What Do You Think? A Tax On Fuel OR A Tax On Mileage?

The road trip -- driving cross-country for days on end, crammed into a vehicle with your family—is virtually a required rite of passage for most Americans. The lure of the open road is as ingrained in our psyche and culture as the hamburger, football or fishing. So it's no surprise that proposals for new types of taxes on these seemingly free highways—traditionally paid for by gas taxes and tolls—are causing an uproar.

Back in July of this year, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) proposed a bill that allocates funds to research the effectiveness of taxing highway usage by the mile. On the surface, the bill seems to be laying the groundwork for big government to track our driving habits while simultaneously discouraging the driving of more fuel-efficient vehicles. It doesn't have to be this way.....

Read Article

DexDiamonds - 10/2/2009 1:48:49 PM

+2 Boost

Fuel.

Joe_Limon - 10/2/2009 2:24:48 PM

+4 Boost

The high gas prices were caused by the douchebags on wall street over speculating it to it's breaking point.

Threepoint1415926 - 10/2/2009 4:38:06 PM

+2 Boost

Soldier of the Republican lie machine I see.... The Arabs aren't the leading producer of oil in the world, we are. The Arabs aren't the leading source of oil consumed in the US... But we are, next Canada then Africa. How about we don't spend 15 years to build an oil platform in ANWAR that necessitates the continued addiction to oil in order to pay for the project and look towards other forms of energy? Wouldnt that be a novel idea? "Drill Baby, Drill" is like using a bigger hammer to drive a screw. With a big enough hammer, you'll get the job done but you're really using the wrong tool.

Joe_Limon - 10/3/2009 6:45:49 PM

+1 Boost

There is no energy crisis, if we do somehow manage to dry up all the readily available oil wells within the next 20 years. The price of oil will rise high enough to use the oil sands to become feasible, at which point we have enough energy to last at least another century.

camrydriver - 10/2/2009 2:08:10 PM

+6 Boost

Tax the fuel. No monitoring devices in the car. And promotes the real goals of buring less fuel which good for our air and good for our energy independence.

camrydriver - 10/2/2009 2:46:43 PM

+7 Boost

Duh, that's why we need to use less gas. Hello. We ought to build enough ultra safe next gen nuclear power plants until we can cut our off our wealth transfer to the middle east completely. In the meantime, reducing our use of "the Black Blood of Allah" is in every free person's best interest.

Willis - 10/2/2009 2:15:10 PM

-1 Boost

Taxing fuel probably makes less sense. If anything should be taxed then it should be engine capacity. Let's be realistic here: nobody needs a inefficient and overweight V8 SUV when you can get AWD and a more efficient engine (and probably quicker too) in a normal station wagon. Tax engine capacity and be done with it. The people buying such cars can easily afford to pay that tax.

Joe_Limon - 10/2/2009 2:23:07 PM

+3 Boost

Engine capacity will probably end up being taken as a displacement, and then horribly inefficient cars such as the evo with tiny fuel guzzling engines will get an unfair advantage over more fuel efficient engines with triple the displacement. I agree with Invisible below. A tax created solely to limit the amount of spending is stupid no matter how you measure it.

downtoearth - 10/2/2009 2:32:48 PM

+7 Boost

— Willis:

> Tax engine capacity and be done with it.

This is nonsense.

Someone may have a huge old V8 and drive it for just a few miles annually for fun, covering any other distance on a bicycle or using public transport. Another one may have a very efficient hybrid car and drive it for 100.000 miles every year. Who makes more damage?

Tax the fuel. The more you consume it, the more you're charged. As simple as that.

Shredmo - 10/5/2009 12:51:23 PM

+2 Boost

downtoearth, this describes me exactly. I have a V8 powered car for fun. I ride a bicycle to work everyday, even during winter, so long as it is above -15°f.

bfghemicuda - 10/2/2009 4:21:12 PM

+4 Boost

Invisible ,,, I agree

lexusrox123 - 10/2/2009 5:26:26 PM

+2 Boost

invisible, i agree, that was exactly what i was going to say. Too many taxes already.

Westside7th - 10/2/2009 2:30:50 PM

-2 Boost

The tax should be in mileage. Gas taxes go towards the Highway Trust Fund which is now broke. Basically, the taxes go directly to road maintenance. With hybrids and electric cars and increased MPG, the tax income is reduced which is why there is no funding for highways now. They will continue to run out of money for our infrastructure because less gas will be consumed in the long run. Someone with an electric car could drive 1000 miles and never pay any taxes to help pay for road maintenance. Mileage is the only real way of measuring road usage. The more miles=the more the roads are affected. It's common sense.

Joe_Limon - 10/2/2009 2:45:53 PM

+2 Boost

You must live somewhere warm. Up where it freezes roads have a lifespan that is independent of road use, and is purely based on the number of seasons experienced.

Westside7th - 10/4/2009 10:49:11 PM

+1 Boost

I live in Michigan...try working at a DOT or talking to any civil engineer in transportation and you'll see that taxing mileage is the way to go. Cement concrete and asphalt concrete can be made to withstand cold...it's just more expensive...and when the Highway Trust has no money we get stuck with quick fixes that don't last. It's not really the weather...it's because people get cheap with infrastructure.

indifferent - 10/2/2009 2:44:36 PM

+1 Boost

First create a public transporation system in Southern California. Some of us want to reduce the number of miles we drive but cant because of the location of our jobs. Once we have a transporation system, turn all freeways into toll roads and tax utilization of roads (with a pricing scheme that accounts for peak hours).

Threepoint1415926 - 10/2/2009 4:45:06 PM

+2 Boost

--> "and you will have a situation like in India or Tokyo."

Wrong! You'll have a system like San Fransisco bay, the 13th largest metro area in the country. California already knows how to do it, they just don't have any money.

LexSucks - 10/2/2009 4:04:30 PM

+4 Boost

It's all Obama's fault!!

sogac6 - 10/2/2009 4:14:05 PM

+6 Boost

How about better roads that last longer and will take more traffic.

lexusrox123 - 10/2/2009 5:27:46 PM

+1 Boost

Unfortunately, its all a matter of picking the lesser evil. As Glenn Beck said, "Which would you rather take? Poison or poison lite?"

LexSucks - 10/3/2009 2:52:50 PM

-2 Boost

Glenn Beck is a psycho! Glenn Beck is the last person that I would quote.

Agent001 - 10/2/2009 10:54:17 PM

+5 Boost

How about taxing the people who voted for the people who want to tax us for this?

001

darzav - 10/2/2009 11:51:55 PM

-1 Boost

Tax milllage.

veyron1001 - 10/3/2009 12:44:27 AM

+3 Boost

If mileage is taxed. I would just unhook the sensor or cable to the odometer.

truckman - 10/3/2009 3:34:29 AM

+1 Boost

I would feel violated if they taxed my mileage.

theoptimisticpessimist - 10/3/2009 4:42:23 PM

-1 Boost

"What Do You Think? A Tax On Fuel OR A Tax On Mileage?"

Neither, there should be and tax incentive sliding tax incentive on fuel efficient cars, the better fuel economy the less tax.

thstone - 10/5/2009 5:24:49 PM

+2 Boost

Fuel tax. And make it big, just like Europe. Petrol should be $5/gal right now.