AARoads Forum

As reported in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/mcdonnell-proposes-eliminating-virginias-gas-tax/2013/01/08/7858ba96-59c8-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

My initial reaction is "unimpressed".  Basically, Gov. McDonnell seems to be trying to raise more money for road improvements, in a way that fuzzes up the resulting net tax increases (not that anti-taxers like Grover Norquist aren't seeing through this anyway).  While I appreciate the Governor's reluctance to reach into our pockets with a visible tax increase, I would not object to an exception for a straightforward gas tax increase. 

Some specific issues:

-- While the state gas tax would go, the tax on diesel fuel would stay.  My guess is this is intended to continue tax collections from out-of-state long-haul truckers (as someone pointed out, other out-of-state travelers would be largely left off the hook, though of course the Governor would like to nick them by tolls on parts of I-95), but a side effect is unfair treatment of in-state owners of diesel passenger cars.

-- The Governor is leaning heavily on the speculative prospect of increased taxes on Internet sales, which depends on the passage of controversial Federal legislation.

I commented on it in the "Virginia" thread earlier this morning, so I'll just link my comments from there. I suppose it is worthy of its own thread, though.

I'll note that my comments there talk about the idea that the sales tax might be charged on gas purchases. I heard at least one report last night that said that's how it would work, but I've heard others that suggest otherwise, and the Governor's press release (which is itself linked in my other post below) doesn't mention that issue either way. So I have no idea how that part of it would work out.

I note how the Washington Post article also mentioned "out-of-state sales tax." In addition to charging sales tax on online orders, I believe the Commonwealth is trying to find ways to force greater compliance with the so-called "Consumer's Use Tax," which says that if you buy something out-of-state without paying tax–including if you buy a product at a store in another state without paying tax, such as going clothes shopping in Delaware where there is no sales tax–you're supposed to pay tax, in the form of the "Consumer's Use Tax," when you bring the product back to Virginia. I've always found that law a bit fishy. If you buy something in Delaware, the purchase is a matter of Delaware law between you and that state. Charging a tax when you bring it back to Virginia has always struck me as being tantamount to an import duty, which is something the US Constitution prohibits states from imposing. (Apparently, however, the US Supreme Court has held "use taxes" to be constitutional. I've never done the research to learn the details.)

Here's my post from the other thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg195836;topicseen#msg195836

Per the Governor's Spokesman, there would not be sales tax charged on gasoline purchases.

Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2013, 10:52:02 AM
Per the Governor's Spokesman, there would not be sales tax charged on gasoline purchases.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess the initial reports I heard last night made an assumption on that.

Given that clarification, I think some of the objections that out-of-staters would get a free ride have a lot more force. Consider that gas in Virginia is already cheaper than it is in Maryland and DC, but not so much cheaper that it necessarily warrants a trip across the river solely to buy gas–it really only makes sense if there's another reason for coming to Virginia. If you drop the state gas tax, suddenly gas is a LOT cheaper and it becomes more cost-effective to come to Virginia solely to buy gas. If you don't make any other transactions, you're getting a free ride.

Of course that happens under the present circumstances as well if you get someone who's driving from, say, North Carolina to New York who doesn't need to refuel in Virginia and who might not stop at all. But if you don't charge ANY state tax on gas purchases, you're essentially creating an incentive for someone to drive into Virginia, whereas in the current situation it's just a case of going that way because it's the most direct route.


Edited to add: It's funny, Tucker Martin, the Governor's spokesman, used to have seats two rows behind me at UVA football games. I thought I recognized the name and so I finally did an image search online and confirmed it's the same guy. I ought to get back in touch with him.

The Dallas paper's transportation blog has a reaction:
http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/governor-wants-to-eliminate-gas-tax-fund-roads-with-higher-sales-tax.html/

A few thoughts:

*  Trying to solve the revenue problem for transportation by eliminating the excise tax on gasoline is a bit like firefighters allowing an arsonist to bring five jerry-cans of gasoline to a five-alarm fire before they start getting out the fire hoses.

*  If Virginia's gas tax is the same as the diesel tax (17.5c/gallon), then Virginia undercharges.  Kansas, a similarly deep-red state with a fairly low cost basis for highway construction (no mountains and relatively little construction activity in densely populated areas involving high ROW costs), has a gas tax north of 20c/gallon.  Because revenues are always first applied to local/state funding splits mandated in legislation and then to maintenance, a very small 2.5c/gallon difference in the marginal tax rate corresponds to a very large difference in the capital construction budget.

*  A sales tax won't charge proportionately to use.

*  By eliminating the gas tax altogether, Virginia may run afoul of federal regulations for cost-sharing which have been drafted on the assumption that the states will rely on the motor fuel tax as the revenue mainstay of their highway networks.  (I don't get the impression that the gas tax abolition proposal has been vetted against CFR to ensure that this will not be the case.)

*  Removing the dedicated funding source for highways also removes the commitment device that ensures the revenues are, in fact, spent on highways.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 09, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
A few thoughts:

*  Trying to solve the revenue problem for transportation by eliminating the excise tax on gasoline is a bit like firefighters allowing an arsonist to bring five jerry-cans of gasoline to a five-alarm fire before they start getting out the fire hoses.

*  If Virginia's gas tax is the same as the diesel tax (17.5c/gallon), then Virginia undercharges.  Kansas, a similarly deep-red state with a fairly low cost basis for highway construction (no mountains and relatively little construction activity in densely populated areas involving high ROW costs), has a gas tax north of 20c/gallon.  Because revenues are always first applied to local/state funding splits mandated in legislation and then to maintenance, a very small 2.5c/gallon difference in the marginal tax rate corresponds to a very large difference in the capital construction budget.

*  A sales tax won't charge proportionately to use.

*  By eliminating the gas tax altogether, Virginia may run afoul of federal regulations for cost-sharing which have been drafted on the assumption that the states will rely on the motor fuel tax as the revenue mainstay of their highway networks.  (I don't get the impression that the gas tax abolition proposal has been vetted against CFR to ensure that this will not be the case.)

*  Removing the dedicated funding source for highways also removes the commitment device that ensures the revenues are, in fact, spent on highways.

First, obviously there is no perfect solution in teh sense that one special interest will be unhappy for some 'principled' reason or another.

It also pretty much admits that gasoline consumption has peaked.  More fuel efficient vehicles will obviously drive that lower.

In addition, the .8% sales tax increase will be dedicated solely to transportation funding.  As for it being used elsewhere, it really depends on how strong the legislative language is.  I'm fairly certain the NC legislature has raided their gas tax fund to fund the general budget at various points in the past decade. So it goes both ways.

The optics of this to the consumer is the key.  Gasoline is one of our most purchased items as a consumer.  17.5 cents on a 12 gallon fillup is $2.10 savings.  It's seen more by the consumer up front than the oh hey i'm just paying a penny more on the dollar.  (Yes, i know some stations may only cut costs by 15 cents and pocket the 2.5 cents.  That's their decision and I doubt any of us if we owned a gas station would not look for a way to maybe increase our profit by 1/2 a cent or 2.5 cents)

It really becomes a wash.  It's a different idea and one for discussion (the states are the experimental testing grounds for the republic).

The heart of the debate is: Would Americans rather pay a direct tax for something specific or rather see a higher general tax to pay for everything?

Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2013, 11:34:12 AM
....

In addition, the .8% sales tax increase will be dedicated solely to transportation funding.  As for it being used elsewhere, it really depends on how strong the legislative language is.  I'm fairly certain the NC legislature has raided their gas tax fund to fund the general budget at various points in the past decade. So it goes both ways.

....

Indeed Virginia has done that before. Back in 1986 during the Baliles Administration the sales tax was increased from 4% to 4.5% and the extra half-percent was dedicated to the newly-created Transportation Trust Fund. In 2002 the Trust Fund was raided, to the tune of $317 million, to help balance the budget (it's happened several other times as well). Later that year there was a referendum in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads on a half-percent increase in the sales tax that would have applied only in those regions to help fund transportation. The referendum was defeated by a large margin. One reason a lot of us voted against it was that the promise that the half-percent would be dedicated to transportation in those regions rang hollow in light of that year's events. When we asked what assurance we had of that, we were told, "The proposed law requires that." Well, so did the 1986 law establishing the Transportation Trust Fund, and in either case there's nothing stopping the General Assembly from just amending the law if they choose.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 09, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
*  Removing the dedicated funding source for highways also removes the commitment device that ensures the revenues are, in fact, spent on highways.

There isn't much of a commitment to spend highway funds on highways in many places now anyways.

Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2013, 11:34:12 AMIt also pretty much admits that gasoline consumption has peaked.  More fuel efficient vehicles will obviously drive that lower.

Both of these may be true, but these effects can be more than offset by raising the marginal gas tax rate.  We are not yet at the point where, for example, a tripling of the gas tax will alter the financial balance of advantage in favor of, say, an electric car over a 20-year service life.

QuoteIn addition, the 0.8% sales tax increase will be dedicated solely to transportation funding.  As for it being used elsewhere, it really depends on how strong the legislative language is.  I'm fairly certain the NC legislature has raided their gas tax fund to fund the general budget at various points in the past decade. So it goes both ways.

It doesn't really matter how strong the legislative language is, because one session of the legislature cannot bind future sessions of the same legislature.  That is not only a fundamental principle of representative democracy; it is also why long-term hypothecation arrangements, such as dedicating fuel tax revenue to highways or transportation in general, are done by constitutional amendment.

At a conceptual level, it is much easier to argue that a fuel tax should be dedicated to highways because it is a user fee.  With the sales tax, that argument cannot be made because the relationship to highway use is much more indirect.  What, after all, is so special about an 0.8% sales tax increment?  Why not 1.6%?  Why not 0.4% and give the public a net tax break?

QuoteThe optics of this to the consumer is the key.  Gasoline is one of our most purchased items as a consumer.  17.5 cents on a 12 gallon fillup is $2.10 savings.  It's seen more by the consumer up front than the oh hey i'm just paying a penny more on the dollar.  (Yes, I know some stations may only cut costs by 15 cents and pocket the 2.5 cents.  That's their decision and I doubt any of us if we owned a gas station would not look for a way to maybe increase our profit by 1/2 a cent or 2.5 cents)

I am unconvinced that this "discount" would, in fact, be visible to the customer at the pump.  The gasoline tax is already far less than the typical fluctuation in the per-gallon price of gasoline over the course of a year.  Given that zeroing out the gasoline tax in effect disposes of the commitment to spend its revenues on transportation, I think the ulterior purpose of the proposed measure is not to close the transportation funding deficit, but rather to make further neglect of the transportation infrastructure politically safe (at least until a major bridge collapses before VDOT can get it load-posted).

Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2013, 11:34:12 AMIt's a different idea and one for discussion (the states are the experimental testing grounds for the republic).

That's all well and good, as long as the state-level experiments do not reflect the coalescence of a consensus around bad ideas.  We have already had at least one USDOT blue-ribbon commission (under the notionally conservative Bush administration, no less) recommend a tripling of the fuel tax at both the state and federal level to meet identified funding needs.  Guess which states are experimenting with a tripling of their fuel taxes?  Yes, you got that right.  None.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:28:28 AM
I note how the Washington Post article also mentioned "out-of-state sales tax." In addition to charging sales tax on online orders, I believe the Commonwealth is trying to find ways to force greater compliance with the so-called "Consumer's Use Tax," which says that if you buy something out-of-state without paying tax–including if you buy a product at a store in another state without paying tax, such as going clothes shopping in Delaware where there is no sales tax–you're supposed to pay tax, in the form of the "Consumer's Use Tax," when you bring the product back to Virginia. I've always found that law a bit fishy. If you buy something in Delaware, the purchase is a matter of Delaware law between you and that state. Charging a tax when you bring it back to Virginia has always struck me as being tantamount to an import duty, which is something the US Constitution prohibits states from imposing. (Apparently, however, the US Supreme Court has held "use taxes" to be constitutional. I've never done the research to learn the details.)

Not sure how far we want to get into a discussion of tax policy before someone chimes in with purple text, but I'm game.

In Kentucky, sales tax is charged on any mail-order or Internet purchases made from a retailer with a physical presence ("nexus") in the state. If you order from JC Penney, you pay Kentucky sales tax because there are  JCP stores in the state. Ditto for Amazon, because there are fulfillment centers within our borders.

If you order something from an out-of-state source and no sales tax is collected, you are required to remit "use tax" to the state. A line is available on the state income tax returns for this purpose. The requirement is widely ignored, although when I worked for the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet (now called the Kentucky Department of Revenue) I threw them a bone every year on my state tax forms.

The catch is that if you physically buy something in a state that charges a sales tax lower than Kentucky's 6 percent, you are supposed to remit the difference as use tax. I'm not sure what neighboring or nearby states charge in sales tax, but say you went to a state with a 4 percent sales tax and bought a camera, you are supposed to give Kentucky the 2 percent difference.

Not surprisingly, there's no mechanism for a refund or a tax credit if you buy something in a state with a higher sales tax than Kentucky, although I recently saw an ad on television for a furniture store somewhere in the KY-TN-VA tri-state area advertising tax-free shopping to residents of the other two states.

^^ Illinois is similar in that you are supposed to remit the extra tax, but no one ever does.

Virginia as well, and the part about paying sales tax when you order online from a place with a "bricks-and-mortar" location in Virginia applies too–e.g., if I buy from the Crutchfield catalog I pay sales tax, as I do if I order from Staples. That makes sense to ensure you can't avoid tax by going to the same store's website.

But paying tax to Virginia because you bought an item tax-free in another state has always struck me as wrong (and unenforceable anyway unless they spy on stores in other states.....which, FWIW, our ABC used to do!).

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:28:28 AM
I note how the Washington Post article also mentioned "out-of-state sales tax." In addition to charging sales tax on online orders, I believe the Commonwealth is trying to find ways to force greater compliance with the so-called "Consumer's Use Tax," which says that if you buy something out-of-state without paying tax–including if you buy a product at a store in another state without paying tax, such as going clothes shopping in Delaware where there is no sales tax–you're supposed to pay tax, in the form of the "Consumer's Use Tax," when you bring the product back to Virginia. I've always found that law a bit fishy. If you buy something in Delaware, the purchase is a matter of Delaware law between you and that state. Charging a tax when you bring it back to Virginia has always struck me as being tantamount to an import duty, which is something the US Constitution prohibits states from imposing. (Apparently, however, the US Supreme Court has held "use taxes" to be constitutional. I've never done the research to learn the details.)

I have no problem with online retailers like Amazon.com and the rest of them being required to charge sales tax on items delivered to an address in a state with a sales tax.

But the idea of "use" taxes is pretty well unenforceable in many (most?) U.S. states.

Maryland currently has a 6% sales tax, higher than Virginia's 4.5% and infinitely higher than Delaware's 0% sales tax. 

For most residents of Maryland, a trip to Delaware is a relatively long journey, though I have purchased things there, from retail outlets that are not found closer to home.  But Virginia is a short trip for a large percentage of state residents, and while I don't think that people will travel that far for a measly savings of 1.5% sales tax, they might make the trip for a variety of other reasons.  I don't smoke, but cigarets are much less expensive on the south side of the Potomac River (and there are a slew of retail outlets along U.S. 301 in King George County, Va. that loudly advertise this fact to passing traffic with large signs).

And I certainly have purchased motor fuel in Virginia many times - not because there is much of a price difference, because there isn't (and filling stations in the Northern Virginia counties and cities that belong to the WMATA (Metro) Compact must collect a special 2% tax on motor fuel that helps to fund the Virginia share of WMATA transit deficits)).

I am confident that no, or very close to no, Maryland residents have ever remitted use tax.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 04:46:50 PM
But paying tax to Virginia because you bought an item tax-free in another state has always struck me as wrong (and unenforceable anyway unless they spy on stores in other states.....which, FWIW, our ABC used to do!).

Pennsylvania liquor agents have been known to spy on customers of liquor stores in Maryland just south of the border.  There was an incident some years ago where deputies from the Cecil County Sheriff's Office ended up placing one or more Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Enforcement Officers (or maybe PSP troopers) under arrest for violation of Maryland law while they were watching for Pennsylvania residents making alcohol purchases in that county.  I am not sure how the matter was resolved (I suspect that the Cecil County State's Attorney might not have been very enthusiastic about prosecuting law enforcement officers from a neighboring state).

Quote from: hbelkins on January 09, 2013, 02:19:50 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:28:28 AM
I note how the Washington Post article also mentioned "out-of-state sales tax." In addition to charging sales tax on online orders, I believe the Commonwealth is trying to find ways to force greater compliance with the so-called "Consumer's Use Tax," which says that if you buy something out-of-state without paying tax—including if you buy a product at a store in another state without paying tax, such as going clothes shopping in Delaware where there is no sales tax—you're supposed to pay tax, in the form of the "Consumer's Use Tax," when you bring the product back to Virginia. I've always found that law a bit fishy. If you buy something in Delaware, the purchase is a matter of Delaware law between you and that state. Charging a tax when you bring it back to Virginia has always struck me as being tantamount to an import duty, which is something the US Constitution prohibits states from imposing. (Apparently, however, the US Supreme Court has held "use taxes" to be constitutional. I've never done the research to learn the details.)

Not sure how far we want to get into a discussion of tax policy before someone chimes in with purple text, but I'm game.

In Kentucky, sales tax is charged on any mail-order or Internet purchases made from a retailer with a physical presence ("nexus") in the state. If you order from JC Penney, you pay Kentucky sales tax because there are  JCP stores in the state. Ditto for Amazon, because there are fulfillment centers within our borders.

If you order something from an out-of-state source and no sales tax is collected, you are required to remit "use tax" to the state. A line is available on the state income tax returns for this purpose. The requirement is widely ignored, although when I worked for the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet (now called the Kentucky Department of Revenue) I threw them a bone every year on my state tax forms.

The catch is that if you physically buy something in a state that charges a sales tax lower than Kentucky's 6 percent, you are supposed to remit the difference as use tax. I'm not sure what neighboring or nearby states charge in sales tax, but say you went to a state with a 4 percent sales tax and bought a camera, you are supposed to give Kentucky the 2 percent difference.

Not surprisingly, there's no mechanism for a refund or a tax credit if you buy something in a state with a higher sales tax than Kentucky, although I recently saw an ad on television for a furniture store somewhere in the KY-TN-VA tri-state area advertising tax-free shopping to residents of the other two states.

Seems like a whole bunch of states (including my state of CO) need to relearn the lesson of why the Personal Property Tax became so unenforceable, and why many a state decided to get rid of it.

As to this idea, maybe Gov. McDonnell should let the next governor (next year) take a whack at this.

Quote from: brad2971 on January 09, 2013, 07:03:19 PM
Seems like a whole bunch of states (including my state of CO) need to relearn the lesson of why the Personal Property Tax became so unenforceable, and why many a state decided to get rid of it.

Personal property tax (similar to the real property tax on land and buildings, only for cars, boats, etc.) has nothing to do with the sales and use taxes on online and other retail sales under discussion here.

Virginia has personal property tax, on cars among other things.  Localities have had some issues with getting 100% compliance, but enforceability wasn't high among the tax's major problems that led to its partial (and failed attempt at full) elimination for cars.

Baltimore Sun: Virginia proposal complicates Maryland's gas tax debate - McDonnell seeks to scrap commonwealth's tax on gasoline (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-virginia-gas-tax-20130109,0,4121967.story)

QuoteThe governor of Virginia has thrown a new wrinkle into a Maryland debate by calling for abolition of the commonwealth's gas tax and increasing the sales tax to pay for roads and transit — a move that would alter the competitive balance between the two states.

QuoteThis week's proposal by Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, is part of a five-year $3.1 billion plan that seeks to address that state's lack of money for transportation projects — which parallels a similar shortfall in Maryland – by shifting from a dwindling revenue source to one with the potential to grow with inflation.

QuoteThe plan, which would make Virginia the first state to scrap the gas tax entirely, would have significant implications if it were approved by the Republican-controlled legislature in Richmond. Among other things, it would create an incentive for Marylanders to gas up south of the Potomac rather than pay their home state's gas tax of 23.5 cents a gallon.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 09, 2013, 02:19:50 PM
In Kentucky, sales tax is charged on any mail-order or Internet purchases made from a retailer with a physical presence ("nexus") in the state. If you order from JC Penney, you pay Kentucky sales tax because there are  JCP stores in the state. Ditto for Amazon, because there are fulfillment centers within our borders.

New York collects sales tax on things you buy online. Connecticut, interestingly, does not. Go figure.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 05:56:41 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 04:46:50 PM
But paying tax to Virginia because you bought an item tax-free in another state has always struck me as wrong (and unenforceable anyway unless they spy on stores in other states.....which, FWIW, our ABC used to do!).

Pennsylvania liquor agents have been known to spy on customers of liquor stores in Maryland just south of the border.  There was an incident some years ago where deputies from the Cecil County Sheriff's Office ended up placing one or more Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Enforcement Officers (or maybe PSP troopers) under arrest for violation of Maryland law while they were watching for Pennsylvania residents making alcohol purchases in that county.  I am not sure how the matter was resolved (I suspect that the Cecil County State's Attorney might not have been very enthusiastic about prosecuting law enforcement officers from a neighboring state).

I heard they made them post a notice on the door of the store saying that PA police were watching.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-11-19/news/0011200300_1_liquor-store-cecil-county-maryland-stores

Quote from: MASTERNC on January 09, 2013, 09:54:05 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 05:56:41 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 04:46:50 PM
But paying tax to Virginia because you bought an item tax-free in another state has always struck me as wrong (and unenforceable anyway unless they spy on stores in other states.....which, FWIW, our ABC used to do!).

Pennsylvania liquor agents have been known to spy on customers of liquor stores in Maryland just south of the border.  There was an incident some years ago where deputies from the Cecil County Sheriff's Office ended up placing one or more Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Enforcement Officers (or maybe PSP troopers) under arrest for violation of Maryland law while they were watching for Pennsylvania residents making alcohol purchases in that county.  I am not sure how the matter was resolved (I suspect that the Cecil County State's Attorney might not have been very enthusiastic about prosecuting law enforcement officers from a neighboring state).

I heard they made them post a notice on the door of the store saying that PA police were watching.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-11-19/news/0011200300_1_liquor-store-cecil-county-maryland-stores

I remember reading that article (does not seem it was that long ago), but I have read at least one other article where Pennsylvania law enforcement officers were actually placed under arrest by Cecil County deputies.

This may not be as much of an issue any longer, as Maryland has raised its alcohol taxes since 2000 (though I don't know what the difference in price is, since I don't buy enough of the stuff to bother with comparison shopping, and besides, I don't think I have ever purchased retail alcohol in Pennsylvania, though I have had a few drinks with friends at bars in Philadelphia).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 10:14:08 PM
This may not be as much of an issue any longer, as Maryland has raised its alcohol taxes since 2000 (though I don't know what the difference in price is, since I don't buy enough of the stuff to bother with comparison shopping, and besides, I don't think I have ever purchased retail alcohol in Pennsylvania, though I have had a few drinks with friends at bars in Philadelphia).

A lot of the reason PA people buy booze in NJ is selection and better hours. A state run store simply can't compete with multi-story wine and spirits dealers commonly found in NJ that tend to be open later and 7 days a week. Looking at prices, PA's aren't really that much higher then NJ's (some liquors are even a bit cheaper). I did have to bring some alcohol to relatives in NC however, as their ABC store prices are high and selection is very limited.

Gas Tax:  Grab a map and you see what Virginia is up to.  Well positioned to grab lots of out of state customers.  Wytheville, just for one example, already does land office type crowds every day.

Trust Funds and all of that:  Every state does that.  In my state, they raid the gas tax fund all the time.  The legislature just declares something to be "transportation" and spend money on it.  The state supreme court has ruled that whatever the legislature calls transportation is transportation.

Use tax:  The use tax was supposed to be enforced only against "big people", to keep companies from buying heavy equipment and such out of state.  About 25 years ago we had a governor who, after being finally rebuffed on his 5th attempt to raise taxes decided that the "average person" bought X amount of stuff out of state and changed the tax form so you could either add the use tax on that "average amount" or itemize what you had actually spent (think of it as a standard deduction in reverse).  Vast majority of people just put down zero and he gave up.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 10:14:08 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on January 09, 2013, 09:54:05 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 05:56:41 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 04:46:50 PM
But paying tax to Virginia because you bought an item tax-free in another state has always struck me as wrong (and unenforceable anyway unless they spy on stores in other states.....which, FWIW, our ABC used to do!).

Pennsylvania liquor agents have been known to spy on customers of liquor stores in Maryland just south of the border.  There was an incident some years ago where deputies from the Cecil County Sheriff's Office ended up placing one or more Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Enforcement Officers (or maybe PSP troopers) under arrest for violation of Maryland law while they were watching for Pennsylvania residents making alcohol purchases in that county.  I am not sure how the matter was resolved (I suspect that the Cecil County State's Attorney might not have been very enthusiastic about prosecuting law enforcement officers from a neighboring state).

I heard they made them post a notice on the door of the store saying that PA police were watching.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-11-19/news/0011200300_1_liquor-store-cecil-county-maryland-stores

I remember reading that article (does not seem it was that long ago), but I have read at least one other article where Pennsylvania law enforcement officers were actually placed under arrest by Cecil County deputies.

This may not be as much of an issue any longer, as Maryland has raised its alcohol taxes since 2000 (though I don't know what the difference in price is, since I don't buy enough of the stuff to bother with comparison shopping, and besides, I don't think I have ever purchased retail alcohol in Pennsylvania, though I have had a few drinks with friends at bars in Philadelphia).

If I remember correctly they were arrested for concealed carry and other firearms violations

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 10:14:08 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on January 09, 2013, 09:54:05 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2013, 05:56:41 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 04:46:50 PM
But paying tax to Virginia because you bought an item tax-free in another state has always struck me as wrong (and unenforceable anyway unless they spy on stores in other states.....which, FWIW, our ABC used to do!).

Pennsylvania liquor agents have been known to spy on customers of liquor stores in Maryland just south of the border.  There was an incident some years ago where deputies from the Cecil County Sheriff's Office ended up placing one or more Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Enforcement Officers (or maybe PSP troopers) under arrest for violation of Maryland law while they were watching for Pennsylvania residents making alcohol purchases in that county.  I am not sure how the matter was resolved (I suspect that the Cecil County State's Attorney might not have been very enthusiastic about prosecuting law enforcement officers from a neighboring state).

I heard they made them post a notice on the door of the store saying that PA police were watching.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-11-19/news/0011200300_1_liquor-store-cecil-county-maryland-stores

I remember reading that article (does not seem it was that long ago), but I have read at least one other article where Pennsylvania law enforcement officers were actually placed under arrest by Cecil County deputies.

This may not be as much of an issue any longer, as Maryland has raised its alcohol taxes since 2000 (though I don't know what the difference in price is, since I don't buy enough of the stuff to bother with comparison shopping, and besides, I don't think I have ever purchased retail alcohol in Pennsylvania, though I have had a few drinks with friends at bars in Philadelphia).

Pennsylvania is quite unusual with its alcohol laws.  Wine, spirits, hard liquor, etc can only be purchased in state stores.  Beer can be purchased in many places for takeout, but only in small quantities...40 oz bottles, 6 packs & 12 packs for example.  There's a limit of 192 oz of beer one can purchase at any one time.  I commonly buy 18 packs here in NJ, which would be a prohibited purchase in PA.  Surprisingly, those small purchases can be made in a number of places...even Pizza Hut can sell takeout beer...but not supermarkets and gas stations for example, unless there's a separate area just for selling beer.

If you want larger quantities, such as a case, you have to go to a distribution center. 

Any border state tends to get customers from PA.  One can find plenty of PA tagged cars at liquor stores in NY, OH, MD, NJ & DE.  PA can also be fairly restrictive when liquor is available for sale, while those same border states are much less restrictive. 

Quote from: oscar on January 09, 2013, 07:17:19 PM

Quote from: brad2971 on January 09, 2013, 07:03:19 PM
Seems like a whole bunch of states (including my state of CO) need to relearn the lesson of why the Personal Property Tax became so unenforceable, and why many a state decided to get rid of it.

Personal property tax (similar to the real property tax on land and buildings, only for cars, boats, etc.) has nothing to do with the sales and use taxes on online and other retail sales under discussion here.

Virginia has personal property tax, on cars among other things.  Localities have had some issues with getting 100% compliance, but enforceability wasn't high among the tax's major problems that led to its partial (and failed attempt at full) elimination for cars.

FWIW, it was never supposed to be a 100% repeal–rather, the original plan was to repeal the tax on the first $20,000 of assessed value and the vehicle's owner would be responsible for the full tax on assessed value above that amount. In 1997, when Gilmore ran for governor on this plank, $20,000 bought a lot more car than it does now. Of course, as you correctly note, various provisions were included in the repeal law that required certain fiscal circumstances to exist in order to allow a 100% repeal on that first $20,000, and those circumstances have never been realized and therefore the tax rollback stalled at somewhere around 70%.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 10, 2013, 06:26:41 AM
Gas Tax:  Grab a map and you see what Virginia is up to.  Well positioned to grab lots of out of state customers.  Wytheville, just for one example, already does land office type crowds every day.

....

The potential problem, of course, is that out-of-staters who just buy gas wouldn't be paying anything in Virginia tax unless they buy something else. That's one reason why the idea of not imposing the sales tax on gas in lieu of the gas tax makes me scratch my head a bit. This is all assuming, of course, it makes financial sense for someone out-of-state to pop over to Virginia to buy gas. At some point you run up against the issue of the gas you burn to do that costing more than the amount you save. Some people display no sense at all in how far they drive.  I know a fellow who tries to drive down to Woodbridge to buy gas whenever possible (from my house, that's a little over 10 miles each way; from his it's closer to 20 miles each way). Aside from the fact that gas isn't as much cheaper down there as it used to be, suppose you're saving 15¢ a gallon but you then use a gallon and a half in the round-trip 40-mile drive. On a 15-gallon fillup you'd save $2.25. If you use a gallon and a half to make the drive, you're losing money (if a gallon is $3.30 in Woodbridge, you just spent $4.95 on the gas you used to "save" $2.25). Obviously if you have another reason to go down there it's a different story, and I'm not factoring in things like grocery-store gas-point discounts.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 09:49:07 AM...and I'm not factoring in things like grocery-store gas-point discounts.

Aren't those illegal in some states? A few years ago I bought gas at the Kroger in South Charleston, WV. Inserted my Kroger card and was surprised that I didn't get a 3 cent discount. I haven't paid attention to see if my Sheetz card gets me a discount at the new Sheetz locations along the I-64 corridor, and I usually stop at the Sheetz in Milton at Exit 28 on my way to or from destinations in the northeast.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2013, 09:09:23 AM
Pennsylvania is quite unusual with its alcohol laws.  Wine, spirits, hard liquor, etc can only be purchased in state stores.  Beer can be purchased in many places for takeout, but only in small quantities...40 oz bottles, 6 packs & 12 packs for example.  There's a limit of 192 oz of beer one can purchase at any one time.  I commonly buy 18 packs here in NJ, which would be a prohibited purchase in PA.  Surprisingly, those small purchases can be made in a number of places...even Pizza Hut can sell takeout beer...but not supermarkets and gas stations for example, unless there's a separate area just for selling beer.

If you want larger quantities, such as a case, you have to go to a distribution center.

Hasn't Sheetz had a long-running "conversation" with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over beer sales?

I was astounded to walk into the Walmart Supercenter out near PA 60 and US 22/30 a few years ago and find no beer for sale.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2013, 10:22:20 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 09:49:07 AM...and I'm not factoring in things like grocery-store gas-point discounts.

Aren't those illegal in some states? A few years ago I bought gas at the Kroger in South Charleston, WV. Inserted my Kroger card and was surprised that I didn't get a 3 cent discount. I haven't paid attention to see if my Sheetz card gets me a discount at the new Sheetz locations along the I-64 corridor, and I usually stop at the Sheetz in Milton at Exit 28 on my way to or from destinations in the northeast.

Beats me. When we buy groceries at Giant we get 1 point per dollar spent (except on certain items, mainly beer and wine–understandable–but also milk for some reason). 100 points gets you a 10¢-a-gallon discount at participating Shell stations. Sometimes they have special promos–the other day I had a coupon that if you spent $50 at Giant you got an extra 300 gas points, so once my grocery tab reached $40 I made sure to get $10 more of stuff I would have bought in my next grocery trip since the coupon was going to expire. Filled the tank yesterday and redeemed 500 gas points, so I got 50¢ off per gallon ($3.269 instead of $3.769 for 93 octane). That adds up....I put in just over 14 gallons, so that's a $7.00 discount. Too bad it wasn't a weekend, because then I could have had Ms1995hoo come to the gas station with me and pull her car up to the same pump at an angle so we could fill both cars on the same gas points.

But since Giant are a DC/Baltimore-area chain, the gas points don't apply at all Shell stations. Can't use them in Florida, for example. (There is a different, unrelated chain of Giant grocery stores in Pennsylvania. The Giant Center in Hershey, where the AHL's Bears play, is sponsored by the other Giant chain.)

QuoteTrust Funds and all of that:  Every state does that.

But a few also put Constitutional protection on it.  Minnesota does.  I believe Alabama does as well.

Re:  Use tax

Geez, I don't even know what the sales tax is where I live, so I'm definitely not going to keep track of what the tax is at every other location I buy things at throughout the year.

This got mentioned in my Twittersphere today:  TollRoadsNews (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6349) went into a generally negative opinion on McDonnell's plan.  And also noted that while Connaughton was all about toll roads last April, the Governor's plan this week was notably silent on new toll roads.

Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2013, 02:48:55 PM
This got mentioned in my Twittersphere today:  TollRoadsNews (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6349) went into a generally negative opinion on McDonnell's plan.  And also noted that while Connaughton was all about toll roads last April, the Governor's plan this week was notably silent on new toll roads.

Maybe because of all of the flak that was fired at McDonnell over the proposal to toll I-95 in Southside Virginia, combined with the many negative comments from Northern Virginia over the propose U.S. 460 toll road?

Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2013, 11:58:50 AM

QuoteTrust Funds and all of that:  Every state does that.

But a few also put Constitutional protection on it.  Minnesota does.  I believe Alabama does as well.

This is a point which few commenters on this thread seem to appreciate:  that raids on fuel tax revenues are not necessarily an argument against having a rule of dedicating them to highways or transportation.

In Kansas we have had fuel tax revenue diverted to the general fund as a budget-balancing measure, typically with a promise to repay the raided funds at some point in the future.  I do not know, however, if hypothecation is a constitutional provision.  At one point (1947, the date of Labatut's road-related essay collection) it was, but I don't trust the applicability of this information to present conditions because we had a major round of constitutional reform in the 1970's.

Upthread, CanesFan27 says NC has raided fuel tax revenues for general budgetary purposes, but again I don't know if NC has hypothecation in the constitution.

The question which has to be investigated, I feel, is this:  in states where hypothecation of fuel tax revenues is constitutionally protected, are there raids; if so, are raids accompanied by promises to repay the raided funds; and if so, have the funds in fact been repaid; if not, what mechanisms are available to compel repayment?

In Kansas the most recent controversy over constitutionally mandated spending has revolved around education.  The Kansas constitution requires that K-12 education be funded at an adequate level.  In the early noughties, after a round of attempts to balance the state budget by cutting per-pupil state aid, several school districts in Kansas filed suit against the state and eventually got a favorable decision from the Kansas Supreme Court.  In Kansas the Legislature does not have absolute parliamentary sovereignty, so it had to abide by the decision.  We are still dealing with the budgetary blowback, but so far no-one has suggested striking out the adequate-funding clause; instead, the fix currently being shopped is to mandate that "adequate funding" is whatever the Legislature says it is, in any given budgetary cycle.

An enterprising policy architect could suggest a constitutional "adequate funding" clause for state highways, with adequate funding being defined as that required to achieve target floors for LOS, pavement condition, bridge quality, etc. within a given period of time while maintaining network extent within certain limits by county and statewide (in other words, no "dumping" troublesome roads and bridges).

Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2013, 02:48:55 PMThis got mentioned in my Twittersphere today:  TollRoadsNews (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6349) went into a generally negative opinion on McDonnell's plan.  And also noted that while Connaughton was all about toll roads last April, the Governor's plan this week was notably silent on new toll roads.

So McDonnell's idea is a "seppuku plan"?  We should be so lucky!

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2013, 10:22:20 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 09:49:07 AM...and I'm not factoring in things like grocery-store gas-point discounts.

Aren't those illegal in some states? A few years ago I bought gas at the Kroger in South Charleston, WV. Inserted my Kroger card and was surprised that I didn't get a 3 cent discount. I haven't paid attention to see if my Sheetz card gets me a discount at the new Sheetz locations along the I-64 corridor, and I usually stop at the Sheetz in Milton at Exit 28 on my way to or from destinations in the northeast.

Beats me. When we buy groceries at Giant we get 1 point per dollar spent (except on certain items, mainly beer and wine–understandable–but also milk for some reason). 100 points gets you a 10¢-a-gallon discount at participating Shell stations. Sometimes they have special promos–the other day I had a coupon that if you spent $50 at Giant you got an extra 300 gas points, so once my grocery tab reached $40 I made sure to get $10 more of stuff I would have bought in my next grocery trip since the coupon was going to expire. Filled the tank yesterday and redeemed 500 gas points, so I got 50¢ off per gallon ($3.269 instead of $3.769 for 93 octane). That adds up....I put in just over 14 gallons, so that's a $7.00 discount. Too bad it wasn't a weekend, because then I could have had Ms1995hoo come to the gas station with me and pull her car up to the same pump at an angle so we could fill both cars on the same gas points.

A few comments:

(1) One "feature" of Maryland's ABC laws severely limits chains that want to sell alcohol in Maryland to one beer/wine license per county or independent city.   That means that there cannot be more than one Giant and one Safeway (and one Sheetz and one 7-11 and one Royal Farm and one WaWa [you get the idea]) in each county with a license to sell beer and wine (in other words, it is a scheme to protect smaller beer and wine or liquor store owners).  It also meant that in order to get a second TGI Friday's in Montgomery County (off of U.S. 29), we literally had to lobby the General Assembly to write an exception into those state ABC laws, which we did - one anti-ICC Delegate was not so pleased when I testified in favor of the proposed amendment, though it passed anyway (this was some years ago, before ICC construction had started).

(2) The Giant discount at Shell stations (and the [rare] Giant Food gas stations) is a nice feature.  I can only name two Giant Food gas stations in Maryland - one on the northbound side of Md. 650 (New Hampshire Avenue) - across the road from a shopping center with a Giant, about 2 miles south of Md. 200 (ICC) - and one in Lusby, Maryland, in far southern Calvert County off of Md. Route 2-4.  I know there are others, but those are the only ones I have seen.  It's nice to be able to get 40¢ or more off of 25 to 30 gallons of Diesel fuel - this past week, I got almost $14 off at a Shell station.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 10:52:36 AM
But since Giant are a DC/Baltimore-area chain, the gas points don't apply at all Shell stations. Can't use them in Florida, for example. (There is a different, unrelated chain of Giant grocery stores in Pennsylvania. The Giant Center in Hershey, where the AHL's Bears play, is sponsored by the other Giant chain.)

Actually, I believe that Giant (a/k/a Giant Eagle) chain in Pennsylvania is also owned by Royal Ahold, but the cents-off cards issued by the Md./Va./D.C./Del. Giant chain does not work at the ones in Penn's Woods.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2013, 08:10:58 PM
Actually, I believe that Giant (a/k/a Giant Eagle) chain in Pennsylvania is also owned by Royal Ahold, but the cents-off cards issued by the Md./Va./D.C./Del. Giant chain does not work at the ones in Penn's Woods.

The Giant chain in the D.C. area is run as part of the Boston-based Stop & Shop chain, which uses the same logo.  My Giant loyalty card was accepted at the Stop & Shop in Plymouth MA, and I think I even earned gas points on that transaction (but I don't know if my Giant gas points could be used in Stop & Shop territory). 

Royal Ahold has other grocery chains, but they aren't as integrated with the flagship Stop & Shop operation as Giant in D.C., and I never was able to used my Giant loyalty card at those other stores.

BTW, one fantasy I have is being able to replace all the loyalty cards in my wallet with a single "disloyalty" card, granting discounts to the most price-sensitive customers willing to jump from one store to another depending on price. 

QuoteMy Giant loyalty card was accepted at the Stop & Shop in Plymouth MA, and I think I even earned gas points on that transaction (but I don't know if my Giant gas points could be used in Stop & Shop territory).

I think if Stop & Shop took your loyalty card they'd probably honor your gas points too, at least at one of the Stop & Shop gas locations, which there are more and more of scattered around the state (though the only one I can locate off the top of my head is along US 1 southbound in Danvers).


It surprises me that Shell gives Giant gas discounts though, considering that when I lived in Virginia, they honored Kroger gas discounts, and IIRC there are Krogers in the DC area as well, so it strikes me as odd that one gas station would accept gas discounts from multiple stores.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 10, 2013, 11:56:25 PM
It surprises me that Shell gives Giant gas discounts though, considering that when I lived in Virginia, they honored Kroger gas discounts, and IIRC there are Krogers in the DC area as well, so it strikes me as odd that one gas station would accept gas discounts from multiple stores.

I am not aware of even one Kroger story within 100 miles of the U.S. Capitol dome in any direction.  Closest one to D.C. I have ever seen is on U.S. 301 north of I-295 in Mechanicsville, Va.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2013, 10:22:20 AM

Aren't those illegal in some states? A few years ago I bought gas at the Kroger in South Charleston, WV. Inserted my Kroger card and was surprised that I didn't get a 3 cent discount.

Hasn't Sheetz had a long-running "conversation" with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over beer sales?

I was astounded to walk into the Walmart Supercenter out near PA 60 and US 22/30 a few years ago and find no beer for sale.

Kroger - Kroger breaks itself up into about 20 "Kroger Marketing Areas".  More or less the same thing as which central warehouse they are filled out of.  Each might as well be a totally different company.   Your central Kentucky card would go back to Cincinnati, the South Charleston station is tied to Roanoke.  BTW, this also determines (and some guys say this is why they do it this way) the union status of the stores, as the government treats each as a seperate business and some areas have a union-free majority and keep it out, while the company as a whole would not do so.

Pennsylvania beer - State do things, and can under the 21st Amendment, with alcohol that would otherwise be totally illegal.  Pennsylvania's alcohol laws are crazy, but a lot of states, like the Maryland example cited above, have goofy deals that, really serve to protect vested interests more than control alcohol, such as limits on the number of liscensees per area.  IIRC, New Jersey does this, Maryland, Kansas, lots of places.  No legal way a state could do that with any other product (there are only 3 gas stations allowed per county, etc) because of the Equal Protection Clause, but they can regulate alcohol any way they want.  People think that strict alcohol regulation is a Southern thing, but really you see complex regulatory schemes all over, while many southern states, while they have the "local option" (voters have to approve alcohol sales in the first place) then operate on a "shall issue" basis (everybody who qualifies can have a permit, no numerical limits).

Here in WV, liquor by the drink and beer and wine by the drink and at retail all operate on a "shall issue" basis.  Anybody who qualifies can get a liscense.  Liquor retail is a complex limited thing.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2013, 09:49:07 AM
The potential problem, of course, is that out-of-staters who just buy gas wouldn't be paying anything in Virginia tax unless they buy something else.

Correct at the margin.  But then you have to figure in the other taxes the business pays, (franchise taxes, B&O taxes, gross receipts taxes, permits, liscenses, corporate income tax, etc) and the taxes paid by the employees (income tax, perhaps even a move from unemployment (tax burden) to employment (taxpayer) , etc) and then the "rollover" effect of those wages and profits, respent in the local economy.

And while driving too far just to save a few pennies is not a wise economic decision, you have to consider, first, the effect of pass through traffic.  On any trip, my standard practice is to always plan is to always take advantage of gas price differences among the states.  For example, if I was to drive to Florida, I would fill up in Virginia, then try to make it through NC without doing so, then fill up in SC twice, and then on the Georgia side of the GA/FL line.

Looking at Virginia, first you have a lot of "pass through" traffic with a number of very busy roads, including I-95.  Then you have the DC metro area.  How much % of the DC metro population is in Virginia?  Maybe 30%?  Can't be much more than that.  So you would have, at the margin, to provide services, including roads, to only 30% of the population, but would be selling 80 or 90% of the gasoline, as everyone actually in DC or who actually works in DC, and very many people living and working in Maryland, could buy in Virginia with only a few minutes of detour, or none at all.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2013, 01:46:44 AM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 10, 2013, 11:56:25 PM
It surprises me that Shell gives Giant gas discounts though, considering that when I lived in Virginia, they honored Kroger gas discounts, and IIRC there are Krogers in the DC area as well, so it strikes me as odd that one gas station would accept gas discounts from multiple stores.

I am not aware of even one Kroger story within 100 miles of the U.S. Capitol dome in any direction.  Closest one to D.C. I have ever seen is on U.S. 301 north of I-295 in Mechanicsville, Va.

Yeah, no Kroger in the DC area. Not disagreeing there may be a closer one in Mechanicsville, but the closest ones I know of are in the Charlottesville area. The two newest chains to move into the DC area are Wegmans and Harris Teeter. I prefer both of them to Giant, but the gas points add up too quickly to ignore (especially with two cars that require super) and until 2014 Wegmans is too inconvenient. In 2014 a new one is opening near our neighborhood.

I posted a link to a Baltimore Sun editorial about transportation funding in the Maryland thread. Since it prominently mentions what has been proposed in Virginia, I am posting a pointer to it here (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-gas-tax-20130109,0,1760302.story).

The point that underlies that Baltimore Sun piece is that they give McDonnell credit for suggesting something that should spark debate on the issue, regardless of whether they agree with his proposals. I think that's the most important point of all. Regardless of whether his plan passes, I think it's hard to dispute that there is a fundamental problem with the current transportation funding mechanism and that it's not susceptible to easy, sound-bite answers. The general public seems no longer to have the patience for issues that require serious thought and drawn-out debate, but I hope the General Assembly members (in both states!) are able to overcome the public's lack of interest.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2013, 10:18:30 AM
The point that underlies that Baltimore Sun piece is that they give McDonnell credit for suggesting something that should spark debate on the issue, regardless of whether they agree with his proposals. I think that's the most important point of all. Regardless of whether his plan passes, I think it's hard to dispute that there is a fundamental problem with the current transportation funding mechanism and that it's not susceptible to easy, sound-bite answers. The general public seems no longer to have the patience for issues that require serious thought and drawn-out debate, but I hope the General Assembly members (in both states!) are able to overcome the public's lack of interest.

Agreed.  I don't think McDonnell's plan is sound at all, especially given the huge funding gap that needs to be dealt with in Virginia (and his (in hindsight) very dishonest campaign commercials touting the huge amount of transportation funding to be had painlessly by selling the Virginia ABC stores, something that his friends in the Virginia General Assembly were not the least bit interested in).

And I don't like the cowardly little plan to toll a short section of I-95 in Southside Virginia, which has the lowest AADTs along all of Virginia's portion of the route.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 11, 2013, 06:29:00 AM
Pennsylvania beer - State do things, and can under the 21st Amendment, with alcohol that would otherwise be totally illegal.  Pennsylvania's alcohol laws are crazy, but a lot of states, like the Maryland example cited above, have goofy deals that, really serve to protect vested interests more than control alcohol, such as limits on the number of liscensees per area.  IIRC, New Jersey does this, Maryland, Kansas, lots of places.  No legal way a state could do that with any other product (there are only 3 gas stations allowed per county, etc) because of the Equal Protection Clause, but they can regulate alcohol any way they want.  People think that strict alcohol regulation is a Southern thing, but really you see complex regulatory schemes all over, while many southern states, while they have the "local option" (voters have to approve alcohol sales in the first place) then operate on a "shall issue" basis (everybody who qualifies can have a permit, no numerical limits).

indeed, lots of states do silly things with alcohol.  try getting beer of greater than 3.2% ABV in Utah, for example.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 11, 2013, 06:29:00 AMPeople think that strict alcohol regulation is a Southern thing, but really you see complex regulatory schemes all over, while many southern states, while they have the "local option" (voters have to approve alcohol sales in the first place) then operate on a "shall issue" basis (everybody who qualifies can have a permit, no numerical limits).

Here in WV, liquor by the drink and beer and wine by the drink and at retail all operate on a "shall issue" basis.  Anybody who qualifies can get a liscense.  Liquor retail is a complex limited thing.

Kentucky is a local option state. A few cities and counties around here are holding elections in the next little bit.

The number of licenses granted here is generally based on the population of the city or county.

QuoteActually, I believe that Giant (a/k/a Giant Eagle) chain in Pennsylvania is also owned by Royal Ahold, but the cents-off cards issued by the Md./Va./D.C./Del. Giant chain does not work at the ones in Penn's Woods.

Giant Eagle is an entirely different company than Giant.

Washington Post op-ed: Bob McDonnell's Virginia road tax evasions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/bob-mcdonnells-virginia-road-tax-evasions/2013/01/12/8c84355a-5c6a-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_story.html)

QuoteVirginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's new transportation plan has one great merit: It gives him and his Republican allies in the state legislature a sliver of political cover to support a major, necessary tax increase while insisting they're doing no such thing.

QuoteAdmittedly, it's the tiniest of fig leaves. McDonnell is employing multiple evasions to maintain that the scheme isn't an overall tax hike.

QuoteThe governor wants Virginians to overlook the fact that the plan would add nearly $2.4 billion to sales taxes and vehicle fees they'll pay over the next five years. (He also would divert $800 million of existing revenue, for a total of nearly $3.2 billion for roads and transit.)

Quote from: Sykotyk on January 12, 2013, 10:58:56 PM

QuoteActually, I believe that Giant (a/k/a Giant Eagle) chain in Pennsylvania is also owned by Royal Ahold, but the cents-off cards issued by the Md./Va./D.C./Del. Giant chain does not work at the ones in Penn's Woods.

Giant Eagle is an entirely different company than Giant.

Giant Eagle is completely unrelated to Giant (Royal Ahold).  There are two different Giant's owned by Royal Ahold - Giant of Landover, MD and Giant of Carlisle, PA.

Quote from: Bitmapped on January 13, 2013, 11:18:27 AM

Quote from: Sykotyk on January 12, 2013, 10:58:56 PM

QuoteActually, I believe that Giant (a/k/a Giant Eagle) chain in Pennsylvania is also owned by Royal Ahold, but the cents-off cards issued by the Md./Va./D.C./Del. Giant chain does not work at the ones in Penn's Woods.

Giant Eagle is an entirely different company than Giant.

Giant Eagle is completely unrelated to Giant (Royal Ahold).  There are two different Giant's owned by Royal Ahold - Giant of Landover, MD and Giant of Carlisle, PA.

Thank you for pointing that out.  Funny that Giant of Landover (Royal Ahold) has sold one or more of its stores in Maryland to the Giant of Carlisle.

Tax plans increases need to be sold...hence why nothing gets done in congress.  At least he's trying to get something to actually pass. 

On another note, I have to think sales taxes are a lot more volatile in an economic downturn than gas taxes, so I'm not sure this is a great idea for consistent road funding.  That said, consumption is 70 percent of the economy so it strikes me as an opportune place to start if you are looking for tax revs.

It's interesting how states try to get wealth transfers from each other with tax policy...I view that competition as something that keeps taxes lower for us all, but it definitely creates a few market distortions and furthers the nonsense that somehow a growing state like Virginia can get away with funding a large portion of it's infrastructure plans by taxing drivers from the northeast cities or Canada on their way to the sunshine in FLA.  If they want to do that why don't they put toll barriers all around the border and have heavy discounts (80 percent) for those that use them say more than 10 times per month?  That would largely exempt most locals and commuters and nail those passing through.  Just some thoughts.

And it turns out Giant of Carlisle sponsors the Giant Center arena in Hershey–so cpzilliacus was correct that they're affiliated, he just cited the wrong corporate entity. But who can blame someone for confusion in this scenario?

Snyder's of Berlin vs. Snyder's of Hanover, anyone?

Or Hershey's ice cream vs. Hershey's chocolate, perhaps?

Quote from: mc78andrew on January 13, 2013, 10:06:03 PM
Tax plans increases need to be sold...hence why nothing gets done in congress.  At least he's trying to get something to actually pass.

That's correct.  And in Virginia, while many in the Republican Party in Richmond love to bash the federal government (a lot of it got started with ex-Sen. George Felix Allen in the 1990's), there is no state in the union that is more dependent on federal payments than Virginia.

Quote from: mc78andrew on January 13, 2013, 10:06:03 PM
On another note, I have to think sales taxes are a lot more volatile in an economic downturn than gas taxes, so I'm not sure this is a great idea for consistent road funding.  That said, consumption is 70 percent of the economy so it strikes me as an opportune place to start if you are looking for tax revs.

My personal  preference is for motor fuel taxes, combined when appropriate with tolling (especially for new capacity).  Motor fuel taxes are cheap to collect, as are electronic tolls (cash toll collection is much more expensive).

I am not especially enthused about using sales taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure for reasons such as the ones cited by you above.

Quote from: mc78andrew on January 13, 2013, 10:06:03 PM
It's interesting how states try to get wealth transfers from each other with tax policy...I view that competition as something that keeps taxes lower for us all, but it definitely creates a few market distortions and furthers the nonsense that somehow a growing state like Virginia can get away with funding a large portion of it's infrastructure plans by taxing drivers from the northeast cities or Canada on their way to the sunshine in FLA.  If they want to do that why don't they put toll barriers all around the border and have heavy discounts (80 percent) for those that use them say more than 10 times per month?  That would largely exempt most locals and commuters and nail those passing through.  Just some thoughts.

Agreed.  Though Virginia is small enough that it is possible for many drivers to cross all the way from Maryland to North Carolina without stopping for fuel on roads like I-95, I-81, U.S. 17, U.S. 301 and U.S. 522.  It is only about 180 miles on I-95 from Northampton County, North Carolina to Prince George's County, Maryland.  Even driving I-81 from Bristol, Tenn./Va. to Inwood, W.Va. is about 330 miles, a distance my pickup truck can easily handle without a fuel stop.

But trucks over 26,000 pounds have to pay "fuel tax" or "road use tax" based on miles driven in each state regardless of where they actually fill the tank (and it is interesting to note that McDonnell is not proposing to abolish Virginia's tax on Diesel fuel).