How to Pay for Our Highways?

How to Pay for Our Highways?

  • Raise the Gas Tax, XXX Amount

    Votes: 17 32.7%

  • Annual Fee, Eliminate Federal Gas Tax

    Votes: 4 7.7%

  • Toll/User Fee for All Federal Highways

    Votes: 5 9.6%

  • Make it a State Issue, Federal Gov. Releases Control

    Votes: 8 15.4%

  • Do Nothing

    Votes: 18 34.6%
  • Total voters
    52
ARFlyer

ARFlyer

En-Route
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
3,189
Location
Central AR
Display Name
ARFlyer
Welcome all! It's that time again to grip and moan about raising a tax that pays for our roads. But should we raise the tax or revamp the system into a new collection method? We all know that our Highway Trust Fund is going to be bankrupt soon.

Vote for your favorite idea.

My idea is to make a flat fee for everyone that owns a vehicle. Base it on weight or axle count of your vehicle. Divide the funds based on state population, road miles or percentage of contributed funds.

During your annual renewal, you pay the fee that goes into the trust fund. Lock out the trust fund to any use besides for road infrastructure. With the flat fee you eliminate the federal gas tax.
 
ARFlyer said:
Welcome all! It's that time again to grip and moan about raising a tax that pays for our roads. But should we raise the tax or revamp the system into a new collection method? We all know that our Highway Trust Fund is going to be bankrupt soon.

Vote for your favorite idea.

My idea is to make a flat fee for everyone that owns a vehicle. Base it on weight or axle count of your vehicle. Divide the funds based on state population, road miles or percentage of contributed funds.

During your annual renewal, you pay the fee that goes into the trust fund. Lock out the trust fund to any use besides for road infrastructure. With the flat fee you eliminate the federal gas tax.
Click to expand...

Colorado has a flat fee along with a gasoline tax. There is some current agitation to increase the gasoline tax "since prices have fallen". It doesn't matter how much ya put in the kitty the spenders will out pace the contributions....
 
How about eliminating roughly one half of the Federal government using a small portion of those funds to pay for infrastucture maintenance?
 
I don't like increasing gas taxes as gas is already taxed, and in general it is a very regressive tax which affects poor, and middle income earners more.

We had a bipartisan bill pass in PA recently raising the gas tax ultimately another $.28/gallon phased in over the next few years. It was supposed to go to roads, and bridges, which I thought the fed Trillion dollar "economic stimulus" was partially to fund. The PA tax money is going largely to fund pulbic sector union jobs, salary increases, and pensions, "green" buses, and other non highway stuff. Some of it may go to roads and bridges, but my guess is that in a few years they will want to increase it again because they need more money for roads, and bridges.

Then we have toll roads which increase their tolls constantly to the point it seems they must be paved with gold (PA Turnpike for instance).

Instead of constantly increases taxes, a fees (another name for tax) would be to funnel existing revenue away from non-essential stuff, and fix the roads, and bridges!
 
You forgot an option. Switch off of a gasoline tax and go to a per mile driven tax on vehicles. Pay for what you use, could even work the weight of the vehicle into the rate you pay since heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the road per mile.

If we keep moving away from gasoline powered vehicles, we're going to have to do something different.
 
Nationwide transponder, pay for use. I voted Annual fee, because no option fit. Tolls don't just apply or go to Fed Highways.
 
SCCutler said:
But they will.

Of course, nothing there they could not do with plate readers anyway.
Click to expand...

Google already knows more about your travel than you do. Very simple line to cross.
 
SCCutler said:
But they will.

Of course, nothing there they could not do with plate readers anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly, besides, it's easier to just track you by your cell phone. Big Brother is here in full force, no need to worry about it coming, you better act like it's already here.
 
Fredbob711 said:
You forgot an option. Switch off of a gasoline tax and go to a per mile driven tax on vehicles. Pay for what you use, could even work the weight of the vehicle into the rate you pay since heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the road per mile.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
Nationwide transponder, pay for use. I voted Annual fee, because no option fit. Tolls don't just apply or go to Fed Highways.
Click to expand...

Opps, forgot a good answer. Any way to update the poll?

I think these two could go hand in hand.

Either way we are in desperate need to fix some of our highways here in Arkansas.

There was 10 foot section of I-30 that was literally missing. I'm not kidding, it was nothing but concrete chunks and a good size pavement drop off for at least two months. They did a asphalt hot patch a week ago, however its already coming back up.

There is also a spot where the concrete is cracking length ways and sliding away. I would estimate the crack is at least two inches wide by now.
 
Arkansas has always had the worst highways, I'd avoid them like the plague when I was driving.
 
How about we use the gas tax money that is being collected JUST for roads, and not whatever pork project someone wants to skim the money on.
 
Bingo. They are not raising the road tax to pay for roads they are raising taxes on drivers to pay for nonroad things. Just the way the question was asked shows the OP bought into the frame. Wasn't there something in that shatrag about the gov building roads?:lol::mad2::sad:
Bill Jennings said:
How about we use the gas tax money that is being collected JUST for roads, and not whatever pork project someone wants to skim the money on.
Click to expand...
 
SCCutler said:
Big brother. He's watching!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's another "benefit"! It could be used to track fleeing criminals and honest citizens alike. Why should anyone be allowed to hide from anyone?

Actually, no single solution is going to be fair to all. So perhaps we need "comprehensive gas tax reform"

Reduce the tax per gallon and add a fee that charges based on miles driven?

Or adapt the FAIR tax so that the prebate covers the taxes paid by the low income folks.
 
Bill Jennings said:
How about we use the gas tax money that is being collected JUST for roads, and not whatever pork project someone wants to skim the money on.
Click to expand...

That's the big problem right there. It doesn't go where they promise it will go, so then they ask (and get) more. Rinse, and repeat. No accountability.
 
JOhnH said:
Yeah, that's another "benefit"! It could be used to track fleeing criminals and honest citizens alike. Why should anyone be allowed to hide from anyone?

Actually, no single solution is going to be fair to all. So perhaps we need "comprehensive gas tax reform"

Reduce the tax per gallon and add a fee that charges based on miles driven?

Or adapt the FAIR tax so that the prebate covers the taxes paid by the low income folks.
Click to expand...

Do you have a cell phone? Something with a MAC address online? You are trackable. Vehicle transponders are actually a poor method without visual confirmation of occupancy, circumstantial evidence at best, and able to be used to criminal advantage as well.
 
Anthony said:
That's the big problem right there. It doesn't go where they promise it will go, so then they ask (and get) more. Rinse, and repeat. No accountability.
Click to expand...

Right, pay for use eliminates that. Whomever is responsible for the maintenance of the roads collects directly from the transponder billing entity. If your road doesn't earn its keep in public service, you have to pony up the difference for better maintenance.
 
Last edited:
Where is the option to divert funds from useless **** (like the department of education) to maintain roads and bridges in our interstate system?
 
PPC1052 said:
Where is the option to divert funds from useless **** (like the department of education) to maintain roads and bridges in our interstate system?
Click to expand...

Why would you consider education useless? Why not make the department deliver something of value rather than be a socio-political indoctrination tool?There is nothing wrong with things, the problem is how we apply them and why.
 
Henning said:
Why would you consider education useless? Why not make the department deliver something of value rather than be a socio-political indoctrination tool?There is nothing wrong with things, the problem is how we apply them and why.
Click to expand...

Education is certainly not useless.

The Department of Education, on the other hand, is worse than useless - it is (on balance) harmful.
 
Henning said:
Why would you consider education useless? Why not make the department deliver something of value rather than be a socio-political indoctrination tool?There is nothing wrong with things, the problem is how we apply them and why.
Click to expand...

"Education" and the "Department of Education" are two entirely different things. One is essential. The other is a hindrance.
 
JOhnH said:
"Education" and the "Department of Education" are two entirely different things. One is essential. The other is a hindrance.
Click to expand...

It is easier to retask a department of education than to rebuild an entire system that is critical to be egalitarian and universally accessible.
 
We already pay taxes for upkeep of the local, state, and federal roads. As we all know though, that money and most of every other dime the gov't gets is syphoned off to pay for whatever special project or service that comes up. It is only when there is a disaster like à bridge failure does the gov't come around reaching into our pockets to fetch more money to fix disaster de juir.
And of course, now that gas prices have dropped, let's raise the gas taxes. Them dumb sheep won't notice.
 
Henning said:
It is easier to retask a department of education than to rebuild an entire system that is critical to be egalitarian and universally accessible.
Click to expand...
There is nothing harder than re-tasking a federal bureaucracy, especially when the bureaucracy shouldn't even exist in the first place,
 
JOhnH said:
There is nothing harder than re-tasking a federal bureaucracy, especially when the bureaucracy shouldn't even exist in the first place,
Click to expand...

No, simple, all it takes is a revolution, and it can be a peaceful one. Just a point where we communally declare, "Enough, we're not playing the game by your rules anymore, you're ****ing us, go away."
 
Last year there was a ballot measure in WI that all transportation revenue from fees and taxes were to be deposited into the state transportation fund and could only be spent on transportation projects. It passed by 79%. Crazy thought that gas fees could only be spent on roads, etc.
 
JB1842 said:
Last year there was a ballot measure in WI that all transportation revenue from fees and taxes were to be deposited into the state transportation fund and could only be spent on transportation projects. It passed by 79%. Crazy thought that gas fees could only be spent on roads, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, the "etc" bit there opens the door doesn't it? What is "etc"? Does that include the storm sewers and watershed protection programs?
 
Henning said:
Well, the "etc" bit there opens the door doesn't it? What is "etc"? Does that include the storm sewers and watershed protection programs?
Click to expand...

This is from the states accountability board. I'm sure if someone tries hard enough, they will get money from the fund to finance an "etc" project.

At the November 4, 2014, General Election, voters will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution:

QUESTION 1: “Creation of a Transportation Fund. Shall section 9 (2) of article IV and section 11 of article VIII of the constitution be created to require that revenues generated by use of the state transportation system be deposited into a transportation fund administered by a department of transportation for the exclusive purpose of funding Wisconsin’s transportation systems and to prohibit any transfers or lapses from this fund?”
Explanation

In general, funds collected in fees and taxes may be appropriated for any public purpose determined by the Legislature. Wisconsin’s transportation fund, which currently exists under statute, is designed to be the source of funding for all modes of transportation in the state. Wisconsin law requires that specific revenue streams such as taxes or fees related to motor vehicles, aircraft, and railroads be deposited into the transportation fund.

At times, the Legislature has transferred moneys initially deposited into the transportation fund to programs with non-transportation-related purposes. Such transfers have typically been to general revenue funds, which are used for state programs such as education, health care, and shared revenue. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suggested that these transfers are permissible under current law.

In essence, the proposed amendment would change the Wisconsin Constitution to require that revenues generated by specified uses of the state transportation system be deposited into a transportation fund and expended only for transportation-related purposes.

A “yes” vote on this question would establish a department of transportation and a transportation fund in the state constitution. The current Department of Transportation and transportation fund exist only under statute. A “yes” vote would mean that all funds collected from taxes or fees in existence after December 31, 2010 for the licensing of motor vehicle operators, for the titling, licensing, or registration of motor vehicles, for motor vehicle fuel, or for the use of roadways, highways, or bridges, and from taxes and fees levied or imposed for aircraft, airline property, or aviation fuel or for railroads or railroad property would be deposited in the transportation fund or with certain authorized parties, such as a trustee for the benefit of the department of transportation. Funds in the transportation fund may not be lapsed, further transferred, or used for any program that is not directly administered by the department of transportation in furtherance of the department’s responsibility for the planning, promotion, and protection of all transportation systems in the state (except for programs with an appropriation from the statutory transportation fund as of December 31, 2010). The proposed amendment does not define “transportation systems.”

A “no” vote would mean that the Department of Transportation continues to be a statutory agency. It also would mean that monies collected from motor vehicle, aircraft, and railroad fees and taxes could be appropriated by the Legislature for transportation systems or for other programs as determined by the Legislature.
 
Henning said:
Sounds like some feel good distraction that ends up being the same old thing.
Click to expand...

I'm holding out hope that since this is an actual change to the state constitution and not a regulatory change, there will be a better chance of this succeeding.
 
ARFlyer said:
Welcome all! It's that time again to grip and moan about raising a tax that pays for our roads. But should we raise the tax or revamp the system into a new collection method? We all know that our Highway Trust Fund is going to be bankrupt soon.

Vote for your favorite idea.

My idea is to make a flat fee for everyone that owns a vehicle. Base it on weight or axle count of your vehicle. Divide the funds based on state population, road miles or percentage of contributed funds.

During your annual renewal, you pay the fee that goes into the trust fund. Lock out the trust fund to any use besides for road infrastructure. With the flat fee you eliminate the federal gas tax.
Click to expand...

You left out a big choice: Force government to spend less on stupid things, and pay for highways out of the windfall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top