New DMV Head Advocates Tax On MilesDriven

The KCRA Channel ^ | November 16, 2004 | staff

[absalom01]

New DMV Head Advocates Tax On Miles Driven

Joan Borucki Is Veteran Of State Transportation Programs

POSTED: 10:16 am PST November 16, 2004
UPDATED: 6:19 pm PST November 16, 2004
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Tired of high gas prices? Right now, drivers are paying a tax of 18 cents for every gallon of gas bought. The new chief of the state Department of Motor Vehicles has an idea that would wipe out the gas tax, but at what cost?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's newly appointed director of the DMV, Joan Borucki, wants to charge people for every mile they drive.Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that the idea has yet to receive in-depth consideration, but talk of a "mileage tax" is causing a political commotion.Honda dealer Katina Rapton says that the idea of an "mileage tax" is crazy, and that California already requires the manufacture and sale of clean-burning, fuel-efficient cars, which cost consumers more to drive off the lot."To me it doesn't make much sense," Rapton said. "And then turn around and penalize them on the backside for using their cars and getting better gas mileage? It doesn't make much sense."The mileage could be tracked with a device placed in the car. It's an idea that Borucki included in the governor's recently completed California Performance Review. The idea is echoed by transportation planners.

"We have to go to another device because we can't continue to rely on the gas tax in its current form, because we're using less gasoline as the price of gas goes up," said Mineta Transportation Institute spokesman Rod Diridon Sr.But Schwarzenegger, who was in Stockton Tuesday, was talking cautiously."I know the idea that has been talked about. But I don't know exactly what that would mean and what effect it would have exactly. So, I want to think it through before I make a commitment on that," Schwarzenegger said.The idea could be politically explosive for the governor who was elected, in part, on his pledge to roll back the state's car tax.Highly fuel-efficient cars like the Honda Civic would be most dramatically impacted if the idea goes forward because the driver would be charged for the miles driven, not the gas consumed.

[ThinkDifferent]

This idiotic idea keeps popping up, and I'm having a really hard time seeing a reasonable justification for it other than wanting to be able to track everyone's movements. If the gas tax isn't bringing in enough money, then raise it. There's no need to invent a new tax and spend millions on the infrastructure to support it.

[B Knotts]

None of these Big Brother advocates has explained why the gas tax can't simply be raised, if they predict shortfalls.

[U S Army EOD]

We already have something simular to that. It is called tax on gasoline.

[shubi]

We need to go to hydrogen, with no tax on it. That will force them to cut agencies and expenses that are useless or worse enslave our people.

[JesseJane]

BAH!

If they predict shortfalls, they should cut spending.. either get rid of a staffer or 20, pay their own heath insurance, or close down for 6 months.

Raising taxes is NOT THE ANSWER, so STOP suggesting it.

[B Knotts]

What they are trying to do is to restrict/discourage driving.

I'm guessing that they are afraid that people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles and continue to drive more and more miles, and that the gas tax won't be sufficient to discourage that behavior, even if raised.

But they'll never admit that.

If they really want people to drive less miles, they should get serious about encouraging telecommuting for those sectors in which it would make sense.

[Meldrim]

Not good news for folks in rural areas. May be it time to convert to corn oil...

[B Knotts]

I don't think you understand my point.

If this were truly a matter of insufficient revenue, they would simply proposed an increased gas tax.

But, that's not what this is about.

It's about bureaucrats trying to force you to drive less.

[CaptRon]

Read Joan Borucki's new book, How to Totally Suffocate the Economy of An Entire Nation, a 'can't miss' according the the New York Times and the Amercian environmentalists!

[steplock]

Time to reactivate the TAR & FEATHER motivation for ignorant "public servants"!

Every time one comes up with one of these asinine ideas or proposals -- out comes the feathers and fire up the tar!

Riding them out on the rail is only for the celebration afterwards.

[RFEngineer]

"What they are trying to do is to restrict/discourage driving"

They know people in California have to drive. It's no more an attempt to restrict/discourage driving than tobacco taxes are an attempt to restrict/discourage smoking.

It's all about the revenue they think they can collect. Nothing more, nothing less.

[B Knotts]

And here is how they'll structure the fees:

First 5,000 miles per year: $0.02/mile
5,000-10,000 miles: $0.04/mile
10,000-20,000 miles: $0.08/mile
over 20,000 miles: $0.12/mile

[AVNevis]

Excellent comentary by State Sen. Tom McClintock on his site www.tommclintock.com. States my argument much better than I.

[B Knotts]

If it were about revenue, why wouldn't they just raise the tax?

[JesseJane]

I know what they are up to.. Force you to drive cars that make them feel better, environmentally speaking, but winning control of your transportation choices. Having succeeded in that, NOW, PUNISH YOUR BUTT for having to drive long distances for jobs, since your own community jobs DRIED UP BECAUSE OF HOSTILE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTS. Believe me I get it.. still... raising taxes is NEVER EVER EVER THE ANSWER... there are too many people to do not carry their own weight, in the LAST PLACE, and in first place is government waste, fraud, perks, and pay for non-performance.. Promises to government unions is sucking CA into the bowels of bankruptcy.. Scaaaaaaaaaarewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ANY TALK of raising taxes..

[ThinkDifferent]

What they are trying to do is to restrict/discourage driving.

That does make sense. Of course, if they were really interested in solving traffic problems they'd look at ideas like congestion pricing, rather than charging the same amount per mile during rush hour and at midnight. So it looks like this is a Big Brother program to track us, or an environmentalist wacko social engineering scheme to make us ride bicycles. (And those aren't mutally exclusive).

[absalom01]

This seems like Arnold is sending up a trial balloon, to try to found out the nature and extent of the opposition to this. (Makes me glad I voted for McClintock.)

The potential for this to be abused from a privacy as well fiscal standpoint is huge.

[Dog Gone]

We need to go to hydrogen, with no tax on it.

The question is how to fund roads and their repairs. We all bitch about roads, but none of us want to pay to fix them or build new ones.

[AVNevis]

Since the link apparently didn't work, I'll just post McClintock's commentary here:

Highway Robbery

The new DMV director has proposed scrapping California's current fuel tax
and instead substituting a tax based on the miles you drive.

A bit of background: California's highways have traditionally been funded by
fuel taxes - principally an 18-cent per gallon excise tax and a sales tax
that averages 7.9 percent. It is simple and efficient to collect and
provides a rough approximation of proportional use: the heavier the vehicle
or the more it is used, the more fuel it uses and the more tax it pays.
This system also provides a natural discount to the most
fuel-efficient cars.

Proponents of a mileage tax point to an inflation-adjusted decline in the
gasoline excise tax, but they ignore the dramatic increase in the sales tax
on fuel produced by skyrocketing oil prices.

In fact, Californians currently pay the 4th highest tax per gallon of
gasoline in the country. And yet we recently ranked at the very bottom of a
nationwide survey of both highway conditions and per capita spending for
highways. The problem is that existing taxes paid by highway users have not
been used for our highways. In the last two years, $2 billion of our sales
taxes on gasoline have been raided for purposes unrelated to our highways -
including $1.1 billion in the current year.

So the first question is, what makes them think the mileage tax won't suffer
the same fate?

Some other flaws:
. Unless you are going to apply endless bureaucratic formulae to adjust for
vehicle weight and fuel efficiency, the frugal hybrid driver will be paying
the same as the indulgent SUV owner.

. It gives out of state travelers a free ride on California roads, and, if
mileage is based on odometer readings, it would tax Californians even when
they're traveling out of state.

. It is highly invasive. One proposal is to place GPS tracking devices in
every car, requiring up-close and personal snooping of how and where
Californians drive.

The real agenda is to establish the means and the precedent to track the
individual driving routes of individual motorists. And the only reason for
doing this is to penalize them financially for trying to get to work
on time.