Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT)

[The Captain]

editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/post--california-trying-gps-tracking-mileage-tax-for-2016

"DeSaulnier hasn't specified the tax rate, but last year, the Government Accountability Office suggested a national mileage tax ranging between 0.9 and 2.2 cents per mile. In Oregon, when that pilot begins in 2015, the rate will be 1.5 cents"

So I get it that more fuel effecient cars are causing the gas tax revenues to go down, but what the heck?

How much would a VMT cost you annually?  DH and I put around 12-14K miles on both vehicles combined so about 200 bucks a year.

I guess I could get behind this type of tax because it really is a perfect match of those that use/get the benefit of the roads pay for their maintenance via this tax.  And really, the amounts are so relatively low that if you can afford to own/operate a car you can afford the tax.

[giramomma]

Our state has lowered taxes on gas because of the price of gas.  So, it's not just more fuel efficient cars..

DH and I put on maybe 8K a year combined. I drive about 500 miles/month during the school year, less in the summers.

Our license fees nearly doubled over the past few years. I'm OK with either continually increasing the license fees or gas tax, but not both.

There's still plenty of money to go around. There's a difference with not having enough money and not using our money wisely. I think our state lawmakers fall into the second category.
 

[Deleted]

May 12, 2014 8:38:46 GMT -5 giramomma said:

Our state has lowered taxes on gas because of the price of gas.  So, it's not just more fuel efficient cars..

DH and I put on maybe 8K a year combined. I drive about 500 miles/month during the school year, less in the summers.

Our license fees nearly doubled over the past few years. I'm OK with either continually increasing the license fees or gas tax, but not both.

There's still plenty of money to go around. There's a difference with not having enough money and not using our money wisely. I think our state lawmakers fall into the second category.
 

 (Bold)

[midjd]

I think there is already a thread on this in EE:

notmsnmoney.proboards.com/thread/39237/california-trying-tracking-mileage-2016

[midjd]

But on-topic, I think it's a great idea - even though it may end up costing us more (I drive 500 miles a week in a very fuel-efficient car, DH drives ~100 miles a week in a gas hog). It does make sense that if the main purpose of gas taxes is to offset wear and tear on roadways, something like this is fairer than gas taxes.

At $0.015/mile, I would pay about $390/year for my car and DH would pay about $75/year for his truck and maybe $10 for the Jeep. That's one fillup for DH and a little less than two months' worth of gas for me. Plus then we could take the much more spacious and comfortable crew cab on road trips

Right now we pay about $250/year combined for all three vehicles in registration fees. I would hope that the reduction in gas taxes would offset the $250 or so tax increase.

I would also want to see 18wheelers taxed more heavily than the $0.015 rate, since IMO they are responsible for more roadway damage than smaller vehicles.

[michelyn8]

It would have to be national before it would be truly equitable. 

I have a 60+ round trip commute 4 days a week.  I travel half on the interstate and  half through town.  Right now, both are riddled with potholes and buckling concrete (ground/clay under road is saturated).  The interstate was already in rough shape but the snow and rain of this past winter has really done a number on it.  On any given day, I'd say 10% of the traffic on the road when I am is out of state travellers as well as 18 wheelers which are often based in VA but licensed in their company's regional office out of state.  With the fuel tax, the burden is shared by all travellers who stop for fueld in VA.  But if there is a mileage tax but no fuel tax in VA, its the residents of VA that will bear the brunt of the tax while out of state companies/travellers contribute nothing to the maintenance of the roads they are using.

VA has fuel tax at the pump and one paid by carriers (IFTA).  I think IFTA has to be paid by any carrier that routinely comes into VA but its been a while since I've done a registration or return so I'm not sure.  So even if a carrier darts from Bristol, TN through VA and into NC without stopping, they've paid fuel tax to us.  Travellers, well it really all depends on their timing/route but anyone travelling across the state is probably going to stop at least once and pay fuel tax when they fill up.

[tskeeter]

May 12, 2014 8:57:38 GMT -5 midjd said:

But on-topic, I think it's a great idea - even though it may end up costing us more (I drive 500 miles a week in a very fuel-efficient car, DH drives ~100 miles a week in a gas hog). It does make sense that if the main purpose of gas taxes is to offset wear and tear on roadways, something like this is fairer than gas taxes.

At $0.015/mile, I would pay about $390/year for my car and DH would pay about $75/year for his truck and maybe $10 for the Jeep. That's one fillup for DH and a little less than two months' worth of gas for me. Plus then we could take the much more spacious and comfortable crew cab on road trips

Right now we pay about $250/year combined for all three vehicles in registration fees. I would hope that the reduction in gas taxes would offset the $250 or so tax increase.

I would also want to see 18wheelers taxed more heavily than the $0.015 rate, since IMO they are responsible for more roadway damage than smaller vehicles.

My problem is not with rasing taxes and increasing the tax revenue.  My problem with this idea is that it adds another department and lots of staff to state government.  When we already have the means to raise additional revenue without adding to state staffs.  All you have to do is raise the current motor fuel taxes.  The mechanism to collect motor fuel taxes is already in place.  So you can raise more revenue with no additional cost.  The current motor fuel taxes are already mileage based.  The more miles you drive, the more gas you buy, the more taxes you pay.  Pretty simple.

Want to tax big rigs more?  Raise motor fuel taxes on diesel fuel.  Yeah, I know lots of pickups run on diesel.  But, when you buy a pickup, you have the option of deciding whether you're going to pay gasoline or diesel fuel motor fuel taxes.  Buy the diesel powered pickup, pay the diesel motor fuel taxes.  You make the choice.  Or, simply raise the licensing and registration fees on big rigs.  The adminstrative means to to pursue either approach is already in place, and additional revenue to help maintain roads can easily be collected with creating another state department. 

If states implement a mileage tax, the first thing that tax revenue will go to fund is the jobs it will take to implement, administer, and enforce the mileage tax.  Whatever money is left over, if any, can be used for roadway improvements.  But the beaurocracy will be paid for before roads will be improved.  Then you have to consider the burden of reporting your mileage every year.  You'd have to keep track of the mileage for every car you had during the year.  Be sure to keep track of the mileage on that car you sold way back in January, cause you're going to need to figure out how many miles you put on the car during the 12 days you owned the car during January.  Plus the used car you bought for the kids to drive.  How many miles did it have on it when you bought it, again?  And plan on keeping the documents to prove when you bought or sold a car, so when you are audited, you have documentatin to prove that you've paid the correct amount of taxes.  Then you have to consider whether there will be any deductions or allowances.  Will you be able to deduct the mileage you drove performing activities for registered charities from the miles reported for mileage tax purposes?  Really, how much record keeping will be required to implement a mileage tax?  Will filing your annual mileage tax return become as complicated, time consuming, and expensive as filing your income tax returns? 

[midjd]

The current motor fuel taxes are already mileage based. The more miles you drive, the more gas you buy, the more taxes you pay. Pretty simple.

The trend is toward fuel-efficiency. While this may have been true in the past, I don't think it is true today. My husband's truck gets 14 miles per gallon. My subcompact car gets 40+. I drive 5x more miles than he does on a weekly basis, but spend only about 50% more on gas.

The article linked in the OP indicates that the mileage would be tracked via GPS. Although this has its own pitfalls (Big Brother) it would take a lot of the bureaucracy out of it.

Or just present your vehicle for inspection each year at the BMV - your current odometer reading minus last year's odometer reading x 0.015. Not rocket science. As you said, the administrative means are already in place.

[Deleted]

I have a great idea for a model for this in California...

The state can tax me per mile, BUT, they have to pay back twice the amount if the miles come in B2B traffic.. 

[justme]

Maybe just have tiers of registration fees. If you car gets below 20 you pay X, 21-30 pays Y, 31-40 pays Z, and 40+ pays A. With A being higher because they're escaping a lot of the fuel taxes. I think that would go over easier than the government tracking everywhere you drive.

[tskeeter]

May 12, 2014 10:08:08 GMT -5 midjd said:

The current motor fuel taxes are already mileage based. The more miles you drive, the more gas you buy, the more taxes you pay. Pretty simple.

The trend is toward fuel-efficiency. While this may have been true in the past, I don't think it is true today. My husband's truck gets 14 miles per gallon. My subcompact car gets 40+. I drive 5x more miles than he does on a weekly basis, but spend only about 50% more on gas.

The article linked in the OP indicates that the mileage would be tracked via GPS. Although this has its own pitfalls (Big Brother) it would take a lot of the bureaucracy out of it.

Or just present your vehicle for inspection each year at the BMV - your current odometer reading minus last year's odometer reading x 0.015. Not rocket science. As you said, the administrative means are already in place.

Saying take your vehicle to the DMV sounds easy.  But, most DMV offices are not even staffed for the level of activity taking place today.  A trip to the DMV here, from the time I left home, until I returned home, would be a minimum of 3 - 4 hours of my time tied up.  Increase the volume of activity, and you'd have to add to DMV staff, an additional cost to the taxpayers.  Or a mileage verification trip to the DMV would be an all day process.  Or, the verification will be performed by a third party, similar to how a smog check is done here.  And, you'll have to pay the verification service for the service they provide, in addition to paying the mileage taxes.

In regard to improving gas mileage causing a drop in motor fuel tax revenue, the solution is drop dead  simple.  If gas mileage has doubled, double the motor fuel taxes in order to keep the tax revenue at previous levels.  If you decide you need to drive a jacked up monster of a vehicle that gets 3 MPG, guess you'll factor the additional motor fuel taxes into your cost of operation.  And, since the land yacht weighs more than a Corolla or Prius, you're doing more damage to the roads, so you should be paying more to maintain the roads anyway.

All in all, a separate mileage tax will probably create an expensive administrative burden at the state level, and be another mandated inconvience that states impose on their residents.

By the way, how will the state collect mileage taxes on the unlicensed, unregistered, and uninsured drivers?  (About 9 years ago, the LA Times reported that 25% of the cars in the LA area were uninsured.  If they won't buy insurance, register their car, or get a driver's license, what makes you think they'll pay a mileage tax?)   

[phil5185]

In an effort to shore up declining gas tax revenue due to more fuel-efficient cars, California wants to try charging car owners by the mile instead of having them pay at the pump.

Decades ago, the original road-tax was designed to be proportional to miles driven (to account for wear/tear on the roads)  But decades ago the technology wasn't available to measure miles driven - so gas tax was selected as the metric to approximate 'miles'.  A revenue-neutral VMT  should cost drivers about the same as the current gas tax (unless the goal is MORE revenue rather than a way to make the tax more fair?)

As for more fuel-efficient cars  -  really? The 1914 Model T Ford (a century ago) gets about 22 mpg. The politically driven fuel-efficiency reports are a bit exaggerated. 
A Prius, eg, gets 100% of its energy from gasoline, there is no other external energy being added - it captures the braking energy & converts it to stored electricity - a fairly small increase in efficiently (literally zero for hwy driving).
And the 2015 Ford F150 pickups will have aluminum body panels to improve fuel-efficiency - a nice thing to do, but over-rated, most likely the new pickups fuel efficiency won't be better than its 101-yr-old ancester's.

[Plain Old Petunia]

May 12, 2014 10:08:08 GMT -5 midjd said:

The current motor fuel taxes are already mileage based. The more miles you drive, the more gas you buy, the more taxes you pay. Pretty simple.

The trend is toward fuel-efficiency. While this may have been true in the past, I don't think it is true today. My husband's truck gets 14 miles per gallon. My subcompact car gets 40+. I drive 5x more miles than he does on a weekly basis, but spend only about 50% more on gas.

The article linked in the OP indicates that the mileage would be tracked via GPS. Although this has its own pitfalls (Big Brother) it would take a lot of the bureaucracy out of it.

Or just present your vehicle for inspection each year at the BMV - your current odometer reading minus last year's odometer reading x 0.015. Not rocket science. As you said, the administrative means are already in place.

I took DS down to the DMV a couple of weeks ago (for his learner's permit).  The line was longer than the more popular theme park rides, and moved just as slowly.   I will vote "No Thanks" on the suggestion that EVERYONE come down there once a year to show their odometer. 

[Plain Old Petunia]

May 12, 2014 10:26:17 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

By the way, how will the state collect mileage taxes on the unlicensed, unregistered, and uninsured drivers? (About 9 years ago, the LA Times reported that 25% of the cars in the LA area were uninsured. If they won't buy insurance, register their car, or get a driver's license, what makes you think they'll pay a mileage tax?)

That is an excellent point.   Paying the tax at the pump means there is no getting around paying it.  If you drive, you pay.

[Abby Normal]

There are so many issues with the idea of tracking miles.  Oregon has said that you can get an app to turn off your GPS tracking when you leave the state.  But what is to prevent you from turning it off, and not turning it on when you reenter.  It's also an issue if you live in a different state from where you work.  I could move to Vancouver, WA so no Oregon GPS tracker, but still work in Oregon and do most of my driving here.  You wouldn't be taxing people driving through.

And it doesn't account for people who sit in traffic.  You can burn a lot of fuel sitting in rush hour traffic but not going anywhere. 

[973beachbum]

My first thought has nothing to do with money.  I know shocking on a money board!

I would never be okay with the State putting a GPS tracker on my car to track my every move.  Not even no, but HELL NO!

[The Captain]

May 12, 2014 10:48:13 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

In an effort to shore up declining gas tax revenue due to more fuel-efficient cars, California wants to try charging car owners by the mile instead of having them pay at the pump.

Decades ago, the original road-tax was designed to be proportional to miles driven (to account for wear/tear on the roads)  But decades ago the technology wasn't available to measure miles driven - so gas tax was selected as the metric to approximate 'miles'.  A revenue-neutral VMT  should cost drivers about the same as the current gas tax (unless the goal is MORE revenue rather than a way to make the tax more fair?)

As for more fuel-efficient cars  -  really? The 1914 Model T Ford (a century ago) gets about 22 mpg. The politically driven fuel-efficiency reports are a bit exaggerated. 
A Prius, eg, gets 100% of its energy from gasoline, there is no other external energy being added - it captures the braking energy & converts it to stored electricity - a fairly small increase in efficiently (literally zero for hwy driving).
And the 2015 Ford F150 pickups will have aluminum body panels to improve fuel-efficiency - a nice thing to do, but over-rated, most likely the new pickups fuel efficiency won't be better than its 101-yr-old ancester's.

Completely an apples to cherries comparison. Fuel effeciency is mainly determined by two factors - 1. Weight, and 2. Aerodynamics.

A 1914 model T Weighed around 1200 pounds and was partially made of wood. Required safety features (like rear view mirrors, air bags, steel doors and a roll cage) and other features have increase the weight of a modern passenger car to around 3300 pounds or 2.5X's as much.

The fact that modern day vehicles get similiar or better gas mileage while carrying more than two times the weight is, I think, pretty remarkable.

[souldoubt]

Second what beachbum said - No way in hell am I letting the government put a GPS tracker in my car.  I am also not in favor of anything that gives the government more revenue when they have a spending problem.  

[973beachbum]

And I have watched the powers that be regularly raid dedicated taxes, like the transportation trust fund, before so no way do I believe that them saying something can only be used for one thing means that is what will really happen.

[Deleted]

May 12, 2014 11:39:28 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

My first thought has nothing to do with money.  I know shocking on a money board!

I would never be okay with the State putting a GPS tracker on my car to track my every move.  Not even no, but HELL NO!

I live in CA and they ain't putting GPS in either of my vehicles.  Period. 

[quince]

I'd be OK with mileage checks at registration/annual renewals- I do think with electric/fuel efficient cars the tax revenues on gas are down, and should be what was used previously to "charge" people for their use of highway/roadway infrastructure. Not too keen on GPS.

[DVM gone riding]

If I trusted the gov to get rid of other taxes I would like the idea. But I don't so I think it is terrible.

[tskeeter]

May 13, 2014 15:34:45 GMT -5 DVM gone riding said:

If I trusted the gov to get rid of other taxes I would like the idea. But I don't so I think it is terrible.

Does this mean that you support the idea of a new state department to administer a new stream of tax revenues?  Or additional staff in existing departments to administer a new tax program?

With an increase in staffing requirements, how much of the new revenue stream do you think will have to be diverted from road improvements to pay for administering the tax collection? 

What I think is terrible is that this proposal will almost assuredly increase the size of state government, with the attendant increase in the financial burden assumed by the taxpayers.  I believe the cost of administering a mileage tax will be much, much higher than the benefits the taxpayers receive for the revenue they provide.