Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
I agree with this, actually. Whether we own a vehicle or not, we all depend on the roads for transportation of ourselves, but also food and other items that we depend on. This stuff doesn't just magically appear in the store or on our doorsteps. You need a road to get it there, and as somebody mentioned - large trucks and buses do the most damage (i.e. wear and tear) to our roads which requires money to be spent for upkeep. Seems reasonable that we all should pay for something we all benefit from.
|
But in a system where heavier vehicles pay more, we would still pay in the form of increased prices, but there would be some incentive to reduce damage to roads. For example, if a lightweight truck trailer costs 10% more but could save 11% of that purchase price on decreased taxation, that's a good thing all round, the operator saves money and the roads get a little less wear.
Taxation isn't a bad thing, it can be used to invisibly incentivise behaviour that is in everyone's best interest. I think the model of {tax = odometer reading x* vehicle weight * constant} is an excellent one, very fair and simple. And thus the CPC will call it a war on cars and a war on the middle class, and it will never be implemented. And we'll remain with a system of incredibly unequal taxation arbitrarily applied to different vehicles.