A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 11th 05, 04:24 AM
Antipodean Bucket Farmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article
>,
says...
> Why not jus tax fuel- I think it would be more transparent than putting a
> tax on driving on certain roads.



They already do. Look more closely at the pump next
time you visit a petrol station, and see if you can
find the label with the price breakdown. You may be
quite surprised at the real cost of the fuel, and how
much cost is added on in different taxes.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Ads
  #12  
Old March 11th 05, 04:30 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>, MrPepper11 wrote:
> Los Angeles Times
> March 10, 2005
>
> Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates



Once again we see the result of the monies we pay for things we want
being taken for other things so that more taxes can raised under the
guise of being for what we want.


  #13  
Old March 11th 05, 04:34 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

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.



  #14  
Old March 11th 05, 04:48 AM
George Grapman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>

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.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
  #15  
Old March 11th 05, 04:54 AM
Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Rick wrote:
> "MrPepper11" > wrote in message

oups.com...
> > 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.

>
> 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.


it's privatization... next: they'll put a toll booth on your driveway,
payable to the republican national committee...
damn tax-and-spend liberal democrats!!! oops

  #16  
Old March 11th 05, 05:23 AM
John Harlow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rod Speed wrote:
> Magnulus > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> Why not jus tax fuel

>
> Because it makes a lot more sense to be taxing those who use those
> interstates.


You're wrong.

>
>> I think it would be more transparent than
>> putting a tax on driving on certain roads.

>
> You're wrong.




You're wrong.


  #17  
Old March 11th 05, 05:40 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.




  #18  
Old March 11th 05, 05:48 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>I would
>rather control my consumption to avoid taxation than limit my income.


Me too
  #19  
Old March 11th 05, 05:58 AM
George Grapman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
  #20  
Old March 11th 05, 06:55 AM
SoCalMike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.