One of the few things I hate more than higher taxes is having some overfed, overpaid despot sitting halfway around the world (or on the south shore of the Caribbean... ) dictating terms to me. One other thing I hate more than higher taxes is having our leaders get us into situations where we have to send Americans halfway around the world to get shot at...
As Kernick pointed out many roads even in CA are too narrow to accommodate a bike lane.
Luckily those roads don't have enough vehicular traffic that its an issue then, right?
Our area seems to be a regular weekend bike rally road. There are spots that you cannot pass the bike riders safely without crossing the double yellow line.
And you would never honk at them or be rude, just wait and pass them when its safe to do so, right? Thank you, we all appreciate it.
Most bike riding in CA is for pleasure. My guess about 99% pleasure.
I would totally agree. When I ride my bike to work, its the best part of my day. In fact, I would say its almost 100% for pleasure, and the fact that I am saving fuel, not polluting the atmosphere, and taking up 5% of the space of a car as I commute to work is all a bonus.
Spending gas tax on bike paths seems unconstitutional. Maybe a $100 per year license on all bikes would help build these fancy private bike paths.
Maybe instead of those fancy bike paths, you can just sit in traffic behind the bikes. State law says a vehicle can hold up 3 vehicles before being required to yield. Perhaps you will sit behind a cyclist for a while someday...
After reading this board, I am certainly glad that my generation is starting to take ownership of the political process and push out old self-centered ideas.
I'd hope some cyclists would be a little wary of road-ragers...not hard for 2 tons of steel to waste a bike and keep on going with no witnesses and very little damage, certainly not enough for public servants to put two and two together. I suspect it's happening more lately.
The masses have 0% ownership of anything political...
And you would never honk at them or be rude, just wait and pass them when its safe to do so, right? Thank you, we all appreciate it.
I never honk. I also like to ride a bike. I am much more cognizant of the people on the road than most bike riders. I go by Fintails post. A two ton car can do a lot more damage to me than I to them.
Most bike riders are fairly courteous. I would never ride on a 1 foot wide shoulder with traffic posted at 50 MPH as is the case in my area of San Diego. It seems to be a preferred route on the weekends. Too scary for me. I stick to the back roads and dirt trails. I don't like those skinny tired foo foo bikes anyway. I like my Gary Fisher Mtn Bike.
I don't believe the bike riders are owed a free lane. They should pay like car drivers do.
I don't believe the bike riders are owed a free lane. They should pay like car drivers do.
Yep. I agree. I have no problem with each and every group paying for their transportation system. People flying pay for the airports. People who take the buses pay enough fares to pay for the bus system. People who drive pay for the roads. People who take the trains pay the cost of the trains. And people who bike pay for the bike trails or bike-lane section of the road. This would probablty require each bike to be registered to collect the fee.
I certainly don't want the gas tax to be used for anything other than roads for vehicles using that fuel-tax. If and when we get a lot of electric vehicles then the gas tax should be eliminated, so as not to tax ICE drivers with a per-mile charge and a fuel tax.
Totally agree with all points in your post, especially re gas taxes used only for roads for motor vehicles.
Bike lanes and bike paths should be 100 percent funded by the users, bicyclists. States and municipalities should pass legislation to require licensing and taxing of all bicylcles, bicylclists (16 and over) who ride on bike lanes and bike paths to fund building and maintenance of same. The yearly license fee would cover bike rider "use" of public roads and streets. Bicyclists could also pay an extra fee that would enable them to use, ride, on bike paths and lanes. That extra fee, paid yearly, would give them a yearly decal tag that they would put on their license plate mounted on the bike.
Yep, just like I don't pay for my neighbor's city sewer, water or garbage pickup. I don't use those services; I don't want to pay for them; that's fair.
If I mail a letter I pay for the service, if I don't mail I don't pay - fair.
If I don't like the bus and don't ride the bus I don't want to pay for the bus. I'll pay for the bus the day I get on the bus - set the fares so it breaks even or makes profit. :P
>...higher gas taxes MUST be offset by lower taxes elsewhere, e.g. the income tax
Agree with that. it is easier to cheat on income tax than on gas tax due to the way it is levied (not sure if I wrote it correctly). This kind of transfer contributes to reducing fraud and could allow headcount savings in fiscal administration (in short : expenses)
This kind of transfer contributes to reducing fraud and could allow headcount savings in fiscal administration (in short : expenses)
Wouldn't the administration go up, as you have people now who pay no income tax and don't file, and now as some proposed here - these people would file to get their gas tax refunded to them?
Also I don't see how the gas tax would reduce fraud. I'm middle-income and I'm still going to have to pay income tax even if I paid $3,000/year more in gas tax. Actually I only use 250gal gas/yr so it wouldn't be $3,000. If I wanted to cheat on income tax I still would. And then I would cheat by claiming that I used more gas than I did. So a reduction in tax fraud - No?
Maybe you would suggest 200M motorists need to register their miles driven each year? Gee that sounds like more administration (and cost). :P
- Federal Income tax - Some pay state income tax - Some pay city or county income tax - Social security tax - Medicare tax - Gas tax - Car registration - Sales tax - various taxes on phone - tax on internet service - on cable TV - regular property tax - real estate transfer taxes - sewer and water tax/fees - garbage disposal fees - mandatory auto insurance - artificially high prices on all goods as the companies that make products are paying social security for workers, and income taxes. - artificially high food prices because of government mandates to use ethanol
I'm sure we could keep adding to the list. Too many taxes currently and too much money going into creating Big Brother.
> I have no problem with each and every group paying for their transportation system.
Ok but the problem is to evaluate the price to pay. While some contributors just want to cover short term and visible needs, I think the total cost of ICE car use should be paid, and it is far from being met by current gas prices.
I know you do not appreciate my attitude of repeating that driving don't just cost the price of road maintenance, but I think that so far all the problems I stated are true.
Regarding bike/pedestrians paths, we could argue that the bad casualty record of car/truck traffic would require to protect non-motorized users. The automobiles being at the source of the "threat", it could make sense that motorists shoulder the added costs of securing lanes for bikes and pedestrians.
I don't wish to ented the debate here, but just wanted to raise the question of which fair and realistic price should be paid by each user on its transportation mode
I believe tax system should be simplified in order to save on admin/recovery costs. This could contribute to measurable savings.
Let us admit Gas tax is bad and unfair. Other tax are just worse. Which one would you choose ?
The advantage of Gas tax is that they need little paperwork in comparison with income tax where taxpayers need to fill some form and public servants to read, check and re-check for every single case.
I don't like Interstates and don't like paying for them. I'll stick to the blue highways and you can pay extra if you like mindless cruising on the 4 lanes at 80 mph.
I don't believe the bike riders are owed a free lane. They should pay like car drivers do.
You mentioned you had a Gary Fisher mountain bike, IIRC. Hmm, I wonder what else you have around your place that you use for transportation...lets see, something you probably pay registration fees and insurance for already...hmm oh yeah, a car (in your case i think its several). Since you are already paying registration on 3 cars (when you can only drive one at a time), you also want to pay a fee to license that Gary Fisher? I thought you were anti-tax.
The false logic that you are trying to employ is that because a person rides a bicycle, they aren't paying into the system. When I ride, my licensed, insured car sits at home, reducing congestion on the roads, saving fuel, etc.
I think the total cost of ICE car use should be paid, and it is far from being met by current gas prices.
I believe the 60 cents per gallon paid in CA is far more than is needed to build and maintain the roads, bridges and infrastructure.
The automobiles being at the source of the "threat", it could make sense that motorists shoulder the added costs of securing lanes for bikes and pedestrians.
I think we already do as most roads require sidewalks and curbs to be part of the project. Maybe we should include lanes for folks to land their airplane in front of their homes as well as bike trails. The truth is the state and local governments have robbed gas tax for everything under the sun. That is except maintaining the roads in good condition.
There is a difference between use fees and tax. Much of the taxes we pay goes into a black hole and little or poor accounting of where it is spent. If the state and Feds kept an accurate accounting of the taxes paid on fuel and where they were spent. It would be easier to justify additional taxes if there was not enough to cover their intended purpose.
My bike is mostly used in the hills behind my property. It is all private land. Asking me to pay for your bike path is the same as me asking you to pay my membership to the 24 Hour fitness center or the golf course fees. Who is to say which one is better exercise. Or how many hours it keeps me off the road paid by my auto taxes.
I think the total cost of ICE car use should be paid, and it is far from being met by current gas prices.
The gas tax is only one tax/fee that drivers in the U.S. pay to drive. With our laws, the purpose of that tax is to maintain the roads. Thereare other payments like tolls, registrations, inspections, and property tax which pays for other driving.
Driving supports the general economy - goods are moved using diesel and people get to work by driving. The general economy pays for the other general expenses such as Defense and the EPA.
Historically the gas tax in this country has been beyond the road repair needs. The excess has been used for other purposes, and now they are running short. it is like having given your kid money for lunch for the next 2 weeks, to find he has bought lunch for 1 week and bought liquor with the rest. I at least would not trust him, and give him more money. Our politicians will spend whatever you give them, however they want.
For all we know that extra gas tax money would get diverted to bailing out AIG or Chrysler, end-up going to foreign aid to some dictator, or be used to start a war because of WMD (I thought it was the Europeans who chided us for financially supporting the Bush government and invading Iraq?) I don't trust our politicians; if your ideal world existed - I might agree giving them more tax $. They have too much now!
Regarding bike/pedestrians paths, we could argue that the bad casualty record of car/truck traffic would require to protect non-motorized users.
There are already sidewalks built with tax money; right next to the road in most cases. I want pedestrians and bikes to use them as they are safer for all involved. When I ride my bike it is mainly on the sidewalk, because I care about my safety, and not what should be or what right I supposedly have to be on a bike on a road designed for vehicles.
I would also like to point out that a gas tax would not replace an income tax. I use 250 gal. of gas year. If you propose even a $10/gal tax on gasoline, I would be paying very little tax as compared to now, and I am middle-class financially. And if you didn't want to hit the poor then you are going to need administration to get their gas tax money refunded to them.
That's the great thing about this country - you have the choice. I like both, and choose depending on my destination and purpose.
I don't believe in tolls. 1) They're a waste of money having hundreds of people do what another $0.01 increase in a gas tax could do for no additional cost. I know the toll system in MA is basically there to provide high paying jobs for the friends of the state-leaders. They're smart in MA though never hiring their own relatives; the pols pair-up and hire each others relatives. 2) Tolls are also discriminatory, making some pay more than others just based on wher they work or live. 3) Tollplazas also cause bottlenecks, crazy behavior getting in the correct lane, and needless idling and slowing down.
All roads and bridges should be free, and the gas tax set to pay 100% of the cost - no more or less.
I have no problem with higher gas taxes (definitely prefer them to a stricter CAFE standard), as long as the revenues are earmarked for specific purposes.
One problem with taxes designed to "discourage" specific behaviors - in most cases, the revenues are used to support specific programs or agencies. If the frowned-upon behavior does disappear, the program supported by the revenue doesn't. If anything, it usally has expanded since it was originally enacted. So government is now stuck with a program paid for by a tax on behaviors it is supposedly trying to discourage. :confuse:
So I'll pencil you in as being in favor of higher gas taxes, right?
Yes-if it is shown that the gas tax money currently being collected 1) isn't partially being redirected to other government programs on both the state and federal levels, and 2) it is still insufficient.
It is far too prevalent in our system to have pols cry EVERY year that education or roads need more funding, and then find out that the funds were partly used for to fund a new sports stadium, pay for bureaucrats to take a fact-finding mission to the Riviera, or to build roads in Iraq, under some related premise.
I don't remember ever paying any tolls on the Yellowhead, and I see that this stretch is free now. It is pretty country (and now you've got me jonesing for another road trip).
Grbeck, one use of tax money (and I'm speculating it's gas tax revenue), is extra carrots to states that enact seat belt laws. Someone at the DOT works to get the ads and educational stuff out. Apparently it's working since seat belt usage is at an all time high.
For your rebuttal, I suggest this link (and it's one that Kernick will appreciate).
Was behind a lady buying cigarettes at quick store. I believe taxes went up on tobacco recently. She protested the newer, higher price. Instead of 6 packs of a mix of types, she bought 2. I hope she doesn't plan to stop in KY over the border in Cincinnati (60 miles away) where cigarettes USED to be lots cheaper than Ohio/Indiana. They added a 6% state tax along with the federal increase. Was the lady actually going to smoke less? I suspect gauging her reaction and long hesitation.
When people reduced driving, and still have, now the states and others complain about the drop in revenue stream from the gas taxes.
And unfortunately, the reason it's so easy to cheat on one's income tax is because it's so incredibly complicated.
The income tax system has been a tool for creating social policy for decades (e.g. the mortgage interest deduction). That's just a reality for any mixed capitalist system such as ours (and that of most of the West). It's sure not perfect, but it's the least worst tool available.
And the reality is that it's probably the best, fastest, and most impactful tool that we have available to cure our oil addiction.
You've been complaining about your taxes repeatedly, and no one likes to pay higher taxes.
If you don't want to impose a gas tax to cut consumption, what would you do instead?
Or would you rather go to war with everyone to take their oil and still run out in 30 or 40 years? By the way, not only would we be going to war with a billion Muslims, but we'd also be going to war with 1.5 billion Chinese, who want that oil as much as we do.
(Have you noticed that they recently increased the size of their armed forces quite dramatically recently?).
(Did you also read about how the Russian and Chinese have hacked into the systems that run our power grid and have planted lots of tools in our systems to enable them to take control of our grid at will? The CIA and FBI just announced this yesterday).
If not a gas tax, then what? My kid will be 18 in 10 years. I don't want her to have to go off to war because people don't like gas taxes. The world's already a pretty dangerous place. Why give these people more bullets to use against us?
Drilling for the oil we have here instead of letting the Chinese drill in the Gulf to take the oil themselves would be a nice start for the administration. Using the coal we have also works wonders. That would be much better than a blind assertion that "We won't drill" just because their flower child base controlling the party still thinks the world operates the way it did in the Haight Ashbury days. (Hard to picture Al Gore as a flower anything.) Then our kids will have fuels in our future.
If you don't want to impose a gas tax to cut consumption, what would you do instead?
Has the high gas tax that Europe has had for many years reduced global consumption? Why do you think the U.S. getting a high-gas tax would do much on a global basis? Or did improving the mpg since 1970 thru CAFE, reduce the demand?
Do the math. If the U.S. uses 25% of the world's gasoline and we cut gas consumption by 10%, gas consumption globally goes down 2.5%. In a normal year that is the global growth in demand. So reducing demand in gasoline does not do much in the trend of wanting more and more oil globally.
(Did you also read about how the Russian and Chinese have hacked into the systems that run our power grid and have planted lots of tools in our systems to enable them to take control of our grid at will? The CIA and FBI just announced this yesterday).
Yes I read that article; and we probably have their systems hacked. Your worry about war-for-oil is possible, but I think overblown by fear-mongers. All countries will continue to compete economically, and the energy will go to those who can and are willing to pay.
Iran has to continue to sell oil or its economy collapses (BTW Iran imports all its gasoline, and other refined products), and we're China's best customer keeping their economy running.
Yep, the reason NH may approve the seatbelt law is the bribe of extra federal money, if we pass the law. In these tougher economic times every state wants more - believe it is only $3M though.
What's interesting is that we're 5th safest and have neither a seat-belt law or a helmet-law for motorcyclists. If we got rid of the moose, I'm sure we could get up to #2 (safest).
Obama promised transparency at fed level. Could he somehow prod the States similarly with providing details on revenue from all sorts including gas taxes?
Would be nice to see each State Treasurer post on State web site quarterly data on Excel spreadsheets that we could all look at, download, etc. Show gas tax revenue and then where it goes, right down to the single dollar.
If I recall correctly, Attorney General in Illinois, Lisa Madigan, may start posting some info on salaries of government workers. That's a start. There are some school districts in Illinois that post salaries of all of their employees. Very eye opening to see the quantity of various administrators in relation to quantity of teachers. Too many administrators and they make too much with relation to teachers.
You give them what they say they want, and they will stick it to you. The state says we have to create less CO2. We create less CO2 and they whine because they don't have as much money to waste on cutting CO2. It is a vicious game and we pay the price. You want to see wailing and gnashing of teeth. Wait till EVs start to cut into Gas revenues. CARB has done its job by regulating US to the lowest levels of pollution in the World. Why are they still needed? Wasted tax dollars. They can be disbanded. Oh, I forgot once an agency is created it takes an act of God to get rid of it.
Besides the Skyway for 99 years, Chicago's Mayor Daley also leased out parking meters in Chicago to some outfit. Downtown and nearby Chicago parking on the street is now $3.50 per hour. There have been reports of persons sledge hammering these meters, squirting glue in slots, etc. Parking rates out in neighborhoods is as little as $1.00 per hour. Daley also interested in leasing out Midway Airport.
On parking meters, cars were being ticketted for parking at a destroyed meter and not reporting the broken meter.
Oil is running out. It is already becoming scarcer. A lot of drilling is already going on. The main resistance to offshore drilling is that you can't trust an oil company to drill cleanly and responsibly, and be accountable for the mess it leaves (e.g. the Exxon Valdez).
If it wasn't for the global economy crashing, gasoline prices would still be increasing dramatically; we'd probably be at $6/gallon. Prices fell back in large part because demand has temporarily plunged.
Coal is incredibly dirty.
There's no 'flower-child' base controlling the Democratic party. They're just not quite as fully owned and managed by the oil companies as the Republicans are.
Actually, the Europeans use far less fuel for transportation, per capita and in aggregate, than we do. That's a fact. They also drive clean diesels, which are a whole lot more efficient than gas engines. Both have directly resulted from tax policy.
If we cut our own gas demand by 10%, we lessen our risk on global events by 10%. It may not do a whole lot for global pricing, but it does lessen our exposure to people who hate us.
War for oil is highly possible, especially with the Chinese. We are their most important market now, but they are aggressively developing other markets around the world (they are especially active in sub-Saharan Africa). Their government is buying up oil rights around the world. We're China's best customer today, but they are clearly (and smartly, from their perspective) diversifying their business relationships.
If you don't think war for oil is possible, remember that Japan went to war with the US over access to raw materials and similar economic drivers as well.
Road privatization annoys the heck out of me. Talk about double-dipping. Public roads are just that...PUBLIC.
Having said that, roads, mass transit, sidewalks, even bike paths are all part of the public infrastructure. The public infrastructure benefits everyone who lives there, mainly because it supports the local economy, so it should all be a shared cost. For example, better roads and mass transit in many places result in higher property valuations. In many places they also drive overall economic activity. So the cost of the infrastructure should be borne by all.
This whole notion of "well, I want to pay only for what I directly use" is pretty silly. It's like living in an Automat.
>The main resistance to offshore drilling is that you can't trust an oil company to drill cleanly and responsibly
Sounds like something someone in California would say.
Actually we should be exploring and drilling offshore but the new kid in the White House followed the party line and killed more drilling as soon as he got in there.
>that you can't trust an oil company to drill cleanly and responsibly
So it's better to have China drilling off Florida than US companies? :P
>The main resistance to offshore drilling is that you can't trust an oil company to drill cleanly and responsibly
Sounds like something someone in California would say.
Actually we should be exploring and drilling offshore but the new kid in the White House followed the party line and killed more drilling as soon as he got in there.
Really....well, California has 1000 miles of coastland. I don't want my home fouled up for your benefit.
Besides, do the math. You think you're going to find Saudi Arabia on the continental shelf? They could put a thousand oil rigs offshore and not add more than a few percentage points to total available worldwide capacity. Additionally, it would take over a decade to find and start producing this oil. By that time increased global demand for oil would far surpass any small benefit from US coastal production. So, we'd still be in a deeper hole than we are today...just not quite as deep.
This 'drill baby, drill' nonsense is not a serious proposal for our energy problems. Obama also supports increased offshore drilling, but in a responsible manner, and also NOT as the centerpiece for our whole energy situation.
>that you can't trust an oil company to drill cleanly and responsibly
So it's better to have China drilling off Florida than US companies?
Nope. But they're subject to the same restrictions that US companies are when drilling in US territory. In any event, oil is fungible and as far as the world market goes, it doesn't really matter if China pumps oil from US waters, if the US pumps oil from Malaysian waters, etc., etc.
Besides, the Chinese bought these leases during the Bush Administration. Additionally, we can't really tell the Chinese to get lost because they're our banker now.
New kid in the White House says it all. We need to drill offshore as well as set up more nuclear power facilities and more refineries. Unfortunately, White House and Congress are under influence of Algore mentality.
Think that major oil companies have a very good record about drilling offshore responsibly. Too many knee-jerkpid comments about oil companies being irresponsible hat are not founded in fact.
New kid in the White House says it all. We need to drill offshore as well as set up more nuclear power facilities and more refineries. Unfortunately, White House and Congress are under influence of Algore mentality.
Think that major oil companies have a very good record about drilling offshore responsibly. Too many knee-jerkpid comments about oil companies being irresponsible hat are not founded in fact.
We do need more drilling, nuclear, etc. I think the consensus is emerging to do just that. But they are only part of the solution, and not nearly the major part. Reduce demand, increase supply. Obama's got it right.
Oil companies have pretty good safety records in general, considering how much oil they produce and move. It's good business to keep the stuff contained so you can get it to market. Where they have consistently been irresponsible is when they have accidents. These accidents affect thousands of people yet they consistently refuse to assume responsibility for cleaning up after themselves.
Case in point: Exxon Valdez. Drunk captain. Court battles continue, two decades later. Similar results on smaller scales from oil spills off the Santa Barbara coast, the Florida Gulf Coast, and others. Big oil spills happened during Katrina as well.
We might agree if you lived near the coast. You also might have a different view on nuclear power if you lived near Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. The closer you live to this stuff, the more you like the idea of someone keeping an eye on these guys.
We need to start drilling and planning today for those resources for them to be available 5 to 10 years from now. The green folk worry about any excuse to block something, but reality is we need to plan ahead.
>more nuclear power
We should have been building nuclear power plants all along, but guess why they were blocked and made nearly impossible to build--same folk that don't want us to drill but think it's okay for Chinese to drill nearby (without licenses from us, BTW) and extract the crude under our continental area. I recall the BA degreed part time biology instructor from the University of Cincinnati who led the parade in front of worker gates at the construction site for a nuclear power plant near Cincinnati. But that's okay as long it's not us. We'll just raise the gas tax and (slap hands) everything will be kumbayya, however it's spelled.
>about drilling offshore responsibly.
They indeed have had a good record.
We don't need a higher gas tax. We need to research all types of alternative energy but we need to make use of those currently available, clean coal and nuclear.
Comments
One of the few things I hate more than higher taxes is having some overfed, overpaid despot sitting halfway around the world (or on the south shore of the Caribbean...
Luckily those roads don't have enough vehicular traffic that its an issue then, right?
Our area seems to be a regular weekend bike rally road. There are spots that you cannot pass the bike riders safely without crossing the double yellow line.
And you would never honk at them or be rude, just wait and pass them when its safe to do so, right? Thank you, we all appreciate it.
Most bike riding in CA is for pleasure. My guess about 99% pleasure.
I would totally agree. When I ride my bike to work, its the best part of my day. In fact, I would say its almost 100% for pleasure, and the fact that I am saving fuel, not polluting the atmosphere, and taking up 5% of the space of a car as I commute to work is all a bonus.
Spending gas tax on bike paths seems unconstitutional. Maybe a $100 per year license on all bikes would help build these fancy private bike paths.
Maybe instead of those fancy bike paths, you can just sit in traffic behind the bikes. State law says a vehicle can hold up 3 vehicles before being required to yield. Perhaps you will sit behind a cyclist for a while someday...
After reading this board, I am certainly glad that my generation is starting to take ownership of the political process and push out old self-centered ideas.
The masses have 0% ownership of anything political...
I never honk. I also like to ride a bike. I am much more cognizant of the people on the road than most bike riders. I go by Fintails post. A two ton car can do a lot more damage to me than I to them.
Most bike riders are fairly courteous. I would never ride on a 1 foot wide shoulder with traffic posted at 50 MPH as is the case in my area of San Diego. It seems to be a preferred route on the weekends. Too scary for me. I stick to the back roads and dirt trails. I don't like those skinny tired foo foo bikes anyway. I like my Gary Fisher Mtn Bike.
I don't believe the bike riders are owed a free lane. They should pay like car drivers do.
Yep. I agree. I have no problem with each and every group paying for their transportation system.
People flying pay for the airports.
People who take the buses pay enough fares to pay for the bus system.
People who drive pay for the roads.
People who take the trains pay the cost of the trains.
And people who bike pay for the bike trails or bike-lane section of the road. This would probablty require each bike to be registered to collect the fee.
I certainly don't want the gas tax to be used for anything other than roads for vehicles using that fuel-tax. If and when we get a lot of electric vehicles then the gas tax should be eliminated, so as not to tax ICE drivers with a per-mile charge and a fuel tax.
Bike lanes and bike paths should be 100 percent funded by the users, bicyclists. States and municipalities should pass legislation to require licensing and taxing of all bicylcles, bicylclists (16 and over) who ride on bike lanes and bike paths to fund building and maintenance of same. The yearly license fee would cover bike rider "use" of public roads and streets. Bicyclists could also pay an extra fee that would enable them to use, ride, on bike paths and lanes. That extra fee, paid yearly, would give them a yearly decal tag that they would put on their license plate mounted on the bike.
Better not let me catch you breathing on my dime either.
I wonder if someone jogging or running a mile produces more CO2 than our cleaner new autos produce... Someone call AlGore. Another tax possibility!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If I mail a letter I pay for the service, if I don't mail I don't pay - fair.
If I don't like the bus and don't ride the bus I don't want to pay for the bus. I'll pay for the bus the day I get on the bus - set the fares so it breaks even or makes profit. :P
Agree with that.
it is easier to cheat on income tax than on gas tax due to the way it is levied (not sure if I wrote it correctly). This kind of transfer contributes to reducing fraud and could allow headcount savings in fiscal administration (in short : expenses)
Isn't that a better deal?
Wouldn't the administration go up, as you have people now who pay no income tax and don't file, and now as some proposed here - these people would file to get their gas tax refunded to them?
Also I don't see how the gas tax would reduce fraud. I'm middle-income and I'm still going to have to pay income tax even if I paid $3,000/year more in gas tax. Actually I only use 250gal gas/yr so it wouldn't be $3,000. If I wanted to cheat on income tax I still would. And then I would cheat by claiming that I used more gas than I did. So a reduction in tax fraud - No?
Maybe you would suggest 200M motorists need to register their miles driven each year? Gee that sounds like more administration (and cost). :P
- Some pay state income tax
- Some pay city or county income tax
- Social security tax
- Medicare tax
- Gas tax
- Car registration
- Sales tax
- various taxes on phone
- tax on internet service
- on cable TV
- regular property tax
- real estate transfer taxes
- sewer and water tax/fees
- garbage disposal fees
- mandatory auto insurance
- artificially high prices on all goods as the companies that make products are paying social security for workers, and income taxes.
- artificially high food prices because of government mandates to use ethanol
I'm sure we could keep adding to the list. Too many taxes currently and too much money going into creating Big Brother.
Ok but the problem is to evaluate the price to pay. While some contributors just want to cover short term and visible needs, I think the total cost of ICE car use should be paid, and it is far from being met by current gas prices.
I know you do not appreciate my attitude of repeating that driving don't just cost the price of road maintenance, but I think that so far all the problems I stated are true.
Regarding bike/pedestrians paths, we could argue that the bad casualty record of car/truck traffic would require to protect non-motorized users. The automobiles being at the source of the "threat", it could make sense that motorists shoulder the added costs of securing lanes for bikes and pedestrians.
I don't wish to ented the debate here, but just wanted to raise the question of which fair and realistic price should be paid by each user on its transportation mode
I believe tax system should be simplified in order to save on admin/recovery costs. This could contribute to measurable savings.
Let us admit Gas tax is bad and unfair. Other tax are just worse. Which one would you choose ?
The advantage of Gas tax is that they need little paperwork in comparison with income tax where taxpayers need to fill some form and public servants to read, check and re-check for every single case.
You mentioned you had a Gary Fisher mountain bike, IIRC. Hmm, I wonder what else you have around your place that you use for transportation...lets see, something you probably pay registration fees and insurance for already...hmm oh yeah, a car (in your case i think its several). Since you are already paying registration on 3 cars (when you can only drive one at a time), you also want to pay a fee to license that Gary Fisher? I thought you were anti-tax.
The false logic that you are trying to employ is that because a person rides a bicycle, they aren't paying into the system. When I ride, my licensed, insured car sits at home, reducing congestion on the roads, saving fuel, etc.
I believe the 60 cents per gallon paid in CA is far more than is needed to build and maintain the roads, bridges and infrastructure.
The automobiles being at the source of the "threat", it could make sense that motorists shoulder the added costs of securing lanes for bikes and pedestrians.
I think we already do as most roads require sidewalks and curbs to be part of the project. Maybe we should include lanes for folks to land their airplane in front of their homes as well as bike trails. The truth is the state and local governments have robbed gas tax for everything under the sun. That is except maintaining the roads in good condition.
There is a difference between use fees and tax. Much of the taxes we pay goes into a black hole and little or poor accounting of where it is spent. If the state and Feds kept an accurate accounting of the taxes paid on fuel and where they were spent. It would be easier to justify additional taxes if there was not enough to cover their intended purpose.
My bike is mostly used in the hills behind my property. It is all private land. Asking me to pay for your bike path is the same as me asking you to pay my membership to the 24 Hour fitness center or the golf course fees. Who is to say which one is better exercise. Or how many hours it keeps me off the road paid by my auto taxes.
The gas tax is only one tax/fee that drivers in the U.S. pay to drive. With our laws, the purpose of that tax is to maintain the roads. Thereare other payments like tolls, registrations, inspections, and property tax which pays for other driving.
Driving supports the general economy - goods are moved using diesel and people get to work by driving. The general economy pays for the other general expenses such as Defense and the EPA.
Historically the gas tax in this country has been beyond the road repair needs. The excess has been used for other purposes, and now they are running short. it is like having given your kid money for lunch for the next 2 weeks, to find he has bought lunch for 1 week and bought liquor with the rest. I at least would not trust him, and give him more money. Our politicians will spend whatever you give them, however they want.
For all we know that extra gas tax money would get diverted to bailing out AIG or Chrysler, end-up going to foreign aid to some dictator, or be used to start a war because of WMD (I thought it was the Europeans who chided us for financially supporting the Bush government and invading Iraq?) I don't trust our politicians; if your ideal world existed - I might agree giving them more tax $. They have too much now!
Regarding bike/pedestrians paths, we could argue that the bad casualty record of car/truck traffic would require to protect non-motorized users.
There are already sidewalks built with tax money; right next to the road in most cases. I want pedestrians and bikes to use them as they are safer for all involved. When I ride my bike it is mainly on the sidewalk, because I care about my safety, and not what should be or what right I supposedly have to be on a bike on a road designed for vehicles.
I would also like to point out that a gas tax would not replace an income tax. I use 250 gal. of gas year. If you propose even a $10/gal tax on gasoline, I would be paying very little tax as compared to now, and I am middle-class financially. And if you didn't want to hit the poor then you are going to need administration to get their gas tax money refunded to them.
I don't believe in tolls. 1) They're a waste of money having hundreds of people do what another $0.01 increase in a gas tax could do for no additional cost. I know the toll system in MA is basically there to provide high paying jobs for the friends of the state-leaders. They're smart in MA though never hiring their own relatives; the pols pair-up and hire each others relatives. 2) Tolls are also discriminatory, making some pay more than others just based on wher they work or live. 3) Tollplazas also cause bottlenecks, crazy behavior getting in the correct lane, and needless idling and slowing down.
All roads and bridges should be free, and the gas tax set to pay 100% of the cost - no more or less.
So I'll pencil you in as being in favor of higher gas taxes, right?
We'll need a bit of extra revenue when we shut down the toll roads.
One problem with taxes designed to "discourage" specific behaviors - in most cases, the revenues are used to support specific programs or agencies. If the frowned-upon behavior does disappear, the program supported by the revenue doesn't. If anything, it usally has expanded since it was originally enacted. So government is now stuck with a program paid for by a tax on behaviors it is supposedly trying to discourage. :confuse:
Yes-if it is shown that the gas tax money currently being collected 1) isn't partially being redirected to other government programs on both the state and federal levels, and 2) it is still insufficient.
It is far too prevalent in our system to have pols cry EVERY year that education or roads need more funding, and then find out that the funds were partly used for to fund a new sports stadium, pay for bureaucrats to take a fact-finding mission to the Riviera, or to build roads in Iraq, under some related premise.
Grbeck, one use of tax money (and I'm speculating it's gas tax revenue), is extra carrots to states that enact seat belt laws. Someone at the DOT works to get the ads and educational stuff out. Apparently it's working since seat belt usage is at an all time high.
For your rebuttal, I suggest this link (and it's one that Kernick will appreciate).
Was behind a lady buying cigarettes at quick store. I believe taxes went up on tobacco recently. She protested the newer, higher price. Instead of 6 packs of a mix of types, she bought 2. I hope she doesn't plan to stop in KY over the border in Cincinnati (60 miles away) where cigarettes USED to be lots cheaper than Ohio/Indiana. They added a 6% state tax along with the federal increase. Was the lady actually going to smoke less? I suspect gauging her reaction and long hesitation.
When people reduced driving, and still have, now the states and others complain about the drop in revenue stream from the gas taxes.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And unfortunately, the reason it's so easy to cheat on one's income tax is because it's so incredibly complicated.
The income tax system has been a tool for creating social policy for decades (e.g. the mortgage interest deduction). That's just a reality for any mixed capitalist system such as ours (and that of most of the West). It's sure not perfect, but it's the least worst tool available.
And the reality is that it's probably the best, fastest, and most impactful tool that we have available to cure our oil addiction.
If you don't want to impose a gas tax to cut consumption, what would you do instead?
Or would you rather go to war with everyone to take their oil and still run out in 30 or 40 years? By the way, not only would we be going to war with a billion Muslims, but we'd also be going to war with 1.5 billion Chinese, who want that oil as much as we do.
(Have you noticed that they recently increased the size of their armed forces quite dramatically recently?).
(Did you also read about how the Russian and Chinese have hacked into the systems that run our power grid and have planted lots of tools in our systems to enable them to take control of our grid at will? The CIA and FBI just announced this yesterday).
If not a gas tax, then what? My kid will be 18 in 10 years. I don't want her to have to go off to war because people don't like gas taxes. The world's already a pretty dangerous place. Why give these people more bullets to use against us?
Drilling for the oil we have here instead of letting the Chinese drill in the Gulf to take the oil themselves would be a nice start for the administration. Using the coal we have also works wonders. That would be much better than a blind assertion that "We won't drill" just because their flower child base controlling the party still thinks the world operates the way it did in the Haight Ashbury days. (Hard to picture Al Gore as a flower anything.) Then our kids will have fuels in our future.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Has the high gas tax that Europe has had for many years reduced global consumption? Why do you think the U.S. getting a high-gas tax would do much on a global basis? Or did improving the mpg since 1970 thru CAFE, reduce the demand?
Do the math. If the U.S. uses 25% of the world's gasoline and we cut gas consumption by 10%, gas consumption globally goes down 2.5%. In a normal year that is the global growth in demand. So reducing demand in gasoline does not do much in the trend of wanting more and more oil globally.
(Did you also read about how the Russian and Chinese have hacked into the systems that run our power grid and have planted lots of tools in our systems to enable them to take control of our grid at will? The CIA and FBI just announced this yesterday).
Yes I read that article; and we probably have their systems hacked. Your worry about war-for-oil is possible, but I think overblown by fear-mongers. All countries will continue to compete economically, and the energy will go to those who can and are willing to pay.
Iran has to continue to sell oil or its economy collapses (BTW Iran imports all its gasoline, and other refined products), and we're China's best customer keeping their economy running.
What's interesting is that we're 5th safest and have neither a seat-belt law or a helmet-law for motorcyclists. If we got rid of the moose, I'm sure we could get up to #2 (safest).
Your snowmachine death rate is enviable however (link). Must be all those laws eh?
Ok, back to gas taxes. Y'all just voted to raise them (Forbes) while Idaho just shot an increase down. (Spokesman.com)
Would be nice to see each State Treasurer post on State web site quarterly data on Excel spreadsheets that we could all look at, download, etc. Show gas tax revenue and then where it goes, right down to the single dollar.
If I recall correctly, Attorney General in Illinois, Lisa Madigan, may start posting some info on salaries of government workers. That's a start. There are some school districts in Illinois that post salaries of all of their employees. Very eye opening to see the quantity of various administrators in relation to quantity of teachers. Too many administrators and they make too much with relation to teachers.
Meanwhile, state budgets are hurting from falling gas-tax revenue, as Americans turn to more fuel-efficient cars and drive less in the down economy.
In Alabama, gas-tax revenue has fallen 2 percent since last year. In Texas, February receipts were down 8 percent from the same month in 2008."
States’ Proposals for Gas Taxes Sputter (New York Times)
"Road privatization offers a hard-to-resist 'quick fix' for state budget and transportation challenges. But there are hidden costs to privatization."
Studies: Throttle Back on Highway Privatization (Auto Observer)
PIRGs were a Ralph Nader invention btw.
On parking meters, cars were being ticketted for parking at a destroyed meter and not reporting the broken meter.
If it wasn't for the global economy crashing, gasoline prices would still be increasing dramatically; we'd probably be at $6/gallon. Prices fell back in large part because demand has temporarily plunged.
Coal is incredibly dirty.
There's no 'flower-child' base controlling the Democratic party. They're just not quite as fully owned and managed by the oil companies as the Republicans are.
Sorry, but our kids can't depend on oil.
If we cut our own gas demand by 10%, we lessen our risk on global events by 10%. It may not do a whole lot for global pricing, but it does lessen our exposure to people who hate us.
War for oil is highly possible, especially with the Chinese. We are their most important market now, but they are aggressively developing other markets around the world (they are especially active in sub-Saharan Africa). Their government is buying up oil rights around the world. We're China's best customer today, but they are clearly (and smartly, from their perspective) diversifying their business relationships.
If you don't think war for oil is possible, remember that Japan went to war with the US over access to raw materials and similar economic drivers as well.
Having said that, roads, mass transit, sidewalks, even bike paths are all part of the public infrastructure. The public infrastructure benefits everyone who lives there, mainly because it supports the local economy, so it should all be a shared cost. For example, better roads and mass transit in many places result in higher property valuations. In many places they also drive overall economic activity. So the cost of the infrastructure should be borne by all.
This whole notion of "well, I want to pay only for what I directly use" is pretty silly. It's like living in an Automat.
Sounds like something someone in California would say.
Actually we should be exploring and drilling offshore but the new kid in the White House followed the party line and killed more drilling as soon as he got in there.
>that you can't trust an oil company to drill cleanly and responsibly
So it's better to have China drilling off Florida than US companies? :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Sounds like something someone in California would say.
Actually we should be exploring and drilling offshore but the new kid in the White House followed the party line and killed more drilling as soon as he got in there.
Really....well, California has 1000 miles of coastland. I don't want my home fouled up for your benefit.
Besides, do the math. You think you're going to find Saudi Arabia on the continental shelf? They could put a thousand oil rigs offshore and not add more than a few percentage points to total available worldwide capacity. Additionally, it would take over a decade to find and start producing this oil. By that time increased global demand for oil would far surpass any small benefit from US coastal production. So, we'd still be in a deeper hole than we are today...just not quite as deep.
This 'drill baby, drill' nonsense is not a serious proposal for our energy problems. Obama also supports increased offshore drilling, but in a responsible manner, and also NOT as the centerpiece for our whole energy situation.
>that you can't trust an oil company to drill cleanly and responsibly
So it's better to have China drilling off Florida than US companies?
Nope. But they're subject to the same restrictions that US companies are when drilling in US territory. In any event, oil is fungible and as far as the world market goes, it doesn't really matter if China pumps oil from US waters, if the US pumps oil from Malaysian waters, etc., etc.
Besides, the Chinese bought these leases during the Bush Administration. Additionally, we can't really tell the Chinese to get lost because they're our banker now.
Think that major oil companies have a very good record about drilling offshore responsibly. Too many knee-jerkpid comments about oil companies being irresponsible hat are not founded in fact.
Another campaign slogan.
We disagree on the drilling.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Think that major oil companies have a very good record about drilling offshore responsibly. Too many knee-jerkpid comments about oil companies being irresponsible hat are not founded in fact.
We do need more drilling, nuclear, etc. I think the consensus is emerging to do just that. But they are only part of the solution, and not nearly the major part. Reduce demand, increase supply. Obama's got it right.
Oil companies have pretty good safety records in general, considering how much oil they produce and move. It's good business to keep the stuff contained so you can get it to market. Where they have consistently been irresponsible is when they have accidents. These accidents affect thousands of people yet they consistently refuse to assume responsibility for cleaning up after themselves.
Case in point: Exxon Valdez. Drunk captain. Court battles continue, two decades later. Similar results on smaller scales from oil spills off the Santa Barbara coast, the Florida Gulf Coast, and others. Big oil spills happened during Katrina as well.
We might agree if you lived near the coast. You also might have a different view on nuclear power if you lived near Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. The closer you live to this stuff, the more you like the idea of someone keeping an eye on these guys.
We need to start drilling and planning today for those resources for them to be available 5 to 10 years from now. The green folk worry about any excuse to block something, but reality is we need to plan ahead.
>more nuclear power
We should have been building nuclear power plants all along, but guess why they were blocked and made nearly impossible to build--same folk that don't want us to drill but think it's okay for Chinese to drill nearby (without licenses from us, BTW) and extract the crude under our continental area. I recall the BA degreed part time biology instructor from the University of Cincinnati who led the parade in front of worker gates at the construction site for a nuclear power plant near Cincinnati. But that's okay as long it's not us. We'll just raise the gas tax and (slap hands) everything will be kumbayya, however it's spelled.
>about drilling offshore responsibly.
They indeed have had a good record.
We don't need a higher gas tax. We need to research all types of alternative energy but we need to make use of those currently available, clean coal and nuclear.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,