Re: State sounds alarm over road funding

On Jul 30, 9:37 pm, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
pigsty1...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
It is not anything I have not heard before. It is not ignorant, it is
reality based, so what are you worried about?
But I do disagree. A flat tax is inherently reqressive, that is its
main problem. IOW the less you make, the higher percentage you pay.
That is what is so regressive about sales taxes. Poor people pay a
higher percentage.
No, a 10% tax is a 10% tax. Whether you're making $5K a year or $500K a
year. What could be fairer than that?

It is horribly unfair, and you know it. 10% of $5K is $500, that
hurts a lot more to some one making $5K then 10% of $500K which is
$50,000. And that sir is one of the reasons it will never happen.

Ah, so what you're proposing is taking from the rich and for the benefit
of the poor? It's called socialism.







Now if you're talking about making the wealthy pay a higher percentage
of their income because they can "afford" more then you're not talking
about a flat tax.

Now is it your feeling that transportation be funded out of general
revenues? If it is I will disagree with that also.
Transportation is NOT education. That is the reason the gas tax was
instituted initially, so that transportation was funded by the users.
Transportation is just as vital to the functioning of our society as
education is. You may disagree, but it is true. Remove the
transportation system and watch the country grind to a halt. Same
effect as having an uneducated society.

You miss the point. No one is talking about removing the
transportation system, just how to pay for it. If you fund it out of
general revenues it has to compete with things like education, law
enforcement, parks, welfare, etc, and it won't do as well as if it has
its own source of funding.

For many years NJ had that system of placing all revenues into the
general fund and funding everything out of that stream.
Believe me it was not good for transportation.

Roads are no more important than all the others. Neither are they any
less important. They get no special privilege. Nor do they get a
penalty.

There's ALWAYS going to be a give and take in which program gets funded.
It's the nature of the beast.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA

--
And if I claim to be a wise man
it surely means that I don't know.

--Kansas- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rich, it is 2007, the 21st century, not 1929.

I would hope at some point you recongnize that and come into the 21st
century.

Randy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: State sounds alarm over road funding
    ... A flat tax is inherently reqressive, ... If it is I will disagree with that also. ... so that transportation was funded by the users. ... transportation system and watch the country grind to a halt. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: State sounds alarm over road funding
    ... A flat tax is inherently reqressive, ... If it is I will disagree with that also. ... so that transportation was funded by the users. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: Ummmm...
    ... transportation and caskets for military personnel killed overseas. ... So tell me, what, exactly, gives this cell or set of cells ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Steam Vehicles
    ... > only used it for transportation but for many stationary power units too. ... I disagree. ... efficient electric motors did not exist until ...
    (sci.materials)
  • Re: Steam Vehicles
    ... > only used it for transportation but for many stationary power units too. ... I disagree. ... efficient electric motors did not exist until ...
    (sci.energy)