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.
No, they aren't. I explained why. They just don't have to pay as much because they aren't buying as much of the product that's taxed. That's not tax avoidance.
When tax is intended to pay for the road you are using then yes you are avoiding the tax.
They are using the roads just like gasoline cars. The only 'more fair' way to fund roads would be to replace gas tax with a toll on every road.
Not at all. Other taxes generate more than enough revenue to pay for the roads. If they have to add taxes to pay for something as simple as roads, then other things that are non-essential need to be cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
It's not selective taxation. They are avoiding the tax, this partially makes up for it.
They're avoiding a tax? How? By not buying a product that don't need? That's insane. That's like adding extra to someone's income tax because they grown their own food and are avoiding sales tax.
And it is selective taxation. It's singling out a group who have to pay a special tax. And even if it's not, it's an excessive tax which still goes against everything Republicans claim to stand for, which was my main point. This tax would contradict so many Republican values.
They're avoiding a tax? How? By not buying a product that don't need? That's insane.
I'm going to explain this again, we pay for roads with a fuel tax on gasoline/diesel or more accurately described as a user fee. For example you can buy off road diesel/gasoline with no user fee applied if you aren't going to be driving on public roads but don't get caught on the road with it in your tank. The gasoline is less available but if you are using a lot of gasoline there is usually ways to get the tax refunded.
Getting back to the cars in the past this was one of the fairest taxes we had because the more your drove the more tax you paid. Larger vehicles that do more damage to the road have less MPG so they pay more. It's certainly not perfect but on average the tax is being evenly distributed to those who are using the roads the most and doing the most damage.
If you are not paying the tax if your car is electric for example then you are avoiding the tax intended to pay for the road you are driving on.
If everyone drove an electric car how are you going to pay for roads? As these alternative fueled cars become more widely used the tax used to fund roads needs to evolve along with them. Get it?
Last edited by thecoalman; 11-28-2014 at 05:24 PM..
I'm going to explain this again, we pay for roads with a fuel tax on gasoline or more accurately described as a user fee. For example you can buy off road diesel/gasoline with no user fee applied if you aren't going to be driving on public roads but don't get caught on the road with it in your tank. In the past this was one of the fairest taxes we had because the more your drove the more tax you paid. Larger vehicles that do more damage to the road have less MPG so they pay more. It's certainly not perfect but on average the tax is being evenly distributed to those who are using the roads the most and doing the most damage.
If you are not paying the tax if your car is electric for example then you are avoiding the tax intended to pay for the road you are driving on.
If everyone drove an electric car how are you going to pay for roads? As these alternative fueled cars become more widely used the tax used to fund roads needs to evolve along with them. Get it?
Other taxes pay for most of the road. This means even people who don't actively use the roads are still technically paying for the road. Those who are using it would not generate enough tax revenue to pay for the roads just through gas taxes, so to claim it's perfectly reasonable to invent a rather excessive tax to pay for the road is false. It is not necessary.
And what of cyclists? Do they need an air tax for their tires?
It's a quagmire if you really want to find out what is going where. For example here in PA fuel taxes are used to fund mass transit projects, you have funds being shifted back to public roads from other sources like tolls collected on the PA turnpike. The PA Turnpike pays for itself and half the tolls go to fund Interstates.
Quote:
And what of cyclists? Do they need an air tax for their tires?
I don't mind sharing the road but that's a two way street. If they want specific accommodations I would suggest a modest tax is in order, those accommodations could be done fairly cheap if they are integrated with existing road projects. Adding a bike path on the side of the road is certainly going to be much cheaper than a dedicated bike path.
Just to add if it were up to me roads would entirely be funded by user fees evenly distributed based on the miles driven and the weight of the vehicle. I'd also stop shifting fule taxes to mass transit and other non road projects.. The tax paid by large trucks would increase substantially if they were paying by weight and that would increase the cost of products you buy. That would be the short term loss. It would force long haul freight onto rail where it belongs and you'll save on road costs long term. Perhaps carve out special rates for local trucking so as to not impact the cost of products too much.
Other taxes pay for most of the road. This means even people who don't actively use the roads are still technically paying for the road. Those who are using it would not generate enough tax revenue to pay for the roads just through gas taxes, so to claim it's perfectly reasonable to invent a rather excessive tax to pay for the road is false. It is not necessary.
And what of cyclists? Do they need an air tax for their tires?
I think you are missing the point.
I agree that "other taxes" could pay for the roads, such as the income tax, or the property tax.
If your argument is that fuel taxes should be abolished entirely and just have roads paid for through other taxes. Then at least you are making a consistent argument.
The problem is, you aren't advocating the repeal of all fuel taxes. Nor do you even address the purpose of having a fuel tax to begin with. You are pretending as if its existence is only to raise "general revenue", which can be raised by other means.
In reality, the fuel tax exists because it is supposed to be a "usage fee". Basically, the people who drive on the roads should be the ones paying for them. Cars tear up the roads, and the bigger the car/truck/semi, the more the roads get torn up. The bigger the car, the more gas they use, the more taxes they will pay.
Even if you imagine the fuel tax only existing to raise general revenue. Then what is wrong with the $50 additional tax to raise revenue as well?
You'll reply, "Because its unfair". But what is fair about some cars not paying any tax at all?
I agree that "other taxes" could pay for the roads, such as the income tax, or the property tax.
If your argument is that fuel taxes should be abolished entirely and just have roads paid for through other taxes. Then at least you are making a consistent argument.
The problem is, you aren't advocating the repeal of all fuel taxes. Nor do you even address the purpose of having a fuel tax to begin with. You are pretending as if its existence is only to raise "general revenue", which can be raised by other means.
In reality, the fuel tax exists because it is supposed to be a "usage fee". Basically, the people who drive on the roads should be the ones paying for them. Cars tear up the roads, and the bigger the car/truck/semi, the more the roads get torn up. The bigger the car, the more gas they use, the more taxes they will pay.
Even if you imagine the fuel tax only existing to raise general revenue. Then what is wrong with the $50 additional tax to raise revenue as well?
You'll reply, "Because its unfair". But what is fair about some cars not paying any tax at all?
LOL if taxes were about fair the the ACA never would have passed as it is written. I am all for the tax. I am also for toll roads, let the users pay to use the roads.
The problem with taxes and the revenue they generate is the fact that the fed, state and local Govs will use the revenue for things it was never intended for, rather than banking it.
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.
