California Mileage Tax Would Charge Drivers Based on Distance Driven

If passed, this bill could charge a nickel a mile, which could raise billions to fix bridges.
But after a nickle comes what, a dime? Then a quarter?
We all know that once they find out how much could be made off of these kind of taxes, that they would have no problem raising the bar in the future

They claim that with more people driving fuel efficient cars, the fuel tax that is being collected, is not as much as they normally collect

Only in California would they have more fuel economy saving cars than your average vehicle. LOL

Sick of the gas tax?

What about a tax on every mile you drive?

A new bill going through Sacramento would tax drivers for every mile they are on the road.

The state gasoline tax of 52.9 cents per gallon could be replaced with a "miles driven fee" of $0.05 cents or so per mile driven, under state legislation proposed by a Bay Area lawmaker.

State transit officials note that there's not nearly enough money available to fix the many bridges and roads in California that are in desperate need of repair. A federal highway fund, based on taxes on fuel, is expected to run dry this summer.

“We've got to figure out how to pay for infrastructure,” state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) said. “One philosophy is, if you use it, you should pay for it.”

www.nbclosangeles.com...

It seems, what's good for the environment is not so good for the upkeep of the roads

The mileage tax approach is already being tested out in Washington and Oregon, and if California lawmakers sign on, a "pilot program designed ... to replace the state’s existing fuel excise tax" could be in place by 2016.

The bill would require state transportation officials to report their findings from the pilot program by mid-2017.
From there, the state legislature would have to approve a separate bill before the mileage tax would be applied statewide.


That would kill truckers and people like us who travel a lot due to our work
Thank goodness we don't live in California!!

I don't even know why they call it a tax anymore. Whenever they need more money they just take it and call it a tax on "the flavor of the month". Just hand them your paycheck and let them take whatever they need to get through until next payday. I guess calling it a tax is just to placate the masses. I suppose doing it that way is better than than the way the mob used to do it. They aren't going to door to door just yet.

States spend and spend then go through every option they can think of to recoup what they've wasted from the people.

Folks are helping the environment while saving a few bucks, only to turn around and be "punished" for it. You can't win for losing it seems.

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
I don't even know why they call it a tax anymore. Whenever they need more money they just take it and call it a tax on "the flavor of the month". Just hand them your paycheck and let them take whatever they need to get through until next payday. I guess calling it a tax is just to placate the masses. I suppose doing it that way is better than than the way the mob used to do it. They aren't going to door to door just yet.

States spend and spend then go through every option they can thing of to recoup what they've wasted from the people.

Folks are helping the environment while saving a few bucks, only to turn around and be "punished" for it. You can't win for losing it seems.

Yeah, we might as well bend over and...........well, you get the picture!!


Seriously, it's a no-win situation
At least it's only on the West coast so far, according to the article

Right now, it costs me $0.38 to drive a mile. Adding $0.05 is the same as increasing my operating cost by 13%. Math sucks!! So do new taxes. ;(

California is the most corrupt, anti-american state in America. They need to go ahead and secede. They are giving the rest of us a bad name and are polluting our mainstream media with their disgusting ideals. California is an extreme, all-points covered example of everything that's wrong with America. If a foreigner ever asks me, "What's wrong with America", I'm going to tell him/her, "California".

"Thank goodness I don't live in California."



/rant

originally posted by: smithjustinb
California is the most corrupt, anti-american state in America. They need to go ahead and secede. They are giving the rest of us a bad name and are polluting our mainstream media with their disgusting ideals. California is an extreme, all-points covered example of everything that's wrong with America. If a foreigner ever asks me, "What's wrong with America", I'm going to tell him/her, "California".

"Thank goodness I don't live in California."

/rant

We could put New York in that rant as well.....just saying

If we imagine an imaginary average US car with a 15 gallon fuel tank and averaging 20mpg ...

... then currently the tax on that amount of fuel is 52.9c/ gallon = 15gal x 52.9c = $7.94 (rnded up) in government fuel surcharges per tank of fuel.

If we the do the maths for 5c per mile ...

... then the tax on that amount of fuel would be (15 gallons x 20mpg)miles x $0.05 = 300miles x $0.05 =$15.00 in government fuel surcharges per tank of fuel.

That is about 47% increase in tax cost to drive anywhere!

originally posted by: snarky412

originally posted by: smithjustinb
California is the most corrupt, anti-american state in America. They need to go ahead and secede. They are giving the rest of us a bad name and are polluting our mainstream media with their disgusting ideals. California is an extreme, all-points covered example of everything that's wrong with America. If a foreigner ever asks me, "What's wrong with America", I'm going to tell him/her, "California".

"Thank goodness I don't live in California."

/rant

We could put New York in that rant as well.....just saying

They're next in line.

a reply to: snarky412

Here is the thing which makes a nonsense of this issue.

Taxing by the mile means that people will take less long trips, or be forced to pay through the nose to take them. But, it has been long understood that short car journeys are worse for fuel economy, worse for wear and tear of the vehicle, and worse for the environment. Think about it. When you start up an engine, and just bumble around your immediate locality, the engine does not generally have a chance to work up to its ideal operating condition, and therefore it produces more waste than when you are in the middle of a motorway drive, for example. When you fail to let an engine go for a good solid blow, it also means that it is more likely to become dirty with carbon deposits.

These things are bad because they lead to less longevity in the life of components in the car (replacement of which means more fossil expenditure), and that in turn leads to less efficiency in general. So taxing people more, the more distance they travel, means that the legislation would actually promote irresponsible drivers who drive short (walkable) distances, and detract from the lives of those who use their cars for journeys which DO warrant turning over an engine.

It all seems a little bit poorly thought out to me. Mind you, having read as much as I have on the various idiocies which California has enacted within its borders, I am hardly surprised!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: snarky412

Here is the thing which makes a nonsense of this issue.

Taxing by the mile means that people will take less long trips, or be forced to pay through the nose to take them. But, it has been long understood that short car journeys are worse for fuel economy, worse for wear and tear of the vehicle, and worse for the environment. Think about it. When you start up an engine, and just bumble around your immediate locality, the engine does not generally have a chance to work up to its ideal operating condition, and therefore it produces more waste than when you are in the middle of a motorway drive, for example. When you fail to let an engine go for a good solid blow, it also means that it is more likely to become dirty with carbon deposits.

These things are bad because they lead to less longevity in the life of components in the car (replacement of which means more fossil expenditure), and that in turn leads to less efficiency in general. So taxing people more, the more distance they travel, means that the legislation would actually promote irresponsible drivers who drive short (walkable) distances, and detract from the lives of those who use their cars for journeys which DO warrant turning over an engine.

It all seems a little bit poorly thought out to me. Mind you, having read as much as I have on the various idiocies which California has enacted within its borders, I am hardly surprised!

Well, that's one way to look at it....I'll give you that!!

Nice break down on the technical aspect of it

Where is all the tax money going??? There should be plenty to keep the roads and bridges up!!! Instead of adding new taxes, especially one as ridiculous as this Nazi tax, lets count where every penny is going and makes some adjustments. Where does all the toll money go? Like here where I live, they rake in big money from the tolls but the roads are in bad shape--TPTB aren't doing what they should be with that money. Lets investigate where every single penny goes. Read my lips; No new taxes. I'm tellin' you guys, revolution and arrest warrants is the only way forward.

a reply to: snarky412

So... Drivers are the new smokers?

Not surprising. When one revenue stream dries up, it has to be replaced. Those evil drivers can replace the evil smokers. It seems everything is illegal in California. If it isn't yet, they just make you pay for it.

5 cents a mile? I'd rather walk. Once people start doing that, they'll charge for that too.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Actually, it's called usage fees. It's for the ''privilege'' of using ''their'' services.

What if people never left their home? I bet they find a way to tax that too. Might sound like a joke now...

originally posted by: dfens
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Actually, it's called usage fees. It's for the ''privilege'' of using ''their'' services.

What if people never left their home? I bet they find a way to tax that too. Might sound like a joke now...

I can believe it. Here they have just started taxing hybrid vehicles more when they pay their property taxes every year to make up for the money they lose from fuel taxes. That just really blew my mind.

Highway robbery is an understatement.

a reply to: smithjustinb

I'm sure some people desperately want to know your list of approved states. I got a laugh out of it. Thanks.

Any more automatons out there want to embarrass themselves? I guess this the right thread.

a reply to: snarky412

People in this thread are clueless ballistic projectiles. Where this incoherent non-sense comes from I'll never understand. Nevada? Kentucky? West Virginia? Where? Arizona? Florida? Go burn your trash. All the poison floats east.

If there is more fair and equitable way to apply tax than a use tax, then one of you backyard geniuses will need to learn me.

Miles * Weight of the vehicle * $.

Zero taxes for all! whoop! whoop! Kids, load the fire sticks like mom and pop taught you!!! LMFAO

a reply to: DietJoke

Hear hear, that was just my thoughts - a stealth feel gooder way to raise nearly double the money. I also notice that on top of this doubling one would still be paying the federal fuel tax.

Just how much has California (most other states as well) wasted on foot trails, bike trails, buses and trains of the money intended to repair highways and bridges?

The politicians use these funds like a slush fund to buy voter groups instead of proposing separate bond issues for these projects then come back to the trough and say "we need more!!!!"

The other point is unintended supporting of owning a fuel guzzling car that gets 10 miles to the gallon but is driven low miles being taxed less than a Prius driven high mileage.

The irony in general its those Prius owners who vote in the main for politicians who propose such idiocy in the first place.

When they used to be smart about these things, there were separate funds that people didn't question. Political pressure, AKA POed people, used to put a stop to this sort of behavior. Pelosi is not worried, WHY? Because someone else is footing her bill.

a reply to: TrueBrit

At least you are trying to apply critical thought process. An oasis you might say?

What you didn't mention was the wear and tear the abysmal road conditions cause on the vehicle. You didn't mention road conditions presenting safety of life issues. You also didn't mention the outright failure of over-crossings, which are a statistical certainty. You didn't mention the extraordinary wear and tear heavy vehicles impart on the roads. Guess what. The roads in China are better (much better) than CA.

For you thick headed absolutists reading this, I'm not defending the entire government of California. It's not a monolithic entity like in cartoons. FFS The difference is, I'm inclined to do something and put my money on the line for the common good even if things aren't perfect. I doubt this bunch of whiners would do that. Please shelter in place and whatever you do, don't head West. the devil is west. boo.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: snarky412

People in this thread are clueless ballistic projectiles. Where this incoherent non-sense comes from I'll never understand. Nevada? Kentucky? West Virginia? Where? Arizona? Florida?

The nonsense comes straight from the west coast and unfortunately floats eastward.

Here's nonsense for ya,

Hypothetically I could have a vehicle that uses 100 gallons to go a mile and pay a nickel and you can have a vehicle that uses 1 gallon to go a hundred miles and pay $20 to the state of California - guess who got stuck with the state tax bill under this proposal?

In old fashioned parlance this is called regressive as it promotes revenue generation rather than efficiency. In fact it tells me if I drive low miles to go out and buy a 70's junker for a few hundred bucks and use the savings to pay mileage tax if I was living in that state.