VA Gov. McDonnell to eliminate gas tax, tax alternative fuel vehicles instead

[BenBurch]

When VAs roads crumble, want to bet that the rest of us foot the bill?

 

[Beerina]

Compromise! End dysfunctional gridlock!

Keep the old gas tax, indeed heft it a bit, and do all the other new taxes anyway.



Yes We Can! Yes We Can!

 

[leftysergeant]

Seriously does anyone here actually read the website? These aren't fees levied in an attempt to stimulate or deter either kind of fuel; they reassessed income and expenditures. They folded IN the taxes on oil fuels into the SUT...

You guys...you used to be smarter than this.

The drooling moron wants to eliminate the tax on gasoline, taking the burden off of the people who do the most damage to the roads and the environment and shift it to people who might not even drive, and who are limited in their mobility because the oil companies and their toadies in government have forced us into a car-based transportation model.

Keep the gas tax, even if you tax other things. Otherwise, it will siphon off money that should go to other externalities of gasoline usage.

 

[WildCat]

And conventional-fuel vehicles should get off scot-free even though they use the roads too?

They're not getting off free, they're taxed every time they fill up.

Roads need to be funded no matter what type of vehicle travels them.

 

[WildCat]

As for this proposal, I haven’t lived in Virginia since the 80’s but I would oppose this. Raising the sales tax to pay for roads while eliminating the fuel tax ends up charging non-drivers to subsidize drivers.

Why should drivers pay the cost of the roads? Non-drivers are just as dependent on roads as drivers are.

Though I'm willing to exempt anyone not living on a road and who doesn't consume anything that travels on roads.

 

[leftysergeant]

Why should drivers pay the cost of the roads? Non-drivers are just as dependent on roads as drivers are.

Why should I pay more for thye roads than some idiot who gets most of his entertainment driving to places he doesn't really need to go to, while I cannot even get a bus to the center of town without walking about a mile? Why should money that could be used to repair the damage that that fool does to wildlife be diverted to patch the potholes that his over-sized vehicle punches in the street?

Just another case of the privileged classes trying to stick working people with the bills.

 

[Babbylonian]

Why should drivers pay the cost of the roads? Non-drivers are just as dependent on roads as drivers are.

Though I'm willing to exempt anyone not living on a road and who doesn't consume anything that travels on roads.

Haha, yes, because transportation costs aren't already factored into the prices of the things we non-drivers buy. Excellent point! And the fact that we don't put more metal and tires on the roads shouldn't enter into it, either. Well played!

 

[zeggman]

Why should drivers pay the cost of the roads? Non-drivers are just as dependent on roads as drivers are.

Non-drivers already pay indirectly, since the cost of transporting goods is bundled into the price of those goods. It makes more sense to charge the drivers and truckers for their actual use, since that is what makes construction and maintenance necessary.

 

[leftysergeant]

I also think that hot rodders just driving for ***** and giggles have no right to expect me to subsidize their obnoxious hobbies.

 

[Lowpro]

Non-drivers already pay indirectly, since the cost of transporting goods is bundled into the price of those goods. It makes more sense to charge the drivers and truckers for their actual use, since that is what makes construction and maintenance necessary.

I'm wondering if there's a certain practicality in using the sales tax over establishing a new infrastructure to monitor travel use though. I know a lot of people think it's unfair to have to pay into the roads if you aren't using them but really I'd rather just say "suck it up". Roads are critical to a state and if they're getting money to support, improve, and construct more then getting the money to do that is imperative. With the SUT already established it is probably just easier and might generate more revenue than designing a monitoring system.

Might anyways; they could also monitor road use per area (not by driver but by the demographic; after all it's probably a safe bet that those roads are used by those who live there.)and have a tax increase by land. Alabama already does that in their land tax though I think that only compliments their transportation revenues. But really I think a broad stroke tax will generate more revenue consistently which was mentioned as a purpose of using the SUT.

 

[WildCat]

Why should I pay more for thye roads than some idiot who gets most of his entertainment driving to places he doesn't really need to go to, while I cannot even get a bus to the center of town without walking about a mile? Why should money that could be used to repair the damage that that fool does to wildlife be diverted to patch the potholes that his over-sized vehicle punches in the street?

Just another case of the privileged classes trying to stick working people with the bills.

How does this alter the fact that you're just as dependent on roads as drivers are?

Haha, yes, because transportation costs aren't already factored into the prices of the things we non-drivers buy. Excellent point! And the fact that we don't put more metal and tires on the roads shouldn't enter into it, either. Well played!

Non-drivers already pay indirectly, since the cost of transporting goods is bundled into the price of those goods. It makes more sense to charge the drivers and truckers for their actual use, since that is what makes construction and maintenance necessary.

It's not now built in to the price of goods. Heavy vehicles tear up the roads far in disproportion to the taxes they pay. Taxes based on gasoline useage understate the wear and tear, which is caused by weight and the forces that weight produce (moving, stopping, starting) are exponential, not linear, on the pavement.

The bottom line is that everyone need roads equally as much whether they drive or not, and everyone should pay for them.

 

[Random]

It's not now built in to the price of goods. Heavy vehicles tear up the roads far in disproportion to the taxes they pay. Taxes based on gasoline useage understate the wear and tear, which is caused by weight and the forces that weight produce (moving, stopping, starting) are exponential, not linear, on the pavement.

The bottom line is that everyone need roads equally as much whether they drive or not, and everyone should pay for them.

If you want to make an argument that everyone should help pay for roads, fine. Heck, I agree with you. But this isn't really an argument in favor of shifting costs away from drivers and onto non-drivers. The guy who drives to the store and buys X is using the roads more than if I take the MBTA to the store and buy X. Why should we pay the same amount for road maintenance?

 

[WildCat]

If you want to make an argument that everyone should help pay for roads, fine. Heck, I agree with you. But this isn't really an argument in favor of shifting costs away from drivers and onto non-drivers. The guy who drives to the store and buys X is using the roads more than if I take the MBTA to the store and buy X. Why should we pay the same amount for road maintenance?

He's not using the road any more than you are, is he?

 

[Random]

He's not using the road any more than you are, is he?

Yes, he is. Both of us cause the same amount of wear and tear on the roads to get product X to the store, but the other guy is adding his personal vehicle use on top of that.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, he is. Both of us cause the same amount of wear and tear on the roads to get product X to the store, but the other guy is adding his personal vehicle use on top of that.

The personal vehicle does negligible wear and tear to the road compared to heavy vehicles like the bus you ride. And much road wear is caused by freeze/thaw cycles and other natural processes, they'd crumble eventually even if no vehicles at all used them.

Everyone should pay for the roads equally.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The personal vehicle does negligible wear and tear to the road compared to heavy vehicles like the bus you ride. And much road wear is caused by freeze/thaw cycles and other natural processes, they'd crumble eventually even if no vehicles at all used them.

Everyone should pay for the roads equally.

Isn't that communism?

 

[Random]

The personal vehicle does negligible wear and tear to the road compared to heavy vehicles like the bus you ride. And much road wear is caused by freeze/thaw cycles and other natural processes, they'd crumble eventually even if no vehicles at all used them.

Everyone should pay for the roads equally.

1.) I don’t take the bus, I take a light rail line.
2.) While the wear and tear one car might make to the roads might be negligible, it is cumulative. Millions and millions of cars doing pennies of damage per trip adds up fast. A guy who drives eight miles a day simply costs more to society than I do on my eight mile commute by rail. The idea of splitting the difference leads to me subsidizing his behavior. Societies as a whole should not be encouraging behavior that is less efficient overall.
3.) I have no problem with charging heavy vehicles higher user fees for the extra damage they do to the roads. In fact, I encourage it. The hidden subsidization of tractor trailers through the fuel tax has always bugged me.

 

[Lowpro]

In all fairness light rail falls under transportation which the taxes would go to (even the fuel tax falls into the same coffer that funds rail) so the distinction is moot.

Personally in the case of roads I don't think it's worth trying to determine road use when you need funds for more than just road maintenance. It's probably more sensible for it to fall under the SUT if my previous reasoning speaks to that. I'd view it more as everyone putting into it as they put into an insurance plan: You always put into it and when you need to reap the benefits it's there. You may never need it or want it in your life but there's no option not to pay into it. People who buy more gas (the 'heavy road users') will put more in by virtue of them buying more gas (buying more anything actually)

 

[WildCat]

Isn't that communism?

No, communism is when the state owns everything.

 

[WildCat]

1.) I don’t take the bus, I take a light rail line.
2.) While the wear and tear one car might make to the roads might be negligible, it is cumulative. Millions and millions of cars doing pennies of damage per trip adds up fast. A guy who drives eight miles a day simply costs more to society than I do on my eight mile commute by rail. The idea of splitting the difference leads to me subsidizing his behavior. Societies as a whole should not be encouraging behavior that is less efficient overall.

Does your mail come via light rail? Your furniture? Do police, ambulance, and fire have access to a road in front of your home? How about when you buy furniture or other items too bulky to take on the train, do they arrive by pack mule or via a truck on the road? When you have work done how do the workers and material get to your house? And what % of the things you buy everyday haven't traveled on a road at some point? I'm guessing it's very close to zero.


And the roads that have seen millions of cars have also seen hundreds of thousands of heavy trucks.

3.) I have no problem with charging heavy vehicles higher user fees for the extra damage they do to the roads. In fact, I encourage it. The hidden subsidization of tractor trailers through the fuel tax has always bugged me.

Agreed.