More Government Taxing...this time, every mile you drive

#26
#26
That hasn't happened here yet. I'm not sure about Portland, but when my sister lived in Seattle there were many more inner city neighborhoods that were family friendly than here in Atlanta. The only gentrification that has happened here is for the single or fairly affluent.
 
#27
#27
utvolpj said:
the taxes already exist. The gov't has plenty of money if they would just handle it properly
Click to expand...

This is the bottom line for me. The answer to decreased fuel tax revenue isn't more taxation, it is better revenue management. I could get on board with some sort of mileage tax if they did away with the tax on fuel altogether or significantly decreased it, making the revenue neutral. Both shouldn't be needed though with fuel tax at present rates, better money management is what is needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#29
#29
rjd970 said:
This is the bottom line for me. The answer to decreased fuel tax revenue isn't more taxation, it is better revenue management. I could get on board with some sort of mileage tax if they did away with the tax on fuel altogether. Both aren't needed though, better money management is.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Our local city taxes just went up another 17% with the city council's approval yesterday. That was after an 11% increase last year and a 5% increase in school taxes this year as well. Craziness, just craziness.
 
#30
#30
rjd970 said:
This is the bottom line for me. The answer to decreased fuel tax revenue isn't more taxation, it is better revenue management. I could get on board with some sort of mileage tax if they did away with the tax on fuel altogether. Both aren't needed though, better money management is.
Click to expand...

The gov't is putting themselves in a bind. They are requiring better MPG, but in doing that they are decreasing the tax revenue since taxes are per gallon. In all honesty fuel taxes should be per dollar if they are going to keep them. That way tax revenue rises with inflation.
 
#31
#31
rmsmith said:
The gov't is putting themselves in a bind. They are requiring better MPG, but in doing that they are decreasing the tax revenue since taxes are per gallon. In all honesty fuel taxes should be per dollar if they are going to keep them. That way tax revenue rises with inflation.
Click to expand...

and let the price of a commodity control tax revenue? Not sure that sounds like much fun to the payers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
rmsmith said:
That hasn't happened here yet. I'm not sure about Portland, but when my sister lived in Seattle there were many more inner city neighborhoods that were family friendly than here in Atlanta. The only gentrification that has happened here is for the single or fairly affluent.
Click to expand...
I think so with Seattle, I have a few friends, most of whom are married, some with kids, that live in TRUT's old neighborhood of Fremont which is about as close as you can get to downtown Seattle on the north side.

rjd970 said:
This is the bottom line for me. The answer to decreased fuel tax revenue isn't more taxation, it is better revenue management. I could get on board with some sort of mileage tax if they did away with the tax on fuel altogether or significantly decreased it, making the revenue neutral. Both shouldn't be needed though with fuel tax at present rates, better money management is what is needed.
Click to expand...
What are the figures for this? Why should I necessarily just assume that the government has enough money to maintain the roads? The only thing I know is that rate and taxation method hasn't changed since 1993, and CPI-adjusted revenue has decreased because of increased fuel efficiency.
 
#34
#34
rmsmith said:
sales taxes are per dollar. There are many other commodities subject to sales tax right? Or no?
Click to expand...
which ones have the impact on daily life that oil does?

make up the lost revenue by requiring something like yearly smog inspections. If they truly cared about being "green"....
 
#35
#35
utvolpj said:
which ones have the impact on daily life that oil does?

make up the lost revenue by requiring something like yearly smog inspections. If they truly cared about being "green"....
Click to expand...

That's only a state by state issue though. It can't account for the interstate system.

But, that is one thing I'd like to see implemented from other countries, inspections are typically more frequent and more comprehensive. You can't get tags without having your car in a road-worthy state of repair.

I've known too many people that let their car fall to **** because they can't be bothered to keep it in good condition, and it eventually fails catastrophically while driving.
 
#36
#36
milohimself said:
Roads are something we all use and all need to pay for, something I'm sure just about all of us agree there needs to be a tax for.

I wouldn't mind a format change in road tax, per se, but not by installing a tracker in our cars.
Click to expand...

Someone ban this clown...
 
#38
#38
utvolpj said:
which ones have the impact on daily life that oil does?

make up the lost revenue by requiring something like yearly smog inspections. If they truly cared about being "green"....
Click to expand...

I agree oil has a much greater impact than any other. But perhaps that is part of the problem. I'll probably get laughed at by someone i'm sure but gas is still pretty cheap.
 
#41
#41
milohimself said:
I think so with Seattle, I have a few friends, most of whom are married, some with kids, that live in TRUT's old neighborhood of Fremont which is about as close as you can get to downtown Seattle on the north side.


What are the figures for this? Why should I necessarily just assume that the government has enough money to maintain the roads? The only thing I know is that rate and taxation method hasn't changed since 1993, and CPI-adjusted revenue has decreased because of increased fuel efficiency.
Click to expand...

While the above is true, I would think the number of vehicles on the road has also increased quite a bit, in accordance with our population increase. However, imo, the national highway system has made us too dependent on personal vehicles and is actually somewhat archaic when compared to other methods of transportation. I would prefer my tax $ be spent on improving our mass transit systems in the U.S. We are far behind in this area compared to other countries.
 
#42
#42
Transit is fine left to states and/or metropolitan areas. The public transit here in Portland is pretty solid for about 2/3 of the covered area.

I assume you're talking about a rail system, which would be a massive undertaking considering the area of the lower 48. It works great for other countries because most of them are a small fraction of the size and have much greater population density.
 
#43
#43
milohimself said:
Transit is fine left to states and/or metropolitan areas. The public transit here in Portland is pretty solid for about 2/3 of the covered area.

I assume you're talking about a rail system, which would be a massive undertaking considering the area of the lower 48. It works great for other countries because most of them are a small fraction of the size and have much greater population density.
Click to expand...

I am talking about both. Local area transit systems in the U.S. are significantly under utilized for most metropolitan areas. As an example, compare passenger rates with those for the airlines.

Regarding interstate transit systems, there are many areas where it would make sense. They have been discussing a high-speed rail system between Atlanta and Chattanooga for years. I could also envision a high-speed system along both the east and west coasts.
 
#44
#44
Maybe on the eastern seaboard, sure. Everything here is very spread out, the entire length of Boston to DC would fit between Portland and SF with about 100 miles on each end to spare, almost again between SF and LA. Portland to Seattle ain't exactly a quick trip either (almost exactly the same as Knox to Nash)

A dedicated high speed rail would make perfect sense for the eastern corridor, but would be a massive undertaking anywhere else. It's still going to happen between LA and SF, but the cost is going to be massive.

I still think the car is the only realistic solution to US transportation needs for the forseeable future.
 
#45
#45
milohimself said:
What are the figures for this? Why should I necessarily just assume that the government has enough money to maintain the roads? The only thing I know is that rate and taxation method hasn't changed since 1993, and CPI-adjusted revenue has decreased because of increased fuel efficiency.
Click to expand...

Why should I necessarily assume that efficiency and better money management with existing revenue wouldn't solve the problem either? Decreased revenue shouldn't mean increased taxes, it should mean all other measures for saving money should be exhausted first. With everything else in life, that is the way it works. I can't just give myself a raise.

Unless you think the government is running all contracts to maintain roads at max efficiency and there is no waste in the system?

More taxes is definitely not the answer. Better revenue management is by far the better place to start.
 
#46
#46
Thats well and good and theoretically there is always room for more efficiency with anything thats ever existed.

But, if the tax has not been changed in nearly twenty years and total fuel efficiency has increased substantially since then, common sense ought to tell you that cpi adjusted revenue has decreased. And considering inflation has gone up 60+ish % and fuel efficiency has improved 20ish% it's probably a significant decrease
 
#47
#47
milohimself said:
Thats well and good and theoretically there is always room for more efficiency with anything thats ever existed.

But, if the tax has not been changed in nearly twenty years and total fuel efficiency has increased substantially since then, common sense ought to tell you that cpi adjusted revenue has decreased. And considering inflation has gone up 60+ish % and fuel efficiency has improved 20ish% it's probably a significant decrease
Click to expand...

whole lot more unknowns in that equation than you're considering when you state "significant decrease"
 
#48
#48
milohimself said:
Thats well and good and theoretically there is always room for more efficiency with anything thats ever existed.

But, if the tax has not been changed in nearly twenty years and total fuel efficiency has increased substantially since then, common sense ought to tell you that cpi adjusted revenue has decreased. And considering inflation has gone up 60+ish % and fuel efficiency has improved 20ish% it's probably a significant decrease
Click to expand...


If I had to guess, there is more room for efficiency with the government than most anything else that has ever existed.

And if the tax needs to be perpetually raised every year because fuel efficiency always trends better and inflation always trends up, then where is the cutoff? Eventually something will have to give and cuts will need to be made and/or revenue management will need to improve. Why not do it now?
 
#49
#49
Okay but unless the tax has been raised to match inflation and fuel efficiency then revenue must be decreasing

The only unknown in that post is if the gas tax has been raised since the early nineties
 
#50
#50
rjd970 said:
If I had to guess, there is more room for efficiency with the government than most anything else that has ever existed.

And if the tax needs to be perpetually raised every year because fuel efficiency always trends better and inflation always trends up, then where is the cutoff? Eventually something will have to give and cuts will need to be made and/or revenue management will need to improve. Why not do it now?
Click to expand...
if the tax is a fixed dollar amount and inflation exists, then revenue will decrease every year. The cost of road maintenance trends with cpi so if the tax is a fixed dollar amount then we can afford less road maintenance every year. This much has nothing to do with government efficiency
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top