Most Washington drivers in favor of replacing gas tax with pay-per-mile program

[Fun CH]

Jim, you seem to not understand that gas at 30 cents a gallon 60 years ago is equivalent to $3.09 in today's dollars.

But carry on insulting whoever disagrees with your opinion.

[dorankj]

How very pompous and elitist of you, maybe you should just keep it simple?

[just-jim]

Yes, I’m sure much higher taxes will bring the prices WAY down! Genius idea.

If you had even a basic understanding about demand/supply/price and how that differs from tax policy, or understood the history and economics of natural resource extraction - including oil - I might discuss it with you. But I’m 99% sure that you don’t, so I won’t.
.

[dorankj]

Yes, I’m sure much higher taxes will bring the prices WAY down! Genius idea.

[just-jim]

There’s also an enormous difference between “generously subsidized “ (which is often asserted) and incentivized to pay for exploration and development to get more product to market (which lowers prices through market forces and competition). Then government and ideological/political actors bring excessive regulation control and costs/taxes to bear which will always be passed on to consumers IN ADDITION to profit! I don’t want government powerful enough to force profit controls and ‘capitalistic’ limits.

Drilling credits, tax incentives, special tax accounting/reporting, tax deferment and MUCH more subsidies might have made some sense 50 or 60 years ago when oil was selling at $2 a barrel. And gas at the pump was .25 or .30/gallon.

But with oil selling $70-90/barrel now (that is 35-40+ times what it was 50 years ago) and gas at $4-5/gal (or 15-20x 50 years ago) it doesn’t make much sense now….when the change in the value of a dollar is only about 7x what it was 50 years ago. If things were ‘even’ with the dollar - oil would cost $14/barrel and gas would cost $1.75.

My Dad was a petroleum Engineer, retiring as the head of exploration/production of one of the majors - his career spanned the early 50’s thru the 80’s. He used to say that the whole business model of the oil biz was predicated on the ‘fact’ that oil was $2 a barrel and was ALWAYS going to BE $2/barrel….just the way it was. And that figure is what they based all their planning on! No one could see the end was going to come at some point (although he did, predicting the shortages of the mid-70’s and beyond) and that shrinking supply and increased demand would drive prices up..

Short discussion here: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... -taxes.asp

I’m a capitalist. But, its WELL past time they paid a fairer share of taxes. Oil company profits are obscene.
I think my dad would even agree.
.

[dorankj]

There’s also an enormous difference between “generously subsidized “ (which is often asserted) and incentivized to pay for exploration and development to get more product to market (which lowers prices through market forces and competition). Then government and ideological/political actors bring excessive regulation control and costs/taxes to bear which will always be passed on to consumers IN ADDITION to profit! I don’t want government powerful enough to force profit controls and ‘capitalistic’ limits.

[mister_coffee]

There is an enormous difference between a generously subsidized business like a petroleum products company and most other businesses. I note that those record profits are made at the expense of our hard-earned tax dollars.

[Jingles]

Meanwhile, Chevron posts record profits

https://medium.com/wagovernor/inslee-an ... 3ab71f894a

Apparently some feel a company should operate in the red instead of making a profit, what this shows me is those complaining about some companies making a profit are the same one that complain about local businesses having such a hard time because the local area isn't crammed with tourist year round, or locals going out of area instead of shopping locally . Talk about hypocrisy.
? Good for me but not for thee.?
Sorry but you can't have it both ways

[mister_coffee]

I would think that since the majority of people in this state live on the west side of the mountains, a majority of people in the survey were also from the west side of the mountains.

https://ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-rese ... lideshow-3

[Rideback]

Meanwhile, Chevron posts record profits

https://medium.com/wagovernor/inslee-an ... 3ab71f894a

[Jingles]

Anyone want to wager the survey participants were overwhelmingly wet sides that don't need to drive 40 to 60 miles to get anywhere with reasonable prices for food and other essentials?

[pasayten]

So, if you have a gas guzzler, you would save tax $$ and an economy car would pay more $$...

At least, EV's would start paying more fairly

Most Washington drivers in favor of replacing gas tax with pay-per-mile program, study says
Story by KOMO News Staff • 15h ago

The Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC) will meet on Tuesday to discuss replacing the state’s gas tax with a pay-per-mile plan.

During Tuesday’s meeting, commissioners will hear the results of a recently completed Road Usage Charge (RUC) study. More than 1,100 drivers in Washington state took part in the pay-per-mile simulation.

Lawmakers in Olympia recently looked at legislation that would charge drivers 2.5 cents for each mile traveled on interstates, state highways and other roads maintained by the city and county. Travel on private roads would not be included. The idea is that the RUC would eventually replace the state’s gas tax.

According to the legislation, people who drive hybrid or electric vehicles could voluntarily participate in the program starting in July 2026. In return, they would qualify for refunds on some licensing fees. In 2030, the RUC would become mandatory for all Washington drivers, regardless of if a car is electric or powered by gas.

According to the report, 56% of those who participated in the study support transitioning to a RUC program. Those who were opposed to the change were most commonly concerned that a RUC would add a new tax, fairness and equity, the logistics of the program, privacy and the loss of incentives to buy hybrid or electric vehicles, according to the WSTC.

Eighty-eight percent of participants said they would prefer to self-report their mileage instead of having a device in their vehicle. The WSTC said participants favored low-tech reporting options that didn’t require additional steps to complete the process.

Nearly 75% of participants also believed exemptions for out-of-state and private roads were important.

The simulation also found that most participants didn’t want flexible payments, but many believed having a flexible payment option was important. The WSTC said those with lower incomes were more likely to choose payment installments than participants with higher incomes.

Washington is one of 14 states in the pilot-program process. Five states, including Oregon, have already enacted RUC programs.

So, how much would this cost drivers?

A one-way trip from Everett to Seattle is about 25 miles. At 2.5 cents a mile, that would be around 62 cents for a one-way trip. Right now, the state gas tax is 49.4 cents a gallon. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon, which is a combined 67.8 cents a gallon.

KOMO News asked the WSTC about the numbers. They told us drivers should look at their mpg.

"If your car gets more than 20 mpg, you could see a very small [pennies] increase in the amount of taxes paid for roads,” WSTC Executive Director Reema Griffith said in an email. “If your car gets less than 20 mpg, you would pay a little less in taxes."

The bill proposed last legislative session did not make it out of committee in Olympia, which means lawmakers will have to start that part of the process over again.

The WSTC will meet in-person and virtually on Tuesday and Wednesday. Tuesday’s meeting will be held from 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., and Wednesday meeting will be from 9 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. The meetings will also be streamed live on TVW.