Some say yes to gas tax but Ryan says no....

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Well neither of those things are happening. I think it would be reasonable to designate in the law that the funds are to be used on infrastructure and only infrastructure...and then find a reasonable thing to do with the tax rate. Pass an infrastructure bill (that has keystone in there for those who for some reason love keystone) and mess with the gas tax, go build/improve more stuff. Economy is rolling and gas is cheap, now is a fine time to do this.

If neither of those things are happening, then it's unreasonable to ask for new taxes.

 

End of story.

[dayman]

 

Now is the time to do this when things are starting to get better? Then what happens when gas becomes expensive again and the economy is no longer rolling? They're going to roll back this tax?

 

What to do with the tax rate is undetermined. Set it up so it goes down or caps out when gas is high or the growth weak. Doesn't matter.

If neither of those things are happening, then it's unreasonable to ask for new taxes.

 

End of story.

 

I doubt it takes an act of Congress to account for tax money. I'm sure it's a mess and insane but you could get that now. Amendments for each new tax? We don't need to treat our federal constitution like some state's do theirs...it shouldn't be used as a giant statute. Law is good enough, we don't need everything in the constitution.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I doubt it takes an act of Congress to account for tax money. I'm sure it's a mess and insane but you could get that now.

It is the responsibility of the government, when they say they need more money from new sources, to justify this request by demonstrating that all existing taxes are being used responsibly and necessarily. If this can't be done, then they have no business asking for new money, when the likelihood is that what they seek to do could be done with more efficient use of existing funds.

 

Amendments for each new tax? We don't need to treat our federal constitution like some state's do theirs...it shouldn't be used as a giant statute. Law is good enough, we don't need everything in the constitution.

As I've said before on these boards, law does no good, except in the present, and almost always becomes a future burden. Congress isn't static, and the promises made by this Congress will almost certainly be abrogated by future Congresses, though the taxes always remain on the books.

 

Any opposition to a purposesed amendment designating that a prescribed tax absolutely must be used for a dedicated domestic infrastructure fund is nothing more than a plain statement that the person making it has no desire to see government accountable to it's promises, and would rather see a larger slush fund for the purposes of future big government pet projects that have nothing to do the stated reason for the collection of the taxes.

[dayman]

It is the responsibility of the government, when they say they need more money from new sources, to justify this request by demonstrating that all existing taxes are being used responsibly and necessarily. If this can't be done, then they have no business asking for new money, when the likelihood is that what they seek to do could be done with more efficient use of existing funds.

 

As I've said before on these boards, law does no good, except in the present, and almost always becomes a future burden. Congress isn't static, and the promises made by this Congress will almost certainly be abrogated by future Congresses, though the taxes always remain on the books.

 

Any opposition to a purposesed amendment designating that a prescribed tax absolutely must be used for a dedicated domestic infrastructure fund is nothing more than a plain statement that the person making it has no desire to see government accountable to it's promises, and would rather see a larger slush fund for the purposes of future big government pet projects that have nothing to do the stated reason for the collection of the taxes.

 

Well you are never going to have the government not wasting money and you can blame the politicians more than the bureaucrats for that (but most of the blame would just be on the what government is/how it runs). That doesn't mean it shouldn't do infrastructure.

 

And you can get an idea of what is going on with your money now if you are interested, fairly good one if you are really interested and just go through available public documents. Politicians don't talk about this b/c they don't know and people don't care. That doesn't mean there is no info out there or that we shouldn't do infrastructure.

 

If they came up with a relatively decent formula and decided to stick it in the constitution then that is fine with me. But it is not necessary. At some point, we will inevitably have good reason to change it (it's a specific tax)...so it doesn't make sense to put it in the constitution at this point. Yes, future Congresses will destroy, change, and write laws. This is not a bad thing. I think it is a bit ridiculous (and somewhat immature) if you genuinely might agree with a specific idea for a gas tax but only if it is an amendment to the constitution.

Edited January 22, 2015 by MoreOffense

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Well you are never going to have the government not wasting money and you can blame the politicians more than the bureaucrats for that (but most of the blame would just be on the what government is/how it runs). That doesn't mean it shouldn't do infrastructure.

 

And you can get an idea of what is going on with your money now if you are interested, fairly good one if you are really interested and just go through available public documents. Politicians don't talk about this b/c they don't know and people don't care. That doesn't mean there is no info out there or that we shouldn't do infrastructure.

 

If they came up with a relatively decent formula and decided to stick it in the constitution then that is fine with me. But it is not necessary. At some point, we will inevitably have good reason to change it (it's a specific tax)...so it doesn't make sense to put it in the constitution at this point. Yes, future Congresses will destroy, change, and write laws. This is not a bad thing. I think it is a bit ridiculous (and somewhat immature) if you genuinely might agree with a specific idea for a gas tax but only if it is an amendment to the constitution.

Nearly every tax we pay was legislated as targeted and temporary.

 

Your argument is an empty one.

 

As I've said here before:

 

"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. "

 

And...

 

"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. "

 

Finally, the fact that you find a demand for financial accountability from our government to be immature tells me everything I need to know about you.

[dayman]

Accounting nonsense or not, there are regular transfers from general revenue to the allocation for highway spending. Raiding that fund doesn't appear to be a problem that justifies an amendment. The strongest argument for changing the gas tax is that the highway fund is currently raiding other funds...and yet still not funding projects most could agree on.

Edited January 22, 2015 by MoreOffense

[TakeYouToTasker]

Accounting nonsense or not, there are regular transfers from general revenue to the allocation for highway spending. Raiding that fund doesn't appear to be a problem that justifies an amendment. The strongest argument for changing the gas tax is that the highway fund is currently raiding other funds...and yet still not funding projects most could agree on.

Can you tell me what the last major government spending program was that promised dedicated spending on infrastructure?

[dayman]

Can you tell me what the last major government spending program was that promised dedicated spending on infrastructure?

 

Nope. But the gas tax goes to highway spending and that fund is robbing other funds, so I'm not concerned about my gas taxes being robbed by other funds at this point. If some future Congress does it, I'm sure I'll have an opinion about whether that is justified at that point.

Edited January 22, 2015 by MoreOffense

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Nope. But the gas tax goes to highway spending and that fund is robbing other funds, so I'm not concerned about my gas taxes being robbed by other funds at this point. If some future Congress does it, I'm sure I'll have an opinion about whether that is justified at that point.

It was the 2 Trillion dollar stimulus bill, passed just a few years ago, nearly none if which actually went to infrastructure.

 

If you want new taxes, justify current spending, and codify the new taxes in a way which forces them to be spent on what those asking for the dollars say they will.

[dayman]

The stimulus wasn't supposed to all go to infrastructure and good amount did. A lot of it was tax cuts and some of it went elsewhere. Good or bad...this isn't that stimulus bill. It isn't designed to be a shotgun like that one either. Either way, there is no logical reason to believe a constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that (just for example) an additional 10 cents a gallon goes to highways. If your completely against the appropriations process, government budgeting, and any/all government ability to audit or implement fiscal controls...then I guess that means you don't agree our government can or should bother with infrastructure.

Edited January 22, 2015 by MoreOffense

[Azalin]

Raising the federal gasoline tax will raise the cost of transportation, which will contribute to increased prices in many areas. Not every truck out there runs on diesel.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The stimulus wasn't supposed to all go to infrastructure and good amount did. A lot of it was tax cuts and some of it went elsewhere.

It's a single example, but almost none went where it was supposed to go.

 

Good or bad...this isn't that stimulus bill. It isn't designed to be a shotgun like that one either. Either way, there is no logical reason to believe a constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that (just for example) an additional 10 cents a gallon goes to highways.

The same was said about Social Security. The income tax was supposed to be a temporary war funding measure.

 

If your completely against the appropriations process, government budgeting, and any/all government ability to audit or implement fiscal controls...then I guess that means you don't agree our government can or should bother with infrastructure.

Horse ****. You can save your strawmen.

 

I believe in improving on a broken system. I believe that the government, which touches roughly $.20 on every dollar, already has more than enough to meet our infrastructure obligations. I believe that if our government wants more, they need to demonstrate that that isn't the case, and then guarantee it's citizens that all new money goes where they say it will to meet their stated need.

[Tiberius]

Maybe the Tea Party is dead! This was strange to read: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/business/economy/talk-of-inequality-prods-republicans-to-refocus.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Chef Jim]

Why does the government never have any skin in the game? One of the best ways to increase the income of the middle class is to reduce government waste which we all know exists and pass that on to the middle class in the form of reduced taxes. But no, it always has to come from the "wealthy".

[dayman]

 

I believe in improving on a broken system. I believe that the government, which touches roughly $.20 on every dollar, already has more than enough to meet our infrastructure obligations. I believe that if our government wants more, they need to demonstrate that that isn't the case, and then guarantee it's citizens that all new money goes where they say it will to meet their stated need.

 

Well then you are against any additional taxes because you believe they have enough money as it is, and that is a reasonable position (even though tax revenue as a % of GDP is historically low). Saying you could be for a tax but only if we amend the constitution is not.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Well then you are against any additional taxes because you believe they have enough money as it is, and that is a reasonable position (even though tax revenue as a % of GDP is historically low). Saying you could be for a tax but only if we amend the constitution is not.

Again, stop arguing with strawmen. That won't impress anyone here.

 

What I said was that I believe the government has enough to meet the burden of their legitimate duties, which includes all infrastructure maintenance. If they disagree, they can demonstrate it. That's not an argument against new taxes or new spending, it's demand that they demonstrate need.

 

As for the tax revenue as a % of GDP argument, you'll have to explain why the size and scope of government should be indexed to the size of the economy. I've never heard a well-formed argument in favor.

 

Finally, your position on what is or is not reasonable is nothing more than a fiat declaration colored by your own biases. That you find government accountability and direct guarantees to tax payers to be unreasonable speaks volumes about your positions.

[Chef Jim]

I've mentioned this before but has there ever been or is it even possible to do a detailed audit of the government? Seeing the operate on our money we as citizens should demand it before they ask for any more.

[keepthefaith]

I've mentioned this before but has there ever been or is it even possible to do a detailed audit of the government? Seeing the operate on our money we as citizens should demand it before they ask for any more.

We should but the best way to make government more responsible is to reduce funding (across the board) and force the government down to the department level to hack off the fat.

[dayman]

Again, stop arguing with strawmen. That won't impress anyone here.

 

What I said was that I believe the government has enough to meet the burden of their legitimate duties, which includes all infrastructure maintenance. If they disagree, they can demonstrate it. That's not an argument against new taxes or new spending, it's demand that they demonstrate need.

 

As for the tax revenue as a % of GDP argument, you'll have to explain why the size and scope of government should be indexed to the size of the economy. I've never heard a well-formed argument in favor.

 

Finally, your position on what is or is not reasonable is nothing more than a fiat declaration colored by your own biases. That you find government accountability and direct guarantees to tax payers to be unreasonable speaks volumes about your positions.

 

 

Mangling the constitution with amendments for things like raising the rate on gas tax because you don't trust it enough as a simple act of congress is unreasonable. Amendments can be repealed and replaced anyway (admittedly, with more difficulty). There just aren't guarantees in this life.

 

Having enough money depends on what legitimate needs are. That is impossible to define as a nation and the way you are looking at it basically means no more money util the gov't stops doing things you disagree with. Not sure what I was saying was much of a stretch.

 

I've mentioned this before but has there ever been or is it even possible to do a detailed audit of the government? Seeing the operate on our money we as citizens should demand it before they ask for any more.

 

Appropriations records are yours for the taking. Actual gov't institutions are constantly conducting detailed audits of themselves, every day. A large number of employees do nothing but that. These audits follow the money downstream to some extent as well. Outside organizations do some of this as well. These audits are often made public/widely available. If they are not easily found, you can ask for them and get them.

 

Are politicians making explaining the nuanced finances of gov't there platforms? No. But this idea that the gov't secretly squanders our money isn't true at all. To the extent they waste it, they do it fairly openly.

Edited January 23, 2015 by MoreOffense

[TakeYouToTasker]

Mangling the constitution with amendments for things like raising the rate on gas tax because you don't trust it enough as a simple act of congress is unreasonable.

Prejudicial language much? "Mangling", as you're using it, is an implication that the purpose of the Document is not to clearly define the role of the Federal government. I happen to disagree strenuously. I'd go so far as to argue that the further adrift government goes from the pre-Amendment text, the more important and necessary the Amendment process has become. If you want the federal government to work within narrowly defined guidelines, Amendments are your best bet.

 

Amendments can be repealed and replaced anyway (admittedly, with more difficulty). There just aren't guarantees in this life.

And here we have a thinly masked False Equivelance fallacy. Any chance you'll be able to attempt any sort of argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

 

I'll now thank you to detail every instance of an Amendment being repealed, and contrast that with a detailed history of taxes imposed, with their purpose, and the various things those funds have been repurposed for over time.

 

Thanks.

 

Having enough money depends on what legitimate needs are.

Partially. It also depends on the efficient and appropriate use of all funds directed at various government functions, regardless of how anyone feels about their legitimacy; though a hearty national debate about what the legitimate functions are is essential.

 

That is impossible to define as a nation

Strange... I thought that was the exact purpose of the Constitution.

 

and the way you are looking at it basically means no more money util the gov't stops doing things you disagree with. Not sure what I was saying was much of a stretch.

It's impossible for you to conduct a conversation, much less an argument, without dangling strawmen, isn't it?

 

Why not try arguing against the things that I'm actually saying, rather than against the things that you're saying about what I'm saying?