I guess since Illinois just passed a budget that relies on 1 billion in new tax revenues being generated, yet they declared this fiscally responsible and balanced, they have to find some way to get that money.
Taxing people for the shared usage of infrastructure such as roadways is a reasonable thing to do. Charging people per mile seems like a way for it to get quickly out of hand and a monitoring scheme to track and locate vehicles. Do we really trust the government not to abuse a system like this? A better way to fund infrastructure would be to do it by proxy instead of through direct usage. Because in all scenarios unless used roads cost more than more heavily used roads.
Even if you're charging per mile driven. If you live out in the country maybe only two cars a day ever go down your road. The taxes collected from Miles driven on it far exceed the taxes required to maintain it. So why even do a system like this unless your ultimate goal is tracking the location of every vehicle. Forget that idea that there is a general consensus that we can move from place to place on the public thoroughfares unimpeded. This is Illinois where you're required to get a card in order to exercise free speech, oh wait no I mean you're required to get a card in order to exercise your second amendment rights. Because in Illinois they're not rights they are privileges in which you must beg the government of Illinois to exercise.
A better overall solution would be to levy the tax on businesses. This doesn't reduce the overall tax burden that the consumer has to pay. We all know businesses simply pass their costs along to others. Putting the tax at the business layer prevents the onerous misuse of trying to track everyone's miles driven in order to tax them properly.
> If you live out in the country maybe only two cars a day ever go down your road. The taxes collected from Miles driven on it far exceed the taxes required to maintain it
This lets one surface an important question: why is that a public road in the first place?
Because rural residents want paved roads with state and Federal subsidies. Property developers immediately dedicate residential streets to the public so the city has to foot the cost of snow plowing and repaving. Otherwise the HOA would have to bear that cost and house buyers would howl at the monthly HOA fee.
I get the dysfunction. I’m saying pay-per-mile lets one make these arguments more cleanly by suggesting the use side of the equation relative to the cost.
An odometer reading field on the registration form would be a way to tax per mile without location tracking. However it runs into the legal problem of how to exclude out of state mileage, farm mileage, and private racetrack mileage.
I'm not anti self-driving cars in general, but I do think as they get more popular they should be taxed extra for every mile they drive without a person (or at least without cargo).
A self-driving car may decide to drive around an empty street in a city instead of find parking, because it's cheaper, but its a negative externality.
7 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] threadTaxing people for the shared usage of infrastructure such as roadways is a reasonable thing to do. Charging people per mile seems like a way for it to get quickly out of hand and a monitoring scheme to track and locate vehicles. Do we really trust the government not to abuse a system like this? A better way to fund infrastructure would be to do it by proxy instead of through direct usage. Because in all scenarios unless used roads cost more than more heavily used roads.
Even if you're charging per mile driven. If you live out in the country maybe only two cars a day ever go down your road. The taxes collected from Miles driven on it far exceed the taxes required to maintain it. So why even do a system like this unless your ultimate goal is tracking the location of every vehicle. Forget that idea that there is a general consensus that we can move from place to place on the public thoroughfares unimpeded. This is Illinois where you're required to get a card in order to exercise free speech, oh wait no I mean you're required to get a card in order to exercise your second amendment rights. Because in Illinois they're not rights they are privileges in which you must beg the government of Illinois to exercise.
A better overall solution would be to levy the tax on businesses. This doesn't reduce the overall tax burden that the consumer has to pay. We all know businesses simply pass their costs along to others. Putting the tax at the business layer prevents the onerous misuse of trying to track everyone's miles driven in order to tax them properly.
This lets one surface an important question: why is that a public road in the first place?
A self-driving car may decide to drive around an empty street in a city instead of find parking, because it's cheaper, but its a negative externality.