3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhy 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 agoI don't think we disagree here, unless you are proposing to build a separate road system for use by military/police/fire.