Typical for the pigs at the trough. They want to punish people who save
fuel by taxing them more. Just more proof that they are paid and
sponsored by big oil:

Hybrids could pay more gas tax
U.S. to study tariffs on miles driven, not gallons purchased
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Wednesday, April 20, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




Washington -- The federal tax man has an eye on those increasingly
popular high- mileage vehicles, gas misers whose drivers love going
further between fill-ups and saving on sky-high gas prices.

The idea is simple but technologically daunting -- base gas taxes on
miles driven instead of on gallons of fuel bought. And advocates say
the reason for such a change is also simple -- although such
fuel-efficient vehicles as hot-selling hybrids pay less in gas taxes,
they're still out on the nation's roads contributing to congestion and
wear and tear on an aging infrastructure.

A switch in the way the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax is levied
could be in the offing, making it more of a user fee than a tax. By
unanimous voice vote, the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation
Tuesday to establish a 15-member commission to report back within two
years on ways to ensure enough tax revenue to pay for the nation's
highway, bridge and public transit programs.

High on the list the panel will consider is the per-mile fee that is
already the subject of a $1.25 million pilot project in Oregon that
will use a special "smart'' odometer coupled with a global positioning
system in every vehicle, a system invented at Oregon State University.

When the project begins later this year or early next year, every time
a volunteer motorist fills up, the odometer's information will be
electronically downloaded and the fee automatically added to the gas
purchase price at the pump, just like today's per-gallon gas taxes. The
GPS equipment tells the state when a vehicle has left Oregon, so
motorists won't be charged for those miles. Oregon figures it will
charge the volunteers 1.25 cents per mile in taxes.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration says the
idea of a gas-tax change isn't on his agenda.

"The bottom line is this is something that's not on the front burner or
back burner,'' said H.D. Palmer, state Department of Finance spokesman.
California has studied the idea in the past, and the Legislature would
have to approve any change to the current system.

Proponents of the new idea say increasing sales of fuel-efficient
vehicles are only partially offset by sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and
light trucks. The consumer changes affect the amount of money produced
by the federal gas tax, which raised about $15.4 billion in the 2004
fiscal year. They argue the amount isn't enough to keep pace with the
nation's growing infrastructure needs.

Opponents say the idea penalizes people for being more energy
efficient, and privacy advocates worry that tracking the movements of
motorists smacks of Big Brother.

"We support the effort to see how we're going to invest in
road-building, " said Matthew Jeanneret, spokesman for the American
Road and Transportation Builders Association. "There are not enough
resources available to meet our nation's transportation needs.''

His group endorsed studying the per-mile fee in 2001 and has also
called for increasing the federal tax, which was last raised in 1993.

Congress, which has failed to reauthorize the highway and transit
spending program that expired in 2003, is now considering a $284
billion, six- year program financed mainly by gas taxes. The bill will
include the proposal for the tax study commission.

Asked why fuel-efficient vehicles should pay more, Jeanneret said cars
and trucks "cause wear and tear to the system. The infrastructure still
takes a pounding.''

But the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials opposes the idea, questioning its premise. "We believe it is
a myth that the federal gas tax is becoming a less efficient source of
revenue,'' said spokeswoman Jennifer Gavin.

Gavin cited a Congressional Budget Office estimate of a 3.3 percent
annual increase in the federal gas tax's annual take, meaning that it
will total $20.9 billion by 2015. While hybrid vehicles are hot
sellers, Gavin said, they still account for a small piece of the U.S.
vehicle market and are forecast to account for 15 percent by 2020.

Instead of a per-mile fee, her group suggests that states get more
leeway to create toll roads on interstate highways.

After the Finance Committee vote that created the commission to study
transportation tax measures, the committee's chairman, Sen. Charles
Grassley, R-Iowa, approached the per-mile tax idea cautiously.

"I'm so attuned to actual per-gallon increases that I'm a
traditionalist, but I'm willing to let the commission study it and see
where they come out,'' he said.

In Oregon, the state Department of Transportation said it was pursuing
the mileage fee because the gas tax is a "declining source of
revenue.'' It also said it was aware of privacy concerns about
equipping cars with GPS technology.

"The Road User Fee Task Force is looking at several devices to
electronically calculate mileage and each of these devices can be
configured in such a way that will not allow tracking of a car's
movements,'' the department says on its Web site.

But privacy advocates are worried. "It's one more step to a
surveillance society,'' said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the San
Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The right to travel
freely without telling anyone is fundamental to our notions of
privacy.''

Kevin,

You need to learn how to read and understand before you cut and paste.

The study being completed by the Finance committee is one based upon the
pilot program in Oregon. The last I looked Oregon is not a bastion of
Republicans or are you suggesting Oregon Democrats are bought and paid for
by the oil companies. Both the Oregon and the Washington study is looking
into the benefits / disadvantages of a "user fee" based upon miles traveled
on highways.

Are you sure you and Jimcomma are not one and the same?


wrote in message
oups.com...
Typical for the pigs at the trough. They want to punish people who save
fuel by taxing them more. Just more proof that they are paid and
sponsored by big oil:

Hybrids could pay more gas tax
U.S. to study tariffs on miles driven, not gallons purchased
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Wednesday, April 20, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




Washington -- The federal tax man has an eye on those increasingly
popular high- mileage vehicles, gas misers whose drivers love going
further between fill-ups and saving on sky-high gas prices.

The idea is simple but technologically daunting -- base gas taxes on
miles driven instead of on gallons of fuel bought. And advocates say
the reason for such a change is also simple -- although such
fuel-efficient vehicles as hot-selling hybrids pay less in gas taxes,
they're still out on the nation's roads contributing to congestion and
wear and tear on an aging infrastructure.

A switch in the way the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax is levied
could be in the offing, making it more of a user fee than a tax. By
unanimous voice vote, the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation
Tuesday to establish a 15-member commission to report back within two
years on ways to ensure enough tax revenue to pay for the nation's
highway, bridge and public transit programs.

High on the list the panel will consider is the per-mile fee that is
already the subject of a $1.25 million pilot project in Oregon that
will use a special "smart'' odometer coupled with a global positioning
system in every vehicle, a system invented at Oregon State University.

When the project begins later this year or early next year, every time
a volunteer motorist fills up, the odometer's information will be
electronically downloaded and the fee automatically added to the gas
purchase price at the pump, just like today's per-gallon gas taxes. The
GPS equipment tells the state when a vehicle has left Oregon, so
motorists won't be charged for those miles. Oregon figures it will
charge the volunteers 1.25 cents per mile in taxes.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration says the
idea of a gas-tax change isn't on his agenda.

"The bottom line is this is something that's not on the front burner or
back burner,'' said H.D. Palmer, state Department of Finance spokesman.
California has studied the idea in the past, and the Legislature would
have to approve any change to the current system.

Proponents of the new idea say increasing sales of fuel-efficient
vehicles are only partially offset by sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and
light trucks. The consumer changes affect the amount of money produced
by the federal gas tax, which raised about $15.4 billion in the 2004
fiscal year. They argue the amount isn't enough to keep pace with the
nation's growing infrastructure needs.

Opponents say the idea penalizes people for being more energy
efficient, and privacy advocates worry that tracking the movements of
motorists smacks of Big Brother.

"We support the effort to see how we're going to invest in
road-building, " said Matthew Jeanneret, spokesman for the American
Road and Transportation Builders Association. "There are not enough
resources available to meet our nation's transportation needs.''

His group endorsed studying the per-mile fee in 2001 and has also
called for increasing the federal tax, which was last raised in 1993.

Congress, which has failed to reauthorize the highway and transit
spending program that expired in 2003, is now considering a $284
billion, six- year program financed mainly by gas taxes. The bill will
include the proposal for the tax study commission.

Asked why fuel-efficient vehicles should pay more, Jeanneret said cars
and trucks "cause wear and tear to the system. The infrastructure still
takes a pounding.''

But the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials opposes the idea, questioning its premise. "We believe it is
a myth that the federal gas tax is becoming a less efficient source of
revenue,'' said spokeswoman Jennifer Gavin.

Gavin cited a Congressional Budget Office estimate of a 3.3 percent
annual increase in the federal gas tax's annual take, meaning that it
will total $20.9 billion by 2015. While hybrid vehicles are hot
sellers, Gavin said, they still account for a small piece of the U.S.
vehicle market and are forecast to account for 15 percent by 2020.

Instead of a per-mile fee, her group suggests that states get more
leeway to create toll roads on interstate highways.

After the Finance Committee vote that created the commission to study
transportation tax measures, the committee's chairman, Sen. Charles
Grassley, R-Iowa, approached the per-mile tax idea cautiously.

"I'm so attuned to actual per-gallon increases that I'm a
traditionalist, but I'm willing to let the commission study it and see
where they come out,'' he said.

In Oregon, the state Department of Transportation said it was pursuing
the mileage fee because the gas tax is a "declining source of
revenue.'' It also said it was aware of privacy concerns about
equipping cars with GPS technology.

"The Road User Fee Task Force is looking at several devices to
electronically calculate mileage and each of these devices can be
configured in such a way that will not allow tracking of a car's
movements,'' the department says on its Web site.

But privacy advocates are worried. "It's one more step to a
surveillance society,'' said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the San
Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The right to travel
freely without telling anyone is fundamental to our notions of
privacy.''

"Yes, it's me" wrote in message
...
Kevin,

You need to learn how to read and understand before you cut and paste.

The study being completed by the Finance committee is one based upon the
pilot program in Oregon. The last I looked Oregon is not a bastion of
Republicans or are you suggesting Oregon Democrats are bought and paid for
by the oil companies. Both the Oregon and the Washington study is looking
into the benefits / disadvantages of a "user fee" based upon miles
traveled on highways.

Are you sure you and Jimcomma are not one and the same?



Kevin is being the typical liebral hypocrite.............taxing people for
using the roads more is "punishment" but taxing people are more
productive is somehow "fair"



wrote in message
oups.com...
Typical for the pigs at the trough. They want to punish people who save
fuel by taxing them more. Just more proof that they are paid and
sponsored by big oil:

Hybrids could pay more gas tax
U.S. to study tariffs on miles driven, not gallons purchased
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Wednesday, April 20, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




Washington -- The federal tax man has an eye on those increasingly
popular high- mileage vehicles, gas misers whose drivers love going
further between fill-ups and saving on sky-high gas prices.

The idea is simple but technologically daunting -- base gas taxes on
miles driven instead of on gallons of fuel bought. And advocates say
the reason for such a change is also simple -- although such
fuel-efficient vehicles as hot-selling hybrids pay less in gas taxes,
they're still out on the nation's roads contributing to congestion and
wear and tear on an aging infrastructure.

A switch in the way the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax is levied
could be in the offing, making it more of a user fee than a tax. By
unanimous voice vote, the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation
Tuesday to establish a 15-member commission to report back within two
years on ways to ensure enough tax revenue to pay for the nation's
highway, bridge and public transit programs.

High on the list the panel will consider is the per-mile fee that is
already the subject of a $1.25 million pilot project in Oregon that
will use a special "smart'' odometer coupled with a global positioning
system in every vehicle, a system invented at Oregon State University.

When the project begins later this year or early next year, every time
a volunteer motorist fills up, the odometer's information will be
electronically downloaded and the fee automatically added to the gas
purchase price at the pump, just like today's per-gallon gas taxes. The
GPS equipment tells the state when a vehicle has left Oregon, so
motorists won't be charged for those miles. Oregon figures it will
charge the volunteers 1.25 cents per mile in taxes.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration says the
idea of a gas-tax change isn't on his agenda.

"The bottom line is this is something that's not on the front burner or
back burner,'' said H.D. Palmer, state Department of Finance spokesman.
California has studied the idea in the past, and the Legislature would
have to approve any change to the current system.

Proponents of the new idea say increasing sales of fuel-efficient
vehicles are only partially offset by sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and
light trucks. The consumer changes affect the amount of money produced
by the federal gas tax, which raised about $15.4 billion in the 2004
fiscal year. They argue the amount isn't enough to keep pace with the
nation's growing infrastructure needs.

Opponents say the idea penalizes people for being more energy
efficient, and privacy advocates worry that tracking the movements of
motorists smacks of Big Brother.

"We support the effort to see how we're going to invest in
road-building, " said Matthew Jeanneret, spokesman for the American
Road and Transportation Builders Association. "There are not enough
resources available to meet our nation's transportation needs.''

His group endorsed studying the per-mile fee in 2001 and has also
called for increasing the federal tax, which was last raised in 1993.

Congress, which has failed to reauthorize the highway and transit
spending program that expired in 2003, is now considering a $284
billion, six- year program financed mainly by gas taxes. The bill will
include the proposal for the tax study commission.

Asked why fuel-efficient vehicles should pay more, Jeanneret said cars
and trucks "cause wear and tear to the system. The infrastructure still
takes a pounding.''

But the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials opposes the idea, questioning its premise. "We believe it is
a myth that the federal gas tax is becoming a less efficient source of
revenue,'' said spokeswoman Jennifer Gavin.

Gavin cited a Congressional Budget Office estimate of a 3.3 percent
annual increase in the federal gas tax's annual take, meaning that it
will total $20.9 billion by 2015. While hybrid vehicles are hot
sellers, Gavin said, they still account for a small piece of the U.S.
vehicle market and are forecast to account for 15 percent by 2020.

Instead of a per-mile fee, her group suggests that states get more
leeway to create toll roads on interstate highways.

After the Finance Committee vote that created the commission to study
transportation tax measures, the committee's chairman, Sen. Charles
Grassley, R-Iowa, approached the per-mile tax idea cautiously.

"I'm so attuned to actual per-gallon increases that I'm a
traditionalist, but I'm willing to let the commission study it and see
where they come out,'' he said.

In Oregon, the state Department of Transportation said it was pursuing
the mileage fee because the gas tax is a "declining source of
revenue.'' It also said it was aware of privacy concerns about
equipping cars with GPS technology.

"The Road User Fee Task Force is looking at several devices to
electronically calculate mileage and each of these devices can be
configured in such a way that will not allow tracking of a car's
movements,'' the department says on its Web site.

But privacy advocates are worried. "It's one more step to a
surveillance society,'' said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the San
Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The right to travel
freely without telling anyone is fundamental to our notions of
privacy.''

Kubez,
It can do both, but it's number one priority should be to support the
infrastructure. The numbnuts who started this thread is a LiberalTrash Borg
who scans for any headline he thinks we portray his enemy in a negative
light. The problem is this cut and paste'r does not have the intelligence
to understand what he is reading.


"Kubez" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

Typical for the pigs at the trough. They want to punish people who save
fuel by taxing them more.

I doubt you can provide any historical evidence that the gas tax was
initiated to encourage fuel economy. The clear and stated purpose of the
tariff was to support infrastructure. And in fact a wholly separate tax -
the "gas guzzler" levy - was implemented specifically to discourage the
purchase of fuel-hungry vehicles.

Now, let's assume two new, young drivers begin using the nation's roads,
one in a Prius hybrid and one in an Excursion SUV. As each driver
marries, purchases a home, commutes, drives to the grocery and to the
doctor's office, they will make EXACTLY THE SAME demands on increased road
construction, and similar demands on road maintenance.

It is true that the additional weight of the SUV will exact more wear per
mile on the infrastructure. But if the SUV gets 15 MPG and the Prius 45
MPG, it's obvious that the SUV driver is subsidizing the Prius driver,
since the SUV can't possibly cause three times the wear on the road that
the Prius does.

So the question is distilled to this: Should taxation be a method of
financing services by those who use them, or should taxation be a method
of punishing certain manners of legal behavior?