Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

"SoCalMike" > wrote in message
...
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Rick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yep. Bush is doing exactly what Reagan did -- advertising federal
>>>income tax cuts while increasing and making new taxes everywhere
>>>else. I bet the American people fall for it -- again.
>>
>>
>> If income taxes really disappeared, this would be good thing. I would rather
>> control my consumption to avoid taxation than limit my income.
>
> same here. doesnt seem like a major issue. and big spenders will always be so.
>>
>> The problem is income taxes aren't going to go anywhere. What's worse about
>> it is that an ever greater percentage of people don't pay significant federal
>> income taxes as it is. (roughly the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the
>> federal income taxes) Thusly they will vote to keep the income tax and for
>> increases in it to pay for stuff they benefit from.

> the way i understand it is that it would start out with a consumption tax
> replacing the income tax.

Hasnt happened in even a single modern first world country.

So it wont in the US either, you watch.

> then, of course, theyd gradually add a "small" income tax, then make it
> bigger, etc.

Mindless conspiracy theory.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2005 14:32:53 -0800, "MrPepper11" >
wrote:
>
> >WASHINGTON - With traffic congestion growing worse - and state and
> >federal budgets as red as the brake lights from cars backed up on a
Los
> >Angeles freeway - Congress is moving toward relaxing a decades-old
> >restriction on tolls on interstate highways.
> >
> >The legislation, backed by the Bush administration, would give
states
> >greater authority to impose tolls to reduce gridlock.
>
> An excellent idea. Congestion pricing will go a long way towards
> getting people to consider alternatives to driving. AND the money can
> be used to build and repair roads and other transportation
> infrastructure.
>
> >In California, Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach), who
chairs
> >the Assembly Transportation Committee, said she would oppose any
effort
> >to create more toll roads in California.
>
> I wish I lived in the 55th Assembly District so I could vote this
> bimbo out of office next fall...
>
> >The trucking industry group also warns that tolls on existing
highways
> >could drive truck traffic onto city streets, worsening traffic
> >congestion on those roads.
>
> That's an empty threat. Truckers are under ridiculously tight
> deadlines; there's no way in hell they are going to slog their way
> through city streets just to save a few bucks - they would lose too
> much time.

You're full of ****. Again. I was a OTR truck driver for 12 years.
With the exception of freight going into an automobile manufacturing
plant, scheduals are not "ridiculously tight" and it was common to NOT
run the toll roads to save money.



> In reality, reduced congestion benefits Truckers. They will be glad
to
> pay. For proof just look at I-44 through Oklahoma; ever see any
trucks
> driving on that toll road? How about the Pennsylvania Turnpike? I
> think I can recall seeing a truck or two there, as well...

More BS. Running the Pa Pike from the Ohio line to the Delaware River
Bridge will cost you from $107 to $140. Class 9 will run you a whopping
$794. Check out the truck traffic on Rt.322, 422 and I-80. Many of
these trucks are going to destinations that could be run on the pike
but it's just too expensive. Sure there are trucks running the pike but
they are a fraction of what should/could be there.

Watching re-runs "BJ And The Bear" doesn't make YOU and trucker.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>The trucking industry group also warns that tolls on existing highways
>>could drive truck traffic onto city streets, worsening traffic
>>congestion on those roads.
>
>
> That's an empty threat. Truckers are under ridiculously tight
> deadlines; there's no way in hell they are going to slog their way
> through city streets just to save a few bucks - they would lose too
> much time.

It is a problem and not all trucks are under tight deadlines. There was
a huge increase in truck traffic (heavy during the day and a constant
stream all night)on a 2 lane road not far from me that parallels the
pike for about 30 miles and passes thru 5 towns. This wasn't because a
road was converted to a turnpike but mainly because of the rise in truck
operating costs. I can just imagine how many towns would be crushed if a
road were converted to a turnpike.

There were so many complaints that one of the towns enacted a truck ban.
But the ban may not stick. A town in northern NJ did the same thing
becuase there was a constant stream of trucks clogging up its main st
when avoiding the turnpike but there is current legal action there
because the truck companies are claiming they are exempt because of the
interstate commerce clause.


>
> In reality, reduced congestion benefits Truckers. They will be glad to
> pay. For proof just look at I-44 through Oklahoma; ever see any trucks
> driving on that toll road? How about the Pennsylvania Turnpike? I
> think I can recall seeing a truck or two there, as well...
>

In many cases turnpikes offer the only route so I think "glad to pay"
might be more likely "have to pay".

MrPepper11 wrote:
> Los Angeles Times
> March 10, 2005
>
> Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates
> Legislation backed by the Bush administration would let states charge
> drivers fees to fund new highways or to reduce rush-hour traffic.
> By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer

Gee, what a novel idea for government, pay for what you use instead of
one class of society paying for another!

> You assume that money of those paying were never on the receiving
> end. Those who were self-made often availed themselves of an array of

> government programs from education to transportation.Those who
inherited
> money use everything from police and fire protection to the FDIC.

So what. Those who inherited money is money that has already been
taxed numerous times.

> Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable
> wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation.

Do you live in fantasyland? What income is not subject to taxation?

The number comes right from the IRS.

Magnulus wrote:
> Why not jus tax fuel- I think it would be more transparent than
putting a
> tax on driving on certain roads.

Fuel IS taxed...

But why do you want taxes transparent? Don't you want people to know
what they're paying for big government?

End the withholding, make everybody pay quarterly.

Larry Bud wrote:
> MrPepper11 wrote:
> > Los Angeles Times
> > March 10, 2005
> >
> > Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates
> > Legislation backed by the Bush administration would let states
charge
> > drivers fees to fund new highways or to reduce rush-hour traffic.
> > By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
>
> Gee, what a novel idea for government, pay for what you use instead
of
> one class of society paying for another!

good idea... let doctors and lawyers pay for their own damn
professional school education... physical infrastructure and upkeep,
professor and janitor salaries, etc... why should the taxpayer finance
their getting rich?
also, let the rich finance their own medical cures
same with sports stadiums, why in the hell should a visitor pay for
higher hotel and rental car taxes to subsidize the rich when they never
use it - they don't even know where the heck the stadium is???
same with corporate welfare and corporate subsidies, why should
consumers pay for things that they never buy or use???

Larry Bud wrote:
> MrPepper11 wrote:
>
>>Los Angeles Times
>>March 10, 2005
>>
>>Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates
>>Legislation backed by the Bush administration would let states charge
>>drivers fees to fund new highways or to reduce rush-hour traffic.
>>By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
>
>
> Gee, what a novel idea for government, pay for what you use instead of
> one class of society paying for another!
>

But we already have that with road use taxes which are consumption
taxes. The problem faced now is that it would be political suicide to
increase those taxes because of the current outrage about high fuel prices.

Turnpikes are just bigger bureaucracies we don't need. As I said we
already have a consumption tax and there are reporting mechanisms for
heavy users such as trucks to insure that each state gets their share.

Williams wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > MrPepper11 wrote:
> > > Los Angeles Times
> > > March 10, 2005
> > >
> > > Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates
> > > Legislation backed by the Bush administration would let states
> charge
> > > drivers fees to fund new highways or to reduce rush-hour traffic.
> > > By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
> >
> > Gee, what a novel idea for government, pay for what you use instead
> of
> > one class of society paying for another!
>
> good idea... let doctors and lawyers pay for their own damn
> professional school education...

Absolutely,

> same with sports stadiums, why in the hell should a visitor pay for
> higher hotel and rental car taxes to subsidize the rich when they
never
> use it - they don't even know where the heck the stadium is???

Absolutely,

> same with corporate welfare and corporate subsidies, why should
> consumers pay for things that they never buy or use???

I'm glad we agree. Of course at the same time completely get rid of
corporate taxes, since corporate taxes really are consumer taxes since
the tax burden is just built into the price of goods.