More Big Brother horseshit designed to raise taxes

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Personally, I think that cars should be taxed every year on value, like real estate. You drive a fancy 7 series or S class, you pay the price.

Jealous much?

Why should an expansive car be taxed at a higher rate? Did the car buyer do something wrong? Is this punishment?

A $60,000 SUV or sedan doesn't do any more damage to the road than a $30,000 SUV or car of comparable size. So why are they taxed more?

This is a variant of luxury taxes and it fails for the same reason. In the past, the government has tried to put heavy taxes on, for example, new boats. I think this occurred back in the 1980s.

All that happened was that a LOT of buyers shifted to used boats costing much less. In the end, the government took in LESS taxes, not more. And they wound up hurting boat makers when their sales of new boats dropped precipitously. If the government gets less tax revenue AND pays more in unemployment benefits for laid-off boat workers, what did the tax accomplish?

The problem is that wealthy people are smart and they KNOW when they are being gouged. They will adjust their purchases accordingly. The wealthy don't mind paying a one-time premium to GM for a high-end Cadillac Escalade. But most of them would rather piss on a spark plug than pay the government a premium EVERY year - even as the value of the car goes down - just for the right to spend their own money they way they want to.

I own a luxury SUV and a luxury sedan - both American-made. Why? Because I LIKE them. But if I had to pay some annual super-tax to drive them, I would sell them and get a cheap Chevy Blazer. Fuck the socialists.

Then, when the luxury brands lay off American workers, let the progressives figure out how to find new taxes to pay their unemployment benefits and job re-training.

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Additionally, gasoline taxes should be raised to pay for maintenance, it is one of the most fair taxes - you drive, you pay.

That's the attitude of people who live in Manhattan.

They never stop to wonder how groceries get into the stores they shop in. They never stop to wonder how people get around in the satellite suburbs and exurbs that support Manhattan.

EVERYBODY benefits from modern transportation, both directly and indirectly. Therefore, EVERYBODY should be paying for roads.

It's no different that taxes for education. No one gets to say, "I don't have kids, so I don't use educatoin resources. Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay school taxes."

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

WHY OH WHY DO I LOOK AT THIS BULLSHIT?

Thanks to you, America is at the intelligence level of the below average third world country.

So, should we put you down as a "No"?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

All that happened was that a LOT of buyers shifted to used boats costing much less. In the end, the government took in LESS taxes, not more. And they wound up hurting boat makers when their sales of new boats dropped precipitously. If the government gets less tax revenue AND pays more in unemployment benefits for laid-off boat workers, what did the tax accomplish?

."

The variant here is that though you may take in less taxes , you also may say spur innovation in the electric car mode. Which would cause less need for us to try and rape the environment with Canadian Tar sands and invading Iraq and the troubled middle east in general. There is much upside to a weaning this country from oil. Might it hurt the auto/oil industry? Not if they too got on board with the new revolution.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

The variant here is that though you may take in less taxes , you also may say spur innovation in the electric car mode. Which would cause less need for us to try and rape the environment with Canadian Tar sands and invading Iraq and the troubled middle east in general. There is much upside to a weaning this country from oil. Might it hurt the auto/oil industry? Not if they too got on board with the new revolution.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote about taxing the price of the car, rather than gas consumption.

And I said above, that I don't have a problem with gas taxes to reduce gas consumption and move us to electric cars.

But the point you're missing is that if we somehow get to ZERO combustion engine cars in America, then gas taxes will raise ZERO dollars in revenue. And long before we get to zero gas-powered cars, the gas tax - even a really high one - will fail to cover highway costs. In fact, that is already happening - hence this article.

So, how do we fix the roads and build new ones?

A gas tax was essentially a mileage tax - the more your drove, the more you paid. But at least there was an environmental justification for the high gas tax.

But once the environmental justification is gone, why should be base taxes on mileage. We all benefit from driving, no matter what mass transit riders in big cities think.

[rodog44]

Originally Posted by WTF

How the fuck else do you propose we pay for the upkeep on our roads?

They could start by not wasting so much money on stupid liberal shit

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

WHY OH WHY DO I LOOK AT THIS BULLSHIT?

Thanks to you, America is at the intelligence level of the below average third world country.

It isn't very patriotic to say that about America having an intelligence factor below the average third world country. We are the greatest country in the world.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote about taxing the price of the car, rather than gas consumption.

And I said above, that I don't have a problem with gas taxes to reduce gas consumption and move us to electric cars.

But the point you're missing is that if we somehow get to ZERO combustion engine cars in America, then gas taxes will raise ZERO dollars in revenue. And long before we get to zero gas-powered cars, the gas tax - even a really high one - will fail to cover highway costs. In fact, that is already happening - hence this article.

So, how do we fix the roads and build new ones?

A gas tax was essentially a mileage tax - the more your drove, the more you paid. But at least there was an environmental justification for the high gas tax.

But once the environmental justification is gone, why should be base taxes on mileage. We all benefit from driving, no matter what mass transit riders in big cities think.

The mass transit riders in big cities pay for the roads they use through the gas/diesel tax, also. The cost of freight reflects the cost of fuel and taxes on the fuel, and it is reflected in the cost of items purchased by those without or without cars. If you got it, a truck brought it - on roads properly paid for by the usage fee on roads reflected in the fuel tax. Bigger and heavier conveyances rip the roads to pieces, and they pay more for their heavier fuel usage reflected in their poor fuel economy and many miles on the road.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

.

But the point you're missing is that if we somehow get to ZERO combustion engine cars in America, then gas taxes will raise ZERO dollars in revenue. And long before we get to zero gas-powered cars, the gas tax - even a really high one - will fail to cover highway costs. In fact, that is already happening - hence this article.

.

That is a really good problem to have. We could cut down on Defense spending for one, trying to protect all that over seas oil the majors have been after!

Many positive unintended things would come of that IMHO.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well that is a bit naïve. So we should just do away with the gas tax and raise taxes in general. Good luck with getting elected with that idea.

The tax should be increased for a number of reason one of which is to raise more revenue for repair and the other is to discourage wasteful gas consumption.

Do you object because it is a regressive tax? Do you want it to be more progressive?

I like the fact that it is regressive, poor people should be more selective in their travel choices, IMHO.

When did the government of free men and women go into the business of regulating behavior? If you allow that action then how long will we be free? That seems to be the progressive idea. We are all too stupid to run our own lives so they (the experts) have to decided how much we drive, what we eat and how much, where we can live and how long we can live if we get sick,

[gnadfly]

Political Chestnuts 101:

There will never be enough taxes for

Bridges and Roads
National Infrastructure (Ports, Telcom networks, etc)
Teachers...our most valuable resource
The Children...our most value resource
Renewable Energy

Others, just keep checking them off during any State of the Union Address

[TexTushHog]

Tracking miles is dumb, mostly because it's cumbersome and unnecessary.

http://www.env-econ.net/2013/10/ther...es-driven.html

Replace $1 with $2 or $3 and move on.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Tracking miles is dumb, mostly because it's cumbersome and unnecessary.

http://www.env-econ.net/2013/10/ther...es-driven.html

Replace $1 with $2 or $3 and move on.

I think you missed a big part of the discussion above about what happens when (hopefully) all cars are electric/ And you recharge your battery from a solar panel on your roof?

There is no "fuel efficiency" criteria then. So, how do you raise road revenue?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

The mass transit riders in big cities pay for the roads they use through the gas/diesel tax, also. The cost of freight reflects the cost of fuel and taxes on the fuel, and it is reflected in the cost of items purchased by those without or without cars. If you got it, a truck brought it - on roads properly paid for by the usage fee on roads reflected in the fuel tax. Bigger and heavier conveyances rip the roads to pieces, and they pay more for their heavier fuel usage reflected in their poor fuel economy and many miles on the road.

That's true in the cities. But that's also true in rural and suburban areas.

The groceries in Tom Thumb in Plano or Allen also reflect the freight cost of the truck that brought them to the store.

But people in the suburbs and rural areas will also be hit with a higher share of the mileages taxes on TOP of the built-in freight costs.

But the city dwellers benefit from the driving done by suburbanites also.

It isn't possible or affordable for everyone to live in the city. Much (most?) of the work force in, for example, New York lives outside of Manhattan. They take mass transit into the city to work and they keep the city running. But when they commute home, they need cars to support their own lives.

They have more miles of road and less people to pay for them. Why should they bear the lion's share of the road tax burden (through a mileage tax) when the city dwellers benefit just as much from the roads in the outlying areas?

Like I said above, roads are like educations. Everybody benefits from them. Everybody should pay equally for them.

[RALPHEY BOY]

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I think you missed a big part of the discussion above about what happens when (hopefully) all cars are electric/ And you recharge your battery from a solar panel on your roof?

There is no "fuel efficiency" criteria then. So, how do you raise road revenue?

Replace it with general revenue. Getting carbon spewing cars off the road is a feature, not a bug. Speeding the transition is part of the appeal of higher gas taxes.