|
General » rec.autos.driving » Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways
| Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #791972] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 14:04 |
|
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
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #791975 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 14:47 |
|
In article <4795ea31$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #791987 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 16:26 |
|
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:McmdnYmRNoR0bgjanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> In article <4795ea31$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>> 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.
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
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792007 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 20:15 |
|
In article <47960ba6$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:McmdnYmRNoR0bgjanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>> In article <4795ea31$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>>> 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.
> 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
> 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?
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....
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792037 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:38 |
|
C. E. White wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:McmdnYmRNoR0bgjanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>> In article <4795ea31$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>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?
I suggest fiscal responsibility from our elected officials.
--
Sarcasm is my sword
Apathy is my shield
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792043 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:58 |
|
On Jan 22, 8:38=A0pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver
(Hector Goldstein)" <kwyj... [at] ozdebate.com> wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
> >"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:McmdnYmRNoR0bgjanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> >> In article <4795ea31$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
> >>> 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.
>
> >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?
>
> I suggest fiscal responsibility from our elected officials.
>
> --
>
> Sarcasm is my sword
> Apathy is my shield- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The only ones who would disagree are the politicians.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792058 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 05:23 |
|
In article <4795ea31$1 [at] kcnews01>,
C. E. White <cewhite3 [at] removemindspring.com> wrote:
>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....
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792146 ] |
Thu, 24 January 2008 13:44 |
|
"Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)"
<kwyjibo [at] ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:v3adp3pf6av9ak7a3p33vbg753q00qsir5 [at] 4ax.com...
> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:McmdnYmRNoR0bgjanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>>> In article <4795ea31$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>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?
>
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792147 ] |
Thu, 24 January 2008 14:06 |
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:vKOdnfQM8JPQXAvanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d [at] speakeasy.net...
> In article <4795ea31$1 [at] kcnews01>,
> C. E. White <cewhite3 [at] removemindspring.com> wrote:
>>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.
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
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792151 ] |
Thu, 24 January 2008 15:53 |
|
In article <479888b4$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>> 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?
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792154 ] |
Thu, 24 January 2008 16:00 |
|
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lKudnQikIcjtOwXanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> In article <479888b4$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>> 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?
So, I guess your solution is to let the roads go to hell?
Ed
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792156 ] |
Thu, 24 January 2008 16:19 |
|
In article <4798a87f$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:lKudnQikIcjtOwXanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>> In article <479888b4$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>>> 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?
>
> 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?
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792200 ] |
Fri, 25 January 2008 00:45 |
|
C. E. White wrote:
>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.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792201 ] |
Fri, 25 January 2008 00:46 |
|
C. E. White wrote:
>
>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.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792203 ] |
Fri, 25 January 2008 02:00 |
|
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>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
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792207 ] |
Fri, 25 January 2008 02:22 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
>Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) wrote:
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>>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.
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792208 ] |
Fri, 25 January 2008 02:29 |
|
In article <47988dc6$1 [at] kcnews01>,
C. E. White <cewhite3 [at] removemindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:vKOdnfQM8JPQXAvanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d [at] speakeasy.net...
>
>> 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.
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.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792210 ] |
Fri, 25 January 2008 02:41 |
|
In article <fnbcbo0nt5 [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>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).
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792270 ] |
Fri, 25 January 2008 19:32 |
|
On Jan 24, 8:41=A0pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <fnbcbo0... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel =A0<njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >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. =A0I don't believe in alternative fuel sources. =A0With
> $90+/bbl oil, a lot of those fuel sources which proponents claimed
> would be worthwhile at <insert high oil price here> would be. =A0They're
> not. =A0Alternative 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. =A0Whenever 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
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792303 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 04:34 |
|
In article <c28325be-f9ca-4938-ae22-ba5034185f02 [at] m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 24, 8:41pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <fnbcbo0... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
>> Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>
>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.
>>
>> 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.
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_.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792315 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 06:19 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>In article <c28325be-f9ca-4938-ae22-ba5034185f02 [at] m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jan 24, 8:41pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>>wrote:
>>> In article <fnbcbo0... [at] news2.newsguy.com>,
>>> Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >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.
>>>
>>
>>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_.
Ah, the voice of reason rears it's ugly head.....
>>> >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.
>
>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_.
.... again. =))
--
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792326 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 06:52 |
|
In article <XcOdne_lCaWiNwfanZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792368 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 19:54 |
|
In article <oaKdnWrpB-ITVwfanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <XcOdne_lCaWiNwfanZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> 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.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792374 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 21:17 |
|
In article <_cednT8DZotPHAbanZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <oaKdnWrpB-ITVwfanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In article <XcOdne_lCaWiNwfanZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792422 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 04:30 |
|
In article <TtidnVEW68DSCAbanZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <_cednT8DZotPHAbanZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <oaKdnWrpB-ITVwfanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
>> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>In article <XcOdne_lCaWiNwfanZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>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.
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.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Panel Urges Gas Tax Hike to Fix Roadways [message #792436 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 06:09 |
|
In article <Na2dndTUF8JBZwbanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <TtidnVEW68DSCAbanZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In article <_cednT8DZotPHAbanZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <oaKdnWrpB-ITVwfanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
>>> Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <XcOdne_lCaWiNwfanZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>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.
> 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.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 02:53:33 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.07434 Sekunden |
