jm192
Footballguy
I again don't think it's comparable to some tracking device in your car.
I can pay a toll and then get off that road forever and not pay another toll for the duration of my trip. They know I was on I-327 for one moment in time, ok.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mileage Tax (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bucsfan5493
- Start date
I can pay a toll and then get off that road forever and not pay another toll for the duration of my trip. They know I was on I-327 for one moment in time, ok.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
Mayor Pete can't be blamed for your state taxes, I assume he's trying to fund federal infrastructure. So yah, the federal taxes part.
Since you post in the PSF I'm going to assume you lean left (you can correct me but I'm just playing the odds) and its interesting to me that the mantra is so often in this forum and by the left about people paying their fair share. Yet, when there is discussion of actually paying something that approximates usage of Federal resources way better than general tax rates...the response is I don't want to pay any more even though I use more.
Its not surprising, nobody really wants to pay more, but hard to think not hypocritical. Typically this is where Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are brought up and we should take from them because it's them that are not paying their fare share. Personally I dont care about those two but its more the point that...its always somebody else. Its the guy making $100k more, $200k more.
Sorry, thats overally directed at you and if my memory serves you are a thoughtful poster, but the approach struck me. Feel free to give me the middle finger along with any response.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
So give a tax break to drive electric, but then add a tax via a different system to recover that tax revenue?
The General
Footballguy
Is your issue with this that they track you? If so, that’s fine.
Personally, I’d not have an issue with the government knowing my mileage driven. Car insurance companies do this, my cell phone tracks me everywhere. There are traffic cameras everywhere. Not something I’m concerned with.
If this is the way they would be doing this though it seems more impractical to me.
The General
Footballguy
Yes. The tax break is to get you into the car. Using less gas is a positive for everyone.
Roads have to be paid for still. EVs use the same roads.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
This is an absurd take.
We already pay a lot of money in taxes. None of that pays any of my fair share of the roads I drive on? No one has been contributing to their road usage bill for 250 years?
The government has decided we don't pay enough. Because we keep spending money on lots of things. And so now here's another way to get me to pay even more for the roads I've already been paying to use.
The General
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
No middle finger needed as if my memory serves me you’re a thoughtful poster as well, but your read of me is wrong. I’m a independent and centrist. I’m fiscally conservative and lean socially left.
To me it’s not the core of having to pay more, I just believe we can spend our money far more wisely then we do now. As a business operator in California for 25 years the inefficiency and waste of the government with our money is disgusting.
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192
Footballguy
This.
i’m blown away by the notion that we just cut $1 trillion stimulus package and immediately turn around and start talking about how to tax the people more.
either the people need money and we don’t need more taxes right now, Or we can’t afford to be giving out a $1 trillion stimulus package.
But hey, when the hell have we held our government accountable anyways?
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192
Footballguy
I would be OK with this if they showed me a roadmap to how this would end the federal deficit.
But this will just enable them to continue decades of frivolous spending rather than using my current tax dollars to fund the infrastructure projects they were intended to.
we haven’t been under paying in taxes. They have been spending the money on everything but infrastructure.
people act like they don’t see what the big deal is when New York gets a bridge to Canada or Pelosi gets a tunnel to wherever, but now I’m supposed to pay taxes for driving, when my federal tax dollars went to all the little pork projects?
But this will just enable them to continue decades of frivolous spending rather than using my current tax dollars to fund the infrastructure projects they were intended to.
we haven’t been under paying in taxes. They have been spending the money on everything but infrastructure.
people act like they don’t see what the big deal is when New York gets a bridge to Canada or Pelosi gets a tunnel to wherever, but now I’m supposed to pay taxes for driving, when my federal tax dollars went to all the little pork projects?
jm192
Footballguy
I actually think it would be much more difficult to track it January 1st To December 31 every year then it would birthday month birthday month.
djmich
Footballguy
As if turning a year older couldn't get ####tyier....here's your mileage tax yah old *******!
dkp993
Footballguy
Exactly. It would just somehow be reappointed to the industrial military complex via another increase to the military budget for more tanks and helicopters that aren’t being asked for or needed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Not needed? Huh?
Republicans and Democrats agree that the U.S. is in dire need of a major infrastructure overhaul, and at the very least, that Congress should authorize significant repairs to roads and bridges.
The country’s overall infrastructure needs over the next 10 years total nearly $6 trillion, according to a report published earlier in March by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/26/build-america-bonds-may-be-key-to-financing-bidens-infrastructure-plans.html
dkp993
Footballguy
Please re-read my post. I think you’re a bit confused on what I said was not needed.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Well then please read the linked article...you may be a bit confused as to what the proposal is...the mileage tax would be used as a revenue source to subsidize interest on municipal infrastructure projects...not a general federal tax that goes to fund the military or pay down the national debt.
dkp993
Footballguy
I get it. Was being hyperbolic and making a broader statement on government spending.
djmich
Footballguy
Work with me here. I’m not saying I want to pay more in taxes or that the government spends effectively. In fact a big no to both.
What I’m saying is that IF we are going to raise taxes why not take an opportunity to align it with usage of governmental resources.
dkp993
Footballguy
It’s a fair point, one that could also be made about doing the same for climate change initiatives or investments in alternative sources of energy. This one will go over about as well as those do.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
“At least if they’re going to raise taxes, they’re actually going to spend it on what they’re supposed to this time.”
Republicans and Dems have hemorrhaged money for decades. And my tax dollars that were supposed to be for infrastructure weren’t use for that.
So now they’re going to create a new tax. And you feel better that they’re designating it for what the taxes were already supposed to pay for?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Nah. Just tax the gas guzzlers. Use the money generated on anything but expanding highway capacity.
The Narrator
Footballguy
In Washington we are prohibited by a state constitutional amendment from using the gas tax for anything but "highway purposes"the moops said:
So we end up in this negative feedback loop with transit and multimodal starved for dollars and more lane miles making more traffic.
Because of that I'm all in on a VMT
The Narrator
Footballguy
And the more wealthy people are the more miles they put on a car in general. People who drive are generally more wealthy than people who don't.
This isn't a regressive tax
This isn't a regressive tax
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
Since we're discussing Mayor Pete's proposals I'll drop this in here...I'm sure no disagreement on it 
Mayor Pete To The Rescue
Mayor Pete To The Rescue
The Narrator
Footballguy
Now imagine miles driven and mode choice are things we can measure by income.
https://nhts.ornl.gov/tables09/fatcat/2009/vmt_HHFAMINC.html
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/special_reports_and_issue_briefs/special_report/2007_10_03/table_01
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/special_reports_and_issue_briefs/special_report/2007_10_03/figure_02
djmich
Footballguy
There's a lot of good datapoints in here and I understand the correlation you are drawing but I don't think they change that its still regressive. One thing I'd note is that poor households are much more likely to have one individual (not married) while wealthy more likely to have at least two individuals (married).
Bucsfan5493
Footballguy
All very fair points. The bolded is why I don’t see a tax like this working any time soon. Our current infrastructure would need to be much better throughout the country for this to make any sense right now IMO.
I do think it could push more towards giving public transportation. I’m in Atlanta and it is very underutilized by people in the suburbs. People would rather wake up at insane hours or sit in hours of traffic every week (and traffic is INSANE in Atlanta) instead of take the train. Blows my mind but if it started hitting their pocket books too, I think some might switch up.
Last edited by a moderator:
FairWarning
Footballguy
The easiest way to tax milage would be to pay for 12K miles or whatever when you get your plates from the DMV, then adjust every year.
djmich
Footballguy
Part of the problem with Atlanta suburb trains is that the commuter networks flowing from the stops are not strong and most people are not commuting to atl city....suburb jobs are plentiful. Unlike for example Long Island Railroad that drops you off in Manhattan which is where the abundance of travelers is going.
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192
Footballguy
Here's another thought:
A lot of people are arguing that you should pay for YOUR SHARE of the roads and infrastructure.
I do 99.99999999999999999% of my driving in Kentucky. I think most people are similar to me and do most of their driving in the state they live in.
Of course we visit other states for fun, go on vacation, some people work in other states, conferences, etc. But I'm guessing 99% of the country does 99% of their driving in 1 state.
If we need to tax for infrastructure--why is this a federal level thing? Why don't I pay taxes to Kentucky to fix Kentucky roads? The rare time I enter Tennessee or Illinois probably doesn't contribute majorly to the wear and tear on their roads. Do I need to pay federal taxes so that California roads get fixed?
A lot of people are arguing that you should pay for YOUR SHARE of the roads and infrastructure.
I do 99.99999999999999999% of my driving in Kentucky. I think most people are similar to me and do most of their driving in the state they live in.
Of course we visit other states for fun, go on vacation, some people work in other states, conferences, etc. But I'm guessing 99% of the country does 99% of their driving in 1 state.
If we need to tax for infrastructure--why is this a federal level thing? Why don't I pay taxes to Kentucky to fix Kentucky roads? The rare time I enter Tennessee or Illinois probably doesn't contribute majorly to the wear and tear on their roads. Do I need to pay federal taxes so that California roads get fixed?
dkp993
Footballguy
Yes you do. But the rest of us not so much. Feel free to start with the road coming in to my house first.
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
I agree with this, and I drive a truck. I actually think we need to raise the gas taxIvanKaramazov said:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Kentucky is a welfare state dependent on the federal government. Next time you meet someone from California thank them for building your roads.
https://www.wkyufm.org/post/kentucky-second-most-dependent-state-federal-money#stream/0
The Narrator
Footballguy
So here's the thing. As a country we've built way more roads than we can afford to maintain with the tax revenues and sources we have. And we've done it all relatively recently, so the big costs haven't come due yet. The state DOT where I live has a $700 million annual maintenance shortfall. Basically we are going 3/4 of a billion dollars backward *every* year. And that's just state highways. (PS, we're still spending billions expanding them because we're idiots) The city I live in estimates that it will take about $130 million just to get our city owned roads up to acceptable status. My city makes up just under .6% of the state's population.
Either we're all going to have to pay a lot more money, we're going to have to let a lot of roads go back to gravel, or we're going to have to find a way to get around we can afford long-term.
My take? If a VMT funds transit and multimodal I am 100% all for it. Because that's the only direction we can afford to go in. If it funds maintenance I'm meh. If it funds new roads I'm completely against it, because then we're just throwing money on the pile to burn because we already can't afford to maintain what we have.
Either we're all going to have to pay a lot more money, we're going to have to let a lot of roads go back to gravel, or we're going to have to find a way to get around we can afford long-term.
My take? If a VMT funds transit and multimodal I am 100% all for it. Because that's the only direction we can afford to go in. If it funds maintenance I'm meh. If it funds new roads I'm completely against it, because then we're just throwing money on the pile to burn because we already can't afford to maintain what we have.
The Narrator
Footballguy
You sound like you're from my local LD.
Just because inside of a certain segment that gets taxed there is a piece that is regressive doesn't mean the tax is regressive. If you tax people who drive to fund transit, your tax is progressive overall, because wealthier people drive than take transit, and the wealthier you are, the more you drive. Even if someone who makes $45000 a year pays .03% more of their income in tax than someone who makes $55000 a year.
Also, almost every single tax that we have is regressive but to different extents, so let's look at how progressive/regressive taxes are compared to the other options that are available to fund the service.
It's a spectrum and we should do the right thing. Not just say "nope, there is some component to this that is regressive so we should not do it" - because that's just an argument against taxing in general, done either by well-meaning liberals who don't understand how government works, or not well-meaning conservatives trying to use a liberal talking point without understanding what they're saying.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is a totally fair question, and yes it makes total sense that state and local governments should pay for state and local roads. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an important reason for the federal government to provide funding for highways and similar major infrastructure.
As a resident of South Dakota, I spend very little time driving on California highways. But almost nothing I buy was produced in South Dakota or anywhere near here. Essentially 100% of my consumption of physical stuff (not streamed movies or video games or stuff like that) comes from other states or, more likely, was shipped to the US through a port city on a cost someplace. That stuff has to be transported to a city that is about as far from an ocean as you can possibly get in North America. It's not unreasonable to ask me to chip in to support interstate highways even if I'll never drive on most of them.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
So why shouldnt the people living in big cities taking the subway also contribute (a mileage tax leaves them out of paying their fair share)
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Well, in theory, they probably should. But it's hard to design a tax policy that perfectly taxes every single person at a rate exactly proportional to the benefits they receive. So we're stuck with moderately clunky and imperfect mechanisms like mileage and gas taxes.
At some point, you just have to reconcile yourself to the fact that some people are going to pay more than their fair share of some taxes and less than their fair share of some other tax and hope that maybe it kind of balances out in the end.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I get accepting that no method is perfect. But that is exactly why we should oppose new methods. They wont be perfect and they will require new legislation, agencies, etc. Just increase existing methods.
Nobody should be in favor of the resort fee model.
Similar threads
