Senate bill would nearly double the gas tax

[Panich52]

The Hill

Senate bill would nearly double the gas tax
By Keith Laing

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) is introducing legislation that would nearly double the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax to help pay for road and transit projects around the nation.

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/250411-senate-bill-would-nearly-double-the-gas-tax

[onecaliberal]

1. While the rest of the country is paying

2 something per gallon California, is paying almost 3.50 a gallon. We already have a huge gas tax

[Agschmid]

2. Here play with this...

If you think your gas is expensive!

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/gas-prices/

[onecaliberal]

3. I get that, but it pays for different things

To help their people. It does nothing here. Some of the tax in California is a carbon tax, which I voted for and agree with.

[Agschmid]

4. It does do something here...

It just isn't enough and probably actually isn't correctly allocated. I'd be happy to pay more, I think it's ridiculous that it cheaper for me to drive 38 miles each way to work, pay to park, and sit in traffic for 1.5-2.5 hours each way then take mass transit.

[onecaliberal]

5. Poor people who don't have mass transit cannot

Be punished further because poor leaders in their state fail to build infrastructure. It's great that you're willing to pay more. A lot of people can't even buy food now despite the fact they work full time, let alone pay much more to get to that job.

[JayhawkSD]

6. I think it's an excellent idea.

It pays for much needed infrastructure, and it reduces emission of carbon into the atmosphere.

You say it hurts poor people? I agree, but we all have to contribute to saving the planet. People should not be allowed to kill the planet just because they are poor. We need to assist poor people, but not by helping them destroy the planet.

[Panich52]

9. Some inctease on this user-tax ok, but double? and cuz McConnell thinks reparations are

so wholly a separate tax issue? Sounds more like kissing up to corporations. GOP doesn't have qualms about intoducing unrelated things in bills.

Another factor in the gas tax strain on low-income is that Repubs fight against public transportation expansion/improvement. I suspect the subject didn't even come up in discussions.

[JayhawkSD]

12. Sounds like a good opportunity to bash Republicans.

Not a bad thing I guess, but what does Republican attitude about public transportation and reparations have to do with with legislation that taxes gas for the express purpose of funding highways?

This is the pronblem with extreme partisanship. The discussion of any topic is abandonded in favor of attacking the other party. We are no longer talking about a gas tax and its effect on highway construction and carbon emissions, we are simply talking about how bad the Republicans are. We no longer discuss issues, we simply use talking points to bash the other party.

[Make7]

7. Why isn't this adjusted annually (or semi-annually) for inflation?

When was the last time this was even increased? The early 90's? How much was a gallon of gas then?

[Igel]

8. Because then the CPI becomes more politicized.

The assumption is that the CPI is what it is. It's external, independent, and stable. Therefore it's an unbiased way of doing things like adjusting Social Security.

As soon as it's used to adjust Social Security, then there's an interest in making sure the CPI serves the interest of those who are involved in Social Security. "I need a bigger increase, but the CPI is 0.1%? That's not fair!" Or, "The SS Trust fund will run out in '35, if we do something to reduce the CPI then it'll last longer. We must do something to reduce the CPI."

The more that rides on the CPI, the worst the desire to manipulate the CPI will get.

It's like Congress. We've had lobbyists besieging Congress for nearly 200 years. But that's only a small part of the picture. They were often sent for specific purposes, for limited times, and weren't numerous or important. They'd show up, do their jobs, and go home. Or a firm would have a lot of short-term, small customers. It was with the increase of Congress' importance in handing out a lot of money, managing the rules that businesses live by, extending its influence that we saw a big upsurge in lobbyists. The stakes were higher, both in getting larger contracts and controlling the regulations that you (and your competition) had to work under. All kinds of things that hadn't been political were suddenly political. And subject to Congressional manipulation and corruption. If there's more power to buy, there'll be more people in the market for buying power.

[JayhawkSD]

13. Not to mention for miles per gallon.

Because it is a per gallon tax, as car mileage has imcreased less gas is used even as wear and tear on the highways has increased. So more money is needed, but less is collected because less gas is used even for more traffic.

[Taitertots]

10. Oh great, more regressive taxes.

Just another convenient excuse to shift the tax burden onto the 99.9%.

[kelliekat44]

11. It's ok by me. Prices go up and down all the time and only the oil companies win. At least the

taxpayer would be getting something back. At $43 a barrel now, the tax would not even be noticed if the pump prices were in line with the barrel price now.

[JayhawkSD]

14. Oil companies do not win with an increased casoline tax.

That money goes directly to the federal government. It actually hurts oil companies, because by raising gasoline prices it tends to reduce sales.

When we aren't bashing the other party we are bashing big corporations. Let's not discuss issues, let's just be the party of hate.