View Single Post
Old 06-03-12, 05:37 AM
  #21  
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SactoDoug
I am always suspicious of any article or claim that is based on numbers but gives very few numbers in support. I think this article falls in that category. Don't tell me that numbers don't add up. Show me the numbers.

A good portion of the article is dedicated to pointing out that road taxes goes into general fund money. So what? Frankly, it is irrelevant whether the taxes collected goes into a fund specific for road maintenance/building or goes into the general fund. There is revenue coming in and expenses going out. Whether it comes out of one big general fund bucket or out of a dedicated bucket does change the numbers.

According to the chart on pg. 16, the revenue collected by road taxes was equal to or greater than the amount spent in the years 1947-1956 and 1992-1998. Claiming that road taxes collected never paid for the roads is untrue.

This can be interpreted as a reason to increase taxes, especially on high mpg vehicles like Prius's since they are clearly not paying their "fair share" for the miles driven. Another tax proposal I have seen is a tax per mile driven each year. We just have to have government mandated GPS monitors installed on all of our vehicles so the government can tax us properly.
I seriously doubt that they ever paid for the roads plus free (as well as insufficiently paid for) parking, nor for all the externalities.
hagen2456 is offline