Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 60

Thread: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

  1. #31
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevergolfpar View Post
    The main purpose of a gas tax is to discourage consumption? You do realize you are incorrect with that statement. The main purpose of a gas tax is to raise revenue.
    For some in Washington the main purpose is to push us into green energy, such as mass transit. They don't want people to have the freedom to come and go as they please, IMO.
    They want the cost of driving to hurt you in your wallet, so you'll stop it. Then you'll agree that yea, I guess my state could use public transit an high speed rail.

    Steven Chu Eases Up on the Gas Price Pedal - NYTimes.com

    He had told the Wall Street Journal last September , “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” a statement likely to give some commuters a case of road rage. I think that is around $10 gal.Mr. Chu draws wide approval for stressing energy efficiency and new technology as approaches to the problems of energy prices and global warming. But his science-based frankness sometimes contrasts with ordinary energy politics, which are often more centered on narrower economic interests.
    For example, in a presentation at Berkeley in April, 2007, now preserved on YouTube, he declared, “coal is my worst nightmare,” words previous energy secretaries would be unlikely to utter.
    “We have lots of fossil fuel,’’ he said. “That’s really both good and bad news. We won’t run out of energy but there’s enough carbon in the ground to really cook us.’’


    UPDATE: Meanwhile, McCain, who supports a summer-long suspension of the federal gas tax, is trying to capitalize on Obama's remarks that a "gradual" increase in prices at the pump could encourage a badly needed change in US energy policy.This was when gas was $4 a gal.
    Asked on CNBC about whether high prices could end up helping, Obama replied, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now."
    That prompted this missive this morning from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds:
    "Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  2. #32
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,291
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    For some in Washington the main purpose is to push us into green energy, such as mass transit. They don't want people to have the freedom to come and go as they please.
    Um... with public transit I can use it whenever I want to go wherever I want...

    What are you talking about?

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Just wait until technology advances to the point that they can measure the oxygen you take in from the atmosphere. They will meter your breathing and tax you for that as well.
    Soda, Big Macs, Cigarettes, and ammunition. Tax 'em all, I say.

    But don't touch my coffee.

  4. #34
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Um... with public transit I can use it whenever I want to go wherever I want...

    What are you talking about?
    Of course you can't but you can take it where ever you.
    Last edited by deltabtry; 03-25-11 at 10:46 PM.

  5. #35
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago area
    Last Seen
    11-06-13 @ 06:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    234

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    For some in Washington the main purpose is to push us into green energy, such as mass transit. They don't want people to have the freedom to come and go as they please, IMO.
    They want the cost of driving to hurt you in your wallet, so you'll stop it. Then you'll agree that yea, I guess my state could use public transit an high speed rail.

    Steven Chu Eases Up on the Gas Price Pedal - NYTimes.com

    He had told the Wall Street Journal last September , “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” a statement likely to give some commuters a case of road rage. I think that is around $10 gal.Mr. Chu draws wide approval for stressing energy efficiency and new technology as approaches to the problems of energy prices and global warming. But his science-based frankness sometimes contrasts with ordinary energy politics, which are often more centered on narrower economic interests.
    For example, in a presentation at Berkeley in April, 2007, now preserved on YouTube, he declared, “coal is my worst nightmare,” words previous energy secretaries would be unlikely to utter.
    “We have lots of fossil fuel,’’ he said. “That’s really both good and bad news. We won’t run out of energy but there’s enough carbon in the ground to really cook us.’’


    UPDATE: Meanwhile, McCain, who supports a summer-long suspension of the federal gas tax, is trying to capitalize on Obama's remarks that a "gradual" increase in prices at the pump could encourage a badly needed change in US energy policy.This was when gas was $4 a gal.
    Asked on CNBC about whether high prices could end up helping, Obama replied, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now."
    That prompted this missive this morning from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds:
    "Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."
    While the reduction and modification of our driving habits may very well be the goal of the liberal elite of today, the fact remains that the initial impetus behind the Federal Gas Tax was and still remains revenue. Here is a brief history behind the current 18.4 cents per gallon tax:
    -The Revenue Act of 1932 approves a 1 cent per gallon tax on gasoline which was set to expire in June of 1934
    -National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which President Hoover approved on June 6, 1933, extended the tax and increased it to 1.5 cents. So much for a temporary tax.
    -The Revenue Act of 1934 (May 10, 1934) rescinded the half-cent increase. The 'temporary' 1 cent per gallon tax increase remains!
    -Revenue Act of 1941 (September 20, 1941) made the gas tax permanent and increased it to 1.5 cents a gallon to help pay for the country's defense buildup.
    -The Revenue Act of 1951 (October 21, 1951) increased the gas tax to 2 cents as a revenue source during the Korean War that began in June 1951, with the increase to be repealed on April 1, 1954. There we go with another 'temporary tax', anyone want to bet if it will be repealed?
    - Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954 (March 31, 1954), which extended the tax to April 1, 1955, and the Tax Rate Extension Act of 1955 (March 30, 1955), which extended it again to April 1, 1956. I win the bet (twice).
    -Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1959 (September 21, 1959) increased the tax, but only to 4 cents on a temporary basis.
    -The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961, which President John F. Kennedy approved on June 29, 1961, the 5th anniversary of the 1956 Act, retained the 4-cent tax and extended it through September 30, 1972. Another broken promise of a temporary tax increase.
    -The tax remained 4 cents a gallon until the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which President Ronald Reagan approved on January 6, 1983. The Act increased the tax to 9 cents, but the legislation created two separate accounts in the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Account would receive 8 cents of the revenue while the new Mass Transit Account would receive 1 cent of the gas tax.
    -The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (October 17, 1986) added 0.1 cent tax on gasoline for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
    -On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It embodied a compromise the Republican President had reached with the Democratic-controlled Congress to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The Act increased the Federal gas tax by 5 cents, with half the increase going to the Highway Trust Fund, the other half to deficit reduction.
    -The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.
    -This is where our gas tax is today.

    As you can plainly see, our gas tax has a rich and storied past but none of which was to influence or suggest that we should moderate our consumption. To suggest otherwise is a complete re-write of our own recent history and only perpetuates the liberal agenda.

  6. #36
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    No, this only exposes the stupidity of the Progressive Agenda..they are far different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevergolfpar View Post
    While the reduction and modification of our driving habits may very well be the goal of the liberal elite of today, the fact remains that the initial impetus behind the Federal Gas Tax was and still remains revenue. Here is a brief history behind the current 18.4 cents per gallon tax:
    -The Revenue Act of 1932 approves a 1 cent per gallon tax on gasoline which was set to expire in June of 1934
    -National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which President Hoover approved on June 6, 1933, extended the tax and increased it to 1.5 cents. So much for a temporary tax.
    -The Revenue Act of 1934 (May 10, 1934) rescinded the half-cent increase. The 'temporary' 1 cent per gallon tax increase remains!
    -Revenue Act of 1941 (September 20, 1941) made the gas tax permanent and increased it to 1.5 cents a gallon to help pay for the country's defense buildup.
    -The Revenue Act of 1951 (October 21, 1951) increased the gas tax to 2 cents as a revenue source during the Korean War that began in June 1951, with the increase to be repealed on April 1, 1954. There we go with another 'temporary tax', anyone want to bet if it will be repealed?
    - Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954 (March 31, 1954), which extended the tax to April 1, 1955, and the Tax Rate Extension Act of 1955 (March 30, 1955), which extended it again to April 1, 1956. I win the bet (twice).
    -Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1959 (September 21, 1959) increased the tax, but only to 4 cents on a temporary basis.
    -The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961, which President John F. Kennedy approved on June 29, 1961, the 5th anniversary of the 1956 Act, retained the 4-cent tax and extended it through September 30, 1972. Another broken promise of a temporary tax increase.
    -The tax remained 4 cents a gallon until the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which President Ronald Reagan approved on January 6, 1983. The Act increased the tax to 9 cents, but the legislation created two separate accounts in the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Account would receive 8 cents of the revenue while the new Mass Transit Account would receive 1 cent of the gas tax.
    -The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (October 17, 1986) added 0.1 cent tax on gasoline for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
    -On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It embodied a compromise the Republican President had reached with the Democratic-controlled Congress to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The Act increased the Federal gas tax by 5 cents, with half the increase going to the Highway Trust Fund, the other half to deficit reduction.
    -The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.
    -This is where our gas tax is today.

    As you can plainly see, our gas tax has a rich and storied past but none of which was to influence or suggest that we should moderate our consumption. To suggest otherwise is a complete re-write of our own recent history and only perpetuates the liberal agenda.
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  7. #37
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago area
    Last Seen
    11-06-13 @ 06:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    234

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by Amazed View Post
    No, this only exposes the stupidity of the Progressive Agenda..they are far different.
    You may be right. Liberal or progressive, I see them both as peas in the same pod. Both need to continually re-write history to massage it to fit their agenda. While the progressive movement may very well be the intellectual force we need to combat, it is the liberal's and their blind ideology that is the scourge of this country. To draw an analogy; liberals are the foot soldiers, stupid but with the ability to win elections. Progressives are the field generals, smart but no numbers to effectively be a force of change. They both need each other to survive.

  8. #38
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,680
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Why isn't the fuel tax sufficient enough to tax us based on the mileage we drive? It just seems repetitive...
    Think of it like income and sales tax. They tax you when you make the money and when you spend the money. In this case, they tax you when you buy the gas and when you use the gas.
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  9. #39
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,417

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I'd just switch to public transport... as soon as the rail is built..
    That's great. So...where's that money going to come from? And...how are we going to replace the revenue lost from you travelling on the high-speed rail vice buying gas?

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Taxing mileage a 'practical option' for revenue enhancement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Well, less gas used is part of the idea. The main purposes of a gas tax are to discourage gas consumption, and to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the externalities associated with gas use. It's never going to be more than a small source of revenue for the government.
    So they want us to pay more for driving less? Better idea is to balance the budget and spend less

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •