[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Proposed Government Driving Restrictions!
philipj@databank.com (Philip B Janus) wrote:
>Okay, I am somewhat in favor of taxation based on usage, on one
>condition: it is not imposed as an additional tax. If I'm paying the
>Govt for driving to work when there are no mass transit alternatives
>and my schedule (7-4 work; 5-8 school) won't allow carpooling, I
>expect my federal/state taxes to go down at the same time. THIS WON'T
>HAPPEN. The usage tax is just additional money that probably won't go
>to highway maintenance, traffic safety, or police salaries, but to
>pork barrel projects and Congressional salaries.
Actually, cynicism notwithstanding, in most instances where tax
incentives and disincentives have been employed they have been (at least
initially) "revenue neutral." That is, if you're an average user, your
overall taxes should be unchanged.
In fact, Maryland passed a revenue neutral gas guzzler law several years
ago that taxed low gas mileage (new) cars but offered tax breaks to high
gas mileage (new) cars. Taxes on a range of cars in the middle were
unchanged. Maryland did, however, intend to move the midrange mileage
scale higher in later years to increase revenues for the transportation
trust fund.
(If I recall correctly, the Bush Administration blocked implementation of
the Maryland law claiming that only the federal government has any
jurisdiction over automobile fuel efficiency.)
terry.harris@jhuapl.edu
References: