5 ms·

Thankfully that has about 0% chance of getting through Congress. The last thing working people need is a tax increase on essential goods.

wpietri 11y ago
Given the huge drop in fuel prices, working people will still experience it as a net gain. If our legislators were smarter, they would have put a racheting carbon tax in when prices were high, set to be triggered by declines. Alas.
pyre 11y ago
Where to your propose that the money for infrastructure repair/maintenance come from?
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  The government is collecting plenty of revenue already. If the need for increased infrastructure spending is pressing, there's plenty of waste and pork-barrel to cut to make room.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    But by cutting spending elsewhere and putting it towards roads, we're still hiding the cost of driving and subsidizing the use of cars. We've already bailed out the Highway Trust Fund for at least $65B. It's a hole we'll keep digging -- a cycle of demand inducement that begets budget shortfalls that begets general tax hikes -- unless we re-align the tax with usage. I'm asking for people who use the roads to pay their fair share; you're asking the government to collect money from everyone so the road-users can keep believing roads are self-funding. When the users are forced to confront the true cost, they'll demand better solutions. In short: we should both cut wasteful spending and re-align the gas tax with infrastructure expenditures, because the bailout from the general fund is pork itself!
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Okay. Then cut taxes by an equivalent amount elsewhere. My point is that I don't think that it's appropriate for total government revenue to move upwards at this point. I think that the government can do everything it needs to do with less money than it's currently spending. Therefore, having the government confiscate more of the people's wealth is immoral.
intopieces 11y ago
>The last thing working people need is a tax increase on essential goods. Working people already pay for the shortfall, whether they drive or not. But because the gas tax hasn't increased and the subisidy is made up out of the general budgets at the state and federal levels, the cost is hidden and alternative forms of transportation are not encouraged. [0] [0]http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20... (relevant pages: 6, 27)
aworkingperson 11y ago
The only question is whether the expenses will borne by drivers, by general taxpayers of today, or by general taxpayers of tomorrow. Shifting it to the general taxpayer creates incredibly perverse incentives that are essentially indefensible. It's a level of idiocy that I'd expect from a mouth-breathing moron and/or a Microsoft employee.

wpietri 11y ago

Given the huge drop in fuel prices, working people will still experience it as a net gain. If our legislators were smarter, they would have put a racheting carbon tax in when prices were high, set to be triggered by declines. Alas.

pyre 11y ago

Where to your propose that the money for infrastructure repair/maintenance come from?

marcoperaza 11y ago
The government is collecting plenty of revenue already. If the need for increased infrastructure spending is pressing, there's plenty of waste and pork-barrel to cut to make room.
- intopieces 11y ago
  But by cutting spending elsewhere and putting it towards roads, we're still hiding the cost of driving and subsidizing the use of cars. We've already bailed out the Highway Trust Fund for at least $65B. It's a hole we'll keep digging -- a cycle of demand inducement that begets budget shortfalls that begets general tax hikes -- unless we re-align the tax with usage. I'm asking for people who use the roads to pay their fair share; you're asking the government to collect money from everyone so the road-users can keep believing roads are self-funding. When the users are forced to confront the true cost, they'll demand better solutions. In short: we should both cut wasteful spending and re-align the gas tax with infrastructure expenditures, because the bailout from the general fund is pork itself!
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Okay. Then cut taxes by an equivalent amount elsewhere. My point is that I don't think that it's appropriate for total government revenue to move upwards at this point. I think that the government can do everything it needs to do with less money than it's currently spending. Therefore, having the government confiscate more of the people's wealth is immoral.

intopieces 11y ago

>The last thing working people need is a tax increase on essential goods. Working people already pay for the shortfall, whether they drive or not. But because the gas tax hasn't increased and the subisidy is made up out of the general budgets at the state and federal levels, the cost is hidden and alternative forms of transportation are not encouraged. [0] [0]http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20... (relevant pages: 6, 27)

aworkingperson 11y ago

The only question is whether the expenses will borne by drivers, by general taxpayers of today, or by general taxpayers of tomorrow. Shifting it to the general taxpayer creates incredibly perverse incentives that are essentially indefensible. It's a level of idiocy that I'd expect from a mouth-breathing moron and/or a Microsoft employee.