 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2008Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways
Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways Federal gasoline taxes should be increased up to 40 cents per gallon over five years, a divided special commission urged last week in calling for drastic changes to fix aging bridges and roads and reduce traffic deaths, The Associated Press reported. The two-year study by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission is the first to propose broad changes after the devastating bridge collapse in Minneapolis that took 13 lives last August shone a spotlight on the deteriorating national infrastructure. Calling for immediate action, the congressionally created panel warned that "applying patches" is no longer acceptable, AP said. It said the nation risks tens of thousands of highway casualties each year and millions of dollars lost in economic growth. In a 10-page dissent, the commission's chairwoman, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, and two other members agreed with several aspects of the report but sharply criticized the proposal for higher gasoline taxes. She and the two commissioners are calling instead for sole reliance on tolls and private investment, AP said. L&MT > Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways > > Federal gasoline taxes should be increased up to 40 cents per gallon > over five years, a divided special commission urged last week in > calling for drastic changes to fix aging bridges and roads and reduce > traffic deaths, The Associated Press reported. Same old same old. They divert money from the gasoline taxes for other purposes then come back wanting to increase the gasoline taxes to pay for the things the gasoline tax should have paid for in the first place. Thieves, plain and simple. >> Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the things the gasoline tax should have paid for in the first place. > Thieves, plain and simple. And yet the roads need repairs. And people just seem to grin and bare it when the oil companies raise prices. Complaining that the government is diverting road tax money to other uses is not fixing the roads. And in general the worst thing the Feds have done is to divert road funds to mass transit (arguably still a benefit to road traffic). In my home state the Governor illegally transferred road funds to the general budget - and got away with it. If you are against higher fuel taxes, what do you suggest as an alternative? Ed >>> Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> the things the gasoline tax should have paid for in the first place. >> Thieves, plain and simple. > And yet the roads need repairs. That's why we paid the taxes. > And people just seem to grin and bare it when the oil companies raise prices. Gasoline is still around that 35cent a gallon mark in sound (silver & gold) money. There was a recent article, think it was the wall street journal that showed that it's not so much that oil has gone up, but the dollar down. That's life with a fiat currency. That said, what had kept gasoline prices in check was the independent refineries, many have been bought up in the last decade+ and even shutdown to the best of my knowledge. Oil prices are related to US foreign and monetary policies. > Complaining that the > government is diverting road tax money to other uses is not fixing the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > general budget - and got away with it. If you are against higher fuel > taxes, what do you suggest as an alternative? I am not against fuel taxes that actually go towards the roads. I would prefer taxing consumption instead of taxing income anyway. Of course what we get are taxes on both. As for an alternative, The federal government being brought back within or close to it, constitutional bounds and the local governments being held accountable. Paying more into the system doesn't fix anything long term. They will again divert the monies and then want more. The illegal (at least if it was a business) accounting needs to end too. People also need to stop being flim-flamed by budget numbers and instead look at the comprehensive annual financial reports. The CAFRs hold the real, actual figures, including the assets of government. The simple budget flim-flam is that the money for a project may already be in their hands, but they budget based on income, so it looks like government is short. Just what the city of chicago had in assets (I'm talking liquid, cash or cash equiv) had a couple years ago was a huge figure in the billions. Of course they need higher taxes.... >>> Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >general budget - and got away with it. If you are against higher fuel >taxes, what do you suggest as an alternative? I suggest fiscal responsibility from our elected officials.  SignatureSarcasm is my sword Apathy is my shield On Jan 22, 8:38 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <kwyj...@ozdebate.com> wrote: > >>> Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The only ones who would disagree are the politicians. >>>> Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I suggest fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. And yet the roads are still crumbling. The gas tax has not increased at any where near the rate of inflation. Fuel usage per vehicle mile has decreased greatly over the last 40 years (which means less revenue per vehicle mil available for road construction). Maximum truck weights have greatly increased (which means higher maintenance costs). Road construction and maintenance costs have greatly increased. New roads are generally wider and have more safety features (guard rails, signs, signals, etc.). I don't see how a reasonable person can argue that an increase in road use taxes isn't warranted. I don't like taxes any more than the next person, but of all the taxes I pay, gasoline (road use taxes) are the fairest. In my opinion, I'd much rather see a moderate fuel tax increase than more tolls or different sorts of user fees. Ed >> I suggest fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. > > And yet the roads are still crumbling. The gas tax has not increased > at any where near the rate of inflation. Inflation is the result of fiscal irresponsibility of government. > Fuel usage per vehicle mile > has decreased greatly over the last 40 years (which means less revenue > per vehicle mil available for road construction). Um no. A few years ago, fleet average fuel economy was at 1973 levels thanks to the SUV craze. The move to SUVs was a by-product of CAFE which was of course government interference. > Maximum truck > weights have greatly increased (which means higher maintenance costs). That's government serving the trucking interests. > Road construction and maintenance costs have greatly increased. New > roads are generally wider and have more safety features (guard rails, > signs, signals, etc.). I don't see how a reasonable person can argue > that an increase in road use taxes isn't warranted. Let's see, we have taxes that are 'too low' because : A) government uses them for other purposes. B) government mis-management and federal reserve actions result in inflation. Wages for many people have been essentially flat for many years now, yet the government is right in demanding more? They aren't only demanding more fuel tax, but income tax, sales tax, realestate tax, and just about every other tax plus some new ones. > I don't like taxes > any more than the next person, but of all the taxes I pay, gasoline > (road use taxes) are the fairest. In my opinion, I'd much rather see a > moderate fuel tax increase than more tolls or different sorts of user > fees. Given past and present operation, any increase or toll scheme would be squandered. The federal government prioritizes checkpoints and other violations of our basic rights over fixing the bridges now with 'too little' money, so why would that change with more money? >>> I suggest fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > violations of our basic rights over fixing the bridges now with 'too > little' money, so why would that change with more money? So, I guess your solution is to let the roads go to hell? Ed >>>> I suggest fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. >>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > So, I guess your solution is to let the roads go to hell? The roads aren't going to hell for a lack of money, they are going to hell for a lack of concern and being a low priority. If you give the government more money, it's just going to squander it on foreign wars, welfare for votes('the poor') or friends(corporate), pet projects, the police state, and anything else BUT the roads. That's the track record, I see no reason why it would change with more money. IMO, with more money in the pot it would attract more leaches and thieves. Plus, the government just robs our savings through inflation by giving a rate cut to wall street, why not just create the money out thin air to fix the roads too? >So, I guess your solution is to let the roads go to hell? I suggest holding the people who spend the money they extort from us accountable for how said money is spent. Raise taxes, and someone will find a way to divert that increased revenue from the roads. -- Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. >The gas tax has not increased >at any where near the rate of inflation. Anyone who believes increased taxes and/or more government isn't part of the solution; they're part of the problem. -- Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. >>The gas tax has not increased >>at any where near the rate of inflation. > > Anyone who believes increased taxes and/or more government isn't part > of the solution; they're part of the problem. In the case of promoting energy independence and the development of alternate fuel sources, taxes on non-renewable fuel sources are the only thing that's a guaranteed lock to work. You can always cut taxes somewhere else. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>The gas tax has not increased >>>at any where near the rate of inflation. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >alternate fuel sources, taxes on non-renewable fuel sources are the only >thing that's a guaranteed lock to work. Looks like there might be other possibilities: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=longest-piece-of-dna-yet >You can always cut taxes somewhere else. How often do taxes get cut? I see far more tax increases than decreases. -- Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. >In the case of promoting energy independence and the development of >alternate fuel sources, taxes on non-renewable fuel sources are the only >thing that's a guaranteed lock to work. Not interested. I don't believe in alternative fuel sources. With $90+/bbl oil, a lot of those fuel sources which proponents claimed would be worthwhile at <insert high oil price here> would be. They're not. Alternative fuel sources are like fusion, always a decade in the future. >You can always cut taxes somewhere else. ROTFL. Whenever a plan is proposed to raise taxes in one place while cutting them somewhere else, it's 99% guaranteed that the latter either won't take place, or will be neutralized somehow (e.g. real estate taxes will be cut but assessments raised). SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Jan 24, 8:41 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <fnbcbo0...@news2.newsguy.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not. Alternative fuel sources are like fusion, always a decade in the > future. With incentives, that decade could be cut down. Let the invisible hand work its magic. > >You can always cut taxes somewhere else. > > ROTFL. Whenever a plan is proposed to raise taxes in one place while > cutting them somewhere else, it's 99% guaranteed that the latter > either won't take place, or will be neutralized somehow (e.g. real > estate taxes will be cut but assessments raised). It's never too late to start doing it the right way. nate >On Jan 24, 8:41pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >With incentives, that decade could be cut down. Let the invisible >hand work its magic. The invisible hand keeps reaching for oil. Anyway, taxes are not an example of "the invisible hand". If higher oil prices were all that were needed, we'd see these alternatives _now_. >> >You can always cut taxes somewhere else. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >It's never too late to start doing it the right way. After watching it happen the wrong way over and over again, I think I can be forgiven for not expecting it to happen the right way next time. Lucy's gonna pull the football away from Charlie Brown _every time_. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>On Jan 24, 8:41pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >example of "the invisible hand". If higher oil prices were all that >were needed, we'd see these alternatives _now_. Ah, the voice of reason rears it's ugly head..... >>> >You can always cut taxes somewhere else. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >time. Lucy's gonna pull the football away from Charlie Brown _every >time_. ... again. =)) -- Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. > The invisible hand keeps reaching for oil. Anyway, taxes are not an > example of "the invisible hand". If higher oil prices were all that > were needed, we'd see these alternatives _now_. The higher oil prices have to be: A) due to oil actually running low. B) Not largely due to inflation and unstable political conditions. The reason for this is that alternatives, including vast amounts of oil in the americas, require a capitial investment. This investment can be wiped out if the political conditions return to stability and/or production capacity is increased of the easy to extract & refine oil. Also, inflation means that the alternatives often cost more to make as well. The present high prices are being driven by the political conditions in the middle east along with the armed conflict of Shrub's foreign wars. The cost of Shrub's foreign wars and free money for bankers and wall street policies have brought about inflation (the real kind, on things people need to buy as opposed to the crap that the government uses for its figures), first felt in oil prices, housing prices, metal prices, and now firmly in food prices. Worst of all, government intervention with regards to ethanol have made matters worse, driving up the price of corn and causing farmers to grow corn instead of other crops like hops. In turn hops have gone up more than ten fold in price. >>It's never too late to start doing it the right way. > After watching it happen the wrong way over and over again, I think I > can be forgiven for not expecting it to happen the right way next > time. Lucy's gonna pull the football away from Charlie Brown _every > time_. Yep. Only a dramatic revolution in politics towards liberty and small government will make it worth entertaining a real (as opposed to the unlikely) possibility things will be done right. >> The invisible hand keeps reaching for oil. Anyway, taxes are not an >> example of "the invisible hand". If higher oil prices were all that >> were needed, we'd see these alternatives _now_. > >The higher oil prices have to be: >A) due to oil actually running low. Then I don't think we'll see viable alternatives for a very long time. There's far too much oil there, "Peak Oil" doomsayers notwithstanding. >B) Not largely due to inflation and unstable political conditions. While inflation is a part of the current high oil prices, they aren't the whole thing, not by a long shot -- oil prices have increased an order of magnitude more than inflation. And instability in the middle east has been going on for long enough that you can bank on it. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> The invisible hand keeps reaching for oil. Anyway, taxes are not an >>> example of "the invisible hand". If higher oil prices were all that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then I don't think we'll see viable alternatives for a very long > time. There's far too much oil there, "Peak Oil" doomsayers notwithstanding. The question is how much cheap to extract oil is there. I imagine there must be a lot of it given the lack of investment in more difficult to get oil. However, if the US taxpayer stops footing the bill foreign policy wise to the middle east, then that might bring about the investment. >>B) Not largely due to inflation and unstable political conditions. > While inflation is a part of the current high oil prices, they aren't > the whole thing, not by a long shot -- oil prices have increased an > order of magnitude more than inflation. And instability in the middle > east has been going on for long enough that you can bank on it. And I mentioned the rest, and that's due to Shrub's foreign wars. Democracy at the barrel of a gun. It hasn't been this unstable in the middle east ever. >>>> The invisible hand keeps reaching for oil. Anyway, taxes are not an >>>> example of "the invisible hand". If higher oil prices were all that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >oil. However, if the US taxpayer stops footing the bill foreign policy >wise to the middle east, then that might bring about the investment. Not likely. Someone will be pumping oil out of the Middle East even if the US pulls out entirely. Even if Israel gets pushed against the wall and creates some glass desert. >>>B) Not largely due to inflation and unstable political conditions. > >> While inflation is a part of the current high oil prices, they aren't >> the whole thing, not by a long shot -- oil prices have increased an >> order of magnitude more than inflation. And instability in the middle >> east has been going on for long enough that you can bank on it. >And I mentioned the rest, and that's due to Shrub's foreign wars. >Democracy at the barrel of a gun. It hasn't been this unstable in the >middle east ever. The Middle East is _CALM_ now compared to what it was before, e.g., the Camp David accords. Between the end of the Iranian hostage crisis and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, things were calmer; that's about it. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>> The invisible hand keeps reaching for oil. Anyway, taxes are not an >>>>> example of "the invisible hand". If higher oil prices were all that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>oil. However, if the US taxpayer stops footing the bill foreign policy >>wise to the middle east, then that might bring about the investment. > Not likely. Someone will be pumping oil out of the Middle East even > if the US pulls out entirely. Even if Israel gets pushed against the > wall and creates some glass desert. I didn't say it wouldn't be pumped, I said the full cost of the political conditions would be in the oil. The US taxpayer is keeping that oil cheap to extract and use. >>>>B) Not largely due to inflation and unstable political conditions. >> >>> While inflation is a part of the current high oil prices, they aren't >>> the whole thing, not by a long shot -- oil prices have increased an >>> order of magnitude more than inflation. And instability in the middle >>> east has been going on for long enough that you can bank on it. >>And I mentioned the rest, and that's due to Shrub's foreign wars. >>Democracy at the barrel of a gun. It hasn't been this unstable in the >>middle east ever. > The Middle East is _CALM_ now compared to what it was before, e.g., > the Camp David accords. Between the end of the Iranian hostage crisis > and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, things were calmer; that's about it. If you want to expand to where the oil isn't, sure. >Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways > >Federal gasoline taxes should be increased up to 40 cents per gallon >over five years, a divided special commission urged last week in >calling for drastic changes to fix aging bridges and roads and reduce >traffic deaths, The Associated Press reported. Hmm. But the Feds don't fix the roads and bridges, the states do. So why don't the states raise their gas taxes? That way people in Florida aren't paying for roads ruined in Minnesota winters, nor people in Minnesota paying for roads destroyed by Floridians crashing due to smoke. >Calling for immediate action, the congressionally created panel warned >that "applying patches" is no longer acceptable, AP said. It said the >nation risks tens of thousands of highway casualties each year and >millions of dollars lost in economic growth. Blood on the streets! Millions of dollars lost in economic growth, though... let's study that a bit. The US uses just shy of 400 million gallons of gas every DAY. Increase the tax on that by 40 cents a gallon, that's 160 million dollars a day. I think we can risk a few millions in economic growth in a year to save 160 million a day in gas taxes.... SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hmm. But the Feds don't fix the roads and bridges, the states do. Not entirely true. The Feds fund Interstate and US highway construction. The States manage the projects, and even kick in some money, but in most cases the money for "Federal" highways comes for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. > So why don't the states raise their gas taxes? In most cases they should. I am definitely in favor of a moderate increase in gas taxes in my home state (NC). I'd even be willing to try out a local (county or area wide) gas tax to fund some special projects as an alternative to toll roads. Up until the current administration took office, my home state has not had toll roads (at least in my life time). How because of the "all taxes are evil" mentality, none of the politicians have enough guts to raise gas taxes to pay for needed improvements. Instead our spineless jelly fish of a governor encouraged the legislature to authorize toll roads. So now they are planning to build a toll road to complete an outer loop around Raleigh, NC (540). They are even planning to convert part of the already constructed road to a toll road (stealing!). As an alternative to tolls, I think the legislature should allow a $0.05 local gas tax to fund this "special" project. I don't really like doing this in general, but this is a special case. In truth, I'd rather see a statewide increase, since other areas of the state need more money as well. > That way people in > Florida aren't paying for roads ruined in Minnesota winters, nor > people in Minnesota paying for roads destroyed by Floridians > crashing > due to smoke. But goods destined for Florida may use the Minnesota roads, Florida produce will need to reach Minnesota over Minnesota roads, and Minnesotans looking to take a vacation in Florida need to be able to get out of the state. Using your logic, should FEMA get involved in hurricane relief? Besides, federal gas tax money is allocated back to the states based at least in part on where it was generated. If you take your idea to the extreme, individual counties and cities should collect their own gas taxes and only spend it on the roads in their jurisdiction. For a while I worked in Arkansas. In Arkansas,as in many other states, the counties are responsible for "county roads." I lived in one county and worked in another. The shortest route to work was over county roads. To get to work I started out on a nice wide well paved road with good quality bridges. After I crossed the county line, the road was dirt and one of the bridges was literally a one lane wooden bridge with no guard rails and boards laid railroad track style to create the driving surface. I'd go that way in good weather, otherwise I had to take a much longer route down a US highway and back track to my work location. Ed >> That way people in >> Florida aren't paying for roads ruined in Minnesota winters, nor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Minnesotans looking to take a vacation in Florida need to be able to >get out of the state. Truck taxes are apportioned to handle the freight scenarios. Vacationers generally buy gas (thus paying gas tax) at their destination as well as their origin and along the way. >Using your logic, should FEMA get involved in hurricane relief? Considering their performance last time... In any case, emergencies are a different scenario. It's a strength for a nation to be able to pull resources from distant places to help out in an emergency. But for routine needs, it makes a lot more sense for the money to come locally. >Besides, federal gas tax money is allocated back to >the states based at least in part on where it was generated. Then why bother with the U-turn in Washington? >If you take your idea to the extreme, individual counties and cities should >collect their own gas taxes and only spend it on the roads in their >jurisdiction. Ideally, every road would be paid for using taxes and fees collected from drivers on that road. That's not possible (at least not without Big Brother style technology). Cities and most counties are probably too small for taxes and road use to average out over the area; states generally aren't. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.