Suggest a Topic
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
1st congressional district
2012 election
2012 session
agriculture
art
arts
author
beer
births
books
budget
business
central oregon
college
congress
crime
culture
death penalty
eastern oregon
economy
education
employment
energy
environment
eugene
fishing
food
gangs
gay rights
health
health care
high school
history
homeless
housing
jobs
law
legislature
literature
living
media
mental health
military
movies
music
native americans
obama
occupy portland
occupy wall street
onthejob
oregon
our town
outdoors
parenting
police
politics
portland
portland business journal
portland mayor
pregnancy
prison
public health
race
rebroadcast
recess
recession
religion
republicans
rural
schools
science
shooting
sports
supreme court
talking business
technology
teen
theater
unemployment
union
university of oregon
washington
water
weekend
women
youth
see all tags >>
davesheldon's comments:
on Paying Per Mile
The proposed per-mile tax appears to be a solution looking for a problem to solve.
Sometimes the simple thing is the best. Like the current fuel tax: if you use more fuel it is likely that you drive more miles or drive a heavier vehicle or both. Therefore, you should pay more tax toward highway construction and maintenance. If some people drive fewer miles or drive lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles, they pay less tax. It's simple.
Is it possible that someday the state's fuel tax could not generate sufficient funds for road maintenance? Sure. What then? Raise the tax a nickel or a dime, whatever it takes to get the job done. Do it now. I'll gladly pay, as I do each time I fill my tank. Anytime I want to pay less tax, I can choose to drive fewer miles or get a more fuel-efficient vehicle (or both).
So what if some people get off paying less or even zero. To devise a complex, expensive way of taxing motorists, when a simple, inexpensive way exists is unnecessary and maybe just plain stupid.
By the way, I listened to the Paying Per Mile show (01/05/09) while driving from Bend to Glide (east of Roseburg) through some of the worst winter road conditions I have ever encountered. For the cost of implementing and operating the proposed per-mile tax system, how many more trips could snow plows and sanders be making each winter over Oregon's sometimes treacherous highways?
Sometimes the simple thing is the best. Like the current fuel tax: if you use more fuel it is likely that you drive more miles or drive a heavier vehicle or both. Therefore, you should pay more tax toward highway construction and maintenance. If some people drive fewer miles or drive lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles, they pay less tax. It's simple.
Is it possible that someday the state's fuel tax could not generate sufficient funds for road maintenance? Sure. What then? Raise the tax a nickel or a dime, whatever it takes to get the job done. Do it now. I'll gladly pay, as I do each time I fill my tank. Anytime I want to pay less tax, I can choose to drive fewer miles or get a more fuel-efficient vehicle (or both).
So what if some people get off paying less or even zero. To devise a complex, expensive way of taxing motorists, when a simple, inexpensive way exists is unnecessary and maybe just plain stupid.
By the way, I listened to the Paying Per Mile show (01/05/09) while driving from Bend to Glide (east of Roseburg) through some of the worst winter road conditions I have ever encountered. For the cost of implementing and operating the proposed per-mile tax system, how many more trips could snow plows and sanders be making each winter over Oregon's sometimes treacherous highways?
posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context


