4 ms·

If they can make it happen might as well raise toll rates too. I could see a lot of "day visitors" streaming in from NYC and Philadelphia

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Yup. Raise the tolls. Make some high priced toll only lanes while you're at it. God forbid people prefer to sit in traffic on a bridge in order to spend their money in your state. Regressive taxation is always a net win for society. (the massive amount of sarcasm should be obvious) Seriously, other than a few extra dollars in the short term and making the roads less crowded for those who have the money to justify their value proposition what is the befit of raising tolls? I can understand if you want to basically levy a tax on tourism but levying a tax on people showing up to buy stuff doesn't seem smart.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  >I can understand if you want to basically levy a tax on tourism but levying a tax on people showing up to buy stuff doesn't seem smart. You mean, like a sales tax?
  - lightbyte 9y ago
    Yes, like a sales tax. That is an extremely regressive tax and should be removed.
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      I think whether or not it is regressive depends on the context. A flat tax (perhaps an even steeper on than generally exists currently) on goods purchased might help to curb consumption/consumerism that is destroying our environment. That's one context. How should a government tasked with regulating commerce seek to fund such endeavors otherwise? I'm not baiting; I really don't know.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    Well, rich people may buy higher quality, but they don't buy proportionate to what average and lower classes spend. The rich invest in tax shelters and other vehicles to make more money. So it ends up that tax hurts the poor a hell of a lot worse than the rich. And the fact that 7% of someone who is "poor" is a hell of a hit on the low wage they already get (and taxed on). 35% on labor tax, but only 18% on investments. I'm pretty sure Warren Buffet came out on that talking point a while back.
  - iamthepieman 9y ago
    I live near a border town with a no sales tax state. The comparable town on the no tax side of the line has seen increased growth for the 20 years I've been shopping here. The town on my side of the line just opened it's 18th empty storefront on the two main roads I town. It's not the sales tax that kills the town, it's the close neighbor without it. Obviously it's not just sales tax. The real estate on my town is owned almost entirely by two people. One with a lucrative housing contract with the prisons re-integration program. A great idea but not when captured by cronyism.
- zitterbewegung 9y ago
  Maybe they can fix the roads with the money they charge ? Also, by adding a cost to go on they would limit traffic.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Kind of like how tolls on the MA portion of I-90 were only supposed to last until the initial construction was paid off?
hendersoon 9y ago
Why not just heavily tax marijuana? That seems like a more reasonable and targeted way to raise money from this change.
- josefresco 9y ago
  Because if you "heavily tax" cannabis, it will expand or prop up the already existing black market. This is something that towns, eager to tax recreational cannabis shops exorbitant amounts, will soon realize.
  - oxide 9y ago
    hopefully sooner rather than later. when we said "regulate and tax it" for decades, we didn't mean give the blackmarket a greater marketshare by making the taxes exorbitant. People are going to buy weed, if the taxes make it not worth purchasing legally the blackmarket will always be there to undercut it. you have to COMPETE with blackmarket prices, you can't just jack up prices, legalize it and then expect people to stop paying $25 for 3.5 grams of top-tier marijuana. no one is going to continually pay $75 for 3.5 grams, especially after the novelty has worn off. If you have a who buddy will sell you the same amount of equal or higher quality for a 1/3rd of the price, would you pay 2/3rds more? If cities add more tax on top of state tax, then it'll push more medical and recreational users right back into the untaxed newly formed gray market. Same with cities who don't open shops. I think this is a result of being blinded by dollar signs instead of practical and thought-through policy. Yes, it'll still rake in tax dollars and yes, people who don't know any better will buy from shops, like tourists. But for the target market? I'm not so sure.
    - beager 9y ago
      What sort of black markets currently exist to evade taxation for consumer goods currently, that threaten the existence of that legalized and taxed industry? The only thing I can think of is cigarettes, and even then, the taxation is extremely high and the legal market is still very strong. I don't think that high taxation is going to derail a legal market, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
SmellTheGlove 9y ago
Definitely, especially over the Delaware, where the DRPA will totally share that revenue and not squander it one bit.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

Yup. Raise the tolls. Make some high priced toll only lanes while you're at it. God forbid people prefer to sit in traffic on a bridge in order to spend their money in your state. Regressive taxation is always a net win for society. (the massive amount of sarcasm should be obvious) Seriously, other than a few extra dollars in the short term and making the roads less crowded for those who have the money to justify their value proposition what is the befit of raising tolls? I can understand if you want to basically levy a tax on tourism but levying a tax on people showing up to buy stuff doesn't seem smart.

24gttghh 9y ago
>I can understand if you want to basically levy a tax on tourism but levying a tax on people showing up to buy stuff doesn't seem smart. You mean, like a sales tax?
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Yes, like a sales tax. That is an extremely regressive tax and should be removed.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    I think whether or not it is regressive depends on the context. A flat tax (perhaps an even steeper on than generally exists currently) on goods purchased might help to curb consumption/consumerism that is destroying our environment. That's one context. How should a government tasked with regulating commerce seek to fund such endeavors otherwise? I'm not baiting; I really don't know.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  Well, rich people may buy higher quality, but they don't buy proportionate to what average and lower classes spend. The rich invest in tax shelters and other vehicles to make more money. So it ends up that tax hurts the poor a hell of a lot worse than the rich. And the fact that 7% of someone who is "poor" is a hell of a hit on the low wage they already get (and taxed on). 35% on labor tax, but only 18% on investments. I'm pretty sure Warren Buffet came out on that talking point a while back.
- iamthepieman 9y ago
  I live near a border town with a no sales tax state. The comparable town on the no tax side of the line has seen increased growth for the 20 years I've been shopping here. The town on my side of the line just opened it's 18th empty storefront on the two main roads I town. It's not the sales tax that kills the town, it's the close neighbor without it. Obviously it's not just sales tax. The real estate on my town is owned almost entirely by two people. One with a lucrative housing contract with the prisons re-integration program. A great idea but not when captured by cronyism.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
Maybe they can fix the roads with the money they charge ? Also, by adding a cost to go on they would limit traffic.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Kind of like how tolls on the MA portion of I-90 were only supposed to last until the initial construction was paid off?

hendersoon 9y ago

Why not just heavily tax marijuana? That seems like a more reasonable and targeted way to raise money from this change.

josefresco 9y ago
Because if you "heavily tax" cannabis, it will expand or prop up the already existing black market. This is something that towns, eager to tax recreational cannabis shops exorbitant amounts, will soon realize.
- oxide 9y ago
  hopefully sooner rather than later. when we said "regulate and tax it" for decades, we didn't mean give the blackmarket a greater marketshare by making the taxes exorbitant. People are going to buy weed, if the taxes make it not worth purchasing legally the blackmarket will always be there to undercut it. you have to COMPETE with blackmarket prices, you can't just jack up prices, legalize it and then expect people to stop paying $25 for 3.5 grams of top-tier marijuana. no one is going to continually pay $75 for 3.5 grams, especially after the novelty has worn off. If you have a who buddy will sell you the same amount of equal or higher quality for a 1/3rd of the price, would you pay 2/3rds more? If cities add more tax on top of state tax, then it'll push more medical and recreational users right back into the untaxed newly formed gray market. Same with cities who don't open shops. I think this is a result of being blinded by dollar signs instead of practical and thought-through policy. Yes, it'll still rake in tax dollars and yes, people who don't know any better will buy from shops, like tourists. But for the target market? I'm not so sure.
  - beager 9y ago
    What sort of black markets currently exist to evade taxation for consumer goods currently, that threaten the existence of that legalized and taxed industry? The only thing I can think of is cigarettes, and even then, the taxation is extremely high and the legal market is still very strong. I don't think that high taxation is going to derail a legal market, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

SmellTheGlove 9y ago

Definitely, especially over the Delaware, where the DRPA will totally share that revenue and not squander it one bit.