By-the-mile road tax could be around the corner - Page 3

cookinwithgas · 07-02-2009, 09:21 AM

I also happen to think that the gas tax is the best way to achieve our goals, but when politics gets involved, strange things start to happen.

In Europe, the very high gas taxes mean that fuel efficiency is at the top of everyones list of desirables in a car, the roads are less congested, and in better shape when they are needed. They have the advantage of a much easier to implement mass transit system there, which makes it more of a challenge here - we would have to really change the way we depend on far flung suburbs for the mass transit option to be efficient enough.

Jase · 07-02-2009, 09:25 AM

It's an incredibly expensive and personal rights-infringing alternative to one of the fairest taxes we have. Gas tax is the closest thing the common person pays to a pure use tax.

Should never happen. Because it's ridiculous.

Fireball77 · 07-02-2009, 09:38 AM

I don't know a single person who could use mass transit to get to work. It isn't an option for most anyone outside of a city. This again would punish small business owners like us. My husband has to drive and maintain a van because it is absolutely necessary to transport all the equipment he needs to do his job. Most of his territory is 60 plus miles from our house. As far as I know, a "green" van of the type he would need is no option. Oh yeah and our taxes are already humongous in OH and we have the crappiest roads of anywhere I have ever lived.

Meat · 07-02-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fireball77

I don't know a single person who could use mass transit to get to work. It isn't an option for most anyone outside of a city. This again would punish small business owners like us. My husband has to drive and maintain a van because it is absolutely necessary to transport all the equipment he needs to do his job. Most of his territory is 60 plus miles from our house. As far as I know, a "green" van of the type he would need is no option. Oh yeah and our taxes are already humongous in OH and we have the crappiest roads of anywhere I have ever lived.

Zod could. His studio is right by the transit thingy in Charlotte.

Jase · 07-02-2009, 09:46 AM

like I said early in this thread, it punishes rural people and the otherwise poor.

There is so much ammo against this, it's almost too easy.

cookinwithgas · 07-02-2009, 09:55 AM

Could the argument be made that the current system punishes the city people, because a disproportionate amount of roads vs. usage that need to be maintained are in rural areas? In other words, are all of us more urban people being unfairly taxed to support roads that not that many people use?

Someone will always find something to complain about with these taxes - but Fireball, if your husband is using the hell out of the roads, should he be paying more for them than people who do not? Are people getting lower prices from your husbands work (or is he able to survive in his job) because folks in Columbus are paying more to subsidize the roads he uses and they never do?

I'm not arguing for or against anything, just trying to point out the complexity of these kinds of things.

LiQuiD · 07-02-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PntherPryd

But taxing consumption is the simplest, most efficient and logical method to having highway funds be proportional to how much you use the road.

Thanks for restating what I said in my original post. Pay-per-mile is taxing consumption. Pay-per-gallon is taxing fuel-inefficiency.

Jase · 07-02-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookinwithgas

Could the argument be made that the current system punishes the city people, because a disproportionate amount of roads vs. usage that need to be maintained are in rural areas? In other words, are all of us more urban people being unfairly taxed to support roads that not that many people use?

No. Anyone with the DOT will tell you that urban road projects are by far the most expensive and receive the most attention. If anything, the rural folks are getting screwed.

Meat · 07-02-2009, 10:02 AM

Here's what I think. I think pay-per-mile is taxing consumption. Pay-per-gallon is taxing fuel-inefficiency.

PntherPryd · 07-02-2009, 10:10 AM

Pay per gallon is not taxing consumption? wtf?

Pay per mile is taxing usage not consumption, which is one way to tackle problem. But exactly how is the pay per gallon method NOT working to such an extent that the huge cost to startup, maintain and enforce pay per mile would be an efficient choice?

07-02-2009, 09:25 AM	#22
Jase Sign Taye Biddle!!111 Join Date: Nov 2008 Age: 26 Posts: 7,540 Pie Slices: 133 Given Pie 494 Times in 302 Posts Rep Power: 1039	It's an incredibly expensive and personal rights-infringing alternative to one of the fairest taxes we have. Gas tax is the closest thing the common person pays to a pure use tax. Should never happen. Because it's ridiculous. __________________

07-02-2009, 09:46 AM	#25
Jase Sign Taye Biddle!!111 Join Date: Nov 2008 Age: 26 Posts: 7,540 Pie Slices: 133 Given Pie 494 Times in 302 Posts Rep Power: 1039	like I said early in this thread, it punishes rural people and the otherwise poor. There is so much ammo against this, it's almost too easy. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-02-2009, 09:38 AM	#23
Fireball77 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,004 Pie Slices: 0 Given Pie 0 Times in 0 Posts Rep Power: 10	I don't know a single person who could use mass transit to get to work. It isn't an option for most anyone outside of a city. This again would punish small business owners like us. My husband has to drive and maintain a van because it is absolutely necessary to transport all the equipment he needs to do his job. Most of his territory is 60 plus miles from our house. As far as I know, a "green" van of the type he would need is no option. Oh yeah and our taxes are already humongous in OH and we have the crappiest roads of anywhere I have ever lived.