AARoads Forum

Trying to keep this as non-political as possible which is almost impossible, but from a nonpartisan perspective, what are your thoughts on this?

Gas tax will be raised by 25 cents. Permitting process to take 2 maximin. More programs to help with the labor shortage. More emphasis placed on PPP's with federal programs to encourage it.

Here is the website: http://www.letsrebuildamerica.com

I support it and hope it happens. I am a bit worried out here in California though. While I am willing to pay a bit more to have better roads, the gas tax is getting a bit ridiculous out here. I want to see SB-1 stay in law and not get repealed, but it will be tough defending it if this passes. Gas taxes in California will go up another 25 cents on top of SB-1. It is a bit much.

To add a bit more here, here is a list of all the 50 state's rankings for infrastructure: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/infrastructure?src=usn_tw

It leaves out waterways and water lines.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 19, 2018, 07:56:44 AM
To add a bit more here, here is a list of all 59 states rankings for infrastructure: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/infrastructure?src=usn_tw

It leaves out waterways and water lines.

What are the other 9 states to make 59?

Also, about the article, how does #7, 2, and 20 beat #20, 4, and 2?
EDIT: #30, 8, and 28 beats #15, 26, and 8.

LOL! I'll fix that.

I'm a bit skeptical of that article as well. Texas below Oklahoma!? Lol, okay.

If you click on each state, you get the reasoning behind their analysis a 3rd grader's 500 word essay about the state's history, population data and tourism spots.

1 - Tax money is fungible.  Anytime the tax raisers want to raise taxes they pick out some thing that most people would support, such as roads, schools, bridges, etc.  and then TELL you that this money is "just for that".  Wrong.  Government already has plenty of money to do all the things government is supposed to do.  It just wastes it on other things.

2 - The USA has no "labor shortage".  The latest statistics show that about 42% of able bodied adults simply refuse to work, having made the lifestyle choice of lifewelfarism. 

Since the idea is based on two false ideas, it cannot be supported by thinking people.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 19, 2018, 09:45:46 AM
2 - The USA has no "labor shortage".  The latest statistics show that about 42% of able bodied adults simply refuse to work, having made the lifestyle choice of lifewelfarism. 

Do you mean that labor force participation is 58%? I'm getting a slightly higher number, 63%. If that is what you're referring to, remember that students in college are included in the 42% you're referring to.

I agree with some of this, but not with the support for PPPs.  We need only look to I-69 in Indiana, the TX 130 bankruptcy, and the Indiana Toll Road bankruptcy to see what a disaster those are.  And we do not need to make roads even more expensive by tolling things, either.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 19, 2018, 09:45:46 AM
1 - Tax money is fungible.  Anytime the tax raisers want to raise taxes they pick out some thing that most people would support, such as roads, schools, bridges, etc.  and then TELL you that this money is "just for that".  Wrong.  Government already has plenty of money to do all the things government is supposed to do.  It just wastes it on other things.

2 - The USA has no "labor shortage".  The latest statistics show that about 42% of able bodied adults simply refuse to work, having made the lifestyle choice of lifewelfarism. 

Since the idea is based on two false ideas, it cannot be supported by thinking people.

1. The Highway Trust Fund is supposed to be funded by the gas tax, which has not been raised since 1993.  There has been plenty of inflation since then, and construction costs have risen faster than that.  Additionally, cars are more fuel efficient now than they were back then.  While the fund has received infusions from the general fund in recent years to prevent collapse, this is hardly a permanent solution, and hampers state planning efforts as there is never any certainty as to what funding will be available.  States can't even be sure if they'll get the money they've been promised due to the difference between authorization and appropriation.

2. I won't disagree with there not being a labor shortage, but for completely different reasons.  Companies are willfully ignoring a large segment of the workforce for a variety of reasons, chiefly the elimination of entry level jobs and refusal to hire those who are unemployed, shutting many people out of the workforce.

What if gas prices increased by $1, to the mid-$3.xx range? This is still cheaper than in Europe, and the same as it was in the United States a few years ago. In addition, it would encourage more fuel-efficient cars.

Quote from: 1 on January 19, 2018, 01:10:27 PM
What if gas prices increased by $1, to the mid-$3.xx range? This is still cheaper than in Europe, and the same as it was in the United States a few years ago. In addition, it would encourage more fuel-efficient cars.

Gas was over $3 on average from 2011 - 2014. It did encourage people to get rid of the gas guzzlers at the time. With 'cheaper' gas in the $2 range, people started buying SUVs again.  Will the same thing happen next time around?  Maybe, but probably not as much as before.

As far as Europe goes, most Americans don't care, because that has no effect on us.  Canada is more expensive as well.

Despite myself identifying as a tea party conservative, I support the increase and the redistribution of funding. Our roads could use the spending.

Also: How the freak did Oregon grab the #1 spot? Our freeways SUCK!

I'm torn.

I say that because I do want our infrastructure to be improved. I also say that because I am no longer sure that fuel taxes are the way to go in order to get the funding.

I, for one, do not believe we should be using taxes as a form of behavior modification. Whether that be fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, drink taxes, whatever, I don't believe that is right. We had one poster above who stated that higher gas prices would encourage more fuel efficient cars. He is correct in that assesment, and if that increase occurred naturally through market forces I couldn't complain about it. But if he means raise taxes to make that happen then I would be 100% opposed to anything like that.

Which brings me to my other issue with fuel taxes. People who drive hybrids pay very little fuel tax, and those who drive plug in electrics pay zero.

Now which car does more damage to the road. My 3700 lb Mustang GT or that Tesla roadster that weighs and performs similiarly? Neither. Yet I am paying $500 or more per year in fuel taxes while he pays $0. Tell me how that's fair again?

I would be for a substantial increase in  open road tolling, if gas taxes were done away with entirely. Everytime I have to pay a toll for something now I'm feeling squeezed because I'm already paying at the pump-espescially here in NC which has a higher state fuel tax than most of the country.

I wouldn't be against a vehicle mileage based tax either, but I do understand how many would not like that because they feel like they are being tracked by big brother that way, I get it. But at least that way we would all be paying our fair share for using the roads we drive on and not just those of us that drive gasoline/diesel powered cars.

Quote from: slorydn1 on January 20, 2018, 03:29:08 AM
I'm torn.

I say that because I do want our infrastructure to be improved. I also say that because I am no longer sure that fuel taxes are the way to go in order to get the funding.

I, for one, do not believe we should be using taxes as a form of behavior modification. Whether that be fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, drink taxes, whatever, I don't believe that is right. We had one poster above who stated that higher gas prices would encourage more fuel efficient cars. He is correct in that assesment, and if that increase occurred naturally through market forces I couldn't complain about it. But if he means raise taxes to make that happen then I would be 100% opposed to anything like that.

Which brings me to my other issue with fuel taxes. People who drive hybrids pay very little fuel tax, and those who drive plug in electrics pay zero.

Now which car does more damage to the road. My 3700 lb Mustang GT or that Tesla roadster that weighs and performs similiarly? Neither. Yet I am paying $500 or more per year in fuel taxes while he pays $0. Tell me how that's fair again?

I would be for a substantial increase in  open road tolling, if gas taxes were done away with entirely. Everytime I have to pay a toll for something now I'm feeling squeezed because I'm already paying at the pump-espescially here in NC which has a higher state fuel tax than most of the country.

I wouldn't be against a vehicle mileage based tax either, but I do understand how many would not like that because they feel like they are being tracked by big brother that way, I get it. But at least that way we would all be paying our fair share for using the roads we drive on and not just those of us that drive gasoline/diesel powered cars.

Thats not quite so simple either. Light, compact vehicles surely do much less damage and wear and tear on roads compared to large vehicles, and gas consumption likely follows the impact to the road much better then any per mile fee. Older vehicles also likely do more damage to the road, and also consume more gas. I say get rid of the electric vehicle credit and put that money towards the roads, but lets not remove the usage based incentive to use electric vehicles.

Quote from: UCFKnights on January 20, 2018, 08:56:08 AM

Quote from: slorydn1 on January 20, 2018, 03:29:08 AM
I'm torn.

I say that because I do want our infrastructure to be improved. I also say that because I am no longer sure that fuel taxes are the way to go in order to get the funding.

I, for one, do not believe we should be using taxes as a form of behavior modification. Whether that be fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, drink taxes, whatever, I don't believe that is right. We had one poster above who stated that higher gas prices would encourage more fuel efficient cars. He is correct in that assesment, and if that increase occurred naturally through market forces I couldn't complain about it. But if he means raise taxes to make that happen then I would be 100% opposed to anything like that.

Which brings me to my other issue with fuel taxes. People who drive hybrids pay very little fuel tax, and those who drive plug in electrics pay zero.

Now which car does more damage to the road. My 3700 lb Mustang GT or that Tesla roadster that weighs and performs similiarly? Neither. Yet I am paying $500 or more per year in fuel taxes while he pays $0. Tell me how that's fair again?

I would be for a substantial increase in  open road tolling, if gas taxes were done away with entirely. Everytime I have to pay a toll for something now I'm feeling squeezed because I'm already paying at the pump-espescially here in NC which has a higher state fuel tax than most of the country.

I wouldn't be against a vehicle mileage based tax either, but I do understand how many would not like that because they feel like they are being tracked by big brother that way, I get it. But at least that way we would all be paying our fair share for using the roads we drive on and not just those of us that drive gasoline/diesel powered cars.

Thats not quite so simple either. Light, compact vehicles surely do much less damage and wear and tear on roads compared to large vehicles, and gas consumption likely follows the impact to the road much better then any per mile fee. Older vehicles also likely do more damage to the road, and also consume more gas. I say get rid of the electric vehicle credit and put that money towards the roads, but lets not remove the usage based incentive to use electric vehicles.

Road damage is not the best criteria for taxation.
It is generally accepted that damage goes as forth power of axle loading - so Tesla, which is 2x heavier than Civic, does 16x more damage - and bus with 30 passengers is worse than 1000 civics. And one truck causes more wear than all car traffic - while bike is zero-wear. But there is no 100x difference is gas consumption, and gas is not a true proxy for wear.
But a good fraction of wear being age and weather related. And car needs almost about same lane width and pavement quality as a truck, and bike needs half that.
So flat per-mile tax on non-commercial vehicles*, maybe gross weight adjusted, may be a good metrics for received benefit.

*bicycle tax? Sorry, I am not prepared to answer.

We have no money to fix our roads, but plenty of money for corporate handouts. Let Walmart fix the roads.

The federal gas tax should be raised and pegged to the inflation rate of the Dollar.  Allow tolls on non-grandfathered Interstates.  Continue to increase unit efficiency standards for auto manufacturers.  Work with public utility providers and the Energy Department to create and install a nationwide electric vehicle charging standard.  Equip one of the may transcontinental rail lines for high-speed passenger train travel.

This is the way I see it.

In regards to the gas tax, there's the small but growing number of electric cars that don't pay it. How do they carry their share of the weight?

I am very much against tolling the interstate system.  I pay enough tolls on the Thruway as it is.  One of the nice things about going to other states (other than MA) is that I don't need to pay a toll to get everywhere (well, everywhere except the Adirondacks or Binghamton).  Tolls add up.  Costs me $19 in tolls to visit family.  Add in gas and lunch or dinner (I generally grab one each way), and I'm looking at $100 per trip, and Rochester is only 220 miles away.  And the Thruway actually has the lowest per-mile toll rate in the area.  Any new tolls on interstates would no doubt be more expensive.

Tolls also have the nasty side effect of increasing traffic on side streets due to shunpikers.  Just look at how traffic on US 30 in PA has grown since Act 44.

Tolls and mileage fees are also much more "in your face" than the gas tax.  Nobody thinks about how much they're paying in taxes when they get gas (unless they're in a situation where they can easily hop across a state line to get a cheaper price).  Tolls or milage fees force people to specifically think about the tax they're paying and how much they use the roads.  And that, I suspect, is the REAL reason for the push for those funding sources.  By forcing people to specifically think about how much tax they're paying related to how much they're driving, it will discourage driving, and encourage other forms of transportation.  To anyone who wants to get people out of their cars, this is no doubt a feature of tolls/mileage fees that they consider very beneficial.  Mileage fees also seem to be much more optimized for self-driving Uber fleets than individually owned human-driven cars.

Incidentally, this is why I would prefer we move to hydrogen fuel cell cars rather than electric.  Hydrogen can be taxed at the termal level, just like gas.  Electricity could only be taxed at the individual and retail levels, which is much more complicated, and probably why nobody is trying.  Hydrogen cars can also be used just like gas, unlike electric cars, which due to shorter range and longer recharging times (issues that are improving but will never entirely go away; I doubt we'll ever see an electric car that can go 400-500 miles and then fully charge in a couple minutes like my Civic can).  Although even with hydrogen, there's still that push from the powers that be away from ownership.  Honda doesn't even allow to buy a Clarity.  It's lease only, with no option to buy out the lease, even at the end.

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 20, 2018, 05:40:39 PM
In regards to the gas tax, there's the small but growing number of electric cars that don't pay it. How do they carry their share of the weight?

It's not a problem that they don't pay the gas tax. We want to provide an incentive for more electric cars.

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 20, 2018, 05:40:39 PM
In regards to the gas tax, there's the small but growing number of electric cars that don't pay it. How do they carry their share of the weight?

Get rid of tolls and the gas tax and institute an appropriate VMT tax. :>

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 20, 2018, 05:40:39 PM
In regards to the gas tax, there's the small but growing number of electric cars that don't pay it. How do they carry their share of the weight?

The revenue lost by not paying the gas taxes could be made up by increased sales tax revenue from electricity generation and higher administrative fees.  New taxes on vehicle motor batteries could also be created.  In fact I would think you'd want more revenue flowing towards electricity providers so that they can make improvements to the grid overall.

Another (albeit obscure) way to offset it would be to eliminate the gas tax and assess a "vehicle highway use" fee on everyone's car tax bill (assuming your state/municipality has one) that is pegged to the the mill rate.

I am OK with raising the gasoline tax by twenty-five cents.  Hell, go ahead and raise it by fifty cents.  The other part of this would be that Big Oil should NOT be allowed to screw with the price of gasoline anymore.  Permanently set gasoline at $2, $2.15 and $2.25 per gallon, plus tax for regular, mid-grade and premium, respectively, and end the .9 pricing gimmick forever, once and for all.  The price per gallon would not be permitted to fluctuate due to hurricanes or holidays, refinery outages or shortages, or any other reason for that matter.  All tax revenue collected should go directly toward rebuilding the infrastructure, prioritized by necessity without political influence. No pork projects would be allowed. 

Yeah, no one would be happy with that.  The system we have in place now is much better. [/sarc]

I am a millennial that no longer owns a vehicle, but does occasionally borrow a vehicle and occasionally puts gas in said vehicle, I can tell you that Michigan's gas prices are comparable to California due to Governor Snyder passing a hike on our gas taxes to 41 cents a gallon (I believe, I am not 100% sure).  For that hike, we consistently have the some of the worst roads compared to Indiana and Ohio.  I'm not sure more gas taxes are the answer, because I sure don't see them benefiting anyone in Michigan besides the fat cats.

I think our governments, federal and state, need to spend their money smarter.  I think there is plenty of money to go around, I just think our politicians make bad decisions with the money they have.  It is a virtual impossibility for the United States to actually go broke.  I do wish that a comprehensive infrastructure plan would be worked out.

Quote from: Rothman on January 20, 2018, 05:50:45 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 20, 2018, 05:40:39 PM
In regards to the gas tax, there's the small but growing number of electric cars that don't pay it. How do they carry their share of the weight?

Get rid of tolls and the gas tax and institute an appropriate VMT tax. :>

I'm not okay with giving Big Brother a network of sensors tracking every vehicle, all the time.  You know such information would get used for nefarious purposes.

Quote from: kkt on January 21, 2018, 12:08:07 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 20, 2018, 05:50:45 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 20, 2018, 05:40:39 PM
In regards to the gas tax, there's the small but growing number of electric cars that don't pay it. How do they carry their share of the weight?

Get rid of tolls and the gas tax and institute an appropriate VMT tax. :>

I'm not okay with giving Big Brother a network of sensors tracking every vehicle, all the time.  You know such information would get used for nefarious purposes.

Such as?

Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2018, 01:03:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on January 21, 2018, 12:08:07 AM

I'm not okay with giving Big Brother a network of sensors tracking every vehicle, all the time.  You know such information would get used for nefarious purposes.

Such as?

In MY case, when I go driving to get lost from the world, I don't want someone knowing where I'm at.

I also wouldn't want them to know where I'm buying my weed   :bigass:

Quote from: US71 on January 21, 2018, 10:25:32 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2018, 01:03:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on January 21, 2018, 12:08:07 AM

I'm not okay with giving Big Brother a network of sensors tracking every vehicle, all the time.  You know such information would get used for nefarious purposes.

Such as?

In MY case, when I go driving to get lost from the world, I don't want someone knowing where I'm at.

I also wouldn't want them to know where I'm buying my weed   :bigass:

How are those nefarious purposes, especially since marijuana is becoming more legal as time passes?

The state fuel tax varies widely from state to state, and region to region.  Believe Pennsylvania's and California's are the highest, and Missouri's and South Carolina's the lowest.  Although that could be wrong.   Another issue is how much should be "siphoned" off for transit and bike/ped projects?  While some have merit, others such as Bill Richardsons and Jerry Browns pet trains are pure pork.   Believe Brown's train is currently grinding to a halt due to running out of money and no federal bailout forthcoming from the Trump Administration to keep it afloat.   

Quote from: ce929wax on January 21, 2018, 12:01:00 AM
I am a millennial that no longer owns a vehicle, but does occasionally borrow a vehicle and occasionally puts gas in said vehicle, I can tell you that Michigan's gas prices are comparable to California due to Governor Snyder passing a hike on our gas taxes to 41 cents a gallon (I believe, I am not 100% sure).  For that hike, we consistently have the some of the worst roads compared to Indiana and Ohio.  I'm not sure more gas taxes are the answer, because I sure don't see them benefiting anyone in Michigan besides the fat cats.

I think our governments, federal and state, need to spend their money smarter.  I think there is plenty of money to go around, I just think our politicians make bad decisions with the money they have.  It is a virtual impossibility for the United States to actually go broke.  I do wish that a comprehensive infrastructure plan would be worked out.

To be fair, raising the gas tax is not like waving a magic wand.  The roads aren't going to magically repair themselves... that takes time for the state to do.  And if the DOT didn't even have enough funding to keep the system from deteriorating further before the increase, they may still not have enough to actually improve the condition.

Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2018, 01:03:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on January 21, 2018, 12:08:07 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 20, 2018, 05:50:45 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 20, 2018, 05:40:39 PM
In regards to the gas tax, there's the small but growing number of electric cars that don't pay it. How do they carry their share of the weight?

Get rid of tolls and the gas tax and institute an appropriate VMT tax. :>

I'm not okay with giving Big Brother a network of sensors tracking every vehicle, all the time.  You know such information would get used for nefarious purposes.

Such as?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if roadgeek travel patterns become deemed "suspicious" at some point in the future.  All it would take is a means of detailed tracking plus another terror attack or a ramping up of the war on drugs.  There's only so many times you can loop through an area or do U turns before I would expect a police officer (or algorithm programmed for the police) to deem me "suspicious" (I know I would if I was in the position and had never heard of roadgeeks, which most people haven't) and trigger a traffic stop and search of my vehicle, and I'd rather avoid that inconvenience.  For example, in a recent trip, I passed through the Village of Montgomery no less than three times, two of them in the same direction.  In a trip I took last year, I wound up on a single stretch of US 7 no less than three times as well, two of them within five minutes (had to turn around and deadhead to clinch MA 7A).  Thankfully the police officer controlling traffic at the work zone did not seem to notice.

Public-private partnerships = it costs more.  Now the infrastructure is owned by a company that needs to charge more than just what it takes to cover the costs of operation.  They need to make a profit.  That profit comes from our wallets.

VMT tax; that can be done without tracking the location of a vehicle at all times.  Just like the gas company reads your meter, someone can read your odo once or twice a year and send you the bill.  Not precise, but it fundamentally accomplishes the same thing as a gas tax; travel more = pay more.
When it comes to the big brother problem, we've already given away the farm on that item.  They don't need to track your car for nefarious purposes because you have a damn phone in your pocket.

If one wants money for roads, one needs to go to where the money has been piling up for decades. 

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 22, 2018, 11:20:14 AM

VMT tax; that can be done without tracking the location of a vehicle at all times.  Just like the gas company reads your meter, someone can read your odo once or twice a year and send you the bill.  Not precise, but it fundamentally accomplishes the same thing as a gas tax; travel more = pay more.

Wouldn't work very well for states if you travel out of state a lot. And it wouldn't work very well for the feds if you drive in Canada or Mexico.

Wouldn't matter if everyone payed the same rate for their VMT tax regardless of their state.
The key is it doesn't matter where you drive, it's how much you drive.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 22, 2018, 12:26:38 PM
Wouldn't matter if everyone payed the same rate for their VMT tax regardless of their state.
The key is it doesn't matter where you drive, it's how much you drive.

But how do you split that up among various jurisdictions? And what right would the United States government have to tax travel in a foreign country?

Easy.  Distribution of funds is based on need.
Population + traffic + connectivity + existing condition + some other things I'd have to think about more = the funds available to a region.

International travel is a weird exception.  Read the odo when you leave; read it again when you return; that amount is deducted from your total.

No state, county or city should expect to rely on this as their sole funding mechanism.  They may still have some tolls or fuel taxes or registration fees.  But it will be consistent and will grow with traffic regardless of what kind of traffic it is.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 22, 2018, 12:31:00 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 22, 2018, 12:26:38 PM
Wouldn't matter if everyone payed the same rate for their VMT tax regardless of their state.
The key is it doesn't matter where you drive, it's how much you drive.

But how do you split that up among various jurisdictions? And what right would the United States government have to tax travel in a foreign country?

This is resolvable. Odometer fraud, however, is already wide spread...

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 22, 2018, 11:20:14 AM
VMT tax; that can be done without tracking the location of a vehicle at all times.  Just like the gas company reads your meter, someone can read your odo once or twice a year and send you the bill. 

Of course, then you're replacing a simple tax that is painlessly and invisibly added to the amount you pay for gas, for one that you specifically have to fork money over for periodically.  Much more painful, even if it's the exact same dollar amount.  Also much more susceptible to fraud.  There's a reason why gas is taxed at the terminal level, rather than the retail or distributor level, after all.  That just gets much worse at the individual level.

Quote
When it comes to the big brother problem, we've already given away the farm on that item.  They don't need to track your car for nefarious purposes because you have a damn phone in your pocket.

At least that way, they specifically have to ask a private company for the info, which means they're either the NSA, or they're already suspicious of you.  And a phone can be left home, turned off, and for some models, even have the battery removed.  Tracking for a mileage tax will probably be hotwired into police databases with algorithms watching everything.  And I'd certainly like to work towards rolling back both government and private intrusions in privacy, not continue down the same course.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 22, 2018, 12:41:04 PM
No state, county or city should expect to rely on this as their sole funding mechanism.  They may still have some tolls or fuel taxes or registration fees.  But it will be consistent and will grow with traffic regardless of what kind of traffic it is.

A mileage tax is not a federal-only thing.  States want to switch too.

Quote from: US71 on January 21, 2018, 10:25:32 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2018, 01:03:15 AM

Quote from: kkt on January 21, 2018, 12:08:07 AM

I'm not okay with giving Big Brother a network of sensors tracking every vehicle, all the time.  You know such information would get used for nefarious purposes.

Such as?

In MY case, when I go driving to get lost from the world, I don't want someone knowing where I'm at.

I also wouldn't want them to know where I'm buying my weed   :bigass:

I have at least one of those problems, too :-D

Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2018, 10:27:14 AM

Quote from: US71 on January 21, 2018, 10:25:32 AMIn MY case, when I go driving to get lost from the world, I don't want someone knowing where I'm at.

I also wouldn't want them to know where I'm buying my weed   :bigass:

How are those nefarious purposes, especially since marijuana is becoming more legal as time passes?

Marijuana is not actually legal at the federal level.  It was only officially tolerated during the Obama administration.

The blasé attitude about continuous surveillance fails to take into account the imbalances in automation advantage that result, and the consequent temptation for law-enforcement agencies to use surveillance data for short-term ends that have the long-term effect of undermining policing by consent.  To cite just a few of the issues involved:

*  The quantity of data gathered does not necessarily translate to reliability.  For example, I have a bill from the Kansas Turnpike Authority that says I entered the tolled zone at the Haysville-Derby interchange on such and such a date and then exited at the Southern Terminal about twenty minutes later.  But I also have a GPS log that says I actually entered at the South Wichita interchange.  This means that by failing to read my K-Tag correctly at South Wichita, KTA essentially gave me a break on the toll, but this kind of thing could easily go the other way, and I would have no ability to challenge the inaccuracy without effectively surveilling myself using tools that offer reliability and resolution equal to or better than that used by the surveilling agency.

*  Any authority with the ability to surveil inevitably seeks the ability to retain surveillance data indefinitely and to resist disclosure to the person being surveilled.  There are many ways it can be used for petty victimization.  For example, there is a neighborhood in my city that has 100% camera surveillance that is run by the police.  If I became an outspoken critic of police shootings, it would be the simplest thing in the world for the police to use machine vision to detect every time I have driven in my car in the surveillance zone and then issue me a ticket for each and every time I turn on my signal 99 ft in advance of a turn instead of the required 100 ft.

*  The sheer weight of data that is available through programmatic surveillance has a way of undermining even strong data protection rights, such as the right to prevent disclosure of your personal data to third parties, the right of disclosure of how your personal data is used by businesses and governmental agencies that hold it, the right to obtain a copy of all your personal data that is held by others, and the right to challenge personal data that you believe is false.  Not all of these rights are safeguarded in data privacy legislation even in European countries, where such protections are far stronger than in the US.

---

As regards the OP, I personally think the fuel tax increases talked about are too modest.  Tripling fuel taxes and then indexing to inflation was the federal recommendation during the G.W. Bush administration.  I think we are still at least two decades away from the point where the internal combustion engine declines enough in road transport market share that we need to begin transitioning to a different charging regime.  Charging according to use should be maintained, and I would not object to VMT-based charging subject to adequate safeguards to prevent misuse of surveillance data.  And realistically, those safeguards also need to address the massive amounts of data that tech companies collect through smartphones and the car companies collect through wireless-enabled onboard systems.

The surveillance/privacy see-saw will continue regardless of what safeguards are actually in place, but from a civil-rights perspective I would be much happier with a VMT tax on top of rock-solid data protection jurisprudence rather than a VMT tax as things exist right now.

As regards the possible uses of taxes for behavior modification, I don't disagree in principle with Pigouvian taxation.  However, there are concerns (e.g., Jevons' paradox) about using it to fund infrastructure that permits additional consumption that is liable to the Pigouvian tax.  I also disagree that we should increase fuel taxes to discourage SUVs by analogy with increasing cigarette taxes to discourage smoking.  Smoking is (generally speaking) all negatives, but while SUVs have some disadvantages (aggressivity in crashes, higher degree of visual occlusion), they fulfill families' genuine need for transportation of multiple passengers and bulky objects.

We also need to think in explicitly countercyclical terms about the scheduling of infrastructure spending.  We should have been spending more on capital expansion of the highway system at the start of Obama's first term, because the economy was still in a slump and the added investment would have had the effect of further resisting contraction of demand.  Now that the economy is booming, we need to think more in terms of fiscal retrenchment--increasing taxes, not cutting them, to pay down debt--and establishing a pool of ready-to-go work so that contracts can be let and construction can begin (with deficit financing if necessary) the next time the economy dips into a slump.  Pro-cyclical policy not only increases social misery and feeds the problem of long-term unemployment but also limits growth since the economy has to start from a smaller size at the low point of each slump.

A draft White House infrastructure plan leaked today and you can read it at: https://www.axios.com/draft-white-house-infrastructure-plan-1516644555-0d43f417-6ccd-43f7-9eae-3ccbe711314d.html

Among the provisions for roads:
- Allow states flexibility to toll on interstates and reinvest toll revenues on infrastructure
- Reconcile the grandfathered restrictions on use of highway toll revenues with current law
- Provide states flexibility to commercialize interstate rest areas

Quote from: hbelkins on January 22, 2018, 12:31:00 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 22, 2018, 12:26:38 PM
Wouldn't matter if everyone payed the same rate for their VMT tax regardless of their state.
The key is it doesn't matter where you drive, it's how much you drive.

But how do you split that up among various jurisdictions? And what right would the United States government have to tax travel in a foreign country?

Exactly.  Imagine living in Mexico full-time on a visa, with a US-tagged vehicle.  You spend 50 weeks out of the year driving outside of the United States, only coming into the US to visit family and renew your paperwork.  It would certainly be unfair to tax you based on your odometer readings.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 22, 2018, 12:41:04 PM
International travel is a weird exception.  Read the odo when you leave; read it again when you return; that amount is deducted from your total.

Who is going to read the odometer when you leave and enter the country?  Do you imagine CBP is going to be given the responsibility of recording your odometer for taxation purposes?  Doubt it.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 22, 2018, 01:53:37 PM
*  Any authority with the ability to surveil inevitably seeks the ability to retain surveillance data indefinitely and to resist disclosure to the person being surveilled.  There are many ways it can be used for petty victimization.  For example, there is a neighborhood in my city that has 100% camera surveillance that is run by the police.  If I became an outspoken critic of police shootings, it would be the simplest thing in the world for the police to use machine vision to detect every time I have driven in my car in the surveillance zone and then issue me a ticket for each and every time I turn on my signal 99 ft in advance of a turn instead of the required 100 ft.

Exactly.  This point cannot be understated.  If authority has reason to dislike you, they WILL find something, and every erosion of privacy makes it easier and easier.

I actually think the better point was that he would be for a VMT tax with appropriate safeguards.

Quote from: barcncpt44 on January 22, 2018, 05:05:52 PM
- Allow states flexibility to toll on interstates and reinvest toll revenues on infrastructure

I support this, even though a lot of folks here are pulling out their hair at reading those words.

Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2018, 06:49:47 PM
Exactly.  Imagine living in Mexico full-time on a visa, with a US-tagged vehicle.  You spend 50 weeks out of the year driving outside of the United States, only coming into the US to visit family and renew your paperwork.  It would certainly be unfair to tax you based on your odometer readings.

Well, sucks for the 10 people who actually do that.  What a silly hypothetical. 

Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2018, 06:49:47 PMWho is going to read the odometer when you leave and enter the country?  Do you imagine CBP is going to be given the responsibility of recording your odometer for taxation purposes?  Doubt it.

It's one more box to fill out.  Hardly a burden. 

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 23, 2018, 10:12:51 AM

Quote from: barcncpt44 on January 22, 2018, 05:05:52 PM
- Allow states flexibility to toll on interstates and reinvest toll revenues on infrastructure

I support this, even though a lot of folks here are pulling out their hair at reading those words.

I don't support this part, except under extremely narrow circumstances, for two reasons:  (1) interstate commerce being undermined through "welcome stranger" tolling (tolls have already been proposed for I-15 in Arizona and I-80 in Wyoming); and (2) reliance on tolling will not secure the capacity expansion we need because most of the new rural corridors that would pay for themselves in time savings if built as Interstates are not toll-viable (this issue surfaced with the Trans-Texas Corridor).

A broader issue is that traffic and revenue estimates are difficult to compile and are inherently unreliable.  For example, in the mid-noughties Wilbur Smith accumulated an ultimately damaging reputation for preparing over-optimistic T&R estimates for agencies looking to build toll facilities that eventually required tax subsidy.  Meaningful risk transfer to the private sector is not possible because toll roads (especially point-to-point toll roads running through rural areas) are risky investments and the government is the guarantor of last resort.  It saves a lot of trouble and also improves usage of such facilities for them to be publicly owned and open to travel at no charge additional to the fuel tax.

Any reliance on toll finance for capacity expansion should arguably be limited to congestion pricing in the major metropolitan areas.

(In fairness, the idea of relying on tolls for capacity expansion is not something that has changed between the Obama and Trump administrations.  Some types of bad ideas attract persistent bipartisan support and this is one of them.)

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 23, 2018, 10:12:51 AM

Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2018, 06:49:47 PMExactly.  Imagine living in Mexico full-time on a visa, with a US-tagged vehicle.  You spend 50 weeks out of the year driving outside of the United States, only coming into the US to visit family and renew your paperwork.  It would certainly be unfair to tax you based on your odometer readings.

Well, sucks for the 10 people who actually do that.  What a silly hypothetical.

It really isn't.  There are cities in Mexico, like Rocky Point in Sonora state, that are heavily populated with part-time American residents, and it is much easier even for residents to keep a car under American registration than to try to import it to Mexico permanently.  It is the policy of the Mexican government to prevent the development of a secondhand market in US-owned vehicles.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 23, 2018, 10:12:51 AM

Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2018, 06:49:47 PMWho is going to read the odometer when you leave and enter the country?  Do you imagine CBP is going to be given the responsibility of recording your odometer for taxation purposes?  Doubt it.

It's one more box to fill out.  Hardly a burden.

The more serious issue is that unless we rely on self-assessment, like we do with income tax, we would have to impose exit controls so that CBP officers could take odometer readings from US-registered vehicles.  And there are still plenty of vehicles on the roads dating from the mid-1990's that have frozen odometers as a result of the automakers' stumbling transition to plastic odometer gear wheels.  As an example, my current daily driver has been stuck at about 127,000 miles for almost five years now.  (I actually have a GPS record of miles driven since then that I believe is accurate to within 300 miles, but I can promise you that 99% of car owners similarly positioned are not tracking their mileage.)

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 23, 2018, 10:42:42 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 23, 2018, 10:12:51 AM

Quote from: barcncpt44 on January 22, 2018, 05:05:52 PM
- Allow states flexibility to toll on interstates and reinvest toll revenues on infrastructure

I support this, even though a lot of folks here are pulling out their hair at reading those words.

I don't support this part, except under extremely narrow circumstances, for two reasons:  (1) interstate commerce being undermined through "welcome stranger" tolling (tolls have already been proposed for I-15 in Arizona and I-80 in Wyoming); and (2) reliance on tolling will not secure the capacity expansion we need because most of the new rural corridors that would pay for themselves in time savings if built as Interstates are not toll-viable (this issue surfaced with the Trans-Texas Corridor).

A broader issue is that traffic and revenue estimates are difficult to compile and are inherently unreliable.  For example, in the mid-noughties Wilbur Smith accumulated an ultimately damaging reputation for preparing over-optimistic T&R estimates for agencies looking to build toll facilities that eventually required tax subsidy.  Meaningful risk transfer to the private sector is not possible because toll roads (especially point-to-point toll roads running through rural areas) are risky investments and the government is the guarantor of last resort.  It saves a lot of trouble and also improves usage of such facilities for them to be publicly owned and open to travel at no charge additional to the fuel tax.

Any reliance on toll finance for capacity expansion should arguably be limited to congestion pricing in the major metropolitan areas.

(In fairness, the idea of relying on tolls for capacity expansion is not something that has changed between the Obama and Trump administrations.  Some types of bad ideas attract persistent bipartisan support and this is one of them.)

My other concern would be that tolls would be redirected to some very remotely related projects. MTA already toll Manhattan river crossings to pay for whatever; PA turnpike subsidy for city transportation is another such situation.
I am dead sure NYS would love to rip off everyone around to pay for NYC subway; and Tappan Zee bridge financing is still a question. Now if tolls becoming a go-to method for each and every state need would be legalized...

Quote from: US71 on January 20, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
We have no money to fix our roads, but plenty of money for corporate handouts. Let Walmart fix the roads.

Only if only...

They are after all a billion dollar company. They should really do more for the state's transportation, in fact most of the countries top food and transportation (trucking) is here in Arkansas. They should band together and help the state out!

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 11:08:44 AM

Quote from: US71 on January 20, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
We have no money to fix our roads, but plenty of money for corporate handouts. Let Walmart fix the roads.

Only if only...

They are after all a billion dollar company. They should really do more for the state's transportation, in fact most of the countries top food and transportation (trucking) is here in Arkansas. They should band together and help the state out!

I-49 was built with Walmart, Tyson, and JB Hunt in mind.  So was XNA.

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 11:08:44 AM

Quote from: US71 on January 20, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
We have no money to fix our roads, but plenty of money for corporate handouts. Let Walmart fix the roads.

Only if only...

They are after all a billion dollar company. They should really do more for the state's transportation, in fact most of the countries top food and transportation (trucking) is here in Arkansas. They should band together and help the state out!

You know how Walmart became a billion dollar company?

By not wasting money.

Walmart is providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Walmart's trucks are purchasing plenty of fuel, providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Why should they donate their profits, on top of all the taxes they're already paying?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:30:16 AM

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 11:08:44 AM

Quote from: US71 on January 20, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
We have no money to fix our roads, but plenty of money for corporate handouts. Let Walmart fix the roads.

Only if only...

They are after all a billion dollar company. They should really do more for the state's transportation, in fact most of the countries top food and transportation (trucking) is here in Arkansas. They should band together and help the state out!

You know how Walmart became a billion dollar company?

By not wasting money.

Walmart is providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Walmart's trucks are purchasing plenty of fuel, providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Why should they donate their profits, on top of all the taxes they're already paying?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:30:16 AM

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 11:08:44 AM

Quote from: US71 on January 20, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
We have no money to fix our roads, but plenty of money for corporate handouts. Let Walmart fix the roads.

Only if only...

They are after all a billion dollar company. They should really do more for the state's transportation, in fact most of the countries top food and transportation (trucking) is here in Arkansas. They should band together and help the state out!

You know how Walmart became a billion dollar company?

By not wasting money.

Walmart is providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Walmart's trucks are purchasing plenty of fuel, providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Why should they donate their profits, on top of all the taxes they're already paying?

Minimum Wage, Associates on Welfare (while they oppose welfare), "I'll fire anyone who cashes the (overtime) check"  (Sam Walton).

Quote from: US71 on January 23, 2018, 11:42:59 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:30:16 AM

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 11:08:44 AM

Quote from: US71 on January 20, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
We have no money to fix our roads, but plenty of money for corporate handouts. Let Walmart fix the roads.

Only if only...

They are after all a billion dollar company. They should really do more for the state's transportation, in fact most of the countries top food and transportation (trucking) is here in Arkansas. They should band together and help the state out!

You know how Walmart became a billion dollar company?

By not wasting money.

Walmart is providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Walmart's trucks are purchasing plenty of fuel, providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Why should they donate their profits, on top of all the taxes they're already paying?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:30:16 AM

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 23, 2018, 11:08:44 AM

Quote from: US71 on January 20, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
We have no money to fix our roads, but plenty of money for corporate handouts. Let Walmart fix the roads.

Only if only...

They are after all a billion dollar company. They should really do more for the state's transportation, in fact most of the countries top food and transportation (trucking) is here in Arkansas. They should band together and help the state out!

You know how Walmart became a billion dollar company?

By not wasting money.

Walmart is providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Walmart's trucks are purchasing plenty of fuel, providing Arkansas with plenty of tax money.  Why should they donate their profits, on top of all the taxes they're already paying?

Minimum Wage, Associates on Welfare (while they oppose welfare), “I’ll fire anyone who cashes the (overtime) check” (Sam Walton).

How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

And minimum wage is paid by countless numbers of employers.  Heck, the entire eat-in restaurant industry pays less than minimum wage because they had a special exception carved out for them.  Maybe Applebees should be rebuilding America's roads as well.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

$13 per hour in a state like Arkansas, $15 for the US average, and $16 where I live (from $13 to $18 based on cost of living).

Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 11:58:54 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

$13 per hour in a state like Arkansas, $15 for the US average, and $16 where I live (from $13 to $18 based on cost of living).

It's a rolling number.  Let's say those salaries are true.

Then the person making $10 an hour in a more skilled position should be making $17 or $18 an hour.

Now a person making $15 an hour should be making $22 an hour.

The supervisor of that section, making $20 an hour, should be making $28 an hour.

Someone with a college degree doesn't want to be making less than what the barely-high school grads are making, so they demand more.

Now, in order to pay those salaries, the stores and companies need to mark up their products.

Which means the people making the lower salaries can't afford the products again.

It's all a rolling catch 22.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 23, 2018, 10:12:51 AM
It's one more box to fill out.  Hardly a burden. 

What box?  I've never once had to fill out a form when driving across the border.  And are they going to have Canada relay that info back or something?

Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2018, 10:56:04 AM
My other concern would be that tolls would be redirected to some very remotely related projects. MTA already toll Manhattan river crossings to pay for whatever; PA turnpike subsidy for city transportation is another such situation.
I am dead sure NYS would love to rip off everyone around to pay for NYC subway; and Tappan Zee bridge financing is still a question. Now if tolls becoming a go-to method for each and every state need would be legalized...

I guarantee I-80 in PA will be tolled in a nanosecond if this goes through.  And probably every other interstate in PA soon after.

Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 11:58:54 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

$13 per hour in a state like Arkansas, $15 for the US average, and $16 where I live (from $13 to $18 based on cost of living).

So do you want your Big Mac to cost $8 and your can of Ravioli to cost $2.50?

Someone pays the costs for arbitrary minimum wages, and here's a hint -- it's the consumer.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2018, 01:01:36 PM
So do you want your Big Mac to cost $8 and your can of Ravioli to cost $2.50?

Someone pays the costs for arbitrary minimum wages, and here's a hint -- it's the consumer.

Just because businesses will hike their prices doesn't mean they have to. If they just chilled for a while, especially big businesses, before going all crazy with price hikes, people will eventually have more money in their pocket and buy more products.

Much higher than $13, and there might be a few more long-lasting issues, but in the long-term, higher minimum wages will inevitably help the economy. There's my $13 worth  :D

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2018, 01:01:36 PM

Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 11:58:54 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

$13 per hour in a state like Arkansas, $15 for the US average, and $16 where I live (from $13 to $18 based on cost of living).

So do you want your Big Mac to cost $8 and your can of Ravioli to cost $2.50?

Someone pays the costs for arbitrary minimum wages, and here's a hint -- it's the consumer.

Please show me your evidence. Fox News doesn't count.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2018, 01:01:36 PM
So do you want your Big Mac to cost $8 and your can of Ravioli to cost $2.50?

Someone pays the costs for arbitrary minimum wages, and here's a hint -- it's the consumer.

If Big Macs don't cost that much in Australia, I'm not sure why they would here.
http://www.businessinsider.com/big-mac-cost-around-the-world-2017-1?r=UK&IR=T/#-11
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-31/minimum-wage-how-does-australia-compare/7461794

That $17.70 AUD currently converts to $14.14 USD.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 23, 2018, 10:12:51 AM

Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2018, 06:49:47 PM
Exactly.  Imagine living in Mexico full-time on a visa, with a US-tagged vehicle.  You spend 50 weeks out of the year driving outside of the United States, only coming into the US to visit family and renew your paperwork.  It would certainly be unfair to tax you based on your odometer readings.

Well, sucks for the 10 people who actually do that.  What a silly hypothetical. 

There are approximately 1 million US citizens living in Mexico.  A lot more than 10 of those are driving US-plated vehicles.  In order to register a US car in Mexico, you have to officially nationalize it in Mexico through a broker, which is costly and can only be done for certain model years and only for NAFTA-produced vehicles.  In order to register a vehicle in Mexico, you have to be living there on a resident visa.  There are a lot of Americans living in Mexico on 180-day tourist cards who simply make a border run every six months to get a new tourist card, and plenty of others living there on a visa who have chosen not to nationalize their vehicles.  The latter is not only because of the hassle and cost involved in nationalization, but also because, once you've nationalized your car in Mexico, you can no longer re-nationalize it in the US.  Granted, my personal association with US citizens living in Mexico is limited to a handful of people, but they have all had at least one of their vehicles plated in the US.

Basically, rest assured that my concern was far from a silly hypothetical.  It is the reality for many thousands of American citizens.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 12:04:37 PM

Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 11:58:54 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

$13 per hour in a state like Arkansas, $15 for the US average, and $16 where I live (from $13 to $18 based on cost of living).

It's a rolling number.  Let's say those salaries are true.

Then the person making $10 an hour in a more skilled position should be making $17 or $18 an hour.

Now a person making $15 an hour should be making $22 an hour.

The supervisor of that section, making $20 an hour, should be making $28 an hour.

Someone with a college degree doesn't want to be making less than what the barely-high school grads are making, so they demand more.

Now, in order to pay those salaries, the stores and companies need to mark up their products.

Which means the people making the lower salaries can't afford the products again.

It's all a rolling catch 22.

I will also add the potential for job loss because companies not being able to afford the new wage workers.

Many of the existing interstates were paid for largely with Federal money on the premise that they were for interstate commerce.  There aren't lots of similar quality routes around for drivers to take if a state or local government decides to run up the tolls sky high, there's a captive market.  They shouldn't be allowed high tolls that go to subsidize other routes.  Maybe to maintain or replace the route that's tolled.

Some states require that the minimum wage be paid to everyone, including servers in restaurants and similar tipped jobs.

Quote from: US71 on January 23, 2018, 01:24:05 PM
Please show me your evidence. Fox News doesn't count.

The Effects of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Prices (http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=up_workingpapers)

Harvard study finds increased minimum wages contribute to restaurant failures in California's Bay Area (https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/harvard-study-finds-increased-minimum-wages-contribute-to-restaurant-failures-in-californias-bay-area)

How a Rising Minimum Wage Affects Jobs in Seattle (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/economy/seattle-minimum-wage.html)

California's $15 Minimum Wage Makes A Lot Less Sense Outside Of Silicon Valley  (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/californias-15-minimum-wage-makes-a-lot-less-sense-outside-of-silicon-valley/)

Quote from: kkt on January 23, 2018, 04:36:20 PM
Many of the existing interstates were paid for largely with Federal money on the premise that they were for interstate commerce.  There aren't lots of similar quality routes around for drivers to take if a state or local government decides to run up the tolls sky high, there's a captive market.  They shouldn't be allowed high tolls that go to subsidize other routes.  Maybe to maintain or replace the route that's tolled.

Some states require that the minimum wage be paid to everyone, including servers in restaurants and similar tipped jobs.

Tipped jobs still have the same minimum wage, except tips may be counted towards the minimum wage, not just what the employer pays you. Some states have the minimum the employer pays you as less then minimum wage, but the employer must guarantee you make minimum wage after tips
.

Quote from: UCFKnights on January 23, 2018, 05:57:50 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 23, 2018, 04:36:20 PM
Many of the existing interstates were paid for largely with Federal money on the premise that they were for interstate commerce.  There aren't lots of similar quality routes around for drivers to take if a state or local government decides to run up the tolls sky high, there's a captive market.  They shouldn't be allowed high tolls that go to subsidize other routes.  Maybe to maintain or replace the route that's tolled.

Some states require that the minimum wage be paid to everyone, including servers in restaurants and similar tipped jobs.

Tipped jobs still have the same minimum wage, except tips may be counted towards the minimum wage, not just what the employer pays you. Some states have the minimum the employer pays you as less then minimum wage, but the employer must guarantee you make minimum wage after tips
.

In your state, maybe.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2018, 01:01:36 PM

Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 11:58:54 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

$13 per hour in a state like Arkansas, $15 for the US average, and $16 where I live (from $13 to $18 based on cost of living).

So do you want your Big Mac to cost $8 and your can of Ravioli to cost $2.50?

Someone pays the costs for arbitrary minimum wages, and here's a hint -- it's the consumer.

While I totally understand that there will be an increase in prices (there's no such thing as an evaporative "cost of doing business"), why is there the inflated scare of tripling of the price?

Put it in another words: Why is it okay for yearly increases in...

Unprepared food/drinks
New equipment
Maintenance costs
Uniforms
Property taxes
Utilities
Focus-group testing
Advertising
Franchise costs

All of which are varying amounts. The yearly cost of un-prepped food is far more than a worker's salary, the cost of the equipment is far greater than the yearly wages of a worker, the combined prices of advertising is more than a yearly salary, and the franchise costs are more than a few yearly wages. Labor is not the most expensive thing in the fast food model; maybe it is at a lemonade stand. Those are costs the franchise owner pays to keep the business running. Each year, they're subject to inflation. And because we don't easily see that - after all, the fry machine and annoying new advertisement didn't mix up my order - it's "understandable" that they increase.

But that person behind the counter, dunking fries, or flipping the burgers (do they still flip them in fast-food places?)...while they are a vaguely replaceable labor unit, is also someone subject to inflation in food, home, clothing, utility, and transportation costs. Fixing their wages is an easy target, but since almost everything else but the property tax gets a free pass on price increases, citing "free market", it's understandably an unfair one at that.

In the end, we'll pay another $1.00-1.50 for that Extra Value Meal and not $5. Scaremongers, be gone. Or, you'll buy your meal elsewhere.

Of course, they can be replaced by a touch screen now that the technology is there. The robot and/or multi-matic-mmmburger-maker is still going to cost a lot more in the short run, but maybe not 20 years from now. It evens out. There will be less of those jobs, the ones getting $12-18/hour will be doing more work to justify their new wages.

That said, being fast food manager at a busy location is probably quite stressful and actually difficult.

Quote from: formulanone on January 23, 2018, 07:33:52 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2018, 01:01:36 PM

Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 11:58:54 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

$13 per hour in a state like Arkansas, $15 for the US average, and $16 where I live (from $13 to $18 based on cost of living).

So do you want your Big Mac to cost $8 and your can of Ravioli to cost $2.50?

Someone pays the costs for arbitrary minimum wages, and here's a hint -- it's the consumer.

While I totally understand that there will be an increase in prices (there's no such thing as an evaporative "cost of doing business"), why is there the inflated scare of tripling of the price?

Put it in another words: Why is it okay for yearly increases in...

Unprepared food/drinks
New equipment
Maintenance costs
Uniforms
Property taxes
Utilities
Focus-group testing
Advertising
Franchise costs

All of which are varying amounts. The yearly cost of un-prepped food is far more than a worker's salary, the cost of the equipment is far greater than the yearly wages of a worker, the combined prices of advertising is more than a yearly salary, and the franchise costs are more than a few yearly wages. Labor is not the most expensive thing in the fast food model; maybe it is at a lemonade stand. Those are costs the franchise owner pays to keep the business running. Each year, they're subject to inflation. And because we don't easily see that - after all, the fry machine and annoying new advertisement didn't mix up my order - it's "understandable" that they increase.

But that person behind the counter, dunking fries, or flipping the burgers (do they still flip them in fast-food places?)...while they are a vaguely replaceable labor unit, is also someone subject to inflation in food, home, clothing, utility, and transportation costs. Fixing their wages is an easy target, but since almost everything else but the property tax gets a free pass on price increases, citing "free market", it's understandably an unfair one at that.

In the end, we'll pay another $1.00-1.50 for that Extra Value Meal and not $5. Scaremongers, be gone. Or, you'll buy your meal elsewhere.

Of course, they can be replaced by a touch screen now that the technology is there. The robot and/or multi-matic-mmmburger-maker is still going to cost a lot more in the short run, but maybe not 20 years from now. It evens out. There will be less of those jobs, the ones getting $12-18/hour will be doing more work to justify their new wages.

That said, being fast food manager at a busy location is probably quite stressful and actually difficult.

Whatever that worth:
(https://tipsfortips.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/burger-cost.jpg)
Labor is expensive, it is one of biggest cost components in almost any business. That is why we need automation and slaves undocumented immigrants

So there's no money for employees, but plenty of money for corporate jets and multi-million dollar CEO bonuses (and congressional bribes).

Quote from: US71 on January 23, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
So there's no money for employees, but plenty of money for corporate jets and multi-million dollar CEO bonuses (and congressional bribes).

Where? Most fast food places are run as franchise, not as multimillion dollar business.
And there are about 5 million food service workers nationwide. Adding $2 per hour, 30hrsx50 weeks = $15 billion/year
Those CEOs and representatives are relatively cheap...

Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2018, 09:08:39 PM

Quote from: US71 on January 23, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
So there's no money for employees, but plenty of money for corporate jets and multi-million dollar CEO bonuses (and congressional bribes).

Where? Most fast food places are run as franchise, not as multimillion dollar business.
And there are about 5 million food service workers nationwide. Adding $2 per hour, 30hrsx50 weeks = $15 billion/year
Those CEOs and representatives are relatively cheap...

The companies are still massive, even if they're run as franchises. And I have a feeling $15 billion is a drop in the bucket for the entire fast food industry. I'm with US71 on this one.

We have a minimum wage partly to keep employers from exploiting their monopsony power.  And in the fast-food restaurant sector, automation both of order-taking and food preparation is on its way no matter what.  Increasing the minimum wage merely encourages substitution of capital (in this case, equipment) for labor and accelerates the process somewhat.  The first-generation technology will seem raw and initially consumer preference will favor humans, but after a few rounds of continuous improvement it will switch to the machines.  It will be the story of self-checkouts all over again.

Ultimately, I believe we will have to devise an incomes policy if we wish to ensure the productivity gains of automation are fairly distributed.  That might entail universal basic income, a greatly reduced work week (some have suggested fifteen hours), beefed-up access to education or skills training for people whose jobs have vanished due to automation, or some combination of all of the above.  What won't work for long is setting people to do exactly the same jobs that machines can do faster and better--that is very undermining to dignity of labor.

Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2018, 09:08:39 PM

Quote from: US71 on January 23, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
So there's no money for employees, but plenty of money for corporate jets and multi-million dollar CEO bonuses (and congressional bribes).

Where? Most fast food places are run as franchise, not as multimillion dollar business.
And there are about 5 million food service workers nationwide. Adding $2 per hour, 30hrsx50 weeks = $15 billion/year
Those CEOs and representatives are relatively cheap...

And the $15,000,000,000 goes right back into the economy. I believe that fuels growth in other industries, services, taxes, and reduces the need for public assistance. They're the ones spending nearly every last dime. It doesn't go down the drain, and hardly much of it gets saved at those incredible 0.2% interest rates savings accounts are offering. And with that, it can increase credit, reduce bad debt, stabilize lending power, and increase potential home ownership. All good measures of a robust economy.

Not saying it's perfect, but don't pretend it's the equivalent of burning money.

Quote from: 1 on January 23, 2018, 11:58:54 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
How much do you think a cashier should be getting paid?

$13 per hour in a state like Arkansas, $15 for the US average, and $16 where I live (from $13 to $18 based on cost of living).

$13/hr, no sir! Try $8.50/hr.

Quote from: formulanone on January 23, 2018, 10:46:17 PM

Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2018, 09:08:39 PM

Quote from: US71 on January 23, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
So there's no money for employees, but plenty of money for corporate jets and multi-million dollar CEO bonuses (and congressional bribes).

Where? Most fast food places are run as franchise, not as multimillion dollar business.
And there are about 5 million food service workers nationwide. Adding $2 per hour, 30hrsx50 weeks = $15 billion/year
Those CEOs and representatives are relatively cheap...

And the $15,000,000,000 goes right back into the economy. I believe that fuels growth in other industries, services, taxes, and reduces the need for public assistance. They're the ones spending nearly every last dime. It doesn't go down the drain, and hardly much of it gets saved at those incredible 0.2% interest rates savings accounts are offering. And with that, it can increase credit, reduce bad debt, stabilize lending power, and increase potential home ownership. All good measures of a robust economy.

Not saying it's perfect, but don't pretend it's the equivalent of burning money.

Isn't the $15,000,000,000 already in the economy?  It's simply held by different people.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2018, 03:31:10 PM

Quote from: formulanone on January 23, 2018, 10:46:17 PM

Quote from: kalvado on January 23, 2018, 09:08:39 PM

Quote from: US71 on January 23, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
So there's no money for employees, but plenty of money for corporate jets and multi-million dollar CEO bonuses (and congressional bribes).

Where? Most fast food places are run as franchise, not as multimillion dollar business.
And there are about 5 million food service workers nationwide. Adding $2 per hour, 30hrsx50 weeks = $15 billion/year
Those CEOs and representatives are relatively cheap...

And the $15,000,000,000 goes right back into the economy. I believe that fuels growth in other industries, services, taxes, and reduces the need for public assistance. They're the ones spending nearly every last dime. It doesn't go down the drain, and hardly much of it gets saved at those incredible 0.2% interest rates savings accounts are offering. And with that, it can increase credit, reduce bad debt, stabilize lending power, and increase potential home ownership. All good measures of a robust economy.

Not saying it's perfect, but don't pretend it's the equivalent of burning money.

Isn't the $15,000,000,000 already in the economy?  It's simply held by different people.

Canceled out by $20,000,000,000,000 in debt. That doesn't even include unfunded liabilities.

Back to the roads, please.