Slashdot Mirror
2 US Senators Propose 12-Cent Gas Tax Increase
An anonymous reader writes There are several proposals on the table to stave off the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund (which pays for transit, biking, and walking projects too) in two months. Just now, two senators teamed up to announce one that might actually have a chance. Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) have proposed increasing the gas tax by 12 cents a gallon over two years. The federal gas tax currently stands at 18.4 cents a gallon, where it has been set since 1993, when gas cost $1.16 a gallon.
Good!
a. Gas is much too cheap in the US.
b. We need a lot of infrastructure work.
Of course, I'm sure we could afford to pave all of our roads with gold, have diamond-studded bike lanes, and solid titanium sidewalks if we didn't spend half our budget on wars, but hey, I'm not holding my breath. There's not as much room for corruption in building roads in this country as there is building roads in some 3rd world country that we bombed into oblivion.
I don't respond to AC's.
When it comes to raising money, they can both get on the same train.....
Anyhow, an 18 cent change all at once is never gonna happen. They'll have enough rending of garments and gnashing of teeth if they try to raise it nickel.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
12 cents per gal? ours is 128cents per gal!
12 cents won't affect me one bit. It certainly won't change my driving habits. The poor on the other hand.. well, let's just say if you're living on a fixed income and/or are already below the poverty line a nice big regressive tax might sting a little...
Defund the NSA, we'll have all the money we need for roads and infrastructure. And then some.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So did shares in Tesla go up on this news? Expected increases in Prius sales?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
The government is a poor steward of money. The Highway Trust Fund is one of the biggest pork sources (bridge to nowhere, museums, etc). Cut the shit and focus on, you know, roads and bridges first.
If you gave your kid $100 to buy groceries and he spent it on meth would you give him another $100 so would buy groceries (this time for real!). I mean, sure, maybe if it was good meth. But it's not even good meth!
The Federal government should not be paying for any roadways not directly involved in interstate commerce. Let the states and communities pay for local roads, paths and transit. I am not saying more money does not need to be raised to cover expenses, but is not to be done at the Federal level.
If the gas tax was tacked on as a percentage of fuel cost this would never have become an issue. If it was 18.4c when gas was $1.16 per gallon that's ~15.86%; if it would have been a percentage it would amount to 63.45c now and noone would need to take up any legislation!
Now, can we have term limits for Congress? Please?
In C++, your friends can see your privates.
The issue with the gas tax is that it is a fixed amount per gallon and the real value falls over time with inflation. The only way for the gas tax to keep up is to index it to inflation. Otherwise you will continue to see the Highway funds periodically getting depleted until you have to pump up the tax again. Much better to permanently index the tax to inflation rather than have these periodic increases. Of course you could argue that there are better ways to tax in order to raise transportation infrastructure funds. But if you are going to stick with the gas tax, then index it.
The government only pulled in $1,934,919,000,000 this year so there's obviously not enough to go around.
a. Gas isn't too cheap in the US. If anything, it looks like commodities investors alone drive the price independent of supply/demand.
b. The cost should go on registration. As we keep getting cars that are more and more efficient (and even run on electricity), we'll charging road users very unevenly. If this was an emissions tax that might be okay, but I think it isn't (?).
... dropping the transit, walking, and such goo out of the federal outlays, and leave it to relevant localities.
A better solution, used by some states, is to tax milage, determined at annual re-registrations. That brings in a share from the electrics and hybrids.
The amount of money we spend on roads is so insignificant compared to the rest of the federal budget that it can be paid for with the income the government doesn't even bother to classify.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWximmaAuWw
Raise taxes, let's not start dismantling our massive military or surveillance apparatuses or anything. We might need those military bases in almost 200 countries you know.
Because that would take the cost directly out of our monied overlords' pockets. Instead, this way the peasants cover almost the whole bill and the ultra-rich don't even notice the difference.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The EU has more public transportation with there higher taxes on gas.
Since the gas tax is ostensibly for the construction and maintenance of roads and highways, it should be compared to that. The cost of maintenance and construction scale mostly according to CPI, not the price of gas. I can't think of any reason why you'd compare the tax to the price of gas unless you're deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking it needs to go up more (political arguments about energy taxes aside).
Putting $1.16 into an inflation calculator yields $1.90 in 2014 dollars, or a 64% increase. 64% of 18.4 cents is 11.7 cents. So a 12 cent increase is exactly what's needed for the tax to keep pace with inflation.
Seriously, trucks and busses do 100x - 10,000x more damage to the roads and bridges that this tax is being used to repair. Those vehicles should be the ones taxed more to repair the problems they are typically causing.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Why dick around with raising it or not raising it?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Bike registration and insurance requirements. For bike riders over 21 only.
No sir I dont like it.
1993 average gas price: $1.16.
Since the current national average gas price is $3.675, an increase of $2.515, it would seem only fair that instead of a gas tax increase, they should propose a tax credit of $2.331/gallon ($2.515, less the 1993 tax rate of $0.184).
Just sayin...
Authority questions you. Return the favor. -- d474
Well over 25% of gas tax funds go to side walks and bike trails and shit like that. How about we start with this.
Be honest. You just made up this number, didn't you?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Because the energy sector would then forward the $2.4B in lost funding on to consumers? Higher electricity prices?
A higher gasoline tax beats the proposed alternative, monitoring all cars for distance driven.
If they take that damn ethanol out of my gas.
MPG and food savings would easily make up for it.
More regressive taxes! Maybe we can cut out the middle man and just enslave the working poor to rebuild our infrastructure.
Since we subsidize the energy sector with tax payer dollars already to the tune of $2.4B per year, why don't we simply reduce the subsidy to pay for new infrastructure?
Too easy?
Subsides? Don't you mean TAX CREDITS?
You do know that we collect BILLIONS from energy companies in taxes right? Exxon Mobil paid 24 BILLION in income taxes in 2013 on 57 Billion in profit according to their latest 10-K. I don't understand how that's being subsidized... Seems like they are paying lots of taxes to me, nearly 50%. And I just picked Exxon out of the air, knowing it was a US company. I'm sure the others paid similar amounts. On the other hand GE paid, according to their 10-K only 4.2% in income taxes, mainly because they move money offshore and do their business there.
I think your barking up the wrong subsidy tree myself.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
IIRC, I calculated once that a carbon tax raising the same revenue as the gas tax would result in a 5c/gallon gas tax. (And taxes on other things.) So raising the desired amount of revenue with a carbon tax would still lower the gas tax to about 9c/gallon.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
And 50% of the USA would suddenly become unemployed when they could no longer get to work.
Don't just update the existing crumbling infrastructure, build better infrastructure!
If you're going to raise the Federal Gas tax by $0.10, you might as well use it to build Hyperloop infrastructure that individuals could ride for free:
https://github.com/OpenHyperlo...
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
I've always wanted a unicorn. We'd play together, and I'd get to ride it. It would have much better gas mileage than a car, and because unicorns only poop rainbows, it would be much better for the environment.
My proposal has about the same chance of passing the Republican-led House as theirs does. This is an election year, and no Republican (and few Democrats, for that matter) is going to vote for a tax-raising bill in an election year. (Note: all years are election years now.)
(Besides, this is a revenue bill; they have to start in the House anyway. What gives?)
that's like 30-40 per gallon
lose != loose
Why is it the only time Ds and Rs can agree on something is when they're reaching their grubby little hands into my wallet?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Well, I hope you do have fun at the gas station. I drive electric, so I never go there, period.
gas taxes have a disproportionate effect on the rural and low-income. If you want to tax gas, tax the high-octane blend that the rich put in their high-perormance cars, and leave 'regular' alone.
The US population is much more spread out. Our land area is over twice the size of the entire EU but we have only about 63% as much people. What works there doesn't necessarily work here.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The US Government has spent over a trillion dollars funding a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 6 billion dollars funding a revolt in the Ukraine, at least 9 million dollars funding rebels in Syria (I have not looked at any numbers past what Obama did last September), Billions in beefing up US Local police forces, Billions more on DHS, FEMA, and the TSA, Billions more funding Egypt's various revolutions, and untold amounts in "black budgets" all over Africa. Even the GOA who is supposed to ensure accountability for spent tax dollars, spends millions on a lavish party for 33 people in Las Vegas.
And you think average people who's salaries and average wealth has gone down by nearly 30% in the last decade alone should pay even more money because they could not spent anything on Roads and Infrastructure whilst they pissed away your money everywhere else?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It's more likely to happen than a tax on stock market transactions.
Gas taxes up, corporate taxes down. It doesn't raise money so much as shift the burden away from the wealthy.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Instead of taking a hard look at where the money in the Highway Trust Fund is going, their solution is to simply bring in more money. The HTF was originally set up to fund the building of the Interstate Highway system. Period. That was it's sole purpose. Those funds were transferred to various States to build and expand the IH system as needed.
Fast forward to today and the HTF resources are being funneled into Transit systems, ferry boats, bike paths, and nature trails. All worthy causes but the money should not come out of the HTF. That's why it is underfunded.
This is the same trick that politicians play time and again. It happens with Education, Social Security and other items.
The tax-per-gallon is over 2x as much as the oil companies themselves get from it in profit (currently $0.184 for the feds vs. ~$0.08 for the so-called evil oil companies).
So yeah, what the hell - let's nearly double the gas taxes *and* jack up prices for everything else at the same time - after all, these chumps in congress don't have to pay it (their transportation is almost fully provided either gratis or reimbursed, for as long as they're senators...)
Fuckheads. I'd rather see a direct income tax hike - at least that way it's an honest attempt, and it doesn't jack up the price of everything else.
By the way... did someone forget to inform these dummies that the economy hasn't exactly recovered yet?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Gas is too cheap so the government must artificially raise the price.
No, infrastructure is too expensive for the funding we have in place. Gas is the best proxy we have for usage of that infrastructure so it's reasonable to tax that. More gas used means more infrastructure repairs needed and less gas used means less use of said infrastructure.
We have set aside funds for infrastructure. 18.4 cents of every single gallon of gas sold in the US! Where does that money actually go?
To maintain the infrastructure - duh. That's pretty much a matter of public record. It's a big country and we have a lot of crumbling roads. Furthermore 18.4 cents doesn't go as far as it did 20 years ago. In fact it is roughly equivalent to $0.11 cents in 1993 dollars once you adjust for inflation. Much of this infrastructure is paid for with federal dollars so it makes sense to tax it at the federal level.
Well over 25% of gas tax funds go to side walks and bike trails and shit like that.
Citation needed. That number smells like you just pulled it out from where the sun don't shine.
Fuckheads. I'd rather see a direct income tax hike - at least that way it's an honest attempt, and it doesn't jack up the price of everything else.
Besides, the gas tax is regressive, because it hits the poor hardest. At least the income tax is designed to be progressive (even though most of the elites at the top pay very little or none at all, thanks to tax code favoritism).
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Do you have any CONCEPT on what it will cost to charge that Tesla and what the restrictions on charging it will be after all the coal plants shut down in response to Obama's new EPA rules???? Hint: we get over 40% of our electricity from coal.
Take away 40% of the Electricity and what's left will have to be rationed with priorites for hospitals, refrigeration, etc (and of course GOVERNMENT, which when taken together (local,state+fed) is the biggest consumer and will put itself first). I personally doubt he will be able to get those regs fully-implemented while he is still in office (he has a track record with "Obamacare" of pushing the "bad parts" off until after he will leave office) but if he is successful and the stupid feckless GOP in DC fails to stop this, then running your Tesla will be a tough proposition; gas, at any price, will be the more reliable and available form of energy for a car.
And if its going to scale to anything it should be correlated to vehicle weight.
And what good is that if the vehicle rarely gets driven? Gas is a reasonable proxy on average for vehicle weight. Bigger cars generally consume more fuel. Yes there are some gas guzzlers that consume more than their share but there also are some fuel sippers that consume less. There are environmental benefits to taxing those who needlessly consume more of a resource than necessary.
A Ferrari may drink 4x as much gas as a Honda Civic, but it causes the same wear on the infrastructure.
You're looking for a perfect proxy for road usage. Stop. There isn't any perfect measure you could use that is practically feasible. Gas usage is about as good as it gets. Bigger cars generally consume more gas and cars that drive more consume more gas. You price for the average and adjust for inflation. Perfect is the enemy of good here.
Why would you do that? There're the primary source of targeting data for the 700 Billion we spend every year on the military. It would be like buying a brand new GPS and then not loading it with any maps to save money.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Don't make too much noise, or you could end up with what we had in Virginia under the GOP - a Hybrid/electric vehicle tax to "cover road costs" of several hundred dollars per year.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The average commute is greater than 5 miles, and less than 5% of the population is served by public transit. Unless you expect to have the avergage person spending 4 or more hours a day walking to and from work, and plan on upgrading the sidewalk infrastructure, I don't think this is viable.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Be careful what you wish for. To make up for lost gas tax revenue, the Virginia GOP led legislature passed a tax on hybrids (which was repealed when the Dems took back over last year).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It directly hits the people most vulnerable. And proposing this at a time when gas has never been more expensive is ludicrous. Maybe instead of buying 50 new submarines this year, they should spend the money on roads instead.
Hey, I have an idea: If you are going to tax gas (state, federal) then let us deduct it from our income taxes. We should not have to pay income tax on it if we paid it in taxes right? Right!!?
The heavier the vehicle, (generally) the more wear on the road. The heavier the vehicle (generally), the lower MPG and the more gallons purchased. It's about as close to a proportional use tax as you can get without calculating tire size and pressure, weight, tread style, frontal area, coefficient of drag, and driving style, and total miles driven to come up with a more "accurate" number for wear.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I don't even notice when gas changes by $.12 per gallon any more. The change in gas prices does not change my need to buy it. Not that I would rather not spend that much, but $.12 per gallon on a 15 gallon tank is only $1.80. Considering I pay $3.50 - $4 per gallon, that is roughly the cost of half a gallon or less. I won't notice it. Even if I fill up every week, $1.80 * 52 weeks is only $93.60 over the course of a year which still is not a large pile of money. If I drank coffee I would probably spend that much on coffee in a month or less.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
A tax credit for a specific person, company or sector is pretty much a subsidy by definition. It's favored treatment of one entity with the loss in revenue being made up by everybody else. I'd be all for simplyfing the corporate income tax or eliminating it completely, but as long as it's there, any loopholes or giveaways in it are subsidies.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Just like my ex-wife. Never considers reducing spending but just demands more money.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
America, where poor people drive cars.
Hey, why not raise the gas tax to $3 per gallon? We could fund all kinds of useless crap with that kind of money. All those lies the Republicans tell about market forces are BS. We have those CO2 spewing bastards over a barrel. If they want to drive on roads that were built by and belong to the government, make them pay! Taxes like this also have the charm of regressivity, affecting lower wage earners far more than those in higher income brackets. Who doesn't like that?
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
the income tax hits those with the most marginal propensity for consumption (bad for economy)
much higher mileage of gasoline cars (33mpg vs 28mpg) ...and in 1993, most Fords got ~22 mpg
Wear and tear on roads is largely based on vehicle weight and time. I used to work in the Delaware Department of Transportation and we'd use wear rates based on usage and its observed current state to calculate when maintenance was needed. One of the main ways vehicles have gained mileage is by reducing weight which also reduces road wear and tear.
many more trucks used for shipping (70% more in 2007 than in 1997) ...and trucks weigh a ton more (quite literally) and thus have a lower MPG (and pay more in gas taxes).
If anything, our gas taxes are probably the most "fair" tax in the country. If hybrids become too big of a problem, it's probably pretty easy to make electric vehicles pay an "road fee" whenever you get your license plate renewed.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
the income tax hits those with the most marginal propensity for consumption (bad for economy)
Incorrect. A wealth tax would do that. The income tax does not. Instead, it hits hardest those with the least assets and thus must sell their time as labor.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
airplanes are a far faster, more efficient means of moving people long distances and don't have insane capital costs to build. We don't need public infrastructure.
That's OK. Out here in California, the State that bleeds Blue and is perpetually Democrat dominated (unassailably so at the State level) has roads just as bad (the top four worst cities in the nation for example), has the highest gas tax in the nation ($0.713 per gallon), over $117 BILLION in backlog transportation work, the highest State income tax, and a $777 BILLION State debt.
Michigan is a rank amateur when it comes to fiscal mismanagement and high taxes...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yeah, but socialist have done such a great job indoctrinating people about the "evils of big oil", that people think oil companies are making an obscene profit on a gallon of gas, when, it is GOVERNMENTS, both state & federal that rake in the money on a gallon of gasoline. Of course it would never happen, because it would take the power away from elected officials, but repeal of the 16th amendment (income tax), and adoption of a flat or fair tax would unleash the potential for growth in this country. Also, going BACK on a gold standard, would force government to stop spending like a drunken sailor. Paper money is WORTHLESS, since it is "backed by the full faith & credit of the Federal Government". HA! what a joke! Worst thing Nixon ever did was take us off the gold standard. Now, they just spend spend spend. And the debt ceiling? LOL, they just keep bumping it higher & higher & higher. We have ourselves to blame, we keep putting these morons back in DC year after year.
That actually makes sense, as it is not gas usage but weight that destroys roads. Damage to roads goes as the 4th power of weight. As hybrids and electric cars tend to weigh more than their gas counterparts, they should pay at least the same, if not more taxes.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Anyway, if you're living below the poverty line, you probably bike
Good luck doing so in a thunderstorm.
or take mass transit, so the gas tax won't affect you directly.
It will if it causes the transit authority to cut back on service.
demand-responsive tolling which is less regressive than fuel taxes
How would such a toll be collected without slowing traffic or angering privacy advocates?
and makes the roads more efficient
Raising the cost of commuting, as the Wired article recommends, would drive up land values near places of work, causing tenants to get evicted as competition for scarce housing drives up rent toward unaffordability. See for example what happened in San Francisco when Google added shuttle buses. Besides, "extra incentive to avoid the most congested hours", as the Wired article put it doesn't help if businesses are open only during "the most congested hours".
No the feds should not put any tax towards road infrastructure because they are not responsible for roads.
Next you'll be telling me that the federal government isn't responsible for postal service. News flash: they're mentioned on the same line of the Constitution.
The government doesn't own or control where the foreign oil is sold or used either.
And selling to foreign buyers can be solved by simply taking the US off the world oil market. It has been done before. President Carter took us off and Clinton put us back on. Well, they had help from congress.
because so far the only thing I see trickling down is piss. Seriously. At the risk of being marked troll, can I just ask why we don't lower _all_ regressive taxes and _raise_ progressive taxes? Income tax of 90% makes sense when it's on your income AFTER $1 million/year. It means that if you want to be really, really, sickeningly wealthy you really have to work at it. Or you have to actually _invest_ that money instead of sitting on it and grinding the entire economy to a halt with your greed. The 1% have something like 50% of their assests in CASH. That's cash that's doing nothing in our economy. They're basically ending all human progress in an effort to hang on to their wealth and status. Heck, that's more or less the end game of conservationism. :(
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Whatever the cause, we would need to mitigate sea level rises with measures such as relocation or sea walls, all of which are costly. The best available science points to AGW as the cause of the rise, and therefore it makes sense to pay for the mitigation with AGW sources.
The problem is that the "warming" is an average of far wilder fluctuations in weather. The earth doesn't just get uniformly a bit warmer, and the localized effects can be devastating. More importantly, even if a bit of warming is beneficial on the average, continuing the trend - especially past a certain threshold into a feedback loop of uncontrollable warming - is obviously foolish. Unless you claim to know exactly how much greenhouse gasses we can release into the atmosphere for best effect, it would be prudent to not find out the hard way.
"Today’s on-road vehicles produce over a third of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides in our atmosphere", says the Union of Concerned Scientists. The bottom of that article discusses the pollution's effects on public health.
C'mon, really? They think their constituents want to be gouged more for "essentials"?
from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Social Security: Another 24 percent of the budget, or $814 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,294 to 37.9 million retired workers in December 2013. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.9 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.2 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 11 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2013.
I know very few places where $1300/mo is enough to live on when you're over 65 and/or disabled. America doesn't have Nationalized Socialized medicine. Even if you manage to get on one of the State run programs you're laying out $100-$200/mo just for meds (God Bless the Big Pharma). Then there's Rent, food, transportation (to the doctor's appointments that are keeping you alive) etc, etc. I know a few ppl on SS Disability, and they live very, very shitty lives.
So can you tell me, why is it we can get a man on the moon but we can't take care of a few million old people and a few million disabled? Are we really that pathetic as a country that we can't just solve this problem?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
All energy taxes hit the poor the hardest. Increases in gasoline prices cause indirect rises in all food and storebought goods because deliveries cost more. Buses charge more. Riding the bus might become a luxury in favor of buying food.
Sorry, no. That's a conspiracy theory website.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S...
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Americans are attached to their cars big time. They would probably rather you sleep with their wife or fondle their kids than limit their ability to burn gasoline and ruin life on this planet. I don't see a political future for anyone wanting higher gas taxes or prices.
"The tax-per-gallon is over 2x as much as the oil companies themselves get from it in profit"
so what? Why does that matter one bit?
The things the taxes god to support ahve gotten more expensive, and they tax hasn't gone up in over 20 years.. 20 years where MPG has gone up as well as costs.
"*and* jack up prices for everything "
I didn't know congress raised the prices of all things.
Everything in your post is irrelevant to raising the tax. You're just an angry person who just looks for any excuse to be angry.
And yes, we have recovered. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
Stop being a dummy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They've been stealing from the account... effectively. Yes yes... they passed some laws that let them siphon money off the gas tax account to pay for buses and subways and other things... but the point of the gas tax was to pay for roads. Period. Not even bridges. Roads.
I would rather have a musical chairs system for funding things like this... You know the child's game where some number of children run around a circle of chairs while music plays... and over time one chair is removed... so that every time one of the children gets eliminated. I remember enjoying it when I was six. Children that find a seat continue the game. Children that don't are out and wait for the next round.That is, fund the roads first with the gas tax money. Fund them completely. They get first draw on the account period. The gas tax should only be raised if the tax is not able to fund the roads if 100 percent of it is directed to the roads. Once they're funded, you can take what is left to pay for the bridges. If the bridges don't have enough from that then you can put a toll both on the bridge. However, in nearly all cases the left over in the gas tax should fund the bridges without any trouble. Next you come into the real culprit here... mass transit, bike paths, and other things that really should be funded locally and not draw from a national or state tax. I have no problem with gas tax money going to these things IF there is money left over. It is NOT okay if they're impoverishing was is basically the road fund to pay for buses etc.
There probably will not be enough left over to pay for the buses etc. And the solution here is pretty obvious... either raise bus fares OR raise local taxes to increase subsidies for buses. You do NOT take from state or national road taxes to pay for you bike paths and city only mass transit system. The road network serves the whole country which is why a gas tax is legitimate. Furthermore, why are motorists paying a gas tax to pay for buses or bikes.
If you want to fund those things either levy a general tax on the public at large or tax the people that actually use the service. I know... a lot of the people on the buses are not terribly well off so who wants to put a regressive tax on them. Me neither. And with bikes we all feel an eco friendly warm glow about people getting around using muscle power. Great... Really... but you don't pay for that with a road tax for the same reason you shouldn't fund your education program by putting a tax on cell phones. They do that as well by the way. Your cell phone bill... a part of that is going to all sorts of unrelated government programs that have nothing to do with communication and especially not with your cell phone service.
Please keep the charity projects to the general fund and stop trying to hide bullshit stealth taxes in the literally hundreds of little fees we pay all the time so you can pretend like it isn't part of the general tax burden. Just man up and put it in the general budget. If people aren't impressed with your idea then guess what... your program lost the game of budgetary musical chairs... get over it... lots of programs and ideas aren't going to get funded. Don't be a sneak and hide the tax somewhere that the rubes won't find it. It just makes guys like me increasingly cynical while giving false impressions of what things cost to the incurious.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
ok. it's even worse. but I still have more propensity to consume than poor dudes.
Gas taxes pay for roads and subsidize transit. As cars get more fuel efficient or become electric, they funds dry up. That's the reason for the increase. Your car is more efficient so you are paying less gas tax... this is just bringing it up to what people were paying before. Ultimately they may add more taxes but these will become moot when vehicles are all electric or hydrogen or whatever. Ultimately the taxes will shift to road pricing. Tolls for all roads based on GPS.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Yeah. GPS road tax... sponsored by the NSA and your local police department that does not track you without a warrant.
A few quick calculations, for comparison:
In UK, 1 litre of petrol (gasoline) costs about 1.2 GBP. 1 US gallon = 3.7 litres, so that works out as 7.57 USD per gallon. The OP doesn't actually say what you guys pay, but I get the impression that it is less by a wide margin. The US is also, I believe, the largest economy on the planet, and you spend more energy, per capita, than any other nation in the world. Perhaps you should tighten up a bit on the way you waste energy - I assume it must wasted, because it doesn't look like all that extra energy results in higher, actual production.
I'm sorry I haven't got loads of sympathy, but it does look like a luxury problem to me. Find a way to change the situation - fix the inequalities in your society, so the poorest don't have to struggle in hopeless poverty in order to feed the indulgencies of the rich.
> Pollution from cars--hmm, not much lately since the advent of catalytic converters.
Eh, these don't reduce CO2, which is also pollution.
Actually, I think people know gas/oil companies make obscene profits because ExxonMobile holds the top 5 positions for highest yearly profits for all US companies EVER - over $40B yearly profit most of the last decade (at least).
Gas/oil companies makes up a uniquely sizable chunk of the top 100 largest yearly profit records.
Why not OK the keystone pipeline? We would get a more stable source of oil, generate jobs and reduce gas prices.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
In the Netherlands, many immigrants drive old run-down mercedeses, because of status, and because they are fairly cheap to buy. However, they cannot afford the maintenance, which is rather expensive with old run-down cars. I can imagine a similar situation in the US.
The bad thing is the per-axle nature of the vehicle taxes actually encourages the design of tractor-trailor designs which do even more damage --- change it to a tax based on GVW divided by the contact area of the tires (and do a tire tax based on the mass of the tire) and you'd encourage the design of vehicles which aren't so hard on the roads.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
you are joking right? Detroit is run down due to all the liberals who have been running it for decades. how the hell are you going to blame the GOP for the pitfalls of your state, you cant even blame the republicans OR democrats for the fall of big auto, which is the major reason that your state is falling apart. When an industry "to bigg to fail"...fails, the area is going to turn to shit.
blaming any party for that is stupid, blaming the GOP when its liberals who run detroit and have for generations now is just simply partisan bullshit
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
no transportation from where I live to work, about a 20 mile commute each way. Tell me again how im going to continue working??? assclown
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
so the dems DONT actually believe in everyone "paying their fair share" huh?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
" it hits hardest those with the least assets and thus must sell their time as labor."
The poor sods ... must sell their time as labor ... as in "work for a living". It is to weep for.
And note that, in the USA, selling time as labor of some sort is the most heavily taxed form of income. As long as you're making under something like $100K/year (which poor people in the US are), it's all subject to Federal payroll taxes. Other ways of making money are not only exempt from those, but are often taxed at a lower rate (by law or in effect) than earned income.
It seems really screwy to tax most the ones who actually do useful things for a living.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sounds to me like you over-pay (or perhaps are over-taxed) in the UK.
To further expound on this concept: Cheap energy is what turns subsistence farmers into middle-class workers. The cheaper the energy, the wealthier everyone becomes (yes, including the ultra-rich). Make energy expensive enough, and the middle class might be hit pretty hard too, but not before the poor get smacked in the face.
It's even worse than this. The US federal government did a program several years back called "Cash for Clunkers" where the only cars the poor could afford were bought from middle class owners by "the government" (car dealers with government monetary incentives) at reasonable prices, and then the cars' engines were filled with sand and scrapped. So for a couple years, used cars were less available to poorer people.
That's because of zoning laws that set minimum apartment sizes. Again, that isn't Google's fault.
How would one go about getting laws against putting an arguably unsafe number of occupants in a small apartment changed?
Or they could rent the transponder
For how much per day?
In any case, it would be good to make the same transponder work on all interstates.
Good luck getting the several states to agree on anything, especially when utility-like companies use competing for the exclusive contract in each state as their excuse to have a local monopoly.
Again, what about the tax savings when the tolls make the freeway more efficient in cars per day than taxes?
It is my hypothesis that "tax savings when the tolls make the freeway more efficient in cars per day than taxes" would be a drop in the bucket compared to how much more it would cost to hire people to keep, say, a locally owned radio control vehicle store open 24/7 instead of 8 hours a day M-F and 6 hours on Saturday. I would be interested to read evidence otherwise.
I vote for everyone other than me paying for fixing the roads.
I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
Same thing happens in the US. Lower-class areas have a preponderance of old luxury cars like 15 year old Lincoln Continentals, Cadillacs, etc. It's also not uncommon to see old beater cars with large chrome wheels worth more than the car itself. (And subsequently broken down somewhere, or having repairs done to them.)
The problem with the Fed Gas Tax is, well it's the Feds who would be in charge of divvying up the funds and I wouldn't trust them to hold my wallet for five minutes. If it actually went for fixing the lousy fucking roads and bridges in this country, then fine raise it 20 cents but once they're fixed drop it back and that's the problem because once these money grubbing assholes get your hooks into you they never let up.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
ok. it's even worse. but I still have more propensity to consume than poor dudes.
Probably more than *one* "poor dude". But the marginal propensity to spend money across the large group of "poor dudes" that vastly outnumber *you* leaves you in the dust. Give money to people who have almost nothing, and they are going to spend it, on food, clothing, shelter, transportation, perhaps even some education or meager entertainment. Double the monthly income of people living below the poverty line, and most of that cash will get into the economy immediately.
Do you spend 90% of your income? Doubtful. Myself, I own my house and vacation property outright. I save over 30% of what I earn. How about Warren Buffett? Does he spend even 5% of his income? Very doubtful. Same with the Walmart heirs.
Tax the shit out of that wealth, they'll still have more than they can possibly spend, give that cash to people who have nothing, and the money is out in the economy, where it helps all of us.
Is this clear now?
A tax credit for a specific person, company or sector is pretty much a subsidy by definition.
The bulk of what these companies get in "tax breaks" are really just business expenses or common things like depreciation and the like. So, you are saying my "Child Tax Credit" is a subsidy of children? Hmmm... Maybe so. But the question is about energy companies (i.e. Big Oil) so you need to come up with EXACTLY what tax policy you think is "pretty much a subsidy" for energy companies. Because at this point we are discussing generalities. I say there are no tax breaks that amount to subsidies for big oil of any significance. You say they exist. So you need to produce the evidence of subsidies you claim exist.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Sure, I imagine so. Oil companies have a lot of equipment and other capital investments that depreciate, so that's probably a giant portion of it.
Yes! Absolutely! Just like the home mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy for taking out a mortgage. Which is really just a bank subsidy once the market has factored everything in. Congress has done a great job of creating subsidies that cost other taxpayers money and convincing the majority of taxpayers that they're just "cutting taxes." But if I cut Bob's taxes and raise yours to cover it, it's no different than if I raise your taxes and cut Bob a check. But one of them is out of control spending and pork while the other one is just "cutting taxes" which is good and holy.
I didn't say anything about oil-specific tax credits--just that tax credits are subsidies. And you've hedged very carefully with "of any significance," so I'm going to guess that it's very unlikely that anything I post will help here. But a quick Google indicates that there are tax breaks that are specific to extractive industries (most of which are enjoyed by the oil industry) like the ability to deduct intangible drilling costs in one year rather than over time. Intrestingly, it looks like the oil industry's breaks come largely in the form of reshaping how they do depreciation and deduct costs, so everything still ends up being "just depreciation." Anyway, most big politically-connected industries have weird cut-outs in the tax code like this, so I don't think it should be surprising that spends millions on lobbying has a few.
My solution to this type of thing would be to dump the corporate income tax entirely and raise dividend, capital gains, and estate taxes in a revenue-neutral way to make up the difference. We'll never get a corporate tax code that isn't full of bizarre exceptions for powerful industries, and corporations have huge financial flexibility to move money around and work around the laws, so I say we just let corporations act in an economically sensible way and tax the money when it's transferred to human owners.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
spending money on food clothing and shelter is going to stimulate the economy.
Summary.... There really isn't that much different in tax law beyond stuff like acceleration in depreciation.... (Which is a good answer by the way, only that this doesn't only apply to energy companies, but to a lot of companies can do this. ) Which really means there are no major subsidies, tax credits etc to remove, at least any that are unique to energy companies.... That is, traditional energy companies... We all know we do a lot of subsidies for various renewable energy companies.
My solution to this type of thing would be to dump the corporate income tax entirely and raise dividend, capital gains, and estate taxes in a revenue-neutral way to make up the difference. We'll never get a corporate tax code that isn't full of bizarre exceptions for powerful industries, and corporations have huge financial flexibility to move money around and work around the laws, so I say we just let corporations act in an economically sensible way and tax the money when it's transferred to human owners.
You idea here is interesting. I'm not sure what you are really suggesting or how it applies to things like LLC's or just simple unincorporated businesses, but it does sound interesting.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I generally agree. On a related note, on the "not a subsidy but still a hidden cost" side, I think there's a fair argument to be made that the cost of oil doesn't include the amount of money we spend on military efforts to bring "stability" to oil producing regions by bombing them, but that's less of a subsidy and more a question of policy costs not counting against a product when we evaluate the "cost of oil" versus the "cost of solar." Of course, once could legitimately ask whether all of the billions we spend bombing people is really doing much to stabilize our oil supply--I certainly think it's unlikely to be a net win at this point in history.
As for tax policy, I'd like to treat unincorporated businesses and corporations the same if possible. To the extent that money sits in a "business" account, it's still "inside" the business. It's certainly easier to see when that transition happens when you have a corporation paying out dividends, but I could certainly see tightening up the accounting rules for unincorporated businesses so they could declare a particular bank account as belonging to the business for tax purposes so it can easily retain earnings from year to year and use them to grow the business without being taxed as personal income.
The bottom line is we spend resources and create big distortions by trying to get businesses to pay taxes, and we have very little actual tax revenue to show for it. We do, however, have armies of accountants and financial engineers who get paid to engage in all sorts of wasteful hanky panky for tax avoidance. So we might as well just skip the whole thing and make up the revenue in a more sensible place. Businesses would run more efficiently, taxes would be easier to collect, it would get rid of asinine "double taxation" arguments and rhetoric over whether one industry is favored over another, and it would also likely put a lot of lobbyists out of business.
My fellow liberals don't seem to like the idea, but it seems like it would make the tax code more progressive. Right now, Bill Gates and Poor Old Granny pay the same corporate tax rate on any stock they own. If we taxed distributions, neither one would pay corporate income tax, but Gates would pay a higher rate on distributions while Poor Old Granny would get hers at the lower rates of a retired low-income senior.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"