Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Higher gas tax to support infastructure: pollage (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter George Jefferson Airplane
- Start date
jfranco77
Footballguy
Probably. Gas tax tends to be less regressive than some other ideas (poor people ride the bus) though still not perfect. We sure as hell need to do something.
EDIT: http://www.nber.org/papers/w3578
Semi-legitimate sciency-article that says it's not TOO regressive
EDIT: http://www.nber.org/papers/w3578
Semi-legitimate sciency-article that says it's not TOO regressive
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
How much of an increase would be necessary to actually "fix" the problem?
snogger
Footballguy
X Infinity +1If they put through a Bill that 100% guaranteed it was only to be used for Roads and bridges then I'd support it..
But that is not how our government works.. We tax items and use that money to pay for things like studying how much Co2 is released when a cow farts.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Common sense says it will hit the lower-middle class the most (those who make enough to drive).
However, raising the gas tax could be beneficial overall since it could be a push for those on the fence to buy a hybrid/electric car. That would reduce oil demand and keep the price of gas lower.
George Jefferson Airplane
Footballguy
Well I think that is the intention FWIW
If they put through a Bill that 100% guaranteed it was only to be used for Roads and bridges then I'd support it..
Brony
Footballguy
If we want to not be dependent on oil and encourage investment in alternative forms of energy, raising the price of gas will help more than anything. I'm in favor of a higher gas tax.
I'm actually more in favor of banning gas price roadway signs so my ####ing MIL doesn't have to tell me what the price of gasoline was on her last trip 30 minutes from her home.
I'm actually more in favor of banning gas price roadway signs so my ####ing MIL doesn't have to tell me what the price of gasoline was on her last trip 30 minutes from her home.
Koya
Footballguy
Not a terrible idea, but not the best way to tap revenue for infrastructure.
For one, it's a regressive tax. Second, as we have learned, as driving goes down and/or fuel efficency goes up, this becomes a less effective funding mechanism.
Now, we MUST invest in infrastructure but I'd rather see a way to combine private sector dollars and monetization of future public and private revenues (Tax Incremental Financing, Value Capture methodologies) coupled with revisions of the federal framework by which infrastructure projects are graded and funded. For example, the USDOT is geared toward funding roads and highways, but not geared toward more urban development which is what the market is dying for now - large and small scale. In fact, its the smaller scale neighborhood infrastructure for main street and downtown redevelopment is often the most difficult to garner.
Finally, we have a simple solution that has bi-partisan support already - a national infrastructure bank. You fund the bank by redirecting dollars from U.S. corps that are stored overseas to avoid our punitive tax rates back to the U.S as follows:
1. Set a far lower tax rate, say 12 or 15% (not 37 for example)
2. Set some portion of those repatriated dollars to fund infrastructure
3. In tandem with the above, either allow or "force" some portion of the repatriated dollars to be invested in bonds that in turn fund the infrastructure bank. This provides a 3 or 4% return on those dollars, gets them back the the U.S. and creates an economic growth spiral as the investments provide returns (financially and otherwise)
For one, it's a regressive tax. Second, as we have learned, as driving goes down and/or fuel efficency goes up, this becomes a less effective funding mechanism.
Now, we MUST invest in infrastructure but I'd rather see a way to combine private sector dollars and monetization of future public and private revenues (Tax Incremental Financing, Value Capture methodologies) coupled with revisions of the federal framework by which infrastructure projects are graded and funded. For example, the USDOT is geared toward funding roads and highways, but not geared toward more urban development which is what the market is dying for now - large and small scale. In fact, its the smaller scale neighborhood infrastructure for main street and downtown redevelopment is often the most difficult to garner.
Finally, we have a simple solution that has bi-partisan support already - a national infrastructure bank. You fund the bank by redirecting dollars from U.S. corps that are stored overseas to avoid our punitive tax rates back to the U.S as follows:
1. Set a far lower tax rate, say 12 or 15% (not 37 for example)
2. Set some portion of those repatriated dollars to fund infrastructure
3. In tandem with the above, either allow or "force" some portion of the repatriated dollars to be invested in bonds that in turn fund the infrastructure bank. This provides a 3 or 4% return on those dollars, gets them back the the U.S. and creates an economic growth spiral as the investments provide returns (financially and otherwise)
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Where is all that money going that comes in from toll roads and bridges?
Koya
Footballguy
Paying for a very tiny percentage of the transportation network are tolled roads and bridges.
Transportation infrastructure is not a direct net positive economically. However, it is a huge net positive (when done correctly and matched with proper land use) overall. Now, a LOT of our road network in particular does not meet those goals, but that's another discussion.
HellToupee
Footballguy
No
cstu
Footballguy
They are paying their fair share by not using oil. Driving a hybrid or electric car is the most patriotic thing you can do.
Jack White
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
The Big Guy
Fear the Blitz
So a momentary drop in gas price leads to an attempt at creating a permanent tax on us? F you. Spend some of the existing gas tax money on it or use the toll money.
Living in NJ and paying to drive around here is insane. The PA of NY spends billions on non road and tunnel projects and we drive on horrible roads and tolls keep going up. Just because someone owns a car does not make them rich FFS.
Living in NJ and paying to drive around here is insane. The PA of NY spends billions on non road and tunnel projects and we drive on horrible roads and tolls keep going up. Just because someone owns a car does not make them rich FFS.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
No freaking way. I am not sure what other areas are like, but where I live our highways keep getting "expanded" in order to solve traffic concerns. The problem is they just keep expanding and the construction is always happening, therefore always causing traffic. The population has barely grown, yet you would think it has tripled. These projects go weeks on end without any work being done and the orange cones off to the shoulders, which means any car that breaks down ends up in a lane which of course causes huge traffic jams.
The last thing we need is more "expansion". It is simply manufactured employment.
The last thing we need is more "expansion". It is simply manufactured employment.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
To those who are opposed because "the government will waste/misuse the money anyway": what's your solution to supporting infrastructure?
snogger
Footballguy
snogger
Footballguy
So what happens if 75% of the public switches to electric/hybrid..
They still use the bridges and roads right??
So unless we put tolls on every single road there will be no money for roads and bridges, so they crumble away like they are now..
But hey, at least we aren't using oil.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
Then they will just take the money out of the back-end. It's too fungible.A bill that says "This Gas tax will be used ONLY for Roads and Bridges".. No
They need to find some place to cut.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Starving the beast is such a wonderful policy!
lombardi
Footballguy
I have an uncle who is always crying poor. He never has money, he's always just barely making the mortgage or car payment. I got tickets for a few of us to go to a ball game a couple years ago and outside the gate he says he doesn't have any cash and gives me a check instead, then that check bounced. I didn't bother asking him about it because I knew it would just lead to more excuses about his ex-wife, alimony, two households, blah, blah, blah.
The guy drives a leased jag because he "deserves something for himself", bought a ridiculously expensive tv which was necessary because "well, everyone comes over here for the game sometimes", just went on a two week trip to Spain because "when am I going to have the chance to do this again", etc,. etc.
He makes more than just about anyone in the family yet he is always borrowing money from people, or trying to borrow now because nobody will give him a cent anymore. He is always crying poor to his brothers and sisters, some of which are just squeaking by on a fixed income retirement. He is THE classic example of someone living above their means with absolutely no shame.
My uncle is a microcosm of the U.S. government. We need more taxes like he needs more money. There is plenty of money for infrastructure, there is plenty of money to do everything our government is supposed to do. We waste so much on pork, pet projects, political posturing, bureaucracy, and just plain corruption that I don't trust our government with a cent more of my hard earned paycheck. If we started bringing some real life business accountability and accumin into our governing we could do twice as much with half the taxes we spend.
BTW, I'm a pretty conservative guy but both sides of the aisle have been guilty and the party train has been circling Washington for a lot longer than just the last 6 years. Continually shrugging our shoulders, raising taxes, and crying "but we need more, it's for the children" just encourages this behavior. So no, I wouldn't be willing to pay a cent more for anything. It's time for some grown ups to bring some accountability to government.
The guy drives a leased jag because he "deserves something for himself", bought a ridiculously expensive tv which was necessary because "well, everyone comes over here for the game sometimes", just went on a two week trip to Spain because "when am I going to have the chance to do this again", etc,. etc.
He makes more than just about anyone in the family yet he is always borrowing money from people, or trying to borrow now because nobody will give him a cent anymore. He is always crying poor to his brothers and sisters, some of which are just squeaking by on a fixed income retirement. He is THE classic example of someone living above their means with absolutely no shame.
My uncle is a microcosm of the U.S. government. We need more taxes like he needs more money. There is plenty of money for infrastructure, there is plenty of money to do everything our government is supposed to do. We waste so much on pork, pet projects, political posturing, bureaucracy, and just plain corruption that I don't trust our government with a cent more of my hard earned paycheck. If we started bringing some real life business accountability and accumin into our governing we could do twice as much with half the taxes we spend.
BTW, I'm a pretty conservative guy but both sides of the aisle have been guilty and the party train has been circling Washington for a lot longer than just the last 6 years. Continually shrugging our shoulders, raising taxes, and crying "but we need more, it's for the children" just encourages this behavior. So no, I wouldn't be willing to pay a cent more for anything. It's time for some grown ups to bring some accountability to government.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I support a higher gas tax even if we use it for non-infrastructure.
Consuming 40 percent of the economy is about as far from starving as you can get. Do you think that for every dollar you spend the government deserves 40 cents of it? Are we getting anywhere close to that kind of value?
snogger
Footballguy
I agree.. would be nice if there would be no more "back doors" or riders to bills.. Each expenditure has it's own vote.. Transparency at it's best..Then they will just take the money out of the back-end. It's too fungible.A bill that says "This Gas tax will be used ONLY for Roads and Bridges".. No
They need to find some place to cut.
Sure politicians will still make deals "You vote for my bill, I'll vote for yours "..
But now there would be no more "Well, I voted for the majority of what was in the bill, the rest of the
is just how it works"..
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee
Footballguy
pantagrapher
Footballguy
So no additional support for infrastructure until some grand bargain on budget cuts elsewhere? Cuts where? How much? Ten years from now, when this still hasn't happened, what will our infrastructure look like?Then they will just take the money out of the back-end. It's too fungible.A bill that says "This Gas tax will be used ONLY for Roads and Bridges".. No
They need to find some place to cut.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
If the money we were currently providing the government was being used wisely, I'd have no problem raising the tax for a period of time to do the needful, but it isn't. They aren't even trying to use it wisely. It's embarrassing. I'm not sure we need to "starve the beast" as BFS says, but it could certainly be put on a diet and recalibrate the portions being fed.
How much money do they claim they need for these projects anyway?
How much money do they claim they need for these projects anyway?
snogger
Footballguy
I think what a lot of us are saying is.. The Money is there if they would use it for what it was intended for.. Stop spending the money on other items and spend it where it is needed..So no additional support for infrastructure until some grand bargain on budget cuts elsewhere? Cuts where? How much? Ten years from now, when this still hasn't happened, what will our infrastructure look like?Then they will just take the money out of the back-end. It's too fungible.A bill that says "This Gas tax will be used ONLY for Roads and Bridges".. No
They need to find some place to cut.
If it takes money away from other things where it is needed, then find a different way to pay for those things..
Common sense isn't part of the Politics now days so it is easier to raise taxes on something like gas, and
about where it is all going.
jonessed
Footballguy
The same as if we had raised gas taxes.So no additional support for infrastructure until some grand bargain on budget cuts elsewhere? Cuts where? How much? Ten years from now, when this still hasn't happened, what will our infrastructure look like?Then they will just take the money out of the back-end. It's too fungible.They need to find some place to cut.A bill that says "This Gas tax will be used ONLY for Roads and Bridges".. No
NutterButter
Footballguy
Doesn't really matter to me. These infrastructure projects need to get done no matter what. Pay for them with a higher gas tax or a higher income tax or some other tax.
We have been significantly increasing spending on infrastructure for decades and cut in half the number of bridges which need attention.So no additional support for infrastructure until some grand bargain on budget cuts elsewhere? Cuts where? How much? Ten years from now, when this still hasn't happened, what will our infrastructure look like?Then they will just take the money out of the back-end. It's too fungible.A bill that says "This Gas tax will be used ONLY for Roads and Bridges".. No
They need to find some place to cut.
timschochet
Footballguy
The votes pretty even but the responses are almost entirely negative . Interesting.
I wouldn't be opposed so long as the plan was specific.
I wouldn't be opposed so long as the plan was specific.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Can you explain the bolded? And I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the spending.We have been significantly increasing spending on infrastructure for decades and cut in half the number of bridges which need attention.So no additional support for infrastructure until some grand bargain on budget cuts elsewhere? Cuts where? How much? Ten years from now, when this still hasn't happened, what will our infrastructure look like?Then they will just take the money out of the back-end. It's too fungible.A bill that says "This Gas tax will be used ONLY for Roads and Bridges".. No
They need to find some place to cut.
Koya
Footballguy
An alternative methodology is to tax VMTs (Vehicle Miles Traveled) which overcomes this issue... but I don't want the gov't spying on my car in terms of how far / where I am going (well, no more than they likely are already between easypass and the NSA and my GPS)
psychobillies
Footballguy
Couldn't have said it better. There's so much wasteful spending in Washington it's sickening, yet anytime something important needs funding it's either raise taxes or raid social security. It's truly insane. Still, half the people here are fine with tax increases because they like roads.
Koya
Footballguy
Likely over a trillion. Could be trillions, overall. Our infrastructure has been falling apart with a bandaid "fix" approach for 50 years now.
The LAST major Federal / national infrastructure program was the freaking Eisenhower Highway System!!! That's the 1950's and 60's... and, fwiw, it is still providing tremendous returns on investment.
Koya
Footballguy
I should add that when it comes to infrastructure, we need to look at the issue in a different manner.
Regardless who does it - gov't, private sector, public/private partnerships - and regardless of who pays for it (see the last three), infrastructure should not be viewed as "spending" but rather investment.
And, when you invest, what do you expect? A return.
Prioritize which projects and what type of infrastructure provides the greatest return (ie. flow of goods and knowledge and making our innovation sector more efficient while spurring economic growth) and focus on those, with a clear view of how and how much the ROI will be.
Regardless who does it - gov't, private sector, public/private partnerships - and regardless of who pays for it (see the last three), infrastructure should not be viewed as "spending" but rather investment.
And, when you invest, what do you expect? A return.
Prioritize which projects and what type of infrastructure provides the greatest return (ie. flow of goods and knowledge and making our innovation sector more efficient while spurring economic growth) and focus on those, with a clear view of how and how much the ROI will be.
Here is an article on the subject of bridges.Can you explain the bolded? And I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the spending.We have been significantly increasing spending on infrastructure for decades and cut in half the number of bridges which need attention.So no additional support for infrastructure until some grand bargain on budget cuts elsewhere? Cuts where? How much? Ten years from now, when this still hasn't happened, what will our infrastructure look like?Then they will just take the money out of the back-end. It's too fungible.A bill that says "This Gas tax will be used ONLY for Roads and Bridges".. No
They need to find some place to cut.
Similar threads
