Plan to tax drivers per mile hidden in $1.2 trillion bill

19 Republican Senators Approve Biden’s Plan To Tax Drivers PER MILE Hidden In $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

McConnell And 18 Other GOP Senators Approve Biden's Plan To Tax Drivers PER MILE Hidden In $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill - National File

Nineteen Republican senators voted to approve the Biden Administration's infrastructure bill on Tuesday that contains a plan to tax American drivers per mile to pay for the administration’s $1.2 trillion worth of social and economic justice initiatives. Establishment Republicans have long claimed they want to avoid divisive social issues and focus on tax cuts, but could not even deliver on that issue this week when given the opportunity.​

Senators Mitch McConnell (KY), Roy Blunt (MO), Richard Burr (NC), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Kevin Cramer (ND), Mike Crapo (ID), Deb Fischer Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), John Hoeven (ND), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rob Portman (OH), James Risch (ID), and Mitt Romney (UT) all voted for Biden's infrastructure package.​

The provision in the bill would fund a PILOT program, which would cost a few million dollars, to figure out the feasibility and best way of taxing American drivers per mile, something that will become more and more feasible in the near future with the vast majority of new cars being sold having built-in electronics with GPS and mobile phone interface.

Why would they want to fund this program if they didn't want to tax Americans per mile?

 

It is a pilot program to, in theory, replace gas taxes with mileage taxes to offset lost revenue from EV's. In practice, however, it will just end up being double taxation on those with gas vehicles.

 

I know some people will say a few million dollars is a small drop in the bucket, in the total scheme of things, but doesn't it irk you at all, just a little bit, that they are spending what 100 average people earn over the course of an entire year, just to be able to study yet another way to be able to tax us?

Is that a good use of tax money and resources?

 

Because they do want to. They just say they don't because they know they'd get voted out by the 'I only pay attention to football' and 'my state could never turn blue so why vote?' sort of folks.

...I'm so very glad I can keep old cars running. I'm sure they'll eventually mandate that even old cars get a tracker installed (thats prolly the day I become an 'outlaw'), but I figure there'll be a delay between activating the 'tax per mile' and actually enforcing it on older vehicles.

 

Well, I'd suggest they want to work out the most effective ways to collect taxes in a rapidly changing market. I don't see how in itself this is a specific concern though, it's a perfectly viable option. Why would the principle of paying per mile be fundamentally worse than paying per fuel volume? Either could be open to abuse but either (or some combined system) could be implemented reasonable and fairly.

 

Soon to be our national costume.........

 

Without seeing the specific details in the legislation its hard to judge. But since its included in an infrastructure bill I suspect the issue legislators are trying to deal with is the wear and tear vehicles of all sorts place on US road and bridge infrastructure every year. Its generally acknowledged that there has been chronic under-investment in US infrastructure (State and Federal) for decades and this is starting to become a major problem.

So the first question is to what extent have fuel taxes covered the cost and of road repair and maintenance in the US. Given the state of the roads I'd suggest the answer is no. (But then you also have the follow up question - were those taxes ever funneled back into road repair as they should have been to begin with?)

The second problem stems from the first. Even if fuel taxes were sufficient to cover the relevant costs the gradual electrification of road transport is going to steadily undermine that tax base. And that's even with far more vehicles being on the road today than was initially foreseen when the highway network was built.

So the problem has become how do you get motorists to pay for the roads they will using far into the future when to all intents and purposes there are no fuel taxes? Toll's, vehicle registration fees, some kind of 'charging' tax?

So, while I may be raining on peoples parade here I don't see a sinister conspiracy at play. Instead the legislators have just recognized a looming budgetary hole that needs to be addressed - somehow. And for once they're tying to get ahead of the curve and come up with a solution in advance of the problem. The question is, what will that solution be?

 

If such a mileage tax is meant to capture lost taxes from EVs, I'm sure that, upon implementation of a mileage tax, the government will immediately get rid of the gas tax, right??

Of course they won't, since they're foaming at the mouth at such an opportunity to double tax gasoline vehicle drivers. This is the way that these Satanic minds work...

Next up: add a tax to red meat... maybe even subsidize plant based "meat"...

 

Doesn't work that way. Assuming a steady transition away from petrol engines to EVs revenue from fuel taxes will decline over time while revenue from any kind of 'charging tax' would increase over the same period. All other factors being equal you end up with the same total revenue stream, just from a different tax. Cutting fuel taxes to zero would just slow down the transition while also reducing revenue at the same time, which is counterproductive.

Whether the income stream from taxes on fuel (or electricity) was ever or would ever be enough to cover the cost of maintaining the road network? That will have been calculated somewhere. My best would be that that traditional fuel taxes have never covered the cost of maintaining US roads.

So if that was the aim, well then taxes almost certainly need to go up (probably a lot) not down. (Provided of course that's where the pollies do put the revenue.) There's definitely an argument that perhaps they should be made to. People won't like paying higher taxes but they'll usually wear it in cases like this if they know all the money raised from the tax goes back into the public asset that generated the tax in the first place.

 

yep, once everyone goes electric, we still have to fund roads and won't be able to do it with a gas tax

 

it would make the most sense to only tax electric vehicles on registrations, you give them your millage, they compute your tax

 

So much for freely moving about the country, aye?

 

I thought that the extreme right LIKED the concept of FLAT taxes?

So WHAT has changed NOW they have the OPPORTUNITY to IMPLEMENT what is essentially a Flat Tax system to pay for our roads and bridges infrastructure?

The LIBERAL drivers in Toyota Prius' are paying LESS taxes than the rightwing drivers of the gas guzzling SUVs who are BOTH driving on the SAME roads and bridges.

So HERE is your OPPORTUNITY to come up with a BIPARTISAN Flat Tax.

You get to shaft the liberals with a TAX HIKE while REDUCING the taxes of the MAGA hat wearing pickup drivers.

Why are you having a problem with this concept?

 

Heaven forbid that we implement REASONABLE measures to collect taxes!

That same system could work for ALL vehicle registration renewals. The weight class of the vehicle rate times the mileage differential between registrations calculates the amount of taxes owed. If this becomes onerous then just set up a monthly payment plan to handle the amount owed.

 

You call this "reasonable"? Seems more like a massive intrusive invasion of privacy.

What was wrong with just the normal gas tax?

 

In Australia, petrol tax money goes towards building roads. So yes it's a great idea if you want roads to continue to be built and maintained with the EV evolution. Do you think these pay for themselves?

 

Was that supposed to be a meaningful comment to this discussion, or is your logic a little dusty today?

 

Yes,

I was addressing this: "Is that a good use of tax money and resources?"

I felt that you would know fully well that most petrol tax goes towards maintaining roads. So with EVs you need a substitute.

Perhaps I misunderstood your question, or you use a different taxation system in the US.


I confess it is confusing that they are putting these meters in cars that run on 'gas'

 

Do you care to explain how this has something to do with the issue in this thread discussion?

Is your argument that petrol taxes already exist to pay for roads, therefore putting monitors into all cars and taxing people by the mile is a good idea?

 

I don't know why they're putting them in all cars. When we know that I'll be able to answer the question.

 

EV vehicle owners would pay ZERO gas taxes!

Those who could NOT afford an EV would be paying 100% of the roads and bridges infrastructure taxes on gasoline.

How would that be "reasonable" in YOUR opinion?

Oh wait, YOU support the wealthy elite paying ZERO TAXES!

Nevermind!

 

You do realize there are taxes on electricity?

Besides, I thought the government wanted to subsidize electric vehicles in every way possible. Why would they be doing all this research to put an additional tax on them? That just doesn't make sense and does not seem like a realistically plausible explanation.

 

Thank you for CONFIRMING that you do NOT have a clear grasp of the relevant subject matter regarding infrastructure and taxes.

How are YOU going to DIFFERENTIATE between electricity used for normal every day domestic purposes and the electricity used to charge an EV?

 

you already give your millage to them every time you buy or sell a car, now you would just do it yearly

 

Why bother? Do you have any idea how much power electric cars use? It's probably going to be using up more than half the power in a typical home.
Electric rates will probably increase.

Besides, you greenies are presumably going to force a conversion to renewable energy (otherwise all these electric cars are not going to make any sense, as elaborated in other threads). That's going to drive up the price of electricity. Someone will have to pay for that.