• 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!

One Hand Gives, One Hand Takes Away

Wow, sooner than I thought. It shamelessly and boldly begins. An official argument to raise taxes on gas right after a tax-cut celebration.

What was it that Bush used to get elected in 1988? Oh yeah..."No New Taxes." This is not the way it works. After the tax-cut Bill "win," which significantly decreased government revenue, the GOP demanded more money for border security and military in the budget. Paul Ryan also announced that they are attacking Medicaid and Medicare this year. Now there are rumors of tax hikes in gas.

Give it a year or two. Most people, who sit just below the Upper Middle Class and definitely far from the wealthy class, will see no difference in their wallets because new taxes, needed to compensate for tax-cuts, were always going to be aimed at them. In the mean time, corporate America and the wealthy elite will simply add to the $1.9 trillion uninvested cash that they already sit on. And then, while the wealthy enjoy most of the tax-cuts that do not expire, the mass of the population who sit in the Middle and Lower Class will see their tax-cuts completely expire and simply folded into the new taxes that they (and the wealthy) will incur over the next few years. The difference, is that this will not hurt the wealthy who can afford to take advantage of the loop holes that this tax-cut Bill was designed for.

AH...I love having rental properties. If you wish to get ahead of this future mess, invest in multiple mortgages people. The tax-cut Bill favors real estate and those tax-cuts will go on. This means that any future new taxes will simply remain routine while your tax-cut revenue through property increases beyond what is necessary to compensate.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
A person earning $500,000 pays at least 10X more in progressive income taxes than someone earning $50,000 a year. However, a person earning $500,000 uses about the same amount of gasoline as someone earning $50,000 a year. Thus, the tax is the same regardless of income -- even though the poor individual is less able to afford the tax. That's regressive taxation.
Click to expand...

So for you any tax that treats everyone equally is regressive?
 
Fledermaus said:
You aren't in California which just had a huge jump in gas tax.
Click to expand...

I get that, but if we are going to have federal highway and transportation funding, then we need to have a revenue source to pay for it.
 
Fledermaus said:
Sure. As long as California reduces state taxes in kind.
Click to expand...


I went by motorcycle from the east coast to the west coast in 2006. I went out via I80 and when I crossed into CA the condition of the pavement was noticeably bad. Have you guys fixed it yet?
 
Rexedgar said:
I went by motorcycle from the east coast to the west coast in 2006. I went out via I80 and when I crossed into CA the condition of the pavement was noticeably bad. Have you guys fixed it yet?
Click to expand...

All the gas tax money that is supposed to fix the roads got sidetracked into "High Speed Rail" which is neither high speed nor much in the way of rails. Billions of dollars to go from nowhere to nowhere.

Since the original tax to fix the roads isn't fixing the roads they added more taxes to fix the roads that are restricted from actually building roads.

And if you were on I80 that was federal roads.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So for you any tax that treats everyone equally is regressive?
Click to expand...

Why do people present this obviously false dichotomy every. single. time?

Who with a half a brain cannot see that the issue is NOT "a tax that treats everyone equally ... "?? The issue is that the two people arguing don't agree on the definition of "equal treatment" in the first place!! And then one or the other will ask this dumb question as if the outcome is patently obvious to anyone. Well the outcome IS patently obvious ... that you all are pretending that YOUR definition of "equal treatment" is the CORRECT definition. And it obviously ain't so.

So, to answer your question, any tax that is a specified dollar amount is BY DEFINITION "regressive" because it consumes a larger percentage of smaller incomes, than it does of larger incomes. So if we are comparing the amount of gasoline-tax paid by two people - one that earns $500,000/year and one that earns $50,000/year - and they both purchase the same number of gallons of gas, then YES, that gas tax is REGRESSIVE.
 
Rexedgar said:
The President’s new talking point is the “big, beautiful tax cut.” Infrastructure Week came and went. Now there is rumbling about a higher fuel tax. Also local jurisdictions will have to see about supplementing the shortfall in federal funds. The locality we live in plays a version of this ‘game.’ There will be no rate increase in the real estate tax this year, but your home has increased in value, therefore you will be billed at the new value. The next year was slow for real estate values, however we have found it necessary to raise the rate charged, therefore........

Semantics, call it what you want, but if more money comes out of your wallet, what does it matter what it’s called.
Shell game, which shell holds the pea? Nope.......


Chamber makes case for gas tax increase to fund infrastructure | TheHill
Click to expand...

I live in a no income tax state. Property taxes are stupid high considering the local incomes. Comparable to metro DC. You are right - they always take your money, or they let everything fall apart, ala Kansas.
 
Fledermaus said:
All the gas tax money that is supposed to fix the roads got sidetracked into "High Speed Rail" which is neither high speed nor much in the way of rails. Billions of dollars to go from nowhere to nowhere.

Since the original tax to fix the roads isn't fixing the roads they added more taxes to fix the roads that are restricted from actually building roads.

And if you were on I80 that was federal roads.
Click to expand...

Interstate highways are maintained by each state, there are very few federal roads.
 
Fledermaus said:
All the gas tax money that is supposed to fix the roads got sidetracked into "High Speed Rail" which is neither high speed nor much in the way of rails. Billions of dollars to go from nowhere to nowhere.

Since the original tax to fix the roads isn't fixing the roads they added more taxes to fix the roads that are restricted from actually building roads.

And if you were on I80 that was federal roads.
Click to expand...

Whatever, there was downgrade from I80 in Nevada to I80 California. night and day
 
Fledermaus said:
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Click to expand...

No biggie. I've driven a lot of them and crossing state lines help illustrate how some states do a good job and others crappy in maintaining them.
 
rocket88 said:
And you want all sorts of money invested in infrastructure while having a big corporate tax cut. Gas taxes and tolls are regressive taxes.
Click to expand...

Translation: "They hurt my constituents."
 
Critter7r said:
Why do people present this obviously false dichotomy every. single. time?

Who with a half a brain cannot see that the issue is NOT "a tax that treats everyone equally ... "?? The issue is that the two people arguing don't agree on the definition of "equal treatment" in the first place!! And then one or the other will ask this dumb question as if the outcome is patently obvious to anyone. Well the outcome IS patently obvious ... that you all are pretending that YOUR definition of "equal treatment" is the CORRECT definition. And it obviously ain't so.

So, to answer your question, any tax that is a specified dollar amount is BY DEFINITION "regressive" because it consumes a larger percentage of smaller incomes, than it does of larger incomes. So if we are comparing the amount of gasoline-tax paid by two people - one that earns $500,000/year and one that earns $50,000/year - and they both purchase the same number of gallons of gas, then YES, that gas tax is REGRESSIVE.
Click to expand...

Bold: One wonders if you see the irony, even hypocrisy, of what you just said there.

It isn't that my definition of "equal treatment" has a different definition from yours. It's in how we apply that definition. Your definition has validity, as does mine.

The difference is that your definition is based on what one has available to them. My definition is based on a flat standard. Yours is based on equality through equity. Mine is based on equality of treating one person the same as the other with no other considerations.
 
Rexedgar said:
The President’s new talking point is the “big, beautiful tax cut.” Infrastructure Week came and went. Now there is rumbling about a higher fuel tax. Also local jurisdictions will have to see about supplementing the shortfall in federal funds. The locality we live in plays a version of this ‘game.’ There will be no rate increase in the real estate tax this year, but your home has increased in value, therefore you will be billed at the new value. The next year was slow for real estate values, however we have found it necessary to raise the rate charged, therefore........

Semantics, call it what you want, but if more money comes out of your wallet, what does it matter what it’s called.
Shell game, which shell holds the pea? Nope.......


Chamber makes case for gas tax increase to fund infrastructure | TheHill
Click to expand...

I see it as Republicans give you back your money so Democrats can take it away again.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: One wonders if you see the irony, even hypocrisy, of what you just said there.
Click to expand...


Really?

You're going to call it "hypocrisy" when I say we have "different definitions" and you say we "apply the definitions differently"? FFS, come on, you're splitting hairs and calling my different application of "different definitions" hypocritical??? That is a completely incorrect application of that word.

When I said, "you all are pretending that YOUR definition of "equal treatment" is the CORRECT definition. And it obviously ain't so", I was referring to the members on either side of the issue. I was not referring only to those that disagreed with whatever my definition might be. I also was not referring to the definition of "regressive", which is defined thusly : "A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases." And since we're talking about a fixed dollar amount of tax (the gas tax on a specific number of gallons of gas), the tax is defined as "regressive", because the percentage of one's income consumed by the tax goes down as one's income goes up. ergo, Regressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

It isn't that my definition of "equal treatment" has a different definition from yours. It's in how we apply that definition. Your definition has validity, as does mine.
Click to expand...

That I agree with. Both definitions are valid. Neither is incorrect.

The difference is that your definition is based on what one has available to them. My definition is based on a flat standard. Yours is based on equality through equity. Mine is based on equality of treating one person the same as the other with no other considerations.
Click to expand...

If we charged an equal share of the taxes necessary to run this country to every household, each household would be on the hook for about $15,000 right off the bat, just for Federal expenditures. The sheer impossibility of expecting every household in the country to pay that amount in federal taxes says to me that your definition, while valid, isn't practical.
 
jdog21 said:
I see it as Republicans give you back your money so Democrats can take it away again.
Click to expand...

C'mon, man! 22DEC POTUS signs the tax relief bill and 28 days later we don't know how we are going to pay for things w/o increasing revenue?
 
Rexedgar said:
C'mon, man! 22DEC POTUS signs the tax relief bill and 28 days later we don't know how we are going to pay for things w/o increasing revenue?
Click to expand...
We may not know right now if revenues need to increase. Increasing taxes isnt the only way of increasing revenues. Yes the republicans gave us the tax relief, What party will raise taxes in other areas to try and composite?
 
jdog21 said:
We may not know right now if revenues need to increase. Increasing taxes isnt the only way of increasing revenues. Yes the republicans gave us the tax relief, What party will raise taxes in other areas to try and composite?
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on your statement here?
 
Rexedgar said:
Can you elaborate on your statement here?
Click to expand...
One way is to increase the IRS enforcement which reduces the tax gap. Another is passing laws like the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act. Enonmic growth increases revenues.
Just to name a few
 
jdog21 said:
We may not know right now if revenues need to increase. Increasing taxes isnt the only way of increasing revenues. Yes the republicans gave us the tax relief, What party will raise taxes in other areas to try and composite?
Click to expand...

Neither would have to if we hadn't reduced them in the first place. How about we cut military spending instead?
 
Gaius46 said:
I don't disagree. Stuff has to get paid for and if you cut taxes in one place you have to raise that money somewhere else. I'm not opposed to taxes that essentially act as a proxy for a usage fee. If you use a service you should pay for it. And as I noted in my response above I don't see how a gas tax overburdens poorer people. (Though I admit I haven't really thought about it much)
Click to expand...

So how do you feel about the giant subsidy that tractor trailer's receive?


https://www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/


"Heavy trucks obviously cause more road damage than cars, but how much more? According to a GAO study, Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford, road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars (p.23 of study, p.36 of PDF).

The study assumed a fully loaded tractor-trailer at 80,000 pounds, and a typical passenger car at 4,000 pounds. That’s 20 times difference in weight, but the wear and tear caused by the truck is exponentially greater."

 
SirGareth said:
I would prefer the states raise their own highway revenues, the feds always want us to build bike trails and train tracks with highway taxes.
Click to expand...

If we invested more in railroads instead of subsidizing the trucking industry, the U.S. would move goods much more efficiently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom