What I am trying to say is that there is no need to pile on insulting characterizations of someone and top it off with generalizations about “Hollywood.” McKellan might be lacking some facts in this case, but the reason his offered solution doesn’t work is because we Americans ourselves have completely fucked up the development and character of a place like Los Angeles in the first place.
According to wikipedia the average gas tax is 48.5 cents per gallon, regardless of how much the gas stations are charging. It’s not a percentage of the gas price, so the fall in gas price theoretically does nothing but increase consumption, therefore increasing the amount of money the governments receive.
I’m completely against raising gas taxes because it is a regressive tax increase. I think it would be a much wiser choice to just use funds from a progressive income tax increase for road maintenance. Tying this to payroll taxes that are capped is just shitting on the middle class.
I hate the idea.
The rich guy putting gas into his 10 MPG Ferrari - wont hurt him.
The poor person putting gas into their 10 MPG old car because thats all they can afford and need it to drive to work, hell yes it will hurt them.
And btw, hasnt this already been a problem in states with alot of drivers with hybrids and electrics?
Raising the gas tax is a good idea, though it does hurt the poor more. I’d be in favor of a 3 or 4 dollar per gallon national tax. If it drives down consumption of a quickly dwindling, valuable resource, I say it’s worth it.
It seems like almost everyone is ignoring that folks are also getting a tax break since FICA is decreased. Now, it nets out to zero on average, which means there are winners and losers, but FICA is a big chunk of change for poor people.
Still, I would not do this all in one fell swoop. For a good many people, it’s NOT going to net out to zero and they will need time to adjust.
The moronic part in my opinion is the insistence on revenue neutrality. When a Democrat is in office, the Republican chorus is “OH MY GOD THE DEFICIT!”. So we have an opportunity with gas prices falling to raise the gas tax, put some money in the infrastructure, provide some jobs, and improve the economy. If you stop right there, we could take some of the gas tax money and reduce the deficit as well. But oh, no, we have to take the tax money raised and use that to justify a reduction in FICA. So Republicans love to whine about the deficit (except when they’re in charge and, as Deadeye Dick Cheney said, “Deficits don’t matter”), but they refuse to do one thing to reduce it except whine about fictitious fat in the budget and trivialities like earmarks.
The federal gas tax is primarily used to pay for the interstate highway system and mass transit systems. I don’t know why you’re writing about local roads.
That’s the whole point. People are arguing that we should raise the gas tax to “pay for the roads”, when most roads people use on a daily basis aren’t funded by the federal tax.
Very short sighted analysis since low gas prices are unlikely to last very long, and you misunderstand this particular Republican’s proposal, which seemingly gets lost in a rant about Republicans in general. The idea is not so much to make this “revenue neutral” as to make it “tax neutral”. What are the poor people supposed to do when gas prices rise again, which I think is pretty good bet.
Revenue Neutrality is a good thing if we’re talking about reducing the impact of a regressive tax on the poor people who are hardest hit by it. We could raise additional tax revenue by not reducing taxes elsewhere, but the hurt is going to be on those least able to afford it, and least able to change their behaviors to account for it.
If it gets Anti-Tax Republicans on board, so much the better. In the long run, reduced dependence on oil, and foreign oil, helps everyone in this country. It helps the environment, reduces the amount spent on energy, freeing up money for other things, and reduces the impact of fluctuations in the oil market on regular people.
It IS time to raise hydrocarbon taxes, and to use the considerable amount of money generated to put people to work rebuilding our infrastructure. Paychecks generate a lot more money than the original amount, and would produce even more income to government from taxes, such can be used to pay for the free college for two years, increased subsidies for health insurance (maybe even raise the rate paid to doctors a little?), etc.
and, the silly part…
Perhaps, too, we could set up some work camps and gangs to take the place of all the immigrant labor we are going to lose as soon as the R’s are able to deport all 11 million illegals…Subsidize the amount farmers and chicken processors have to pay to use those folks, keeping the cost at the supermarket low. We can also increase the amount we send farmers every year for not farming…
Sorry, you do. Everyone does. You buy food that is less expensive because farm workers, many illegals, don’t get paid enough for their work…you probably pay for your lawn to be mown, often by illegals, and you always take the lowest bid, which is the lowest because the contractor is not that much more efficient, but, rather, pays his help less than he should. Good old competition.
We all benefit from low wages, the ‘labor of the proletariat’, the proletariat with a boot on their neck.
Revenue neutral means that even if the gas price goes to $50/gallon, your extra tax, under the op proposal, came back to you as income somewhere.
The best effect though, is to make sure that the momentum toward higher efficiency, renewable energy sources, etc. is not broken by manipulation of crude oil prices. We have to keep focus, and a revenue neutral gas tax hike helps that focus immensely.
And of course, the work funded by the feds is just given to the states to spend. I wonder if it would be more efficient to get the feds out of it and let the states tax and spend as they see fit.
There may be some roads and bridges along borders that benefit the national interest but not a state’s. I don’t know of any examples off hand.
I’ve been working for a state DOT for over 36 years. I can guarantee you that virtually every major road project, be it a state highway or a local road, has federal money in it.
Simply untrue. I just looked at my city’s CAFR. Last year, we spent over $9M on roads. 0% came from the federal government.
Is the money from the HTF?
I think it’s meant as revenue neutral to the gov’t. They are the ones getting revenue from taxes, not us. All this would do is shift some tax burden to the working class.
Once again, no. Don’t think of this as “revenue neutral” to the government but as “tax burden neutral” to the general public. For instance, we could raise the gas tax and cut capital gains tax to make the move “revenue neutral” but that wouldn’t spread the tax neutrality very well among the populace. But since everyone who works pays FICA, the tax burden is spread pretty evenly along with the tax savings. it’s not perfect, of course, but it would be hard to find a simpler, better way to make the change invisible to the average household budget.
Absolutely. Check the bid documents for your DOT on line. You’ll find shitloads of local projects oozing with federal money.