*Menu
Search
Submit
McCook Gazette
*

McCook Gazette

Our opinion

Editorial

Pay taxes by the mile?

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Providers of public services often have a conflict of interest.

The city, for instance, needs to have people use water from its expensive water treatment plant to pay off the debt of building it and keeping it in operation. Thus, while reducing water consumption by, say, switching from bluegrass to buffalo grass may be good public policy, it isn't in the best interest of the enterprise fund that provides city water.

The same goes for public power districts, which, while they may ask the public to reduce consumption at times of peak demand, at other times depend on that consumption for the income needed to maintain the infrastructure and generation required.

Now, while the government is encouraging companies to produce vehicles with better fuel mileage and drivers to buy them, roads budgets are suffering because they depend on taxes tied to declining fuel sales.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman was considering vetoing a bill that would divert state sales tax income to cover the shortfall in roads funding.

Now some groups are promoting a system -- known as vehicle-miles traveled tax -- which taxes drivers for every mile they drive, whether powered by fossil fuel, electricity or whatever motivation.

It's not a new idea; Oregon has run a pilot program and is considering a bill requiring all electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles traveling on state highways to pay .6 cents per mile. Texas and Minnesota are considering similar ideas.

Of course, despite the Texas interest, it's not a popular idea for states with vast distances and few people, such as Nebraska. Nor is it favored by civil libertarians, who worry about the government keeping track of every mile they travel, whether it's by GPS, scanner or some other system.

But it's clear the present system of taxing fuel isn't going to work much longer.

Comments
View 6 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

  • I would agree that it is much less popular in a place like McCook where a person thinks little of traveling 60 miles for an event, say supper or to watch a sporting event, because there is such a vast distance between population hubs. However, should I, as a free man, choose not to utilize roads any more than I have to, I would like to have that control over where my tax dollar goes versus paying for the man who travels some 100,000 miles a year for his job or other reasons. Granted, the costs incurred by trucks delivering necessities to these remote locations WILL be passed to the consumer no matter what. NOTE: I using a RANDOM number for the sake of thought! If a truck drives 100,000 miles in one year: 100,000 * .006 is $600 extra that will be passed to the consumer. Extrapolate that times the number of trucks in a fleet.

    In summation, I am on the fence regarding paying more taxes for anything, but I do wish to have control of where those taxes go. If I was taxed based on the number of miles that were driven, I would have control over that. However, I don't necessarily like the idea of Big Brother tracking that either...

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 1:05 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
  • *

    The Federal Government is nothing more then an infinitely dried sponge that will continue to suck whatever form of income they can dream up out of the tax payer. Until the Federal Government is put into check, people will continue to be bullied into paying more taxes.

    Ever heard the term...too many chiefs and not enough indians!!!

    Cuts should start at the top and trickle downard, not the other way around as it works now.

    -- Posted by cplcac on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 2:19 AM
    ! Report comment to editor

  • You just pointed out one of the main partisan problems! One party is against "top down" and in my opinion, the other (to which I tend to adhere) believes in "trickle down" economics. Now, if some of the posters on Michael Hendrick's blog read my statement, they will attempt to tear it apart because cuts and spending are likely two different things when it comes to "trickle down" economics. However, for the sake of argument, I think it can be generalized here.

    I agree with you cplcac, our representatives keep demonstrating to us that they are above the system by providing themselves with endless retirement benefits no matter their time in office and a different healthcare system (and this can be another argument in itself).

    Another problem I have lately are all of these "waivers" for Obamacare for Unions and companies like McDonalds and a bunch of smaller companies of whom I've never heard. Pretty soon, no one will have to actually abide by the new healthcare system foisted on America and leave but a few people to go broke paying for it.

    I am pretty sure I still made no logical argument for or against anything in this post, rather just stated opinions.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 9:01 AM
    ! Report comment to editor

  • Maybe it's time to figure out a more durable road? Clearly that's the only option no one will argue with.

    -- Posted by npwinder on Thu, Jun 2, 2011, at 12:22 AM
    ! Report comment to editor

  • We have, its called steel. Problem is, we can't get trains to the loading docks at Wal-Mart. Then we have concrete, but even that is not cost-effective. I heard about a study once that stated: 1 semi tractor-trailer does the equivalent amount of damage to a road as 11,000 passenger cars. I think if you look around on NDOR website or call a representative, my numbers aren't really as atrocious as they seem. However, that doesn't mean I am arguing against the trucker, we need them.

    We are always going to have to maintain roads anyway. I can't begin to assume, npwinder, what you know or don't know about our roads (or roads in general) in Nebraska, so I apologize if I'm saying things you consider fundamental knowledge. But we are putting a foot (at most) of condensed rock on top of an ever-shifting foundation. Moreover, Nebraska's winters do not stay cold enough to keep the ground frozen for the duration of the season so we get thaw/freeze/thaw/freeze, etc. Have you seen the Grand Canyon? water is a powerful thing and when it gets into the roads, concrete or not, they're going to need fixing. Have you ever driven stretches of I-90 in South Dakota? Some of that stuff is 30 years old and nary a crack. Its a little uneven, no doubt, but its the original pavement. Why? because when they freeze, they stay frozen, and they have a fraction of the traffic that I-80 through Nebraska sees.

    I think what I wrote above is only a part of the issue, as I am sure there is more to it. Like I said, if we put the cost onto the people who drive the most miles (I am assuming it would be truckers) they will pass that cost on to the next man be it the grocery store or directly to me, the consumer. I guess I say refer to cplcac's post above.

    As for the railroad, as far as I understand, steel on steel is still the most efficient way to ship goods across this great country. However, I am also under the impression that some of the companies themselves are extremely inefficient. I don't know if that's due to unionization or what. Anyway, that's all I have for now.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 2, 2011, at 8:27 AM
    ! Report comment to editor

  • If the mileage tax becomes a reality will the federal and state gasoline tax be eliminated?

    -- Posted by eagle53 on Fri, Jun 3, 2011, at 3:10 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: