Well, the 'taxpayer friends', the Democrats in Congress, now want to raise our gas tax 10 cents higher for 'highway' improvements. As if gas prices aren't high enough, now the Democrats are trying to pass this. I heard it on the news this morning. I googled it and found this and other links:


Omission Watch: Dems 'Quietly' Call for Gas-Tax Hikes | NewsBusters.org

Surprise surprise.

Poor people who can't afford newer, more energy-efficient vehicles and are driving old guzzlers around will really take a hit with this - as if they haven't been hit hard enough.

So much for looking out for the little guy....

The roads still need to be maintained. People are actually driving less. There is therefore less money in the fund. Your solution?

I would be more concerned about what house GOPers did today.
House bid to sell oil from reserve fails | U.S. | Reuters

Yes, the roads still need to be maintained but honestly -- how much of the 10 cents that we are going to pay is actually going to highways?? People driving less? Hmmm... not in our family. My DH and son still have to drive the same mileage to work every day, as does everyone I know. Just because gas prices are higher doesn't stop people from having to go to work and do all the other things necessary. Ten cents more a gallon on top of what the going rate is will only drive consumer prices even higher.

Make your own thread and don't hijack this one with something you want to 'avert' attention away from the subject at hand -- which is the democrats want to raise our gas prices even higher, knowing people are already having a hard time financially. Just another way for the democrats to make the people of the US more dependent on the government.

America has cut its use of petroleim products. We are driving less. We are switching to more fuel efficeint cars. We are not buying as much gasoline. Therefore, less money for the highway fund.

Democrats have no desire to drive gas prices higher and no desire to make the citizenry dependent on the government.

So, how would you keep the highways maintained? We could turn all federal highways into toll roads. We could sell them outright to foreign concerns and turn them into toll roads. We could learn to live with potholes.

Well, according to your statement, we're not using the highways as much, so why do the democrats feel the need to TAX us more for highway upkeep???

Most potholes are caused by freeze/thaw cycles. The amount of traffic has little effect. You get potholes whether anyone drives or not. What's so hard to understand about that?

Nothing hard to understand about that. But there's little freezing/thaw in Florida, California, Arizona -- lots of states in the U.S. don't have to worry about the freeze/thaw effect. Anything else you want to try to rationalize the TAX hike the Democrats want to impose on us 'cause that one doesn't float!

This is a big country. Not all states have the climates of Arizona. I have seen it become so hot that asphalt partially melts. Highways are subject to erosion from wind, rain, abrasives and from cars driving over them.

Are you asking me to believe that highways don't require maintenence?

So what you are saying is that if there were more economic stimulation in the fuel department that a tax cut might be possible?

If everyone in this country started driving Hummers or other fuel guzzlers, you would still have the same number of cars on the road and the same number of potholes. Yes, you could reduce the gas tax in that event.

So for the record, a stimulated economic situation and lower taxes should go hand in hand?

As in the example I gave about everybody switching to gas guzzlers, yes you could lower taxes in that case. However, if gas sales went up because more cars were on the road, no, it wouldn't work. Cutting taxes has never once increased revenue.

Cutting taxes is a pipe dream. As the dollar continues to decline, we need more of them just to pay the interest on the debt and many more just to put a dent in the principle.

Cutting taxes have been proven to increase revenue.

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

"Conclusion

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."

I know that "tax cuts increase revenues" is a closely held part of Republican beliefs. The fact that this has never, ever happened doesn't seem to make a difference. The gist of the paper you provide is that tax cuts make the rich less likely to shelter income. Again, it just not true. By the way, this paper was written by 6 Republicans. One of whom, Mark Sanford, doesn't seem to be particularly knowledgeable on any subject. I cannot speak for the others on the list, I have never heard any of their names before today.

The Reagan tax cuts created an enormous federal deficit. That is certainly a fact. They most certainly did not increase revenues and that is another fact.

You do know that the tax on gas is not the ONLY source for revenue for the roads, don't you???

http://service.govdelivery.com/docs/...0020515_en.pdf

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

The fact that tax increases will bring prosperity is a closely held part of the socialist belief system. The fact that this has never, ever happened doesn't seem to make a difference.

The runaway spending fueled by the Democratically-held congress of the 80's was so great that even the increase in federal revenue brought about by the Reagan-driven tax cuts couldn't offset it.

And that is another fact.

I do indeed.

Look for farther research at the "endnotes". Just google those items.

FACT: " President Kennedy pushed for a tax cut in 1963. Soon after the tax cut, employment rose and the economy expanded."

Socialists do not believe that tax increases bring prosperity and neither do Democrats. Tax revenues need to be sufficeint to cover the amount needed for the government to function and to fund the programs for which it is responsible.

As I recall the 80's, Reagean spent far more on weaponry than we ever had before. Remember the Star Wars program? Phenomenally expensive and it never worked. Reviving it was one of GWB's top priorities.

Reagan's tax cuts did not increase federal revenues; they depleted them. Reagan was a lousy president.

I absolutely do.

It was necessary at the time. It worked. The Soviets folded because we escalated the Cold War to a level at which they simply could not keep pace, and Mr. G. tore down that wall.

That was a nifty speech, made by perhaps the greatest President of our time. Do you need me to find the transcript for you? He was actually President when he spoke there, which made BO's attempt to replicate that energy a little .... well, it seemed like a bit of arrogant copy-catting to me.

Whatever Obama does or does not do will be suspect in your eyes, and, it has nothing to do with the fact that Reagan was a lousy president. This addle pated individual seems to be inspiration for all Republicans and while he played a part in bringing down the Soviet Union, he didn't do it single handedly.

The last thing this economy needs is for people to be taxed more.
What needs to happen is a decrease in government spending and a cut in taxes. Both needs to happen! People need to be able to keep more money in their pockets.
The American people are only at the beginning of a very serious economic crises.

What this country doesn't need is an increase in taxes for the middle class. But, we do need to increase revenues which means allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire.

You must really like paying taxes, huh?

I think that taxes are necessary, yes. No, I don't like paying them.

Do you believe that those making over $200,000 should be taxed so highly that their standard of living is equal to that of someone who makes $90,000?

Not so that the standard of living is equal. But, they should be pay more taxes.

Where do conservatives come up with such silly questions?

Because if you tax the 'rich' as much as the leftists seem to want, and cut taxes on the middle class, eventually the amounts in their bank accounts will be equal.

It's math. Check it out.

They DO pay more taxes! Maybe they have more deductions than a lower-waged person, but if a person has worked hard to earn big money, they deserve it!

And what 'silly question' are you speaking of?

I love that phrase. When you can combine "hard work" and "deserves" in the same sentence, my mind just does not leap to the wealthy.

Tell me, what constitutes "hard" work in your mind? Do they work any harder than the checker at the grocery store or the counter person at a fast food restaurant, the person who picks the tomatoes sold at the grocery store, or the person who stays up all night to clean an office building? Almost everyone who works, does something that makes the world run better for the rest of us. What makes the cushy work done by those paid enormous salaries "harder"?

The "rich" people are the ones that kept the economy going. They are the ones that provide the capital, investments to provide the compaines, etc with job for us "regular folks".
Most people do not realize how many people that "rich" people employ, or create jobs for others.

My boys are plumbers they have been involved in the buildings of muti-million dollar homes. Some of these "rich" people have drivers, cooks, housekeepers, maids, yard workers, handman, security people, etc. They pay them every week. This does not even begin to include all the jobs that "rich" people have created by spending their money and "contributing to society".

So yes, they make made or have a lot of money but they also provide and help support our country. Should they be taxed more and more just because they are lucky enough to have wealth? By taxing the wealthy more you might indirectly hurt another person that needs a job that the wealthy created.
Life is not fair and it will never be. Trying to make everyone have the good life is never going to work.

The workers are the ones who keep the economy going. Henry Ford knew he had to pay his workers enough so they would be able to buy a Model T. That concept seems to have been lost on today's "rich" people. The direct line between the boss and his workers is many times lost now because the "share holders" must be satisfied and the workers who actually create the product or provide the service are at the bottom of the monetary line.

Where would the rich be without men like your sons who plumb their mansions?

I am not for taxing wealthy people out of their fortunes but tax tables don't give good insight into the deductions and shelters available to the wealthy. Wasn't it Warren Buffett who said his tax bracket is lower then that of his office assistant.

Bottom line, it is the workers who keep our country going.

It has always been my understanding that the purpose of "tax cuts" for the "rich" are for the trickle down effect. Much like you talk about here. The more income the "rich" get to keep, the more they have to stimulate the economy in just the way you are mentioning. It is like giving businesses big tax breaks and incentives to come to your town. Where do you think the franchise fee you pay on your different bills goes???? Right to the company. That was an incentive to get them to come there, provide jobs, contribute to the local economy, etc.

Everyone wants to keep as much of their money as possible, I believe. But, we do all need to pay taxes. There are many "loopholes" that the rich find, as well, so they don't have to pay so much.

Just wondering, what constitutes "rich". What is this huge figure that people are raking in where they are being taxed so much???

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Were you under the impression that plumbers made less than minimum wage or something?

No. Whatever gave you that impression?

I don't know what you consider 'rich' but our plumber makes more than we do.

I don't understand the general animosity towards people with means. I really don't. And I don't understand why there is such reluctance to expect personal responsibility. Those not making enough for the job they do have a responsibility - both to themselves and to society at large - NOT to 'support' poor-paying employers by continuing to do work for them.

Animosity toward people with means? IMO that's a stretch if you're directing that toward what I wrote.

Personal responsibility is a 2 way street. Using my example of Henry Ford, he knew to assure the success of his business he needed to pay his workers enough so they could afford to buy the product he designed and they produced -- personal responsibility. The workers job is to create a product or provide a service that reflects well on the product or service -- again personal responsibility. Both parties should be compensated and taxed fairly for their efforts. Neither can be successful without the other.

Would you say that essentially the government is in the service industry? They exist to provide us with services, collectively. They maintain our transportation infrastructure, provide law enforcement and justice, protect us from foreign threats, etc.

The government, by taxing us, distributes the funds to provide those services. What's your point?

My point is that I can't think of other things for which we get to enjoy the benefits of services based on an income-based sliding scale.

Those at the bottom who have children not only don't pay taxes but actually walk away with cash in their pockets from the child tax credits. Tell me again which President is responsible for those being as high as they are? They enjoy the same roads, the same police protection, etc., for no money *and* they get a check.

Is it fair that they reap the benefits of these things despite the fact that they have not made a contribution to the pool of money that funds those services? If we're truly all about *fair*, that is?

Oh okay, let's provide services based on income. Those at the bottom get a response from the fire department's truck with holes in the hose.

I'm sorry that you feel the tax system is unfair. You're bothered by the children who benefit from tax breaks for their parents. I'm bothered by a company like Halliburton which, to escape our justice system and laws and probably save millions in taxes, moved it's headquarters to Dubai.

As is said, to each her own.

Here's the funny thing, though. While we don't qualify for free or reduced lunches or anything, by the time we itemize (family of five, give about 15% - 18% to charity, etc.) we owe barely anything in federal income taxes, and then when Uncle Sam says, "Oh, and by the way - here's a credit for those kids of yours!" we end up in the very situation I spoke of above - getting a check! It seems insane to me. We'd be fine *without* that refund so why on earth things are set up so that the level of income we make qualifies for it makes me scratch my head. I don't consider us poor at all.

I'm not complaining, mind you. We paid taxes before we had kids and once we're empty nesters we'll pay them again, so I'm not losing sleep with guilt or anything. I'm just having trouble why people are complaining that the middle class need taxed *less*, given that we're currently not federally taxed at all!

FWIW, our income is 35% above the average income for a family in our county.

From ethanol subsidies on down, big businesses end up with breaks. Is it fair? I don't know. But I do hope you complained about the subsidies Tyson Chicken got when Clinton was in office. I have to think if Haliburton didn't have a Cheney connection but rather an Al Gore connection if they would take so many hits from liberals.