Taxing Drivers By The Mile: Part II

In article >,
says...
>
>
>In article .com>,
wrote:
>
>> - Even with more vehicles and more vehicle miles driven, increases in
>> fuel economy have resulted in gas tax revenues not keeping up with
>> neither inflation nor the increase in vehicle miles traveled. At least
>> with a mileage tax, the revenue collected would keep pace with VMT.
>
>The reason to tax this way IMO is to allow the logging of where people go
>and when.

If you base the tax on a mileage number once a year, not a GPS tracking system,
then this is less of a concern.
--------------
Alex

In article >,
says...

>How do you pay your automobile insurance? Most companies send you a
>premium bill once every 6 months.

With the option to pay it off on a monthly basis.

>How about your renter's insurance?

Same thing.

>Those come once per year. Your registration renewal comes annually,
>too.

The registration fee will be no where near a large as a fuel tax bill.

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

Yes, but the government should know better.

------------------
Alex

In article >, says...
>
>
>> 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?

It's more of a use tax. If you don't drive your car on public roads you don't
ahve to register it. So you don't pay that tax.
--------------
Alex

>> 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?
>
> It's more of a use tax. If you don't drive your car on public roads
> you don't ahve to register it. So you don't pay that tax.

That's what the FUEL tax is for!

"JohnH" > wrote in news:ZZ6dnX6wp9kUFTXfRVn-
:

>> And my personal favorite is to start a new religion with
Wednesday as
>> the holy day.
>
> Great!
>
> But what about the most logical solution of all?
>
> *promote telecommuting*!
>
>

Watch out for this option. If they don't need you in the office. Do
they even need you in the country?

Doug
Bus #26

Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > JohnH wrote

> So tell me again how I will be running my vertical
> mill via teleconferencing?....

Vertical mill by teleconferencing? No way. But by numerical control?
Outsource the programming to Calcutta. Still needs someone to fill the
cutting oil tank, change the tools and load the stock. But the trucks
that bring in raw material and take away the finished product don't
have to be on the road in peak rush hours.

Work for DoD in Crystal City? or Patent and Trademark? Expect to move
out of Crystal City. Work near a place that had a base closure under
BRAC? Work for IBM? (I'll be moving.)

Want your kids in a better school? You'll be moving.

Work for any level of government? Remember the story of the Texas
Ranger who was patolling a desolate stretch of west Texas Highway? He
noticed a truck that stopped every five miles and the driver got out
and beat on the side of the truck. Finally, when the truck got to where
the Ranger was parked, the Ranger stopped the truck and asked the
driver why he stopped every five miles and beat on the side of the
truck. The driver said he had a five ton truck, but the loadmaster had
loaded ten tons of canaries and he had to keep half of them flying so
he wouldn't overload the truck.

The government does that. They beat on the side of the building and
send people on travel so they won't be overloaded.

Do you know of any location that rents out highway space off peak for
anything other than tennis or parking?

Want someone on the East Coast to answer the phone and talk to
customers in Hawaii or the West Coast? Do you work at Camp Swampy and
want someone to answer the phone 24/7 in case the Pentagon calls?

>>> And my personal favorite is to start a new religion with Wednesday
>>> as the holy day.
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> But what about the most logical solution of all?
>>
>> *promote telecommuting*!
>>
>>
>
> Watch out for this option. If they don't need you in the office. Do
> they even need you in the country?

It of course is already happening. Like the guy who poked fun at me saying
he can't run his mill over a teleconference, his job can VERY easily be
moved to the other side of the world.

Basically, regardless of location, one must be what they're worth - or at
least what they negotiate.

Local persons have the advantage of a better understanding of the local
culture, in most cases making communication easier and more efficient. For
now, at least.

But what will make one most valuable is innovation.

Ed Stasiak wrote:
> BBC News
> Sunday, 5 June, 2005
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm
>
> 'Pay-as-you-go' road charge plan
>
> New charges could be used to tackle road congestion
> Drivers could pay up to =A31.34 a mile in "pay-as-you go"
> road charges under new government plans.
>
> The transport secretary said the charges, aimed at cutting
> congestion, would replace road tax and petrol duty.
>
> Alistair Darling said change was needed if the UK was to
> avoid the possibility of "LA-style gridlock" within 20
> years.
>
> Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite
> system to track their journey, with prices starting from
> as little as 2p per mile in rural areas.
>
> Mr Darling has outlined his proposals to the BBC - previewing
> a speech he will give to the Social Market Foundation on
> Thursday.
>
> "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.
>
> "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 =A31.34 for motorways
> at peak times.
>
> The Department of Transport says the scheme would be fairer
> because those who travel greater distances would pay the most.
>
> "We have got to do everything we can during the course of
> this parliament to decide whether or not we go with road
> pricing," Mr Darling said.
>
> If public reaction is favourable, a pilot scheme planned
> for the Leeds area could be rolled out nationwide within
> the next 10 years.
>
> It is more likely to make people think about the cost of
> a journey before undertaking it
>
> The Environment Agency's Nick Rijke warned that shifting
> money away from fuel duty would take away the incentive for
> people to use green vehicles.
>
> And AA Motoring Trust director Bert Morris said there were
> a number of issues which needed to be addressed.
>
> "Tourism is car-based in this country. Would we have empty
> hotels on summer days on the coast if people couldn't afford
> to drive?"
>
> It was also important to ensure that drivers with less money
> were not penalised, Mr Morris added.
>
> RAC Foundation spokeswoman Sue Nicholson said the plan
> could help counter a projected 45% growth in congestion
> problems by 2030.
>
> "Providing this tax was substitutional to fuel tax and road
> tax and provided we had some other guarantees then I think,
> for a lot of people, this would be a tempting option," she
> said.
>
> Environmental group Friends of the Earth broadly welcomed
> road charging but warned the transport crisis could only be
> tackled if money raised was invested in improving alternatives
> to car travel.
>
> Professor Garel Rhys, director of the Centre for Automotive
> Industry Research at Cardiff university's business school,
> believed road pricing would have to be introduced in the UK.
>
> But he warned: "The key is trying to introduce those tolls
> without affecting the flow of traffic, ie. not having to
> stop and pay at a booth which caused congestion itself.
>
> "Governments will upset at their peril society's wish to do
> what it wants to do and that is to move around."

None of the engineers have weighed in with k factors or AADT. Where's
Scott and John? Stuck in traffic?

Dick Boyd wrote:

<snip>

I don't mean any offense, but is there a reason why many of your posts
appear to be a string of unrelated sentences without any sort of point
or cental idea?

In article >, (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
[snip] >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.

where i live, the "rush hours" are "rush three or four hours" already. (6-9AM,
3-7PM). i really fail to see how this scheme can be spreaded peak hours even
more. unless, we all start taking shifts.

regards,

Pam @ Home

Cort Furniture Rental and Honesty are two exclusive concepts.