4 ms·
The same way we fund it currently- by allocating money from the budget. While it may feel good to talk about "this tax pays for this program" it is not a law of
by pbecotte 9y ago
The same way we fund it currently- by allocating money from the budget. While it may feel good to talk about "this tax pays for this program" it is not a law of nature that a decrease in a specific tax will lead to a corresponding decrease in funding for any particular program. On the contrary, it is commonly expected that an overrun in a particular tax will be spent elsewhere.
When the day comes that the revenue from the fuel tax has dipped low enough that the money needs to be replaced, I am quite sure we can come up with 300 other ways to allocate the tax burden appropriately.
- friendzis 9y agoSome things are more easily measured than others, e.g. how much fuel has been used vs how much street lighting has been used. Some public spending is more aligned with usage than others, e.g. road wear aligns well with distance traveled vs water piping wear does not align with use. It is a very nice situation when spending depends on usage which is easily measured - tax burden can be concentrated on actual users and not distributed to wide population. This is the point of the debate. Prior to electric vehicles, we have been more or less in a situation where we could concentrate tax burden of road maintenance on vehicle users/owners. Electric vehicle use is much harder to measure apart from coarse odometer readings taken during inspection.