By the Boiler Room Elves
The Boiler Room Elves are, naturally, avid readers of Commentarama. In fact, it somehow got written into our union contract that we each get two extra 15 minute breaks every day, just to read the wise words of our BossMen. In general, we agree with those guys, but now and then, they say something that just burns our brownies.
For example, BossMan Andrew's take on toll roads the other day. He argued that there are certain functions that the government should not be ceding, and that roads are one of them. He made an extreme example of a patchwork of privately maintained toll roads crisscrossing the country like so many drunken spiders.
We Elves do not deny that mass privatization of roads would lead to chaos, but Andrew ignores a middle way, which would leave a sane road system while returning power to the individual.
The solution? The government should continue to own and maintain roads, which are a public good for everyone. But rather than a "hidden" gas tax and / or registration fees, money for the upkeep should come directly from a use tax, based on how much each individual drives. If you drive more miles, you cause more wear and tear on the roads, and you should pay more for the upkeep.
This brings the choice back to the individual - maybe I'll choose to walk to the store today, or maybe I'll move closer to the cookie factory. Not because the government or some environmentalist or city planner tells me I must, but because it saves me money that I don't want to spend. What could be more freedom-loving than giving an individual some control over what they pay for roads because they don't use them as much.
By basing our road fees on licensing and registration fees that are either a flat fee or that depend on the value of a car instead of usage, there is a total disconnect between what we pay and what we use. Where else does that work in a free market?
Now, some Elves have argued that we already pay for usage through the taxes on gas - drive more and pay more. But is this really true anymore? In this day of Priuses and SUV hybrids and 35+ mpg Hondas, who uses the most gas? That would be the poor people who cannot afford new cars and are driving ancient gas-guzzlers. (Anyone remember the 1972 ThunderSleigh? It had a "gallons per mile" rating! Boy, you barely got off the North Pole before you had to refuel that sucker, but what a ride!) Liberals should LOVE this argument because it would help the poor... oh wait, it would hurt those driving those Priuses...
How would it be monitored? Well, a state could require that you have to bring your car in once a year, as many states already do for an inspection, and the mileage is noted and handed in. You would have to note the mileage when it is sold, and both parties would use that number as a base for their taxes that year.
Not that we Elves are holding our breath for this system to happen (any more than we are revving up our credit cards for a national sales tax to replace the income tax), but we can dream of a day when our taxes are much more closely related to the externalities we create.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Elves Are Back. . . And They're Disagreeing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
When I drive up into the Northeast and pay a toll to drive I-95 in Delaware and Maryland, I always tell the toll collector to come down and see us in Tennessee where we let you drive for free! ;D
Yup, Jed! And as much as we love the feeling of driving for free, too, it just seems to us that there's gotta be a better and more fair way to pay for our roads.
Since when are fuel excise taxes segregated for the use on the highways? They're not. They are looted and used for purposes other than those intended.
I'd don't disagree with this, not do I think it actually disagrees with my concern about privatizing roads.
I think that use taxes are better than generalized taxes whenever possible, although in some things (like education), there would be a free rider problem -- in that society benefits from an educated work force, but putting a use tax on just parents would allow others to avoid paying for that benefit.
But in this case, I think it would work because you couldn't free ride the road system, because even goods and services that you pay for would have to absorb the road tax.
Good point, LL! It won't do any good to tax differently if the money just gets stolen for other uses!
Also good point, BossMan! Even if you choose never to drive, you'll still pay a bit through the goods and services you purchase that do use the roads, as you should.
O.K. Elves,but trying to collect milage data invites fraud and abuse. Do S.U.V.'s or 16 wheelers cause more wear and tear than a mini-cooper? Aren't there plenty of older less expensive high milage vehicles. Isn't it more efficient to collect at the pump? Can't we charge the enviro-weenies with their prius more only if they fail a lie detector test where it can be shown they supported George Bush over Algore in 2000? Shouldn't liberals pay less for everything for that matter because they are either a) victims b) environmentalistswho care about earth c) socialists d) communists e) advocates for social and economic justice f) world citizens?
I prefer the way the taxes for the roads are taken now as opposed to the heavy bureaucracy that would be created to measure how many miles. The way they want to implement it is to put a GPS unit into every car. I don't care to try to make it "fair" for everyone.
As it stands right now, the taxes gathered are anonymous. Which is as it should be.
Thanks Elves, By the way, that's one of the few parts of the contract that I like -- the Commentarama breaks. We should get those into all employment contracts! ;-)
LL, I agree. That's a standard bait and switch problem with government -- they tax to pay for fire, police, roads, and then give the money to passing out condoms in parts or adding art to the city buildings.
Joel & Jed, You actually make a point that troubles me a bit too. I don't like the introduction of a whole new scheme to verify mileage. But I see the Elves' point that in most states there is already a more intrusive inspection scheme in place already (in fact, they usually collect mileage info when you title the car, when you renew your plates, and when you do a safety or emissions inspection). Insurers also collect it, so maybe it's not that big of a deal?
Andrew,
I don't mind taking the mileage report. It means nothing unless they use it to increase taxes. The way they want to implement it is put on a GPS tracker. That I refuse to do.
Here is another thought. People who buy hybreds and small vehicles to cut down on gas usage, take their lives into their own hands. If you check, you will find that people who drive BIG SUVs survive more accidents and live to pay more taxes than people who drive little carts with wheels.
One more thought, scientists are revising how oil is made. It seems that the Earth itself is making the oil. The idea that oil is from dinosaurs might go the way of the dinosaur.
Joel, I don't like the GPS idea either, not at all. That's too much Big Brother for my tastes.
I've seen the oil thing you're talking about. Growing up, we were always told it came from dinosaurs and biomass. But now there are a lot of things happening that don't seem to fit that theory -- like old oil fields filling up. At this point, I don't think they know exactly what is going on, but one of the new theories is that the movement of the earth is creating oil. That would be interesting if it's true.
Joel, the Elves have seen the vast underground oil fields, but if we talked about them, we'd lose our union cards...
We agree about not wanting GPS units in our sleighs, tracking our every move. But this could be done without such technology. If nothing else, when you sold the car you would end up taking a huge hit that year. If you sell the car personally, the buyer isn't going to take a reduced fake mileage number for their new base. And certainly no car company is going to lie for someone who is trying to avoid taxes.
Everyone, the Elves have promised to respond to comments... they seem to be in the middle of a nervous breakdown, something about a call center being added to the boiler room.
never mind... they're back.
Jed, we are in complete agreement on this - "Can't we charge the enviro-weenies with their prius more only if they fail a lie detector test where it can be shown they supported George Bush over Algore in 2000?"
Mwahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!
And re the Mini-Coopers vs. the SUVs, yes, we're sure there is still a discrepancy in the wear and tear. However, we would argue that taxes based on mileage are still closer to a usage fee that is connected to how much you use the roads than a straight up gas tax. Thus, they are closer to paying for your externalities.
Yeah, BossMan, this new call center / webchat thing is really keeping us hopping down here! We're going to have to look carefully at our contract... grumble grumble...
Elves,
This won't work without a an accurate way of measuring mileage. The only accurate way is a GPS unit in every car. The reading off of mileage can be faked so many ways that it is ridiculous for use to measure tax.
Toll roads can be used for other things than just generating money. It can be used to "control" where people go. High tolls or closed toll roads stops people from driving into spots of the country easily.
One of the greatest freedoms we enjoy is the freedom to travel from one end of the country to another without passport. Toll roads are anathema to that concept. Blockage that is not needed.
Tax on gas is probably the most fairest tax in the world. People who use less gas pay smaller tax. In order to get high MPG, the vehicle has to be light. SUVs are heavy, use more gas, so pay more tax. Light vehicles give lower wear and tear on roads. SUV give more wear and tear.
Hey Elves! How would suggest one collects this tax from interstate travellers?
The elves are running a call center? Is there anything those guys don't do? LoL! I like this idea because I prefer use taxes to general taxes whenever possible. I don't know if it wouldn't work through the gas tax though? You just need to find a way to keep the government from slushing it around, like LL says.
Joel, we see this as a much freer step than toll roads. You can still travel wherever you like, and you won't pay for it right then. And it seems that newer cars (and more expensive cars) use less gas than older, cheaper cars. In fact, it's surprising to us that liberals haven't latched on to gas taxes as "regressive" taxes that hurt the poor more.
Bev - the assumption has to be that you do the majority of your driving in your home state. And as much as you drive out of your state, other people drive into your state, so it would even out.
Ed, we prefer use taxes, too. Are you guys really trying to tell us that we're making a problem where there isn't one?? Perhaps we should go into government...
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
You know they would just ADD this tax to us, right??? It's not going to replace anything.
How about we don't give the gov't more ideas for taxing us??
Bev and Elves, Let me add that there really is no system right now for imposing a tax on out of state drivers except in fuel taxes (which you can usually avoid by buying before you enter a high tax state).
Crispy, Since we're talking theory, I wouldn't worry about adding this as a tax. It's like any discussion of a sale tax, it would need to be accompanied by an elimination of the income tax before anyone should consider it.
BREs: I thought I made it clear that when we want your opinion, we'll give it to you.
I've spent most of my life driving on California freeways. Any government-run project is going to suffer from the usual thefts, misfeasance and malfeasance. Still, properly run, I see it as preferable to privatization. If privatized, the users will pay, the private company will collect, and the government will tax and spend in proportion to which party and which philosophy holds power. So it's just government incompetence once-removed. I'm more concerned about accountability than I am about privatizing something the state, oddly, ought to be able to do better.
As for "use" or "mileage" to pay for the roads, I already have visions of how the data collected will (at least in California) be used to find a way to force everyone into buying cars that are unsafe, so-so mileage, and terribly inefficient in order to advance the Green Weenie agenda.
Reluctantly, I still see state taxes on gasoline purchased as the best way to fund highways, as well as federal taxes for the interstates. Whether it's the private Enron or the public Democrats, the potential for abuse is always there. Accountability and specific use of specific taxes for a specific purpose is the best solution. Don't spend gasoline tax highway funds on development of hydrogen-cell Euroweenie automobile development. The key to success is watchdogs ferreting out the crooks, public or private.
Likewise, general tax fund monies used for the "general welfare" (highways are for everyone, even if an individual doesn't own a car or purchase gasoline) should be subject to accountability just like gasoline tax funds. All I need to know now is on which planet we'll find politicians honest enough to do this right.
Bah-humbug all of you! We still say --
***This post has been edited to remain family friendly.***
--and taxes on the sleigh you rode in on, too! That's all we've got to say on the matter!
We're going back to the boiler and call center!
Elves, Thanks for the idea. It generated some interesting discussion.
Now get back to work!
Post a Comment