Currently (in Australia at least) you pay a road tax for each vehicle. The cost is dependent on the number of cylinders, engine displacement, vehicle weight, commercial/non-commercial use, fuel type. The whole point of the system is that cars that do more damage to the roads (i.e heavier vehicles, and vehicles that use the road more often), and thus lead to the roads being repaired more, are taxed more.
Problem with this however is that the little old lady who only uses her car once a week to go to the shops, and the guy who spends several hours per day driving (assuming they have the same engine size and such) are taxed exactly the same. Something I think is unfair. Second problem is that many people avoid paying their rego, meaning less tax income for the government, meaning I (and everyone else who pays their taxes) have to pay more to make up for this shortfall
So my solution is that car tax is replaced with a new fuel tax. The idea being that if you don't use your car very often, you don't pay much tax. Where as if you have a 10tonne truck, being a heavier vehicle, uses more fuel and thus they pay more, or if you drive all the time, you pay more.
I think this will be much fairer
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;37479657]Any tax like this sounds very flawed to me. Shouldn't other main taxes like income tax and sales tax cover road repair?[/QUOTE]
Then it wouldn't be evenly distributed.
The guy driving his monster truck around would be paying the same as a guy who rides a scooter (assuming they had the same income)
Anyway, it's currently done as a car tax around the world, it isn't new
It actually makes sense, although fuel seems to be getting pricier and pricier nowadays. That is, assuming that the tax makes fuel more expensive, and not have it monitor the mileometer or something.
this would probably spur on the rail transport industry to make new advancements too. if the tax were slowly eased into (increasing over a period of several years) to give people time to prepare, it could have some pretty positive effects.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37479955]this would probably spur on the rail transport industry to make new advancements too. if the tax were slowly eased into (increasing over a period of several years) to give people time to prepare, it could have some pretty positive effects.[/QUOTE]
Could you explain?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;37480054]make the tax also apply to trains, so we can get decent train infrastructure in the US[/QUOTE]
I dunno about the US, but in Australia, all of the freight lines are privately owned
I'm very much against taxes paying for repairs (or expansions) to privately owned things
The United States does fuel tax instead of road tax, however we the consumer doesn't pay for it directly. Anyone who buys gasoline en mass gets taxed and then the prices goes down to us because of it.
[QUOTE=download;37479793]Then it wouldn't be evenly distributed.
The guy driving his monster truck around would be paying the same as a guy who rides a scooter (assuming they had the same income)
Anyway, it's currently done as a car tax around the world, it isn't new[/QUOTE]
I don't think we do in America. Even if we do, it's not for repairing roads. That's done by cities.
I don't think taxing vehicles based on engine displacement or anything should be done. Road taxes should be based on two things: Miles travelled, and GVWR. GVWR is, of course, the weight rating of the vehicle, and this is a fairly accurate idea of how much damage the vehicle is doing to the road, and the miles travelled estimate how much of the road it's been on. Higher numbers mean more wear and tear on the pavement, bla-de-bla.
Engine displacement, cylinder count and whatnot do not have a noticeable effect on road damage, a 5,000 pound vehicle with a 2.4L diesel I4 driven 10,000 miles in a yaer does the same damage to the road as a 5,000 pound vehicle with a 7.5L gas V8 that's also driven 10,000 miles in a year. The pavement doesn't care what sort of engine is powering the car, it only cares how heavy that car is, and both cars I mentioned will be able to hit the highest speed limits in the land so the higher speed capability of the larger engine doesn't play in. Commercial/noncom use also doesn't play in. The pavement does not care if the 25,000 miles your car did was in the name of visiting relatives on opposite ends of the country or delivering pizzas.
[editline]31st August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37485568]I don't think we do in America. Even if we do, it's not for repairing roads. That's done by cities.[/QUOTE]
AFAIK that comes out of the fees paid when registering a car or renewing an existing registration. What that doesn't cover is pulled out of income taxes.
fuck all your taxes, It's hard enough to afford anything as it is. You may be in a position to afford higher fuel costs but some of us are barely making it. We need to find ways to make life cheaper, not even more expensive.
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37486487]fuck all your taxes, It's hard enough to afford anything as it is. You may be in a position to afford higher fuel costs but some of us are barely making it. We need to find ways to make life cheaper, not even more expensive.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that, without some form of road tax, you'd have to have a 4x4 on swampers to get to work and back, right? Road taxes pay for the roads that let you cruise into work at 75MPH.
Also, we're not advocating tax hikes, we're merely discussing what is the most logical way to tax road use.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;37480054]make the tax also apply to trains, so we can get decent train infrastructure in the US[/QUOTE]
We had a decent train infrastructure in the US in the 30s. It disappeared over time as cars became more widespread and affordable.
Now that they're gone and cars are here, the thing to improve is the car fuel economy. Plus, with how the states are so assorted, having an interstate train system would be hard to get together - especially in the heavy bipartisan political atmosphere of today.
On topic to the OP, it feels like it may not be that great a trade to go to a fuel tax. From what I'm understanding from your description of the tax in Australia, you pay one tax, one time when you purchase the vehicle, correct? If that's so, why trade that off when you could possibly be paying more in taxes over a vast amount of time driving it?
For example, if you pay $10 in the tax for the car when you buy it, why give that up for paying $20 in taxes over the whole time you drive it?
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37486487]fuck all your taxes, It's hard enough to afford anything as it is. You may be in a position to afford higher fuel costs but some of us are barely making it. We need to find ways to make life cheaper, not even more expensive.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like some has a case of the, "I don't know how the modern world works."
[editline]31st August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37486710]We had a decent train infrastructure in the US in the 30s. It disappeared over time as cars became more widespread and affordable.
Now that they're gone and cars are here, the thing to improve is the car fuel economy. Plus, with how the states are so assorted, having an interstate train system would be hard to get together - especially in the heavy bipartisan political atmosphere of today.
On topic to the OP, it feels like it may not be that great a trade to go to a fuel tax. From what I'm understanding from your description of the tax in Australia, you pay one tax, one time when you purchase the vehicle, correct? If that's so, why trade that off when you could possibly be paying more in taxes over a vast amount of time driving it?
For example, if you pay $10 in the tax for the car when you buy it, why give that up for paying $20 in taxes over the whole time you drive it?[/QUOTE]It sounds like a yearly thing IMO.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37486710]We had a decent train infrastructure in the US in the 30s. It disappeared over time as cars became more widespread and affordable.[/quote] We still have it. It's quicker, cheaper and easier to move freight cross-country by rail than by truck or by plane.
We just don't use those tracks for passenger service.
[quote]Now that they're gone and cars are here, the thing to improve is the car fuel economy. [/quote] On models that are supposed to get good gas mileage, anyway. Leave some models alone. People who buy pickup trucks generally don't give half a damn that the gas mileage is shit. Same goes for people buying muscle cars 'n shit. Forcing these vehicles to be hyper-efficient is just going to make everything more expensive, and after a point starts to erode the soul and personality these vehicles have.
I'm all for hyper-efficient cars existing and I feel they have a place on the nation's highways, but I think people should be free to choose thirsty-as-fuck muscle cars and pickup trucks if they want to put up with the terrible fuel mileage.
[quote]Plus, with how the states are so assorted, having an interstate train system would be hard to get together[/quote] Not really. It worked fine until the interstate network got in. It would work fine again if people were willing to pay the ticket prices...and I imagine they would if train companies advertised "Cross country travel with 100% less TSA!".
I know I'd take that option.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;37486712]Sounds like some has a case of the, "I don't know how the modern world works."[/QUOTE]
It Sounds like some "one" has a case of not understanding that we should be able to afford to live in a modern world. How is a man to drive to work when he can't afford the gas? Is he to starve to death?
There must be another solution than just forcing higher costs on people using cars for work purposes. You want to tax lorry and truck drivers more? Enjoy having to pay more for absolutely EVERYTHING as prices will certainly rise due to the cost of transportation.
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37486918]It Sounds like some "one" has a case of not understanding that we should be able to afford to live in a modern world. How is a man to drive to work when he can't afford the gas? Is he to starve to death?
There must be another solution than just forcing higher costs on people using cars for work purposes. You want to tax lorry and truck drivers more? Enjoy having to pay more for absolutely EVERYTHING as prices will certainly rise due to the cost of transportation.[/QUOTE]
You need some form of tax on transportation to keep the roads it all runs on in place. This video is a pretty good representation of what main street will look like without it.
[video=youtube;5ghPvazfsDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ghPvazfsDg[/video]
If you want to drive on roads like that to get literally anywhere then feel free to keep advocating we just drop the road tax entirely. With no money to pay for road maintenance all the nation's roadways will eventually turn into mudpits after every rain. We won't have bridges either, you'll have to ford the river instead. You won't have tunnels, you'll have to climb over the mountain rock by rock instead.
Don't like that? Grin and bear the tax, because it is an absolute necessity. That nice paved road that's still grippy in the rain didn't build itself, and it sure as shit didn't pay for itself.
As far as being able to afford to live in the modern world...that's not difficult. At all. You just have to be responsible with your money. You don't need a $45,000 car. A $4,500 one is every bit as reliable and safe, with a MUCH smaller car note. If your current one is paid off or nearly so do NOT trade it in. Keep it for another 10 years or so. Not having a car note at all is wonderful when you look at the bank statement. You don't need a mansion, 2 bedroom 1 bath is sufficient. 3bdr 2bth if you have kids.You don't ned a 52" HDTV, a 35" 720P TV is more than enough. Hell I make do with a 36" CRT TV that only does 480P, reason being it was reliable and only cost $325 brand new.
Don't spend money you don't have, spend what you do have wisely, and you'll afford to live in modern society [i]with[/i] the taxes already in place.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37486844]
On models that are supposed to get good gas mileage, anyway. Leave some models alone. People who buy pickup trucks generally don't give half a damn that the gas mileage is shit. Same goes for people buying muscle cars 'n shit. Forcing these vehicles to be hyper-efficient is just going to make everything more expensive, and after a point starts to erode the soul and personality these vehicles have.
I'm all for hyper-efficient cars existing and I feel they have a place on the nation's highways, but I think people should be free to choose thirsty-as-fuck muscle cars and pickup trucks if they want to put up with the terrible fuel mileage.
[/QUOTE]
I don't remember anyone showing off how much gas their car consumes at car shows.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37486968]You need some form of tax on transportation to keep the roads it all runs on in place. This video is a pretty good representation of what main street will look like without it.
[video=youtube;5ghPvazfsDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ghPvazfsDg[/video]
If you want to drive on roads like that to get literally anywhere then feel free to keep advocating we just drop the road tax entirely. With no money to pay for road maintenance all the nation's roadways will eventually turn into mudpits after every rain. We won't have bridges either, you'll have to ford the river instead. You won't have tunnels, you'll have to climb over the mountain rock by rock instead.
Don't like that? Grin and bear the tax, because it is an absolute necessity. That nice paved road that's still grippy in the rain didn't build itself, and it sure as shit didn't pay for itself.
As far as being able to afford to live in the modern world...that's not difficult. At all. You just have to be responsible with your money. You don't need a $45,000 car. A $4,500 one is every bit as reliable and safe, with a MUCH smaller car note. If your current one is paid off or nearly so do NOT trade it in. Keep it for another 10 years or so. Not having a car note at all is wonderful when you look at the bank statement. You don't need a mansion, 2 bedroom 1 bath is sufficient. 3bdr 2bth if you have kids.You don't ned a 52" HDTV, a 35" 720P TV is more than enough. Hell I make do with a 36" CRT TV that only does 480P, reason being it was reliable and only cost $325 brand new.
Don't spend money you don't have, spend what you do have wisely, and you'll afford to live in modern society [i]with[/i] the taxes already in place.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey_0i4MTB7U[/url]
This is what roads look like when people can't afford to use them.
I'm trying to run a small business. I make literally just enough to pay the rent and get food. I don't drink or smoke, these days I can't afford to buy anything at all. You want to raise fuel costs with another tax then you'll put me out of work, I can't raise my prices anymore due to the fact that nobody wants to spend money.
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37487385][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey_0i4MTB7U[/url]
This is what roads look like when people can't afford to use them.
I'm trying to run a small business. I make literally just enough to pay the rent and get food. I don't drink or smoke, these days I can't afford to buy anything at all. You want to raise fuel costs with another tax then you'll put me out of work, I can't raise my prices anymore due to the fact that nobody wants to spend money.[/QUOTE]
That reminds me - I've never heard of a tax "replacing" another 100%. If anyone there decides to make a fuel tax, it'll just be an add on. I highly doubt they'd get rid of the previous tax.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37487550]That reminds me - I've never heard of a tax "replacing" another 100%. If anyone there decides to make a fuel tax, it'll just be an add on. I highly doubt they'd get rid of the previous tax.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, if allow ourselves to " grin and bear " every single extra tax placed upon us then they will only continue to add more until we have all collapsed under the burden.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37486710]We had a decent train infrastructure in the US in the 30s. It disappeared over time as cars became more widespread and affordable.
Now that they're gone and cars are here, the thing to improve is the car fuel economy. Plus, with how the states are so assorted, having an interstate train system would be hard to get together - especially in the heavy bipartisan political atmosphere of today.
On topic to the OP, it feels like it may not be that great a trade to go to a fuel tax. From what I'm understanding from your description of the tax in Australia, you pay one tax, one time when you purchase the vehicle, correct? If that's so, why trade that off when you could possibly be paying more in taxes over a vast amount of time driving it?
For example, if you pay $10 in the tax for the car when you buy it, why give that up for paying $20 in taxes over the whole time you drive it?[/QUOTE]
You pay a transfer tax based on how much you paid for you car. For my car it was about $40 (my car cost me $1500), and you pay 3 month or yearly registration. It's in no way a one time thing. This is exactly the same way it's done in the UK and I'd assume other Commonwealth countries
[editline]1st September 2012[/editline]
Also, we already have a fuel tax. It's 38c per litre. My idea would see that increased while seeing rego removed
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37487385]I'm trying to run a small business. [/quote] Great. Keep trying to run it, eventually it will get big enough for you to exploit nine bajillion tax loopholes and not pay a single cent.
[quote]You want to raise fuel costs with another tax then you'll put me out of work, I can't raise my prices anymore due to the fact that nobody wants to spend money.[/QUOTE]
I never said anything about raising the fuel tax. Go re-read my posts, you'll quite clearly see I never mention it, and if you still can't see that I'm not advocating raising the fuel tax you should go see the eye doc.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37487177]I don't remember anyone showing off how much gas their car consumes at car shows.[/QUOTE]I don't know anyone that buys a muscle car with the intent of parking it and showing it off. Everyone I know buys one to drive it, and they know full well it's going to get terrible mileage.
I'm also lumping the 'modern' ones in. 2012 Camaro SS is a muscle car. 2012 Mustang GT is a muscle car. Any Merc with an AMG badge on the back is a muscle car. They're also brand spankin' new. Muscle cars are anything with too much engine, RWD, not enough tire to put the power down, and handling must suffer as a result of the above seeing as muscle cars are famous for not handling very good. It doesn't have to be a car made between 1964 and 1972.
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37486487]fuck all your taxes, It's hard enough to afford anything as it is. You may be in a position to afford higher fuel costs but some of us are barely making it. We need to find ways to make life cheaper, not even more expensive.[/QUOTE]
Assuming that taxes are properly invested by the government, it wouldn't be making life more expensive. Taxes ultimately pay for social services, which thereby alleviate money you'd normally be spending on private expenses. So rather than having to pay for toll booths that directly pay for road repairs you'd just be paying a tax.
If you were suddenly to cut all taxes 100% for everybody on everything, each person would still be paying assloads of money for the sheer expense of not having a working social infrastructure.
[editline]1st September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37487385]I'm trying to run a small business. I make literally just enough to pay the rent and get food. I don't drink or smoke, these days I can't afford to buy anything at all. You want to raise fuel costs with another tax then you'll put me out of work, I can't raise my prices anymore due to the fact that nobody wants to spend money.[/QUOTE]
If the road tax is alleviated you'd feel the burn a few years down the road when you need to spend more money on car repairs for all the potholes you've driven into, or worse yet if the condition of roadways is so bad that it causes accidents. Poor roads cause for slower driving, which creates a burden on the economy as it takes everybody ages to go anywhere.
Alleviated taxes doesn't make life cheaper, you're paying just as much, if not more in the longrun. The united states on the whole needs major infrastructure changes. The entire modern nation was developed thinking that there'd be an unlimited surplus of cheap oil/water/food for eternity. Clearly that was wrong and everybody is going to need to spend the next 30 years paying for the mistake. Cutting taxes won't make the job any easier, it's just going to turn the country into a run-down shithole.
Cutting taxes won't fix their debt problem either.
But enough of that, lets get back to the discussion at hand, can we?
Where i live we don't have a road tax,as we are literally a crossroad,and all the neighboring countries have god awful terrain and bad roads,there are heavy trucks everywhere killing the roads,but they usualy can't be taxed as they are foreign trucks just passing through.
[QUOTE=download;37480006]Could you explain?[/QUOTE]
i'm saying that it would influence high-petrol usage vehicles to find easier alternatives. that's why the tax would have to be eased into over say, 10 years or so. you would damage industry if you implemented it straight away
[QUOTE=download;37480208]I'm very much against taxes paying for repairs (or expansions) to privately owned things[/QUOTE]
I think he means that trains pay fuel tax, so the companies spend more money on fuel efficiency.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37533920]i'm saying that it would influence high-petrol usage vehicles to find easier alternatives. that's why the tax would have to be eased into over say, 10 years or so. you would damage industry if you implemented it straight away[/QUOTE]
It would still unfairly punish those who need inefficient vehicles for their work. Like, say, delivery companies. Catering outfits. Light duty tow truck operators, too, would suffer massive penalties, and don't tell me you can haul cars around with a fucking Prius 'cause you can't. There's also nice guys that hang plows off their 4x4 every winter, whom wouldn't be able to clear the roads the DOT is unable or unwilling to clear if fuel taxes went up. Mom-and-pop construction companies rely on 3/4 ton and 1 ton pickup trucks pretty heavily to get both materials and tools to and from the jobsite. Farmers also rely on 3/4 ton and 1 ton pickup trucks to haul new machinery to the farm, damaged machinery to the shop for warranty work, dead machinery to the scrapyard, and their products to the market. All these people would be unfairly punished by a hike in fuel taxes. They can't use anything more efficient, it simply won't get the job done, but their operating costs just went through the roof for no real reason other than a baseless attack on larger engines simply for the sake of attacking them.
These people aren't going to just abosrb the cost out of the kindness of their heart, either. They're going to pass it on to the customer. Everyone's food will cost more. Getting a tow when your car breaks down on the highway will be pricier. Shipping will go up. House prices and house repair prices will go through the roof. Plumber and Electrician bills will skyrocket. The cable company will double it's installation fee. All this because of a fuel tax hike. Everything you pay for will go up as a result. Even if you have a super efficient subcompact you will still be paying for it through price increases in literally everything you buy. That guy who plows the roads the DOT won't with his 3/4 ton? Yeah he just sold his plow because he can't afford to plow the roads anymore, so good luck getting to work when it snows. On top of that a hike in fuel taxes would crash the auto industry.
Prices for efficient subcompacts would absolutely skyrocket. You'd be paying $35,000 for a fucking strippy Honda Fit. I'm talking manual windows, no aircon, no cruise control, AM/FM radio strippy, literally nothing on it that the DOT doesn't mandate. Want one with anything nice equipped? You're paying BMW 1-series money at that point...oh, and your old car? Yeah it's barely worth it's weight in scrap metal, everyone else is trying to sell theirs off as well so that market is flooded with product and nobody wants any of it. Same thing happened when the gas crisis hit in 1973, muscle cars were suddenly worth little more than their weight in scrap iron and efficient cars were bloody expensive. People were screwed either way, they either keep the muscle car and spend a fortune in gas or sell it for pennies and spend a fortune on a new car.
A hike on fuel tax would simply not work, it would cripple the economy, and I doubt five cents of every dollar raised in this way would go towards helping the nation's infrastructure.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37887044]It would still unfairly punish those who need inefficient vehicles for their work. Like, say, delivery companies. Catering outfits. Light duty tow truck operators, too, would suffer massive penalties, and don't tell me you can haul cars around with a fucking Prius 'cause you can't. There's also nice guys that hang plows off their 4x4 every winter, whom wouldn't be able to clear the roads the DOT is unable or unwilling to clear if fuel taxes went up. Mom-and-pop construction companies rely on 3/4 ton and 1 ton pickup trucks pretty heavily to get both materials and tools to and from the jobsite. Farmers also rely on 3/4 ton and 1 ton pickup trucks to haul new machinery to the farm, damaged machinery to the shop for warranty work, dead machinery to the scrapyard, and their products to the market. All these people would be unfairly punished by a hike in fuel taxes. They can't use anything more efficient, it simply won't get the job done, but their operating costs just went through the roof for no real reason other than a baseless attack on larger engines simply for the sake of attacking them.
These people aren't going to just abosrb the cost out of the kindness of their heart, either. They're going to pass it on to the customer. Everyone's food will cost more. Getting a tow when your car breaks down on the highway will be pricier. Shipping will go up. House prices and house repair prices will go through the roof. Plumber and Electrician bills will skyrocket. The cable company will double it's installation fee. All this because of a fuel tax hike. Everything you pay for will go up as a result. Even if you have a super efficient subcompact you will still be paying for it through price increases in literally everything you buy. That guy who plows the roads the DOT won't with his 3/4 ton? Yeah he just sold his plow because he can't afford to plow the roads anymore, so good luck getting to work when it snows. On top of that a hike in fuel taxes would crash the auto industry.
Prices for efficient subcompacts would absolutely skyrocket. You'd be paying $35,000 for a fucking strippy Honda Fit. I'm talking manual windows, no aircon, no cruise control, AM/FM radio strippy, literally nothing on it that the DOT doesn't mandate. Want one with anything nice equipped? You're paying BMW 1-series money at that point...oh, and your old car? Yeah it's barely worth it's weight in scrap metal, everyone else is trying to sell theirs off as well so that market is flooded with product and nobody wants any of it. Same thing happened when the gas crisis hit in 1973, muscle cars were suddenly worth little more than their weight in scrap iron and efficient cars were bloody expensive. People were screwed either way, they either keep the muscle car and spend a fortune in gas or sell it for pennies and spend a fortune on a new car.
A hike on fuel tax would simply not work, it would cripple the economy, and I doubt five cents of every dollar raised in this way would go towards helping the nation's infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
I agree with your reasoning, in that it would negatively affect the businessman and the economy, but I suppose taxes on different kinds of fuels could be a concept that should be explored. Most vehicles of the kind you talk about (in the first and second paragraph) would be powered by diesel engines, having less of a tax (or no tax) for diesel fuel compared to petrol might be a solution to the problem you've posted.
However, of course not all trucks are diesel powered, and not all typical cars have petrol engines either. So there's a problem with that solution. Also, it kind of goes against the point of taxing vehicles that damage the roads more than those that don't do as much damage.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
