General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis is surprising me: DU is against a tax on driving cars to pay for infrastructure?
This is literally every conservative complaint about liberalism being realized, I'm sad to say. "Oh, they're happy with taxes until they have to pay them."
Road tolls are a carbon tax, period. Al Gore supports them. Howard Dean supports them (it's how he said he would pay for national single payer). Elizabeth Warren supports them.
If you don't support drivers paying more to offset their infrastructure and environmental damage, where are we left as far as transportation policy?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)After that is done then I'll think about it.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Are you saying we can have no carbon taxes or VAT until that happens?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and larger cars. Tax the folks who have a 75,000 car and the folks who have three cars, the motorhome, a 'toy hauler' to transport the motorbikes, watercraft and ATVs, that sort of thing.
Also, a giant levy on companies that run private bus services on public roads so that their spoiled employees don't have to lower themselves to live in the communities in which they earn their fortunes. Companies who do that should pay through the nose for the right to be in everyone's way with their self indulgent, culture destroying fuel fests.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)So the short answer to your question is no, no carbon tax or VAT, and especially no until the wealthy pay the tax rates that we had during the Cold War.
JHB
(37,159 posts)I'm for high rates too, but perhaps even more we need to restore basic progressivity. Right now all income tax bracket divisions are below $half million. That's something hat's only happened since Reagan; the income tax was more progressive even in the Roaring Twenties.
Brackets adjusted to 2013 dollars:
...and that's not counting the early 1920's and late 30's/early 40's, when the top marginal rate kicked in on incomes in the equivalent today of tens of millions.
In other words, I'm willing to negotiate the numbers in the boxes above, but the reach of the brackets and their proportion to each other should look more like it was in the thick of the Cold War than what they are today.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Can't have that. 
rock
(13,218 posts)It does not trickle down, it gushes up. Give a lot money to the poor and see how quickly the rich get their hands on it (of course the poor will end up with goods and services).
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)and other types of investment income
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I have a lot more respect for someone who has a wage where they have to go to work and perform to earn X amount of money than someone who calls their broker, asks for a trade of a stock and makes X money because the stock goes up. And yet, the person who works to earn X gets taxed more, almost double.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)So you and all those giving you +1's are not in fact based reality. At least not when it comes to this issue.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Any progressive that suggests we kill our chances at the polls and also tax the poor (what this does) before going after the rich should no longer be able to come up with ideas.
This might be one of Obama's dumbest ideas. And he's had quite a few.
GOPee
(58 posts)We scream all the time that the rich should pay for the those that are the needy. It's beginning to sound suspiciously like we are being targeted before we have the political will in our leadership to do the right thing.
Placing a toll on all driving, will drive up prices on everything. Trucks bring our food and supplies, over those roads, and we who are barely making it now, drive to work on those roads to substandard wages. Prices on everything will go up exponentially on everything if this happens. This is a Democrat Administration, for heaven sake, where is this country going?
I'm sorry this is insane, bordering on criminal. Hell, I wouldn't vote for anyone that endorsed this garbage, D or no D before we at least try to do the right thing.
Nay
(12,051 posts)more tax levied on them until the rich start paying up. Not one.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)tending to support those grand things that they don't have to pay for themselves.
"Yes, we need a carbon tax, but I still have to drive to work and gas is expensive enough as it is."
TOLLS???!!!
djean111
(14,255 posts)
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)I prefer to use gas taxes for infrastructure maintenance, as they are based on overall consumption, not usage of particular routes. I have no idea why driving should subsidize health care, but I bet they love the idea in NYC.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)Road tolls just aren't an efficient way to raise money to pay for infrastructure.
I'd rather see gas taxes raised or an additional fee when you get your license tabs or a surcharge on on-street parking for individual vehicles.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...that every single option you just listed is more regressive than a toll on specific Interstates right?
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)but there are no good options.
We simply have to have fewer single-driver cars on the road because of the impacts on the environment and the exhaustion of cheap fossil fuels and the inability to expand road capacity ad infinitum to accommodate population growth.
And you will never decrease single-driver cars while that is a cheap and easy option.
So yes, those options are regressive, but I'd rather see that and then an absolutely amazing public transport and carsharing system funded so that people have a viable alternative to driving their own cars everywhere.
Rising oil prices have negative impacts on the poor too in terms of higher gas prices and higher food prices (factoring in the additional transport costs). Global warming driven by fossil fuel emissions will cause droughts that will raise prices as well, not to mention extreme weather events that could destroy their homes.
It's not as simple as "we need to keep driving as cheap as possible to help poor".
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)is underfunded. The gas tax is per gallon, but cars now use about half the gas they used a decade ago so the money to maintain the roads is half what it should be. There is a little offset in that Diesel trucks haven't seen such an improvement and they pay a lot of tax. And the more efficient cars are lighter, and therefore put less wear on the roads and bridges. Nonetheless, we have whacked the funds in a very big way.
On top of that, EV drivers are paying nothing to maintain the roads. That's a situation that will need to be addressed. An alternative is to drop the fuel tax of cars and instead assess an excise tax on each auto. But that wouldn't be completely equitable either.
Personally I don't mind seeing the most efficient cars get a free ride for a few more years, as an incentive to move beyond the oil economy. However those who think EVs are the clean answer may not understand the full picture. In regions where the electricity is mostly generated from coal, a pure EV like a Leaf or Tesla actually produces a little more carbon per mile than a 50 MPG Prius does. Of course, in areas where there is a lot of hydro or other non-carbon power, EVs are vastly kinder to the climate. The point is that we need to aggressively attack the source of the energy, not just the consumption of it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)people are going to oppose it.
Cha
(297,196 posts)that if they had the votes. another good reason to GOTV2014
The senate recons won't even discuss the minimum wage hike for the workers. 
riqster
(13,986 posts)And that means GOTV.
Marr
(20,317 posts)for road tolls?
Warpy
(111,255 posts)since we pay at the pump for infrastructure maintenance. The heavier the vehicle and the farther it's driven, the larger the total tax bite, an excellent way to do it since heavier vehicles are harder on roads and bridges and belch more CO2 and other pollutants.. That's your carbon tax, right there.
And what do you want to bet that corporate truckers get a huge tax break?
Road tolls are an inefficient carbon tax because they're only being proposed on the interstate system. Most driving is done close to home.
Eisenhower saw the free interstate system with no toll booths as a military necessity in this country. Toll booths every few miles will foul that up nicely.
I don't give a rip which Democrats are signing on to this. It's idiotic. If they want to blow the 2014 and 2016 elections, they need to campaign on this loser instead of the ACA.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)It's political suicide for Democrats, and that, alone, is enough reason to oppose it.
-Laelth
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Guns, equality, and health care? Political damage isn't always a good enough reason to not do the right thing.
I'm not convinced that additional tolls are the right thing.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I oppose further efforts to restrict gun ownership for this very reason--not because I oppose reasonable gun control, but because advocating for gun control is political suicide in many areas of the country.
Politics is a dirty business--for better or for worse.
-Laelth
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)So there is some truth to the political suicide argument. But it can also be used as an excuse for injustice.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Warpy
(111,255 posts)We're already taxed for this. This is just one more REGRESSIVE tax that will hit people at the bottom the hardest.
It's a stupid idea.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)My Senator Kay Hagen is tied in the polls with her republican opponent. This certainly won't help. I can already see the ads .
defacto7
(13,485 posts)States! Allowing states to fund federal highways through tolls. Take away the federal control and give it to the states. That's the problem. States oversight of interstate traffic is another step in stripping the federal government.
I'll pay the toll, the tax... but not to states under state guard and practice. The can of worms is huge.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's way too big of a cudgel and they want to keep that. This is for capital projects. Congress keeps funding the Interstates, and the states raise tolls for projects that they politically can't raise "taxes" for (even though tolls are a kind of tax).
Beearewhyain
(600 posts)Someone who has to get to work at their low pay job in their 1993 Escort will be paying the same as the Jackass in a BMW who makes $100's k. Simply put it is not fair.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's a way to make those of us who use energy to pay for that fact.
Fred Drum
(293 posts)so i dont think thats the entire point
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The ratio of rich people's energy use to poor people's energy use is much closer to parity than the ratio of rich people's income to poor people's (let alone wealth). So, a tax on energy use (which, at least until yesterday, Democrats supported) will be regressive.
Sorry if the missing two steps there were confusing...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Since Jeff Bezos and I both exhale the same amount of CO2 in a given day, we should all pay the same $ in carbon tax?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If you want to tax something else, tax something else. I thought a carbon tax was pretty widely accepted in this party, at least until yesterday.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)want Democrats to support it.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)There needs to be some good posts explaining the difference between regressive and progressive taxation.
Beearewhyain
(600 posts)It is my estimation that economic efficacy is the well from which all other rights are drawn in a capitalist society in that the less money you have the less you are able to make self determined actions. Yet somehow being poor is seen as a moral failing that not only deserves social scorn but requires additional punishment through financial drain. It's a social sociopathy that at times makes me question the worth of us as a species.
Thankfully Piketty, among others, is showing how the game is rigged and maybe some good will come of it.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I dont know the answer either I just know that climate change is much more urgent than most of us act like, myself included.
I am for raising top tax rates on the wealthy and on corps so we can build unparalleled mass transit unlike anything anybody can even imagine.
Fred Drum
(293 posts)1) add 10 cents to gas tax, done
2) add toll booths to all interstate highways, pay your cronies 10 billion dollars to build 5 billion dollars worth of toll booths
there is the difference
either way , both are regressive
if we need to raise taxes, raise taxes progressively
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
The Federal Government doesn't monitor pump dispenses. How much of the gas tax from your local Exxon do you think actually makes it to the treasury?
Fred Drum
(293 posts)i would hope that 100% of the federal gas tax makes it to the treasury.
is there something I'm missing
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"If we abolished the sales tax, 75% of mom and pop bodegas would go out of business."
Think about that. The regime we have where vendors collect the tax without notification to the government in real-time of sales is begging for abuse, and it receives it. But it still does raise revenue. I'm just pointing out that it's as imperfect as anything else.
Fred Drum
(293 posts)the tolls collected (by venders, no doubt) wont make it to the treasury either.
but thats not my point anyway.
both gas taxes and tolls are regressive, and if the debate is we need to raise taxes, they should be raised progressively
this is a progressive site that i've joined, right?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)There are many progressives here as well. It is a mix. It would be safe to say it is socially liberal, but economically it ranges from Keynes (economics that work using progressive fundamentals) to Chicago school Friedman (full bore trickle down, support the banks and wealthy first voodoo economics). Lately, with the constant third way trickle down triangulation going on in Washington, the Conservatives are loud and proud as you are no doubt learning as you go.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)....but, there are many progressives. It is great to see another progressive voice!
Welcome, welcome, welcome!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)owner operated businesses than most places. How do they manage without a tax to cheat on if NYC counterparts can not? 'We can't' you say, but we already did, and the world spins on.
By the way, we live in the 21st Century and many owner operated businesses are not owned by folks who want to be called 'Mom and Pop' and who might in fact ask you to stow your stereotyping. Example, my local shop has two Moms. It's a Mom and Mom shop. But they don't really care to be called Mom except by their kids.
JI7
(89,248 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Welcome to DU Fred!
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)If we had too, we could change our fuel within 2 years. Make fuel cheaper, then we'll see. Make them raise the minimum wage to at least $15.00, then we'll see. Or better yet tax the shit out of the 1% and make them pay.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)The roads should not be paid for by a toll but by the actual carbon tax.
If people start accepting that a road can be paid for by its tolls, then what is to stop the libertarian capitalists from trying to have the government give over a given section of road to a company that runs it?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If it's good enough for that, why not roads?
But, if that's it, how about a rider on the tolls amendment to require states administer the tollbooths. Other than some quizzical looks from wonks, do you think that would change the political dynamic here?
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Whenever you see an interstate project it's always "X company building the next 10 miles, thank you taxpayers."
But they don't actually own the roads. If they did they would have a lot more power over them. Charging people for how many occupants are in the vehicles, etc.
Lars39
(26,109 posts)Got to pay pensions for those workers.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sorry, I was being coy, I guess: that's exactly why it won't be state employees doing it, and if we're bitching about paying tolls then of course we should want the cheapest possible toll-takers we can get; for that matter, push the smart card tech as heavily as possible.
Lars39
(26,109 posts)Toll booths could be another avenue of income/exploitation Walmart could jump into...pay scat and sign employees up for food stamps. Wal-toll.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)It's a regressive tax that hits the poor more than the rich.
The biggest problem I have is these toll roads and fast pass/track programs are typically managed by for profit corporations. It's privatization of public infrastructure for investors, it totally sucks.
Typically these programs require you to keep a 40 or more balance on your card. This results in a huge pile of money that is irresistible to capitalists who will exploit it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's how Medicare works, too: public funding for private provisioning.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Compliance, administration and collection eat as much as 20% of the money paid out. With coming ICD10 that figure is going to change for the worse...It's the best we have now, how about we don't model anything else after it...privatization of public services isn't the way...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, does that mean we give up on Medicare? I hope not.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Let's not pretend it's not a problem and model other public services after it....that's all. .
JVS
(61,935 posts)
global1
(25,242 posts)
msongs
(67,405 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)A. It's regressive as hell. It could hardly be more regressive.
B. It's a double blow to truckers and anyone else who travels for a living. Not only will it cost them more money directly, but it will slow them way down. This adds to the cost of doing business which will be passed along as possible in the form of more regressive price hikes.
C. It allows our NSA KGB to more easily monitor and database the movements of every citizen.
D. It forces traffic to slow and then reaccelerate, both of which are terrible for fuel economy.
E. If we allow this, we can say goodbye to political power for the next couple decades. It will be yet another dagger in the back of the working people who form the backbone of our party.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm just amazed that something the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus supports is thought of so badly here.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Tax on the poor.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And I thought we supported carbon taxes?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Why does it matter that the poor and middle class would pay more at the pump rather than at the toll booth?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Grandma in her 40 mpg civic pays the same as the banker in his Jag. And then, when grandma gets to the store she will discover that Obama jacked up the price on Mr. Whiskers cat food as well. And of course none of this will help the environment at all, it will be worse because we are forcing vehicles to brake and reaccelerate.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That solves the problem, right?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)If you want to tax fuel, tax fuel. If you want to tax carbon do that. If you want to tax the poor and the worker, tax the roads.
Anyway, toing back to bed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A gas tax is extremely regressive.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)So tolls are more regressive than fuel taxes. They're not really a carbon tax. They apply only to travel on certain roads. They discourage travel on those roads, but not production of carbon dioxide.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I have a philosophical objection to these dumbass toll roads in Texas that are funded by public money, but built and ran by contractors.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Do you think everyone at DU has purity tests on every issue?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That said, I thought a tax on driving was one of the broadly accepted ideas.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)Say, a quarter of one percent of your total income, before exclusions, exemptions, blah, blah, blah. How much did you take in? Shave off that piece before you even start figuring your taxes.
A pissant little tax means nothing to a millionaire or a billionaire. To a poor person, though, it might mean the difference between milk in the kid's cereal or water.
Let's all chip in...but let's make the rich chip in WAY MORE, at least equal, percentage-wise, to what the poor have to contribute.
All the supporters you've named are millionaires. Easy for a millionaire to support something that's chump change to them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts) MADem
(135,425 posts)If you're poor, you're paying a buck or two. If you're rich, you are paying ten thousand bucks or more--and you're feeling the pain about the same.
That's progressive taxation, based on income. "Use" is out of the equation. "Use" is a BS standard, because everyone is a user.
See, people who do not drive at all "use" the roads. When they buy that tomato at the grocer, it sure as hell didn't fly to the supermart. Someone delivered it with a truck. They benefitted from that road use when they bought that tomato. People who do not drive use buses, and trains--which are also part and parcel of the "infrastructure" that needs upgrading.
A consumption or use tax is regressive, because it hits the poor hardest, taking a larger percentage of their total income than it does a rich person. A rich person doesn't even FEEL "use" taxes.
For a poor person it can be the difference between meat or beans.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's what a "flat tax" means.
Everyone paying the same actual amount is a "head tax".
MADem
(135,425 posts)What I said was everyone pays a quarter of one percent (not twenty five percent) of their income BEFORE they start figuring their income tax. That amount is taken out before they get their deductions, personal and otherwise. They still get to take their exemptions and credits, but the infrastructure tax gets taken out first so that people aren't figuring out what they owe based on Mitt Romney accounting.
Everyone wouldn't be paying the same amount in the touted "use tax" scenario. Only the people with cars would pay.
Everyone needs to contribute, the rich need to contribute more than the poor, and leave the cars and trucks bit out of it--we all use those cars and trucks in one way or another, even if we're just taking a taxi or buying trucked-in goods.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What you describe, however, is still flat: 0.25% on all income is a flat tax.
Everyone wouldn't be paying the same amount in the touted "use tax" scenario. Only the people with cars would pay.
Except, when I lived in DC I didn't have a car. But I went to the Target on 14th street and bought shirts. Those shirts were trucked in. So if the truck paid a toll, as the buyer of the shirt that gets passed on to me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)obligation for the infrastructure tax is based on total income, not adjusted.
I don't think there should be tolls, or toll booths, either. They cost money, require maintenance and staffing, and they slow down traffic. We all benefit from infrastructure, so we all should kick in to upgrade it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They have a bunch of trust funds that they receive monthly or yearly money out of it. That money is never considered income but is put into the investment part of the income taxes which is very different that "income". I don't think that the rich would be paying anything. That is one reason why Buffet pays less in income taxes then his secretary. His income comes from stock options and other means. She gets a regular salary.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Of course, if I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring....
(cue the music)....
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Of course we may be feeling differently when we start taking our 401K money in our elder years. I tell you one thing. I think it is ridiculous that you HAVE to take the money our beginning at 70 a specific amount every year. That to me is worst of all.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But there's gotta be a point in time, after the first million or even five, where the damn rubber meets the road and a small percentage of all this "wealth without work" contributes to the common good.
About the only thing green I have numbering in the millions is blades of grass on the lawn! And that's about as good as I'll do, too. Fine with me, though--I can get by and I don't spend much and I am lucky in that I have a military retirement.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I did 24 years and I have 60 percent VA on top of it. Very comfortable. I also work at the Naval Academy. Very lucky. I wish everyone could do this.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Figures for the UK (2010-11), bottom to top deciles of household income (from the Office of National Satistics):
Equivalised disposable income 8410 12975 15733 18345 21123 24287 28561 34109 42319 75061
Duty on hydrocarbon oils 268 249 304 374 409 487 600 645 613 775
(intermediate) Duty on hydrocarbon oils 127 118 129 140 154 172 192 202 241 316
('intermediate' meaning the tax paid indirectly in the cost passed on to consumers by businesses)
Total percentage of disposable income paid as hydrocarbon taxes 4.7 2.87 2.8 2.88 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.5
Consumption taxes are, in general, more regressive than a flat income tax, unless they're well targeted at luxury consumption. If their purpose is to discourage the consumption, that might be a good enough reason for them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Surprising.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Few people are wrong about every single thing (Bill Kristol springs to mind ... - Sarah Palin, for that matter). If Cain said a flat income tax was less regressive than a general sales tax, he would have been right. A progressive income tax is less regressive still, of course.
What did he say?
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)It should be a percentage like 18%. Big Oil has cleverly lobbied to make and keep it 18 cents!
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Where did that money go? Connecticut once had tolls but got rid of them after a few gruesome accidents where trucks collided with cars at the booths and started funding the roads with progressive based income tax revenue. Since then we have had fairly good roads.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
I liked them a lot better than the ones we had growing up in 100% toll-free Mississippi...
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I took a trip down to Philadelphia this past weekend. Connecticut was the only state to cold patch the potholes. Pennsylvania was the worst overall. I swear Afghanistan would have better roads.
It was a very hard winter in the northeast, so the roads are just fubar'd.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The latest big thing is those sound barriers going up on the roadsides here and there.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)toll on the interstate. Shameful roads, terrible roads. And tolls to drive on them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Those stretches of I-20 are absurdly bad.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)with reduced speeds and double fines, although I never saw a single worker, piece of equipment or project underway, most of the interstate had low speed limits, poorly maintained roads, and zero infrastructure for travel assistance. Lots of announced 'Work Zone Ahead' signs. No work.
This was several years ago, in regular life I drive Oregon, Washington a bit, and CA with some years featuring NY but I am mostly driven when I am in NY or other Easterly places.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Every time I drive on it I swear I loose paint, or my glass gets chipped.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)In areas with essentially no public transportation (like Michigan) the poor and working poor have little means of traveling to areas where available jobs are. Adding tolls and fees would make it impossible (vs very difficult) for folk barely "making it" to do so.
Here, the middle class and more affluent would be inconvenienced; the working poor (of which we have many) would be destroyed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Yes, that's the whole idea: it puts pressure on localities that haven't done anything with public transit to change that.
Any consumption tax (carbon tax, vat, road usage tax; they're all basically the same thing) is regressive. But it's how Europe pays for its health care. It seems to work.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)The bankrupt city cannot provide basic services. There is no cooperation between the affluent suburbs (where the jobs are) and the city or the inner ring suburbs and as the poor residing in the city and the inner ring suburbs have suffered for decades there has been nothing more than a passing interest in providing public transit.
We could sacrifice the poor and working poor with a consumption tax, it would be an easy solution.
There are other options .... vehicle licensing fees based on worth of the vehicle is an option
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)(of any kind) the repubs can and will more tax breaks to the rich and corporations.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)We don't need another tax on the poor. The 1% need to be taxed until there is no 1%
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I myself could not verify with Google that any of those three support toll roads.
RandiFan1290
(6,230 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)Which isn't true. If it were true, then an 8mpg supercar would not be paying the same toll as a 45 mpg hybrid. In fact, the reason that the toll is even being considered is that the real carbon tax equivalent, the gas tax (remember every gallon of gasoline produces the same amount of CO2) is not adequate to fund road maintenance.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)because they are the same as carbon tax.
Yes and also it cheaper to build all those toll booths and environmentally more friendly than sending a new tax sticker to the gas station owner to put on his pumps, because this will have more of a carbon footprint, than building toll booths.......Yikes....
How about taxing the oil companies who pay no taxes?
16 Giant Corporations That Have Basically Stopped Paying Taxes
The Slink Sixteen
General Electric: The worst tax record over five years, with $81 billion in profits and a $3 billion refund.
Boeing: In addition to receiving a refund despite $21.5 billion in profits, the company ranked high in job cutting, underfunded pensions, and contractor misconduct.
Exxon Mobil: Made by far the largest profits in the group, but paid less than 1% in U.S. taxes, and yet received oil subsidies along with their tax breaks. Unabashedly reports a 2012 "theoretical tax" of over $27 billion, almost 90% of its total income tax expense. The company was also near the top in contractor misconduct.
Verizon: Second worst tax record, with a refund despite $48 billion in profits.
Kraft Foods: Received a refund from the public despite $13.5 billion in profits. Also a leading job-cutter.
Citigroup: One of the five big banks who are estimated to get a bailout/refund from the American public amounting to three cents from every tax dollar.
Dow Chemical: Received a refund despite almost $10 billion in profits.
IBM: Paid less than 3% in taxes while ranking as one of the leading job cutters, and near the top in contractor misconduct.
Chevron: In addition to a meager 4.3% tax rate and a share of oil subsidies, the company has been the main beneficiary of tax-exempt government bonds.
more: http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/16-giant-corporations-have-basically-stopped-paying-taxes
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)of people idling while waiting to pay the toll.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That is, without a doubt, one of the funniest lines I have read on DU in a very long time.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)You are taking money from people already completely tapped out, instead of getting it from the fossil fuel industry, which is bringing in record profits.
Tax fossil fuel extraction, refining, and retailing, not fossil fuel consumers.
The profits BP's, Exxons, Chevrons, Haliburtons, etc. are where the fat is, and they're also working against converting to renewable energy, in a big way. Make them pay for producing the dirty stuff, reward them (even if just by not taxing) for solar/wind/whatever.
Seems similar to how the banks got bailed out while we got sold out. Exxon needs to pay, not their customers, who are barely hanging on financially and are already paying cartel prices for their gasoline.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Why do the expensive route when an obvious and cheap-to-implement solution exists. Oh yeah, the President's plan has TWO other benefits -- a corporate giveaway to a handful of corporations while conveniently giving another dataset for our "collect it all" obsessed law enforcement.
Sorry, silly question. Go on, starting from where you are claiming this is ONLY about the carbon tax.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)It is not the guy making a million dollars, he just ante's up and enjoys the less traffic in the toll lane while the working stiff has to take another bite out of his already chewed up wallet just to get to work.
Tolls on the roads that trucks have to pay, will just be passed on to you the consumer, now you get to pay twice.
Meanwhile some rich bastard enjoys those tax cuts!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)How is it different?
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Carbon tax is aimed at companies who pollute the environment. Carbon tax is intended to change how corporations do business and clean up their emissions.
It is NOT intended to thwart the working class driving.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And, I disagree: the whole point is to make driving more difficult on the people.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Unless you live in a village or have access to mass transit, you have to drive!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And you shouldn't ask the rest of us to keep picking up your tab.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)WOW!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)anywhere close to the full cost of that on society.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Those people rely on transportation and you want penalize them for living where they do.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)People need to live much closer to where they work, or if they don't, live in places where vehicles more efficient than a car can take them from point A to point B.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Because it isn't that simple!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's a reason I left. It's not sustainable.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Or that can't live next door to their work, don't have that option.
You can't have the attitude that they should suffer extra because of where they live.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)You speak of sprawl and detachment as if it were purely choice, and living closer to work is the easy solution. Check out the Medium Home prices in Brighton versus Carver. Over $250,000 difference, leaves little room for choice.
Secondly Hybrid vehicles on average are vastly more expensive and take many years for real cost savings, some up to a decade. That added cost a lot of times takes choice out of the picture as well.
There are also many that believe that GM destroyed the Electric Rail system in many communities in the 20's and 30's. So average people today are to pay for that business decision that negatively effect our Country.
Our tax code is already so broken. Instead of trying to fix it you want to layer more taxes on it that will burden poorer people most assuredly. Why not get rid of the SSN ceiling use that money to fund SSN or Medicare better. Keeping those aids in better shape and allowing general funds not to be transfered to them. Or as noted many times here, adjust the top tax brackets to what they used to be and fund the GENERAL WELFARE. I believe that is written somewhere?
Having better fuel economy and a cleaner future are goals that we should strive for, but if you force a person to decide between a social issue and an economic one. Most will have to side with the economic one.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/09/05/median-home-prices-town/EFKrm7BXtTPdjSvgt6MWXJ/story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/business/energy-environment/for-hybrid-and-electric-cars-to-pay-off-owners-must-wait.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
kcr
(15,315 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If this is your goal, you're going to fail.
And somehow, I don't think Gore, Dean, and Warren would agree with you on it.
JVS
(61,935 posts)wealthy to profit even more from environmental destruction.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)benefits from the road. Food gets to the grocery store via the roads, gas or oil gets to your furnace via the roads, everything gets to every shop via the roads. If you don't drive and take a taxi or bus, you're using the roads. This is another attempt to get the average, used-to-be-middle-class people to pick up the tax bill so the wealthy don't have to pay.
WhiteTara
(29,705 posts)They pay for our roads. Now we're to pay twice?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Toll booths create more congestion and slow everything down which produces more carbon emissions, it does not make sense to have your method of collecting a carbon tax produce even more carbon emissions. I would be much more open to a gas tax than toll booths, but I will echo what others have said and say we need more taxes on the extremely wealthy as well.
newblewtoo
(667 posts)which no one has mentioned yet from is this moldy oldie on privatization of roads with profit going overseas.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/toll-road-privatization_n_878169.html
WASHINGTON -- In two weeks, the cost of traveling the 157-mile length of the Indiana Toll Road will rise more than 2 percent, from $8.80 to an even $9, for those who pay the toll in cash. The fare will jump a full buck for truckers hauling semi-trailers, from $35.20 to $36.20.
The July 1 toll hike may not seem so painful, until you consider that those tolls were about half of their soon-to-be rates only five years ago -- and that they hadn’t risen for two decades prior to that. Even harder to swallow for some drivers, truckers in particular, is the fact that their growing contributions go not to the State of Indiana but to overseas investors who've leased the toll road from the state.
If you think privatization of education is a bad thing wait until you have a grid of private toll roads to contend with. Tax fuel and everyone pays but privatize the roads? Not such a good idea.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Mitch Daniels' dumbest idea, and he had some beauts.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)a poor person's $5.50 per day to get to work is 1000 times more costly to that poor person than the same $5.50 is to a rich man driving to make his tee time.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, I would love to hear one.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Besides, we already pay a substantial gasoline tax, yes?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)I wouldn't favor this even if the government wasn't spending borrowed money bombing children in Yemen
http://nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
Hugin
(33,135 posts)I am ALWAYS against regressive taxes.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)And I couldn't give a flying fuck what Al Gore says.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)And no amount of pathetic, illogical appeal to celebrity will change that.
The poor will foot the bill again, but hey at least multimillionaire Al Gore is satisfied.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)tactic and claims that a toll road is the same as a carbon tax, when it is in fact a highway tax, not a tax on fuel or the use of carbon.
I have never seen Al Gore speak in favor of toll roads nor of a VAT. You claim he did. Prove it.
bananas
(27,509 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,733 posts)Guess we're used to them. They're usually being improved in some way. At present, I-90 is being widened in the Chicago area. A completely new Interstate -- with tolls -- also was built a few years ago and is still being expanded.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)a history of the toll road we were on as we waited several minutes in traffic created by the toll stop. Apparently it was created under claims that the toll would exist until the road was paid for, it had been paid for many times over and yet the toll remained along with the excess congestion and massive delays caused by collecting a stupid tax in a manner that was modern in the middle ages.
Her summation was 'never let them start charging tolls at all'.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... every week for six weeks last summer. The toll roads were adequate and in "ok" shape (for an almost northern state, not bad) .... but, I will say this ... if I had a very tight budget (or earned very little) the tolls were very expensive
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)It's being perceived as yet another assault on the poor and middle class while billionaires are paying less in taxes than their secretaries.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Exit/entrance wickets are posted at 15 mph, and people generally slow down to about 25.
The lanes on the open road are mostly 45 mph, and people generally slow to around 60.
The electronic tags, readers, and billing systems are pretty efficient.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)raccoon
(31,110 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
randr
(12,412 posts)I pay an exorbitant tax on every gallon of gas to pay for infrastructure repairs to the system. I would be happy to see more tax dollars go to rapid/public transportation.
If our legislative bodies are short of cash they can take away all the tax credits they have handed out to their cronies for the last 40+ years and get this nation back on its feet.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The objective is for motorists to pay something closer to the true marginal cost of their journey (in terms of impact on the environment and on congestion). Tolls are a much more efficient way to achieve this than gas taxes.
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)I can't support any sort of regressive tax that would hit the poorest the hardest.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I live in the DC, MD, VA area.
To use the Metro system, for someone like me the break down per day is as follows:
Use a car to get to the Metro Station
$5 - All Day Parking
$5.75 - One way going towards work
$5.75 - One way going back from work
That is $16.50 every day. Multiply it by 5 is $82.50 then by 4 for the month $330.00.
That is the metro rail system for someone like me in MD.
I'd use this more if this was more affordable, but $330 a month is insane.
I don't pay anywhere nearly that much with my car, insurance and gas. Especially since I've paid off my car.
I am pretty stable, but some people would be killing themselves to pull that off. Especially if they start adding tolls.
This is a dumb idea, that would pretty much guarantee Democrats being voted out of office.
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that the rethugs will never let real jobs program through. This is another way around them.
Now if I had my way we would raise the taxes on the rich and fix a whole lot of things that need fixing.
Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)Which hits the poor in areas where there is no public transportation particularly harshly.
I choose to live 9 miles from where I work (used to be 27 - and I also drive a super-efficient hybrid to try to minimize my carbon footprint and starting next week I'll be commuting by bike). This change will not impact me (or any of the outer suburb dwellers), because none of the roads I use to get to work are interstate highways.
The same is not true for farm families where I grew up - who often have to have one or more family members take jobs in the city in order to make ends meet. They do have roads which may become toll roads which they use to get to work. And they make less money than I do - by and large.
We need to build working public transportation before taxing those who are forced to use roads because they don't have the option to use public transportation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And what you do with the money is relevant. Road tolls are always used to pay for maintenance of the roads, not carbon remediation. As such, they are NOT a carbon tax, period. They are a way of shifting the cost of infrastructure off the wealthy (who disproportionately benefit from it, even if they personally drive fewer miles on those roads) and onto the poor.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)If we had a non-sociopathic Congress, we'd borrow the money for it because borrowing for capital expenditures is what essentially any enterprise does.
But, we have a sociopathic Congress, and we still need to pay for the capital expenses. Do you have a better idea than use fees?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Because a toll is a highway tax, not a carbon tax, so supporting 'a carbon tax' is very much not the same as supporting tolls on the interstates.
Your claim that they support this needs to be supported, or it qualifies as a deliberate act of deception. I'm sure you will be able to offer quotes in which Dean said he'd pay for health care by placing tolls on the roads....and one for Gore and for Warren, particularly Warren, who is currently in office.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You really want me to find you their positions on carbon taxes?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Toll roads are not the same thing as carbon taxes and trying to equate them on a one to one basis is disingenuous at best.
frylock
(34,825 posts)because it has about the same relevance.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and are in no way a carbon tax. I called Senator Warren's office and they were surprised to hear about this. By the way.
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)Yeah, I know I am dreaming...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to point b.
In fact, they are infinitely more interesting and lead to support of local economies.
Want to get there fast and see nothing and have a really well maintained road to do it on, while driving in the least fuel efficient manner possible? Pay a toll.
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)It isn't a tax on driving cars.
It's a tax on driving the car on a specific roadway.
Road tolls are a carbon tax, period.
No. They aren't. Period.
There's no connection to the amount of carbon emitted... only the miles driven on a specific road. Avoid that road? Burn all the carbon you like. Drive an electric vehicle? Pay the tax anyway if you use that road.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)as opposed to a "tax on driving cars." There are many ways to tax driving, and I'm not convinced tolls are the best way to do this. What about increasing the price of registration, especially on more expensive vehicles?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A higher vehicle registration fee
A gas tax (or a full on carbon tax, as long as we're dreaming)
A congestion tax on key Interstates and river crossings
That would be a good combination.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I don't know if they increase pollution, significantly slow down truckers, and/or create traffic jams. I would need to know these things in order to make an intelligent argument. I have seen these critiques, but I don't know how valid they are.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)you want to stop the barely making it from owning or driving cars!
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)They're sounding more and more indistinguishable from the whack jobs on the right.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)A toll is paying a tax twice: once to the IRS and once to the toll.
People don't like being charged twice for one thing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We've had a lot of sprawl since then.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Why am I paying 9 cents/gallon of gas in taxes if that tax isn't being used for road repairs? If they start using tolls, I don't want to pay that 9 cents/gallon anymore. Why should I? It's not being used for what it's supposed to be used for.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This tax was put in place before people expected to drive 100 miles from the suburb they live in a single family home in to the other suburb they work in a converted single family home in every single day.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Don't you think that it's more expensive to fix roads now than 20 years ago? The gas tax is used to pay for road repairs, but now it just isn't enough.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Raise it to 12 cents a gallon then.
I don't want to pay for things twice.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)But, yeah, raising the gas tax makes more sense than tolls.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Didn't we already pay for the interstates?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We currently pay about a quarter of their upkeep. Why do you think bridges are falling into rivers? Boredom?
Atman
(31,464 posts)...just because they've already paid taxes on their earnings?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'd like them at about 33% or so, with punitive estate taxes too.
I'd also like drivers to pay for the infrastructure they use, and to make driving more expensive in general.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Meaning that poor people pay a higher portion of their income than wealthy people. Also, these kinds of taxes would be terrible for where I live in the Midwest. Many people lost their job, and were only able to find a job in a city 2 hours a way. A tax of this type would be another burdon on people whose lives are already very difficult. Instead of trying to solve this problem with taxes (which will do little to control usage, people still have to drive to work, no matter what the tax rate is) work on promoting alternative forms of energy. Or work on providing public transportation. Its essentially non existant in the Midwest.
eShirl
(18,490 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)What are they doing with the money?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The state highway authorities are doing their best with an absurdly outdated revenue stream.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)its becoming more and admission and exit fee for each state. When you add in income tax, gas tax, Fed gas tax, tolls, motor vehicle fee, motor fuel tax, excise tax on tires, etc. The roads should be paved with gold.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)This is regressive taxation and progressives do not support regressive taxation. This is also labor once again paying the bill. Bullshit right wing spin. That is what is being done to back this crap.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Suppose there was a revolutionary breakthrough in energy storage and practical long range all electric cars became available. And those that could would charge them at home, not at some for-pay charging station that would be taxed. How would those opposed to Toll Roads pay for the infrastructure then?
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)Of course, we already do that. It might have to be changed to modify major shifts which haven't occurred yet.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Everybody pays!
Of course, if there's a breakthrough in solar power, you'd have to add the cost to the cost of the panels....!
Or just add it to the income tax...
JVS
(61,935 posts)During the war the reason for rationing gas was actually to save tires. The more you drive the more you use up tires. The more you drive the more you use up the road. Thus the more you use up tires the more you use up the road (which makes sense, it's your tires wearing out the road).
If the gas tax is incapable of funding highways because we all switch to electric cars, then a tire tax could easily take its place.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)A gas tax taxes people by how much they drive and how heavy their vehicle is so that it doesn't tear up the road as much. And, unlike tolls, you don't have to stop ever 10 miles to pay it. Fuel taxes pay for the roads. The system isn't broken, so don't break it. It works.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)How is that better?
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)I disagree with you. Toll roads suck. Fuel taxes already tax people who use the roads with heavier vehicles more. Tolls make people stop every few miles, wasting gas and increasing emissions and make more useless jobs for toll takers.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
dawg
(10,624 posts)No wonder the third-way types seem to like it.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Tax the corporations who shuffle us around. I don't object to gas taxes on principle, but they're regressive. Let's not pretend that most drivers are tooling around for fun.
We're driving in large part to increase the profits of the one-percenters, who should shoulder most of the tax bill in accordance with their ability to pay.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)vis a vis gas tax, dmv fees, smog fees, bridge toll fees etc. etc.
tax upon tax upon tax upon tax that was already taxed. That used to be illegal.
MissMillie
(38,554 posts)we pay excise tax, gasoline tax (federal and state), inspection fee, registration fee. And you know, a lot of people who drive the roads in my state don't live in my state.
I think I'd be ok w/ an increase on gasoline taxes on the federal level--maybe 2 or 3 cents on the dollar. But as it is, my car registration will go up next year by about $10, and I have to be inspected every year.
I certainly support road tolls.
For many years I had to drive a toll road to get to work, and let me say, it was the best maintained road I ever drove on.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's a trial ballon about states being able to charge tolls on ordinary Interstate segments.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It is very regressive. And places near downtown areas are getting gentrified, with working people who work in cities needing to relocate farther away. So then they'll get hit by this extra cost? A lot of people who have to drive to work every day (not everyplace has a good public transportation system) are going to be hit really hard by this, but the wealthy people who pay a much smaller percentage of their earnings in taxes won't even feel it. They need to be hit up more, and working people need to be hit up less.
aquart
(69,014 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)As it is now the average fuel tax in the US is 49.5 cpg for gas and 54.6 cpg for diesel. Of this amount 18.4 gas and 24.4 diesel cpg is federal. I can fully understand how that's not enough to fund the maintenance of the infrastructure. Something is going to have to be done to raise revenue.
Toll roads are one option and have the advantage of charging for the specific use of the roadways to be funded. Where as a fuel tax goes toward all drivers, even the ones who don't use the tollways. However, I think we should all be responsible for the upkeep of our federal roadways equally. Equally is the key word here. Those who live rurally may drive more, but many use primarily county and state roadways, yet they will be carrying a heavier per income burden with a fuel tax than those who are are actually using the interstates. But, I suppose the same is true now.
Then there's the problem with traffic flow if the interstates are subject to traditional toll booths. Stopping to pay is a nuisance, and does slow down traffic. There are ways around this with express passes, and mail in billing. These options come with problems of their own, however.
It seems the most cost effective method for the government would be the increased tax on fuel. It wouldn't require the additional cost of installing toll booths and manning them, or billing out for toll usage. However, I'm still not clear if this is the most fair method and then there's the problem with getting congress to pass an increase in the fuel tax. Haven't they refused an increase before in the past?
I suppose the best option here would be the increase in the fuel tax if we could get it passed. I wonder how likely it is they'd pass an increase in fuel tax? My gut says it's not very likely. Our current congress doesn't care about things like the Mass Transit Account and the Highway Trust Fund becoming insolvent usually.
ReasonableToo
(505 posts)Fee income -
I got one of those transponders for a bridge that we'd cross once every two years or so. No biggie. You put a deposit down to cover the cost of the electronic device and put some money in an account. when it get's low, they charge your credit card or something.
Then they change things so that there is a monthly charge whether you use the device or not. In a few months the balance is gone and conveniently recharges so they can take more for nothing.
Surveillance -
The more roads that are changed to tolls the more people will feel the need to get the transponders for convenient payment. The more transponders, the more data is collected on where people go.
I wholeheartedly agree with collecting taxes for road maintenance as well as a carbon tax. Do it at the pump though for many reasons. Three are: The pump doesn't make you decelerate and accelerate (extra times) making your trip less fuel efficient. At the pump can hit gas and diesel lawnmowers with a carbon tax in addition to motor vehicles. Let us go about our business without more more eagle eyes. (Yes, I know, there are tag readers as well.)
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)even when it's blatantly obvious that the current gas taxes are too low to support the upkeep of the roads and bridges in America.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Taxes that will unduly burden the working poor.
My fair state would prefer to offer tax cuts because of a budget surplus rather than fix our roads that were ravaged by the harshest winter in ~120 years.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Add a nickel to the gas tax. Fine by me.
Don't spend my tax dollars (how many millions or billions?) to construct a vast array of electronic toll collection points (which also tracks when and where the drivers are going), plus millions more annually to operate and maintain that system. When the existing system of gasoline-tax collection (which will still exist after the tolls are installed) can be used for no additional cost, just USE IT.
The ONLY places that should have tolls are bridges and tunnels, which are very money-intensive sections of the highways.
Bear in mind that tolls charge a carbon tax to people that don't use gasoline, like electric-car buyers.
Raise the gas tax.
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)Its a shame that the people with little or no money who spend most or all of their money to live have to pay for everything, when the rich who spend very little of their earnings and often put it in foreign accounts continue to pay even less.
If we had 1940,1950,1960,1970 tax rates on the super wealthy and still need money for infrastructure I wouldn't mind paying the tolls.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)I don't know why you keep saying that. They are not.
Historically, they are not even a part of the Federal Interstate System. They are a turnpike, or a bridge connecting two cities, etc. They are mainly bypasses, or state turnpikes, to connect the east and west shipping routes in the Federal Interstate System.
Also, federal funds for state road and bridge infrastructure is only a small percentage of the budget. Each state carries the weight of the majority of the cost. Toll roads (or pay as you build) are not a part of the federal funding.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)This reminds me of your idea for how the Supreme Court removal of voting rights protections for certain states would actually be better for democracy.
Unless this tax is coupled with a robust federal program for public transit, rail, and jobs to fix stuff, this is largely a hollow gesture.
And you know the next step will be to privatize the toll booths, so there goes the money, straight to some corporation.
Where we are left as far as transportation policy, would be to actually have one. One that doesn't burden the already recession-hit public.
OldEurope
(1,273 posts)They do not work very good. At first (after the war) they were supposed to pay for the costs of streets - new streets, but also for maintainance. But politicians discovered that cutting through a band with some journalists watching was better propaganda than shutting down lanes for maintainance. So they prefer building new streets. The existing ones are fading away. Now some politicians have suggested to get a new sort of tax for maintaining. Be careful what you whish for.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)If it were guaranteed that private contractors would not set rates, I'd have little problems with it (as with TX SH 130 run by a concession company)
BigDemVoter
(4,150 posts)But it should be done after they jack up the tax rate on jazillionaires. . . .
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)An increase in fuel taxes being the easiest. Toll roads tax vehicles wbich use less fuel the same as vehicles that use more fuel.
We are not against carbon taxes. We just want it done right.
Besides the whole privatization.thing.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Which occur on a regular basis, are disruptions ...
That is your intent ...
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I, for one, strongly support road-use and carbon taxes.
They shouldn't be earmarking the money to be spent on anything however...carbon, toll and road-use taxes are...like cigarette taxes...a disincentive tax. They exist to create a flat financial disincentive to negative behaviors to compel social change. This penalizes car use and driving as a means of pushing expansion of public mass transit among other social-goods.
But here we have an entire thread of people complaining about the exact fucking point of the taxes...no, we should not be doing other taxes instead of these. That's not to say we shouldn't raise capital-gains or marginal rates or luxury taxes. We're talking about two entirely different types and purposes of taxation that have nothing to do with each other; they should function independent of each other.
We should be doing these because these carry a social-correction aspect that forwards progressive agendas in a way that raising wealth-related taxes does not.
bcool
(219 posts)In MO some people are talking about eliminating the gas tax, replacing it with a "mileage tax" paid at the annual vehicle registration. The reasoning behind that is as cars get more fuel efficient (or all electric), the gas tax revenue shrinks so that it isn't enough to support the infrastructure.
Not sure how they'd validate the miles reported - I think I heard they're thinking about requiring one of those devices like Progressive insurance has that plugs into your car's computer to track the mileage. Good luck with that 
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I'm against regressive taxes, full stop. If you're going to charge the guy in the beat up Geo Metro (35-40mpg) the same price as the guy in the brand new Cadillac Escalade, (14mpg) you're fucking poor people over. Period. And to call it a carbon tax is dishonest in the extreme.
I don't give a good long fuck who supports them. They're a regressive tax and I oppose them. For the same reason I oppose a flat tax.
I think the environmental benefits are being vastly overstated. How many cars in gridlock traffic stop-and-going it in whatever non-toll roads remain will it take to completely offeset the toll road? Because that's what I saw the only time I ever dealt with toll roads. Gridlocked non-toll roads, with almost empty toll roads.
Even if the party can't be persuaded to give a shit about the poor or the environment, we'd better seriously consider the electoral consequences of pushing this through. You'll lose virtually all of the truck drivers, construction workers, and anyone else required to travel long distances for work almost immediately.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Start a gas tax thread, and DUers will complain that is regressive because poor people cannot afford to upgrade their gas guzzling clunkers. I think that toll taxes are more progressive because we can now make rich people tooling around in Teslas pay some sort of usage tax. Right now, they are getting off completely scott free.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I can't say I know many poor people with SUVs that get under 15 MPG. I know lots of poor people with cars that get in the upper 20s-30s range for MPG. So yeah, gas taxes are less regressive than toll booths.
Or we could just raise taxes on the 1%, ditch a bunch of subsidies for the oil companies, and tell the derivatives traders there's a drone with their name on it if they don't quit fucking with the market and be done with it. There's going to be more political support for that than adding toll booths to all the interstates anyway, and if we're going to face an uphill battle, we might as well make it one worth actually fighting. I'd rather not fight tooth and nail for months or years to be able to say "We made progress! Sorta. If you spin it the right way. Only not really, and now everyone hates us for it because we specifically fucked over the poor and middle class.".
And all of that is actually assuming that this won't be privatized so most of the proceeds from the toll booths go to a private company. Which, given how things have been going lately, is a really big assumption.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)it really doesn't make much of a difference to me either way. Though I think the way to go is like what others have suggested--raising the top tax rate to pay for infrastructure and other services. Ideally, I would like to see it go back to how it was during either Eisenhower or FDR.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Reducing emissions, yes.....a carbon tax, i.e. a financial penalty, not so much. This will be fun to see you argue they meant a carbon tax. Who am I going to believe, my own eyes or some guy on the internet with a serious axe to grind.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
flvegan
(64,407 posts)My apologies if this just got real inconvenient for some folks.
Maybe we could pay for things like infrastructure with the money we save not bombing the shit out of other countries in a needless fashion? Oh, I know...corporations could pay their share of taxes! Oh my goodness, I'm on a roll here!
dionysus
(26,467 posts)about getting sent to FEMA camps?
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)is it costs lots of money to collect them. If more money is needed for roads, why not increase the gas tax? We are already paying to collect it, so raising the rate shouldn't cost any more. Higher gas taxes also encourage fuel conservation.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Surprising to me too, to say the least.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)that pays for a car,taxed on registration,taxed on a license plate,taxed on a "emissions check" in most places,wheel tax,gas tax.....
sure there are more in diff states,property tax ..
one more wont hurt?
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The situation in this country is that you've got a wealth gap the likes of which we haven't seen since before the New Deal. When we have a thriving middle class again, I'm fine with raising taxes on the middle class. In the meantime, the wealthy are the ones who have all the money and they're the ones who need to pay more taxes.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The resident libertarians are up in arms, again. Hardly ALL of DU, just the usual "vocal" crowd.
Maybe this is one of those "common ground" issues.
Lather, rinse, repeat, etc....