From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicycle Paths
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:37:55 GMT

Thomas H. Kunich writes

> I'm having trouble relating the real uses of roads to
> your comparing milage. The roads _have_ to be there. The
> highway system benefits _everyone_.

But not to the same *degree*.  To say that the highway
system benefits everyone at least a little bit, and that
therefore everyone should pay in the same amount to
maintain is a communistic notion.

>> Sure, but some 'use' the roads far less than others.
>> And if road use was priced at what it actually cost, it
>> would diminish greatly.

> And if it did diminish greatly that would be the signal
> of a falling economy.

Oh, I see.  And so the reduction in defense spending is
a sign of a failed economy?  No, it's just a shift of
use of capital.  And more than likely, a shift from a
place where it is used inefficiently, due to the subsidy,
to a place where it does the most good.  If anything,
that will help the economy.

> Oh, I agree that theoretically we should pay as we go
> for all governmental goods and services. But that isn't
> the way things have developed. Now adding gas taxes is
> _just_ that -- adding taxes. There would never be any
> commensurate reduction in any other area.

Well, if your going to be that hard-line pessimistic, we
might as well all die now. ;-)

> Ahh, but you don't rely on local goods and services. I
> suggest that you look at everything you use on a daily
> basis.  How did you get the keyboard you are typing at?
> Did the tooth fairy bring it on her wings? :-)

No, I don't rely on local services and goods completely.
The point is that some people rely on long-distance
shipping of goods *far less* than other people.  And
unless the price of that shipping is reflected in the
price of the shipped goods - instead of in the obscure
random taxes imposed upon people along the way who don't
even benefit from that particular shipment - people have
no way of comparing what the goods *truly* cost, and
cannot make an informed decision.

> There is a very simple test of this suggestion Scott, is
> there more traffic on the road today than last year at
> this time? Yes? Then why is that? I suggest that people
> are using the roads more because they feel the need. You
> are suggesting that your needs should reflect those of
> others. I don't think that is a very good indication of
> the way things are.

To *some degree*, yes, people use the roads because they
need to.  Their use of the roads in an SOV is partially
an economic decision based on the *direct costs* of the
various transportation alternatives.  People who need to
drive will continue to do so - the idea is to change the
direct costs of operating an automobile (to more closely
reflect the real costs to society) so that it's the
'incremental user' - those who *could* use an alternative
form of transportation - who change their mind for
economic reasons.

> I admit that there is a very poor connection in the
> taxpayers mind about what he is paying and what he is
> getting. But making that connection clearer won't
> necessarily change anything. And we know how the
> government works. If you give them a tax they will take
> it and return little or nothing for it.

Actually, it's been shown time and time again when the
consumer is given a price that reflects the costs of what
they are using, they will make a decision that most
efficiently uses their money.  Admittedly, the government
thing could be a problem.  But state-wise, at least,
partial solutions are coming on-line (term limits should
end pork-barrelling - I'd be willing to wait and see though
:-).  Once implemented, though, the direct channelling of
funds from usage to maintenance keeps the government from
getting their grubby little hands on every cent we make.

Just because it currently looks like there is no way to
properly implement a gas tax and the necessary
corresponding reductions in other taxes *doesn't* mean
that gas taxes (or other such 'direct cost' taxes) are
a bad idea; it means that work needs to be done to change
the current process instead.  Any proposal for an increase
in the gas tax *must* be attached at the hip to the
removal of the automobile support taxes from other areas
- any increase in overall taxes at this point *would*
kill the economy.

There's been much talk of 'empowering the people' this
election year (yes, it has all been just talk) - but the
real way to empower the people is to set up the system
to have them be continuously voting with their wallets.
Don't like the amount the government spends on highways?
Increase or decrease your mail order purchases and drive
less or more.  I'd like to see this be a government 'of
the people' again - and having direct-cost taxes ('usage
taxes') instead of general-fund spending is the most
effective way of obtaining that.

(Don't like defense spending?  Buy less tanks!?! :-)

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles