CBO: tax per mile = good

[antonmnster]

That's all great and dandy, but what are you going to do when people start to make bad decisions and end up living in squalor, much like they did before Social Security existed?

Would you really be willing to accept the consequences of eliminating these programs? I highly doubt most people would. And I don't have a lot of respect for people out protesting the federal government - while they're receiving federal benefits.

We tried having an extremely limited federal governmental framework already. It was called the Articles of Confederation.

It didn't work. And to go back to the concept of having 51 completely separate little districts now that don't interact with each other seems, to me, like a great way to completely obliterate the economy and most of the progress made in the last 150 years.

I, for one, would rather not go back to that.

 

[ChuckBerry]

Meanwhile, our infrastructure is still crumbling, and nobody wants to compromise. It's this political polarization that is making our nation fail.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: antonmnster
That's all great and dandy, but what are you going to do when people start to make bad decisions and end up living in squalor, much like they did before Social Security existed?

Would you really be willing to accept the consequences of eliminating these programs? I highly doubt most people would. And I don't have a lot of respect for people out protesting the federal government - while they're receiving federal benefits.

We tried having an extremely limited federal governmental framework already. It was called the Articles of Confederation.

It didn't work. And to go back to the concept of having 51 completely separate little districts now that don't interact with each other seems, to me, like a great way to completely obliterate the economy and most of the progress made in the last 150 years.

I, for one, would rather not go back to that.


They do that now too. The war on poverty is not being won. In fact, I would argue that you are creating more and more poor as you tax the middle more.

I've not suggested we go back to the Articles of Confederation, just actually follow the Constitution, which specifically stated that powers no specifically enumarated to the Federal Government and reserved by the states.

We have this thing upside down today. We think people get power from the government. This nation was founded on the principle that the people "loan" their power to government officials to accomplish things. But ultimately, that power belongs to the citizen, not the government.

Today we have a whole society that think power comes from Government and we should be thankful when they let us have something.

It's the other way around. Elected officials are using power that the people delegate to them.

It's time for the people to take back that power, peacefully, before we forget our founding principles.

With freedom comes responsibility. Having more and more federal government certainly doesn't do anything to foster either freedom, nor responsibility.

Let IL be responsible for roads in IL, and MO responsible for roads in MO. It certainly makes no sense to send tax dollars to D.C. to have them decide how much IL and MO each get back. Dollars that can be used to actually build and maintain roads fall off the wagon and are used by the government machinery that collects them in IL and then returns the to IL.

More dollars spent on red-tape means fewer dollars spent on roads.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: robertcope

These things always crack me up because they're never about doing away with the old system, just adding on to it. Basically, it is strictly about taking more of our money in a new way.

At this point, (or perhaps any point in time), the government's sole function has become finding new and inventive ways to extract $$$$ from the pockets of its citizens.

So many things get proposed that involves the extraction of $$$$ from our pockets that will have a dubious impact on whatever the funding is supposed to be fore and almost zero oversight and accountability for using the money for what the project was intended.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: 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


Thanks for that, even though is only for state taxes. Also, read page 31.

 

[meangreen01]

I would support this only if it completely eliminates gas taxes and the majority of registration fees.

I'm a strog believer in usage fees(In the true sense of the word, i.e., they're optional. Not like the way they're used by most politicians which is really a tax). That's pretty much how product pricing works on anything else we use. The more you use, the more you pay.

Implement a reasonable registration fee that varies on the weight of vehicle and includes 5k miles per year. After that, assess a yearly fee based on mileage.

My only hang-up on this is I think any electronic mileage tracking device is an intrusion of gov't. Unfortunately, I think my fellow man has demonstrated that an honor system would be abused. Something would have to be worked out.

 

[kelpie]

I think the govt should go after the corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes to begin with. The Cayman Islands are a great hideout for these thieves, and some large corporations get huge welfare checks from the govt. in the form of tax breaks. This is what happens when the tax base is lost. Someone has to pay for the tax breaks for the well to do.

 

[El_Schaf]

I don't see too much problem with annual mileage monitoring. After all, you have to register each year, in many cases get an inspection, and the mileage on a vehicle is recorded when you buy it (thus a starting point and annual reporting opportunities). Each year at registration/inspection, odometer reading is taken and a tax is assessed. Of course, allocation to different government units with this method would not be as accurate as with GPS monitoring, and there are always ways to game the system. If EV's do become the transportation method of choice, a new non gasoline/diesel based funding system will need to be devised - unavoidably. If it ends up being a usage based system, I would prefer avoiding extensive government intrusion. Or add special KWH taxes at vehicle chargers, likely using a special meter, to go quite a bit further.

 

[meangreen01]

Originally Posted By: kelpie
I think the govt should go after the corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes to begin with. The Cayman Islands are a great hideout for these thieves, and some large corporations get huge welfare checks from the govt. in the form of tax breaks. This is what happens when the tax base is lost. Someone has to pay for the tax breaks for the well to do.


Lost you on this one. The discussion is about reforms in the gas tax as the playin field is a-changin'.

 

[antonmnster]

Originally Posted By: kelpie
I think the govt should go after the corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes to begin with. The Cayman Islands are a great hideout for these thieves, and some large corporations get huge welfare checks from the govt. in the form of tax breaks. This is what happens when the tax base is lost. Someone has to pay for the tax breaks for the well to do.


This is where the focus should be. GE paid a NEGATIVE 16% corporate tax last year. So we PAID them to move jobs overseas.

This is going on while we're dicking around with beating up school janitors.

Eyes on the prize, people.

And regarding the MN DOR document, what's the point with page 31? Every other page redundantly points out that the overall tax burden (in MN) is regressive, which has been my point from the get-go. That, and we should all being paying roughly the same amount of our incomes in taxes overall. NOT just the income tax.

 

[kelpie]

Originally Posted By: meangreen01
Originally Posted By: kelpie
I think the govt should go after the corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes to begin with. The Cayman Islands are a great hideout for these thieves, and some large corporations get huge welfare checks from the govt. in the form of tax breaks. This is what happens when the tax base is lost. Someone has to pay for the tax breaks for the well to do.


Lost you on this one. The discussion is about reforms in the gas tax as the playin field is a-changin'.


Not really. It would be one thing is there were a lot of EVs on the road, but they make up a very small percentage of the cars on the road. Everyone else burns gas at close to the same rate as always. There are people whining that their road money is going elsewhere other than roads. Why do you think that's happening? It's because our tax base is being destroyed. Thank you free trade. Now we're feeling the squeeze so the large corps can get their welfare check.

 

[meangreen01]

Originally Posted By: kelpie
It would be one thing is there were a lot of EVs on the road, but they make up a very small percentage of the cars on the road. Everyone else burns gas at close to the same rate as always. There are people whining that their road money is going elsewhere other than roads. Why do you think that's happening? It's because our tax base is being destroyed. Thank you free trade. Now we're feeling the squeeze so the large corps can get their welfare check.


Any major changes in gas tax/road funding is going to take years to implement so why not have the discussion now. If we stick with our insane energy policy and gas continues to go through the roof, consumers will make the switch to more efficient cars, hybrid, electrics as their prices come down and the economic case can be made. At that point we'll have to replace the gas tax with mileage fees as those cars will still be using road and need to adequately contribute to them.

And yes, I suppose I am one of the whiners when dedicated funding sources are used as a slush-fund to fill other budget shortfalls. To sell the public on the creation of a tax/fee for a particular purpose, then raid it for something else is stealing in my book. It should be illegal.

It happened here in WI a couple years ago. If program X can't balance it's budget through cost reductions or increased revenue, it isn't right to all those who paid with the understanding that money was going to roads to have some irresponsible politician say "ohh look at that pile of money in that fund. How about we just take it for program X".

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: antonmnster

And regarding the MN DOR document, what's the point with page 31? Every other page redundantly points out that the overall tax burden (in MN) is regressive, which has been my point from the get-go. That, and we should all being paying roughly the same amount of our incomes in taxes overall. NOT just the income tax.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/

Yes, that is not total taxes including states. Nor does it include who is getting the benefits that are paid in.

 

[MNgopher]

Good find Tempest. MAkes logical sense given the progressive nature of the Federal income tax. Compared to state taxes, there isn't a whole lot to offset the income tax being as progressive as it is. Even the MN report notes how much of an impact the income tax has to attempt to make things progressive or neutral.

 

[slickrocko1]

This may be a bit off topic, BUT.......



At least in Calif., the taxes are set at a percent of the sale, and then the sales tax 9.75% in my county, local tax, .8%, and road tax, .85% are added in. So, it seems that government has no incentive to lower the tax bite, as the MORE gas costs, the HIGHER THE PERCENTAGE of money they make.
$4.00 a gallon of fuel, equals 45.4cents a gallon, add 36.0cents for the feds, and you have $4.81 a gallon!!!! THIS is what some stations are charging for diesel in my state. Gas is about $3.90 in rural areas, and since I live 26 miles from a town with a supermarket, pharmacy,or dept store, ( Walmart/Penny's/Target/Bi-Rite/ETC.), I am screwed even harder as we still have to eat, go to the drug store, get supplies, buy farm fuel which cannot be put into our driven vehicles, and of course, over the road fuel. If anyone feels farmers and ranchers are getting a free ride, come on out where your food comes from! Feed costs are directly linked to diesel costs, delivery is with diesel trucks, tractors and combines are diesel fueled, and no busses or trains serve the rural resident. IF I lived in the city of L.A., my bus would be subsidized, my train/subway is subsidized, and the distance to shopping/medical/food/even fuel, is at my back door. Hmmmmm... do you see where I am going?
If you tax the s&^% out of the folks, you soon have no folks to tax, and the a$$hats in D.C. are still getting their expenses/lunch/dinner/airplane/driver paid by a shrinking base.
Soon they will have killed the goose...and I have a few geese, ducks, chickens, a couple of steers, and can grow my own food.
Will I share?.....probably, but grudgingly!

Steve