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.
I'd agree, it's completely unfair way to assess it because on average the $50 will never make up for the lost revenue.
Thats what I was thinking also. $ 50 is kind of low. Generally fees start out low and once accepted then they can be raised. (phma)
You motorcycle weighs a lot less than a vehicle and does less damage.
That makes the argument for fees based on weight.
Most people know that in the northern states the roads need repair from moisture that freezes repeatedly creating the pot holes not from traffic. Continuous big heavy truck traffic would make a large difference though and help create the pot holes faster.
I guess we can start by stripping the funding given to mass transit then..... Anytime I have ever tried and research what is paying for what where roads are concerned it's a huge quagmire of funds be shifted all over the place. For example here in PA the fuel tax is used to help fund mass transit, you have tolls from the Turnpike being shifted back to public roads...and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
In any event I fully support user fees for infrastructure that pays for it entirely, I also fully support using every penny for what it's being collected for.
I don't know quite how this would be assessed. There's the cost of building the roads in the first place; it's the same per square foot no matter what, even if you're just walking along the road, or bicycling. And so forth. Roads are a public improvement as well. It's sort of like the police or fire dept that I hopefully will never have to use, though I pay for it.
Yes and if you go back to the very first post in this topic I made you will see I said we need a tax based on miles driven and the weight of the vehicle.
What you and others don't seem to understand is this for the most part is how it worked before. On average your larger vehicles uses more fuel and pays more tax. It certainly was not perfect but on average it fairly distributed the costs.
I don't have a problem with non gas using vehicles paying for infrastructure. What's the alternative other than a milage tax and mandate inspections including milage readings.
And the last legislation upping fuel standards was signed by President Bush - and the current 27.5 MPG standard that went into effect in 2011 and was approved by Obama was 1 mpg LOWER than the standard recommended by President Bush.
So Bush cared about the environment more than Obama? After all, that is the synopsis an enviornmental kook could come to..
I'm self-employed, and I don't even attempt to cheat on my taxes. There's way too little time to even focus on that.
I'm concerned that you would cheat.
Look, there is an IRS for a reason. There are audits for a reason. There are a lot of people in prison right now on tax evasion for a reason. There are plenty of people cheating on their taxes, and almost everyone gets away with it. And if they aren't cheating on their taxes in a way that is obvious. They are certainly finding any way they possibly can to reduce their tax burden.
It reminds me of the Jon Stewart video about General Electric.
"The biggest headache for the IRS is collecting business income from the self employed, who must voluntarily report their earnings, and may — accidentally or on purpose — omit items such as income received through bartering, debt cancellation, or kickbacks. The IRS says only 44% of taxes owed on such business income end up getting collected by the agency.
Anyway, the IRS in 2006 said that nearly $400 billion a year in taxes was being avoided. Some estimates have it at about $600 billion a year. That means somewhere between 16% and 25% of all taxable income is effectively "dodged".
To put it more visually. If you were in a room of 12 people, it would be as if 2 to 3 of the people in the room simply chose not to pay their taxes altogether. Yes, 2 to 3 people out of 12 people effectively aren't paying their taxes.
To put it more visually. If you were in a room of 12 people, it would be as if 2 to 3 of the people in the room simply chose not to pay their taxes altogether. Yes, 2 to 3 people out of 12 people effectively aren't paying their taxes.
You do realize that isn't an accurate representation of what is happening, right? You would need a room of 100 people to have 2-3 that drive hybrids. And then even those 2-3 people are still paying gasoline tax. Just not as much.
A better target would be those large number of people who have children that are avoiding their share of taxes.
The costs will not be lower, if you increase the cost on trucking you're not magically making rail cheaper or more efficient. It just becomes more attractive and cost competitive because the cost of trucking has gone up.
Your savings comes in road building/maintenance costs and whether that will offset the higher prices at the store is debatable.
Look, any time the efficiency of production of goods and services is lower than it otherwise would be, the net cost of those goods and services go up.
If trucks are less efficient in terms of fuel and time than trains, then the goods transported with trucks "in the end" will be more expensive.
What you need to understand is the difference between what something appears to be, and what something actually is. When you subsidize something, it may give the appearance of being cheaper, but those subsidies still have to be paid. And the total cost after those subsidies are accounted for will be higher than in their absence.
Subsidizing anything always reduces total efficiency. Thus subsidizing anything always raises prices. The only benefit of subsidizing something is to make it more attractive, usually for political purposes(IE it benefits a powerful special-interest).
For instance, seafood is currently far more expensive than beef. The government could heavily subsidize seafood until it was cheaper than beef. The problem of course is, those subsidies still have to be paid, and they will have to be paid for by taxes. Those taxes necessarily drive up all costs of those who have to pay them. Which essentially means, it drives up all costs.
You might assume that if we pulled the subsidies from the seafood that the cost of beef would stay the same and only the cost of seafood would go up. But in reality, the cost of beef would actually go down, because beef producers would no longer have to pay the taxes to support the seafood subsidies.
If we understand this logic. Then we can conclude that if the government stopped subsidizing the trucks, then it could eliminate the taxes which are paying for the subsidies. Which means the cost of hauling by truck might go up, but the cost of hauling by rail would actually go down. On top of that, individuals would simply have more money in their pockets since they would no longer have to pay the taxes to support the trucking subsidies.
In short, when you increase efficiency of production, prices will go down. If you artificially reduce efficiency through subsidization of an inefficient industry, prices will go up.
It is basic economics. There is no reason to even argue about it.
Even if trucks are still "equally efficient" or "more efficient" than trains. Then at the very least, there would be no net increase in the costs of goods and services.
Of course, everyone who understands transportation knows that trucking is far less efficient than rail, and more dangerous as well. Which is exactly why the trucking industry fights so hard to keep its subsidies and prevent the increase in the fuel excise tax by pretending that keeping it low is somehow beneficial to the consumer.
Without those subsidies, the trucking industry simply cannot compete.
You do realize that isn't an accurate representation of what is happening, right? You would need a room of 100 people to have 2-3 that drive hybrids. And then even those 2-3 people are still paying gasoline tax. Just not as much.
A better target would be those large number of people who have children that are avoiding their share of taxes.
I wasn't discussing the percentage of people who drive hybrids. I was merely stating that tax evasion is rampant. And if people could get out of paying hundreds of dollars a year in fuel taxes, there would be plenty of people that would.
It was in response to someone declaring to me that "very few people cheat on their taxes, so there is nothing to worry about".
The truth is, I would say a clear majority of people under-report their income. And almost no one pays the effectively "optional" sales tax on things they order over the internet.
So please spare me the self-righteous crap about how only a small number of people cheat on their taxes. It simply isn't true.
If someone was staring down a $400 fuel tax bill, and someone offered to "roll back" their odometer for $50. How many people wouldn't take that offer? I know I would take the offer and I wouldn't feel guilty whatsoever.
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.
