Comments on: Thinking out of the box

By: democommie

democommie — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:57:39 +0000

“The point of the tax is to fund road construction”. This is true, but only because Detroit and Big Oil prevailed, through their lobbyists, to have it have done that way. That tax should have been spent to fund the entire transportation infrastructure. Our railroads suck, largely because the pittance that Amtrack gets is dwarfed by the monies spent on highway contstruction.

I used to work in Boston and for about 10 years put up with the “Big Dig”. At the end of the project you can get into Boston faster–and not find any place to park. The notion that bringing more cars into already gridlocked urban environments might not be a great idea is, apparently, one that the planners never really entertained

By: Jim the not so good at it Troll

Jim the not so good at it Troll — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:48:40 +0000

The point of the tax is to fund road construction. Taxes should not be punishment should they? They should be legitimate charges to cover the costs of government. So the question should become what is a fair and equitable way to fund road construction? In the past, it has been via a gasoline tax. Since all cars used gasoline, all users paid the tax to use the roads. As cars transition to hybrid, fuel cell, pure electric, or other non gasoline powered options, then it makes sense that the gas tax will need to be re-structured to cover the cost of building and maintaining the roads. And for the record, I do drive a very fuel efficient car (not a hybird – those things are EXPENSIVE!) because I do not want to pay more for my travel expenses either.

By: Southern Beale

Southern Beale — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:40:31 +0000

Is this Memphis Jim? Jim isn’t a troll. He’s more of a noodge, which is Yiddish for pain in the ass. For example:

“In essence, by driving a car that gets better gas milage, you are using more of the roads for less of a fee. That seems unfair to me.”

Well it’s unfair if you’re the asshole driving the Hummer which is the whole point of the tax, ya big fat dummy. The point of the tax is to encourage people to NOT be assholes. Consider it an asshole tax. You can still be an asshole, but you’ll have to pay for it.

Unfair? Only to an asshole.

By: jim

jim — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:13:24 +0000

But if we agree, can you really be a troll? Although I do appreciate the concern.

By: Jim the Troll

Jim the Troll — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:49:39 +0000

I do agree that the tax should figure in the weight of your car plus occupants. Your road usage fee would be based on the car weight plus your body weight. You would have to enter your weight at your last doctor’s visit – or maybe this could be done by the new czar position created in the stimulus bill – he could just get it from your electronic medical files.

P.S. I know you felt bad that nobody would troll your blog so I will do the best I can.

By: jim

jim — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:01:34 +0000

Equally applied taxes, like sales taxes, are regressive in nature. They impose a greater burden on and consume a larger percentage of the income of the people who can least afford them.

I’m not using more of the road, I’m actually using a significantly smaller footprint in my Honda Fit than someone in a Hummer. I also have less impact on the road because my smaller car is less weight on the road, and thus I am less destructive to the infrastructure.

I may be traveling the same distance (although if someone in a Hummer works where I do and makes the same commute, I’d offer to carpool and cut his gas bill by 85%), so that part of the equation is equal, but the total impact is not.

Solely based on infrastructure impact alone, and not counting mileage considerations, the road impact costs of the Hummer are over 3 1/3 greater. To me, that’s justification for the Hummer owner paying over three times the tax I do.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:40:05 +0000

“Mileage taxes would penalize both of us equally, which is unfair.”

Thats funny. An equal tax on all people is unfair. In essence, by driving a car that gets better gas milage, you are using more of the roads for less of a fee. That seems unfair to me.

By: jim voorhies

jim voorhies — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:53:26 +0000

SB, the difference in the taxes lies in your car choices. My car only takes 12 gallons to go 400 miles. A Hummer takes 50. ,My gas taxes are at least proportional to my decision to drive a car that gets damn good mileage and the Hummer driver is stuck with higher taxes, as he or she should for being an asshole.

Mileage taxes would penalize both of us equally, which is unfair.

By: democommie

democommie — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:16:53 +0000

jim:

It was all foretold by Nostrabeatles:

“If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet”

By: Mack

Mack — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:34:02 +0000

Surely this can be done by sampling…