Tax ourselves per mile driven? California voters have a historic opportunity . . .

Photo above - artist's rendering of the Annenberg wildlife bridge which will be crossing the 101 Freeway, once it's completed. Projected cost - $114 million, up from $77 million.

It’s never enough. California commuters already pay gasoline tax. Vehicle purchase tax. Registration fees. A special $50 annual surcharge if their car is an electric vehicle. PLUS . . . increasing taxes on their electricity consumption.

It’s never enough. Xavier Becerra, democrat nominee to replace Gavin Newsom as governor, also promises to tax drivers by the mile. Presumably with some sort device bolted to their cars, and a new state bureaucracy to install, repair, and monitor the devices. This is a politician's bonanza of course. It will provide hundreds of jobs to the party faithful. See link below.

I get it – California has to pay for its road infrastructure SOMEHOW. Like that new $100 million wildlife pedestrian bridge. So that cougars can get from one side of the 101 Freeway to the other. You CANNOT make this stuff up. There’s another link at the bottom.

If Xavier Becerra's new car tax was $1 per mile, people would need to drive 100 million miles (114 million actually) just to get this cougar crossing completed. Read that again, if it didn’t sink in the first time. 114 million miles.

Of course the tax won’t (yet) be as high as $1 per mile. And the tax doesn’t actually go to toward construction and maintenance of roads and bridges. Gasoline taxes, car sales taxes, registration fees, and per mile taxes (if approved) all go into the California general revenue fund, where they immediately disappear from view. Tax money from all sources can and will be spent on anything.

I have no desire to see dead cougars on the highway shoulder. Not even frogs, in case anyone remembers playing the “Frogger” videogame. There’s probably a way to build a cougar and racoon walkway that doesn’t cost $114 million dollars. And which doesn't look like it was designed by a collaboration of George Jetson and I.M. Pei . . .

I'm just sayin' . . .

California governor hopeful Xavier Becerra wants to tax drivers every mile they travel: 'Everything should be on the table'

Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing costs $114M

Top | New | Old

Rabscuttle · 41-45

If "everything" should be on the table, then so should "demanding the politicians account for every dollar that they spend".

ArishMell · 70-79, M

I think quite a number of countries have, or discuss, a tax based on road use.

How it would be assessed depends will vary from country to country; in the USA maybe from State to State; but politicians never seem to be able to see easy ways to do easy things!

In the UK it would be easy for cars over three years old because after three years old those are subject to annual roadworthiness inspections, and the odometer reading is recorded at that point.

I don't necessarily agree with it, and its adoption in America is a matter for Americans; but occurred to me ages ago that we are already taxed by distance anyway, where a retail tax is levvied on the fuel.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@ArishMell most nations also have a gasoline tax 2x-3x higher than the US. their appetite for regressive taxation on the working masses is apparently insatiable

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@SusanInFlorida Taxes like that affect everyone, not just the "working masses" however you define those, but I think if a mileage tax were introduced it ought replace the fuel tax, not add to it.

The UK also has a thing called the "Road Fund Licence" payable annually on almost all powered vehicles, and set accodring to various criteria. When introduced, I think in the 1920s, it was meant to pay at least partly for roads building and maintenance but has long since simply been part of the Treasury's general tax income.

Spending on roads here has generally been cut, and although some stretches of the motorways are still being "up-graded" with active traffic-management signals, we have not built a new motorway for decades now.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

Sadly, it's not possible to train the animals to use it, especially if they are some miles from it anyway.

We've a strange parallel in the UK, with wildlife campaigners, Natural England etc. persuading the Government and HS2 Railway designers one stretch of it needs a "Bat Tunnel" so the animals can fly over the line without being struck by trains.

It's not really a tunnel, but a very long shed... at a very long price.

I don't know if it's been built or the idea scrapped, but if completed I would not be surprised if the bats become so accustomed to the trains they use it as a roost.

View 1 more replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@independentone Apparently they can't read... though nor can some humans when using the roads! :)

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@ArishMell i am willing to grant that some state game warden was consulted beforehand, and testified as to cougar carcasses or hunting ranges in the viciinity. that doesn't justify $100 million though

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@SusanInFlorida I wonder what the warden said about animals using the bridge? I suppose some would if close by, but I fear many more won't.

Add a comment...