Is A Per-Mile Driving Tax In Our Future?

[Al68]

Not to get too off track, but this is only true on economic issues.

Socially, the Leftist utopia has little or no government control over personal lives at all. Meanwhile, the Rightist utopia has strict government enforcement of morals.

Yes, you're right, at least on some social issues. That's why I specifically referred to the right's "free market utopia", not the religious right's "abortion-free society utopia".

 

[CAC1001]

Not to get too off track, but this is only true on economic issues.

Socially, the Leftist utopia has little or no government control over personal lives at all.

Would have to disagree here. The far-left are the folks who want to control everything you can say, do, eat, drink, drive, what size home you can live in, how much energy you can use, etc...(note I am saying FAR left here, don't anyone get bent out of shape). The far left love to stick their nose into a person's personal life, just not in the same areas of a person's personal life that the religious right like to.

Meanwhile, the Rightist utopia has strict government enforcement of morals.

Like Al68 said, the emphasis is on the far Right's free-market utopia.

 

[CAC1001]

Notice that these are far from equivalent. The right's "free market utopia" refers to an ideal limited government, not an ideal society under the control of government. Society would be free, not ideal. The acceptance of a non-ideal society is the ideal for government.

Agree mostly, although I'd consider the far-Right's free-market utopia basically the libertarian Ayn Rand-style utopia, of no government and where all industrialists produce things out of the good of their heart for humanity---obviously this is utopian, although not a utopian ideal of a society controlled by the government.

 

[Al68]

Agree mostly, although I'd consider the far-Right's free-market utopia basically the libertarian Ayn Rand-style utopia, of no government and where all industrialists produce things out of the good of their heart for humanity---obviously this is utopian, although not a utopian ideal of a society controlled by the government.

That's not even close to Ayn Rand's, or libertarians' philosophy. Ayn Rand never advocated "no government", she advocated government for the purpose of protecting liberty.

And she certainly never suggested that industrialists would or should ever produce things out of the good of their heart for humanity. Quite the opposite, that industrialists produce things for profit, out of self interest. That's an observation of reality, not some utopian society she advocated.

 

[Physics-Learner]

in a rather soon time, electric vehicles will take over. the problem is how to charge for road upkeep. i would think that some sort of plan regarding a tax on our electricity could be implemented.

we are now getting smart meters put in. mine is already in place.

 

[CAC1001]

That's not even close to Ayn Rand's, or libertarians' philosophy. Ayn Rand never advocated "no government", she advocated government for the purpose of protecting liberty.

That's why I said the "libertarian Ayn Rand utopia," as I was thinking that's what her version of libertarianism advocated. I knew that the other types of libertarians are for limited government.

 

[Al68]

That's why I said the "libertarian Ayn Rand utopia," as I was thinking that's what her version of libertarianism advocated. I knew that the other types of libertarians are for limited government.

As was Rand. But the main point was that creating a utopian society is not part of Rand's or any libertarian philosophy. The whole point of libertarianism is that controlling, shaping, or molding society is not a legitimate function of government. There is no libertarian ideal for society, just a libertarian ideal for government.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's a problem in public economics. Public provision of goods may be affected by political interests. Unfortunately, economists look at the problem from a efficient allocation perspective. It is difficult to account such political behavior. Although, economic mechanism are currently being explored to apply certain incentives that'll produce the desired outcome. Anyway, let's forget the theory, and focus on practicalities for a moment. "Transportation" is a publicly provided good, and thus political interests are linked with it.

A "DIRECT" method makes the difference as public provision of goods suffer from a cost allocation problem. How do you price goods such as to cover the costs? and how do you charge the users exactly what they consume? (equity considerations).

my choice would be to tax the fuel directly. it then encourages people to drive as many miles as possible on each gallon. when you tax miles directly, it removes the incentive to drive those miles more efficiently.also, what is your personal financial interest in this?

 

[mugaliens]

It's in our present, in the form of taxes on gasoline. It varies from vehicle to vehicle, however, as well as between various drivers' driving habits, both of which are largely within a driver's means of control. Thus, if you'd like to pay less per-mile taxes, downsize your vehicle, drive smoothly, and combine trips or walk.

 

[Jack21222]

in a rather soon time, electric vehicles will take over. the problem is how to charge for road upkeep. i would think that some sort of plan regarding a tax on our electricity could be implemented.

we are now getting smart meters put in. mine is already in place.

Just curious, why is road upkeep singled out as pretty much the ONLY service on which people want to be taxed based on use?

I posit that people who don't drive at all, or even people that NEVER LEAVE THEIR HOUSE, benefit as much from our system of roads as anybody else and should be taxed for their upkeep.

Instead of squeezing the poor truck driver trying to make a meager living, why not squeeze the gluttonous consumer at the other end whose consumption causes more truck drivers to be on the road to fill the demand for consumer goods.

It seems like for everything else in society, taxes are levied on everybody into a general fund, and then apportioned from there. Nobody seems to argue that only people with children should be taxed for school upkeep, so why should only people who drive on roads be taxed for road upkeep? An educated public and a good transportation infrastructure are both beneficial to society as a whole, and not just those who use the schools or roads.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Instead of squeezing the poor truck driver trying to make a meager living, why not squeeze the gluttonous consumer at the other end whose consumption causes more truck drivers to be on the road to fill the demand for consumer goods.

But they do pay. When I buy a bunch of bananas at the grocery store, the price depends on the price the grocer paid for them. The price the grocer paid depends on the price his supplier charged, and part of that price was the cost of transportation. Part of that price of transportation was the fuel tax.

Yes, it passes through many hands, but a fuel tax is paid by the person who benefits from the roads whether or not he is the one doing the driving.

 

[Jack21222]

But they do pay. When I buy a bunch of bananas at the grocery store, the price depends on the price the grocer paid for them. The price the grocer paid depends on the price his supplier charged, and part of that price was the cost of transportation. Part of that price of transportation was the fuel tax.

Yes, it passes through many hands, but a fuel tax is paid by the person who benefits from the roads whether or not he is the one doing the driving.

Sounds horribly inefficient. Why not do it like we do schools?

 

[Physics-Learner]

personally i like the use tax on lots more than just roads. but that is an issue for another thread.

as was stated, the tax on fuel on big trucks will increase the price of goods. so that still provides an incentive to use fuel wisely.

as i stated earlier, one big reason for this is the very soon coming overthrow of gas cars with electric ones. there won't be any gas to be taxed on many vehicles. and eventually none at all.

so there needs to be some way of dealing with it. one is to tax electricity. another might be to tax tires, but i would need to come up with some ideas on just how that would be done, effectively and fairly.

govt tracking of where we go simply is not an option.

 

[Pyrrhus]

my choice would be to tax the fuel directly. it then encourages people to drive as many miles as possible on each gallon. when you tax miles directly, it removes the incentive to drive those miles more efficiently.


also, what is your personal financial interest in this?

You're assuming the mileage per gallon of each vehicle is the same, but it's not. Vehicles with low mileage per gallon actually end up paying more taxes in contrast to vehicles high mileage per gallon. This is one of the problems of the fuel tax.

A tax on miles actually is more uniform, and more flexible (it can be adjusted across road classes to fund each road network needs).

My interest is actually in Tolling with price discrimination through lanes. I argue that Tolling efficiently (instead of wait and pay), it is an alternative to replacing the fuel tax.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Sounds horribly inefficient. Why not do it like we do schools?

Why is this inefficient? It has always been this way with any product. Transportation costs are part of the profit problem (revenue minus costs). More close to reality is that Firms choose their price also according to their elasticity (How volatile are consumers with price increase?), and cross elasticity (How volatile are consumers to buy their product from other substitute?). Elasticities themselves depend on market competition.

 

[Char. Limit]

You're assuming the mileage per gallon of each vehicle is the same, but it's not. Vehicles with low mileage per gallon actually end up paying more taxes in contrast to vehicles high mileage per gallon. This is one of the problems of the fuel tax.

I don't see that as a "problem". It encourages automobile makers to make more fuel efficient cars and encourages consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. And then the environment is better, you spend less on fuel, and the automobile makers that made good decisions are prospering. Everyone wins.

 

[Proton Soup]

You're assuming the mileage per gallon of each vehicle is the same, but it's not. Vehicles with low mileage per gallon actually end up paying more taxes in contrast to vehicles high mileage per gallon. This is one of the problems of the fuel tax.

the heavier the vehicle, the more wear on the road, and the lower the mileage per gallon. so it's plenty "fair" if that's your worry. i don't think you are giving this a very thorough examination.

A tax on miles actually is more uniform, and more flexible (it can be adjusted across road classes to fund each road network needs).

My interest is actually in Tolling with price discrimination through lanes. I argue that Tolling efficiently (instead of wait and pay), it is an alternative to replacing the fuel tax.

so i will take that as a "yes", that you do have a personal financial interest in at least this sort of invasive monitoring of individuals.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I don't see that as a "problem". It encourages automobile makers to make more fuel efficient cars and encourages consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. And then the environment is better, you spend less on fuel, and the automobile makers that made good decisions are prospering. Everyone wins.

Aha!, true true (there's empirical evidence of this). However, this leads to more travel consumption!, and thus increased travel time costs (aka more congestion). Thus, you are assuming travel consumptions does not change. In addition, if we assume cost of extraction and production of gas does not change to firms, it can be seen clearly that fuel tax will have to increase as revenue may also drop (consumption increases but also hampered by congestion increases, this is ambiguous, and hard to say without magnitudes). It could be that the fuel tax will be bigger percentage of the price of fuel in order to pay for the costs and the additional increase in costs due to induced demand.

 

[Pyrrhus]

the heavier the vehicle, the more wear on the road, and the lower the mileage per gallon. so it's plenty "fair" if that's your worry. i don't think you are giving this a very thorough examination.

Now you assume uniform mileage per gallon by weight. This is not true. Vehicles of same weight may have different mileage per gallon. Equity for fuel tax is not as clear cut as you're imagining.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Your economics I find very interesting, but with the reasoning you're giving, if/when computers are invented that can drive vehicles by themselves, with no human interference whatsoever, you'd then argue that a policy should be made that it be made mandatory that all cars be self-driven so as to cut down (or even eliminate) car accidents and so forth. A per-mile tax is one of the best ways for the government to control the behavior of the masses driving their automobiles. It allows the government to track when, where, and which way people drive full-time. It may make for more efficient traffic, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to go about it when we have a society focused on freedom.

No more so than if having every car automated would eliminate traffic accidents means the government should mandate all automobiles be automated. I also disagree with your assertion that "it's going to happen." Maybe in Europe perhaps, but in America, I think you will end up with too much of a public outcry. The Courts have decided we have a right ot privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, so I would imagine many would claim such a policy would violate it.

I don't think it is that much about government control. It is more about welfare and paying for the costs. Generally, drivers forget that transportation goods (e.g. roads) are actually rivalrous, and non-excludable or known as Common pool goods for the most part. Your consumption is allowed, but it will reduce the consumption (e.g. increase the costs) of another. Ok, I admit there's regulation when needed such as subsidies to the poor so they can still use transportation.

Yes, when we have a working version of the automated car. I think it is likely to be mandated for traffic safety reasons, and also traffic system management reasons. Safety as robots are not limited by our sensory limitations. Management as robots can drive closer to each other, and coordinate themselves thus assuming system optimal distribution of flows (aka reducing significantly the travel time delays). Unfortunately, humans unlike ants or other insects tend to be rather selfish when consuming their common pool goods.

 

[turbo]

There are considerations that need to be weighed before charging people per driven mile. My state is very rural and thinly-populated. People need to drive so that they can get to their jobs, and there is almost no public transportation. My wife has to drive about 1/2 hour each way on back roads to get to the factory where she works. Other employees travel even farther. These people aren't creating traffic congestion due to the nature of the roads in this area, and they shouldn't be saddled with extra costs related to keeping a job. As it is, there is a LOT of car-pooling going on among her co-workers to try to keep fuel costs/vehicle wear reasonable.

As for implementation, how stupid is the idea that every single vehicle needs to have a transponder/GPS to tally the owners' mileage? We all have to register our vehicles, and when it is time to register, we have to provide current mileage. The towns, counties, etc that register vehicles could give yearly mileage totals to the feds, if necessary, BUT that would be an unfunded mandate that small municipalities might not be able to afford. Fuel taxes are still the best bet, as long as the pols don't treat that money as a slush fund, and actually use it to improve roads and repair bridges.

 

[Pyrrhus]

There are considerations that need to be weighed before charging people per driven mile. My state is very rural and thinly-populated. People need to drive so that they can get to their jobs, and there is almost no public transportation. My wife has to drive about 1/2 hour each way on back roads to get to the factory where she works. Other employees travel even farther. These people aren't creating traffic congestion due to the nature of the roads in this area, and they shouldn't be saddled with extra costs related to keeping a job. As it is, there is a LOT of car-pooling going on among her co-workers to try to keep fuel costs/vehicle wear reasonable.

As for implementation, how stupid is the idea that every single vehicle needs to have a transponder/GPS to tally the owners' mileage? We all have to register our vehicles, and when it is time to register, we have to provide current mileage. The towns, counties, etc that register vehicles could give yearly mileage totals to the feds, if necessary, BUT that would be an unfunded mandate that small municipalities might not be able to afford. Fuel taxes are still the best bet, as long as the pols don't treat that money as a slush fund, and actually use it to improve roads and repair bridges.

Your concerns are understandable, as anyone on this thread that complained about privacy issues. I am also concerned about it, and thus do not support a GPS based miles-tax. However, I do see some advantages on the demand management (e.g. charging higher for using "popular" roads, and so on), which interests planners and policymakers heavily.

A less invasive alternative which has been suggested is an Odometer tax. You don't get as much information as a GPS-based tax, but it still a miles tax.

 

[Proton Soup]

Now you assume uniform mileage per gallon by weight. This is not true. Vehicles of same weight may have different mileage per gallon. Equity for fuel tax is not as clear cut as you're imagining.

no, i do not assume uniform mileage per gallon by weight. I'm simply pointing out that your idea of charging by the mile makes less sense than charging by the gallon, even without considerations for encouraging less consumption of petroleum.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Your concerns are understandable, as anyone on this thread that complained about privacy issues. I am also concerned about it, and thus do not support a GPS based miles-tax. However, I do see some advantages on the demand management (e.g. charging higher for using "popular" roads, and so on), which interests planners and policymakers heavily.

A less invasive alternative which has been suggested is an Odometer tax. You don't get as much information as a GPS-based tax, but it still a miles tax.

Getting rid of the GPS defeats the entire purpose of the per-mile tax, which is that you get charged per-mile, but the charge differs based on which roads you use.

Also, with the per-mile tax, you assume that every car that drives on certain roads causes the same wear on the road. This is also not true. Semi-trucks cause a ton more damage to a freeway (which would probably end up costing the most since they are commonly the most frequently used) then say... a Jetta TDI or a "SmartCar."

The Odometer tax would also unfairly tax the people who live in rural areas, like farmers, or people who have to commute 1/2 hour+ with no congestion (Utah has this problem, as does a lot of Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and the Midwest).

While the per-gallon tax also unfairly taxes the people who have those long commutes, changing the entire system, saying that it's more "fair" and spending resources to make a change that really does absolutely nothing is ridiculous, selfish, and wastes the money you would theoretically be earning.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't see that as a "problem". It encourages automobile makers to make more fuel efficient cars and encourages consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. And then the environment is better, you spend less on fuel, and the automobile makers that made good decisions are prospering. Everyone wins.

Did I adopt an idiot grandson? Problem? The problem is that someone is trying to get away with something. And that problem is progress. We're already looking at an EV tax here on this side of the river. http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/HB2328/" looks to solve this problem before it even starts. Thank god the Republican author of the bill is sentient enough to realize that the damned Greenies are trying to destroy our country, and cut them off before their numbers get to big.

Passenger Vehicles Total: 4,484,180
Passenger Vehicles Electric: 133
Percentage: 0.0030%

Tax 'em to death before they breed!

Cough, cough.

Sorry.

 

[Pyrrhus]

no, i do not assume uniform mileage per gallon by weight. I'm simply pointing out that your idea of charging by the mile makes less sense than charging by the gallon, even without considerations for encouraging less consumption of petroleum.

How come it makes less sense? You said succinctly that heavy vehicles cause more harm to roads, and they have lower mileage per gallon. I pointed out that there's still an equity problem as vehicles of same weight also differ by mileage per gallon.

You've to remember the reason we tax gasoline (at least in the USA, gas taxes go to a dedicated fund instead of the general fund used by other countries; this means revenue from this taxes are only for transportation) is that gas consumption "tends" to be proportional to miles consumption. So why don't tax miles directly?

 

[Pyrrhus]

Getting rid of the GPS defeats the entire purpose of the per-mile tax, which is that you get charged per-mile, but the charge differs based on which roads you use.

Also, with the per-mile tax, you assume that every car that drives on certain roads causes the same wear on the road. This is also not true. Semi-trucks cause a ton more damage to a freeway (which would probably end up costing the most since they are commonly the most frequently used) then say... a Jetta TDI or a "SmartCar."

The Odometer tax would also unfairly tax the people who live in rural areas, like farmers, or people who have to commute 1/2 hour+ with no congestion (Utah has this problem, as does a lot of Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and the Midwest).

While the per-gallon tax also unfairly taxes the people who have those long commutes, changing the entire system, saying that it's more "fair" and spending resources to make a change that really does absolutely nothing is ridiculous, selfish, and wastes the money you would theoretically be earning.

I agree, which is my point of moving to a more direct charge such a GPS based per mile tax. However, there's the issue of privacy. I am currently researching alternatives such as Tolling, and others.

Also, sitting idle in traffic due to congestion overestimates your usage costs through the gas tax as Ryumast3r points out.

 

[mugaliens]

It's nice to see our elected folks are listening.

Don't throw in hook, line, and sinker, though, as it's an election year and a half.

Instead, please focus on the truth, instead of the rhetoric, particularly the partisan rhetoric.

Such a waste! Don't waste your input!

- Mugs

 

[klimatos]

Also given that someone could brew ASTM biodiesel at home with relative ease.

It's not that easy. The problem is that you have to get ALL of the glycerin out of the feedstock. If you leave even a bit behind, you will ruin your engine! My oldest daughter (a biodiesel consultant) hears these sad stories all the time from people who thought that they could just burn their used cooking oil without extensive (and expensive) pretreatment.

 

[Proton Soup]

How come it makes less sense? You said succinctly that heavy vehicles cause more harm to roads, and they have lower mileage per gallon. I pointed out that there's still an equity problem as vehicles of same weight also differ by mileage per gallon.

You've to remember the reason we tax gasoline (at least in the USA, gas taxes go to a dedicated fund instead of the general fund used by other countries; this means revenue from this taxes are only for transportation) is that gas consumption "tends" to be proportional to miles consumption. So why don't tax miles directly?

saying that they differ doesn't say anything substantive. how much do they differ? is that difference significant to a degree that a massively complex system and new bureaucracy is worth implementing to smooth out the "equity problem"?

there is also supposedly this thing called a free market that let's inequities take care of themselves. individuals either choose the best deal cost-wise, or decide that they like a little inequity if it also gives them the privilege of driving a big honkin' SUV land barge.

 

[CAC1001]

IYes, when we have a working version of the automated car. I think it is likely to be mandated for traffic safety reasons, and also traffic system management reasons. Safety as robots are not limited by our sensory limitations. Management as robots can drive closer to each other, and coordinate themselves thus assuming system optimal distribution of flows (aka reducing significantly the travel time delays). Unfortunately, humans unlike ants or other insects tend to be rather selfish when consuming their common pool goods.

I'd be willing to bet that that will not happen either, as it intrudes too much onto people's freedom. I could see cars with automated driving becoming popular, but the type of system you are talking about requires a centralized way of controlling. Automated cars would just drive like a very skilled human, you're not going to get a system whereby you merge onto the freeway and all the cars cruise at 90 mph four inches apart or something.

 

[Pyrrhus]

saying that they differ doesn't say anything substantive. how much do they differ? is that difference significant to a degree that a massively complex system and new bureaucracy is worth implementing to smooth out the "equity problem"?

there is also supposedly this thing called a free market that let's inequities take care of themselves. individuals either choose the best deal cost-wise, or decide that they like a little inequity if it also gives them the privilege of driving a big honkin' SUV land barge.

The reason for implementing the new system is for both travel demand management (e.g. charge more for "popular" links) and revenue collection. I've already pointed out the problems with the gas tax, and the biggest one is it is not paying the costs (along with other taxes). Yes you can increase it but eventually it'll need to be replaced. And yes, the differences can be on standard deviations of even 5-7 miles per gallon. Do a google search. A simple example are Passenger Cars.

The Free Market cares about efficiency. Matching Demand to Supply, the so-called Walrasian Tantonement (or equilibrium). The equilibria from such a process is not NECESSARILY a desirable distribution of resources (i.e. equitable).

This is not applicable for the most part in transportation as externalities (i.e. pollution, congestion) exists, and the so-called market failure is present. This is typical of public goods.

Your last paragraph is just the consumer problem, if the Disposable income is enough, the consumer will just consume more. This is the reason that I explained before that higher mileage per gallon will increase the consumption for more travel (for same levels of disposable income). However, if you increase disposable income and prices don't change, then you get more consumption. There's no problem with consumption as long as we charge the right price, which cannot be obtained by an uniform price for all transportation (road) facilities. There's has to be a form of price discrimination. When will people realize transportation is not a good like a banana? It is different across TIME and SPACE.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I'd be willing to bet that that will not happen either, as it intrudes too much onto people's freedom. I could see cars with automated driving becoming popular, but the type of system you are talking about requires a centralized way of controlling. Automated cars would just drive like a very skilled human, you're not going to get a system whereby you merge onto the freeway and all the cars cruise at 90 mph four inches apart or something.

Yearly about 50,000 people die due to car crashes. Robots might reduce this number significantly, and if it does, you can bet it is likely to be enforced. Furthermore, decentralized coordinated systems are possible today (simple rules that result in a complex system). Automated cars will drive better than any human ever existed. You cannot compare a machine without the physical limitations of a human to a human.

 

[CAC1001]

Yearly about 50,000 people die due to car crashes. Robots might reduce this number significantly, and if it does, you can bet it is likely to be enforced.

No, I would bet it is likely to be incentivized in some way, but not mandated. People still want to be able to drive their vehicles themselves, not have to rely on a robot to always do it by law. That is placing too much control into the hands of the state. Plus, you'd then have to outlaw things like bikes, motorcycles, sports cars, etc...I am sure you could outlaw sports cars and motorcycles right now due the accidents they probably lead to, but we live in a free society. Similarly, robotic vehicles are not going to end people driving their cars.

 

[Proton Soup]

The reason for implementing the new system is for both travel demand management (e.g. charge more for "popular" links) and revenue collection. I've already pointed out the problems with the gas tax, and the biggest one is it is not paying the costs (along with other taxes). Yes you can increase it but eventually it'll need to be replaced. And yes, the differences can be on standard deviations of even 5-7 miles per gallon. Do a google search. A simple example are Passenger Cars.

The Free Market cares about efficiency. Matching Demand to Supply, the so-called Walrasian Tantonement (or equilibrium). The equilibria from such a process is not NECESSARILY a desirable distribution of resources (i.e. equitable).

This is not applicable for the most part in transportation as externalities (i.e. pollution, congestion) exists, and the so-called market failure is present. This is typical of public goods.

Your last paragraph is just the consumer problem, if the Disposable income is enough, the consumer will just consume more. This is the reason that I explained before that higher mileage per gallon will increase the consumption for more travel (for same levels of disposable income). However, if you increase disposable income and prices don't change, then you get more consumption. There's no problem with consumption as long as we charge the right price, which cannot be obtained by an uniform price for all transportation (road) facilities. There's has to be a form of price discrimination. When will people realize transportation is not a good like a banana? It is different across TIME and SPACE.

but we already charge more for popular links with tolls. and we can raise revenues by raising tolls or taxes. i assume you have calculated some dollar amount that you think this is supposed to save through increased efficiency?

the banana thing i don't get. bananas cost more or less depending on where you buy them, and according to crop yield. they vary by time and place/space.

and on a more personal note, i think i very much like the idea of free and open roads. it is, i dare say, very AMERICAN. it is a part of my culture, and i think it would be a great shame to lose it. not every public resource needs to be metered.