Charge me by the ton mile

[Challeco]

They have to own them because we've made infrastructure and social pressure.

How about instead of subsidizing these cars, we put that much money into busses and trains?

-Crissa

Sure, why not. But ask yourselves why we haven't yet? The infrastructure is there, crumbling, but there. Yet, the passenger rail system in my area was discontinued despite its need in our rural area. The rail is still there, the Amtrak system still runs nearby. but not for us... because it isn't profitable enough. We already have enough resources in this nation, yet our tax money goes toward military R&D. We have items in our federal and state level budgets for "social safety net", yet the percentage of the tax revenue is minuscule comparatively. Another regressive tax, whether as a replacement or in addition is not going to improve anyone's access to better transportation.
This conversation string keeps dancing around the tax issue. Ills, abuses, and inefficiencies abound regarding our taxes, infrastructure, and our reliance on corporate solutions. It is all a heavy lift to just correct/improve our access to reliable non-carbon based transportation. Adding in a tax on the most vulnerable is dumb. It enlarges the chasm between those who need access to reliable transportation (personal or public) and the mechanisms of transportation.
I will bring this back, once again, to the reason I responded to Tinker in the first place. Regressive taxation is cruel. Subsidizing regressive taxes "temporarily" is akin to a drug dealer "sharing" his personal stash for free. Once you get addicted, there is no way out except to pay or suffer. It is the same with regressive taxes. Pay, or suffer.

Fix from the top down. It is what Elon would do.

Sponsored

 

[Tinker71]

Sure, why not. But ask yourselves why we haven't yet? The infrastructure is there, crumbling, but there. Yet, the passenger rail system in my area was discontinued despite its need in our rural area. The rail is still there, the Amtrak system still runs nearby. but not for us... because it isn't profitable enough. We already have enough resources in this nation, yet our tax money goes toward military R&D. We have items in our federal and state level budgets for "social safety net", yet the percentage of the tax revenue is minuscule comparatively. Another regressive tax, whether as a replacement or in addition is not going to improve anyone's access to better transportation.
This conversation string keeps dancing around the tax issue. Ills, abuses, and inefficiencies abound regarding our taxes, infrastructure, and our reliance on corporate solutions. It is all a heavy lift to just correct/improve our access to reliable non-carbon based transportation. Adding in a tax on the most vulnerable is dumb. It enlarges the chasm between those who need access to reliable transportation (personal or public) and the mechanisms of transportation.
I will bring this back, once again, to the reason I responded to Tinker in the first place. Regressive taxation is cruel. Subsidizing regressive taxes "temporarily" is akin to a drug dealer "sharing" his personal stash for free. Once you get addicted, there is no way out except to pay or suffer. It is the same with regressive taxes. Pay, or suffer.

Fix from the top down. It is what Elon would do.

Continuing the subsidy is just like drug addiction. Just a little high but not sustainable. String em a long a little longer. Stop the subsidy let people adjust and life will be better. Cut the poor's taxes another way, like the equivalent amount at the grocery store.

 

[Crissa]

What road system is run for profit?

Why are rail systems required to be profitable?

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Profit is the herald of doom, the great funnel to the top.

Its the measure by which you can charge more than it is worth by "stealing" it from others for your own cause. Tax is the result of the failure to reign in profit and distribute resourses as needed, instead of just by profit greed. Further, governments previously only existed because of tax, now they themselves pump up the bubble through the creation of artificial non-representative coin in excess of their ability to allocate resources through MMT.

Over a certain threshold money makes money all by itself, because in reality currency is a debt note for resource allocation that "must" be repaid, and is not as many believe a payment mechanism for liquidity between supply and demand.

Currency creation forces slavery of those under that threshold because it is a debt that must be repaid. Look up currency creation through fractional lending. Then look up Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae and the GFC and the fact that a private non-governmental company called the fed collects all taxes and makes currency in return for government bonds (your future tax obligations). Ponzi scheme to the max.

The perceived wealth of the "1st" world is a direct result of leveraging technology and these ill conceived man-made economic systems, along with any people it "reimburses" for life time (thats you btw), for fake currency aka debt notes of resource allocation.

There are better ways of resource allocation without currency and to minimise faulty and greed fed allocation to the few.

The problem of "public" transport is solved with robotaxi and requires no tax or subsidy.

Its just a super cost effective and efficient resource allocation through time share and a rail-less independent carriage with custom destination "train" for all goods, services and people, that nearly all will be able to afford as we head further into energy excess.

Energy is the fuel that powers technology and development, by artificially magnifying the force we can apply with technology to change our environment to suit our needs and desires.

All this can be done by using less fake currency and subduing the conventional ownership fallacy doctrine that is impregnated into us since birth.

The sun, a huge fusion reactor in the sky, powers it all for free, if we can harness and convert it's power that falls on our heads. We are yet to become a L1 civilisation on the Kardashev scale. If we don't snuff out the light of consciousness beforehand, because dumb people keep promoting dumb ideas.


? ?

 

[Challeco]

What road system is run for profit?

Why are rail systems required to be profitable?

-Crissa

These roads are called toll roads and they seem to be popular on the eastern part of the nation.
This is an interesting retort. Most of the responses to my statements are that we need to completely rework our infrastructure. I can, and mostly do, agree. However, the rework will not be done by profiteers willingly or against their profit margin. So, to answer your question, the rail system is a quasi-governmental system that allows corporations to use our publicly built system for their profit. Maintenance, let alone the possibility of improvement or expansion, is fought against by the for-profit corporations as you can read just one example on Wikipedia here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Union_Pacific_oil_train_fire

I want to get away from carbon based energy in every aspect. Personally, professionally, as a citizen of my state, nation, and ultimately of my planet. However, placing the burden upon the financial bottom aiming toward the financial top does (not will) two things; it burdens those with less resources, with more expense making it harder to meet their needs and it drives those same people to utilize the cheaper, more available, and much dirtier resources in order to meet their needs. The one thing that bottom up approaches (regressive taxation) does not do is change the intent of those who have surplus assets.
Corporations are greedy by design. Corporations are not benevolent purveyors of innovation. Taxes should be leveled directly against those who have much. Regressive taxation is cruel. Taxation is NOT theft.

 

[Crissa]

These roads are called toll roads and they seem to be popular on the eastern part of the nation.

...And yet, toll roads aren't used everywhere. I wonder why?

Oh, yes, because they wouldn't make a profit. They only make a profit if there's a choke-point they can extract. But that not the only places you need transit.

It's not regressive taxation to charge what something costs to supply.

But it's amazing to me that you defend people who can afford to operate expensive machines from 'regressive taxation' but not people who can't.

-Crissa

(And tolls are even more regressive: all the inexpensive housing is on the other side of a bridge or toll from the jobs, and now you' e just charged all the people unable to afford the richer town's rents, more money.

Further out of town is cheaper to live, of course, but now even more expensive to drive. The rentiers win twice: they can charge higher rents and now they don't have to pay for the highway they don't commute on.)

 

[tkal]

You are talking about forcing people to charge their vehicles in a very specific way to track their usage. Then end your post with “Anything else will be too authoritarian”.

There are lots of much less intrusive/ authoritarian ways to fund roads than this.

Sounds like you are trying to create a magic system where you don't pay anything.

At the charging station the power you use is metered as well as at your home, by including a built-in meter to a home charger those kWhs can be billed correctly. Tax me for what I use when I use it. It works and self scales for vehicle/driver efficiency and miles driven.

In Washington we have pilot pay by mile programs which involve placing tracking devices in vehicles. Way more authoritarian than putting a meter in home chargers and asking people to not charge with 110v.

I stand by my words. What am I forcing people to do? Pay their fair share and have a meter built into or added onto home charging. Tracking miles driven requires low-jacking or intrusive odometer readings. It also requires more government and brings a host of small problems.

 

[OneLapper]

What if you are a multi state traveler and accumulate 15000 miles a year outside your home state? Is there an equitable way to tax and distribute EV mileage charges to the various states? Heaven forbid we get the Feds involved and have an national annual EV permit which (after they skim off the top) they apportion to all states in their highway funding?

Yup, there is.

It's called IFTA and nearly all commercial vehicle have to pay it.

The Feds will figured out a way to get there money, either by road tax or solar tax. Or both.

 

[Challeco]

Continuing the subsidy is just like drug addiction. Just a little high but not sustainable. String em a long a little longer. Stop the subsidy let people adjust and life will be better. Cut the poor's taxes another way, like the equivalent amount at the grocery store.

Oh! So, don't make it better for your fellow citizen. Just keep your own comfort because you are more important? How about not tax the poor.

I'll let you in on a well know secret; I am not wealthy. My riches are born of my employment, skills, and experiences. I do not own property past my mortgaged home and trash-to-treasure vehicles. The new vehicle that I do own, the model 3 is because I convinced my wife to try one. Even then, she bargained with me to purchase it together. My home was someone else's failure that was unattractive to a seller's market. My vehicles were someone else's trash until I responsibly reclaimed them. My intent is to build better. I have had resistance more often than assistance because the resources have been for those who could buy new (wealthy). Still, my intent is to help build a better, cleaner, existence for everyone. Everything I propose is for the betterment of the individual regardless of society's view of their worth. Punishment will never be on my list of improvements.
Progressive taxation is cruel... to me and everyone I know, including each of you.

 

[Challeco]

...And yet, toll roads aren't used everywhere. I wonder why?

Oh, yes, because they wouldn't make a profit. They only make a profit if there's a choke-point they can extract. But that not the only places you need transit.

It's not regressive taxation to charge what something costs to supply.

You took me out of context. I was not supporting your regressive taxation. I was using it to show exactly the proof you provided in the rest of your post, that point of use is a regressive tax that does not consider a citizen's ability to afford the tax, just that they need to use the product or service that is taxed.
As for charging what it costs to supply a product or service, that is not a tax. Nor is it what was suggested by Tinker. Tinker suggested a regressive tax added to the use of roads per mile per ton. He suggested a tax. Also, before you merge commercial drivers (business owners) and public use, please understand that business owners are allowed to consider road use taxes as expenses. Private owners use their post tax resources for their road expenses. So, it also should be considered double taxation.

 

[Crissa]

Okay:

Roads cost money.
Using private cars on roads is the least efficient use of those roads.

Literally no, paying more for more use is not a regressive tax.

-Crissa

 

[Tinker71]

Oh! So, don't make it better for your fellow citizen. Just keep your own comfort because you are more important? How about not tax the poor.

I'll let you in on a well know secret; I am not wealthy. My riches are born of my employment, skills, and experiences. I do not own property past my mortgaged home and trash-to-treasure vehicles. The new vehicle that I do own, the model 3 is because I convinced my wife to try one. Even then, she bargained with me to purchase it together. My home was someone else's failure that was unattractive to a seller's market. My vehicles were someone else's trash until I responsibly reclaimed them. My intent is to build better. I have had resistance more often than assistance because the resources have been for those who could buy new (wealthy). Still, my intent is to help build a better, cleaner, existence for everyone. Everything I propose is for the betterment of the individual regardless of society's view of their worth. Punishment will never be on my list of improvements. Progressive taxation is cruel... to me and everyone I know, including each of you.

Don't cry. As a medical technologist with most likely a working spouse, some classic cars in your drive you are not close to poor. You may work hard to stretch your budget, but you are not close to being poor. Don't delude yourself.

Your statement "Progressive taxation is cruel... to me and everyone I know, including each of you." is the stupidest statement of the year. The opposite of Regressive is Progressive. What do you want?

IMHO all taxes should have a Proactive Element before you even look at progressive.

What does proactive mean? Webster defines it as “acting in anticipation of future problems, needs or changes.” At its core, that's what proactive tax planning boils down to: anticipating and steering tax issues based on the needs of the business.

"Business" in this case " the Government "the people". Less traffic, less sprawl, more competitiveness for the USA is ultimately in the best interest of all Americans.

I did the math and for 90% of the people this might be a $150 swing either way, so this might be a whole lot of tracking or potential intrusion for a couple hundred dollars.

I am convinced heavier vehicle should pay more. Maybe annual registration is charged by the ton. Then X a use multiplier. Make 3-4 pretty wide overlapping bands and ask people to estimate their annual mileage. Then require a random audit of ~.05% of the registrations. People who have most likely lied to pay less will need pay 10x the difference.

Or maybe put the annual mileage band on your licensee plate. So unscrupulous people can be reported. It would be pretty easy to prove someone that self reports <1000 miles per year and has a known commute of 20 miles is lying.

 

[Cybertruck Hawaii]

The proposed state fees for the battery powered vehicles are based on the mileage for working people who put on 12,000 miles to 15,000 miles. I’m retired and seldom drive. I’ll probably only put on 5,000 miles a year. I’d rather be taxed by the total mileage that I actually drive annually. Hawaii has a yearly safety inspection. The mileage could be documented at each inspection service and sent to the state of Hawaii where I reside at.

 

[Cybertruck Hawaii]

Battery powered electric vehicles should not have their registration charged by regular rate weight. The battery is naturally heavy and will soon be used to penalize the owner for operating a environmentally sound vehicle. Battery vehicles should have a reduced rate of weight compared to an ICE vehicle.

 

[Tinker71]

Battery powered electric vehicles should not have their registration charged by regular rate weight. The battery is naturally heavy and will soon be used to penalize the owner for operating a environmentally sound vehicle. Battery vehicles should have a reduced rate of weight compared to an ICE vehicle.

I thought the same for awhile. However, keeping the incentive on weight for EV will encourage lighter battery packs. Therefor less wear on the road, less mass for collisions, and higher efficiency over all.

Sponsored