A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Taxing Drivers By The Mile: Part II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 8th 05, 03:22 AM
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:14:24 -0400, "JohnH" > wrote:

>> I was/am against it because it came in such huge lumps. Buy a really
>> nice car, and pay $450 twice a year. Would rather pay $70 a month or
>> so, $18 a week, anything but huge bites like that.

>
>Regardless of the friggin *billing frequency* (which usually people only
>care about when they live from paycheck to paycheck), it's getting the boot
>because it's a stupid and arbitrary double tax. We already pay a sales tax
>when we buy the car, what sense does it make to keep paying over and over
>again just for the "privilege" to own our own property?


Its as dumb as any other tax.

Yeah, billing frequency is a concern - there's _lots_ of people that aren't
sitting around with $10,000 in the bank so's such a charge is transparent to
them.

Dave Head
>


Ads
  #33  
Old June 8th 05, 03:32 AM
Gordon Burditt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>> "The advantage is that you would free up capacity on the
>> roads, you would reduce the congestion that we would otherwise
>> face and you would avoid the gridlock that you see in many
>> American cities today," he said.


You're not going to get the benefits of reducing congestion unless
drivers KNOW what price they are paying for driving.

>> "This is a prize well worth going for. We've got to ask
>> ourselves: would it work. Could it bring the benefits that
>> I believe it could bring, because it would make a real change
>> to the way we drive in this country."
>>
>> A satellite tracking system would be used to enforce the
>> toll, with prices varying from 2p per mile for driving on
>> a quiet road out of the rush hour to £1.34 for motorways
>> at peak times.


This thing needs to be able to display three things to the
driver at all times:

(1) The current rate per kilometer (or mile) being paid.
This allows people to complain that they are being taxed for driving
on their own lawn. It also lets them know about the expensive peak
times, so they can avoid them.

(2) The taxometer reading: the total accumulated taxes
for this unit. The value never goes down (like an odometer, and
except for the inevitable tampering), unless it rolls over, which
should not be possible (or at least not likely) within the period
between readings (how much would the taxes be on a car driven on
the most expensive freeways 24x7 at the speed limit between the
monthly readings? Make sure it won't overflow with several times
that amount.). You pay the difference between the current reading
and the last one when it gets read for tax purposes.

(3) The trip taxometer. Like a trip odometer, it increases
with the taxometer but it can be reset to zero at any time by the
driver, so the driver can reset it before a trip and read it at the
end, comparing the taxes on alternative routes. This reading is
not used in the tax calculation. It is only there for the convenience
of the driver.

You also need (4) the serial number of the taxometer, which never
changes. Guess what: this is the ONLY information you ever need
to take out of the taxometer. Route info never needs to be saved,
which will probably remove the REAL reason behind these schemes.

>> The Department of Transport says the scheme would be fairer
>> because those who travel greater distances would pay the most.


Explain why this is different from a gas tax or mileage tax,
which accomplish the same thing with a lot less equipment.

Gordon L. Burditt

  #34  
Old June 8th 05, 04:34 AM
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:50:46 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 01:29:57 GMT, Dave Head > spake
>thus:
>
>>I was/am against it because it came in such huge lumps. Buy a really nice car,
>>and pay $450 twice a year. Would rather pay $70 a month or so, $18 a week,
>>anything but huge bites like that.

>
>How do you pay your automobile insurance?


Allstate has monthly payments.

>Most companies send you a
>premium bill once every 6 months.


U can pay it that way, too.

>How about your renter's insurance?
>Those come once per year.


Nope - Homeowner's insurance comes out of the escrow of my mortgage payment.

>Your registration renewal comes annually,
>too.


? I think that's $25.

> So what's the big deal about "such huge lumps?" It's a simple
>matter of budgeting.


Why would I want to have to do that when there's an alternative? Less hassle
is less hassle...

>Personally, I would prefer to bank the cash and earn a little interest
>on it before paying it out, but then again I don't have any problems
>working within a budget.


Hate budgets.

>I do remember when I once worked at a company
>that paid employees once per month that lots of people bitched and
>moaned that they couldn't deal with not being paid weekly; apparently
>they would **** away their entire month's paycheck in the first week
>or two, and be left with no money for the remainder of the month. Good
>thing for pathetic people like those there's Check-Into-Cash, neh?


Its easy to do (screwing up the cash flow, that is.) I'm not that extreme - I
think the Air Force was twice a month - I never ran out, but know a lot of
people who did. Always wanting to borrow money, just so they could eat...
hey, quit buying so much beer, and save it for food... or starve.

Dave Head
  #35  
Old June 8th 05, 06:31 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
(Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> > (Brent P) wrote:
>> >
>> >> The reason to tax this way IMO is to allow the logging of where people go
>> >> and when.
>> >
>> > That's it. So that people can be tracked every inch of the way.
>> > Thanks but no thanks...

>>
>> I see no other purpose for it. And to those who would shout 'paranoid',
>> nobody would be 'watching'. When a person did something the government
>> didn't like, say become a political threat to those in power, complain
>> too much, or other wise need to be discredited, the data would be mined
>> for something that could be useful or twisted to be useful.

>
>With today's database management system technology, it would be a snap
>to compile all that data and to make it available at their fingertips to
>a future government administration that wanted for nefarious reasons to
>track their citizens every inch of the way. It's not worth the risk.


Yep. With Oracle Spatial or similar, it would be a matter of one slightly
complex query to find all the road segments driven by your political
opponents which were within 100 feet of a strip club, brothel, casino,
abortion clinic, or other thing you might want to use to embarrass or
persecute him.
--
Darth Tel: "You will defeat Emperor Gates. He has forseen it. Come with me
and we will rule the Galaxy as father and son!"

Steve Chipwalker, hanging on by his fingernails: "Sure thing, Pop. Just pull
me up, give me a laptop, and we'll go axe your boss"

-- Megahertz Wars, Episode V, "Finale".
  #36  
Old June 9th 05, 03:21 PM
Ed Stasiak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Gordon Burditt wrote
>
> (1) The current rate per kilometer (or mile) being paid.
> This allows people to complain that they are being taxed
> for driving on their own lawn. It also lets them know
> about the expensive peak times, so they can avoid them.


How is one supposed to avoid driving at peak times?

The vast majority of people leave in the morning and
go home in the evening because that's human nature.

Charging more for driving during morning or evening
rush hour will do nothing to decrease the amount of
vehicles on the roads at that time, it will only
increase the cost of driving at those times.

  #37  
Old June 9th 05, 05:26 PM
Gordon Burditt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>> (1) The current rate per kilometer (or mile) being paid.
>> This allows people to complain that they are being taxed
>> for driving on their own lawn. It also lets them know
>> about the expensive peak times, so they can avoid them.

>
>How is one supposed to avoid driving at peak times?


The proponents of the Big Brother Taxing Scheme claim that it
can by specifically taxing *congested* roads at peak times
higher (which is different from taxing all roads at peak times
higher, although it may not seem that way if "congested roads"
includes almost all of the freeways).

Someone may be able to avoid driving on congested freeways at peak
times. Alternate routes. Vary the schedule. Now, I don't claim
everyone can, but enough might change their habits to reduce the
worst of the congestion.

>The vast majority of people leave in the morning and
>go home in the evening because that's human nature.


Yes, but perhaps some of them can arrive and leave an hour earlier
or an hour later. I often do that just because of the traffic, not
because of a tax. If you can spread "rush hour" into "rush three
hours", the highway department may save a lot on building roads.
Of course, that doesn't help if the rush period for arriving at
work Friday already starts on Wednesday noon.

>Charging more for driving during morning or evening
>rush hour will do nothing to decrease the amount of
>vehicles on the roads at that time, it will only
>increase the cost of driving at those times.


If you only charge more for driving during peak times on congested
freeways, perhaps some people will take alternate routes using other
freeways or side roads. If some of that traffic, even 5%, doesn't
have to be done during the peak period, it could be shifted to
another time and help a lot with the congestion.

Gordon L. Burditt
  #38  
Old June 9th 05, 06:14 PM
Dick Boyd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



JohnH wrote:
> > I was/am against it because it came in such huge lumps. Buy a really
> > nice car, and pay $450 twice a year. Would rather pay $70 a month or
> > so, $18 a week, anything but huge bites like that.

>
> Regardless of the friggin *billing frequency* (which usually people only
> care about when they live from paycheck to paycheck), it's getting the boot
> because it's a stupid and arbitrary double tax. We already pay a sales tax
> when we buy the car, what sense does it make to keep paying over and over
> again just for the "privilege" to own our own property?


Why the car tax? Because Virginia is a Dillon rule state. A local
government can collect taxes only if the Commonwealth says so. The
Commonwealth gave local government the ability to set the property tax
and to collect restaurant sales tax and a few other taxes to collect
money needed to run the government.

Arlington may be the only jurisdiction that collects the restaurant
tax. Did you buy lunch in Arlington, but live in Woodbridge? Thanks, if
it weren't for that tax, there would be no Commuter Store and the
streets would be in horrible shape.

The northern Virginia communities established the highest sales taxes
allowed by law. The northern Virginia Counties taxed to the full extent
allowed by law. Did I repeat that?

With some exceptions, other jurisdictions did not tax to the full
amount allowed by law until there were shortfalls during an economic
downturn. Not as much tax coming from Fairfax to pay for schools in
Buchanan County for instance.

One exception on a tax not collected was the percentage tax on motor
fuel dedicated to METRO. Five cities and counties, IIRC, were
authorized to collect the "METRO" tax. Fairfax County, the tall pole in
the tent elected NOT to collect that "METRO" tax on fuel. Instead, the
Fairfax County METRO subsidy came from property taxes. Both personal
(car tax) and property (real estate).

If METRO was paid for with fuel taxes, there might be a stronger
understanding of the congestion problem and what has to be done to
solve it. There would be a greater understanding of the cost and
benefits of METRO. That's cost in big, bold, capital letters and
benefits in small lower case aggate type. IIRC, an averaage resident of
Fairfax County contributes about $100 per year to METRO via the
property tax.

The message promoted by elected officials is that fuel is cheap, use as
much as you want, when you want. Someone else will ride the train,
leaving room on the road for you. Don't bother with car pools or van
pools.

Real Estate taxes in Fairfax went up and Prince William County became a
more attractive place to live. No "ammenities" (schools, sewers, fire,
police) but still a thousand dollars a mile cheaper for a house in
Prince William. Van pools were a flourishing mom and pop business for a
while. Safer than anything else for commuters, BTW.

Virginia is presently considering legislation to allow collecting
impact fees to have the developer build infrastructure up front. If the
roads, sewers, schools, etc., aren't there when the people move in,
there isn't much chance that they will be provided in a timely manner.
The real school may be finished about the time your kids graduate.
Trailers until then. It is also cheaper to provide infrastructure from
the git-go than to provide it as an afterthought.

Real Eatate property taxes are normally handled in an escrow account
tacked on to the mortgage. Look at the escrow amoount on your mortgage
going to county taxes. Are you getting your money's worth?

Besides, if the escrow is set up correctly, you get interest on the
amount sitting in the bank. The County gets paid twice a year,
typically. You might get another $50 in interest on the tax escrow.
Point is, out of sight, out of mind. Unless you look, you never see the
real estate tax. And if you look, it is once a year when you get a
federal income tax deduction for paying the tax. So that tax looks like
a good thing.

  #39  
Old June 9th 05, 06:25 PM
Ted B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gordon Burditt" > wrote in message
...
>>> (1) The current rate per kilometer (or mile) being paid.
>>> This allows people to complain that they are being taxed
>>> for driving on their own lawn. It also lets them know
>>> about the expensive peak times, so they can avoid them.

>>
>>How is one supposed to avoid driving at peak times?

>
> The proponents of the Big Brother Taxing Scheme claim that it
> can by specifically taxing *congested* roads at peak times
> higher (which is different from taxing all roads at peak times
> higher, although it may not seem that way if "congested roads"
> includes almost all of the freeways).
>
> Someone may be able to avoid driving on congested freeways at peak
> times. Alternate routes. Vary the schedule. Now, I don't claim
> everyone can, but enough might change their habits to reduce the
> worst of the congestion.


The problem with that theory is that it is based on the false premise that
drivers WANT to drive on congested roads at peak congestion times. The
congestion itself is incentive enough to cause drivers to seek alternate
routes and/or vary times. The congestion would be even worse if drivers
weren't ALREADY doing what the tax is supposed to encourage them to
o. -Dave


  #40  
Old June 9th 05, 06:55 PM
Dick Boyd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > Gordon Burditt wrote
> >
> > (1) The current rate per kilometer (or mile) being paid.
> > This allows people to complain that they are being taxed
> > for driving on their own lawn. It also lets them know
> > about the expensive peak times, so they can avoid them.

>
> How is one supposed to avoid driving at peak times?
>
> The vast majority of people leave in the morning and
> go home in the evening because that's human nature.
>
> Charging more for driving during morning or evening
> rush hour will do nothing to decrease the amount of
> vehicles on the roads at that time, it will only
> increase the cost of driving at those times.


How does the snow plow operator get to work? [:>]

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 Dr. David Zatz Chrysler 2 April 22nd 05 05:32 AM
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 4/6 Dr. David Zatz Chrysler 0 April 22nd 05 05:32 AM
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 2/6 Dr. David Zatz Chrysler 0 February 2nd 05 06:22 AM
Wed Night N2003 league looking for drivers [email protected] Simulators 0 November 30th 04 03:46 AM
2000 Cabrio Driver's Window Weatherstripping Question Jose R. Perez VW water cooled 0 October 21st 04 03:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.