Honestly, road construction and maintenance funding needs to come from a number
of different usage-based sources, to make the burden more fair, and to
essentially act as a hedge against decreases in a particular funding source.
There should probably be an annual fee that is based on vehicle
weight, to address the cost of road deterioration related to vehicle size and
weight. The Federal Excise Tax (FET) on tires should probably be
revised to be a flat, uniform tax per tire. This would be a proxy for a
mileage-based tax (more miles driven = more tire wear = more frequent FET
payment), and would also factor in size and weight (larger/heavier vehicle =
more wheels/tires and faster tire wear).Toll roads and turnpikes
should probably be in the equation, too. They are essentially a mileage-based
user fee, and have the added benefit of incentivizing use of less congested
(albeit less convenient) routes versus more congested ones. And
finally, I think that there still needs to be a "per-gallon" gas tax,
because gasoline is a scarce commodity and a dirty fuel, and besides raising
revenue for road construction, a gas tax incentivizes fuel efficiency.
A QuakerBrooklyn, NYYou know... miles per vehicle and vehicle weight
could be captured very simply. Just tax tires. ======== The only problem with that is some tires are rated at 35,000 miles, some
are rated at 80,000 miles.And some people rotate tires 2 at a time,
instead of 4 at a time.I could also just swap tires before
inspection to avoid the tax.Just saying.I think the tax
per gallon is the best answer.And until gas hits $7-$8 a gallon like
Europe and Asain pays, American's really have nothing to complain
You know... miles per vehicle and vehicle weight could be captured very simply.
Just tax tires. So much per size, so much per pound, so much per remaining
tread on cars being registered for the first time.
If paying less in fuel and fuel tax is incentive enough then everyone will
eventually drive smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient cars. As a result our
state won't have enough fuel tax money to maintain the roads. The point
will come when the per-mile tax will replace the per-gallon tax. The legislature
won't have any other choice.But people don't really chose
their car by the amount of gas tax they will pay, do they?
Those who love the 'greener' products sure are anxious to find a way
to punish people for driving 'green' cars.
2 bitsWyoming has no income tax, they tax only 10% of the property
for property taxes, and the state sales tax is only 4%.Most of their
income comes from oil, gas an mineral extraction. Gas companies pass
the taxes on to us at the pump either way. It was a tongue in cheek support for
continuing taxing gas by the gallon. Any questions on why the rich
are moving to Jackson Hole and the surrounding areas?
"Miles driven per year and vehicle weight" I do not care to share that
much personal information with the government.
I don't care to share that much personal information with the government.
Is this sort of like the HOV lanes were built with taxpayers taxes, and
then the rich can simply "buy up" and not have to be like everyone
else?Ya -- I saw this one coming 1,000 miles away too.
What if there was just one tax for Americans to pay that would pay for all
government and all community services, highways, law enforcement etc. etc. etc.
And that one flat rate tax was based upon a persons income and applied to every
man, women and child in the United States of America and those who derive their
income from American business, without exception without deduction and was
collected automatically as it was earned so that no tax return or even knowledge
of it was with the individual. And that grand sum was divided
according to the people count for local, county, and state governments with the
rest for the national government to provide for public highways and protection.
People could decide for themselves how big or small and how many local
governments they need.
Except for the part about owning a Prius, this is the letter that I was going to
write, but I never got around to it. I agree - a fair user fee (tax) for highway
maintenance should be based on miles driven and vehicle weight. While a tax on
fuel used to be a good analogy for that formula, it no longer is, and I hope
it's even a worse analogy in the future.
SLars,RE: "Go to the source, tax the oil companies for the extracted
oil and gas."...===What a hoot LOL. Classic
oblivious lefty rhetoric.If you just tax the oil companies....
don't you think they will pass that right along to the consumer??If you tax the oil producer 55 cents/gallon... don't you think they are
smart enough to just charge 55 cents more per gallon at the pump??So
who ends up paying your brilliant tax? The evil oil company? Or you and me?You gotta think about these things past the "I hate oil
companies" level rhetoric to come up with a real idea.
Go to the source, tax the oil companies for the extracted oil and gas.
Thinkin\' Man,ALL vehicles (not just big trucks) wear pavement and
contribute to potholes and their growth. Otherwise we would never need to
maintain neighborhood streets (and obviously they need frequent repairs and
maintenance). Legacy Highway (which prohibits trucks) would never need
maintenance (and obviously we still have to maintain it).Trucks
contribute more, but every tire that rolls on that surface produces some
wear.===How are you going to base the tax on weight?
The weight of the car/truck or the weight of the load/passengers? How many
people know what their car weighs (for filling out their tax forms)?? How many
know the weight of the load/passengers (which will vary every trip, and can
double the weight of the vehicle)?A vehicle weight based tax would
be full of fraud and totally unverifiable. A gas tax is simple,
and takes load weight into account automatically (because it takes more gas to
move a large load).
Fit all vehicles with a GPS and charge distance traveled by time of day and
location. That is if you are driving downtown in peak hour then you pay more
than if you are driving in the country. This combined with a moderate tax on
each gallon is fair. It costs a fortune to build a mile of freeway compared to
a mile in the country.Having thrown in a fire cracker I will stand
back for the reaction LOL.
I don't know why this website keeps switching from reading posts to full
website, but it needs to be fixed.Joe,Read the Utah State
Constitution. We have agreed to pay for education but we have not agreed to pay
for unlimited use of our roads without paying.
Joe, Read the Utah State Constitution. We have agreed to fund
education, but we have not agreed to allow anyone to use our roads without
Fuel tax should be based on gross vehicle weight because only heavy vehicles
(commercial trucks) do any real wear to the roads. Weather does the rest. A
compact car could drive on a paved road in a climate-controlled environment for
decades without doing any appreciable wear.How to implement this
tax, I don't know! That's the hard part. Somehow, it should still be
at the pump.
Mr Richards,Your consistency is sorely lacking.Funny how
you defend tax breaks for school funding while demanding that users of the road
should pay their fair share.I think use taxes are the way to go.
But I like them across the board. No cherry picking needed.
Open Minded Mormon,I'm a Conservative, and I like the current flat
tax (so the less you drive, the less gas you buy, and the less tax you pay).
I also like the current tax structure because it is a natural
incentive for people to drive more efficient cars (then you get taxed less for
every mile you drive).In a tax-per-mile scheme... there is no
incentive to drive a more efficient car. You get charged the same tax
regardless of how efficient your car is. All cars get taxed the same for each
mile (regardless of how efficient they are). That's not right.===You seem quick to judge people, and group them, and assume you
know what they are thinking (based on some political rhetoric-based stereotypes
you have for people).I think your stereotypes are dated and need to
be updated. I like the current gas tax. It is fair... and it
encourages people to drive less, and drive as efficiently as they can (to
preserve their $$$).What incentive is there to get a tuneup, hybrid,
or drive slower, if you're taxed just on the miles you roll? Not the gas
@2bitsIt took a long time for me to figure out what this..."Why should we have to pay 4 cents a mile when someone who drives 60,000
miles a year pays only .2 cents per mile?"meant but I think the
numbers match up to a yearly registration fee of 120 dollars a year. @Mike (letter writer, not Richards)But why would you want a per mile
basis? If your Prius got twice the gas mileage then you'd be paying twice
as much per gallon as others while doing less damage to the roads (lower weight)
or air (less emissions).
You would think conservatives would be all over this.User tax at a
fixed rate is a Tea-Party tax dream come true.Burn less gas, Pay less taxes, keep more money for yourself.But no!Now they want to increase the taxes on the "other guy",so they
can keep burning more gasoline and creating more pollution.Talk
about making Evil good, and Good Evil....Not to mention the 180
dgree, about face on taxes.
So what they are saying is either they don't drive the Prius enough (3000
miles a year? You must be kidding. Why have the car at all?), or they think
that my big truck should pay more. Personally, I'd rather be in a traffic
accident with my nice 3/4 ton pickup than in the little battery loaded Prius.I think that due to the possiblilites of hazardous waste problems from
the batteries, not driving enough, and firefighters getting shocked due to the
batteries when in an accident, the Prius owners ought to pay more in gas taxes.
Don't give-em any ideas. Once there a tax on it, it isn't going away.
There will be more taxes tho.
I don't get some of these Prius owner's concerns. The arguments in
the letter were counter-intuitive to me. Maybe they can help explain them.1. In a flat-tax per gallon of gas... how does another driver pay 2
cents/mile, while a Prius driver pays 4 cents/mile?? I thought a Prius got
BETTER mileage than other cars, not 2 times LESS miles/gallon than other
cars.2. The Prius owners seem like the ones who are getting away
without paying their fair share of highway taxes (in the gas tax scenario).
Because they drive many more miles on our highways and pay much less in gas
taxes. Because they are a hybrid they are supposed to get more miles/gallon.
So more miles/Tax-Dollar. Hybrids and electric cars are the reason
gas-tax no longer works. Because they are free-loading. Driving more miles,
and putting more wear and tear on the highways... but not paying for it (because
they buy little gas for the miles of wear and tear they put on the roads). I don't see why they want a per-mile tax.
Many tourists visit Utah every year. They use our roads and they pay a fuel
tax, per gallon, for that use, just as we do. Some cars use less fuel than
others. Some use no gasoline or diesel at all. There should be a means to
collect a "use" tax, if not for all drivers, at least for those living
in Utah. If we assume that the 24.5 cents per gallon represents
about one-cent per mile driven for the average car (24.5 miles per gallon), then
wouldn't it be proper to require all Utah drivers to pay one-cent per mile
driven? If they have a high-efficiency vehicle, they should pay a "use"
tax when they file their income tax based on the miles driven. It would amount
to $3.00 for the letter writer. If I had a high-efficiency vehicle, it would
amount to $60.00 because I have to drive a significant number of miles every
Thanks for writing, Mike. As another Prius owner, I can only say Amen!Make the taxes for road maintenance reflect actual usage of and wear on the
roads. Weight and miles driven are the primary determinants of relative impact
on the roads. Make tax rates reflect that reality. It's only fair. In addiiton, tax policy should encourage, not discourage, energy
efficiency and low emissions. Give a discount for low emissions and energy
efficiency, rather than penalizing those values. The same philosophy
should inform the legislature's decisions about funding schools and
subsidizing citizens' use of solar energy. Sadly, the Republicans are too
entrenched in backward-think, too beholden to powerful special interests, to see
But how much has green energy contributed to your representative.This isn't about what's fair, good for utah, or raising money.
It's about control. Dirty energy has contributed a lot more to your
representation than green energy. They hate hybrids. And will stop at nothing to
punish you for it.
Taxes per gallon is more relevant now than ever. If we charge per mile instead
of per gallon, this encourages more air pollution and more unnecessary use of
our finite resources. It encourages gas guzzlers and people not keeping their
cars properly tuned. It discourages high efficient cars. I can't believe
this idea is being given serious consideration.,