I am not a big fan of the gasoline tax. It oppresses the working poor. We should fund roads from sales taxes, income taxes, and property taxes, just like we do schools, libraries, and parks. Why should we treat roads any differently?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 17, 2000

Answers

to Craig & Zowie: I don't know why you think this is better, but, from on, everytime I want to argue Craig's inane comments (like "Hitler was no Hitler"), I'll post a separate thread. Seems like a waste of resources to me.

There's no point in arguing anything Zowie says, since he's just out for laughs. Which, by the way, I thoroughly enjoy.

If anyone else would prefer that I start a separate thread as means of responding to their thread, feel free to e-mail me your request, or casually mention it in your post.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 17, 2000.

"I want to argue Craig's inane comments (like "Hitler was no Hitler"), "

I'd appreciate you citing the thread and day that I posted such a comment, Matt.

Craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 17, 2000.

The gasoline tax is the closest thing to a 'user fee'. However, the question is, usage of what? Does it represent all the aspects of 'using' roads?

It does reflect the inefficient use of resources. A larger, less economical vehicle pays more. What is the appropriate use of that tax, then? Road repair from excessively heavy vehicles? Do trucks and buses pay enough in fuel tax to offset the damage? Maybe an MVET base on the loaded weight of those vehicles would be more appropriate. Should the gas tax be used for capacity improvements? If I do not drive during congested hours, should I fund improvements for those who chose to? When I spend most of my driving time on local roads, how do I benefit from the portion of my gas tax that is returned to my city, when it is used for capacity improvements on a local arterial that it has been shown is merely a through route for long distance commuters? I agree Matt, but I also think that sales taxes need a lid, and that local property taxes should be used to deal with road building. In that respect, two municipalities could increase their local taxes to pay for an agreed upon 'service' between them, be that either road capacity improvements, more transit, whatever they see fit. Maybe sales tax increases should be allowed for short term financing of projects that could be considered 'extra', such as for parks, or local beautification projects. They could also have a time limit set on them, say 2 years. Basic services and infrastructure improvements should be funded via a more stable source, such as property taxes or income taxes.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), May 17, 2000.

to Jim: You write "...but I also think that sales taxes need a lid, and that local property taxes should be used to deal with road building."

I prefer to see any tax increases approved by the voters. By eliminating the excise tax on gasoline, we will spur economic activity, thus resulting in an increase in the collection of sales taxes. If eliminating the excise tax results in too large a hole in the budget, then a fair compromise might be to subject gasoline to some type of sales tax. The sales tax would be less than the excise, and it could be designed to fade out over time, so the budget planners have time to react. Or, just have the excise tax fade out over time.

It just seems cruel, to me, to impose a significant excise tax on the working poor.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 18, 2000.

"It just seems cruel, to me, to impose a significant excise tax on the working poor. " Could you define "working poor" in economic terms, and indicate what total government (State, Federal, FICA, Medicare, property tax, etc., you believe would be acceptable at what income or wealth brackets?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 18, 2000.

to Craig: I would define the working poor to be the families in the bottom quartile of joint tax return filers. I haven't researched the dollar amount, but I would guess that the 25 percentile mark is somewhere in the 30 - 40 K range. So, a family earning less than that is a good candidate for the label of "working poor". And, by "working", I mean they're not permanently on welfare. I have little respect for those who are able to work, but refuse to do so, year after year.

In any case, the gas tax has other negative implications besides being a cruel burden on the working poor. Over the years, I have perceived a strong correlation between declining gas prices and rising consumer confidence. So, by cutting the gas tax, society would actually rake in significantly higher income and sales tax revenues. Of course, I've already previously lectured you on the deleterious effect rising gasoline prices have on the stock market. Obviously, then, declining stock prices weaken consumer confidence, even further.

The common man has essentially an irrational affection for lower gasoline prices. Even though a drop of 20 - 30 cents may only translate to no more than a savings of $1 a day to the average family, their condfidence skyrockets a disproportional amount.

I've heard over and over, again, how consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of our economy. Therefore, it is in everyone's best interest to find low-cost ways to spur consumer confidence. So, for the low cost of $1 per day per household, we can significantly boost the revenues and profitability of businesses everywhere. Business that invest in equipment. Business that invest in R&D. Business that invest in new construction. The dividends are seemingly endless.

All this by eliminating the gasoline excise tax. And society won't raise less money, it'll raise more money!!!

Yet, you would cling to the mantra that the users of a service should pay for the service. A philosophy which does not apply to schools, parks, libraries, the military, etc.

Look, I'm willing to support an experiment whereby we open up the HOV lanes for a month or two, so we have data to make an informed decision. Why don't you support eliminating the gasoline excise tax for a year or two, and see what effects it has on the health of the economy?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.

"Yet, you would cling to the mantra that the users of a service should pay for the service. A philosophy which does not apply to schools, parks, libraries, the military, etc."

Huh? users of The military? Care to explain that one Comrade Mattinsky? Are you trying to say that the military does not serve everyone within the borders of this country, regardless of their taxpaying status?

-- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

to Marsha: The military (including the National Guard) defends people's assets from attack by rogue and lawless groups. However, we do not charge people a fee based on the amount of their assets. Why not? If you believe a user should pay a fee for a service, then owners of property and wealth should have to pay a fee for the protection they are receiving.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.

Comrade Mattinsky,

At no time during my husband's 20 year career was he instructed to defend peoples assets.

Poor Comrade mattinsky. Not only are you afflicted with narcissism, you seem to have a severe case of envy of the wealthy. Sad, very sad.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.