A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Taxing Drivers By The Mile



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old February 18th 05, 04:32 PM
Gary V
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Chris Bessert wrote:
> > assumes that ALL states and provinces would simultaneously adopt

this
> > new high-tech solution to a low-tech problem. If Washington DIDN'T
> > implement such a system after Oregon did, anyone near the border or
> > regularly travel- ing across it would then be incentivized to

simply top
> > off in Oregon (no sales tax on the actual gasoline anymore) and do

as
> > much of their driving on the Washington side as possible (no "per

mile"
> > taxing there). Sounds like a problem.

>
> Not really: they'd just leave the existing gasoline taxes in place

and add
> the new per-mile charges *on top of* them. Problem, er, "solved".


If you pull up to the pump without a transponder (because you're from
out of state or because you've never retrofitted) they'll just add on a
confiscatory additional per-gallon tax. It'll be something in the
order of assuming your car gets X mpg (probably a very high figure),
you're buying Y gallons, so X*Y means you went Z miles. Charge'm.

Nobody ever said a miles fee was to "replace" the existing per-gallon
tax.

I don't know how they'll tell you ahead of time how much your miles tax
will be, so you can be sure to have enough cash on hand.

Ads
  #92  
Old February 18th 05, 05:24 PM
Brad Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:47:41 -0500, "Paul" > wrote:
>
> >Tolls can be removed if the people keep an eye on the authority
> >collecting the toll and demand the toll's removal when the project is
> >paid off....

>
> Funny, that didn't work in Illinois...


Didn't work in Atlanta, either.

Brad


  #93  
Old February 18th 05, 05:33 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
The Real Bev > wrote:
>Gary V wrote:
>
>> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
>> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
>> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15
>> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders,
>> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
>> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
>> expenses.)

>
>Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
>true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?


No; it makes sense to shut it down. Making it free will increase
demand, likely increasing costs over and above that of the loss of
collecting the fares.
  #94  
Old February 18th 05, 05:35 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
The Real Bev > wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>>
>> The Real Bev > wrote:
>>
>> >Gary V wrote:
>> >
>> >> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
>> >> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
>> >> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15
>> >> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders,
>> >> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
>> >> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
>> >> expenses.)
>> >
>> >Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
>> >true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?

>>
>> No, because you would find yourself providing a hell of a lot more of
>> it.

>
>Supposedly that's a civic good -- getting people out of their cars and
>into public transportation. If that's what we as a society want, then
>we should be willing to pay for it.


If we as a society really wanted it, we'd be doing it. Instead,
self-appointed guardians of the civic good claim "we as a society"
want it, while the rest of us continue to drive and most of those
forced by circumstance or economics to ride the bus wish they had a
car.
  #95  
Old February 18th 05, 05:42 PM
Ed Stasiak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
> > "Ed Stasiak" > wrote
> >
> > If mass transit means pointing a gun at my head (thru outrageous
> > gas costs, tax-by-the-mile, ect) to get me to use it, then there is
> > something wrong with that mass transit system.

>
> Actually, the problem is the way roads are paid for. They appear
> "free" to you, because you never pay for the costs of using them
> directly.


I'm aware of how our roads are funded, in fact the gas pump
has a sticker on it informing me that $0.33 of every dollar of
gas I put in my truck is taxes.

> It's all done indirectly through taxes. This makes people think mass
> transit is more expensive because they have to pay a fare every time
> they use it.


Actually it's mass transit proponents that are trying to fool people
into believing that it's cheaper then driving a car, what they fail to
mention is that without our tax dollars going to prop up the system,
(that the vast majority never use) it would shut down over night.

Here in metro Detroit, all one needs to do to see the "efficiency"
of the SMART system is look at the bazillion ton buses, spewing
diesel fumes and getting in everybody's way, as they carry 3 or 4
people to their job flipping burgers at McDonalds.


  #96  
Old February 18th 05, 05:57 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Robert Morien > wrote:
>
>The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive. In doing this new
>developments occur near the mass/rapid transit lines instead of hiway
>exits. I've also seen some theoretical developments that were more like
>mini-towns with most of the "necessities within walking distance of all
>housing AND a transit line either thru the middle or near the most dense
>population point connecting to the next development.


Unfortunately, mathematics and economics severely limit the
scalability of this approach. There's only so much space within
walking distance of each station. Once that's filled up, everyone
else has to live and work elsewhere. And if that's the most desirable
space, it'll quickly become enormously expensive because it's both
desirable AND rare, meaning only the wealthiest people and companies
will locate there.

  #97  
Old February 18th 05, 06:02 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,

Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>Nice try, but were talking about urban areas. Boston - home of the Big
>Dig - has been urbanized since the 1700s. It had to be torn apart and
>rebuilt when we shifted from horses to automobiles. If we can afford
>The Big Dig, we can afford to dig a few smaller tunnels for subway
>trains.


Yeah, but we can't afford the Big Dig boondoggle.
  #98  
Old February 18th 05, 06:03 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:52:45 -0800, Robert Morien
> wrote:
>
>>The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive.

>
>Cars are already doing that to themselves, by virtue of their sheer
>numbers that grow faster than our ability to expand roads to
>accommodate them.


Transit systems, however, are making themselves unattractive even
FASTER, through higher fares (which still cover less than half the
cost) and poorer service.
  #99  
Old February 18th 05, 06:06 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>Actually, the problem is the way roads are paid for. They appear
>"free" to you, because you never pay for the costs of using them
>directly. It's all done indirectly through taxes. This makes people
>think mass transit is more expensive because they have to pay a fare
>every time they use it. This is untrue, of course, but that's the
>perception caused by hiding the way roads are paid for. Once you
>expose the true costs of roads by making drivers pay for their use
>explicitly, suddenly a $1 bus ride looks a lot more attractive.


Bus rides around here are $2-$3. Which is typically more than the
_marginal_ cost of driving the same distance.
  #100  
Old February 18th 05, 06:10 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>Obviously nobody really wants to get people out of their cars. If they
>did, it would be incredibly simple: remove all subsidies, gas taxes,
>sales taxes, property taxes, and every other hidden method of paying
>for roads and parking, and charge drivers EXPLICITLY for those costs.


You're confused. Drivers already pay more than enough to build the
roads. Moving that from (largely) gas taxes to an explicit fee, if you could
somehow do it, wouldn't change anything. In fact, some drivers already
pay an explicit fee for the roads -- for instance, those who drive the
Pennsylvania Turnpike (and they pay the gas tax ON TOP of that!).
Doesn't stop them.

>Why, the parking costs alone would be enough to get most people to
>take the bus to work.


Parking is a cash cow for cities and makes a profit for garage
operators; it's not typically subsidized except sometimes in shopping
districts. I park in a private lot leased by my employer. Since
taking the bus would involve going something like 20 miles out of the
way (for a 10 mile trip), that's not going to happen even if they did
start charging me for parking
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flashpoint Racing Series begins tonight! [email protected] Simulators 34 February 18th 05 02:37 AM
This explains some of the bad drivers Cashew Driving 0 February 11th 05 11:50 PM
Wed Night N2003 league looking for drivers [email protected] Simulators 0 November 30th 04 03:46 AM
Truck Drivers Needed Trucking Recruiter 4x4 0 April 14th 04 01:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.