HR 3311 Would Be First Step Toward By The Mile Tax

fullmetalfan720

fullmetalfan720

CAGiversary!
Feedback
11 (100%)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3311
HR 3311 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3311​
To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a pilot program to study alternatives to the current system of taxing motor vehicle fuels, including systems based on the number of miles traveled by each vehicle.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 23, 2009​
Mr. BLUMENAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce, and Science and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL​
To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a pilot program to study alternatives to the current system of taxing motor vehicle fuels, including systems based on the number of miles traveled by each vehicle.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ROAD USER FEE PILOT PROJECT; TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PROGRAM.
(a) Road User Fee Pilot Project-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish a pilot program under this subsection to study alternatives to the current system of taxing motor vehicle fuels. Such program shall be known as the ‘Road User Fee Pilot Project’.
(2) MILEAGE BASED PROGRAM- The Road User Fee Pilot Project shall study technology and methods for recording and reporting the number of miles traveled by particular vehicles, including--
(A) the manner in which a Federal system would receive payments with respect to the number of miles traveled by such vehicles, and
(B) integration of such technology and methods with State and local revenue systems and demand management systems.
(3) EVALUATION OF METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES- Technologies and methods tested under the Road User Fee Pilot Project shall be evaluated on the basis of--
(A) protection of personal privacy,
(B) ease of compliance,
(C) public acceptance,
(D) geographic and income equity,
(E) integration with State and local transportation revenue mechanisms (including demand management systems),
(F) administrative, cost, and enforcement issues, and
(G) potential for fraud and evasion.
(4) GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY- The programs carried out under the Road User Fee Pilot Project shall be conducted in each State and shall be conducted in areas that are diverse geographically and in vehicle density.
(b) Establishment of Working Groups- The Secretary shall coordinate with the following agencies to coordinate the creation of three working groups and integrate their findings into the final report required under subsection (d):
(1) TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP- In coordination with the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Secretary shall convene a working group to study appropriate technology platforms and standards to facilitate the most effective revenue systems.
(2) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WORKING GROUP- In coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary shall convene a working group to evaluate the costs of collection and administration.
(3) ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP- In coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary shall convene a working group to study the potential to manage demand and to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
(c) Technology Research Program-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish a grant program to aid the development of on-board technologies necessary for a miles based program described in subsection (a)(2).
(2) ENTITIES ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTS- The following entities shall be eligible for grants for grants under paragraph (1):
(A) Institutions of higher education, as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(B) Commercial manufacturers with an established record of passenger vehicle innovation.
(C) Technology manufacturers with an established record of wireless networking and communications.
(d) Report- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a written report to the Congress, providing initial findings from activities authorized by this section. Not later than 36 months after such date, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a written report detailing final findings and conclusions from the activities authorized by this section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury--
(1) to carry out this section (other than subsection (c)), $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, and
(2) to carry out subsection (c), $4,500,000, to remain available until expended.
Click to expand...
Great. Now they want to start taxing us by the mile.
 
That would be ridiculous. I'm not sure what it's like anywhere else, but unless you live in the inner city, public transportation here in Connecticut is non-existent. If you live in the suburbs, or really anywhere but the downtown area of one of our major cities, it just doesn't exist. Public transportation just doesn't really make a whole lot of sense in our country, we're too spread out, I don't think it would work.
 
Would you prefer gasoline taxes? Practically the same thing as a mileage tax and incentive for fuel efficiency to boot.
 
Yeah, they have been trying to find a way that people who drive more are the ones who pay for roads. It's a usage tax pure and simple. That's the same thing that the gas tax is expect that the gas tax takes into account how efficient your vehicle is. My big problem with this bill is that cars with terrible mileage aren't taken into account then.
 
This won't work. It would require mileage monitoring. How are they going to do that? Send out meter readers for cars?

Flat gas tax is the only way to go. Flat gas tax is in essence a by the mile tax. Drive less, buy less gas, pay less tax.

By the mile doesn't discriminate between hummers and hybrids. When it should. The hummer drive should be taxed more obviously.
 
by the way, that gas tax would just be one more burden on the middle class that our president campaigned relentlessly on (regarding not raising their taxes).
 
Grant allocation for a pilot study. I'm fine with that.

I'm not fine with a per-mile tax because it demands funds based on usage as opposed to ability or income.
 
[quote name='HowStern']This won't work. It would require mileage monitoring. How are they going to do that? Send out meter readers for cars?

Flat gas tax is the only way to go. Flat gas tax is in essence a by the mile tax. Drive less, buy less gas, pay less tax.

By the mile doesn't discriminate between hummers and hybrids. When it should. The hummer drive should be taxed more obviously.[/QUOTE]

It would work. All the government would have to do is put GPS trackers in everyone's cars so they could monitor where everyone was. That's why I'm against it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not fine with a per-mile tax because it demands funds based on usage as opposed to ability or income.[/QUOTE]
Why am I not surprised?

We need an electoral system where people get to vote based on ability and income.

Anywhoo - I prefer sticking with the gas-tax method. While I'm not a fan of using taxes to punish behavior that "we" don't like (i.e.: low mileage vehicles), I like the idea of government tracking worse. I strongly believe the amount of taxes paid to create and maintain roadways should directly come out of the tax money collected by those who use the roadways.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']It would work. All the government would have to do is put GPS trackers in everyone's cars so they could monitor where everyone was. That's why I'm against it.[/QUOTE]


They would probably, if anything, put a low-cost odometer monitor of some sort in. This would be less money than a GPS and wouldn't have as big a backlash. It would still be incredibly expensive to implement.

Think about it, electricity meters don't log what the energy was used for. Only how much was used.

Still though, too costly. Would require some sort of wireless signal. It won't work.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Grant allocation for a pilot study. I'm fine with that.

I'm not fine with a per-mile tax because it demands funds based on usage as opposed to ability or income.[/QUOTE]
You're also okay with the government tracking how far you travel and (possibly, if they implement this and decide to use GPS) where your car is at all times. Which is bullshit.

Like perdition(troy said, this is the first step towards me driving illegally.
 
Not necessarily a wireless signal - you could go and have your car read once a month/year at the DMV or every time you fuel up, you could plug a data cable into the pump. It'd still be pretty expensive. And you'd need to come up with some awesome system to prevent tampering.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']You're also okay with the government tracking how far you travel and (possibly, if they implement this and decide to use GPS) where your car is at all times. Which is bullshit.

Like perdition(troy said, this is the first step towards me driving illegally.[/QUOTE]

No. What I said is that I'm fine with a pilot study.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No. What I said is that I'm fine with a pilot study.[/QUOTE]
Which implies that you're okay with the committee running the study's decision if it approves expanding the program.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']And that "awesome" system would be broken wide open with in a month.[/QUOTE]

Yup. I'm just not sure how a program tracking miles can't be exploited unless it's fairly expensive and majorly evasive.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which implies nothing, and states that I'm fine with a pilot study.[/QUOTE]

Why bother with a pilot study if you're not okay with an expanded program?
 
[quote name='HowStern']They would probably, if anything, put a low-cost odometer monitor of some sort in. This would be less money than a GPS and wouldn't have as big a backlash. It would still be incredibly expensive to implement.

Think about it, electricity meters don't log what the energy was used for. Only how much was used.

Still though, too costly. Would require some sort of wireless signal. It won't work.[/QUOTE]
That's why they would use GPS. That's really all that has been discussed as an option.
In 2006, Oregon undertook a pilot project using a mileage-based system. Global Positioning System units were placed in 200 vehicles, and when motorists filled up at gas stations, the electronic units added a fee of 1.2 cents per mile driven.
"We can see the future, and gas-powered vehicles are going away," said Patrick Cooney, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Transportation. "When that point comes, how do you collect money for your transportation system if your revenues are based on gasoline?"
Cooney said the pilot program proved the viability of a mileage-based system in which drivers would pay at the pump. He said state officials are continuing to look at the system.
A handful of other states have adopted similar pilot projects. All have met with resistance from drivers and privacy advocates.
The concern among privacy advocates is that, instead of just knowing what toll booths drivers pass through, as with the E-Z Pass system, the government would know where and when they were traveling. Many fear that would be a giant leap toward a Big Brother state.
"The danger is dismissing the privacy issues," said Robert Puentes, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. "There has to be a good answer to those concerns."
In the AP interview, LaHood also said more toll roads and public-private partnerships need to be part of the funding mix, an idea that was pushed strongly by the Bush administration.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003331_2.html
Mainers invited to become track-your-car guinea pigs
Click to expand...
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=268258&ac=PHnws
Yeah, I'd love to have the government know where I drive to, and where I am at all times, along with taxing me by the mile.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Why bother with a pilot study if you're not okay with an expanded program?[/QUOTE]

Because I'm fine with a government collecting and analyzing data as opposed to make-shit-up-with-no-empirical-validation policies. Which is a what of lot of the trouble experienced in the corrections system currently is the result of.

I'm fine with research. How's that?

Or should I just sit back and let you correct me by telling me what my opinion is?
 
"We can see the future, and gas-powered vehicles are going away," said Patrick Cooney, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Transportation. "When that point comes, how do you collect money for your transportation system if your revenues are based on gasoline?"
Click to expand...

Interesting thing to think about. Let's say someone managed to make the super-awesome car that runs off of water. How do you charge them for their wear-and-tear on the highway system?
 
I'm cool with a mileage tax, after all the more you drive the more you tear up the road, and therefore the more you should pay. However, I'd want a lot more taken into account. After all, my neighbor's Hummer probably pounds the pavement a hell of a lot harder than my mini-truck mile per mile.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because I'm fine with a government collecting and analyzing data as opposed to make-shit-up-with-no-empirical-validation policies. Which is a what of lot of the trouble experienced in the corrections system currently is the result of.

I'm fine with research. How's that?

Or should I just sit back and let you correct me by telling me what my opinion is?[/QUOTE]

That makes a lot of sense.

But, not in this particular situation. You already stated you were opposed to a mileage tax. Why would you support a study for something you think is bad? It's just a waste of money to study a plan you don't agree with already on a fundamental basis.

I'm not trying to tell you what your opinion is at all; it's just that you're contradicting yourself.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']That makes a lot of sense.

But, not in this particular situation. You already stated you were opposed to a mileage tax. Why would you support a study for something you think is bad? It's just a waste of money to study a plan you don't agree with already on a fundamental basis.

I'm not trying to tell you what your opinion is at all; it's just that you're contradicting yourself.[/QUOTE]

If research tells me I'm wrong, I'm happy to be reconsider and/or admit I'm wrong.

If ideology tells me I'm wrong, I'm much less interested in changing my view.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If research tells me I'm wrong, I'm happy to be reconsider and/or admit I'm wrong.

If ideology tells me I'm wrong, I'm much less interested in changing my view.[/QUOTE]

Considering research studies can be, and often are, extremely biased by the source that funds them, I would not be so quick to change your opinion based on research.

Re: topic, I think the mile tax is a load of baloney. It is the gov't once again attempting to control its citizens. Even if they don't have our GPS location, they limit our freedom with this. One of the greatest freedoms is the freedom of movement/travel, and this tax would directly and purposefully limit that freedom.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Considering research studies can be, and often are, extremely biased by the source that funds them, I would not be so quick to change your opinion based on research.[/QUOTE]

I'm well aware of that already. That's why I trust nothing from Heritage/Cato/Club for Growth.

But if you use that to discount all empirical research, you're left with nothing but ideology.

Is that what you base your views on?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm well aware of that already. That's why I trust nothing from Heritage/Cato/Club for Growth.

But if you use that to discount all empirical research, you're left with nothing but ideology.

Is that what you base your views on?[/QUOTE]

I think its important to consider everything, including both research and ideology. And, if you feel strongly about something, there is likely a good reason why even if you are not aware of it yourself...

When the government finances a study which if "successful" will benefit the government greatly, I think that type of research is less useful than even any of the political organizations you mentioned. You can still look at it, analyze it, but unless you have access to the raw data I'd be extremely skeptical due to the massive reward the funder gets if the study is successful. Without the raw data, instrumentation/tests, etc, you have no idea how biased/unbiased the data collection & population was, how biased/unbiased the analysis was, etc. And with our government the likelihood of you getting that data is nil.
 
That's why you have methodological analysts.

:lol:

You're basically telling me, in so many words, that you disagree with whatever suits you, and go with your "gut feeling." Which is probably why you're a conservative.
 
For all the crap everybody puts Bush through over 8 years, it's incredible what terror I've read about these past 6 months care of the Obama administration. Everyone freaked out about the wiretaps by Bush as if it would actually effect any of us, assuming anyone here is a terrorist. In theory, it would take half the population to watch the other half 24 hours so it was really implausiable that it would affect much of anyone. But every damn week it seems some plot is brewing to completely change our lifestyles. Who do these people think they are that they can lord over our lives and control our lives. Count how many threads on this board have some life changing impact on our lives. This is beginning to look like the future I've been reading about in science fiction and thought was far fetched, now it seems all to likely I'll be telling my kids how good I had it once.

Within the next 4 years this is going to be like Red Faction Guerilla and I'll be all hammering Obama agents WOLVERINES!!!!! until the final boss fight again Obama himself in his Hopemobile. First I'll have to stop Obama's Logan's Run and save all the old people who will inevitably die by this crap healthcare plan, then fight the sub-boss Keith Olbermann, then play a mini-game where Joe Biden and I say idiotic things to each other.

Off topic, I know.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']For all the crap everybody puts Bush through over 8 years, it's incredible what terror I've read about these past 6 months care of the Obama administration. [/quote]

Stop worrying. Curtailing freedom and invading privacy is okay when Democrats are in charge. They're intentions are honorable and methods are for the benefit of everyone.

See, if a Republican wants to track your movements, intercept your email, open your posted letters, account and confiscate your personal finances it's called tyranny. When Democrats do it it's for your own good and only questioned by Nazis. Now shut up and remember that Tuesday is Soylent Green day!
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']For all the crap everybody puts Bush through over 8 years, it's incredible what terror I've read about these past 6 months care of the Obama administration. Everyone freaked out about the wiretaps by Bush as if it would actually effect any of us, assuming anyone here is a terrorist. [/quote]
Ummm, it wasn't just for terrorists. It was for everyone.
In theory, it would take half the population to watch the other half 24 hours so it was really implausiable that it would affect much of anyone.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of a computer? More specifically Echelon?
But every damn week it seems some plot is brewing to completely change our lifestyles. Who do these people think they are that they can lord over our lives and control our lives. Count how many threads on this board have some life changing impact on our lives. This is beginning to look like the future I've been reading about in science fiction and thought was far fetched, now it seems all to likely I'll be telling my kids how good I had it once.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you know this, but Bush and Obama are basically the same president. Most of these things were going on under Bush too. No matter which party you vote for, you get the same result.
Within the next 4 years this is going to be like Red Faction Guerilla and I'll be all hammering Obama agents WOLVERINES!!!!! until the final boss fight again Obama himself in his Hopemobile. First I'll have to stop Obama's Logan's Run and save all the old people who will inevitably die by this crap healthcare plan, then fight the sub-boss Keith Olbermann, then play a mini-game where Joe Biden and I say idiotic things to each other.

Off topic, I know.
Click to expand...
Hey, look! Its a NEOCON!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I'm not fine with a per-mile tax because it demands funds based on usage as opposed to ability or income.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. A set tax per mile isn't fair as it's much more of a burden on poor folks already struggling to make ends meet and pay for gas to get to and from work where as it wouldn't bother those of us who are better off other than being a mild annoyance at most.

But then again, I suppose it's not that different from sales tax. Especially in states that tax everything including food.
 
[quote name='The dmaul-mykevermin-amalgam']From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.[/QUOTE]

Y'all are two spoiled peas in a pinko-commie pod.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed. A set tax per mile isn't fair as it's much more of a burden on poor folks already struggling to make ends meet and pay for gas to get to and from work where as it wouldn't bother those of us who are better off other than being a mild annoyance at most.

But then again, I suppose it's not that different from sales tax. Especially in states that tax everything including food.[/QUOTE]


Sorry, I guess "tag-team" would be better than a merging of metal. Metals are too precious and actually have too much value to use to describe you both.

And don't worry, Dmaul, any mileage tax will be met with a fair and socially justifiable subsidy for those poor folks who just can't seem to make ends meet. But I'm sure it won't be enough for you until we give away the cars too. Everyone has a right to transportation, after all. Gosh, with the Government owning GM and this new program, we're halfway there already.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Y'all are two spoiled peas in a pinko-commie pod.[/QUOTE]

There are no shades of grey in your world, are there?

It's either an Ann Rand utopia or Stalin&Co.
 
That's just par for the course from him and why I've had him on ignore for ages.

No use trying to discuss things with people who only see things in extremes.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']A set tax per mile isn't fair [...][/QUOTE]

I love how a law requiring all individuals to pay the same amount of tax isn't "fair".

Could you imagine if we created other laws that gave different people various "specials" based on their levels of income?
 
My point was that I disagree with this tax idea conceptually b/c it seems to be a variant of the Neal Boortz Consumption-based tax system (for the record, I refuse to use the wholly inappropriate word he uses to describe it).

It will shift greater tax liability to the middle and lower-classes, simply put. Which is not sustainable.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I love how a law requiring all individuals to pay the same amount of tax isn't "fair".

Could you imagine if we created other laws that gave different people various "specials" based on their levels of income?[/QUOTE]

Well it's more than I think it's a stupid law in general. We already pay a tax on gas higher than sales tax, so this is redundant.

i.e. like no state should have tax on food as it just makes it harder on those struggling to put food on the table.

IMO it's just stupid to tax things that are essential, and gas is needed to get to work for many people in rural areas etc. that don't have public transportation.

But you're point is silly. Taxes are just different than anything else. Those of us who are better off should pay more than those who are worse off--all debates about size of government/amount of government spending aside. We've benefited from the opportunities afforded us in this country, so we shouldn't bitch about chipping in more than those who were less fortunate IMO.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']For all the crap everybody puts Bush through over 8 years, it's incredible what terror I've read about these past 6 months care of the Obama administration. Everyone freaked out about the wiretaps by Bush as if it would actually effect any of us, assuming anyone here is a terrorist. In theory, it would take half the population to watch the other half 24 hours so it was really implausiable that it would affect much of anyone. But every damn week it seems some plot is brewing to completely change our lifestyles. Who do these people think they are that they can lord over our lives and control our lives. Count how many threads on this board have some life changing impact on our lives. This is beginning to look like the future I've been reading about in science fiction and thought was far fetched, now it seems all to likely I'll be telling my kids how good I had it once.

Within the next 4 years this is going to be like Red Faction Guerilla and I'll be all hammering Obama agents WOLVERINES!!!!! until the final boss fight again Obama himself in his Hopemobile. First I'll have to stop Obama's Logan's Run and save all the old people who will inevitably die by this crap healthcare plan, then fight the sub-boss Keith Olbermann, then play a mini-game where Joe Biden and I say idiotic things to each other.

Off topic, I know.[/QUOTE]

Reported to [email protected] ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My point was that I disagree with this tax idea conceptually b/c it seems to be a variant of the Neal Boortz Consumption-based tax system (for the record, I refuse to use the wholly inappropriate word he uses to describe it).

It will shift greater tax liability to the middle and lower-classes, simply put. Which is not sustainable.[/QUOTE]

It also demonstrates a hypocrisy by your own party... "Ooh, buy a hybrid and you'll save the planet + save oodles on gas money!" 5 years later "Great! Now that you have a hybrid and you're spending less on gas, welcome to the mile tax!"
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']IMO it's just stupid to tax things that are essential, and gas is needed to get to work for many people in rural areas etc. that don't have public transportation.[/QUOTE]

Very interesting quote, since gas isn't really "essential" in anyone's case. But where would you draw the line? Don't tax food? Most states don't (I'm chagrined to say my state still taxes food, but at a lower rate now at least). Clothes? Here's where it gets tricky: what about income? Income is essential to live, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top