In article
>,
says...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:48:48 -0500, "Magnulus"
> > wrote:
>
> > Why not jus tax fuel- I think it would be more transparent than putting a
> >tax on driving on certain roads.
> >
> In the US, a flat tax (which is what fuel taxes are - everyone pays
> the same amount on what they use) are not popular.
> Those who must drive will be hit harder than those who only *choose*
> to drive, becasue they can choose not to drive, thus lowering their
> tax.


Even if you have to drive, you can often choose to
drive a small, fuel-efficient car (lighter, and thus
easier on the road surface), as opposed to choosing a
large gas-hog SUV (heavier, and thus harsher on the
road surface.)

Thus, the amount of fuel tax that an individual pays
can be connected to the amount of wear-and-tear that
their vehicle does to the road.

With tolls, the lighter econo-box pays the same as the
heavier, "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" SUV.

OTOH, the folks who can choose to drive or not are a
good group for giving that extra incentive to take
public transit instead, reducing congestion and
pollution for everyone.

Choice is an interesting thing, and is often quite
distorted in the individual's mind. My neighbours
wouldn't even consider getting off their lazy arses and
*walking* 1.5 km to the store (e.g. for their weekly
lotto ticket...), and sneer at me for chosen, voluntary
daily exercise walk. They have just as much option to
walk as I do, and yet they refuse to accept
responsibility for choosing to drive.

I have met people who claimed that public transport
simply wasn't an option at all, because they were just
a better class of people, who are entitled to private
car transport (including people who expect others to do
the driving and provide the car.) They wouldn't wanna
sink down to the emotional humiliation of riding around
with those poor black folks...


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum