By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Next for Tea Party? Eliminating federal funding for mass transit and the federal gas tax?

mrstickball said:
thranx said:
makes sense to me. If the feds want to raid the gas tax for other uses (suprise suprise the feds just doing what they want with your taxes) why not just take that money away and leave it up to states like it should of been in the first place. I hope the states start trying to get more power from the feds.

Thats generally the mantra of the Tea Party. Less federal government, and more state power.

If you are unfamiliar with mass transit in America, it is a boondoggle. I understand it works in countries such as Europe, but due to population densities, most systems incur significant losses. For example, the government has been covering Amtrack's losses for decades, costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year in what amounts to nothing more than subsidies.

States are the ones that invest in infrastructure. Each state has its own gas tax, and is directly responsible for administration of roads, and their populace.

Let me just inform you what Texas does for their road construction.  They use tax payer money to build new highways / expand existing highways.  They then turn them into toll roads and sell them to private companies/governments (Spanish company I think owns most).   So basically the citizens are taxed two times.  They are taxed to build the road and then taxed to use the road which the money goes out of country to a foreign business.  Does that sound like good road management to you? 

I won't even address mass transportation.  I can understand a private company spending their own money building a road/highway then having it a toll road.  I can't understand using US tax payer money to build roads/highways then selling them to foreign companies to turn into toll roads.  I want your views on state's selling their highways to foreign companies after building them with US tax payer money. 



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
mrstickball said:
thranx said:
makes sense to me. If the feds want to raid the gas tax for other uses (suprise suprise the feds just doing what they want with your taxes) why not just take that money away and leave it up to states like it should of been in the first place. I hope the states start trying to get more power from the feds.

Thats generally the mantra of the Tea Party. Less federal government, and more state power.

If you are unfamiliar with mass transit in America, it is a boondoggle. I understand it works in countries such as Europe, but due to population densities, most systems incur significant losses. For example, the government has been covering Amtrack's losses for decades, costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year in what amounts to nothing more than subsidies.

States are the ones that invest in infrastructure. Each state has its own gas tax, and is directly responsible for administration of roads, and their populace.

Let me just inform you what Texas does for their road construction.  They use tax payer money to build new highways / expand existing highways.  They then turn them into toll roads and sell them to private companies/governments (Spanish company I think owns most).   So basically the citizens are taxed two times.  They are taxed to build the road and then taxed to use the road which the money goes out of country to a foreign business.  Does that sound like good road management to you? 

I won't even address mass transportation.  I can understand a private company spending their own money building a road/highway then having it a toll road.  I can't understand using US tax payer money to build roads/highways then selling them to foreign companies to turn into toll roads.  I want your views on state's selling their highways to foreign companies after building them with US tax payer money. 

Let me respond to your question with a question, hehe:

Is the government screwing up the roads they are turning over to a private entity or not? If they are running fine and maintaining proper revenue, then I think it is indeed stupid - as you said, a double tax on the citizens.

However, there are times that its better to turn over to a private entity and cut your losses. In Ohio and the surrounding states, we have a massive tollroad that stretches from Illinois through PA - I-80. The government charges money to drive on it, in addition to the taxes taken to build the thing in the first place. Not only do they charge for it, they are losing money (we're about $500 million in debt from our portion of the turnpike)....So the tax payers get screwed three ways in Ohio: They paid taxes to build the roads, they pay to drive on it, and they pay interest on the debt that the road still has.

So in that kind of case, I do believe its better to just cut your losses and sell to a private entity. In the case of Ohio, the government is making about $3 billion from leasing the tollroad to a company based out of Australia. This company leases the tollroad in Indiana as well, and their tolls are about 30% cheaper than Ohio, so the taxpayers recover some losses in this situation - the $500 million debt is paid off, the $2.5 billion goes into balancing the budget (which resulted in lower state income taxes for the middle class), and we get cheaper toll roads.

But I digress, Ohio is a FUBAR'ed situation. Texas may not be that way, and they are doing something. My belief is that if it works well, don't break it. If the Texas roads are doing fine under government control - great. If they are not, then other alternatives should be considered. Additionally, I would question what the government is doing with the revenues from selling/leasing the roads: are they lowering taxes which may re-coup taxpayer money being spent on these roads, or are they using it to pay off favored constituents, ect? I fear I have more questions than answers in the case of Texas, as I do not live there, and don't fully know the situation. I could see it being potentially abhorent, or potentially logical.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

what does FUBAR mean? I've never heard anyone in Germany use the word FUBAR



F-ed up beyond all recognition.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Zlejedi said:
I like those guys more with every article I read on them.

We need European version of this movement to stop all the bullshit going in EU parliament which result in constantly increasing costs of life due to new ecological/social/whatever else they can invent taxes.


There's a eurosceptic fraction in the EU parliament besides independents. The problem is my country's contribution to those two are a party that thinks women are inferior and another party that thinks muslims are inferior



Around the Network

Yeah, but where exactly does this leave poor states like Kentucky that have a massive drug problem on the one hand and crumbling infrastructure on the other and not enough money in the state to adequately deal with those problems and also where all the money that the state has goes to the small town big boss men that actually run the counties and only spend money in ways that benefits themselves and their cronies?

It seems like these Tea Party ideas will actually benefit the states' equivalents of mafiosos and not really do anything for the majority of the citizens living in the states.

 

And, I forgot to mention that in some parts of Appalachia it already takes an hour or more to get to a city where there are any decent medical services et al from densely populated rural areas.  Imagine how much longer it would if all the roads were gravel.  An idea like this would essentially turn Appalachia into a third world country in the middle of the US.



mrstickball said:
thranx said:
makes sense to me. If the feds want to raid the gas tax for other uses (suprise suprise the feds just doing what they want with your taxes) why not just take that money away and leave it up to states like it should of been in the first place. I hope the states start trying to get more power from the feds.

Thats generally the mantra of the Tea Party. Less federal government, and more state power.

If you are unfamiliar with mass transit in America, it is a boondoggle. I understand it works in countries such as Europe, but due to population densities, most systems incur significant losses. For example, the government has been covering Amtrack's losses for decades, costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year in what amounts to nothing more than subsidies.

States are the ones that invest in infrastructure. Each state has its own gas tax, and is directly responsible for administration of roads, and their populace.

They cover Amtrack's losses, but don't they also cover the highway system's "losses" ? I recall reading that the gas taxes don't manage to pay for all of it, so trains are not the only thing getting subsidized.

Of course one can also ask if infrastructure like highways and trains should even try to pay for themselves. Since they benefit everyone in the country by enabling commerce, business, defense etc., there's a good argument to be made that they should be paid by general taxes and not specific taxes for the ones who use it more.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:

They cover Amtrack's losses, but don't they also cover the highway system's "losses" ? I recall reading that the gas taxes don't manage to pay for all of it, so trains are not the only thing getting subsidized.

Of course one can also ask if infrastructure like highways and trains should even try to pay for themselves. Since they benefit everyone in the country by enabling commerce, business, defense etc., there's a good argument to be made that they should be paid by general taxes and not specific taxes for the ones who use it more.


That is true, but I'd say there's a notable difference. In the case of Amtrack, to ride, you still must pay significant money - yet it still loses tons. In the case of 95% of roads, the cost to drive on the built road are gas taxes, ect. So they may lose money as well (more cost than what is collected in gas tax), but they aren't being paid for twice by the taxpayer.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Where were the Tea Party when Bush was in power? Trust they only came to power when a Democrat got elected.



Badassbab said:
Where were the Tea Party when Bush was in power? Trust they only came to power when a Democrat got elected.

They only came to power then, and that was when they got the new name...

There were plenty of conservatives who were angry and vocal about it when it came to bush though.

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Betrayed-Government-Republicans-Conservative/dp/1566252857

Comes to mind....

EDIT: Here's another good one.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184

There were a lot of conservatives talking up, espiecally at the end of his presidency.

Remember, Bush's bailout failed at first... and it failed because 67% of Republicans voted against it... even when it passed the second time, over half of republicans were against it.

The people just didn't start listening to them until the damage became worse.

Heck, it's part of why Obama beat McCain so handily.  A lot of conservatives stayed home.