6 ms·

The argument in the article is misleading given the data it presents. What it should have said is that drivers pay for roads both via the gas tax AND by other

The argument in the article is misleading given the data it presents. What it should have said is that drivers pay for roads both via the gas tax AND by other forms of tax. The portion paid by the gas tax is itself not enough to cover road maintenance. Of course, this means that some non-drivers and non-car-owners also pay taxes used for road maintenance. It would have been worthwhile for the author to look up those numbers and tell how much non-drivers pay. Given that most Americans drive, this argument probably wouldn't have the same impact as the one presented in the article.

FussyZeus 10y ago
Plus the idea that non-car-owners do not benefit from a functioning road system is laughable on it's face. Busses and Ubers need roads too, and that's not even including the trucks that bring them their food and Amazon orders or the police that protect them and the fire fighters that may one day save their life. That all being said, it is true that the gas tax (along with most other taxes) has not kept pace with the growth of our infrastructure or inflation in general. Going in on increasing the gas tax is the best way to insure you are not getting re-elected because many Americans apparently believe that they pay enough taxes (they don't.)
- lastbestmatt 10y ago
  Right, it's obvious that non-drivers benefit from the roads too. You could still argue for higher gas taxes or other use fees if you wanted, for example to better align incentives (extra road usage leads to directly higher costs for the user). But this article certainly doesn't make that case.
  - ebalit 10y ago
    I think the article proposition is exactly what you're saying. Raise the gas taxes to cover the real cost of the infrastructure.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      Again though it's political suicide. People will bitch all day about having crummy roads but if you suggest a tax increase that would amount to 2 bucks extra for every tank you'll be run out of town metaphorically, and possibly literally.
      - ebalit 10y ago
        In France the tax was raised right when oil prices where down. It eases the pain a little.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  Of course everyone benefits from the road network as everyone benefits from buses and commercial vehicle access, but this statement is disingenuous in not recognizing the obvious that the dominant factor by far in driving the expansion of the road network is passenger vehicles, usually driven by single drivers. If we had high quality public transit we simply wouldn't need the wide multi lane highways that we have.
Terribledactyl 10y ago
Non drivers benefit from roadways too, goods and services still traverse them. But I'm all for more gas tax to maintain roads and establish a "decommissioning" to more sustainable fuels/energies.
pkulak 10y ago
Of course roads are paid for. And of course the money comes from other taxes. The whole point of the article is the distortion in use brought on by very low user fees.
- lastbestmatt 10y ago
  The article may imply that, but it doesn't make the case with the numbers it presents. To avoid distortion, you'd like the tax base that pays for the roads to match the usage of the roads. Because non-drivers also benefit from the roads, that means use fees alone is NOT the right tax system. Use fees may well be too low, but nothing in the article gives you any confidence to say that.
  - pkulak 10y ago
    Why are you stuck on this idea that fees are not appropriate if someone else benefits from the good? If we charge semis a use fee, then tomatoes in my grocery store go up in price, but it's still cheaper than me driving to California and buying them myself. And it gives local produce an advantage, reducing incentive for road use, exactly as it should. So, assuming no increase in net tax revenue, my income taxes would go down proportionally and I could actually save money by buying local produce, or keep the status quo by continuing to buy from Peru. The basic thinking here is that you should always have a use fee if you can. The only true "public goods" that should be paid for by everyone equally are things that literally everyone benefits from equally, or that are just impossible to impose a use fee on. The classic examples are lighthouses (impossible to impose a use fee, even though not many people use them) and the military/police/fire (everyone benefits equally).
    - lastbestmatt 10y ago
      I don't think we disagree here, unless you are proposing to build a separate road system for use by military/police/fire.

FussyZeus 10y ago

Plus the idea that non-car-owners do not benefit from a functioning road system is laughable on it's face. Busses and Ubers need roads too, and that's not even including the trucks that bring them their food and Amazon orders or the police that protect them and the fire fighters that may one day save their life. That all being said, it is true that the gas tax (along with most other taxes) has not kept pace with the growth of our infrastructure or inflation in general. Going in on increasing the gas tax is the best way to insure you are not getting re-elected because many Americans apparently believe that they pay enough taxes (they don't.)

lastbestmatt 10y ago
Right, it's obvious that non-drivers benefit from the roads too. You could still argue for higher gas taxes or other use fees if you wanted, for example to better align incentives (extra road usage leads to directly higher costs for the user). But this article certainly doesn't make that case.
- ebalit 10y ago
  I think the article proposition is exactly what you're saying. Raise the gas taxes to cover the real cost of the infrastructure.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    Again though it's political suicide. People will bitch all day about having crummy roads but if you suggest a tax increase that would amount to 2 bucks extra for every tank you'll be run out of town metaphorically, and possibly literally.
    - ebalit 10y ago
      In France the tax was raised right when oil prices where down. It eases the pain a little.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
Of course everyone benefits from the road network as everyone benefits from buses and commercial vehicle access, but this statement is disingenuous in not recognizing the obvious that the dominant factor by far in driving the expansion of the road network is passenger vehicles, usually driven by single drivers. If we had high quality public transit we simply wouldn't need the wide multi lane highways that we have.

Terribledactyl 10y ago

Non drivers benefit from roadways too, goods and services still traverse them. But I'm all for more gas tax to maintain roads and establish a "decommissioning" to more sustainable fuels/energies.

pkulak 10y ago

Of course roads are paid for. And of course the money comes from other taxes. The whole point of the article is the distortion in use brought on by very low user fees.

lastbestmatt 10y ago
The article may imply that, but it doesn't make the case with the numbers it presents. To avoid distortion, you'd like the tax base that pays for the roads to match the usage of the roads. Because non-drivers also benefit from the roads, that means use fees alone is NOT the right tax system. Use fees may well be too low, but nothing in the article gives you any confidence to say that.
- pkulak 10y ago
  Why are you stuck on this idea that fees are not appropriate if someone else benefits from the good? If we charge semis a use fee, then tomatoes in my grocery store go up in price, but it's still cheaper than me driving to California and buying them myself. And it gives local produce an advantage, reducing incentive for road use, exactly as it should. So, assuming no increase in net tax revenue, my income taxes would go down proportionally and I could actually save money by buying local produce, or keep the status quo by continuing to buy from Peru. The basic thinking here is that you should always have a use fee if you can. The only true "public goods" that should be paid for by everyone equally are things that literally everyone benefits from equally, or that are just impossible to impose a use fee on. The classic examples are lighthouses (impossible to impose a use fee, even though not many people use them) and the military/police/fire (everyone benefits equally).
  - lastbestmatt 10y ago
    I don't think we disagree here, unless you are proposing to build a separate road system for use by military/police/fire.