HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » SF Bay Area drivers could...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:55 PM

SF Bay Area drivers could pay to drive each mile under tax proposal

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Imagine being taxed a dollar for driving to the store. Commute to work? That'll be a few bucks more.

Is it crazy or the way of the future? The Bay Area is considering a long-range plan to become the first place in the nation to tax drivers for every mile they travel, with an average bill of up to $1,300 per year.

The proposal is a long way from becoming reality. But under the scenario, drivers would likely have to install GPS-like trackers on their cars to tally travel in the nine-county Bay Area, from freeways to neighborhood streets, with only low-income people exempted.

... Under the early proposal, the VMT tax could cost up to a dime per mile, or the cost may peak during rush hour and bottom out, perhaps to less than a penny per mile, when no one's on the roads.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_21095536/bay-area-drivers-could-pay-drive-each-mile

41 replies, 3213 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply SF Bay Area drivers could pay to drive each mile under tax proposal (Original post)
Newsjock Jul 2012 OP
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #1
CreekDog Jul 2012 #2
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #4
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #6
sadbear Jul 2012 #7
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #9
CreekDog Jul 2012 #8
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #10
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #12
CreekDog Jul 2012 #23
Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #32
Raine Jul 2012 #11
Earth_First Jul 2012 #3
CreekDog Jul 2012 #5
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #21
CreekDog Jul 2012 #22
snooper2 Jul 2012 #29
LeftyMom Jul 2012 #13
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #14
LeftyMom Jul 2012 #15
CreekDog Jul 2012 #17
GoneOffShore Jul 2012 #18
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #20
sadbear Jul 2012 #16
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #19
Zalatix Jul 2012 #24
sadbear Jul 2012 #25
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #26
Politicalboi Jul 2012 #27
Nevernose Jul 2012 #28
CreekDog Jul 2012 #34
Nevernose Jul 2012 #41
HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #30
CreekDog Jul 2012 #33
Luminous Animal Jul 2012 #35
Jamaal510 Jul 2012 #31
CreekDog Jul 2012 #36
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #37
Selatius Jul 2012 #38
Angleae Jul 2012 #39
Macoy51 Jul 2012 #40

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:56 PM

1. Horrible idea IMO n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:01 PM

2. 10 cents per mile? It may be necessary...

And if it funds better roads, bridges and expansion and improvement of our public transit, that would be terrific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:04 PM

4. Minimum 10 cents per mile

Could be much more, according to the OP.

Sorry, but there are already funding mechanisms in place for roads. If the taxes need to be higher, then raise the taxes, but turning every road into a toll road, which this idea essentially does, is a bad idea, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:09 PM

6. My mistake, misread the OP

Max 10 cents per mile.

Still a bad idea, IMO. We have toll roads in this area, and are about to get HOT lanes, however, it's still an option as to whether or not to use them. This plan leaves no option whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #4)


Response to sadbear (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:13 PM

9. Did you not see the correction I posted before you posted? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:12 PM

8. Wrong, maximum 10 cents per mile --Read it again please

"Under the early proposal, the VMT tax could cost up to a dime per mile, or the cost may peak during rush hour and bottom out, perhaps to less than a penny per mile, when no one's on the roads."

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_21095536/bay-area-drivers-could-pay-drive-each-mile

and a decade away, if it even comes to pass...

and the highest rate, that dime per mile is not far above what some states back east charge for their toll roads. so this isn't unprecedented. the article suggests the tax would be by miles driven anywhere, rather than just toll roads. however, the GPS system cited seems like it would be based on toll roads --which means there would not be a tax simply for driving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:13 PM

10. Did you not see the correction I posted before you posted this? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:18 PM

12. I read the posted article

And there is nothiing in there that suggests it would only be for toll roads - it states that the GPS would be used to tally miles traveled, and it talks repeatedly about total miles, not toll road miles.

If they need more road money, raise the gas taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:08 PM

23. Gas taxes save money but mileage tax takes more cars off

I see the utility of both. They don't seem so dissimilar to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 02:39 AM

32. With higher gas mileage, the tax base for maintaining infrustructure is eroding. If this society

wants to stay with single passenger vehicles as the main mode of transportation, individuals are going to have to accept alternative tax schemes to support the infrastructure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:17 PM

11. Agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:01 PM

3. ...which donor's corp will be charged with collection?

similar things happened here locally with on street parking meters and red light cameras.

the city collects less than 10% of the fees collected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:06 PM

5. Pennsylvania turnpike is 8.5 cents per mile, NJ is 7.7 cents, this probably wont be as high

and even so, it's likely a decade away.

we don't have toll roads like most other states. even so, it looks like the tolls wouldn't be more than states in the Northeast charge their drivers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:52 PM

21. why the need for a new tax which requires installation of a tracking device? as the other poster

 

said, raise the gas tax if there's not enough revenue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #21)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:04 PM

22. Most of us have devices for crossing beusges here

And how else can we pay for expansion of mass transit, better roads when with current funding we cant even maintain the inadequate systems we have? Not to mention local taxes and fees are more politically possible than getting the states voters to alter the state tax system to pay for Bay Area needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:26 PM

29. how much does your alley cost?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:21 PM

13. Bay Area? Electronic doodad? I think we all know how well that would work.

Alternatively, I suspect a lot of vehicles would be registered with relatives in the valley (I'd bet insurance is cheaper out here too.)

The bay area already has enormous disincentives for unnecessary car trips, in the form of expensive gas, packed roads, crazy bridge trolls, and scarcity (and expense) of parking in some areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:22 PM

14. The city of DC is always trying to come up with some way to put it to commuters

First it was a commuter tax, which Congress shot down, then a toll to enter the city, which Congress also shot down.

The Bay Area could accomplish the same goal by implementing or raising the local gas tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:25 PM

15. They already did that.

Since Californians in general and folks in the bay in particular have a lot of alternative fuel vehicles they've been making noises for a while about finding a way to stick it to people who don't buy much/any gas. You know, since feather-light economy jobs put a lot of wear and tear on the roads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:40 PM

17. it's not punishment, why is this characterized as punishment?

when you are charged for driving and that helps fund things like better roads, bridges and transit that gives you option as well as takes cars off the roads to benefit those who choose to drive...

that's not "putting it to" commuters.

it's charging those who use a resource, most of us, to improve it and make it function better.

this is one of the reasons we lack the transit systems and rail systems Europe and Canada has, because they charge for use of their roads and gas and they have the infrastructure to show that if we all contribute, we really can have nice things.

the Bay Area desperately needs better transit and better roads and money to pay for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:43 PM

18. It's not "putting it to commuters" -

It's social engineering to get people to use public transport. And to get businesses to move to places closer to the work force.

And neither is a "bad thing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:49 PM

20. In DC's case, I disagree

They don't businesses to move closer to where people live, because if they did, businesses would be moving out of DC and into VA and MD.

For me, commuting via Metro would be 3 hours per day vs. the 1 hour per day to drive. And I'm not willing to give up 2 hours out of every day at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:27 PM

16. I agree with a gas tax.

There should be more incentive to have fuel-efficient vehicles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #16)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:46 PM

19. Agree 100% n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #16)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:13 PM

24. Yes, but GPS is not the way to do that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #24)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:00 PM

25. Right

All taxes and fees should be assessed at the pump. If you get 40 miles/gal, you'll pay less per mile than someone who gets only 12 miles/gal. Plus, in general, fuel-efficient cars are lighter and do less damage to roads than the heavier gas guzzlers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:01 PM

26. Again, agree 100% n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:07 PM

27. They should just raise

Registration fees by 200 or 300 a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #27)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:18 PM

28. Then where would Nevadans register their cars?

It already feels like half the people I know register out of state. I imagine the same thing will happen in the Bay Area; residents will all just use Cousin Joe's address in Bakersfield.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #28)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:03 AM

34. i'm in the Bay Area and almost every car has CA plates

In my neighborhood out of the city and downtown where I work.

Maybe you think everyone cheats or would cheat. I don't.

So tell me, would you cheat?

And if you wouldn't, why do you think other people would make a morally inferior choice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #34)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 09:36 AM

41. I don't cheat

I live in Las Vegas and pay the higher Nevada car registration fee. In fact, we pay sich ridiculously low taxes (for a terrible quality of life) that i would gladly pay a reasonable state income tax. Many of my neighbors and coworkers who moved here from California, however, use family members' California addresses to register their cars; they feel entitled. Others have Nevada plates, but register their vehicles with the address of friends and family in neighboring Nye County, where it is much cheaper.

I guess that's why I believe many people would make a morally inferior choice: I've seen it happen. Some people feel entitled to break whatever rules they can justify. These are probably the same people who park in handicapped spots and who believe that since they don't have kids, school zones shouldn't apply to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 01:21 AM

30. People will register their cars out of state,

and/or disable the GPS trackers. I dont see this idea working at all. Just raise gas taxes. That way tourists will also pay, and drivers of larger cars will pay a little more. Seems fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #30)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 02:59 AM

33. few will do that

And the fine for that is hefty.

Taxes aren't an insult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #30)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:04 AM

35. Drivers of larger cars are usually poorer than drivers of newer lighter cars.

Used cars trickle down. Just raising gas taxes would result in a regressive tax. And certainly, rental cars can be equipped with GPS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 02:25 AM

31. Good thing I'm planning on moving up to Humboldt next fall.

So they can come up with a tax for driving, but not a tax for anyone making $200K or above?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #31)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:07 AM

36. good thing money is such a motivator

I mean you could say it's a good thing there are people you love up there or that it's beautiful. But no, you mentioned the money.

I don't understand why money is so important that people will celebrate their choice to move hundreds of miles away to save a little of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:12 AM

37. wow....talk about sticking it to the middle and lower income folks

holy shit...that'll be sure to make friends...

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:24 AM

38. Isn't it just easier to add a 5 cent tax on top of the gas tax already in place???

You could basically do the same thing except without the invasion of privacy issue at stake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 06:16 AM

39. You can't track people with a tax increase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #39)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 07:01 AM

40. The Government Tracking My Every Move?

 

“You can't track people with a tax increase.”

And this is what bothers me the most about the idea. Requiring everyone place a GPS in their car to allow the government to track their every move? Where is the outrage at that?



Macoy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread