Mileage tax

[Jimbo56]

You guys are absolutely correct. Here in NC the powers to be touted the NC Education Lottery as adding additional dollars for education, on top of already budgeted dollars. A couple of years into it, since they couldn’t divert lottery dollars for other uses, they just replaced the budget with those lottery dollars. End result, no additional dollars for education. Same with highway taxes. We have to have toll roads? Where did the money from the pump go? It didn’t repair or repave roads. It either went to pay for the administrative fat at the top, or was diverted for someone’s pork project.

[Hugh.vines@att.net]

I try to avoid states with toll roads but when can’t be avoided I try to go around the toll roads. I have found it’s longer but less traffic. I’m usually sight seeing anyway. I try to avoid interstates too, especially in the south.

[RichS]

Plus they want to know anytime you buy something over $600. God I am glad that I grew up in the 60s and 70s. Had individual freedoms back then.

[Muggs]

I do not like any further intrusion/data gathering by fed. Local cattle people have been resisting per head charge to be used to monitor emissions. Not to correct anything, but just to monitor.

[Campnjoe]

Originally Posted by HMCSW

And now in the current bill they will be taxing unrealized capital gains. Homes, property, stocks, anything that appreciates even if you have not sold it. Not political just something to be prepared for.

Can you post a source for this please as I have not read anything on such a tax. Taxing unrealized gains makes zero sense as the price is fluid up to the point of sale.

[atreis]

Originally Posted by Campnjoe

Can you post a source for this please as I have not read anything on such a tax. Taxing unrealized gains makes zero sense as the price is fluid up to the point of sale.

There are several news reports from many outlets (both left and right) that it's being considered. None that it's actually been put into a bill yet.

As for the second part: Unrealized gains can be negative. (You may have an unrealized capital loss one year, and a gain the next.)

[Campnjoe]

Originally Posted by atreis

As for the second part: Unrealized gains can be negative. (You may have an unrealized capital loss one year, and a gain the next.)

This is exactly my point. Makes no sense.

[HMCSW]

Originally Posted by atreis

There are several news reports from many outlets (both left and right) that it's being considered. None that it's actually been put into a bill yet.

As for the second part: Unrealized gains can be negative. (You may have an unrealized capital loss one year, and a gain the next.)

fortunately it blew up this week in the $3.5 trillion bill. Janet Yelling testified to congress stating she wants it.

[Campnjoe]

OK, I found it. You guys failed to state it was if the gain was over a million.

[abjbrtd]

Originally Posted by atreis

There are several news reports from many outlets (both left and right) that it's being considered. None that it's actually been put into a bill yet.

As for the second part: Unrealized gains can be negative. (You may have an unrealized capital loss one year, and a gain the next.)

Nothing new about this, 1 of our recent presidents has been using this method for years

[Chance]

Originally Posted by waynetaylor55

I don't think the mileage tax would replace any other tax. It would be added to existing taxes.

Whether it does or doesn’t wasn’t the point I was trying to make.

If all Class As are taxed at the same rate of $0.25 per mile, then a 12,500-pound Axis is penalized the same as a 25,000-pound Challenger, right? But the larger motorhome causes more road wear/damage, and uses more gasoline that makes more CO2, etc.

The higher a flat mileage tax is, the more I think it may encourage larger motorhomes over smaller ones. That seems contrary to governmental trends that try to push fuel efficiency for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, assuming they want to tax us more anyway, adding tax directly to each gallon of fuel not only encourages driving fewer miles, it encourages buying more fuel efficient vehicles. Not that I like it, but that seems wiser by comparison.

I can see a problem with electric vehicles though. In the past smaller and lighter vehicles were generally (on average) more efficient, but now electric cars that are rated as highly fuel efficient are often quite heavy due to batteries, and that can cause more road wear/damage. If or when electric Class A motorhomes become popular, taxing primarily on a per-mile basis could lead to very heavy motorhomes.

I personally hope they stick to taxing based on fuel used, and in case of electric vehicles based on kWh of consumed electrical energy.

[atreis]

Originally Posted by Chance

If all Class As are taxed at the same rate of $0.25 per mile, then a 12,500-pound Axis is penalized the same as a 25,000-pound Challenger, right? But the larger motorhome causes more road wear/damage, and uses more gasoline that makes more CO2, etc.

They already have a rough (good enough) way of measuring this, via vehicle class. My RV is a Class 2 vehicle, while the daily drivers are Class 1 vehicles. My stepdad's Super C is a Class 4 vehicle. They could tax at different rates according to Class and usage. (Might not want to charge people who use their Class 4 vehicle for business purposes the same as an Class 4 RV, even if it does do the same amount of damage to roads.)

Originally Posted by Chance

I personally hope they stick to taxing based on fuel used, and in case of electric vehicles based on kWh of consumed electrical energy.

While I personally like the notion of a mileage tax vs. the flat rate tax Ohio did for EV and hybrids, there are issues with enforcement (cheating on mileage statements). I also like kWh consumed as an alternative, but it has the same issue. Where/how do you measure without creating too many opportunities for cheating?