[Vision2020] legislative report

[Donovan Arnold]

"The five cents/gallon gas tax would help what I think of as a "painful 
but good for us" trend - getting us out of the mode of driving so often, 
and forcing us to look for vehicles with better gas mileage or for 
alternative means of transportation." Paul R.

I think having crappy roads does a good job of keeping people off the roads too. :P

I am against this tax, as I am against all regressive taxes that strike the poor hardest. Raising taxes on fuel raises the prices of everything that gets transported, and hurts transportation people like truck drivers, cab drivers, and delivery drivers and services. It also disproportionately hurts people driving around looking for work, and it hurts poorer people that live in places like Deary, Troy, Potlatch, and Gennessee that commute to Moscow for work because they cannot afford a house in the city. 

If you are going to tax anything, tax the wealthy or unneeded luxury services. Anyone that supports regressive taxes, like increases in taxes on dollar, is for taxing the poor a higher percentage of their income than the rich, because that is exactly what a regressive tax is about. 

Best Regards,

Donovan







--- On Fri, 2/27/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] legislative report
To: "Shirley Ringo" <ringoshirl at moscow.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:20 AM

Shirley Ringo wrote:
> A recent audit of the Department of Transportation showed that revenue 
> for the department is not adequate to properly maintain existing 
> roads. As you probably know, Governor Otter put forth proposals to 
> increase taxes and fees for the purpose of obtaining funds to properly 
> support road maintenance. Yesterday (Thursday) the Transportation 
> Committee heard three proposals to raise gas taxes. Governor Otter’s 
> proposal would raise the gas tax an additional two cents a gallon each 
> year for five years. Transportation Committee Chair JoAn Wood’s bill 
> would provide an ongoing increase of two cents per gallon, and 
> committee member Leon Smith’s bill would provide an ongoing increase 
> of five cents per gallon. At this time, the increase of five cents per 
> gallon seems most intriguing to me. The legislation specifies that the 
> additional funds must be used on maintenance of existing pavement. 
> Since vehicles differ in their efficiency and individual family needs 
> for travel differ, it is not possible to say exactly how a family 
> would be affected. However, it would appear that a ballpark number 
> would be increased expenditures of about $2 to $2.50 per month per 
> vehicle. I am curious to hear your opinions on this.

On the plus-side:

The five cents/gallon gas tax would help what I think of as a "painful 
but good for us" trend - getting us out of the mode of driving so often, 
and forcing us to look for vehicles with better gas mileage or for 
alternative means of transportation. My biggest fear right now is that 
people will get used to sub-$4 gas prices and go back to their old 
driving habits.

It also helps our roads, which are very often in need of repair. I think 
this is a good thing, and I like the fact that it's clearly spelled out 
in the legislation.

On the down-side:

Some people commute, and this will add to their economic burden right 
now which is obviously a bad thing. It may also drive some costs higher 
for goods delivered within the State.

Personally, I think the pro's outweigh the con's. Perhaps Smith's
bill 
could be phased in like the Governor's bill is setup. Maybe 2 cents per 
year for two years then a one-cent increase or something.

Paul

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090227/d51c4598/attachment.html