All very true. You know with a tax deduction for interest on new car purchases the lenders will up the rates to take advantage of that money. The poor sucker buying the car thinks he is doing good and is just adding to our already enormous debt. For me the tax deduction for the sales tax is a slight enticement. Though not much right now. It is one of the reasons I will probably stick with my gas guzzler. What I notice with this gas tax issue is the states with the highest gas tax are wanting more. NY & CA both are robber baron states. They just keep spending on foolishness and want to dump it on the backs of the working class. I want the potholes in front of my house filled. I would bet if I was a big time contributor to the PARTY, they would be taken care of pronto.
FDR was not elected President until 1932. There were some slick shysters that made a ton of money during the depression. Read about Joe Kennedy. He became the first chairman of the SEC under FDR. After he pulled a lot of shady deals FDR figured he could come up with the laws to protect people that were investing. By the end of the war we were deeper in debt as a percentage of our GDP than we are today. It was in the Billions not trillions though.
True that FDR following John M. Keynes advice was the Genesis of our present deficit.
Bad habits are hard to break.
Socialists don't mind "make work" and resulting deficits whereas Conservatives advocate "suffering through" the period with natural economics running its course.
Running a deficit once in a while is not a bad thing. However running a deficit almost every year is bad, after awhile; just as charging more on a credit card each month then you payoff is a bad idea that can't go on forever.
The problem in DC is that running a deficit in the past has left us with $11T debt. Keep spending the way we are, at the same time we have reduced revenues and that quickly reaches $13T. This will change based on how much you believe "loans" will be repaid. Now at some point the Treasury can't keep going further into debt. They just don't say "it's a number, let it be $20T or $25T, it doesn't matter". Our national debt is funded by people - many foreigners, loaning Uncle Sam the money. There is a limit.
So do you spend your reserves now, and how and what do you do 1,2,3 years from now, especially if you haven't applied the reserves properly or at the right time?
Anyway, bringing this back to topic, a gas tax now is a very bad idea. The government is trying to stimulate the economy by giving people more $ to spend. It seems counterproductive for the government to then in any form raise other taxes, thus negating the stimulus. It makes no sense for the government to put money in your right pocket, while withdrawing some from your left pocket.
Latest news in Illinois is that new Gov might be favorable toward increasing gas tax to fund road/briidge improvements. New Gov has not gone on Letterman, View, etc to talk about his position.
Blago says he was framed because he did not want to raise taxes. I guess you got to have some kind of defense. I think there is a lot more to the story and a much wider net should have been cast. There is nothing about Chicago politics that is NOT corrupt. Been that way for generations. At least back to the days of Al Capone.
New Ill Gov leaning toward incresing gas taxss. Former supt of Chicago schools announced today that he will run as Republican (he ran against Blago back in 2002 in Dem primary) for Crook County President. This former supt has a Latino surname, was vey popular and barely got beat by Blago and Blago staunch supporters such as Obama. Heard him on radio interview today but he was not asked question about possible increase in gas tax.
Folks should know that Obama and Emanual were supporters of Blago in both Gov elections.
It all depends on the technology and its implementation. The devil is truly in the details for such a system, including the potential for far-reaching consequences, that, if not monitored by society at large, can change the very nature of our lives in the USA, and probably not for the better.
GPS to track miles of course also tracks movements. Not good.
A fairer method is to moderately increase gasoline tax with strict provision that revenue only used to build/maintain roads/bridges. Couple this with a yearly vehicle license fee that would charge by vehicle wight and engine horsepower. These increased license plate fees would also be used for roads and bridges.
An owner of a basic Civic might pay $75 per year in license fee while an owner of a Suburban would pay perhaps $200 per year. When a State implements this plan, they would show future years rates for next 10 years. This would incentivize drivers to get lighter, more efficient vehicles. As example, rates at 5-year point would be $75 for Civic and $400 for Suburban.
xrunner2: If you think just GPS is not a good idea, please read up on OBD-3 with GPS. It has the ability to automatically disable a vehicle if emissions or any one of a multitude of numerous possible parameters that can be monitored in realtime are determined by a central monitoring agency.
Please think about that for a second, take a deep breath, and then tell me what you think. And the icing on the cake is that you get to pay for the system that will be used to monitor your vehicle!
GPS in vehicles per owner discretion and for travel use is fine. Mandated GPS for purpose of collecting mileage fees in lieu of gas tax moves us into "1984". Americans need to learn and fully understand the dangers of government monitored GPS in vehicles. My fear is that either people will be sold a bill of goods on purpose of GPS or that legislation requiring it in vehicles will be adoped without full debate in legislative forums. Pelosi/Obama Stimulus Pork Bill snuck in a provision for a US federal super data base of our medical records that will have procedures for "guidance" of doctors.. Might some unscrupulous States do similar sneak tactic with GPS for mileage fees plan?
A moderate gas tax increase is the most efficient and non-intrusive method to collect revenue for roads/bridges.
Please remember: People GET the government they DESERVE.
And if enough Americans are stupid enough to buy the bill of goods selling them mandatory GPS monitoring disguised as safety or whatever, then my friend, all of us have a much bigger problem to deal with.
The way this country is going with ideas like GPS, carbon credits, redistribution of wealth to individuals and corporations that make bad decisions, etc, etc., I'm seriously considering retiring to another country.
Trading freedom for an expensive government control in the name of safety, or societal good is not the world I want to live in.
There is a perfectly good system to collect gas tax now, if that is all the government wants. Increase it a few cents if need be!
US Transp Secretary maybe should go on "listening" tour to find out what Americans would rather have - intrusive GPS or moderate fed gas tax increase STRICTLY for roads and bridges. On question of hybrid cars not paying enough tax to cover their road use, perhaps formulas could be worked out to have hybrids and all-electrics (when available) pay an extra fee for use of roads through the annual State vehicle license tag fee.
Government monitoring movements of citizens is wrong type of monitoring. We need implemantion of systems through internet so that we citizens can monitor government activities, spending, bloated staffs, etc. Military and security excepted.
Obama promised us transparency. Instead, we get a Bill that was rammed through with many items not debated in House or Senate. In this day of information flow and availability, Obama should keep his transparency promise by mandating that every Bill that comes up for vote in House or Senate has complete details (except security) on a government web site. CItizens should be given time to review and absorb Bill details and comment to their Reps or Senators.
Be careful of unintended consequences with the greenie/tree hugging mindsets.
If the economy is strangled or those who need cargo or heavy load bearing vehicles are punished, along with giving special status to special greenie desired modes of transport yet punishing those who need or cannot afford anything but traditional ICE vehicles, there will be backlash.
Those who think we can legislate morality are sorely mistaken. If we have not stopped murder since the first law against it was created thousands of years ago, what makes those with an agenda think that those who are motivated enough to find a way around this green-washing won't just find a way? GPS units can be disconnected or disabled or they can be hacked.
I hope everyone understands where the guvmint is coming from on the tax-by-mile or the increased gas tax issue?
1. People are driving less. 2. Cars are getting more fuel efficient. 3. Population is expanding, requiring more infrastructure. 4. Roads are NOT getting LESS expensive to maintain.
The gas tax system was a good system, but for it to keep up with the things we have traditionally used the money for, changes are inevitable.
If we don't change the way roads and bridges and other transportation infrastructure is paid for, guvmint will be forced to either raise fuel tax rates or go to something that forces the heaviest users to pay more.
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will not adopt a policy to tax motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy, his chief spokesman said Friday.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs commented after Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told the Associated Press that he wants to consider the idea, which has been proposed in some states but has angered many drivers.
"It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," Gibbs told reporters, when asked for the president's thoughts about the policy and LaHood's remarks.
What do you think of Transportation Secretary LaHood's preference for gas tax based on mileage driven instead of a pump tax? Personally, I think it demonstrates Washington really is about increasing tax revenue instead of conservation. Under this plan a Suburban pays the same tax as a Corolla. Now I'm not saying this is right or wrong on whether the bigger vehicles should pay more, but how can the government say the new proposed tax approach is anything more than a poorly hidden approach to increase taxes? It also seems at cross purposes to the administrations professed interest in increasing enegy efficiency.
What I've read on this forum from most people is: we're willing to have a gas tax high enough to pay for the road and bridge repair and construction.
People do not want a gas tax that's any higher than needed for that. We do not want a gas tax set high: 1) to encourage less driving and use of oil 2) to subsidize or fund subways, or buses 3) to go into the General Fund of the states and federal government for education or welfare, or whatever.
Of course the taxpayer does not want this to be a blank-check to fund any road project, no matter what the cost. The gasoline tax should be indexed to inflation.
Hybrids, CNG, and electric vehicles can be issued an annual tax-bill based on how much less gas they use if people think that's a good idea.
If I had bought a hybrid, paying the premium to get better mpg, expecting savings on gas, I'd be kind of upset at a tax-per-mile system.
While you'd still save on the gas, the savings would not be as great.
I also find it strange that if the government wants people to buy hybrids to save fuel, that they would phase-out the tax credit just because a manufacturer sold 60,000 of them over the years. They don't phase out the "gas-guzzler" tax when a manufacturer produces and sells 60,000 lower mpg vehicles.
There's all sorts of ways to impliment a miles driven tax but no matter which one you'd use it's still a bad idea.
A gas tax works just fine. It needs to be higher to cover what it's supposed to. Fine. Do that and index it to inflation and restrict the revenues to transportation spending.
If government looked at everything looking at how much does it cost and what do we need to do to pay for it we'd be loads better off. I'm not tied to a particular tax rate. Figure out the spending and tax accordingly.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
larsb: Well, I agree with the general consensus that the gas tax should be sufficient to cover maintenance and improvement for the road network. I have been going over the 2007 Federal Highway Authority report (ref: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/) however, the correct information is still not clear to me.
Hoever, if one looks at a previous report from 2003 (ref: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm ) it seems to me that not all of the present money is being spent on what is supposed to. If one looks at the table, the percentages of the Federal Highway Tax actually used for highway purposes is only 55.53%. Major diversions are as follows:
Non-Highway purposes: 7.44% ($ 10.7 billion) (defined in footnote #4 as "represents transfers to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund and the Federal General Fund" but it is not clear to me what amount went straight to the General Fund - AND WHY?)
Mass Transportation: 7.10% ($10.2 billion)
Collection Expenses: 2.19% ($3.1 billion)
That accounts for 16.73% and I am not smart enough to figure out where the rest (27.74%, about $40 billion) has gone. So overall about $60 billion collected as federal tax to maintain highways was spent somewhere else in 2003, including the general fund which to me does not seem right.
And this has gone on year after year. Since the advent of the gas tax, hell even the last two decades, this diverted money comes out to HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
So you tell me what to think here about the rate of gas tax. Should it already be enough, and if there needs to be an increase, how should it be balanced against these diversions? Should these diversion continue?
Let Congress just print enough money to build and maintain all the roads & bridges. Seems to be working that way with the stimulus bill. The money people save on gas tax could be spent at WalMart to further stimulate the economy. :P
If we have to make up for the shortfall I actually like the tax per mile method.
Let me be clear I don't believe we are by any means under taxed I believe the shortfall comes from mismanagement of the taxes they get.
But if they insist then the Oregon and Massachusetts plan is as good as any. The reason for this method over increasing taxes on fuel is that if people give up their pick up truck for a econo box the state will lose money. But if they give up the pickup for a econo box and drive 1000 miles a week the state doesn’t lose anything. Sounds good to me.
Ok that was tongue in cheek but it shows how easily divided we can become. The econo box people were all for a tax system that put the burden on their neighbors but if they have to share the burden equally it is a different story. The stuttering starts and the pocket protectors shake as they say, “but that isn’t what we wanted, we wanted to punish those who don’t see things our way. What reward do I get for getting my little green car?” News flash environment [non-permissible content removed], you already got your reward by not paying as much for gas in the first place. If they cared a iota about the environment then they would see that they were supposed to be getting what they drive because they, “believe” it is the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with who has a SUV, Truck or Sports car. Those people already pay more for fuel and, if you remember your basic math, pay more in fuel taxes in the first place. So they are doing more for roads and services anyway.
So whenever I hear a Prius or econo box person complains that a pay per mile system isn’t fair then I just toss the BS flag at their environmental badge and conclude they are two-faced hypocrites. If indeed there is a problem with infrastructure taxation and it should be increased we all need to share in that, equally. And the pay by mile is equal to all no matter what they drive. The issue was never trying to drive people into buying what someone else thought they should buy. The issue was the state was losing revenue because we the people did what they asked us to do. We used less fuel and they lost money.
I still say a better plan is to cut spending not taxing. That is how the average household in the US has to survive and that is how our government should live as well. We do not need to reward one segment of the population for doing what they would have done anyway. If anyone in here complains because they have to pay as much per mile in highway taxes as a F-150 I’ll quote another poster from another thread, stop your sniveling and take it like a man.
I think one goal of the gas tax is to make people want a Prius or an Echo or a Fit when they really want an Accord or an Explorer or a Escalade. When gas was $4, there was a lot of interest in small, efficient vehicles while now that prices are back down, there isn't much thought about it. Whining in the government about CAFE standards (another crap mandate, up there with No Child Left Behind) isn't going to get it done. Kicking the industry in the nuts is not going to work, kicking the consumer in the nuts might make them think 2x about their purchase decisions...
I think another is to generate revenue to fix infrastructure. I would like to avoid replacing my tie rods and lower control arms every 3 years because the roads are so poor. That is worth some money to me (parts cost about $400 every 3-4 years) to not have to hassle with it.
Another portion of the money can go towards helping get automotive technologies ready for prime time. Better batteries, better refining processes for bio-diesel, developing infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles, better, more efficient manufacturing of these things (automotive manufacturing itself is already pretty darn efficient, the issue seems to be with excess capacity).
I also think that if housing prices weren't in the pooper, I would be motivated to move closer to my job giving me a shorter commute, reducing fuel consumption, congestion on the roads, and more time with my family. A gas tax would give an incentive to do this as well.
I would prefer the tax be a sales tax on each gallon of gas purchased. If you get 8 mpg and have a 8 mile commute you aren't any better or worse off than me, getting 30 mpg and 30 mile commute. And the people that need some economic support can get a break on their income taxes or some incentive to move closer to where the jobs are.
"I think one goal of the gas tax is to make people want a Prius or an Echo or a Fit when they really want an Accord or an Explorer or a Escalade. "
I have to disagree. If gas taxes were to motivate people into getting a Fit is property taxes a motivation to buy a small 800 square foot house rather than a 1500 or 2500 square foot house? Should it be? Do we want to social engineer society like that? Lets take a close look at that presumption.
When whoever wanted to buy a new car and they were shopping they already had the choice of buying a Yaris or a Fit at what? 11-16k. What did the one that bought the Slade pay in the first place? Did the 35-40k price tag not come into consideration? Could it be they felt they could afford the Slade? Doesn't matter if they could or not that is a different issue.
Just today I saw several big SUVs and good sized MB and BMWs driving down the street at one of our local golf courses. Their houses more than likely backed up to the course itself. The women and men getting out of the car didn't look like they even pumped their own gas let alone would be forced into looking at a Fit except to sneer. So lets say you raise gas taxes to kick those people where you feel they should be kicked. How does that solve the infrastructure short fall? You only have two choices, find another source of revenue or decrease spending.
Heaven forbid we decrease spending. So lets say we do exactly as you hope we will do and people simply drive less, car pool, or gag a maggot, we are forced into econo boxes like we were in the 70s. Where is your tax money then? Now if you decrease spending this isn't a problem as we know from our own personal finances but we also know that isn't going to happen. So you either raise taxes more or put in a mileage tax. What do you think will be the final result? Ahh but if you raise the tax the econo box people can thump their chest and say, see I was right I am saving the planet. That is a load in itself. Because they are paying more for gas as well. However the people that can't afford to drive a new econo box will spend more of their meager paycheck for gas. They will pay more for milk, eggs, butter, bread and breakfast cereal. The truck driver delivering the material to fix the home you can't sell and move closer to town will charge you more for that material. Bus fairs will have to go up to cover the cost of fuel, Fits suck as city Busses. More people will lose their job because small business will have to choose between keeping an employee or paying the higher prices.
It is already happening so it isn't speculation. And if people are out of work they will continue to drive whatever it is they already own because they can't get a loan on a new car anyway. So I say again. If you aren't going to cut spending make the save the earth people pay just like the working person and maybe then they will see we should cut spending. Think how much we could save by doing away with CARB.
You can promote more taxes as a way to kick the rap star driving his Slade till you are blue in the face and he will still buy the slade. The Soccer Mom with her executive husband will still write off his MB or BMW as a business expense and the only one to pay will be the average worker that has a old car or pickup or van to move his substantial family from point a to point b. And the world still won't be saved. People will not be back in the market to buy cars and you still can't sell your house. So all you end up with is a smaller paycheck and the government will give the money to the banks, auto manufacturers, and wall street. That is just how things are today.
You can promote more taxes as a way to kick the rap star driving his Slade till you are blue in the face
The working class is getting out voted by the welfare class and the rich elite class. They in turn tax the crap out of US in the middle. Like you say the taxes don't hurt the rich as they have their money in the Cayman's. The welfare class are not taxed. They live off of our taxes. Why do you need a car when you can just sit in your government housing watching the TV and have Hostess Twinkies and Dominos Pizza delivered to your door. Pay with food stamps and make more babies. Every year a smaller percentage are taxed more to support a larger percentage. The new stimulus bill has just removed the cap set by the 1996 welfare reform bill. So hang onto your wallet. Costa Rica is looking better every day for a retiree.
I am paraphrasing a little here, but George Carlin once said something like:
"The rich have all the money and pay none of the taxes. The middle class has a little money and pays all of the taxes. The poor have no money and get welfare. But most importantly, the poor are there to scare the sh** out of the middle classes so that they continue to work and pay the taxes."
While a 5000-6000 pound suv or pickup pays more in gas taxes than a Prius or Civic, it is still not enough of their fair share. That 5000-6000 pounds damages the pavement more so than a 2000-2800 pound car. Besides gas tax, every vehicle should have to pay a yearly fee via license plate tag based on vehicle wieight.
Pay-by-mile ideas add extra cost to consumer as well as government administration. Pay-by-mile gps type could put us in a 1984 situation.
No need for pay-by-mile system in that fed/state gasoline tax at pump already takes into account miles driven and encourages people to get smaller more efficient vehicles.
Raise the gas tax. I am all in favor of a higher gas tax. This will force those who use the gas guzzle SUV's and trucks as status symbols into more fuel effecient vehicles. I am only in favor if this money goes directly into roads/bridge construction. I view this as a user tax. I use, I pay. Not to go to mass transit projects!!
Do you believe more taxes will discourage people from seeking status symbols? Where have you seen this work before? Do you believe it will reduce gas consumption over all?
NPR reported on the 10th of February that China bought more cars in January than the US did. For every small car we could have purchased another one would be added to the worldwide fleet by someone in China. Talk about spitting in the wind.. Two cars getting 30-MPG use as much fuel as one getting 15. And many of the Chinese cars aren't going to get 30 MPG. We won't even visit what happens when India in included.
And just how would you force anyone to use the tax for roads and bridges? If it is a transportation tax there is nothing to stop them from using it on public transportation. That would more than likely is a better use for anyone concerned with oil independence anyway.
So the question is whom increasing gas taxes is punishing? The answer is pretty easy. Who has to drive every day? As gagrice pointed out it is the working class that will take the biggest hit. I wonder if they can take another hit in this economy? When will you kill the goose?
"...This will force those who use the gas guzzle SUV's and trucks as status symbols into more fuel efficient vehicles..."
And what do you say to people who use larger vehicles because they have to? I drive an old Ford with a box on the back that gets 12 mpg. I doubt many people at the farmer's market are impressed by the "status" of that old rust bucket. the problem is I can't afford anything better that will do the job.
The only thing that higher gas taxes will "force" me into is bankruptcy.
That's too bad for me right? Maybe too bad for you as well when you have to pay double for some pesticide covered Mexican tomatoes because all the little guys like me are gone.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It shows were we as a nation have come. We are no longer concerned with what effects our neighbors we are only concerned with ideology. we are more concerned with the survival of field mice and spotted owls than the American way of life.
I live in a city that was an old farming community and I enjoy the road side stands and the vine ripened Tomatoes. I have noticed that most of the trucks used to haul those products are older domestics. More than likely because the older domestics are still serviceable and tend to run longer.
If the tax and spend people would simply stop and look at the consequences to all of our society is when you decrease the working person's wages by increasing taxes.
I agree with other that say if someone doesn't believe they pay enough in taxes simply decrease their deductions. If that isn't enough ask the government to take more of your own tax money. But they should just be concerned with their own wallet and keep their sticky fingers off of their fellow citizen's No good can come from taxing people so heavy it is not worth it to work.
Do you believe more taxes will discourage people from seeking status symbols?
No, not at all. It will just cost a little more to do so.
Where have you seen this work before?
Hasn't been tried before, the "Luxury Tax" which was on the item itself killed the US boating industry for years, and it hurt the auto makers as well. That is different then a use based tax.
Do you believe it will reduce gas consumption over all?
What do you mean by overall? Over the summer when gas was $4, we experienced the biggest drop in vehicle miles traveled in the US in recent history. I think less gas will go to cars.
NPR reported on the 10th of February that China bought more cars in January than the US did. For every small car we could have purchased another one would be added to the worldwide fleet by someone in China. Talk about spitting in the wind.. Two cars getting 30-MPG use as much fuel as one getting 15. And many of the Chinese cars aren't going to get 30 MPG. We won't even visit what happens when India in included.
They aren't buying Hummers in China and many times in India they are buying things that are charitably referred to as cars. They are buying small, lightweight, fuel efficient vehicles. If that was a global phenomena, it would compound the effect (I am not advocating for bringing over the crappy vehicles though).
So the question is whom increasing gas taxes is punishing? The answer is pretty easy. Who has to drive every day? As gagrice pointed out it is the working class that will take the biggest hit. I wonder if they can take another hit in this economy?
The gas tax is punishing those with unsustainable lifestlyes, those living 100 miles from work and commuting everyday in a 2500 Suburban, etc. I live ~30 miles from work and I carpool every day. That means that in my current vehicle, getting to work and back is going to cost about 1 gallon of gas (est $4) and given my other expenses, I don't see that as killing me. If the housing market were a little more liquid, I would strongly consider moving so I could be within walking/riding distance most of the year. I also see the "working class" and "middle class" tax cuts on the horizon as helping to offset this as well.
And what do you say to people who use larger vehicles because they have to? I drive an old Ford with a box on the back that gets 12 mpg. I doubt many people at the farmer's market are impressed by the "status" of that old rust bucket. the problem is I can't afford anything better that will do the job.
How far is it from the farm to market?
Don't commercial vehicles already get taxed differently from the DMV? Couldn't that just show up when you itemize your returns?
35% of all my income goes out in taxes. Another 9% for insurance. I'd like to keep the other 56% to live off of.
It was nice to have more room on the roads the last couple years with higher gas prices. It was nice to not have to wait to get seated at a restaurant lately. I worry when 90% of the time the car in front and behind me on the way to work are Japanese and unemployment is ever rising. I wonder if there is a connection?
I'm lucky, my market is only a few miles away. You're not suggesting that I move to some of that "urban farmland" so I can be closer to work are you? Some of my friends travel over 100 miles round-trip.
Most of my fuel is used in transporting materials to my farm so I can grow my crops. I supose I could pay someone to deliver for me but they would charge more because their gas would cost more.
"...Don't commercial vehicles already get taxed differently..."
Yes, they get charged more. A gas tax increase would just make it worse.
"...Couldn't that just show up when you itemize your returns?..."
Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that I shouldn't worry if I pay another $1 in taxes because I'll get $0.10 as a deduction? Or are you saying that we people who run our own business can just pass the increase along to the consumer? Either way, bankruptcy is the result.
Maybe I should mention, here in NY state, the average farm makes about $8000 a year after taxes. Taxes which are due to increase about $4000 this year to close a state budget deficit.
There's an old farm adage: "You can't get blood from a turnip". :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Still doesn't matter if they are buying hummers or not. They are up sizing their vehicles and some look a lot like a Mini-van. The Chinese government reported that there are something like 40 million private vehicles in China as of 2007. And they are only growing. To surpass the US they had to be knocking down more that 16 Million a year since 2007. How much gas is being saved when two cars are being popped out for every one bought? The answer is not a drop. Besides guess where we are sending our old diesel equipment? The ones that produce too mant particulents for the US. That is right the other end of the jet stream.
People in the US aren't buying cars at any rate worth mentioning so they aren't going to drop 15k on a new car at this time anyway. So what does the tax accomplish? The wealthy do not care if gas costs $4.00 a gallon they are not getting a econo box. The poor can't afford to sell the car they have now and can't get a new one anyway. Taking more out of their check is just plain cruel and mean spirited. So who does that leave as a target? That is right the working class. The car dealers are closing. Their houses are taking a hit in equity. Their 401ks are dropping and someone says the fix to all of this is raising the tax on gas?
The government was never in the business of taxing people to get them to buy a car made in a different country to send the profits made by that country to another government. You have seen the earlier posting indicating how much fuel tax has not been going to transportation so what makes anyone think that will change if they raise the fuel tax? You know it isn't going to bother me because I don't have to even consider a econo box. I have a old one and it is paid for. I can afford to get a SUV or truck and simply drive the 4 banger around town. Let me modify that, it will bother me as I see the cost of food trying to match the increase in fuel tax. It will bother me as working class families have less to spend on their kids just to fill their tank. But I can easily cut back on driving even more if I want to. But what happened when gas was over $4.00 before? Restaurants and other small businesses took a hit. They started laying off people. When people have to start thinking about filling their gas tank of buying something at Circut City it is time to stop buying anything at circut City. A fuel tax will add to that. How much gas tax will they collect off of out of work entry level employees? Let me guess? :confuse:
The idea of hybrids wasn't to get one because of any tax relief it was supposed to be because people felt it was the right thing to do. If they did it for a tax break they were simple hypocrites because they never believed it was the right thing to do in the first place. They simply accepted a bribe.
But I know the answer the tax more people will say, " oh well, some people just have to fall through the cracks for the good of the rest of us. Is there any wonder we are a divided nation?
The message that is being sent to the working class is simple. Wall street is too important to pay for their mistakes so the workring class will have to help bail them out. The banks have made a lot of bad loans so the working class will have to bail them out. And as a reward for bailing out people that were not just driving hummers but stretch limo and Lear Jets the working class needs to pay another tax on fuel. That way they can't afford to buy a car from one of the manufacturers they are being asked to bail out.
So NY farms do not get a reduced property tax rate? My farm in MN and HI both get substantial reductions in property tax. As long as they are producing. Your type farm is at the heart of a book Steve recommended a few years ago. Michael Pollan's "the Omnivore's Dilemma". If they have it at your library I recommend it. May even give you some ideas for enhancing your farm. Good luck, you are what this country needs to wean themselves off of mass produced "Organic" fruits & vegetables.
California has just effectively added to our gas tax by raising sales tax. NY and CA feed off each other. They say look they passed a tax and the Governor did not get shot, why don't we try the same. One upsmanship on having the highest taxes.
US DOT Misreports Gasoline Tax Revenue Motor fuel excise tax revenue was up $185 million in 2008, not down, contrary to US Department of Transportation claims.
The US Department of Transportation (US DOT) has falsely suggested that the nationwide drop in vehicle miles traveled is endangering the revenue source used to maintain America's highway network. Soaring gasoline prices in the summer and the ongoing recession together forced motorists to cut back substantially on travel, resulting in 100 billion fewer miles being driven in fiscal 2008. Transportation officials seized upon these facts to argue that the gas tax is unsustainable and that the country must quickly shift to tolling to save the highway trust fund.
"As driving decreases and vehicle fuel efficiency continues to improve, the long term viability of the Highway Trust Fund grows weaker," Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said in a December 12 statement. "The fact that the trend persists even as gas prices are dropping confirms that America's travel habits are fundamentally changing. The way we finance America's transportation network must also change to address this new reality, because banking on the gas tax is no longer a sustainable option."
The federal Highway Trust Fund took in $3 billion less in revenue in fiscal 2008 than it did in 2007, and Federal Highway Administrator Tom Madison placed the blame squarely on the gas tax.
"This (drop in revenue) underscores the need to change our policy so American infrastructure is less dependent on the amount of gas American drivers consume," Madison said.
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) crunched the numbers and found this assertion to be entirely untrue. In fiscal 2007, the US Treasury reported that a total of $29.4 billion was collected from the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2008, the total figure grew by $185 million to $29.6 billion. Lower traffic volumes did cause gasoline tax revenue to drop $70 million, but this figure was more than offset by a $256 million increase in revenue from the tax on diesel, which is primarily paid by the commercial trucking industry. View revenue chart.
These truckers, hit by tough economic times, cut expenses significantly. Sales of new rigs plunged in 2008. That caused a $2.4 billion drop in revenue from the 12 percent tax on the retail sales of trucks and trailers. An accounting change in the way kerosene and similar taxes were transferred ended up showed a paper loss of $722 million from the fund. Together these factors, which are unrelated to the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2008, accounted for the $3 billion drop in trust fund revenue.
"The US DOT misused that data to suggest the federal motor fuels tax can no longer finance federal investments in highway and mass transit improvements," ARTBA Vice President William Buechner said. "The data in fact suggest that the federal motor fuels taxes can remain a viable source of revenues for highway investments for the foreseeable future. The trust fund's real problem is not the decline in VMT, but rather the economic slowdown and the fact the federal motor fuel tax rates have not been changed since 1993."
TheNewspaper has previously reported that gas tax revenues have not plunged at the state level. In Virginia, for example, fuel tax revenues were up 2.6 percent in fiscal 2008 (more). Motor carrier fuel tax receipts likewise increased in Illinois (more). At the same time, overall traffic has plunged on toll roads forcing huge increases in the tolling rates to prevent a loss in profit for private investors (more).
"...So NY farms do not get a reduced property tax rate?..."
Yes and no. Here in NY you can get a reduced property tax if you are in a designated "Ag. District". I'm in the middle of a suburban town and I'd have to have some considerable political pull to get them to make my area of million dollar homes into "farm country". Besides, if I sell my land within 8 years of the last tax break, I have to give all the tax savings back. Since I'm nearing the age where I'm looking at retirement that's not a good prospect.
There are also certain acreage and gross income restrictions to the tax breaks. I fall short on both since my farm is a small one man operation. The last time we inquired to the town we were told "You're too poor and too small for a tax break".
It seems that I'm just the right size for a gas tax hike though.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Comments
Bad habits are hard to break.
Socialists don't mind "make work" and resulting deficits whereas Conservatives advocate "suffering through" the period with natural economics running its course.
The problem in DC is that running a deficit in the past has left us with $11T debt. Keep spending the way we are, at the same time we have reduced revenues and that quickly reaches $13T. This will change based on how much you believe "loans" will be repaid. Now at some point the Treasury can't keep going further into debt. They just don't say "it's a number, let it be $20T or $25T, it doesn't matter". Our national debt is funded by people - many foreigners, loaning Uncle Sam the money. There is a limit.
So do you spend your reserves now, and how and what do you do 1,2,3 years from now, especially if you haven't applied the reserves properly or at the right time?
Anyway, bringing this back to topic, a gas tax now is a very bad idea. The government is trying to stimulate the economy by giving people more $ to spend. It seems counterproductive for the government to then in any form raise other taxes, thus negating the stimulus. It makes no sense for the government to put money in your right pocket, while withdrawing some from your left pocket.
Folks should know that Obama and Emanual were supporters of Blago in both Gov elections.
Massachusetts Joins States Contemplating Pay-Per-Mile Road Tax Plans (Green Car Advisor)
A fairer method is to moderately increase gasoline tax with strict provision that revenue only used to build/maintain roads/bridges. Couple this with a yearly vehicle license fee that would charge by vehicle wight and engine horsepower. These increased license plate fees would also be used for roads and bridges.
An owner of a basic Civic might pay $75 per year in license fee while an owner of a Suburban would pay perhaps $200 per year. When a State implements this plan, they would show future years rates for next 10 years. This would incentivize drivers to get lighter, more efficient vehicles. As example, rates at 5-year point would be $75 for Civic and $400 for Suburban.
Please think about that for a second, take a deep breath, and then tell me what you think. And the icing on the cake is that you get to pay for the system that will be used to monitor your vehicle!
A moderate gas tax increase is the most efficient and non-intrusive method to collect revenue for roads/bridges.
And if enough Americans are stupid enough to buy the bill of goods selling them mandatory GPS monitoring disguised as safety or whatever, then my friend, all of us have a much bigger problem to deal with.
Trading freedom for an expensive government control in the name of safety, or societal good is not the world I want to live in.
There is a perfectly good system to collect gas tax now, if that is all the government wants. Increase it a few cents if need be!
Government monitoring movements of citizens is wrong type of monitoring. We need implemantion of systems through internet so that we citizens can monitor government activities, spending, bloated staffs, etc. Military and security excepted.
Obama promised us transparency. Instead, we get a Bill that was rammed through with many items not debated in House or Senate. In this day of information flow and availability, Obama should keep his transparency promise by mandating that every Bill that comes up for vote in House or Senate has complete details (except security) on a government web site. CItizens should be given time to review and absorb Bill details and comment to their Reps or Senators.
We need to watch our government carefully at all times, and that is the best way of ensuring that we get the government we deserve.
If the economy is strangled or those who need cargo or heavy load bearing vehicles are punished, along with giving special status to special greenie desired modes of transport yet punishing those who need or cannot afford anything but traditional ICE vehicles, there will be backlash.
Those who think we can legislate morality are sorely mistaken. If we have not stopped murder since the first law against it was created thousands of years ago, what makes those with an agenda think that those who are motivated enough to find a way around this green-washing won't just find a way? GPS units can be disconnected or disabled or they can be hacked.
1. People are driving less.
2. Cars are getting more fuel efficient.
3. Population is expanding, requiring more infrastructure.
4. Roads are NOT getting LESS expensive to maintain.
The gas tax system was a good system, but for it to keep up with the things we have traditionally used the money for, changes are inevitable.
If we don't change the way roads and bridges and other transportation infrastructure is paid for, guvmint will be forced to either raise fuel tax rates or go to something that forces the heaviest users to pay more.
It won't be optional.
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will not adopt a policy to tax motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy, his chief spokesman said Friday.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs commented after Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told the Associated Press that he wants to consider the idea, which has been proposed in some states but has angered many drivers.
"It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," Gibbs told reporters, when asked for the president's thoughts about the policy and LaHood's remarks.
Or do you have a better idea as to where we can get the infrastructure shortfall?
People do not want a gas tax that's any higher than needed for that. We do not want a gas tax set high:
1) to encourage less driving and use of oil
2) to subsidize or fund subways, or buses
3) to go into the General Fund of the states and federal government for education or welfare, or whatever.
Of course the taxpayer does not want this to be a blank-check to fund any road project, no matter what the cost. The gasoline tax should be indexed to inflation.
Hybrids, CNG, and electric vehicles can be issued an annual tax-bill based on how much less gas they use if people think that's a good idea.
While you'd still save on the gas, the savings would not be as great.
I also find it strange that if the government wants people to buy hybrids to save fuel, that they would phase-out the tax credit just because a manufacturer sold 60,000 of them over the years. They don't phase out the "gas-guzzler" tax when a manufacturer produces and sells 60,000 lower mpg vehicles.
A gas tax works just fine. It needs to be higher to cover what it's supposed to. Fine. Do that and index it to inflation and restrict the revenues to transportation spending.
If government looked at everything looking at how much does it cost and what do we need to do to pay for it we'd be loads better off. I'm not tied to a particular tax rate. Figure out the spending and tax accordingly.
Hoever, if one looks at a previous report from 2003 (ref: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm ) it seems to me that not all of the present money is being spent on what is supposed to. If one looks at the table, the percentages of the Federal Highway Tax actually used for highway purposes is only 55.53%. Major diversions are as follows:
Non-Highway purposes: 7.44% ($ 10.7 billion) (defined in footnote #4 as "represents transfers to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund and the Federal General Fund" but it is not clear to me what amount went straight to the General Fund - AND WHY?)
Mass Transportation: 7.10% ($10.2 billion)
Collection Expenses: 2.19% ($3.1 billion)
That accounts for 16.73% and I am not smart enough to figure out where the rest (27.74%, about $40 billion) has gone. So overall about $60 billion collected as federal tax to maintain highways was spent somewhere else in 2003, including the general fund which to me does not seem right.
And this has gone on year after year. Since the advent of the gas tax, hell even the last two decades, this diverted money comes out to HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
So you tell me what to think here about the rate of gas tax. Should it already be enough, and if there needs to be an increase, how should it be balanced against these diversions? Should these diversion continue?
In any case, I agree with you that a higher gas tax might be on its way to a gas station near you anyway (ref: http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122904040307499791.html )
Let me be clear I don't believe we are by any means under taxed I believe the shortfall comes from mismanagement of the taxes they get.
But if they insist then the Oregon and Massachusetts plan is as good as any. The reason for this method over increasing taxes on fuel is that if people give up their pick up truck for a econo box the state will lose money. But if they give up the pickup for a econo box and drive 1000 miles a week the state doesn’t lose anything. Sounds good to me.
Ok that was tongue in cheek but it shows how easily divided we can become. The econo box people were all for a tax system that put the burden on their neighbors but if they have to share the burden equally it is a different story. The stuttering starts and the pocket protectors shake as they say, “but that isn’t what we wanted, we wanted to punish those who don’t see things our way. What reward do I get for getting my little green car?” News flash environment [non-permissible content removed], you already got your reward by not paying as much for gas in the first place. If they cared a iota about the environment then they would see that they were supposed to be getting what they drive because they, “believe” it is the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with who has a SUV, Truck or Sports car. Those people already pay more for fuel and, if you remember your basic math, pay more in fuel taxes in the first place. So they are doing more for roads and services anyway.
So whenever I hear a Prius or econo box person complains that a pay per mile system isn’t fair then I just toss the BS flag at their environmental badge and conclude they are two-faced hypocrites. If indeed there is a problem with infrastructure taxation and it should be increased we all need to share in that, equally. And the pay by mile is equal to all no matter what they drive. The issue was never trying to drive people into buying what someone else thought they should buy. The issue was the state was losing revenue because we the people did what they asked us to do. We used less fuel and they lost money.
I still say a better plan is to cut spending not taxing. That is how the average household in the US has to survive and that is how our government should live as well. We do not need to reward one segment of the population for doing what they would have done anyway. If anyone in here complains because they have to pay as much per mile in highway taxes as a F-150 I’ll quote another poster from another thread, stop your sniveling and take it like a man.
Whining in the government about CAFE standards (another crap mandate, up there with No Child Left Behind) isn't going to get it done. Kicking the industry in the nuts is not going to work, kicking the consumer in the nuts might make them think 2x about their purchase decisions...
I think another is to generate revenue to fix infrastructure. I would like to avoid replacing my tie rods and lower control arms every 3 years because the roads are so poor. That is worth some money to me (parts cost about $400 every 3-4 years) to not have to hassle with it.
Another portion of the money can go towards helping get automotive technologies ready for prime time. Better batteries, better refining processes for bio-diesel, developing infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles, better, more efficient manufacturing of these things (automotive manufacturing itself is already pretty darn efficient, the issue seems to be with excess capacity).
I also think that if housing prices weren't in the pooper, I would be motivated to move closer to my job giving me a shorter commute, reducing fuel consumption, congestion on the roads, and more time with my family. A gas tax would give an incentive to do this as well.
I would prefer the tax be a sales tax on each gallon of gas purchased. If you get 8 mpg and have a 8 mile commute you aren't any better or worse off than me, getting 30 mpg and 30 mile commute. And the people that need some economic support can get a break on their income taxes or some incentive to move closer to where the jobs are.
I have to disagree. If gas taxes were to motivate people into getting a Fit is property taxes a motivation to buy a small 800 square foot house rather than a 1500 or 2500 square foot house? Should it be? Do we want to social engineer society like that? Lets take a close look at that presumption.
When whoever wanted to buy a new car and they were shopping they already had the choice of buying a Yaris or a Fit at what? 11-16k. What did the one that bought the Slade pay in the first place? Did the 35-40k price tag not come into consideration? Could it be they felt they could afford the Slade? Doesn't matter if they could or not that is a different issue.
Just today I saw several big SUVs and good sized MB and BMWs driving down the street at one of our local golf courses. Their houses more than likely backed up to the course itself. The women and men getting out of the car didn't look like they even pumped their own gas let alone would be forced into looking at a Fit except to sneer. So lets say you raise gas taxes to kick those people where you feel they should be kicked. How does that solve the infrastructure short fall? You only have two choices, find another source of revenue or decrease spending.
Heaven forbid we decrease spending.
So lets say we do exactly as you hope we will do and people simply drive less, car pool, or gag a maggot, we are forced into econo boxes like we were in the 70s. Where is your tax money then? Now if you decrease spending this isn't a problem as we know from our own personal finances but we also know that isn't going to happen. So you either raise taxes more or put in a mileage tax. What do you think will be the final result? Ahh but if you raise the tax the econo box people can thump their chest and say, see I was right I am saving the planet. That is a load in itself. Because they are paying more for gas as well. However the people that can't afford to drive a new econo box will spend more of their meager paycheck for gas. They will pay more for milk, eggs, butter, bread and breakfast cereal. The truck driver delivering the material to fix the home you can't sell and move closer to town will charge you more for that material. Bus fairs will have to go up to cover the cost of fuel, Fits suck as city Busses. More people will lose their job because small business will have to choose between keeping an employee or paying the higher prices.
It is already happening so it isn't speculation. And if people are out of work they will continue to drive whatever it is they already own because they can't get a loan on a new car anyway. So I say again. If you aren't going to cut spending make the save the earth people pay just like the working person and maybe then they will see we should cut spending. Think how much we could save by doing away with CARB.
You can promote more taxes as a way to kick the rap star driving his Slade till you are blue in the face and he will still buy the slade. The Soccer Mom with her executive husband will still write off his MB or BMW as a business expense and the only one to pay will be the average worker that has a old car or pickup or van to move his substantial family from point a to point b. And the world still won't be saved. People will not be back in the market to buy cars and you still can't sell your house. So all you end up with is a smaller paycheck and the government will give the money to the banks, auto manufacturers, and wall street. That is just how things are today.
Oh that felt good.
The working class is getting out voted by the welfare class and the rich elite class. They in turn tax the crap out of US in the middle. Like you say the taxes don't hurt the rich as they have their money in the Cayman's. The welfare class are not taxed. They live off of our taxes. Why do you need a car when you can just sit in your government housing watching the TV and have Hostess Twinkies and Dominos Pizza delivered to your door. Pay with food stamps and make more babies. Every year a smaller percentage are taxed more to support a larger percentage. The new stimulus bill has just removed the cap set by the 1996 welfare reform bill. So hang onto your wallet. Costa Rica is looking better every day for a retiree.
"The rich have all the money and pay none of the taxes. The middle class has a little money and pays all of the taxes. The poor have no money and get welfare. But most importantly, the poor are there to scare the sh** out of the middle classes so that they continue to work and pay the taxes."
Very relevant to your post gagrice, I think.
Pay-by-mile ideas add extra cost to consumer as well as government administration. Pay-by-mile gps type could put us in a 1984 situation.
No need for pay-by-mile system in that fed/state gasoline tax at pump already takes into account miles driven and encourages people to get smaller more efficient vehicles.
I am only in favor if this money goes directly into roads/bridge construction. I view this as a user tax. I use, I pay. Not to go to mass transit projects!!
NPR reported on the 10th of February that China bought more cars in January than the US did. For every small car we could have purchased another one would be added to the worldwide fleet by someone in China. Talk about spitting in the wind.. Two cars getting 30-MPG use as much fuel as one getting 15. And many of the Chinese cars aren't going to get 30 MPG. We won't even visit what happens when India in included.
And just how would you force anyone to use the tax for roads and bridges? If it is a transportation tax there is nothing to stop them from using it on public transportation. That would more than likely is a better use for anyone concerned with oil independence anyway.
So the question is whom increasing gas taxes is punishing? The answer is pretty easy. Who has to drive every day? As gagrice pointed out it is the working class that will take the biggest hit. I wonder if they can take another hit in this economy? When will you kill the goose?
And what do you say to people who use larger vehicles because they have to? I drive an old Ford with a box on the back that gets 12 mpg. I doubt many people at the farmer's market are impressed by the "status" of that old rust bucket. the problem is I can't afford anything better that will do the job.
The only thing that higher gas taxes will "force" me into is bankruptcy.
That's too bad for me right? Maybe too bad for you as well when you have to pay double for some pesticide covered Mexican tomatoes because all the little guys like me are gone.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I live in a city that was an old farming community and I enjoy the road side stands and the vine ripened Tomatoes. I have noticed that most of the trucks used to haul those products are older domestics. More than likely because the older domestics are still serviceable and tend to run longer.
If the tax and spend people would simply stop and look at the consequences to all of our society is when you decrease the working person's wages by increasing taxes.
I agree with other that say if someone doesn't believe they pay enough in taxes simply decrease their deductions. If that isn't enough ask the government to take more of your own tax money. But they should just be concerned with their own wallet and keep their sticky fingers off of their fellow citizen's No good can come from taxing people so heavy it is not worth it to work.
No, not at all. It will just cost a little more to do so.
Where have you seen this work before?
Hasn't been tried before, the "Luxury Tax" which was on the item itself killed the US boating industry for years, and it hurt the auto makers as well. That is different then a use based tax.
Do you believe it will reduce gas consumption over all?
What do you mean by overall? Over the summer when gas was $4, we experienced the biggest drop in vehicle miles traveled in the US in recent history. I think less gas will go to cars.
NPR reported on the 10th of February that China bought more cars in January than the US did. For every small car we could have purchased another one would be added to the worldwide fleet by someone in China. Talk about spitting in the wind.. Two cars getting 30-MPG use as much fuel as one getting 15. And many of the Chinese cars aren't going to get 30 MPG. We won't even visit what happens when India in included.
They aren't buying Hummers in China and many times in India they are buying things that are charitably referred to as cars. They are buying small, lightweight, fuel efficient vehicles. If that was a global phenomena, it would compound the effect (I am not advocating for bringing over the crappy vehicles though).
So the question is whom increasing gas taxes is punishing? The answer is pretty easy. Who has to drive every day? As gagrice pointed out it is the working class that will take the biggest hit. I wonder if they can take another hit in this economy?
The gas tax is punishing those with unsustainable lifestlyes, those living 100 miles from work and commuting everyday in a 2500 Suburban, etc. I live ~30 miles from work and I carpool every day. That means that in my current vehicle, getting to work and back is going to cost about 1 gallon of gas (est $4) and given my other expenses, I don't see that as killing me. If the housing market were a little more liquid, I would strongly consider moving so I could be within walking/riding distance most of the year. I also see the "working class" and "middle class" tax cuts on the horizon as helping to offset this as well.
How far is it from the farm to market?
Don't commercial vehicles already get taxed differently from the DMV? Couldn't that just show up when you itemize your returns?
It was nice to have more room on the roads the last couple years with higher gas prices. It was nice to not have to wait to get seated at a restaurant lately. I worry when 90% of the time the car in front and behind me on the way to work are Japanese and unemployment is ever rising. I wonder if there is a connection?
This year the profit from my farm will not cover the property tax bill on it.
Farmers are not eligible for any form of public assistance because they are considered "wealthy land owners".
Where's my bailout?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I'm lucky, my market is only a few miles away. You're not suggesting that I move to some of that "urban farmland" so I can be closer to work are you? Some of my friends travel over 100 miles round-trip.
Most of my fuel is used in transporting materials to my farm so I can grow my crops. I supose I could pay someone to deliver for me but they would charge more because their gas would cost more.
"...Don't commercial vehicles already get taxed differently..."
Yes, they get charged more. A gas tax increase would just make it worse.
"...Couldn't that just show up when you itemize your returns?..."
Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that I shouldn't worry if I pay another $1 in taxes because I'll get $0.10 as a deduction? Or are you saying that we people who run our own business can just pass the increase along to the consumer? Either way, bankruptcy is the result.
Maybe I should mention, here in NY state, the average farm makes about $8000 a year after taxes. Taxes which are due to increase about $4000 this year to close a state budget deficit.
There's an old farm adage: "You can't get blood from a turnip". :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
People in the US aren't buying cars at any rate worth mentioning so they aren't going to drop 15k on a new car at this time anyway. So what does the tax accomplish? The wealthy do not care if gas costs $4.00 a gallon they are not getting a econo box. The poor can't afford to sell the car they have now and can't get a new one anyway. Taking more out of their check is just plain cruel and mean spirited. So who does that leave as a target? That is right the working class. The car dealers are closing. Their houses are taking a hit in equity. Their 401ks are dropping and someone says the fix to all of this is raising the tax on gas?
The government was never in the business of taxing people to get them to buy a car made in a different country to send the profits made by that country to another government. You have seen the earlier posting indicating how much fuel tax has not been going to transportation so what makes anyone think that will change if they raise the fuel tax? You know it isn't going to bother me because I don't have to even consider a econo box. I have a old one and it is paid for. I can afford to get a SUV or truck and simply drive the 4 banger around town. Let me modify that, it will bother me as I see the cost of food trying to match the increase in fuel tax. It will bother me as working class families have less to spend on their kids just to fill their tank. But I can easily cut back on driving even more if I want to. But what happened when gas was over $4.00 before? Restaurants and other small businesses took a hit. They started laying off people. When people have to start thinking about filling their gas tank of buying something at Circut City it is time to stop buying anything at circut City. A fuel tax will add to that. How much gas tax will they collect off of out of work entry level employees? Let me guess? :confuse:
The idea of hybrids wasn't to get one because of any tax relief it was supposed to be because people felt it was the right thing to do. If they did it for a tax break they were simple hypocrites because they never believed it was the right thing to do in the first place. They simply accepted a bribe.
But I know the answer the tax more people will say, " oh well, some people just have to fall through the cracks for the good of the rest of us. Is there any wonder we are a divided nation?
The message that is being sent to the working class is simple. Wall street is too important to pay for their mistakes so the workring class will have to help bail them out. The banks have made a lot of bad loans so the working class will have to bail them out. And as a reward for bailing out people that were not just driving hummers but stretch limo and Lear Jets the working class needs to pay another tax on fuel. That way they can't afford to buy a car from one of the manufacturers they are being asked to bail out.
That is just plain mean.
California has just effectively added to our gas tax by raising sales tax. NY and CA feed off each other. They say look they passed a tax and the Governor did not get shot, why don't we try the same. One upsmanship on having the highest taxes.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/congressman-glenn-gt-thompson-revives-effort-to- -ban-freeway-tolls/
link to HR 1071: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/hr1071.pdf
US DOT Misreports Gasoline Tax Revenue
Motor fuel excise tax revenue was up $185 million in 2008, not down, contrary to US Department of Transportation claims.
The US Department of Transportation (US DOT) has falsely suggested that the nationwide drop in vehicle miles traveled is endangering the revenue source used to maintain America's highway network. Soaring gasoline prices in the summer and the ongoing recession together forced motorists to cut back substantially on travel, resulting in 100 billion fewer miles being driven in fiscal 2008. Transportation officials seized upon these facts to argue that the gas tax is unsustainable and that the country must quickly shift to tolling to save the highway trust fund.
"As driving decreases and vehicle fuel efficiency continues to improve, the long term viability of the Highway Trust Fund grows weaker," Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said in a December 12 statement. "The fact that the trend persists even as gas prices are dropping confirms that America's travel habits are fundamentally changing. The way we finance America's transportation network must also change to address this new reality, because banking on the gas tax is no longer a sustainable option."
The federal Highway Trust Fund took in $3 billion less in revenue in fiscal 2008 than it did in 2007, and Federal Highway Administrator Tom Madison placed the blame squarely on the gas tax.
"This (drop in revenue) underscores the need to change our policy so American infrastructure is less dependent on the amount of gas American drivers consume," Madison said.
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) crunched the numbers and found this assertion to be entirely untrue. In fiscal 2007, the US Treasury reported that a total of $29.4 billion was collected from the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2008, the total figure grew by $185 million to $29.6 billion. Lower traffic volumes did cause gasoline tax revenue to drop $70 million, but this figure was more than offset by a $256 million increase in revenue from the tax on diesel, which is primarily paid by the commercial trucking industry. View revenue chart.
These truckers, hit by tough economic times, cut expenses significantly. Sales of new rigs plunged in 2008. That caused a $2.4 billion drop in revenue from the 12 percent tax on the retail sales of trucks and trailers. An accounting change in the way kerosene and similar taxes were transferred ended up showed a paper loss of $722 million from the fund. Together these factors, which are unrelated to the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2008, accounted for the $3 billion drop in trust fund revenue.
"The US DOT misused that data to suggest the federal motor fuels tax can no longer finance federal investments in highway and mass transit improvements," ARTBA Vice President William Buechner said. "The data in fact suggest that the federal motor fuels taxes can remain a viable source of revenues for highway investments for the foreseeable future. The trust fund's real problem is not the decline in VMT, but rather the economic slowdown and the fact the federal motor fuel tax rates have not been changed since 1993."
TheNewspaper has previously reported that gas tax revenues have not plunged at the state level. In Virginia, for example, fuel tax revenues were up 2.6 percent in fiscal 2008 (more). Motor carrier fuel tax receipts likewise increased in Illinois (more). At the same time, overall traffic has plunged on toll roads forcing huge increases in the tolling rates to prevent a loss in profit for private investors (more).
Yes and no. Here in NY you can get a reduced property tax if you are in a designated "Ag. District". I'm in the middle of a suburban town and I'd have to have some considerable political pull to get them to make my area of million dollar homes into "farm country". Besides, if I sell my land within 8 years of the last tax break, I have to give all the tax savings back. Since I'm nearing the age where I'm looking at retirement that's not a good prospect.
There are also certain acreage and gross income restrictions to the tax breaks. I fall short on both since my farm is a small one man operation. The last time we inquired to the town we were told "You're too poor and too small for a tax break".
It seems that I'm just the right size for a gas tax hike though.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible