I would ask those of you who are against this gas tax increase, the following questions:

1) Are you in favor of Trump's proposed trillion dollar infrastructure plan?  

2) How would you pay for such a proposal?

1. It would be nice if you could find a way of paying for it without raising taxes on the poor. 

2. Legalize weed nation wide and tax the crap out of it.

3. Cut excessive and unneeded spending by the military.

Why do the poor get off Scott free? With no skin in the game they only have incentive to empower those who promise to keep them that way. That's why Income Tax reform doesn't matter to the 50% of the population who currently pay NO income taxes. Make them feel the pain of their vote.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I would ask those of you who are against this gas tax increase, the following questions:

1) Are you in favor of Trump's proposed trillion dollar infrastructure plan?  

2) How would you pay for such a proposal?

1. It would be nice if you could find a way of paying for it without raising taxes on the poor. 

2. Legalize weed nation wide and tax the crap out of it.

3. Cut excessive and unneeded spending by the military.

I like this plan much better than a gas tax.

---

1. It would be nice if you could find a way of paying for it without raising taxes on the poor. 

2. Legalize weed nation wide and tax the crap out of it.

3. Cut excessive and unneeded spending by the military.

Why do the poor get off Scott free? With no skin in the game they only have incentive to empower those who promise to keep them that way. That's why Income Tax reform doesn't matter to the 50% of the population who currently pay NO income taxes. Make them feel the pain of their vote.

I don't think the poor should get off scott free, but passing a tax that disproportionately hurts the poor isn't a good thing IMO. And even even if the fuel charge is on diesel (which really should be the only fuel getting a tax raise as big rigs do the majority of damage to our roads while only paying 30-35% of taxes), it will still get passed on in the form of higher food cost etc. Maybe I could get behind that if they took away the ethanol mandate, but I think we know they won't.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

1. It would be nice if you could find a way of paying for it without raising taxes on the poor. 

2. Legalize weed nation wide and tax the crap out of it.

3. Cut excessive and unneeded spending by the military.

Why do the poor get off Scott free? With no skin in the game they only have incentive to empower those who promise to keep them that way. That's why Income Tax reform doesn't matter to the 50% of the population who currently pay NO income taxes. Make them feel the pain of their vote.

Wow - there you go. You've come up with the new Trump/GOP slogan: Make Them Feel The Pain.

That sure rings true. Great job - truth in advertising.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

The average person drives 12,000 miles per year and has a vehicle that gets 25 MPG. Assuming a tax increase of $0.25 per gallon that would result in an extra annual expense of $120 per person

CRUMBS !!!

---

RV and big rig owners along with homeless living in their cars would probably take the biggest hit unless I'm overlooking someone. 

I think airfares is where travelers will feel the biggest impact.

---

Why do the poor get off Scott free? With no skin in the game they only have incentive to empower those who promise to keep them that way. That's why Income Tax reform doesn't matter to the 50% of the population who currently pay NO income taxes. Make them feel the pain of their vote.

Wow - there you go. You've come up with the new Trump/GOP slogan: Make Them Feel The Pain.

That sure rings true. Great job - truth in advertising.

Better than the "Vote for me, I'll screw the other guy while you pay nothing!" tact your side has used for decades.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If the price of fuel for the big rigs go up, so will everything in the grocery store and pretty much every retail market as they will increase delivery charges and pass them on to the consumer...Every time fuel goes up so does the price of groceries, but when fuel goes down, the price does not

---

If the price of fuel for the big rigs go up, so will everything in the grocery store and pretty much every retail market as they will increase  delivery charges and pass them on to the consumer...Every time fuel goes up so does the price of groceries, but when fuel goes down, the price does not

True. But the grocery purchasers are ultimately responsible for the trucks wearing down the highways, since the trucks wouldn't be on the road if they weren't carrying stuff to the stores. So it's fair to charge grocery purchasers a nominal fee to keep up with road repairs. And we're talking about less than a 10% increase in the price of diesel, which is less than half the cost of transport (purchase and maintenance of the trucks are a greater expense). And transport is a small fraction of the cost of groceries. When all that is factored in what does it amount to? Less than a 1% increase in grocery price?

Once again, I believe that 100% of road repair and construction should be paid for with fuel taxes. I would have this opinion no matter which party was in power. I had this opinion when Clinton and a Dem congress raised fuel taxes.


The real question is what tax rate is needed to do that? I suspect that the current fuel tax is sufficient to cover it, but a large part of it is being squandered on other items in the budget. But that's just a guess based on the corrupt nature of government. Show me the federal budget for roads and bridges.* Show me the income from the federal tax on fuel.* If I know those two things then I can make an educated response to the idea.

*Looked it up. $43.8 billion in fuel taxes in 2015. The spending on roads is buried in "infrastructure" of which about 1/4 is devoted to highways, and not broken down between federal, state, and local. But federal infrastructure spending is about $100 billion per year. Assuming 1/4 of federal infrastructure spending is for roads, that's about $25 billion per year. If so then fuel taxes cover 175% of federal spending on highways. 

Using the ten year infrastructure increase of $1.5 trillion, 10 years of highway spending (1/4) is about $40 billion per year, so yes, the fuel tax would need to be raised by 62.5% to cover the spending. That's 2 cents per gallon on gas, 15.5 cents per gallon on diesel.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

If the price of fuel for the big rigs go up, so will everything in the grocery store and pretty much every retail market as they will increase  delivery charges and pass them on to the consumer...Every time fuel goes up so does the price of groceries, but when fuel goes down, the price does not

True. But the grocery purchasers are ultimately responsible for the trucks wearing down the highways, since the trucks wouldn't be on the road if they weren't carrying stuff to the stores. So it's fair to charge grocery purchasers a nominal fee to keep up with road repairs. And we're talking about less than a 10% increase in the price of diesel, which is less than half the cost of transport (purchase and maintenance of the trucks are a greater expense). And transport is a small fraction of the cost of groceries. When all that is factored in what does it amount to? Less than a 1% increase in grocery price?

Once again, I believe that 100% of road repair and construction should be paid for with fuel taxes. I would have this opinion no matter which party was in power. I had this opinion when Clinton and a Dem congress raised fuel taxes.


The real question is what tax rate is needed to do that? I suspect that the current fuel tax is sufficient to cover it, but a large part of it is being squandered on other items in the budget. But that's just a guess based on the corrupt nature of government. Show me the federal budget for roads and bridges.* Show me the income from the federal tax on fuel.* If I know those two things then I can make an educated response to the idea.

*Looked it up. $43.8 billion in fuel taxes in 2015. The spending on roads is buried in "infrastructure" of which about 1/4 is devoted to highways, and not broken down between federal, state, and local. But federal infrastructure spending is about $100 billion per year. Assuming 1/4 of federal infrastructure spending is for roads, that's about $25 billion per year. If so then fuel taxes cover 175% of federal spending on highways. 

Using the ten year infrastructure increase of $1.5 trillion, 10 years of highway spending (1/4) is about $40 billion per year, so yes, the fuel tax would need to be raised by 62.5% to cover the spending. That's 2 cents per gallon on gas, 15.5 cents per gallon on diesel.

I understand the principle you are talking about but groceries are expensive enough right now...I cant justify the price increase tied to the increase in fuel...I have hard time justifying the price of groceries now... $5 a pound for hamburger is insane, over $5 for a small bag of potatoes makes my blood boil and when milk pushes over $4 a gallon I refuse to buy it...

---

Hey, if this is the first step towards the elimination of income tax and installation of a nationwide consumption and usage tax system instead, I'm all for it.

I do love how the small increase in my paycheck from the income tax cut will be pwned by this, though.

This.

---

1. It would be nice if you could find a way of paying for it without raising taxes on the poor. 

2. Legalize weed nation wide and tax the crap out of it.

3. Cut excessive and unneeded spending by the military.

Why do the poor get off Scott free? With no skin in the game they only have incentive to empower those who promise to keep them that way. That's why Income Tax reform doesn't matter to the 50% of the population who currently pay NO income taxes. Make them feel the pain of their vote.

Seriously? How about those who are on disability- legitimately? I mean the ones who can't work due to their disability. Or retired folks who actually prepared for retirement but still have a fixed income? These people are largely considered "poor" because of their fixed income or inability to generate income. Should they feel the pain, too?

I'm not for letting people slide, if you set a standard for one, set it for all, but in proportion to their income or whatever the situation is. And most of the "poor" you're most likely talking about? Those who ride the system? Most of their mindset is generational. They are where they are because generations of family who came before them never thought there was any other way to live so they see no reason for major change. They're doing what they've seen their parents and grandparents do, with some changes here and there. The divisive nature of this country doesn't help the situation, at all.

---

True. But the grocery purchasers are ultimately responsible for the trucks wearing down the highways, since the trucks wouldn't be on the road if they weren't carrying stuff to the stores. So it's fair to charge grocery purchasers a nominal fee to keep up with road repairs. And we're talking about less than a 10% increase in the price of diesel, which is less than half the cost of transport (purchase and maintenance of the trucks are a greater expense). And transport is a small fraction of the cost of groceries. When all that is factored in what does it amount to? Less than a 1% increase in grocery price?

I understand the principle you are talking about but groceries are expensive enough right now...I cant justify the price increase tied to the increase in fuel...I have hard time justifying the price of groceries now... $5 a pound for hamburger is insane, over $5 for a small bag of potatoes makes my blood boil and when milk pushes over $4 a gallon I refuse to buy it...

I hear you. And while the price of food doubled the federal government claimed there was no inflation. (I'm pretty sure I never paid $5 for a small bag of potatoes though).

Getting rid of the ethanol mandate would go a long way to reducing food prices. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz was the only candidate willing to come out against it.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Why do the poor get off Scott free? With no skin in the game they only have incentive to empower those who promise to keep them that way. That's why Income Tax reform doesn't matter to the 50% of the population who currently pay NO income taxes. Make them feel the pain of their vote.

Seriously? How about those who are on disability- legitimately? I mean the ones who can't work due to their disability. Or retired folks who actually prepared for retirement but still have a fixed income? These people are largely considered "poor" because of their fixed income or inability to generate income. Should they feel the pain, too?

Neither of those are driving to work every day, so the pain in this case is minimal.

The Fair Tax solved the problem by rebating the tax if someone spent all of the poverty-level income on taxable items. Even though those at or below poverty level paid no tax, there was still an incentive to not raise the tax. That's where the "pain" is needed, like the pain that warns you not to stick your hand in a fire. No tax increase, no pain.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I'd be thrilled to see the Fair Tax Act pass but I doubt we will see it...It's been over a year with nothing happening with it

---

If the price of fuel for the big rigs go up, so will everything in the grocery store and pretty much every retail market as they will increase  delivery charges and pass them on to the consumer...Every time fuel goes up so does the price of groceries, but when fuel goes down, the price does not

True. But the grocery purchasers are ultimately responsible for the trucks wearing down the highways, since the trucks wouldn't be on the road if they weren't carrying stuff to the stores. So it's fair to charge grocery purchasers a nominal fee to keep up with road repairs. And we're talking about less than a 10% increase in the price of diesel, which is less than half the cost of transport (purchase and maintenance of the trucks are a greater expense). And transport is a small fraction of the cost of groceries. When all that is factored in what does it amount to? Less than a 1% increase in grocery price?

Once again, I believe that 100% of road repair and construction should be paid for with fuel taxes. I would have this opinion no matter which party was in power. I had this opinion when Clinton and a Dem congress raised fuel taxes.


The real question is what tax rate is needed to do that? I suspect that the current fuel tax is sufficient to cover it, but a large part of it is being squandered on other items in the budget. But that's just a guess based on the corrupt nature of government. Show me the federal budget for roads and bridges.* Show me the income from the federal tax on fuel.* If I know those two things then I can make an educated response to the idea.

*Looked it up. $43.8 billion in fuel taxes in 2015. The spending on roads is buried in "infrastructure" of which about 1/4 is devoted to highways, and not broken down between federal, state, and local. But federal infrastructure spending is about $100 billion per year. Assuming 1/4 of federal infrastructure spending is for roads, that's about $25 billion per year. If so then fuel taxes cover 175% of federal spending on highways. 

Using the ten year infrastructure increase of $1.5 trillion, 10 years of highway spending (1/4) is about $40 billion per year, so yes, the fuel tax would need to be raised by 62.5% to cover the spending. That's 2 cents per gallon on gas, 15.5 cents per gallon on diesel.

Interesting post.  But my question for you would be, would a 2 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax, by itself, raise the $1.5 trillion needed for the infrastructure plan?   Because if it doesn't, you're talking about shifting money from somewhere else and further increasing the deficit. 

So maybe you could clarify- does the 2 cent increase, by itself, raise the necessary $1.5 trillion to pay for the infrastructure plan?

The plan floated by Trump was a 25 cent increase.

---

True. But the grocery purchasers are ultimately responsible for the trucks wearing down the highways, since the trucks wouldn't be on the road if they weren't carrying stuff to the stores. So it's fair to charge grocery purchasers a nominal fee to keep up with road repairs. And we're talking about less than a 10% increase in the price of diesel, which is less than half the cost of transport (purchase and maintenance of the trucks are a greater expense). And transport is a small fraction of the cost of groceries. When all that is factored in what does it amount to? Less than a 1% increase in grocery price?

Once again, I believe that 100% of road repair and construction should be paid for with fuel taxes. I would have this opinion no matter which party was in power. I had this opinion when Clinton and a Dem congress raised fuel taxes.


The real question is what tax rate is needed to do that? I suspect that the current fuel tax is sufficient to cover it, but a large part of it is being squandered on other items in the budget. But that's just a guess based on the corrupt nature of government. Show me the federal budget for roads and bridges.* Show me the income from the federal tax on fuel.* If I know those two things then I can make an educated response to the idea.

*Looked it up. $43.8 billion in fuel taxes in 2015. The spending on roads is buried in "infrastructure" of which about 1/4 is devoted to highways, and not broken down between federal, state, and local. But federal infrastructure spending is about $100 billion per year. Assuming 1/4 of federal infrastructure spending is for roads, that's about $25 billion per year. If so then fuel taxes cover 175% of federal spending on highways. 

Using the ten year infrastructure increase of $1.5 trillion, 10 years of highway spending (1/4) is about $40 billion per year, so yes, the fuel tax would need to be raised by 62.5% to cover the spending. That's 2 cents per gallon on gas, 15.5 cents per gallon on diesel.

Interesting post.  But my question for you would be, would a 2 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax, by itself, raise the $1.5 trillion needed for the infrastructure plan?   Because if it doesn't, you're talking about shifting money from somewhere else and further increasing the deficit. 

So maybe you could clarify- does the 2 cent increase, by itself, raise the necessary $1.5 trillion to pay for the infrastructure plan?

The plan floated by Trump was a 25 cent increase.

Typo. That should have been 12 cents. About half of what Trump asked for. 

Of course as a wheeler dealer he always takes an extreme position on his initial offering.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Interesting post.  But my question for you would be, would a 2 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax, by itself, raise the $1.5 trillion needed for the infrastructure plan?   Because if it doesn't, you're talking about shifting money from somewhere else and further increasing the deficit. 

So maybe you could clarify- does the 2 cent increase, by itself, raise the necessary $1.5 trillion to pay for the infrastructure plan?

The plan floated by Trump was a 25 cent increase.

Typo. That should have been 12 cents. About half of what Trump asked for. 

Of course as a wheeler dealer he always takes an extreme position on his initial offering.

So just to be clear, you think 12 cents increase in the gas tax, by itself, will raise an extra $1.5 trillion?

I googled the question, how much fuel is consumed in the US every year, and what I found was that, according to the federal highway administration, in 2009, 172 billion gallons of fuel were consumed.   At 12 cents per gallon, that would have raised 20 billion dollars.   Over 10 years, 200 billion dollars.   Obviously, that is a fraction of the $1.5 trillion Trump is proposing for an infrastructure plan.   So according to my calculations, 12 cents a gallon would fall way short based on 2009 fuel consumption numbers.

---

Seriously? How about those who are on disability- legitimately? I mean the ones who can't work due to their disability. Or retired folks who actually prepared for retirement but still have a fixed income? These people are largely considered "poor" because of their fixed income or inability to generate income. Should they feel the pain, too?

Neither of those are driving to work every day, so the pain in this case is minimal.

The Fair Tax solved the problem by rebating the tax if someone spent all of the poverty-level income on taxable items. Even though those at or below poverty level paid no tax, there was still an incentive to not raise the tax. That's where the "pain" is needed, like the pain that warns you not to stick your hand in a fire. No tax increase, no pain.

Partially true. 

Many are active in the community or in their church which has them out and about quite a bit. My neighbor is a retired nurse and drives to her daughter's house everyday to look after her grandkids and that's across town. 

Just because people aren't in the workforce anymore doesn't mean they're sitting at home watching TV all day. The money retired folks used to spend on gas is now spent on prescription meds and frequent doctor visits they didn't used to have to worry about when they were younger. If medicare or the VA doesn't cover the cost of those meds it's coming out of pocket. 

So yes, a gas tax would hurt folks for these reasons. And as someone else already pointed out, the rise in cost of gas raises prices on everything else, especially food. Everyone still has to buy food, clothing, etc.

---

Typo. That should have been 12 cents. About half of what Trump asked for. 

Of course as a wheeler dealer he always takes an extreme position on his initial offering.

So just to be clear, you think 12 cents increase in the gas tax, by itself, will raise an extra $1.5 trillion?

I googled the question, how much fuel is consumed in the US every year, and what I found was that, according to the federal highway administration, in 2009, 172 billion gallons of fuel were consumed.   At 12 cents per gallon, that would have raised 20 billion dollars.   Over 10 years, 200 billion dollars.   Obviously, that is a fraction of the $1.5 trillion Trump is proposing for an infrastructure plan.   So according to my calculations, 12 cents a gallon would fall way short based on 2009 fuel consumption numbers.

Was the 172 billion gallons just gasoline, or did it include diesel?

My calculation used 1/4 as a multiplier since current highway spending accounts for 1/4 of "infrastructure" spending. I don't consider it reasonable to charge drivers for the other infrastructure (water treatment plants for example), because then the fuel tax is not a user fee. So you'd need about $400 billion. That explains about half the discrepancy. 

I used the tax revenue numbers from 2015. 2009 was the bottom of the recession, so that year would have been significantly lower than normal. 

Also, the current tax revenue is more than what's currently spent on highways, so the excess current tax covers some of the necessary increase in my calculation.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

We do not, I repeat, DO NOT have a revenue problem in this country.  What we do have is a spending problem.

Thanks to the $1.5 trillion tax cut your president passed for himself and his buddies you now have both.

The tax cut put more money in the pockets of just about everyone.  I know my pay increased.  

As far as a $.25 gas tax, I guess it really depends on how the funds are allocated.  If it goes to fund the already bloated bureaucracy, it’s not a good thing. If it’s going directly toward infrastructure improvements, it’s a good thing.  We need more details.  

Revenues to the federal government have been at record highs, so it seems to me targeted spending cuts could alleviate the need for an increased gas tax.  But, getting anyone in DC to agree to real spending cuts is about the same as finding a real unicorn or capturing Bigfoot.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I think the bottom line is, if we want to add $1.5 trillion in spending with an infrastructure plan, Trump's proposed 25 cent per gallon fuel tax increase isn't going to raise but about $40 billion a year.

I am not in favor of adding more debt to our already disastrous debt levels.

I wonder if anyone in this administration can do basic arithmetic.

---