He doesn’t actually use the word in his Globe op-ed piece, but Steve Grossman wants to continue to subsidize car travel, by taxing internet sales to fund transportation infrastructure. This is infuriating. Automobile use, however necessary some portion of it may be, is not something we want to encourage more of. Things that we do not want to encourage should not be subsidized. That’s an easy public policy rule.
By subsidizing car travel with an unconscionably low gas tax, we put off all of the larger changes that removing the subsidy would necessarily encourage — changes that would lead to less car-dependence: increased density, higher demand for public transportation, &c.
Plus, an increase in a sales tax is regressive (though the regressivity here may be diminished by the demographics of online buying).
This is a terrible policy recommendation.
Oh, and as far as any effort to change the rules on taxing internet sales, why bother? It’s likely going to be a moot point as Amazon heads into the world of same-day delivery with physical presence in most states.
Sorry. But I disagree with the premise. I would rather see transportation infrustructure repaired now and stimulate jobs than wait for a bridge to fall down like the one that fell in MN a few years ago. Even public transportation needs this infrustructure.
I’m all for more mass transit, but I would much rather accomplish it by incentivising and creating more of it than punishing those who drive. We can also very easily insist on better fuel efficiency as has been accomplished by other nations. All the mass transit in the world is not going to eliminate driving and a solid well-built road infrastructure is key to a strong national economy, not to mention avoiding being completely dependent on timetables.
and making driving so expensive for moderate to low income people only furthers the great divide in economic opportunity. If it becomes too expensive, it will limit the opportunities only for those who live on a limited income. It quite possibly could already be playing a role in the crisis this country is facing. Gas prices are still too high.
I don’t see anybody implying that driving is an “inherent evil”.
Instead, I see the assertions that (1) using the proposed internet sales tax to fund transportation infrastructure amounts to a subsidy and (2) we should be encouraging MORE automobile use. Neither of these says anything about “evil”, and both strike me as more true than false.
Meanwhile, most of those “other nations” that you refer to — the ones that have accomplished better fuel efficiency — have done so by (a) using taxes and various other means to raise the price of gasoline and (b) investing in public transportation.
When I was in Innsbruck, Austria, in 2008 I was able to go anywhere I wanted any time I wanted without “being completely dependent on timetables”. Buses ran every 2-3 minutes, and every stop had an up-to-date and accurate LED display showing how long I had to wait for the next 5-10 arrivals. Trains ran on-time to the MINUTE, and ran every 10-12 minutes.
Austria and Germany, including Innsbruck, has a solid well-built road infrastructure. People have cars and use them. They also pay about twice what we pay for gasoline because of government taxes, their vehicles get about twice the mileage of ours, and they have a first-world, rather than third-world, public transportation system.
This whining about our addiction to cheap gas only enables that addiction. This addiction is killing us and killing our progeny.
… it contains some unreasonable assumptions. For example, it assumes that drivers don’t benefit from mass transit. It also assumes that drivers mass transit doesn’t play a role in an area’s general economic welfare (another benefit to drivers as well as everyone else). In order to consider funding for mass transit in isolation, it is very useful to try and conceive of mass transit in isolation as well. The problem is that isn’t the real world.