Green Taxes
 

A few European countries have or will be implementing a tax per vehicle based on the number of miles driven. It is called an eco-tax or green-tax. The distance will be measured electronically through a GPS device in the car. The plan suggests that such tax will reduce traffic congestion and will encourage people to either take public transportation or do carpooling. The Netherlands adopted it and are trying it out. The UK and Belgium have similar proposals ready. What do you all think about this new idea of "Green Taxes"?

Ignoring the facts that taxes are inefficient and are not good at influencing behavior? In the case of a driving tax, I'm for it. I hate to drive and am thankful for any plausible excuses I can find that would allow me to sell my car and move to a pedestrian/cycle friendly city.

Sadly, driving is a fact of life in Montana.

The tax would have to be fairly high to put a dent into America's love of the automobile.

A high "green tax" would be hard on the working poor and people living in the Rocky Mountain west. Out here there is no public transportation to speak of. You have to drive your car or else stay at home.

I would not be in favor of this tax. And I'm a liberal (gasp :eek:).

I would guess that given the public transport in Europe is really better than what we have here in the states, as far as availability anyway, maybe it is more feasible. But even when I used public transport in the UK they were packed to capacity during peak hours. They would have to add trains or more frequent stops to make it work.

We do have some serious driving distances for normal work in the US.

We have it already and so do the Europeans in spades, it's called gas tax. If the Europeans are still driving, at three times the price of gas we have, this will further incent them to not actually be productive -- and the Japanese will be the last ones standing with an automotive industry.

Seems this tax is in addition to the gas tax based on milage the car is driven. Yea, that is what we need, government installed gps in all our cars.

Given that there already is a whopping tax on petrol (what is this "gas" that your cars run on? is it environmentally friendly?), installing tracking devices to tax per kilometer seems massively inefficient and intrusive. Just jacking up the fuel tax would more directly hit those who are least green (which is the supposed objective) without wasting heaps of money on GPS gizmos which, I feel sure, someone is already hacking.

Comparing driving solutions in Europe and the US is comparing apples to oranges and most "European solutions" will fail miserably in the United States. It is technically possible to live without a car in big US cities but it is extremely difficult and hindering. It would be a complete impossibility for anyone living in the suburbs or rural areas.

If this tax was used in unison with many other initiatives to reduce driving, I might be more supportive but I am extremely skeptical of any single solution that will help against the number of miles people have to drive. Honestly, to really lower the amount of driving miles in the US, the complete re setup of our city and suburban infrastructure will probably be needed. People need to work, school, and shop close to where they live to really lower the amount of driving. This solution is obviously idealistic, but anything else will just fail and hurt millions of rural, suburban, and other Americans in the process.

The more I think about it, the more fuel efficient cars need to be rationally pushed. Driving miles can be reduced, but not by much. Fuel efficiency can be changed though.

And our mass transport system could be significantly upgraded. But given that it was among the many promises of the current administration I don't think they can pull it off. So many of the capital improvement projects have a significant history of cost over runs and years of delay.

They dropped the ball on that when they wasted all that cash for clunkers money on nominally better cars.

Yes, mass transit needs to be improved alongside fuel efficiency but mass transit will still only have limited benefits.

In Minneapolis we have a good light rail system that can take people from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America. It is extremely efficient if you want to get to either of those two areas and you live close to the rail line. But, if you do not want to go to either of those two places or you do not live close to the rail line, it is useless. Obviously setting up more of these light rail systems will have a positive impact on the city, they are planning on building more, but they are still limited and will continue to be until our city demographic infrastructure is changed.

I don't much about Cash for Clunkers but I'm assuming it was just a stupid idea to begin with. A quick "fix" that made it look like the Obama administration was doing something. I could be wrong though. Long term strategies need to be developed, which unfortunately, is extremely difficult for politicians running four to six years a term.

A bit of history (just for the hell of it).

It was Reagan who more than doubled that federal gax tax (from $.04 to $.09) in the 80s:
GHW Bush then raised it another 50% to $.14...then Clinton added a few more pennies.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/...mb-550x434.jpg

It hasnt been raised since 1993 and IMO, it wouldnt hurt to raise it again and to focus the additional funds on developing and supporting energy efficient technologies (w/ most of the funds still going to infrastructure improvement as initially envisioned).

Who cares whom raised them or how much. We are talking about today and now not about an economy from 20 years ago.

whom raised them?
:biglaugha

Historical perspective, dude.

And, more to the point, I'll repeat:

It hasnt been raised since 1993 and IMO, it wouldnt hurt to raise it again and to focus the additional funds on developing and supporting energy efficient technologies (w/ most of the funds still going to infrastructure improvement as initially envisioned).

Try to focus.

I never mentioned anything about party affiliation in this discussion.

I would love to see Obama triple them! It would be great for his reputation for protecting the little guy who drives a truck for a living. Not.

Right...I forgot that you are a non-partisan man of the people (the little guys) and not one to blame Obama for every ill currently facing the country. :eek:

The one proposal floating around is for a 10 cent increase....not tripling the tax.

And it has the support of the trucking industry...that recognizes that bottlenecks, congestion, accidents, etc. resulting from deteriorating roads costs truckers $billions/year.

I was taught that if you can answer the question (Who raised them?) with "Him", then you use "Whom", otherwise you use "Who". [/nazi]

Sorry, that dog will not hunt. Obama and non-partisan man of the little people cannot be used in the same sentance. Obama is neither.

I guess we can just ask our resident trucker on the Cellar what he thinks about that. To bad the stimulus that was suppose to fix those problems hasn't worked or your guys would not have to come up with another scheme to screw everyone with new taxes.

point taken. :p

You're the man.... and anyone left of you is a socialist out to screw the people. :thumb:

Nope, I just don't buy your Demoncratic popaganda. But have at it enjoy spewing the Party line. :thumb: :D

In fact, it was the Republican-majority National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing that recommended the 10 cent/ gal increase earlier this year (before Obama took office).

Because they, and every interested observer, recognized that motorists are driving less and buying less gas, which means the taxes that are dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund aren't raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road/bridge repair and transit programs.

What? for two and a half weeks, not to include holidays? :lol:

And they are as big of dicks as you and your Party are. To bad most of the problems with our roads and bridges are not a Federal issue but a state issue. Which makes your idea sound even more stupid. Tax and spend, tax and spend... How about that stimulus and all those jobs you guys have created. What was the Obama quote?....

Instead of calling people dicks, you might want to read up on the Highway Trust Fund supported by all presidents and both parties in Congress since its inception.

MARCH 4, 2009

Raising the Federal Gas Tax Is a No-Go

continues:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123611793346923071.html

Really?

Like this guy:

Bush rejects raising gas tax for now

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20196442/

Or how about this guy?

Obama Administration Proposes Substituting Federal Gas Tax with New Model Based On Miles Driven

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/9057

I know, you must have been talking about this guy!

US sec transport LaHood: 'No' gas tax hike, more tolls, private, ex-box think

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4037

:lol:

I agree it is not gonna happen...that doesnt mean it is not necessary as the Commission acknowledges.

And, the "Democrats are dicks" is just more of your endless partisan rhetoric.

Political advocacy rule number 3 -- When you resort to name-calling and attacking the messenger, rather than addressing the message (policy)....you're credibility is the only thing that suffers.

Political advocacy rule number 4 -- make the case for your position in you own words..and not by flooding the discussion with external links that no one will bother to read. :)

Is that your excuse?

Not partisan. Just obvious.

You obviously don't follow your own rules about gibberish.

I lend credibility to the discussion by quoting those with credentials. You on the other hand really don't have any. None that I can see anyway. You are as faceless and nameless as the rest of us.

I know! that is why you quote the Demoncratic Party line! Why of course... :lol:

Keep those posts coming, Merc!

You're making my case for me every time.

:jig:

How is that job stimulus coming along.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009

The stimulus program is an 18-24 month program.

Unlike the partisan hacks on the right who judge a program to have failed even before it has been fully implemented, I will withhold judgement until the funds are fully allocated and expended. :)

Tell it to the unemployed and those who keep losing jobs as the Obama Administration continues to lie to the public about job formation.

Political advocacy rule number 5 - When all you do is point fingers, assign blame, and intentionally ignore context.. and never offer constructive solutions, you are exposed as a partisan.

This is fun...I see a book coming out of this....Political Advocacy for Dummies.

I'll send you an autographed copy. :)

Political advocacy rule number 5a - When all you do is spew forth the party line you are exposed as a partisan.

Sounds Great! I have a great idea for it. Should I send you pictures?:lol:

My apologies to the community for the distraction...even if some found it marginally entertaining and others who are probably bored with the same old crap.

Now back to "green" taxes discussion.

You mean more about the gas tax? Nobody wants it, no one will support more taxes on gas at a federal level.

Nobody wants it? No one will support it? So now you speak for everyone, huh?

Two commissions appointed by the last Republican majority Congress want it.

The American Trucking Association supports it.

The American Highway Users Alliance supports it.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials support it.

The American Society of Civil Engineers support it.

And that fact is...we need it.

And you and your Party is not going to get it. Unless that Nazi Pelosi slips it in sight unseen.

Actually, while I would not support a mileage tax, I would support a raise in the federal tax on gasoline. My state seems to spend more on highway maintenance and construction than it does on anything else. A boost in federal assistance would free up state monies to go to other things like education and certain health care programs.

BTW, its OK to be partisan, Merc. We all know you are, anyway. You protest too much. ;)

Your state increase in Tax would help your state. A federal tax would only go to the Interstate. It would do little to repair the nations ailing roads and bridges, most of which are state owned and maintained.

I am more anti-partisan which includes the current party in power.

Not quite.

The Highway Trust Fund taxes go to the National Highway System...not just the Interstate highways, but numerous others highways, roads and bridges in rural and urban areas.

The National Highway System, while only accounting for a small percentage of total roads, carries most of the traffic that is critical to the economy.

Most of the federal gas tax revenue is dedicated to the Interstate, but $billions go to the states for maintenance of state-administered roads in the National Highway System.

States receives federal funding for the construction and maintenance of highways, emergency road repairs, safety projects, and other programs.

In addition to regular federal highway funding, states also anticipate receiving transportation funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This includes grants to rural transit programs. So federal funding is not all about interstates.

It makes reimbursements, states have to pony up the money. States have to ask for it in the form of vouchers which are submitted to the feds. It no way covers the small state roads and bridges.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06572t.pdf

Most of it goes to Federal Highways, some of it to mass transit. But by and large road projects are funded in each state by a majority of State funds, not federal dollars, unless it is a Federal highway.

Nope.

The Highway Trust Fund revenue is dedicated to the Interstate Highway System and "certain other roads" (and mass transit).

Those "certain other roads" being those roads/highways (and bridges) in the National Highway System. The Interstate makes up about 30% of the NHS...the bulk of the System are roads/highways (many two lane highways) administered by the states and eligible for federal funding from the Trust Fund.

Overall, the NHS include only about 4 percent of the nation's roads, but they carry more than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic, and 90 percent of tourist traffic.....ie these are critical to the nation's economy.

Sorry your numbers are not supported by the facts. It is estimated that a states road income comes from 55% HTF and Gas tax. The gas tax includes that which is administered by states.

The 55% of HTF pays for the 4% (approx) of the roads (NHS, including the Interstate)...and the state gas tax pays for the other 96 percent of state roads.

It is those 4% of the roads/highways in the NHS that are most critical to the economy and thus are included in the HTF.

When the HTF is depleted those state-administered roads in the NHS suffer the consequences.

How about that, the GAO has states that the money was also diverted for other costs and spending as well.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09729r.pdf

That is what I said. The majority of state roads and bridges are paid for by the state.

The fact remains that the HTF is not sustainable at the current tax rate...and why many believe, particularly those with a direct interest (like the trucking industry), that an increase (the first in 15 years) is needed.

No..you said the HTF only pays for the Interstate System. (Merc: "A federal tax would only go to the Interstate. It would do little to repair the nations ailing roads and bridges")

The 4% of the most critical ailing roads and bridges are funded through the HTF.

Ok. Can you back it up? Let me see your data from the GAO or DOT.

Well the majority of it is not going to the roads and bridges...

linked above

From the GAO

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06554.pdf

Colorado, at least, does get federal funding to pay for all sorts of highway projects that do not include the interstates. More federal assistance would free up state tax monies to go to other things besides road construction. I don't think Colorado is alone in this respect.

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/con...ghway-projects

Sigh....No again.

You are reading it incorrectly. The majority IS going to roads and bridges.

The last HTF expenditures were authorized under the SAFETEA act and included more than $240 billion over those five years (2004-08).

If $28 billion (out of the total $244 billion of HTF during those years was for purposes other than highways)....that means, almost 90% of the $244 billion went to highways. In fact, that $28 billion sounds way to low to me.

Cites? Nope...you have demonstrated repeatedlty that you wont accept any data other than your own.

It is the GAO's data, not mine. As I stated before, the majority of roads and bridges in a state are paid for by the state, not the federal gov. The projects which are consistantly approved for funding from the Fed via the trust fund are interstates, as the GAO report other things and roads are paid for as well. The 90% you site still is not the majority of the expenditures of money for a particular road in a state, those are by state funding as reported in the GAO report cited above.

You have yet to support your numbers. If you have the numbers I will be glad to look at them.

Yes, that is also in the one of the GAO reports I cited, many states are in the same boat. It is apparently an acceptable use of the funds.

Honesty, if it were anyone else, I would provide the data.

The fact remains that the HTF pays for highways, roads, bridges in the NHS.

I just have the patience or interest to continue this discussion with you.

Take that anyway you want.

From another GAO report:

http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf1/159940.pdf