Taxing Drivers By The Mile: Part II

Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > Gordon Burditt wrote
> >
> > (1) The current rate per kilometer (or mile) being paid.
> > This allows people to complain that they are being taxed
> > for driving on their own lawn. It also lets them know
> > about the expensive peak times, so they can avoid them.
>
> How is one supposed to avoid driving at peak times?
>
> The vast majority of people leave in the morning and
> go home in the evening because that's human nature.
>
> Charging more for driving during morning or evening
> rush hour will do nothing to decrease the amount of
> vehicles on the roads at that time, it will only
> increase the cost of driving at those times.
How is one supposed to avoid driving at peak times?

Move, get a job closer to home, switch to flexi-time, get alternate
work places and alternate work schedules.

Look around in peak rush hour. How many delivery trucks? How many
discretionary vehicles? How many people riding the buses?Tourists?
Retired people going shopping?

Staggered start times. Core hours. Flexitime. Four ten hour days per
week. A 9-5-8-4 schedule. Just a few ways to shave the peak. (Atra in
the Alps.)

Can Flexitime be offset by lower demand charges on electricity? Why pay
Pepco/Vepco when you can pay your employees?

Look at your schools. Anyone riding a bus to get to school? How many
buses does your school district own? How many daily passenger carrying
trips does each bus make? What does the bus do when it isn't carrying
passengers?

Look at traffic off peak. Can you set up a net and play tennis on the
road?

And my personal favorite is to start a new religion with Wednesday as
the holy day. No travel allowed on Wednesday for the true believers.
Christians will be required to share Friday and Saturday with Muslims
and Jews. Christians will pick straws to determine their new day of
worship. Agnostics, pagans and heathens will be required to pick a day
of rest and contemplation other than Friday, Saturday or Sunday. ;+P]

> And my personal favorite is to start a new religion with Wednesday as
> the holy day.

Great!

But what about the most logical solution of all?

*promote telecommuting*!

> Dick Boyd wrote
> > Ed Stasiak wrote
> >
> > How is one supposed to avoid driving at peak times?
> >
> > The vast majority of people leave in the morning and
> > go home in the evening because that's human nature.
>
> Move, get a job closer to home, get alternate work places

None of which are realistic ideas. Few people are working
at the same job for their entire life, so is everybody supposed
to now up-root their family, buy a new house and move every
couple of years when they change jobs?

> and switch to flexi-time, alternate work schedules.

Also not a realistic idea as in the vast majority of cases,
that's not the employees decision make. You work when the boss
tells you to work and in most cases, that's morning to evening.

WORKER: "Hay boss, I'm gunna work from 11:00am to
7:30pm from now on."

BOSS: "No problem! I'm sure our customers and suppliers
won't have a problem with that."

> JohnH wrote
>
> But what about the most logical solution of all?
>
> *promote telecommuting*!

So tell me again how I will be running my vertical
mill via teleconferencing?....

In article . com>, "Ed Stasiak" > writes:
>> Gordon Burditt wrote
>>
>> (1) The current rate per kilometer (or mile) being paid.
>> This allows people to complain that they are being taxed
>> for driving on their own lawn. It also lets them know
>> about the expensive peak times, so they can avoid them.
>
> How is one supposed to avoid driving at peak times?
>
> The vast majority of people leave in the morning and
> go home in the evening because that's human nature.

Or rather because our employers *require* working at certain hours,
most commonly the 8-5 plan.

> Charging more for driving during morning or evening
> rush hour will do nothing to decrease the amount of
> vehicles on the roads at that time, it will only
> increase the cost of driving at those times.

Yep. Not that it will encourage employers to allow more flextime or
telecommuting. I find it interesting that so many employers feel uncomfortable
letting people work from home offices because they can't supervise them
closely, but yet they happily outsource the same jobs overseas. As if they can
supervise THOSE people... right.

Sharon

Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> JohnH wrote
>>
>> But what about the most logical solution of all?
>>
>> *promote telecommuting*!
>
> So tell me again how I will be running my vertical
> mill via teleconferencing?....

It obviously won't apply to everyone, but most people in high rise office
buildings downtown don't run vertical mills either.

The only reason they need to be there is (a) that's what they're *used* to
do (inertia) and (b) middle management becomes irrelevant when people are
empowered and trusted to work on their own (job security).

The big office building mindset will eventually go the way of the dodo, but
it will take time for a new generation to come in used to telecommuting (it
is starting in education).

In article . com>,
Dick Boyd > wrote:
>
>Staggered start times. Core hours. Flexitime. Four ten hour days per
>week. A 9-5-8-4 schedule. Just a few ways to shave the peak. (Atra in
>the Alps.)

All of which run up against other constraints which limit their
usefulness. So the peak spreads.

>Look at your schools. Anyone riding a bus to get to school? How many
>buses does your school district own? How many daily passenger carrying
>trips does each bus make? What does the bus do when it isn't carrying
>passengers?

Unless used for field trips and such, it sits in a lot. Not
surprising; getting adults to voluntarily ride those monstrosities is
pretty difficult.

>Look at traffic off peak. Can you set up a net and play tennis on the
>road?

Not on any road, congested during peak periods, that I know of.
--
Darth Tel: "You can defeat Emperor Gates. He has forseen it. Join me,
and together we will rule the Galaxy as father and son!"

Steve Chipwalker, hanging on by his fingernails: "Sure thing, Pop. Just pull
me up, give me a laptop, and we'll go axe your boss"

-- Megahertz Wars, Episode V, "Finale".

In article .com>,
says...

>What I don't understand about this is that a basic gas tax already
>taxes those who use the roads more right? So this plan would tax those
>that use certain road even more. Is that worth the costs associated
>with setting up and monitoring this program? Just so you can shift
>revenue from those travelling in the country to those travelling in the
>city?

The cost will be passed onto the user, so they don't care about the cost. A
gas tax makes more sense since a vehcile tha is larger, and takes up more road
space, will pay more than a smaller vehicle. The idiots who come up with these
ideas don't realize that the simple gas tax method works quite well. They want
something more complicated, which is usually not better.
---------------
Alex

In article .com>,
says...

>- I've toyed with the thought/concept of the US eventually using a
>mileage-based tax in lieu of the current federal gas tax....such a
>system, IMO, would not need to be satellite based...just a matter of
>odometer readings (though I do realize that odometers can be tampered
>with), which could be done in conjunction with the annual registration
>cycle. Vehicles entering or departing the country could have their
>odometers checked at Port of Entry/Customs. A system could be phased
>in at the same time the gas tax is phased out, so that it's at least
>revenue-neutral at the beginning.

This would only work if you also factor in vehicle weight. It should also work
like income tax that you can pay on a monthly basis so that you don't get hit
with a huge tax bill when you register your car. I also don't like the GPS
idea as that would be another opportunity for the government to stick their
noses where they don't belong.
---------------
Alex

In article . com>,
says...

>There are two things that concern me greatly about this proposal:
>
>1) Even if the existing system of gas taxes and user fees doesn't begin
>to cover existing needs, it is still far, far preferential, IMHO, to a
>privatized system of charging tolls by the mile...especially since the
>bulk of the charges would be more than likely charged on freeways. How
>they would be able to force a charge on other less access-controlled
>facilities remains a mystery to me. At least with the existing system,
>road users are insured for the most part that their gas tax money is
>going toward highway construction, rather than being siphoned into
>politicians' pockets or diverted into other programs.

You must not live in NYC. Otherwise you would know that most of your toll
money is not going to road maintenance.
------------
Alex