issues aside of course.

I assume the 30,000 miles was a base number in order to calculate the tax per mile. I sure as hell don't drive 30,000 a year

Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 19, 2016, 09:00:28 PM
The tax-for-mile discussion will be revived, though.  I guarantee it.  The closer we get to emission-free cars, the farther we are from a gas tax that's worth anything.  Our roads have to be paid for somehow.  I think it'll come down to getting our cars annually inspected like some states already require.  Odometers will have to be hack-proof and adherent to some kind of government standard.  Maybe they can lump an annual inspection process in with getting our license plate stickers every year.

Somewhat psychological problem: paying $5 tax per tank is easier than one time payment of $200  (on top of what qualified mechanic would find in the average car during that inspection. Which can be pretty substantial - like "somewhat worn tires" may become "no, you cannot pass inspection with THAT. And your "check engine" needs to be fixed. No inspection sticker otherwise") 

Quote from: ET21 on April 20, 2016, 09:27:36 AM
I assume the 30,000 miles was a base number in order to calculate the tax per mile. I sure as hell don't drive 30,000 a year

I drive a pretty absurdly high amount, road tripping and all, and I only reach about 22,500 miles each year

Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 20, 2016, 02:43:02 PM

Quote from: ET21 on April 20, 2016, 09:27:36 AM
I assume the 30,000 miles was a base number in order to calculate the tax per mile. I sure as hell don't drive 30,000 a year

I drive a pretty absurdly high amount, road tripping and all, and I only reach about 22,500 miles each year

Same here. I only drove 25,000 miles from February 2015 to February of this year, and that included my Ontario / Washington DC trip and two trips to the southwestern US. Although I'd happily drive more miles if I were able to.

Quote from: US 41 on April 20, 2016, 04:18:13 PM
Same here. I only drove 25,000 miles from February 2015 to February of this year, and that included my Ontario / Washington DC trip and two trips to the southwestern US. Although I'd happily drive more miles if I were able to.

They say long haul truck driver can easily get 100k miles a year. Sound like a plan?

Quote from: kalvado on April 20, 2016, 04:57:27 PM

Quote from: US 41 on April 20, 2016, 04:18:13 PM
Same here. I only drove 25,000 miles from February 2015 to February of this year, and that included my Ontario / Washington DC trip and two trips to the southwestern US. Although I'd happily drive more miles if I were able to.

They say long haul truck driver can easily get 100k miles a year. Sound like a plan?

Sounds like a plan to me. I actually plan on starting my trucking career in less than 2 years.

Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 20, 2016, 02:43:02 PM

Quote from: ET21 on April 20, 2016, 09:27:36 AM
I assume the 30,000 miles was a base number in order to calculate the tax per mile. I sure as hell don't drive 30,000 a year

I drive a pretty absurdly high amount, road tripping and all, and I only reach about 22,500 miles each year

Maybe 30,000-35,000 for me but that's over two cars I own traveling a lot in addition to whatever I take for rental on trips that I have to fly out to.

A couple years back though I was hitting 60,000 to 80,000 in a POV since my company did only mileage.  Basically laws like that would have eaten hugely into my net profit from mileage reimbursement.  Granted I was netting about 60% net profit after gas, insurance and maintenance...great to get a little compact with cheap parts and good fuel economy for that purpose.

Same situation here: I bought a brand new car at the very end of July last year and only have 20,500 on it and probably won't put another 2000-3000 on it before the end of July. Fall is my big driving time. Last year it included a trip to Iowa, a trip to Detroit, a trip to Syracuse, a trip to New Orleans/Houston, and also a trip to eastern TN/KY.

As for the discussion of first/second car. That's the way everyone in my family buys cars. Get a new car every 3-4-5 years and demote the previous 'first car' to second car status and either trade in the old second car or junk it or sell it to a third party. This means a car won't be 'younger' than about 7-8 years before it's replaced. Giving you a few years of payment free driving, and with its demotion, it tends to last the last 3-4-5 years a lot better than when it was the primary car. If you have kids, sometimes that second car turns into the kid's car and then they keep it upon graduation, etc.

Not everyone has a his & hers car and replace them regularly. And this isn't counting pickups, that have a specific purpose. But, even then, sometimes they are second-car status or, in my case, a 1987 F-150 that drives maybe 1,000-2,000 miles a year and is used as a truck is intended. Hauling stuff. It's not a passenger vehicle.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 05:13:28 AM
Your numbers don't make any sense. 5,000 miles/year (50000/10 or 35000/7) is 13.7 miles a day; hardly even a one-way commute for most people. I already mentioned upthread an article from AAA which clearly states that most Americans travel around 29 miles/day, which is well within the range of most electric vehicles anyway. Even 15,000 miles/year is 41 miles/day, which is, again, still well within the range of most electric vehicles.

Oops, I missed that reply
FHWA lists average commute as 12.5 miles one way. 250 days a year ~ 6.5 k miles/year.
Show me these "commute only" cars on the second hand market, I'll gladly buy one.

Average annual mileage will be higher - and, to a large extent, due to longer trips which can easily add 500-1000 and more miles per run - and 3000 miles difference between average commute and average annual distance is largely that.   

Quote from: kalvado on April 23, 2016, 11:11:59 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 05:13:28 AM
Your numbers don't make any sense. 5,000 miles/year (50000/10 or 35000/7) is 13.7 miles a day; hardly even a one-way commute for most people. I already mentioned upthread an article from AAA which clearly states that most Americans travel around 29 miles/day, which is well within the range of most electric vehicles anyway. Even 15,000 miles/year is 41 miles/day, which is, again, still well within the range of most electric vehicles.

Oops, I missed that reply
FHWA lists average commute as 12.5 miles one way. 250 days a year ~ 6.5 k miles/year.
Show me these "commute only" cars on the second hand market, I'll gladly buy one.

Average annual mileage will be higher - and, to a large extent, due to longer trips which can easily add 500-1000 and more miles per run - and 3000 miles difference between average commute and average annual distance is largely that.   

Many commuters get a car primarily to commute in, it's not that unusual.  They're often leased and traded after 2-3 years.  If they're getting a car specifically to commute in, it'll probably be an economy car and not very special, so they won't mind too much if it gets dinged or rusted or faded from the sun from parking outside.  They're saving that mileage on their lower MPG luxury or sports car that they use on weekends.

The problem with the second hand market on electric and hybrid vehicles is that you are running much closer to having to replace the battery then when it was new.  Even the battery in a Prius is still going to run at least $3,000 dollars to replace which is why you don't really see them for sale too often after five years of life.  For the money the city cars like the Spark and Fortwo in addition to sub-compacts like the Sonic, Fiesta, Fit, Versa, Yaris, ect are still going to be the better bet either new or second hand until the price of replacing batteries becomes completely nominal.  Looking at the entry price of a Yaris it's about $15,000 vs about $24,000 for a new Prius....so how long does it take to get an ROI on that $9,000 dollars in hybrid technology.  Assuming gas spikes back up to $4 dollars a gallons, your commute is 40 miles that comes out to 10,400 a year at 35 MPG with the Yaris which comes out to roughly 297 gallons a year or $1,188 dollars roughly.  Now lets assume that the Prius manages to run on electric for 20 of those commute miles, you are now still driving 5,200 miles a year on gas.  So basically your gas savings is going to be to $594 dollars a year which would take you 15 years to make up the difference between the conventional gas Yaris and hybrid Prius.  Basically about 8 years in you are going to have to replace the battery and it's going to cost $3,000 dollars making the ROI even worse.

Now that's not to say that someone living in a highly urban area that never exceeds speeds of 40 MPH wouldn't benefit from a hybrid or electric car but the initial markup still isn't going to make it worth in the short run vs conventional combustion engine.  The main issues with hybrid and electric in the long term is that they aren't maintenance free as everyone assumes them to be, worse the parts cost more.  Now say that gap between the Yaris and the Prius was about $3,000 dollars and replacing the battery cost $1,000 we're talking a much different ball game.  But that's going to take decades for the price of hybrid/electric to dwindle down to the neighborhood of a gasoline engine.  Leasing might make a difference too on the gas/hybrid price variance too...that is if you live close enough to your place of work to take advantage of that.

Arguing for hybrids or electrics as being 'beneficial' despite the increased initial costs, less resale value, and potential maintenance expenses the longer you own it is the same argument made for ETC tolls to be higher than cash tolls because you're paying for the 'convenience'.

In the end, until electric or hybrid cars are cheaper for someone owning the car for 8 years and about 150k miles, it's not going to be worth it for many people.

Quote from: kkt on April 23, 2016, 11:23:10 AM

Quote from: kalvado on April 23, 2016, 11:11:59 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 05:13:28 AM
Your numbers don't make any sense. 5,000 miles/year (50000/10 or 35000/7) is 13.7 miles a day; hardly even a one-way commute for most people. I already mentioned upthread an article from AAA which clearly states that most Americans travel around 29 miles/day, which is well within the range of most electric vehicles anyway. Even 15,000 miles/year is 41 miles/day, which is, again, still well within the range of most electric vehicles.

Oops, I missed that reply
FHWA lists average commute as 12.5 miles one way. 250 days a year ~ 6.5 k miles/year.
Show me these "commute only" cars on the second hand market, I'll gladly buy one.

Average annual mileage will be higher - and, to a large extent, due to longer trips which can easily add 500-1000 and more miles per run - and 3000 miles difference between average commute and average annual distance is largely that.   

Many commuters get a car primarily to commute in, it's not that unusual.  They're often leased and traded after 2-3 years.  If they're getting a car specifically to commute in, it'll probably be an economy car and not very special, so they won't mind too much if it gets dinged or rusted or faded from the sun from parking outside.  They're saving that mileage on their lower MPG luxury or sports car that they use on weekends.

Most leases only cover 12,000 miles, tops. If you're driving 250 trips at 50 round trip miles and nothing extra, that's 12,500 with overmileage charges. Secondly, they're far more likely to care about dings, dents, and other problems because they'll be charged back to the leasee. Not exactly a situation you want to be driving someone else's car. Purchasing it and then trading it in after 5-6 years is a much more economical idea.

The other thing is, leasing is still a minimal portion of car sales and new car sales.

http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leasing-is-shifting-the-new-car-market-but-it-isnt-the-best-choice-for-everyone-says-edmundscom.html

From 2013, New cars make up 29% of all car sales, and only 25% of new car sales are lease cars. So, roughly 7% of all cars sold in the country in the year would be leases.

They're not popular. What are they then? Price hooks. A lot easier to advertise a new car for $149 a month (and quietly list it as a lease) and not the $250-$300 so the outright purchase might be. And in the end, it doesn't work out for most people. It's the payday loans of car sales. Trick them into getting a 'good deal' when it fails to pay off after the 2 or 3 years are up. Mileages, damages. The fact that you have zero equity in the money you've spent the past two or three years.

No different than arguing for renting a house instead of buying it because you can move in a few years without strings attached. Most would find that proposition troublesome.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 23, 2016, 11:54:14 PM
Arguing for hybrids or electrics as being 'beneficial' despite the increased initial costs, less resale value, and potential maintenance expenses the longer you own it is the same argument made for ETC tolls to be higher than cash tolls because you're paying for the 'convenience'.

In the end, until electric or hybrid cars are cheaper for someone owning the car for 8 years and about 150k miles, it's not going to be worth it for many people.

Usually the angle most people go for on hybrids and electrics is that it is some sort of eco-friendly production compared to conventional gas or diesel.  While that is certainly true while the vehicle is operating through it's service life it certainly isn't true about all the pollutants caused by mining for all the metals that go into lithium-ion production.  Basically during the building process the pollution produced to build a hybrid or electric is much higher than it would be for something much more conventional.  I'm not saying that isn't offset down the line but it's interesting that most people who are into environmentalism tend to overlook the production of a vehicle and what it entails.

Now....if someone can build a steamer with a small enough boiler that somehow meets crash regulations then we would be onto something.   :-D  Still doesn't eliminate the problem with gas tax though...  I guess it goes back to buy what you like and what you want...but if you on a budget, buy smart and hope that some of these more outlandish mileage tax plans never come full fruition.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 24, 2016, 12:02:06 AM

Quote from: kkt on April 23, 2016, 11:23:10 AM

Quote from: kalvado on April 23, 2016, 11:11:59 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 05:13:28 AM
Your numbers don't make any sense. 5,000 miles/year (50000/10 or 35000/7) is 13.7 miles a day; hardly even a one-way commute for most people. I already mentioned upthread an article from AAA which clearly states that most Americans travel around 29 miles/day, which is well within the range of most electric vehicles anyway. Even 15,000 miles/year is 41 miles/day, which is, again, still well within the range of most electric vehicles.

Oops, I missed that reply
FHWA lists average commute as 12.5 miles one way. 250 days a year ~ 6.5 k miles/year.
Show me these "commute only" cars on the second hand market, I'll gladly buy one.

Average annual mileage will be higher - and, to a large extent, due to longer trips which can easily add 500-1000 and more miles per run - and 3000 miles difference between average commute and average annual distance is largely that.   

Many commuters get a car primarily to commute in, it's not that unusual.  They're often leased and traded after 2-3 years.  If they're getting a car specifically to commute in, it'll probably be an economy car and not very special, so they won't mind too much if it gets dinged or rusted or faded from the sun from parking outside.  They're saving that mileage on their lower MPG luxury or sports car that they use on weekends.

Most leases only cover 12,000 miles, tops. If you're driving 250 trips at 50 round trip miles and nothing extra, that's 12,500 with overmileage charges.

But that would be twice the length of the average commute quoted above.

Quote
Secondly, they're far more likely to care about dings, dents, and other problems because they'll be charged back to the leasee. Not exactly a situation you want to be driving someone else's car. Purchasing it and then trading it in after 5-6 years is a much more economical idea.

In general, that's good advice.  However, not all lease deals are the same.  Some allow the driver to buy the car at the end of the lease at a reasonable purchase price.  And some people have their hearts set on a new car every 3 years and don't mind not getting the equity even if it costs them money.

Quote
The other thing is, leasing is still a minimal portion of car sales and new car sales.

http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leasing-is-shifting-the-new-car-market-but-it-isnt-the-best-choice-for-everyone-says-edmundscom.html

From 2013, New cars make up 29% of all car sales, and only 25% of new car sales are lease cars. So, roughly 7% of all cars sold in the country in the year would be leases.

I never said leases were a majority, I just said there were a significant number of them.  7% is a pretty good sized minority.

Quote
They're not popular. What are they then? Price hooks. A lot easier to advertise a new car for $149 a month (and quietly list it as a lease) and not the $250-$300 so the outright purchase might be. And in the end, it doesn't work out for most people. It's the payday loans of car sales. Trick them into getting a 'good deal' when it fails to pay off after the 2 or 3 years are up. Mileages, damages. The fact that you have zero equity in the money you've spent the past two or three years.

Not all leases are bad.  Some allow purchase at the end.  Some drivers just gotta have that new car every few years, and leasing can be a good deal.  I wouldn't assume that everyone who leases is a fool, any more than I'd assume that everyone who rents their house is a fool.

Quote
No different than arguing for renting a house instead of buying it because you can move in a few years without strings attached. Most would find that proposition troublesome.

But if you rent and something goes wrong, it's the landlord's problem.  Or if you have to move often for your job, buying would be silly.  Don't assume the conventional wisdom is right for all people.

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 24, 2016, 12:02:06 AM
They're not popular. What are they then? Price hooks. A lot easier to advertise a new car for $149 a month (and quietly list it as a lease) and not the $250-$300 so the outright purchase might be. And in the end, it doesn't work out for most people. It's the payday loans of car sales. Trick them into getting a 'good deal' when it fails to pay off after the 2 or 3 years are up. Mileages, damages. The fact that you have zero equity in the money you've spent the past two or three years.

Who gives a shit about paying off the car? People who lease are the people who've worked a car payment into their permanent budget. They like having new cars, they don't like being responsible for maintenance, and they don't drive a ton (and even if they do, they offer leases with 15k+ miles these days). Especially if you're someone who likes buying from the same company, there's usually good benefits for re-leasing a new car. Hyundai-Kia, for example, don't make you pay for the extra miles on the lease if you lease another Hyundai or Kia after the first lease expires.

Quote from: kkt on April 24, 2016, 01:27:15 AM
Don't assume the conventional wisdom is right for all people.

I think that's the moral of the story.

Quote from: kkt on April 24, 2016, 01:27:15 AM

Quote from: Sykotyk on April 24, 2016, 12:02:06 AM

Quote from: kkt on April 23, 2016, 11:23:10 AM

Quote from: kalvado on April 23, 2016, 11:11:59 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 05:13:28 AM
Your numbers don't make any sense. 5,000 miles/year (50000/10 or 35000/7) is 13.7 miles a day; hardly even a one-way commute for most people. I already mentioned upthread an article from AAA which clearly states that most Americans travel around 29 miles/day, which is well within the range of most electric vehicles anyway. Even 15,000 miles/year is 41 miles/day, which is, again, still well within the range of most electric vehicles.

Oops, I missed that reply
FHWA lists average commute as 12.5 miles one way. 250 days a year ~ 6.5 k miles/year.
Show me these "commute only" cars on the second hand market, I'll gladly buy one.

Average annual mileage will be higher - and, to a large extent, due to longer trips which can easily add 500-1000 and more miles per run - and 3000 miles difference between average commute and average annual distance is largely that.   

Many commuters get a car primarily to commute in, it's not that unusual.  They're often leased and traded after 2-3 years.  If they're getting a car specifically to commute in, it'll probably be an economy car and not very special, so they won't mind too much if it gets dinged or rusted or faded from the sun from parking outside.  They're saving that mileage on their lower MPG luxury or sports car that they use on weekends.

Most leases only cover 12,000 miles, tops. If you're driving 250 trips at 50 round trip miles and nothing extra, that's 12,500 with overmileage charges.

But that would be twice the length of the average commute quoted above.

Quote
Secondly, they're far more likely to care about dings, dents, and other problems because they'll be charged back to the leasee. Not exactly a situation you want to be driving someone else's car. Purchasing it and then trading it in after 5-6 years is a much more economical idea.

In general, that's good advice.  However, not all lease deals are the same.  Some allow the driver to buy the car at the end of the lease at a reasonable purchase price.  And some people have their hearts set on a new car every 3 years and don't mind not getting the equity even if it costs them money.

Quote
The other thing is, leasing is still a minimal portion of car sales and new car sales.

http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leasing-is-shifting-the-new-car-market-but-it-isnt-the-best-choice-for-everyone-says-edmundscom.html

From 2013, New cars make up 29% of all car sales, and only 25% of new car sales are lease cars. So, roughly 7% of all cars sold in the country in the year would be leases.

I never said leases were a majority, I just said there were a significant number of them.  7% is a pretty good sized minority.

Quote
They're not popular. What are they then? Price hooks. A lot easier to advertise a new car for $149 a month (and quietly list it as a lease) and not the $250-$300 so the outright purchase might be. And in the end, it doesn't work out for most people. It's the payday loans of car sales. Trick them into getting a 'good deal' when it fails to pay off after the 2 or 3 years are up. Mileages, damages. The fact that you have zero equity in the money you've spent the past two or three years.

Not all leases are bad.  Some allow purchase at the end.  Some drivers just gotta have that new car every few years, and leasing can be a good deal.  I wouldn't assume that everyone who leases is a fool, any more than I'd assume that everyone who rents their house is a fool.

Quote
No different than arguing for renting a house instead of buying it because you can move in a few years without strings attached. Most would find that proposition troublesome.

But if you rent and something goes wrong, it's the landlord's problem.  Or if you have to move often for your job, buying would be silly.  Don't assume the conventional wisdom is right for all people.

I'll sum up the issue with purchasing your leased vehicle: it means you pay more for the same car over a longer period of time. They're not going to take total payment for the car less than they would just selling it outright. That 'purchase option' at the end is a scam. Hopeing to snare people with extensive cosmetic issues (interior or exterior) who will face a large fee and instead choose to buy it, or those not good with math to realize their decision to purchase it in the first place.

Secondly, buying a car, a secondary car, just for a commute of less than 25 miles a day for 250 days is absurdly expensive. Either lease or purchase. It's like buying a second house so you don't have to clean your primary house as often.

The people with the means to just buy a commuter car aren't the ones with short drives and they're not the ones financially strapped to buy a cheap car. Why spend hundreds of dollars a month for a vehicle used sparingly for consistently small trips when you already own a primary vehicle designed to handle the rigors of a regular family? If it's secondary, and not for status, it's utilitarian in nature. The leftover usage of your old primary car demoted to secondary status. It saves you money, instead of an added expense for a rather narrow purpose.

Maybe there are a lot of people conned by the idea of a new car for status or the 'joy' of a new car. But they're probably the same ones complaining they don't have enough money to live, complaining about a gas tax that (as calculated above) becomes a very small part of your annual household budget.

In my case, I'm leasing my car because I couldn't afford the loan payments to buy it (if only it weren't for student loans, there would have been room in the budget...).  I plan to buy it at the end of the lease, which will probably involve a loan since I don't want to use the entirety of my savings to pay for it.

Quote from: kkt on April 24, 2016, 01:27:15 AM
Not all leases are bad.  Some allow purchase at the end.  Some drivers just gotta have that new car every few years, and leasing can be a good deal.  I wouldn't assume that everyone who leases is a fool, any more than I'd assume that everyone who rents their house is a fool.

Indeed. This is why my parents have been doing nothing but leasing cars for the past 20+ years. They are quite aware that this costs more money in the long run, but it means they never have a car that's more than 3 years old, and they have made a conscious decision that they want to pay a premium for that.

Quote

Quote
No different than arguing for renting a house instead of buying it because you can move in a few years without strings attached. Most would find that proposition troublesome.

But if you rent and something goes wrong, it's the landlord's problem. Or if you have to move often for your job, buying would be silly. Don't assume the conventional wisdom is right for all people.

Not only that, but homes, unlike cars, do not significantly degrade in condition after only a few years. And homes, unlike cars, typically have a higher resale value than what they were purchased for.

And you get tax deductions for the interest on your mortgage if you buy a home. Those same deductions do not apply to car loans.

There are real benefits to buying a home instead of renting that do not apply to cars.