If the crazies that surface in Kansas public policy debates vex you, take heart from this gas story in the Albany, Ore., Democrat-Herald.
The governor of Oregon, Gov. Ted Kulongoski, wants to put the eye of government in all vehicles and tax them by mileage driven, rather than the conventional state gasoline tax used there and in other states, like Kansas.
Now, in addition to all the personal privacy issues and potential for abuse this nutty idea raises, it also puts the hammer again to the beleaguered transportation industry.
My heart goes out to those folks: We can’t as a country allow them to enjoy a few months of lower fuel prices. Instead, bureaucrats hungry for the tax dollar go back to the drawing board to see what they can siphon off an industry whose increased costs end up clobbering each and every one of us.
I’ve got a better idea: Let’s tax politicians by the stupid and self-serving public policy ideas they develop.
There wouldn’t be a dirt road in America.
9 Comments
I have several issues with this quite apart from privacy concerns. It appears that they want to charge a per-mile amount regardless of vehicle weight. However, weight also factors into high-way wear-and-tear. Fuel consumed is a better measure of the combination of miles driven and weight of vehicle.
In addition, we shuold be ENCOURAGING citizens to find ways to conserve fuel and use alternatives. This does the opposite. If the state needs to maintain revenues in the face of declining consumption simply raise the per-gallon amount. Let the gas-hog Hummers pay for both their mileage AND their additional demands on the roadways.
One of my colleagues has floated the idea of taxing by the private vehicle – which wouldn’t be very popular with the Hummer crowd – and exempting the transportation industry.
Don’t know how that works out.
Actually that WOULD be popular with the Hummer crowd – they would love to see efficienf lighter vehicles charged just as much as their overly heavy gas-hog smog-belchers.
I didn’t express that last idea well: The notion is taxing based on fuel efficiency = the bigger the gas guzzler, the bigger your tax bill.
Good. In that case it makes sense. Remember, the ‘light truck loophole’ also impacts smog. That is one of the main reason that smog is getting worse across the country. Wichita is on the cusp of non-compliance.
Isn’t that what the fuel tax is? A tax on the consumption of fuel by volume? So if you have a gas guzzler you will pay more taxes.
They give exemptions to farmers for off-road diesel. Other than that, I think the system of consumption based fuel tax is the fairest and easiest to implement.
If you do it by make/model of automobile, it will not take long for lobbyist groups to bring in a load of exemptions and then you have a paperwork compliance nightmare.
Just keep it simple.
Yeah, I think you certainly can make an argument that the fuel tax is the best way to tax consumption.
But … we all know that special interests are constantly looking for ways to shift the tax burden, usually away from themselves.
Joe – I agree. That is why I supported keeping the fuel tax version. “Fuel consumed is a better measure of the combination of miles driven and weight of vehicle.”
An electric car becomes an interesting question – how would you ‘fuel tax’ it?
I’ve got a great idea !
Let’s spend hundred$ of million$ so we can create a new tax structure. Let’s ignore ALL the existing simple and accurate gas taxes and see if we can come up with something that will cost a ridiculous amount of money before even one red cent is realized in tax revenue.
DUH. Kulongoski is an IDIOT.