• 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

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
63,205
Reaction score
52,902
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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
 
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 would prefer the states raise their own highway revenues, the feds always want us to build bike trails and train tracks with highway taxes.
 
So...what's the problem here? Weren't you one of the ones complaining about the tax decrease that 80% of Americans got? This is a tax increase designed to go directly to where its needed, roads, from a product that is primarily used on roads. And everyone that uses those roads pays. Is that the problem? You want a more wide ranging tax increase that goes to whatever you feel it should go? Especially if it comes from rich people?

And by the by, this should help mitigate some of that lost money that you were worried about.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So...what's the problem here? Weren't you one of the ones complaining about the tax decrease that 80% of Americans got? This is a tax increase designed to go directly to where its needed, roads, from a product that is primarily used on roads. And everyone that uses those roads pays. Is that the problem? You want a more wide ranging tax increase that goes to whatever you feel it should go? Especially if it comes from rich people?

And by the by, this should help mitigate some of that lost money that you were worried about.
Click to expand...

And you want all sorts of money invested in infrastructure while having a big corporate tax cut. Gas taxes and tolls are regressive taxes.
 
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...

I'm sure you can explain that......

And I have no problem with taxes aimed at providing revenue towards things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. I also do not mind those taxes targeting the people that use those things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. It's fair as it targets everyone that uses the roads while leaving those that don't use the roads alone.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So...what's the problem here? Weren't you one of the ones complaining about the tax decrease that 80% of Americans got? This is a tax increase designed to go directly to where its needed, roads, from a product that is primarily used on roads. And everyone that uses those roads pays. Is that the problem? You want a more wide ranging tax increase that goes to whatever you feel it should go? Especially if it comes from rich people?

And by the by, this should help mitigate some of that lost money that you were worried about.
Click to expand...



I wasn’t great at math, but addition and subtraction are pretty simple. If there is a federal tax cut and a state tax increase......do you need a picture?
 
I guess that is why it is called the Invisible Hand.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm sure you can explain that......

And I have no problem with taxes aimed at providing revenue towards things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. I also do not mind those taxes targeting the people that use those things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. It's fair as it targets everyone that uses the roads while leaving those that don't use the roads alone.
Click to expand...

We have recently voted on such funds in Ga to go to hwy funding. The problem was that most of the money was to go to Atlanta and the surrounding area. I know they have terrible traffic problems in some areas. But they expect the rest of the state to pay for it. So I prefer a gas tax increase. With the resulting funds allocated more or less in proportion to where they came from.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm sure you can explain that......

And I have no problem with taxes aimed at providing revenue towards things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. I also do not mind those taxes targeting the people that use those things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. It's fair as it targets everyone that uses the roads while leaving those that don't use the roads alone.
Click to expand...

Sure I can explain. It's basically the government taking it's cut for your commute. Go get a job and then pay for the privilege to go to it.
 
rocket88 said:
Sure I can explain. It's basically the government taking it's cut for your commute. Go get a job and then pay for the privilege to go to it.
Click to expand...

If you use the road you should pay for it. Shouldn't you?
 
Gaius46 said:
If you use the road you should pay for it. Shouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Sure, there should be some gas tax. Raising those taxes and slapping up tollbooths only ends up hurting working people and small businesses.
 
Gaius46 said:
If you use the road you should pay for it. Shouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Sure, but I think we were paying for it BEFORE this increase. This seems like a "shell game;" reduce taxes on big business and the wealthy, and increase taxes on the working stiffs who drive cars and ride buses to work.
 
rocket88 said:
Sure, there should be some gas tax. Raising those taxes and slapping up tollbooths only ends up hurting working people and small businesses.
Click to expand...

"Rich" people - however you want to define that term - drive as well and in big cities, like NY where I live, probably drive more that poorer people who'd tend to take mass transit. As well people with more money tend to buy more stuff which is transported over roads and, presumably, the gasoline taxes to deliver those things are factored into the sales price. I may be wrong but at least on the surface I don't see how gas taxes and tolls, which are essentially user fees, disproportionately burden poorer people.
 
DickBanks said:
Sure, but I think we were paying for it BEFORE this increase. This seems like a "shell game;" reduce taxes on big business and the wealthy, and increase taxes on the working stiffs who drive cars and ride buses to work.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Gaius46 said:
"Rich" people - however you want to define that term - drive as well and in big cities, like NY where I live, probably drive more that poorer people who'd tend to take mass transit. As well people with more money tend to buy more stuff which is transported over roads and, presumably, the gasoline taxes to deliver those things are factored into the sales price. I may be wrong but at least on the surface I don't see how gas taxes and tolls, which are essentially user fees, disproportionately burden poorer people.
Click to expand...

It doesn't hurt those with more as much as it hurts those with less. User fees are just taxes gussied up so Repubs will support them.
 
rocket88 said:
It doesn't hurt those with more as much as it hurts those with less. User fees are just taxes gussied up so Repubs will support them.
Click to expand...

I agree user fees are usage based taxes. No argument from me there. I'm just not convinced that they aren't a more fair way to pay for things. Likewise I'm not convinced that gas taxes disproportionately hurt the poor. For one thing around here a lot of poor people don't have cars.
 
Gaius46 said:
I agree user fees are usage based taxes. No argument from me there. I'm just not convinced that they aren't a more fair way to pay for things. Likewise I'm not convinced that gas taxes disproportionately hurt the poor. For one thing around here a lot of poor people don't have cars.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where your "around here" is, but in my world, I see many working poor without access to public transportation. They DO have to have a car. There are literally no bus routes in the northern half of the county I live in. (Just for reference, my county's southern border is the northern border of the city of Detroit, so it's not like I'm out in BFE, yet it's a 20 minute drive to the nearest public bus stop.)
 
Critter7r said:
I'm not sure where your "around here" is, but in my world, I see many working poor without access to public transportation. They DO have to have a car. There are literally no bus routes in the northern half of the county I live in. (Just for reference, my county's southern border is the northern border of the city of Detroit, so it's not like I'm out in BFE, yet it's a 20 minute drive to the nearest public bus stop.)
Click to expand...

I'm in New York. I live about 40 miles east of the city. I realize that in some areas not having a car is not an option. Actually I assumed that in absolute terms most poor people live in or near large cities and have access to mass transit (further assuming that most urban areas have mass transit). I looked quickly and found that the south actually has the largest number of poor as a percentage of the overall population. Overall there are still probably more poor people living near or in big cities but I probably overestimated the number of poor people who have access to mass transit.

I don't know that that changes my mind about funding roads via gas taxes. It still seems fairer to me and as I mentioned somewhere else those taxes would be factored into the cost of goods and people with money buy lots of stuff.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm sure you can explain that (regressive taxation)......

And I have no problem with taxes aimed at providing revenue towards things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. I also do not mind those taxes targeting the people that use those things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. It's fair as it targets everyone that uses the roads while leaving those that don't use the roads alone.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gaius46 said:
I'm in New York. I live about 40 miles east of the city. I realize that in some areas not having a car is not an option. Actually I assumed that in absolute terms most poor people live in or near large cities and have access to mass transit (further assuming that most urban areas have mass transit). I looked quickly and found that the south actually has the largest number of poor as a percentage of the overall population. Overall there are still probably more poor people living near or in big cities but I probably overestimated the number of poor people who have access to mass transit.

I don't know that that changes my mind about funding roads via gas taxes. It still seems fairer to me and as I mentioned somewhere else those taxes would be factored into the cost of goods and people with money buy lots of stuff.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree in principle, but the ratio of 'user tax' vs. 'income tax' used on road repairs is debatable. And the point that was made earlier that gas taxes hurt the poor more than the rich should have included the caveat "other things being equal". For instance ... it will affect a poor person (probably twofold) more than a rich person if they are both driving the same amount of miles each year. One: a fixed dollar amount of gas tax will suck up a larger percentage of the poor person's income. So then the argument will devolve into "which is more fair? A dollar amount or a percentage of income?". Two: the poor person will be more likely to drive a crappy car that doesn't get as good of gas mileage and will actually pay a larger number of dollars in gas tax (because their car uses more gallons of gas) while only "using" the same amount of roads.
 
trblmkr said:
We have recently voted on such funds in Ga to go to hwy funding. The problem was that most of the money was to go to Atlanta and the surrounding area. I know they have terrible traffic problems in some areas. But they expect the rest of the state to pay for it. So I prefer a gas tax increase. With the resulting funds allocated more or less in proportion to where they came from.
Click to expand...

I can understand your frustrations with that, but the Atlanta area pays the vast majority of Georgia state taxes, so of course it would get a lot of spending back. In every state in the country with a large urban area, the wealth transfers are from wealthy urban areas to poorer rural areas.
 
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 am perfectly fine with this. We have not increased gas taxes since 1993. The federal highway trust fund, which is paid for out of the gas tax, has been underfunded for well over a decade. This article from 2014 explains it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-to-raise-the-gas-tax/?utm_term=.08d9aef53744
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom