I-49 in Arkansas

[qguy]

If a tax rate reduction (say on income) increases economic activity and results in increased tax revenue, I really don't care if the wealthy keep more money.

For example, most economists agree that a reduction in the capital gains tax rate (and remember that capital gains is how most super-wealthy generate their income, not straight so-called earned income) will result in an increase in capital gains tax revenue. President Obama even agreed, in a primary debate in April 2008. (How could he not? When Congress raised the rate to 28% under Clinton, capital gains tax revenue fell. When the rate was reduced to 20% later under Clinton, revenue increased, and when the rate was reduced to 15% under Bush, revenues increased again.) If that is true, why do I care if wealthy people keep more money?

I understand that not every tax point is currently set at a level where decreasing the tax rate increases the tax revenue (and vice versa). Liquid fuels taxes, which many states (including my home state) use to fund transportation projects, are probably usually set at a current level where raising the rate would increase the revenue. This would probably be true for nearly all toll rates.

That last example provides a good analogy. Consider a toll road on which the majority of the vehicles are trucks. (Perhaps even trucks owned by deep-pocketed trucking corporations.) The toll facility can set the toll rate high enough that it causes enough drivers to shunpike that any additional toll hike would result in a reduction in total toll revenue or a toll reduction would result in more drivers opting to use the facility resulting in an increase in toll revenue.

If the toll rate reduction resulted in a toll revenue increase, would I protest the toll reduction because many wealthy trucking companies got to keep more of their money. Of course not. It's a net benefit to the toll facility (and everyone else) so why would I care?

Same thing when that happens sometimes with tax rates, as is the case with capital gains tax rate reduction. If it's a net benefit to the government (it receives more revenue) and everyone else (over half of all Americans own stock of some type and that percentage has been increasing for decades) why do I care if the wealthy also keep more money?

[MikieTimT]

The best way to reduce the use of something is to tax it.  Obviously there are points of diminishing returns, though.

[qguy]

True. Every tax has a sweet spot, an optimal tax rate which generates the maximum amount of revenue and which if either raised or lowered reduces the revenue. For any tax, fee, toll, or what have you, tax payers, politicians, economists, and anyone else can then argue about whether the current rate is set above or below that sweet spot.

[jbnv]

If you buy something, do you view the money that was used to buy that thing to be "your money" even after it changed hands?  No?  Paying taxes is similar.

Of course not, because you willingly exchanged the money for a good or service. The money isn't yours any more, but the good or service is.

Paying tolls is essentially paying for access to or usage of a road. I can choose to pay the toll, or not pay the toll and not use the tolled road.

Income taxes, on the other hand, are flat-out confiscation. You can choose to not pay them, if you want to gamble your freedom.

[US71]

If you buy something, do you view the money that was used to buy that thing to be "your money" even after it changed hands?  No?  Paying taxes is similar.

Of course not, because you willingly exchanged the money for a good or service. The money isn't yours any more, but the good or service is.

Paying tolls is essentially paying for access to or usage of a road. I can choose to pay the toll, or not pay the toll and not use the tolled road.

Income taxes, on the other hand, are flat-out confiscation. You can choose to not pay them, if you want to gamble your freedom.

Then move to Texas

[J N Winkler]

This is why I'm a big supporter of tollways. The people who use them will pay for and fund them.

I am not, because of what the concept of toll viability means for systematic provision of high-capacity, high-speed road infrastructure.  If you insist on tolls as your sole method of paying for freeway construction, then the only freeways you build will be in corridors where motorists are willing to pay an excise tax on fuel (itself capable of paying for freeways) plus construction and maintenance cost for the toll road (paid through tolls) plus ~30% collection expense for tolls (paid through tolls).  The tolls themselves meter usage, so in the case of some marginally toll-viable facilities, you see far less usage than the roads would have without tolls and therefore a very high risk of needing bailout, which is often ultimately at public expense.

In contradistinction, if a systematic charge such as the fuel tax is the primary mechanism for funding freeways, the double-charging problem goes away, and you also pay less for the road operator to take your money since collection expense for the fuel tax is around 1% instead of 30%.

If a tax rate reduction (say on income) increases economic activity and results in increased tax revenue, I really don't care if the wealthy keep more money.

At the national level, as Vdeane points out, we are long past the point where tax cuts on earned income increase revenue.  And even if they were revenue-positive, it would still be a questionable premise that the goal of the income tax system should be revenue maximization.  High marginal tax rates for high income brackets tend to realign incentives away from executive compensation and toward building companies through capital formation.  This, in turn, tends to narrow income inequality and reduces the extent to which low- and middle-income workers end up on the downside of the wealth effect.

The problem with looking solely at what happens at the margin (if we reduce this tax rate 1%, then by what percentage do revenues increase or decrease?) is that especially over time, distributional consequences become significant.

[jbnv]

Then move to Texas

Do you even bother to remember more than one thing I post?

[inkyatari]

Soo...

How about that I-49?

Amirite?

[qguy]

... And even if they were revenue-positive, it would still be a questionable premise that the goal of the income tax system should be revenue maximization.  High marginal tax rates for high income brackets tend to realign incentives away from executive compensation and toward building companies through capital formation.  This, in turn, tends to narrow income inequality and reduces the extent to which low- and middle-income workers end up on the downside of the wealth effect.

Tax system as social engineering. Aargh! So much for the goal simplifying the tax system.

Soo...

How about that I-49?

Amirite?

I'll go with that.

[MikieTimT]

If you buy something, do you view the money that was used to buy that thing to be "your money" even after it changed hands?  No?  Paying taxes is similar.

Of course not, because you willingly exchanged the money for a good or service. The money isn't yours any more, but the good or service is.

Paying tolls is essentially paying for access to or usage of a road. I can choose to pay the toll, or not pay the toll and not use the tolled road.

Income taxes, on the other hand, are flat-out confiscation. You can choose to not pay them, if you want to gamble your freedom.

Tolls flat out won't work in Arkansas.  Just too poor here for locals to pay to use the roads and would take US 71.  Only way it would work would be if there's a lot of extra out-of-state traffic that it pulls.

[US71]

Move along. Quit beating a dead horse.

[rte66man]

Soo...

How about that I-49?

Amirite?

++++++1

[txstateends]

....and we are *how far* away from the $$$$ and construction of the Shreveport ICC and the Fort Smith-Texarkana sections?

[US71]

....and we are *how far* away from the $$$$ and construction of the Shreveport ICC and the Fort Smith-Texarkana sections?

Shreveport is likely 3-4 years from starting the ICC. Arkansas simply says "no money".

[silverback1065]

I just noticed a new freeway US 412 in the Fayetteville area on google maps, how far will this ultimately go?

[MikieTimT]

I just noticed a new freeway US 412 in the Fayetteville area on google maps, how far will this ultimately go?

From where the divided highway portion ends at the edge of Tontitown to the twin White River bridges where it divides again between Sonora and Nob Hill.  What has been completed is the middle section.  No timelines (or funding) yet when the other two segments will happen, though.

[US71]

I just noticed a new freeway US 412 in the Fayetteville area on google maps, how far will this ultimately go?

From where the divided highway portion ends at the edge of Tontitown to the twin White River bridges where it divides again between Sonora and Nob Hill.  What has been completed is the middle section.  No timelines (or funding) yet when the other two segments will happen, though.

It is posted (for now) as AR 612.

[silverback1065]

Ok, just curious, I will be down there at the end of the month and I noticed that when I was plotting a route.  Is this really necessary for the area? I feel like finishing 49 is much more important.

[US71]

Ok, just curious, I will be down there at the end of the month and I noticed that when I was plotting a route.  Is this really necessary for the area? I feel like finishing 49 is much more important.

To some degree, yes. 412 sees more than its share of truck traffic, not to mention 412 through Springdale where it follows Business 71  XNA is also planning a toll road from new 412 to the airport, reducing that slow slog on AR 12 or AR 264

[edwaleni]

Ok, just curious, I will be down there at the end of the month and I noticed that when I was plotting a route.  Is this really necessary for the area? I feel like finishing 49 is much more important.

To some degree, yes. 412 sees more than its share of truck traffic, not to mention 412 through Springdale where it follows Business 71  XNA is also planning a toll road from new 412 to the airport, reducing that slow slog on AR 12 or AR 264

Having flow in and out of XNA a few times, yes, that airport access has to be a bit of a joke. Especially that 3 way stop in Cave Springs. You try to convince yourself you have made a wrong turn.

[US71]

Ok, just curious, I will be down there at the end of the month and I noticed that when I was plotting a route.  Is this really necessary for the area? I feel like finishing 49 is much more important.

To some degree, yes. 412 sees more than its share of truck traffic, not to mention 412 through Springdale where it follows Business 71  XNA is also planning a toll road from new 412 to the airport, reducing that slow slog on AR 12 or AR 264

Having flow in and out of XNA a few times, yes, that airport access has to be a bit of a joke. Especially that 3 way stop in Cave Springs. You try to convince yourself you have made a wrong turn.

But the land was cheap

The last few years, ARDOT & XNA have been putting guide signs to find the airport.

[silverback1065]

so will this be a full interstate grade facility the whole way?

[US71]

so will this be a full interstate grade facility the whole way?

The airport road? I'm not sure

[silverback1065]

so will this be a full interstate grade facility the whole way?

The airport road? I'm not sure

412

[US71]

so will this be a full interstate grade facility the whole way?

The airport road? I'm not sure

412

Yes. new 412 will be controlled access.