Originally Posted by Kurmudgeon
And it would mean those with fuel-efficient vehicles would pay the same as those with gas-guzzlers.
We should be encouraging people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, not discouraging them by a per-mile tax.
And if you drive 400 miles in a month, but you get a bill for driving 4,000 miles, how do you dispute it? You might as well give the government a license to pick your pocket.
I also think this scheme tends to favor the rich. Why? Because if I am rich, I probably can afford to buy a nice house/condo/whatever within a few miles of where I work. If I am poor, I might have to work in the city but settle for a house in the far boonies to afford the payments.
Insofar as it treats one mile driven to and from work as equivalent to one mile driven joyriding, it is also unjust.
Another issue that comes up in my mind: what is the government going to do with the money? From what I've read, the govt. already collects substantial sums in a highway "trust fund"--and then does not spend the money to repair highways. Instead, it hoards it, or plays some sort of fiscal games with it--accumulating a nominal fiscal "surplus" in one area that offsets deficits in other areas. Meanwhile, roads and bridges fall into disrepair.
I'm against more obligations imposed on the citizens with no corresponding obligations imposed on the government.