Sound Politics Public Blog: Don't use it? Don't pay. Simple.

January 15, 2008

Don't use it? Don't pay. Simple.

"It's called a use tax. Use it and pay. Don't use it? Don't pay. Simple."

What if you don't use that road? Is it still only fair that you pay for it through use taxes?

If there is a use tax on 520, is it "fair" to assume that 100% of the people that use I-90 or 522 are only using those roadways to avoid paying the use tax on 520?

My in-laws live near Sandpoint. Today, when I visit, I take 522. If a toll goes on 522 (because I am avoiding paying the use tax on 520), maybe I should use I-5 to avoid the (520) use tax on 522. Or maybe I will take 15th to avoid the (520) use tax roads.... I've been on 522 many times, but can't remember the last time I took the 520 bridge or even the I-90 bridge for that matter.

Will the government then decide to put a government-controlled device in my car to track all of my movements so that they can effectively use tax me for living and moving around? Why not just put a transponder on the people themselves? Hey, transponders should fit on bicycles pretty readily - or even strollers. I'm sure it could generate more than enough revenue for .... something.

I don't like tolls (use taxes), but I can see the sense in paying a use tax on a road to pay for that road. But telling me that paying a use tax on one road to pay for a different road is a valid "user tax" (Don't use it? Don't pay. Simple) is deceptive, deceitful, and just another way to grab more tax money from the people.

Posted by SouthernRoots at January 15, 2008 10:53 AM | Email This

Comments

1. We already pay a use tax. The more miles we drive, the more tax we pay. It's called a gas tax.

Through both the gas tax and other taxes, I already pay for that road!

Posted by: Seabecker on January 15, 2008 03:55 PM

2. We already paid for all of these roads. All the DOT does is study solutions and waste bucket loads of money. How much money was wasted on Mayor Billions Tunnel concepts, drawings, etc. Monorail concepts drawings etc.

We got the 9.5 cent gas tax added to help pay for I520, where have those I520 promises and taxes gone?

We have one of the highest gas taxes in the nation now. Where are those taxes going?

Say no to this lack of leadership in November. We need a new set in Olympia.

Posted by: GS on January 15, 2008 05:33 PM

3. If we could just stick to the principle "who uses it, pays for it" in transportation we would be miles ahead.

Subsidies breed waste & corruption because they represent an extra source of revenue that gov't can divert for ulterior purposes, like the 'bridge to nowhere,' where the purpose was to reward favored contractors rather than serve commuters.

Secondly, subsidies make it harder to tell which services are worthwhile. For example, if users of Sounder commuter rail had to pay the full $547 per round trip that it costs, nobody would ride, and there would be no choice to shut it down.

Posted by: russell garrard on January 16, 2008 07:16 AM

4. Why should I have to pay for the fire hydrant on my block? I've never used it, nor has there ever been a fire in my block.

Why should I have to pay for the fire hydrant on the street several blocks away? Even if I have a fire, I will never use that one.

Roads are part of overall infrastructure that benefit us all, like hydrants. Roads are needed to transport not only me, but the goods and services I may eventually purchase or receive. A new road a mile away that I may never travel may still greatly benefit me. Should I be allowed to not help pay for it?

Posted by: Seabecker on January 16, 2008 10:42 AM

5. Seabecker: fire hydrants are a special case because a fire at a neighbor's house could spread to your house. Otherwise there would be no problem with billing individuals for fire hydrant access same as phone, lights, etc. But since a neighbor's lack of fire protection can put you at risk, the state in its infinite wisdom fully socializes fire protection.

If you benefit from a road on which goods are shiped to you, under "user pays," the shipper's road cost would be factored into the price of the goods. So if you benefit, you pay.

Actually, I will concede somewhat your point that "user pays" is not yet practical for some infrastructure, especially roads. But if we are to have tolls, let's not go down the slippery slope of tolling some roads (e.g. 522) because they are an alternative to other roads (e.g. 520) that happen to be tolled.

Aside from that, I still think "user pays" is an extremely beneficial principle.

Posted by: russell garrard on January 17, 2008 11:48 AM