I-49 in Arkansas

[qguy]

Quit giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

Debt is causes by excessive spending, not by revenue. Rephrase in the form of a real answer.

It is a real answer.  If revenue is already too low to cover spending, you don't cut it further.  It's like quitting your job right after signing a lease or taking out a loan.

Depending on what is being taxed and where the tax rate is set, reducing the tax rate can increase tax revenue and increasing the tax rate can reduce tax revenue. So increasing a tax rate and automatically expecting a tax revenue increase may not always be the wisest thing.

[jbnv]

Quit giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

Debt is causes by excessive spending, not by revenue. Rephrase in the form of a real answer.

It is a real answer.  If revenue is already too low to cover spending, you don't cut it further.  It's like quitting your job right after signing a lease or taking out a loan.

It's not the government's money in the first place.

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

[Rothman]

Quit giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

Debt is causes by excessive spending, not by revenue. Rephrase in the form of a real answer.

It is a real answer.  If revenue is already too low to cover spending, you don't cut it further.  It's like quitting your job right after signing a lease or taking out a loan.

It's not the government's money in the first place.

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

This principle totally disintegrates at the local level on roads with dinky travel counts.  The toll would have to be astronomical and intolerable.  The inconsistency between those that say that they're all for tollways, but then would be stunned if the principle was actually and broadly implemented on the roads that they use regularly leads me to conclude that this kind of stance really is about not wanting to pay for roads, nearly at all.

[jbnv]

... leads me to conclude that this kind of stance really is about not wanting to pay for roads, nearly at all.

Wow. You just told that to someone who just this last week stopped at a TxTag office in Austin to get a sticker for his new vehicle. Check your bigotry.

[Rothman]

... leads me to conclude that this kind of stance really is about not wanting to pay for roads, nearly at all.

Wow. You just told that to someone who just this last week stopped at a TxTag office in Austin to get a sticker for his new vehicle. Check your bigotry.

I don't see how your getting a personal tag is a response to my criticism of the "only actual users should pay for the road" mentality.

[vdeane]

Depending on what is being taxed and where the tax rate is set, reducing the tax rate can increase tax revenue and increasing the tax rate can reduce tax revenue. So increasing a tax rate and automatically expecting a tax revenue increase may not always be the wisest thing.

We long passed that point in the Kennedy administration.  Please don't turn this country into Kansas.

It's not the government's money in the first place.

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

Tollways cause traffic on local roads to increase due to shunpikers.  Just look at what's going on in Pennsylvania.  Traffic on US 30 is going through the roof because the Turnpike gets more expensive every year.  If you love tollways so much, maybe you should try moving to a place where you have to pay a toll to get just about anywhere on high-speed roadways and you'll see how annoying they are.  Whenever I go to visit my family in Rochester (3.5 hours away), tolls are 40% of the cost of the trip.  40%!!  And the Thruway is the cheapest toll road (on a per-mile basis) in the area!  Toll roads get expensive after a while, and definitely put a dampener on roadgeeking.  Having to pay one to commute?  Sounds like hell, I don't know how some people do it.  Life is expensive enough as it is.

As for "it's not the government's money"... I'd say that "your money" comprises only net, not gross.  It ceases to be "your money" the moment it's taxed.  And I'd say income (and consumption) taxes are far more legitimate than property taxes, which IMO represent a special kind of evil.  Income and consumption taxes adjust to your economic situation (either because you're making less or because you're spending less).  Property taxes don't.  If you go without an income long enough, they'll bankrupt your, even if you have no other expenses of any kind (ie, fully paid off house/land and self-sufficient).  Because of that, it's impossible to untangle oneself from the rat race.  Sure, you can make a bet that you'll die before your retirement savings run out, but if they do, no amount of other preparations will save you.

[jbnv]

If you love tollways so much, maybe you should try moving to a place where you have to pay a toll to get just about anywhere on high-speed roadways and you'll see how annoying they are. 

I have an hourlong commute each day covering a significant part of I-12. I would gladly pay tolls on that commute for a high-quality, well-maintained highway with a lot fewer cheapskates in my way. I have used tollways in Texas several times--that's why I have the toll tag that I just mentioned.

Anybody else want to accuse me of hypocrisy?

As for "it's not the government's money"... I'd say that "your money" comprises only net, not gross.  It ceases to be "your money" the moment it's taxed. 

By that logic, the government can take whatever it wants, just by laying a tax on it. A tax on income is an assault on personal property and the right to pursue happiness. As a free citizen of a democratic system, I object to the government arbitrarily taking my money just because it says so.

[vdeane]

I have an hourlong commute each day covering a significant part of I-12. I would gladly pay tolls on that commute for a high-quality, well-maintained highway with a lot fewer cheapskates in my way. I have used tollways in Texas several times--that's why I have the toll tag that I just mentioned.

Congratulations on being able to afford that.  Not all of us can.  Good roads shouldn't be restricted to those with money.

Also, an hour?  *shudder* Having a commute that long sounds unbearable to me, regardless of the condition of the road or traffic.

By that logic, the government can take whatever it wants, just by laying a tax on it. A tax on income is an assault on personal property and the right to pursue happiness. As a free citizen of a democratic system, I object to the government arbitrarily taking my money just because it says so.

And how are income taxes special in that regard?  Seems to me like a general argument against taxation at all, but society wouldn't function at all if we took that argument to its logical conclusion.

You also seem to be looking at the government as some external entity unto itself.  We live in a (theoretically) democratic system.  WE are the government.  If the government is acting in ways we don't like, it's only because we allow it to.  This is why a well-informed electorate is the most critical need of this country by far.  Without it, we lose everything.

[Rothman]

Vdeane: 40%?  Isn't the round-trip toll $18 and the round-trip mileage something like 450?

For me, that would be $40-$45 in gas alone (tank-and-a-half).  Tolls would therefore be less than 30% of the cost.

[vdeane]

I estimate it's around tank and a quarter, but my Civic on empty still only takes 12 gallons, so closer to $30 for me.  Plus it was a rough estimation too.  No lodging costs for these trips since I stay with my parents, and I didn't factor in food since I could get away with not eating on the road for this trip if I didn't prefer to have all my dishes put away when traveling.

The toll each way for 24-45 is about $9.50, so $18 isn't too far off.

[sparker]

Here's a picture I took last Saturday from a mile south of the current northern terminus of the Bella Vista Bypass, at what used to be called Gun Range Road.  Given that there are small segments of paved four lane (with two of them inaccessible) stretches at both this and the Highway 72 exit to the south and east of this photograph, it looks like the first full four lane section of the BVP may be between these two exits.

BTW, those white outer lane-limit lines are also unique; the cross-hatches to the outside look like a painted method of emulating rumble strips.  It would be interesting to see if ARDOT applies this to other new freeway construction statewide.

Those are rumble strips. Zoom in, and you can see the aggregate in the concrete where they were ground out.
SM-T580

OK -- my increasingly feeble eyes didn't initially see the textures in the white cross-strips.  Not that ARDOT is trying to win a MOMA award or anything, but those are some of the most attractive rumble strips I've seen; far better than the usual lateral grooves ground into the outer asphalt shoulders.  And this design obviously lets the driver know when they're barely out of the lane rather than a few feet outside.  Nice! 

I believe the original version of that groove pattern in the shoulder was an innovation developed by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in the 1980s. The PTC called it (and still calls it) SNAP, for Sonic Nap Alert Pattern. The first operational installation was in 1989. It was nearly immediately recognized as extremely effective (and cost-effective) by DOTs around the country and similar pavement patterns are now used extensively just about everywhere.

Here's a pretty good write-up about the development, testing, specs, photos, etc.: http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rilj/9808/ri980803.htm

Just did a trip on the notorious 2-lane section of CA 152 east of Gilroy yesterday -- and noticed that they've put in rumble strips right on the outside lane line.  Considering the truck traffic an curvature of that particular road, this can only help until a long-awaited bypass is constructed (which, if the gas tax hike isn't rescinded in November, may finally get past the "line-on-a-map" stage). 

But for Interstate-geometry facilities, locating the rumble strips outside that line makes more sense; as larger trucks tend to hug the lane lines on inside curves, causing undue driver reaction via strips on the line might not be particularly wise.   Configurations such as seen in the picture of the I-49 Bella Vista bypass would likely be deemed optimal in those circumstances. 

[US71]

By that logic, the government can take whatever it wants, just by laying a tax on it. A tax on income is an assault on personal property and the right to pursue happiness. As a free citizen of a democratic system, I object to the government arbitrarily taking my money just because it says so.

Well, once you become a Billionaire, it gets easier. Government will arbitrarily give you everyone else's money . </s>

[sparker]

By that logic, the government can take whatever it wants, just by laying a tax on it. A tax on income is an assault on personal property and the right to pursue happiness. As a free citizen of a democratic system, I object to the government arbitrarily taking my money just because it says so.

Well, once you become a Billionaire, it gets easier. Government will arbitrarily give you everyone else's money . </s>

.......and let you buy your way into high public office!  (although with our current Fearless Leader* the actual "billionaire" label always seemed to be constantly in flux!) Of course, you'll get by with a little help from your (purported) friends!

*Rocky & Bullwinkle fans will certainly date themselves by recognizing this reference.

[qguy]

As for "it's not the government's money"... I'd say that "your money" comprises only net, not gross.  It ceases to be "your money" the moment it's taxed.

Wow! Spoken like a true government employee. (And I used to be one, as a federal employee and state transportation employee.)

But seriously, are you kidding? My money is only the part the government in its infinite kindness decides to let me keep? And that's a valid way of looking at it simply because the taxing agents are elected officials? I think the founding fathers would have a thing or two to say about that kind of attitude toward taxation.

[Rothman]

Ah, the old logical circle.  Sure, your gross pay is what you actually earn.  But, if you don't pay taxes, you get punished.

So, are we advocating tax evasion here or not?

[qguy]

No of course not. I'm talking about an attitude. Government officials, including elected representatives, who view the taxed portion of the citizen's income as not the citizen's income is in my opinion despicable. (And I promise to try to not slobber like Mel Blanc when I say that word.)

That attitude is how you have senators and representatives who shriek at any suggestion of lowering any tax rate and call any rate reduction "giving money away to people." That's ridiculous of course. Lowering a tax rate is not giving money away, it's simply not taking as much in the first place.

I'm not opposed to paying taxes. Not at all. But the natural tendency of government at all levels is to find increasingly creative ways to get more from the citizen's pocket. It's no wonder, when government officials' state of mind is to consider the taxed portion of the citizen's income to be the government's money already.

[MikieTimT]

That's why I view the Connecting Arkansas Program as one of the better methods of taxation.  It is dedicated to a specific goal, voted on by the populace, and has a mandated sunset.  The more local that taxation occurs, the more efficiently it tends to be allocated rather than passed up to the federal layer and then back down as they see fit after many hands have been in the till.

[vdeane]

No of course not. I'm talking about an attitude. Government officials, including elected representatives, who view the taxed portion of the citizen's income as not the citizen's income is in my opinion despicable. (And I promise to try to not slobber like Mel Blanc when I say that word.)

That attitude is how you have senators and representatives who shriek at any suggestion of lowering any tax rate and call any rate reduction "giving money away to people." That's ridiculous of course. Lowering a tax rate is not giving money away, it's simply not taking as much in the first place.

I'm not opposed to paying taxes. Not at all. But the natural tendency of government at all levels is to find increasingly creative ways to get more from the citizen's pocket. It's no wonder, when government officials' state of mind is to consider the taxed portion of the citizen's income to be the government's money already.

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.

In any case, I budget off net and hardly pay attention to gross.  I've also never gotten anything other than a refund or had to file anything more complicated than a 1040A (and, once my student loans are paid off, 1040EZ) since graduating college, so I don't really notice them too much.  Also don't notice property taxes since I rent and therefore don't directly pay them.

Regarding what sparked this, the wealthy and businesses already weren't paying enough taxes, because they're able to hire teams of accountants to set things up such that they qualify for a ton of deductions.  Now, if we lowered the nominal rate but got rid of the deductions, that would be one thing (and actually quite helpful, since it would make taxes much simpler), but we don't do that.  We just lower the nominal rate and leave the deductions in place, sometimes even adding new ones.  These are structured so that those who already have a ton of money get a ton of benefit, but those they are theoretically supposed to help (to justify passing them) get peanuts.  The system is broken.  That's what we've been trying to say.  Why shouldn't those with the greatest ability to pay pay their fair share?  Right now we have a system where Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his income than his secretary does.

That's why I view the Connecting Arkansas Program as one of the better methods of taxation.  It is dedicated to a specific goal, voted on by the populace, and has a mandated sunset.  The more local that taxation occurs, the more efficiently it tends to be allocated rather than passed up to the federal layer and then back down as they see fit after many hands have been in the till.

Trouble is, not every community has the same ability to pay.  This is the reason why city school districts are crap while suburban school districts are good, for example.  Also why infrastructure in rich areas is shiny and new while infrastructure in poor areas is falling apart.

[Scott5114]

If you love tollways so much, maybe you should try moving to a place where you have to pay a toll to get just about anywhere on high-speed roadways and you'll see how annoying they are. 

You're wishing Tulsa on him?

[US71]

Trouble is, not every community has the same ability to pay.  This is the reason why city school districts are crap while suburban school districts are good, for example.  Also why infrastructure in rich areas is shiny and new while infrastructure in poor areas is falling apart.

Little Rock and Northwest Arkansas have the best road systems , as witnessed by ever present roads work.  These two areas have, on average,  more money than the rest of the state.  Of course, Fayetteville keeps talking about wanting to get rid of the slums but can't get on one page. But that's another story.

[Rothman]

I have yet to hear an elected official criticize the idea of giving money back to the people.  I have heard elected officials warn of growing deficits because of tax cuts.

[qguy]

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.

I don't have any problem looking at it that way. But I think too many politicians see our income as theirs first and ours second.

In any case, I budget off net and hardly pay attention to gross.

I've often thought that if everyone had to actually write a check for their taxes (including the nearly invisible payroll taxes) after every paycheck and pay their taxes by hand, so to speak, there would be a second revolution. Because their employers automatically deducts their taxes for them, most people are blissfully unaware of how much of their paycheck never gets to them.

Regarding what sparked this, the wealthy and businesses already weren't paying enough taxes…

That's your opinion. Not every economist agrees with that. (And yes, I'm aware of the adage that if you put 100 economists in a room, you'll get 100 different opinions on a particular aspect of the economy.)

Right now we have a system where Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his income than his secretary does.

Please don't haul out that old Warren-Buffett-and-his-secretary trope. PolitiFact debunked that years ago.

I'll certainly agree, however (because I'm not really looking to engage in a spitting contest over fiscal policy), that the tax structure badly needs to be simplified and the nominal rate lowered. Personal income tax, corporate income tax, and capital gains tax structures.

[US71]

I have yet to hear an elected official criticize the idea of giving money back to the people.  I have heard elected officials warn of growing deficits because of tax cuts.

But never the same politician

[qguy]

I have yet to hear an elected official criticize the idea of giving money back to the people.  I have heard elected officials warn of growing deficits because of tax cuts.

Really? You've never heard a politician call a tax cut a "giveaway?" Happens every time one is proposed. How could you miss it?

[US71]

I have yet to hear an elected official criticize the idea of giving money back to the people.  I have heard elected officials warn of growing deficits because of tax cuts.

Really? You've never heard a politician call a tax cut a "giveaway?" Happens every time one is proposed. How could you miss it?

But it's perfectly fine to give away money to the wealthy. Arkansas has no money to fix it's roads, but plenty of money for tax cuts for the wealthy.