this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
193 points (99.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

13533 readers
466 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/07/23/koteks-transportation-plan-6-cent-gas-tax-increase-registration-fee-hikes-and-doubled-transit-tax/

I think increasing the payroll tax is a mistake. People who don't own a car should actually be rewarded because they pollute far less, they don't disable workers, they don't require traffic police, they don't emit CO2....

I would replace the payroll tax with a weight tax on huge SUVs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tensorpudding@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It's disappointing that this funding is coming from regressive sources (gas tax, registration fees, payroll taxes) rather than from the state income tax, since I doubt most working poor in Oregon have the luxury of choosing a car-free work situation (can't work near public transit or can't live near public transit or both or perhaps it is possible but the commute is not useful for shift work). But at least they didn't have to cut funding for other state services I guess?

[–] DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The greatest trick ever pulled by oil industry PR was to convince leftists that the gas tax is regressive.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

A gas tax makes sense because it directly pressures consumer behavior towards using less gas and producing less emissions, but it's still technically regressive because poor people are more obligated to drive and gas costs are a larger proportion of their budget. The way to make it not regressive would be to redistribute the revenue.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

Technically (as in, as a term of art), it is not regressive. Rather, the gas tax is a flat tax. A regressive tax is one whereby the tax rate decreases as the taxed amount increases. A flat tax is one whereby the tax rate remains the same regardless of the taxed amount.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago

Indeed, if we want to call the gas tax regressive, then by that standard, the need to own a car to get anywhere is horribly regressive. If we're actually concerned about low-income people, we should be worrying about how much they're forced to pay for the gas itself, not the tax on it.

[–] themaninblack@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

These taxes are also regressive because the cost of shipping goods is likely to be passed along onto the consumer too

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's super regressive. They should tie all of these to means.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I disagree, the climate isnt affected less if a poorer person emits a kilo of co2 than if musk does. It is regressive but it is essential to motivate people to move away from fossil fuels. The solution is to make up for it progressive measures elsewhere (e.g. tilting income and capital taxes to have a heavier burden on the rich).

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

That's a really good point, you don't have to solve everything in one bill. Since we don't and haven't though, it makes the approach of fighting for every inch on every bill the default since there is no trust anyone will fix the actually simple but hard pieces.