On 19 May 2004 12:41:41 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

Hi "Dude", thank for responding to my post. Read below for more
comments...

"Dude" wrote in message ...
Jay,

Do you have any research showing that fuel taxes are not supporting the
costs of roads? I remember a story on television about the transportation
fund being held in surplus to help balance the budget or something.

Yes I do, if fuel taxes fully supported the cost of construction and
maintenance of roads then I wouldn't have to keep voting "No" on all
the road construction bonds that seem to come up every election. Also
I wouldn't have to keep sending hundereds of dollars (arbitrarily
based on the value of my vehicle) to the DMV every year just to
"register" my car. Building and maintenance is an ongoing process and
always will be, its stupid to borrow money for this use. All the
interest and commision is less infrastructure we could have had, or
equivalently less taxes we would have had to pay out of our pay
checks. Bonds are used to pay for a lot of roads because there is no
political will to pay for them as we go. This is a result of a
previous poster's comment that John Q Public is dumb as a stump.

Austin is about to get 8 new toll roads. TXDoT says they have no
other alternative. They are holding "public hearings" and getting
plenty of flack (like putting tolls on already paid for roads to pay
for other roads) but are basically saying it's a done deal.


I have always toyed with the gas tax idea, it makes a lot of sense in many
ways. The only problem is that it is a drain on the economy in several bad
ways, and I can't get my arms around what the unintended consequences might
be.

It does make a lot of sense and is it a worse drain on the economy
than the alternative, higher income tax? There will be consequences
no doubt. Businesses that unfairly benefit (at everyones expense)
from subsidized infrastructure (like trucking) will see a decline in
the demand for their services due to thier higher prices. This will
manifest itself in slighlty higher prices for goods that continue to
move by truck (rather than train).

The theory is that heavier vehicles cause more damage to the roads.
And heavier vehicles use more fuel, thus paying their "fair share".
Unfortunately for all of us, they get to pass those costs on to the
consumer and write them off on their taxes. We don't.


One of them would likely be higher taxes to build more public transportation
unless much of the fuel tax is earmarked for that. More public
transportation would mean an increase in corruption in government as the
extra control over where people go and how is just too yummy for those
folks.

In Austin, we pay a 1/2 per cent sales tax to support the mass transit
authority. They have been pushing light rail for several years, in a
city that doesn't easily support a fixed base transit structure. But
"other cities have it", so we must, too. Meanwhile, the buses run
mostly empty with the exception of a few express routes.


Its a tough trade between 2 evils, the inefficiency of a well meaning
government or the profit motive and corruption of a monopoly. But
demend for more public transportation would be another outcome. Where
I live, people on the dole are able to afford to drive around in cars.

Agreed. Gas just hit $1.90 here. This may motivate car pool/van pool
thinking, but most people still prefer the "freedom" of their car.

My wife has a 25 mile one way commute. We had considered moving
north, but the houses are at least 50% higher for the same thing. So
we're looking at a hybrid for her.

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.