• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senators propose 12-cent gas tax increase

this increase is very minor when you consider the ups and downs of the price of gas in the past decade.

check this out. this affected ME!!

Gas prices head toward $5; continued supply problems expected » Knoxville News Sentinel

yep and it went back down during that time as well. gas could head that direction again given the situation in Iraq which is why the pipeline was needed to be built.
that would have saved on the impact.

a 12 cent increase that never goes away isn't very minor in the long run. more so when gas prices are already going up.
 
the federal government wants to increase taxes.

i'm utterly shocked.


whatever, I can afford it.... middle class and poor folks, well, that's another story
 
the federal government wants to increase taxes.

i'm utterly shocked.


whatever, I can afford it.... middle class and poor folks, well, that's another story

Won't stop me from driving bad ass Betty.
 
Won't stop me from driving bad ass Betty.

excellent....

the good news is, maybe traffic will be a bit lighter.

hell, raise gas taxes to 5 bucks a gallon, i'll still drive... on nice open ,empty roads.:lol:... driving is a privilege after all, not everyone can afford privilege.. the government won't let them.
 
yep and it went back down during that time as well. gas could head that direction again given the situation in Iraq which is why the pipeline was needed to be built.
that would have saved on the impact.

a 12 cent increase that never goes away isn't very minor in the long run. more so when gas prices are already going up.

it should cost the average driver an additional 70 bucks a year ( going by average MPG and average miles driven)....roughly, an additional 6 bucks a month over what they spend now.( which is about 2 grand a year)
 
As long as the money doesn't go to training lobsters to run on a treadmill or the mating habits of the Oregon grey weasel and really is used for the roads and isn't co-opted by dip****s who need to build a new pier to get re-elected in some section of Mississippi that no one's ever heard of - fine.
 
it should cost the average driver an additional 70 bucks a year ( going by average MPG and average miles driven)....roughly, an additional 6 bucks a month over what they spend now.( which is about 2 grand a year)

correction it will cost them more than that per year. shipping and trucking companies aren't going to take the loss they are going to pass those costs onto consumers.
the cost is going to be more than what it costs them as well.
 
As long as the money doesn't go to training lobsters to run on a treadmill or the mating habits of the Oregon grey weasel and really is used for the roads and isn't co-opted by dip****s who need to build a new pier to get re-elected in some section of Mississippi that no one's ever heard of - fine.
you don't have a say either way...and yes, some of that money will go to incredibly wasteful, corrupt, and stupid ****....

don't like it?... well, tough ... the ruling elite don't give a **** what you like , want, or need.

ain't it a grand country we live in? :lol:
 
correction it will cost them more than that per year. shipping and trucking companies aren't going to take the loss they are going to pass those costs onto consumers.
the cost is going to be more than what it costs them as well.

that's true, i was only talking about direct costs..... indirect costs are beyond me.
i wouldn't doubt indirect costs will outweigh direct costs, but i got no numbers to back that up.
 
the federal government wants to increase taxes.
Two United States Senators from different parties wanting to do this--first time since 1993.
A bi-partisan approach we've all been asking for--OMG.
A transportation bill long overdue.

I didn't mind paying eight dollars total in two tolls on I-44 in Oklahoma from Joplin to Oklahoma City, GOP country.
I believe in tolls and taxes, since I use the interstates and local roads .
 
Also urban mass transit and goofy trains to nowhere nonsense. These mass transit systems are designed to operate at a loss, requiring permanent operational subsidies, after receiving massive subsidies to get them initially established.

Roads are designed to operate at a loss, requiring permanent operational subsidies, after receiving massive subsidies to get them initially established.

To illustrate this, here's a diagram for Wisconsin from 2004 to 2008. User fees made up just 33.3% of the revenue needed to maintain and build roads.

whopays1.jpg
 
Two United States Senators from different parties wanting to do this--first time since 1993.
A bi-partisan approach we've all been asking for--OMG.
A transportation bill long overdue.

I didn't mind paying eight dollars total in two tolls on I-44 in Oklahoma from Joplin to Oklahoma City, GOP country.
I believe in tolls and taxes, since I use the interstates and local roads .

you didn't have to tell me that you support regressive taxes and fees that disproportionately impact the poor , elderly, and disadvantaged....I already knew that about you.
 
The word of the day is INFLATION.

The gas tax was set at 18.4c per gallon in 1993. Note this is a cent value, not a percentage. It does not stay even with inflation. Every year the purchasing power of the tax on a gallon of gas decreases. In other words, the gas tax naturally decreases every year.

These senators are considering increasing the tax by 12 cents to 30.4 cents in today's dollars. How does this compare to 18.4 1993-cents? Using this inflation calculator you can check and see that 30.4 cents in 2013 is equal to 18.53 cents in 1993. From 1993 to 2014 this is a tax increase of $0.0013 per gallon in 1993-dollars.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=30.4&year1=2014&year2=1993
 
Last edited:
Roads are designed to operate at a loss, requiring permanent operational subsidies, after receiving massive subsidies to get them initially established.

To illustrate this, here's a diagram for Wisconsin from 2004 to 2008. User fees made up just 33.3% of the revenue needed to maintain and build roads.

View attachment 67168420

Answer this simple question - do light rail, bus and subway users pay motor fuel taxes?

While I agree that 100% of road construction and maintenance costs are not funded by user fees they are more funded by them than most public transit systems are. My point is that we are being told that motor fuel taxes must be raised in order to maintain roads yet an ever increasing portion of those funds are being diverted to other uses.

I question your assertion that only 1/3 of funds to build/maintain roads come from user fees.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/ga...-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending

Meanwhile, transit fares cover 21 percent of costs nationwide, indicating that the difference in subsidies for roads and transit is not as great as it’s often made out to be. (Though in absolute terms, there is a big difference: The total subsidy for roads dwarfs the total subsidy for transit.)

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/
 
Last edited:
for the purpose of tax, road infrastructure.

no they go into the general fund,and have nothing to do with budgets directly,unless their budget is increase,such a tax would only add to overall revenue.
 
i am not against the tax increase on gas because its needed but what we need to do is to have all tax dollars go into the general fund to pay for the needs of the country in stead of having a tax to fund this or that(SS and medicare are other examples)...

Those who use, and often profit from the use, of our roads and related infrastructure should pay for it. I would like to see a gas tax high enough to offset all the current subsidies for drivers. Gas taxes and car registration should pay for all road, bridge etc. maintenance, traffic and parking enforcement and mitigate the damage from air pollution, noise, lost land etc. It should also partially offset the cost of public transit, which helps make the roads more usable and efficient by reducing traffic. That would allow reductions in other types of taxes. It will increase the cost of goods, but the increase is from the end of a tax payer subsidy, which should reduce other taxes. This scheme might require a break for low income people in low density areas forced to commute by automobile.
 
Last edited:
i am not against the tax increase on gas because its needed but what we need to do is to have all tax dollars go into the general fund to pay for the needs of the country in stead of having a tax to fund this or that(SS and medicare are other examples).

---------

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two senators unveiled a bipartisan plan Wednesday to raise federal gasoline and diesel taxes for the first time in more than two decades, pitching the proposal as a solution to Congress' struggle to pay for highway and transit programs.

The plan offered by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would raise the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4-cents-a- gallon diesel tax by 12 cents each over the next two years, and then index the taxes to keep pace with inflation.

Senators propose 12-cent gas tax increase

I am very much against putting anything in the general fund. I don't mind paying the extra 12 cents but I want it to go to roads and infrastructure, not in any general fund for those idiot politicians to spend it to buy votes for them. I wish more taxes that are collect were for specific use and not for any general fund. If those in Washington were more frugal with taxpayer money, perhaps I would view this differently. But they are not and spend it like the money doesn't belong to them. Well, I guess it doesn't, it belongs to those who pay the taxes, no one else. So if by designating that this money can only be spent on what it was collected for is the only way to keep things half way decent in Washington.
 
Those who use, and often profit from the use, of our roads and related infrastructure should pay for it. I would like to see a gas tax high enough to offset all the current subsidies for drivers. Gas taxes and car registration should pay for all road, bridge etc. maintenance, traffic and parking enforcement and mitigate the damage from air pollution, noise, lost land etc. It should also partially offset the cost of public transit, which helps make the roads more usable and efficient by reducing traffic. That would allow reductions in other types of taxes. It will increase the cost of goods, but the increase is from the end of a tax payer subsidy, which should reduce other taxes. This scheme might require a break for low income people in low density areas forced to commute by automobile.

ok. then would you support those who use mass transit (bus,train,light rail) should pay for it. Lets say a tax on the ticket high enough to offset all subsidies the system recieves.

My point, if you want those who use the road to pay for using the roads, then users of mass transit should pay through a user tax on the ticket all costs associated with the operating and maintenance. I know in Phoenix the ticket price for buses or light rail does not even come close to cover the expense. General tax dollars are used to make up the deficit.
 
not at all--especially coming from Sen. Corker, coming from Tennessee and maybe a TEA-primary in 2016.
you didn't have to tell me that you support regressive taxes and fees that disproportionately
impact the poor , elderly, and disadvantaged....I already knew that about you.
I would think Libertarians would want to pay for necessary road/rail/plane/waterway/energy grid/etc. improvements.
Versus 20 of 28 deficits from GOP Presidents before Obama .
 
Last edited:
Answer this simple question - do light rail, bus and subway users pay motor fuel taxes?

While I agree that 100% of road construction and maintenance costs are not funded by user fees they are more funded by them than most public transit systems are. My point is that we are being told that motor fuel taxes must be raised in order to maintain roads yet an ever increasing portion of those funds are being diverted to other uses.

I question your assertion that only 1/3 of funds to build/maintain roads come from user fees.

I've seen various figures for the user fee component, ranging as high as 65%. I'm sure it depends on the entity/state. This is just from Wisconsin, and I used it as an example purely for the graphic. I agree that your 51% figure is more in line with a majority of the country. But the 49% not paid by users dwarfs the user fee that is devoted to transit. Transit users may not pay the gas tax, but gas tax payers do earn benefit from transit in the form of reduced congestion (thus increasing a driver's mpg).

The biggest diversion of money from road construction/maintenance is not transit (by a long shot) but inflation. The 12 cent increase is meant to counter the de facto tax break we've been experiencing since the 18.4 cent tax was implemented in 1993. The post office is not allowed to increase the price of stamps more than inflation, so it increases the prices by a penny or two every year or so. But the gas tax hasn't been increased to match inflation since 1993. And 30.4 cents today is equal to 18.53 cents in 1993 (and will be lower by the time it is implemented).
 
not at all--especially coming from Sen. Corker, coming from Tennessee

I would think Libertarians would want to pay for necessary road/rail/plane/waterway/energy grid/etc. improvements.
Versus 20 of 28 deficits from GOP Presidents before Obama .

yes, Libertarians, as opposed to Democrats and Republicans, actually pay for their stuff... that's a good observation.
of course, we probably would not have gone into debt over our head either, but that's neither here nor there.... no need t orub the horrible record of your party and the GOP in your face all the time

all my life i've heard politicians yammering about bad roads, bad this , bad that... so they raise a tax as a solution.
and we still have bad roads, bad this, and bad that... and higher taxes.

this is the stuff I expect of the 2 major parties... no results, but more money taken....and we'll still drive deeper and deeper in debt.
SSDD.


like I said... pass the tax,i'm fine with it... I can afford it... and i'm ok with excise taxes
just don't start bitching about the plight of the poor working man...reachin' in his wallet while you pretend to support him just ain't cool.
 
as gas goes up people slow down on their driving.
they don't go out as much they stay in it creates a drag on the economy.

the average gas price is about 6 cents higher. that 6 cents has cost the American economy 150m dollars. so theoretically a 12 cent increase would cost the American economy 300m dollars possibly.

that is 300m dollars that people and businesses don't have to spend.

it's always fair when it is someone else's money. I think we should look at the transportation budget and see what they are spending their money on. how many people are employeed and whether or not we can cut back on spending within the department itself and transfer those funds to projects.

this is also what happens when people drive more efficient cars. they buy less gas which means less tax revenue.

It's always fair when the users of the service pay for it.

Roads have to be maintained. Your $300 million figure is not an avoidable expense. It has to be paid or the roads fall apart. The only real question is how to pay for it. As I've stated it only makes sense to charge the users of the roads for their upkeep. Why should some guy who doesn't own a car pay to maintain roads that you use? Yes he buys stuff that is shipped by trucks but the trucking company can pass those costs on to him by raising their fees.

Further it makes sense to tie the cost to how much people drive and the types of vehicles they drive. After all a small 4 cylinder car that gets driven 1000 miles a year to and from a local commuter rail station does not cause nearly as much wear and tear on roads as an 18 wheeler driven a couple hundred thousand miles a year. That means the fairest way to apportion costs has to be tied to fuel consumption - as an approximation of both vehicle size and miles driven - or some formula based on mileage driven and gross weight.

As to the idea that people drive less, I don't have any stats but in my suburb I haven't seen any real decrease in traffic as the price of gas has gone from $1.00 a gallon to $4.00.
People still need to get to work, to the market etc and still take vacations. And if driving goes down so what? That leads to less wear on the roads and lowers the cost of upkeep. And less pollution, more people walking or biking. All good things.
 
ok. then would you support those who use mass transit (bus,train,light rail) should pay for it. Lets say a tax on the ticket high enough to offset all subsidies the system recieves.

My point, if you want those who use the road to pay for using the roads, then users of mass transit should pay through a user tax on the ticket all costs associated with the operating and maintenance. I know in Phoenix the ticket price for buses or light rail does not even come close to cover the expense. General tax dollars are used to make up the deficit.

I would, even though as a user of commuter rail my costs would go up significantly. It isn't, however, as simple as that. There are about 125,000 people who ride the Long Island Railroad every day. The infrastructure could not handle if a significant fraction of those people started driving every day. There simple isn't enough road for tens of thousands of more cars. I'd argue that there's a good possibility subsidizing rail to keep ridership up may actually be a cheaper alternative to building more roads or widening existing ones or letting people just sit in traffic longer.
 
ok. then would you support those who use mass transit (bus,train,light rail) should pay for it. Lets say a tax on the ticket high enough to offset all subsidies the system recieves.

My point, if you want those who use the road to pay for using the roads, then users of mass transit should pay through a user tax on the ticket all costs associated with the operating and maintenance. I know in Phoenix the ticket price for buses or light rail does not even come close to cover the expense. General tax dollars are used to make up the deficit.

Those who use mass transit reduce traffic congestion and reduce pollution and the demand for new roads. Mass transit use should be subsidized by drivers via a gas tax.
 
Those who use mass transit reduce traffic congestion and reduce pollution and the demand for new roads. Mass transit use should be subsidized by drivers via a gas tax.

nope.
I was replying to the poster who stated those who drive should basically pay for the roads. Ok.
My position is then those who use mass transit should pay for its expansion and upkeep. Why should a driver get hit twice.
Mass transit needs to pay its way. As should those who use the roads.
 
Back
Top Bottom