• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does it make more sense that people driving most, pay the most tax?

Does it make sense that people driving more miles pay more tax?

  • yes, usage tax is the most fair

    Votes: 7 25.9%
  • no, usage tax is not fair

    Votes: 14 51.9%
  • I could care less

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • I may have to move closer to work if it passes

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
I'd be quite happy, personally, if the taxes I pay for licensing my car, my driver's license, the gasoline taxes I pay, etc., all went directly to the maintenance of the roads and infrastructure I utilize on a daily basis and if that meant a more "user pay" formulae, I'd be all for it, with one proviso. Not a single cent of the taxes I pay for all these things car related will be used to fund public transit. Right now, all my taxes go into the government black hole and precious little of it comes back out in the form of roads, bridges, highway maintenance, etc. but a good chunk of it goes to fund public transit.

If it's going to be "user pay", then the people who ride the buses and subways and LRTs etc. better start ponying up the actual cost of their rides.

That's true. Much of what the states collect in gasoline taxes goes into the general fund. It ends up paying for other spending. I just read an article the other day that some states because they are in such bad fiscal condition, running out of budget tricks to balance their budgets have gone back to using gravel on roads instead of repaving them. Not only has the federal government exhausted its ability to manage its bills, many states aren't much better. A little fiscal responsibility on both ends would take care of finding the money to upkeep our roads properly.
 
If all vehicles had the same degree of fuel efficiency, tracking by miles might make some sense. What, with the larger vehicles using the most gas AND causing the most wear on the highways, such a law isn't fair by basic design.
Studded tires should be heavily taxed because of how hard they are on the roads, or illegal.
 
Studded tires should be heavily taxed because of how hard they are on the roads, or illegal.

Yep.

I hear that telltale little crunching sound all the time all through winter here despite the fact that the roads are wet rather than icy 99% of the time. I'm sure they come in handy for those trips to Hoodoo or Bachelor, but how often do people do that?
 
Yep.

I hear that telltale little crunching sound all the time all through winter here despite the fact that the roads are wet rather than icy 99% of the time. I'm sure they come in handy for those trips to Hoodoo or Bachelor, but how often do people do that?

I carry chains for when they are needed.
 
It really is a state issue what should be legal or illegal.....certainly not the federal government's business with their one size fits all mentality. I personally find chains hard to use. If I'm planning a trip where winters are harsh like Michigan's UP, there are such things as rubber studded tires.
 
It really is a state issue what should be legal or illegal.....certainly not the federal government's business with their one size fits all mentality. I personally find chains hard to use. If I'm planning a trip where winters are harsh like Michigan's UP, there are such things as rubber studded tires.
There are parts of I70 where you will be ordered to chain up or lrave the freeway, during a storm warning without any actual snow on the ground.

I now carry snow cables for just such occasions.
 
I am primarily libertarian, but I do agree with a moderate amount of sharing our wealth for the public good.

Off topic, I am upset that bicyclists are allowed to disregard driving laws, and get preferential treatment. At a minimum, I want them to be required to pay for yearly registration and have a license plate like cars must have, and carry insurance if they ride on the streets.

I think enough is said on this topic for people reading our disagreement to make up their own minds.

Yes, bicyclists should follow traffic laws. I do not think they should have to register, have license plates or have insurance.

The totality of taxes have gone well beyond "moderate" and who pays all the almost uncountably long list of taxes, fees, excise fees, sin-tax fees and other add-ons is mostly the average person, not the wealthy, and the more they are increased the more the hit people on the bottom of the economic ladder. For example, it is unlikely wealthy would drive cross country to visit relatives with their family. Poor folks who can't afford to fly do. That is who this new of endlessly more new taxes would hit.
 
if everybody stopped using gas, this might be warranted, but not at this point. it would just be one more regressive tax on poor people who have to commute.
 
Goodness are the powers that be floating this turd again? We had a governor who spent a few million studying that and kept it hush hush. Of course people found out and now old TaxAndGougeMe is no longer governor.

Look, you just have to vote out the nimrods who suggest such things.
 
It is already done. Gas Tax. The more you drive (gas/diesel) the more fuel tax you pay.

One could say the electric and hybrid vehicles are not paying their fair share of road maintenance now because they use less fuel.
 
Here's an example of how all these fees and taxes hit working people. The list of taxes and fees almost endless.

A person needs a car to get to work or will lose his/her job - which would cause his/her family to be evicted. He makes a deal for an old tote-the-note car at $70 per week - or $280 every 4 weeks, and only needs $100 down to get the car. So, for $100 plus $140 (first and last week) he has a car: $240.00. That is an amount s/he can just barely scrape out of the next paycheck...

... WAIT, what about the government's take!? Well, there is the $225.00 "new registration" fee, $57.64 registration fee, $28.00 new plate fee and $180.00 sales tax.

So a work single parent buying a $3000 old car has to FIRST give the government $490.64. To which the pro-tax crowd will explain "Yes and rich people like that should pay even more. The private sector is doing GREAT. It's the government sector that's hurting." (Exactly quoting Harry Reid)

ALL THE TALK ALWAYS ABOUT MAKING THE RICH PAY MORE is always a diversion from the reality that really who they are making pay more to the government is the working people, poor people and elderly.
 
If the goal is to raise money for road repairs then yes, usage tax in the only fair way.

BUT there is no way in hell the driving public is ever going to agree to carry around these black boxes, and seriously suggesting it would probably be political suicide, so don't look for it to even come to a legislative vote.
 
If the goal is to raise money for road repairs then yes, usage tax in the only fair way.

BUT there is no way in hell the driving public is ever going to agree to carry around these black boxes, and seriously suggesting it would probably be political suicide, so don't look for it to even come to a legislative vote.

They already have them in cars and have for certainly a decade if not more. All that is needed is the manufacturer access code. They are required in all new cars.

Why would you believe they would use the money for road repair? The 50 to 70 cents per gallon on gasoline and diesel also was promised to be used for roads. Just for gasoline that is over $70,000,000,000 per year. Add another $60,000,000,000 in taxes collected on diesel. $130 BILLION dollars ROAD TAXES COLLECTED PER YEAR for road maintenance and repairs - and that does NOT include the THOUSANDS of dollars per year each semi and commercial truck pays. Instead, it just now goes into the general fund - though was justified as going to be used for roads.

So, now they say "believe us THIS time. We PROMISE will use THIS NEW TAX for roads." And people will believe them because people tend to be stupid and gullible.
 
Last edited:
They already have them in cars and have for certainly a decade if not more. All that is needed is the manufacturer access code. They are required in all new cars.
I had no idea about these things. I am not sure the fact that they are already there would reduce the political stink of turning them on.

Why would you believe they would use the money for road repair? The 50 to 70 cents per gallon on gasoline and diesel also was promised to be used for roads. Just for gasoline that is over $70,000,000,000 per year. Add another $60,000,000,000 in taxes collected on diesel. $130 BILLION dollars ROAD TAXES COLLECTED PER YEAR for road maintenance and repairs - and that does NOT include the THOUSANDS of dollars per year each semi and commercial truck pays. Instead, it just now goes into the general fund - though was justified as going to be used for roads.

So, now they say "believe us THIS time. We PROMISE will use THIS NEW TAX for roads." And people will believe them because people tend to be stupid and gullible.
OP asks only what the fairest way would be, not how likely it is the politicians will do what they are supposed to do.
 
Ever get around to buying an electrified ice box, pappy?

What does not having a brand new cellphone and GPS have to do with owning a refrigerator? Ever heard of the saying if ain't broke then don't fix it?
 
A black box in your car? Some see a source of tax revenue

The devices would track every mile you drive —possibly including your location — and the government would use the data to draw up a tax bill.

WASHINGTON — As America's road planners struggle to find the cash to mend a crumbling highway system, many are beginning to see a solution in a little black box that fits neatly by the dashboard of your car.

The devices, which track every mile a motorist drives and transmit that information to bureaucrats, are at the center of a controversial attempt in Washington and state planning offices to overhaul the outdated system for funding America's major roads.

A black box in your car? Some see a source of tax revenue - latimes.com
Odd isn't it... they want others to pay for your medical care, but when it comes to cars it's a matter of personal usage.

Of course I want more bureaucracy, the ability to track... ahhh helll... why not just put a chip in our heads and a tattoo on our foreheads and forearms.
 
If the government wants to tax based on mileage, which seems less fair that a gas tax, they can simply ask for odometer readings when the vehicle gets it's regular safety/emissions inspection. There's no need for an expensive and potentially privacy violating government gps in each car.
 
Here's an example of how all these fees and taxes hit working people. The list of taxes and fees almost endless.

A person needs a car to get to work or will lose his/her job - which would cause his/her family to be evicted. He makes a deal for an old tote-the-note car at $70 per week - or $280 every 4 weeks, and only needs $100 down to get the car. So, for $100 plus $140 (first and last week) he has a car: $240.00. That is an amount s/he can just barely scrape out of the next paycheck...

... WAIT, what about the government's take!? Well, there is the $225.00 "new registration" fee, $57.64 registration fee, $28.00 new plate fee and $180.00 sales tax.

So a work single parent buying a $3000 old car has to FIRST give the government $490.64. To which the pro-tax crowd will explain "Yes and rich people like that should pay even more. The private sector is doing GREAT. It's the government sector that's hurting." (Exactly quoting Harry Reid)

ALL THE TALK ALWAYS ABOUT MAKING THE RICH PAY MORE is always a diversion from the reality that really who they are making pay more to the government is the working people, poor people and elderly.

I agree bit that is a state by state isuue. Here in Oregon there only the $40 reg fee (good for two years), you can usually keep the old plates and no sales tax. Oh, and it costs $25 to go through DEQ for the smog and safety cert.

Also, I remember being poor and I could never afford a $3000 vehicle, think sub $1000. I actually liked the older vehicles because I could do the work myself.
 
These guys don't need MORE money they need to spend the money they got on what its supposed to go to in the first place.

I trust that sheds light on the actual situation. Believe me commercial trucking more than pays for the roads. The problem comes from the government using the funds not as intended. Our roads and bridges should be in excellent shape if they where actually allocated the funds they were supposed to have in the first place.
I think that they do. I just got done going on a trip in Ohio to Kentucky and was held up with numerous road projects.

And I found this interesting article: Overweight trucks damage infrastructure. (USA Today)
 
Are you using the "If private businesses are doing it then its okay for the government to do it" excuse?

My cellphone is a cheap 5 year old Samsung cricket phone which stays at home and I know how to read a map and street signs.

don't be silly, anyone can track your cell phone, regardless if it is yours or a business
 
usage tax is not good. The wear on roads comes from weight of vehicles and weather not simple usage.
 
OP asks only what the fairest way would be, not how likely it is the politicians will do what they are supposed to do.
But the chance of such a thing happening (nil), is highly relevant to the topic at hand.
 
It is not relevant to the identity of the fairest form of road-use tax.
Is it not?

The fairest form of road-use tax allows the least amount of micromanagement by political figures, or rather micromismanagement.
 
Back
Top Bottom