May 9, 2007
Texas House Takes $$$ From Kids, Gives to SUV Drivers
The Texas House of Representatives voted 118-16 for a bill amendment that would suspend the $0.20 per gallon gas tax for three months. This would cost the state $500 million to $700 million, which would come funds earmarked for transportation and public education. The amendment has not yet passed in the Senate.
As far as taxes go, the gas tax sucks less than most. People generally have some level of control over how much they have to pay it. Higher gas prices seem to encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient cars, use public transportation, live closer to work, etc., all of which are good things. That said, $0.20 per gallon was a lot more significant when gas cost around a dollar a gallon. With gas at $3-4 per gallon, $0.20 is a drop in the bucket. Still, eliminating the gas tax seems to primarily benefit Hummer drivers that commute from Lakeway, while (indirectly) harming people who walk their kids to school before taking the bus to work.
|
I will never, ever, ever be surprised by anything that our legislature does. Alarmed, dismayed, cruelly resigned, sure.
Speaking of taxes, does nayone have the specifics on the note I caught on the news last night about a possible raise of the sales tax to 12%, a $.72 per gallon tax on gas and a ~6% raise in property taxes just to try and relieve traffic congestion? They stated we'd have to spend almost $2M a day for the next 20 years to relieve the congestion.
Driving a standard ~16 gal, getting gas twice-three times/month, it would save you ~$25/Year with the Three months during which the gas price is reduced. Oh boy!!!
Of course, bills like this try to do nothing but prey on the psychology of the feeble-minded masses. "Look, ma! Gas is CHEAP!! We can sure take that family road trip across Amayerica in our 40 gallon van now!!"
Hmmm, I wonder who makes more money in the end - yet again?
Transparent, silly-ass games.
"They stated we'd have to spend almost $2M a day for the next 20 years to relieve the congestion."
Ah...of course, for those POOR tollroad companies in Méhico...
Do we get money back with which to educate our kids / ourselves if we don't own a car?
Grape, I haven't seen that proposal, but I would certainly be interested. Of course, I don't think it is possible to spend our way out of congestion by building more roads - the wider the road, the more traffic there is. Plus, what do they think is going to happen in 20 years? We will suddenly have enough roads? More like $20M per year forever, probably increasing by 5% every year.
Damnation, good point - I didn't mention the biggest and most direct beneficiary of all: the oil companies.
Also, just to throw this out there, if the lege really is interested in lowering taxes, why not eliminate property taxes on primary residences under some value - say $100k? That seems to me like a much better way to give tax relief to the people that need it most and I think it would create a lot of positive incentives.
FREEZING THE GAS TAX MAKES NO SENSE.
POLITICOS ARE CRYING THAT THE GAS TAX DOESN'T GET US ENOUGH MONEY FOR OUR ROADS, so much so that they are tolling freeways we've already paid for (a double tax!). And the same CORRUPT politicos profit from the tolls!
Sal "The Muckraker" Costello
Couple of points - first, the gas tax is dedicated to transportation, so the amendment would not affect education (that's the Statesman's bad info, not yours). Second, most people have very little control over how much they drive, particularly lower and middle class folks. You don't decide where you live, rents do. I would love to live downtown or in Hyde Park, but I can't afford it. Same thing with jobs - you take the best you can get, even if you have to drive across town.
You are right that an increased homestead exemption (I think $50,000 would do it) is the best way to get tax relief to those who need it most. Martinez-Fischer's amendment, whether you like it or not, won't even be noticed by most people.
Shilli, it waws apparently a multi-county proposal. I'm going to look for more on this tonight.
El longhorn, it's not true that most people don't have control over how much they drive, there are such things as bikes and buses, and also feet. Additionally, people have control over where they live to a greater extent than you claim. If you are willing to pay more for the same amount of space you could get in another neighborhood, you can live in Hyde Park. It's pretty much personal decisions that dictate these things.
AJ, my point is that most people can't pay more. If you have the money, of course you can control where you live! If you have a family and need a three bedroom house (or apartment) but can't pay more than $1200/month, can you live anywhere in central Austin, where biking or walking may be an option? No.
If you live in South Austin below Oltorf, you can absolutely get a 3 bedroom apt or house for $1200/month and be close enough to take the bus downtown. Or a bike. People live in the suburbs because they can get something nicer, newer, etc. Unless you are really living on the margin (which, of course, many people are), you can live in town.
Not that anyone cares at this point, but Shilli, you either a) are an idiot or b) know nothing about the way the oil industry and its profits work. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.
Retail gas price are a minuscule source of profit for big oil companies. The biggest beneficiaries will be consumers and the small business owners that own your corner gas station. Not big oil.
Chris, care to back that up, or are you just here to talk shit? Check your statistics. More than half of the cost of every gallon of gas is crude oil. Who profits from that? Big oil. The next biggest component is generally refining. Who profits? Big oil. Who owns the majority of "corner gas stations"? Not small business owners. Again, it is big oil. Who is going to profit most from a lower gas tax? Big oil. Just because big oil is making giant assloads of money elsewhere doesn't mean they aren't pocketing the majority of this $0.20.
Plus, the consumers that are going to benefit most from this are the Hummer drivers that commute from Lakeway, like I said in the original post. People who don't drive, take public transportation, live close to work - they won't benefit at all.
All that said, who benefits is not my primary concern. I think lowering the cost of gas creates bad incentives. We should be encouraging people to use less gas, not more.
"People who don't drive, take public transportation, live close to work - they won't benefit at all."
Worse, still: the legislature will cover the shortfall in transportation funds by raiding the "general fund" - which is comprised mainly of sales taxes, which, of course, everybody pays whether or not they drive.