Tuesday, April 28, 2009
News Entitlement Reprogram
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Taxing drivers by miles driven to help pay for highway programs is a great idea. It's a user fee—the more you use, the higher your fees. Want to pay less? Move closer to work so you can drive less and then you'll pay less. And while you're thinking about moving closer to work, you might want to think about moving to a neighborhood where you can walk or bike to grocery stores, bars, clothing shops, movie theaters, etc.
Exhibit A in the insanity that is America: We've spent the last thirty years and who knows how much money battling the social evil that is drunk driving. At the same time we've built 'burbs and exurbs that force people to drive to bars. I'm always amazed when I get in a car and drive out into the hinterlands by the sight of bars—drinking establishments—surrounded by parking lots. Good rule of thumb: if you can't walk there, don't drink there.
Share via
1
Wouldn't a better solution be massive gas taxes, since that would incentivize efficient driving as well as less driving. Under a miles driven fee Hummers would be charged as much as Prius'.
2
That reasoning is about as simple-minded as Steve Forbes' "flat tax". We already have a gas tax. We just need to change the law so it can apply to transit and other non-roads transportation projects.
3
On one level, I see the merits, but I can't figure out how this would be superior to just increasing the fuel (gasoline/diesel) tax to the level needed to raise the necessary revenue. Fuel tax is also a "user fee", the less you drive, the less you pay.
And it has the added benefit of penalizing drivers of large vehicles which, almost by definition, burn more fuel per mile driven than smaller more efficient vehicles.
And a yet further benefit, if the high fuel tax encourages ("forces") motorists to buy electric or other advanced vehicles, then so much the better -- that's public policy we ought to be supporting.
Sorry, until I see more/better arguments, I'm sticking with my support for higher fuel taxes.
And it has the added benefit of penalizing drivers of large vehicles which, almost by definition, burn more fuel per mile driven than smaller more efficient vehicles.
And a yet further benefit, if the high fuel tax encourages ("forces") motorists to buy electric or other advanced vehicles, then so much the better -- that's public policy we ought to be supporting.
Sorry, until I see more/better arguments, I'm sticking with my support for higher fuel taxes.
4
Actually, Dan, it sucks. What's more, it will NEVER become law in this state, because politically, it's a loser, except for your little Green Taliban cult. Just who do you think is going to submit to having transponders in their cars to measure mileage, and what politician would be STUPID enough to vote for anything like that?
The Motor Vehicle Excise Tax was a much fairer tax. As @1 said, it incentivizes higher-mileage, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and sticks it to the Hummer and RV owners.
The Motor Vehicle Excise Tax was a much fairer tax. As @1 said, it incentivizes higher-mileage, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and sticks it to the Hummer and RV owners.
5
I would support a mileage based tax if they can fix the privacy issue - I don't want a GPS device telling the government where my vehicle is at all times. Maybe a tamper-proof counter attached to the odometer that is read once a year before someone can get new license tabs?
6
Yes, because fucking poor people over by further increasing the cost of living is a great strategy.
7
1-3 are right.
A gas tax is the elegant way to go, the more you drive the more you pay but it has the added bonus that it rewards drivers of fuel effecient vehicles and those who car pool.
A gas tax is the elegant way to go, the more you drive the more you pay but it has the added bonus that it rewards drivers of fuel effecient vehicles and those who car pool.
8
Great point, Dan. If you can't walk, bus or afford to pay for a taxi to take you to/from a bar, maybe think twice about going there. And yet this concept is lost on so many.
The folks I know who've had DUI's in the past were ALL busted while driving home from bars in the suburbs/exurbs to homes in the suburbs/exurbs. Don't do it, people!
The folks I know who've had DUI's in the past were ALL busted while driving home from bars in the suburbs/exurbs to homes in the suburbs/exurbs. Don't do it, people!
9
Re: your second paragraph. When I go back to the small town I grew up in, this always shocks me a bit. If you go to a bar there, you almost have to drink and drive. Unless you have a DD, which very few locals do. There are no buses or taxis. Housing is so spread out that very few people live close to the center of town.
I'm not sure why this never dawned on me when I was living there, but after living in larger cities for a few years, I found it a little difficult to comprehend.
I'm not sure why this never dawned on me when I was living there, but after living in larger cities for a few years, I found it a little difficult to comprehend.
10
My first instinct was to go with everyone else in here. Just hike the gas tax, right? Makes sense unless you, like me, hope we're moving rapidly away from a gas hog transportation system. What happens when we're all driving 100MPG cars around, or for that matter, 0mpg cars because they run off electricity? You still need to fix the highways because they're being driven on but you couldn't hike the gas tax high enough to cover the needed repairs.
For today, gas tax hike is the best solution but it makes sense to start looking at another revenue stream. I also don't like the GPS idea due to privacy concerns but a counter on your odometer could work.
For today, gas tax hike is the best solution but it makes sense to start looking at another revenue stream. I also don't like the GPS idea due to privacy concerns but a counter on your odometer could work.
11
"Good rule of thumb: if you can't walk there, don't drink there"
Want to change it? A simple change in zoning laws to allow restricted commmercial development would cure this problem and many others. Seattle was once filled with neighborhood bars, grocers and other small business. You certainly can recognize the architectural remnants of these entities in quick walk around Ballard, Queen Anne and Capital Hill. Some of these businesses still function in their original locations.
Think any aspiring city council members
or mayoral candidates will pick up on this as a simple and effective means of helping to reduce greenhouse gases, etc., etc., etc.? I highly doubt it.
Want to change it? A simple change in zoning laws to allow restricted commmercial development would cure this problem and many others. Seattle was once filled with neighborhood bars, grocers and other small business. You certainly can recognize the architectural remnants of these entities in quick walk around Ballard, Queen Anne and Capital Hill. Some of these businesses still function in their original locations.
Think any aspiring city council members
or mayoral candidates will pick up on this as a simple and effective means of helping to reduce greenhouse gases, etc., etc., etc.? I highly doubt it.
12
Taxing gas hurts the poor the most. Almost everything any of you buy comes by truck, the more the truck has to pay to get goods to you the more you pay.
13
@4
You have to get your car inspected every year, right? Why can't the inspector have an obligation to record your mileage, you have to certify it and when that gets reported, then you get your bill?
I don't see any privacy issue there. The tax would be inconvenient, but it would shift the burden to users. It would, of course, also drive up the price of goods unless there were an exemption for truckers. But they would be the easiest to tax, because most of them have to keep mileage logs anyway, right?
Do I think it would be a fair tax, Yes.
Do I want to pay it as one who lives in the Chicago Burbs? Nope, but isn't that the point of a use tax?
Would I used public transport more? You bet.
Would my life be less convenient? You bet.
Is that okay by me? You bet.
You have to get your car inspected every year, right? Why can't the inspector have an obligation to record your mileage, you have to certify it and when that gets reported, then you get your bill?
I don't see any privacy issue there. The tax would be inconvenient, but it would shift the burden to users. It would, of course, also drive up the price of goods unless there were an exemption for truckers. But they would be the easiest to tax, because most of them have to keep mileage logs anyway, right?
Do I think it would be a fair tax, Yes.
Do I want to pay it as one who lives in the Chicago Burbs? Nope, but isn't that the point of a use tax?
Would I used public transport more? You bet.
Would my life be less convenient? You bet.
Is that okay by me? You bet.
14
ivan@4: How does the MVET "incentivize higher-mileage, more fuel-efficient vehicles"? The MVET was based on value not mileage, and a new Prius costs much more than a 1986 Chevy Blazer.
15
I agree with 1-3, a gas tax is already the most sensible way to go about this. It roughly accounts for miles driven, as well the over efficiency of the vehicle.
Your second paragraph though - having grown up in a neighborhood with bars in strip malls surrounded by vast parking lots, I've always been a little fascinated by the juxtaposition.
Your second paragraph though - having grown up in a neighborhood with bars in strip malls surrounded by vast parking lots, I've always been a little fascinated by the juxtaposition.
16
I'm not quite sure what solution y'all would suggest when you start in on your frequent "exurbs" stuff...do you think everyone on the planet should live in cities? It was my understanding that there are stretches of the country inbetween the cities, and people there. Or even for the Seattle area, do we somehow expand the dense core of town a bunch and plow over all development outside the city limits? I'm kinda serious - it's all well and good to go on and on about exurbs if you live in town and can walk to work, but do you see a solution besides patting yourself on the back for your good planning and good fortune (that your job hasn't dried up and forced you to take one not right outside your door)?
17
Because, for example, that produce we all eat, someone has to grow that, and they can't grow it all in the city. So, what should those folks do? Drive to work from in-town and burn up a bunch of gas? Live near their farms but never go to a bar because there isn't one near the farm?
18
A massive carbon tax surcharge on fuel would be a far far better solution.
And removing the farm fuel exemption. Force them to wind, solar, biofuels instead.
And removing the farm fuel exemption. Force them to wind, solar, biofuels instead.
19
ummm restaurants serve alkyhol too, y'know?
so i guess unless you can walk there don't go out to eat, don't go to a bar. k. gotcha. bring on the depression!
so i guess unless you can walk there don't go out to eat, don't go to a bar. k. gotcha. bring on the depression!
20
Why not tax it the way that water is billed?
Everyone needs some base amount of water to drink, cook, and wash. Keep that amount of water cheap. Beyond that amount, increase the price quickly and progressively. Watering the lawn all day ought to be a pricey proposition.
Similarly, give everyone an allotment of tax-free (or tax-credit!) miles driven, and then start ramping up the tax on miles driven tremendously.
One note: Both of these ideas are probably best left to personal use, not business use.
Everyone needs some base amount of water to drink, cook, and wash. Keep that amount of water cheap. Beyond that amount, increase the price quickly and progressively. Watering the lawn all day ought to be a pricey proposition.
Similarly, give everyone an allotment of tax-free (or tax-credit!) miles driven, and then start ramping up the tax on miles driven tremendously.
One note: Both of these ideas are probably best left to personal use, not business use.
21
@17 With regard to the drunk driving argument, you say "Live near their farms but never go to a bar because there isn't one near the farm?"
My answer to that is: in many cases, yes. You sacrifice certain things when you live out in the sticks, the same way that I sacrifice having a big yard and quiet nights by living in an apartment in the city.
Now, I know that not everyone who goes to a bar gets shitfaced drunk, and some people do designate drivers when they go out. If people want to be responsible, they can make it work. But hot damn, there are a lot of inebriated people driving around places like Marysville on the weekends, and that's really dangerous.
My answer to that is: in many cases, yes. You sacrifice certain things when you live out in the sticks, the same way that I sacrifice having a big yard and quiet nights by living in an apartment in the city.
Now, I know that not everyone who goes to a bar gets shitfaced drunk, and some people do designate drivers when they go out. If people want to be responsible, they can make it work. But hot damn, there are a lot of inebriated people driving around places like Marysville on the weekends, and that's really dangerous.
22
"I'm always amazed when I get in a car and drive out into the hinterlands by the sight of bars—drinking establishments—surrounded by parking lots."
I thought you didn't drive, Dan. Like, not at all. WTF?
I thought you didn't drive, Dan. Like, not at all. WTF?
23
@10: Let's not solve tomorrows problems today, for tomorrow's solutions are problems in the present.
24
Um, Dan: I have two jobs thanks to this economy. One is in Renton; the other in north Seattle. I used to bike everywhere, but that doesn't work now. A bus ride in either direction is over an hour -- or it's half an hour for me to drive, which is critical because I have to split some of my days between the two.
I walk everywhere in my neighborhood, but for work, I'm stuck. It is NOT so simple as you think, m'kay?
I walk everywhere in my neighborhood, but for work, I'm stuck. It is NOT so simple as you think, m'kay?
25
@5 "Maybe a tamper-proof counter attached to the odometer that is read once a year before someone can get new license tabs?"
:) Well, they do. It's the odometer itself. They keep track of your mileage when you get your emissions test. It's only every-other year, but they do keep track.
Mileage - doesn't account for the extra weight of over-sized vehicles. Hummers, SUVs, trucks, any heavy vehicle destroys the road at a faster rate than small cars. But these vehicles do use more gas per mile (and polute more per gallon) than the small cars. Raise gas and tab taxes, use the money for better transit out in the burbs.
:) Well, they do. It's the odometer itself. They keep track of your mileage when you get your emissions test. It's only every-other year, but they do keep track.
Mileage - doesn't account for the extra weight of over-sized vehicles. Hummers, SUVs, trucks, any heavy vehicle destroys the road at a faster rate than small cars. But these vehicles do use more gas per mile (and polute more per gallon) than the small cars. Raise gas and tab taxes, use the money for better transit out in the burbs.
26
I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect people who live outside of cities to never go out drinking. C'mon, now. My problem with the constant exurb-bashing in the Stranger and on here is that it seems really simple-minded to me, and self-congratulatory. Like we as a society could just decide to not let any development happen outside of cities. I think comparisons are made too often to Europe, which is so much more dense. Seriously: between Seattle and Spokane (which is hardly a city really) what would you have people do? Seriously. Dan, can you answer what you want most of the people in the nation to do since you don't approve of them living outside of cities?
27
@16 - yes, I do think that expanding the dense core of the urban environment by bulldozing the sprawl that exists just over the borders of many cities is a fine idea. But the truth is far simpler. I've never been to Seattle, but in all the other cities that I've been to, there ARE areas of the city that are more sparsely populated, like, that underdevelopment thing that people always talk about. That's where it STARTS, and where it should end is bulldozing all the McMansions in the immediate suburbs. For the people who live near where they work, and that happens to NOT be in an urban center, well, that's mostly fine, too. Except for the fact that many of these people STILL live in homes that are FAR larger than what they need, with WAY more dead space around them than what is necessary. If you live/work in suburban areas, it's actually hard to find a smaller place convenient to work, because they don't exist. The last time I lived in a suburban area, I told my Realtor my housing budget (for a rental) and was SHOCKED when the first place he took me to was 3 bedrooms and over 1500 square feet! I was like "what am I supposed to do with this? It's me and a cactus..." Turns out that I ended up renting a 2-bed, 1000+ sf because it was either rent that or live ridiculously far away from work in the only "small unit" building in town (which was kind of skeevy, by the way). I figured I created less pollution by minimally and conscientiously heating/cooling a larger house than driving to work every day.
So anyway, by all means, bulldoze the sprawl and create a larger high-density urban area. Focus on creating high-density business districts in the suburbs, so people who HAVE to work there have a low-pollution, convenient alternative. This is already happening to some extent, with the advent of "planned mixed-use suburban communities," where they build up the 'burb around a shopping/employment center and much of the development is walkable/bikeable from most of the residences.
For those who still want a McMansion in some "woodsy" (read: created forest, but whatever, at least it's trees) area, well, there's lots of land in the U.S., and once the sane ones are happily located in a less-polluting, more convenient, healthier area, you can have it (but be warned that we're going to make parking in our nice high-density areas difficult and expensive).
More...
So anyway, by all means, bulldoze the sprawl and create a larger high-density urban area. Focus on creating high-density business districts in the suburbs, so people who HAVE to work there have a low-pollution, convenient alternative. This is already happening to some extent, with the advent of "planned mixed-use suburban communities," where they build up the 'burb around a shopping/employment center and much of the development is walkable/bikeable from most of the residences.
For those who still want a McMansion in some "woodsy" (read: created forest, but whatever, at least it's trees) area, well, there's lots of land in the U.S., and once the sane ones are happily located in a less-polluting, more convenient, healthier area, you can have it (but be warned that we're going to make parking in our nice high-density areas difficult and expensive).
28
@17,
I would just hope those people would prefer being alive and out of prison than being dead or serving several years for vehicular manslaughter.
I would just hope those people would prefer being alive and out of prison than being dead or serving several years for vehicular manslaughter.
29
@ 24 - Dan doesn't care about your working-class ass. He's only interested in getting cars off the road so his trips to the airport (time spent outside Capitol Hill! Oh, the horror!) will be quicker.
30
If I lived in a city that had decent transit, I would take it. As it is, it would take me over an hour and a half to make what is now a 10 minute, on-way commute.
And if I could move closer to work and stores, I would. But I would have to choose one or the other because there are no stores near where I work. And, honestly, I can't afford to live in the subdivisions and apartment complexes that are near my office building.
The point, as @6 and @24 both made, is that such a policy would hit certain groups of people disproportionately hard, and those people can't always control their situations.
Now, having said that, I would support a modest increase in gas taxes to support improvement of infrastructure and/or transit.
And if I could move closer to work and stores, I would. But I would have to choose one or the other because there are no stores near where I work. And, honestly, I can't afford to live in the subdivisions and apartment complexes that are near my office building.
The point, as @6 and @24 both made, is that such a policy would hit certain groups of people disproportionately hard, and those people can't always control their situations.
Now, having said that, I would support a modest increase in gas taxes to support improvement of infrastructure and/or transit.
31
Live near your work! Don't live outside the city! That goes for you, all you Microsoft and Boeing employees!
See how simple it is?
See how simple it is?
32
It's got to be a blance to offset the social/environmental costs of roads as well of gas.
Tax the hell out of both, I say!
Tax the hell out of both, I say!
33
Although my neighborhood is very walkable (WalkScore =75), the nearest bar is almost 2 miles away.
And I ain't walking two miles for a $2 PBR, thank you very much.
And I ain't walking two miles for a $2 PBR, thank you very much.
34
"Want to pay less? Move closer to work so you can drive less and then you'll pay less."
Jesus, Dan, that has to be the single dumbest sentence you have ever written. You make it sound like moving closer to work is as simple as wanting to. I for one would love to move closer to work, except my mortgage would probably double. (Likewise for people who rent.) And do you actually believe that everyone who moves closer to work could also move closer to a "neighborhood where you can walk or bike to grocery stores, bars, clothing shops, movie theaters, etc."? Do you live in the actual world?
Anyway, as many of your commenters have pointed out, with a simple gas tax we are already basically paying for how much we drive. So no, taxing by miles driven it's not a great idea, it is teh stoopid.
Jesus, Dan, that has to be the single dumbest sentence you have ever written. You make it sound like moving closer to work is as simple as wanting to. I for one would love to move closer to work, except my mortgage would probably double. (Likewise for people who rent.) And do you actually believe that everyone who moves closer to work could also move closer to a "neighborhood where you can walk or bike to grocery stores, bars, clothing shops, movie theaters, etc."? Do you live in the actual world?
Anyway, as many of your commenters have pointed out, with a simple gas tax we are already basically paying for how much we drive. So no, taxing by miles driven it's not a great idea, it is teh stoopid.
35
So no, taxing by miles driven it's not a great idea, it is teh stoopid.
You mean teh awesum, don't you? I'm gonna commute by Winnebago, because the tax does not care if I guzzle gas or sip it.
In fact, why not tax people based on how far they live from their work? Then everyone -- cyclists, transit users, and motorists -- will have to pay to maintain the roads.
You mean teh awesum, don't you? I'm gonna commute by Winnebago, because the tax does not care if I guzzle gas or sip it.
In fact, why not tax people based on how far they live from their work? Then everyone -- cyclists, transit users, and motorists -- will have to pay to maintain the roads.
37
Dude, in this day and age, we're lucky if we have a job, even if it's fucking far away. I love where I live, I can walk everywhere I want (except for work, though my roomie does work in the neighborhood). But as far as job availability? Not so much. And I sure as shit am not moving to the craphole South Seattle neighborhood where my office is. And don't even get me started on the 3 buses, 1/2 walk, and 2+ hours it would take me to get to work by transit.
39
@38: What's funny is that this isn't the first time he's come out in favor of it.
Dan, would you mind why this is better than just raising gasoline taxes? At least that would promote the purchases of more fuel efficient cars -- cars that are generally lighter and do less damage to the roads?
I wonder if the people proposing this are doing it because it seems like it might be more easily accepted by the masses -- raising gas prices is political suicide but this somehow seems more innocuous?
Dan, would you mind why this is better than just raising gasoline taxes? At least that would promote the purchases of more fuel efficient cars -- cars that are generally lighter and do less damage to the roads?
I wonder if the people proposing this are doing it because it seems like it might be more easily accepted by the masses -- raising gas prices is political suicide but this somehow seems more innocuous?
40
It's not always as simple as moving closer to work - I live and work in the same city (5th largest in all of Canada) and it takes me a 20 min car ride to get to work. If I were to take the bus, I would have to take 3 buses along 3 different routes and my commute would be over an hour one way. I'm using up more gas taking three buses than one car - why should I have to pay more to use my car then if the alternative is more damaging to the environment?
41
I would LOVE to live in a neighborhood that has grocery stores and shopping and movie houses all within walking distance. Unfortunately, my wife and I cannot afford the $300,000 homes or $1600 rents that make up these type of neighborhoods. So we live in a poorer neighborhood without these amenities. We have to drive our cars to work and play. If people had not treated the real estate buisness like playing the lottery (buy a house for 40k, slap on coat of fuckin paint, sell it in 6 months for a 100k, repeat process all over working class neighborhoods for 10 years until only the upper classes can afford to live in large swaths of cities) alot more middle income earners would be able to live a carless life.
42
Dan, I lived in a neighborhood like that for many years: the U District. Then I graduated, the landlord jacked up our rent, our building got completely wrapped in airtight plastic for the two hottest weeks of the summer, and the crime rate around the Ave started going way up.
Here is a homework assignment for you: find a way to commute from Capitol Hill to Greenwood in the morning in less than an hour door-to-door. (You won't.) Bonus points if you can find a route that uses two buses or fewer.
Here is a homework assignment for you: find a way to commute from Capitol Hill to Greenwood in the morning in less than an hour door-to-door. (You won't.) Bonus points if you can find a route that uses two buses or fewer.
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
-
Levi Johnston's Butt by David Schmader
-
Real Salt Lake vs. Galaxy Open Thread by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS