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

[rjd970]

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

There is two sides to the equation though. Why default to one side?

In a competent government run like a business, increase fuel efficiency would be a good thing. It would force a re-haul of the current system to find where savings can be made. I'd be willing to be if overhead and beuracracy were overhauled, and contracts were run with more scrutiny, they would be running a surplus with the current situation and the roads would be in better shape than they are now.

 

[utvolpj]

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

tagging it to the cpi is good and all but won't give you the real answer when considering total revenue. Way too many variables to say that the rate is the same, one measure has improved so the net result is negative (and significantly so).

do you believe the govt already has enough money to take care of the things it is supposed to? Can it maintain the roads using its current income? If that answer is even close to Yes then this is a useless idea and govt is overstepping its bounds once again

 

[rjd970]

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

Sure it does.

You really think with gas at $3/gallon, we need to make it more expensive to drive down the road and transport goods? In fact, if we make it cheaper to transport goods, not more expensive, then cost goes down across the board with everything. If anything, this is the last place you want to add a new tax or increase revenue, especially in a down economy.

As was said before, we already have a tax in place. If it doesn't work, tax differently, not add a new one.

 

[rjd970]

tagging it to the cpi is good and all but won't give you the real answer when considering total revenue. Way too many variables to say that the rate is the same, one measure has improved so the net result is negative (and significantly so).

do you believe the govt already has enough money to take care of the things it is supposed to? Can it maintain the roads using its current income? If that answer is even close to Yes then this is a useless idea and govt is overstepping its bounds once again

Needs to be highlighted for philosophical reasons related to government involvement in everyday life.

 

[milohimself]

tagging it to the cpi is good and all but won't give you the real answer when considering total revenue. Way too many variables to say that the rate is the same, one measure has improved so the net result is negative (and significantly so).

do you believe the govt already has enough money to take care of the things it is supposed to? Can it maintain the roads using its current income? If that answer is even close to Yes then this is a useless idea and govt is overstepping its bounds once again

Can you provide reasonable evidence that it doesn't have enough money to maintain the interstate system?

The problem you are citing with government-maintained roads is the monopoly that occurs when the government controls a particular sector.

There is a very critical problem applying free market economics to roads though: there is only one particular road from any point a to point b. If you give a business control over any given road, there cannot be competition. The result of privatizing roads will still result in a monopoly that presents the exact same issue you have with the government running it.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think we're moving towards less commuting and a shift towards urban population, and it mostly has to do with market forces and not so much with any sort of central planning by "The Man."

I have to disagree with you on your last point. I've got a lot of friends in architecture, specifically Urban Design/Planning. Cities like Nashville and Atlanta are developing detailed plans to transform the city completely. You will see shift of the middle class coming back to the cities. From the perspectives I have seen, there will be a lot more green space, better transportation, etc. I was really impressed. For those of you who live in Atlanta, Atlantic Station is a glimpse into what the future of Atlanta will look like.

 

[Vol423]

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

I don't know to which post you're referring, but in some of your posts you seem to be ignoring total U.S. fuel consumption. Fuel efficiency may be increasing, but I would wager heavily that total fuel consumption has increased due to the increase in the population.

 

[milohimself]

I have to disagree with you on your last point. I've got a lot of friends in architecture, specifically Urban Design/Planning. Cities like Nashville and Atlanta are developing detailed plans to transform the city completely. You will see shift of the middle class coming back to the cities. From the perspectives I have seen, there will be a lot more green space, better transportation, etc. I was really impressed. For those of you who live in Atlanta, Atlantic Station is a glimpse into what the future of Atlanta will look like.

Not saying they're not planning on it, but they're not planning it... See the difference? It's not some motivated move originated by the government to move people back around. At least not here.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Not saying they're not planning on it, but they're not planning it... See the difference? It's not some motivated move originated by the government to move people back around. At least not here.

Meaning that they are planning it for the right reasons...not sinister alternative motives?

I can't vouch for your area (the Pacific Northwest) but I know Atlanta and Nashville are Urban Planning on the local government level with obvious help from top experts in the field.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Meaning that they are planning it for the right reasons...not sinister alternative motives?

I can't vouch for your area (the Pacific Northwest) but I know Atlanta and Nashville are Urban Planning on the local government level with obvious help from top experts in the field.

The latter sounds like Obama.

 

[volinbham]

This would have a hugely negative impact on the economy and be a massively regressive tax.