Group Wants 50% Hike in Gas Taxes
This is just backward thinking.
WASHINGTON – Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren’t raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.
A federal commission created by Congress to find a way to make up the growing revenue shortfall in the program that funds highway repairs and construction is talking about increasing federal gas and diesel taxes.
A roughly 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by the commission until the government devises another way for motorists to pay for using public roads.
They are so committed to maintaining the existing spending that they can only come up with one solution: raise taxes. But if Americans are driving less, the roads and bridges should require less frequent maintenance, right? And if they are driving less and are still content, perhaps some of the mass transit initiatives aren’t really necessary, right? Perhaps they should take a hard look at the spending programs and reprioritize them. They were created based on a level of traffic that no longer exists.
I keep seeing it stated that people are driving less, in articles like this and others, yet I’ve seen no statistical proof of that. It is just stated based on the assumption that higher gas prices this year changed driving habits, but I don’t think that is true. None of these articles ever sites a study proving this assertion. The end of this article even argues against that assumption talking about the number of hours lost to bottle necks and traffic jams.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 0943 hrs
Lefty:
Look out your window! I am amazed at the decrease in traffic. And Owen is right on two counts:
1.) Have they not learned that increasing prices (taxes) decreases revenue?
and
2) There were no suggestions for spending cuts as opposed to raising taxes.
Same or liberal agenda: tax & spend, tax& spend, tax & spend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1007 hrs
That American are driving less is not the point - they are. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08octtvt/08octtvt.pdf
What they don’t tell you directly is what that means in terms of scale. Assuming 25mpg and at 18.4 cents per gallon, the feds are collecting $656M less in gas taxes through Oct of 2008. That’s out of $18B.
The real issue is how we got so far behind in maintaining our infrastructure in the first place. When states raid their transportation funds to pay for schools, is it our fault we are driving less and they now have less money?
How could we, as a country, afford to build the entire Interstate system, but not have the money to maintain it?
I don’t have the statistic handy, but I read that in the 60’s, we spent 11% of our GDP on infrastructure and now it is something like 4%. We spend our money on way too much other crap - the feel good stuff the liberals (including republicals) like to waste our money on - that we don’t have enough for the stuff we really should be investing in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1020 hrs
Look out your window! I am amazed at the decrease in traffic
I haven’t noticed a difference. I’m not saying there isn’t a decrease. I’m just saying that looking out my window I haven’t noticed. Seems to be just as crowded on the roads where I drive. Perhaps the driving I do is around the time that other people do their ‘required driving’ and thats not the trips that are being eliminated.
As far as gas taxes and highway funding… There is no better tax than one that is directly related to the consumption of a service.
I think gas taxes over the years have been a pretty well targeted tax and I support them assuming the money goes DIRECTLY to road building, NOT being skimmed off for other bullshit like light rail or funding some other unrelated big government project.
If we are indeed driving less than we need to ignore the road-construction lobby that will cry “the sky is falling” and look to cut costs where roads are being used less etc. We also need to ignore the road-construction lobby and build better quality roads. “planned obsolecence”... well I guess thats a poor word choice. But building the kinds of roads that will need to be replaced and repaved frequently to benefit road-construction companies is a practice that needs to end.
Lastly, lets not forget that we seem to be a very OVERLY reactive country that is very short-sighted. I’m not sure that us driving less (if we are) is a trend, or a fad, but I do know that once taxes and tax rates get established its nearly impossible to repeal them to previous levels. Its funny how government never wants to let go of a source of taxes even when the original justification for levying that tax disappears.
The current state of our economy won’t last forever. Very likely people will return to previous driving habits and likely consumption will return to previous levels. Lets not kid ourselves that when or if that happens, the extra money we are paying in will magically ‘find a way to be needed’ rather than tax rates on gas lowered.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1039 hrs
We spend our money on way too much other crap -
I agree whole-heartedly with everything you wrote Bob.
It seems the core function of government is being ignored for all the entitlements and social spending that shouldn’t even be the governments responsibility.
Its a staggering shift in the role of government. Core services that really DID benefit everyone being ignored for entitlements that benefit only a portion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1044 hrs
I remember back in spring of 07 I had blogged on my blog about an observation reading the journal-sentinel with 2 stories on the same day. One story was about the expansion of ‘family care’ in wisconsin and the other was about the sherrif no longer patrolling park-and-ride lots because they didn’t have the resources to do so.
I thought that was ironic. We found the money to expand family care (an entitlement) and didn’t have the money to provide police patrol to park and ride lots (a core government role)
I guess the staggering shift in the role of government continues.
Soon we’ll have to hire private security firms to patrol our subdivisions because the government doesn’t have the money for police while anyone who doesn’t make 100 grand a year gets taxpayer funded government healthcare.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1053 hrs
Yes traffic has gone down, but the problem is that the our infrastructure has been underfunded for such a long time.
I am very wary though, of increasing a consumption tax because usage has gone down. Not very sound fiscally. We need to look at how transportation projects are being funded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1104 hrs
Cut Spending. Why is this so difficult in government. In your home or business you cut spending when you have a decrease in revenue. Why should government be any different?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1200 hrs
I keep seeing it stated that people are driving less, in articles like this and others, yet I’ve seen no statistical proof of that.
Bob’s link for fed highways is excellent for a national perspective.
WisDOT hasn’t come up with anything definitive yet on VMT for 2008 but they do have this little Christmas present for us
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/2030-background.htm
You will notice that they have public hearings scheduled if you really want to try and make a difference.
Yes traffic has gone down, but the problem is that the our infrastructure has been underfunded for such a long time.
Yep, LAB did a very good study of the Major Highway Program back in 2003.
http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/03-13full.pdf
And the Road to the Future Committee did a more comprehensive study of transportation needs/costs/funding back in 2006.
Same or liberal agenda: tax & spend, tax& spend, tax & spend.
When Legislators get local traction for proposing and supporting unneeded highway construction both sides of the aisle wallow in this stuff.
Perhaps they should take a hard look at the spending programs and reprioritize them.
Yep and that includes want instead of need projects like the I94 North-South expansion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1351 hrs
pjr - are you saying that the I94 NS expansion isn’t needed?
As a user of that part of the freeway - I would contest that it is in need - just like the zoo interchange. While it isn’t ‘needed’ to go to 8 lanes - it is cheaper to do it know than it will be in 10 years when it is needed.
Of course - if transportation funds were used for transportation - and not schools, bike paths, or unwanted duplicated mass transit initiatives that are black holes of money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1445 hrs
pjr - are you saying that the I94 NS expansion isn’t needed?
Yep. I drive it 2-3 times a week. Traffic is usually moving at 75+mph. Not fast enough for you?
While it isn’t ‘needed’ to go to 8 lanes - it is cheaper to do it know than it will be in 10 years when it is needed.
And you can see in your crystal ball that it will be needed in 10 years?
So what is the economy going to look like in 10 years?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1505 hrs
pjr - you obviously never went to any of the community meetings about it. So I will fill you in.
The base of the freeway has already exceeded its safe lifetime. It can not be repaved again like it was 10 years ago.
There are a number of safety issues - the crossover exit/entrance ramps thoughout Racine & Kenosha Counties are about as dangerous as you can get.
What time are you going 75mph? You can’t do 75 northbound through the Mitchell between 4-6 pm. Heck you can do 75 anytime near rush hour.
Considering that the NS expansion is scheduled to take 4 years and was originally scheduled to be done by now - would have been if Jim Doyle hadn’t raided the transpo fund - this expansion is basically scheduled maintence - but more extensive for future considerations and replacement since it is at the end of its life.
While I don’t have a crystal ball, I do have history. Looking at the usage trends - it is quite obvious that it will be needed. Unless of course you are a liberal who wants to wait until it is too late and then pursue a mass transit initive that nobody will use willingly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1517 hrs
pjr - you obviously never went to any of the community meetings about it. So I will fill you in.
And you would assume this why? Because I don’t agree with you and WisDOT?
There are a number of safety issues - the crossover exit/entrance ramps thoughout Racine & Kenosha Counties are about as dangerous as you can get.
Got any accident data to back that up? Or are you just doing your parrot impersonation?
What time are you going 75mph? You can’t do 75 northbound through the Mitchell between 4-6 pm. Heck you can do 75 anytime near rush hour.
So we should expand the highway all the way to the stateline-almost 40 miles-because there is congestion at the Mitchell interchange,
Traffic even at peak rush hour doesn’t slow down till you hit Rawson or College usually although it can rarely slow to 55-65 after Ryan.
Considering that the NS expansion….......... and was originally scheduled to be done by now
Pure bs , show me the document that states that?
- would have been if Jim Doyle hadn’t raided the transpo fund
Clint your BS meter is off the chart today, we actually had this little chat right here at B&S;awhile ago. The money that Doyle took from transportation has either been replaced by bonding or funding has come from the general fund. Look it up in the archives.
While I don’t have a crystal ball, I do have history. Looking at the usage trends - it is quite obvious that it will be needed.
If you think that any historical trend relative to the economy is more than a marginally better indicator than a coin toss right now, I would like to hear it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1605 hrs
I didn’t think anyone actually drove 75 mph on MKE area freeways. Whenever I visit it’s like the people in the “fast” lane forgot that Carter is no longer President and you can actually go faster than 55 again.
Until the I-5 through central Los Angeles is four lanes each way, Milwaukee can wait. You guys have no idea what congestion is. In the worst of it (and I used to live there) the Milwaukee area “commute” is extended by about 10-15 minutes tops no matter where you’re going. That’s peanuts - and certainly nothing worth spending hundreds of millions on right now.
In light of the economic situation there they should raid the transportation fund. In addition to cutting spending across the board (including the roads).
Posted by David on January 02, 2009 at 1739 hrs
Thanks PJR -
You love government - unless it actually does something good and right…
You won’t except a government study in which millions of dollars were spent because you extensive experience of driving the road out weighs the expertise of all of the engineers who actually know the roads and the physical properties and limits…
Tell me - When the bridge collapses over hwy 11 because the road wasn’t replaced when it should have been, I am sure that you will blame Bush for not properly funding road maintenace crews.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1743 hrs
That’s peanuts - and certainly nothing worth spending hundreds of millions on right now.
David - as a former truck driver, I disagree. We choose the loads that we took based on the areas that they went to. We never went into New York City or Boston because of the roads. Instead most freight went to New Jersey or other non congested points because most drivers wouldn’t touch NYC without heavy compensation.
Drivers will avoid areas with bad traffic. They will always go the route of least resistance. Since Wisconsin is a part of IFTA, they collect fuel taxes of all interstate commerce regardless of whether fuel was bought in WI or not. But the truck must have travelled though WI.
Crappy roads mean that drivers will avoid those roads. If they avoid the roads, then the state will collect even fewer taxes.
Hell even Omaha NE has 4 lanes in each direction through down town.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t I-10 6 lanes in each direction through LA? LA’s road problems have nothing to do with Wisconsin’s road problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1753 hrs
In the worst of it (and I used to live there) the Milwaukee area “commute” is extended by about 10-15 minutes tops no matter where you’re going.
Yep, not much has changed here in the old country.
and certainly nothing worth spending hundreds of millions on right now.
Actually it is currently just under $2billion and given the accuracy of most WisDOT estimates it will probably be more like $3billion.
I am so glad you brought up heavy trucks Clint because they get a free ride under any current fee structure relative to the damage they do to roadways and bridges.
They should be paying a lot more.
As far as your comment #15 is concerned please point out to me where I have advocated anywhere-in this or any other thread-against maintaining the roads and bridges we already have?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1933 hrs
I am so glad you brought up heavy trucks Clint because they get a free ride under any current fee structure relative to the damage they do to roadways and bridges.
How do you figure?? They pay a higher fuel tax (Diesel is taxed more than gasoline) and regardless of where they buy their fuel IFTA collects fuel tax for WI based on the miles driven in the State of Wisconsin. At 5.3 mpg but I will round up to 6 mpg (average for a fully loaded class VIII truck) and 55.3 cents per gallon(24.4 Federal Tax30.9 State Fuel Tax) The average Truck will consume 58.5 gallons of fuel and pay more than $32 in fuel taxes alone for the privilage of driving I-94 through the state of Wisconsin. That is one truck on one drive in one day. How many trucks do you see on I94 every day? So you want to continue to tell me how they don’t pay enough in taxes??
The average solo driver will put 150,000 miles on their trucks every year (Teams will put on 250k easily every year). With an average combined fuel tax of $0.46 per gallon that means EACH solo driven truck on the road will pay more than $11,500 in road/fuel taxes every year (Team driven trucks pay more than $19,200 every year)
I don’t know what your defintion of a ‘free ride’ is, but I hardly call $12-20k per year a free ride.
So if you want to keep talking smack - you might want to choose a subject that you actually know about.As far as your comment #15 is concerned please point out to me where I have advocated anywhere-in this or any other thread-against maintaining the roads and bridges we already have?
Your entire argument against the I94 NS reconstruction. The freeway is past its usefull life and cannot just be repaved. Is your arguement just to do the bare minimum at 1.4 Billion? Is your argument to do the bare minimu plus modernization(saftey improvements) at 1.7B? or to not do anything until the pot holes are so bad that they can swallow a Prius?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 2041 hrs
I am so glad you brought up heavy trucks Clint because they get a free ride under any current fee structure relative to the damage they do to roadways and bridges.
They should be paying a lot more.
If I read the rate structure correctly for Wisconsin, the annual registration fee for an 80,000 lb semi-tractor is $2,578. That’s quite a bit more than what it cost me to register my mini-van ($75).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 2055 hrs
If they want to go to a consumption tax, then the Feds and States should just bite the bullet and go with the Fair Tax. Right now, they just keep bastardizing the tax system and we get taxed on both production/income and consumption and get pretty screwed in the process. Here in NC, they are discussing both raising the gas tax and implementing a mileage tax.
Also, knowing from experience, that truckers run on a pretty thin margin already. Raise the taxes for them more and you can expect everything else that touches a truck to get more expensive. You can put food at the top of that list since it not only touches a truck, but also tractors and such.
Just for giggles, I added up how much of my total income that I pay in various taxes - local, state and federal combined. It came to 47%, and that doesn’t include fees or the hidden taxes that we pay in higher prices because of business tax pass-throughs. Property, state and federal income, state and federal gas, state and county sales, satellite, phone, etc., etc., etc….. I suggest everyone go thru the excercise - it is enlightening.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 2126 hrs
Impressive one half of the equation Clint.
Now let’s consider this.
One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars. (Highway Research Board, NAS, 1962).
Overweight trucks chronically underpay their fair share of taxes and user fees for the repair of U.S. roads and bridges. By damaging roads, large trucks further degrade highway safety. (U.S. DOT, 1997).
I know you will want to check the facts Clint.
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-trucks.htm
So mht before you compare your $75 fee to $2500 for the truck let’s do a little multiplication.
Let’s see, 9,600 x $75=?
Gee, that is $720,000, seems like there is a bit of a gap there.
But maybe that’s just my perception of it.
Now let’s use Clint’s fuel tax model.
I got my fuel tax data here.
http://www.wisconsingasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
Total gasoline tax = $0,513 per gallon x 150K per year = $76,950
Total diesel fuel tax = $0.573 x 150K per year = $85,950
Yep, Clint’s right the truck pays more
Oh, but wait there is that 9,600 car multiplier for the road wear and deterioration.
Gee that makes the revenue from the 9,600 autos’ gasoline tax $728,720,000 versus the $85,950 for the ONE Class VIII truck.
I don’t know Clint what do you come up with?
As far as I94 goes,
Is your arguement just to do the bare minimum at 1.4 Billion?
Yep, I know that may make me look like a penny pincher but $500 million seems like a lot of money to me right now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 2309 hrs
One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars. (Highway Research Board, NAS, 1962).
Do we have the same road system as 46 years ago? The Interstate system was started in 1956, and has been a work in progress since then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 2356 hrs
Do we have the same road system as 46 years ago? The Interstate system was started in 1956, and has been a work in progress since then.
Then why are we building roads in basically the same way we did 46 years ago and thinking about transportation the way we did then?
Come up with some data that refutes it and I’ll listen.
I am looking for a little bit more than conjecture and half baked bs so provide some links.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0014 hrs
While it isn’t ‘needed’ to go to 8 lanes - it is cheaper to do it know than it will be in 10 years when it is needed.
This logic makes no sense to me. Likely everything will cost more in 10 years… So lets just buy everything we need now? Whatever… in 10 years we’d already be repaving 94 if it was done today… So what are you saying? We should have it build AND repaved before its “needed”
Clint, do you work for a paving company? Payne & Dolan? If not who?
You won’t except a government study in which millions of dollars were spent because you extensive experience of driving the road out weighs the expertise of all of the engineers who actually know the roads and the physical properties and limits…
Well… I’m not an engineer… (though we employ several dozen of them) but as I drive the marquette interchange daily I’d really like to rewind and take down the names of the dumb ass engineers that said that the BILLION dollars we’d spend on the marquette would decrease congestion… My commute has not changed. Turns out the marquette wasn’t the bottleneck… I guess the engineers and all their “models” don’t really tell the whole picture…
Hey… Maybe the marquette was going to crumble like a jenga game, but lets just have an honest conversation instead of all the bullshit about “increased productivity” with less delays and crap… That hasn’t happened.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0110 hrs
Talk about half baked!
Forgot to figure mpg into it.
Truck @ 6 mpg = $14,325
Cars @ 22 mpg =$33,578,182
That certainly seems more equitable doesn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0141 hrs
PJR said
Then why are we building roads in basically the same way we did 46 years ago
Is that “fact” or “conjecture & half-baked bs”? I would say it is conjecture on your part.
Here is the history of the AASHO study - note that it was used as the basis for making improvements in road design in 1961, was revised in 1922 & 1993, and a further update was made in 2002, but not implemented.
The AASHO Road Test was a series of experiments carried out by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to determine how traffic contributed to the deterioration of highway pavements. Officially, the Road Test was “...to study the performance of pavement structures of known thickness under moving loads of known magnitude and frequency.” This study, carried out in the late 1950s in Ottawa, Illinois, is frequently quoted as a primary source of experimental data when vehicle damage to highways is considered, for the purposes of road design, vehicle taxation and costing.
The Road test consisted of six two-lane loops along the future alignment of Interstate 80. Each lane was subjected to repeated loading by a specific vehicle type and weight. The pavement structure within each loop was varied so that the interaction of vehicle loads and pavement structure could be investigated. “Satellite studies” were planned in other parts of the country so that climate and subgrade effects could be investigated, but were never carried out.
The results from the AASHO road test were used to develop a pavement design guide, first issued in 1961 as the “AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Rigid and Flexible Pavements”, with major updates issued in 1972 and 1993. The 1993 version is still in widespread use in the United States. A new guide, originally planned for release in 2002 but as yet still under development, would be the first AASHTO pavement design guide not primarily based on the results of the AASHO road test.
The AASHO road test introduced many concepts in pavement engineering, including the load equivalency factor. Unsurprisingly, the heavier vehicles reduced the servicability in a much shorter time than light vehicles, and the oft-quoted figure that damage caused by vehicles is ‘related to the 4th power of their axle weight’ is derived from this. The other direct result of the tests were new Quality Assurance standards for road construction in the US, which are still in use today.
While the study is now quite old, it is still frequently referenced, though critics point out that its data is only valid under the specific conditions of the test with regard to the time, place, environment, and material properties present during the test. Extrapolating the data to different situations has been ‘problematic’ [1]. Other studies have attempted to refine the results, either through further empirical studies, or by developing mathematical models, with varying success. The AASHO study is still the most often quoted study on the subject however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0855 hrs
pjr -
You are comfortable with increasing the price of anything - especially food - by raising the gas tax to “get fair” with the trucks? Which, by the way, is the most regressive tax there is as it hits lower income folks the hardest.
Our food budget almost doubled this summer when gas was over $4 - my guess is that it did for everyone else as well. Ya’ think that these things may have had some contributing factor to everyone spending less on like everything else? Maybe had something to do with people not being able to suddenly pay mortgages or buy new cars?
Just a thought….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0955 hrs
Talk about half baked!
Forgot to figure mpg into it.
Truck @ 6 mpg = $14,325
Cars @ 22 mpg =$33,578,182
That certainly seems more equitable doesn’t it?What are you talking about here??
Pilot - no I don’t work for P&D;. However - I am tired the state fixing things 5 years after they are broken. They are finally fixing the roads on time. One of the few legitimate jobs of gov’t is infrustructure. I don’t know when you go through the Mqt, but I see a big improvement. I now go through the Mqt during both rush hours and love the improvement. I almost never slow down through the interchange.
Yes when one bottle neck is removed traffic will back up at the next bottle neck. Traveling south on 94 from the Mqt show that the next major bottle neck is the Mitchell which is part of the NS reconstruction. Traveling west would be the zoo (another project delayed)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 1002 hrs
Is that “fact” or “conjecture & half-baked bs”? I would say it is conjecture on your part.
OK mht, let’s take a look at the project at hand.
The I-94 North-South corridor was first built in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d2/i94/need.htm
What are they planning to do that is significantly different?
Adding an additional lane in each direction.
Clearly a breathtaking innovation from the original design.
Ya, ya I know all those safety and design improvements which account for about 10% of the total cost. Wow, that really gets my heart pounding in anticipation.
As far as the AASHO study you reference, what is your point?
Have the laws of physics changed in the last 46 years relative to load equivalency factors?
Apparently not.
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL
Again what is your point?
My point is that-in this conversation-the transportation model the I94 N/S represents doesn’t work.
If it did we wold not be having this conversation in the first place.
The current tax/fee structure does not meet the cost of maintaining what we have much less accommodating continuous expansion.
Have you got something else?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1919 hrs
JJ,
Our food budget almost doubled this summer when gas was over $4 - my guess is that it did for everyone else as well.
Well given that the CPI shows food up at an annual rate of 6.3% through September 2008 my guess is that it did not.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0809.pdf
Ya’ think that these things may have had some contributing factor to everyone spending less on like everything else? Maybe had something to do with people not being able to suddenly pay mortgages or buy new cars?
No, I think that the majority of spending less part came about because in the aggregate we are tapped out.
We have leveraged and consumed way more than we have actually produced.
The gravy train is over.
It really is just as simple as that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1934 hrs
Clint,
Talk about half baked!
Forgot to figure mpg into it.
Truck @ 6 mpg = $14,325
Cars @ 22 mpg =$33,578,182
That certainly seems more equitable doesn’t it?What are you talking about here??
That is the difference in the WI Fuel tax that would be paid by one Class VIII truck and the 9,600 passenger cars that it would take to create the same amount of damage/wear/deterioration to a roadway as that one Class VIII truck.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1944 hrs
Well pjr - I think the charts are a either a bit off, or a bit behind, or both. Maybe our region is an aberration? I agree that, as a whole, the nation is over-extended. Something that a couple of trillion dollars in bailout spending will do nothing to improve. But back to the food….
We watch our spending pretty closely. Our food budget - just groceries, not including restaurants or alcohol - went from roughly $650 per month to roughly $1100 per month. It started creeping up in May, peaked in July and is down to just under $1000 per month now for our little family of four, even with buying “store” instead of “name” brands. Milk alone has gone from about $3.25 to over $4 per gallon. My friends and co-workers have experienced the same. Obviously, we have had to change our spending habits because of this. In our area, restaurants are failing daily because nobody is eating out anymore. Regardless of the charts, food is up way more than 6.8%
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 2014 hrs
Something that a couple of trillion dollars in bailout spending will do nothing to improve.
It’s way over a couple and your are correct.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, Couldn’t…......
But back to the food….
As we get poorer as a country your % of income spent on groceries will continue to rise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 2058 hrs
9,600 passenger cars
Ummm - if a car weighs about 2 tons and the MAXIMUM weight of a class 8 is 40 tons that is a factor of 20 - not 9600. Combine that with the fact that a class 8 will have 18 wheels with 2-3 times the footprint of the average car…. and your 9600 figure is way off…. or are you still quoting the antiquated 1962 study??? If you are, I have a study from 1963 and Johnson’s administration that says poverty can be elimanted in a decade…
Besides that - is your argument that the taxes paid should be equalized (at your figure) - yeah because jacking up the fuel taxes on semi’s only won’t effect the cost of EVERYTHING THAT YOU OWN.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0834 hrs
or are you still quoting the antiquated 1962 study???
Yep, and your source refuting it?
Having a little trouble with the math Clint?
Taking off your shoes won’t help.
Besides that…..
Let’s see,
Do I want to pay higher taxes/fee to offset the cost associated with providing someone else a good/service?
Or,
Do I want to have a choice in paying more for a good/service or doing without it?
I like choice, you seem to be advocating for a more redistributive approach.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0902 hrs
Well Scott ... I mean PJR
See comment #26.
Yes my math is pretty solid - 80,000 maximum weight of class 8 divided by 4,000 - average weight of passenger vehicle equals 20 - Not 9,600
Higher fees - you want trucking fuel fees to increase in price by a factor (using your math) of 2300??
To bring in a load of fruit of Calexico California to Roundys here in Milwaukee costs $2,534.40 (2112 miles x $1.20 mile) The truck will consume an average of 352 gallons of fuel (2112 miles Divided by 6 MPG) and therefore pay an average of $162 in fuel taxes (352 x $0.46 per gallon average fuel tax) - actually it wil be a bit more because fuel taxes out west are higher than east coast.
So using your factor of 2300, you think that the truck should instead pay $372,600 ($162 x 2300). Yeah - no problem. No economic issues there.
That means that you will now pay a lot more for watermelon.
If a class 8 can haul 42000 lbs of product and a watermelon weighs 20 lbs the truck will carry about 2100 melons. Each melon would would pay a road tax of $177.43 (372,600/2100). So much for the $5 watermelons for that July 4th picnic.
I wonder what the economic effect will be on the farmers - or those on food stamps?? Do you need me to answer that for you too?
If it doesn’t come from your back yard - it gets to your house by a class 8 truck. Food, furniture, clothing, electronics, everything.
I have an idea - how about we use the road taxes that are collected for road building/maintenance and not for bridges to no where, duplicated unwanted mass transit choo choos, bike racks, and jogging/bike paths. I-88 should receive zero federal funds since it is a duplicated routed interstate of I80 7 miles south.
Or we can use your solution of paying $182 for a watermelon? I wonder which one is more sensible?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0952 hrs
Yes my math is pretty solid
Crossing the line between ignorance and stupidity?
Or we can use your solution of paying $182 for a watermelon? I wonder which one is more sensible?
I don’t like watermelon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1001 hrs
Ok PJ - so you don’t like watermelon - same rules apply to everything else.
Crossing the line between ignorance and stupidity?
Really - just using your numbers to show you how thoughtless your fairness doctrine is….
But if you would like to discuss fairness of cost lets expand beyond transportation….
The ghetto uses 80% of the police force… they should pay 80% of the cost.
Those that use welfare benefits… will now be expected to pay for them.
Everyone shall contribute to a fund to equip the fire department. But those morons that are too lazy to get free batteries and smoke detectors shall pay to have the small fire put out.
Businesses use educated people. Since MPS can only properly educate about 30% of it’s students, businesses shall pay that 30%. Those people and communities that don’t properly utilize the education shall pay for the balance.
If 65% of the prison population comes from the ghetto. They shall pay for 65% of prison costs.
Do you want to continue with your line of thinking?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1002 hrs
Nice Clint,
Seems like you get the basic idea about how a user based fee system would work.
So do you still think heavy trucks are paying their fair share on highways?
Blew in and out of CHI yesterday on I94.
One hour and 30 minutes down. 1:15 back.
We don’t need those extra lanes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1254 hrs
So pj are you going to answer the question? Should everything be user fee based?? And are you in favor of increasing truck fuel taxes by 2300?
I absolutely agree - we don’t NEED the extra lanes today. My contention is that it is more cost efficient to build them today then when we do need them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1336 hrs
So pj are you going to answer the question? Should everything be user fee based??
Actually just about everything is.
It is the degree of equity in the use/fee relationship that we can choose to subsidize or not that I have been talking about.
You can’t even begin to have that conversation if you don’t know the relative values of the use and the potential fee structure.
My contention is that it is more cost efficient to build them today then when we do need them.
And my contention is that we should stop spending money we don’t have on wants and maybe’s instead of needs.
Whether or not building it now is “cost efficient” is an opinion, not a fact.
Which one of us is supposed to be “the conservative”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1400 hrs
Actually just about everything is.
Obviously not - name one function (Other than USPS) that is strickly fee based - unsubsidized and fees for it stay with that program….
The transp fund is the closest thing to it. Your entire argument that it is unbalanced is based on a 47 year old study. You refuse to answer the question of weather you believe that trucks should pay 2300x the tax. You refuse to propose a solution - you just continue to gripe that it isn’t fair.Almost nothing in our govt structure is fairly balanced fee based - with the exceptions of roads and the USPS. Those that use a majority of gov’t service pay a percentage of pennies on the dollar of those costs in the name of the great and all powerful ‘social contract’
And my contention is that we should stop spending money we don’t have on wants and maybe’s instead of needs.
We do have it. That is where you are wrong. I am guessing that you would rather just spend the money on non-transpo related BS
In 2005, the state of Wisconsin brought in $956 Million in fuel taxes alone. Not including any federal funds.
If we are not going to spending to maintain the roads that brought those funds in, then we should reduce the fuel taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1418 hrs
Obviously not - name one function (Other than USPS) that is strickly fee based - unsubsidized and fees for it stay with that program….
Not even the USPS is subsidy free.
However, because the USPS is a federal government entity, the USPS’s competitive products operations enjoy an estimated implicit subsidy of between $39-$117 million a year.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/01/postal.shtm
The transp fund is the closest thing to it.
What is the subject of this post?
The Fed and State transportation funds are broke they want to raise all of our taxes/fees.
I think we need to take a hard look at what we spend our transportation dollars on (I94 NS) and the equity of the current tax/fee structure for users of transportation.
Your entire argument that it is unbalanced is based on a 47 year old study.
And your entire argument is based on what?
Where is the hot off the presses study that refutes it?
You refuse to answer the question of weather you believe that trucks should pay 2300x the tax.
First of all it is 9600x.
Second I wrote,
They should be paying a lot more.
There is a pretty wide range between what their use/(fees+taxes) structure is now and what would be a straight-1/1- use/(fee+tax)level.
You can keep blathering about $180 watermelons if you like.
You refuse to propose a solution
Are we admitting we have a problem here Clint, that’s the first step.
you just continue to gripe that it isn’t fair.
Fair, as in fairness doctrine?
And for your most stunning disconnect from reality.
We do have it. That is where you are wrong.
Yep, the economy is just fine.
What was I thinking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1529 hrs
First of all it is 9600x.
See you can’t even do math right…
you said that it was 9600x the damage - but because of the fuel mileage the cost difference is 2300…
They should be paying a lot more.
That is one hell of a solution… Just like ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ are solutions.
How much more? You don’t want to say - you just want to tax more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more
We do have [money for roads]. That is where you are wrong.
Yep, the economy is just fine.
Did you even look at the report from the DOT that I linked to? Did you even see how much $$ is brought in to the transportation budget by state taxes alone? If the money is not going to be used to maintain and modernize the 50 year old main road used to bring commerce into this state then lower the damn taxes. It sure as hell doesnt need to be wasted on a duplicated choo choo between milwaukee and chicago, bike rakes, bus routes that are serverly underutilized or bike paths, or a as a budget balancing mechanism.
You seriously remind me of older family members pissing & moaning about I43 during its construction. State hwy 15 between Beloit & Milwaukee was fine… it only took an hour and half between the two cities. Hwy 43 (before it became an interstate) between Milwaukee & Greenbay - was suitable for the traffic on those roads…. No need to modernize those roads… piss on those studies that say traffic will increase and economies will grow…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1544 hrs
You seriously remind me of ...
A resident of in a primate lab.
Later.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1549 hrs
And now it results in name calling because you have nothing left - well because you had nothing to start with other than…
you just want to tax more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more… and more…. and more…. and more
ByePosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1604 hrs
Sorry Clint that was a bit harsh.
I think,
mickey without the caps,
would have been more appropriate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1658 hrs
Interesting note on this debate. Americans paid $40 billion to state and local governments to maintain the roads. Only $13 billion — 1/3 of that figure — actually went where the politicians and bureaucrats told us it would go, namely to maintain the roads and road construction.
The rest? Hmmm ... $12 billion to bureaucratic bloat and overhead. $8.9 billion on matters unrelated to transportation. $1.4 billion to mass transit. $7.5 for “social spending.” And so on.
Posted by Peter on January 08, 2009 at 1402 hrs
And how about in Wi Peter?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1444 hrs
Here’s the table. Go look for yourself.
I’m not shocked all that money is diverted from actual roads and highways. It’s like any other government operation, especially gummint-run skoolz.
Posted by Peter on January 09, 2009 at 0658 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134036
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 11:00 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 92
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:01 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).