The final paragraph should have been written "we shouldn't pay any road
taxes"

Sorry very long night for the last 2-3 months..

Mike

On 6/28/06 7:22 AM, "Mike Miller" <mwmiller@CWNET.COM> wrote:

> Just a note on trucks.
>
> They don't pay anything like the amount they should based on road wear.
>
> Very simplified. Big trucks cause virtually all non weather wear on roads.
> Under 18,000 pounds there is no wear. And the wear goes up much faster than
> a linear function over 18000 lbs.
>
> For example when the Feds put a nickel a gallon tax on fuel the truckers
> didn't fight it because they got an increase in maximum load from 72,000 lbs
> to 80,000 lbs. Virtually doubled the wear on the interstates.
>
> At least that's what research I dug up some years ago showed.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Our vans don't cause any damage, except to us so we should pay any road
> taxes. As a matter of fact they should pay us. We're probably doing negative
> damage, that is the van driving repairs the roads.
>
> Been a long night.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 6/28/06 2:39 AM, "Joy Hecht" <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Roads are a major mechanism for shipping goods.  Trucks pay tolls - lots
>> more than 2-axle vehicles.  They pass on the costs to the purchasers of
>> their products.  Ditto for any services brought to your house, etc.  That's
>> how the person in the iron lung pays for roads, also old folks who don't
>> drive, New Yorkers who take public transit and don't own cars, etc.
>>
>> The tolls ensure that the individual user, who gets far more out of the road
>> than the purchaser of shipped goods, pays far more.
>>
>> The road costs (or better yet the gas taxes) should also capture the costs
>> imposed on everyone through the many environmental harms that come from
>> driving.  Unfortunately they don't, they are too low for that.
>>
>> There's also another logic for heavier road or gas taxes, aside from
>> recapturing the direct and environmental costs of driving.  That's that we
>> should use the tax system to create incentives for "goods" and against
>> "bads."  That argues, say, for greatly increasing taxes on things causing
>> environmental harm, like driving, and using the revenue to reduce taxes on
>> things we want, like income.  So the idea would be a revenue-neutral (i.e.
>> the government gets the same total amount of money, not more) change in
>> taxes, where lots more is imposed on driving and lots less on income.  That
>> would lead to less pollution, and put more cash in our pockets.  Not such a
>> bad idea.  But we'd end up using less of our cash on driving, since it would
>> be more expensive.  Shorter trips, but more spiffing up your van (Vanagon
>> content alert! :-), or eating out, or whatever you like to buy.
>>
>>
>> Joy
>>
>> p.s. I'll promise, I'll _try_ not to post on this any more!  But it's so
>> hard to resist, being an environmental economist for a living...
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>> Joy Hecht
>> and Matilda, 1989 Burgundy Vanagon
>>
>> For musings about life and the vanadventures:
>> http://www.joyhecht.net
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>> :::-----Original Message-----
>> :::From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf
>> :::Of Robert Fisher
>> :::Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:30 PM
>> :::To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> :::Subject: Re: tolls (was RE: I-90 Freeway help)
>> :::
>> :::--snip--
>> :::>    Actually tolls are a reasonably fair way to pay for roads
>> :::> - those who use them pay for them.  As opposed to using general revenue
>> :::or
>> :::> something, in which case people who don't use them still have to pay.
>> :::--snip--
>> :::
>> :::I've always had an issue with this idea- everybody 'uses' the roads. I
>> :::don't
>> :::care if you're stuck in an iron lung, you still use the roads in the
>> :::sense
>> :::that all of those things and people that fill your needs and wants use
>> :::the
>> :::roads. They used the roads to get your groceries to the store, they used
>> :::the
>> :::roads to get them from the store to your house, they use the roads to get
>> :::your nurses and techs to you, they use the roads to get you to the
>> :::hospital
>> :::when you need it, they used the roads to build your house, they used the
>> :::roads to bring your iron lung to your house... you get the point.
>> :::
>> :::In that sense it's inequitable that drivers are primarily burdened with
>> :::the
>> :::costs of maintaining roads via tolls and fuel taxes. I'd bet there are
>> :::more
>> :::non-drivers than most of us would guess there are, particularly as the
>> :::population ages, and there are all kinds of activities in which the end
>> :::user
>> :::benefits from the use of the roads whether they were involved with the
>> :::driving for that particular thing or not, and regardless of whether they
>> :::drive otherwise- one that comes to mind is all of the kids that live on
>> :::or
>> :::near campus while in college and primarily walk to everything three-
>> :::quarters
>> :::of the year. There's a whole microcosm of infrequent or non-drivers whose
>> :::activities are of course supported by others driving. Of course for
>> :::commercial driving the costs of being on the road are factored into the
>> :::costs of goods, so there is some downward distribution, but there's still
>> :::going to be a gap there for various reasons.
>> :::
>> :::I was reading an article about how states are bracing for the loss of
>> :::revenue due to loss of fuel taxes from alternative energy/fuel vehicles,
>> :::reduction in driving habits due to high costs of fuel (which apparently
>> :::hasn't happened yet) and a whole list of other related issues. One of the
>> :::proposals that many of the states were considering was dropping the fuel
>> :::tax
>> :::altogether and rolling it into the sales tax, the idea being that it
>> :::would
>> :::more fairly spread the burden around and still guarantee revenue flow.
>> :::They
>> :::seemed to figure it would equal out overall in economic terms after the
>> :::'sticker shock' effect was absorbed because the rather substantial fuel
>> :::tax
>> :::would be gone. It seemed a little optimistic to me to assume that Joe's
>> :::Trucking was automatically going to drop their rates because they were
>> :::suddenly 'saving' the fifteen-cents-per-gallon from the repealed state
>> :::fuel
>> :::taxes, but who knows.
>> :::
>> :::This kind of goes along with the argument about 'free' radio and TV...
>> :::which
>> :::are not only not free, but are in fact very much the opposite of free-
>> :::but
>> :::that's a gripe for another day.
>> :::
>> :::Cya,
>> :::Robert
>>
>>
>
>