Lack of gas tax in Iowa

Someone on the forum, I can't remember who, made a very telling observation that even if we all drove 50 mpg vehicles the price of gas would just stay high and one reason was the need for $$$ for roads etc and that the taxes will just keep increasing to meet the need. Here in Taxachusetts the boys in Boston are already thinking of raising the gas tax while the average guy can barely afford fuel at today's prices. Politicols don't have to live within a budget at the state or federal levels. If only we could do the same.

Hmm...It is going to be a combination of many things.
Iowa Ranks dead middle on Gas Taxes.
You will soon see that $50 Truck Registration go up thats for sure.
How many trucks do you see on the road in Iowa? Millions!
How many are actual farmers? And more importantly...does it matter?
You are right about one thing, the Government likes fuel hogs and the tax revenues it brings.


According to this article in the Des Moines Register in July 2007.

"Iowa is on the verge of a transportation crisis," the DOT said in the report: Highways are deteriorating while expected to handle increasing traffic volumes, including heavy trucks. Meanwhile, Iowa needs roads in both growing urban areas and in rural areas that are key to alternative-energy production. These demands are outstripping revenue generated by gas and vehicle use taxes. The obvious solutions are higher gas taxes, new sources of revenue, such as toll roads or road-use fees based on miles traveled, or both.

Iowans will not relish the idea of gas taxes as much as 9 cents higher a gallon, but an increase seems inevitable. Iowans drive more each year - vehicle miles are up 36 percent in the past 15 years, and truck traffic is expected to increase by 50 percent by 2020. Eventually something must be done to accommodate that growth.

Contrary to the notion that the state has been paved over, the DOT notes that about 2.5 percent of the state is paved, roughly the same figure as in 1945. If people want to drive more while enjoying the same quality of roads and ease of access, they should be prepared to pay for it. Gas and vehicle use taxes, the ultimate example of a user tax, are a reasonable way to assess users for the privilege.

New revenues needed

But, because gas taxes are calculated on gallons sold, not the price per gallon, rising gas prices might cause gas-tax revenues to flatten as people avoid driving and buy more efficient vehicles. Moreover, as new forms of energy are used to power vehicles, Iowa likely will have to consider alternatives to the gas tax, such as toll roads or taxes based on miles driven.

It is also time the Legislature changed the formula for allocating gas taxes from rural roads to urban. The population shift from rural to urban creates demand for new roads in urban areas as well as highways for commuters who are driving longer distances. That does not mean rural highways should be neglected. The booming ethanol industry demands a first-rate transportation system to get raw materials and finished products from field to plants to markets.

Even the DOT admits the projected shortfall of nearly $30 billion over the next 20 years is a worst-case scenario. Not all of those projects will be needed, or built. But Iowa cannot ignore this reality. Unless people are willing to give up their cars, or delivery of consumer goods to their doorsteps and Main Street shops, they will have to pay for the network of roads and highways that make it all possible.

Click to expand...

Yes I imagine people are cutting back on driving, I certainly am riding my bike more

Interesting argument about the taxes increasing to repair roads.. Not sure I buy the logic.


As a champion of fuel effieciency I think we must increase MPG
Plug in Hybrids are the way to achieve that. I am dumbfounded that the Big 3 have lapsed so much in this regard.

I would think that the supply demand would still work in that if we had less consumption, there would be a bit more supply and prices would fall on the
global market.

Re road repair I am sure Mass is the same as ME after this winter: Lots of Frost Heaves and potholes so lots of repair needed.

Since big Hummers destroy roads a lot more than Mini Coopers perhaps a more just solution to road repairs would be to have a graduated tax

Lighter smaller vehicles would be taxed less and heavier Tourages Hummers Escalades would pay more ( exclusion for commercial vehicles?)

A friend in NY state told me excise tax was based on weight as well as resale value? Not sure if this is true/still going on??

I will stop now and wait for the barrage from all the pickup truck owners that haul their firewood out there!!


http://www.hybridcars.com/frontpage

http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

tom

Actually if the government would spend gas taxes on just roads instead of other pet projects we wouldn't have a problem. I see this problem in Idaho and on the Federal level a lot.

I will stop now and wait for the barrage from all the pickup truck owners that haul their firewood out there!!

Click to expand...

I have a truck that I only use to plow snow on my driveway, haul firewood and haul crap. There is no way I could afford to drive it on a regular basis.
Trucks are a great tool and I love them. But in general they are gas hogs.

See Iowa is all messed up because of the Farm Lobby. New Truck registration is a flat $65.
This is an old tax inequity, a tax break aimed at farmers and businesses.
That was before pickups went mainstream. Tell me why would a typical Iowan purchase a new Sedan where tags cost$$$$ when he/she could purchase a new 4 door truck with all the ammenities and pay $65?
Why should car owners be penalized for owning vehicles that use far less fuel and whose lower weight does less damage to roads?

A good rule of thumb: Roadways consume about 50% of funds and serve 95% of the population. Public transit systems consume about 50% of funds and serve 5% of the population.
On the theory that a seat on the train takes a car off the road (at commute time), we've reached a point where we would be happy if highway taxes were at least spent on some sort of transportation. What they call multi-modal transportation.
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm?hdlid=87
Even bicycle paths are often paid for by fuel taxes. (They are not a large outlay, however.)
Could be worse, but still a rather difficult roller coaster to ride.

[quote author="granpajohn" date="1207686289"]A good rule of thumb: Roadways consume about 50% of funds and serve 95% of the population. Public transit systems consume about 50% of funds and serve 5% of the population.


err maybe but I think it depends on where you look:



In Portland, ME near where I live there is a terrible bus system and few ride it; cars rule here.
There used to be a Trolley in the 1920s people would ride 4 miles to downtown for a nickel; this got taken out in favor of the auto.
There has been a substantial increase in Amtrak Downeaster to Boston service with the latest gas spike


In Portland OR there is a robust system of lite trail with decreasing car transportation and increasing bike transport /lanes.
It seems the other Portland takes a lot of Federal money and invests in public transport, this allows them to avoid the predicted auto congestion so
common in so many of our cities.

Tom

Or they could do what MN did and just up the gas tax AND the vehicle reg both! MN, land of 10 thousand taxes and 'ya can't do that here', now that's MN nice for you.

Here in MN before the ink was dry on the tax rebate bill (aka: Give me back my Money !!), they passed a bill to increase the gas tax, increase the registration fees, increase property taxes the list goes on all for improved roads. They are milking the bridge collapse for all its worth. They were crying in the aisle's saying we need to improve roads we need the money. I have friends who even supported there actions and welcomed the tax hike to improve roads. But little do they know that MN uses 8.7% of every dollar you are taxed and spends it on transportation. So increasing the gs tax to help with the roads is a lie. Government mismanages our money they need to be held accountable for there actions, they use us as a endless supply of revenue taxing us to poverty. They want to do something about the housing crises, cut the peoples taxes, they want to decrease gas prices cut the taxes, they want to boost the economy cut the taxes. If we were aware of the actual percentage we are paying in taxes or fees we would revolt and over throw the gov. Which could be the reason why they want to make guns illegal.

The "average" American attitude seems to be that roads should be plentiful, well maintained, and free, and that tolls and the gas tax are evil. See "cake, having it and eating it too". I'm with TMonter - dedicate gas taxes to roads, set them to the levels required to maintain said roads, and then people that choose to drive pay their own way. Perhaps widespread tolls and congestion pricing would be better in some sense, but the gas tax is so much simpler and doesn't involve the gov't tracking you.

I think this is getting more Ash Can related..

I am for the gas tax, but when they also tax your regular income and then spend the money foolishly and wasteful is when I have the issue. Taxes are fine when they are used the way they are supposed to or intend to. But, when the people in charge use them for there own pet projects and waste the money that is when I start getting upset. The system is setup that if you do not use your whole budget you will lose it, so people waste the money just to show that they need more money in there budget. There needs to be more accountability in what and how the tax money is spent.

Example: In MN where I live they have X amount of money for salt for the roads, if they use 1K less then X, then there budget is reduced by the amount they did not spend. So what happens we get a little pre and they put so much salt on the roads that it looks like it snowed. Thus they are tring to use up the budget, then they wonder why all the grass and wildlife are dying, hmmm.

Another example: When I worked in KC, MO I worked on a gov contract for a consulting firm, almost every year the gov office replaced all there computers with new ones, note this was back in the BBS days pre-pentium. So someone would move to a 486 50mhz from a 486 25mhz computer. I asked why and was told that they had to use the budget or else it would get cut.

I agree that states like to play "bait and switch" with taxes. In MI many years back education funding was shaky, and so it was proposed to introduce a state lottery to dedicate funds for education. People didn't like the lottery much (it's a voluntary tax on those that can't do math), but wanted new $$ for the schools. So it passes, and the funds are earmarked. Then the state simply cuts that much education funding out of general revenues and spends that money elsewhere. So, no increase in education funding, and the people are stuck with a lottery they never wanted.

So, I don't know the answer, except that I think gas taxes are the closest thing to a "good" tax since they use market forces to serve several useful objectives at once (funding roads, reducing traffic, reducing energy consumption, reducing pollution, reducing carbon emissions, punishing hummer owners ). To me it's the property tax that is truly evil. Discuss.

What I'd like to see is a reduction of the gasoline tax, and a change in the vehicle registration tax. This would eliminate the lack of taxes by any non-gasoline vehicles, and would allow the heavier vehicles to pay their way. Eliminating the gas tax would mean that out of state vehicles would get a free ride in your state, which is undesirable. The vehicle registration tax should be set by vehicle weight, rated fuel economy (would need a standardized way to rate electric vehicles) and a rough idea of distance the vehicle can be expected to drive, along with the owner's home and work addresses with a minimum 5 mile one way distance. Since driving to work and back is the main use of a vehicle for most people, this would allow the tax to cover the roads for the usage without stupid crap like requiring GPS receivers. We don't need to have an exact number of miles traveled per year, just basing the distance traveled off the drive to work and back would cover most of the miles traveled and the formula would take the fact that this is the majority, but not the only, use of the vehicle into account. And, this will allow them to gather tax on all electric rigs too. If they did this, and at the same time rolled back gasoline taxes to say 5-8 cents a gallon, then the tax bill would not be onerous. In addition to this, long haul truckers should be required to weigh in as they enter a state and pay a usage fee based on vehicle weight vs their rig's posted fuel economy to drive in the state. The EPA would be tasked to determine the fuel economy tables used by the states to plug into their usage formulas, seeing as they already have the mechanisms in place to determine fuel economy as they do this now.

In addition to all this, I'd like to see a weight limit on long haul trucks well below what the weight limit is now, with heavy fees for overloads and fines for people caught hauling over the limit without the correct paperwork. I'd also like to see the nation's rail network upgraded an updated, we need to have a mulitring network with 2 way traffic on the rail networks connecting Tier 1 cities. This would allow high speed, heavy cargo transfers nationwide with some redundancy for damaged tracks. We would need the same 2 way networks to connect Tier 1 to Tier 2 cities, and perhaps single tracks to connect Tier 2 to Tier 3 cities with these single tracks set up to allow one way traffic in a loop. Semi trucks would then perform local delivery services. Seeing as a single locomotive sees 3 gallons of fuel per mile traveled, and can carry some 450 to 600 semi trailer loads worth of goods, that single locomotive will burn the equivalent fuel of 450 to 600 semi trucks getting some 60+MPG each. Redesigning the rail networks to both carry goods in 2 directions at once, and laying them out so as to not interfere with street traffic (either build bridges or subway tunnels for city areas, and build bridges for either train or street traffic so there's no need to wait on either one.

Attacking the problem in this manner would reduce fuel usage, put people to work rebuilding the railroads and highways (which would increase the taxes paid and provide people with lifetime employment; would take some 50 years to revamp the system) and would allow long haul trucking to be eliminated slowly rather than suddenly. This would also make roads last longer, requiring fewer taxes to maintain them. Basing a vehicle's registration on weight vs distance vs fuel economy traveled would also move people into smaller, more efficient vehicles, since a heavy gas sucker would likely cost a couple extra grand per year to tag than a smaller family wagon would. We'd need to have a separate farm registration for farm vehicles, as farmers do need a heavy vehicle at times, BUT require the farmers to have at least one standard vehicle registration before they can register any vehicle as a farm vehicle. We'd also have to have a business vehicle registration so as to not penalize businesses that need heavy vehicles, but set it up with common sense requirements such as requiring the business to prove that a heavy vehicle is a legitimate need and thus requires a business registration. A chiropractor has no use for a Hummer as a business vehicle, for example (this I've seen, a chiropractor with a Hummer, with business plates).

I'd also like to see an end to the toll road; the idea of having to either stop on a highway to scrounge around for nickels and dimes, or allow a device in your vehicle that automatically tracks your vehicle on the toll road, offends. The one affects my fuel economy by requiring an otherwise unnecessary stop and start, the other is unwarranted tracking (and don't doubt that the government doesn't use that Pike Pass information when it's convenient for them to do so; a lot of court cases have Pike Pass information entered as evidence against the defendant. Once OBD3 comes online, I won't be a bit surprised if the data generated by this (which can be transmitted to on-road sensors) isn't used to automatically send you a ticket every time the speed drifts over the limit.

As a gearhead I'd also like to see a mechanism in place to allow an older vehicle to get lower registration taxes if a new drivetrain were installed, say tax the older vehicle as though it were the vehicle the current drivetrain came from. This little proviso would allow people to drive their old rigs, and would encourage them to keep the vehicle current on fuel efficiency and emissions standards. I'd sure hate to have a 30 year old truck converted to a 45+MPG diesel hybrid, but still have to pay taxes as though it were getting the rated 15MPG of the original engine.

Not so much on gas tax, more on tolls:

There are proposals down here to make every highway in Texas a tollway. Wait, let me correct...every HEAVILY TRAFFICKED highway, that is. It's all well and good, but the tollbooths on our current toll-roads are spaced out for every 6 exits, and you're paying a dollar at each. In Dallas any given highway will probably see upwards of 50k drivers a day. Even if each driver just pays ONE toll, that's 50k per highway, per day. Right now there are three major tollroads in Dallas, so Dallas alone is probably getting close to 150k a day in tolls alone. I would really like to see a breakdown of pricing for "road maintenance", new highway construction, and other transport-related expenditures, as well as an accurate estimate of money received from gas taxes, tolls, vehicle usage taxes, etc. If we had easy access to these figures maybe we'd understand why such a large amount of money is poured in.

Those three tollways in Dallas...if they each make 50k a day, will make the state 54,750,000/year. Obviously you have to deduct the overhead from this figure to determine the actual "net" to the state. Let's say they only get 46 million. What will that pay for? How much can you do with that money?

I think for any of us to put it into perspective we need a breakdown of how much, how often, and for what benefit to the state, residents, visitors, economy, etc.