Taxing your per mile you drive...grrr

Now California and Oregon want to tax people for how many miles they drive....of course this would require you to put a GPS unit in your car so that they can keep track of you:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

I don't care where you stand politically, this is ridiculous. Republicans can scream about the taxes, and Democrats can scream about the privacy issues of having a GPS unit in your car so the government can track where you've been and where you are.

Yea, this is ridiculous.

Imagine living in a city. It costs A LOT to live there, so a lot of people who need to work there have to live outside the city. They must drive further to get to work than Richy McPenthouse. Now, they will get charged more for being less fortunate (relatively speaking) and having to commute further! Hilarious.

I'm glad I ride a bike.

I see no problem in principle with paying more tax because you are a heavy user. The problem I envisage would come when, consumers complain that they already pay for tax on petrol. It's a fairly null argument though.

The more food you buy the more tax you pay, surely the more petrol you use the more tax you pay, there is also the factors of maintenance of highways and staffing for the related services.

I can however see why it would provoke an unenthused response ;)

...but we don't pay tax on food here in Iowa.

maybe you should....

well california certainly would be the state to start this...

maybe you should talk to arnold!

Why should we pay tax on food? It only hurts the poor. Same as taxing clothing. Minnesota doesn't tax on clothing or food. Many of us in Northern Iowa go to Minnesota on shopping sprees for clothing.

How does taxing for what you consume hurt the poor? Only if the same system of taxation is implemented and even sensible economists can come up with viable alternative.

*skip to bottom for conclusion of long winded bit

Whay tax the factory more than the home?....... because you use more of the worlds resources than anyone else, it is a finite resource. It's as sickening as President Bush Jnr. saying he won't accept the Kyoto Protocol because it would not make financial sense to America. Not to put too fine a point on it, but with your output (US) of noxious gases et al and the emergence of China and Asia as ever Industrialised factions, there will not be an Iran or an axis of evil to attack, as climate factors and global warming take effect. It worries me that in 100 years the Maldive Islands will not exist, so if you fancy a holiday in the Indian Ocean go within the next 40 yrs. any time after that and you might have to take your scuba gear or aqualung.

Taxing can't hurt the poor, I understand all systems have their level of operation and way of working, but it stands to reason that if you tax the poor and they are on Benefit or similar they should get some rebate or allowance in another area - I suppose one of the benefits of coming from a country with an open and accessible benefits sytem is that whilst it may from time to time get either wholesalely abused or taken advantage of, we at least have a no contribution level of providing for our fellow man. You don't have to give to take, it's not a life model for sustinance of the program, but it does make for a tolerant, more understanding, reasoning society.

*

So in brief:

Tax doesn't hurt the poor, only the way they are then allocated other benefits (or denied access to them) really would effect their spending, whilst for the rest of the folk that THINK they can afford to consume, can also afford to pay for the increase to Doomesday...

p.s: I am not religous and doomsday is just a turn of phrase, basically if you use it, you lose it.

Before you simply dismissed the fact that a tax on food would only hurt the poor, you went on a rant that has nothing to do with taxation, but global warming....stick to the subject.

Here, I will explain:
My wife and I have a 2-week grocery bill of around $200 (that's only 2 people folks, neither of us can cook, so we rely on microwavable foods and snacks)
At our local 7% sales tax rate, tax alone would be $14 per grocery bill, totalling $364 per year. At my income level, that is a ridiculous expense every year, to someone below the povertly level, the word 'ridiculous' doesn't even begin to explain how much an extra $364 per year would hurt. Should the government give the money back to the poor in the form of welfare to pay it? OK, then what is the sense of the tax in the first place? It's the 'Robin Hood' ideal that so many people hold dearly is what really get's me frustrated. How can you encourage people to succeed, when you only take more from them when they do.

A family making less than $19,000 per year paying an extra $364 per year is going to have to find that money somewhere, whether that be Christmas presents for the kids, or cutting down on their weekend kegs.

On the other hand, a family making $200,000 paying an extra $364 per year isn't going to make much of a difference at all, the only sacrifice they are going to have to make is maybe one night out on the town, or not getting that remote start system in their Mercedes.

Like I said above, the only way to offset that cost to the poor would be to give it back them in the form of Welfare, but then what is the point of the tax in the first place, since you're back at ZERO, and with nothing gained.

The consumption gap between the rich versus the poor when it comes to groceries is likely very small. The consumption gap when talking about clothing and electricity is going to show much more of a gap, as the rich are more likely to consume more of these products. Iowa does tax on clothing, but not on food. Minnesota does not tax either.

Taxing can't hurt the poor

With a statement like this, I can say with 100% certainty that you sir have never taken any formal classes on econonmics, and if you have, you surely didn't pay attention. With even a little common sense, you could look at this issue and see that 7% of $19,000 hurts more than 7% of $200,000. Keep in mind the reality in many states is that the poor pay a larger percentage of their incomes to state and local taxes.

If you really want me to get into it, I can go in the latter-tier effects of shifting the tax burden to the rich, such as the fact that excessive taxation hurts government revenues because the rich stop investing their cash in businesses, and that in turn hurts the poor who would otherwise benefit from those jobs.

For your further education, research 'Regressive Tax', as that's what I've spent the above paragraphs attempting to explain, though I'm not sure I did a perfect job.