Texas is practically run on regressive taxes. The sales tax? Regressive, yet it's one of the state's main revenue producers. Business gets countless tax breaks of one form or another and those giving them huge tax breaks get reelected again and again. People like me complain about the disproportionate impact on the poor, college students (who pay far more in sales taxes than they do in gasoline taxes, and would be little affected by a progressive state income tax), and the elderly on fixed incomes. If Texans were worked up about regressive taxation, they would have ditched the sales tax and gone to a progressive income tax long ago, yet they tend not to be concerned about the impact of the sales tax on the folks I mentioned, but rather a tax that is dependent, for the vast majority, on a voluntary mode of transportaion that that vast majority takes for granted... unless you mention a hike in the gasoline tax, a tax that hasn't been rasied by the federal government in 17 years, and by the state of Texas in 19 years. Go figure.
If you lived in Texas, or more specifically Houston, you would know that atuo transportation is not voluntary. If you want to be employed here, you need a car. also sales tax does not apply to basic items for living such as food, or new clothes for the school year. And changing in response to a sales tax is much easier; buy the items without the tax. Much harder to drive a Ford focus instead of a Crown Vic if the Crown Vic is a reliable car and you don't have enough money for a down payment on a similarly reliable focus.
After careful thought and much deliberation, the liberals have just unveiled their new idea to balance the budget. Spoiler Hey, let's raise taxes!!!!!1eleven Wow, what innovative thinking. It's not your God-given right to increase taxes left and right, nor to decide that "living closer to the city" or suggesting people buy better mpg cars is good for everybody. The American public spoke lound and clear in November that you're on the wrong course for America.
You could also do the following- Not repeal healthcare reform Prison system reform-stop being the world's leader in incarceration -Repeal Three Strikes law -Decriminalize mar1juana Cut the military budget to pre-Iraq, pre-Afghanistan levels Cut farm subsidies Reduce nuclear arms and the maintenance and R&D associated with them Increase penalties on tax evasion etc. etc.
Seems not many are talking about this. Fuel prices are going to increase no matter what, the question is will the the US be prepared when prices get too high. The US is going to have to find a way to get more fuel efficient vehicles on the road before oil prices get too high or should I say even higher. Its pretty simple, high gas prices decrease the amount of disposable income Americans have to spend on our glorious consumer economy. Less disposable income means less demand for goods and services, which means less jobs and the an economy further going into the ****ter. Its probably already too late, a world with high energy prices isn't going to be very forgiving to a economy that has poorer fuel efficiency and very poor public transportation. But whatever, at least we will be able to say the government didn't stick their noses in our business and try to prepare us for the future.
Without numbers to back up these assertions, they are simply hollow scare tactics. How much will it cost, and what are the numeric consequences of inaction? TIA brah
I'm not entirely opposed to raising a gas tax by about 2 cents, and then about 2 cents every time our feul efficiency standards are raised. That way, over time, as our consumption of gas slowly decreases, our income from the feul tax doesn't decrease too quickly and the American consumer doesn't feel the tax increase too much (because they're cars are getting better mileage). Its a low amount of tax, but if we consume 140 Billion gallons of gas a year (at least back in 2004, and I assume we consume much more today), then that raises a several billion a year.. money could be marked specifically for something like paying off the national debt.
I was born and raised in Houston and have lived in Austin the last 30 years, making countless trips back and forth from Austin to Houston, among other things. I'm very aware of the distances involved for Texans when they're driving. I would still raise the gasoline tax. Seems like conservatives talk a big line about balancing the budget and having a tax policy that "helps the people." What I see are conservatives that have no real interest in balancing the budget, and continue to show it by cutting taxes, again and again, in the face of gigantic deficits they largely produced themselves. When it comes to raising revenue to help balance that budget, they suddenly lose interest. Because they cut taxes, less revenue has come in, what to do? They claim that it can be solved by draconian spending cuts, yet they are the ones who busted the budget. And what do you cut? Taxes on the rich. What else do you cut? Programs that would hurt the elderly, the poor, children, the disadvantaged, while merrily cutting taxes for the rich? What bull ****. I drive a lot. I am willing to pay more for the privilege. An increase of the size I was talking about would still leave us with much cheaper gas than the vast majority of the developed world. Get a grip, people. The free ride is over unless you are hellbent on bankrupting this country. Some pain is involved in fixing a problem grown to catastrophic dimensions. It's time to grow a pair and cut out the cheap talk, with all due respect. (and I can't remember if you're a conservative!)
I remember quite well thank you and I suppose that you are one of those that suffer under the delusion that we "won" the cold war? The spending was basically one big bridge to nowhere. Star Wars for example cost 120 Billion and: http://klabs.org/richcontent/software_content/papers/parnas_acm_85.pdf On June 28, 1985, David Lorge Parnas resigned from SDIO's Panel on Computing in Support of Battle Management, arguing in 8 short papers that the software required by the Strategic Defense Initiative could never be made to be trustworthy and that such a system would inevitably be unreliable and constitute a menace to humanity in its own right. It was also fraught with fraud, waste, and abuse for example: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/03/meanwhile-the-a/ During the mid-80s, I worked for one of the country’s largest defense contractors. I had get a photograph of one of those old-style design office scenes; hundreds of green metal desks spread across acres of florescent lighted caverns, hundreds of white shirted engineers working away. I showed up on a Tuesday afternoon, and the place is like a vacant hanger; not a soul in sight. Finally, one guy walks in. “What gives?” I ask. He explains it like this: Everybody in this design office is working on star wars related stuff. Due to the contract they have, they don’t have to physically be AT work, to count as DOING work. So most guys just call in once a day, ask some technical question (“Hey, could you get drawing #546-876/b and set it on my desk for me?”). They would all come in and work on the weekends though, and do their actual work. Usually 12 hours on Saturday, and 10 or so on a Sunday. Since they were working weekends, they were paid TRIPLE overtime. I knew that back then, engineers were making in the $40 – $50/Hr. range. He said there was virtually no oversight, at any level, in any way; time at your desk, what you were working on, weather it would even work or not, no heed to schedule or budget at all. He looked out over the vacant desks and said, “Yeah, this star wars thing is GREAT!” I came back that weekend and the place was packed. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040609-reagan-military.htm Military officials in both the United States and the Soviet Union were bluffing about one another's capabilities to help fuel a push for more and more weapons, said Pierre Sprey, a Pentagon consultant in the 1970s and 1980s. "What we had was two huge defense apparatuses busily propagandizing their governments to spend the absolute maximum amount of money," said Sprey, who was prominent in a group of reformers inside and outside the Pentagon who argued against increased military spending. "It wasn't a buildup, it was just a spend-up," Sprey said. Reagan gave money to defense contractors for weapons while funds for troops, maintenance and training languished. For example, not only did Reagan approve construction of the costly B-2 bomber, Sprey said, he also resurrected the B-1 bomber, a problem-plagued program that the Air Force didn't want and the Carter administration canceled. Reagan's generosity also bred waste and excess in the defense industry, Gansler said, leading to scandals after which Congress scolded the military for spending hundreds of dollars on spare parts such as hammers and toilet seats. That led to the formation of the Packard Commission during Reagan's second term, a group led by computer executive David Packard on which Gansler served. The group recommended changing how the Pentagon does business, aiming it toward commercial practices in hopes of efficiency. A 1999 government study found that contracting efficiency got worse after Packard's reforms were put into practice, but many of them -- such as giving companies more freedom to oversee their own subcontractors -- continue to this day. If you don't think Reagan killed manufacturing in this country then I suggest you go and research the steel industry.
Nobody "wins" a cold war. There are merely relative degrees of losing. Both sides, IMO, ratcheted up spending to feel protected against the other. The Soviets ran out of resources first. I seriously doubt that without the spend up, the Berlin Wall would still be standing today.
At this point, I am in favor of: 1. Cutting spending on some programs (can't afford all that we are doing), AND 2. Allowing those making over $250,000 in taxable income pay an extra 3 cents per dollar over $25,000. We will have to do both in order to make national debt reduction be anything other than lip service.
To those that argue that a lot of the tax might be paid by the working poor, how would you feel about using the revenue from the tax to pay for a equal reduction in payroll taxes?
The unemployed guy driving around town looking for a job might not feel that great about it. How about the Democrats in power just sack the F up and not extend the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250k?
It's not your God-given right to reduce taxes paid almost exclusively by rich people left and right as has been done repeatedly since the 1960s. The only thing that God (or at least his proxy) ever said about taxes was “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” in Matthew 12:21.
Very weak logic. Your Bible verse only suggests that one should pay their taxes, not how much the government should set as a tax rate.
First, if we raise gasoline taxes, the revenues generated should be dedicated to specific purposes, whether reduction of the national debt or repair of highways or whatever rather than into the general fund. Second, if we raise gasoline taxes, we should reduce the taxes on diesel fuel. Why? If the price of diesel goes up, the price of goods sold in this country goes up dramatically. About 95% of retail and industrial goods are moved by truck at some point. So, consumers actually are subjected to a double whammy with increased fuel taxes. If truck fuel is reduced, the price of freight -- and goods - is reduced, helping the consumer recover a little from the inceased gasoline tax.
And this is worse, in your mind, than the burden of payroll taxes on the working poor? If both are equally bad, why not shift to the tax that improves incentives rather than the one that worsens them?
I recall from high school history that the Founders placed a tax on whiskey and were willing to put down militarily a revolt over that tax.
