rjs (11/24/82)
I don't think that the proposed 5 cents/gallon federal gas tax increase should be allowed to pass. Instead, the individual states should increase their tax if a need for highway repair is seen. The reason is that the federal government has shown that it is perfectly willing to use money given to it for the purpose of highway repair and other transportation related costs to force the states to pass laws that it (the fed. govt.) otherwise has no authority to pass. We should not continue to let the government take our money away so that it can force us to pass laws that the majority of people in a particular state would otherwise never allow to pass. While there might be some justification for this where minority rights to employment or similar topics are concerned, I can see no justification for the fed. getting into the traffic law business. Robert Snyder floyd!rjs
nickles (11/30/82)
#R:floyd:-88200:ihlpb:19100003: 0:1362 ihlpb!nickles Nov 30 13:48:00 1982 OK. Agreed. Any money in the federal government's hands is money ill-spent. But, sighting my economic reasons given previously, should we ashcan the tax? Maybe pressure should be put on the states to have a gas tax. Then the states can manipulate the work force as they see fit. I really don't like being taxed. I hate seeing 1/3rd of my paycheck vanish every week. But, I use the roads. I will have driven approximately 20,000 miles in 1982. Driving parts of I-90 through Penn. and I-70 through West Virginia, or even I-57 through Kankakee, Illinois, is proof enough that the roadways of this country are in need of serious repair. I'd be the first to cheer if the rail system was re-vitalized. (Does anyone know which form, truck or rail, of transportation is cheaper, and which way the current tax laws favor?) I'm in favor of a usage fee for roads. And a gas tax, since gas is heavily imported, seems to be the right way to get it at the right time. So, is the method of states taking control of the gas tax legitimate? It then prevents the behavior that sjb was worried about. Also, it would heighten the price of fuel, maybe creating a more permanent oil glut (which helps ease the recession). Or should the tax be in the form of an excise tax per weight of the vehicle, and miles on the odometer? Jack Nickles ihlpb!nickles
jhh (12/02/82)
If there is a national interstate highway system, it should be paid for with a nationwide tax, preferably a usage tax. Part of the current problems with road quality are because the states are currently responsible for maintenance, with the federal money going for new construction. Unless the states can be convinced to maintain a national road system to some consistent standards, the federal goverment must take a more active role. Of course, they must be responsible for problems caused by raising weight limits for trucks to levels that destroy the roads in relatively small time. The problem with any use tax is distributing it equitably. A gas tax is unfair to those using state and local roads almost exclusively. It also deprives the state of the revenue it should be getting from those users for building and maintaining state roads. The federal government could return a portion of the tax for local usage, but assurances would have to built in that federal government would not use this money as a weapon as they currently do. John Haller
renner (12/10/82)
#R:floyd:-88200:uiucdcs:29200002:000:540
uiucdcs!renner Dec 10 01:31:00 1982
I have no problems with the notion of a "user fee" tax to support
the highway system, interstate or otherwise. But I think we should take a
hard look at the taxes/fees paid by large trucks. They do damage to the
roadways far out of proportion to the taxes they currently pay. (Last figure
I heard was from a NHTSA study claiming that an 80,000 lb truck does 93,000
times as much damage to roads as a passenger car.) Perhaps we should be
looking at a diesel fuel tax (with exceptions for passenger cars) instead of
a gasoline tax.keith (12/13/82)
#R:floyd:-88200:hp-pcd:17400002:000:391
hp-pcd!keith Dec 13 09:32:00 1982
Re: tax on diesel for trucks vs. gas "user fee"...
Those big, heavy trucks that do all the damage to the roads transport
goods that we all use. Making things more expensive for the truckers
will make those goods more expensive.
Either way, the consumer will pay.
Keith M. Taylor
Corvallis, OR
hp-pcd!keithhansen (12/14/82)
I for one would prefer to have the "use tax" be representative of the damage done to the roads, even if it makes trucking more expensive. As Kieth said, either way, you pay for it, but a fair application of the tax would encourage alternate transportation, such as water, rail, ...blimp... all of which are hurting because they do not enjoy the "tax" advantage that the trucking industry does. In fact, I believe one can factually support the view that it was a shift in government incentives and disincentives that caused the US to virtually abandon rail transport in favor of truck and automobile transport, rather than technical merit or technological "advance." If it were not for these incentives, we would have less trucking, faster transportation, less inner-city pollution, and we wouldn't be using a transportation system that uses more space in my company's parking lot than I get in my office. I for one would prefer to have a larger office. Wouldn't you? mpy sgtsof yp dohm ,u ms,r. Craig Hansen/HP Labs
courtney (12/15/82)
#R:floyd:-88200:hp-pcd:17400003:000:1054 hp-pcd!courtney Dec 15 09:00:00 1982 Another aspect to Keith's response: "the consumer will pay either way" ...This is not true when you stop looking at the group as a whole and consider how the individuals within the group are being affected. Consider, for instance, an individual who does quite a bit of driving and yet does NOT consume a large number of goods which have been transported by truck (probably most goods, but there ARE people who don't buy a lot of STUFF). This person does not cause wear-and-tear on the roads to the degree that s/he is paying for them in a gas tax such as the one being instituted. For the market to work, the USER should pay for the services/goods consumed. Sure, higher taxes for truckers would be passed on to the consumer, but only to those consumers who's demand-pull put those trucks on the road in the first place. I see no need for a trucking subsidy. Let the trucking industry pay for the damage that it imposes on the roads and let the "trucked-goods consumer" pay for those goods at their "true" cost (as if that was possible...).
dwl (12/20/82)
Yes, either way, the comsumer pays. But, if truck operators are charged for the cost of the highways they consume, while rail operators maintain the rails, we might just find some mode-competition. Perhaps companies who ship by rail or by air will pay less than those who ship by truck. If so, their products might cost the end-user (consumer) less. With no class subsidizing any other, the market will tend to find the best solution. -Dave Levenson -BTL Holmdel