CBO: tax per mile = good

[MNgopher]

Let me see if I've got this right. Folks don't want taxes to go up. I get that.

At the same time, the gas tax at the federal level (and in my state at least) are fixed at so many cents per gallon, not indexed to inflation or any other method. (Yes, I know this is not true everywhere - Wisconsin gas tax IS indexed). Yet, in order to construct and maintain the road system, you have to hire contractors to do the work. Their costs are not fixed, and in fact for many years the construction cost index was much higher than inflation in general.

We put in the same amount up front and get way less done because of those factors.

The percentage of GDP spent on infrastructure in this country remains low, in the neighborhood of 2%, though there was a spike with the recent ARRA funds from Washington (For better or worse, not to be debated here...). All the infrastructure we've built in the highway system in the 50's and onward is now at or past its design life and must be replaced or rehabilitated, yet we won't spend the money to do it.

 

[javacontour]

As long at the folks are mis-managing the money they already get, we would be fools to give them more.

Paying people to not work.

Paying others to build roads.

Paying farmers not to farm.

Subsidizing turning corn into fuel.

Spending Social Security taxes collected instead of investing them so they grow.

Those are just a few of the reasons I don't think they crowd in DC needs to get their hands on any more money.

In fact, it's what drives the very legitimate desire to give them even less.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: javacontour

As long as the folks are mis-managing the money they already get, we would be fools to give them more.

Paying people to not work.

Paying others to build roads.

Paying farmers not to farm.

Subsidizing turning corn into fuel.

Spending Social Security taxes collected instead of investing them so they grow.

Those are just a few of the reasons I don't think they crowd in DC needs to get their hands on any more money.

In fact, it's what drives the very legitimate desire to give them even less.

X 1 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Remember a small car pushes against pavement to push air out of the way, and road damage goes up with the 4th power of weight... so an 18 wheeler that pays $5000 in taxes a year still isn't paying proportionately for its damage compared to a 1.5 ton passenger car.

Every time a politician starts spewing this garbage, in a campaign to jack up the fees on CMVs, another federal study is demanded in order to prove their (and your) claim. So far, every single one has proved this theory to be a load of bull-dung, much to the chagrin of its cheerleaders. Even some of those almost impossibly dense politicos have started to notice the trend in these studies, and have abandoned their propaganda fest.

Oh, and if you think that a CMV's tax obligations amount to $5K per annum, you've been smoking about a half-ton too much "Mary Jane", per annum...

 

[MNgopher]

Not going to argue any of the other points brought up about mismanagement of spending money.

However, I don't get the comment: "Paying others to build roads". What is that supposed to mean?

Isn't paying a private contractor to build a road what the goal is anyways - not having a "state" sponsored construction company?

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Not going to argue any of the other points brought up about mismanagement of spending money.

However, I don't get the comment: "Paying others to build roads". What is that supposed to mean?

Isn't paying a private contractor to build a road what the goal is anyways - not having a "state" sponsored construction company?


We pay folks to not work, then pay other people to build the roads. Why not put the unemployed to work building and/or taking care of the roads? Instead of paying folks to sit around, or to look for jobs that are not there, pay them to do work that needs doing.

They would learn a new skill and get things done.

Paying folks to not work is insane.

 

[El_Schaf]

A few things I have observed as a transportation official -

The tax system really is broken. It doesn't keep up with inflation or increasing fuel efficiency because it is a set price per gallon, not a %. I'm not arguing either way, that is just the way it works and revenues not keeping up with prices is the eventual problem of that system. Periodically, those taxes are increased by legislation. On a side note, my state gets to be a gas tax donor state because we send more fuel tax to Washington than we get back. YAY for Michigan.

In addition, SO much money is spent on pet programs and transit grants which seem to benefit only a few individuals per dollar, as well as anything else a politician can get votes for - it is unreal. I wish I had numbers to quote, I'm sure it would be astounding. Those dollars would probably do wonders for the famous, crumbling, Michigan roads. I hate to sound like government, because I see so many problems with what I'm about to say, but as far as MI goes - more money really would help - we are so far behind now that they are calling it a "transportation funding crisis". Most of it caused by federal politicians, IMHO (see the aforementioned grants).

Last- fraud, waste and abuse is a serious problem. I see and deal with it a lot. I have a feeling most of it is not caught (like most fraud). It is difficult to curb these sorts of things given the large number of projects/dollars/contractors and smaller government oversight workforces of today (which I mostly like), as well as more business friendly regulation (deregulation?) of the last several years (which in most cases, I also like).

(was any of that coherent writing?)

Regarding the social engineering theory from above - I couldn't agree more. It makes me sick.

 

[rshunter]

Excellent post, El.

 

[kb01]

Originally Posted By: antonmnster
Our effective tax rate - the proportion of taxes to income - is about the lowest in the industrialized world. This is especially true if you're high income.


When you throw health care into the mix (something that is paid for via taxes in most of the world but out-of-pocket in the USA), then I doubt that is the case. It will become a de facto tax in 2014, enforced by the IRS but paid to private corporations.

I'm still very close to my family in Europe and we've played the who's-taxed-more game more times than I can count and I always win when health care and retirement accounts are factored in. Their jaws always drop when talking about $1,000+ a month insurance premiums and still having to spend $100 to see a doctor for a 5-min appointment.

To have a comfortable retirement, it's generally accepted that you must put aside ~ 10% of your salary towards an IRA. The current health care reform also uses 10% as a maximum that any family (who earns 400% of poverty level) should pay for health insurance premiums.

That's 20% right there. Add in 15% federal income taxes, 3% state taxes, 2% local taxes, etc., etc. then it really adds up if you're middle income.

 

[kb01]

I'm guessing some kind of tax-per-mile will have to be implemented. Under the current system, if I were to buy a Nissan Leaf, I would pay no road taxes when driving my car but would have to pay them when mowing my lawn and using my gas-powered mower.

 

[ChuckBerry]

The CBO recommends a lot of things. Just becasue the CBO recommends it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

But we do need more money for infrastructure improvement.

 

[shrooms]

It won't happen.

 

[Norm Olt]

Jim's QUOTE:
Quote:
1. Social engineering. Some people don't think people should be able to drive at all. The problem is, most people can afford to and do it for work or for pleasure. They hate that. The way to change this behaviour (exercised by people in a free and democratic society) is to tax it to death. That is the problem with certain interest groups....their fundamental lack of buy-in to basic liberties gauranteed by democracy if those liberties conflict with what they view as the right way for someone else to act. They don't think I should be free to drive around if I can afford to. The way to change that is to make it more expensive.

2. Increased Efficiency. If I drive around in a car that gets 100MPG, tax collection for gas consumption goes down and revenues begin to drop. Governments can't live with that. Furthermore, if it costs me less to drive around, then I'll likely drive around more, and the social engineers don't approve of that behavior (see #1), so hence the need to tax me by mile.


If you live in the DC area and work for the guv'mnt you have that free pass to ride the Metro. If you live in NYC you just have to tough it out and ride the subway: you don't own a car and probably never learned to drive, anyway...

If you live in California you can always just ride the bus!

You live anywhere else you really don't count, do you?

Cheers!

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: antonmnster
Our effective tax rate - the proportion of taxes to income - is about the lowest in the industrialized world. This is especially true if you're high income.

Check again:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html

 

[antonmnster]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: antonmnster
Our effective tax rate - the proportion of taxes to income - is about the lowest in the industrialized world. This is especially true if you're high income.

Check again:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html



Fail.

Well, I find this position to be completely deceptive. It is only looking at INCOME taxes. The reason that they are (or, were) progressive is to ensure that all income earners are paying roughly the same proportion of their incomes to ALL taxes. I call that "paying your fair share".

We all know that we are on the hook for more than just the Federal income tax. Some of us pay state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, all sorts of bogus fees that we used to call taxes, and soforth.

I think it's important to look at how all of these taxes come together to paint a portrait of just who pays what. Everyone here knows that while their Federal income taxes haven't changed much, or have gone down, the overall amount of taxes that we're paying is going UP.

I'd go farther by saying those at the bottom income levels are being hit HARDER than those at the top. So let's cut the [censored] and look at the big picture.

 

[defektes]

And you guys really think money taxed this way will go into infastructure? LOL.

If the govt really wanted to implement this they would, but to fund more worthless spending. Not only will it hurt families commuting to work every day, but companies that ship products will also get hit. In turn, prices will go up even more.

We don't need new taxes, we need to cut govt, and cut spending.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Fail.

I supplied an information point. Can you please provide some information that supports your case?

 

[antonmnster]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Fail.

I supplied an information point. Can you please provide some information that supports your case?


What you supplied was a skewed chart from a special interest group. I could reply in kind, but I won't because it's a waste of my time. I could draw something with a crayon, if that would make you happy.

Try replying to my actual points.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Try replying to my actual points.

I did, but without numbers, it's simply talking in a vacuum.

I see this assertion all the time and I'd like to see where it comes from.

And if one is to factor in all of the taxes paid, then one must also figure in all of the benefits that a particular group gets as an offset.

 

[MNgopher]

Tempest, hate to say it but I looked at the link you provided and thought much the same as antonmnster. Certainly not the whole picture and most assuredly not from a neutral source.

In Minnesota, the department of Revenue has done exactly such a study of Minnesota and Local Taxes, and our system is regressive. See the following:

http://taxes.state.mn.us/legal_policy/Do...study_links.pdf