Except I pay for the roads.. you know.. registration, taxes on gas, taxes on purchase of the car, etc etc...
But hey, you're welcome to pay a little for the roads too ;)
But hey, you're welcome to pay a little for the roads too ;)
That's ignoring externalities like reduced traffic and pollution, and reduced demand for oil.
Point is: While I'm mostly happy with the tax levels a little honesty would be appreciated.
Edit: Why the downvotes? (BTW: I live in Norway ATM, go read up on Norwegian taxes if you don't trust me.)
That's really different from the situation in the States and the UK which is where I've seen the actual numbers.
I'm not a heavy user of fuel, so may be a bit biased on this, but it seems really sensible to me to use taxes to compensate for externalities. For instance, I'd guess based on my general impressions of Scandanavia and other civilized places that Norway has publicly-funded universal healthcare. Good on you for that. Now, doesn't it make sense for some of the taxes on owning and using an automobile to go toward public health? In my country, collisions involving cars are a leading source of injury and death. Elsewhere in this thread are estimates of the health impacts of auto emissions -- they are significant.
Thanks! The first time I really understood the North American model where people have to pay to send their kids to college or go to the doctor, that was an eye opener for me. I now happily pay my taxes.
> Now, doesn't it make sense for some of the taxes on owning and using an automobile to go toward public health?
Absolutely. I think I mentioned it in the post. The part I don't like is where they call it road tax or environmental tax only to go ahead and use it for something completely different.
Well, even a little honesty may be too much to expect from politicians anywhere.
I'm guessing you were downvoted above by people who had trouble imagining the existence of a place where automobile ownership and use is taxed to the levels you describe.
That's what I thought too.
(I had a feeling a few days ago that someone who recently got their downvote privilege has been a little extra triggerhappy but I'm not sure. This is the first time I got hit.)
Example, if you make over around $85,000 USD, you fall into the maximum tax bracket, which is 35%. Most people pay around 25%. As a foreigner, I can also pay an alternative 17.5% instead.
There's also a 10% surtax at all income levels. So I can really get by with about 18.5% income tax (and there's all kinds of easy deductions).
In the US, the maximum income bracket has a 39.6% marginal rate and is reached at $400,001 in AGI for a single filer; the (weirdly narrow) 35% bracket starts at $398,351.
So if Korea has a 35% top bracket, witha 10% surtax, that starts around $85,000 USD, I'm not seeing how that's "overall very light when compared to the States".
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/29/diesel-en...
This is more of a zoning issue though (I think mandatory parking ordinances should be repealed and all parking should be privatized).
Sadly, that's not how taxes work. Each tax isn't "for" something, they all go to into the budget and are used to buy stuff.
Toll roads might be a fair example. Those are mostly closed to bicycles.
This is despite the fact that it takes more than gas + property tax to fund the highway system.
Thinking about that... I get your point, non-drivers are funding the roadway system as much as drivers are.
I think its the way that gas taxes for instance are leveraged in the decision making process that makes people think that it makes the lion share of the contribution. When the proceeeds from gas tax falls, lawmakers think less people are driving thus less maintenance is needed.
Of course, you don't really need the speed bumps in the bike lane. I assume it's there because people will drive around it if it doesn't cover the entire road surface. (Protected bike lanes would fix that, but I'm not really a protected bike lane proponent, so we'll pretend I didn't mention that.)