If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"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. > |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|