Washington Post: House bill seeks to increase gas tax by 15 cents per gallon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/15-cent-increase-in-federal-gas-tax-proposed/2013/12/04/548d6d80-5ce9-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html)
QuoteWith Congress facing a major shortfall in transportation funding next year, a House bill introduced Wednesday would raise the federal gasoline tax by 15 cents per gallon to close the gap.
QuoteRep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) announced the proposal at a news conference, flanked by an array of labor, construction and business leaders. It would raise the federal tax on gas to 33.4 cents per gallon and on diesel to 42.8 cents.
Quote"Every credible independent report indicates that we are not meeting the demands of our stressed and decaying infrastructure system – roads, bridges and transit," Blumenauer said.
QuoteThe tax has not been increased since 1993, and the Highway Trust Fund, into which the revenue flows, has suffered because the tax has not kept pace with inflation. Plus, improvements in vehicle fuel economy have reduced consumption.
Either set the tax rate as a percentage-of-the-price or put roads and other transport on the general fund.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2013, 09:39:44 AM
Either set the tax rate as a percentage-of-the-price or put roads and other transport on the general fund.
Percent of the price is fine. Putting highways in the general fund - not so fine, because politicians in Washington will "borrow" highway user revenues for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with highways.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2013, 09:41:16 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2013, 09:39:44 AM
Either set the tax rate as a percentage-of-the-price or put roads and other transport on the general fund.
Percent of the price is fine. Putting highways in the general fund - not so fine, because politicians in Washington will "borrow" highway user revenues for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with highways.
Aren't they doing that already? That seems to be the point of this tax increase.
I am an environmentalist and a dirty fucking hippie, and yes, tying the gas tax to inflation would be good, and making it a percent of the price would probably be better... in theory.
But I have a problem with funding roads primarily through the gas tax - gasoline consumption is decreasing (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgfupus1&f=a). There's two reasons for this. First, people are driving less. The total number of miles driven by all cars in the US peaked in 2004 and has been steadily decreasing since. Second, EPA fuel economy requirements get stricter every year, so we're using less fuel for every mile we drive.
You can't encourage people to use less of a resource, one that they're already starting to use less, and expect any revenue tied to it to keep up with our infrastructure's demands. The tax would have to rise exponentially.
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2013, 12:15:55 PMAren't they doing that already? That seems to be the point of this tax increase.
At the state level, in some states, yes--not at the federal level. The only major diversion of the federal fuel tax is the Mass Transit Account, which gets a fairly small percentage and has been around for over 30 years.
I don't think this measure has a chance since it (1) raises taxes, and (2) is sponsored by an Oregon Democrat in a chamber of Congress controlled by the Republicans.
A 15-cent increase is, in my opinion, outrageous and is something I'd protest vehemently.
I would not be opposed, however, to a reasonable increase of up to 5 cents a gallon.
And I'm already living in a state with one of the three or four highest gas taxes in the country (Connecticut). When will this nonsense stop? :(
I'm not dead-set against a gas tax increase, but why does it have to be a Federal rather than state tax (or other revenue) increase? A gas tax increase would ultimately be spent largely by state DOTs either way, but a state-level increase would cut out the Federal middleman. And there are no obvious and compelling Federal spending priorities in this area not largely shared by the states, especially with the Interstate system more or less complete, that can't be funded at levels consistent with existing Federal gas tax revenues.
ISTM that a Federal rather than state tax increase would disproportionately benefit politically powerful states or districts (some of which have porkmeisters yearning to loosen limits on earmarks), which perhaps is the point of this exercise. It would also provide a one-size-fits-all revenue source, versus the flexibility and experimentation being done at the state level on alternatives to the gas tax.
Fifteen cents is actually too low--there is a consensus (ratified by, among others, a USDOT blue-ribbon panel on transportation funding that reported late in the Bush administration) that the fuel tax actually needs to be tripled. If this were done, the amount of increase would be around thirty-nine cents a gallon.
The shrinking in tax revenues that has occurred as a result of less mileage and better fuel economy is actually much less, on a percentage basis, than the proposed fifteen-cent increase, let alone tripling the fuel tax.
Although states do collect their own fuel taxes, there is still a substantial federal interest in freight debottlenecking and replacing worn-out infrastructure, which the federal government co-finances with the states through the NH, IM, and STP funding categories. I'd even argue that an increased federal fuel tax would actually encourage the states to stop diverting their own state fuel tax revenues to non-highway purposes by putting them in the position of having to supply their funding match or forgo the federal funding altogether.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 05, 2013, 03:13:22 PM
Fifteen cents is actually too low--there is a consensus (ratified by, among others, a USDOT blue-ribbon panel on transportation funding that reported late in the Bush administration) that the fuel tax actually needs to be tripled. If this were done, the amount of increase would be around thirty-nine cents a gallon.
An increase of that type would be self-defeating. We saw what happened to gasoline consumption at the various times that gas prices approached $4 per gallon (especially during Hurricane Katrina). The $4 price seems to be that magic point at which extreme conservation kicks in. There's already a feeling that gas prices are too high, even at $3 a gallon. Drivers don't care if those high prices are going to the government or to the oil companies. They just know they are paying too much for gas and they think it should be cheaper.
And I don't care about European pricing, and neither should any other American. It's not relevant to the discussion.
Looking at some near-average numbers, 15,000 miles per year with 20 miles per gallon means you use 750 gallons per year. 15 cents extra means $112.5, $9.38 per month. If we call the average 25 MPG, that means 600 gallons and an extra $90 per year or $7.5 per month. I suspect many of our type do more driving than average.
If it gets some people to drive less by combining trips or riding the bus, or maybe inspires some people to stop the jackrabbit/slam brakes cycle everyone seems to love, it could end up saving people money.
I think the price is about right where it is, or 15 cents higher. It's at a point where it isn't oppressive (to most people) but it makes people think about whether their driving is worth the cost. Most people could do something differently - driving less, slowing down a bit, using smoother acceleration/deceleration curves - to save the equivalent of 15 cents per gallon.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2013, 09:41:16 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2013, 09:39:44 AM
Either set the tax rate as a percentage-of-the-price or put roads and other transport on the general fund.
Percent of the price is fine. Putting highways in the general fund - not so fine, because politicians in Washington will "borrow" highway user revenues for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with highways.
Exactly. Congress has already proven it's track record with the Social Security and Medicare funds.
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2013, 09:39:44 AM
Either set the tax rate as a percentage-of-the-price or put roads and other transport on the general fund.
Mike
I'll have to disagree with this. I'd vastly prefer a fixed-per-gallon tax. That number, and how it comes about (and potential adjustments for inflation) is a matter for discussion, but gas prices have the ability to fluctuate and spike a lot.
Some sort of disaster/event, be it natural or political, that causes price spikes would be compounded by an even higher tax amount on that gallon.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2013, 03:46:08 PM
The $4 price seems to be that magic point at which extreme conservation kicks in.
If I may play devil's advocate... perhaps that's not such a bad thing.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2013, 03:46:08 PMAn increase of that type would be self-defeating. We saw what happened to gasoline consumption at the various times that gas prices approached $4 per gallon (especially during Hurricane Katrina).
I don't agree that there is any special elasticity effect at the $4-per-gallon mark. There has never been any evidence of it in states like California which now have $4-per-gallon gas part of the year, and there are good reasons it shouldn't exist: VMT has stayed essentially flat even in European countries with gas at the (local equivalent of) $8 per gallon or even higher, very little car travel is genuinely discretionary, etc.
Looking at the FHWA OHPI VMT tables (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/quickfinddata/qftravel.cfm), we see that VMT has stayed essentially flat at around 12,000 miles annually per vehicle (light vehicles class) from the late nineties to 2006 inclusive, and from 2007 onward it has hovered around 10,500 on the same basis--a decrease of approximately 10%. In contrast, if this proposed increase in the federal fuel tax went through (which it won't), it will increase the marginal tax rate by 82% for gasoline, which is far in excess of any recent percentage change in VMT or fleet fuel consumption.
BTW, if there was indeed a Katrina effect related to high fuel prices
per se rather than short-lived fuel shortages as a result of refinery closures in advance of the hurricane, then it is not evident in the 2005 VMT data.
QuoteThe $4 price seems to be that magic point at which extreme conservation kicks in. There's already a feeling that gas prices are too high, even at $3 a gallon. Drivers don't care if those high prices are going to the government or to the oil companies. They just know they are paying too much for gas and they think it should be cheaper.
Yet they continue driving, and support for any intervention in the commodity markets (which is what you are intellectually committed to if you think that the price of gas does not reflect supply/demand fundamentals and should come down) remains soft at best.
I have already laid out some of the reasons I believe this particular proposal for an increase in the marginal fuel tax is a nonstarter. There are others: for example, the increase is not explicitly linked to an expenditure plan that addresses a national need that is defined in concrete terms. ("Fixes decaying roads and bridges" is not concrete enough: which roads and bridges, and where?) However, an increase of whatever amount does make a considerable amount of economic sense. Even if the marginal tax rates were tripled instead of being increased by a mere fifteen cents per gallon, there would still be many states where prices would stay under $4 per gallon even during the summer driving season, and there would be a greatly enhanced level of funding for infrastructure repair and a modest amount of new capital construction (for freight debottlenecking and the like).
The higher amount of increase (tripling federal fuel tax alone) is within the spread in the per-gallon price of gasoline between the off season and the summer driving season. Only if you add in tripling of the state-level tax do you start to match the spread in some states and exceed it in others. It is not really reasonable to claim that changes in marginal fuel tax rates will influence consumption unless those changes are at least as large as the ones that drivers have to accommodate on an ongoing basis, such as the jump in price between spring and summer.
QuoteAnd I don't care about European pricing, and neither should any other American. It's not relevant to the discussion.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to suggestions that the US should import the British concept of a fuel tax escalator in order to reduce fleet fuel consumption? If so, then it is virtually guaranteed that such proposals will never gain political traction here. Or are you referring to $8 per gallon gas on that side of the Atlantic as part of an argument that we can tolerate $8 per gallon gas here? If so, then that argument is relevant. We can tolerate $8 per gallon gas here if it comes in a series of slow increases that allow us to adjust through fleet replacement, technological changes, etc. without sacrificing too much mobility, as has happened in Europe. If it came tomorrow in a single step increase in the price, then we would be screwed. The distinction here is between short-term and long-term elasticities of demand.
Quote from: wxfree on December 05, 2013, 04:20:22 PM
Looking at some near-average numbers, 15,000 miles per year with 20 miles per gallon means you use 750 gallons per year. 15 cents extra means $112.5, $9.38 per month. If we call the average 25 MPG, that means 600 gallons and an extra $90 per year or $7.5 per month. I suspect many of our type do more driving than average.
As someone who keeps detailed logs of this stuff: an extra 15 cents per gallon in the price of gas would have cost me $102.00 for the year 2011, $96.74 for the year 2012, and $103.77* for the year 2013 through November 15th.
*for my car specifically, so not including the rental in Arizona/California.
I do quite strongly agree that we need to be investing more in infrastructure, but I do have a slight hesitation to get behind the generation of extra revenue without it being accompanied by a commitment to spend it according to some general outline (lest the money be squandered).
And I still insist that we would have more than enough money to build roads, trains, power lines, etc.
without raising taxes if we stopped wasting it on other various damn fool crusades.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 05, 2013, 01:31:51 PM
A 15-cent increase is, in my opinion, outrageous and is something I'd protest vehemently.
Fuel taxes being raised by 15 cents =
Moral Outrage!Fuel prices going up 15 cents because it's Thursday, and Big Oil wants a few more bucks = meh
In Ohio, gas prices regularly jump up 30 cents at a time, gradually coming back down over 5 to 9 days before jumping again. An extra 15¢/gal would go unnoticed amidst the short-term noise, seasonal variation, and long-term drift.
Edit: except the distributors would probably use the tax increase as an excuse for a 60¢/gal total price increase...
I know this is just the wacko midwestern slant I have on things,
but
instead of raising any taxes, how about reigning in some of the indefensible redundant, wasteful, redundant, fraudulent, redundant, stupid and redundant federal spending ??
Do we need dozens of federal agencies, bureaus, and admins overseeing ice cream toppings? Do we need hundreds of job bills? Do we need millions every year for the federal Uruguayan kelp subsidy ?
Really ?
I guarantee the sun will still rise tomorrow if the national labor relations board takes the next six months off, unpaid.
Really. The sun will still come up tomorrow, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, all the sackcloth and ashes, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
There is 200 BILLION in that sort of wasteful, redundant, stupid, fraudulent and redundant crapola, EVERY YEAR (!!) that COULD be spent on something useful. Fix some bridges, shovel some cold mix in a chuckhole, put in some new bulbs in the 4way flashers.
Just takes the realization that it could be done.
poolitics
Quote from: Jardine on December 06, 2013, 01:08:22 AM
There is 200 BILLION in that sort of wasteful, redundant, stupid, fraudulent and redundant crapola, EVERY YEAR (!!) that COULD be spent on something useful.
[citation needed]
Also, I think anything beyond "we should divert revenue from other sources to highway and other infrastructure funding" is beyond the scope of this thread and probably against the forum rule which prohibits political arguing.
QuoteQuotePercent of the price is fine. Putting highways in the general fund - not so fine, because politicians in Washington will "borrow" highway user revenues for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with highways.
Aren't they doing that already? That seems to be the point of this tax increase.
[/quote]
As Mr Winkler indicated upthread, not at the Federal level. In point of fact, the Federal Highway Trust Fund has had SEVERAL multi-billion-dollar transfers to it from the General Treasury because gas tax revenue doesn't even come close to what Congress has authorized for FHWA expenditures.
QuoteA 15-cent increase is, in my opinion, outrageous and is something I'd protest vehemently.
Mr. Winkler also touched upon this, but if we want to make a dent in transportation infrastructure improvement, we'd have to rais it by a lot more than 15 cents. If we wanted to wean road infrastructure off of local taxes such as sales and property taxes, we'd have to bump it up on the order of 60-70 cents.
QuoteAnd I still insist that we would have more than enough money to build roads, trains, power lines, etc. without raising taxes if we stopped wasting it on other various damn fool crusades.
Perhaps, *IF* you do direct transfers from the General Treasury. Granted, there's been precedent for that now over the last 10 years, but it also makes it a recurring sore subject of Federal politics.
Weird site.
Politics is a no-no but salty language is OK.
Can we cuss congress ??
:sombrero:
Quote from: Mr_Northside on December 05, 2013, 07:57:52 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 05, 2013, 09:39:44 AM
Either set the tax rate as a percentage-of-the-price or put roads and other transport on the general fund.
Mike
I'll have to disagree with this. I'd vastly prefer a fixed-per-gallon tax. That number, and how it comes about (and potential adjustments for inflation) is a matter for discussion, but gas prices have the ability to fluctuate and spike a lot.
Some sort of disaster/event, be it natural or political, that causes price spikes would be compounded by an even higher tax amount on that gallon.
I agree, but for the opposite reason. If the tax were a percentage instead of a fixed amount, then when prices go down, the amount of tax revenue would be less. A fixed amount prevents some uncertainty when collecting the federal fuel tax (as well as state taxes).
This is very a very modest increase, I would support it.
Gas tax needs to be a percent of the dollar amount, like the sales tax, not a fixed amount per gallon. If it had always been that way, they wouldn't have to be upping the gas taxes right now to make ends meet.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on December 06, 2013, 11:14:37 AM
Gas tax needs to be a percent of the dollar amount, like the sales tax, not a fixed amount per gallon. If it had always been that way, they wouldn't have to be upping the gas taxes right now to make ends meet.
Over the long term, gasoline prices have roughly matched inflation, so this would be a way to keep up. But year-over-year, gasoline prices have also fluctuated wildly in a way that has nothing to do with inflation or highway funding needs, and a tax based on a fixed percent of dollar amount would have brought those extraneous fluctuations to the Highway Trust Fund as well.
I think the most sensible approach (from a mathematical point of view) would be a per-gallon tax indexed to Consumer Price Index and average gasoline vehicle fuel economy. This will compensate both for inflation and the decrease in fuel consumption compared to miles traveled. Similar taxes should be levied on alternative fuels, such as ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity at public electric recharge stations. The electric vehicle that's only charged at home is probably only used locally, so somehow taxing that for highway maintenance costs might as well be left as a local issue.
The biggest drawback to this approach (which is already a drawback the way we currently collect fuel taxes) is it subsidizes fuel-efficient (or, more generally speaking, energy-efficient) vehicles. But not everyone sees this as a bad thing.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 05, 2013, 08:43:42 PM
QuoteAnd I don't care about European pricing, and neither should any other American. It's not relevant to the discussion.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
When we complain about the price of gas being $4 per gallon (or even $3.50 or $3) we are often lectured, "They pay a lot more for it in Europe, so quit complaining."
I've already stated elsewhere that due to economic realities, I will be doing a lot less traveling in 2014 than I did this year or in previous years. What personal pleasure travel I do undertake will probably be to places that tend to have lower gas prices, such as TN, VA or SC, than places where it runs higher (IL, the Northeast).
Quote from: Brandon on December 06, 2013, 09:50:31 AMIf the tax were a percentage instead of a fixed amount, then when prices go down, the amount of tax revenue would be less. A fixed amount prevents some uncertainty when collecting the federal fuel tax (as well as state taxes).
During the 1980s, MA actually tried such a tax mechanism. Gov. Ed King signed it into mid-way into his term (1979-1983) and additional revenue came in until gas prices came crashing down (to less than $1/gallon) in the mid-80s. I remember one station in Swansea, MA was selling regular-leaded gas (which was still around at the time) for $0.62/gallon circa 1986.
Needless to say, those low prices on the pump translated into less revenue per gallon being collected than the old flat 8-1/2 cents/gallon rate MA had before. One needs to remember that during the very early 80s,
nobody Republican or Democrat, thought for a moment that gas prices would tumble down as much as it did. As a result, Gov. Mike Dukakis re-established a flat (but higher) gasoline tax rate.
If one were to make the gas tax rate based on percentage; one would have to place a minimum threshold where a flat rate would take hold should the wholesale price of fuel should drop below a certain point (tax would be X% or Y cents/gallon whichever is higher). While nobody's predicting such a pricewould happen today; keep in mind that many thought the cost of gas would be $5/gallon by
1990. The only issue of such a price mechanism involves whether it would pass Constitutional muster.
As far as the necessity of increasing gas taxes are concerned; seeing the absolutely
pitiful percentage of stimulus funds (roughly $30 billion out of $787 billion overall) that
actually went towards roads & transportation projects
despite the marketing & hype (I saw much of it first-hand via e-mail at where I work), I can see why many (who want to see transporation improvements) have become skeptical whenever ways of increasing revenue for said-projects are discussed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
As far as the necessity of increasing gas taxes are concerned; seeing the absolutely pitiful percentage of stimulus funds (roughly $30 billion out of $787 billion overall) that actually went towards roads & transportation projects despite the marketing & hype (I saw much of it first-hand via e-mail at where I work), I can see why many (who want to see transporation improvements) have become skeptical whenever ways of increasing revenue for said-projects are discussed.
I have not seen the breakdown - though there was a lot of repaving and some bridge deck replacement funded by the ARRA, which was (and is) a good thing.
The big issue with increased transportation funding (which in practice means increased highway user taxes and fees) is this - urban transit agencies and their friends (especially the unions that represent their employees, but also anti-highway groups of all kinds) have
unlimited resources when it comes to various forms of lobbying (and other rent-seeking practices) to make the case that
all increased revenue should go to transit (which often means wage and benefit increases for their employees - which do not benefit users of the transportation system).
Over the years, I have noticed that anti-highway groups often do not care what or where the money is spent, as long as it does not improve or expand the highway network.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
the absolutely pitiful percentage of stimulus funds (roughly $30 billion out of $787 billion overall) that actually went towards roads & transportation projects
Duh. The stimulus wasn't merely a transportation program.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 06, 2013, 02:08:05 PM
urban transit agencies and their friends (especially the unions that represent their employees, but also anti-highway groups of all kinds) have unlimited resources when it comes to various forms of lobbying
The fuck?
Quote from: NE2 on December 06, 2013, 02:16:30 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
the absolutely pitiful percentage of stimulus funds (roughly $30 billion out of $787 billion overall) that actually went towards roads & transportation projects
Duh. The stimulus wasn't merely a transportation program.
Understood!
However, given all the marketing, whining ("
no stimulus means more bridges collapsing" or equivalent being one common politician quote), crying, lobbying (from consultant firms, this one I know of first-hand) only to have
less than 4% (based on the above-numbers) of the stimulus money devoted to road/transportation projects (which most people want)
is absolutely criminal IMHO. Given the amount of the above, one would've thought that at least 25% to 30% of that $787B was allotted to such
shovel-ready projects.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 06, 2013, 02:08:05 PMI have not seen the breakdown - though there was a lot of repaving and some bridge deck replacement funded by the ARRA, which was (and is) a good thing.
Mind you, I'm not saying that no stimulus money was spend on roads & transportation projects; I'm just stating that a pitiful percentage of it was devoted towards such when it perceived/marketed/trumped up as being been more.
Sounds like you're crying that your workplace didn't get enough.
As I recall, much of the rhetoric in support of ARRA indeed played up transportation infrastructure significantly. That less than 10% was spent on such is disappointing, and suggests the advertisement was misleading.
Quote from: vtk on December 06, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
As I recall, much of the rhetoric in support of ARRA indeed played up transportation infrastructure significantly. That less than 10% was spent on such is disappointing, and suggests the advertisement was misleading.
Yes, that's what I recall as well. I do know, from first hand experience, that some ARRA money was used for remediation projects. I worked on a few of them in Illinois.
Quote from: Jardine on December 06, 2013, 09:22:59 AM
Weird site.
Politics is a no-no but salty language is OK.
Can we cuss congress ??
:sombrero:
Politics is okay if it's on-topic. Same with cursing. In this case, politics is very on-topic.
Quote from: vtk on December 06, 2013, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on December 06, 2013, 11:14:37 AM
Gas tax needs to be a percent of the dollar amount, like the sales tax, not a fixed amount per gallon. If it had always been that way, they wouldn't have to be upping the gas taxes right now to make ends meet.
I think the most sensible approach (from a mathematical point of view) would be a per-gallon tax indexed to Consumer Price Index and average gasoline vehicle fuel economy. This will compensate both for inflation and the decrease in fuel consumption compared to miles traveled. Similar taxes should be levied on alternative fuels, such as ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity at public electric recharge stations. The electric vehicle that's only charged at home is probably only used locally, so somehow taxing that for highway maintenance costs might as well be left as a local issue.
This.
Another reason I thought of for a per-gallon vs. percent-of-price is that not only do prices fluctuate in general, but also -during the same time- regionally as well. Now, from state to state a lot of the differences can be rates of state gas taxes, but the pre-tax price can vary as well. Even just here in Allegheny county, for some reason gas prices in the Monroeville area are 9-10 cents cheaper than most elsewhere in the Pittsburgh region (for at least the last 2 months now).
If it's a federal tax, then it should be equal for everyone. Anyone buying a gallon of gas anywhere in the country should pay the same tax on that gallon, no matter where they buy it. But people in an area that have cheaper (pre-tax) prices for whatever reason would be paying less in taxes in a percentage-of-price situation.
Quote from: Steve on December 06, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Politics is okay if it's on-topic. Same with cursing. In this case, politics is very on-topic.
Except 'hey let's stop funding the stuff I don't like and use the money for roads' is off-topic.
Quote from: NE2 on December 06, 2013, 03:30:26 PM
Except, that I was actually
against the whole stimulus bit because I knew
it was a flat-out fraud from the get-go. Whenever the head of my company sent an e-mail suggesting that we (the employees) contact our Reps. & Senators to support the package; I opened it, deleted it and moved on.
I wonder if this passes will states (e.g. MD) with recent state gas tax hikes roll back their gas tax rates since they'll get more from the feds. I'd guess yes. So this passing makes little difference to me. I'm already starting to pay a higher rate and will get this 15 cent rate increase in the future without it passing.
QuoteBy mid-2016, motorists can expect to pay between 13 and 20 cents more per gallon than they do now, according to the March estimates by legislative staff.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-27/local/40229015_1_gas-tax-increase-gas-tax-design-work
Quote from: BrianP on December 06, 2013, 05:59:29 PM
I wonder if this passes will states (e.g. MD) with recent state gas tax hikes roll back their gas tax rates since they'll get more from the feds. I'd guess yes. So this passing makes little difference to me. I'm already starting to pay a higher rate and will get this 15 cent rate increase in the future without it passing.
That would be so un-Maryland-like. The politicos have already taken whatever heat they're going to get from the state gas tax increase, it seems really unlikely they'll give back that money even if new Federal money comes in. Could happen in some other state with a strong tax-cut lobby -- but not Maryland.
Mr. Fullofbs is full of BS.
A flat tax is woefully steady for twenty years, and the thought that it be adjusted somewhat (in the same fair, across-the-board, free market manner [i.e. it only charges the direct user]) and yet some conservative news outlets are still losing their mind over this. Adjusting it 20 cents is crime, but letting the free market raise it a dollar is okay.
I'm not being anti-capitalistic, but I know when a spoonfull of bullshit is being served up as medicine. Here's the deal: keep your platform steady, don't help things go further down the gutter.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 06, 2013, 11:53:32 AM
When we complain about the price of gas being $4 per gallon (or even $3.50 or $3) we are often lectured, "They pay a lot more for it in Europe, so quit complaining."
I've already stated elsewhere that due to economic realities, I will be doing a lot less traveling in 2014 than I did this year or in previous years. What personal pleasure travel I do undertake will probably be to places that tend to have lower gas prices, such as TN, VA or SC, than places where it runs higher (IL, the Northeast).
With regards to this argument, there are a couple of notable points.
Firstly, people in Europe where gas is more expensive do drive less. The average European car is driven about 14,000 km (http://www.acea.be/news/news_detail/vehicles_in_use/) a year, or only about 8600 miles. Compare to 12,000 miles being typical in the US. But this is helped by several facts:
1) that things in Europe are closer together, so you cover less distance getting where you need to go.
2) that alternative methods of transportation are often more convenient and readily available than they are in the US. The great European road trip is not a thing like the great American road trip is. People fly or take trains to get places.
3) that the average European car is much smaller and more fuel efficient than the average American car. Drop Street View peg man on any random European freeway and look around. No pickups or huge SUVs in sight.
Secondly, while Europe pays higher taxes than the US does, they do get a lot in return for it. Free healthcare is the obvious example that a lot of people will jump on, but if you want something less controversial and more relevant to our interests: when was the last time you heard anyone say anything about "Europe's crumbling infrastructure"?
Quote from: vtk on December 06, 2013, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on December 06, 2013, 11:14:37 AM
Gas tax needs to be a percent of the dollar amount, like the sales tax, not a fixed amount per gallon. If it had always been that way, they wouldn't have to be upping the gas taxes right now to make ends meet.
Over the long term, gasoline prices have roughly matched inflation, so this would be a way to keep up. But year-over-year, gasoline prices have also fluctuated wildly in a way that has nothing to do with inflation or highway funding needs, and a tax based on a fixed percent of dollar amount would have brought those extraneous fluctuations to the Highway Trust Fund as well.
I think the most sensible approach (from a mathematical point of view) would be a per-gallon tax indexed to Consumer Price Index and average gasoline vehicle fuel economy. This will compensate both for inflation and the decrease in fuel consumption compared to miles traveled. Similar taxes should be levied on alternative fuels, such as ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity at public electric recharge stations. The electric vehicle that's only charged at home is probably only used locally, so somehow taxing that for highway maintenance costs might as well be left as a local issue.
The biggest drawback to this approach (which is already a drawback the way we currently collect fuel taxes) is it subsidizes fuel-efficient (or, more generally speaking, energy-efficient) vehicles. But not everyone sees this as a bad thing.
Wisconsin did it that way (flat dollar amount per volume unit with annual administrative adjustments to keep it level with inflation) from the late 1980s until four or five years ago. Why was that deep-sixed? The usual suspects, mainly on the right, were very bitterly complaining about "increasing taxes without voting on it! :verymad: ".
:rolleyes:
That's why I'm strongly advocating a percentage of the price rate, just like with the general fund sales tax - or putting transport on the general fund.
Mike
Quote from: BrianP on December 06, 2013, 05:59:29 PM
I wonder if this passes will states (e.g. MD) with recent state gas tax hikes roll back their gas tax rates since they'll get more from the feds. I'd guess yes. So this passing makes little difference to me. I'm already starting to pay a higher rate and will get this 15 cent rate increase in the future without it passing.
QuoteBy mid-2016, motorists can expect to pay between 13 and 20 cents more per gallon than they do now, according to the March estimates by legislative staff.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-27/local/40229015_1_gas-tax-increase-gas-tax-design-work
I would seriously doubt it, because even if such an increase were to occur, it'll be over 2 years away from now. The recent gas tax hikes over the past few years will be distant memories. The increased money should go to more badly needed improvement projects, which will also mean putting people to work, etc.
It also depends who gets that money. There's no guarantee that all 15 cents (or whatever the increase will be) will go directly back to the state where it was paid. Here in NJ for example, we get back one of the lowest returns on our gas tax money paid to the feds (something like 65-70%). For us, it'll just be better to raise the money within the state with a higher state tax.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 06, 2013, 10:12:12 PM
Secondly, while Europe pays higher taxes than the US does, they do get a lot in return for it. Free healthcare is the obvious example that a lot of people will jump on, but if you want something less controversial and more relevant to our interests: when was the last time you heard anyone say anything about "Europe's crumbling infrastructure"?
When was the last time you heard anyone say "North America's Crumbling Infrastructure"?
Not exactly fair to compare a single country to an entire continent, regardless of size.
Taking a random country - France - I can see why their infrastructure may be better than the US: Mostly all their main roadways are toll roads. Generally in the US, people oppose toll roads. And France's gas tax? Over $3 a gallon.
So, if you want better roads and bridges...Open your wallet.
Reality is, of course, that money is fungible. Governments have been building roads since there have been governments. Governments have been subsidizing those who make foolish life decisions for less than 50.
This is all part of the ruse. They pick something you like and TELL you the tax increase is for that. It is not.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 07, 2013, 09:43:50 AM
This is all part of the ruse. They pick something you like and TELL you the tax increase is for that. It is not.
Same tactic was used to sell Kentucky's lottery to voters. We were told it would be used to fund education, but most of the revenues have gone into the General Fund with no earmarks for schools.
Now that casino gambling is back up for discussion in Kentucky, the pitch is that funding will be used to prop up the horse industry, which we're constantly told is Kentucky's signature industry and vital for the survival of the state.
(Not that I was against the lottery -- I wasn't -- and not that I'm against casino gambling. But I would be opposed to casino gambling if funds are used for subsidizing the horse industry, or if horse interests [race tracks] get preference in awarding casino licenses.)
I am not opposed to a 15-cent tax increase, but it may be preferable to phase it in, with five-cent increments over a three-year period.
Quote from: NE2 on December 07, 2013, 01:08:11 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 07, 2013, 09:43:50 AM
foolish life decisions
Like moving to West Virginia Florida?
FIFY. WV at least has a nice winter. FL is too flipping hot and humid.
QuoteGovernments have been subsidizing those who make foolish life decisions for less than 50.
That...the Ancient Greeks did that. Wealth redistribution has been going on for thousands of years. For instance, the Greeks and Romans both had socialized healthcare to an extent http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3021113?uid=3739984&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103084641527
The Roman government imported food and distributed it to ensure their poor were fed under the Annona program (Bread and Circuses) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_supply_to_the_city_of_Rome (other non wikipedia resources can be found through a quick google search)
It's okay I guess to be philosophically opposed to government helping those in need or those who "made foolish life decisions" (though I would disagree with you) and there are ways to argue against it while using actual facts (for instance, if our government's motives for welfare are as sinister as the Bread and Circus program, that's pretty scary), but to say it has only been going on for 50 years is patently incorrect.
Quote from: oscar on December 06, 2013, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: BrianP on December 06, 2013, 05:59:29 PM
I wonder if this passes will states (e.g. MD) with recent state gas tax hikes roll back their gas tax rates since they'll get more from the feds. I'd guess yes. So this passing makes little difference to me. I'm already starting to pay a higher rate and will get this 15 cent rate increase in the future without it passing.
That would be so un-Maryland-like. The politicos have already taken whatever heat they're going to get from the state gas tax increase, it seems really unlikely they'll give back that money even if new Federal money comes in. Could happen in some other state with a strong tax-cut lobby -- but not Maryland.
Similar happened in PA just recently with its gas tax increase and increased motor fees & fines to fund transportation (including transit) projects.
I don't believe anyone asked whether this would actually
replace the current Act 44 statute that keeps draining the PTC toll revenue to fund other roads that are
not part of the PTC system along with mass transit. I could be wrong; but if it were, there would have been more mention of it in the various news reports.
Most assumed that Act 44 (unfortunately) will remain as is; despite the above. Meaning that annual toll increases for the PA Turnpike
will continue. The current toll cost per mile makes the PA Tunpike one of the highest priced toll roads (as opposed to bridges & tunnels) in the nation.
The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled. If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that. Perhaps someone should lobby the FHWA to ban PA from receiving highway money until this is fixed. If PA complains, they can be told that they're already getting the money from the PTC under Act 44.
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2013, 12:42:20 PM
The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled. If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that.
If memory serves, no such condition (tolling I-80) was a prerequisite for the diversification of existing Turnpike tolls to non-PTC projects via Act 44. While it should have (IMHO), it wasn't.
One needs to keep in mind that the governor of PA at the time, Ed Rendell, who authored Act 44 was also the same individual that allowed DRPA bridge toll revenue to be spend on non-DRPA nor PATCO projects many years earlier. Had that not been done, maybe the tolls today would only be $3.50-$4 instead of the current $5 one-way bridge toll.
Had Rendell had his way 100%, he'd shred the Interstate Highway Act into little pieces and toll every road he could get his hands on.
Shorter version of PHLBOS's reply: PTC is legally required to continue the payments, even though tolling I-80 was denied.
http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/120613Blumenauer.aspx
The bill being considered will phase in the 15¢/gallon increase over three years, then track with inflation. Also proposed is a study of how a nationwide VMT fee might work.
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2013, 12:42:20 PM
The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled. If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that. Perhaps someone should lobby the FHWA to ban PA from receiving highway money until this is fixed. If PA complains, they can be told that they're already getting the money from the PTC under Act 44.
Valerie, I think there may come a time when the municipal bond market may do the PTC a favor and cut their bond rating so low (and drive the interest rate so high) that they will have to stop with shoveling money out the door to PennDOT, SEPTA and the rest of them.
Quote from: froggie on December 09, 2013, 02:12:37 PM
Shorter version of PHLBOS's reply: PTC is legally required to continue the payments, even though tolling I-80 was denied.
Agreed. But at some point, the Act 44 payments are going to drive the PTC into bankruptcy court or receivership. I know that states cannot themselves declare bankruptcy, but I perhaps "independent" units can. Or maybe the the trustee for the PTC's bondholders may have step in and seal-off the money draining out, especially if PTC misses a bond payment because of Act 44?
Cut back on procedural costs and time to get the project ready to go first. Then come back and sell us on a 15 cent increase Uncle Sam after you get the bureaucracy reined in!
Rick
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 09, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2013, 12:42:20 PM
The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled. If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that.
If memory serves, no such condition (tolling I-80) was a prerequisite for the diversification of existing Turnpike tolls to non-PTC projects via Act 44. While it should have (IMHO), it wasn't.
While it wasn't codified into the law, that IS how the law was intended. Or am I hoping for too much common sense from the legal system?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2013, 05:44:39 PM
Agreed. But at some point, the Act 44 payments are going to drive the PTC into bankruptcy court or receivership. I know that states cannot themselves declare bankruptcy, but I perhaps "independent" units can. Or maybe the the trustee for the PTC's bondholders may have step in and seal-off the money draining out, especially if PTC misses a bond payment because of Act 44?
I suspect the PTC would sooner raise the toll to $50/mile for passenger cars.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2013, 03:21:03 PMOr am I hoping for too much common sense from the legal system?
You are.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2013, 03:21:03 PMI suspect the PTC would sooner raise the toll to $50/mile for passenger cars.
This just in, massive rioting in Harrisburg caused by motorists and truckers. Film at 11. :sombrero:
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2013, 03:21:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 09, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2013, 12:42:20 PM
The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled. If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that.
If memory serves, no such condition (tolling I-80) was a prerequisite for the diversification of existing Turnpike tolls to non-PTC projects via Act 44. While it should have (IMHO), it wasn't.
While it wasn't codified into the law, that IS how the law was intended. Or am I hoping for too much common sense from the legal system?
According to this article, the payments were originally intended to be larger, but were reduced when I-80 tolling was cancelled.
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5773 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5773)
QuoteAct 44 schemed up by the since-convicted and jailed racketeer state senator Vincent Fumo (Dem, Philadelphia) forced the Turnpike to issue new debt to cover payments to the state of $750m in 2008, $850m in 2009, and $964m in 2010 front-loaded for political salability, and based on highly optimistic traffic and revenue forecasts for both the Turnpike proper and I-80.
When tolling I-80 proved impossible legally and politically the act provided for annual payouts of $450m, but already $2564m of Fumo payouts had been made based on new debt.
Washington Post editorial: New gas tax can help pay for roads and transportation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/new-gas-tax-can-help-pay-for-roads-and-transportation/2013/12/26/2a7d31d4-62b5-11e3-aa81-e1dab1360323_story.html)
QuoteA MAJOR FEDERAL program is on desperate financial footing. It's too important and popular to cut drastically. But a combination of changing social patterns, technological innovation and bad policy design has thrown its accounts far out of balance, and it has begun to eat into general spending that should go to other national priorities.
QuoteThe program is the federal Highway Trust Fund, which pays about half the yearly tab to build and maintain the nation's roads, bridges and rails. At the moment, the loudest advocate for fixing it responsibly is a liberal Democrat, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.). This month Mr. Blumenauer proposed two bills meant to refill the fund based on the simple, unassailable principle that those who use the roads should pay for them. The measures are backed by a broad coalition of business and labor groups, and they are sensible. That and $3.69 will buy you a gallon of gasoline.
Kentucky's gas tax is actually going down for next year.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/PressReleasePage.aspx?&FilterField1=ID&FilterValue1=56
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2013, 12:19:43 PM
Kentucky's gas tax is actually going down for next year.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/PressReleasePage.aspx?&FilterField1=ID&FilterValue1=56
I've only been in Kentucky once, and only in a certain part of the state, but IMO, that is ill-advised, though I see that it is an "automatic" decrease because of the way that such tax rates are computed (which is itself vastly better than static per-gallon rates used by most states).
I make the assertion that it is ill-advised because I presume that Kentucky, like most states, has a significant backlog of bridges needing repair or replacement, along with other boring maintenance items like repaving and the like.
Though at least in Pike County, I did get the overall impression that the roads were decently maintained.