[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The government does not 'make a profit' on gas sales. Who do you think pays for road building, infrastructure like bridges, policing etc? Who is going to pay for that without a gas tax?

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.

Stop whining that the things you use need to be paid for and asking for subsidies.

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

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Again, that's assuming that the full amount of the gas tax will simply be lopped off the price of gas. I haven't seen any serious person who thinks that will happen. Every analysis I've seen suggests that 1) in an environment like the current one, with gas prices rising, a gas tax reduction will simply be swallowed up by that trend, and 2) if anything, to the extent that prices do drop or are perceived to drop, consumption will increase, making prices rise even higher in the long run.

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?

[smacintush]

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.

[vmarks]

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.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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

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.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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.

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.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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!"

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.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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.

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.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by peeb 

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.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

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?

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.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

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.

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.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

Status quo all the way!

[lefty mclefty]

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

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lefty mclefty 

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

WTF are you talking about now?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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.

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.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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

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.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Nearly EVERY SINGLE PERSON uses them either directly or via the products and services they use.

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?

[lefty mclefty]

SENATOR mccains economic theory....

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You certainly won me over with your powerful argument.

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

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.

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?

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....

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

'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?

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

And you haven't proven me wrong so .

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So you would support a plan to allow childless couples to opt out of paying for education

Right, because the only people who benefit from having an educated population are the parents of the children

Originally Posted by smacintush 

or those who don't need SS from paying FICA taxes?

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.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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

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.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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

The fact that you opinion is ill-thought through and poorly sourced? No, what really detracts from it is that it's wrong.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

And you haven't proven me wrong so.

Again, you need to pay more attention. You got creamed and didn't notice.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Right, because the only people who benefit from having an educated population are the parents of the children

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

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.

Government care, whether you like it or not…

I'm sorry you're confused - I'll try to use shorter words for you.

Yes please, I'm having trouble keeping up…

People who use roads more should pay more towards their upkeep.

Ok.

Except you think that people's use of the roads should be subsidized by the general taxpayer.

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

The fact that you opinion is ill-thought through and poorly sourced? No, what really detracts from it is that it's wrong.

Proof?

Again, you need to pay more attention. You got creamed and didn't notice.

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

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

...please, I'm having trouble keeping up…
... smoke and mirrors....
... I'm reeling.

Look, I'll put you out of your squirming discomfort on this. You know you're wrong, and it's embarrassing watching you try to wriggle away from your original position, which even you admit was ill-thought through.

The fact is that no credible economist thinks it is a good idea to move away from a gas tax. Taxes that link payment to use are a good thing, and if you can't see the difference between road use and social security, then you need to go back to school. If you want to present a serious argument about why a gas tax is worse than general taxation for paying for road infrastructure, be my guest, because I've never heard one.
If you want to give half remembered quotes from unknown sources without doing the math, do it somewhere else.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Look, I'll put you out of your squirming discomfort on this. You know you're wrong, and it's embarrassing watching you try to wriggle away from your original position, which even you admit was ill-thought through.

You can be embarrassed for me because I am not wrong and I am not embarrassed. Any simplification of the convoluted mess that is the American tax system is a blessing. Having special taxes that pay for every little thing actually muddies the waters, not clears them. That only contributes to the ease in which they conceal their waste and corruption.

It's retarded to go on about how these particular gas taxes are needed to pay for highway funding while people like you have NO problem with having one American unwillingly contribute to another's education, another's SS (which shouldn't exist at all IMO) and another's healthcare.

The fact is that no credible economist thinks it is a good idea to move away from a gas tax.

Can you substantiate that? There are plenty that think the gas tax holiday is idiotic, but that's not the same thing as a repeal/reform.

[peeb]

There are no economists that I know of you think that repealing the gas tax is a good idea. If you know of one, please let us know. If you think you once heard someone say that there was, but can't remember, keep it to yourself.
It's absolute nonsense to suggest that consumption taxes closely linked to road use are a 'retarded' way to pay for roads. You're wasting everyone's time with kind of unsubstantiated drool.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

There are no economists that I know of you think that repealing the gas tax is a good idea. If you know of one, please let us know. If you think you once heard someone say that there was, but can't remember, keep it to yourself.
It's absolute nonsense to suggest that consumption taxes closely linked to road use are a 'retarded' way to pay for roads. You're wasting everyone's time with kind of unsubstantiated drool.

You've countered me with nothing. If this is so clear and I am so stupid where is your proof? Oh, I know, because "it's obvious" right?

yawn!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's absolute nonsense to suggest that consumption taxes closely linked to road use are a 'retarded' way to pay for roads. You're wasting everyone's time with kind of unsubstantiated drool.

I have no problem with consumption taxes, except in the context of the convoluted mess that is our tax system.

I'll take the fair tax please. Thanks

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I have no problem with consumption taxes, except in the context of the convoluted mess that is our tax system.

Splendid - so you're in favor of the gas tax. I'm not surprised, since it is clearly fairer, and better at communicating the clear cost of using roads.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You've countered me with nothing. If this is so clear and I am so stupid where is your proof?

So you fail the challenge of coming up with any reputable economists who agree with you.

What I particularly love is your habit, when your arguments are completely destroyed, of throwing out desperate hand grenades in the hope of derailing the conversation. "Look Over There! Forget about my debunked opinions on the gas tax, get rid of social security and health care! The Fair Tax! Communists! Terrorists!"

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by google

The Fair Tax would replace federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, earned income, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes with a national sales tax. It would include a rebate system to make the Fair Tax a progressive tax system, where the net effective rate for low- and middle-income persons is less than the effective tax rate for the wealthy.

So the Fair Tax concept is a consumption tax. Hmmmmmm.

Yes, our current tax system is convoluted. If you want to fix it, why would you start by repealing a consumption tax?

There's more to the story than just saying the gas tax goes to general treasury. As I understand it, the revenue from the gas tax goes into the Highway Trust Fund. It's a fund where the money physically resides in the general treasury but is tracked separately - hence budgeters would know what should be allocated to roads/infrastructure. Say what you want, that's different than it just being added to the overall pot.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So you fail the challenge of coming up with any reputable economists who agree with you.

Here's one. What do I win? Remember you only asked for one. (I opted to leave out the Cato institute study since I'm sure that doesn't count in your mind)

Of course what you are arguing here is silly. I never claimed to oppose the current gas tax based upon economic principles. I never said it was destroying America or killing our economy or anything. I think that the federal gas tax is a tiny amount relatively speaking and ultimately from a consumption perspective pretty insignificant.

I favor standardized and simplified tax plans like the fair tax and I have NO problem with using the general fund. It's just silly to call it "subsidizing". We pay for a great many things that YOU support out of the general fund and this is NO DIFFERENT.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yes, our current tax system is convoluted. If you want to fix it, why would you start by repealing a consumption tax?

Good question.

Number one: it's a non-scaling flat tax that is being outpaced by the rising costs of repairs. So it is flawed right off the bat. We are already borrowing to "subsidize" our roads and it's only gonna get worse.

Number two: We are NOT gonna get tax reform any time soon. Since I don't generally favor using taxes for social engineering I favor pretty much any opportunity to cut taxes. Even ones that *gasp* affect The Wealthy™. It is my opinion that high and complex taxes have done for more damage to this country than relegating the highway fund to the general fund ever would.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

We are already borrowing to "subsidize" our roads and it's only gonna get worse.

Doh! Because the GAS TAX IS TOO LOW! People who use the roads more should pay for them with, wait for it..... A gas tax that reflects the real costs of roads!

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Here's one. What do I win? Remember you only asked for one. (I opted to leave out the Cato institute study since I'm sure that doesn't count in your mind)

Well if you're worried because the CATO Institute is staffed by frothy-mouthed loonies, look no further than the fact that the guy you quote works for them. Never mind though, because his article is clearly an effort in sarcasm that's a little wasted on you.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Of course what you are arguing here is silly. I never claimed to oppose the current gas tax based upon economic principles.

Well, given that you show no understand at all of economic principles, that goes without saying.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I never said it was destroying America or killing our economy or anything. I think that the federal gas tax is a tiny amount relatively speaking and ultimately from a consumption perspective pretty insignificant.

Aaaand you miss the point entirely. Again. When costs are attached to usage, the market is more responsive. The logical equivalent of your argument is that no one should actually pay for any government service or consumption tax, everything should be paid for from general taxation. That leads to less information about the real cost of people's actions being passed to them.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I favor standardized and simplified tax plans like the fair tax and I have NO problem with using the general fund. It's just silly to call it "subsidizing". We pay for a great many things that YOU support out of the general fund and this is NO DIFFERENT.

OK, you're on your own here. You're entitled to your own world view, but no-one credible agrees with you. The one person you quote is basically making a joke about Hillary by propping up arguments that he knows are bogus: "1. The American people want to "do something," and Hillary's tax cut will at least do little harm.", "If ... 100% of the tax cut goes to producers, that's not a bad thing.", "With arguments like these, I doubt that I'll be getting any phone calls from Hillary's team."
Come on, you're wasting everyone's time here.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Come on, you're wasting everyone's time here.

Apparently you've got nothing better to do, and I KNOW that I don't so what's the problem? If you don't like it piss off.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Apparently you've got nothing better to do, and I KNOW that I don't so what's the problem? If you don't like it piss off.

Well, when all your arguments are defeated, feel free to descend to personal attacks.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Doh! Because the GAS TAX IS TOO LOW! People who use the roads more should pay for them with, wait for it..... A gas tax that reflects the real costs of roads!

Of course it is! Because higher and higher taxes are always the answer! With trillions in revenues how will we ever cover costs without higher taxes!

Well if you're worried because the CATO Institute is staffed by frothy-mouthed loonies, look no further than the fact that the guy you quote works for them. Never mind though, because his article is clearly an effort in sarcasm that's a little wasted on you.

I didn't notice that and you are right, but I was hardly "worried". I have no problem with these loonies. You asked for ONE and now YOU say he was joking.

He does come across as cynical, but it doesn't sound like he's joking to me.

Well, given that you show no understand at all of economic principles, that goes without saying.

Yes professor. You haven't show me ANYTHING at all.

OK, you're on your own here. You're entitled to your own world view

Well thank you. I was just saying to my wife earlier; "You know, I have certain 'unique' world views but I'm afraid that that guy on the internet who's name is 'beep' spelled backwards won't allow me to hold them!"

but no-one credible agrees with you.

Again stating your opinions as fact. You're a real joy.

BTW, you don't need a hyphen there

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, when all your arguments are defeated, feel free to descend to personal attacks.

HA! You've been using thinly veiled jabs at my intelligence since we started this discussion! I guess that means you lost early on huh?

I'll try to use shorter words for you.

And "piss off" is hardly an "attack". It's a dismissal. You are the one complaining that I am wasting "everyone's time" yet you can't stop yourself from replying to me…

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Of course it is! Because higher and higher taxes are always the answer! With trillions in revenues how will we ever cover costs without higher taxes!

It's a concept conservatives seem unfamiliar with, but tax receipts should be equal to expenditure. Gas taxes should be exactly the same over the long term as it costs to run the road system. Believe it or not, borrowing from China on behalf of the next generation is not a prudent course of action. Neither is allowing the national bridge and road system to fall into disrepair. I'm sorry, but in the real world, infrastructure has to be paid for, and it should be paid for in proportion to how much people use it.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I didn't notice that and you are right, but I was hardly "worried". I have no problem with these loonies.

You "didn't notice" because you found it with a hasty Google search. Unfortunately, real world problems demand a bit more of an understanding of the issue than quoting the top three search engine results.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You asked for ONE and now YOU say he was joking.

I told you no serious economist agrees with you. They don't. If you seriously think he isn't joking, you're more out of your depth than I thought.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes professor. You haven't show me ANYTHING at all.

I've shown you, you're just not paying attention.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

BTW, you don't need a hyphen there

Yes, feel free to pick pedantic grammar points to try to salvage some self-esteem if that helps you.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's a concept conservatives seem unfamiliar with, but tax receipts should be equal to expenditure. Gas taxes should be exactly the same over the long term as it costs to run the road system. Believe it or not, borrowing from China on behalf of the next generation is not a prudent course of action. Neither is allowing the national bridge and road system to fall into disrepair. I'm sorry, but in the real world, infrastructure has to be paid for, and it should be paid for in proportion to how much people use it.

Dusting off the ol' strawman again I see…

You "didn't notice" because you found it with a hasty Google search. Unfortunately, real world problems demand a bit more of an understanding of the issue than quoting the top three search engine results.

Yes. So what's YOUR excuse? You've demonstrated nothing but a clear understanding of what your own views are. Most people however, don't propose their opinions as facts.

I told you no serious economist agrees with you. They don't. If you seriously think he isn't joking, you're more out of your depth than I thought.

Out of my depth with YOU?

I've shown you, you're just not paying attention.

Maybe it's my lack of intelligence.

Yes, feel free to pick pedantic grammar points to try to salvage some self-esteem if that helps you.

Yes, of course. Thanks for responding to it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Dusting off the ol' strawman again I see…

If you can't answer the argument, at least have the decency to admit it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

If you can't answer the argument, at least have the decency to admit it.

Ooookay…if YOU insist.

It's a concept conservatives seem unfamiliar with

Why put this here? It's untrue and why would you even mention it anyway? Were we discussing conservatives?

but tax receipts should be equal to expenditure.

This is just wrong. You have it backwards: expenditures should equal tax receipts. PLEASE tell me you get the difference…

Believe it or not, borrowing from China on behalf of the next generation is not a prudent course of action.

Neither is allowing the national bridge and road system to fall into disrepair.

Gee…really? Um, what's your point?

I'm sorry, but in the real world, infrastructure has to be paid for, and it should be paid for in proportion to how much people use it.

Gas taxes have been proven to be highly insufficient to fund repairs. People keep saying crap about how they need to be HIGHER but we have already seen how high gas prices are straining our economy and squeezing people like me. The amount that you would need to raise them is not acceptable and would devastate our economy.

You keep on harping on the funding but this can't be fixed with mere tax hikes. We need tax reform, government reform and energy reform.

All gas taxes do is pass ALL of the burden of said taxes on to the lowest end of the food chain. Namely the consumer who has no way of passing the added cost of paying those taxes on. When you raise gas taxes you effectively raise taxes on the poor and middle class.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is just wrong. You have it backwards: expenditures should equal tax receipts. PLEASE tell me you get the difference…

I don't think you know what the word 'equal' means. They should both be the same. Since the infrastructure is crumbling, I doubt you are really suggesting that even more necessary repairs be deferred?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Gas taxes have been proven to be highly insufficient to fund repairs.

Which means that people are not paying the full cost of the infrastructure they are using.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

People keep saying crap about how they need to be HIGHER but we have already seen how high gas prices are straining our economy and squeezing people like me.

They need to be high enough to pay for the infrastructure people are using. If you want to use something, have the decency to pay for it without whining for subsidy from the rest of us.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The amount that you would need to raise them is not acceptable and would devastate our economy.

If paying the full cost of the infrastructure would 'devastate the economy' then the economy is a false one run on subsidy. people need to get used to paying their way without scrounging for welfare.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You keep on harping on the funding but this can't be fixed with mere tax hikes. We need tax reform, government reform and energy reform.

What we need is for road users to pay for what they use.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

All gas taxes do is pass ALL of the burden of said taxes on to the lowest end of the food chain. Namely the consumer who has no way of passing the added cost of paying those taxes on. When you raise gas taxes you effectively raise taxes on the poor and middle class.

Nonsense. People who use more gas, or buy products that need more gas, pay more, whether they are poor or rich. If your concern is the poor, you are better off giving money straight to them in tax credits or straight payments.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I don't think you know what the word 'equal' means. They should both be the same. Since the infrastructure is crumbling, I doubt you are really suggesting that even more necessary repairs be deferred?

And I don't think you got my point…

Which means that people are not paying the full cost of the infrastructure they are using.

It means that the costs of repairs are outpacing the people's ability to continually afford to pay for the thing that is being used to fund said repairs.

They need to be high enough to pay for the infrastructure people are using. If you want to use something, have the decency to pay for it without whining for subsidy from the rest of us.

If paying the full cost of the infrastructure would 'devastate the economy' then the economy is a false one run on subsidy. people need to get used to paying their way without scrounging for welfare.

Or, you could stop trying to pigeon-hole the method of funding into one single, impractical method.

What we need is for road users to pay for what they use.

If it were practical in this case I might agree with you…but there are outside forces that get in the way and saying "suck it up and get over it" isn't a solution.

Nonsense. People who use more gas, or buy products that need more gas, pay more, whether they are poor or rich.

And who gets affected more by this? If the cost of feeding a family of four doubles because of high gas prices who is gonna feel this more?

If your concern is the poor, you are better off giving money straight to them in tax credits or straight payments.

Thank you for not disappointing me. You bring up that brilliant liberal tax system right on cue.

Implement taxes that hurt everyone, and use that to subsidize those that shouldn't have been taxed in the first place which effectively transfers wealth from the rich to those less so. How you can think that this makes sense is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that it flies in the face of this gem:

If paying the full cost of the infrastructure would 'devastate the economy' then the economy is a false one run on subsidy. people need to get used to paying their way without scrounging for welfare.

[peeb]

OK. You're done. You've come up with the same tired excuses.
1. Roads cost money.
2. People who use them don't want to pay the cost of them through taxes that directly relate to their use.
3. The most politically expedient thing to do is to pretend that, even if you don't want to pay for something, you don't have to - you can get the next generation to borrow money from China to subsidize you.

I love your concern for the poor, but product subsidies is a terrible way to support them. You mask crucial market signals, and make the rest of the economy bear an unfair burden.

I think everyone else can see why your ideas are bankrupt. If you can't, it's time you checked out your local community college.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by peeb 

it's time you checked out your local community college.

You stay classy, peeb.

[peeb]

Well Dakar, I'm out of other ideas. Having explained it to him several times, my didactic powers are tapped. Time for a specialist in teaching adults to take over. Do you have other suggestions for him?

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I'm out of other ideas.

Seek to understand before seeking to be understood.

[peeb]

You're a little opaque - do you want to try to pick up where smacintush got smacked in the tush (I really don't recommend that, there's nowhere for his arguments to go), or are you trying to give advice on how to educate him? I'd welcome either, but find the former funnier.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by peeb 

where smacintush got smacked in the tush.

I have to say, I find political lounge trash-talking about as bad-ass as You Got Served style dance-offs.

[peeb]

Well that's nice. It's not really on topic though, is it? How about you contribute to either trying to bail Smacintush out, or help out with his education?

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You're a little opaque

I meant it as the latter (though wouldn't quite phrase it the way you did) though I'm willing to join in on the former.

It's somewhat difficult to follow because you're talking at each other rather than having a dialogue.

Likewise, I need some clarification.

Originally Posted by peeb 

They need to be high enough to pay for the infrastructure people are using. If you want to use something, have the decency to pay for it without whining for subsidy from the rest of us.

If paying the full cost of the infrastructure would 'devastate the economy' then the economy is a false one run on subsidy. people need to get used to paying their way without scrounging for welfare.

Are these points rhetorical in any way?

[peeb]

You need some clarification on my position on the gas tax?
My position is that the full costs of maintaining the road system (construction, bridges, policing etc) should be paid for in a way that communicates those costs through the market. The gas tax does that very well. It becomes, in effect, a fee for service.
The benefits of this are several:

1. More information is given to consumers about the costs of road transport. This will make the market more responsive and allow people to make informed decisions about their transport needs. The transport market will become more efficient as a result of people choosing the most effective transport mechanisms.

2. It is essentially a fee for service. People who use roads more (or with heavier vehicles, causing more damage) pay more. That is equitable, and does not demand that people who use roads less subsidize people who use them more. When the full cost of maintaining roads is know, a debate about whether it is too high can be had, but in the context of whether to scale back spending on roads, privatize them and have tolls, or whatever.

3. If your concern is for the poor, subsidizing gas is not a good way to help them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You need some clarification on my position on the gas tax?

I wanted to know if the statements I quoted above were rhetorical in any way, and if they aren't, I guess I want to know if that attitude applies to anything else.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

I wanted to know if the statements I quoted above were rhetorical in any way, and if they aren't, I guess I want to know if that attitude applies to anything else.

I'm having trouble seeing where this is going. Which 'attitude' are we talking about? If this is going to be a derailing comment about how dismantling social security would be much better than fixing ailing bridge infrastructure, I'm really not interested. We're talking about whether a gas tax holiday is a good idea.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I'm having trouble seeing where this is going. Which 'attitude' are we talking about? If this is going to be a derailing comment...

I don't do ambushes.

I'm trying to figure out if you are a socialist who is being snarky or an anarcho-libertarian who's not. I'm guessing the former.

Where I'm going with that is this will be more productive if I talk to you, rather than the multiple yous I think you might be.

Edit: please note that if you are resistant to the idea of being "labeled", feel free to discard my choices and be more nuanced.

[peeb]

Well, I'm not keen on boxes, but, if I were you, I would deduce from the fact that I think gas taxes help market signals to produce more efficient outcomes that I am not a socialist. Since I also think that government maintenance of road systems is a good idea, I'm not really an 'anarcho-libertarian'.

I consider myself pretty middle of the road, but feel that where we have government creating and maintaining services like transport, consumption based fees and services are the best ways forward.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, I'm not keen on boxes...

I hope my edit shows I wasn't trying to force you into such.

As to the gas tax, after thinking about it (for which your clarification was helpful and appreciated) I see one main issue that cascades through everything else.

This issue, assuming I understand what you are proposing (as always, I invite correction), is that calling this a "gas tax" is inaccurate. It seems to me that you are calling for a road tax. It would be a tax on gas now, because that's the primary thing being consumed. As other forms of energy become feasible, you'll have to tax those too, otherwise your road fund will dwindle to nothing.

The theoretical problem with this (separate from the legion of practical problems) isn't that the tax gets passed on to consumers as another fixed cost of production and distribution (though that happens), the problem is how you affect the overall efficiency of the market.

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of the "perfect" market, wherein the further away your market is from perfect, the more reality will deviate from the models.

Getting supply to where it's demanded is one of the requirements of a perfect market.

When you enact a road tax (this counts just as much for tolls) you are disincentivising getting supply to where it's demanded. This is much worse than the fixed cost hit... though in your proposal you get whacked with that too.