Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

We don’t want to leave our children a nation where the critical infrastructure used by all of us is paid for?

As gas tax isn’t feasible due to the rapid transition to electric vehicles, leaving a road tax as the only equitable option to fund infrastructure O&M expenses. Where would one expect the funding come from if not from users of roads?

View on HN

Then read the odometer. You don’t need to subject everyone to constant surveillance to pay for roads.

Speaking only of the US, you have no right to privacy in public [1]. Existing law enables both government and private surveillance systems with little recourse.

Capturing mileage by geographic area would be an acceptable solution, but mileage delta over time would be insufficient to collect and disburse road taxes based on what is needed/used/traveled the most.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

Laws allowing this might be constitutional. They would still be Orwellian nightmares. (We probably need a constitutional amendment addressing the issue - but regardless the fact is a proposed law can be both authoritarian and constitutional).

If they’re serious about this, I will become a single issue voter.

What do you gain from carrying water for tyrants?

> but mileage delta over time would be insufficient to collect and disburse road taxes based on what is needed/used/traveled the most.

This is already reality.

A commons that flourishes instead of wilting from tragedy.

https://www.theregreview.org/2019/08/21/kadich-fixing-shortf...

https://infrastructurereportcard.org/

A theorised benefit at the guaranteed cost of perpetual surveillance. No thanks.

Everyone benefits from the roads, it’s covered via the income tax. The fact I travel means I spread wealth. That transaction is income to someone else, which is taxed.

We didn’t become a wealthy nation by having tax burden.

> Everyone benefits from the roads, it’s covered via the income tax.

Everyone benefits from roads, but not everyone causes the same damage to them.

I mostly ride a bicycle (Apr-Dec), a motorcycle (Apr-Oct), or take public transit (Jan-Mar). I cause very little damage to roads compared to someone who drives a sedan or SUV everyday. I cause an infinitesimally small amount of damage compared to an 18-wheeler.

Why do I (on my 400 lb motorcycle) have to pay as much as someone in their 4000 lb (or more) automobile?

I'm happy to put my money into a risk pool for things like public health insurance, as I don't know what kind of cheap or expensive illness I may get in the future, but I do not think that kind of principle applies to road use. Shouldn't payment be proportional to use in this case?

Where's all the other tax which is already too high going? How has the country been able to pay for critical infrastructure in past centuries? How will the working class people who have to drive everyday and can't work from home unlike the rich tech people pay these bills?

Respectfully, your profile says "In search of projects with maximum positive impact with zero financial return." which tells me you are already financially sufficient and won't be impacted by this. The workers like nurses, delivery, uber, manual labour etc who has to drive everyday gets pounded by this.

There is a balance to be found between regressive taxes (not good) and supporting unsustainable practices (also not good). If you’re commuting 100 miles round trip everyday, you should still be paying for those roads, just as we expect you to pay for your own fuel. I would also say incomes being stagnant for the last 40 years (due to globalization and the decline in unions and manufacturing jobs) has not helped folks who live in rural areas.

Do we subsidize folks who can’t afford this? If so, how much? For how long? Important questions to be explored.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com