• tensorpudding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 month ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      • Womble@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month 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.