Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Wojtek objects to my label of gas tax as 'arbitrary'
>>and calls it an
>>efficient means of collecting user fees. As to
>>'arbitrary' I suggest
>>he drive around this vast country of ours and
>>compare how much tax he
>>pays in each little hamlet; and maybe Doug will go
>>with you and find
>>out how much of that tax is spent on externalities.
>>Color me stubborn,
>>but I don't think there is such as thing as an
>>efficient user fee: we
>>all use the infrastructure whether we drive or not,
>>so we all ought to
>>pay for it. Unequally, if we can manage that. The
>>only progressive
>>tax we have in the US is the income tax, so I'm all
>>for taking
>>everything that the government pays for and putting
>>it under one tax:
>>the income tax. Yes, that includes Social Security
>>and Medicare.
>>
>>
>
>
>Jordan, it is a well known fact that densely populated
>industrialized states pay more in federal taxes than
>the less industrialized ones. Let's face it - rural
>or sparsely populated areas pay less taxes and receive
>more subsidies, not to mention more power in the
>congress and the senate. We, and by that I mean folks
>like me living in coastal states and paying high tax
>rates on higher income, subsidize those rural folk and
>their wasteful gas guzzling life styles big time.
>They require more roads per tax payer and thus more
>road services, they drive farther than folk in densly
>populated areas, and they could not afford that luxury
>if they were not subsidized by urban areas. The same
>holds for telecommunication services.
>
>I have no problem with anyone living on ten acres of
>land and driving 20 miles to the nearest human
>settlement (I'm exaggerating of course), but let him
>pay for that privilege. I see no reason whatsover why
>his lifestyle should be publicly subsidized.
>
>Another problem - you seem to look at this issue in
>black and white we either burn oil and rive with no
>restrictions, or dump oil and cars altogether. This
>does not seem to me like a realistic position. In my
>postings I suggested a more balanced position of
>changing the mix- less driving, more public transit,
>and said nothing about dumping oil altogether.
>Contrary to what you said, this is a very realistic
>and attainable position that has been implemented in
>many countries.
>
>Therefore, behavior modification through changing the
>cost structure seems like a very reasonable
>proposition and the one that is likely to work.
>Again, I'm not suggesting herding everyone to buses
>and trains but to increasing the use of them while
>decreasing the use of autos. Driving is a privilege
>and convenince, and requiring drivers to pay the full
>price for that privilege and convenience is not only
>fair but also produces tangible public benefits (less
>pollution, less traffic congestion, etc).
>
>Now, if you want to talk about income redistribution -
>that is an altogether different story that has little
>to do with transportation policy. Taxation by itself
>(unless confiscatory) does not strike me as a very
>effective mechanism of income redistribution. The
>state has a much more effective policy tools at its
>disposal to achieve that goal at the income end -
>from strengthening collective bargaining
>(unionization) to living wage legislation.
>Progressive taxation is relly a wimpy copeout for the
>governemnt unwilling to grab the bull by the horns and
>reduce the insane income disparities at their source.
>
>
>Therefore, your concerns about regressiveness of
>gasoline tax seem to be misplaced. If you want to
>talk abot ways of reducing income inequalities, let's
>do that separately and set the right priorities of
>what needs to be done to that end. But let's not mix
>that with transportation and its externalities and the
>policies to change the current situation. And if you
>want to consider the economic impact of car based
>transport on the poor, let;s just say that car-based
>transport is already a huge drain on the income of the
>poor, and steering them toward public transit - even
>through initially painful measures like gasoline tax -
>will eventually have a beneficial effect on their
>incomes.
>
>Wojtek
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>