Well, it's supposed to go for highway improvement. So it's okay. Right? Well, at least some of it goes to the Highway Trust Fund so we know how badly that's misused. Now, as Americans are driving more fuel-efficient cars and driving less, can you guess what's coming next. Short piece @ http://time.com/2970858/gas-prices-tax-map/
Its pretty simple, people who use stuff should pay for it. If the roads are falling apart because there is not enough money the tax on gasoline should be increased enough to fix them. How is that a problem?
Doesn't really seem like a lot of money when you think about it. Albeit I don't drive, but if where I live gas is about $3.75, and 69 cents is going improving highways, that's not really a lot of money going into the system when you do the math.
The Highway Trust fund has generally not been misused. Underfunded, maybe. So, where do you think the money should come from for the Federal government to fund to build and maintain roads?
Why on earth do we have a socialist highway system? Is it any wonder that traffic problems are so widespread?
We had a private free enterprise road system when the US was founded. It's where the name turnpike comes from. It was not really working out and was a primary reason why over 90% of the population lived within walking distance of navigable waters and all commerce was by water. The first postmaster general, Ben Franklin, established the first public "post roads" simply so mail could be delivered overland in a timely fashion because delivering the mail by water, while quicker, was fraught with danger and loss. The public post roads proved wildly popular and created a huge public clamour for the building of more and more public roads and highways, which the politicians obliged until the railroads became established and exerted their considerable influence on politics, which led to a long period of neglect for all roads and highways, public or private. I am not sure that many people these days understand the extent of control that private railroads had on the transportation of goods and people in the US. Public roads and highways were improved and expanded during the great depression as make work projects and after WW2 the interstate highway system was built for national defence because of the cold war, when it was decided that fixed railroads and cities in general were too vulnerable so the people industry and the transportation system should be dispersed. That led directly to suburban sprawl and somewhat later, the internet.
False. There were hundreds of private road building companies that built thousands of miles of roads all over the country. States started building roads and other "internal improvements" projects in order to funnel public money into private hands. The corruption was so rampant that millions were lost and very little roads were actually built. Some states passed laws preventing such public works projects because they had lost so much on them. Eventually the federal government started funding highways. Governments don't step in because of market failure, they step in because it's an opportunity to steal more money from the public and give it to special interests.
Much of the railroad system we have was originally created through public land grants, and public dollars. No government involvement would have meant decades of lost growth and expansion to the West.
Tolls and voluntary annual fees for using major roads (such as motorways). Should also be left to the states or (preferably) private associations.
States should administer to state roads. The reason the interstate system was devised was because states took such different approaches to highway systems, construction and such. I don't see any advantage to private associations being involved, except in very limited intrastate roadways. The costs and ability for a private association just to get the easements are far higher than a government getting them.
Nothing wrong with that. I don't value the homogeneity advantage enough to centralize it. The advantage is that taxation is not involved.
Eisenhower's approach was both a national security advantage, and an economic boon, that saw opportunities be created, from new businesses and industries, and the jobs that came with them. The disadvantage to your wish is the inefficiencies and costs are greater than what we have. And that would lead to hurting US businesses, job growth and would result in larger deficits.
Short term operating profit or long term return on investment? Long term gains are often overlooked when discussing government infrastructure funding. It has been estimated that the Interstate Highway System has generated over $1,000 in Federal tax revenue for every $1 the Federal government spent to build it over the last 60 years. This was estimated from increased economic activity directly attributable to increased mobility and transportation efficiencies. Overall state local and federal revenue increases due to direct and indirect economic activity generated by the interstate highway system have been estimated at $5-10,000 per $1 spent. It has been calculated that some roads and bridges built by the WPA during the Great Depression of the 1930s have returned tax revenue more than 20,000 times their cost over their lives. Building the interstate highway system was a very profitable long term investment for government. It is a scale of investment and long term profit realization that no private operator could or would ever consider. The private sector can build a road but will only gain revenue from users. The government can build a road and charge nothing for its use because it will make a profit from the increased tax revenue generated by the economic activity the road generates. This is both the how and why that government can and should embark on infrastructure building that is entirely impossible to finance and gain profit from for the private sector.
Yeah, that's ideal. - - - Updated - - - It's easy to run a profit when your revenue is achieved through threat of imprisonment. If it's impossible to build in the private sector then don't have it. No exceptions.
I sort of agree with Mexico's approach to the highway system. Its version of our Interstate system is a toll road. Well-maintained with high speed and regular, clean rest stops. The "free" version is less well-maintained and heavily trafficed. However, the USA under Eisenhower, followed the system founded by Herr Schickelgrueber called the Autobahn. It sadly replaced our rail system which European countries have kept intact.
So what is everyone supposed to do? Buy a money tree and hope it produces enough dollars to live on? Get put in ghettos until they starve? It serves no purpose to increase poverty, except in the minds of sociopaths and the ideologically driven.
It's easy to claim that when you are an imbecile. Alrighty then, it will be a quick devolution back to the dark ages for everyone. Just imagine, no corporations, no eminent domain, no bank regulations. No state police, no municipal fire departments NO TAXES!!! Yippee!!!
I would be overwhelmingly happy if that happened as soon as possible. In the absence of government incorporation it's not like McDonalds would be like "yep - let's close our 2000 stores and burn all our stock", government incorporation basically exists to provide them with special privileges in society: limited liability, subsidies, the first grab at the RBA's counterfeited cash before it devalues everyone else's, etc. No eminent domain is another positive. People should have to voluntarily negotiate for land. Bank regulations are another plus - bank regulations should include whatever the bank and myself agree in a contract, third party externalities aside - externalities which are almost always magnified by state-industry banking cartels. Police and fire should be run voluntarily. No taxes, best of the lot! [Hr][/hr] Thanks for the list.
the gas tax has not kept up with inflation, time to raise it something like 8 cents, big deal sellers would have to lower the price if people could not pay the 8 cents, trust me, they will sell more for less rather then take a profit loss .
Everyone is ideologically driven - your post was ideologically driven. Its not possible to make a statement of the form "x ought to be the case" without being driven by ideology.
Well, if that is the case, then my ideology is based in facts and what works, and not pie in the sky hopes for my ideology to trump reality, as we've seen in the American conservative movement. I'll allow reality to dictate the results of a policy or program, and not try to argue that reality is wrong. The
Facts stop at the descriptive world, you're making clearly normative claims. As for "what works" - to what end? Why should I value that end? At the end of the day it reduces itself to preference and ambition. I am yet to find any compelling reason to accept any normative claim as valid beyond preference. Facts can tell us that if you want to win the race you need to run as fast as you can - but not why we should run the race in the first place. That's down to preference. I'm open to suggestions otherwise.
Well, I think the feds need to raise the current $0.184 per gallon tax up to about double, then quarterly index it to inflation. I'm not much for income taxes, but I'm OK with usage fee taxes. The federal levels have been in severe need of more money to maintain the highway and interstate systems. My problem is with how Oregon uses gas taxes. Too many bike lanes/trails they build with it, then allow the potholes to grow in size.
