Although I don't really oppose a tax on miles driven, forcing everyone to put a GPS in their vehicle and recording all of the data is outrageously intrusive.

----
AP Interview: LaHood eyes taxing miles driven (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96F6JO80&show_article=1&catnum=3)

Feb 20 03:29 AM US/Eastern
By JOAN LOWY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn—an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.

Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.

ost transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.

The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.

[More... (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96F6JO80&show_article=1&catnum=3)]

They toyed with that notion in CA and the population rose up, called their congresspeople and told them to quash it or else. They did. :)

Dumbest idea ever. Taxing activities is extremely difficult; taxing products is trivial.

Just tax gasoline more. We already know Americans will gladly pay double what gas is going for now, and that will bring all the funds they need.

Their reasoning is that people are using more fuel efficient cars so they're getting less tax and can't maintain the roadways. Eventually, if we move to something other than gasoline fueled cars we'll need to figure out a different way to pay for the roads.

And it does sort of make sense that those who drive more should pay more, they're causing more wear-and-tear, accidents, etc.

But what a pain-in-the-butt way to do it.

Their reasoning is that people are using more fuel efficient cars so they're getting less tax and can't maintain the roadways.And we want to punish people who are using fuel-efficient cars? Honestly, only a politician could come up with a scheme this stupid.

A fifth grader can figure out this problem. Multiply your proposed tax per mile by the average fuel efficiency for that year (a figure which is readily available), and tax that for each gallon of gasoline.

You won't need GPS and other compliance devices, and the auditors to make sure people aren't circumventing them, making the tax far more efficient. (Of course, that's probably part of the problem, those people are looking for a job and paying off said morons in government.)

And if people switch from gasoline to some other fuel source, you simply tax that fuel source. We already know how to tax electricity, natural gas, etc., and a substitute fuel would be no different.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/20/national/w002924S31.DTLObama nixes plan to tax motorists on mileage

(02-20) 16:37 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Friday rejected his transportation secretary's suggestion that the administration consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy. "It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, when asked for the president's thoughts about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's suggestion, raised in an interview with The Associated Press a daily earlier.Fortunately, Obama isn't supporting this stupidity.

And if people switch from gasoline to some other fuel source, you simply tax that fuel source. We already know how to tax electricity, natural gas, etc., and a substitute fuel would be no different.
Sure we can tax electricity and natural gas but then you're taxing people the same for heating their homes in winter as for driving their cars.

Right now, the gasoline tax is a sort of "user fee" on roads. Pretty fair concept, IMHO. The upkeep of those roads is paid for by the people who use them most. If electricity and NG were taxed, it isn't a user fee any longer.

Right now, the gasoline tax is a sort of "user fee" on roads. Pretty fair concept, IMHO. The upkeep of those roads is paid for by the people who use them most.Funny, I could swear that billions of (non-gasoline) tax dollars are being spent on California roads all the time. Especially judging by the numerous ballot measures asking to borrow billions more every two years for more transportation projects.

The notion that roads are paid for only by those people who use them is ridiculous. They're paid for by rich people, the same way everything else is paid for. Poor people get the roads for free, and they couldn't afford those roads anyway, if they had to pay their proportionate use share.

Frankly, I'd much rather see us switch to an alternative fuel source and worry about the bean counting then, than worry about the bean counting now when it's not even necessary.

Well, we all derive benefit from the road system whether we use them or not. Our goods and services are delivered to us via them. So in some respect, everyone is a user. But people who also drive on them, also get to pay the user fee.

None of that changes the simple fact that rich people (top 1% earners), and NOT the majority of users, pay the most to build and maintain the roads.

So this whole notion of a "user fee" is silly. The gasoline tax is just another general revenue collection device.