Another Group Wants More Taxes
Why is it that for so many people, raising taxes is the only solution to all of the country’s problems?
A special commission is urging the government to raise federal gasoline taxes by as much as 40 cents per gallon over five years as part of a sweeping overhaul designed to ease traffic congestion and repair the nation’s decaying bridges and roads.
Last year’s Minneapolis bridge collapse killed 13 and spotlighted the nation’s decaying infrastructure.
The two-year study being released Tuesday by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, the first to recommend broad changes after the devastating bridge collapse in Minnesota last August, warns that urgent action is needed to avoid future disasters.
Under the recommendation, the current tax of 18.4 cents per gallon for unleaded gasoline would be increased annually for five years—by anywhere from 5 cents to 8 cents each year—and then indexed to inflation afterward to help fix the infrastructure, expand public transit and highways as well as broaden railway and rural access, according to persons with direct knowledge of the report, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the report is not yet public.
Let’s see, I buy about 1,000 gallons of gas per year for my car. That’s an extra $400 in taxes out of my pocket per year.
But the 12-member commission’s proposals, which are expected to cost $225 billion each year for the next 50 years…
That’s in addition to what we already spend.
Actually a gas tax is a good idea. Your correct that the tax burden is too high as it is. But a gas tax has use beyond just making more money for the government. It discourages driving.
This is actually very important because our roads are getting too crowded and people don’t want to pay to fix them or expand them and moreover we want to fight global warming.
People think that improving gas mileage numbers helps - but it doesn’t. Why? You give people better gas mileage and they drive more..
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 0854 hrsI’m curious as to how the nation will pay to make sure that the infrastructure, in this case roads and bridges, will be safe and have enough space for the traffic. It is easy to criticize the idea, but you haven’t offered a solution to the problem that has been identified
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 0923 hrsYup. Good point Kris. The beauty of the gas tax is that the people who drive the most (and thus screw it up the most) pay the burden of fixing the roads.
We shouldn’t be taxing the guy who walks to work to pay for roads now should we?
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 0933 hrsKris:
I see a huge problem with this already.
1. Getting the actual work done, you have to plan for it about 5-10 years in advance, with all the opposition groups out there, enviornmental groups etc. The court challenges usually take about that long.
2. Will this be a segregated pot of money. If its not its an awful big temptation to use that money a balance a budget. And then we are just paying more money in and getting nothing in return.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 0936 hrsLets see, raise the gas tax and discourage people from driving so much. Ok lets see, should I take off work today to save gas, or should I not go to the grocery store and not get food for my family, or get the medicals my family needs or, or , or...I do live in a large city, but there are people that has to travel several mile to get to these places and it would hurt them more then myself. How about raise the cigarette tax again, that might discourage smokes. I am a smoker but there are other things we can tax that is more useless then RAISING THE GAS TAX.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 0939 hrsKris, how about we stop sending tons of money to pork projects every year and use that money for maintaining infrastructure instead?
Posted by Matt on January 15, 2008 at 0947 hrsAlso, wouldn’t raising the gas tax tend to hurt poor folks the most?
Posted by Matt on January 15, 2008 at 0956 hrsWhat’s more troubling is that we’re creating committees specifically to come with ideas to “generate more revenue”; in other words - find new taxes and raise them.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1000 hrsbut there are other things we can tax that is more useless then RAISING THE GAS TAX.
Like what income or property taxes? Should those go to fix the roads? Like it or not people can and do make choices about where they will drive and how much they will drive based on the price of gas. This has been shown time and time again.
With more expensive gas more people will drive to the closer store then the Wal-Mart 30 miles from them and so on. Gas cost does effect people.
And please stop with “but it hurts the poor” really poor people can’t afford cars and insurance and they take the bus.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1007 hrsAnd just this morning we get a report that it was a design flaw that caused the MN bridge collapse. It wasn’t a funding problem after all. Want to bet that the bridge collapse will still be held up as justification for more taxing and spending?
Posted by Owen on January 15, 2008 at 1009 hrsAnd another thing: these committees or panels or think tanks, or whatever you want to call them, assemble the “best and the brightest” on the issue and the best they can come up with is RAISE TAXES????
Good grief.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1013 hrsI really don’t have a philosophical problem with a gas tax. I drive 50,000+ miles per year and I think it’s fair that I pay more to build and maintain our highways than the guy driving 5,000.
The problem is, it’s way too tempting for greedy politicians to get their hands on the money and spend it somewhere else. Just ask our fine governor.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1034 hrsActually a gas tax is a good idea. Your correct that the tax burden is too high as it is. But a gas tax has use beyond just making more money for the government. It discourages driving.
Pete, its just not that simple. For some products and services a change in price results in a large change in demand. We call that elasticity of demand. For other products a change in price results in a small or no change in demand. That situation is an inelasticity of demand.
If the demand for gas was elastic or even relatively elastic, we would have seen a sharp decrease in usage as the price has doubled and tripled over the past several years.
However, the demand for gas is relatively inelastic. Price has doubled and tripled, and gas usage has only slightly decreased.
Necessities and utilities tend to have relatively inelastic demand. Much like even when natural gas increases in price, people still must heat their homes.
If the motivation for an increased gas tax is to reduce consumption, its misguided, and it hurts people. Lowers their standard of living. I know those are principles espoused by some in politics but they shouldn’t be.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1103 hrsLast year’s Minneapolis bridge collapse killed 13 and spotlighted the nation’s decaying infrastructure.
Typical media sensationalization.
And just this morning we get a report that it was a design flaw that caused the MN bridge collapse. It wasn’t a funding problem after all. Want to bet that the bridge collapse will still be held up as justification for more taxing and spending?
Exactly… All I can say is thank-god we have the news media who can, like noone else, take an isolated incedent and form policy around the exceptions, rather than the rules.
The two-year study being released Tuesday by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, the first to recommend broad changes after the devastating bridge collapse in Minnesota last August, warns that urgent action is needed to avoid future disasters.
The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.
Peachy… Wonder how much that study cost?
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1108 hrsxxp,
The availability of fungible alternatives influences the elasticity of demand for a particular commodity or service.
In the short run for transportation there are relatively few.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1145 hrslots of poor people have cars, usually they are crappy, old, slightly malfunctioning, and non-fuel efficient cars. But never mind them they’re not really poor or they’d ride the bus, they can afford the gas tax.
Posted by Matt on January 15, 2008 at 1147 hrsThe availability of fungible alternatives influences the elasticity of demand for a particular commodity or service.
There are many factors that influence the elasticity of demand.
in the case of gasoline, all of those factors combine to make for a very inelastic demand curve.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1158 hrsGee Pete,
I think high taxes do have an effect on Other People. That’s what you are talking about here, isn’t it? You are talking about Other People whose lives you should run.
Note that the states that already have high taxes are losing population. Those Other People types are up and leaving, voting with their feet and leaving the Petes behind.
You could try to recreate that tax regime here in Wisconsin or you could just move to one of those high tax states that must look like heaven to you. I would prefer you just move.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1206 hrsPete,
Discouraging driving is not a good thing. Commerce requires travel and the movement of people and goods. If you would prefer to go back to an agrarian society where you stayed on the farm your whole life and ate what you planted - I think you can find that in any 3rd world country. I’m sure they would love to have you.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1248 hrsI don’t think that this tax will drive people out of WI because it is an increase in the national tax so we would all pay it.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1253 hrs
Not that I am in favor of more taxes, but until there is a system in place that funds these needs the taxes are what we have to work with. In answer to someones point they should go into a segregated fund but there has to be a way to keep legislators from raiding these funds. The person who figures a sure fire way to keep people out of segregated funds should be given a life without taxes of any kind for the good they would do the country.Not one mention of cutting spending in other areas (like aid to illegal aliens) to pay for road repairs/upgrades. It’s always tx, tax tax.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1302 hrsKris,
The federal and state income taxes and state property taxes are currently used to maintain the Nation’s “Surface Transportation System”. Why does it now need more money?
The option I see here, would be to enact a usage tax like gasonline or fuel taxes, but then deny all other sources of funding through current taxes… lest we start a double taxation policy. One other thing to consider with levying a fuel tax… tollways. They should be disbanded, since the income is coming from the users of the system, why hit them twice. I never did understand how IL could put toll booths on a federal interstate.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1333 hrsThis is actually very important because our roads are getting too crowded and people don’t want to pay to fix them or expand them and moreover we want to fight global warming.
People think that improving gas mileage numbers helps - but it doesn’t. Why? You give people better gas mileage and they drive more..
Why would we want to fight something that appears by all accounts to be a natural phenomemon over which we have little or no effect? And why oh why would anyone suggest we attempt to engineer a radical backwards step into the past based on this politically motivated misunderstanding of eons long climate cycles?
And wait, you want us to stop driving cars? And do what? Flit around on zero emission cold fusion hoverpods?
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1340 hrsI don’t have a problem with user fees, but if the gas tax is raised it needs to be offset with income tax cuts (ha, ha, right?).
Who’s in charge of a state’s infrastructure? Aren’t states responsible for maintaining their own roads, bridges, etc? I’m not sure I’m right about that, and I know states do get federal funding that the U.S. government uses to bribe… er, I mean encourage states to do what they want (i.e. lower the legal alcohol limit).
Seems to me the better solution is to return more power to the states, stop doling out federal funds (and, again, reduce the income tax accordingly-- ha, ha) for roads and let the states deal with these issues themselves.
Posted by Cate on January 15, 2008 at 1355 hrsLest you forget, if they raise that tax, it’ll hit truckers even harder. The Transportation industry already pays higer fuel costs, on top of all kinds of road use taxes and permitting fees. Guess who’ll pay for that hike in higher consumer prices. You will, the American consumer. You’ll have even less disposable income. This tax affects more than just your driving people.
Posted by Billiam on January 15, 2008 at 1404 hrs"I never did understand how IL could put toll booths on a federal interstate.”
As I understand it the Tri-State Tollway Authority was formed prior to the Federal Interstate Highway Act. The toll guys let the interstate guys include them in the numbering plan. It’s that way all over the northeast.
If you think poor people don’t have cars zoom into any poor area of any American city on Google maps and behold. Especially in the back yards.
Insurance? Who needs insurance when you have little to loose?
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1423 hrsRemember, the Illinois tollways were “only temporary”.
Taxers have no sole. All they see is your wallet.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1429 hrsJason,
I’m not saying we need more taxes. I’m saying how will we maintain our infrastructure if we don’t use tax dollars? In fact i said that i’m not in favor of more taxes.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1525 hrsin the case of gasoline, all of those factors combine
Please elaborate.
I was not just limiting the lack of fungibility to gasoline, but rather to the choices available for transportation in general.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1647 hrsPlease elaborate.
In addition to the fact that lack of subtitutes creates inelasticity of demand, so to does the nature of a good or service being habit forming or obligatory. Example cigarettes.
In the case of gas, people need it to do the things they are use to doing or must do.
in addition cost of a good or service in relation to a consumers income affects inelasticity of demand. So for some people, gas is such a small portion of their income that a change in price doesn’t affect their usage. For example, gas isn’t a large expenditure for me. So even though the price has gone up a great deal, I drive my truck as much as I would have if gas was half the price it is and I drive my boat and motorcycle the same.
All of those factors have combined to lead to the inelasticity of demand because for some they MUST drive and must purchase gas for things they must do, there are often very few substitutes for driving/purchasing gas, and for others gas isn’t a big expense so they purchase as much as they ever have.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1707 hrsI smell a report written by Civil Engineers and Highway contractors.
But hey--that’s jmho.
S’pose DarthDoyle will give back the $400 million he stole from the highway fund?
Posted by dad29 on January 15, 2008 at 1740 hrsin addition cost of a good or service in relation to a consumers income affects inelasticity of demand. So for some people, gas is such a small portion of their income that a change in price doesn’t affect their usage. For example, gas isn’t a large expenditure for me. So even though the price has gone up a great deal, I drive my truck as much as I would have if gas was half the price it is and I drive my boat and motorcycle the same.
The effect of gas prices is not inelastic. In europe they have heavy gas taxes and people drive diesels, they drive less and then consume less gas per person.
Sure there are things you MUST do with regards to driving but if you really examine your own habits almost everyone could drive less.
Do you want to conserve fuel? Do you want to fund our roads fairly? Do you want enough roadways to prevent endless idling and massive traffic.
We are approaching massive gridlock in numerous cities. And there is no reason for this. A related topic is of course congestion pricing.
I hear the same garbage in NYC with regards to this. OMG poor people will be hit if we have congestion pricing. No they won’t. Poor people do not drive and park their cars in Manhattan. It’s way to expensive as is.
The gas tax and congestion pricing are sound ideas to control human behaviour in more acceptable ways. Yes our tex burden is too high.
How bout we lower property and income taxes - I am all for a flat tax. The money has to come from somewhere. If we want to live in a nice country without long commutes and with some decent public transportation the gas tax is a great idea.
As for “truckers” feeling the cost. GOOD. There are too many trucks on the road and not enough is being done to help our railway systems.
Trucks maim and kill people constantly as they are always driven at speeds in excess of what they should be by drivers running marathon shifts. Make it more economically feasible to use rails and boats instead and you improve life here in the US.
Pete
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 1825 hrsMake it more economically feasible to use rails and boats instead and you improve life here in the US.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 2108 hrs
You’re kidding, right? Since there are no boats allowed beyond the oceans and Great Lakes, that leaves rail. So, you are going to supply stores and other businesses by rail?
Yes, there are problems with some truckers, but remember, more people are killed by car vs car accidents or single car accidents.The gas tax and congestion pricing are sound ideas to control human behaviour in more acceptable ways.
Sounds like a nice fascist attitude to me.
Trucks maim and kill people constantly as they are always driven at speeds in excess of what they should be by drivers running marathon shifts. Make it more economically feasible to use rails and boats instead and you improve life here in the US.
Pete… I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until I really understand their position/opinion, and I gotta say, you’re off the hook. You make no sense.
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 2257 hrsThe gas tax and congestion pricing are sound ideas to control human behaviour in more acceptable ways.
Sounds like a nice fascist attitude to me.
And your suggestion for funding transportation?
Posted by on January 15, 2008 at 2311 hrsIts the “controlling human behavior” part that I have an issue with.
See I believe in freedom… You know.. That old fashioned attitude of being able to live your life as you please, not as how the government pleases.
I know… Its a bit archaic.
Lets just set up the department of “how you should live your life”
They can tax fast food, cigarettes, alcohol consumption. Hell, anything they think people ought not be doing they can just tax it right? How bout all those long-distance vacations. A pure luxury. People ought not be making such a carbon footprint flying in a plane thousands of miles etc. We need to conserve fuel. Shouldn’t the first thing to go be the luxury trips? Lets levy a monster tax on vacation travel. What a grand way to control human behavior.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0003 hrsAs for “truckers” feeling the cost. GOOD. There are too many trucks on the road and not enough is being done to help our railway systems.
Trucks maim and kill people constantly as they are always driven at speeds in excess of what they should be by drivers running marathon shifts. Make it more economically feasible to use rails and boats instead and you improve life here in the US.
What an insanely STUPID AND UNEDUCATED thing to say.
Think about this Pete, Yes Railroads do have a place in the transportation infrastructure, However just exactly how practical would it be to have railroad tracks leading into EVERY STORE, EVERY WAREHOUSE, and each and every Business that requires goods?
Trains kill people too my friend, -usually its by having people step out in front of them- but still.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0625 hrsAnd your suggestion for funding transportation?
Say it with me pjr..SEGREGATED FUNDING.
Now that wasn’t so hard. now was it?
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0627 hrsBTW: Someone call Petes’ doctor. He is off his meds again.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0629 hrs
Here is one more potential problem with raising the Federal gas tax.
It just invites MORE Pork in the budget, and political earmarking.
It seems to me that if the 50 states got at least as much back as they put in, our roads would be much better.
As it stands now road building money on the federal system seems to be based more on popularity in Washington than on NEED in any particular state.
Another way to free up money is to eliminate “Grants” -which is money that does not have to be paid back- to local and state police Departments to do things like crackdown on speeding and drunk driving on long holiday weekends. These are things that we EXPECT our police departments on a Local, County and State level to do anyway.
OK pjr I have given suggestions on funding transportation, now lets hear yours.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0706 hrsSee I believe in freedom… You know.. That old fashioned attitude of being able to live your life as you please, not as how the government pleases.
Right. The freedom to spend MY tax dollars on your excess driving patterns. That’s what’s going on here. You dont feel the REAL costs associated with driving becaues they come from MY federal tax dollars, my state income tax dollars and my property tax dollars.
What’s the problem with having people who drive more pay for the roads? Of course there isn’t any your excuse is just ‘freedom” though.
Freedom my *ss. Your not free to drive drunk. You not free to drive polluting vehicles. Driving is heavily relegated. its’ not a freedom but a privledge and should be treated as such.
The gas tax is a good idea and has worked well in Europe. The US is well behind the curve here. It’s time to get on board with equitable taxing and taxes that improve society as a whole. The gas tax is one such tax.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0822 hrsIt just invites MORE Pork in the budget, and political earmarking.
It seems to me that if the 50 states got at least as much back as they put in, our roads would be much better.
That’s an entirely seperate problem though. If we are deciding HOW roads should be built and with what money the gas tax is a great idea.
It raises the costs of driving closer to the true costs and puts more pressure for people to drive resonsibly. And don’t BS me with this “its inelastic” bull.
The modest raise in gas prices has already spurred LESS sport utility sales. If there was a gas tax these trends would be exacerbated.
If we want to stamp out “pork” we have to do that. that’s not reason not to find more equitable ways to tax people. Right now states are doing all kinds of STUPID things to get roads built.
One trend then you might have noticed in your home state is that we have privately funded roads that we then sell tolling rights for to private companies. So in essence you have these companies making profits off driving on our roads.
That’s pretty annoying - and something like the gas tax is a better alternative.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0828 hrsYou’re kidding, right? Since there are no boats allowed beyond the oceans and Great Lakes, that leaves rail. So, you are going to supply stores and other businesses by rail?
Yes, there are problems with some truckers, but remember, more people are killed by car vs car accidents or single car accidents.Truckers per truck on the road are far more dangerous then cars. And yes while you can’t have tracks going to EVERY single store we could improve and expand our rail system dramatically.
The reason WHY this hasn’t happened is tied up with the US transportation system. It’s far better overseas. The basic deal is that truckers are using YOUR tax dollars to cover their shipping costs.
We pump HUGE amounts of money into the roads and very little in comparsion into the rails. So yes as you point out it makes good sense for companies to use the roads.
But the cost is crowded roads, a more polluted enivroment and loss of life. Does that sound like a good policy to you? IF you taxed gas and diesel and spent more money on rails you could reverse this trend.
Rail would become more economically feasible. More cargo would get shipped on rail and our roads would get less congested.
The gas tax can be part of the soultion to the boneheaded US transportation policy that you guys are supporting on this board.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0832 hrsSay it with me pjr..SEGREGATED FUNDING.
Michael, if segregated funding is the cure all than should it be derived from taxes and fees generated from transportation exclusively or should it be subsidized by general tax revenues
xxp, what if we changed the lingo?
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0836 hrsThe gas tax and congestion pricing are sound ideas to give individuals more information on the full costs of their transportation choices.
The gas tax and congestion pricing are sound ideas to give individuals more information on the full costs of their transportation choices.
Yeah this is a more convincing way to say the same thing.. I get that now after being called a “facist” LMAO. It’s the same thing in medicine BTW.
One of the big problems with health care costs that no one wants to talk about is how health costs are not improving. The same procedures are rising in costs and not falling. In virtually every other industry your getting more for your dolar when adjusted for inflation.
That’s because our policy shields the consumer from the true costs of medicine. There is no free market pressure on the medical costs. As america we should be implementing policy that lets the free market system exhibit an effect on our problems..
The gas tax is part of that and like I said a very good idea that’s long overdue. We should emulate europe. A side effect of course..
That I haven’t talked about yet is that it can make us less dependent on foreign oil..without bad policy like raising the CAFE standards which by the laws of supply and demand tend to accomplish nothing as people just drive more to offset the better mileage numbers.
Pete
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 0854 hrsThe gas tax and congestion pricing are sound ideas to give individuals more information on the full costs of their transportation choices.
Yeah this is a more convincing way to say the same thing.. I get that now after being called a “facist” LMAO. It’s the same thing in medicine BTW.
I don’t buy it… You’re running away from your original comment, and given your other comments its quite clear the distorted view you have of the role of government and freedom.
See below:
Driving is heavily relegated. its’ not a freedom but a privledge and should be treated as such.
Driving is a right. It is a freedom.
I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Driving a priviledge?????? Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Pete, did you graduate high school? Because if you did, I think you are the poster child for the failure of our education system.
To fail to educate people about the basic philosophy of freedom and our constitution.
Its sad.
People can read and write, but have NO fundamental understanding of what freedom is, and what our constitution defined the role of government as.
Perhaps its time for a civics lesson.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1248 hrsDriving is a right. It is a freedom.
Honestly I don’t want to play semantics but hey if you like losing arguments here you go..
From the dictionary..
“a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.’
Cleary be able to drive is not a right. You can lose your right to drive - if your caught driving drunk, fail your test and such you can’t drive. <g>
Please try not to argue out of ignorance it just makes you look bad. This is a largely a semantic argument anyway.
Whether you want to call driving a right or privledge does not matter for this argument. The gas tax has no effect on infringing on your right to drive. It just makes it more expensive or not.
In fact we already have a gas tax - these people are just talking about raising it and using it to fund better roads. I explained why that’s a good idea.
We need better roads, a better public transportation system and a better train sysytem in this country. Maybe where you live you don’t but I think here in the NE it’s pretty awful compared to what you can find in Europe.
The gas tax is an excellent way to do this as the Europeans have already discovered.
Pete
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1324 hrs“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [Emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” [Emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1326 hrsPete… You clearly don’t understand the fundamental basis of rights or your freedoms.
You’ve demonstrated a willingness to speak to things which you are clearly not informed or educated upon.
You state that the demand for gas is not inelastic. It is. You state that driving is a privilege not a right. You are wrong again.
This is not a matter of symantics Pete, but a basic (and critical) understanding of the rights and freedoms we have as human beings. We are born with these rights. They are not given to us by government. They are “inalienable”. Even people of China have these rights. They are born with them (their government just chooses to deprive them of them) but they still have them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Cleary be able to drive is not a right. You can lose your right to drive - if your caught driving drunk, fail your test and such you can’t drive.
lose your “right to drive”??? Don’t you mean lose your privilege to drive??
Your right to drive (like all of the other rights we have as humans) cannot be taken from you without due process of law.
As stated in the plethora of precedence set by the legal decisions which I quoted above, the right to drive is fundamental.
Just like the right to private property… Just like the right to live and work and go play… You have those rights to start with, they can only be taken from you by due process of law.
Its the difference between being entitled to something and having to ‘earn’ it (or beg for the privilege from government) (as we have to do for our right to concealled carry) (i digress)
Yes, you can lose your RIGHT to drive, but only by due process of law. Just like you can lose your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness by being thrown in jail. But only after due process.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1346 hrsThis is not a matter of symantics Pete, but a basic (and critical) understanding of the rights and freedoms we have as human beings. We are born with these rights. They are not given to us by government. They are “inalienable”. Even people of China have these rights. They are born with them (their government just chooses to deprive them of them) but they still have them.
Yes it is semantics - learn to spell the word before you lecture me on them. Something that the government can give and take away I consider a privledge. You get the right to drive IF You folllow the laws of the road and IF you can drive AND if you don’t break any motor vehicle related laws.
Whether that fits the current “legal” defintion of the word “right” or not I could care less. Either way its not germane to this debate.
Let’s move on to the real stuff..
And yes gas is not “inelastic”A study which proves my point. Its not PERFECTLY elastic - as in if the gas price rises 10% we will not have 10% less gas use. But certainly as the price rises we will cut consumption. There will be less people driving and less traffic on the road.
Just do a little thought experiment yourself and imagine what you would do if gas cost $100 a gallon. <g>
Again we have seen this time and time again. When the great gas price embargo came in the 70s people switched to more fuel efficent cars.
Things like car pooling, more fuel efficent cars, bikes and other alternatives become more enticing to the consumer when gas prices rise.
Pete
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1409 hrsSomething that the government can give and take away I consider a privledge. You get the right to drive IF You folllow the laws of the road and IF you can drive AND if you don’t break any motor vehicle related laws.
So your freedom is a privilege (since you want to play the spell checker game, I thought I’d help you out there)
Because the government can throw you in jail if you break the law?
You can’t have it both ways Pete. FIRST you throw up the comment that
its’ not a freedom but a privledge and should be treated as such.
So clearly it is important to understand if it IS or isn’t a right because you indicate that if its “just a privilege” (or privledge as you prefer) it should be treated differently.
So I produce the legal precedence over numerous cases that ALSO defined it as a right, not a privilege (and clearly thought it was important to do so)
And now you are saying
Whether that fits the current “legal” defintion of the word “right” or not I could care less. Either way its not germane to this debate.
Well it IS germane to this debate Pete, because YOU said privileges should be treated differently.
You’re all over the place dude.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1447 hrsYes it is semantics - learn to spell the word before you lecture me on them. Something that the government can give and take away I consider a privledge. You get the right to drive IF You folllow the laws of the road and IF you can drive AND if you don’t break any motor vehicle related laws.
The last refuge of those who have no answer, criticize spelling.
BTW I’m certain when you said “driving is heavily relegated” you meant to say its “heavily regulated”.
Durrrrr
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1513 hrshttp://economics.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/ XJ&sdn;=economics&zu;=http://www. cts.ucl.ac.uk/tsu/papers/transpre v243.pdf
A study which proves my point. Its not PERFECTLY elastic - as in if the gas price rises 10% we will not have 10% less gas use. But certainly as the price rises we will cut consumption. There will be less people driving and less traffic on the road.
You’ve lost me again.
I see nothing under that link that supports your point. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Furthermore, you aren’t understanding the concept of elasticity of demand in context of its usage in economics.
Inelastic doesn’t mean there is NO change in demand (perfectly inelastic does)
And elasticity curves are not linear. A product may be very inelastic up to a certain point, and then elastic after a certain point.
Between $1,00 a gallon and $2.00 a gallon the price of gasoline may be relatively inelastic. Perhaps a coefficient of elasticity of .001
But between $5 and $100 a gallon of COURSE the coefficient would change.
But given the context of the numbers suggested in the original post (40 cents a gallon) that kind of change in price would change the coefficient of elasticity of demand very little.
Now had you suggested that we put a tax of $5 a gallon on gas then I would have agreed with you that it would affect demand. Again… you’re all over the board.
You are difficult to carry on a debate with when you have such rediculous parameters of thought and change your mind between posts about what is or is not important and meaningful.
I fear debating with you is an exercise in futility.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1516 hrs“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [Emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” [Emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
Hey XX, your citations here aren’t really addressing whether a person has a god-given right to drive a car. They address whether or not it’s a Right to use public roads with a car (Specifically the second one, which is about a company being required to get a permit to use public roads in the City of Chicago, when it already had one from the State of IL). Sorry, you haven’t supported your statement that it’s a Right.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1544 hrsSo clearly it is important to understand if it IS or isn’t a right because you indicate that if its “just a privilege” (or privledge as you prefer) it should be treated differently.
Oh come on..
I am saying fine call it a right if you want to. Either way explain how this is relevant to the gas tax? Is the gas tax going to take away your “right” to drive?I dunno what they teach in Wisconsin but that’s the first line of driver’s ed in MA where I learned it. Driving is not a right but it’s a priviledge.
Like I said “right” or “priviledge” they sure the heck can take it away from you - and it’s not something in the constitution either. <g>
Pete
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1622 hrsHey XX, your citations here aren’t really addressing whether a person has a god-given right to drive a car. They address whether or not it’s a Right to use public roads with a car (Specifically the second one, which is about a company being required to get a permit to use public roads in the City of Chicago, when it already had one from the State of IL). Sorry, you haven’t supported your statement that it’s a Right.
Nice catch dude. I should have looked at them more.
Pete
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1623 hrsGood God Jason… Now you guys are just being argumentative.
The original comment was “the right to drive”
Second off, the precedent is there… You can sit with your thumb up your ass and play dumb all day long. Its not my job to spoon feed you information bit by bit.
If you want to be more knowledgeable (instead of just argumentative) you can read about it yourself
http://teamliberty.net/id18.html
if you choose not to, then you can continue to believe you are a serf.
While you are at it I also recommend you read and understand the 9th and 10th amendments
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1632 hrsYou guys need to brush up on your reading comprehension
Its clear as day in the cases I cited.
What next guys? Am I gonna have to explain to you the world is round too?
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1635 hrsFurthermore, you aren’t understanding the concept of elasticity of demand in context of its usage in economics.
Inelastic doesn’t mean there is NO change in demand (perfectly inelastic does)
And elasticity curves are not linear. A product may be very inelastic up to a certain point, and then elastic after a certain point.
Between $1,00 a gallon and $2.00 a gallon the price of gasoline may be relatively inelastic. Perhaps a coefficient of elasticity of .001
But between $5 and $100 a gallon of COURSE the coefficient would change.
But given the context of the numbers suggested in the original post (40 cents a gallon) that kind of change in price would change the coefficient of elasticity of demand very little.
Thanks for the lecture. Anyway if you read my link we can find that a 10% raise in cost is equal to about a 6% reduction in use. Not only that it would cause about a 3% reduction in traffic.
No that’s not perfectly elastic but it sure the heck is not inelastic either. It’s something in the middle which is what you are saying.
So to sum up..
This gas tax would
1) reduce gas usage.
2) reduce traffic
3) provide more money to fix our lousy road system.
4) provide the consumer and companies with a “truer” picture of cost as compared to our current system.
5) Spur the long overdue improvements in our railway systems..(Holy cow does our train system suck compared to the rest of the world)…The downside - and it’s significant of course is the increased tax burden on the consumer and the associated costs with that.
Those are significant - however they could be offset with reductions in the federal income tax. What if we dropped our income tax brackets a percent before implementing this gas tax?
Would you like it then?
Pete
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1635 hrsYou guys need to brush up on your reading comprehension
Its clear as day in the cases I cited.
No, it’s not as clear. You quoted only a tiny portion of the findings of both cases, and that’s a fallacy. Besides which, both cases had nothing to do with “DRIVING”, and had to do with “TRAVEL”. The Federal Government, State Government, County Government, and Municipal Government cannot take away your right to travel. They certainly can take away your privilege to drive a car on public roads. Read the entire case you cite, before you accuse someone of a lack of reading comprehension.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 1733 hrsThis thread is perfect evidence that democracy does not work and should be abandoned. Our policy decisions should be decided by selecting any number of morons out of a crowd. Those morons’ ideas would be represented by a drugged monkey that would enter a cage with a knife. Whichever monkey emerges at the end alive, that moron’s policy choice is adopted.
Driving is a right? I’ve got $5 says this moron thinks gays want to i"nvent the right” to get married and uses the argument that marriage isn’t in the Constitution. The beauty of it is he uses the “unelected and tyrannical” JUDICIAL BRANCH to support his argument.
Two or three posts in another brilliant question: will this money be in a segregated account? LOL. A five minute Google search of the federal gas tax would tell you that it is, that it is deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, and that federal highway and transit law is funded 80% with the fund and 20% from the general fund. Here’s a challenge: first one to properly describe TEA-LU gets a shiny gold star.
The best part of this thread is the conservatives showing themselves to be freeloaders no different than the worst welfare queen they can imagine. Another $400 out of MY POCKET to drive on safe highways, to not have to sit in traffic thanks to the millions more cars driving millions more miles, to benefit economically from the truck traffic carrying all of your cheap plastic crap. No, YOU shouldn’t have to pay anything for it, it should just be provided on a silver platter.
This is what you get after 20 years of “deficits don’t matter” ideology I guess.
The federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. That’s 15 years of inflation on the fee, including for construction materials that require a lot of oil. Not that the price of that ingredient has gone up. And yes, more miles are being driven but the overall fleet of vehicles has become more efficient. The result is that expenditures for federal highways have risen 4 percent a year since ‘98 while HTF revenues have risen 2 percent per year.
You want safe highways? You want to expand highways to prevent gridlock? You want the trucks carrying all that freight to get stuck in traffic? Do the freaking math. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports raising the gas tax.
Ah yes. Privatization. Always works better than government, right? The private company that took over the Indiana Toll Road will nearly double from $4.65 to $8 the toll to cross the state once the company installs electronic tolling. A project that was to be done a year ago.
And earmarks. Please. The people complaining about earmarks are the same ones who spend election season on their knees servicing the people who stick the earmarks in approps bills. If you’re ever in Houston be sure to check out the new and unneeded 4-lane highway that rings Sugar Land and ask how it was paid for.
Any of this takes 30 seconds to search on Google, if you care to.
Democracy reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons where Unky Herb lets Homer design the car that is supposed to save Herb’s car company. We’re Homer and the car is our government. The car was not a success.
I’m out.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 2152 hrsI’m out.
Indeed.
Posted by Owen on January 16, 2008 at 2200 hrsAny thoughts on the merits of the arguments contained within the sarcasm?
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 2209 hrsTo be honest, ATV, you’re kind of all over the map bringing up quite a few issues. I have better things to do right now than respond in any depth to a rant.
Posted by Owen on January 16, 2008 at 2211 hrsThe beauty of it is he uses the “unelected and tyrannical” JUDICIAL BRANCH to support his argument.
Actually this “moron” also quoted the constitution and the bill or rights to support my arguement.
That is in fact the legislative branch.
But don’t let reality get in the way of your rant.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 2238 hrsActually this “moron” also quoted the constitution and the bill or rights to support my arguement.
So you genuinely believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution protect your right to have paved superhighways for you to use free and clear.
That’s a new one.
I was under the impression that government cannot provide a “right”. Anything government provides is an “entitlement”.
If you have a right to paved highways, why not health care? Or at least the right to marry the person of your choice regardless of gender?
That is in fact the legislative branch.
Um, the Constitution is not the legislative branch. Last I checked it was a legal document, not a branch of government.
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 2307 hrsTo be honest, ATV, you’re kind of all over the map bringing up quite a few issues. I have better things to do right now than respond in any depth to a rant.
The monkey brawl to the death was a serious proposal.
How about we start with this:
Given the fact that every independent analysis of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, from academia to the DOT to the Chamber of Commerce, puts the cost of simply maintaining our existing highway infrastructure well above the dreamiest projections of gas tax collections; and given that you want, require, and expect decent transportation infrastructure to work and play; and given that you benefit economically from a robust transportation network that makes modern commerce possible; and given that the gas tax is an efficient way to make you pay your fair share for your use of that infrastructure and the benefit you receive (by passing shipping costs of goods on to you as their consumer)…
these things being true, does increasing the gas tax to at least maintain and perhaps expand our transportation infrastructure not represent a needed and fair policy choice?
If not, what alternatives do you suggest?
Posted by on January 16, 2008 at 2315 hrsSo you genuinely believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution protect your right to have paved superhighways for you to use free and clear.
Nope. That’s not what I said at all.
We have a right to drive, to fly, to do whatever we please. We have every right imaginable to mankind. The only right we DON’T have is the right to infringe on someone elses.
So I have the right to drive a car. (though I don’t have the right to use someone elses money to buy it) I have the right to fly, though I am not entitled to free airfare or anything of the like.
Tomorrow if we discover the ability to teleport ourselves, that right belongs to the PEOPLE, not government. Though we wouldn’t have the right to teleport ourselves onto private property or anything else like that.This is the most pure and basic role of government. To protect individual rights. To establish the boundaries between where my individual rights would begin to infringe on your individual rights. Because we all have an infinite number of rights. They are not limited (in theory) by a government. Rather government was intended (see our declaration of independence, constitution, federalist papers, etc for the supporting evidence of this philosophy) to protect our individual rights by serving as the arbitor NOT of what rights we can have and what rights we dont, but rather defining the boundaries between were my individual rights need to stop or they would infringe on yours.
This is the very basis of our constitution.
If you have a right to paved highways, why not health care? Or at least the right to marry the person of your choice regardless of gender?
I was under the impression that government cannot provide a “right”. Anything government provides is an “entitlement”.
If you have a right to paved highways, why not health care? Or at least the right to marry the person of your choice regardless of gender?
Its interesting how you logic works here ATV. First you misquote me/misrepresent what I said, then you form your rebuttal around YOUR comment not mine.
I never said we have a right to paved highways. So that pretty much invalidates drawing any parallel to health care.
As for the right to marry a person of your own gender. I DO ABSOLUTELY believe people have a right to ‘marry’ (whatever that means) whomever they want.
I don’t believe marriage entitles anyone (guy guy mariage, girl girl mariage, or man/woman marriage) to special treatment/tax breaks, etc etc.
When it comes down to it I really think that’s what the whole gay marriage debate is about (money) not ‘rights’.
But for the record, I absolutely believe that people have a right to marry someone of the same gender.
Posted by on January 17, 2008 at 1042 hrsUm, the Constitution is not the legislative branch. Last I checked it was a legal document, not a branch of government.
Unbelievable… Your just plain being argumentative. But if I really need to explain this to you:
You criticized my citation of legal precedent to support the fact that driving is a right, not a privilege. You said:
The beauty of it is he uses the “unelected and tyrannical” JUDICIAL BRANCH to support his argument.
I point out that our constitution and bill of rights was NOT created by a court, but rather by the legislative branch of government (at the time)
Wouldn’t you agree that the constitutional convention etc etc was part of the legislative branch? The constitution is law. It is legislation. It was penned by men who were duly elected as representatives.
So NO ATV It goes without saying that the contitution is a document. Its NOT a branch of government. But it is a product of the legislative branch of government, not a product of the judicual branch, which was your short-sighted criticism of my previous post.
Posted by on January 17, 2008 at 1049 hrsHmmm, a right to drive or a “priviledge” to drive. Question all, it is a right to work or a priviledge? Is it a right to pay for all my taxes or a priviledge? A right to buy food for my family or a priviledge? Or a right for medicanes, or fuel for heat or, or, or...EVERYTHING IS TAXED. Companies doesn’t want to give raises, but we still have to pay the same tax, either if they raise them or not “TAXES THAT IS”. SOOOOOOO my thought is, since companies doesn’t want to give raise to help out with TAX demand and increases, how about they TAX the companies the road tax since we have to use them to get to and from work to pay for all this. Our Economy is going to hell because BIG CORPERATION is sending over to China for cheaper labor, or India or where they can to get CHEAPER labor. Then they get a BIG TAX break...Then they use the trucking companies to ship it to where ever in the USA. TAX THEM. Makes sence to me.
Posted by on January 17, 2008 at 1127 hrsWe have a right to drive, to fly, to do whatever we please.
XX, what you’re describing is the right to travel. Your case citations, deal with that, not the right to DRIVE. You also only posted a couple of sentences from each case’s findings, and not the entire case, or the entire context of the finding. Go back, skip your rag “MuckRaker Report” source, but go back and read about those two cases that you have cited. Go read the entire finding on both, you’ll find that no where in either did the judge say “Driving is a Right, and not a privilege.”
Posted by on January 17, 2008 at 1311 hrsJason…
Stop reading half of what I wrote.
Go back and read your constitution and bill of rights.
Read post #68
Yes, I know that as of late, people don’t understand the role of government, and government has tried to act like it is the bestower of rights.
Some states EVEN print in their driving handbook that ‘driving is a privilege’
Isn’t it just like the power hungry government to convince people they are serfs. Obtaining permission from their government for every little thing they must do.
This is not what the founding fathers intended. It is contrary to our Constitution to say that driving is not a ‘right’.
Posted by on January 17, 2008 at 1349 hrsHere is more Jason:
See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen ‘s “RIGHT” to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580
The RIGHT to travel upon public highways INCLUDES the right to use usual conveyances of time INCLUDING horse-drawn carriage or AUTOMOBILE
How can it be any more clear than that Jason?
What next? Are you going to try to argue what the definition of the word “is” is??
6.3 The “RIGHT” of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a “COMMON RIGHT” which he has under the “RIGHT” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
10.1 The “RIGHT” of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a “COMMON RIGHT” which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another’s “RIGHTS,” he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123
12. The “Supreme Court of the State of Colorado” discussed the issue in the following way. 12.1 The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, & sect; 3 provides that:
All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable “RIGHTS,” among which may be reckoned the “RIGHT” .... of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; ....
12.1.1 A motor vehicle is “property” and a person “cannot be deprived” of property without due process of law. The term: “Property,” within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the “RIGHT” to make full use of the property which one has the inalienable “RIGHT” to acquire.
Could it be any more clear????
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivled ge07apr05.shtml
Posted by on January 17, 2008 at 1402 hrsThe RIGHT to travel upon public highways INCLUDES the right to use usual conveyances of time INCLUDING horse-drawn carriage or AUTOMOBILE
I know I’m wasting my time here… but the key word in your quote is.... TRAVEL[/B]
You have the right to travel on a public road… that doesn’t mean you have the right to DRIVE on that road. You have the right to be a passenger. Sorry, your second source is no better than your first. Look, go look at the two court cases that you quoted from, that are being repeated in all your further links, and read the entire brief from the judge, not just the single sentence taken OUT OF CONTEXT. You’re wrong.
Posted by