• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    All of those are overhead-riddled runarounds that could be avoided entirely by the state simply allocating the tax dollars it’s already collected in a different manner, which ought to be well within its capability to do.

    The problem is that that’s not linked to usage, which you want — you want consumption of a resource to be connected to paying for it. Otherwise, you get overuse of the resource; it’d create an artificial incentive to go out and drive more, because you’re being subsidized by income tax payers or whatever.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      The second paragraph I wrote, which everyone conveniently ignored with deliberate and apparently laser-guided precision, addresses exactly that.

      I’ll spell it out even more clearly since apparently nobody got it: The state already knows how much you drive your vehicle because they record your mileage every time you renew your tags. They just proceed to do fuck-all useful with that information. If somebody wanted to replace a fuel tax with a usage tax, that would be the blindingly obvious place to do it. Easily, effortlessly, and without the need for any gimcrack tracking arrangements, bolt-on hardware, privacy violations, snooping, or fuss.

      But of course, the tracking and the snooping is, if not the actual point, at least a highly desirable bonus from the state’s perspective.