Raise The Gas Tax

[Tiberius]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102241157

 

 

"Our infrastructure's crumbling," argued the Pennsylvania Democrat in an interview with CNBC. "Our roads and our bridges are in dangerous condition."

Roads in better repair could mean more efficient traffic, Rendell believes, meaning a higher gas tax could "actually save people money."

His comments came as retail gas prices in certain parts of the country have fallen below $3, their lowest in at least five years.

The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has dropped one dollar since early May, the lowest price in more than four years, according to the Lundberg survey released Sunday.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Falling prices described as "a de facto tax decrease" tells you all you need to know about the article in the OP.

 

With that said, given that it's a consumption tax, I'm not philosophically opposed; however, before raising taxes one cent, I'd require a line item justification of all existing taxes, as well as a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing that every nickel of those new dollars were to be invested in highway, bridge, and dam infrastructure.

Edited December 8, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

Falling prices described as "a de facto tax decrease" tells you all you need to know about the article in the OP.

 

With that said, given that it's a consumption tax, I'm not philosophically opposed; however, before raising taxes one cent, I'd require a line item justification of all existing taxes, as well as a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing that every nickel of those new dollars were to be invested in highway, bridge, and damn infrastructure.

 

A Constitutional Amendment for that, too? Is that before or after the one making paper and electronic money constitutional?

[TakeYouToTasker]

A Constitutional Amendment for that, too? Is that before or after the one making paper and electronic money constitutional?

When our government tells us it needs more of our money in order to address a very narrowly defined and specific concern, do you find it unreasonable that the High Law binds the use of those tax dollars to that purpose exclusively?

[TH3]

When our government tells us it needs more of our money in order to address a very narrowly defined and specific concern, do you find it unreasonable that the High Law binds the use of those tax dollars to that purpose exclusively?

 

Well - a Constitutional Amendment though?

[B-Man]

Well, it would have to be a constitutional amendment, because thats the only thing that this administration would truly have to.......................

 

 

 

Never mind.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Well - a Constitutional Amendment though?

You don't think we should amend our Constitution in order to ensure an enduring and dedicated source of funding in order to guarantee our vital infrastructure never falls into disrepair as it now has?

Edited December 8, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

You don't think we should amend our Constitution in order to ensure an enduring and dedicated source of funding in order to guarantee our vital infrastructure never falls into disrepair as it now has?

I don't think a Constitutional amendment is necessary for this or for paper money

[TH3]

“You don't think we should amend our Constitution in order to ensure an enduring and dedicated source of funding in order to guarantee our vital infrastructure never falls into disrepair as it now has?”

No I don’t. I think that positions like this are a telltale sign of the state of our government. If you want an amendment for this – what else would warrant an amendment? So we have – what a super majority vote in the Senate and then vote affirmative for 36 states? This would take almost a decade.

I think our legislators should do their job instead of hiding behind rhetoric like demanding “only ifs”. Funding our highway system is an investment in our economy – yes it may be inefficient – yes it may be fraught with cronyism – but maybe our elected officials should man up and just do their job with the citizens in mind. This is not a liberal or conservative issue – you have to pay for stuff – you have to pay for the roads, bridges and ports we use. We have not been doing that because it would involve a “tax hike” – and all tax hikes come with an “only if” or actually “a tax hike will never be approved in this congress”

Federal receipts are pretty much at an historical low as a function of GDP, federal receipts that come from the business sector are at an all-time low – and pretty much about half of what they should be. The gas tax has not been adjusted for the size of the economy or inflation for decades.

The republic will not fail if the gas tax is raised – in fact it will be better off. We have to stop treating EVERY issue of governance like it is life or death – it isn’t – most of it is just doing what needs to be done and doing it as efficiently as possible.

[Azalin]

“You don't think we should amend our Constitution in order to ensure an enduring and dedicated source of funding in order to guarantee our vital infrastructure never falls into disrepair as it now has?”

 

No I don’t. I think that positions like this are a telltale sign of the state of our government. If you want an amendment for this – what else would warrant an amendment? So we have – what a super majority vote in the Senate and then vote affirmative for 36 states? This would take almost a decade.

I think our legislators should do their job instead of hiding behind rhetoric like demanding “only ifs”. Funding our highway system is an investment in our economy – yes it may be inefficient – yes it may be fraught with cronyism – but maybe our elected officials should man up and just do their job with the citizens in mind. This is not a liberal or conservative issue – you have to pay for stuff – you have to pay for the roads, bridges and ports we use. We have not been doing that because it would involve a “tax hike” – and all tax hikes come with an “only if” or actually “a tax hike will never be approved in this congress”

Federal receipts are pretty much at an historical low as a function of GDP, federal receipts that come from the business sector are at an all-time low – and pretty much about half of what they should be. The gas tax has not been adjusted for the size of the economy or inflation for decades.

The republic will not fail if the gas tax is raised – in fact it will be better off. We have to stop treating EVERY issue of governance like it is life or death – it isn’t – most of it is just doing what needs to be done and doing it as efficiently as possible.

 

What many people object to (and I believe they're justified in this) is that all that money from the 'Stimulus' spending was supposed to be used for (quoting the President) 'infrastructure - you know, roads and bridges'. Can everyone now just admit that was a lie?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't think a Constitutional amendment is necessary for this

The history of Social Security proves you wrong. Funding for the program not being enforced by Amendment is the precise reason the fund is in peril. Politicians comingled those assets with the general budget, dolling out those monies, year over year, towards other pet projects and social programs. The reason being, Congress changes frequently. Each new Congress being different than the last. A promise made by one Congress, no matter how well intentioned, will likely not be kept by future Congresses, yet the taxes imposed by those prior Congresses still remain on the books.

 

Those dollars, if allocated today for infrastructure, will most certainly not be used for infrastructure in future budgets, and new taxes, once again, will be the order of the day when our infrastucture, yet again, degrades.

 

If new taxes are required for narrowly defined reasons, we should have Constitutional guarantees of their appropriate useage.

Edited December 8, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[TH3]

“What many people object to (and I believe they're justified in this) is that all that money from the 'Stimulus' spending was supposed to be used for (quoting the President) 'infrastructure - you know, roads and bridges'. Can everyone now just admit that was a lie?”

Maybe my problem is that I am on a PPP board where people have found a place to voice.

Do we have wrestle every issue a lib/cons Obama/whoever Fox/Rachel soapbox? I have no idea where the stimulus money went to…but I do know that if $$ goes into infrastructure it may very well be our best use of taxpayer funds. Rather than evaporative funding like welfare etc…at least highways roads etc. are something that have returns for decades and as well the money spent on them does have actual ripple effects.

Whether “stimulus” was a lie is irrelevant to me – what is important is that we properly fund our infrastructure moving forward.

[TakeYouToTasker]

what is important is that we properly fund our infrastructure moving forward.

I don't disagree, and am not philisophically opposed to the nature of the tax.

 

Those are the exact reasons that I feel Amendment is important.

[Azalin]

Maybe my problem is that I am on a PPP board where people have found a place to voice.

Do we have wrestle every issue a lib/cons Obama/whoever Fox/Rachel soapbox? I have no idea where the stimulus money went to…but I do know that if $$ goes into infrastructure it may very well be our best use of taxpayer funds. Rather than evaporative funding like welfare etc…at least highways roads etc. are something that have returns for decades and as well the money spent on them does have actual ripple effects.

Whether “stimulus” was a lie is irrelevant to me – what is important is that we properly fund our infrastructure moving forward.

 

It shouldn't be irrelevant to you, it should irritate the hell out of you because it's just another line of BS used on the American taxpayers. We were told that the stimulus money was going to be used to fix and/or upgrade an aging infrastructure, and by all appearances, it wasn't. That's got nothing to do with PPP or partisanship and it has everything to do with peoples' willingness to roll over for another tax hike on gasoline for the purposes of funding something that was supposedly already funded. You can view that as a partisan issue if you wish, but that won't make it so. It makes it doubly insulting that the stimulus money added another fat layer to the accumulated debt we've been rolling up over the last fourteen years. That should anger partisans and non-partisans alike.

[TH3]

It is irrelevant to me with respect to the topic of the gas tax funding infrastructure. If one wants to discuss the merits of the stimulus spending – that to me is another topic – I think what I am trying to say – we seem to be at a point in the governance of our country where every topic ends up getting extrapolated by one party in order to make a point on a separate issue or to leverage it into some action on a different topic. You seem to want to make the subject of funding our infrastructure via the gas tax – as has been done for decades – into a requiem on the Obama stimulus package.

 

As long as we do this to every bill/topic/subject we will not – and have not – gotten anything done.

[Wacka]

The gas tax is supposed to be for the roads. There have been billions collected in many states to be used exclusively for that purpose. What happened to those funds the politicians were sitting on? Raided for their stupid projects, that's what.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The gas tax is supposed to be for the roads. There have been billions collected in many states to be used exclusively for that purpose. What happened to those funds the politicians were sitting on? Raided for their stupid projects, that's what.

Which is exactly why any further taxes must be tied to Amendment: to make sure the money has to go to where it was intended when the tax proposal origionated.

 

There is litterally no argument that can be made against my stance, other than: "I want the government to have the ability to spend these monies on things other than repairing infrastructure, even though the reason the taxes were assessed was to make improvements to crumbling infrastructure." And quite frankly, that's an unacceptable argument.

Edited December 8, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

But Tasker, (as you pointed out earlier)

 

 

Falling prices described as "a de facto tax decrease" tells you all you need to know about the article in the OP.

 

 

The poor government is already suffering with these lower gas prices......................you know because that money really should have been theirs, not ours.

 

Don't we "owe" them a blank check ?

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It is irrelevant to me with respect to the topic of the gas tax funding infrastructure. If one wants to discuss the merits of the stimulus spending – that to me is another topic – I think what I am trying to say – we seem to be at a point in the governance of our country where every topic ends up getting extrapolated by one party in order to make a point on a separate issue or to leverage it into some action on a different topic. You seem to want to make the subject of funding our infrastructure via the gas tax – as has been done for decades – into a requiem on the Obama stimulus package.

 

As long as we do this to every bill/topic/subject we will not – and have not – gotten anything done.

It's impossible to do this in a vacuum.

 

Whether or not you can trust the individuals in power to spend the taxes they propose to assess on the things they say they need the tax dollars for is a very appropriate consideration when deciding if, and under what conditions, you will allow them to assess those taxes.

 

No one here is disagreeing that we need to make improvements and repairs to our infrastructure. No one here is disagreeing with the notion of a Federal consumption tax on gasoline and diesel. No one here has even disagreed with a rate of $.12/gallon, infact, I might be inclined to agree on a higher tax rate, approaching $.18-$.20/gallon.

[Azalin]

 

You seem to want to make the subject of funding our infrastructure via the gas tax – as has been done for decades – into a requiem on the Obama stimulus package.

 

 

In the OP, Rendell says that 'a higher gas tax could actually save people money' and says 'our roads and bridges are in dangerous condition'. I have no problem at all with a gasoline tax for purposes of addressing that segment of our infrastructure. What I do have a problem with is an increase in gasoline taxes meant to address what a recent and massive stimulus was supposed to address. Perhaps it's an idealistic notion to some, but accountability ought to be a factor when we go billions in debt at the stoke of a pen or when we raise taxes to fix something that has supposedly been addressed only a few years ago. It's the taxpayers' right to expect results for their money - there's nothing partisan about that.