HR 3311 Would Be First Step Toward By The Mile Tax

[quote name='mykevermin']...except for the fact that that doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]

You don't see the hypocrisy of marketing that consumers buy something due to money saved on gas, with the intention of going ahead and charging them a similar amount of money via a mile tax a few years down the road?
 
You're making assumptions that X = Y when you have no reason, aside from ideology, to come to such a conclusion. Where do you come up with the "similar amount of money" measurement? Show your work.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're making assumptions that X = Y when you have no reason, aside from ideology, to come to such a conclusion. Where do you come up with the "similar amount of money" measurement? Show your work.[/QUOTE]

Err, from the bill itself.

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.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Ruined']Err, from the bill itself.[/QUOTE]

The part of the bill you quote says "particular" vehicles. The guy who introduced this bill is one of those "green" types who rides his bike everywhere. I imagine particular means gas and diesel or maybe even low mile per gallons cars. Because of the guy's love of all things "green" he most likely excludes hybrids from said bill.

Honestly though, lets face it, this bill will go nowhere.
 
This bill is about research into such a tax system, and not an overhaul of the tax system itself.

Let's talk about researching it - since that's what the bill is - and not about tax proposal programs, which aren't on the table in either house of congress.
 
Record mileage during smog check/vehicle service/etc whenever any mechanic that isn't you has access to the odometer. Then ship data to DMV to be compiled in a federal database. Wait 6-8 weeks until your bill arrives. Pay bill. Tell the government to fuck off and never see a mechanic again. This will teach us all to change our own oil and brakes.

If something like this passes then, as a fair majority has stated, more of us will become outlaws. The government doesn't need to keep a record of how much traveling you do. We should just make everyone pay some percentage of their income every paycheck to the local, state and federal government and be done with all this little taxes. Oh wait...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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?[/QUOTE]

It's tricky.

Gas is basically essential in rural areas where it's hard to live walking/biking distance to work (especially if husband and wife are working since jobs are few and far between in such places and doubly hard to find 2 jobs that close to home) and there is literally no public transportation. And those folks tend to be the ones who'd be hardest hit by a mile tax.

As for drawing the line, it is tough. Food is about the only thing I think shouldn't be taxed--at least healthy food. They can tax soda, candy bars etc. IMO.

For things like clothes it's fine to just have a periodic tax free weekend like most states do and then people struggling to make ends meet can by kids clothing for school etc. without the tax hit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As for drawing the line, it is tough. Food is about the only thing I think shouldn't be taxed--at least healthy food. They can tax soda, candy bars etc. IMO.[/QUOTE]

Should taxation be a tool of the government to modify citizen behavior though?
 
[quote name='Magehart']Record mileage during smog check/vehicle service/etc whenever any mechanic that isn't you has access to the odometer. Then ship data to DMV to be compiled in a federal database. Wait 6-8 weeks until your bill arrives. Pay bill. Tell the government to fuck off and never see a mechanic again. This will teach us all to change our own oil and brakes.

If something like this passes then, as a fair majority has stated, more of us will become outlaws. The government doesn't need to keep a record of how much traveling you do. We should just make everyone pay some percentage of their income every paycheck to the local, state and federal government and be done with all this little taxes. Oh wait...[/QUOTE]


It will happen like this:

Every year you must register your vehicle with the DMV, right?
When you pay your tax, I mean "registration fee" to get your new license tabs, the agent will read and record your mileage and you will be taxed on the spot to re-register your vehicle. You don't pay, you don't drive, it's that simple. It won't take any extra monitoring or equipment.

Don't think this will end with the Fed. When States get the whiff of new revenue, they'll be sure to pass similar bills to get their fair share too. We'll all be subjected to threatened bad road conditions until it passes, too. The State will get their cut, and then pass along the Federal Gov's fees to them quarterly.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Should taxation be a tool of the government to modify citizen behavior though?[/QUOTE]

Depends. I'm fine with it for junk food, soda etc. as that hurts all of us when poor people are buying that crap, getting obese and driving up health care costs for all of us. An obese person on average needs about $1,500 a year more on health care than someone in healthy weight, accounting for nealry $150 billion a year in extra health care costs in the US according to a recent CDC study mentioned in Newsweek last week.

But I do agree it's a slippery slope, so it is a bit worrisome. I don't really strongly advocate a "junk food" tax too much. I just wouldn't be bothered by one, where as I'm thoroughly opposed to having tax on all foods--especially staples like bread, milk, eggs, produce, meats etc. as that's just an added burden to people already struggling to put food on the table for their family.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Depends. I'm fine with it for junk food, soda etc. as that hurts all of us when poor people are buying that crap, getting obese and driving up health care costs for all of us. An obese person on average needs about $1,500 a year more on health care than someone in healthy weight, accounting for nealry $150 billion a year in extra health care costs in the US according to a recent CDC study mentioned in Newsweek last week.

But I do agree it's a slippery slope, so it is a bit worrisome. I don't really strongly advocate a "junk food" tax too much. I just wouldn't be bothered by one, where as I'm thoroughly opposed to having tax on all foods--especially staples like bread, milk, eggs, produce, meats etc. as that's just an added burden to people already struggling to put food on the table for their family.[/QUOTE]

How about a "lazy game" tax. If a game uses a standard controller and does not have some sort of motion control, a 20% tax is added to encourage people to buy more "active" games. Because you are just going to get fatter sitting on your butt with a controller in your hands, and that is a healthcare risk.

If you think about it, you can come up with an excuse to tax pretty much anything, especially when health is involved and the gov't is paying for it.
 
Even with the slippery slope concern I acknowledged, that's an absurd example.

Like I said, I don't really advocate having a penalty tax on junk food etc. I just don't mind it since we have a much higher percentage of obese people than other countries and it really drives up health care costs. Which will be even more of a concern if we move more toward universal health care coverage.

But more could be done through things such as tax breaks for gym membership fees for everyone, insurance coverage requiring free yearly physical (non-emergency coverage suspended if you don't get one every 12 months) and things of such nature than a tax.

Any tax will just hurt the budgets of poor, obese people who are still going to keep buying junk food.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Any tax will just hurt the budgets of poor, obese people who are still going to keep buying junk food.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. The portion of people who smoke cigarettes hasn't declined to the degree one might expect given decades of tax increases focused on the consumption of one product (though it has declined somewhat).

So if we frame this as a way to help get more taxes from underclass people you lament so much, Ruined, does that change your mind? ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bingo. The portion of people who smoke cigarettes hasn't declined to the degree one might expect given decades of tax increases focused on the consumption of one product (though it has declined somewhat).

So if we frame this as a way to help get more taxes from underclass people you lament so much, Ruined, does that change your mind? ;)[/QUOTE]

Yep, and I'd be willing to bet most of the changes in smoking going down are due to the PSAs and publization if research on the negative health impacts which have basically stigmatized smoking, vs. the taxes and price increases.

We really need to make similar efforts to show the harm of unhealthy diets and lack of exercise on health to get people to stop eating so much unhealthy crap and to get off their asses and get in shape.
 
I sincerely doubt that PSAs/publicity of the harms of smoking are the cause of the decline. It's a pretty modest decline as an overall percentage. I don't have hard data, but I'm more willing to point to the fact that cigarettes cost under (?) a dollar a pack fifteen years ago, and are now over $7 in most major metropolitan areas - probably close to eclipsing $10 per in NYC and the like.
 
Yeah I don't have hard data either.

Just anecdotal. I don't smoke, nor do any of my close friends, and all of our reasons is the health consequences. But of course, that's just anecdotal, and I'd be interested in seeing surveys (especially of our generation on younger) that asked non-smokers why they don't smoke.
 
Of course, just anecdotal, but often times I've heard friends/co-workers say they're going to stop smoking because the prices are too high.

They never do though.
 
Yeah, that's the issue. People who are addicted already can't quit easily because of price (or health concerns many times) since the damn things are so addictive.

So I'm more curious of the younger generations who never started smoking on whether it was health concerns, prices, both or something else that led them to never start.

That's the real key in downward trends in smoking--people not starting. Not people quitting. Smoking rates are much higher among older age groups than younger.
 
It'd be hard to find real, reliable data on why kids don't smoke.

I remember, one year in HS (years ago) they called over the PA for all the Smokers to come down to the auditorium for a special meeting. They just went over the rules (No smoking on school grounds, no loitering on private property, etc.) and some health stuff.

The funny thing is, many, many smokers didn't go because they didn't want people to "know" they smoked. Many students who didn't smoke went because they wanted to get out of class. ;)
 
I don't know.

You'd have more problems getting straight answers from the smokers due to the stigma as you point out.

I'd think the non-smokers would have no reason not to be honest in saying why they don't smoke. Things would be off a bit from the smokers lying of course, but probably not enough to obscure any patterns since non-smokers are the clear majority in younger generations.
 
"I don't smoke because daddy said he'd beat me again if he ever caught me smoking." ;)

It'd be interesting to see the results, you'd just have to get a pretty large sample.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top