Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ultimate big brother tax, limiting individual's free travel within the USA via taxation. Yet another layer of government bureaucracy with a new agency created: Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. How are you going to like having a government required device in your vehicle tracking your travel/miles driven, to be taxed?
Now you're coming back to the root question. Is the purpose of the tax to provide a fair and equitable way of collecting revenue vs the use of highways? Or is it to penalize behaviors that the government has deemed "bad" and try to influence behavior?
Both. The government’s responsibility is to provide for the infrastructure and taxes are a way to pay for it. It is also the government’s responsibility to maintain an energy policy for the state/nation. Consumption of a resource has implications on government policies and its ability to govern. Consequently, you can’t go bonkers with the usage and not have an impact on nation’s general welfare down the road. An energy policy is critical to develop and maintain the infrastructure and not just for a year or ten down the road, but with decades in mind.
Oil is one of the most valued commodity, and we don’t have the resources to be independent. It also accounts for a massive trade deficit, a drain on the economy. Then, we must engage with business partners globally, and that isn’t always a pleasant situation either. Everybody else is competing too. The less we consume, the less we participate in conflicts. And these are issues the government must address. The masses don’t care. They want it all cheap and available at all times. They would be also the first to complain and push for chaos if things start to fail. So yes, the behavior of the collective needs to be controlled through the government... the representation of the people that doesn't work in selfish interests but in national interest. Why else do you think a country like Norway has gasoline priced around $8.50/gallon?
Quote:
Much like bicyclists, who want infrastructure provided, but don't want to pay for it.
Bicyclists fall in a whole different category. The idea is generally promoted by cities, at the local level rather than at state or federal level. Communities have self-interest involved in pretty much the same way they invest in parks.
Obama wants to PUNISH people that must commute long distances to work each day because their homes are upside down in value and can't afford to sell and move closer.
This will in turn inflate the values of home NEAR employment centers and depress values of homes in the suburbs and bedroom communities.
Thank you, at least you are finally admitting to your williness to submit to a tyrannical governement and the force to make others do likewise.
However, in reality, Americans do not have to accept further and further government intrusion into our private lives and basic freedoms including the right to travel freely thoughout our state and our country with our movement being tracked by the government. Because you choose to bow to tryanny does not make it a reality that most Americans should. That they do is pathetic.
I'm sorry to inform you that the country you call home happened to have been fought for a government that was meant to work for the nation's, not an individual's, best interest. You will have to find a remote island with no human presence to be shielded from the "government".
Bicyclists fall in a whole different category. The idea is generally promoted by cities, at the local level rather than at state or federal level. Communities have self-interest involved in pretty much the same way they invest in parks.
I disagree. The vast majority of the members of the community have no self-interest in bicycle travel or utilization, only a small minority to. I think the type of system proposed by the OP should be utilized on bicycles as well. It is an equitable user fee, collected only from those that utilize the bike trails, and provides for highway maintenance when they are used on streets. Revenue should be utilized only for related infrastrastructure construction/maintenance.
Construction and maintenance of highways, mass transit and other means of transport should be paid by the users of those systems. It is not fair to charge the general public for them. I'll admit, streets are an issue. Even people w/o a car benefit, in that police, fire and emergency vehicles they utilize also use roadways. Plus everyone buys products delivered over those roads.
I'm sorry to inform you that the country you call home happened to have been fought for a government that was meant to work for the nation's, not an individual's, best interest. You will have to find a remote island with no human presence to be shielded from the "government".
We fought for a government that was small and LIMITED in its reach. If you want to be a slave to the state, you could have stayed a British colony.
Both. The government’s responsibility is to provide for the infrastructure and taxes are a way to pay for it. It is also the government’s responsibility to maintain an energy policy for the state/nation. Consumption of a resource has implications on government policies and its ability to govern. Consequently, you can’t go bonkers with the usage and not have an impact on nation’s general welfare down the road. An energy policy is critical to develop and maintain the infrastructure and not just for a year or ten down the road, but with decades in mind.
Oil is one of the most valued commodity, and we don’t have the resources to be independent. It also accounts for a massive trade deficit, a drain on the economy. Then, we must engage with business partners globally, and that isn’t always a pleasant situation either. Everybody else is competing too. The less we consume, the less we participate in conflicts. And these are issues the government must address. The masses don’t care. They want it all cheap and available at all times. They would be also the first to complain and push for chaos if things start to fail. So yes, the behavior of the collective needs to be controlled through the government... the representation of the people that doesn't work in selfish interests but in national interest. Why else do you think a country like Norway has gasoline priced around $8.50/gallon?
Bicyclists fall in a whole different category. The idea is generally promoted by cities, at the local level rather than at state or federal level. Communities have self-interest involved in pretty much the same way they invest in parks.
Oddly, I agree with you again. We have to stop doing this.
Oil consumption and an integrated energy policy is necessary for the strategic defense of the nation and the insurance of continued economic operations. We need to have a long term plan that reduces our dependency on foreign resources.
I really do not have a "use tax" that taxes for driving more. This is the same principle as a toll road. I would like the mileage tax better, as I hate stopping for toll booths all the time.
Some states have actually floated the balloon of "speeding licenses", in which one would pay a weekly or monthly rate to drive 90mph on the interstate. I would certainly buy that, as I always speed on the interstates, but drive under the speed limit in town.
I disagree. The vast majority of the members of the community have no self-interest in bicycle travel or utilization, only a small minority to. I thing the type of system proposed by the OP should be utilized on bicycles as well. It is an equitable user fee, collected only from those that utilize the bike trails, and provides for highway maintenance when they are used on streets. Revenue should be utilized only for related infrastrastructure construction/maintenance.
Charged by who? State and federal governments? Or, should it be a city/local government decision, based on its community needs and wants?
Quote:
Construction and maintenance of highways, mass transit and other means of transport should be paid by the users of those systems. It is not fair to charge the general public for them. I'll admit, streets are an issue. Even people w/o a car benefit, in that police, fire and emergency vehicles they utilize also use roadways. Plus everyone buys products delivered over those roads.
Even if someone doesn't use a road/infrastructure, he/she benefits from its existence. Would you mind providing ONE instance where that wouldn't be true?
We fought for a government that was small and LIMITED in its reach. If you want to be a slave to the state, you could have stayed a British colony.
The government was NEVER small. The country had a small population however, with limited needs. The difference, however, was that the government was designed to work primarily for the people. Not everything put in the design was acceptable to everybody but that is the reality of a government. The idea was never a pure democracy, but a democratic republic where the elected were meant to work in the short and long term interests of the nation, and consequently of the people.
The idea that somehow seeing the need for government's role is supporting East India Company ways is foolish. Remember, the problem wasn't having a government, but having a government that worked for the people. That was fundamental to the American Revolution. Even a cursory look at the recorded history should tell you that.
Charged by who? State and federal governments? Or, should it be a city/local government decision, based on its community needs and wants?
Same as roads IMO. Federal funds are used for bike paths, as well as state and local communities. Base the use fee on how much each of those sources provides.
Quote:
Even if someone doesn't use a road/infrastructure, he/she benefits from its existence. Would you mind providing ONE instance where that wouldn't be true?
I'm not quite sure what your asking. In the case of roads (as I said), everyone gets some benefits. Even if they don't drive, they receive products delivered over roads. Still, the operator of the vehicle could be the one to pay the use fee...the prices of their product would reflect this cost.
As far as other infrastructure...bike paths are the obvious example of a case where this wouldn't be true. Only the users do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
