Time to raise the gas tax

[coalesce]

When the smell of crude is gone from the Gulf.

In the meantime, those who use and provide the gasoline need to pay for the damage done feeding their addictions.

So I should be penalized more for having two jobs, both of which involve me having to commute about 150 miles every day (twice in one day two times a week at minimum—by both car and commuter train), even though my 2007 Ford Fusion gets 28.6 MPG?

Aren't the gas taxes I'm paying in filling up a minimum of twice a week enough, not to mention the tolls?

Michael

 

[leftysergeant]

No.

 

[rwguinn]

So I should be penalized more for having two jobs, both of which involve me having to commute about 150 miles every day (twice in one day two times a week at minimum—by both car and commuter train), even though my 2007 Ford Fusion gets 28.6 MPG?

Aren't the gas taxes I'm paying in filling up a minimum of twice a week enough, not to mention the tolls?

Michael

You see-
You actually have a car, which makes you a capitalist.
In Lefty's world, that means that even though you provide a reason for union workers ("the workers") to have a job, you are one who needs to be put against the wall when the revolution comes.

 

[coalesce]

No.

How else and what percentage of my salary should I pay? And who is to decide this?

Michael

 

[Cain]

So I should be penalized more for having two jobs,

The gas tax does not penalize people for having two jobs, or even three or four jobs. Once again, most gas tax proposals are accompanied by offsets in payroll taxes, which more clearly "penalize" people for working.

Aren't the gas taxes I'm paying in filling up a minimum of twice a week enough, not to mention the tolls?

Apparently not. You drive a lot, then you pay more. That's how it works: you have to pay the costs of engaging in that activity. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[rwguinn]

So I should be penalized more for having two jobs, both of which involve me having to commute about 150 miles every day (twice in one day two times a week at minimum—by both car and commuter train), even though my 2007 Ford Fusion gets 28.6 MPG?

Aren't the gas taxes I'm paying in filling up a minimum of twice a week enough, not to mention the tolls?

Michael

How else and what percentage of my salary should I pay? And who is to decide this?

Michael

Since you didn't BUILD the roads yourself, you must pay extra to use them. Only those who actually build the infrastructure are supposed to be able to use them.
Those who simply PAY for them are nothing.
Deadbeat [/Leftymode]

The gas tax does not penalize people for having two jobs, or even three or four jobs. Once again, most gas tax proposals are accompanied by offsets in payroll taxes, which more clearly "penalize" people for working.



Apparently not. You drive a lot, then you pay more. That's how it works: you have to pay the costs of engaging in that activity. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[coalesce]

The gas tax does not penalize people for having two jobs, or even three or four jobs. Once again, most gas tax proposals are accompanied by offsets in payroll taxes, which more clearly "penalize" people for working.



Apparently not. You drive a lot, then you pay more. That's how it works: you have to pay the costs of engaging in that activity. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I have no problem paying for the services I use, in this case the roads. Where did I give the impression that I didn't understand that if you use a more of a service that you should be charged more? I understand the more I use, the more I should pay—hence the point of paying more in gas taxes since I'm filling up at least twice a week and using toll bridges at least twice a week.

My questions are: who gets to decide how much more I should pay and how should else should I pay? At what point does working two jobs become a situation of diminishing returns and it doesn't pay to keep the second job, even though the first one doesn't pay enough.

Michael

 

[leftysergeant]

My questions are: who gets to decide how much more I should pay and how should else should I pay? At what point does working two jobs become a situation of diminishing returns and it doesn't pay to keep the second job, even though the first one doesn't pay enough.

If you can show that it is a neccessary business expense, it should obviously be deductible from your income tax.

The taxes currently collected just pay for upkeep of infrastrucutre. That leaves income tax to pay for the problems that petroleum products cause. Why?

 

[coalesce]

If you can show that it is a neccessary business expense, it should obviously be deductible from your income tax.

OK, that's fair.

Michael

 

[Random]

So I should be penalized more for having two jobs, both of which involve me having to commute about 150 miles every day (twice in one day two times a week at minimum—by both car and commuter train), even though my 2007 Ford Fusion gets 28.6 MPG?

Aren't the gas taxes I'm paying in filling up a minimum of twice a week enough, not to mention the tolls?

Michael

You say you drive about 150 a day and get about 28 miles to the gallon. If we round up your fuel efficiency to 30mpg to make the math easier, then we multiply it by the most expensive gas tax in the country (NY state comes in at about 60 cents per gallon for combined state, local, and federal gas taxes), we see that you are paying about three dollars a day in gas taxes.

However, last time I checked, a standard light automobile did about three to four cents worth of worth of wear and tear on a highway per mile driven. Give you the benefit of the doubt and call it three. You would be doing about $4.50 in wear and tear alone to the roadways, and paying $3.00 in taxes for road maintenance.

So basically, the US taxpayers are subsidizing you by at least $1.50 a day for having a crappy commute. And that is before you deduct the cost of gas as a business expense.

ETA: Crud. Missed the line about car and commuter rail. You don't happen to know the exact split in mileage between them do you? And what commuter rail line you take? My dad should be able to give me more specific cost estimates for mileage costs if he knows the exact type of train. He collects that information for fun. Seriously. It's kinda creepy if you think about it.

 

[coalesce]

You say you drive about 150 a day and get about 28 miles to the gallon. If we round up your fuel efficiency to 30mpg to make the math easier, then we multiply it by the most expensive gas tax in the country (NY state comes in at about 60 cents per gallon for combined state, local, and federal gas taxes), we see that you are paying about three dollars a day in gas taxes.

However, last time I checked, a standard light automobile did about three to four cents worth of worth of wear and tear on a highway per mile driven. Give you the benefit of the doubt and call it three. You would be doing about $4.50 in wear and tear alone to the roadways, and paying $3.00 in taxes for road maintenance.

So basically, the US taxpayers are subsidizing you by at least $1.50 a day for having a crappy commute. And that is before you deduct the cost of gas as a business expense.

ETA: Crud. Missed the line about car and commuter rail. You don't happen to know the exact split in mileage between them do you? And what commuter rail line you take? My dad should be able to give me more specific cost estimates for mileage costs if he knows the exact type of train. He collects that information for fun. Seriously. It's kinda creepy if you think about it.

No—fantasy football, THAT'S creepy!

Anyway, the Metro-North ride between Poughkeepsie (the last stop) and Grand Central is 73.3 miles each way twice a day, five days a week, on a diesel train. The monthly ticket is $404.00. The riving on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and two Saturdays a month is about 200 miles round trip, give or take a couple of miles (a more realistic estimate than the one I gave earlier in the day.) That's all for work and doesn't count my girlfriend, also in New York City. The fact that I love both my jobs and that I have a great car and satellite radio in the car makes all this folderol worthwhile.

Hope this information helps.

Michael

P.S.

Gas has dropped almost 20¢ in the past three weeks here—unusual given the BP spill and Memorial Day weekend being the traditional start of the summer driving season here in the states.

 

[Cain]

I have no problem paying for the services I use, in this case the roads.

You're also polluting the air, a negative externality that must be taken into account.

My questions are: who gets to decide how much more I should pay and how should else should I pay?

Well, I suppose that would depend on the study, but I'm led to believe the vast majority of economists think gas is under-priced.

The fact that I love both my jobs and that I have a great car and satellite radio in the car makes all this folderol worthwhile.

Commutes are normally lower a person's overall happiness far more than s/he would ever anticipate. If it works for you, fine, but I can't imagine putting up with such nonsense in the long-term. At least not until we get those cars that drive themselves like in Minority Report.

 

[Beerina]

You're also polluting the air, a negative externality that must be taken into account.

I'll be happy to, if you take into account the costs of regulation in the slowing of the economy.

Secondly, I have no problem with democracy deciding limits on the pollution of things like air, which cannot be limited to just one's property. But, hopefully, those are logically arrived at in a cost-benefit analysis w.r.t. actual measurements of human quality of life than just numbers pulled out of somebody's butt.


I'd rather live in stinking, industrializing London than anywhere else on the planet back then. Concern for "externalities" is a fraudulent red herring.

 

[eeyore1954]

OK, that's fair.

Michael

Travel to a second job is deductible if you itemize and if the expense is greater than 2% of your AGI.

 

[eeyore1954]

However, last time I checked, a standard light automobile did about three to four cents worth of worth of wear and tear on a highway per mile driven. Give you the benefit of the doubt and call it three. You would be doing about $4.50 in wear and tear alone to the roadways, and paying $3.00 in taxes for road maintenance.

I find that fact to be hard to believe. Could be true but it seems far to high to me considering the number of cars who travel over a one mile stretch of busy highway every day.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'll be happy to, if you take into account the costs of regulation in the slowing of the economy.

The Shrub and his idiotic cabinet tried that approach and the result is to be seen smeared on the beaches and wildlife of the Gulf of Mexico. Stupid idea. The cost of NOT regulating industries is unacceptable. NOT regulating one industry has destroyed other, more crucial industries for the rest of my life time.

Secondly, I have no problem with democracy deciding limits on the pollution of things like air, which cannot be limited to just one's property. But, hopefully, those are logically arrived at in a cost-benefit analysis w.r.t. actual measurements of human quality of life than just numbers pulled out of somebody's butt.

Do you mean that, if Big Pollution's little boo-boo kills somebody, that's okay, as long as they have properly budgeted for death benefits to his widow? Unacceptable. We have a right to demand that every precaution be taken to prevent deaths from predictable events before an industrial operation even digs the first footing for a new factory.

I'd rather live in stinking, industrializing London than anywhere else on the planet back then. Concern for "externalities" is a fraudulent red herring.

But then, you have utterly no right to expect that any of us would.

Damn the oil. The world does not run on oil. It runs on FOOD. Big Pollution has no right to gamble with that.

 

[Cain]

I'll be happy to, if you take into account the costs of regulation in the slowing of the economy.

Um, economists generally attempt to do this very thing.

Secondly, I have no problem with democracy deciding limits on the pollution of things like air, which cannot be limited to just one's property. But, hopefully, those are logically arrived at in a cost-benefit analysis w.r.t. actual measurements of human quality of life than just numbers pulled out of somebody's butt.

You may not realize it, but you're espousing two different views here.

I'd rather live in stinking, industrializing London than anywhere else on the planet back then.

And to think, rich people were so STUPID for living in their countryside manors. Stinking, industrializing London was the place to be!

Concern for "externalities" is a fraudulent red herring.

Yes indeed, not just a red herring but a fraudulent red herring. Please, put away the rhetorical caltrops and address the arguments bang on. The state has a legitimate interest in taxing gasoline; the difficult part is determining how how much it should be taxed.

 

[Puppycow]

I agree that the tax should be at least partially offset with a reduction in payroll tax. That way it would affect commuters less, Sunday drivers more. And there are even more fuel-efficient cars than a Ford Fusion.

But at some point, something should probably be done about the deficit too.

No one ever dares to straight-up raise taxes anymore.

 

[leftysergeant]

I agree that the tax should be at least partially offset with a reduction in payroll tax.

Making it deductible if it can be called a business expense would take a huge bite out of what a working-class tax payer would owe in income tax. A rich investor, not so much.

That way it would affect commuters less, Sunday drivers more. And there are even more fuel-efficient cars than a Ford Fusion.

And the roads would be safer if parents suddenly found themselves in a position where they would have to refuse to fuel up Junior's car for a Saturday night cruise down the boulevard.

But at some point, something should probably be done about the deficit too.

No one ever dares to straight-up raise taxes anymore.

Right now, doing nothing means that the Shrub's tax cuts are history. That will make a big dent in the deficit.

And the GDP will go up a bit when dentists get busy repairing teeth damaged by intense gnashing when the idle rich see the bottom line of their 1040s.

 

[Beerina]

Do you mean that, if Big Pollution's little boo-boo kills somebody, that's okay, as long as they have properly budgeted for death benefits to his widow? Unacceptable.

Nope. What I do say is that being penny wise, pound foolish works well for the cameras and pontificating politicians, but ends up with greater deaths due to, among other things, slowing development.

Remember that to a politician, a dead person in front of the camera today is worth 10 or 1000 dead, needlessly, 30 years down the road.

And I wish more people found that unacceptable.

In any case, re-read my comment. I care not about hot air but about actual measurements of longevity and quality of life. Those are the counter-intuitive, actual scientific measurements.

So I would, indeed, prefer the better path, insofar as deaths are concerned. I hope you would, too. But you need to measure it, and not just blow hot air about it.

We have a right to demand that every precaution be taken to prevent deaths from predictable events before an industrial operation even digs the first footing for a new factory.

This is patent nonsense. We do myriad things without "every precaution" being taken for predictable risks. Does the government only allow 10-ton vehicles on the road with massive crumple zones and 40mph top speed?

Does the government require every single batch of any kind of food be tested heavily for not just bacteria but every known poison?


I'll give you a good example. The government was considering forcing airlines to not allow people to carry babies on their laps (no ticket cost), and instead require that airlines force the people to buy a ticket and use a baby seat.

The increase in cost for such families would drive more than a few to drive instead of fly, thus vastly increasing the chance of death for the baby and everyone else.

And an analysis of actual US flight crashes suggested the law would only have saved 2 baby lives, and one of those (the Chicago crash) the baby flew up into a luggage compartment and survived anyway.


So here we have hellfire OUTRAGE over greed and babies and regulation.

Yet the nasty, cost-benefit analysis shows it would (did? Did it get passed?) cost many times the lives than without it. But son of a bitch! Does it ever sound awesome in front of the cameras!



So "cost-benefit analysis evil" is a lovely rhetorical meme, derivative of Ford's famous bottom line analysis deciding it was cheaper to let people die and pay them off than fix the problem. But that's not what I'm talking about.