Is he really this politically inept or is something deeper afoot here? See the first sentence there? Is this the set up for passing the car tax without a vote? Me thinks the end game is such.
PORTLAND, Ore. - Soaring gas prices are not translating into more tax revenue for Portland's Department of Transportation for a simple reason: people are driving less.PDOT officials are now forecasting a budget shortfall of $2.7 million, money that was earmarked for projects from pothole repair to paving streets. Susan Keil of PDOT said the shortfall is "serious stuff" and the department will ask the city council to give them funds from the city's "rainy day" reserve fund.The rest of the story here.
7 comments:
People driving less is a good thing.
Higher gas prices could not have increased gas tax revenue anyway, since it is a per gallon, not a percent, tax. (Or am I incorrect, do we have a percent tax?)
So what is the point of stating that they don't (as if otherwise they would have.)
Higher gas tax is a better idea than a car tax, for multiple reasons.
- The system of collection is already in place
- It is directly correlated with amount of road use (although far from a perfect measure)
- It is a way to get revenue from people using our roads, who do not live here
But a car tax is a better choice than pulling money from the general fund.
Didn't the people vote, indirectly, for this tax.
I believe I read something to the effect of that, here on this very blog, after the last election.
Was not there some statement indicating that people had voted for these taxes when they elected Democrats a few years ago?
I am rather disappointed that this tax is taking so long to materialize.
Aren't there some other taxes which we were supposed to be getting, that have failed to materialize as well?
A tax is a tax is a tax.
A tax by any other name still stinks.
Two simple truths that Eileen obviously does not, or chooses not, to understand.
Also.. if a tax is collected and spent on things other than what its collected for.. isn't the reason the voters "approve" or "vote" for the tax in the first place invalid?
kitanis, I agree with you.
Taxes should be spent on what they are designated for, and if not needed for that should be returned to those who paid the tax.
However, if the money has already been spent, and is not there, more money needs to be collected.
What you make, is an argument for NOT pulling money from the "rainy day fund" to pay for road repeair.
Scottiebill
I completely comprehend the
"tax" = "tax".
If any "tax" stinks (I am assuming you mean is bad), then how do you propose we pay for such things as defense, police, government, roads?
Do you propose we do away with these things completely?
I am wondering if you understand where the money, which pays for defense, fire protection, police, government, roads, schools and other infrastructure comes from.
I would be interested in seeing your idea, of how this should all be handled.
I have a brilliant idea of how funding should be handled. This idea has the virtue of being the means of funding that the writers of our Constitution imagined. They felt that the government's financial responsibilities could be handled by means of tariffs and fees. Income taxes, the most signifant type of tax, were an invention of the high-minded reality-ignorant Woodrow Wilson (the idea had been tossed around previously but he deserves the blame for it) to fund involvement in a war where the only Americans being attacked were the fools who thought that it would be a fine idea to sail on British ships through a German submarine blockade.
Thus, I tacitly agree with ScottieBill (that taxes are an extraordinarily poor economic idea) and further add that our fine government should have its allowance reduced until it learns to do only what is neccessary (i.e. maintain and improve infrastructure instead of blowing $5 million to move a bridge). I guarentee that if the government only did that which was actually neccessary, it would suddenly discover that it could do its duty without bleeding the citizens from every limb.
I mean, think about it this way: the big bad evil profiteering greedy oil industry makes a profit of maybe 10 cents off of every gallon of gas it sells (after having to pay to pump the oil, transport the oil, refine the oil, transport the gas, etc) and the government makes 40 cents or more off of every gallon because the government doesn't have to pay for its production. It skims pure income off of each gallon sold and consumers are the ones who're suffering for it. You can blow $50 off a fillup for a 14-gallon small car. If the government isn't taking its share, you pay $44.40 instead (using my 40-cent-a-gallon estimate). The gas tax is a 10% markup when politicians are whining about gas prices and blaming the oil companies. Incredible, ain't it?
Just as an aside, Eileen, I can obtain the precise amount of tax per gallon and plan to post it when I return home from an errand (I know of a gas station that posts the precise breakdown of the price it charges for each gallon).
Oh, just came across a chart... according to this, as of Feb 18 2008, the government makes 60 cents off each gallon. That means that the hypothetical $50 gas bill would be $41.60 which means that government taxes amount to a 17.8% markup. Yet, Eileen, you are explaining to us that we should RAISE these taxes? The same chart says that an aberage gallon of gas would have cost $2.59 instead of $3.19 in Febuary without the government. Again, Eileen, we should make gas MORE expensive? I just can't figure out what would make you believe this.
Eileen: I understand completely about where the money comes from that is to pay for all the things you listed. However, when the government entities that we pay those taxes to use that money for something other than what they were originally designated for, then we should not have to pay more in taxes to pay for those government entities to make up for the shortfall that they created in the first place.
If they choose to use the collected monies in other pet projects, then why should we have to pay more so that these bureaucrats can spend it for their pork-barrel projects that we did not approve of through voting for it, or not?
so far, all I've seen of the politicians in the Portland-Vancouver area is that they have never seen a tax that they did not like.
Post a Comment