←back to thread

41 points hhs | 7 comments | | HN request time: 1.612s | source | bottom
Show context
alsetmusic ◴[] No.42070992[source]
I worked at a liquor store when I was 21 and lived in a midwestern bible-belt state. We had flyers at the counter educating customers to vote against a raise of sin-taxes (alcohol, tobacco, possibly adult material, I don't recall) to offset a budget deficit (specifically upkeep of roads and highways).

It's not right for my vices to pay for your infrastructure. Tax tobacco to fund cancer research. Tax alcohol to advance treatment of liver disease. Tax porn to fund, I dunno, therapy for people who can't view it in moderation.

On a similar note, I do NOT have a problem with paying for schools even though I don't have kids. It raises property values and that's a benefit to me and everyone in the district. Plus, educating young people benefits society as a whole. I'm not some "don't tax me" guy because taxes are good. They just should be limited and targeted and not levied unfairly against those with bad habits for the benefit / relief of all.

That said, I apologize for quitting drinking. Research into treating cirrhosis of the liver will have to take a moderate hit and that's my fault. /s but only sorta

replies(5): >>42071023 #>>42071118 #>>42071334 #>>42071358 #>>42071396 #
amanaplanacanal ◴[] No.42071023[source]
Fuel taxes should be raised to pay for road infrastructure. Align the incentives so that people can make good decisions about whether to drive or not. And shippers can make better decisions about whether to ship via rail, ship, or truck.
replies(7): >>42071048 #>>42071082 #>>42071175 #>>42071317 #>>42071320 #>>42071392 #>>42091532 #
mperham ◴[] No.42071175[source]
EVs are breaking this funding model.

I'd suggest curbside parking should be charged everywhere. Free omnipresent parking is what has hollowed out American cities. Car storage is an awful use of public space.

replies(3): >>42071251 #>>42071300 #>>42071780 #
cogman10 ◴[] No.42071300[source]
Not yet. The biggest road destroyers are heavy vehicles which are all still fossil fuel powered.

The only part of the problem broken is that EV owners are no longer subsidizing the damage done by walmart to a road.

Raising fuel taxes is a win-win for everyone. It makes EVs more attractive and shipping garbage more expensive. It's an effective way to directly impact CO2 emissions.

replies(2): >>42071541 #>>42077126 #
1. dgfitz ◴[] No.42071541[source]
> The biggest road destroyers are heavy vehicles which are all still fossil fuel powered.

How does EV trucking solve weight?

It doesn’t, batteries are heavy.

Edit: are batteries not heavy?

replies(1): >>42072081 #
2. plorkyeran ◴[] No.42072081[source]
Nothing in the post you're responding to suggests that EV trucking would solve weight. If EV trucking did become common then the model of funding road infrastructure with fuel taxes would stop working, but that hasn't actually happened yet.
replies(1): >>42081542 #
3. dgfitz ◴[] No.42081542[source]
So, instead of taxing fuel, the tax is at the "electric pump" and no money is saved, and the roads still get beat up?

I think the theme is people are tired of spending an exorbitant amount of money of transportation fuel.

replies(1): >>42082298 #
4. cogman10 ◴[] No.42082298{3}[source]
Roads will always get beat up. Roads always need maintenance. The question is who will pay for it and how will it be funded.

Another truth is that shipping and transportation are two major CO2 emitters. Climate change is real, and CO2 emissions are the primary driver of it.

So, with that in mind, we have an already existing carbon tax both federally and in most states which directly correlates to CO2 emissions. And, conveniently, it is also directly linked to common needed infrastructure damaged the most by vehicles that use the most fuel. It's the fuel tax.

Now, we could talk policy to handle people tired of spending money on transportation fuel. Perhaps we have a fuel tax break for people earning less than 100k. Perhaps we subsize the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Perhaps we incentivize the production of small trucks, and we outlaw oversized pickup trucks and SUVs for personal use. All solvable problems that could be tackled with separate policy.

replies(1): >>42082574 #
5. dgfitz ◴[] No.42082574{4}[source]
I’m not disputing climate change. I’m asking how to satiate people mad about gas prices. The rest of your point is moot.
replies(1): >>42083424 #
6. cogman10 ◴[] No.42083424{5}[source]
The rest of my post specifically addressed what you are asking.
replies(1): >>42084684 #
7. dgfitz ◴[] No.42084684{6}[source]
I hate trump. This is why trump won. That response.

I wish it wasn’t so.