Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cashinmattress

Obama Administration Floats Draft Plan To Tax Cars By The Mile

Recommended Posts

Link

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration.

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”

News of the draft follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.

The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

The proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

The department seemed to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.

The new office would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.

Well, since America has decentralised the hell out of itself with it's unique suburban nightmare, this will definitely make a the government a lot of money.

One to watch I reckon, and surely the UK is not far off doing something similar.

May put a few noses out of joint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very Owellian. Much simpler to increase the tax on petrol then more wasteful cars pay more.

Well, the tax on petrol is already penalizing anyone who puts a lot of miles in for their job, etc...

Good time for you to look out 'The End of Suberbia; Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream'.

The notion of the massive 1950's estates and nearly empty freeway commutes has long been relegated to the history books there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given such schemes have been proposed here for at least as long as Two Jags was transport minister ie 1997 and made zero inroads, the chances of this getting anywhere in big brother adverse USA is surely zilch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given such schemes have been proposed here for at least as long as Two Jags was transport minister ie 1997 and made zero inroads, the chances of this getting anywhere in big brother adverse USA is surely zilch?

Surly this is just laying the road for a tax on petrol. They can float this idea then out of nowhere someone will say "wouldn't it be easier to tax petrol" then someone says "no" for some fluffy ideological view that sounds better than it is, then the person that said no implements the tax on petrol as there own idea. I think that's how democracy and politicians work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much simpler to increase the tax on petrol then more wasteful cars pay more.

It depends what your objectives are. You need to read about the UN initiative called Agenda 21 to understand the logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what your objectives are. You need to read about the UN initiative called Agenda 21 to understand the logic.

Looking briefly at the context of Agenda 21, increasing the price of petrol would seem to fit the bill..

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions

- which deals with combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, change population and sustainable settlement

Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development

- Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), and control of pollution.

Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups

- Includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and workers.

Section IV: Means of Implementation

- Implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.

It means you pay exactly proportionally to the amount of resource you use, is very easy to implement and relatively hard to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right-Wing Media Freak Out Over Nonexistent Obama Proposal To Impose Mileage Tax.

The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration.

"This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president's senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason this would make sense (instead of just adding the tax to petrol) would be if you had some alternative to petrol that was much cheaper and somehow difficult to tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking briefly at the context of Agenda 21, increasing the price of petrol would seem to fit the bill..

It means you pay exactly proportionally to the amount of resource you use, is very easy to implement and relatively hard to avoid.

The idea is to get people to live in towns and use public transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason this would make sense (instead of just adding the tax to petrol) would be if you had some alternative to petrol that was much cheaper and somehow difficult to tax.

+1 - enter electric cars.......

IIRC the tech for this has been trialed and tested more than 15 years ago and nearly every modern car already has the cellular tech required to make it work.,..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is to get people to live in towns and use public transport.

Makes it easier to "liquidate" us when we;re in urban ghettos.

Celente, denninger, all the realists agree that when currency collapse comes, the cities will be the first to fall.

Urban based living is a sure path to distaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surly this is just laying the road for a tax on petrol. They can float this idea then out of nowhere someone will say "wouldn't it be easier to tax petrol" then someone says "no" for some fluffy ideological view that sounds better than it is, then the person that said no implements the tax on petrol as there own idea. I think that's how democracy and politicians work.

That was also my reaction, the tax raising potential of upping petrol duty for the US is huge.

It's worth remembering that the average car journey is the same in the UK as in the US in mileage terms. Some people here assume that every time an American leaves their house, they're on a 3,000 mile trip across the badlands.

Maybe even less, I have family there and they mentioned their neighbour had a new job and was driving lots of miles. It was about 15k IIRC which is not what I call a lot over here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes it easier to "liquidate" us when we;re in urban ghettos.

Celente, denninger, all the realists and all the other foaming at the mouth apocalypse-loving mentalists agree that when currency collapse comes, the cities will be the first to fall.

Urban based living is a sure path to distaster.

Corrrected for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it could be opposed on the grounds that it unfairly penalises those that live in the countryside and must use a car for basics. Fortunately my nearest supermarket is only 15 miles away. Still too far to walk with shopping and there is no public transport. You can be sure the townies will object to paying to run a public transport system in the countryside equal to that in town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason this would make sense (instead of just adding the tax to petrol) would be if you had some alternative to petrol that was much cheaper and somehow difficult to tax.

Who killed the electric car?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39K36Rw7LYc

Difficult to tax, yes, as well as against the wishes of oil companies (and thus government).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason this would make sense (instead of just adding the tax to petrol) would be if you had some alternative to petrol that was much cheaper and somehow difficult to tax.

Water powered cars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as in the US they pay about 50p per litre compared to the UK's 135p per litre there's plenty of scope for an increase. They seem terrified to increase the actual petrol price in the US whereas any old increase is deemed ok for UK people. It's like the housing.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as in the US they pay about 50p per litre compared to the UK's 135p per litre there's plenty of scope for an increase. They seem terrified to increase the actual petrol price in the US whereas any old increase is deemed ok for UK people. It's like the housing.

The citizens of the US have the right to bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.