I'm not telling you your government
should tax fuel. I'm telling you that any sane taxing structure to promote fuel efficiency, reduce oil dependence and to support road upkeep
must be based on a direct consumption tax. Either that or a mix of that and having RF transponders in your vehicle telling them how often you use
their (government constructed and maintained) roads.
Taxing fuel isn't making anything more green, it's just taking money out of the pockets of people who are more than likely already going through a bit of a rough time. Most taxes are unfair to begin and a fuel tax would be no different. You want to make vehicles greener? Give people are tax break for owning fuel efficient, low CO2, or alternative energy vehicles. You should punish people for owning a vehicle though when most people probably bought their SUV when fuel prices were much lower.
A tax break for owning a $30,000 vehicle that gets better fuel mileage and is used to ferry one person back and forth to the coffee shop, versus a van that is used entirely for carpooling back and forth to work?
Why give a tax break for alternative energy vehicles?
An electric car still uses power generated from fossil fuels (in the most part)... but it will save its owner a whole lot in fuel bills over time. If your only tax is on fuel, they
already get a free ride.
Hybrids? Without ridiculous "luxury" taxes on cars, the price premium for hybrids goes down. And by using less fuel, they get a free ride.
Biofuels? Why should you subsidize people who are gassing up on fuel which is already subsidized by your taxes?
Propane? My propane (I have a flex-fuel car) cost per mile is so
incredibly low (half of that on gasoline) that to give me a tax break for having a propane kit, to me, seems criminal. I'll take the money, though...
The same old story every time this comes up and I'm starting to wonder if people just can't grasp this simple concept. Prices are high for America based on what we were paying only a couple of years ago, the same goes for the rest of the world. Europe has always paid more than America, so comparing the difference between the two places is rather daft.
And I don't see how you can't get the concept. People in
third world countries are paying the same as you or higher. People in moderately developed countries and other first world countries are paying through the nose. The comparison isn't daft. This high fuel tax has naturally led to markets wherein small engines are preferred... even in Europe where commuters can cover large distances on a daily basis.
It's higher for you
now. But it's higher for everyone else. Get used to it.
What? This really makes no sense. An average vehicle isn't going to wear out the roads, they don't have enough mass to them. Overloaded semi trucks and weather destroy roads much quicker. I mean if my MINI is doing major damage to the road because I drive 8,000 miles more a year then the average American then our road system is in dire shape.
You tax based on fuel. Trucks use much more fuel per mile... they pay much more tax. Driven properly, your Mini will cost you much less per mile in tax than an overloaded semi, an SUV, or a mid-sized family car.
A good tax structure, then? How about a direct tax on the
weight of the vehicle plus the tax on fuel. Taxing direct weight takes care of the road maintenance problem. Taxing fuel takes care of the rest.
Because owning a motorcycle in an area that maybe had 90 days out of the year where it can be used is a great investment
. I bought one of the most fuel efficient vehicles I could because I drive quite a bit. I've probably done more then most people.
You could buy motorcycle-based cars...
...but legalizing them for US use would be a nightmare. Fair point, the northern states are probably one of the few places in the world where this is impractical... but I'll tackle this in the next question.
Are you being serious?
Lets see here, the cost of a house nearer where I work $350,000 in this economy, $500,000 during good times, what I make per year couldn't even remotely cover the cost of that. So how could I afford to move closer? Not to mention I still live with my parents.
OK then you suggest I get a job closer? How do you suppose I do that, do you know what suburbs are? People are going to live a decent distance from where they work. Not to mention trying to find a new job anywhere right now is more or less impossible since just about every company in Michigan is either laying off or putting a freeze on hirings.
I live fairly close to things I need to go to, the bank, the mall, the grocery store, etc. and I would have no problem biking, walking, or taking a bus but I can't do any of that. I have to use a car just to go down the street. Why should I be punished with unfair and unjust taxes because of a lack of availably of other transportation?
A car is a necessity, at least in most of America. It has nothing to do with me thinking public transport is bad either, although in the Detroit area nothing runs on time and the routing is awful. If it was available though I would use it. Just as if there were sidewalks and bike paths I would walk or bike many places.
Honestly I don't understand how you are coming to any of your conclusions.
I
do know what suburbs are.
Here's the thing.
The sprawled out, suburban structure of American living is
not the
cause of automophilia. It is, partially, the
result of it. The car itself enabled the development of middle-class suburbs in areas where it would have been unthinkable previously.
In an economy where automotive transport is either expensive or limited, suburban housing developments will be built around existing public transport grids, or close to them. In your area, this is clearly not the case.
As a population gets ever richer, you can develop residential areas further and further from the center of the city. Further and further from available jobs. Further from easy public transport.
Suburbs are themselves a luxury. It's the luxury of a population that doesn't need the extra farmland. Or that can build roads out into the middle of nowhere. I have a unique perspective on this, because I used to live in a US city... moved out into a third-world city, moved to a third world province surrounded by farmland, and watched as the farmland and mountainsides around us started to sprout suburban developments as people got richer and richer.
You're not
forced to get a car. You
need a car
if, and only if, you continue to live where you live. If you move out of your parents' house, you will have to rent a place in the city. Which will cost you quite a bit of money, but you'll live. Lots of people do it. We used to live in New York (Mom moved there from her place in the Northwest.) and had to
rent an apartment, and my parents took public transport. As my they made more money, we then moved out into the suburbs, and... got a car.
Could they have lived without the car? Yes, if they'd stayed at the apartment house. Then why didn't they? Because they could
afford not to, and having a house and car was more convenient.
You only
need a car because your parents could afford to move out into the suburbs, because they could afford to own a car. The fact that you used to drive an SUV and now drive a car that's considerably more expensive than other cars of its size means you're not exactly starving now.
I'm not telling you you should get taxed through the nose because of it! I'm merely stating what is likely the most equitable way of taxing road usage for motor vehicles
without having the government directly monitoring your actual day-to-day driving, which would be intrusive and limiting of your freedom.
Again, taxing people on their
potential usage instead of their
actual usage is inherently unfair, and doesn't directly reflect actual energy use and pollution. Taxing cow burps makes more sense.
