50 cent gas tax proposed

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Global Warming Taxes

Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell ? who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee ? plans to introduce legislation to fight global warming that includes a 50-cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline ? and the elimination of mortgage tax deductions on houses larger than 3,000 square feet.

Dingell admits the ideas are not popular. "I know I'm going to catch hell for them," he says. "If we are serious about global warming, we need to reduce consumption by making it more expensive."

Cybercast News reports critics are calling the ideas "ill-informed, misguided, and economically detrimental."

and while on global warming--

Fact Check

The man behind the Web site climateaudit.org has forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Steve McIntyre had to reverse engineer NASA's figures ? because the agency refused to give him the formula it used to make the claim.

And McIntyre found out NASA had made a serious mistake. NASA eventually agreed, and now says 1934 was the hottest year ? followed by 1998 ? and 1921. In fact ? five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.

now more about gas taxes--

also proposed is 5 cent raise for roads and bridges but as GW told them--enough taxes for them now if special interests groups were not skimming the current gas tax revenue--with 1/2 billion alone allocated for --yes bike paths.

by the way --anyone want to venture a guess last time we had gas tax hike--try last time we had Dem president--yep ole Billy Bob

So you want to vote for a dem in 08??
If you don't pay taxes--receive entitlements-are illegal immagrant or terrorist it would probably be advisable--

--but gas tax will get everyone--and don't forget they vowed to increase taxes on oil companies--so what avenue do you think oil co will go to retain profits--you got it--then add them together and your looking at Europes current gas prices.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Yeah...obviously it takes a republican like George Bush and his ringleader Dick Cheney to create an energy policy to ensure the oil companies can "retain" profits, eh Wayne? God forbid...we do anything to make it tougher to continue breaking all records on corporate profits. Funny...the same time they get all these tax breaks, they somehow manage to kick gas prices up to all time highs. What great stewards George, Dick and the oil companies are of our pocketbooks. Great point, my man.

Leave it to you to defend the oil companies, and their right to receive tax breaks and cuts, raise gas price to record levels, and say that is an important reason to vote republican. Believe us, we get where you're coming from...:142smilie
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
We know you don't like Bush-Cheney-or Corporations making a profit--

But was wondering if you have any comment on your party wanting a 50 cent gas tax for hypothetical problem:shrug:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
50 cents might be to little. Make it a buck. Maybe that will get 25% of the cars left parked for 75% of the time. Darn that would make it easier to get around. We need more folks riding a bus. Or heaven forbid walking an getting healthy. It's unreal those who wont even walk two, three blocks to a store or go to school. Maybe a buck would do it. I don't care if it comes from right or left. But that group of folks may end up being hero's.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
To be clear, I am not immediately for a gas tax hike at face value. I've already answered you on that before. I do agree that there are plenty of opportunities to move existing monies around to face new problems that become an issue. I also have a big problem with using taxes taken for specific reasons and moving them to special projects that do not fit the bill. Minnesota's Oberstar is a big problem in that area, and I think deserves criticism and probably to be voted out.

But, I can also understand the need for taxes to address our countries problems if they are used for those things. Here's a great idea for roads and bridge and infrastructure repair:

End the war in Iraq, and reduce the federal deficit. Bingo - you have trillions of dollars to do a lot of good work in this country. What's your idea?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
\

But was wondering if you have any comment on your party wanting a 50 cent gas tax for hypothetical problem:shrug:
The "party" doesn't want that tax. They will never approve Dingell's idea. It creates good fodder for you and Fox though.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
The "party" doesn't want that tax. They will never approve Dingell's idea. It creates good fodder for you and Fox though.

One guy and he labels the whole party just like Fox did that night. The problem is that Fox does it because they are sneaky and Dogs does it because he falls for it. It is why this station is so dangerous. If you are naive enough to get sucked into crap like this then they achieved there agenda.
 

Wilson

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,426
10
0
1813 Virginia St
The elimination of the tax deduction on any houses bigger than 3,000 square ft. :mj07:

That may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. These socialist moles in the democratic party need to be exterminated. :nono:

Typical. :SIB
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Which part of part of Clintons clan didn't want his tax gas hike.

I've seen numerous dems wanting gas tax for various reasons --and they want to repeal tax cuts GW had.

You ever ask yourself ,with tax cut, and employment-economy-inflation-tax revenue ect running on all cylinders--why on earth if Dems got in power would they need all these tax increases--especially if they "intend" to cut spending:shrug:

You can wrap it any way you want--but when you have a party that cheers minimum wage increase--and is for raising taxes--its obvious who their base is.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I hope the first thing the Dem's do, if they get control of WH and both houses. Throw out old tax laws. Vote in fair tax. As for gas taxes. we never do them right. Make them hurt and you will get change. Why should we think we should have a endless supply when we cant produce it any more. If we don't curb the use with some tough love. Were all going to get screwed even worse later. it's not about Dem's or Reb's. It's about our future.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Once again, there is a big difference between repealing tax cuts at a time of war that all of us should be a part of (right, patriot?) and saying a party wants tax increases. Tax revenue running on all cyclinders, and still massive deficits - which don't even include the war cost. Mortgage companies, banks, huge financial businesses having serious issues, Federal Reserve propping up the economy with repressed rates for years, and now infusing the economy with cash to help diffuse the current concerns, dollar value extremely down, China calling in our debt, etc.

Economy and revenues high due to Americans purchasing everything on credit, oil at all time highs resulting in higher prices on everything to come, etc. You can paint the picture in many ways, but the entire picture is far from blue skies and sunny days.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
By the way, Wayne, you bring up Clinton's gas tax which was 4.3 cents a gallon. You fail to mention the gas tax rose 5 cents a gallon under Reagan in 1982, and another 5 cents a gallon under George Bush I in 1989 (read my lips...) according to the Cato Institute - not one of your more liberal organizations.

So, why do you continually pound the past and Clinton, when he actually proposed a smaller tax increase than the republican presidents who preceeded him? Any comment on that?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
We need more funds. We can't come close to cutting enough cost to cover it. It's not just our roads and bridges. We have 50% of our dams in need of repair. Or need to rebuild them. There in shape like the dikes around New Orleans were. If we could get half back what we blew in Iraq. We could do oh so much here. Including jobs,jobs good paying jobs.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
try adding a source other than Fox to your repertroire.


Summary: On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings.
During the "Political Grapevine" segment of the August 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, guest host and chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings. According to NASA climate modeler Gavin A. Schmidt, 2005 remains the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
don't worry DTB, global warming is not real, we never went to the moon, the earth is indeed flat and life will always be the same in backwoods Kentucky. Just don't go hunting with Dick.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
By the way, Wayne, you bring up Clinton's gas tax which was 4.3 cents a gallon. You fail to mention the gas tax rose 5 cents a gallon under Reagan in 1982, and another 5 cents a gallon under George Bush I in 1989 (read my lips...) according to the Cato Institute - not one of your more liberal organizations.

So, why do you continually pound the past and Clinton, when he actually proposed a smaller tax increase than the republican presidents who preceeded him? Any comment on that?

Thought I would bump this, in case you didn't see it, Wayne. I want to give you a fair shot at it, and not just assume you were dodging it...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Thank you Chad was not aware of gas tax in Bush Sr term --I thought you might put chart up or something on gas taxes since origination but don't see any--I'll take a peak and be back--
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Strolling Through Gas Tax History


Sweet, James Stouder, The Federal Gasoline Tax at a Glance: A History, Bybee House, 1993.

This short history packs a lot of information into 23 pages. Using Mr. Sweet's booklet and other sources, the Rambler offers a summary of how the Federal excise tax on gasoline reached its current level.

The 1-cent gas tax was set to expire at the end of June 1933 (the last day of fiscal year 1933). The American Petroleum Institute and the American Automobile Association were among those who supported expiration of the tax. However, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which the President approved on June 6, 1933, extended the tax and increased it to 1.5 cents. The Revenue Act of 1934 (May 10, 1934) rescinded the half-cent increase.

Opposition from the highway lobby and State officials continued, but so did the tax, although each extension was "temporary" until the Revenue Act of 1941 (September 20, 1941) made the gas tax permanent and increased it to 1.5 cents a gallon to help pay for the country's defense buildup.

After World War II, opposition to the Federal gas tax continued from auto, oil and travel interests and the States, which maintained that the gas tax should be their sole province. In 1947, for example, hundreds of national, State, and regional organizations of highway users signed a petition urging Congress to repeal the automotive taxes, including the excise taxes on motor vehicles and trailers, lubricating oil, tires and tubes, automotive parts and accessories. The petition, submitted on July 15, 1947, summarized the history of the gas and other taxes, then stated:

Everyone of these levies initially was imposed over the protest and voiced opposition of all leading highway user organizations of the country. No tax for the general support of Government is just in its application when the amount of the burden is determined by the distance the taxpayer must drive to or from his farm or his place of employment, or in the conduct of his business.

When the taxes were extended and increased for emergency war revenue, highway users everywhere patriotically accepted them as part of the war burden which each must bear, regardless of equity. That emergency has passed and the continuing tax burden can now be redistributed under equitable measurements of assessment.

The National Highway Users Conference (NHUC), consisting of leaders of the trucking, manufacturing, and oil companies as well as automobile and farm groups, served as a clearinghouse for the petition. A transmittal letter from NHUC Director Arthur C. Butler, Executive Vice-President of General Motors, explained:

These organizations and the millions of taxpayers they represent are of the firm conviction that there should be no departure from the original concept of Federal highway aid. This concept is that the Federal Government should pay for such aid from sources of general taxation, because the benefits of that spending-to the national defense, to interstate commerce, to mail delivery and to the general welfare-are not limited to any special taxpaying group.

The Governors' Conference, predecessor to the National Governors Association, adopted resolutions opposing the Federal gas tax. They suggested that if the Federal Government would yield the taxes, the States would increase their taxes by a like amount, thus providing more funding for State road programs.

The Revenue Act of 1951 (October 21, 1951) increased the gas tax to 2 cents as a revenue source during the Korean War that began in June 1951, with the increase to be repealed on April 1, 1954.

Opposition to the gas tax continued into the early years of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who took office on January 20, 1953. The Governors Conference passed resolutions, while the auto, highway, and oil interests worked Capitol Hill to bring an end to the tax. In fact, on the second day of his presidency, Eisenhower received a visit from Governors Walter J. Kohler, Jr. (R-Wi.) and Dan Thornton (R-Co.), who asked him to support a commission to study Federal-State relations, citing the gas tax as an example of a Federal activity that should be abandoned in favor of the States. Although President Eisenhower agreed to the commission, he did not agree about the gas tax. With the President planning a road initiative, he supported the Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954 (March 31, 1954), which extended the tax to April 1, 1955, and the Tax Rate Extension Act of 1955 (March 30, 1955), which extended it to April 1, 1956.

By the time Congress took up proposals for financing the Interstate System, most parties had accepted the practical reality that the Federal gas tax wasn't going away. On May 4, 1955, during a hearing on the National Highway Program before the House Committee on Public Works, Representative Fred Schwengel (R-Ia.) asked Governor Kohler about the change in the Governors' Conference position, pointing out that for the past 10 years, the Governors had asked the Federal Government to yield the gasoline tax to the States. He continued:

I believe 2 years ago it was the unanimous opinion of the governors that that obtain . . . . Now, I think I see a complete flip-flop in this whole philosophy, where you are saying let the Federal Government stay in it. Do you realize when you are taking this position on this bill that you are committing the Federal Government to this gasoline tax for 30 years?

Governor Kohler responded:

Mr. Schwengel, we realize that this is the case . . . . I would like to point out that, so far as I know, the governors still, if polled, would adhere to their position as adopted at the Houston Governors' Conference in 1952, that the Federal Government should get out of the gas-tax field and leave that to the States.

The approach here is simply a realization of the practical political facts of life that the Government is not going to get out of that gas-tax field. So it is a question of relaxing and enjoying it, I think, rather than changing our minds.

In 1956, the outside interests agreed with congressional leaders on a compromise for funding the Interstate System. The gas tax would be increased to 3 cents, but highway user tax revenue from excise taxes on gasoline, tire rubber, tube rubber, and the sales tax on new trucks, buses, and trailers would be credited to a new Highway Trust Fund and reserved for use on the Interstate System and other highway projects. (The Highway Trust Fund is modeled after the Social Security Trust Fund-that is, the revenue goes into the general treasury, but is credited to the Fund.) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which President Eisenhower signed on June 29, 1956, adopted this compromise.

A funding shortage in the late 1950's led President Eisenhower to request a temporary increase of the gas tax to 4.5 cents a gallon. Despite opposition to an increase from the usual opponents, Congress increased the tax, but only to 4 cents on a temporary basis, in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1959 (September 21, 1959). The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961, which President John F. Kennedy approved on June 29, 1961, the 5th anniversary of the 1956 Act, retained the 4-cent tax and extended it through September 30, 1972.

The tax remained 4 cents a gallon until the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which President Ronald Reagan approved on January 6, 1983. The Act increased the tax to 9 cents, but the legislation created two separate accounts in the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Account would receive 8 cents of the revenue while the new Mass Transit Account would receive 1 cent of the gas tax.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (October 17, 1986) added 0.1 cent tax on gasoline for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It embodied a compromise the Republican President had reached with the Democratic-controlled Congress to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The Act increased the Federal gas tax by 5 cents, with half the increase going to the Highway Trust Fund, the other half to deficit reduction.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.
That is where the gas tax remains today.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now Chad since I looked up this data--could you do us a favor and look up which which party controled congress in every year there was a tax increase ;)

--and report back please
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I can even assume the democrats had the majority, if that's what is important to you. What I read from your bolded statements was that Reagan approved a 5 cent hike, Bush I approved a 5 cent hike - and admirably agreed for the funds to go to deficit reduction. Both were higher than what Clinton did, but I guess only Clinton's hike is a bad thing in your eyes, even thought it was less and done mainly for the same reason that the one Bush I negotiated for. I swear, sometimes you just can't make up the irony in this forum...

Thanks for bolding the important parts, tho...appreciated. :00hour
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Interesting to study again the Bush daddy mode of operation in comparison to Bush boy. Bush I mandated no taxes - read his lips, please - and then we see that common sense and financial sensibility can still take over when looking at a situation and being able to adapt to changing times. Reducing the budget and financial responsibility evidently mattered to him. The new kid? What the heck does he care? Spend more, reduce taxes for a few during a time of war, and pretend none of it matters.

Like I've said before, Bush the first never came close to being as bad a president as this one has. He at least made some sense from time to time. Heck, even Dick Cheney made some sense at times back in the day. He knew what Iraq would be like when he was responsible directly for that kind of thing, didn't he?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top