4 ms·
It depends on where you live, but things like infrastructure are almost supposed to be paid for by drivers in the form of fuel excise taxes[0] or paying road to
by stevenjohns 9y ago
It depends on where you live, but things like infrastructure are almost supposed to be paid for by drivers in the form of fuel excise taxes[0] or paying road tolls. Paying for parking isn't uncommon either. I agree that pollution is something that needs to be addressed, though.
If taxes on cars were to increase for infrastructure, it would feel like the government is double dipping. Not to mention the general benefit in infrastructure for society as a whole. The benefits for economy can't be understated, not to mention the increased taxes you get across the board.
It's actually quite uncommon to see free government-owned parking lots where I live and when you do see it it's usually a loss leader to encourage people to visit local retailers (where the government will make its money back through sales taxes, income taxes, fuel taxes, encouraging jobs so unemployment, etc).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Australia
- ljf 9y agoInteresting that taxes are tied in that way. Here in the UK (and much of Europe I believe?) all tax goes into a central pot, which is then shared out, to remove the direct relationship. There are a couple of exceptions like cigarette taxes and I now believe some of the emissions tax all vehicles pay has been ear marked for roads - though I'm not a fan of this (and a cyclist) as it leads to the feeling that car drivers 'own' that road as they 'pay' for it.
- hrasyid 9y ago> it would feel like the government is double dipping. Remember, the side effect of this policy is that car ownership rate becomes really low. I doubt the purpose is to increase revenue. Maybe it's more about minimizing the negative externalities.