Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Actually, here in the NJ - NYC area, we have tolls on roads, bridges, and tunnels. Those monies go to the work you describe. At least they're supposed to.

Furthermore, our counties use property tax money to pay for county roads, and local governments use property tax money to pay for local roads. Property taxes also pay for policing services as well - local and county - and state income taxes pay for state police.

You're confusing me with Obama supporters. I don't whine for subsidies. I want lower taxes.

I would think that your reasoning would also apply to sales tax holidays - that retailers would simply increase their prices on those days so that the customer doesn't realize a savings. Too bad that's never been the case.

As for #2, consumption hasn't really fallen off due to gas price increases. Why would a price drop increase consumption when price increases fail to decrease consumption?

You guys realize that the government wastes more in a day that the entire gas tax receipts for the year right?

Are you guys really so delusional that you think cutting spending would harm anything? Our government brings in revenues in the trillions. It would take a minimal amount of effort to cover the loses from gas taxes. IF (and that's a big IF) they actually had the desire and motivation to do the right thing.

What, if the gas tax was dropped they would be forced to just throw up their hands and say "OH NO! WE HAVE NO MONEY COMING IN FROM GAS TAXES AND THE ROADS ARE GONNA GO TO HELL BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NO WAY WE CAN SHUFFLE THAT MONEY FROM SOME USELESS PROGRAM! OH WOE IS US!"

Of course we could get into how the federal government shouldn't be funding roads at all. They should ease the tax burden so that states would have the headroom they need to handle their own road funding themselves. Nah…the federal government is the solution to everything.

When you start getting into the topic of cutting spending, you quickly find that every employee and administrator of every program is absolutely necessary. They all find ways to justify their existence and how their mission is absolutely essential.

When I was running for office, I saw an 'audit' of the school system, which showed that they could only cut about 10k USD from the schools budget, everything else was absolutely essential.

Compare it to the TV reality shows where they go into a messy person's house and drag all the crap out onto tarps on the lawn. There are three piles, Keep, Sell, Trash.
The owner of said junk has the hardest time putting anything at all into Sell or Trash - it all must be kept, until they have a breakthrough and realize that they can prioritize, and can make value judgements about the proper role of said stuff in their lives.

And what leads you to think that? Unless you're talking about corporate welfare and war spending, in which case it wastes more in a few minutes than we're talking about.
The 'right thing' to to make the people who use a service pay for it. By moving income for road infrastructure and policing from the people who use it to the general taxpayer you are introducing a subsidy that makes people less aware of what their road usage costs.

Why on earth would you want to move money from a tax on people who use the roads to another income stream? Oh, right, people who use the roads want others to subsidize them. I get it.

I don't disagree, and would certainly support your efforts to campaign for this reform, but right now the feds DO have the responsibility for funding many road and infrastructure schemes.

+1, and just to elaborate on the last point - there are many roads that exist today that either wouldn't exist or wouldn't be maintained without the federal Highway Trust Fund. If we were to pull that rug out from under the states, they would probably eventually adjust but things would get ugly for a while.

I'm all for paying less tax as well, but I am NOT for doing it by removing a consumption tax that is well-related to its purpose when there is plenty we can do for the general taxpayer.

Gas prices change a lot more, so customers can't know what it is "supposed" to cost.

So again, removing this gas tax would just funnel our tax dollars to the oil companies.

I have never experienced a sales tax holiday personally (and I come from a state with no sales tax), but sales taxes in the US are usually added in at the check-out counter, right? So the customer knows the price of goods without the tax, and during a holiday, the tax just isn't added in at the cash register like usual. Gas taxes are included in the price of gas, so it doesn't work the same way.

In any case, if you could provide a link to an economic analysis that shows that it would reduce gas prices, I'd like to see it, because every serious analysis (i.e., one not offered by a politician) I've seen argues that under current conditions - with gas prices rising and supply fixed - gas prices for the consumer wouldn't decrease.

It's just an off the cuff statement. It's been estimated (by whom I can't remember ATM) that an average of 1/3 of all government revenues are lost to waste, fraud or corruption. I didn't actually DO the math. The amount that gas taxes brings isn't exactly massive relatively speaking. Making it up by proper management wouldn't be that difficult.

It all goes into the general fund anyway. The idea that *this* money goes to the roads is just an illusion.

You act like the people that use our roads are a minority or something. Nearly EVERY SINGLE PERSON uses them either directly or via the products and services they use. So yeah, unless you literally live in the mountains living off the land it's justified. (and in that case you probably aren't paying squat for taxes anyway)

Status quo all the way!

you wait long enough, it will "trickle down" to you...be patient...

WTF are you talking about now?

Great, so you vaguely remember hearing that someone (you can't remember who) saying something like this. Nice. You certainly won me over with your powerful argument.
The idea that users of a service or resource pay an amount in consumption taxes that relates directly to their use is the key idea here. You're not getting the importance of that.
Right, but some use them more than others. Those that use them more pay more gas tax. I don't know why you want to remove that direct correlation between how much you use roads and how much you pay. Oh right, I do....

'Off the cuff' statements about things where you have not done the math and can't remember the source don't cut it, especially when they are so obviously wrong. Perhaps you need to pay a little more attention?

SENATOR mccains economic theory....

Was I trying to "win" you over? I don't think that's possible with someone like you.

So you would support a plan to allow childless couples to opt out of paying for education, or those who don't need SS from paying FICA taxes?

You could at least TRY to make a coherent point here…

It doesn't detract from my overall point at all.

And you haven't proven me wrong so .

Right, because the only people who benefit from having an educated population are the parents of the children
We don't know who is going to need SS before they need it - it's a safety net that is there for everyone, regardless of whether they actually end up using it.
I'm sorry you're confused - I'll try to use shorter words for you.
People who use roads more should pay more towards their upkeep.
Except you think that people's use of the roads should be subsidized by the general taxpayer.
The fact that you opinion is ill-thought through and poorly sourced? No, what really detracts from it is that it's wrong.
Again, you need to pay more attention. You got creamed and didn't notice.

Yeah and the only people who benefit from a healthy infrastructure are those that drive on it.

Government care, whether you like it or not…

Yes please, I'm having trouble keeping up…

Ok.

It already is. You are the one falling for the smoke and mirrors.

Proof?

OMG you countered my opinion with your own opinion. I'm reeling.