3 ms·
This is clever gamification but probably most of the players would be the suburban and rural poor, for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionar
by replygirl 4y ago
This is clever gamification but probably most of the players would be the suburban and rural poor, for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary and the only option for local + regional travel. The effect would be to limit their quality of life, either by deferring access to money for basic expenses, by limiting access to employment, or by discouraging children's access to recreation and socialization opportunities. There are similar arguments against VMT taxes
How about we tax cars as property, based on Blue Book value and modulated by income bracket, and maybe even by specs like weight and fuel economy? Some states are already doing at least a basic version of this. And instead of giving the money back, we can fund fare-free municipal bus and rideshare programs
- lotsofpulp 4y ago>for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary That's the point. It is a luxury to live on a 10k sq ft lot in a 3k+ sq ft house. Moving mass far distances requires lots of energy.
- euroderf 4y agoIt's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice, and that people who choose to live in built-up areas (at additional expense) are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle. In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Kids can use bikes to get around, families' second cars can be glorified golf carts. Enviro-winning. I agree about the desirability of free mass transit. To take a case in point, Tallinn (Estonia's capital) instituted it for residents (only), the idea being to get people to undo bogus out-of-city residences and return to the city's tax rolls. The last I read, it's working nicely.
- lucas_membrane 4y ago> In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Not always. For example, an increase in the tax on a popular but very low-priced subsistence food can increase its consumption by reducing the amount of higher-priced alternatives that consumers can afford.
- euroderf 4y agoOK, I forgot to mention ceteris paribus. So you suggest, by analogy, that higher gas prices might reduce demand for electric vehicles by pre-emptively emptying drivers' wallets ?
- replygirl 4y ago> It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice It's usually an ancestor's choice and getting out is typically either prohibitively difficult or in conflict with family values Spoken by someone who got out
- euroderf 4y agoYa can't keep'em down on the farm once they've seen the city lights.
- specialist 4y ago> are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle As an urban US taxpayer, I'm totally on board with fairness, revenue sharing (rural communities still receive full education, health, etc), and making sure every one has some kind of chance in life. In short, I really want "the greater good" for everyone. The way it's worked out is urbanites like me unwillingly subsidize sprawl. Thru extortion, deceit (h/t Robert Moses), and tantrums. Some kind of acknowledgment of this parasitic (codependent?) relationship would be nice. Instead, the recipients hate us. Worse, they think they're carrying us.
- euroderf 4y agoThe USPS is subsidised for the boonies and that's just fine by me. In wider comparison to urban service levels, perhaps health care is the most glaring gap nowadays ?
- LikesPwsh 4y agoSpending the extra money from increased fuel and vehicle sales taxes on public transport would be great for city dwellers in general. Reduced minimum cost of living for the poor, less traffic for those who drive for a living or have no choice or are willing to pay for luxury. Rural poor would struggle, they'd need support through another means. I don't like the idea of extra tax complexity when it could just be an adjustment to headline rates though. Too much admin and potential for benefits cliffs.