6 ms·

I worked at a liquor store when I was 21 and lived in a midwestern bible-belt state. We had flyers at the counter educating customers to vote against a raise of

I worked at a liquor store when I was 21 and lived in a midwestern bible-belt state. We had flyers at the counter educating customers to vote against a raise of sin-taxes (alcohol, tobacco, possibly adult material, I don't recall) to offset a budget deficit (specifically upkeep of roads and highways). It's not right for my vices to pay for your infrastructure. Tax tobacco to fund cancer research. Tax alcohol to advance treatment of liver disease. Tax porn to fund, I dunno, therapy for people who can't view it in moderation. On a similar note, I do NOT have a problem with paying for schools even though I don't have kids. It raises property values and that's a benefit to me and everyone in the district. Plus, educating young people benefits society as a whole. I'm not some "don't tax me" guy because taxes are good. They just should be limited and targeted and not levied unfairly against those with bad habits for the benefit / relief of all. That said, I apologize for quitting drinking. Research into treating cirrhosis of the liver will have to take a moderate hit and that's my fault. /s but only sorta

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Fuel taxes should be raised to pay for road infrastructure. Align the incentives so that people can make good decisions about whether to drive or not. And shippers can make better decisions about whether to ship via rail, ship, or truck.
- presentation 2y ago
  IMO money is fungible and specifically locking in a tax to fund a specific thing seems like a good way to make the funding available for that thing volatile unless it’s so expensive that no matter what the tax pulls in it will never be enough. I doubt people would actually adjust their fuel consumption to the ideal balance between personal utility and road infrastructure funding.
  - zie 2y ago
    It's very easy to stop funding X from the general fund and using the specific allocated money, so the overall spend on X doesn't increase at all, it's just the money now comes from the special tax, instead of the general fund. The general fund money can then be spent on whatever again, say the mayor's sin habit ;)
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      > It's very easy to stop funding X from the general fund Yeah it only takes a cliche called: an act of congress
      - zie 2y ago
        Why do you think that?
        dgfitz 2y ago
        Doesn't congress need to approve the budget?
        zie 2y ago
        At the federal level, yes. but that's not related to my point at all. If you've never read the federal budget, it's a great exercise in knowing how the govt operates. I encourage it. If they say spend $100 on toilet paper. It's assumed it comes from the general fund. If they later decide taxing toilet sales for that $100 is a great idea. Awesome. What happens to that $100 budgeted out of the general fund? Sometimes it gets re-allocated, but sometimes not. It almost never means they are suddenly going to start spending $200 on toilet paper though. To do that, they have to specifically write that into the budget. Hence, just because you taxed toilets $100 doesn't mean $100 MORE dollars will get applied to toilet paper. Obviously $100 on TP for the federal government is absurdly low, but that's not the point and I'm too lazy to go figure out the actual costs on toilet paper. I'm sure it's a lot though.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        I’ve read it. I stopped reading your comment after skimming saw a bunch of toilet paper references.
  - creer 2y ago
    The problem is how to get voters to approve your tax change. It's easy if you can split the voters. That is, blame X of them and tax them, which the rest and a few good souls will happily support. Otherwise you are back to suggesting a falt tax increase which very few will support - until you exempt much of the population, etc, etc.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Fuel taxes should be raised to pay for road infrastructure. Unfortunately there's a looming issue there: "Hydrocarbons used" stops being a valid proxy for "how much you use the road" as more cars are hybrids or all-electric. That said, those taxes did have a nice property of being imprecise enough that individual privacy was protected. I often point out to certain folks--the ones who complain that "big gubmint makes me pay for stuff I don't use"--that getting their wish means giving that same government constant and intimate knowledge of their movements and habits. Somewhere in the middle might be a tax based on periodic odometer readings.
- mperham 2y ago
  EVs are breaking this funding model. I'd suggest curbside parking should be charged everywhere. Free omnipresent parking is what has hollowed out American cities. Car storage is an awful use of public space.
  - gorkish 2y ago
    You are woefully incorrect. in most places EV's road taxes are massively disproportionate to the amount of road tax an ICE vehicle would pay. Here in Texas, I would ordinarily pay about $30/year in road taxes on gasoline driving a 30mpg vehicle 12,000/mi anually. But I have an EV instead so instead I pay: $500 in surcharge for the first year of registration and $200 surcharge for every year thereafter. Oh whoops I misspoke; I actually have 3 EVs so despite being one person, I pay approximately 25x more road tax than the average driver here. I'm not necessarily complaining about the /amount/ of tax but the simple fact that it is both disproportionately applied and far too low overall. The state should charge based on actual mileage, but since they just eliminated state inspections, good luck with that. Second best alternative is to make it a flat surcharge for all.
    - JasserInicide 2y ago
      I pay approximately 25x more road tax than the average driver here. But you're not, it's to make up for the revenue TX would get from you via the gas tax. Also EVs are heavier on average therefore do more damage to the road so paying for that too.
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        And rubber dust.
      - gorkish 2y ago
        I have driven my vehicles 70,442 actual miles since Jan 1, 2018. (Thanks to TeslaFi I have actual data -- I didn't drive all of these miles in TX, and while I have that data, I'm not going to be pedantic about it.) The revenue to the state is $0.15/gal towards the highway fund and $0.05/gal towards education. Since the EV surcharge does not fund education, I don't feel it is appropriate to include this portion in the comparison. So with my actual driving data in mind, here's what I would have paid if my 3 vehicles were 30mpg ICE cars: 70,442 mi / 7 years / 30mpg = 335 gal * $0.15 = $50/year to the Texas highway fund. Vs my actual paid: $200 (2023) * 3 cars + $200 (2024) * 3 cars = $1200 I therefore concede that my initial estimate was a bit high. I paid 24x more tax than I would have if I didn't own EV's, but this was only 20x more than the average driver due to my driving habits. Had I not purchased and registered my vehicles before the surcharge took effect, I would have been worse off due to the $500 surcharge on initial registration: $500 (first year registration) * 3 + $200 * 3 = $2100
- yndoendo 2y ago
  I don't see a fuel tax being a vice tax since I must drive to work and the stores. I want to drive as little as possible. Use-taxes are just to push from the collective to the average person. Instead of having companies like Amazon fit the bill for all the road damage they produce, from their delivers to their supply chains, they push it others. Rather have those companies pay their fare share and reduce the cost of fuel for the average person. Politics play a big role in alternative transportation set backs. I would travel more if there were bullet trains between large cities. Don't like driving nor flying nor bus. There is push against alternative transportation by both the car industry and oil industry. Political donations by these help remove the chance of high-speed rail. Even though it would improve national security and service economy.
- mjevans 2y ago
  Road infrastructure IS civic infrastructure. It has to exist, it has to be paid for; and you'll pay for it one way or another. Any tax passed on, even indirectly, to consumers is a REGRESSIVE tax. That is, it more proportionately effects those who have no choice, who must drive, must buy food, and pay a larger percentage of their net worth / yearly gain in net worth to do those things. Fuel taxes all funnel on to the poor the most and the middle-income as well. Who benefits from such infrastructure taxes? The rich. They still have to pay something, but far less than their share of wealth as generated by society as a whole.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    Shout out to the 99pi.org podcast currently going through a "The Power Broker" run chapter by chapter. Anyone fascinated by roads, where the money goes, and how they can be/are abused is in for a treat. https://99percentinvisible.org/club/ https://99percentinvisible.org/club/ Roads definitely have a wide impact on communities, and who pays for them is usually critical.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  Higher fuel taxes just make things harder for those who have to drive to minimum wage jobs on the other side of town because that’s the only job they can get (or one of two or three they have to work). People with far higher paying jobs (probably many people reading here) could likely choose to just work from home or just pay it since it’s a far less significant proportion of their income. The rich get richer.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    So give a rebate to poor people. Instead we are subsidizing everybody who drives, rich or poor.
  - pvorb 2y ago
    Yep. Just tax the rich and by that I mean actually rich like people worth more than 10 million dollars. Nobody will ever need more than that. Increasing tax on every day things will only make inequality worse.
- pvorb 2y ago
  Just no. Funding road infrastructure will just bring more cars on roads. That money should be spent on public transportation so it actually benefits the society.
iddan 2y ago
tax porn to fund the recovery of victims of the sex industry
patrickthebold 2y ago
(beside your point) but regarding schools: I always view the tax as paying back for _your_ education, yes it's shifted by a generation and not perfect (private schools, immigrants), but it's clear your aren't really "paying for other people's kids", as those kids will grow up and pay taxes themselves.
whakim 2y ago
It isn't really possible to link taxation to spending in this way, because there are things that cost a lot of money (say, healthcare for poor folks) which are in the public interest but no direct tax to pay for them; meanwhile there are things that raise lots of revenue (say, payroll taxes) which have no corresponding outlay.
lmm 2y ago
> On a similar note, I do NOT have a problem with paying for schools even though I don't have kids. It raises property values and that's a benefit to me and everyone in the district. Plus, educating young people benefits society as a whole. How does that logic not apply to upkeep of roads and highways? (And I say this as someone who doesn't own a car and is pretty anti-car generally). Tax bad things (but fairly and proportionately) and spend the money on good things (and again, try to spread the benefits fairly). Money is fungible, earmarks are a pointless waste of time.
- pvorb 2y ago
  The question is whether roads are a good thing.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

Fuel taxes should be raised to pay for road infrastructure. Align the incentives so that people can make good decisions about whether to drive or not. And shippers can make better decisions about whether to ship via rail, ship, or truck.

presentation 2y ago
IMO money is fungible and specifically locking in a tax to fund a specific thing seems like a good way to make the funding available for that thing volatile unless it’s so expensive that no matter what the tax pulls in it will never be enough. I doubt people would actually adjust their fuel consumption to the ideal balance between personal utility and road infrastructure funding.
- zie 2y ago
  It's very easy to stop funding X from the general fund and using the specific allocated money, so the overall spend on X doesn't increase at all, it's just the money now comes from the special tax, instead of the general fund. The general fund money can then be spent on whatever again, say the mayor's sin habit ;)
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    > It's very easy to stop funding X from the general fund Yeah it only takes a cliche called: an act of congress
    - zie 2y ago
      Why do you think that?
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        Doesn't congress need to approve the budget?
        zie 2y ago
        At the federal level, yes. but that's not related to my point at all. If you've never read the federal budget, it's a great exercise in knowing how the govt operates. I encourage it. If they say spend $100 on toilet paper. It's assumed it comes from the general fund. If they later decide taxing toilet sales for that $100 is a great idea. Awesome. What happens to that $100 budgeted out of the general fund? Sometimes it gets re-allocated, but sometimes not. It almost never means they are suddenly going to start spending $200 on toilet paper though. To do that, they have to specifically write that into the budget. Hence, just because you taxed toilets $100 doesn't mean $100 MORE dollars will get applied to toilet paper. Obviously $100 on TP for the federal government is absurdly low, but that's not the point and I'm too lazy to go figure out the actual costs on toilet paper. I'm sure it's a lot though.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        I’ve read it. I stopped reading your comment after skimming saw a bunch of toilet paper references.
- creer 2y ago
  The problem is how to get voters to approve your tax change. It's easy if you can split the voters. That is, blame X of them and tax them, which the rest and a few good souls will happily support. Otherwise you are back to suggesting a falt tax increase which very few will support - until you exempt much of the population, etc, etc.
Terr_ 2y ago
> Fuel taxes should be raised to pay for road infrastructure. Unfortunately there's a looming issue there: "Hydrocarbons used" stops being a valid proxy for "how much you use the road" as more cars are hybrids or all-electric. That said, those taxes did have a nice property of being imprecise enough that individual privacy was protected. I often point out to certain folks--the ones who complain that "big gubmint makes me pay for stuff I don't use"--that getting their wish means giving that same government constant and intimate knowledge of their movements and habits. Somewhere in the middle might be a tax based on periodic odometer readings.
mperham 2y ago
EVs are breaking this funding model. I'd suggest curbside parking should be charged everywhere. Free omnipresent parking is what has hollowed out American cities. Car storage is an awful use of public space.
- gorkish 2y ago
  You are woefully incorrect. in most places EV's road taxes are massively disproportionate to the amount of road tax an ICE vehicle would pay. Here in Texas, I would ordinarily pay about $30/year in road taxes on gasoline driving a 30mpg vehicle 12,000/mi anually. But I have an EV instead so instead I pay: $500 in surcharge for the first year of registration and $200 surcharge for every year thereafter. Oh whoops I misspoke; I actually have 3 EVs so despite being one person, I pay approximately 25x more road tax than the average driver here. I'm not necessarily complaining about the /amount/ of tax but the simple fact that it is both disproportionately applied and far too low overall. The state should charge based on actual mileage, but since they just eliminated state inspections, good luck with that. Second best alternative is to make it a flat surcharge for all.
  - JasserInicide 2y ago
    I pay approximately 25x more road tax than the average driver here. But you're not, it's to make up for the revenue TX would get from you via the gas tax. Also EVs are heavier on average therefore do more damage to the road so paying for that too.
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      And rubber dust.
    - gorkish 2y ago
      I have driven my vehicles 70,442 actual miles since Jan 1, 2018. (Thanks to TeslaFi I have actual data -- I didn't drive all of these miles in TX, and while I have that data, I'm not going to be pedantic about it.) The revenue to the state is $0.15/gal towards the highway fund and $0.05/gal towards education. Since the EV surcharge does not fund education, I don't feel it is appropriate to include this portion in the comparison. So with my actual driving data in mind, here's what I would have paid if my 3 vehicles were 30mpg ICE cars: 70,442 mi / 7 years / 30mpg = 335 gal * $0.15 = $50/year to the Texas highway fund. Vs my actual paid: $200 (2023) * 3 cars + $200 (2024) * 3 cars = $1200 I therefore concede that my initial estimate was a bit high. I paid 24x more tax than I would have if I didn't own EV's, but this was only 20x more than the average driver due to my driving habits. Had I not purchased and registered my vehicles before the surcharge took effect, I would have been worse off due to the $500 surcharge on initial registration: $500 (first year registration) * 3 + $200 * 3 = $2100
yndoendo 2y ago
I don't see a fuel tax being a vice tax since I must drive to work and the stores. I want to drive as little as possible. Use-taxes are just to push from the collective to the average person. Instead of having companies like Amazon fit the bill for all the road damage they produce, from their delivers to their supply chains, they push it others. Rather have those companies pay their fare share and reduce the cost of fuel for the average person. Politics play a big role in alternative transportation set backs. I would travel more if there were bullet trains between large cities. Don't like driving nor flying nor bus. There is push against alternative transportation by both the car industry and oil industry. Political donations by these help remove the chance of high-speed rail. Even though it would improve national security and service economy.
mjevans 2y ago
Road infrastructure IS civic infrastructure. It has to exist, it has to be paid for; and you'll pay for it one way or another. Any tax passed on, even indirectly, to consumers is a REGRESSIVE tax. That is, it more proportionately effects those who have no choice, who must drive, must buy food, and pay a larger percentage of their net worth / yearly gain in net worth to do those things. Fuel taxes all funnel on to the poor the most and the middle-income as well. Who benefits from such infrastructure taxes? The rich. They still have to pay something, but far less than their share of wealth as generated by society as a whole.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  Shout out to the 99pi.org podcast currently going through a "The Power Broker" run chapter by chapter. Anyone fascinated by roads, where the money goes, and how they can be/are abused is in for a treat. https://99percentinvisible.org/club/ https://99percentinvisible.org/club/ Roads definitely have a wide impact on communities, and who pays for them is usually critical.
nkrisc 2y ago
Higher fuel taxes just make things harder for those who have to drive to minimum wage jobs on the other side of town because that’s the only job they can get (or one of two or three they have to work). People with far higher paying jobs (probably many people reading here) could likely choose to just work from home or just pay it since it’s a far less significant proportion of their income. The rich get richer.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  So give a rebate to poor people. Instead we are subsidizing everybody who drives, rich or poor.
- pvorb 2y ago
  Yep. Just tax the rich and by that I mean actually rich like people worth more than 10 million dollars. Nobody will ever need more than that. Increasing tax on every day things will only make inequality worse.
pvorb 2y ago
Just no. Funding road infrastructure will just bring more cars on roads. That money should be spent on public transportation so it actually benefits the society.

iddan 2y ago

tax porn to fund the recovery of victims of the sex industry

patrickthebold 2y ago

(beside your point) but regarding schools: I always view the tax as paying back for _your_ education, yes it's shifted by a generation and not perfect (private schools, immigrants), but it's clear your aren't really "paying for other people's kids", as those kids will grow up and pay taxes themselves.

whakim 2y ago

It isn't really possible to link taxation to spending in this way, because there are things that cost a lot of money (say, healthcare for poor folks) which are in the public interest but no direct tax to pay for them; meanwhile there are things that raise lots of revenue (say, payroll taxes) which have no corresponding outlay.

lmm 2y ago

> On a similar note, I do NOT have a problem with paying for schools even though I don't have kids. It raises property values and that's a benefit to me and everyone in the district. Plus, educating young people benefits society as a whole. How does that logic not apply to upkeep of roads and highways? (And I say this as someone who doesn't own a car and is pretty anti-car generally). Tax bad things (but fairly and proportionately) and spend the money on good things (and again, try to spread the benefits fairly). Money is fungible, earmarks are a pointless waste of time.

pvorb 2y ago
The question is whether roads are a good thing.