Big Brother is looking to screw us

Phoenix42

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2001
Location
Littleton, MA
TDI
'08 Mazda3 Hatch
Why must we look for a complex solution? Just raise the tax, rather then adding the cost of these GPS & odomaters to cars.
 

Matthew_S

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Location
Renton/Redmond, WA
TDI
2002 Jetta GLS galactic blue
If the government taxed fuel at a percentage of the sale price like sales tax instead of per gallon the fuel tax revenue would have tripled in the last 5 years without raising taxes at all.

Why must we look for a complex solution? Just raise the tax, rather then adding the cost of these GPS & odomaters to cars.
Or maybe stop spending so much money so they don't need more tax dollars.
 

ceiii2000

Active member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Location
Vancouver WA
TDI
2003 Jetta Wagon
18,400 miles traveled per year
45 mpg (Jetta) 21 mpg ('Burb)
$0.24 Oregon tax per gallon.

Tax bill $98 (Jetta) $210.29 ('Burb)

GPS with .012 per mile tax

Tax bill $220.8 (either)

So they aimed the tax higher then the average car?!?!:eek::confused:

*Fill in your own comment on government waste here.*
 

mel72349

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Location
Randallstown, MD
TDI
2006 New Beetle manual
Phoenix42 said:
Why must we look for a complex solution? Just raise the tax, rather then adding the cost of these GPS & odomaters to cars.
Because technology marches on, and when have you ever known a bureaucrat to choose a simple fix over something that would take a whole bunch of people to manage and oversee?

If simple is good, complex is better, and completely undecipherable is just about right. :rolleyes:
Doubt that? I submit our tax system as exhibit A.

And as to the thread title, "Big Brother is looking to screw us," always be suspicious when someone comes around and says "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." :eek:
 
Last edited:

jrivers804

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 19, 1999
Location
Cape Charles, VA USA
TDI
Jetta, 1998, White
It just shows where the government's true priority is. They are setting a tax to raise revenue and they want all the lemmings in their guzzlers to say don't let those people who drive effecient, and hence usually smaller, cars "get out of" paying thier "fair share" of taxes. Such a tax on mileage alone is counter productive, IF their is ANY desire by the government to reduce fuel usage, emissions, etc. No, their tax by the number of miles driven whether it gets 10 mpg or 50 mpg, whether it weighs 3000 pounds or 13000 pounds, just shows that raising revenue is all that matters, and rewarding those in the heaviest or most wasteful vehicles just doesn't matter.
 

Drivbiwire

Zehntes Jahr der Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 1998
Location
Boise, Idaho
TDI
2013 Passat TDI, Newmar Ventana 8.3L ISC 3945, 2016 E250 BT, 2000 Jetta TDI
Aluminum foil taped over a GPS antenna makes it VERY difficult to get a signal...

DB
 

jwbealco

Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Location
Bailey, Colorado
TDI
2005 Jetta BEW engine code PD motor
Independence

Along parallel lines here in Colorado, Denver Water forced it's customers to ration water because of the drought then low and behold everyone started to conserve this precious resource and Denver Water did not sell enough water to make a tidy profit. They then raised their rates to make up for their shortfall of profits. I live in the mountains and have a well, I am going to definately begin brewing my own biodiesel out of WVO soon, and hopefully in the near future be producing my own solar electricity. Can't tax that or at least I won't pay it.:eek:
 

Powder Hound

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 25, 1999
Location
Under a Bridge, Crestview, FL, USA
TDI
'00 Golf 4dr White 5sp, '02 Jettachero 5sp, Wife's '03 NB Platinum Gray auto(!)
Fuel taxes have historically been in place only to maintain and build roads. If it is not the case, then the politicians behind the changes should be hung in efficgy and thrown out of office, having shown themselves to be corrupt, greedy, and always willing to use governments to steal your money to give it to someone else who didn't earn it.

If this is implemented in Oregon, it will be because the people are stupid enough not to oppose it. Time to get noisy.
 

Birdman

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 7, 1999
Location
Near Hagerstown MD.
TDI
Jetta 2001 Died by Truck one snowy day. Jetta 2003
Phoenix42 said:
Why must we look for a complex solution? Just raise the tax, rather then adding the cost of these GPSS & odometers to cars.
They don't need to raise the tax on us. they need to raise the taxes on the oil Co's. that are making a killing on the price of oil with their record oil profits there would not be the new cars that burn less fuel is the Oil Co's were less greedy
 

Bob S.

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Location
Central MD.
TDI
A B4V, some ALHs & BRMs
Strikes me that this is a win/win for the government & big oil. The states & later, the Fed., institute a new tax system based upon milage. Their revenue goes up. As that is done, big oil keeps their prices artificially high, & suck up the the diffence of the now gone tax & makes that much more money. The government gets more taxes, big oil makes more, & the politicians get more hand outs from big oil. Only the tax payer gets screwed, & we all know that big oil & the gevernment do not worry about that. Just my $.02. Bob
 

Deereman76

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Location
Southern Indiana
TDI
00 Jetta 5spd.
It seems to me that this will only encourage use of less-efficient Vehicles.... Why is the Sierra Club, & the other environmentalists not screaming foul? Maybe
 

rotarykid

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Location
Piedmont of N.C. & the plains of Colorado
TDI
1997 Passat TDI White,99.5 Blue Jetta TDI
What a stupid idea . We need to be giving tax breaks to fuel efficient vehicles , not trying to penalize them .

The real answer is to raise the base gas tax on all . So if you waste oil you pay more & if you use less you save money .

Which is a win , win they collect more money and also encourage people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles .

And if we all do switch to higher mpg vehicles then raise the gas tax to a level required to sustain the needed road funding . In this system no one in their right mind would continue to drive low mpg pieces of crap as they would finally have to feel the pain of their dumb choice .
 

Kabin

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Location
Valley of the sun
TDI
Jetta '04 PD TDI/Tip
These taxes are specific to roadway damage and repair and not fuel economy. Road repair/work taxes would be increased for more roadway use, abuse, congestion. It gets complicated but traveling with more occupants should provide a tax break even though the vehicle is slightly heavier. Realistically, two occupants in a car would already be paying less mileage tax so that's covered within their plan.

Then there's the heavier vehicles like trucks and semis. Those are harder on roadway surfaces and congest traffic flow but taxing them is offset by increased costs to the consumer. You can't win that battle.

Overlapping taxes like auto registration, fuel taxes, road construction bonds, and roadway tolls are cumbersome and encourage wasteful governmental spending. If they plan to fix the problem they should overhaul the entire system while making sure its fair and auditable. Of course, the US tends to have a progressive tax payment system where the wealthy pays more than their share.

The way things are going these last few decades fuel use taxes should be subsidizing the war effort.
 

vikingrob

Veteran Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Location
Minneapolis
TDI
2021 Tesla Model 3 (delivery estimate May 2021)
I once sent an idea to a state legislator to have a statement on military expenditures per barrel of oil consumed posted on the pumps as part of the fuel dispenser's inspection sticker.
 

scrichy84

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Location
St. Helens, OR
TDI
2006 Jetta, Manual
Oregon has a hard time passing anything with the word change or tax in it. They are terrible about how they spend their money. There are a lot of people that will shoot this down if they understand how crappy it will be. Living in Oregon, I hope we don't get screwed. Just raise the fricken gas tax. I'm surprised they don't have a weight factor in there, having a multiplier times the 1.2 cents. My Jetta doesn't do quite as much damage as the H2 driving down the road.
 

Mike_Van

Veteran Member
Joined
May 15, 2003
Location
Boulder, Colorado
TDI
(SOLD) 2010 Golf, 2 door
Kabin,

"The way things are going these last few decades fuel use taxes should be subsidizing the war effort."

<sarcasm>What? A way to connect people's petrol consumption behavior with a war in the Middle East? Can't allow people to make that connection in their brain. Might change how they think about what their consumption pattern is!</sarcasm>

Seriously, *any* U.S. military activities in- and subsidized arms sales to the Middle East should very rightly be funded by a petroleum-tax on the commodity that we import from there. The notion that this should be paid for via Fed. Income taxes is absurd, as a person's income is not necessarily determinant of if- or what they drive to create demand for petrol.
US$ 500 billion is what this present war has cost us, in (borrowed ?) money alone. Without petroleum as that region's primary export, the area would be about as geo-politically interesting to us as, say, Burma.

The Middle East is not the U.S.'s primary source of petrol, but not an insignificant one. If it were actually insignificant, we could tell the Saudis and their other Arab neighbors to shove it for supporting radical militants & jihadists. But, sadly, we don't, and can't, due to the billions & billions in U.S. debt-instruments the Saudis hold. Our energy policy has been a non-policy of relying on others to drill for more, since about 1980.

It does seem pretty plainly anti-efficiency to wish to tax people on road-use, rather than fuel, and that shows a bias toward heavy vehicles. Such a method ignores vehicle weight, and the amount of road-damage incurred per-axle. In highly congested areas, HOV-lanes (car-pooling) and mass-transit are solutions to be encouraged. Then again, how would one tax an electric car for it's road use?

I believe we need a complex formula, based on kW/twist an engine puts out, the emissions is produces (or incurrs as EVs do, unless you're making your own power via PV/wind), vehicle weight, and purpose for which it is put to use. Getting this right in 50 states has its own challenges...
 
Last edited:

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
vikingrob said:
I once sent an idea to a state legislator to have a statement on military expenditures per barrel of oil consumed posted on the pumps as part of the fuel dispenser's inspection sticker.
Oh, here we go again.

Yes, it is true that some military expenditures do indeed go towards having a secure oil supply. The flaw with all the reasoning and claims behind the $15 a gallon gasoline prices is that it becomes a futile exercise to try and split military expenditures into categories of "This dollar goes towards general operations, and this dollar to a secure oil supply."

It just can't be done. Different people with different accounting claims will come to different conclusions as to what oil costs. Take a theoretical example of a small-city police department with a $1,000,000 annual budget. Suppose in a fictional world, that city has 10 murders that are solved with arrests by that police department. Using some simple math, you could say that each murder cost the city $100,000 out of the overall budget. This claim would be suspect at best, because that police budget goes to serve a whole bunch of intangible purposes - the most obvious of which is mere presence of police officers in the city.

The US military is the exact same way. With the exception of this nonsense in Iraq, the US military exists for intangible reasons - the most obvious of which is the mere presence of a defense to the USA. Big example: the USA makes nuclear weapons so that we DON'T have to use them. Some nations avoid spraying water on the hornet's nest because they know if they provoke a war with the USA, we could literally steamroll right over them with our technically advanced superior firepower, equipment, and manpower. It's the "carry a big stick" posing to foreign nations that serves to avert most of the wars. Greenpeace and The Sierra Club can claim all they want about how military costs go to protect oil, but we'd have a huge military with a huge budget even without foreign oil supplies because the military serves a bunch of different purposes - and the disappearance of one purpose doesn't mean that suddenly all the military expenses would shrink by 75% overnight.
 

phaser

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Location
Oregon
TDI
2004 Jetta PD - 490k
Constitutionally, voters in Oregon have to vote up or down any tax proposals.

Fees on the other hand are decided by bureaucrats and voters have no say. This is whats behind road use fees at the pump. Toll road, toll bridge fees and congestion fees are also coming to Oregon. And voters will have no say about the issue because "fees" are not a "tax" and will never be on the ballot.

.


scrichy84 said:
Oregon has a hard time passing anything with the word change or tax in it. They are terrible about how they spend their money. There are a lot of people that will shoot this down if they understand how crappy it will be. Living in Oregon, I hope we don't get screwed. Just raise the fricken gas tax. I'm surprised they don't have a weight factor in there, having a multiplier times the 1.2 cents. My Jetta doesn't do quite as much damage as the H2 driving down the road.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Deereman76 said:
It seems to me that this will only encourage use of less-efficient Vehicles.... Why is the Sierra Club, & the other environmentalists not screaming foul?
This change in tax revenue doesn't really encourage or discourage less efficient vehicles, because those vehicles will pay overall high taxes and fuel costs regardless. The users typically have these high costs for a business need, or they'll have the money to throw away for personal usage of a gas hog. No one is really forced to buy a gas hog they don't need.

The real reason for this tax change is to impose a stealth tax on fuel efficient users by trying to confuse them with the math. It's posed and promoted as a meager pittance per mile, but the money adds up over time. Just the same way that other commerce deals are shown as "Only $xx per week" to make it sound like a lesser amount of money that is within the budget of a customer.


Look at the math like these examples; per gallon tax vs. per mile tax on a hybrid Prius. That's pretty much the vehicle that Oregon is demonizing as their "free rider problem" with regards to less tax revenue.

Joe Public buys a Prius because he wants to lower his fuel costs, but he also gets a kick out of "sticking it to the man" by paying less motor fuel tax to Oregon State. He pays the standard $0.24 per gallon fuel tax when he fills up at the pump, and let's say he drives like a grandma and gets a constant 40 MPG with his Prius. That works out to $0.006 per mile in motor fuel taxes - a screaming bargain.

The State of Oregon does not like this, because they're taking in much less money than they could. Damn those hybrid cars. They propose their new $0.012 per mile motor fuel tax with the GPS systems, because they want to be "fair" for all users. In reality, they want more money than they're currently getting. Well, by the math 40 miles per gallon with a tax of $0.012 per mile works out to be an effective $0.48 per gallon motor fuel tax. That's a full 100% tax increase!!! That gives all the drivers of fuel efficient cars that have MPG figures above the "break even" point more incentive to do whatever it takes to circumvent the GPS tracking so that they can pay the per gallon fuel tax, which turns out to be the lower tax rate for them.

The State of Oregon confuses the public by comparing apples to oranges - i.e. by comparing two completely different methods of taxing. Per mile compared to per gallon gives you two different numbers that can be interchanged between each other, provided that people do some basic math. The State depends on people not wanting to do that math. The average dumb citizen (who probably doesn't vote, judging on sub-50% voter turnout for elections) sees the 1.2 cents per mile tax, and says "Hey, that's chump change" while never considering how much that money adds up to over time.
 

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
Matthew_S said:
If the government taxed fuel at a percentage of the sale price like sales tax instead of per gallon the fuel tax revenue would have tripled in the last 5 years without raising taxes at all.

Or maybe stop spending so much money so they don't need more tax dollars.
A good suggestion (actually one good and one excellent).

What I think a few bureaucrats are worried about are the folks who are making/brewing their own fuel and not paying any taxes. Clearly this is only a tiny fraction of all drivers. But the purpose of a road use tax to pay for new roads and bridges, and to repair the existing ones, requires that every road USER needs to pay a fair share.

I don't know the answer, or at least not the obviously perfect answer. But I don't like the idea of every vehicle being outfitted with a GPS tracker. I don't like it one bit.

Fuel-Efficient Cars Dent
States' Road Budgets
By ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS
April 25, 2007; Page B1
Cars and trucks are getting more fuel-efficient, and that's good news for drivers. But it's a headache for state highway officials, who depend on gasoline taxes to build and maintain roads.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that by 2009 the tax receipts that make up most of the federal highway trust fund will be $21 billion shy of what's needed just to maintain existing roads, much less build new roads or add capacity. Trying to compensate for highway-budget shortfalls, a handful of states are exploring other, potentially more lucrative ways to raise highway money.

"In 10 years, we are going to be in an intolerable financial position, and we need to start fixing it now before the problem starts," says James Whitty, manager of an alternative funding project in the Oregon transportation department.

In a year-long pilot program overseen by Mr. Whitty, the cars of 260 volunteers were outfitted with Global Positioning Systems and electronic odometers that recorded the number of miles driven. The drivers bought gasoline at specially equipped service stations, where computers on the pumps subtracted the 24-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax and added a 1.2 cent fee for every mile driven.
(snip)
If the program is fully implemented at some point, Oregon would likely have to keep dual tax methods. Out-of-state drivers, whose cars wouldn't be equipped with the required mileage devices, would continue to pay the gas tax, while Oregon drivers would be switched to the mileage-based fee.
(snip)
Supporters of such programs say that mileage fees are fairer than gasoline taxes because they directly reflect drivers' actual use of roads and highways, regardless of whether the cars get 10 or 50 miles per gallon. But critics argue that mileage fees penalize owners of fuel-efficient vehicles and take away the financial incentive to buy them.

Some critics also say they are uneasy about having the government monitor the movement of private vehicles. But program advocates say such privacy concerns are misplaced.

The technology has no ability to track drivers' movements, says Oregon's Mr. Whitty. He stresses the difference between "tracking miles and counting miles," adding, "We don't use the 'tracking' word here because it is inaccurate and upsets people who are worried about their privacy."
(snip)
Federal excise taxes dedicated to highways grew 10% between 2000 and 2005, according to the Treasury Department, and are forecast to grow an additional 11.6% through 2011. State receipts increased 12% from 2000 to 2005, according to the U.S. Transportation Department. But most of the revenue growth reflects an increase in the number of miles that each car travels.

In 1990, the average car on the road traveled about 11,107 miles a year. In 2005, each car traveled about 12,084 miles annually. More miles traveled leads to faster deterioration of highways and a greater need for repairs. More traffic also leads to increased congestion -- and to calls for more roads.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters says that the federal highway trust fund will lack sufficient funding from taxes beginning in 2009. She has been pressing states to look for alternatives to gasoline taxes.

"The bottom line is that we are spending more than we take in, and we have nearly run through the balances that had built up in the fund," Ms. Peters told Congress in February. "The highway funding problem is not going to go away, nor can we put it off until the last minute."
(snip)
The bulk of highway and road funding, about 55%, comes from a combination of state and federal gasoline taxes. The rest generally comes from vehicle registrations, drivers' license fees, bonds and other public borrowing.

Most states levy gasoline taxes of 10 to 20 cents a gallon. Voters are reluctant to increase the tax; as a result, some states have the same rate they did two decades ago.

Oregon's gasoline tax, for example, has remained at 24 cents per gallon since 1993, Minnesota's at 20 cents since its inception in 1988 and Virginia's at 17.5 cents since 1986. The federal gasoline tax, which is 18.4 cents per gallon, hasn't changed since 1997.
"[C]omputers on the pumps subtracted the 24-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax and added a 1.2 cent fee for every mile driven."

TDI owners would be paying about 48 cents per gallon, assuming a conservative 40 miles per gallon.

"The bulk of highway and road funding, about 55%, comes from a combination of state and federal gasoline taxes.The rest generally comes from vehicle registrations, drivers' license fees, bonds and other public borrowing."

This percentage should increase, and other fees and borrowing should decrease. Start by equalizing the taxes on gasoline and diesel, then raise both by 5-10 cents/gallon per year for x number of years.
 

supton

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 25, 2004
Location
Central NH (USA)
TDI
'04 Jetta Wagon GLS
Hmm, I might have to reverse my position on this, and say "ok, so what?". It sorta makes sense, charge per mile, 'cept the whole bit about wear (small car wears a road a lot less than a big rig or big SUV). [Maybe the rate is tied to gross vehicle weight.] Hey, I like paved roads that are plowed, so I have to pay for them somehow. Taxes are necessary evil.

What I don't like is the notion of GPS systems etc. Just do it at registration time. There are big fines already for odometer tampering, and I don't think they are that easy to mess with either. Just grab the milage at inspection time, heck, when the guy plugs in the OBDII computer, they should be able to automatically pull the milage. Then it can be sent to the town office, automatically. I'm sure this isn't rocket science. Older vehicles will have to be done "manually", and sure, there may be some illegal activities going on; but just how much of the fleet is composed of pre-96 vehicles anyhow?

I don't like "invasion of privacy" all that much (even though, as long as I don't do anything "wrong", what do I care?), but what I don't like is the idea of "Let's spend a billion taxpayer dollars so we can get 500 million dollars to fix roads that we haven't been doing all these years". If you're going to change a system, do it cheaply. That's where they'll screw up, and it'll wind up just as bad as before.
 

osesu96

Veteran Member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
Mooresville, NC
TDI
2004 Jetta GLS TDI - Platinum Gray
Frankly, if the gov't is going to tax per mile, I think the following would be a more equitable method:

1. Determine tax at registration time. Don't pay the tax, don't get the registration. Calculation done as follows: Miles this year less miles at last year's inspection = total miles for the year. Then calculate against some tax rate. Simple right? :rolleyes:

2. Have a different "tax" rate based upon weight of the vehicle. Thus, if you drive a car that weighs 3k pounds, your tax rate per mile = "X". But you if you drive an 8k pound vehicle, your tax rate per mile = "X + Y = Z", etc.

3. Then make the lightest car the base tax rate and for each 500lb unit of weight above that base car, add "Y" amount of tax to the base, etc.

This way, some donk running around in a H2 would pay more tax per mile than someone running around in a Prius for example. That way, at least the H2 pays more for the damage they cause to the roadway over the miles they drove on said road, etc.

Just a thought....
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
I'm taking a wait-and-see approach to this. Remember, it is only in experimental stage. I don't like the idea of invasion of privacy either, but I can *sort* of see the need to discourage long distance commuting (which is where this proposal is seemingly targeted), as it contributes to congestion in several cities along I-5. I-5 is the most heavily travelled piece of concrete/asphalt in the WORLD in ton-miles and people-miles travelled. No, that is not hyperbole...look it up in an almanac. Neato factoid: the I-5 strip of asphalt/concrete is actually part of one contiguous international freeway that extends all the way from Tiera del Feugo to the Al-Can highway.

And, for the record, Oregon voter turn out is very high because we have mail in balloting....something like 78%, IIRC.
 

Borborygmi

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Location
Cedar Park, TX
TDI
2003 Jetta Wagon
Here in heart of Texas (Houston being the a*****e) they are busting their guts to build as many overpriced toll roads as they can. We could have increased the gas tax 17 cents and accomplished more in the long run.

I like efficient cars paying less in tax. The savings are deserved. First small cars cause less damage to the roads, and there are fewer diseconomies in terms of rescource depletion and carbon footprint.

I worry about systems that imply the accumulation of individually indentifyable data about how much people drive, and what checkpoints are recorded. That bothers me and I don't even have anything to hide.
 

JoeBleed

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Location
Macclesfield, NC, USA
TDI
Jetta, 2005 A4, Reflex Silver
2 months after they get the GPS systems installed they will look into issuing automatic speeding tickets too.

To anyone one that lives in OR. Tell your elected officials responsible for this, "If you REALLY want to be fair, you will equip ALL vehicles with this device and reduce the tax amount to eaual out to curent price per gallon"

Bet they will not like that. If any of them drive anything other than an suv it probably still will not get as high fuel millage as TDI, Prius/insites, and the few gassers in this country that get better than 35 mpg. I don't say hybrids in general because of the crappy suv hybrid hype.
 

4JimmyVee

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Location
Thornhill Ont Cda
TDI
1999.5 Silver
I Ontario the the diesel tax is $0.143/Ltr + fed tax $0.04/Ltr plus a GST sales tax of 6%. (Gas is $0.147/Ltr + Fed tax $0.10/Ltr + GST 6%). So for a $1.00 Litre, excise tax it $0.183 + sales tax $0.0566 = 19.96 cents tax on 1 ltr or 75.45 cent on a US Gallon.

Last year 47.8% of fuel tax revenues was used to cover road and repairs. That means that government needed a only 35.68 cents to cover cost.

Ontario has about 12.5m people and a size about 1/4 of the USA so there are a lot of roads with very little traffic. In general I would think the USA road cost given the population would be more efficient than Ontario. So maybe the case it that some of your fuel tax is being diverted into general funding.
 
Top