View Single Post
Old 01-08-2013, 02:12 AM   #17 (permalink)
redpoint5
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,467

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - CBR600 - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - Dodge/Cummins - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)

Model Y - '24 Tesla Y LR AWD
Thanks: 4,213
Thanked 4,391 Times in 3,365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucepick View Post
I was wondering when reduced overall fuel consumption would finally provoke a response by government.

Heavier cars cause more road deterioration than lighter ones. I say, rather than multiply vehicle weight by miles driven to determine a tax amount, just let the cents-per-gallon taxes continue.

There has to be an up side to conserving fuel - that last thing our government (which is us, actually) should do is penalize fuel conservation!
Oregon, being a "progressive" state, hates rich old people. It is rich old people that drive the Volts and the Leafs, so Oregonians are left wondering why wealthy old Leaf owners should not pay any road taxes. The current system of funding road infrastructure with gasoline taxes is unsustainable. It is right for a necessary entity that is going insolvent to look for an equitable way to raise funds.

I see 2 ways to accomplish this:

The first is to levy a distance * weight tax. This appears to be a fair way to tax, but then what do we do about people with studded tires? Shouldn't they pay more tax?

The second is to just pay for infrastructure in the regular income tax. At first, this appears unfair because people that don't travel much end up paying taxes for an infrastructure they don't directly use very often. In reality, everyone benefits from a properly maintained infrastructure. Commerce depends on an efficient and safe means of travel, and that directly relates to the economy.

I'm in favor of the second method of funding since the method of collection is already in place. It reduces the overhead of having yet another source of taxation and regulation. Most all taxes should just be rolled up into a single state sales tax and a federal sales tax. All income taxes should be eliminated.

The upside to conserving fuel is already in place; it is conservation of money. No other hands need to artificially influence this incentive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
While I agree taxes are necessary and proper; Oregonians won't accept a state sales tax unless the income tax is reduced first, and that's not going to happen.
I wouldn't allow a sales tax unless income tax was eliminated altogether.

I used to be against sales tax, but income taxes are so inefficient. I should never have to "do taxes" or hire a CPA. Taxes should be "done" at the time something is purchased. This would free up millions of hours that would normally be wasted "doing taxes" and eliminate the thousands of pointless jobs held by CPAs and tax collectors. They could then be put to work doing something productive.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote