Current Events > Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Shadow_Of_Fenix 02/14/18 8:16:17 PM #51:	Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little! <cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted [p:896099577] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax.</quote> In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL</quote> I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
prince_leo 02/14/18 8:37:01 PM #52:	Questionmarktarius posted... It's a user fee. The idea is have a service paid for by the people who actually use the service. my problem with it is that it hurts poor people more than any tax cuts would help, while doing the opposite for the wealthy --- https://imgur.com/uHUvpSH http://error1355.com/ce/prince_leo.html <cite>prince_leo posted [p:896100695] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>It's a user fee. The idea is have a service paid for by the people who actually use the service. </quote> my problem with it is that it hurts poor people more than any tax cuts would help, while doing the opposite for the wealthy</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexenherz 02/14/18 8:52:47 PM #53:	Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little! No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years. --- RS3: UltimaSuende . On the quest to 99 WC. Currently at 98. <cite>Hexenherz posted [p:896101656] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax.</quote> In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL</quote> I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little!</quote> No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/14/18 8:53:07 PM #54:	prince_leo posted... Questionmarktarius posted... It's a user fee. The idea is have a service paid for by the people who actually use the service. my problem with it is that it hurts poor people more than any tax cuts would help, while doing the opposite for the wealthy Simple fix: prorate the tax based on the octane rating and ethanol content. That'll mean Mr. Ferrari-only-takes-94-octane-no-alcohol pays more than the family driving a beat up 79 Civic running on the cheap stuff. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896101674] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>prince_leo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>It's a user fee. The idea is have a service paid for by the people who actually use the service. </quote> my problem with it is that it hurts poor people more than any tax cuts would help, while doing the opposite for the wealthy</quote> Simple fix: prorate the tax based on the octane rating and ethanol content. That'll mean Mr. Ferrari-only-takes-94-octane-no-alcohol pays more than the family driving a beat up 79 Civic running on the cheap stuff.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 02/14/18 8:55:59 PM #55:	lol what a fucking donald-ass trump that guy is hahahahha lmfao --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:896101837] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>lol what a fucking donald-ass trump that guy is hahahahha lmfao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsugarized_Foo 02/14/18 9:17:25 PM #56:	Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little! No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years. I agree. Lets just do nothing --- "All I have is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for anyone!"-Tony Montana <cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted [p:896102945] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax.</quote> In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL</quote> I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little!</quote> No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years.</quote> I agree. Lets just do nothing</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexenherz 02/14/18 9:18:05 PM #57:	Unsugarized_Foo posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little! No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years. I agree. Lets just do nothing What? --- RS3: UltimaSuende . On the quest to 99 WC. Currently at 98. <cite>Hexenherz posted [p:896102982] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax.</quote> In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL</quote> I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little!</quote> No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years.</quote> I agree. Lets just do nothing</quote> What?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
r4X0r 02/14/18 9:23:58 PM #58:	Unsugarized_Foo posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little! No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years. I agree. Lets just do nothing Some seriously dumb crap has been done on the grounds of "We have to do SOMETHING!" --- I faced it all and I stood tall- And did it my way. <cite>r4X0r posted [p:896103287] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax.</quote> In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL</quote> I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little!</quote> No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years.</quote> I agree. Lets just do nothing</quote> Some seriously dumb crap has been done on the grounds of "We have to do SOMETHING!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsugarized_Foo 02/14/18 9:28:42 PM #59:	r4X0r posted... Unsugarized_Foo posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little! No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years. I agree. Lets just do nothing Some seriously dumb crap has been done on the grounds of "We have to do SOMETHING!" Same has been on the grounds of "We should do NOTHING!" Like gun control ~~http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/000/091/TrollFace.jpg~~ --- "All I have is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for anyone!"-Tony Montana <cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted [p:896103537] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>r4X0r posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax.</quote> In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL</quote> I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little!</quote> No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years.</quote> I agree. Lets just do nothing</quote> Some seriously dumb crap has been done on the grounds of "We have to do SOMETHING!"</quote> Same has been on the grounds of "We should do NOTHING!" Like gun control http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/000/091/TrollFace.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsugarized_Foo 02/14/18 9:29:04 PM #60:	Im glad I can see the link anyway --- "All I have is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for anyone!"-Tony Montana <cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted [p:896103553] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Im glad I can see the link anyway</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Shadow_Of_Fenix 02/14/18 9:29:26 PM #61:	Hexenherz posted... Unsugarized_Foo posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little! No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years. I agree. Lets just do nothing What? What your saying is that rather than throw SOMETHING at it lets just say fuck it and not do anything about it. This is going to cost the average driver 3 bucks a month tops and they won't notice it at all. Where I live gas fluctuates every single week by about 5 cents a liter. I would literally not notice this. But sure, since 1.4 trillion is big lets not do anything. As I said, you need more smaller, little things like this ON TOP OF larger tax increases on the rich, less defense spending and other government waste and larger take home on corporate taxes. This is just a start and for once something I can actually agree on Trump with. <cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted [p:896103574] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax.</quote> In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL</quote> I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little!</quote> No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years.</quote> I agree. Lets just do nothing</quote> What?</quote> What your saying is that rather than throw SOMETHING at it lets just say fuck it and not do anything about it. This is going to cost the average driver 3 bucks a month tops and they won't notice it at all. Where I live gas fluctuates every single week by about 5 cents a liter. I would literally not notice this. But sure, since 1.4 trillion is big lets not do anything. As I said, you need more smaller, little things like this ON TOP OF larger tax increases on the rich, less defense spending and other government waste and larger take home on corporate taxes. This is just a start and for once something I can actually agree on Trump with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hexenherz 02/14/18 9:37:34 PM #62:	Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... Hexenherz posted... Unsugarized_Foo posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... Hexenherz posted... Shadow_Of_Fenix posted... https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little! No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years. I agree. Lets just do nothing What? What your saying is that rather than throw SOMETHING at it lets just say fuck it and not do anything about it. This is going to cost the average driver 3 bucks a month tops and they won't notice it at all. Where I live gas fluctuates every single week by about 5 cents a liter. I would literally not notice this. But sure, since 1.4 trillion is big lets not do anything. As I said, you need more smaller, little things like this ON TOP OF larger tax increases on the rich, less defense spending and other government waste and larger take home on corporate taxes. This is just a start and for once something I can actually agree on Trump with. These aren't tax increases on the rich, they're tax increases on everyone, especially those who are "getting more money back from the tax cuts!!" They should have... you know, maybe just had a better tax plan than what they did, and then we wouldn't be in this situation where you think recuping $5 from a $100 loss is a great thing. --- RS3: UltimaSuende . On the quest to 99 WC. Currently at 98. <cite>Hexenherz posted [p:896103961] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hexenherz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Shadow_Of_Fenix posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/02/13/a- gas-tax-hike-would-generate-840-billion-add-1- 2-million-evs-cut-1-3-billion-barrels-fuel-use/#388e802954e3 IF this math is true the Gas tax would bring significant funds, far more than enough to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and help cover the deficit. The Forbes model believes that right now Federal infrastructure would be at about 138 billion in the hole by 2027. This would generate 303 in the next 10 years (by 2029), which would cover not only the deficit left by the current tax fund but also nearly cover Trumps 200 million in spending. On top of that, according to the article, the .25 cent tax is within historical variance for gas prices as they go up and down. AKA you likely would barely notice this. I'm for this tax.</quote> In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Senate tax bill, the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027. But hey, $840 billion by the year 2050, I'm sure that will make a difference LOL</quote> I know your trying to make a point but I don't think you really understand that $840 Billion, while a drop in the bucket of USA national debt, is actually a significantly large amount of money. Like Staggeringly huge. It needs small little increases like this, on top of larger increases on other things and cuts to frivolous spending like national defense to work. But sure, lets just not even bother cause LOL it's so little!</quote> No I don't think you understand here... 1.4 trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in the next 9 years. That is going to have a significantly harder impact than 840 billion over 32 years.</quote> I agree. Lets just do nothing</quote> What?</quote> What your saying is that rather than throw SOMETHING at it lets just say fuck it and not do anything about it. This is going to cost the average driver 3 bucks a month tops and they won't notice it at all. Where I live gas fluctuates every single week by about 5 cents a liter. I would literally not notice this. But sure, since 1.4 trillion is big lets not do anything. As I said, you need more smaller, little things like this ON TOP OF larger tax increases on the rich, less defense spending and other government waste and larger take home on corporate taxes. This is just a start and for once something I can actually agree on Trump with.</quote> These aren't tax increases on the rich, they're tax increases on everyone, especially those who are "getting more money back from the tax cuts!!" They should have... you know, maybe just had a better tax plan than what they did, and then we wouldn't be in this situation where you think recuping $5 from a $100 loss is a great thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
billcom6 02/14/18 10:02:19 PM #63:	Why do they need to raise new tax revenues, did they just cut trillions in tax revenues out of the budget or something? --- Because most days are bad days... --- Steam and XBOX Live: billcom6 My Teams: The Ohio State Buckeyes, New York Yankees, Buffalo Bills, The CBJ, Cavs <cite>billcom6 posted [p:896105243] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Why do they need to raise new tax revenues, did they just cut trillions in tax revenues out of the budget or something?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevsBro 02/14/18 10:47:19 PM #64:	Trump warned if I voted for @HillaryClinton taxes would be raised. I did and he was right! lmao --- http://backloggery.com/devsbro/sig.gif http://i.imgur.com/kU5vu5N.png Never pepper popcorn <cite>DevsBro posted [p:896107719] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><quote>Trump warned if I voted for @HillaryClinton taxes would be raised. I did and he was right!</quote> lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
008Zulu 02/14/18 10:52:05 PM #65:	Have to make up for all the tax cuts he gave his buddies some how. --- Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer. <cite>008Zulu posted [p:896107957] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Have to make up for all the tax cuts he gave his buddies some how.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lightwarrior78 02/14/18 10:55:06 PM #66:	Are we sure he isn't trolling to get the left to vilify something they'd advocated for and normally love? --- http://backloggery.com/reddthesock <cite>lightwarrior78 posted [p:896108137] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Are we sure he isn't trolling to get the left to vilify something they'd advocated for and normally love?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cerealbox760 02/14/18 11:16:22 PM #67:	Trump tells the middle class they are getting a tax break and then he reintroduces a gas tax to get it back. Genius. There goes that $3.00 a week raise. --- Clevo P775 QHD 120hz / i7 7700k 4.5GHZ / GTX 1070 8GB / DDR4 16GB/ 256gb m.2 SSD /Magni-Modi DAC_AMP combo/ ie800. Laptop on the outside. Desktop on the inside. <cite>cerealbox760 posted [p:896109216] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Trump tells the middle class they are getting a tax break and then he reintroduces a gas tax to get it back. Genius. There goes that $3.00 a week raise.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsugarized_Foo 02/14/18 11:19:11 PM #68:	cerealbox760 posted... Trump tells the middle class they are getting a tax break and then he reintroduces a gas tax to get it back. Genius. There goes that $3.00 a week raise. It's beyond that. You make it so people dont want to travel as much, you fix the roads,they, and people spend less over all. Thus they save money and roads last longer --- "All I have is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for anyone!"-Tony Montana <cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted [p:896109361] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>cerealbox760 posted...</cite> <quote>Trump tells the middle class they are getting a tax break and then he reintroduces a gas tax to get it back. Genius. There goes that $3.00 a week raise.</quote> It's beyond that. You make it so people dont want to travel as much, you fix the roads,they, and people spend less over all. Thus they save money and roads last longer</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/14/18 11:43:01 PM #69:	Take that liherals! --- Who is? I am! <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896110635] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Take that liherals!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevsBro 02/15/18 9:11:57 AM #70:	Not that anyone is actually going to drive less as a result of this (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) but one upside is that in theory traffic should lessen so maybe we can mind trick ourselves into thinking it has. --- http://backloggery.com/devsbro/sig.gif http://i.imgur.com/kU5vu5N.png Never pepper popcorn <cite>DevsBro posted [p:896126894] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Not that anyone is actually going to drive less as a result of this (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) but one upside is that in theory traffic should lessen so maybe we can mind trick ourselves into thinking it has.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 9:36:19 AM #71:	DevsBro posted... (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) America is pretty big place, and nobody wants to live near the jobs for some reason, nor does the bus run out to the suburbs. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896127830] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>DevsBro posted...</cite> <quote> (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) </quote> America is pretty big place, and nobody wants to live near the jobs for some reason, nor does the bus run out to the suburbs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wolf_J_Flywheel 02/15/18 9:53:10 AM #72:	E32005 posted... DezDroppedFreak posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Also of note. The gas tax is currently 18.4 cents. Trump did not propose raising it TO 25, he proposed raising BY 25 Holy shit "republican" "conservative" Trump has never been a conservative nor has he or any supporters claimed he was. --- Those who act like sheep, will be eaten by wolves http://i.imgur.com/n1L1yBu.jpg <cite>Wolf_J_Flywheel posted [p:896128541] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>E32005 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DezDroppedFreak posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote>Also of note. The gas tax is currently 18.4 cents. Trump did not propose raising it TO 25, he proposed raising BY 25</quote> Holy shit</quote> "republican" "conservative"</quote> Trump has never been a conservative nor has he or any supporters claimed he was.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/15/18 9:56:32 AM #73:	havent read the topic but good. I like many aspects of his infrastructure plan --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896128687] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>havent read the topic but good. I like many aspects of his infrastructure plan</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevsBro 02/15/18 9:57:00 AM #74:	Questionmarktarius posted... DevsBro posted... (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) America is pretty big place, and nobody wants to live near the jobs for some reason, nor does the bus run out to the suburbs. You're describing the symptom instead of the cause. Do you think we would live 30 miles from work if the Grease generation hadn't made the damn things as absurdly popular as they are? --- http://backloggery.com/devsbro/sig.gif http://i.imgur.com/kU5vu5N.png Never pepper popcorn <cite>DevsBro posted [p:896128707] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DevsBro posted...</cite> <quote> (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) </quote> America is pretty big place, and nobody wants to live near the jobs for some reason, nor does the bus run out to the suburbs.</quote> You're describing the symptom instead of the cause. Do you think we would live 30 miles from work if the Grease generation hadn't made the damn things as absurdly popular as they are?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 9:58:36 AM #75:	DevsBro posted... Do you think we would live 30 miles from work if the Grease generation hadn't made the damn things as absurdly popular as they are? oooo. That's something to think about, yes. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896128779] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>DevsBro posted...</cite> <quote>Do you think we would live 30 miles from work if the Grease generation hadn't made the damn things as absurdly popular as they are?</quote> oooo. That's something to think about, yes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PiOverlord 02/15/18 10:00:29 AM #76:	Eww, I heard we have been undertaxed on gas, but I still don't want them. --- Number of legendary 500 post topics: 26, 500th posts: 18; PiO ATTN: 2 RotM wins 1, Caring is sharing: https://imgur.com/a/W3bEo <cite>PiOverlord posted [p:896128881] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Eww, I heard we have been undertaxed on gas, but I still don't want them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/15/18 10:01:25 AM #77:	DevsBro posted... Not that anyone is actually going to drive less as a result of this (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) but one upside is that in theory traffic should lessen so maybe we can mind trick ourselves into thinking it has. people will drive less, though driving is a surprisingly price sensitive activity this is much worse than an actual user fee, though, since rich people are more likely to have more fuel efficient cars (or even electric, these days). so a user fee would be less regressive. the trump plan also allows states to implement tolls on interstates, though, which is another thing that I like. --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896128914] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>DevsBro posted...</cite> <quote>Not that anyone is actually going to drive less as a result of this (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) but one upside is that in theory traffic should lessen so maybe we can mind trick ourselves into thinking it has.</quote> people will drive less, though driving is a surprisingly price sensitive activity this is much worse than an actual user fee, though, since rich people are more likely to have more fuel efficient cars (or even electric, these days). so a user fee would be less regressive. the trump plan also allows states to implement tolls on interstates, though, which is another thing that I like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 02/15/18 10:04:05 AM #78:	Balrog0 posted... havent read the topic but good. I like many aspects of his infrastructure plan me too precisely why it won't pass dems will simply respond "how about we kill your tax cut to pay for it" gop will simply respond "we're not raising taxes you fucking goon" and it will die. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:896129023] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>havent read the topic but good. I like many aspects of his infrastructure plan</quote> me too precisely why it won't pass dems will simply respond "how about we kill your tax cut to pay for it" gop will simply respond "we're not raising taxes you fucking goon" and it will die.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 10:04:26 AM #79:	Balrog0 posted... havent read the topic but good. I like many aspects of his infrastructure plan It's an interesting day indeed when I agree with Balrog on politics. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896129033] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>havent read the topic but good. I like many aspects of his infrastructure plan</quote> It's an interesting day indeed when I agree with Balrog on politics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevsBro 02/15/18 10:18:16 AM #80:	Balrog0 posted... DevsBro posted... Not that anyone is actually going to drive less as a result of this (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) but one upside is that in theory traffic should lessen so maybe we can mind trick ourselves into thinking it has. people will drive less, though driving is a surprisingly price sensitive activity Is that why I hear people complain that gas is too expensive while I wait in line for an available pump? --- http://backloggery.com/devsbro/sig.gif http://i.imgur.com/kU5vu5N.png Never pepper popcorn <cite>DevsBro posted [p:896129625] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DevsBro posted...</cite> <quote>Not that anyone is actually going to drive less as a result of this (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) but one upside is that in theory traffic should lessen so maybe we can mind trick ourselves into thinking it has.</quote> people will drive less, though driving is a surprisingly price sensitive activity</quote> Is that why I hear people complain that gas is too expensive while I wait in line for an available pump?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 10:23:53 AM #81:	DevsBro posted... Balrog0 posted... DevsBro posted... Not that anyone is actually going to drive less as a result of this (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) but one upside is that in theory traffic should lessen so maybe we can mind trick ourselves into thinking it has. people will drive less, though driving is a surprisingly price sensitive activity Is that why I hear people complain that gas is too expensive while I wait in line for an available pump? There's a good point here though, but I think it was unintentional. "Sin taxes" are pretty much self-defeating, which a gas tax would effectively be if it gets too high. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896129884] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>DevsBro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DevsBro posted...</cite> <quote>Not that anyone is actually going to drive less as a result of this (Americans are addicted as hell to those stupid machines) but one upside is that in theory traffic should lessen so maybe we can mind trick ourselves into thinking it has.</quote> people will drive less, though driving is a surprisingly price sensitive activity</quote> Is that why I hear people complain that gas is too expensive while I wait in line for an available pump?</quote> There's a good point here though, but I think it was unintentional. "Sin taxes" are pretty much self-defeating, which a gas tax would effectively be if it gets too high.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 02/15/18 10:27:07 AM #82:	Questionmarktarius posted... There's a good point here though, but I think it was unintentional. "Sin taxes" are pretty much self-defeating, which a gas tax would effectively be if it gets too high. isn't that the goal of sin taxes? to make people--and i say this with finger quotations around it--repent? --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:896130032] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote> There's a good point here though, but I think it was unintentional. "Sin taxes" are pretty much self-defeating, which a gas tax would effectively be if it gets too high.</quote> isn't that the goal of sin taxes? to make people--and i say this with finger quotations around it--repent?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 10:29:12 AM #83:	Darkman124 posted... Questionmarktarius posted... There's a good point here though, but I think it was unintentional. "Sin taxes" are pretty much self-defeating, which a gas tax would effectively be if it gets too high. isn't that the goal of sin taxes? to make people--and i say this with finger quotations around it--repent? The stated goal, yes. What actually happens is that they're calculated to milk revenue from the unrepentant. The Forbes article (warning: Forbes) in #40 actually references this, with the assertion that electric cars will gain popularity, and in the projected revenue graph about halfway down. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896130130] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote> There's a good point here though, but I think it was unintentional. "Sin taxes" are pretty much self-defeating, which a gas tax would effectively be if it gets too high.</quote> isn't that the goal of sin taxes? to make people--and i say this with finger quotations around it--repent?</quote> The stated goal, yes. What actually happens is that they're calculated to milk revenue from the unrepentant. The Forbes article (warning: Forbes) in #40 actually references this, with the assertion that electric cars will gain popularity, and in the projected revenue graph about halfway down.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/15/18 10:34:31 AM #84:	I don't see why you can't both raise revenue and induce people to do less of a thing. It works for tobacco and, to a much lesser extent, alcohol. --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896130365] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>I don't see why you can't both raise revenue and induce people to do less of a thing. It works for tobacco and, to a much lesser extent, alcohol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 10:40:16 AM #85:	Balrog0 posted... I don't see why you can't both raise revenue and induce people to do less of a thing. It works for tobacco and, to a much lesser extent, alcohol. It's just a user-fee, really. The only real difference here is that it's somewhat inconvenient to smuggle gasoline. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896130630] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see why you can't both raise revenue and induce people to do less of a thing. It works for tobacco and, to a much lesser extent, alcohol.</quote> It's just a user-fee, really. The only real difference here is that it's somewhat inconvenient to smuggle gasoline.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DumpsterMcNuggets 02/15/18 10:41:21 AM #86:	Questionmarktarius posted... Bio1590 posted... For what, a carbon tax? It's a user fee. The idea is have a service paid for by the people who actually use the service. That's how the roads were supposed to be funded, before the Highway Trust Fund ended up raided just like the Social Security Trust Fund, and pretty much every other pile of public money with "trust fund" in the name. Funny this was mentioned. Since in several states before Illinois finally passed such a constitutional amendment, there were passed constitutional amendments in other states over state transportation funding called a transportation lockbox funding amendment. Basically, it established a trust fund that couldn't be raided for any other state government purposes, except strictly for road funding. At that time looking back when it was on the ballot, I only voted against it since I wasn't sure how well this would cover non-driving forms of transportation that are still important(i.e. bicycling infrastructure, trains, buses, etc). I think since that has passed, this amendment has worked very well. And looking back if this vote did occur over again, I would've voted in favor of it. --- #BoycottIMDB , & check out these boards: http://www.moviechat.org/ (1 of my 2 fav alternate sites) http://imdb2.freeforums.net/ (other fav IMDB alternate) <cite>DumpsterMcNuggets posted [p:896130695] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>For what, a carbon tax? </quote> It's a user fee. The idea is have a service paid for by the people who actually use the service. That's how the roads were supposed to be funded, before the Highway Trust Fund ended up raided just like the Social Security Trust Fund, and pretty much every other pile of public money with "trust fund" in the name.</quote> Funny this was mentioned. Since in several states before Illinois finally passed such a constitutional amendment, there were passed constitutional amendments in other states over state transportation funding called a transportation lockbox funding amendment. Basically, it established a trust fund that couldn't be raided for any other state government purposes, except strictly for road funding. At that time looking back when it was on the ballot, I only voted against it since I wasn't sure how well this would cover non-driving forms of transportation that are still important(i.e. bicycling infrastructure, trains, buses, etc). I think since that has passed, this amendment has worked very well. And looking back if this vote did occur over again, I would've voted in favor of it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/15/18 10:42:24 AM #87:	I don't know what you mean. Revenues from tobacco continue to rise, and people continue to smoke less, thanks to excise taxes on tobacco. This is true even accounting for the fact that people will smuggle them or use the black market in some fashion. But that is another reason actual user fees (tolls) are superior. --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896130747] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>I don't know what you mean. Revenues from tobacco continue to rise, and people continue to smoke less, thanks to excise taxes on tobacco. This is true even accounting for the fact that people will smuggle them or use the black market in some fashion. But that is another reason actual user fees (tolls) are superior.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 02/15/18 10:43:48 AM #88:	Questionmarktarius posted... Darkman124 posted... Questionmarktarius posted... There's a good point here though, but I think it was unintentional. "Sin taxes" are pretty much self-defeating, which a gas tax would effectively be if it gets too high. isn't that the goal of sin taxes? to make people--and i say this with finger quotations around it--repent? The stated goal, yes. What actually happens is that they're calculated to milk revenue from the unrepentant. The Forbes article (warning: Forbes) in #40 actually references this, with the assertion that electric cars will gain popularity, and in the projected revenue graph about halfway down. mhm. goes without saying that if this passed i'd be picking up a used nissan leaf as my replacement daily driver. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:896130811] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote> There's a good point here though, but I think it was unintentional. "Sin taxes" are pretty much self-defeating, which a gas tax would effectively be if it gets too high.</quote> isn't that the goal of sin taxes? to make people--and i say this with finger quotations around it--repent?</quote> The stated goal, yes. What actually happens is that they're calculated to milk revenue from the unrepentant. The Forbes article (warning: Forbes) in #40 actually references this, with the assertion that electric cars will gain popularity, and in the projected revenue graph about halfway down.</quote> mhm. goes without saying that if this passed i'd be picking up a used nissan leaf as my replacement daily driver.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 10:44:10 AM #89:	Balrog0 posted... I don't know what you mean. I'm agreeing with you, for the most part. Just accept it. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896130832] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't know what you mean. </quote> I'm agreeing with you, for the most part. Just accept it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sobergermanguy 02/15/18 12:01:24 PM #90:	Is there anything Trump supporters won't defend? --- You choc-blocked me, bro <cite>sobergermanguy posted [p:896134885] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Is there anything Trump supporters won't defend?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sobergermanguy 02/15/18 12:05:47 PM #91:	Darkman124 posted... Balrog0 posted... havent read the topic but good. I like many aspects of his infrastructure plan me too precisely why it won't pass dems will simply respond "how about we kill your tax cut to pay for it" gop will simply respond "we're not raising taxes you fucking goon" and it will die. Or how about....his infrastructure plan is shit and I don't want rich private developers being paid with a regressive tax that hits working-class Americans hardest. I know, so unreasonable. --- You choc-blocked me, bro <cite>sobergermanguy posted [p:896135135] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>havent read the topic but good. I like many aspects of his infrastructure plan</quote> me too precisely why it won't pass dems will simply respond "how about we kill your tax cut to pay for it" gop will simply respond "we're not raising taxes you fucking goon" and it will die.</quote> Or how about....his infrastructure plan is shit and I don't want rich private developers being paid with a regressive tax that hits working-class Americans hardest. I know, so unreasonable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/15/18 12:07:00 PM #92:	sobergermanguy posted... Or how about....his infrastructure plan is shit. I don't want rich private developers being paid with a regressive tax that hits working-class Americans hardest. I know, so unreasonable. okay, so that describes the current situation we already face in the U.S. with infrastructure funding. What is your actual solution to the problem? --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896135201] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>sobergermanguy posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about....his infrastructure plan is shit. I don't want rich private developers being paid with a regressive tax that hits working-class Americans hardest. I know, so unreasonable.</quote> okay, so that describes the current situation we already face in the U.S. with infrastructure funding. What is your actual solution to the problem?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sobergermanguy 02/15/18 12:11:11 PM #93:	Republicans already raised the gas tax in my state yet we still have some of the worst roads and bridges in the nation. --- You choc-blocked me, bro <cite>sobergermanguy posted [p:896135416] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>Republicans already raised the gas tax in my state yet we still have some of the worst roads and bridges in the nation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 02/15/18 12:19:18 PM #94:	sobergermanguy posted... Or how about....his infrastructure plan is s* and I don't want rich private developers being paid with a regressive tax that hits working-class Americans hardest. I know, so unreasonable. the privatization portions of it are certainly bad but sin taxes are always regressive; doesn't make them undesirable unless you believe social engineering is never a good idea. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:896135844] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>sobergermanguy posted...</cite> <quote> Or how about....his infrastructure plan is s* and I don't want rich private developers being paid with a regressive tax that hits working-class Americans hardest. I know, so unreasonable. </quote> the privatization portions of it are certainly bad but sin taxes are always regressive; doesn't make them undesirable unless you believe social engineering is never a good idea.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/15/18 12:23:11 PM #95:	Darkman124 posted... the privatization portions of it are certainly bad but sin taxes are always regressive; doesn't make them undesirable unless you believe social engineering is never a good idea. in this case, the lack of a sin tax is just as much a social engineering program, anyways. unless we agree to stop repairing some roads and replace them gradually with lower-value surfaces (like gravel) we are just going to borrow money to fund road construction and repair anyway. which isn't something people would do if they had to pay for the actual costs of those things. even the push against the privatization part doesn't make sense to me. people are saying it leads to pork barreling and favoritism in contracting and moeny being diverted to politically useful places rather than places based on need but again that is all already true --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896136102] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote>the privatization portions of it are certainly bad but sin taxes are always regressive; doesn't make them undesirable unless you believe social engineering is never a good idea.</quote> in this case, the lack of a sin tax is just as much a social engineering program, anyways. unless we agree to stop repairing some roads and replace them gradually with lower-value surfaces (like gravel) we are just going to borrow money to fund road construction and repair anyway. which isn't something people would do if they had to pay for the actual costs of those things. even the push against the privatization part doesn't make sense to me. people are saying it leads to pork barreling and favoritism in contracting and moeny being diverted to politically useful places rather than places based on need but again that is all already true</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 12:24:40 PM #96:	Balrog0 posted... sobergermanguy posted... Or how about....his infrastructure plan is shit. I don't want rich private developers being paid with a regressive tax that hits working-class Americans hardest. I know, so unreasonable. okay, so that describes the current situation we already face in the U.S. with infrastructure funding. What is your actual solution to the problem? End prevailing wage laws. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896136213] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sobergermanguy posted...</cite> <quote>Or how about....his infrastructure plan is shit. I don't want rich private developers being paid with a regressive tax that hits working-class Americans hardest. I know, so unreasonable.</quote> okay, so that describes the current situation we already face in the U.S. with infrastructure funding. What is your actual solution to the problem?</quote> End prevailing wage laws.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 02/15/18 12:26:25 PM #97:	Balrog0 posted... Darkman124 posted... the privatization portions of it are certainly bad but sin taxes are always regressive; doesn't make them undesirable unless you believe social engineering is never a good idea. in this case, the lack of a sin tax is just as much a social engineering program, anyways. unless we agree to stop repairing some roads and replace them gradually with lower-value surfaces (like gravel) we are just going to borrow money to fund road construction and repair anyway. which isn't something people would do if they had to pay for the actual costs of those things. even the push against the privatization part doesn't make sense to me. people are saying it leads to pork barreling and favoritism in contracting and moeny being diverted to politically useful places rather than places based on need but again that is all already true idk the fact that the puerto rico power grid repairs went to some no-name firm that was cozy with the DoI makes me very uncomfortable with any infrastructure privatization program there's 'business as usual corruption' and there's 'overtly looting the country because nobody cares' the infrastructure plan is dead on arrival, regardless --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:896136339] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote>the privatization portions of it are certainly bad but sin taxes are always regressive; doesn't make them undesirable unless you believe social engineering is never a good idea.</quote> in this case, the lack of a sin tax is just as much a social engineering program, anyways. unless we agree to stop repairing some roads and replace them gradually with lower-value surfaces (like gravel) we are just going to borrow money to fund road construction and repair anyway. which isn't something people would do if they had to pay for the actual costs of those things. even the push against the privatization part doesn't make sense to me. people are saying it leads to pork barreling and favoritism in contracting and moeny being diverted to politically useful places rather than places based on need but again that is all already true</quote> idk the fact that the puerto rico power grid repairs went to some no-name firm that was cozy with the DoI makes me very uncomfortable with any infrastructure privatization program there's 'business as usual corruption' and there's 'overtly looting the country because nobody cares' the infrastructure plan is dead on arrival, regardless</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/15/18 12:29:20 PM #98:	In theory, at least, privatization should add accountability. When NASA blows up twenty astronauts, it's a tragedy and a handful of middle managers get reassigned. What happens when Elon Musk eventually does it? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896136526] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote>In theory, at least, privatization should add accountability. When NASA blows up twenty astronauts, it's a tragedy and a handful of middle managers get reassigned. What happens when Elon Musk eventually does it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Waluigi7 02/15/18 12:30:37 PM #99:	Wolf_J_Flywheel posted... E32005 posted... DezDroppedFreak posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Also of note. The gas tax is currently 18.4 cents. Trump did not propose raising it TO 25, he proposed raising BY 25 Holy shit "republican" "conservative" Trump has never been a conservative nor has he or any supporters claimed he was. @Wolf_J_Flywheel http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/18/donald-trump-hannity-his-conservative-credentials-ted-cruz-saudi-arabia-and-911 --- Gonna go out on a limb and guess that you are a trump supporter -UnfairRepresent <cite>Waluigi7 posted [p:896136593] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Wolf_J_Flywheel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>E32005 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DezDroppedFreak posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote>Also of note. The gas tax is currently 18.4 cents. Trump did not propose raising it TO 25, he proposed raising BY 25</quote> Holy shit</quote> "republican" "conservative"</quote> Trump has never been a conservative nor has he or any supporters claimed he was.</quote> @Wolf_J_Flywheel http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/18/donald-trump-hannity-his-conservative-credentials-ted-cruz-saudi-arabia-and-911</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/15/18 12:32:12 PM #100:	Darkman124 posted... idk the fact that the puerto rico power grid repairs went to some no-name firm that was cozy with the DoI makes me very uncomfortable with any infrastructure privatization program there's 'business as usual corruption' and there's 'overtly looting the country because nobody cares' well yeah but that is what happened right now already I don't love the idea, but cost overruns and delays happen with public entities building infrastructure too I think maybe people don't comprehend the extent to which infrastructure is already built and maintained through private contracts. Or maybe people just trust government more than I do. --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:896136690] in Trump endo... [t:76319387]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote>idk the fact that the puerto rico power grid repairs went to some no-name firm that was cozy with the DoI makes me very uncomfortable with any infrastructure privatization program there's 'business as usual corruption' and there's 'overtly looting the country because nobody cares'</quote> well yeah but that is what happened right now already I don't love the idea, but cost overruns and delays happen with public entities building infrastructure too I think maybe people don't comprehend the extent to which infrastructure is already built and maintained through private contracts. Or maybe people just trust government more than I do.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax