Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:40:25 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article > , George Grapman wrote:
>
>> Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable
>> wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation. Rush
>> Limbaugh has a permanent spot on his web site with this data but he also
>> ignores that little detail.
>
>Even if so, I don't see how that invalidates the theme of it. Or how I
>used it. Sure there maybe a few people that have little or no taxable
>wages and make a ton in capitial gains or some such that they pay taxes on,
>but I would guess they are too few to bust the basic theme. In fact,
>such people would reinforce my point that it is dangerous where only
>some people are carrying the tax burden. It allows that large segment of
>the population to take at will from those that are paying.

Your thinking is flawed, in that almost half of wage earners pay no or
very little income tax. I'm speaking of those on the lower end, not
the upper end.
A consumption tax (which you said you'd prefer) will never happen in
the US, as they are *very* regressive.
Same goes for a flat tax.
While either would be more *fair* than our current income tax, fair is
not what's wanted.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:48:48 -0500, "Magnulus"
> wrote:

> Why not jus tax fuel- I think it would be more transparent than putting a
>tax on driving on certain roads.
>
In the US, a flat tax (which is what fuel taxes are - everyone pays
the same amount on what they use) are not popular.
Those who must drive will be hit harder than those who only *choose*
to drive, becasue they can choose not to drive, thus lowering their
tax.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

> Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

I am simply stunned at the number of positive responses supporting a tax
collector building roadblocks in the middle of a damn high speed roadway.

Toll booths have to be the DUMBEST thing anyone has ever come up with.
What's disgusting is it has it's complementary supporters.

And to those who feel that only the users should support it: guess what?!?
You DO benefit from it if you ever buy anything from a store, or buy gas or
use anything delivered by truck.

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>> Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates
>
> I am simply stunned at the number of positive responses supporting a tax
> collector building roadblocks in the middle of a damn high speed roadway.
>
> Toll booths have to be the DUMBEST thing anyone has ever come up with.
> What's disgusting is it has it's complementary supporters.
>
> And to those who feel that only the users should support it: guess what?!?
> You DO benefit from it if you ever buy anything from a store, or buy gas
> or use anything delivered by truck.

And you do support it as all those costs eventually get passed onto you by
the retailer that sells you those truck-delivered things.

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Larry Bud > wrote:
>> 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?

I'll let the URL speak for itself...

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Dumm...le/id-185.html

In article > , George Grapman wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article > , George Grapman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable
>>>wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation. Rush
>>>Limbaugh has a permanent spot on his web site with this data but he also
>>>ignores that little detail.
>>
>>
>> Even if so, I don't see how that invalidates the theme of it. Or how I
>> used it. Sure there maybe a few people that have little or no taxable
>> wages and make a ton in capitial gains or some such that they pay taxes on,
>> but I would guess they are too few to bust the basic theme. In fact,
>> such people would reinforce my point that it is dangerous where only
>> some people are carrying the tax burden. It allows that large segment of
>> the population to take at will from those that are paying.

> 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.

You're really going off on a tanget. The past situation of these people
and how you want to somehow draw their success as the result of
government spending is not relevant. Let me put it in simple terms so
you'll understand. Let's say your federal income tax obligation all said
and done is 20% of your income. Let's say I make significantly less and
my obligation is zero after deductions. I want free ice cream every
friday, as do many others. We want the federal government to provide us ice
cream every friday. There are enough of us that congress criters want our
votes. The benefits of having ice cream once a week are brought out, some
people object that ice cream will make people fat and the lactose
intolerant will be left out. An admendment is made for special ice cream
for the lactose intolerant and a provision to raise federal income taxes
1% across the board to provide for the ice cream fridays is also added.
The bill passes and is signed into law.

You now pay 21% of your income in federal income taxes after deductions. I
still pay 0% after deductions. I and the majority of people who don't
have to pay now have free ice cream every friday.

Now we want free cake on tuesdays, and chicken every saturday...

And that's why it's a problem. It destroys the republic as people vote
themselves money from the treasury. Wether you think the cause is worthy
or not, when this condition of taxation exists, those who don't have to
pay the taxes will gleefully vote for those who transfer funds from those
paying the taxes.


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money,
and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a
limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject
to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton,"
-- James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol.
14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of
Virginia,1984).

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes
for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal
policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-- Alexander Tyler

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> 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.

> 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...

With the higher tolls on I294, truck traffic is down significantly with
alternative routes (arterials, city streets, etc) seeing a dramatic increase.

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
>
> 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.

(snip)

This doesn't surprise me. IMHO, it's consistent with the idea of a
consumption tax, where users pay as they go.

I know that the idea of a toll on an interstate highway, where many
drivers enter the state at one border and drive through the state to
get to other states, has been discussed in at least one state. The idea
would be to get the people who pass through the state on their way to
other states to pay for some highway maintenance.

At least for me, having to pay tolls on interstates wouldn't be a big
deal. At worst, it's an annoyance, IMHO. But it might be very hard to
get approved and adopted.

(snip)

In article .com>, Williams wrote:

> good idea... let doctors and lawyers pay for their own damn
> professional school education...

I did. either with cash (mine or parents) or labor (grad school). No tax
money paid my tution and room/board costs.

> physical infrastructure and upkeep,
> professor and janitor salaries, etc... why should the taxpayer finance
> their getting rich?

Good question. However state universities are just that, STATE
universities. And the states aren't as limited as the federal
government is.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal
Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign
commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be
connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all
the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,
liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order,
improvement, and prosperity of the State."
-Federalist Paper 45, James Madison

> also, let the rich finance their own medical cures

There are many private sources of funding for such research right now.

> 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???

Because they have power over the elected officals and have decided that
you will pay for it. It's people voting themselves money from the
treasury in a different form and it is very bad for the republic on any
level.

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates
>
> I am simply stunned at the number of positive responses supporting a tax
> collector building roadblocks in the middle of a damn high speed roadway.

The toll booth doesn't need to be in the middle of the roadway. The NJ
Turnpike, which is part of I-95, has tolls that you pay as you exit.

> Toll booths have to be the DUMBEST thing anyone has ever come up with.
> What's disgusting is it has it's complementary supporters.
>
> And to those who feel that only the users should support it: guess what?!?
> You DO benefit from it if you ever buy anything from a store, or buy gas
or
> use anything delivered by truck.

That's true.
>