12 cent federal gas tax increase coming?

[The Other Andy]

Rather than increasing a tax on a necessity in this country, why don't we focus on making it less of a necessity? Public transport, smart urban design, that sort of thing. All increasing the tax does is make the rich b**** more about gas prices, and screw the poor who need their car currently to get to work. Provide more options, and perhaps Ray Poore won't need to drive his '88 Oldsmobile across town, and Edna McOldperson wouldn't have to kill someone trying to get groceries.

Plus, let's be real. This money will only go to fund more unnecessary highway projects meant to line the pockets of campaign donors. It's not going to fix up your city street, or do anything particularly useful. It's gonna provide Jim Bigmoney with 100% more than it costs to turn rural route 12 through Nowheresville into a four lane freeway.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...sorry, but IMHO giving the Gooberment MORE money and expecting ANYTHING in return is nothing more than a "Fool's Errand."

Oh, you'll get something in return all right, but it may be nothing like what you expected when you approved of any new legislation, or didn't oppose its approval.

There are lots of fools and useful idiots... and lots of votes to be garnered from them.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by The Other Andy

Rather than increasing a tax on a necessity in this country, why don't we focus on making it less of a necessity? Public transport, smart urban design, that sort of thing.

Maybe because not everyone lives in cities, and a lot of us want to go places where public transport would be highly inefficient.

[The Other Andy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Maybe because not everyone lives in cities, and a lot of us want to go places where public transport would be highly inefficient.

According to the latest US census, 80.7 percent of the population lived in urban areas.

Improving the ability for the mass majority of people to get around without needing to hop in a car will only lower demand for gas, making it less expensive for everyone, including the ~20 percent in rural areas.

Of course, getting the ~20 percent to allow the government to spend any money improving transit and street design in the urban areas without *****ing up a storm is nigh impossible, so this is all a pipe dream.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by XYZ

Oh, you'll get something in return all right, but it may be nothing like what you expected when you approved of any new legislation, or didn't oppose its approval.

There are lots of fools and useful idiots... and lots of votes to be garnered from them.

Yeah, never accidently drop the marking pen, and then bend over to pick it up, while you're voting...or...at ANY time near ANY poly-tick-ian.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Maybe because not everyone lives in cities, and a lot of us want to go places where public transport would be highly inefficient.

But why would you want to go anywhere that public transportation doesn't take you? You're only supposed to go where you are allowed to go. Who do you think you are to desire something more than the common weal? If enough voters demand it and legislation mandates it, you will only be able to go where you are permitted to go: only by public transportation, not by independent means. And then you can walk the rest of the way, maybe. If the weather is bad you can take the bus back home. If it's running.

I am reminded of the old Beatles song, Get Back:

"Get back, get back. Get back to where you once belonged."

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

Plus, NONE of the cost of fuel goes to taking care of the environmental costs of fuel usage, in the US.

Lucky for us we have not been paying for imagined environmental damage. And it doesn't look we will ever have to.
What did you actually think they would use that money to fix the environment? Ha.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by The Other Andy

Improving the ability for the mass majority of people to get around without needing to hop in a car will only lower demand for gas, making it less expensive for everyone, including the ~20 percent in rural areas.

In what cities is it not already possible to do this? (Maybe in Texas...) The cities I've visited (admittedly a limited selection) seem to have so much public transit that they will often run 50 passenger buses for one or two riders.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by The Other Andy

Improving the ability for the mass majority of people to get around without needing to hop in a car will only lower demand for gas, making it less expensive for everyone, including the ~20 percent in rural areas.

Good point.

Of course, getting the ~20 percent to allow the government to spend any money improving transit and street design in the urban areas without *****ing up a storm is nigh impossible, so this is all a pipe dream.

How could 20% block the other 80% from getting their way? I don't know any laws that require a 4/5ths majority to win.

[Fat Charlie]

The Other Andy- That's how taxation is used for policy purposes; while keeping something completely legal it makes that thing more expensive and therefore less attractive, making alternatives more attractive. That tax money can also be used to subsidize an alternative or two until regular demand lets it stand on its own.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

How could 20% block the other 80% from getting their way? I don't know any laws that require a 4/5ths majority to win.

You've obviously never heard of a little group called the United States Senate. Or you're joking, and I just didn't get it because it's early.