View Single Post
Old 05-13-2019, 02:17 PM   #12 (permalink)
redpoint5
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,396

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

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

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

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 26.68 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,192
Thanked 4,380 Times in 3,354 Posts
I've said it many times before, but funding infrastructure based on how much petrol is consumed is ludicrous. Funding it based on miles driven might be slightly less ludicrous, but it still is because everyone depends on infrastructure even if they don't drive at all.

Infrastructure funding should be secured the same way all the other things we consider to be vital government services; through regular means of tax collection (income tax or sales tax).

The problem is that various agencies have competing agendas. DOT doesn't care about environmental quality and is largely funded by consumption of fossil fuels. Environmental agencies don't care about infrastructure funding, and only want the highest quality environments they can.

If we want to reduce fossil fuel consumption, it should be taxed at a higher rate, and that tax should have nothing to do with whether or not infrastructure gets adequately funded.

Here's a breakdown of tax by state, including federal taxes:

__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







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