I don't know, having people who use the system more pay more for it seems appropriate to me.
-
I don't know, having people who use the system more pay more for it seems appropriate to me.
-
I don't know, having people who use the system more pay more for it seems appropriate to me.
In abstract? Sure. In specifics? Wellllll, that's much harder to say.
For example, I think most people agree that we do not want people to pay for their healthcare usage directly. Similarly, since the _need_ to use car for travel for work tends to be inversely proportional with your socioeconomic class, simple direct usage taxes on roads end up regressive.
-
In abstract? Sure. In specifics? Wellllll, that's much harder to say.
For example, I think most people agree that we do not want people to pay for their healthcare usage directly. Similarly, since the _need_ to use car for travel for work tends to be inversely proportional with your socioeconomic class, simple direct usage taxes on roads end up regressive.
Since this is in the US under the current administration, I assume that the proposal is hilariously stupid anyway, but it really isn't that easy.
(And that's before even going into what you use to calculate the taxes. Direct CO2 emissions? Well, that incentivizes electric cars so good, right? But now you argue that the stupid >4 ton electric humvee uses roads less than our 1 ton >40 mpg gas car.
Curb weight? Has the reverse problem. Simple distance? Then you have no incentive for efficiency.)
-
In abstract? Sure. In specifics? Wellllll, that's much harder to say.
For example, I think most people agree that we do not want people to pay for their healthcare usage directly. Similarly, since the _need_ to use car for travel for work tends to be inversely proportional with your socioeconomic class, simple direct usage taxes on roads end up regressive.
@horenmar I strongly disagree. Living somewhere that forces you to commute a long distance to live in the 'burbs' is a choice. The status quo is that we subsidize the shit out of sprawl and suburbia by having almost no 'user pays' on the infrastructure.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
Since this is in the US under the current administration, I assume that the proposal is hilariously stupid anyway, but it really isn't that easy.
(And that's before even going into what you use to calculate the taxes. Direct CO2 emissions? Well, that incentivizes electric cars so good, right? But now you argue that the stupid >4 ton electric humvee uses roads less than our 1 ton >40 mpg gas car.
Curb weight? Has the reverse problem. Simple distance? Then you have no incentive for efficiency.)
@horenmar It's a proposal to replace the federal gas tax with a vehicle registration tax based on weight.
> Simple distance? Then you have no incentive for efficiency.
I don't think road infrastructure *needs* to be funded in a way that incentivizes efficiency. But I do think it should be as proportional as possible to one's use of the system.
-
@horenmar I strongly disagree. Living somewhere that forces you to commute a long distance to live in the 'burbs' is a choice. The status quo is that we subsidize the shit out of sprawl and suburbia by having almost no 'user pays' on the infrastructure.
@malwareminigun Is it a choice though?
Rent for ~50m2, 2+1
* in Prague city centre: 25k+, without utilities.
* in Prague city, outskirts: 20k+
* Louny (easy-ish car travel to Prague via highway): 10-12kPretax Prague salary of
* Cashier: 35-40k
* Social worker: 30-35k
* Janitors: 20-30k
* Preschool educators (not sure what the english name is): 30-40k
...Simple math tells you that various low-paid positions simple can't afford to live in the place they work at.
-
@horenmar It's a proposal to replace the federal gas tax with a vehicle registration tax based on weight.
> Simple distance? Then you have no incentive for efficiency.
I don't think road infrastructure *needs* to be funded in a way that incentivizes efficiency. But I do think it should be as proportional as possible to one's use of the system.
> But I do think it should be as proportional as possible to one's use of the system.
Then weight has to be an important part of the formula, because it is the dominant factor of wear & tear, and almost hilariously so.
-
> But I do think it should be as proportional as possible to one's use of the system.
Then weight has to be an important part of the formula, because it is the dominant factor of wear & tear, and almost hilariously so.
@horenmar It seems reasonable for weight to be included somehow, though I am told almost no consumer applications are heavy enough to matter much. (The heaviest 'consumer' vehicle I know of is Silverado EV which is around 10'000 lbs/4'500 kg, while semis' limit is 82'000 lbs/37'000 kg. Yes semis have more axles but we're still talking 50% more weight *per axle* than the whole vehicle...)
