• force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why shouldn’t you pay for using car infrastructure? You’re damaging the environment and damaging the roads, it’s a lot more sensical for the cost to be put on you, the driver, instead of burdening everyone else with higher income/sales taxes.

      • cryostars@lemmyf.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Funding for the development and maintenance of roads in the U.S. come from a variety of taxes such as vehicle registration fees, wheel taxes and taxes on gasoline and motor fuel. So , we do pay for using car infrastructure

        • force@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, but not nearly enough. Those kinds of taxes are extremely low (especially compared to e.g. the EU) and form only a fraction of the costs of car infrastructure.

          All those hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars in infrastructure bills, all the regular car infrastructure maintanence costs, a large chunk is paid for by taxes that everyone gets regardless of how much they use a car. And all the extra non-tax costs (in both time and money) that non-drivers have to pay because car-dependent infrastructure fucks up transportation for everyone else, that is a massive charge.

          • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even in the EU, car related taxes can’t pay for all the car related infrastructure. Building and maintaining roads is crazy expensive.

          • ugh@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            People who don’t drive don’t pay any of those taxes that were used as examples. I’d love to see the numbers that you’re basing your argument on.

            • Square Singer@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Let me google that for you: https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/

              There are literally tens of thousands of articles like this one.

              TLDR:

              • less than 50% of car infrastructure cost is paid for by driving related taxes
              • An average of $1100 in general tax per household per year is used to subsidise driving
              • Car infrastructure receives more subsidies from general tax than transit, passenger rail, cycling and pedestrian programs combined.

              No, drivers pull their own weight in regards to car related taxes.

      • OmenAtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point the seems to have missed you is that taxes should be what pays for the road

        • force@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I just said – you’re burdening other people with taxes for damage that you cause. Car infrastructure meant for drivers destroys the fabric of cities/towns, destroys the environment, and costs a shit ton of money on top of that.

          Using more toll roads and similar things means you can “tax” people a lot more proportionately to how much they use cars on public infrastructure, instead of punishing people that don’t use cars or use them less than others. It would be entitled to assume that everyone else should pay more taxes because you want to use an expensive destructive and dangerous mode of transportation rather than just take public transport or bike.

          I also find it hilarious how my state gives tax credit for using/owning an electric car, but not for not using any car at all… this kind of shit is representative of the norm across most of the US, car drivers are directly subsidized by non-drivers.

          (It’s obviously a lot more complicated than “make more toll roads” since some jobs actually need vehicles, plus it’d make sense to mostly do it around densely populated areas)

          • OmenAtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I pay for schools i dont go to, hospitals in places ill never go to, roads i dont use. The point of taxes is to pay for the things that better everyone even if you yourself dont personally use them.

            • force@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay, but schools and hospitals don’t destroy the fabric of cities and don’t destroy the environment. Schools and hospitals actually improve society a lot and SHOULD be subsidized.

              A majority of the money spent on car infrastructure does NOT go to improving society. In the current state of things, cars harm society, and the majority of people using cars don’t need cars. Most of the money spent on car infrastructure should be put into actually making transportation not car-dependent, and as I said earlier car drivers should subsidize this.

              • OmenAtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Roads allow our current society to function, long haul drivers allow our current society to function. We will need to rely on these things for the foreseeable future even if we did implent the sweeping changes you seem to forment today we would still need to use roads for decades while we changed over. That is why we should all be subsidizing the roads, the are the logistical veins of society.

                • force@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That is something I pointed out already – a lot of things require cars, emergency services and logistics and some trades and what not. That doesn’t reduce the need to put a larger amount of the cost onto people who use roads – most of whom don’t need to. I also pointed out that it’s not as simple as put toll roads everywhere, and we need to figure out the most efficient system for making it easier for those who do need it for their job.

                  Toll roads allow us to fund better infrastructure and reduce the attractiveness of using cars around urban areas, and they allow us to punish non-car users less – now the portion of their taxes that would normally go to car infrastructure can go to things that would benefit everyone, and we can more proportionately charge people based on how much they cost the public.

                  As I said, the average American pays way less proportionately than most Europeans do for car infrastructures. They have a much higher tax on car-related stuff, and usually a lot more toll roads. It makes people more inclined to use other modes of transportation that are better for society when they don’t need to use a car.

                  But a lot of drivers are very entitled, they want to offload the costs of their car usage onto others as long as it means they don’t have to deal with toll roads. It’s a completely selfish thing – in areas where non-car travel is an option car drivers are a detriment to everyone else and increase everyone else’s cost of living, you can’t use car infrastructure unless you are a car driver (which is what separates it from funding e.g. public transport or hospitals). They should be charged a fair amount for that.

          • cryostars@lemmyf.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It would be great if we could shift to a better system integrating better and much more robust public transit, but in much of the U.S. driving a car is the only option. I understand being upset with the system we have, but taking out your frustrations on many people who don’t really have a choice is counterintuitive.

          • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wait but cars don’t damage the road (much) - trucks do. We should all be mad we are so heavily subsidizing the cost of moving goods to our grocery stores, construction sites, and anywhere else.

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The simple answer is to make commercial/industrial users pay fairly. Practical studies have shown that road damage is related to the fourth power of vehicle weight. The damage attributable to private cars is less than a rounding error compared to commercial vehicles, and commercial users have the most directly-atttibutable profit from road use.