If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Komo)   As hybrids and increasingly fuel-efficient cars make it nearly impossible to finance road maintenance via gas tax, Washington State considers imposing per-mile driving tax. Your odometer reading, please   (komonews.com) divider line 36
    More: Obvious, gas tax, software maintenance  
•       •       •

4443 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Dec 2012 at 3:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-08 02:38:38 AM
6 votes:
So, people who cause more wear and tear on the roads have to pay more to maintain them? Can we also adjust it to be based on vehicle weight?
2012-12-08 03:31:53 AM
4 votes:
Oh, I know, how about the state stop spending a huge portion of gas taxes on EVERYTHING but roads. I'm looking at you, Califarkia.

/grrrrrrrrrrrr
2012-12-08 03:17:05 AM
4 votes:
Reasons Montana Rules #6598543:

Hybrids pay MORE in vehicular tax per year.

/Enjoy your toxic chemicals, and the fact that your vehicle is more damaging to the environment than the oil you won't use!
2012-12-08 04:45:38 AM
3 votes:
Most road damage is done by the weather. Shhh don't tell anyone.
2012-12-08 03:26:22 AM
3 votes:
The real problem is that an odometer doesn't know whether you're driving in state or out of state. If it's a state tax, it can't be charged on miles driven out-of-state. And that means that if it passes, your state will require your vehicle to have a GPS logger on it.

Oregon, 2003
California, 2005
Oregon, 2008
Oregon, again, 2009
Three Guesses What State, and Any Guesses That Aren't Oregon Don't Count, 2012.

Dear Oregon, fark you. Dear neighboring states to Oregon, just give whatever lobbyist is in Oregon a lump sum of cash to STFU and retire. All I want is the ability to go out for a nice morning drive in something that predates the motor law.
2012-12-08 03:24:47 AM
3 votes:
Sure, track mileage. Then enforce gps devices so the gov can know just where you're using those miles, Why not personal gps chips for the times when you're not driving? For your safety and tax purposes, of course.

Fark off.
2012-12-08 03:23:10 AM
3 votes:

RedPhoenix122: So, people who cause more wear and tear on the roads have to pay more to maintain them? Can we also adjust it to be based on vehicle weight?


Fark headline in 2018: "As composite and increasingly lightweight cars make it nearly impossible to finance road maintenance via vehicle weight tax, Washington State considers imposing a per trip tax. Your number of engine starts this month, please."
2012-12-08 03:21:57 AM
3 votes:
highwayrun: That's the way to boost revenue: encourage people to stay home and not go anywhere

If more people stayed home, I would go out more often.

// ever since black Friday, I've had to take an alternate route home because my preferred route goes by a major mall and the freeway there is always backed up around the holiday time. I see some WFH remote desktop sessions in my future.
2012-12-08 03:17:08 AM
3 votes:
Oh for fark's sake, just raise the farking gas tax. Base it on revenue produced by hybrids to start with, putting pressure on everyone else to get rid of their gas guzzlers. It's a much better alternative than letting the government track mileage.
2012-12-08 03:16:55 AM
3 votes:
As an Oklahoma resident, I approve of this 100%. Also, yes let's please make it based on weight.

/just about every vehicle here is a giant 6 wheeled truck that can't drive worth a damn
2012-12-08 04:24:17 AM
2 votes:
Here in New York, I am amused at the number of farkers who actually believe the money raised via a gas tax or a useage tax or a mileage tax or whatever is actually going to be used on the roads and not for patronage jobs and general weaselry to the benefit of favored constituencies.

Dedicated fund, my ass. Legislatures have ways of sweeping money out of 'dedicated' funds and into the general fund.

You want to find corruption? Your state legislature will be where it's at. The legislators are high enough up the food chain that locals won't pay much attention, but not so high up that they might draw the eye of a national investigative reporter.

Lots of news organizations have cut back on their state-government-coverage beats. You can get away with a lot, and a lot of what you can't get away with you can simply have made perfectly legal through a bit of you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours.
2012-12-08 04:07:58 AM
2 votes:
Oh...this again. The optimist in me wants to say that this would never pass because of privacy issues and that the ACLU should be fighting shiat like this because the only way to determine if my state gets the taxes for the miles that I drive in my state, the will have to have some sort of GPS in my car. And one thing that I have realized that if there is a record of it, law enforcement and lawyers can get it. Why would they??? Simple. There is a shooting at some location. Law enforcement starts by going through GPS records to figure out what cars were in the area as a list of suspects. Or, even simpler, use the GPS devices to monitor how fast you are traveling, ticket you accordingly. As for lawyers, if you were going through a divorce or a child custody case, the last thing you'd want is for a lawyer to be able to pull your GPS records to see where you spend your time.

The realist in me knows that there are a huge amount of voters who are more than willing to just bend over and accept what the government wants to do and then thank them for the privilege of getting farked over. And if there isn't, then who cares, the state and federal governments have shown multiple times in the past that voters don't actually need to vote on laws that effect them, they can simply vote for themselves to make it legal to monitor every move we make, every word we say every mile we drive and location we stop at while they cry "It's for the children!" or "It's for the environment!".

Next year I plan on buying a hybrid. Not for any noble reasons such as being greener, but because I do alot of city driving and hybrids get great city mileage and not to mention the relief at the pump. A special tax for hybrids will probably keep me from going to a hybrid and continue to drive regular gas only cars.
2012-12-08 03:35:42 AM
2 votes:

RedPhoenix122: So, people who cause more wear and tear on the roads have to pay more to maintain them? Can we also adjust it to be based on vehicle weight?


Commercial vehicle tax rates

Also plates and licenses for large trucks are typically much more expensive than personal cars - typically in the low thousands per year per vehicle.
2012-12-08 03:18:52 AM
2 votes:
That's the way to boost revenue: encourage people to stay home and not go anywhere
2012-12-09 10:21:36 AM
1 votes:

HempHead: Bendal: RedPhoenix122: So, people who cause more wear and tear on the roads have to pay more to maintain them? Can we also adjust it to be based on vehicle weight?

Actually it already is. Trucks pay a highway tax based on their weight, and overweight vehicles pay even more. Besides, one commercial truck inflicts over 10,000 times the damage on a highway that a single passenger vehicle does, even when including SUV's and these big personal trucks.

The mileage based tax has some issues (how do they handle out-of-state miles, or miles driven on locally maintained roads, or off road mileage), but it is actually a more realistic and logical way to pay for using state roads than the gas tax. Cars, not big trucks, are why state DOT's spend so much money widening existing roads and building new ones.

Weather does more to destroy roads than cars.


No it doesn't. I work in the highway industry, and a well built and maintained road has no fear from the weather. A lot of heavy trucks, however, will reduce even a well built road into a pothole invested route in 10 years. Weather (you mean water, actually) can only start affecting a road when there's a way to get underneath the pavement, or in between the pavement layers. How does it do that? Heavy trucks crack the upper layers, letting water in to do its thing.

I can show you low-volume roads that have thin pavement layers that were paved 20-30 years ago, and are still just fine. Obviously the weather should have destroyed them already, but it has not. It can't be because there were no heavy trucks using the road, was it? Meanwhile, high pavement design interstates have to be repaved every 5-10 years thanks to heavy trucks breaking up the surface layers.
2012-12-08 11:05:20 AM
1 votes:

TheBigJerk: Corvus: Jedekai: Reasons Montana Rules #6598543:

Hybrids pay MORE in vehicular tax per year.

/Enjoy your toxic chemicals, and the fact that your vehicle is more damaging to the environment than the oil you won't use!

[citation please]

Is that the bs report that pretends people get rid of their Prius in three years and the battery is not recycled? I hope not.

Probably includes the snopes-debunked "hybrid batteries are soooooper toxic!" fw: Fw: fw:


As for TFA, considering how people already fark with odometer readings I'm not sure how well that cunning plan would work.


Gps wont work. Neither would odometers. I would see about 1/10th the mileage on my car by programming a stupid tire size.
2012-12-08 09:29:01 AM
1 votes:
...Said it before and I'll say it again: if you think gas is expensive now, wait till you see how much it costs when you don't need as much of it.
2012-12-08 08:14:19 AM
1 votes:
www.thedetroitbureau.com

Some of your are already voluntarily being tracked for insurance purposes.
2012-12-08 06:22:25 AM
1 votes:

Twilight Farkle: The real problem is that an odometer doesn't know whether you're driving in state or out of state. If it's a state tax, it can't be charged on miles driven out-of-state. And that means that if it passes, your state will require your vehicle to have a GPS logger on it.

Oregon, 2003
California, 2005
Oregon, 2008
Oregon, again, 2009
Three Guesses What State, and Any Guesses That Aren't Oregon Don't Count, 2012.

Dear Oregon, fark you. Dear neighboring states to Oregon, just give whatever lobbyist is in Oregon a lump sum of cash to STFU and retire. All I want is the ability to go out for a nice morning drive in something that predates the motor law.


Several local companies are in the GPS business, and they donate to local officials. Quite a bit.
2012-12-08 06:13:57 AM
1 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: Oh for fark's sake, just raise the farking gas tax.


Exactly. To say it's "impossible" to raise enough revenue via gas taxes is nonsense from someone trying to sell a new solution to a non-problem.

Even if you decide that gas tax is no longer a good proxy for road usage -- and care to fix that -- you could tax tires and/or batteries and/or any other easy-to-track item or set of items that you think would make a better approximation of road use with a thousand times less paperwork, complication and invasion of privacy than attempting to track road usage directly.
2012-12-08 05:15:52 AM
1 votes:

puffy999: KarmaSpork: We raise more than enough for federal upkeep.

No, "you"* don't.

I can refer you to experts, though they probably wouldn't reply with numbers unless you paid them to do so. But, yes, heavy trucks pay less than they should.

*IMO, the TRUCK DRIVER or owner is not the one who should be paying so much, it should be on the entities responsible for the loads themselves; ergo, if you're pulling a big company's trailer in your truck, they pay the taxes, or if you're having a company load your trailer in your truck, the company doing the loading pays the taxes. Heck, simplify it and make the entities that SEND the loads pay extra taxes (so, literally, every box sent with FedEx would pay a small tax based on weight, which is tied into road degradation). Efficiency is a good thing and if you have trucks that can haul so much and do so RELATIVELY safely, you should use them, but only if responsible parties pay their fair share. To me, the truck driver/owner/operator is just pulling a load, and that person or group is getting the shaft in many cases these days.


Trucks (combination vehicles class 5 to 8+) account for 7% of all vehicle traffic. We also account for 40% of all road maintenance costs.

I'm not going to disagree about who should pay the road taxes, heck that's one less thing for me to worry about.

What I get sore about is the money that is pulled from highway funds to pay off the deficit (4.3% as of 2000), and to support mass transit and bike trails(!).

I gladly pay to support our roads, we need them. We need them repaired and replaced. I will pay more if I have to in order to keep them safe and portable. However, as you can expect, I will pass that cost on to my customers, and they, in turn, will pass it on to every consumer that buys that product.

I haul groceries. People need to think about cutting federal waste and abuse when they are paying $15/gallon for milk.

It is easy to yell about heavy trucks not paying enough, but ultimately we only haul what consumer demand requires. This is an "everybody" problem, not a heavy truck one.
2012-12-08 04:30:21 AM
1 votes:
And again, tax the tires. It's simple and will be incredibly fair. It will tax people who drive a lot and ones who drive heavier vehicles more as they are the ones who put more wear and tear on the roads and thus have to buy more tires. People who don't drive much or drive lighter vehicles will be taxed less as they use tires up less quickly. Hybrids big or small still have to have tires. You can even tax bicycles and motorcycles as they hardly ever need tires but still should pay their fair share. Hell - tax trailer tires which certainly wear the roads down but never have to pay for it.

Sure, it will make tires silly expensive and some people will then drive their tires until they are bald but this can be solved one of two ways:
1) Yearly inspections that most states have and fail anyone on bad tires.
2) Bald tires tend kill themselves anyway pretty quick just from failure.

Plus, if there is no gas tax it will even itself out in the long run.
2012-12-08 04:23:19 AM
1 votes:
Don't we, in effect, buy cheap gas, and sell what we can get and make here for exhorbitant prices overseas?

If our gas consumption drops considerably(one would think it would if it's impacting state budgets), couldn't we outright sell the surplus?

IIRC of course, modern business practices are not my strong suit. In fact, not sure that I even have a strong suit.
2012-12-08 04:22:16 AM
1 votes:
Heavy vehicles already pay more. On top of the diesel taxes per gallon, my license plates cost $2,500 a year, I also pay FHUT, (federal heavy use tax) of $1000 per year. Just to give you an idea, my truck alone went through $140k in fuel last year.

All of my miles are currently tracked and I split the diesel taxes I pay between the states based on an average mpg. All commercial interstate vehicles do. We also pay exorbitant tolls.

We raise more than enough for federal upkeep. The raiding of the highway trust fund is a hot button in our industry.

And the thought that trains will solve your freight problems by 90% is naive.
2012-12-08 04:15:30 AM
1 votes:

Gdalescrboz: Acravius

Trucks and heavy vehicles destroy the roads.
1. Convert the country to Wind and Solar electrical generation. (Electrolysis of water to Hydrogen Oxygen for storage and to balance out wind solar energy fluctuations)
2. Take the coal trains off the rails, replace the trucks with boxes on rails.
3. Build closer refineries to major population centers along with water recycling and thermal depolymerization sites (serving 1.1 Million population each)

= Removal of 90% of heavy vehicles and trucks from the road.
Roads last 10 years instead of 4, gas tax revenue miraculously now cover repair costs without any further change


Great idea, make it so semi's are unusable. We can force trucking companies to use 20 vehicles to transport goods rather than 1, or, they can just increase shipping and handling by 10 fold per item. Great idea champ, you would make a spectacular CEO


Please explain why - removing the need, not forcing companies to remove them would require them to use more vehicles not less.
Economics would show that it is far cheaper to ship by train than by truck,
Most of the reason behind the increase in the long haul trucks is because the rail lines are clogged up. By removing 600 coal trains a day from the rail lines, you could easily remove nearly 12000 long haul semis from the roads per day. That would save a tremendous amount of wear and tear on the roads.
Obviously you'd still need some trucks for short hauls form distribution nodes etc, but the state and federal highways would be much easier to maintain if there were nearly 400,000 less long haul truck trips per year on the roadways.
2012-12-08 04:00:58 AM
1 votes:
Trucks and heavy vehicles destroy the roads.
1. Convert the country to Wind and Solar electrical generation. (Electrolysis of water to Hydrogen Oxygen for storage and to balance out wind solar energy fluctuations)
2. Take the coal trains off the rails, replace the trucks with boxes on rails.
3. Build closer refineries to major population centers along with water recycling and thermal depolymerization sites (serving 1.1 Million population each)

= Removal of 90% of heavy vehicles and trucks from the road.
Roads last 10 years instead of 4, gas tax revenue miraculously now cover repair costs without any further change.
2012-12-08 03:52:41 AM
1 votes:

Xyphoid: As an Oklahoma resident, I approve of this 100%. Also, yes let's please make it based on weight.

/just about every vehicle here is a giant 6 wheeled truck that can't drive worth a damn


And we dont think that the weight thingy is taken care of via the gas tax?
2012-12-08 03:46:17 AM
1 votes:
I'm a Washington electric vehicle owner, and I'm getting a somewhat bemused kick out of these replies.

/They give us a sales tax exemption to get us to buy the things
//Then they complain that we don't pay gas tax
///whirrrrrrrrr
2012-12-08 03:40:56 AM
1 votes:
Hybrids and fuel-efficient traditional cars no longer generating enough gas tax revenue? Tack on some sort of additional surcharge for vehicles that get below (x) MPG. Allow exemptions if they can prove "look I NEED this big-ass gas guzzler for my contractor (or whatever) job. Otherwise, you don't NEED that big-ass truck. You can certainly buy one, but don't expect any sympathy when you biatch and moan about the cost of fueling the damn thing. I have friends like that; they had a kid--ONE KID- and immediately bought the biggest SUV they could. SUVs whose tires will never taste dirt. And they complain every time they fuel up. And i bite my tongue and roll my eyes.
2012-12-08 03:40:21 AM
1 votes:

lordargent: If more people stayed home, I would go out more often.


I loved it when gas was over $5.50 gallon during a panic a few years ago. No hoodlum teens at the malls or movie theaters, ample parking day and night, fewer traffic jams. It was worth every extra penny at the pump.


VRaptor117: As composite and increasingly lightweight cars make it nearly impossible to finance road maintenance via vehicle weight tax...


Lighter vehicles cause less wear and tear to roadways. In theory, the state would have to perform less maintenance if everyone drove lighter cars. They'd still be farked regarding the funding of capacity expansion, but you can fund that via tolls.

Besides, there is only so much weight than can be shaved from a vehicle without resorting to very expensive exotic materials. Most of the cutting edge alloys that automakers are currently eying shave only about 20% off the weight. Unless there is some unforeseen drop in the cost of manufacturing non-brittle composites, they're not going to be cost effective anytime soon.
2012-12-08 03:39:20 AM
1 votes:
Speaking as a Washington resident who averages only 12,000 miles per year:

How about no? Does no work for you?
2012-12-08 03:38:28 AM
1 votes:
Just have Obama borrow more money from China. Hell, just lease the roads to China, and let them maintain them. They seem to be pretty good at that kind of shiat, well, at least when they were building our railroads.
2012-12-08 03:34:33 AM
1 votes:
Haven't read article or thread, but, wouldn't this be illegal since the State can't determine where the driving occurred? State roads shouldn't benefit from county/city/out-of-state usage if usage is the rationale for taxing. So that means turnpikes at every political border, or this is an undeveloped (dumb) idea?
2012-12-08 03:32:03 AM
1 votes:
Why not simply make sure that the DOT has the budget that it needs to maintain things ? The gas tax bs is just that- bs. I welcome alternative energy vehicles as I see the big picture, not a small section of a large painting. Unlike many who will no doubt follow, commentwise.
2012-12-08 03:27:56 AM
1 votes:

VRaptor117: RedPhoenix122: So, people who cause more wear and tear on the roads have to pay more to maintain them? Can we also adjust it to be based on vehicle weight?

Fark headline in 2018: "As composite and increasingly lightweight cars make it nearly impossible to finance road maintenance via vehicle weight tax, Washington State considers imposing a per trip tax. Your number of engine starts this month, please."


If cars weigh less wouldn't there be less need for road maintenance?
2012-12-08 03:26:37 AM
1 votes:

robohobo: Sure, track mileage. Then enforce gps devices so the gov can know just where you're using those miles, Why not personal gps chips for the times when you're not driving? For your safety and tax purposes, of course.

Fark off.


For the children! War on terra!

Yes, the intent is absolutely to track movements. Protip: Many traffic cams already have license plate and facial recognition ability on the back end. Now pick up that can, citizen.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report