Skip to comments.Tax hike adds to gas woes
Posted on 12/16/2005 7:38:23 AM PST by george76
Increase of 2.8 cents a gallon will begin Jan. 1
-- the biggest one-time jump in nearly 20 years, the N.C. Department of Revenue told the Observer Thursday.
The latest tax increase, to 29.9 cents a gallon, will push North Carolina from having the nation's eighth-highest state gas tax to the sixth.
"They're imposing a higher tax when the pain will be getting worse," said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America.
Republican state lawmakers proposed capping the gas tax at 24.6 cents to ease the pain of pump prices that passed $3 after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Democrats, who have a hold on the statehouse and governor's mansion, balked at capping the gas tax...
(Excerpt) Read more at charlotte.com ...
I am from North Carolina and I don't necessarily oppose the gas tax (or an increase). I really think of the gas tax as a user fee. Those who drive more, pay more.
What I do strongly oppose is for the gas tax to be used for things other than roads, like taking a portion of the gas tax and using it for mass transit.
The gas tax should be used to build and maintain roads ONLY.
There are also discussions about making I-40 through Raleigh, and I-540 toll roads. More revenue for the money-hungry leeches...
Well, I'm also a resident of North Carolina and I don't know if they spend 1 cent of that 29 on roads. These roads will beat up any nice car -- so I gave up, parked the Porsche and drive a leased PT Cruiser now. I'll turn it in with "normal wear and tear" which will be substantial in NC.
Have you guy (gals) avoided and prevented an income tax from the state of NC ?
The leeches in office will always spend more and more if you let them.
Hey just keep electing Dem govs on down and that's what we get.
I'll second that thought. It seems only fair that those using the roads should be those paying for the roads, and a gas tax does a good job of apportioning the cost. The heavier your vehicle, the more damage you do to the roads, but it also tends to use more gas, so you pay more to repair the roads. Thats about as fair as you get. But raising gas taxes to pay for pork should be banned.... The only other purpose I would support raising gas taxes for is to promote conservation to reduce dependency on foreign oil. But only in the case the money was returned to taxpayers (divide it equally, and what you've done is provide a higher incentive to switch to fuel efficient vehicles)...
That said, I wish we had mass transit here like other countries have. In Germany I could catch a fast, clean, quiet train and commute a further distance than I do in the states in less time and at a price lower than what I pay in gas here. And I never had to wait more than a few minutes for it to show up. Much nicer than bumper-to-bumper traffic....
single out the people who did this,
and vote them out
Another vindication of the Laffer curve. Tax RATE cuts mean increased Tax Revenue.
Large tax cuts without reduced spending also equals large increases in debt and higher interest spending, like the 37.9% annual increase seen so far this year. Note it took 4 years to get back to 2002 revenues, while spending took off to a MUCH higher level.
Maybe the fact that Bush has never had to worry about balancing a family budget leaves him to think that tax cuts without spending cuts is a good idea.
A tax rate reduction should mean a tax revenue increase.
If the DUmmies want more money to spend, then a rate reduction should produce more tax revenue.
This is why the Laffer Curve is so powerful.
It explains that...
"If you tax people who work and you pay people who dont work, do not be surprised if you find a lot of people choosing not to work."
"Maybe the fact that Bush has never had to worry about balancing a family budget leaves him to think that tax cuts without spending cuts is a good idea."
Capitaliam in America with lower tax rates produces many more jobs than socialists in Europe with higher tax rates .
When tax RATES are very high...most people would not take another job or work overtime at increasingly higher "marginal" tax RATES.
If "tax cuts" is a tax RATE cut, then this produces more tax revenue.
Increasing spending is not good, but that is a different issue than choosing the best stragety to increase revenue by lowering rates.
There are two different issues, both are important.
First, how to increase tax revenue.
Second, controlling spending.
All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.
All spending bills must be passed by the House and Senate before going to the President.
Congress reneged on their deal with Reagan to cut spending along with taxes. And they won't cut, or even rein in, spending now. Bush is at fault for not trying to lobby for spending cuts, and he is at fault for suggesting garbage like the drug entitlement. And he is at fault for his non-existant record on vetos. But the primary responsibility still lies with our elected representatives.
As a footnote, I read that the most notable restraint in spending happened with Gerald Ford:
"In contrast to Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's below-average use of the veto, President Gerald Ford vetoed his first bill on his third day in office and exercised that constitutional privilege 40 more times during the next 17 months"
"What I do strongly oppose is for the gas tax to be used for things other than roads, like taking a portion of the gas tax and using it for mass transit.
The gas tax should be used to build and maintain roads ONLY."
Using a portion of the gas tax to build mass transit helps to maintain existing roads; give it some thought.
What bull... Revenue has only now passed what it was prior to the tax cuts. Inflation will naturally push up revenues by itself. How do you know that rise was from tax cuts? You don't - the rise in revenues has been very slow and still, 4 years later, revenues in real dollars (adjusted for inflation) are down.... That does not tell you a thing as to where you are on the laffer curve...