Latest Topics

[smokeyone]

Matt, on 22 March 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

What are you talking about?  You pay the gas tax directly when you buy gas.

Ok. The question still stands. Why is it a good idea for privately owned business to pay for public use anything? Just because we do it doesnt mean we should. You said the current rate needs to be higher I say we should not pay it at all. I am asking you to explain to me why your line of thinking makes sense to you. Then Ill explain my mine makes sense to me and we can have a discussion about the merits of each. Sorry if I over complicated my request.

[Matt]

smokeyone, on 22 March 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Ok. The question still stands. Why is it a good idea for privately owned business to pay for public use anything? Just because we do it doesnt mean we should. You said the current rate needs to be higher I say we should not pay it at all. I am asking you to explain to me why your line of thinking makes sense to you. Then Ill explain my mine makes sense to me and we can have a discussion about the merits of each. Sorry if I over complicated my request.

The gas tax is a user fee.  If you drive, you pay.  If not, you don't.  Its collected at the pump as a way to collect the tax in relation to the amount you drive.  If you would be willing to put GPS trackers in your car or install a toll both every half mile to be more accurately taxed per mile go for it.  A private company or a private citizen is charged as much for the public facility for as much as they use it.

The problem is the cost of the public facility has risen but the tax that funds it has not.  So a public facility that should be self supporting runs a deficit because no one lacks the political willpower to make the road users actually pay for the road they are using.  Instead the rest of the funding comes out of the general fund taxes (income tax).  Republicans have wet dreams about user flat taxes like the gas tax that tax the poor and the rich the same.  I find it odd that you are opposed to raising it so that the amount of funding coming from the income tax/borrowing would be lower.

Edited by Matt, 23 March 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[smokeyone]

Matt, on 22 March 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

The gas tax is a user fee.  If you drive, you pay.  If not, you don't.  Its collected at the pump as a way to collect the tax in relation to the amount you drive.  If you would be willing to put GPS trackers in your car or install a toll both every half mile to be more accurately taxed per mile go for it.  A private company or a private citizen is charged as much for the public facility for as much as they use it.

The problem is the cost of the public facility has risen but the tax that funds it has not.  So a public facility that should be self supporting runs a deficit because no one lacks the political willpower to make the road users actually pay for the road they are using.  Instead the rest of the funding comes out of the general fund taxes (income tax).  Republicans have wet dreams about user flat taxes like the gas tax that tax the poor and the rich the same.  I find it odd that you are opposed to raising it so that the amount of funding coming from the income tax/borrowing would be lower.

So do you think the government owns or should own the oil companies or gas stations? If not then why should there be a purpose driven tax on gas? Gas is not the reason the road is there. The roads would still be needed without gas.


To me it would make more sense to have local tax dollars pay for the local roads, state tax dollars pay for state highways and have the interstate hwy system out of the department of defense. Roads as a function of government seem to make much more sense to me than the massive 3 pronged welfare system. If a communities opts out of building roads and bridges they can privatize them and set up toll roads. Either way the control would be at the most local level. What is wrong with that?

[Haymaker]

Matt, on 22 March 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

The gas tax is a user fee.  If you drive, you pay.  If not, you don't.  Its collected at the pump as a way to collect the tax in relation to the amount you drive.  If you would be willing to put GPS trackers in your car or install a toll both every half mile to be more accurately taxed per mile go for it.  A private company or a private citizen is charged as much for the public facility for as much as they use it.

The problem is the cost of the public facility has risen but the tax that funds it has not.  So a public facility that should be self supporting runs a deficit because no one lacks the political willpower to make the road users actually pay for the road they are using.  Instead the rest of the funding comes out of the general fund taxes (income tax).  Republicans have wet dreams about user flat taxes like the gas tax that tax the poor and the rich the same.  I find it odd that you are opposed to raising it so that the amount of funding coming from the income tax/borrowing would be lower.

actually, at some point several years ago the Federal Gov't acknowledged it should have a 3 Billion dollar surplus in the "Highway Fund", tax monies from the tax of gasolines set aside for interstates............it was running a deficit.......lmao, who woulda thunk

[Matt]

Haymaker, on 23 March 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

actually, at some point several years ago the Federal Gov't acknowledged it should have a 3 Billion dollar surplus in the "Highway Fund", tax monies from the tax of gasolines set aside for interstates............it was running a deficit.......lmao, who woulda thunk

Actually several years ago...http://www.foxnews.c...,274113,00.html
A few months ago...http://news.agc.org/...icit-in-fy2013/
also http://www.tnr.com/b...ficit-reduction

[Haymaker]

Matt, on 23 March 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Actually several years ago...http://www.foxnews.c...,274113,00.html
A few months ago...http://news.agc.org/...icit-in-fy2013/
also http://www.tnr.com/b...ficit-reduction

its so not worth it to me to look on the internet for god knows how long to find a link to support my post but I assure you, your post doesnt refute me post............the deficit mentioned in those articles is from gov't malfeasance