Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by baobabaobab 3906 days ago
We could also just use general tax revenue. You don't have to have a different tax for every expense.
3 comments

That's true in a strictly literal sense, but we really want the demand-destroying effects of a per-mile tax on private automobiles so as to incentivize a modal shift to other transit options.

From that perspective, there's nothing better than raising taxes proportional to road mile or road hour.

Indeed. Not all taxes are about getting money; some are just about aligning incentives.
Why do "we" want that?
City-dwelling public transit users should not be forced to subsidize suburban sprawl, especially since there's such a straightforward way around it.
And the childless should not be forced to support education for children, and people in low crime neighborhoods should not be forced to support policing in high crime neighborhoods etc.

Taxes are going to involve people that don't agree with something supporting those that do almost every time.

>the childless should not be forced to support education for children

The best public schools are in jurisdictions with anomalously high property taxes. You move there when it's time for your first child to start school and you move out when your youngest graduates. The tax base is overwhelmingly middle-aged, married, educated, and willing to pay what a top-tier school system costs. In my hometown 95% of adults had at least a Bachelor's. 95% of a given freshmen class would go to college. I would guess there were approximately 0 adults between 18 and 30, and 0 households that didn't currently or formerly have kids in the schools.

People who want expensive education for their children can get it; people who don't want to support education (much) can live in an area with lower property taxes a mile or two away.

>people in low crime neighborhoods should not be forced to support policing in high crime neighborhoods

Crime is a major reason people move from the cities to the suburbs, at which point they are no longer paying for urban police departments.

Like I said, this is fundamentally unavoidable for issues like national defense and the social safety net, but services which could meaningfully be privatized (utilities, infrastructure, recreation, etc) can usually offset their costs by charging for use.

I suspect that that's a minority of the miles driven, well behind shipped goods. And that benefits the city dwellers too
Thank you for being the only sane person in this thread.