05-21-2011, 06:30 PM
|
#26
|
|
AFC #1
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 昨晩あなたのお母さんの家
Posts: 20,181
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by axiomatik
Something will have to be done if electric cars ever become a significant portion of the cars on the road, because under the current taxation scheme, they would contribute nothing to the maintenance of the roads. But we are a long ways from needing to change the tax system. Right now, pretty much all cars on the road run on gas or diesel, so every one already pays a usage tax.
What the government needs to do is increase the federal gas tax. It is at 18.4 cents/gal, and has been since 1993. Adjusting for inflation, that means the federal government is collecting only 2/3 the tax revenue per gallon than when the rate was set in 1993. Meanwhile, the number of roads and drivers has increased.
However, what really damages the highways are semi trucks. Their huge weight does a disproportionate amount of damage to the highway system relative to passenger cars. I think the diesel taxes should be raised first. Sure, we'd all pay for it in the end as shipping companies raised their rates to cover the increased cost, but it would give shipping companies a greater incentive to improve efficiency.
|
The Federal Gasoline tax is 18.4¢/gal and Diesel fuel is 24.4¢/gal. So, it is already "raised." Most states have higher taxes on Diesel fuel compared to Gasoline. Some even tax commercial drivers for gas used in the state even if they didn't buy it in the state.
Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by upsdude
as it is the revenue from the gas tax money gets raided to cover the general fund-else we'd have much better roads than what we have now. and judging by the incompetence from both parties of california's legislature nothing will be solved in the immediate future. for example: we have metro lines in the L.A. area no one takes you directly to the airport. maybe a mile or 2 short of it, so you still have to get a cab or something. talk about stupid.
personally i don't like the idea of a driving tax-they can't handle the money they get from us from all the other taxes, this will just be another revenue stream for some other b.s. and i don't like the idea of the govt tracking where i drive.
|
Quote:
|
Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007 that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs. However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs.
|
Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
GWEN IFILL: Where is the money going instead?
MARY PETERS: Well, it's going into earmarks; it's going into special programs.
GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks.
MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill.
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?
MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.
|
Online NewsHour: Conversation | Peters Discusses Infrastructure | August 15, 2007 | PBS
Got to love Congress. Robing Peter to pay for Paul's Museum.
__________________
Comments should be taken as Opinions not as Statements of Fact
|
|
|