As electric cars proliferate, gasoline tax receipts will fall, causing the source of most funding for road maintenance and construction to dry up. The obvious solution is a fee levied on miles driven. Here's how I envision such a system working
Economists may fantasize about a fancy GPS system that varies the rate of tax based on location and time of day, so that it's higher in big cities during rush hour and low in rural areas at 3 in the morning. But the administrative complications and privacy concerns are a major roadblock. More likely, we will end up with a flat fee that varies for different types of vehicles. It would probably be something like this
1 Cent/Mile for Motorcycles
3 Cents for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
6 Cents for Medium Duty Trucks
12 Cents for Heavy Duty Trucks
For simplicity, all states should operate on one system, probably to be operated by EZPass
One compromise to economic efficiency would be registering if you drive in a different state. People who live in Connecticut and work in New York should pay for the upkeep of the roads in New York that they drive on. As you drive down the Merritt Parkway, the system will charge you a fee to be given to ConnDOT, but once you cross over into New York, GPS will register that and switch over to billing you on behalf of NYSDOT. Your bill, given at the end of each month, will break down which states you drove in and how much you owe.
This data could also be shared with insurance companies to make pay per mile car insurance much more feasible. This is good because people who drive more obviously pose a greater risk and by increasing the marginal cost of driving without increasing the average cost, it would be a way of internalizing more of the societal costs of driving without increasing taxes.
Those are my thoughts. Does anyone else have any?
We need less tracking of people, not more.
Most northeast states have annual inspections. Get the mileage from that.
So why should a given state tax any of following miles?
- Miles driven on non-state maintained roads?
- Miles driven out of the state you reside in?
- Miles driven on Forest Service Roads?
- Miles driven on private roads?
- Miles driven on National Park Roads?
I just throw that out there because these are questions people would ask and where objections would likely come from. The constant GPS surveillance thing you propose likely would not get much support given privacy concerns.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 17, 2021, 09:00:15 AM
So why should a given state tax any of following miles?
- Miles driven on non-state maintained roads?
- Miles driven out of the state you reside in?
- Miles driven on Forest Service Roads?
- Miles driven on private roads?
- Miles driven on National Park Roads?
I just throw that out there because these are questions people would ask and where objections would likely come from. The constant GPS surveillance thing you propose likely would not get much support given privacy concerns.
It wouldn't be constant, it would only register movement over state borders, so no, states would not bill for miles driven out of state.
Locally maintained roads are mostly for access to property parcels and for distributing utilities, for the benefit mainly of property owners, not motorists, so those roads should be paid for with local property taxes as is the case today. Of course this cross subsidy cuts both ways, when a state builds a new highway, property values in the surrounding area skyrocket and yet property owners don't pay for this benefit.
Mileage on forest service, national park, and private roads are so low they can be ignored and the complications that would come with distinguishing them would make it prohibitively expensive.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:21:26 AM
Locally maintained roads are mostly for access to property parcels and for distributing utilities, for the benefit mainly of property owners, not motorists, so those roads should be paid for with local property taxes as is the case today. Of course this cross subsidy cuts both ways, when a state builds a new highway, property values in the surrounding area skyrocket and yet property owners don't pay for this benefit.
In most states, locally maintained means anything without a number. In Massachusetts and a few other states, even some segments of roads
with a number are locally maintained.
Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2021, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:21:26 AM
Locally maintained roads are mostly for access to property parcels and for distributing utilities, for the benefit mainly of property owners, not motorists, so those roads should be paid for with local property taxes as is the case today. Of course this cross subsidy cuts both ways, when a state builds a new highway, property values in the surrounding area skyrocket and yet property owners don't pay for this benefit.
In most states, locally maintained means anything without a number. In Massachusetts and a few other states, even some segments of roads with a number are locally maintained.
And?
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:31:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2021, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:21:26 AM
Locally maintained roads are mostly for access to property parcels and for distributing utilities, for the benefit mainly of property owners, not motorists, so those roads should be paid for with local property taxes as is the case today. Of course this cross subsidy cuts both ways, when a state builds a new highway, property values in the surrounding area skyrocket and yet property owners don't pay for this benefit.
In most states, locally maintained means anything without a number. In Massachusetts and a few other states, even some segments of roads with a number are locally maintained.
And?
To use a local example, if there's a VMT tax, why should drivers
not have to pay to take Cedar St. in Wellesley even though it's not residential? I do support spreading out traffic on more roads so that the ones above capacity have fewer cars, but I understand that you have the opposite goal and want a strict hierarchy; tolling state-maintained roads but not town-maintained roads will push people toward the town-maintained roads.
(Side note: I always hesitate when I see "VMT tax". It's fine, though; T doesn't stand for tax.)
Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2021, 09:52:29 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:31:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2021, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:21:26 AM
Locally maintained roads are mostly for access to property parcels and for distributing utilities, for the benefit mainly of property owners, not motorists, so those roads should be paid for with local property taxes as is the case today. Of course this cross subsidy cuts both ways, when a state builds a new highway, property values in the surrounding area skyrocket and yet property owners don't pay for this benefit.
In most states, locally maintained means anything without a number. In Massachusetts and a few other states, even some segments of roads with a number are locally maintained.
And?
To use a local example, if there's a VMT tax, why should drivers not have to pay to take Cedar St. in Wellesley even though it's not residential? I do support spreading out traffic on more roads so that the ones above capacity have fewer cars, but I understand that you have the opposite goal and want a strict hierarchy; tolling state-maintained roads but not town-maintained roads will push people toward the town-maintained roads.
(Side note: I always hesitate when I see "VMT tax". It's fine, though; T doesn't stand for tax.)
The state should tax drivers for use of locally maintained roads even if they don't pay for their upkeep. But on the flipside, Routes 9 and 128 make property in Wellesley far more valuable than otherwise would be the case, and yet residents don't pay a cent in property taxes toward their upkeep.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 10:03:33 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2021, 09:52:29 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:31:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2021, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:21:26 AM
Locally maintained roads are mostly for access to property parcels and for distributing utilities, for the benefit mainly of property owners, not motorists, so those roads should be paid for with local property taxes as is the case today. Of course this cross subsidy cuts both ways, when a state builds a new highway, property values in the surrounding area skyrocket and yet property owners don't pay for this benefit.
In most states, locally maintained means anything without a number. In Massachusetts and a few other states, even some segments of roads with a number are locally maintained.
And?
To use a local example, if there's a VMT tax, why should drivers not have to pay to take Cedar St. in Wellesley even though it's not residential? I do support spreading out traffic on more roads so that the ones above capacity have fewer cars, but I understand that you have the opposite goal and want a strict hierarchy; tolling state-maintained roads but not town-maintained roads will push people toward the town-maintained roads.
(Side note: I always hesitate when I see "VMT tax". It's fine, though; T doesn't stand for tax.)
The state should tax drivers for use of locally maintained roads even if they don't pay for their upkeep. But on the flipside, Routes 9 and 128 make property in Wellesley far more valuable than otherwise would be the case, and yet residents don't pay a cent in property taxes toward their upkeep.
That's where you get into questions like the one I proposed above. There likely will be massive opposition politically to inducing a user fee or tax to fund State Highway Departments on roadways they don't maintain. This is where the rabbit hole of things like diversion to the general funds happen now with a gas tax. A lot of your reasoning is predicated on people not resisting measures like a mileage tax, to which there will likely will be. It is more a matter if that can he defeated politically or how much a mileage system survives being put through the political ringer.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:21:26 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 17, 2021, 09:00:15 AM
So why should a given state tax any of following miles?
- Miles driven on non-state maintained roads?
- Miles driven out of the state you reside in?
- Miles driven on Forest Service Roads?
- Miles driven on private roads?
- Miles driven on National Park Roads?
I just throw that out there because these are questions people would ask and where objections would likely come from. The constant GPS surveillance thing you propose likely would not get much support given privacy concerns.
It wouldn't be constant, it would only register movement over state borders, so no, states would not bill for miles driven out of state.
Locally maintained roads are mostly for access to property parcels and for distributing utilities, for the benefit mainly of property owners, not motorists, so those roads should be paid for with local property taxes as is the case today. Of course this cross subsidy cuts both ways, when a state builds a new highway, property values in the surrounding area skyrocket and yet property owners don't pay for this benefit.
Mileage on forest service, national park, and private roads are so low they can be ignored and the complications that would come with distinguishing them would make it prohibitively expensive.
Good luck getting people to believe that the GPS only tracks for state line changes. People already slow down for toll gantries even though they don't operate as speed cameras. And how accurate will that be? The last few times I've opened Google Maps on my phone, it thought I was several miles away from where I actually was.
I don't understand the proposition that a GPS would only register when you cross a state line. How would it figure the miles driven in a given state? That is, for example, suppose two different people are driving from New York to Atlanta. One guy uses the Jersey Turnpike/I-95/I-85 route. The other guy has to make a couple of stops en route and largely uses the same route, but he exits I-95 to use VA-3 and VA-20 to Charlottesville, then VA-20 to US-15 and US-460 to Blackstone, Virginia, and then connects to I-85 to Atlanta. So both drivers cross the same state lines in the same locations, but the second driver incurs a lot more mileage in Virginia. How does this system adjust for that?
I still cite the same thing I say any time someone starts about GPS tracking for mileage. A former work colleague of mine–a black man who lived in Charles County, Maryland–was all for the idea of GPS tracking and taxing until I said, "So you'll be OK with it if the police show up at your door and say, 'Mr. [his last name], we're investigating a crime spree in Potomac and we want to talk to you. Your car was there, according to GPS records, but that's a predominantly-white neighborhood and you're black. Why were you there?'" He froze at that thought. It wasn't at all far-fetched to him. Don't think it couldn't happen, either. Of course it could. E-ZPass data are already subject to subpoena and have been cited as evidence in things like divorce proceedings, and I'm sure grand juries have used that sort of thing as well. It's not far-fetched at all, and if history in this country teaches us anything, it's that any sort of technical advances happen without privacy protections until it's too late–the barn door is open and you'll never get the animals back in.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2021, 10:53:38 AM
I don't understand the proposition that a GPS would only register when you cross a state line. How would it figure the miles driven in a given state? That is, for example, suppose two different people are driving from New York to Atlanta. One guy uses the Jersey Turnpike/I-95/I-85 route. The other guy has to make a couple of stops en route and largely uses the same route, but he exits I-95 to use VA-3 and VA-20 to Charlottesville, then VA-20 to US-15 and US-460 to Blackstone, Virginia, and then connects to I-85 to Atlanta. So both drivers cross the same state lines in the same locations, but the second driver incurs a lot more mileage in Virginia. How does this system adjust for that?
I still cite the same thing I say any time someone starts about GPS tracking for mileage. A former work colleague of mine–a black man who lived in Charles County, Maryland–was all for the idea of GPS tracking and taxing until I said, "So you'll be OK with it if the police show up at your door and say, 'Mr. [his last name], we're investigating a crime spree in Potomac and we want to talk to you. Your car was there, according to GPS records, but that's a predominantly-white neighborhood and you're black. Why were you there?'" He froze at that thought. It wasn't at all far-fetched to him. Don't think it couldn't happen, either. Of course it could. E-ZPass data are already subject to subpoena and have been cited as evidence in things like divorce proceedings, and I'm sure grand juries have used that sort of thing as well. It's not far-fetched at all, and if history in this country teaches us anything, it's that any sort of technical advances happen without privacy protections until it's too late–the barn door is open and you'll never get the animals back in.
If you've driven 100 miles in Virginia, it would be recorded in your account as VA: 100. Then when you cross the state border into North Carolina, it will stop counting for Virginia and start counting for North Carolina and continue to do so until you reach South Carolina.
Might be best to just say, for personal cars, that the taxes go to whichever state's license plate the vehicle carries. If I register it in Oklahoma, Oklahoma gets all the mileage associated with it. Is that fair to states like Kansas and Missouri, whose drivers spend a lot of time on the other state's roads? No, but it's the least bad option, especially since most people's daily driver has a negligible impact on road maintenance costs, only road capacity, and most individual people do the vast majority of driving in the state their car is plated in.
If cross-border traffic is really a concern, the states involved could form a compact to pool their money and distribute it as they feel more appropriate. New England would be a good candidate for this, since I imagine there are lots of people who live in RI and commute to MA or CT, and so on.
For local roads, I'm not sure why it wouldn't just be handled like the federal road fund is now–state collects so much money, allocates a certain amount to the DOT, then turns over the rest to city and county DOTs according to a formula of some kind, probably based on the number of cars registered there.
It may be worth doing a GPS-type system for commercial vehicles, since many of them are already subject to more stringent logging requirements anyway, and the state has a compelling interest in looking at that data to spot safety issues (e.g. that adequate breaks are being taken). Since that would cover the vast amount of vehicles with a high enough GVW to damage the roads, that would help to finesse the inequities of the personal-car system described above.
Since electric vehicles are one of the main considerations for a VMT tax: Is there a reason we couldn't or shouldn't build some sort of taxing mechanism right into the charging apparatus, something that tracks and charges based on the power used?
I could see this being an issue with the residential/in home chargers (tampering?) as well as having to retrofit existing chargers. Probably wouldn't work if there is ever some sort of in roadway charging mechanism that can charge vehicles while they are being driven.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 11:24:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2021, 10:53:38 AM
I don't understand the proposition that a GPS would only register when you cross a state line. How would it figure the miles driven in a given state? That is, for example, suppose two different people are driving from New York to Atlanta. One guy uses the Jersey Turnpike/I-95/I-85 route. The other guy has to make a couple of stops en route and largely uses the same route, but he exits I-95 to use VA-3 and VA-20 to Charlottesville, then VA-20 to US-15 and US-460 to Blackstone, Virginia, and then connects to I-85 to Atlanta. So both drivers cross the same state lines in the same locations, but the second driver incurs a lot more mileage in Virginia. How does this system adjust for that?
I still cite the same thing I say any time someone starts about GPS tracking for mileage. A former work colleague of mine–a black man who lived in Charles County, Maryland–was all for the idea of GPS tracking and taxing until I said, "So you'll be OK with it if the police show up at your door and say, 'Mr. [his last name], we're investigating a crime spree in Potomac and we want to talk to you. Your car was there, according to GPS records, but that's a predominantly-white neighborhood and you're black. Why were you there?'" He froze at that thought. It wasn't at all far-fetched to him. Don't think it couldn't happen, either. Of course it could. E-ZPass data are already subject to subpoena and have been cited as evidence in things like divorce proceedings, and I'm sure grand juries have used that sort of thing as well. It's not far-fetched at all, and if history in this country teaches us anything, it's that any sort of technical advances happen without privacy protections until it's too late–the barn door is open and you'll never get the animals back in.
If you've driven 100 miles in Virginia, it would be recorded in your account as VA: 100. Then when you cross the state border into North Carolina, it will stop counting for Virginia and start counting for North Carolina and continue to do so until you reach South Carolina.
That didn't answer my question. In your earlier post that vdeane quoted, you said the system "would only register movement over state borders." But I asked how you account for two people who cross into and out of the state–I used Virginia as an example–at the same location, yet one of them uses a very different route within that state that adds more distance driven. Or are you saying that would be ignored? (I'm typing this on my iPad, so I can't easily get the distances because the Google Maps app doesn't allow for dragging the line around to adjust the route, and when you add destinations to force it to use the route you want it doesn't show the full distance for the whole trip.)
Regarding local roads, in NY, local projects are heavily subsidized with state funds through the CHIPS and Marchiselli programs. Federal funds also flow through state DOTs to municipalities and the like.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 11:26:12 AM
Might be best to just say, for personal cars, that the taxes go to whichever state's license plate the vehicle carries. If I register it in Oklahoma, Oklahoma gets all the mileage associated with it. Is that fair to states like Kansas and Missouri, whose drivers spend a lot of time on the other state's roads? No, but it's the least bad option, especially since most people's daily driver has a negligible impact on road maintenance costs, only road capacity, and most individual people do the vast majority of driving in the state their car is plated in.
If cross-border traffic is really a concern, the states involved could form a compact to pool their money and distribute it as they feel more appropriate. New England would be a good candidate for this, since I imagine there are lots of people who live in RI and commute to MA or CT, and so on.
For local roads, I'm not sure why it wouldn't just be handled like the federal road fund is now–state collects so much money, allocates a certain amount to the DOT, then turns over the rest to city and county DOTs according to a formula of some kind, probably based on the number of cars registered there.
It may be worth doing a GPS-type system for commercial vehicles, since many of them are already subject to more stringent logging requirements anyway, and the state has a compelling interest in looking at that data to spot safety issues (e.g. that adequate breaks are being taken). Since that would cover the vast amount of vehicles with a high enough GVW to damage the roads, that would help to finesse the inequities of the personal-car system described above.
I've suggested the exact same type of system for most vehicles - the state where the car is registered collects all state VMT fees. I imagine that in most cases, the revenue gained from out-of-state trips would probably be about a wash with revenue lost from not taxing non-residents. It's simple and avoids privacy concerns from tracking movements.
For vehicles that currently have logging requirements, I'd just keep those as-is. There's no real reason to change.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 17, 2021, 11:34:07 AM
Since electric vehicles are one of the main considerations for a VMT tax: Is there a reason we couldn't or shouldn't build some sort of taxing mechanism right into the charging apparatus, something that tracks and charges based on the power used?
I could see this being an issue with the residential/in home chargers (tampering?) as well as having to retrofit existing chargers. Probably wouldn't work if there is ever some sort of in roadway charging mechanism that can charge vehicles while they are being driven.
Things would be fairly straightforward If manufacturer cooperates and introduce some sort of taxing consideration into car firmware
^ We already have such a device. It's called an odometer.
But that means that a VMT tax would be collected in big visible chunks. Which people don't like - they don't like being reminded of how much taxes they pay.
That's why we have income tax withholding. To partially hide the amount of taxes collected. Because gee whiz, I got a $150 refund.
And remember, we've been having to bribe people (sorry, give tax credits to people) to buy electric vehicles. Now you want to collect extra taxes on them?
Quote from: GaryV on July 17, 2021, 01:14:13 PM
^ We already have such a device. It's called an odometer.
But that means that a VMT tax would be collected in big visible chunks. Which people don't like - they don't like being reminded of how much taxes they pay.
That's why we have income tax withholding. To partially hide the amount of taxes collected. Because gee whiz, I got a $150 refund.
And remember, we've been having to bribe people (sorry, give tax credits to people) to buy electric vehicles. Now you want to collect extra taxes on them?
I think the OP is running under the assumption all these 2035 EV sale mandates are going to go buttery smooth and new car purchasers won't have a choice in how their vehicle is propelled. Amusingly double dipping internal combustion owners with the gas tax stacked on top of a mileage tax probably would be a deterrent unto itself.
To some degree, it shouldn't make a difference to most people if their car is powered by an ICE or electric motor. Right now, for my job, I drive all over the Oklahoma City metro (I'm basically a temp and I go where my boss has work for me). Even so, the furthest-out place I've been to (Logan County, yikes!) is still near enough to me that I could go there and back on one charge with current technology. It's no different than how most people treat their phones–charge up at night, and that charge carries me all day until I get home and charge it again.
As roadgeeks, we tend to get into this mindset of what works best for long trips since that's a thing many of us enjoy, but it's easy to forget that isn't the use case for cars for most of the population. Obviously there are some people where EV technology isn't quite there for their use case (people that commute multiple hours each way for instance, or people that live in a home with no garage that they could install an EV charger in) but the vast majority of people would be well-served by an EV.
Even as a roadgeek, I would buy an EV today if I had the money to do so. If I need to go on a longer trip, I can always rent an ICE car.
Divorcing the Road Geek stuff for the moment and looking at my present situation an EV still isn't very viable. I have a 38 mile rural one-way drive to my home office everyday and there are times I'm recalled in an emergency overnight. Unless I want to spend some serious money on a higher end current EV there isn't much the segment offers me right now in terms of a reliable range that I need. I can't plug in at work and I would need start charging right away the second I got home. It's just way easier to buy some entry level ICE car and run into the ground over 5-7 years. .
Granted, that's just my own situation and perspective. Suffice to say the way I live, work and commute does not fall within the conventional norms.
Right, yeah, if you have a schedule where you're working random start and end times, or if you can't otherwise guarantee a certain amount of off time between drives, EVs aren't going to be quite there for you just yet. But it may work for your typical driver that works an 8 to 5 shift, Monday to Friday, fifteen miles away. Or if you have an employer that provides EV chargers as an employee amenity.
Also, I would imagine most drivers would start charging right away when they got home. That's what I'd do–turn off car, get out, charge, go in the house, forget about the car until the next morning, and wake up to a full charge.
I should note that I would definitely consider an EV if there was one out there that fits my needs and was in a down market price range. I think by 2030 there will be some options available like that which is likely when I'll make a switch with my daily driver. I am kind of hoping things like a mileage tax don't become a reality until around that time also given I'll be right on top of a fully vested twenty year retirement and paying off the house. I probably wouldn't "retire" but I could see myself getting a wind down job close to home.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 17, 2021, 01:57:19 PM
Divorcing the Road Geek stuff for the moment and looking at my present situation an EV still isn't very viable. I have a 38 mile rural one-way drive to my home office everyday and there are times I'm recalled in an emergency overnight. Unless I want to spend some serious money on a higher end current EV there isn't much the segment offers me right now in terms of a reliable range that I need. I can't plug in at work and I would need start charging right away the second I got home. It's just way easier to buy some entry level ICE car and run into the ground over 5-7 years. .
Granted, that's just my own situation and perspective. Suffice to say the way I live, work and commute does not fall within the conventional norms.
I've been watching the industry carefully, because I am interested in a hybrid vehicle that permits recharging and allows the driver to disconnect the combustion engine until the battery bank is nearly depleted. I'm also interested in customizing such a vehicle to have a 240VAC inverter. I was shocked (pun intended) when the early prototype of the Ford Lightning F-150 actually has a 240VAC inverter, but I seriously doubt this feature will make it into production. Anyhow, in a wooded area where lengthy power outages happen several time a year (we were just out during the storm 9 days ago), a vehicle that could also be a power source during an emergency would justify the additional cost. And I would prefer diesel (good luck on that one).
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 17, 2021, 02:26:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 17, 2021, 01:57:19 PM
Divorcing the Road Geek stuff for the moment and looking at my present situation an EV still isn't very viable. I have a 38 mile rural one-way drive to my home office everyday and there are times I'm recalled in an emergency overnight. Unless I want to spend some serious money on a higher end current EV there isn't much the segment offers me right now in terms of a reliable range that I need. I can't plug in at work and I would need start charging right away the second I got home. It's just way easier to buy some entry level ICE car and run into the ground over 5-7 years. .
Granted, that's just my own situation and perspective. Suffice to say the way I live, work and commute does not fall within the conventional norms.
I've been watching the industry carefully, because I am interested in a hybrid vehicle that permits recharging and allows the driver to disconnect the combustion engine until the battery bank is nearly depleted. I'm also interested in customizing such a vehicle to have a 240VAC inverter. I was shocked (pun intended) when the early prototype of the Ford Lightning F-150 actually has a 240VAC inverter, but I seriously doubt this feature will make it into production. Anyhow, in a wooded area where lengthy power outages happen several time a year (we were just out during the storm 9 days ago), a vehicle that could also be a power source during an emergency would justify the additional cost. And I would prefer diesel (good luck on that one).
Unfortunately VW probably sealed the fate for diesel powered cars after their emissions scandal, I too would be very interested in one. Interestingly I am kind of curious if any grid improvements locally will be coming anticipation of EVs drawing from them en mass. Thus far SoCal Edison and PG&E don't really seem to be up to the challenge on fixing their outdated grids by the time 2035 comes around without some serious subsidies. The rolling blackouts last year probably will become a regular thing for some time during Santa Ana Wind season.
My plan for buying an EV is to install solar panels on the roof at about the same time, so as to mitigate the increase in electrical usage.
Fortunately the OK power grid is relatively sturdy and there's enough supply to meet the demand year-round. The only thing we're susceptible to is infrastructure damage due to inclement weather, and I'm fortunate in that my neighborhood has buried power lines, so that I only have to worry about losing power if one of the main transmission lines goes down (in which case fixing it will be a much bigger priority than if the outage only affected my house or neighborhood).
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 17, 2021, 12:47:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 11:26:12 AM
Might be best to just say, for personal cars, that the taxes go to whichever state's license plate the vehicle carries. If I register it in Oklahoma, Oklahoma gets all the mileage associated with it. Is that fair to states like Kansas and Missouri, whose drivers spend a lot of time on the other state's roads? No, but it's the least bad option, especially since most people's daily driver has a negligible impact on road maintenance costs, only road capacity, and most individual people do the vast majority of driving in the state their car is plated in.
If cross-border traffic is really a concern, the states involved could form a compact to pool their money and distribute it as they feel more appropriate. New England would be a good candidate for this, since I imagine there are lots of people who live in RI and commute to MA or CT, and so on.
For local roads, I'm not sure why it wouldn't just be handled like the federal road fund is now–state collects so much money, allocates a certain amount to the DOT, then turns over the rest to city and county DOTs according to a formula of some kind, probably based on the number of cars registered there.
It may be worth doing a GPS-type system for commercial vehicles, since many of them are already subject to more stringent logging requirements anyway, and the state has a compelling interest in looking at that data to spot safety issues (e.g. that adequate breaks are being taken). Since that would cover the vast amount of vehicles with a high enough GVW to damage the roads, that would help to finesse the inequities of the personal-car system described above.
I've suggested the exact same type of system for most vehicles - the state where the car is registered collects all state VMT fees. I imagine that in most cases, the revenue gained from out-of-state trips would probably be about a wash with revenue lost from not taxing non-residents. It's simple and avoids privacy concerns from tracking movements.
For vehicles that currently have logging requirements, I'd just keep those as-is. There's no real reason to change.
A few years ago Connecticut threatened to start tolling the tiny portion of 684 that runs through Greenwich due to a dispute with New York over maintenance costs. So yeah, out of state drivers are a hassle.
Some of you seem to think that EV technology will not improve at all in the future, that the spectacular progress of the last decade is just going to come to a sudden halt.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 03:07:33 PM
My plan for buying an EV is to install solar panels on the roof at about the same time, so as to mitigate the increase in electrical usage.
I've been researching this as well. The solar industry has changed over to either on-grid solar or off-grid solar, neither of which am I impressed with. However, both of these still employ their own battery banks. The concept of EV charging via solar panels has also influenced this industry. All of which leads me to the punch line: one of the new leaders in the "solar battery" industry is Tesla. Which comes with a 240VAC inverter. If they made this with L6-20R or L14-2R receptacles, I'd go ahead and purchase one. Right now, you still need a building permit to wire up one of these things (at least where I'm at).
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 04:51:50 PM
Some of you seem to think that EV technology will not improve at all in the future, that the spectacular progress of the last decade is just going to come to a sudden halt.
I don't think I've ever implied it won't progress. But I don't make my buying choices based off of "what might come" down the line. To that end when I new daily driver in four years I'll see where things stand at the time. At the moment I'm doubtful there will be an entry level car at price point to fit the needs I described above come 2024-2025. It's one thing to blow money on a Tesla like vehicle versus something more economically practical than a Subaru Impreza or Ford Fiesta.
If anything I'm more concerned that the automotive world seems to be moving away from entry level vehicles than I am worried about the progression of EVs.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 02:11:42 PM
Also, I would imagine most drivers would start charging right away when they got home. That's what I'd do–turn off car, get out, charge, go in the house, forget about the car until the next morning, and wake up to a full charge.
Electric companies are talking about variable rates, because everyone uses the most energy in the late afternoon and evening. Hopefully your charger would come with a timer so it could start in the wee hours.
For those interested in EVs, the latest issue of Car and Driver is well worth a read. They explain a fair number of practical considerations you don't hear explained very often, they test a bunch and select their "EV of the Year," and they do a 1,000-mile loop race from Ann Arbor to Cincinnati, across to Morgantown, and back to Ann Arbor. Very interesting read, and I found the race story interesting because one of the things that gives me pause about EVs is how they would likely limit my routing choices due to charger availability. I believe the magazine addressed GaryV's point and said that pretty much all of them are designed so you can program your home charger to use cheaper electricity at night.
I hope not to be in the car market for a good while, but I'd certainly assess EVs as an option when the time comes. Whether one would be viable is another issue. Some people say "use the EV locally, use an ICE vehicle for travel." Fair enough on the surface, but any EV I'd seriously consider would run at least $40,000 to $50,000, and I think most people could understand why I feel that if I'm going to drop that amount of money, I'd want that car to be my primary car for all purposes. (Setting aside my preference for a manual shift, as the odds are that the list of options there will be exceedingly small when the time comes.)
See, I couldn't see dropping 40-50k on a car I commute in. That high price point for something so disposable is a huge turn off for me as a prospective buyer. Like you said, a 40-50k automobile really ought to be capable of being a jack of al trades in my mind. I didn't even spend 40k on my Challenger when I bought it outright in late 2015 and that was a "dream car" type of thing.
Interesting aside, how collectible are EVs going to be down the line? Having to replace entire electric motors after a certain amount of time probably is make the collector market footprint really small. Probably nobody even now likely considers hanging onto their EV to take the car show in 20-30 years.
Back when the Tesla Model S first appeared and cost six figures, I remember commenting that the problem with a $100,000 car you only use for commuting is that if you can afford that, you probably don't need to commute.
(Edited to add: Just to be clear, I definitely recognize how much that particular car has evolved and how much its range has improved.)
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 08:39:13 AM
Those are my thoughts. Does anyone else have any?
Yeah. Screw that noise. If you insist on levying a special tax on electric vehicles, tack that on as an excise tax when you buy one, as an annual fee at registration, or devise some sort of special device that meters the power you use when you charge the vehicle and assesses the fee that way. This tracking nonsense is for the birds. But then again, it's to be expected that the government is going to find a way to tap into any whiff of tax revenue it thinks it might be otherwise missing out on. Can't let people come up with ingenious or creative or inventive ways to actually keep more of their own money.
Or levy a tax at the charging stations that would make up for what isn't paid via home charging. I haven't inspected those charging banks at Sheetz closely enough to figure out how you pay for the juice there.
And we don't track people across state lines with gas-powered vehicles, why should we with electric ones? On my most recent trip to Pennsylvania, I bought gas in Ohio, then not again until I had left Pennsylvania, traveled through Maryland and West Virginia, and entered Virginia. Pennsylvania didn't get any gas tax revenue from me, so why should it get any electricity tax from me if I had driven a Tesla?
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 09:21:26 AM
[quote author=Max Rockatansky link=topic=29756.msg2637725#msg2637725 date=162652 Of course this cross subsidy cuts both ways, when a state builds a new highway, property values in the surrounding area skyrocket and yet property owners don't pay for this benefit.
Oh, absolutely they do. Increased property values mean increased property taxes.
If they're Tesla stations, the car communicates with the Supercharger and with Tesla, and the account associated with the car gets billed. For other networks like Electrify America, some automakers have a similar feature; it's also possible to pay with a smartphone app or with a credit card.
There's also the issue of home charging. Honestly, it's probably easiest to just slap a per-kwh tax on electricity than to try to single out charging, since most charging is done at home (one of the three big advantages of EVs that aren't related to emissions, the others being fast acceleration and less maintenance). For someone who regularly buys cars with higher purchase prices, can charge at home, and takes predominantly local trips (and is willing to deal with the charge stops for longer ones), EVs are actually superior to ICE cars today. If cost or those other things are an issue, then they're not there yet.
Off-topic political posts removed.
Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2021, 07:41:41 PM
If they're Tesla stations, the car communicates with the Supercharger and with Tesla, and the account associated with the car gets billed. For other networks like Electrify America, some automakers have a similar feature; it's also possible to pay with a smartphone app or with a credit card.
There's also the issue of home charging. Honestly, it's probably easiest to just slap a per-kwh tax on electricity than to try to single out charging, since most charging is done at home (one of the three big advantages of EVs that aren't related to emissions, the others being fast acceleration and less maintenance). For someone who regularly buys cars with higher purchase prices, can charge at home, and takes predominantly local trips (and is willing to deal with the charge stops for longer ones), EVs are actually superior to ICE cars today. If cost or those other things are an issue, then they're not there yet.
But why should someone who doesn't own an EV subsidize those who do? EVs probably won't ever be much of a reality in the territory served by AEP/Kentucky Power, yet that firm charges astronomical rates for electricity. My Facebook feed is flooded every winter with comments about exorbitant power bills from Kentucky Power customers. They can't afford higher rates, especially for something that has no association with them. Kentucky will remain primarily a gasoline-powered-car state even if EVs take off in the northeastern megalopolis.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 17, 2021, 05:16:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 04:51:50 PM
Some of you seem to think that EV technology will not improve at all in the future, that the spectacular progress of the last decade is just going to come to a sudden halt.
I don't think I've ever implied it won't progress. But I don't make my buying choices based off of "what might come" down the line. To that end when I new daily driver in four years I'll see where things stand at the time. At the moment I'm doubtful there will be an entry level car at price point to fit the needs I described above come 2024-2025. It's one thing to blow money on a Tesla like vehicle versus something more economically practical than a Subaru Impreza or Ford Fiesta.
If anything I'm more concerned that the automotive world seems to be moving away from entry level vehicles than I am worried about the progression of EVs.
In 2023, Bloomberg forecasts lithium ion batteries will fall below $100/kwh, the level said to make electric cars cost the same as internal combustion ones.
Quote from: GaryV on July 17, 2021, 05:20:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 02:11:42 PM
Also, I would imagine most drivers would start charging right away when they got home. That's what I'd do–turn off car, get out, charge, go in the house, forget about the car until the next morning, and wake up to a full charge.
Electric companies are talking about variable rates, because everyone uses the most energy in the late afternoon and evening. Hopefully your charger would come with a timer so it could start in the wee hours.
Variable rates are an option right now for OG&E customers that voluntarily sign up for their SmartHours plan. They market it as saving you money by allowing you to shift usage to off-peak hours. I looked into it when it first came out, but since my wife works 3rd shift there's no real way we can adjust the timing of our electricity usage in the way the electric company wants us to.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 17, 2021, 05:16:15 PM
If anything I'm more concerned that the automotive world seems to be moving away from entry level vehicles than I am worried about the progression of EVs.
Unfortunately, this is a recurring trend in a whole lot of industries. Catering to higher-income people means higher profit margins, so that's all businesses want to deal with, and middle- and lower-income people get the dregs. You see this a lot in housing, for instance (build lots of fancy new four- and five-bedroom houses, leaving the ordinary people to scrap over the limited existing supply of older three-bedroom and smaller homes, driving up their prices beyond the point that anyone in the income bracket they were built for can actually afford them).
Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2021, 07:25:14 PM
Oh, absolutely they do. Increased property values mean increased property taxes.
Eh, not always. In Oklahoma, the assessment that property taxes are calculated off of is only updated when the property is sold. I bought my house in 2017, and the assessment will always be pegged to its 2017 value. According to Zillow estimates, it's already appreciated by $50,000 since I bought it, but my property tax has remained the same. If I were to sell the house, the new owner will have to pay a higher property tax rate based on the new value.
This has caused some heartburn in OKC because there are some property owners that bought vacant lots near downtown OKC when property values were depressed during the oil bust in the 1980s and have held onto them ever since. The amount they are paying property tax is accordingly nowhere close to the rate the surrounding developed properties are paying, since downtown has been growing and increasingly becoming more developed since the MAPS projects of the 1990s.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2021, 09:00:01 PM
But why should someone who doesn't own an EV subsidize those who do? EVs probably won't ever be much of a reality in the territory served by AEP/Kentucky Power, yet that firm charges astronomical rates for electricity. My Facebook feed is flooded every winter with comments about exorbitant power bills from Kentucky Power customers. They can't afford higher rates, especially for something that has no association with them. Kentucky will remain primarily a gasoline-powered-car state even if EVs take off in the northeastern megalopolis.
Why should someone who lives in Perry County subsidize roads in Paducah by paying gas taxes? Unfortunately, that's just how being part of a civilization works–you may be called upon to help pay for something that doesn't directly help you. If you don't care for it, you can always live somewhere like Haiti that doesn't have much of a government to fund.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 09:05:27 PM
Why should someone who lives in Perry County subsidize roads in Paducah by paying gas taxes? Unfortunately, that's just how being part of a civilization works–you may be called upon to help pay for something that doesn't directly help you. If you don't care for it, you can always live somewhere like Haiti that doesn't have much of a government to fund.
Then, let's talk about gas tax being abolished with the introduction of road-related electricity taxes. BTW, how would we deal with taxing those subsidized rooftop panels?
Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2021, 09:00:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2021, 07:41:41 PM
If they're Tesla stations, the car communicates with the Supercharger and with Tesla, and the account associated with the car gets billed. For other networks like Electrify America, some automakers have a similar feature; it's also possible to pay with a smartphone app or with a credit card.
There's also the issue of home charging. Honestly, it's probably easiest to just slap a per-kwh tax on electricity than to try to single out charging, since most charging is done at home (one of the three big advantages of EVs that aren't related to emissions, the others being fast acceleration and less maintenance). For someone who regularly buys cars with higher purchase prices, can charge at home, and takes predominantly local trips (and is willing to deal with the charge stops for longer ones), EVs are actually superior to ICE cars today. If cost or those other things are an issue, then they're not there yet.
But why should someone who doesn't own an EV subsidize those who do? EVs probably won't ever be much of a reality in the territory served by AEP/Kentucky Power, yet that firm charges astronomical rates for electricity. My Facebook feed is flooded every winter with comments about exorbitant power bills from Kentucky Power customers. They can't afford higher rates, especially for something that has no association with them. Kentucky will remain primarily a gasoline-powered-car state even if EVs take off in the northeastern megalopolis.
My National Grid power bill contains an "Electric Vehicle Charge" on it that started at some point I am unaware of. Granted it's 9 cents for my last month (with 627kWh usage), but yeah I'm subsidizing something else.
On the bill, here is the explanation for it: "Recovers the cost of the Electric Vehicle Program, including rebates for installation of EV charging infrastructure and for off peak charging."
Quote from: kalvado on July 17, 2021, 09:21:22 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 09:05:27 PM
Why should someone who lives in Perry County subsidize roads in Paducah by paying gas taxes? Unfortunately, that's just how being part of a civilization works–you may be called upon to help pay for something that doesn't directly help you. If you don't care for it, you can always live somewhere like Haiti that doesn't have much of a government to fund.
Then, let's talk about gas tax being abolished with the introduction of road-related electricity taxes. BTW, how would we deal with taxing those subsidized rooftop panels?
Taxing solar panels would undermine the purpose of why they are subsidized to begin with–we want to encourage people to use renewable energy and discourage them from using non-renewable energy. This would also be why completely abolishing the gas tax would be unlikely to happen, even if EVs were the bulk of the vehicles on the road.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 17, 2021, 09:21:22 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 09:05:27 PM
Why should someone who lives in Perry County subsidize roads in Paducah by paying gas taxes? Unfortunately, that's just how being part of a civilization works–you may be called upon to help pay for something that doesn't directly help you. If you don't care for it, you can always live somewhere like Haiti that doesn't have much of a government to fund.
Then, let's talk about gas tax being abolished with the introduction of road-related electricity taxes. BTW, how would we deal with taxing those subsidized rooftop panels?
Taxing solar panels would undermine the purpose of why they are subsidized to begin with–we want to encourage people to use renewable energy and discourage them from using non-renewable energy. This would also be why completely abolishing the gas tax would be unlikely to happen, even if EVs were the bulk of the vehicles on the road.
And you quickly get to the point, where the purpose of road tax - to ensure that everyone on the road contributes towards construction and maintenance - is lost. Moreover, you want to shift the tax burden towards a renter, who has no money to buy a fancy car or property to install solar, and driving gas grizzling clunker, is taxed twice. Textbook grade example of regressive policy.
That's why VMT, with all it's complexity, is probably the way to go.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 09:05:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2021, 07:25:14 PM
Oh, absolutely they do. Increased property values mean increased property taxes.
Eh, not always. In Oklahoma, the assessment that property taxes are calculated off of is only updated when the property is sold. I bought my house in 2017, and the assessment will always be pegged to its 2017 value. According to Zillow estimates, it's already appreciated by $50,000 since I bought it, but my property tax has remained the same. If I were to sell the house, the new owner will have to pay a higher property tax rate based on the new value.
This has caused some heartburn in OKC because there are some property owners that bought vacant lots near downtown OKC when property values were depressed during the oil bust in the 1980s and have held onto them ever since. The amount they are paying property tax is accordingly nowhere close to the rate the surrounding developed properties are paying, since downtown has been growing and increasingly becoming more developed since the MAPS projects of the 1990s.
Interesting. Kentucky law requires property be reassessed every four years. Each property valuation administrator (Kentucky's term for the elected tax assessor) goes about the process differently. Some counties are divided into geographical quadrants. For years, Estill County had a unique method: residential non-municipal property north of the Kentucky River, residential non-municipal property south of the Kentucky River, residential property in the cities of Irvine and Ravenna, and all commercial property countywide. Not sure if Estill still assesses property that way or not.
Quote from: kalvado on July 18, 2021, 07:16:27 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 17, 2021, 09:21:22 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 17, 2021, 09:05:27 PM
Why should someone who lives in Perry County subsidize roads in Paducah by paying gas taxes? Unfortunately, that's just how being part of a civilization works–you may be called upon to help pay for something that doesn't directly help you. If you don't care for it, you can always live somewhere like Haiti that doesn't have much of a government to fund.
Then, let's talk about gas tax being abolished with the introduction of road-related electricity taxes. BTW, how would we deal with taxing those subsidized rooftop panels?
Taxing solar panels would undermine the purpose of why they are subsidized to begin with–we want to encourage people to use renewable energy and discourage them from using non-renewable energy. This would also be why completely abolishing the gas tax would be unlikely to happen, even if EVs were the bulk of the vehicles on the road.
And you quickly get to the point, where the purpose of road tax - to ensure that everyone on the road contributes towards construction and maintenance - is lost. Moreover, you want to shift the tax burden towards a renter, who has no money to buy a fancy car or property to install solar, and driving gas grizzling clunker, is taxed twice. Textbook grade example of regressive policy.
That's why VMT, with all it's complexity, is probably the way to go.
Who says renters don't have solar? (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7890792,-74.0098461,3a,19.2y,319.65h,90.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWkt-3pxh200wbPs47r2bnQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) Granted, it's not most places... but it certainly exists and is something a landlord could install if they want to attract tenants who want it.
Dusting off this thread rather than starting a new one:
17 northeastern states are soliciting volunteers to collect driving data from, to help inform discussions on a possible shift from taxes on fuel to mileage-based taxes for highway funding purposes
News article: https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/should-connecticut-tax-how-many-miles-you-drive/
Website for the group studying the issue: https://tetcoalitionmbuf.org/
Sign-up page for volunteers in Connecticut: https://tetcoalitionmbuf.org/connecticut-mbuf-study/
Both of Ms1995hoo's cars had the registrations due for renewal in May. Her 2015 Acura TLX is subject to the Virginia "Highway Use Fee," which is something recently enacted that tacks on an additional fee for vehicles that meet or exceed a certain level of fuel efficiency (you can read the specifics on the Virginia DMV's website if you're interested (https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp)). She received a letter from the DMV saying she could sign up to track her mileage instead and that they would cap the fee for miles driven at the amount of the default highway use fee in order to ensure she wouldn't be penalizing herself; the information also said the system does not account for miles driven outside of Virginia and instead charges you for them the same as if they were driven in Virginia.
We decided not to participate in the mileage-tracking program. The highway use fee on her car was only about $12 anyway, so even if she might have possibly gotten a benefit via a reduced fee, the amount would have been so minimal that we could see no reason to do it.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 28, 2023, 09:06:14 AM
Dusting off this thread rather than starting a new one:
17 northeastern states are soliciting volunteers to collect driving data from, to help inform discussions on a possible shift from taxes on fuel to mileage-based taxes for highway funding purposes
News article: https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/should-connecticut-tax-how-many-miles-you-drive/
Website for the group studying the issue: https://tetcoalitionmbuf.org/
Sign-up page for volunteers in Connecticut: https://tetcoalitionmbuf.org/connecticut-mbuf-study/
One additional news article / opinion piece on the subject: https://ctmirror.org/2023/06/25/ct-vehicle-miles-tax-mileage-based-user-fee-tolls-highways/
(The author has a definite bias, but it does provide some additional context).
Instead of tracking mileage by state and having your odometer read every year, have the tax due on all miles driven when the car registration is changed. Drivers would be encouraged to make monthly or quarterly estimated payments and every annual registration notice would have an updated balance including how many miles that would equate to.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 10:25:02 AM
Instead of tracking mileage by state and having your odometer read every year, have the tax due on all miles driven when the car registration is changed. Drivers would be encouraged to make monthly or quarterly estimated payments and every annual registration notice would have an updated balance including how many miles that would equate to.
So basically have a required government filing confirming wherever you drove side by side with your required income tax filings. Will we ever have the time or ability to actually ENJOY life? Why not just have a charge based on how much energy is used, paid whenever and wherever you recharge or refuel the car?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 10:25:02 AM
Instead of tracking mileage by state and having your odometer read every year, have the tax due on all miles driven when the car registration is changed. Drivers would be encouraged to make monthly or quarterly estimated payments and every annual registration notice would have an updated balance including how many miles that would equate to.
So basically have a required government filing confirming wherever you drove side by side with your required income tax filings. Will we ever have the time or ability to actually ENJOY life? Why not just have a charge based on how much energy is used, paid whenever and wherever you recharge or refuel the car?
Mike
I pay quarterly income tax filings. It takes me a grand total of about two minutes each time.
If you really want to give me the time and ability to enjoy life, get my wife on board with selling the house and moving to a condo so I don't have to mow the lawn each week.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 10:25:02 AM
Instead of tracking mileage by state and having your odometer read every year, have the tax due on all miles driven when the car registration is changed. Drivers would be encouraged to make monthly or quarterly estimated payments and every annual registration notice would have an updated balance including how many miles that would equate to.
So basically have a required government filing confirming wherever you drove side by side with your required income tax filings. Will we ever have the time or ability to actually ENJOY life? Why not just have a charge based on how much energy is used, paid whenever and wherever you recharge or refuel the car?
Mike
I pay quarterly income tax filings. It takes me a grand total of about two minutes each time.
If you really want to give me the time and ability to enjoy life, get my wife on board with selling the house and moving to a condo so I don't have to mow the lawn each week.
Do you figure ALL of the time expended in record keeping and so forth? It takes me several days of messing around just to get the annual forms FILED, along with the keeping the other records straight through the year. I could SOOOO EASILY do without any of that.
Mike
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 28, 2023, 09:41:20 AM
Her 2015 Acura TLX is subject to the Virginia "Highway Use Fee," which is something recently enacted that tacks on an additional fee for vehicles that meet or exceed a certain level of fuel efficiency (you can read the specifics on the Virginia DMV's website if you're interested (https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp)).
Hate it.
Good for you, buying a fuel-efficient vehicle! Now you owe us money.Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 10:25:02 AM
Instead of tracking mileage by state and having your odometer read every year, have the tax due on all miles driven when the car registration is changed. Drivers would be encouraged to make monthly or quarterly estimated payments and every annual registration notice would have an updated balance including how many miles that would equate to.
That would be good incentive to just drive your vehicle into the ground, then sell it to a junk yard. No change of registration required, no tax due.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2023, 11:38:47 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 10:25:02 AM
Instead of tracking mileage by state and having your odometer read every year, have the tax due on all miles driven when the car registration is changed. Drivers would be encouraged to make monthly or quarterly estimated payments and every annual registration notice would have an updated balance including how many miles that would equate to.
So basically have a required government filing confirming wherever you drove side by side with your required income tax filings. Will we ever have the time or ability to actually ENJOY life? Why not just have a charge based on how much energy is used, paid whenever and wherever you recharge or refuel the car?
Mike
I pay quarterly income tax filings. It takes me a grand total of about two minutes each time.
If you really want to give me the time and ability to enjoy life, get my wife on board with selling the house and moving to a condo so I don't have to mow the lawn each week.
Do you figure ALL of the time expended in record keeping and so forth? It takes me several days of messing around just to get the annual forms FILED, along with the keeping the other records straight through the year. I could SOOOO EASILY do without any of that.
It doesn't take me long to figure out. I already roughly know what the September payment will be. I file online.
Last year I owed $16 after filing my 1040 so I have a system down that's pretty accurate and pretty simple.
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2023, 11:53:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 28, 2023, 09:41:20 AM
Her 2015 Acura TLX is subject to the Virginia "Highway Use Fee," which is something recently enacted that tacks on an additional fee for vehicles that meet or exceed a certain level of fuel efficiency (you can read the specifics on the Virginia DMV's website if you're interested (https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp)).
Hate it. Good for you, buying a fuel-efficient vehicle! Now you owe us money.
....
I don't object to the
principle of trying to even out the amount paid for causing wear and tear on the road. We already pay gas tax, so to some extent, the way it's always been is, "Good for you, buying a car! Now you owe us more money." (And, of course, we pay personal property tax on cars as well, although that money is not dedicated to highway funding.) As I've said before, I don't like the idea of GPS tracking. When I went to renew Ms1995hoo's registration and found that her fee was only $12 (her TLX is the only car we have that's subject to it, as far as I know, although my 2004 TL is not due for registration renewal this year), it made me care a lot less about it than I might otherwise have.
If you read the specifics on the Virginia fee, they have a convoluted process of estimating the average distance driven per year by Virginia residents (I don't know how they determine that, but the current number is 11,600 miles) and then figuring the fee based on that. Here's the statute if you want to read it. I haven't tried to work through the process to understand the exact mechanism. (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/46.2-772/) Of course there's the additional problem that the process assumes that the 11,600 miles would be driven in a single vehicle, such that a person who owns two cars is presumed to drive each of them the full 11,600 miles, but their response to that objection would be, "We've offered you a way to resolve that problem by tracking your mileage."
Is the way they figure out the average mileage per year knowing when the car was first registered and the odometer reading at the time, and then the same when the car is registered to someone else, and just averaging it all? It wouldn't take many examples to come up with a pretty accurate figure.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 12:42:36 PM
Is the way they figure out the average mileage per year knowing when the car was first registered and the odometer reading at the time, and then the same when the car is registered to someone else, and just averaging it all? It wouldn't take many examples to come up with a pretty accurate figure.
I have no idea. I don't think they've said how they determine it. The number can vary from year to year, of course.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 28, 2023, 12:49:59 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 12:42:36 PM
Is the way they figure out the average mileage per year knowing when the car was first registered and the odometer reading at the time, and then the same when the car is registered to someone else, and just averaging it all? It wouldn't take many examples to come up with a pretty accurate figure.
I have no idea. I don't think they've said how they determine it. The number can vary from year to year, of course.
I believe average us car is driven 13k a year. It is certainly not universal, but seems to be on a right page for me. 430 gallons @30 mpg
So 11600 isn't off the chart
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 12:42:36 PM
Is the way they figure out the average mileage per year knowing when the car was first registered and the odometer reading at the time, and then the same when the car is registered to someone else, and just averaging it all? It wouldn't take many examples to come up with a pretty accurate figure.
And then remitting the correct amount to each state that you drove in. Got it! :nod:
Mike
I don't like the idea of having to file a mileage tax like we have to file income tax. Heck, I don't even like how we have to file income tax. Should be like other countries where the (equivalent of the) IRS simply mails you a return, you check it, and either certify that you agree with it or dispute it. Taxes should be simple, easy, and as invisible as possible (one of the great things about the gas tax). This would also require a lot of bureaucracy to manage - either a second IRS, or a massively expanded IRS taking on the task.
Filing does have a side effect which isn't talked about much but which I suspect is not unintentional. That is, it will plainly put a cost on driving, spell it out very clearly, and place it in everyone's faces. And for those who believe that higher VMT is in and of itself a bad thing, regardless of how clean cars get or how well congestion is managed, and as such want to discourage driving, that is very much a desirable outcome. They just don't want to say the quiet part out loud or else the idea will become more politically toxic than raising the gas tax is.
Quote from: vdeane on June 28, 2023, 08:26:18 PM
I don't like the idea of having to file a mileage tax like we have to file income tax. Heck, I don't even like how we have to file income tax. Should be like other countries where the (equivalent of the) IRS simply mails you a return, you check it, and either certify that you agree with it or dispute it. Taxes should be simple, easy, and as invisible as possible (one of the great things about the gas tax). This would also require a lot of bureaucracy to manage - either a second IRS, or a massively expanded IRS taking on the task.
Filing does have a side effect which isn't talked about much but which I suspect is not unintentional. That is, it will plainly put a cost on driving, spell it out very clearly, and place it in everyone's faces. And for those who believe that higher VMT is in and of itself a bad thing, regardless of how clean cars get or how well congestion is managed, and as such want to discourage driving, that is very much a desirable outcome. They just don't want to say the quiet part out loud or else the idea will become more politically toxic than raising the gas tax is.
Do you think gas price discourage driving?
In NY we are paying 2 cents a mile in gas tax. $260 a year approximately. With an oil change going towards $100, it's more of "oh, life is expensive, but what can I do?" scale
vdeane, one thing you're overlooking as to income tax is that not everyone has income tax withheld (and reported to the IRS) and gets a W-2 at the end of the year, even some very well-compensated people. Self-employed people, who pays quarterly estimated taxes, are one example. Then there are people whose withholding isn't enough for various reasons. It's not so simple as just having the IRS do the work and send it to you.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 28, 2023, 09:19:43 PM
vdeane, one thing you're overlooking as to income tax is that not everyone has income tax withheld (and reported to the IRS) and gets a W-2 at the end of the year, even some very well-compensated people. Self-employed people, who pays quarterly estimated taxes, are one example. Then there are people whose withholding isn't enough for various reasons. It's not so simple as just having the IRS do the work and send it to you.
Well, it works for other countries, so they obviously solved those problems. I presume those who owe at the end simply send a check (or however people handle such expenses in Europe) with their acceptance. As for self-employed people, I would say that being self-employed necessarily entails a greater amount of paperwork/bureaucracy, especially in the US where we don't have a national healthcare system and therefore getting insurance is a consideration.
Quote from: kalvado on June 28, 2023, 08:43:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 28, 2023, 08:26:18 PM
I don't like the idea of having to file a mileage tax like we have to file income tax. Heck, I don't even like how we have to file income tax. Should be like other countries where the (equivalent of the) IRS simply mails you a return, you check it, and either certify that you agree with it or dispute it. Taxes should be simple, easy, and as invisible as possible (one of the great things about the gas tax). This would also require a lot of bureaucracy to manage - either a second IRS, or a massively expanded IRS taking on the task.
Filing does have a side effect which isn't talked about much but which I suspect is not unintentional. That is, it will plainly put a cost on driving, spell it out very clearly, and place it in everyone's faces. And for those who believe that higher VMT is in and of itself a bad thing, regardless of how clean cars get or how well congestion is managed, and as such want to discourage driving, that is very much a desirable outcome. They just don't want to say the quiet part out loud or else the idea will become more politically toxic than raising the gas tax is.
Do you think gas price discourage driving?
In NY we are paying 2 cents a mile in gas tax. $260 a year approximately. With an oil change going towards $100, it's more of "oh, life is expensive, but what can I do?" scale
Buying gas is simply a part of life. We go to the station, pay, and refuel. A VMT tax would very directly and explicitly spell out how the amount paid correlates to mileage, and shove it in people's faces. Paying gas is something I hardly even think about. A VMT tax would force me to think about such things and actively notice how many miles I drive in a certain period of time.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 10:25:02 AM
Instead of tracking mileage by state and having your odometer read every year, have the tax due on all miles driven when the car registration is changed. Drivers would be encouraged to make monthly or quarterly estimated payments and every annual registration notice would have an updated balance including how many miles that would equate to.
So basically have a required government filing confirming wherever you drove side by side with your required income tax filings. Will we ever have the time or ability to actually ENJOY life? Why not just have a charge based on how much energy is used, paid whenever and wherever you recharge or refuel the car?
Mike
I pay quarterly income tax filings. It takes me a grand total of about two minutes each time.
I do too, and I agree it's not much of a time sink. However, I sort of dislike the additional mental overhead of having to budget for quarterly payments, as well as the uncertainty of knowing whether your estimates are correct or not. I definitely wouldn't want to have to go through that with the car
and my income.
This also presumes accurately estimating mileage is even possible. If you're someone that commutes to the same place every day, you'll probably be fine. If your vehicle usage is more irregular, like having a job like a plumber where you must travel to wherever the customer is, or if you have reason to take long unplanned trips (like having to do welfare checks on a relative in poor health in another state) it would become borderline impossible.
I track mileage using GPS on my phone since my car has a nonfunctional odometer. It's not especially convenient even for me, and I have enough scripting knowledge to deploy a Python script that uses the haversine formula to measure the length of GPX track segments and then have other code calculate mileages per tank and cumulative mileage. Plus, as I have learned to my cost, any phone with an elderly or defective battery won't log GPS tracks reliably, full stop.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2023, 01:11:00 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2023, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 10:25:02 AM
Instead of tracking mileage by state and having your odometer read every year, have the tax due on all miles driven when the car registration is changed. Drivers would be encouraged to make monthly or quarterly estimated payments and every annual registration notice would have an updated balance including how many miles that would equate to.
So basically have a required government filing confirming wherever you drove side by side with your required income tax filings. Will we ever have the time or ability to actually ENJOY life? Why not just have a charge based on how much energy is used, paid whenever and wherever you recharge or refuel the car?
Mike
I pay quarterly income tax filings. It takes me a grand total of about two minutes each time.
I do too, and I agree it's not much of a time sink. However, I sort of dislike the additional mental overhead of having to budget for quarterly payments, as well as the uncertainty of knowing whether your estimates are correct or not. I definitely wouldn't want to have to go through that with the car and my income.
This also presumes accurately estimating mileage is even possible. If you're someone that commutes to the same place every day, you'll probably be fine. If your vehicle usage is more irregular, like having a job like a plumber where you must travel to wherever the customer is, or if you have reason to take long unplanned trips (like having to do welfare checks on a relative in poor health in another state) it would become borderline impossible.
I assume quarterly estimates are
estimates because you don't have to wrap accounting too often, and possible month to month business variation.
Mileage should be more like utilities billing, where actual consumption can be checked at any time on the meter, and the rate is flat.
Quote from: vdeane on June 28, 2023, 10:08:57 PM
A VMT tax would very directly and explicitly spell out how the amount paid correlates to mileage, and shove it in people's faces. Paying gas is something I hardly even think about. A VMT tax would force me to think about such things and actively notice how many miles I drive in a certain period of time.
Why would VMT cause you to notice more how far you drove, as opposed to the gas gage going down as you drive?
Still, I think the better option would be to somehow add a tax to the electric charging station. This can be done relatively easily at a public charging station - no different taxing per kilowatt-hour than taxing per gallon at a gas station. The home chargers could raise separate issues. But as I understand it many utility companies have separate ways of metering vehicle charging, just like they do for your home a/c. Taxes could be added via that metering.
Quote from: GaryV on June 29, 2023, 07:06:25 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 28, 2023, 10:08:57 PM
A VMT tax would very directly and explicitly spell out how the amount paid correlates to mileage, and shove it in people's faces. Paying gas is something I hardly even think about. A VMT tax would force me to think about such things and actively notice how many miles I drive in a certain period of time.
Why would VMT cause you to notice more how far you drove, as opposed to the gas gage going down as you drive?
Still, I think the better option would be to somehow add a tax to the electric charging station. This can be done relatively easily at a public charging station - no different taxing per kilowatt-hour than taxing per gallon at a gas station. The home chargers could raise separate issues. But as I understand it many utility companies have separate ways of metering vehicle charging, just like they do for your home a/c. Taxes could be added via that metering.
You also should think tax evasion. It's almost impossible to avoid per-gallon tax. Public charging is simple as well.
Per-mile odometer based fee makes odometer tampering attractive. Not that it's an unusual thing already - just to increase resale value of a car.
Messing with home wiring is even easier. You can do whatever with charging stations, but 120v 15a is still a fallback option as far as I understand.
Something on a car side may be more reliable, but that calls for messing with firmware.
And provoking unsafe behavior isn't a good strategy. Tweaking odometer is at least pretty safe, wiring and firmware less so.
Quote from: kalvado on June 29, 2023, 06:41:22 AM
I assume quarterly estimates are estimates because you don't have to wrap accounting too often, and possible month to month business variation.
Mileage should be more like utilities billing, where actual consumption can be checked at any time on the meter, and the rate is flat.
With income tax, if your quarterly estimates are too low, the IRS hits you with a penalty for underpayment of estimated taxes. The trickiest aspect is if your income isn't even throughout the year–say, you get a bigger payment in one quarter, or you get a big year-end bonus, or similar. The Internal Revenue Code is based on the assumption that your income is a pretty steady stream all year round. If it's not, there are ways to deal with that, but they're a nuisance.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2023, 07:34:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 12:42:36 PM
Is the way they figure out the average mileage per year knowing when the car was first registered and the odometer reading at the time, and then the same when the car is registered to someone else, and just averaging it all? It wouldn't take many examples to come up with a pretty accurate figure.
And then remitting the correct amount to each state that you drove in. Got it! :nod:
Mike
No I would only have each state collect its share for the cars registered there. My feeling is that it all works out in the end.
If it wasn't political suicide, I would support increasing the gas tax 75¢, some state and some federal. This is a tripling of revenue, encourages more fuel-efficient vehicles rather than discouraging them, and only increases per-mile cost from 59¢ to 62¢ (that number includes maintenance and the cost of the car itself through depreciation as well as existing gas prices).
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2023, 08:27:27 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2023, 07:34:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 28, 2023, 12:42:36 PM
Is the way they figure out the average mileage per year knowing when the car was first registered and the odometer reading at the time, and then the same when the car is registered to someone else, and just averaging it all? It wouldn't take many examples to come up with a pretty accurate figure.
And then remitting the correct amount to each state that you drove in. Got it! :nod:
Mike
No I would only have each state collect its share for the cars registered there. My feeling is that it all works out in the end.
It works for trucks, amount of paperwork may be excessive though
(https://flexfleetrental.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/tx-apportioned2013.jpg)
I volunteered for the MBUF study. I agreed to plug in a device with a GPS monitor into my ODB2 port, and we'll see how it works....
I'm not really a fan of the potential big-brother aspect of such monitoring, but I am a believer that relying on petrol/diesel-based taxes as a road-funding source is increasingly problematic as EVs start to reach critical mass.
People are making way too much of this. If you enforce the registration laws that currently exist (you have to register your car where you actually live) and just pay the per mile tax to your state, it all will come out close enough to even to not matter. For every vacationer in Florida paying Ohio, there is a snowbird driving around the country, but paying Florida. Not worth the cost of making it more complicated.
Just do it as a part of the inspection sticker process, if the state has one, or otherwise just have people get checked at the state police, or the county clerk, or the sheriff, or whatever the state want to use for that, and pay the bill.
Big brother already knows where most of us are and what we are doing.
Quote from: GaryV on June 29, 2023, 07:06:25 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 28, 2023, 10:08:57 PM
A VMT tax would very directly and explicitly spell out how the amount paid correlates to mileage, and shove it in people's faces. Paying gas is something I hardly even think about. A VMT tax would force me to think about such things and actively notice how many miles I drive in a certain period of time.
Why would VMT cause you to notice more how far you drove, as opposed to the gas gage going down as you drive?
Still, I think the better option would be to somehow add a tax to the electric charging station. This can be done relatively easily at a public charging station - no different taxing per kilowatt-hour than taxing per gallon at a gas station. The home chargers could raise separate issues. But as I understand it many utility companies have separate ways of metering vehicle charging, just like they do for your home a/c. Taxes could be added via that metering.
Gas: I'm far enough from living paycheck to paycheck that I really don't notice the price of gas all that much. Plus I'm rational enough to realize that the amount most people obsess over it is way overblown. Even a difference of a dollar a gallon is only $15 different for a whole tank, and I usually fill somewhere around half (+/- ~10%). More normal differences of 10 or 20 cents don't even get noticed in the total cost. As for noticing the gas gauge going down, yeah, sure, but my car is fuel efficient enough and my commute short enough that it's rare for me to get gas unless it's preparing for, during, or returning from a roadtrip. Can count on the fingers on one had annually rare. I tend to look at how much I paid for curiosity's sake and then forget about it.
VMT Tax: This would likely involve checking the odometer, calculating the tax based on my vehicle class, and then mailing it in with a check. For both federal and state. And then archiving the paperwork for however many years in case of audit, just like is done with income taxes. Yeah, I think that's fairly noticeable.
I like the idea of charging electricity for EVs. For home charging, why not just tax the total bill? The US is in dire need of modernizing and hardening its electric grid, so if we make a program for that and split the revenue between that and the highway fund, it should work.
Quote from: 1 on June 29, 2023, 08:30:50 AM
If it wasn't political suicide, I would support increasing the gas tax 75¢, some state and some federal. This is a tripling of revenue, encourages more fuel-efficient vehicles rather than discouraging them, and only increases per-mile cost from 59¢ to 62¢ (that number includes maintenance and the cost of the car itself through depreciation as well as existing gas prices).
Agreed. That would take care of everything except pure EVs (and the few hydrogen cars on the road, but charging hydrogen should be just as easy as gas). I think it's weird that this is politically harder than adding a whole new tax that will be much more visible and bureaucratic, with potential big brother implications.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 29, 2023, 12:08:28 PM
People are making way too much of this. If you enforce the registration laws that currently exist (you have to register your car where you actually live) and just pay the per mile tax to your state, it all will come out close enough to even to not matter. For every vacationer in Florida paying Ohio, there is a snowbird driving around the country, but paying Florida. Not worth the cost of making it more complicated.
Just do it as a part of the inspection sticker process, if the state has one, or otherwise just have people get checked at the state police, or the county clerk, or the sheriff, or whatever the state want to use for that, and pay the bill.
What about pass-through states that are nonetheless large enough the people are likely stopping for gas? They won't get anything if we just do it with registration to one's home state.
Quote from: kalvado on June 29, 2023, 07:19:41 AMYou also should think tax evasion. It's almost impossible to avoid per-gallon tax.
Since fuel tax is generally collected at the terminal, the cost of enforcement is very low--less than 1% of revenues.
Quote from: kalvado on June 29, 2023, 07:19:41 AMPer-mile odometer based fee makes odometer tampering attractive. Not that it's an unusual thing already - just to increase resale value of a car.
Odometers are not reliable to begin with. There are many, many cars still on the road with ones that simply don't turn--no tampering involved--because so many automakers in the 1990's went to plastic gears with a lubricant that slowly dissolved them over time. There are specialty businesses that make replacement gears (typically sold online), but it's rarely worth one's while to dismantle the instrument panel just to get access to the odometer assembly.
Several years ago I already pretty much abandoned the idea of taxing vehicle use based of distance driven or energy used to fund road works and instead figured that the simplest and best way is to eliminate all of those taxation schemes and put transport infrastructure on the general fund. Justification? We ALL pay taxes based on our own personal levels of economic activity, and that level of activity very closely correlates to the amount of utility that each one of us derives, both directly and indirectly, from the transport system. K.I.S.S.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 29, 2023, 01:34:08 PM
Several years ago I already pretty much abandoned the idea of taxing vehicle use based of distance driven or energy used to fund road works and instead figured that the simplest and best way is to eliminate all of those taxation schemes and put transport infrastructure on the general fund. Justification? We ALL pay taxes based on our own personal levels of economic activity, and that level of activity very closely correlates to the amount of utility that each one of us derives, both directly and indirectly, from the transport system. K.I.S.S.
Mike
Been arguing this point for years. Unless you're a hermit that grows/kills your own food and makes everything you need at home, everyone benefits from the system of roads we have.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 29, 2023, 01:34:08 PM
Several years ago I already pretty much abandoned the idea of taxing vehicle use based of distance driven or energy used to fund road works and instead figured that the simplest and best way is to eliminate all of those taxation schemes and put transport infrastructure on the general fund. Justification? We ALL pay taxes based on our own personal levels of economic activity, and that level of activity very closely correlates to the amount of utility that each one of us derives, both directly and indirectly, from the transport system. K.I.S.S.
Mike
(putting my fake urbanist hat on) And once again those suburban people want to profit over the inner city folks to fund their car addiction. We need to reduce reliance on cars, etc, etc, and of course our taxes from general fund shouldn't be used that way!
Quote from: SP Cook on June 29, 2023, 12:08:28 PM
People are making way too much of this. If you enforce the registration laws that currently exist (you have to register your car where you actually live) and just pay the per mile tax to your state, it all will come out close enough to even to not matter. For every vacationer in Florida paying Ohio, there is a snowbird driving around the country, but paying Florida.
On a smaller scale, it doesn't always work out. For every commuter who lives in Moorhead but does 85% of his driving in North Dakota, there isn't necessarily a commuter who lives in Fargo but does 85% of his driving in Minnesota. Likewise, Grand Forks.
"I have the funniest story, mister tax man. You won't believe it, but my odometer started magically rolling backwards when I was driving the other day! It was the craziest thing. I actually have less miles now, so I think it's you who owes me money."
Quote from: index on June 29, 2023, 04:00:18 PM
"I have the funniest story, mister tax man. You won't believe it, but my odometer started magically rolling backwards when I was driving the other day! It was the craziest thing. I actually have less miles now, so I think it's you who owes me money."
↓ IYKYK ↓
(https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/2017/6/1496859146-301253/extralarge.jpg)
I can't help but wonder whether the government would immediately cast suspicion upon anyone who drives considerably less than the average. I telecommute almost every day; I might be in the actual office for a total of two to three weeks all year, and when I am in the office, I take the train to get there. I haven't driven my TL even 2000 miles in a single calendar year in 2020, 2021, or 2022. I used to drive considerably more back before I started telecommuting and before my wife got her TLX–once she got that car, it became our primary roadtrip car and my miles driven dropped off precipitously.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2023, 04:17:05 PM
I can't help but wonder whether the government would immediately cast suspicion upon anyone who drives considerably less than the average. I telecommute almost every day; I might be in the actual office for a total of two to three weeks all year, and when I am in the office, I take the train to get there. I haven't driven my TL even 2000 miles in a single calendar year in 2020, 2021, or 2022. I used to drive considerably more back before I started telecommuting and before my wife got her TLX–once she got that car, it became our primary roadtrip car and my miles driven dropped off precipitously.
Before COVID probabally but now that work from home has been normalized in so many contexts it would be difficult to make that case.
I am opposed to the VMT, its a Rube Goldberg fix to a simple issue.
First, roads are so fundamental to the nation as a whole that there is a good case for just funding them out of a broad national tax, be it on income or better yet imports. Everyone ends up paying in, which since we all benefit from the roads, even those who don't drive, would be reasonably equitable. Such a tax can be very cheap to administer compared to setting up a whole system for VMT.
Second, if we for some reason want to tax people on a use basis, which I'm unconvinced is worth bothering to do, we can either tax registration or driver licensing. Both are complex compared to a broad national tax, but simple compared to VMT.
Finally, while my inner economist does love the beauty of well functioning markets for aligning supply with demand, I honestly think roads come fairly close to being a public good. Not as perfect an example as national defense or law enforcement, but for many purposes quite close. Although possible, it is extremely expensive and difficult to truly restrict road use to paying users, which makes them pretty close to non-exculdable. Sure, toll roads do it, but most roads cannot be toll roads, and every toll road would be more efficient without needing that overhead. And while roads are definitely rival in a strict sense, the fact that any given driver can only consume 1 vehicle worth of capacity means that the marginal consumption of individual actors is always going to be low. And when people "over consume" it is actually straightforward for a benevolent dictator to put resources to their highest use based on congestion. For roads, a single point of national funding (and probabally corresponding local funding for streets) is in its own way a beautifully simple approach.
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 29, 2023, 08:25:39 PM
I am opposed to the VMT, its a Rube Goldberg fix to a simple issue.Everyone ends up paying in, which since we all benefit from the roads, even those who don't drive, would be reasonably equitable.
Under a user-fee based system, be it VMT, or be it some other mechanism, you still have people paying in proportion to their second-hand or third-hand use, due to the incremental transportation costs built into the goods and services they consume.
A hermit who never leaves their property and is able to subsist with just the food and water they can obtain from their property is never asked to pay for roads they derive minimal benefit for.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 29, 2023, 11:31:51 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 29, 2023, 08:25:39 PM
I am opposed to the VMT, its a Rube Goldberg fix to a simple issue.Everyone ends up paying in, which since we all benefit from the roads, even those who don't drive, would be reasonably equitable.
Under a user-fee based system, be it VMT, or be it some other mechanism, you still have people paying in proportion to their second-hand or third-hand use, due to the incremental transportation costs built into the goods and services they consume.
A hermit who never leaves their property and is able to subsist with just the food and water they can obtain from their property is never asked to pay for roads they derive minimal benefit for.
Incorrect. For the consumer to pay the full value of those taxes the good or service would have to have perfectly inelastic demand, which is unrealistic. The consumer's tax burden is a function of elasticity of demand.
Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that roads create synergies and positive externalities which are not captured in direct user fees. Total surplus is maximized in cases of positive externalities by various interventions that shift some of the cost to those who would not pay otherwise.
Finally, even if VMT or other such mechanisms do manage to capture that, they are still a far more costly and complex way of doing so versus a whole economy payment mechanism.
Such hermits are exceptionally rare in the US today, and such a marginal case that they should not dictate tax policy for the 99.99999999% of the rest of the country. Further, if the tax is on something like imported goods its highly unlikely they will pay anyway since they would not be buying them. Also highly doubtful that such people pay income taxes.
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 29, 2023, 11:52:59 PM
For the consumer to pay the full value of those taxes the good or service would have to have perfectly inelastic demand, which is unrealistic.
If the demand for the good or service is inelastic, and the apparent price rises because of the application of the cost of maintaining the transportation system, then less of the product will be demanded resulting in less demand for or wear-and-tear on the transportation system...and it will balance out.
More realistically, what would happen is that the distribution of the entire supply chain would evolve. Modes of transportation that aren't tax-subsidized would be used more because they would seem more competitively-priced. To the extent that certain products rely on cheap tax-subsidized distribution networks to facilitate their business model, there would be an evolution which, incidentally, might address the weaknesses currently observed where a single failure along the supply/distribution path can cause massive (and expensive) disruption.
The more that a good or service can directly reflect all of the costs associated with it, the more likely rational decision-making will occur in decisions on how to provide that good or service, or even whether that good or service can be consumed.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 30, 2023, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 29, 2023, 11:52:59 PM
For the consumer to pay the full value of those taxes the good or service would have to have perfectly inelastic demand, which is unrealistic.
If the demand for the good or service is inelastic, and the apparent price rises because of the application of the cost of maintaining the transportation system, then less of the product will be demanded resulting in less demand for or wear-and-tear on the transportation system...and it will balance out.
More realistically, what would happen is that the distribution of the entire supply chain would evolve. Modes of transportation that aren't tax-subsidized would be used more because they would seem more competitively-priced. To the extent that certain products rely on cheap tax-subsidized distribution networks to facilitate their business model, there would be an evolution which, incidentally, might address the weaknesses currently observed where a single failure along the supply/distribution path can cause massive (and expensive) disruption.
The more that a good or service can directly reflect all of the costs associated with it, the more likely rational decision-making will occur in decisions on how to provide that good or service, or even whether that good or service can be consumed.
Did that happen with higher gas prices? I don't think so.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 17, 2021, 08:39:13 AM
As electric cars proliferate, gasoline tax receipts will fall, causing the source of most funding for road maintenance and construction to dry up. The obvious solution is a fee levied on miles driven. Here's how I envision such a system working
For simplicity, all states should operate on one system, probably to be operated by EZPass
One compromise to economic efficiency would be registering if you drive in a different state. People who live in Connecticut and work in New York should pay for the upkeep of the roads in New York that they drive on. As you drive down the Merritt Parkway, the system will charge you a fee to be given to ConnDOT, but once you cross over into New York, GPS will register that and switch over to billing you on behalf of NYSDOT. Your bill, given at the end of each month, will break down which states you drove in and how much you owe.
Those are my thoughts. Does anyone else have any?
need to ban rent a car places form changing any admin fees for this new tolling system
Quote from: kalvado on June 30, 2023, 08:37:21 AM
Did that happen with higher gas prices? I don't think so.
From what I understand, people adjusted to the 2011-2014 gas price spike (and possibly 2008 except that spike was so short) by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. I don't know whether miles driven decreased or not.
Quote from: kphoger on June 29, 2023, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 29, 2023, 12:08:28 PM
People are making way too much of this. If you enforce the registration laws that currently exist (you have to register your car where you actually live) and just pay the per mile tax to your state, it all will come out close enough to even to not matter. For every vacationer in Florida paying Ohio, there is a snowbird driving around the country, but paying Florida.
On a smaller scale, it doesn't always work out. For every commuter who lives in Moorhead but does 85% of his driving in North Dakota, there isn't necessarily a commuter who lives in Fargo but does 85% of his driving in Minnesota. Likewise, Grand Forks.
It's true that many commuters live in Moorhead and work in Fargo; one of my best friends does. That doesn't mean he does 85% of his driving in North Dakota. I bet there are a lot more folks who live in Fargo that drive to Minneapolis on occasion and even many who do so frequently, certainly more than Moorhead residents who visit Bismarck. And while those trips are not as frequent, those trips are about a 500 mile round trip and almost entirely in Minnesota. There are also probably more North Dakotans who vacation in Minnesota's lake country than Minnesotans do in North Dakota. It does balance out even if it doesn't in your immediate sphere of people.
Quote from: 1 on June 30, 2023, 10:08:43 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 30, 2023, 08:37:21 AM
Did that happen with higher gas prices? I don't think so.
From what I understand, people adjusted to the 2011-2014 gas price spike (and possibly 2008 except that spike was so short) by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. I don't know whether miles driven decreased or not.
There was a 2% dip in 2009 and a few years of no growth. Nothing proportional to gas price
And efficiency was a government mandated thing rather than consumer choice (same as airbags and catalytic converters). If that would be by choice, there will be many more civics on the road.
Quote from: kalvado on June 30, 2023, 08:37:21 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 30, 2023, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 29, 2023, 11:52:59 PM
For the consumer to pay the full value of those taxes the good or service would have to have perfectly inelastic demand, which is unrealistic.
If the demand for the good or service is inelastic, and the apparent price rises because of the application of the cost of maintaining the transportation system, then less of the product will be demanded resulting in less demand for or wear-and-tear on the transportation system...and it will balance out.
More realistically, what would happen is that the distribution of the entire supply chain would evolve. Modes of transportation that aren't tax-subsidized would be used more because they would seem more competitively-priced. To the extent that certain products rely on cheap tax-subsidized distribution networks to facilitate their business model, there would be an evolution which, incidentally, might address the weaknesses currently observed where a single failure along the supply/distribution path can cause massive (and expensive) disruption.
The more that a good or service can directly reflect all of the costs associated with it, the more likely rational decision-making will occur in decisions on how to provide that good or service, or even whether that good or service can be consumed.
Did that happen with higher gas prices? I don't think so.
It has happened with fuel prices when looking over the long term, usually in ways that are not immediately apparent from the consumer's point of view, and/or in ways that are difficult to discern given the impacts of other changes over the same span of time.
(Part of my job involves modeling global cargo patterns, since my employer writes cargo insurance coverage.)
What MikeTheActuary says about full internalization of costs supporting rational decision-making comes from standard economic theory and is not, in my view, contradicted by what happened with gas guzzlers during the late noughties/early 2010's price spike. Yes, there were many anecdotes of people trading in such vehicles for more fuel-efficient ones. But that is not the same as it happening on a large scale, and it is questionable that such trade-ins make dollars-and-cents sense except in certain marginal cases, since initial purchase price and depreciation for new cars is so much larger than the extra amount paid in fuel each year when the per-gallon cost goes up.
Think of it this way: if you drive 10,000 miles annually and can choose between two vehicles, one a SUV getting 15 MPG and the other a compact car getting 25 MPG, then you are choosing between annual fuel costs of $1333 and $800 (difference of $533) when gas costs $2 per gallon, versus $2666 and $1600 (difference of $1066) at $4 per gallon. This is dwarfed by a typical cost difference of at least $20,000 in purchase price new ($25,000 for a compact car versus $50,000 for a SUV).
Trading in a SUV for a compact does have appeal for families living paycheck to paycheck who are not able to absorb an additional ~$100 per month in expenses when gas prices go up. However, I would contend that such people cannot afford the SUV to begin with and thus are living beyond their means.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 30, 2023, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 29, 2023, 11:52:59 PM
For the consumer to pay the full value of those taxes the good or service would have to have perfectly inelastic demand, which is unrealistic.
If the demand for the good or service is inelastic, and the apparent price rises because of the application of the cost of maintaining the transportation system, then less of the product will be demanded resulting in less demand for or wear-and-tear on the transportation system...and it will balance out.
More realistically, what would happen is that the distribution of the entire supply chain would evolve. Modes of transportation that aren't tax-subsidized would be used more because they would seem more competitively-priced. To the extent that certain products rely on cheap tax-subsidized distribution networks to facilitate their business model, there would be an evolution which, incidentally, might address the weaknesses currently observed where a single failure along the supply/distribution path can cause massive (and expensive) disruption.
The more that a good or service can directly reflect all of the costs associated with it, the more likely rational decision-making will occur in decisions on how to provide that good or service, or even whether that good or service can be consumed.
Now you are moving the goalposts. And you are completely screwing up how economics works.
"If the demand for the good or service is inelastic" Fine, lets assume that for now.
"and the apparent price rises because of the application of the cost of maintaining the transportation system" not sure what "apparent" price is supposed to mean here, but lets assume its cost the consumer sees as that seems to be what you meant.
"then less of the product will be demanded resulting in less demand for or wear-and-tear on the transportation system...and it will balance out"
And....reductio ad absurdum. If demand is perfectly inelastic (required for the full tax burden to be borne by the consumer) than a rise in price produces no change in demand
because that is by definition what perfectly inelastic means. "The more that a good or service can directly reflect all of the costs associated with it, the more likely rational decision-making will occur in decisions on how to provide that good or service, or even whether that good or service can be consumed."
This is fairly close to what I would agree with, but you are missing several key elements. Let me state this the correct way
Ideally, the cost of providing a good or service is borne by those actors who obtain utility from it in direct relation to the utility received.
Unlike your expression, this one makes explicit that cost should be attached to utility. This is a key distinction, because roads have significant positive externalities which are not priced to the users, and thus roads will be under provisioned unless funded by those 3rd parties that benefit from the externalities. This is a classic feature of any good or service with positive externalities, of which education has been used as a typical example for many years.
The key to all of this is charging the end user only under provisions roads. Separately from this, I am arguing that a general tax, by its efficiency and taking care of the positive externalities problem, is the better solution for funding roads. Yes it theoretically disconnects users from direct costs, but for roads this is not a significant issue because the entire population uses them.
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 30, 2023, 02:21:15 PM
Now you are moving the goalposts. And you are completely screwing up how economics works.
That's why I shouldn't post in the morning before I'm fully caffeinated, or when I'm multitasking. :)
Quote from: HighwayStar on June 30, 2023, 02:21:15 PMUnlike your expression, this one makes explicit that cost should be attached to utility. This is a key distinction, because roads have significant positive externalities which are not priced to the users, and thus roads will be under provisioned unless funded by those 3rd parties that benefit from the externalities. This is a classic feature of any good or service with positive externalities, of which education has been used as a typical example for many years.
The key to all of this is charging the end user only under provisions roads. Separately from this, I am arguing that a general tax, by its efficiency and taking care of the positive externalities problem, is the better solution for funding roads. Yes it theoretically disconnects users from direct costs, but for roads this is not a significant issue because the entire population uses them.
Where I was going with my thought was that with a VMT, the cost of the VMT will be passed along to the consumers of goods and services that rely on transport across the roads. With the exception of my aforementioned (and admittedly improbable) hermit, everyone ends up paying in proportion to their use of the roads, be it direct or indirect....just as they do for the costs of railroads, or blue- or brown-water shipping, and just as they ought to for transport by air.
Now, where I can see some criticism for the concept is the concern that it would place additional demands on those on the lower rungs of society, who can least afford additional demands. That is a valid concern for many things tax- and policy-related, one that ought to be addressed. The fact that it needs to be addressed shouldn't be a reason to not seek better linkages between costs of public services and the users of those services.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 30, 2023, 04:50:16 PM
Where I was going with my thought was that with a VMT, the cost of the VMT will be passed along to the consumers of goods and services that rely on transport across the roads. With the exception of my aforementioned (and admittedly improbable) hermit, everyone ends up paying in proportion to their use of the roads, be it direct or indirect....just as they do for the costs of railroads, or blue- or brown-water shipping, and just as they ought to for transport by air.
Now, where I can see some criticism for the concept is the concern that it would place additional demands on those on the lower rungs of society, who can least afford additional demands. That is a valid concern for many things tax- and policy-related, one that ought to be addressed. The fact that it needs to be addressed shouldn't be a reason to not seek better linkages between costs of public services and the users of those services.
Right, but I am saying that is not how a VMT would actually work. Where the burden of a tax falls depends on elasticity of demand. Perfectly inelastic demand means it all falls on the consumer. Perfectly elastic demand and it all falls on the producer. And in reality neither is realistic, as elasticity is between the two extremes. So some of the cost ends up borne by producers rather than the end user.
That issue in itself is not a decisive one, but its a key point to keep the economics right.
What is a problem is the fact that roads have a large positive externalities. Let me put forth a comparison of examples.
Hamburgers are a private good, they are rival and excludable. Also, the utility from a hambruger is confined to whoever eats it. So if Wimpy buys a hamburger and pays the full cost of $1 to McDonalds for it, and that $1 represents the full cost of getting it to him (labor, capital, etc) then we have aligned those paying with those benefiting.
Education is also a private service, its both rival and excludable. However, the utility of it does not fall solely on the one reviving it. Sure, they may enjoy it and later get a better job because of it, but the full impact of having someone who knows how to do X is so widely diffused in the economy that it is not going to be fully reflected in his salary and thus a positive externality exists. Basically some of the utility is being enjoyed by 3rd parties who didn't have to pay anything.
Roads are the same problem. If we charge VMT, then some of those second order benefits might be captured, but not all of them. If I order a pizza the cost of the pizza will have some of the cost of VMT built into the price, although due to the above elasticity issue not all of the cost passes on to me. But the broader positive externalities of roads (allowing for more economic efficiency, better emergency response, lower air pollution, reduced energy consumption, civil defense, etc) will never be captured by the VMT. And thus it fails because it is a classic example of positive externalities resulting in underproduction of a good or service.
Most people are more familiar with negative externalities resulting in over production, but it follows that positive externalities suffer from under production.