Pulled eFingers:

anonymous — 2007-10-23 10:56:51 US/Pacific —

Your math for the 2nd example above is wrong..it should be $10.2, not $30.

Interesting topic, what about the low income earners who can't afford to pay?

Stacey — 2007-10-23 13:42:10 US/Pacific —

Sounds good in theory. But then you have cities like Houston where walking or biking to work isn't feasible in most cases. Would companies contribute funds for their workers' transportation fees?

Eric — 2007-10-23 15:18:29 US/Pacific —

Interesting topic, what about the low income earners who can't afford to pay?

- The money they pay would partially be offset by lower taxes. That is, today poor people contribute (a small amount of) tax money. Under this new scheme their tax burden would be exactly $0.00.
- The rates could be set such that people who stay at or under the speed limit would pay almost nothing. Obviously, rich people who can afford to pay more would speed and use less congested lanes. But that's ok because rich people would then be funding some arbitrarily large percentage (say 95%) of the funds.

Would companies contribute funds for their workers' transportation fees?

That's for you to negotiate with your company. It would be a perk for sure.

Anonymous 2 — 2007-10-23 23:49:23 US/Pacific —

Anonymous...you're WRONG. It should be $30, not $12. What grade are you in?

Anonymous 3 — 2007-10-23 23:53:14 US/Pacific —

Anonymous 2 - pls check your reply before submitting. You meant "It should be $30", not $10.2. You two are confusing the readers.

Ngan — 2007-10-24 00:04:43 US/Pacific —

What about reporting the odometer reading every time you renew your vehicle registration and get billed that way?

Steve — 2007-10-24 19:35:42 US/Pacific —

Everyone benefits from the highway system, not just the people who drive on it. Think about how all your food and other goods are shipped across the country in trucks. The Interstate highway system was first implemented under the "provide for a common defense" part of the constitution when the government realized we needed a fast way to get troops to the west coast if we were invaded. I suppose it still provides an integral part of our defense plans.

Eric — 2007-10-24 21:31:04 US/Pacific —

Think about how all your food and other goods are shipped across the country in trucks.

Food and other goods are resources I might or might not purchase. I shouldn't have to pay for their shipping if I don't purchase them. The manufacturer should pass the cost of shipping directly on to their customers. Therefore, I'll turn your point against you and argue that non-usage-based funding of the transportation infrastructure is a subsidy for manufacturers whose goods are sub-standard.

I suppose it still provides an integral part of our defense plans.

I have no problem with the military funding the transportation infrastructure, to the extent that the military might need to use it, which is probably a small fraction of the overall cost.

Steve — 2007-10-25 21:33:31 US/Pacific —

I think your plan would shift too much burden onto poorer people who live far from work and have kids to feed. I do like the idea of consumption based taxes in some areas, but not when it comes to critical infrastructure.

The wealthy person who works from home still depends on everyone else getting to their jobs via the highway system. It's just all to interwoven to determine who is the biggest benefactor.

Eric — 2007-10-27 15:19:57 US/Pacific —

I think your plan would shift too much burden onto poorer people who live far from work and have kids to feed.

I knew someone would think of the kids. I didn't think it would be you!

The wealthy person who works from home still depends on everyone else getting to their jobs via the highway system.

Firstly, this isn't a wealth issue. You'd could also say poor people who work at home depend on rich (or poor) people who must commute each day.

Secondly, I don't agree with your assumption of a certain (as in sure) dependency. Maybe there is, but also maybe not. It's different per situation.

If there is a dependency, that dependency should have a dollar amount to describe its worth. That dollar amount would make wealth more fluid, allowing the poor to earn wealth more easily if in fact there is a strong dependency.

Steve — 2007-10-27 21:14:08 US/Pacific —

now you're just talkin' out your a**

:)

Mom — 2007-10-29 06:05:26 US/Pacific —

Uhum...is everyone forgetting that the roads are supposed to be funded through the Gas Tax, the same tax that our elected officials have squandered on their special interest pet projects run by their family and friends for so long, that now the roads that have been neglected are unsafe?

Exercise Your eFinger:

 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 
     1  2  3  4  5  6 
  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 
 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 
 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 
 28 29 30 31