Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Motorists' habits spur call for tax increases

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:37 AM
Original message
Motorists' habits spur call for tax increases
Source: AP

prices posted at a Shell gas station in Stockton, Calif. A 50 …

* Gasoline Prices Slideshow: Gasoline Prices

l WASHINGTON – Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren't raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.

A federal commission created by Congress to find a way to make up the growing revenue shortfall in the program that funds highway repairs and construction is talking about increasing federal gas and diesel taxes.

A roughly 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by the commission until the government devises another way for motorists to pay for using public roads.

The 15-member National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is the second group in a year to call for increasing the current 18.4 cents a gallon federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents a gallon tax on diesel. State fuel taxes vary from state to state.....

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_go_ot/gas_tax_15



Look out! Here it comes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. I just heard this and my jaw dropped. They can give trillions to Wall Street and corporations - but
want to squeeze us for more money because we can't AFFORD to drive !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Tell them to go after the Cayman Islands, Swiss, and Lichtenstein bank accounts...
of wealthy American tax cheats, then get back to us about an additional tax on gasoline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. They would....
but that would take time and effort. Much easier to just raise taxes on an essential item like gasoline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mudoria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. Sound like a situation that happened in Charlotte a year or so ago
We had a severe drought and I do mean severe. The city and county placed really tight water restrictions on using water for the lawn, car and asked for people to use less water indoors. The public stepped up and reduced their usage by quite a bit. Good news eh! Not so fast... the public utility that ran the water system later that year announced that since water usage was down the utility was losing money. Result: the city raised water rates by a substantial amount, very substantial. Those who had helped save water resources wound up with a larger montly bill for doing as requested. The moral of the story: you're screwed either way you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Stop!
You're depressing me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yankee Gas did something similar
They ask Nutmeggers to reduce the gas usage by turning down the thermostats, then went to the Connecticut government and stated that now that usage was down, they needed to raise rates to maintain their profits. So now we pay more for a colder house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. same thing in Raleigh
where my parents are, less usage = higher rates.

My dad has hooked barrels to every rain gutter drain, and collects the water for his yard. Eventually, they'll charge him for that if they can find a way to do so...

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. You got it.
I remember reading something about it being illegal to collect water in that manner in some state ... Colorado, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChazII Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Sad but in this day
I can see that happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
askeptic Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. I think it should be raised to about 50 cents
These low fuel prices are killing our alternative energy projects, and it would be a god time to raise them with prices so low. We are already seeing a trend back to SUV's. We need to be able to get these other energy alternatives going before it's a crisis again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. Great idea
Reward people for conserving fuel by making it more expensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. The drop's been a few percentage points.
The response is to increase the tax by 50%.

The goal is independent of the rationale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madison knows Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. I would have no problem with higher fuel taxes...If...
the money raised was only used for the construction of highways and highway infrastructure.

That way, those who put the wear and tear on our highways would be the ones paying for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Well, I don't use football/baseball stadiums (directly or even watching the pablum on the tv)
and and some dipshits running the government think tax money should be given to help the team owner, who can already afford to pay his players millions of dollars EACH, and half of which commit all the crimes they want and laugh it off over how appallingly small the fee/bail/whatever is because they also know the league is going to do sod all about punishing them either...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madison knows Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Well, I guess we agree then. Because I don't believe tax $ should be used to build
sports stadiums either.

The ticket prices and other revenue generated by the team should be used. Again, that way those who use the stadium are the ones who get to pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
14. Bring fuel prices up to international levels, and then spur real alternative development

Stop coddling the oil companies, first of all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
15. Not nearly as bad as the proposal being considered in Oregon.



A year ago, the Oregon Department of Transportation announced it had demonstrated that a new way to pay for roads — via a mileage tax and satellite technology — could work.

Now Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he’d like the legislature to take the next step.

As part of a transportation-related bill he has filed for the 2009 legislative session, the governor says he plans to recommend “a path to transition away from the gas tax as the central funding source for transportation.”

What that means is explained on the governor’s website:

“As Oregonians drive less and demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, it is increasingly important that the state find a new way, other than the gas tax, to finance our transportation system.”

According to the policies he has outlined online, Kulongoski proposes to continue the work of the special task force that came up with and tested the idea of a mileage tax to replace the gas tax.

The governor wants the task force “to partner with auto manufacturers to refine technology that would enable Oregonians to pay for the transportation system based on how many miles they drive.”

The online outline adds: “The governor is committed to ensuring that rural Oregon is not adversely affected and that privacy concerns are addressed.”

When the task force’s study and test were in the news in 2006 and 2007, critics worried that the technology could be used to track where vehicles go, not just how far they travel, and that this information would somehow be stored by the government.

In more than one interview with the Democrat-Herald and others, James Whitty, the ODOT official in charge of the project, tried to assure the public that tracking people’s travels was not in the plans.

The task force’s final report came out in November 2007. It was based largely on a field test in which about 300 motorists in the Portland area and two service stations took part over

10 months, ending in March 2007.

A GPS-based system kept track of the in-state mileage driven by the volunteers. When they bought fuel, a device in their vehicles was read, and they paid 1.2 cents a mile and got a refund of the state gas tax of 24 cents a gallon.

The final report detailed the technical aspects of the program. It also stressed the issue of privacy.

“The concept requires no transmission of vehicle travel locations, either in real time or of travel history,” the report said. “Accordingly, no travel location points are stored within the vehicle or transmitted elsewhere. Thus there can be no ‘tracking’ of vehicle movements.”

Also, the report said, under the Oregon concept of the program, “ODOT would have no involvement in developing the on-vehicle devices, installing them in vehicles, maintaining them or having any other access to them except, perhaps, in situations involving tampering or similar fee evasion activities.”

Equipment for the Oregon test was developed at Oregon State University.

Whitty said last year it might take about $20 million to establish that the mileage tax is commercially viable. Eventually, GPS devices would have to start being built into cars, and fueling stations would have to be similarly equipped.

The gas tax would stay in force — Kulongoski has proposed that it be raised 2 cents — for vehicles not equipped to pay the mileage tax.


http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/12/28/news/local/1aaa02_road.txt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadmessengers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Oh, this is so full of fail it's not funny.
1) Taxing mileage encourages the use of monster SUVs, not discourages it.

2) I didn't see any mention of the undoubtedly-ironclad privacy protections they're building into the GPS-based tracking system, to prevent it's abuse by law enforcement and subpoena-happy trial attorneys. Perhaps they ran out of column inches for that part. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
askeptic Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
18. least intrusive is best - no need for GPS or high tech
I view it as a ruse to intrude further into private lives. Until we are heavily into electric, this is a non-issue. Just raise the gas tax as the simplest way that also taxes those with heavier vehicles (less mileage) that wear the roadways more. Gas tax doesn't track your actions. If and when electric becomes standard vehicle type, there are other ways to tax without tracking everyone with a GPS. Most states have inspection programs - easy enough to record mileage at that point. Or just report mileage when you re-register the vehicle. Of course smaller, lighter vehicles cause almost no wear to roads, so could also be based on weight and not mileage.

The least intrusive way to accomplish the goal is through gas taxes or mileage reporting. No need for a big-brother tracking system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
19. congress plans to fix this in a few months with the 50 cent/gal gas tax
and we all love what congress is doing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC