Senators propose 12-cent gas tax increase

mike2810 said:

..Why should a driver get hit twice.
Mass transit needs to pay its way. As should those who use the roads.

Click to expand...

Drivers should subsidize mass transit because without it there would be much more traffic and/or greater costs for expanding or building the infrastructure to handle the extra traffic.

Hard Truth said:

Drivers should subsidize mass transit because without it there would be much more traffic and/or greater costs for expanding or building the infrastructure to handle the extra traffic.

Click to expand...

Disagree.
Everyone should pay their fair share.

your not trying to say that mass transit has know costs? Don't busses use roads?

clownboy said:

Which is why the asshole liar we have as POTUS now is once again on my ****list. He promised during campaign his first priority would be addressing our failing infrastructure. Instead of the Obamacare nightmare he could have actually kept one of his promises.

Click to expand...

So you wanted him to raise gas taxes sooner, got it.

iguanaman said:

Buying more fuel efficient cars and using mass transit instead of driving are good things. We need to use less and less gasoline but still need the roads and bridges maintained. How else but by raising taxes? The poor don't usually have cars.

Click to expand...

This is pretty naive. The poor don't have cars? What about those who don't live in a city? Public transport doesn't exist everywhere.

Another note, this tax will most likely go to anything but the roads.

Quote Originally Posted by clownboy
"Which is why the asshole liar we have as POTUS now is once again on my ****list. He promised during campaign his first priority would be addressing our failing infrastructure. Instead of the Obamacare nightmare he could have actually kept one of his promises.The administration's initial stimulus plan, the $787 billion package passed in February 2009, was designed to save or create about 4 million jobs."


"According to some third-party estimates, the White House may have come close to hitting that target, especially if you factor in the administration's bailout of the auto industry.

But the job losses in late 2008 and early 2009 ended up being much worse than expected. A total of 3.8 million jobs were lost from December 2008 through April 2009, an average of just over 750,000 a month.

By the time the job losses stopped a year after Obama took office, the Great Recession had cost the economy 8.8 million jobs, and the unemployment rate was stuck in the 9% to 10% range.

So even if estimates of more than 4 million jobs saved or created was correct, it was not nearly enough to get the job market back on track.
Dr. Mr. President: Business owners' jobs ideas

And many of the jobs created or saved through earlier efforts have now come to an end. Most of the public works projects, such as road repavings and bridge repairs, have been completed. Money given to states to keep teachers, fire fighters and police on the job has run out.

....The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the parts of the program that got the most criticism -- actual spending on projects and aid packages -- was the most effective in creating jobs.... the CBO estimates that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent.

A separate study by Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics and an advisor to John McCain's presidential campaign, and Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and advisor to President Clinton, estimates that the stimulus act created about 2.7 million jobs. But the impact of stimulus has waned since last year.

"Stimulus is no longer playing a major role, but it was never intended to be the source of long-term growth," said Zandi. "It was supposed to fill a hole till the private sector stepped in."

And Zandi argues that the private sector is hiring again. He pointed out that businesses have added 2.4 million jobs since March 2010....."

Stimulus added jobs, just not enough - Sep. 8, 2011

Politicians trying to pretend that this is either the best way to reduce climate change or the best way to fund roads are pathetic. Taxes on consumption are going to do much better at reinforcing poverty than at reducing climate change. What needs to be done is a nationalization of non-renewable energies so that they can be quickly phased out. In the meantime, prices need to kept at a reasonable rate. A cap on carbon emissions and a carbon tax is where the taxation of pollution needs to be focused on. I realize that a gas tax has a purpose of discouraging driving too much to reduce carbon emissions, but what is a lower-income person who must commute to work supposed to do in this situation? Unless we have a nationwide free public transit system, the gas tax will continue to negatively affect the poor.

Of course, the oil industry would assassinate someone before they let this happen.

I'd like to see gas cost $7.00+ per gallon. I can afford it, and it will cut down on the douchebags out there driving around.

Gaius46 said:

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.

Click to expand...

stats in your suburb are irrelevant.

they are as a truck uses way more fuel for less millage than a car, but increasing the bottom line is a tax on the average American and the poor which Obama opposes and said he wouldn't raise.
gas prices are already going to go higher just do to market speculation at this point. we don't need them going even higher because 2 guys in government think that they need more and more and more.

if they would appropriate their money on projects on a year basis then they would have the money to fix things.

so I have 20b dollars for the transportation budget then I select the number of projects up to 20b and get them done the next year the same thing.
I focus on critical things first like bridges since people can die from a bad bridge.

so if I can fix 20 or 30 bridges for 20b dollars then I will do it.

high fuel prices are not good for the economy in fact they are the direct opposite.

ludin said:

stats in your suburb are irrelevant.

they are as a truck uses way more fuel for less millage than a car, but increasing the bottom line is a tax on the average American and the poor which Obama opposes and said he wouldn't raise.
gas prices are already going to go higher just do to market speculation at this point. we don't need them going even higher because 2 guys in government think that they need more and more and more.

if they would appropriate their money on projects on a year basis then they would have the money to fix things.

so I have 20b dollars for the transportation budget then I select the number of projects up to 20b and get them done the next year the same thing.
I focus on critical things first like bridges since people can die from a bad bridge.

so if I can fix 20 or 30 bridges for 20b dollars then I will do it.

high fuel prices are not good for the economy in fact they are the direct opposite.

Click to expand...

My observations in the area where I live are just as valid - or invalid - as your supposition that people drive less when gas prices go up.

Not that it matters, it's irrelevant to my argument.

So your argument is the money isn't needed? That the government has the funds to pay for road repairs but is increasing gas taxes just because they want more tax revenues? You might be right. I have no idea. But again it isn't what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is simply that the people who use the roads and who derive benefit from them should pay for them. That's all. If that means higher gas prices well that's just the cost of driving. Why should some guy who doesn't own a car subsidize you?

beerftw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hard Truth said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

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.

Click to expand...

this tax does NOT go into the general fund. they have actually had to use money from the general fund in order to keep the fund that the gas tax supports solvent.

mtm1963 said:

this tax does NOT go into the general fund. they have actually had to use money from the general fund in order to keep the fund that the gas tax supports solvent.

Click to expand...

The post I was replying to said this tax should all go into the general fund. I am opposed to that and hence my reply to it.

Perotista said:

The post I was replying to said this tax should all go into the general fund. I am opposed to that and hence my reply to it.

Click to expand...

my misunderstanding.

Yes, lets raise taxes on the very life blood of the economy. Brilliant idea. Here is a better one though, how about you don't tax energy.

Henrin said:

Yes, lets raise taxes on the very life blood of the economy. Brilliant idea. Here is a better one though, how about you don't tax energy.

Click to expand...

So I have to ask how you propose to pay for roads?

TitusAndronicus said:

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

Click to expand...

What exactly does the government do that isn't designed to operate at a loss? I can think of maybe two things and after that I'm completely lost.

Gaius46 said:

My observations in the area where I live are just as valid - or invalid - as your supposition that people drive less when gas prices go up.

Click to expand...

anecdotal evidence which you submitted is not evidence. we do however have national documented proof that people drive less with higher fuel prices. which means less trips shopping and going on vacation.

Not that it matters, it's irrelevant to my argument.

Click to expand...

it isn't irrelevant it shows that high gas prices hurt the economy.

So your argument is the money isn't needed? That the government has the funds to pay for road repairs but is increasing gas taxes just because they want more tax revenues? You might be right. I have no idea. But again it isn't what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is simply that the people who use the roads and who derive benefit from them should pay for them. That's all. If that means higher gas prices well that's just the cost of driving. Why should some guy who doesn't own a car subsidize you?

Click to expand...

What you don't understand is that when you raise the gas price everyone pays for it not just the guy driving.

bus tickets go up. the price of food goes up everything that requires transportation from point A to point B goes up. why? because shippers that ship the stuff charge more money to offset the fuel prices.

they are not just going to sit there and take the loss. so even the person that doesn't drive has to pay the cost of the increased price in gas.

ludin said:

anecdotal evidence which you submitted is not evidence. we do however have national documented proof that people drive less with higher fuel prices. which means less trips shopping and going on vacation.



it isn't irrelevant it shows that high gas prices hurt the economy.



What you don't understand is that when you raise the gas price everyone pays for it not just the guy driving.

bus tickets go up. the price of food goes up everything that requires transportation from point A to point B goes up. why? because shippers that ship the stuff charge more money to offset the fuel prices.

they are not just going to sit there and take the loss. so even the person that doesn't drive has to pay the cost of the increased price in gas.

Click to expand...

I understand that perfectly well. That's the way it SHOULD be. Why shouldn't the cost of an apple reflect the cost of actually getting it from the farm to the market? Why shouldn't the person who eats the apple actually pay that cost? Roads need upkeep. That costs money. That cost should be factored into what it costs you to drive your car. It should be factored into what it costs me to buy an apple that has to be trucked into my local market.

Again the question is why should someone who doesn't incur that cost subsidize someone who does?

Gaius46 said:

I understand that perfectly well. That's the way it SHOULD be. Why shouldn't the cost of an apple reflect the cost of actually getting it from the farm to the market? Why shouldn't the person who eats the apple actually pay that cost? Roads need upkeep. That costs money. That cost should be factored into what it costs you to drive your car. It should be factored into what it costs me to buy an apple that has to be trucked into my local market.

Again the question is why should someone who doesn't incur that cost subsidize someone who does?

Click to expand...

that isn't what you said you said only the people that drive should pay the cost. it isn't only the people that drive that pay the cost. there are a ton of indirect costs of raising gas prices.
that are secondary in nature.

yet the price increase of the apple isn't going to fix the roads. it is an inflated price of getting that apple to market.

that is what I am asking you. you seem to think it is fair that people that don't drive have to pay increased costs because fuel prices go up.

mtm1963 said:

this tax does NOT go into the general fund. they have actually had to use money from the general fund in order to keep the fund that the gas tax supports solvent.

Click to expand...

actually yes it does read about the highway trust fund,it goes to the general treasury fund first,then is later credited to the highway trust fund,the tax does not directly go to the trust fund.

NOT ANOTHER TAX INCREASE !

We are already taxed enough already.

There needs to be a populace movement, we can call it "Taxed Enough Alreay."


TEA Party movement.

This "stupid tax" will hurt the trucking and railroad industry. It will be passed on to the consumers.

Why not a "Stupid People Tax" :thinking Tax the stupid people in our society.

APACHERAT said:

Why not a "Stupid People Tax" :thinking Tax the stupid people in our society.

Click to expand...

We already do that, it's called the Lottery.

The Man said:

We already do that, it's called the Lottery.

Click to expand...

We have PLENTY of MONEY to support our roads. Here is MY idea, we move the current $52 BILLION in foreign aid we are giving out (Mostly to places like Pakistan and Egypt which hate us anyways) and spend it all on our roads. THere we go problem solved.

Stupid tax idea, there are other ways to raise money for the roads, like re-appropriating funds we spend elsewhere.

MasterLiberty said:

We have PLENTY of MONEY to support our roads. Here is MY idea, we move the current $52 BILLION in foreign aid we are giving out (Mostly to places like Pakistan and Egypt which hate us anyways) and spend it all on our roads. THere we go problem solved.

Stupid tax idea, there are other ways to raise money for the roads, like re-appropriating funds we spend elsewhere.

Click to expand...

I didn't say we don't have plenty of money to support our roads. I just responded to APACHERAT when he said that we should have a tax on stupid people, and I said that we already do, it's called the Lottery.

beerftw said:

actually yes it does read about the highway trust fund,it goes to the general treasury fund first,then is later credited to the highway trust fund,the tax does not directly go to the trust fund.

Click to expand...

this is semantics routing it thru the general fund, government accounting procedures. its on the books how much the tax brings in vs what it pays out.

the fact is, the gas tax has not been able to fund the updates to the transportation infrastructure, so there has been a need to borrow money from the "actual" general fund.

Get rid of the State DOT union workers. They are to expensive and the work can be done by cheaper labor. If there are going to be 4 workers standing around watching one guy shovel just cut the pay, there are a lot of people out there who will do the job for half the pay. There are Federal Labor laws in place to protect workers now. Those bloated pensions for 20 years of working has to go away. There has to be more than enough money to fix the infrastructure if the Obama epic failure administration wants to make cars electric, and if they are electric how do you keep raising the taxes on gas? Obama has opened the borders to a lot of cheap labor who will not strike and they will be happy to have a job. Let's give these "poor people" a chance to prove themselves.