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.
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.
Federal funds are provided for building and maintaining roads, not for bike paths. The latter has to be a local decision (this is assuming bike lanes, not dedicated bike paths within localities). But let me ask you this. When I get home tonight, I will pull out my bike and go for a ten mile ride. About a quarter mile will be on a city street and the rest on a bike trail built and maintained by the city. Why do you think this ride warrants a use pay to the state and federal government? I pay for infrastructure via taxes, and in this case, sales tax. It shouldn’t matter whether I drive a bike or a gas guzzler on it.
Now, if anybody survived entirely on a bike, the person is still contributing to taxes in one way or another, just not directly. But then, if we were to engage in direct payments only, perhaps we should consider more than just gas burned, but vehicle weight, its propensity to call for greater damage requiring more maintenance and so on.
Quote:
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.
And consequently, the cost would be borne, not by the operator but by all consumers.
Quote:
As far as other infrastructure...bike paths are the obvious example of a case where this wouldn't be true. Only the users do.
Again, I am not aware of bike paths being built and maintained by state and federal government. Cities do, and they fund it via local taxes.
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.
Is is NOT the govt's responsibility to maintain an energy policy. Where the heck does our constitution say THAT? It's also not the federal govt's responsibility to maintain infrastructure. Leave that up to the local governments.
Is is NOT the govt's responsibility to maintain an energy policy. Where the heck does our constitution say THAT? It's also not the federal govt's responsibility to maintain infrastructure. Leave that up to the local governments.
That is your opinion, based on your perceptions. I disagree. It is government's responsibility to ensure general welfare of the nation, and energy policy would be an integral part of it.
In honesty, you can't have a discussion about a fuel tax without knowing how its going to be allocated.
If it's simply a de facto user fee , all that needs to be debated is:
1.The where and how of infrastructure repairs
2.The why,where and how concerning new roads
I believe most people view the tax in this light.
Now if portions of the fuel tax are going to subsidize other endevours such as mass transportation or solar, windmill and algae technologies etc. it can now be viewed as another income redistribution scheme that benefits those industries whom the government favors at the expense of those who drive.
Any tax monies diverted in such a manner should be stopped.
Eventaully we are goig to have to decide how to pay for raodways and maintenances from less gasoline tax revenues with vehicles gettig better miage .Otherwsie we will see the roadway just get worse and we have been building new ones for decades now which means more maintenance.
That is your opinion, based on your perceptions. I disagree. It is government's responsibility to ensure general welfare of the nation, and energy policy would be an integral part of it.
We're all entitled to our opinions. Sadly, the opinions of the left mean greater govt control, cost, waste and the slow eroding of our freedoms. But hey, at least the koolaide was tasty.
Eventaully we are goig to have to decide how to pay for raodways and maintenances from less gasoline tax revenues with vehicles gettig better miage .Otherwsie we will see the roadway just get worse and we have been building new ones for decades now which means more maintenance.
Thats easy. Stop funding other things with the existing tax.
Federal funds are provided for building and maintaining roads, not for bike paths. The latter has to be a local decision (this is assuming bike lanes, not dedicated bike paths within localities). But let me ask you this. When I get home tonight, I will pull out my bike and go for a ten mile ride. About a quarter mile will be on a city street and the rest on a bike trail built and maintained by the city. Why do you think this ride warrants a use pay to the state and federal government? I pay for infrastructure via taxes, and in this case, sales tax. It shouldn’t matter whether I drive a bike or a gas guzzler on it.
Now, if anybody survived entirely on a bike, the person is still contributing to taxes in one way or another, just not directly. But then, if we were to engage in direct payments only, perhaps we should consider more than just gas burned, but vehicle weight, its propensity to call for greater damage requiring more maintenance and so on.
And consequently, the cost would be borne, not by the operator but by all consumers.
Again, I am not aware of bike paths being built and maintained by state and federal government. Cities do, and they fund it via local taxes.
Look closer at where the state and local moneis come fro to fund these paths.often its matchig grants and CDBG grants.
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.
