wow, this thread is now officially full of fail.

it's not 'unfair' to tree huggers to tax based on mileage. and it isn't that the state automatically wants more money than they've had before. their point is that state revenues from gasoline have DECLINED because of public move to more fuel efficient vehicles, but road maintenance needs don't decline at all. so the SHORTFALL must be made up somewhere. unclear what's so hard to understand about this. this isn't raising tax revenue overall, it's making up a shortfall. and with more and more people moving to florida, road maintenance and change needs will always increase.

that would no doubt be illegal if they used such a system.

it's not fair at all, as those with higher gas consumption vehicles do not proportionately 'damage' the roads more.

no doubt there's collusion in contracting, but tell me where that doesn't happen?

roads here are terrible? you make me laugh. no idea why you think georgia roads are better! let's compare two toll roads: the florida turnpike with georgia 400.

if it's gps based they'd know you were out of state.

you're conveniently leaving out the 'ad velorum' you get screwed with there to make up the difference. how much do you pay to register your 3gs each year?

again this is not about fuel economy, it's about maintaining roads, and a prius may get great gas mileage, but it probably does no less damage to roads than a car getting half the fuel economy.

will you bring Hitler into this thread next too? (see Godwins law)

that would be great. while they're at it, the do the Fed too, and all cabinet level departments.

as long as populations increase, so much budgets, unless something fundamental changes. road use only goes in one direction (up).

someone mentioned public transit too.... NO ONE wants a significant amount of this in Florida because it's too damned hot. who wants to wait for a bus or train unless there's giant air conditioned stations all over. like that's going to be cheap.

 

I might have misread the article, I thought people were already taxed for purchasing gas or seeing I am from Montreal, we get taxed for everything.

 

Seems the thread is full of fail TO YOU since you disagree with most of us.

1. First off the thread title will incite hybrid haters. The article mentions "fuel efficient cars" not just hybrids. all vehicles are getting more fuel efficient even AMG cars and Ferraris. So people are penalized PERIOD not just "tree huggers"

2. Studies show people are actually driving less. People have changed habits and are merging trips, car-pooling, moving etc. the asshat here simply states " omg people drove more" which is not true. Again it's his fault since developers develop out and not up.

3. They need an audit. Stop asking for more money.

4. GA drops ad valarum next year FYI

5. GA 400 is great the turnpike is great. GA 400 costs 50 cents the turnpike costs much more up to $20 or so.

6. If people are driving less that means less wear and tear on roads.

7. No plan for mass transit. No lets just build more roads.
It seems to me it's another government official that wants more money and refuses to see other ways to save money and manage the money they get.

 

This is why I favor random acts of homicide against politicians.

 

so tell me what's wrong with charging people based on the number of miles they drive? why isn't that fair? don't drive much? pay less.

you want everyone to live in high rises? next step: soviet-style central planning.

doesn't change the fact that we have way more people in the state here every year. more people, more the roads get torn up, and usually the same ones over and over.

you really want to take the bus? i mean really? me either. i'll wait for google's self-driving cars to go mainstream, then i can read the ipad or work while my car drives me to precisely where i need to go, not some bus stop that may or may not be anywhere near where i need to go. now in DENSE cities like manhattan, trains, buses and cabs are fine. most everywhere else, not so much.

but i'm really interested in what you think is wrong with usage-based road tax? progressive even offers usage-based insurance already, which i might consider.

 

^There's only one problem with usage based taxes Paul. That issue is that not all vehicles weigh the same. Different weights put different pressures on the road. Why do you think some roads have weight limits and don't want HUGE 18 wheelers rollin on them? Those trucks wear out roads quicker just by sheer weight.

Amount of road use is 1 thing, but if you take a smart for 2 and an 18 wheeler and have them travel the same road X amount of times, equally, the 18 wheeler will have caused more road wear.

 

very good points, and i agree, miles traveled is certainly not the only criteria for impact. thing is, how do you enforce weight - although if mileage is tracked, the tax could be mileage x weight x factor. truckers of course often come from out of state, so how to manage. in theory electronics/gps/etc. could solve all this, if it could be done 'fairly'.

 

if anything this shows what you think is fair doesn't mean it's fair to others. weight? while at it i also say different tires would have different effect on the road as well. actually non-optimal tire pressure god knows might have effect too. ah and for cars that are lower to the ground, i say they should be taxed more coz' they tend to scrape the road more too

in the end that's why i don't debate on these, it will never end and it's always agree to disagree. and in my eyes, as stated, this is just another case of changing the laws just to get more money

 

I am not saying its wrong to include mileage used. It is wrong to just use that method and have no facts to support a change and just go with what some official said. Surely a mathematical formula could be created to more accurately figure out a fair way to raise revenue.

Why do so many people throw out socialism and soviets and other non relevant items when one asks for better planning? It's like reading Fox news. All I'm saying is the obvious, developers are in cahoots with the govt who awards contracts and they want more roads. America is simply developed very poorly b/c of them and the assumption of cheap gas.

I'm mean c'mon mahn! Americans were laughed at and crapped on for buying inefficient vehicles, then we were encouraged to buy more efficient vehicles, business make more efficient vehicles and now the REWARD is a big FU we need more money b/c you guys make better choices?

I don't mind a usage rate but looking at our tax code I doubt it would be fair. Imagine a loophole for 5,000 SUVs used for business. Well then everyone incorporates a business in Delaware and buys a SUV

It is of my opinion that these agencies are all full of **** trying to find more ways to raise revenue only to waste it. Roads might be great near you but in Miami many are horrid.

 

agreed!

shame on govt then, which should be ethical and not 'in cahoots' with anyone. as for the developers - if you're a road developer, then sure, you want to find any way possible to develop more roads! perhaps you think they should be looking at (or for) some 'bigger picture' and only build 'necessary' roads. personally i don't see any unnecessary roads. even if there are, it's debatable whether alternative 'planning' would be less costly. the govt wastes billions doing studies of studies to see if more studies are needed to study something.

i don't think america is poorly developed, and nor do thousands of immigrants who beg to come here each day/month/year. sure it's not perfect, but poorly compared to where?

and that's why govt should be out of social engineering as much as possible. because whatever they 'encourage' or penalize always has unintended consequences and will be 'gamed' by someone.

good point. wait - i'm incorporated in delaware, and i have an suv.

preach on brother!!!

well miami is still coming out of one of the worst housing disasters in the country, so local taxes were no doubt crushed the past few years which probably has a lot to do with it. i've no doubt it will come back. right now brazilians are buying up miami like crazy (yay!!!).

 

let me know when california is anywhere close to a balanced budget.

and enjoy the state income tax there.

and the vast state govt worker pension plans...

but back to the topic... i'm not saying what i said is the only fair way for things, of course there's many ways, but if a state/city/country has a sudden shortfall in taxes due to changing public behavior, it has to either lessen the services, get more efficient (ha!), or raise money some other way. seems to me doing everything for transportation through gasoline tax only is not perhaps the best approach. having said that, i would probably still favor INCREASING the gasoline tax here to making a complex new bureaucracy.

 

So? Current system is already unfair to higher consumption vehicle owners. I don't see it being any different if they just raise gas tax. If anything it will make people ask themselves "Should I buy more efficient car?" More efficient less pollution especially in state like Florida is a really good idea btw.

I do not have a solution for road maintenance problem but what are they proposing is not one either, as a matter of fact that problem is created by state for building way too many unnecessary roads instead of building efficient traffic flow. More lanes will not save you from congestion.

People who will get hit by this proposal are regular work commuters that don't make much money anyway. That's the flaw number one.

 

This is just another fundamental problem with government. It has the power to tax and spend and let's admit it, nobody likes to be taxed. It is however, something that is necessary if you want to provide for the public basic necessities.

Roads are a basic necessity and it's shameful our elected officials just can never get it right. I'm a believer that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Society benefits when there is more activity and commerce. If people drive more, this contributes in increased spending. When's the last time you left your house and didn't go to spend money somewhere? When you discourage people from driving, you are essentially discouraging people from spending money.

If they start charging for the amount of driving one does each year, you're basically making all public roads toll roads. Everytime I leave my house, I'm going to ask myself, how much do I really want to go from Point A to Point B? If I don't leave my house, I stay at home and don't spend money. Businesses that would have benefited would have been affected and the sales tax they would have collected would have been lost.

Let's not mention the social implications of unintended consequences. Who do you think this is going to affect more? The wealthy or the poor? An extra few hundred dollars a year for a guy making $200K a year is not a big deal, but for a guy making $30K a year, that's few days of work.

As with any tax that is levied on the public, it just continues to grow and grow over the years. Let's not forget, with every program that is implemented by the government, there is to be people hired in order to monitor it. That's more people that are being added to the payroll taxpayers will be burdened with. It just does not stop.

 

tsk tsk tsk. that's like saying acura is ugly so lexus can be ugly as well. so you saying no one in california should be allowed to discuss financial situation?

what you said is exactly what i think is wrong. just keep on increasing taxing or money collection with the goal of trying to achieve budget balance. the "ha" part of being more efficient is exactly what it should be.

 

So here is an article I just read about the toll roads here in Southern California. Of course revenue is down. The solution? RAISE tolls.

What planet are these people from? If a business were doing poorly, raising prices on their goods does one thing: drives down sales. But these people think other wise. (Palm to forehead now)

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...,3711891.story