Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Lol, welcome to progressive taxation and paying for things you don't use. I mean my personal savings as a result of this are also in that $8 range (assuming my tank is completely empty). But that's just how the system works and people subsidize things they don't use. I also paid for a whack of light bulbs to get screwed in to other people's houses a few years ago. It's annoying, but it's how things work.
There are lots of people with trucks, and those tanks are $15-20 for sure. There are also a lot of people who drive for a living or drive a lot in general that this will benefit.
And the end goal, is to help people through a period of high inflation (and probably to win an election, obviously). It's not the only measure they've put forward, but I think it's the one that's not income tested?
|
This isn't progressive taxation, and it isn't taxing for things I don't use. It's forgoing tax revenue. A fuel tax is a great way to capture external costs to driving rather than having society as a whole pay. It's a user tax. So now, instead of the heaviest users paying it, we all have to cover those costs. It also works to dis-incentivize poor choices(like commuting to an office in an F-150) so you get rid of one barrier that costs society more(roads more crowded, large parking spots, tailpipe emissions) and reduce incentive to use good transport, like transit. You've also starved transit funding, which makes transit worse(as do fewer people using it) and puts more people in single person vehicles.
I've provided loads of reasons why this is a dumb idea, and you haven't really offered anything. Even with the full tax, gas is still pretty affordable. Financial relief could be provided in any number of ways. So again, why is this a good choice? If fuel taxes are bad, and high priced fuel is bad, why don't we subsidize the cost of gas? Why stop at cutting the tax? Why is this the right amount to cut?