4 ms·

Or... maybe national taxes should pay for national roads as a form of national infrastructure, state or county taxes paying for state or county roads and local

Or... maybe national taxes should pay for national roads as a form of national infrastructure, state or county taxes paying for state or county roads and local taxes for local roads. Isn't this the way roads were paid for before widespread use of personal vehicles? Roads are a shared benefit for all whether you own or drive a vehicle or not. Think of deliveries and public transport and other approaches in which you personally benefit. The idea of funding roads by virtue of fuel taxes always struck me as odd.

HPsquared 4y ago
It's a kind of substitute for tolls, an alternative pay-as-you-go system. Edit: of course it neglects that not all roads are created equal, some have a much higher cost and value per passenger-mile (e.g. bridges)
- rexreed 4y ago
  Tolls are paid by those who drive on the roads, not by those who benefit from the roads if they don't drive. That's why it's a shifted burden. Tolls and fuel taxes are paid by those who drive, not those who otherwise benefit. Just my opinion.
bhawks 4y ago
But then we wouldn't be able to put cameras everywhere and GPS trackers in people's cars?
- rexreed 4y ago
  The steady creep of surveillance posing as convenience.
iso1631 4y ago
In the UK local council tax funds local roads, and national government (funded mainly from income tax, national insurance and VAT) funds major trunk roads.
- rexreed 4y ago
  How does that square with the main point of the article: "The UK government receives tax revenue from drivers of petrol and diesel cars via two key methods: fuel duty, which brings £28 billion a year into government coffers, and Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax), which nets roughly £7 billion. Combined, these sources make up 1.5% of the UK’s GDP and account for around 4% of all tax revenue."
  - iso1631 4y ago
    Because that tax "funds" things like the police and defense
    - rexreed 4y ago
      So auto-related taxes and fees fund policing and defense and general taxes fund roads. Sounds... convoluted. I reiterate that none of this really makes much sense, and I think we're seeing the end result of those policies.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        No it doesn't, what's convoluted is this idea that taxes don't go into a general pot. In the US gambling wins are taxed, that money doesn't get spent on gambling related services, it goes into the general pot. (Of course the idea of there being a "general pot" for a government that backs its own currency is a misnomer in any case)
Tiktaalik 4y ago
The problem is that removing all the various taxes on road use makes driving dramatically cheaper, which encourages people to drive, which will induce more traffic. It's the exact opposite direction we need to be going not just from an environmentalist pov, but its also counter to our urban planning goals as well. To meet our goals we need to be doing the opposite, which is making private automobile use of the roads more expensive while creating more and better alternative transportation opportunities (ie. public transit, cycling). Additionally if we shifted to other taxes, then this is a transfer of costs from relatively wealthy car owners to the relatively poorer who don't even own cars.

HPsquared 4y ago

It's a kind of substitute for tolls, an alternative pay-as-you-go system. Edit: of course it neglects that not all roads are created equal, some have a much higher cost and value per passenger-mile (e.g. bridges)

rexreed 4y ago
Tolls are paid by those who drive on the roads, not by those who benefit from the roads if they don't drive. That's why it's a shifted burden. Tolls and fuel taxes are paid by those who drive, not those who otherwise benefit. Just my opinion.

bhawks 4y ago

But then we wouldn't be able to put cameras everywhere and GPS trackers in people's cars?

rexreed 4y ago
The steady creep of surveillance posing as convenience.

iso1631 4y ago

In the UK local council tax funds local roads, and national government (funded mainly from income tax, national insurance and VAT) funds major trunk roads.

rexreed 4y ago
How does that square with the main point of the article: "The UK government receives tax revenue from drivers of petrol and diesel cars via two key methods: fuel duty, which brings £28 billion a year into government coffers, and Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax), which nets roughly £7 billion. Combined, these sources make up 1.5% of the UK’s GDP and account for around 4% of all tax revenue."
- iso1631 4y ago
  Because that tax "funds" things like the police and defense
  - rexreed 4y ago
    So auto-related taxes and fees fund policing and defense and general taxes fund roads. Sounds... convoluted. I reiterate that none of this really makes much sense, and I think we're seeing the end result of those policies.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      No it doesn't, what's convoluted is this idea that taxes don't go into a general pot. In the US gambling wins are taxed, that money doesn't get spent on gambling related services, it goes into the general pot. (Of course the idea of there being a "general pot" for a government that backs its own currency is a misnomer in any case)

Tiktaalik 4y ago

The problem is that removing all the various taxes on road use makes driving dramatically cheaper, which encourages people to drive, which will induce more traffic. It's the exact opposite direction we need to be going not just from an environmentalist pov, but its also counter to our urban planning goals as well. To meet our goals we need to be doing the opposite, which is making private automobile use of the roads more expensive while creating more and better alternative transportation opportunities (ie. public transit, cycling). Additionally if we shifted to other taxes, then this is a transfer of costs from relatively wealthy car owners to the relatively poorer who don't even own cars.