5 ms·

I don't necessarily see this as a bad trend. Eventually a tax on mileage and weight would make the most sense vs the current attempts to use fuel taxes as a pro

by _ea1k 10mo ago

I don't necessarily see this as a bad trend. Eventually a tax on mileage and weight would make the most sense vs the current attempts to use fuel taxes as a proxy for those things.

whoknowsidont 10mo ago
Why do we need public funds to build a private authority that pays people absurd amounts of money who don't actually do anything instead of just you know.... building the road like we always have. For the public. If we're going to spend the money anyways why do we need private profits? Furthermore, just tax the vehicles that are actually doing damage to the roads. i.e., trucks. A honda civic barely does anything to a road. Where a semi-truck is EXPONENTIALLY more damaging.
- dietrichepp 10mo ago
  The civic barely does anything to a road, except require its existence and maintenance, and it turns out that roads are expensive to build and maintain (even if only damaged by weather).
- _aavaa_ 10mo ago
  A highway is not a public good. It is a publicly subsidized good for private consumption. Can I use the highway if I don’t have a car? (Barely) Can I use it for anything non driving related (like a downtown street where lanes can be repurposed for outdoor seating)? No I agree with you on what does the majority of the damage.
  - potato3732842 9mo ago
    >A highway is not a public good. It is a publicly subsidized good for private consumption. So is every park. What's the point of this language game?
  - morkalork 10mo ago
    I don't understand, there are plenty of other things the public pays for that you can't use for other, unintended purposes. You can't fly your hobby drone out of a public airport just because you want.
  - DangitBobby 10mo ago
    Apparently under your definition of a public good, there's no such thing.
  - xnx 10mo ago
    > Can I use the highway if I don’t have a car? Can I use the schools if I don't have a child?
    - DangitBobby 10mo ago
      I'd argue there should be some access to school facilities by the public if you want to call them "public". Otherwise it's about as public as the police department.
    - whoknowsidont 10mo ago
      In the U.S. you can definitely use school facilities after hours (such as the fields, and even some buildings, etc). The primary concern with not allowing access at any time of day to the general public is of course, the children.
      - DangitBobby 10mo ago
        I'm not aware of any public schools in my area that would allow me to, e.g., use the basketball court or soccer field after school hours or on the weekends.
        whoknowsidont 10mo ago
        Have you tried? I've certainly been able to. And I'm definitely not alone in having used those facilities. I've used them personally and for ad-hoc sport events (lacrosse isn't exactly popular in the area I'm in right now).
        DangitBobby 9mo ago
        Not recently, though I have observed locked doors and gates that make it pretty difficult to use. If your caveat is you need to call ahead to organize an event that's a pretty different use-case from what I'd like to do, which is to use them very casually and occasionally.
  - whoknowsidont 10mo ago
    Necessary public infrastructure that is paid for with tax dollars is not a public good? And just in case this fact is being lost / forgotten: Toll roads are primarily, originally funded through tax dollars but are disingenuously structured in a way these bozos can go "see, it's not actually tax dollars" (it is). The same exact dollars that should be used to build fully public, free roads are instead used to privatize public infrastructure. There has never been a time where a toll raid has failed and the losses were treated as private. The bonds magically get repaid (to the right people, of course). It's all tax dollars in the end, one way or another.
    - vel0city 10mo ago
      > Toll roads are primarily, originally funded through tax dollars This is untrue of all the toll roads I've regularly driven in multiple cities in the US. Their construction was funded through bonds which are paid back from the toll revenues.
      - whoknowsidont 10mo ago
        why did you ignore my other statements that expressly address this "viewpoint." The bonds are issued either by the authority itself or some other agency expressly delegated to issue those bonds. The accounting is done EXPRESSLY with the knowledge of the states general fund, even though there's a "wink wink" don't use the tax dollars to """directly""" pay for these bonds. Don't believe me? Look at the financial reports yourself. There is zero point in the fuzzy accounting other than to make something that simply should be public, private, and allow grifters to make a buck or two off it. In EVERY CASE of a failed toll road the major bond holders have all been made whole through the state directly or indirectly. If you have the money, investing in a toll road is the easiest way to make lots of money with 0 risk. But you can only do that if the entity issues those bonds "knows" and "selects" you. :)
        vel0city 9mo ago
        > Look at the financial reports yourself I have for the toll roads I drive on. It shows the debt payments being paid by the toll revenues, not other state taxes. > In EVERY CASE of a failed toll road the major bond holders have all been made whole through the state directly or indirectly. Sure, the toll agencies are ultimately a creature of the state but it's incorrect (a lie?) to argue it's funded primarily, originally through tax dollars, at least for the toll roads I drive on. What's the rate of these failures? What's the actual percentage of these bonds being paid by toll revenues versus failing and the states being on the hook? Once again you said it's primarily and originally. Being paid because the bond failed to be paid back by toll revenues isn't the original payment plan, and unless it's happening most of the time it's not the primary way of those bonds being paid. > make something that simply should be public, private The toll roads I'm talking about are public. > address this "viewpoint." This "viewpoint" is otherwise known as "reality".
  - kevin_thibedeau 9mo ago
    The US interstates move military equipment across the country without needing to deal with railroad bottlenecks. It is a public good. Just like GPS, it has ancillary civic functions but it still serves its original purpose.
    - scoofy 9mo ago
      I mean, that's the de jure purpose, but that's really a nonsensical point to make here. We're not talking about one controlled access route with two lanes in both directions to move tanks around. We're talking about 10 lane monstrosities, with 8 or more flyovers, standing 20 stories high in places like in Houston and Dallas.
- _ea1k 10mo ago
  The means of collection and treatment of it as something other than tax revenue are problematic for sure. Those should be solvable problems, though. Your point about semi-truck damage vs lighter vehicles is exactly why I think moving in that direction is so useful. The most fair taxation would accurately take both that aspect and actual miles driven into account.
  - bbarn 9mo ago
    Except the impact of even gas prices going up has added to costs in basically anything delivered by truck. Every tax you put on that just eventually ends up in consumer hands.
- hamdingers 9mo ago
  > A honda civic barely does anything to a road. Where a semi-truck is EXPONENTIALLY more damaging. Similarly, a Honda Civic is ~360 million times more damaging to the road than a bicycle, according to the fourth power law. No reasonable fee structure should let car drivers use roads for free. And that's before we get into the amount of valuable public land car drivers use for personal storage.
- orthoxerox 9mo ago
  Not literally exponentially, but the damage is proportional to the FOURTH power of the axle load. Imagine how expensive shipping would've become overnight if all these trucks had to pay their fair share and passed the costs to their customers. Honda Civic weighs 0.7t per axle, or 0.24tttt of wear. F-150 weighs 0.9t per axle, or 0.65tttt of wear. A school bus weighs 7.5t per axle, or 3164tttt of wear. That's more than thirteen thousand Honda Civics' worth of road damage. Imagine the driver of the Honda had to pay 1c per mile. The school bus would have to pay $130 per mile. Yes, it's carrying 78 passengers, so the cost would be $1.67 per mile per student, but I think most people would just drive their kids to school.
  - potato3732842 9mo ago
    >Imagine how expensive shipping would've become overnight if all these trucks had to pay their fair share and passed the costs to their customers. The roads are already being paid for and maintained at their current state. All you'd be doing is making goods slightly more expensive and other taxes slightly less. About 1-4% of your total tax burden goes to the roads. That's a small enough total number to be easily buried among your annual spend on goods. Like if roads were these huge financial burdens that didn't amortize away to practically nothing.

by _ea1k 10mo ago

I don't necessarily see this as a bad trend. Eventually a tax on mileage and weight would make the most sense vs the current attempts to use fuel taxes as a proxy for those things.

whoknowsidont 10mo ago

Why do we need public funds to build a private authority that pays people absurd amounts of money who don't actually do anything instead of just you know.... building the road like we always have. For the public. If we're going to spend the money anyways why do we need private profits? Furthermore, just tax the vehicles that are actually doing damage to the roads. i.e., trucks. A honda civic barely does anything to a road. Where a semi-truck is EXPONENTIALLY more damaging.

dietrichepp 10mo ago
The civic barely does anything to a road, except require its existence and maintenance, and it turns out that roads are expensive to build and maintain (even if only damaged by weather).
_aavaa_ 10mo ago
A highway is not a public good. It is a publicly subsidized good for private consumption. Can I use the highway if I don’t have a car? (Barely) Can I use it for anything non driving related (like a downtown street where lanes can be repurposed for outdoor seating)? No I agree with you on what does the majority of the damage.
- potato3732842 9mo ago
  >A highway is not a public good. It is a publicly subsidized good for private consumption. So is every park. What's the point of this language game?
- morkalork 10mo ago
  I don't understand, there are plenty of other things the public pays for that you can't use for other, unintended purposes. You can't fly your hobby drone out of a public airport just because you want.
- DangitBobby 10mo ago
  Apparently under your definition of a public good, there's no such thing.
- xnx 10mo ago
  > Can I use the highway if I don’t have a car? Can I use the schools if I don't have a child?
  - DangitBobby 10mo ago
    I'd argue there should be some access to school facilities by the public if you want to call them "public". Otherwise it's about as public as the police department.
  - whoknowsidont 10mo ago
    In the U.S. you can definitely use school facilities after hours (such as the fields, and even some buildings, etc). The primary concern with not allowing access at any time of day to the general public is of course, the children.
    - DangitBobby 10mo ago
      I'm not aware of any public schools in my area that would allow me to, e.g., use the basketball court or soccer field after school hours or on the weekends.
      - whoknowsidont 10mo ago
        Have you tried? I've certainly been able to. And I'm definitely not alone in having used those facilities. I've used them personally and for ad-hoc sport events (lacrosse isn't exactly popular in the area I'm in right now).
        DangitBobby 9mo ago
        Not recently, though I have observed locked doors and gates that make it pretty difficult to use. If your caveat is you need to call ahead to organize an event that's a pretty different use-case from what I'd like to do, which is to use them very casually and occasionally.
- whoknowsidont 10mo ago
  Necessary public infrastructure that is paid for with tax dollars is not a public good? And just in case this fact is being lost / forgotten: Toll roads are primarily, originally funded through tax dollars but are disingenuously structured in a way these bozos can go "see, it's not actually tax dollars" (it is). The same exact dollars that should be used to build fully public, free roads are instead used to privatize public infrastructure. There has never been a time where a toll raid has failed and the losses were treated as private. The bonds magically get repaid (to the right people, of course). It's all tax dollars in the end, one way or another.
  - vel0city 10mo ago
    > Toll roads are primarily, originally funded through tax dollars This is untrue of all the toll roads I've regularly driven in multiple cities in the US. Their construction was funded through bonds which are paid back from the toll revenues.
    - whoknowsidont 10mo ago
      why did you ignore my other statements that expressly address this "viewpoint." The bonds are issued either by the authority itself or some other agency expressly delegated to issue those bonds. The accounting is done EXPRESSLY with the knowledge of the states general fund, even though there's a "wink wink" don't use the tax dollars to """directly""" pay for these bonds. Don't believe me? Look at the financial reports yourself. There is zero point in the fuzzy accounting other than to make something that simply should be public, private, and allow grifters to make a buck or two off it. In EVERY CASE of a failed toll road the major bond holders have all been made whole through the state directly or indirectly. If you have the money, investing in a toll road is the easiest way to make lots of money with 0 risk. But you can only do that if the entity issues those bonds "knows" and "selects" you. :)
      - vel0city 9mo ago
        > Look at the financial reports yourself I have for the toll roads I drive on. It shows the debt payments being paid by the toll revenues, not other state taxes. > In EVERY CASE of a failed toll road the major bond holders have all been made whole through the state directly or indirectly. Sure, the toll agencies are ultimately a creature of the state but it's incorrect (a lie?) to argue it's funded primarily, originally through tax dollars, at least for the toll roads I drive on. What's the rate of these failures? What's the actual percentage of these bonds being paid by toll revenues versus failing and the states being on the hook? Once again you said it's primarily and originally. Being paid because the bond failed to be paid back by toll revenues isn't the original payment plan, and unless it's happening most of the time it's not the primary way of those bonds being paid. > make something that simply should be public, private The toll roads I'm talking about are public. > address this "viewpoint." This "viewpoint" is otherwise known as "reality".
- kevin_thibedeau 9mo ago
  The US interstates move military equipment across the country without needing to deal with railroad bottlenecks. It is a public good. Just like GPS, it has ancillary civic functions but it still serves its original purpose.
  - scoofy 9mo ago
    I mean, that's the de jure purpose, but that's really a nonsensical point to make here. We're not talking about one controlled access route with two lanes in both directions to move tanks around. We're talking about 10 lane monstrosities, with 8 or more flyovers, standing 20 stories high in places like in Houston and Dallas.
_ea1k 10mo ago
The means of collection and treatment of it as something other than tax revenue are problematic for sure. Those should be solvable problems, though. Your point about semi-truck damage vs lighter vehicles is exactly why I think moving in that direction is so useful. The most fair taxation would accurately take both that aspect and actual miles driven into account.
- bbarn 9mo ago
  Except the impact of even gas prices going up has added to costs in basically anything delivered by truck. Every tax you put on that just eventually ends up in consumer hands.
hamdingers 9mo ago
> A honda civic barely does anything to a road. Where a semi-truck is EXPONENTIALLY more damaging. Similarly, a Honda Civic is ~360 million times more damaging to the road than a bicycle, according to the fourth power law. No reasonable fee structure should let car drivers use roads for free. And that's before we get into the amount of valuable public land car drivers use for personal storage.
orthoxerox 9mo ago
Not literally exponentially, but the damage is proportional to the FOURTH power of the axle load. Imagine how expensive shipping would've become overnight if all these trucks had to pay their fair share and passed the costs to their customers. Honda Civic weighs 0.7t per axle, or 0.24tttt of wear. F-150 weighs 0.9t per axle, or 0.65tttt of wear. A school bus weighs 7.5t per axle, or 3164tttt of wear. That's more than thirteen thousand Honda Civics' worth of road damage. Imagine the driver of the Honda had to pay 1c per mile. The school bus would have to pay $130 per mile. Yes, it's carrying 78 passengers, so the cost would be $1.67 per mile per student, but I think most people would just drive their kids to school.
- potato3732842 9mo ago
  >Imagine how expensive shipping would've become overnight if all these trucks had to pay their fair share and passed the costs to their customers. The roads are already being paid for and maintained at their current state. All you'd be doing is making goods slightly more expensive and other taxes slightly less. About 1-4% of your total tax burden goes to the roads. That's a small enough total number to be easily buried among your annual spend on goods. Like if roads were these huge financial burdens that didn't amortize away to practically nothing.