tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10309151.post7582504233813666091..comments2023-09-20T11:42:17.120-04:00Comments on Three Legged Stool: Gas Tax ProposalMichael Bangerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07639249509803523109noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10309151.post-69601879944718686442007-03-06T11:24:00.000-05:002007-03-06T11:24:00.000-05:00Pete, Thanks for the comment. My issue with your ...Pete, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment. My issue with your proposal is that the federal government has to get involved in collecting and then distributing money. That just allows for to many opportunities for waste. My idea, as I mentioned in the post, is to take the federal government out of distributing highway funding, but have them still collect a gas tax to offset the military cost of keeping oil available. <BR/><BR/>MikeMichael Bangerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639249509803523109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10309151.post-58213921323542417162007-03-02T16:52:00.000-05:002007-03-02T16:52:00.000-05:00Our WA state gasoline taxes are spent on highways,...Our WA state gasoline taxes are spent on highways, bridges, and ferries, but not on city streets (where most of the gasoline is used.) It would be political suicide for a city council member to suggest a local gasoline tax for street upkeep, or any other purpose. And of course such a tax would just drive people to the suburbs to purchase gasoline. I suggest a federal gasoline tax that would be rebated to the cities and counties where it was collected, for the purpose of road construction, maintenance, and traffic safety? This kind of tax would bring the full cost of driving to the driving public. <BR/><BR/>If the tax rebate was tied to a requirement that the local government rely upon this source alone for all road related expenditures, we could see some dramatic reductions in sales taxes, real estate taxes, and state income taxes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10309151.post-39127388107363474792007-02-10T12:07:00.000-05:002007-02-10T12:07:00.000-05:00Travis, Falcon, Thanks for your comments. I agree...Travis, Falcon, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. I agree that the President's plan does nothing to improve incentives and is nothing more than heavy handed state interference in the economy. My proposal assumes that the costs of transportation will increase, so I just want more efficient government in return.<BR/><BR/>BangertMichael Bangerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639249509803523109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10309151.post-77169578819446337882007-02-09T20:03:00.000-05:002007-02-09T20:03:00.000-05:00Bangert.Increasing the excise tax on gas would inc...Bangert.<BR/><BR/>Increasing the excise tax on gas would increase the incentive for the market to develop alternative fuels. Last night on Kudlow and Co., Mankiw referred to the current proposals as, “sounding as if they came straight out of the Kremlin.” Mankiw is fond of the idea of lowering income taxes with the revenue raised from the gas tax. Presently, shifting toward consumption based taxes, as opposed to income, is especially important. <BR/><BR/>Taxing income does nothing to encourage saving. However, taxing consumption makes saving more attractive. Since Americans do not save, our investment is funded from abroad. <BR/><BR/>The alternative to Mankiw’s proposal sounds something like, “I want to take those profits and.............” -You Know Who (Hillary) This sort of arrangement will NOT make a more efficient government (potentially oppressive, but not efficient). This is how the pigs take over the farm.<BR/><BR/>-Falcon<BR/><BR/>P.S. Nice blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com