It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump urges GOP to consider a 25-cent hike in the gas tax

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: DBCowboy

Isn't fixing the roads a STATE issue?
I know my governor sure thinks it is!!!!!



If FHWA is involved in a roadway project in any way (US routes, Interstates, federal safety grants, etc) then it is funded via a "cost sharing" model. Most cost share projects are 80-90% federal money with the state required to pitch in 10-20% in "matching funds." If the project is to increase capacity and it is shown that interstate traffic is utilizing the route or if it meets federal Safety Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) requirements, then it receives federal funds and federal oversight/plan review and approval.




posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Do you know how federal highway money is returned to states?
I had heard it is not returned in the same percentage to all states...

ETA I did find info on the internet, but it seems to me it is not distributed fairly....some states, like mine, give way more than they receive back

edit on Sun Apr 7 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

It is definitely not an even process year to year, however the bigger picture does balance it out a bit. Smaller states, and younger states either don't have the tax base to support the federal requirements or missed out on the huge infrastructure booms of the post-war period, particularly rural western states.

The FHWA and AASHTO set federal requirements for pretty much all roadways unless it can be demonstrated that zero federal dollars are used on the facility in question (which basically culls it down to unpaved rural roads and small local streets... literally everyting else falls under some degree of federal authority.) Then there is stuff that impacts all of it, like ADA requirements and drainage water treatment and handling rules, which change frequently. The feds realize they'd create a nightmare for smaller jurisdictions if they said "you have to include sidewalks on this project and you must incorporate drainage swales and stilling facilities on this project" without throwing federal money at the jurisdiction to cover the cost of the new regulatory policies. In some cases, like Alaska boroughs, the mitigation costs to follow federal requirements exceed the cost of the road by itself. Larger states have more frequent rehabilitation and improvement cycles on their facilities, so they tend to have a lot fewer "new" regulations to comply with, plus they have more project funding options available to them (toll roads and Public Private Partnerships, for example... smaller western states simply don't have the revenue stream to support PPPs and too little population to support a toll road network.)

I'll be real blunt, politicians screwed up the national highway trust fund horribly when they used gas tax revenue to fun non-highway gas tax generating projects. Particularly under Obama, the trust fund was misused and we're suffering from it now. Pedestrian, alternative transportation, light rail, etc don't produce gas tax revenue, so those projects NEVER should have been funded from the trust, but funded they were... hell, that admin even used some of the trust money to tie together alternative energy projects, all of which were a total waste of money. Combine that with the shoot oneself in one's own foot federal infatuation with high gas mileage and electric cars, and the fund is in deep trouble. I don't agree with a higher tax, but I understand it may come down to that. In reality, we should actually enact a direct tax on high efficiency and electric cars, maybe even on bicycles. They all use the facilities, and they all take a wear and tear on them, so they should be ponying up for the funding same as those of us driving SUVs have to do.



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Ya know what?

Go for it, both the MI and national hikes. Under one condition.

Balance it out by capping & reducing auto insurance premiums by a fifth. Just a fifth is all it would take.

I've already crunched numbers because we put premium in our car. Yeah, it can get a little ouchy, we just dumped $60 in the tank at Costco this weekend. Car doesn't knock anymore, though, well worth it.

Anyway, a reduction of a fifth in premiums would take care of a combined tax hike for us, and still save us a smidge on the premium afterward. It'd be real close to a literal draw on annual expenses, but it's an amicable draw negating the hike.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
See what happens with these. Worried about the cost of one. Not fond of the 25 cent gas tax. Our governor is working on his own gas tax hike. Go, team!!
www.cnbc.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Raise taxes on all of us, just after giving the wealthy and corporations a giant tax cut? How about we reverse the tax cut on the rich and corporate subsidies and put that to infrastructure!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No thanks. Once in a while he gets these crazy ideas. Luckily he usually comes to his senses pretty quick. HOWEVER, to compare a 25 cent gas tax with handing the government over to the Marxists is ridiculous. I would vehemently oppose the tax increase, I would still vote trump in 2020. Why? Because no one is going to do 100% of what I want them to and trump has accomplished far more, for the good of the US, than any candidate from either major party in 30 years.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   
The only thing he should raise a tax on is that one members idea in their signature of a 1% tax on wall street. Take advantage of record low commodity prices to stock up ongold and silver bullion today!



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's a Red Herring to get Democrats all stirred up 😎
You have a very good point. I can’t believe he would really destroy the economy he just boosted(and his supporters trust as well myself included).



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
The only thing he should raise a tax on is that one members idea in their signature of a 1% tax on wall street. Take advantage of record low commodity prices to stock up ongold and silver bullion today!
No definitely not! That is just the socialist agenda. Richard Trumpka floated that when he was seen paling around with European socialists. Occupy also called for it. Just Marxist redistribution scheme and everyone’s 401k would suffer. The little guy would get hurt the most. Why should teachers and govt employees get a tax subsidized pension while the private sector would be subject to penalties like that.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
Ya know what?

Go for it, both the MI and national hikes. Under one condition.

Balance it out by capping & reducing auto insurance premiums by a fifth. Just a fifth is all it would take.

I've already crunched numbers because we put premium in our car. Yeah, it can get a little ouchy, we just dumped $60 in the tank at Costco this weekend. Car doesn't knock anymore, though, well worth it.

Anyway, a reduction of a fifth in premiums would take care of a combined tax hike for us, and still save us a smidge on the premium afterward. It'd be real close to a literal draw on annual expenses, but it's an amicable draw negating the hike.
Insurance premiums and gas tax are two different things. As of yet, I don’t think the government is allowed to run the auto insurance business.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's a Red Herring to get Democrats all stirred up 😎


This is the most likely explanation.


Good god, we hear this about every lie, exaggeration and screw up El Presidente makes. It gets old. Turn the tables and you would not be saying the same thing about Obama.

Was the "You can keep your doctor" line just a ruse by Obama to stir up the right wing?

Dumb,



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Nyiah
Ya know what?

Go for it, both the MI and national hikes. Under one condition.

Balance it out by capping & reducing auto insurance premiums by a fifth. Just a fifth is all it would take.

I've already crunched numbers because we put premium in our car. Yeah, it can get a little ouchy, we just dumped $60 in the tank at Costco this weekend. Car doesn't knock anymore, though, well worth it.

Anyway, a reduction of a fifth in premiums would take care of a combined tax hike for us, and still save us a smidge on the premium afterward. It'd be real close to a literal draw on annual expenses, but it's an amicable draw negating the hike.
Insurance premiums and gas tax are two different things. As of yet, I don’t think the government is allowed to run the auto insurance business.


Hence that condition is a pipe dream and never going to happen anyway without some legal changes. In a perfect world, balancing the scales out would make a lot of things easier to swallow & pay for, wouldn't it? It'll never happen until people get sick of being gouged every which way from Sunday and start understanding runaway corpo-capitalism is the teeth that keep biting us in the ass. I'm not saying get rid of it, just consider putting forth limits within reason.
edit on 4/9/2019 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Gas tax is a TERRIBLE idea. That's one of the primary "raw materials" of our economy. $25 extra per month for me - not the end of the world, but its the wrong place to do it.

Most of us, whether Republican, Democrat, or intelligent, want less government spending overall in one way or another. Different priorities, of course, but let's face it, we all want to keep more of our money.

While some would say consumption taxes are fair because you're taxed on what you use, realistically, the vast majority of US Citizens use almost all of their income on "stuff" - mostly health insurance and housing, followed by food and energy (gasoline, natural gas, electricity.)

Taxing it further means less money to

A) spend on other stuff
Or
B) invest / save

Raising the gas tax would add some cash for the government to spend on bloated-cost infrastructure, while hurting the economy and pissing everyone off.

Whether a barely-noticable blip to those with enough income, or a crushing blow to those earning just enough to get by, its a terrible idea.

Personally, I earn around $100k/year. I have a pretty typical 401k as retirement savings, but beyond that, after all expenses (and we're not extravagant), in a typical month, I earn enough to sock away about $300. $25 is 1/12th of that. 8.25% of my "disposable income."

Disposable, indeed.

That means less stashed away when the next appliance goes out, so maybe I finance it. Further reducing my future "disposable income."

I get it, government needs money to do stuff, but we're at a point of such high taxation its it's ridiculous. Other nations appear to be "high tax", but when I figure in what we spend on health & dental insurance, and the out-of-pocket expenses despite the insane cost of insurance, its worse than the "higher tax" nations.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
Most of us, whether Republican, Democrat, or intelligent...


I see what you did there.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I think consumption taxes are a good thing - they should fully replace income tax, which should be worked down to 0%.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think consumption taxes are a good thing - they should fully replace income tax, which should be worked down to 0%.


I would agree. That way, not only do the wealthy pay their "fair share", everyone from hookers to drug dealers pay, as well.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think consumption taxes are a good thing - they should fully replace income tax, which should be worked down to 0%.


I would agree. That way, not only do the wealthy pay their "fair share", everyone from hookers to drug dealers pay, as well.


The problem is, that doesn't do well for an economy dependent on ever-increasing expansion/consumption. How the government raises revenue has to be tied to what type of government and society we want to have. We can close ourselves off more and raise most revenue thru tariffs, or we can eliminate income tax in favor of consumption tax if money is finite (trading growth for stability), etc.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think consumption taxes are a good thing - they should fully replace income tax, which should be worked down to 0%.


I would agree. That way, not only do the wealthy pay their "fair share", everyone from hookers to drug dealers pay, as well.


The problem is, that doesn't do well for an economy dependent on ever-increasing expansion/consumption. How the government raises revenue has to be tied to what type of government and society we want to have. We can close ourselves off more and raise most revenue thru tariffs, or we can eliminate income tax in favor of consumption tax if money is finite (trading growth for stability), etc.


Care to state the "mechanics", or economic theory behind that statement?

I don't believe it would make a difference how the taxation is implemented, if the sum total is the same.







 
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join