WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

Federal Fuel Tax Increase Question

Stainless

Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
23,671
Reaction score
9,039
Would you support an increase in the Federal fuel tax?

Presently it's 18 and 24 cents for gas and diesel respectively. It's been at that rate since the 90's. Since then automobiles are getting much better fuel economy thus buying less fuel per vehicle, yet the amount of traffic has increased dramatically wearing the roads out sooner. I'm in the road building industry so I would support an increase. With prices low it would seem to make sense to try and pass a fuel tax increase.
Looking forward to the responses and how it would impact you outside of your wallet?
I realize you folks in Cali may think this is nuts given all the local taxes you pay for fuel on top of the federal tax.
 

wsuwrhr

The Masheenest
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
23,838
Would you support an increase in the Federal fuel tax?

Presently it's 18 and 24 cents for gas and diesel respectively. It's been at that rate since the 90's. Since then automobiles are getting much better fuel economy thus buying less fuel per vehicle, yet the amount of traffic has increased dramatically wearing the roads out sooner. I'm in the road building industry so I would support an increase. With prices low it would seem to make sense to try and pass a fuel tax increase.
Looking forward to the responses and how it would impact you outside of your wallet?
I realize you folks in Cali may think this is nuts given all the local taxes you pay for fuel on top of the federal tax.

You support it because you might gain from it? That's rich, don't you think?

I find it hard to believe the money would be used for ANYTHING it was supposed to be used for.

Brian
 

Stainless

Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
23,671
Reaction score
9,039
You support it because you might gain from it? That's rich, don't you think?


Brian

Exactly why I said I'm in an industry that would benefit.
I understand some, maybe most won't support it. If not how are the roads going to get fixed?
 

wsuwrhr

The Masheenest
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
23,838
I would support it if that was what the money was used for. But it will likely end up in a general fund and purged.
 

thmterry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
1,229
I think it is funny about how everyone keeps saying "Cars get such better gas mileage so we aren't using as much gas" No one seems to take into account how many more cars and drivers are on the road now and that big diesels don't get any better mileage now then they did 30 years ago. So there should still be plenty of tax money to be fixing roads. IMHO it is a management problem and not a money problem.



According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009, there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles. Of these, 193,979,654 were classified as "Light duty vehicle, short wheel base", while another 40,488,025 were listed as "Light duty vehicle, long wheel base." Yet another 8,356,097 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,617,118 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 7,929,724 motorcycles in the US in 2009.[4]

According to cumulative data[1] by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) the number of motor vehicles has also increased steadily since 1960, only stagnating once in 1997 and declining from 1990 to 1991. Otherwise the number of motor vehicles has been rising by an estimated 3.69 million each year since 1960 with the largest annual growth between 1998 and 1999 as well as between 2000 and 2001 when the number of motor vehicles in the United States increased by eight million.[1] Since the study by the FHA the number of vehicles has increased by approximately eleven million, one of the largest recorded increases. The largest percentage increase was between the years of 1972 and 1973 when the number of cars increased by 5.88%.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,527
Reaction score
95,364
I don't believe a straight bottom line increase would help without a restructuring of the entire set up.

Percentage wise the lower pump prices right now equal almost 10% @ 2 bucks a gallon.
Fuel tax in and of itself can not provide enough money for the roads this country has, or the repairs they need.

Google fed gas tax and there are some very good articles on suggested fixes.

The Feds actually make the same every year off of gas if the volume sold stays the same, so if every one does what the are saying and are buying more gas now, the revenue will be more than when fuel prices are high and people drive less or play less with their gas toys.

It's going to have to be made up somewhere else, like maybe sucking some money out of programs for illegals?
 

wsuwrhr

The Masheenest
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
23,838
It's going to have to be made up somewhere else, like maybe sucking some money out of programs for illegals?

...or maybe not taking the money from the use they were taken from us at the tip of a spear.
 

SNiC Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
26,352
Where are the BILLIONS going that we already get taxed for?

Being pissed away just like our Social Security deposits....

Currently, these fuel tax funds are utilized to study things like, why do ducks get cold in the winter? If we provide them with more tax revenues maybe they will study why birds prefer to fly rather than walk, or maybe they can put the shrimp back on the tread mill.

Government needs more tax revenues like the fish in the ocean need more water.

I suggest we Clean up before we Cough up!

 

Stainless

Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
23,671
Reaction score
9,039
I get that everyone locks up as soon as their eyes see "increase tax", but this thread is for discussion purposes.

I probably wasn't clear in my analogy.
I'll use an 18 wheeler, it hauls freight around and weighs 80,000 lbs most of the time. It was built in 1995 and got 4 mpg and its lifespan is 5,000,000 miles. It used 1,250,000 gallons of fuel at .24/gallon tax revenue, that equates to $300,000 to the highway fund.
That truck is retired and a 2015 model replaces it that gets 6 mpg. Using the same comparison that truck used 833,333 gallons and paid $199,999 in fuel tax. So that vehicle paid in 1/3 less in fuel tax but did the same amount of wear to the roads.

Someone commented just make it up in volume but more volume means roads wear out faster.
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,308
Reaction score
45,374
I will never support any tax increase, period, on anything. Give an inch and in the end they will take a mile.

There are already so many taxes on so many things, and the government just ends up squandering the money.... They need to prioritize with the money they have, the taxes they are already collecting etc. Between federal and state gasoline taxes, and the other fees associated with trucking they have more than enough money to maintain the roads, it just comes down to priority
 

wsuwrhr

The Masheenest
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
23,838
No, I got it, and everyone else did too. the difference is, no "vested interest" in the outcome, other than getting hosed, for more.

So in YOUR example, ONE truck....$300,000 in just FUEL tax revenue(fed only)....in addition to registration fees (and whatever other fees) the owner got fleeced for in THAT trucks lifetime, say 20 years, maybe. It's replacement contributes $200,000. Boo hoo.

One truck in a highway FULL of trucks, and cars, and boats, and motorcycles......and and and.

I'm not buying it.

Brian



I get that everyone locks up as soon as their eyes see "increase tax", but this thread is for discussion purposes.

I probably wasn't clear in my analogy.
I'll use an 18 wheeler, it hauls freight around and weighs 80,000 lbs most of the time. It was built in 1995 and got 4 mpg and its lifespan is 5,000,000 miles. It used 1,250,000 gallons of fuel at .24/gallon tax revenue, that equates to $300,000 to the highway fund.
That truck is retired and a 2015 model replaces it that gets 6 mpg. Using the same comparison that truck used 833,333 gallons and paid $199,999 in fuel tax. So that vehicle paid in 1/3 less in fuel tax but did the same amount of wear to the roads.

Someone commented just make it up in volume but more volume means roads wear out faster.
 

Stainless

Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
23,671
Reaction score
9,039
No, I got it, and everyone else did too. the difference is, no "vested interest" in the outcome, other than getting hosed, for more.

So in YOUR example, ONE truck....$300,000 in just FUEL tax revenue(fed only)....in addition to registration fees (and whatever other fees) the owner got fleeced for in THAT trucks lifetime, say 20 years, maybe. It's replacement contributes $200,000. Boo hoo.

One truck in a highway FULL of trucks, and cars, and boats, and motorcycles......and and and.

I'm not buying it.

Brian

Very well.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,527
Reaction score
95,364
I would support it if that was what the money was used for. But it will likely end up in a general fund and purged.

From 2009 - 2013 over $53 billion was siphoned off the general fund to shore up the transportation budget shortfall.

http://www.itep.org/itep_reports/20...WNyTHdrSxdp0eJNC-UuqqxoCzpLw_wcB#.VMP_2CwlF8E

The Federal Gov. seems to think that a set $ per gallon is a good hedge against fluctuating fuel prices, but the reality is that the cost of construction and just plain old inflation/ devaluation has had the opposite effect.

I agree with Racey, jacking the tax is not the answer. That is not to say that the revenue doesn't have to come from somewhere though.
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
I get that everyone locks up as soon as their eyes see "increase tax", but this thread is for discussion purposes.

I probably wasn't clear in my analogy.
I'll use an 18 wheeler, it hauls freight around and weighs 80,000 lbs most of the time. It was built in 1995 and got 4 mpg and its lifespan is 5,000,000 miles. It used 1,250,000 gallons of fuel at .24/gallon tax revenue, that equates to $300,000 to the highway fund.
That truck is retired and a 2015 model replaces it that gets 6 mpg. Using the same comparison that truck used 833,333 gallons and paid $199,999 in fuel tax. So that vehicle paid in 1/3 less in fuel tax but did the same amount of wear to the roads.

Someone commented just make it up in volume but more volume means roads wear out faster.

All moot if they actually used the funds for their intended purpose.
 

thmterry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
1,229
The 395 has been getting repaved over the last year or so, they took away the passing lanes and made bigger shoulders. Just as the work is finish they get approved to ad an extra lane in each direction. That's the way the Government thinks ahead and uses money wisely.
 

LakeRacer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
99
Reaction score
79
I would support it if that was what the money was used for. But it will likely end up in a general fund and purged.

THIS.


Why do you think social security trust fund is going broke? Because the idiots in congress have raided it. New taxes on fuel is not going to be spent on the roads and highways.
 

Riverbound

Banned
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
26,751
Reaction score
19,204
You support it because you might gain from it? That's rich, don't you think?

I find it hard to believe the money would be used for ANYTHING it was supposed to be used for.

Brian

I agree
 

AzGeo

Fair winds and following seas George.. Rest Easy..
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
8,298
Reaction score
7,921
lets go from 18 cents to 24 cents a gallon, across the board . Drivers will do this if : 1, 100% of the money (all 24 cents) goes to construction and repair of roads and bridges, 3rd on the list would be streets . 2, open bidding for federal and state projects, WARRANTIES by contractors, penalties for cost over runs, delays, errors, premiums for quick quality work . 3, Congress/federal politicians have nothing to do with the process, no 'trips, seminars, junkets, etc', NOTHING and equality of labor and materials prices across the country, BEFORE work begins . 4, DOT will be responsible for contracts, funds, projects, quality, and legalities . 5, Voters get to VOTE after 5 years of this 24 C rate, and may reduce it at that time . 6, any time gas/diesel prices go above $3.00 a gallon, the tax drops to 15 cents, $3.50, it drops to 12 cents, $3.99, a dime ! Congress, I'll pay for what I use, but NOT your vacations and spendthrift ways .
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
The 395 has been getting repaved over the last year or so, they took away the passing lanes and made bigger shoulders. Just as the work is finish they get approved to ad an extra lane in each direction. That's the way the Government thinks ahead and uses money wisely.

They do it the same way the city does. They slurry coat my entire neighbor hood, come back in three months and dig up the main (sewer or water don't remember) patch the nicely slurry coated streets.

Three months later slurry coat again.

They don't give a shit, not their money.
 

pronstar

President, Dallas Chapter
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
34,461
Reaction score
40,891
Guess who also contributes money to repair highways - the states.

And the states have a separate fuel tax, which is generally siphoned of to the general fund.

Don't buy into the lies that we need more taxes. We do need more taxes - to go to where they're supposed to go, and not government waste.

Giving a heroin addict more heroin is not the answer...
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,527
Reaction score
95,364
Guess who also contributes money to repair highways - the states.

And the states have a separate fuel tax, which is generally siphoned of to the general fund.

Don't buy into the lies that we need more taxes. We do need more taxes - to go to where they're supposed to go, and not government waste.

Giving a heroin addict more heroin is not the answer...

State tax is generally much higher also.

http://api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/industry-economics/fuel-taxes/gasoline-tax

http://itep.org/itep_reports/2014/0...Dgzm1utg0qaWyAo9FtZE5hoCPC_w_wcB#.VMRkpSwlF8E
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,151
So the consensus is an emphatic NO.

If the fuel tax is assumed to be for roads and their use, it should be changed from a tax per gallon to miles traveled, number of axles and weight as those are the only objective measures of wear/use.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,527
Reaction score
95,364
If the fuel tax is assumed to be for roads and their use, it should be changed from a tax per gallon to miles traveled, number of axles and weight as those are the only objective measures of wear/use.

Isn't that part of the registration fees already?
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,151
Isn't that part of the registration fees already?

There are no federal registration fees for non-commercial vehicles. Registration fees in Arizona are based upon value, not use, miles used, axles or weight. It is basically a property tax for the general fund, at least in Arizona.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,527
Reaction score
95,364
There are no federal registration fees for non-commercial vehicles. Registration fees in Arizona are based upon value, not use, miles used, axles or weight. It is basically a property tax for the general fund, at least in Arizona.

Yeah I know it is not federal, but the weight classification changes the fees in CA, I believe?
 

primetime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
341
Exactly why I said I'm in an industry that would benefit.
I understand some, maybe most won't support it. If not how are the roads going to get fixed?

The roads will get fixed when the gov. Decided to spend the money where it was intended to go.
 

SNiC Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
26,352
.... it should be changed from a tax per gallon to miles traveled, ....

Would this mileage be tracked utilizing the "honor" method or would you support the Gov to log your travel miles via other tracking methods/devices?
 

Stainless

Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
23,671
Reaction score
9,039
The roads will get fixed when the gov. Decided to spend the money where it was intended to go.

I suppose...I can't fathom where there's enough existing $$$ to get roads and bridges back to the pre-recession condition.
 

primetime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
341
I suppose...I can't fathom where there's enough existing $$$ to get roads and bridges back to the pre-recession condition.

Money would build up very quickly with the proper cuts. Faster then adding an additional tax hike.
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,308
Reaction score
45,374
Money would build up very quickly with the proper cuts. Faster then adding an additional tax hike.

Exactly, hell i just read an article from my local paper, a town of about 15,000, that the mountain biking trail park right above my shop just received an $800,000 federal grant to install concrete sculptures of desert animals in the parking areas and along some of the trails.... I mean I'm all for art, but not when you are doing it with money that was taken under the guise of practical purposes.
 

Stainless

Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
23,671
Reaction score
9,039
I don't understand the "I'm in this industry so I would vote for it." When did voting become about personal gain? I always thought we were supposed to vote at what we felt was best for the overall good of the country?

If it ever came up it wouldn't be something we voters could vote on, rather a bill that congress votes on.

In fairness I thought it's best to mention I'm in the industry and would support it rather than have a hidden agenda in a thread I started.
 

rivermobster

Club Banned
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
56,104
Reaction score
53,050
THIS.


Why do you think social security trust fund is going broke? Because the idiots in congress have raided it. New taxes on fuel is not going to be spent on the roads and highways.
Same as they do with the Green Sticker funds.

Or if they actually DO use the money, they just make new signs to mark existing areas as closed!

New taxes? Fuck no!!!
 

spectra3279

Vaginamoney broke
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
17,269
Fuck all taxes, we never get what they say it is going to be used for anyway.
 

Bobby V

Havasu1986
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
23,300
Reaction score
12,843
I don't understand the "I'm in this industry so I would vote for it." When did voting become about personal gain? I always thought we were supposed to vote at what we felt was best for the overall good of the country?
Yes!!! So you voted for Obama the last 2 elections. :thumbup: :)
 

spectra3279

Vaginamoney broke
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
17,269
Hell, with all the money spent on loto tickets, that money was for the education fund. Funny how the education fund moved to the general fund just before the lotto started.
 

CoolCruzin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
2,843
Would you support an increase in the Federal fuel tax?

Presently it's 18 and 24 cents for gas and diesel respectively. It's been at that rate since the 90's. Since then automobiles are getting much better fuel economy thus buying less fuel per vehicle, yet the amount of traffic has increased dramatically wearing the roads out sooner. I'm in the road building industry so I would support an increase. With prices low it would seem to make sense to try and pass a fuel tax increase.
Looking forward to the responses and how it would impact you outside of your wallet?
I realize you folks in Cali may think this is nuts given all the local taxes you pay for fuel on top of the federal tax.

NO
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,151
I don't understand the "I'm in this industry so I would vote for it." When did voting become about personal gain? I always thought we were supposed to vote at what we felt was best for the overall good of the country?

Different people have honest different views of what is best for the overall good of the country.
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,308
Reaction score
45,374
Different people have honest different views of what is best for the overall good of the country.

exactly, the "overall good of the country" is a very subjective term. I know what RD is saying, but this is bad wording.
 

pronstar

President, Dallas Chapter
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
34,461
Reaction score
40,891
I just find it hard I believe how any definition of "good" can involve $20 trillion of debt.

That's like saying the best way to financial health is to max out all your credit cards, while opening new lines of credit and maxing those out as well.

Because you know...owing 20x more than your annual salary is a good thing.
 

Yellowboat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
16,110
Reaction score
6,367
If the fuel tax is assumed to be for roads and their use, it should be changed from a tax per gallon to miles traveled, number of axles and weight as those are the only objective measures of wear/use.



if you have a comm'l truck in OR, you don't pay tax at the pump, but on the miles driven.
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,151
I just find it hard I believe how any definition of "good" can involve $20 trillion of debt.

That's like saying the best way to financial health is to max out all your credit cards, while opening new lines of credit and maxing those out as well.

Because you know...owing 20x more than your annual salary is a good thing.

Absolutely fair point and I agree.

But whos' ox gets gored?

For example, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost in excess of 3 trillion in maintenance and operations, as well as an additional 1 trillion in wear in the life of capital equipment. Many of the individuals who post in this forum think we should still be there. Right there is 20% of the debt outstanding.

So where does one cut, or do we raise taxes to pay for this and other deficit spending?

Each person has different views of what is "good" spending and what is wasteful.
 

Yellowboat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
16,110
Reaction score
6,367
I just find it hard I believe how any definition of "good" can involve $20 trillion of debt.

That's like saying the best way to financial health is to max out all your credit cards, while opening new lines of credit and maxing those out as well.

Because you know...owing 20x more than your annual salary is a good thing.

no bs, that is how I got to where I am now.


Litterly signed my life away. had 2 mill over my head at one point.


now I owe nothing, but taxes. I am worth $$$$$$$$ on paper, have very little cash.
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
Absolutely fair point and I agree.

But whos' ox gets gored?

For example, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost in excess of 3 trillion in maintenance and operations, as well as an additional 1 trillion in wear in the life of capital equipment. Many of the individuals who post in this forum think we should still be there. Right there is 20% of the debt outstanding.

So where does one cut, or do we raise taxes to pay for this and other deficit spending?

Each person has different views of what is "good" spending and what is wasteful.

I'm quite curious who that posts in this forum thinks we should still be in Afghanistan? I'm in here as much as anyone and I do not know of a single poster that thinks we should be still there. As a matter of fact, the topic of getting out is one of few all agree upon....Please tell us who and where this information is/was posted.:headscratch:
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,151
I'm quite curious who that posts in this forum thinks we should still be in Afghanistan? I'm in here as much as anyone and I do not know of a single poster that thinks we should be still there. As a matter of fact, the topic of getting out is one of few all agree upon....Please tell us who and where this information is/was posted.:headscratch:

As posted by AZGEO and thanked by was that guy. I have plenty more if you would like them.

Stayed, make part of it into a Military R&R spot with sand cars and drinkin' bars, and of course taken the oil as repayment for ousting Sadam, put US troops all along the Iran border and closed it off, unlike what we have with Mexico . Watched, listened, radio jammed, and generally harassed Iran (along with sanctions) into no nukes . Install landing strips for big C5's and launch towers for big missiles, scattered in between all the new oil wells making money for the USA . But no body listened to me ....
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,527
Reaction score
95,364
As posted by AZGEO and thanked by was that guy. I have plenty more if you would like them.

Stayed, make part of it into a Military R&R spot with sand cars and drinkin' bars, and of course taken the oil as repayment for ousting Sadam, put US troops all along the Iran border and closed it off, unlike what we have with Mexico . Watched, listened, radio jammed, and generally harassed Iran (along with sanctions) into no nukes . Install landing strips for big C5's and launch towers for big missiles, scattered in between all the new oil wells making money for the USA . But no body listened to me ....

Lol...I guess sarcasm escapes you??:D:D

I've posted more than once that our "endeavors" overseas currently defy every parameter of waging war as laid out by Sun Tzu.

Namely engaging in war without a clear objective, or even clear definition of the enemy.
Logistics, distance from "home", cost, damage to the homeland due to escalation of costs, everything is wrong.

In the example above, comical as it is, there IS an objective at least.:thumbup:
 
Top