[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: