• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Don't think for a minute just because you have an eco friendly vehicle you're going to save money.

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It is only fair that the people using the roadways provide the tax money needed to build and maintain them. It matters not how they are collected.
In actuality, we all pay a portion of those taxes, they are just hidden in the cost of goods.
The issue is pretty much everyone relies on them whether they personally drive or not.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
We do have to pay for roads & upkeep somehow.
So the question becomes which is the best way.
The fuel tax has the advantage of being a free
market way of discouraging burning fossil fuels.

It'd be fine if the money actually went to road upkeep.

Gov. Gavin Newsom in late September signed an executive order that lets him redirect transportation funds to programs addressing climate change. The more than $5 billion in annual transportation spending now going toward construction, operations and maintenance of roadways will instead be prioritized toward reducing congestion via “innovative strategies designed to encourage people to shift from cars to other modes of transportation.” Those modes include mass transit, walking and biking, the governor’s executive order said.
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article235929407.html
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It'd be fine if the money actually went to road upkeep.

Gov. Gavin Newsom in late September signed an executive order that lets him redirect transportation funds to programs addressing climate change. The more than $5 billion in annual transportation spending now going toward construction, operations and maintenance of roadways will instead be prioritized toward reducing congestion via “innovative strategies designed to encourage people to shift from cars to other modes of transportation.” Those modes include mass transit, walking and biking, the governor’s executive order said.
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article235929407.html
You remind me of the Hate The Government thread.
Coping with bad roads has meant suspension upgrades for me.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
You remind me of the Hate The Government thread.
Coping with bad roads has meant suspension upgrades for me.

The road improvement was to reduce the number of lanes available to cars, Road Diets.

Actually, the law’s fine print promised to add bike lanes and improve road safety. Not many people figured that California cities would do this by building wider, protected bicycle routes and removing the number of traffic lanes in the process. In the city of Sacramento, near where I live, officials have used this strategy. It has turned downtown thoroughfares from a crowded rush-hour mess into total, gridlocked chaos. As humorist Dave Barry would say, “I am not making this up.”
Your tax dollars at work as cities shut traffic lanes – Orange County Register

So pay more for less.
 
Top