In a little less than a year from now, I’ll be joining Republicans in the state and voting to repeal future automatic increases of the gas tax tied to inflation. These increases were part of the transportation finance package that passed both the House and Senate overwhelmingly this past summer. (It was, of course, far less ambitious than the one Governor Patrick proposed earlier in the year. But anyway . . . )
[Sigh. And sigh.]
Massachusetts Democrats get a bad rap both here in the state and nationally for seeming to support any and all tax increases. The passage of this perpetually increasing, regressive tax only bolsters that criticism. When we talk about new tax proposals, we too often talk gleefully about the benefits of new revenue (or even, “new revenue streams”) while altogether ignoring questions about the fairness of these proposals. The public notices this, and it makes them mad. The progressives leaders in this state need to think about forging a new way forward that both addresses the state’s revenue challenges and makes its tax system fairer.
As for the fairness of the gas tax, there are multiple considerations at play. On the one hand, we all share a responsibility to pay something–some tax–for the common usage and utilization costs associated with petrol. These include the significant environmental costs of extraction and pumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year, as well the upkeep of our roads and environmentally friendly mass transit alternatives. On the other, we must also recognize the fact that even at this initially increased rate of 24 cents per gallon (on top of the 18.4-cent federal tax), this tax disproportionately burdens the livelihoods of the poor. Gas prices remain high and continue to fluctuate significantly, and so even small increases make living on a fixed budget difficult. Also consider that it’s often lower income individuals who drive long distances–to their jobs. They do this because they have to–especially in this post-2008 economy, where new jobs openings remain scarce. We shouldn’t ignore the reality that these increases quickly add up to real money for these folks. They struggle mightily to keep up with the state’s high cost of living, and this tax increase only makes things harder for them.
But we do have significant revenue challenges to meet–a stubborn little fact that the folks at Tank The Gas Tax ignore–and especially so when it comes to financing upkeep of, and improvements to, our crumbling transportation infrastructure. (This is something I’m often reminded of as I commute from Haverhill into Boston down 93 South several times a week. Driving over multiple potholes at 70 miles per hour during the six o’clock morning hour has a way of jolting you into a state of acute awareness about the importance of keeping our roads in good repair.) But we shouldn’t meet these challenges by placing an ever increasing greater burden on poor folks who have so relatively little. Our state and local taxes are far too regressive, as is.
So, what’s the better, progressive way forward? The folks at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center make a good case for raising the income tax. (The Governor, remember, likewise proposed this earlier this year.) As Mass Budget explains, while the income tax is flat, it’s effectively a progressive tax because of the few exemptions and credits that benefit lower income individuals. This would certainly be a more palatable option than the gas tax, and it would make the overall tax structure more progressive, but we should also still worry about how the income tax increase would affect low and middle income individuals who are managing only a bit better and are just above the qualifying tax brackets for these credits and exemptions. We should also be mindful of voter sentiment about another tax increase. We would need to make the case to voters that this is a better solution.
But ultimately, the single greatest obstacle to a truly progressive tax structure is that flat rate of the income tax. We must make the state income tax progressive, and to do that, we must change the state’s Constitution (Article 44 of the Articles of Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution). This entails a two pronged approach: (1) provide vocal support to legislative petitions that seek to do this, like Senator Eldridge’s proposal earlier this year (and make sure that these proposals don’t disappear into the Beacon Hill ether); and (2) another grassroots ballot initiative campaign where we take our case directly to the people. It’s been nearly twenty years since we’ve had a referendum to seek such an amendment. And while five such efforts in the latter half of last century failed, perhaps now–having observed broad, longtime support for tax hikes on the rich–we can be successful. It’s a far-off goal, but it’s one worth fighting for.
Thirty four states have a progressive income tax. We should do the right thing and try to become the 35th.
SomervilleTom says
I fear you imply a false dichotomy (gas tax versus income tax) and convey a very different message from what a superficial reading of your post suggests.
Your post largely ignores the reality that the House has already rejected every other part of the Governor’s belated and much-needed proposal to increase taxes. The income tax increase was rejected. The tax on software services was passed and then repealed, with Mr. DeLeo explicitly refusing to consider ways to replace the lost revenue.
Now, you would have us finish the deal by killing the gas tax. The message that sends, intentional or not, is “no new taxes”. It further enables and encourages the greedy, ignorant, and irrational avarice of the Howie Carr crowd and those who, like Mr. DeLeo, pander to it.
With “Democratic” leadership like Mr. DeLeo in charge of the House, your advocacy for a progressive income tax is an irrelevant distraction. A far more effective use of progressive political capital is to replace Mr. DeLeo with a Speaker from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
No constitutional amendment is needed to significantly increase the gift/estate tax, nor to significantly increase the tax rate on unearned income. The former targets ONLY the very wealthy — the latter is nearly as focused. Each will raise more revenue with less political effort.
The first and most important next steps for progressives in Massachusetts are:
1. REJECT the gas tax referendum and keep the gas tax
2. REPLACE Mr. DeLeo as Speaker.
liveandletlive says
We need to stop taking every electoral win as a mandate to raise taxes on those least able to pay. It is not. The gas tax is a truly regressive tax and needs to be repealed and replaced with something else that does not negatively impact the middle class and the poor. Your suggestion of increasing the gift/estate tax and increasing taxes on unearned income are terrific ideas. Yet, when you declare the most important things for progressives to do, you only highlight keeping the increased gas tax and replacing Speaker Deleo. No. The most important next step for progressives in Massachusetts is to raise taxes on the many wealthy individuals who reside here.
SomervilleTom says
Mr. DeLeo already torpedoed the Governor’s revenue plan. He is currently demanding benefit CUTS to the unemployed — of all people — as his price for raising the minimum wage from $8.00 to $10.50 over three years.
We enthusiastically agree on the need to significantly increase taxes on the very wealthy. Removing Mr. DeLeo is a first and necessary step.
Bill Taylor says
I didn’t say that addressing the income tax is THE ONLY way forward. I do think it’s the best way forward, however. Perhaps we should raise the gift/estate tax, too, but adjusting the income tax will be more effective in actually bringing in the most revenue. (A thorough-going analysis of how to completely reform our tax structure requires its own blog, at least.) And what about the crux of the matter – the regressiveness of the tax? Do the good ends justify the bad means?
SomervilleTom says
If you can show a way to increase the income tax without doing item (2) on my list, I’m all for it.
The alleged regressiveness of the gas tax has already been refuted below.
The “means” of a gas tax are not “bad”. We need to invest in public rail transportation, to encourage more people to stop commuting in cars and start commuting by public transportation.
We have been deluding ourselves for at least a decade about the actual cost of our over-dependence on automobiles. Urban poor and working class people have been subsidizing, through cuts in public transportation, fare increases, and sales taxes (which are more regressive than gas taxes), highways used by more affluent suburbanites. The per-mile per-resident cost of highways in western Massachusetts, in particular, are heavily subsidized by taxpayers in the metropolitan Boston area. Rejecting the gas tax increase only intensifies that already regressive tax policy.
Even with all that, we have been using a series of hand-magic moves to shift the burden of our over-dependence on highways to our children and grandchildren. We over-use bonds for highway maintenance and construction, while we refuse to increase tolls or gas taxes to even keep pace with inflation.
We need to make the tax impact of our over-dependence on automobiles reflect the actual cost structure to the state. Those residents of the state who consume the most in highway maintenance costs should pay the most in taxes to fund those costs. We need to fund the transportation infrastructure we need as we head into the twenty-first century.
The gas tax is a very modest step that is NOT regressive, NOT “bad”, and is GOOD public policy.
jconway says
Every commentator not just from the Herald, but Lehigh at the Globe and Bernstein at Boston Mag would interpret this as a ‘tax revolt’ and a vote ‘against Beacon Hill’.
Defeating this referendum accomplishes three important goals.
1) Infrastructure Funding
With the Governors far more generous proposal DOA in the current leg, this is the bare minimal we need to keep the roads and T functioning. As a T rider, frankly I am tired of having my shoddy service subsidize 1990 gas tax levels.
2) Automatic increases
This removes basic common sense fiscal responsibility from the hands of the legislator and indexes it to inflation, this way, we won’t be paying for 2013 roads and trains with 1990 money ever again. Policy makers can be insulted from the Carrs and Dan from Walthams that scream bloody murder anytime taxes are raised.
3) Lays a Foundation
I think the ACA sucks and is a huge giveaway to insurance companies and Obama is currently reaping what he sowed by bailing on the (more popular and easier to implement) public option. But I woulda voted for it because it lays the foundation for a patch in the future. Defeating a flawed policy now prevents better progressive policies in the future. Similarly, defeating this revenue, as regressive as I will concede it is, will kill any attempts at progressive revenue down the road. If we can’t even expect the voters to accept ‘raised the gas tax’ how can we expect them to ‘endure’ an income tax ‘hike’?
jeremy says
I’m a big fan of a graduated progressive income tax.
But gas taxes are, in and of themselves, good for society. Less wear on road, better for the environment. So even if we had a properly graduated income tax, we’d want the tax on gas to be much higher to account for it’s externalities. In Britain, the gas tax has been much higher for years. So we know the sky would not fall if we raised it.
stomv says
Are you sure? I’m not, at least not in Massachusetts. There’s a huge number of poor people who don’t own a car. Don’t believe me? Check out the bus. Not just in Boston, but in cities across the Commonwealth. Think they’d be on the bus if they could drive to work? Yeah, me neither.
It’s true, if you are poor and you drive, a higher per gallon gas tax hits you harder. It’s also true that rich people are more likely to drive the Prius — but they’re even more likely to drive an SUV getting 25 mpg or worse.
It seems to me that, as a percent of income, the gas tax is neither regressive nor progressive, or rather, it is both. There’s no question that, on the high end, it’s regressive. Folks making $2M a year don’t pay twice as much gas tax as those making $1M a year. On the low end, though, lots of folks don’t drive much if at all. I’m thinking about both the working poor and seniors, most of whom live in more urban environments. Massachusetts (unlike, say, Maine) has a pretty high percentage of these folks. My bet is that it is the middle class where gas taxes show they are the most regressive, because in the middle class the choice of auto and home/work distance is pretty broad, so the amount of gasoline consumed per year isn’t well correlated to income.
In short, I don’t believe that the gas tax is regressive by and large, and I believe that a significant portion of the amount of money people pay in gas tax is entirely optional over a 5 year window. That is, over the next five years, more than half of Massachusetts car owners will replace their vehicle with a different one. There are higher and lower mpg vehicles in all vehicle classes and contrary to popular believe, most of us don’t “need” a pickup nor an SUV. Nearly all of us could do a better job keeping our tires inflated, keeping excess weight out of the trunk, and going easier on the accelerator and the brake. The next time we buy a car, we can choose one with better mpgs. We can choose to pay less in gas tax.
-==-
On top of that, we tax gas by the gallon because we want to tax the use of the roads (as opposed to the ownership of the auto), and tolls on local roads don’t work well. Tracking miles driven electronically within the state is possible, but it’s a massive invasion of privacy. That leaves us with taxing the gasoline, which is a good proxy for road use and wear, because driving more uses more gas, and because the vehicles which have lower mpgs tend to weigh more, thereby putting more wear and tear on the roads than the lighter autos. Furthermore, it is the burning of the gasoline which contributes to local poor air quality and climate change. Every gallon you use, you’re putting the same amount of CO2 in the air, if that gallon was burned in a Porche or a Prius. We want people to do what they can to burn less gasoline. Burning gasoline has all kinds of detrimental externalities. By taxing gasoline by the gallon, we encourage people to maintain their autos, to drive less aggressively, to choose autos with higher mpgs, to carpool, to telecommute, to choose mass transit some of the time, to choose a home or a job closer to a job or a home, to walk or ride a bike sometimes, to shop locally, and so forth. Every single one of those choices we are encouraging has positive results — not just less pollution, but less roadway congestion, more support for mass transit, more exercise, more simulation of the local economy, and more connection with the local community.
A gas tax won’t solve all our woes — there isn’t a magic pill. But we know that consuming gasoline emits more and more harm, that maintaining roadways costs more and more money, and that it will take time and money and new ways of thinking to get Americans to burn substantially less gasoline while maintaining or improving their quality of life. The gas tax helps us burn less gasoline and helps fund our transportation infrastructure (both auto- and non-auto).
Tying the gas tax to inflation isn’t an increase any more than making your income tax is an increase when you get a pay raise. And yes, I would hope that we would use more of the gas tax money to help people pay less money in gas tax — both urban and rural, we can help people (including and especially poorer people) consume less gasoline.
stomv says
Sure looks to me like gas price and gas consumption are correlated. Want people to use less gasoline? Charge more. A state gas tax does that.
Some people drive less, some people drive smarter, some people make sure their next auto uses less gas per mile, some people make sure their next home or job requires less gasoline for their commute. Different people do what’s best for them, but an outcome of less gasoline consumption has a number of clear benefits.
Christopher says
…are stuck doing what we have always done except finding more money in an already tight personal budget. We already drive efficiently, won’t be changing homes, jobs, or cars anytime soon, and don’t have ready access to mass transit at least for our usual needs. You’ll get a lot further with me on the need the money to pay for infrastructure argument than the we want to manipulate your demand argument.
stomv says
You and I have had the gas tax debate on BMG multiple times. You’ve made it clear that, public policy goals and overall trends and the perfect being the enemy of the good be damned, since it doesn’t have a direct benefit on you that you’re against.
Which is fine; but really, am I going to get anywhere with you personally?
(shrugs)
Christopher says
…that even though I use myself as a stand-in there is a sizable chunk of voters that feels the same way. If you want to persuade them, win the argument and ultimately the vote, what I have suggested will likely be the more politically successful tack. In this case I may well end up voting against repeal since the tax was part of an overall transportation package, yet the ballot question addresses only the tax portion without repealing the spending, thus once again leaving us without necessary revenue.
stomv says
100% true. Don’t suspect it — know it.
That tack has been discussed on this thread, and is known to be a legit angle. I would expect it to be used in a “general debate” amongst (a) a broad spectrum of political leanings, and (b) a broad spectrum of political interests. BMG, while it may have a few in (a) and (b), is largely Dem/lib/prog folks who are deeply interested in politics. That’s why I like the place, and it is here where I enjoy discussing issues and angles that may well not resonate with the vox populi.
Indeed, and fenway49 has done a great job highlighting this issue, in this thread and elsewhere.
-==-
Sorry if I came off negatively to you personally. Frankly, I should have treated you better in my comments.
liveandletlive says
Most people are working for less pay than they earned 5 years ago, so tying the gas tax to inflation is sort of like kicking your voters in the knees. People are already doing what they can to drive less stomv. I think we’ve been over this before. No-one wants to pay $30 to $50 a week for fuel. People have done everything they can within their means to lower that cost. Raising the gas tax just negates any financial benefit they have received from making those changes.
striker57 says
The members of my union got a raise in July and they will get another one in January 2014. And shockingly they work in the private sector.
They are highly skilled and productive workers that make money for their employers. As union members they have the ability to negotiate with their employers and share in the profits they generate for the company.
As the economy has slightly improved the hours of work for our trade have increased. So their pay raises are not impacting their ability to keep a job or find new jobs.
Having the ability to collectively bargain wages, hours and working conditions has allowed them to get raises and continue employment. A far better situation than relying on an employer or CEO to dictate your worth.
So “who get a raise anymore?” Answer: Private sector workers with a union contract.
And the vast majority must drive to work (they are often on worksite prior to or after public transit is available.). While a gas tax increase hits them in the paycheck it is an expense of getting to their job. Funding and expanding public transit through an increased gas tax would certainly assist them in the future.
liveandletlive says
because unfortunately, that scenario is not the case for most workers. I am for private sector unions 100%! We need to spread that power across the land. But just because a small section of the work force is still experiencing a prosperous America, we need to be mindful of the majority of Americans who are experiencing a Corporate America. The picture there is pretty bleak and we, as Democrats, need to do everything we can make sure they can at least afford to meet their basic needs. Raising regressive taxes only benefits the wealthy and corporations. Regressive taxes extort from modest household budgets. Democrats need to stop being the chief architects of those schemes.
striker57 says
You asked. I answered.
And I don’t believe that they represent a small portion of the workforce. Nor do I believe that funding public transit (and the jobs it creates both for transit workers and for other seeking work who must rely on public transit) through an increased gas tax is an economic attack on lower/middle income families. The gas tax also funds road and bridge maintenance and rebuilds (both job creation engines)
kirth says
I would really appreciate it if posters would use the “More” feature, so we don’t get huge long posts like this one taking up multiple screens’ worth of the front page. It seems like this is more of a thing lately, and it’s ugly. I would also appreciate it if the mods would apply some magic and move the bulk of long posts to an inside page.
That is all.
geoffm33 says
In wordpress to show just an excerpt of the post on the front page (or all category/archive pages).
Charley on the MTA says
apologies
kirth says
–
Trickle up says
It would not be practicable for the Commonwealth alone to raise the gas tax enough to capture all of the environmental externalizes of fossil-fuel consumption, but it should do what it can.
From a revenue perspective all revenue is fungible and it is possible to say. Oh, let’s just get the money from a better (more progressive) source. Okay, by all means, let’s raise the income tax in a progressive way. (Not holding my breath though.)
But there are other perspectives that justify other taxes, even regressive ones (which the OP has asserted, but not shown, that the gas tax actually is).
fenway49 says
If we can make the case and amend the Constitution. A huge issue going forward.
I’m also sympathetic to the plight of lower-middle-class people reliant upon cars to get around, but we need revenue and those people do contribute to the environmental and road maintenance problems that come with large-scale car use.
dasox1 says
But, politically, the gas tax is much more doable than the graduated income tax.
JimC says
Yeah, you heard me.
You want people to use public transportation? Make it better. And expand it to places where it doesn’t go. I live in Waltham, and in theory i could get by without a car, but it would be really difficult, so I drive more than I’d like to.
No raising of tolls, no raising of fees, NO NEW REVENUE from working stiffs. It’s all well and good to say “Gas taxes are too low” in the abstract, but I can assure you that working parents with kids are not out joyriding. We drive because we have to.
Here’s the thing that the public sector has shielded itself from: private sector budget-cutting. Until voters see a dramatic improvement in services, every increase is going to feel like a slap in the face. Do you work in the private sector? What’s your salary compared to eight years ago? I bet it’s lower, because you switched jobs after a layoff, or it’s about the same because you were lucky enough to keep a job over that period.
Sorry, I have no patience for academic discussions about taxes. I know the state has cut back, but the state does not feel the pain of the average person.
ryepower12 says
Just saying.
JimC says
Or rather, maybe it has cut back enough, but the private sector has cut back more. While you’re shopping, note how hard it is to find someone to help you in a store. Note the scanners at checkout, and how it’s almost impossible to find an open register line at the supermarket that also has a grocery bagger.
fenway49 says
Are we in a race to the bottom? Whatever scummy tactics used by chain stores must now become our public policy? MA revenue is down big time since the late 1970s. The public sector has more than “cut back.”
None of this is necessary. Our GDP is almost five times larger, in real terms, what it was fifty years ago. Our problem is the unequal distribution that leaves people feeling squeezed. Public sector austerity exacerbates that problem rather than fixing it.
If your chief concern is your own wallet (and I’m not being snarky, I really do feel the pain myself), think about the costs you incur (more gas consumption, suspension repairs, replacement tires, etc.) as a result of a road network that sucks due to underfunding. You might come out ahead with a higher gas tax.
JimC says
But here’s my problem — I don’t believe that the money raised would be used on the roads. Not for a one second do I believe that.
I feel alienated from my government. I feel alienated from the public sector too, but i’m used to that, I KNOW they’re trying to screw me.
Lately I feel like the government is trying to screw me too. Sorry, I don’t want to feel this way, but I do.
ryepower12 says
When people are confronted with it, they just come up with more excuses — excuses based on vague feelings or just about anything except the kinds of numbers and facts that could otherwise validate their impressions.
That’s why it’s cognitive dissonance.
If you could back up your vague feelings and impressions of the way things are with hard facts, it would have been done a long, long time ago… because it would have been obvious.
The fact of the matter is state government has been cut to the bone and then some. There hasn’t been any study or in depth article done on how Massachusetts is wasting untold billions of dollars because… it isn’t.
Charlie Baker lost an election because he had a gut feeling that the state could cut 5,000 jobs without ever being able to explain it. I think you can do better than Charlie Baker.
JimC says
I don’t traffic in facts, just feelings.
GO EFF YOURSELF RYAN.
ryepower12 says
If you want to say there’s tons of money to cut, where is it? Be better than Charlie Baker.
JimC says
… so it could be wrong. But the format was convenient.
2014 total spending — $78.8 billion. Other years follow.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/Massachusetts_state_spending.html
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_2013MAbn
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_2012MAbn
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_2011MAbn
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_2010MAbn
2009 total spending — $73 billion http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_2009MAbn
Sorry for insulting you. But you insulted me with your condescension.
Mark L. Bail says
this thread, but for facts on the Commonwealth’s budget, I recommend the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, which adjusts spending for years of economic growth. Over the the last 10 years, the only area of the state budget to spend more is health care. Everything else is less than it was in 2001. Local aid has taken a huge hit. It is now almost half what it is.
We don’t have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. When the state cut the income tax rate, it set off a time bomb that has been slowly exploding for the last 13 years. At the municipal level, we are leaner than ever.
ryepower12 says
1) The state publishes its annual budget online, in a fairly coherent format. FY ’13 is here. We did not spend $73 billion or anywhere close to it. The state’s general budget was $32.5 billion, or about a month’s worth of what we used to spend in Iraq, to put that number in perspective.
2) Listing the full size of a budget does not actually address my hope that you’d engage in a more substantive look at government spending if you want to critique it. The number doesn’t tell very much if it isn’t in context, so if you think there’s oodles of oodles of waste, you’re more than welcome to dig into the state’s budget and try to find it — and provide the context, or in this case validity to your TAXACHUSETTS! arguments.
My only warning: I don’t think you’re going to find very much waste. It’s publicly available knowledge and not even Charlie Baker’s multi million dollar campaign could do it as his unfounded attacks on government spending pretty much sunk his campaign before it even started because of just how unfounded they were.
If Charlie Baker ever could have found 5,000 jobs to cut in Massachusetts, don’t you think he would have provided it after people started laughing at him?
3) I’d ask a few questions about any website about “government spending” if it leaves 0 for State Spending and 0 for Local Spending and says the Total Spending for the state is $76 billion. Then I’d get really worried when I see the words “Spending: guesstimated” under the chart saying we spent $76 billion.
I googled the person who ran the website (he lists himself at the bottom — which is pretty much the only thing I could find about the running of the website) and discovered he’s a climate denier and a supporter of Sarah Palin — so not exactly the strongest start.
This is exactly why numbers need to be put in context. Who knows how the person came up with those totals — he gives us no context and all I have on him doesn’t make me want to spend very much time to figure it all out, especially when I could go straight to the source via mass.gov.
JimC says
Did I say Taxachusetts? Have I ever made an argument that even closely resembles that, in the history of my comments on this site? No I haven’t, and you know that. Argue in good faith, or don’t argue.
My point is, services have declined while their cost has risen. The mere fact that someone would introduce repairs to roads as a reason to raise the gas tax shows that those of use who drive know the roads are worse. There are places where dodging the pothole will nearly drive you into the other lane.
I wasn’t sure about the site; I declared that up front. Mark says we have a revenue problem. Well we have that problem because the economy stinks. I know almost no one who hasn’t lost a job in the last eight years. Most have bounced back, but we still have a climate of economic fear. And in a climate of economic fear, we should not be talking about raising taxes.
Let’s talk about innovation. Why aren’t we reaching out to people to help improve state services without raising taxes? Where’s the innovation economy?
There seems to be a belief that people will drive less if gas taxes are higher. Maybe they will — eventually. But in the interim, they’re just getting squeezed, and the roads aren’t fixed. The snow is not cleared adequately. The T breaks down more often. Etc, etc, etc. I know I sound like a broken record, but the government, at every level, has failed to confront its woeful inadequacy.
SomervilleTom says
It costs more to repair a crumbling bridge or highway than to stop it from crumbling in the first place. It costs more to maintain (and build) highways when highways carry multiples of their design volume because public transportation is so decrepit it is unusable. If you are a homeowner, then you MUST know that the cost of new roof is FAR FAR less than the cost of repairing your home after the leaky roof has destroyed your walls, your floors, your electrical system, and everything else.
In times of economic fear, government should spend MORE, not less.
We have been slashing tax revenue in Massachusetts for more than thirty years now, beginning with Prop 2 1/2. Of COURSE government is inadequate — it hasn’t been adequately funded for several generations. Prop 2 1/2 was put forward with the explicit intention of dismantling government. This gas tax referendum has the same purpose and is advocated by the same people.
Objecting to inadequate government while simultaneously encouraging those who have spent lifetimes and careers destroying government isn’t just cognitive dissonance, it is just plain self-sabotage.
Doing the same thing over and over while expecting the outcome to change is, well, insane. I know you’re not insane. Surely it is therefore time to stop the self-destructive nonsense that you seem to advocate.
We live in one of the most affluent states in the most affluent nation in human history. The economic fear you speak of — and that almost all of us feel — is caused by relentless class war driven by the one percent. A major front of that class war is decimating government services provided to those who most need it — and that includes ALL of us when it comes to transportation infrastructure.
If you “don’t believe that the money raised would be used on the roads”, then your problem will not be addressed by ANY economic policy. I share your distrust (verging, in my case, on cynicism) — and I think the answer is to hold the feet of our government officials to the fire.
In my view, that means keep the gas tax increase in place, and DEMAND to see immediate and frequent evidence that it IS being spent on transportation infrastructure.
liveandletlive says
“We live in one of the most affluent states in the most affluent nation in human history.” Yet the go to place for revenue is the middle class and the poor. I think we all know this is a problem, and Massachusetts Democrats keep perpetuating it.
JimC says
Cigarette taxes fall under this category too. They were supposed to fund anti-smoking programs. Some of the money does, but not all of it.
liveandletlive says
even the gas tax is now a behavior tax. All done under the guise of “We Care”. Ha! I do believe the new cigarette tax is going to be used to pay for transportation, isn’t it? Wow! Sometimes, it is just so embarrassing to have to try to defend this stuff. I don’t even bother trying to defend it anymore. I tell people these regressive taxes are just plain wrong and I apologize that too many members of the Democratic party support and encourage regressive and controlling taxation.
Christopher says
…you can tax cigarettes through the roof as far as I’m concerned. They are bad for you and whomever is near you and are not at all necessary. Gas on the other hand is very necessary for many of us and we need to have alternatives BEFORE we get all giddy about a gas tax.
stomv says
we do have alternatives now that many people don’t avail themselves of. We can’t afford to provide more alternatives without revenue. A steady increase of the gas tax provides revenue and opportunities to avoid that tax in parallel, and more and more people (though maybe not you right away) will find ways both small and large to avoid paying as much gas tax.
fenway49 says
ad nauseam. Blaming the current state of affairs on “Massachusetts Democrats” is oversimplistic and wrong. This is squarely on the Bob DeLeos of the world. Progressive Democrats in Massachusetts, the ones most interested in increased revenue, have done everything possible to make the state’s tax system more progressive. They’ve been thwarted by people to their right and the state constitution.
An Act to Invest in Our Communities, which was the the springboard for Governor Patrick’s proposal, would have raised the Part B income tax a bit while doubling the personal exemptions. For people making under about $75,000 the income tax would be lower on net. The same group would have benefited from the dramatic decrease in the sales tax (6.25 to 4.5). Meanwhile, the wealthier Bay Staters would have been hit with higher taxes on non-wage income and would benefit less from the increased personal exemption because it represents a smaller percentage of their income. It was Bob DeLeo and Co. who said no to this and did the gas tax thing instead. The mainstream of the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s membership, including virtually all the people on this site, were all for it.
JimC says
Now what?
petr says
Let us not forget that in 2009 the Lege are the ones who increased the sales tax to %6.25 as an alternative to Deval Patricks efforts to raise the gas tax back then… Then, as now, there was no clear rationale for the actions of the lege. If I recall correctly, DeLeo had to quell a near-mutiny in ’09 to get the votes to pass it and the receipts from the tax were not earmarked for transportation or infrastructure. Now we got both because, apparently, Deval Patrick is the only one who knows how to do math. That alone should be cause to send DeLeo packing.
liveandletlive says
budget proposal eliminated almost all middle class deductions and replaced them with an increased personal exemption, so it didn’t really change the progressiveness of the income tax at all. Also, in his proposal, he wanted to reduce the short term capital gains tax by nearly 50%, . Hmmmmmm, I wonder who benefits from that one? He also had all sorts of regressive taxes in that package. As far as people who earn around or slightly above $75,000/yr, or even up to $150,000/yr, it is indefensible to look to that income group for increased revenue in today’s economic climate.
fenway49 says
I linked to the Act to Invest. Nobody I know in the progressive community supported any of the things you critique in the Governor’s bill. I know I raised those very points myself on BMG.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s “indefensible” at all to look to people making “up to $150,000/yr” for some small amount of increased revenue. $150,000/yr puts one toward the top of the income scale, even in affluent Massachusetts. And our state has been underfunded for decades.
A couple making $150,000 would have an increased income tax of about $500 per year, which is $40 a month on take-home income of over $8,000 in most cases. And that increase would be offset in significant part by saving 1.65% less, compared to current cost, on all items purchased that are subject to sales tax. If that’s $2000 out of the $8000+ take-home, the sales tax savings would be almost $33. At $150K you’re left with a net increase of $7 per month. Those people can afford that to put the state on much better footing.
stomv says
JimC says
Do you ride public transportation? I do, and the cost of a monthly pass has gone up 60 oo 70 percent in the last 10-12 years, while service has declined.
A few years ago there was a “working strike” on the commuter rail, Trains were delayed 20 minutes, every night, for weeks.
Should I be rude enough to add people falling on the tracks? Yes I probably should.
There was a serial groper last winter. Someone else was stealing cell phones. There are fewer staff on the trains.
You want to squeeze the riders more. You want the people who tolerate this crap because they have to get to jobs that fear losing to pay more in taxes. Yet these problems fester.
Good luck on that.
stomv says
Yes. Regularly. Both subway and bus.
For me, the cost has more than doubled. However, has service declined? I don’t see it. Since 2000… the MBTA is running more subways and more buses. The T has implemented a CharlieCard for faster and more convenient boarding. The T has real time data for bus and subway (sans Green Line, which is coming ~2017), which allow for less waiting outdoors. The T has expanded commuter rail, and is in the process of extending the Green Line. The T created the Silver Line. The T started using 3 car kits on the Green Line. The T has created secure bicycle parking. The T has dramatically increased ADA access to its stations. All since 2000. There’s no question that fares have increased — but so has service. To suggest that service system-wide has been reduced is downright farcical.
That’s true. Sometimes there are other delays — planned [track maintenance] and unplanned [something breaks]. Some of that is entirely unavoidable, some of it might have been managed better. But that’s true of all transportation systems, and all large systems in general. We should demand great management, but we shouldn’t expect perfect service — that’s unrealistic.
To the extent that those falling on the tracks fell because of a failure of the MBTA, you should — though I haven’t heard of a single instance of that.
It’s true. Crime happens, in cities and rural areas. With more people, you’ll get more instances of crime (though not necessarily a higher crime rate). This is true on all transportation systems, and throughout our society. But what of it?
No, you want to squeeze them more. You want to squeeze them with failing rolling stock, fewer scheduled runs, more delays, and trains more and more packed with less and less law enforcement. You’re the one who doesn’t want to increase funding.
I, on the other hand, want to increase MBTA funding, so that the MBTA can continue to expand service (as it has over the last decade) in terms of amenities for riders, in terms of service territory, in terms of hours of operation, and in terms of safety. I want to reduce the squeeze on riders.
Jasiu says
Maybe not, but almost every time I am in a parking lot, there are two or three parked cars idling, and the only purpose for the engine running seems to be to power the phone that the person is either talking on or tapping. When I see this, I just wonder why there is such a disconnect. Do they realize they are not only wasting gas and their money but also tossing in a handful of environmental damage?
This doesn’t just occur in cold (or hot) weather either.
In any case, when I see this, my first thought is, “gas isn’t expensive enough”.
ryepower12 says
In fact, it’s completely blowing out of proportion what the inflation mechanism will do.
For one thing, it’s a very minor tax “increase” that isn’t really an increase at all — a better way to describe it, IMO, is an adjustment.
How minor? Well, to keep things simple, let’s say inflation is 2.5% over the next ten years. That probably won’t be far off the mark.
Five years from now, the gas tax will have been adjusted to the point where the average driver needs to spend about $1.50 a week “extra” in gas a week — less if they’re driving more efficient vehicles, which are becoming more and more common (not to mention affordable).
This of course ignores the fact that there’s little to no correlation in how much gas costs versus how big the gas tax is, which blows up your arguments over costs to begin with. As always, we’ll be at the mercy of the markets and OPEC as usual. The gas tax, even after 5 or 10 years of inflation, will barely be a blip on the radar in the cost of our gas.
Furthermore, I reject the notion that the gas tax is completely unprogressive. There are far worse taxes out there.
It may have been a much less progressive tax 10-20 years ago, when more efficient vehicles were generally less affordable than more efficient cars, but given the preponderance of more affordable and efficient vehicles today, it’s simply not true anymore.
There’s a bevy of vehicles that are both affordable and efficient today and with every year, more and more of them go to the used market.
A gas tax is progressive, but instead of basing it directly off income, it’s primarily based on car selection. Anyone who gives up the giant gas hogs over the next 5 years and switches to more efficient vehicles will save money in real terms when paying the gas tax 5 years from now, even if the rate is higher.
Five years from today, when all those far more efficient and affordable cars are on the second-hand market, it’ll be harder to find affordable inefficient cars than the other way around. So less affluent people will be saving money pretty much anyway we slice it.
Just think of the cheapest cars that’ll be on the market 10 years from now — it’s not going to be the rusty boats on wheels people were stuck with in the past, with big and inefficient v6 or v8 engines. It’s going to be cheap and efficient Ford Focuses and Honda Civics with v4s or v6s that get the gas mileage of yesterday’s 4 cylinder engines. They’re going to save money on gas — a lot of it.
It is not a perfect tax. No tax ever is, which is why we have more than one kind of them. It is, however, what we have available — and for being the tax that’s available, there could be far worse.
This is not the draconian measure you make it out to be. This is a very small amount of money even after 10 years of inflation.
Finally, after a number of years with the new policy in effect, if ever we feel it’s been raised too high or the cost of repairing our roads somehow falls to the point where we don’t need that much dough just to keep things running anymore, we can always go back and cut it then or freeze the inflationary adjustments.
Cutting it now is just a dumb idea when our infrastructure spending was $1 billion a year short up until now just to maintain the status quo.
ryepower12 says
as someone who has had a great deal of experience being on the low of the economic scale, I can say with absolute certainty that the pinches I’ve felt from gas costs have not come from the gas tax in anyway and wouldn’t come if the gas tax went up a penny every other year. It’s come from OPEC and especially from the markets playing with gas prices to artificially inflate them, to make a guaranteed buck in ways completely unavailable to the middle class.
Take out the speculation that’s occurred in the past decade or so because of deregulations and we’ll be saving infinitely more than whatever added costs come from a tiny annual inflationary adjustment to our very low state gas tax.
Bill Taylor says
http://www.massbudget.org/reports/pdf/GasTaxRevenueOptions.pdf
SomervilleTom says
The report you cite ignores the value of increased services associated with an increase in the gas tax. It ignores other options available to commuters. It ignores the reality that NOT raising the gas tax shrinks, rather than expands, commuting options for those who can’t afford cars or gas.
It also ignores the skyrocketing cost of NOT funding the infrastructure maintenance that our bridges, highways, tunnels, and rails all demand.
stomv says
and the one it cites about the gas tax.
My 10 minute conclusions:
1. The study is reputable. Or, at least, the think tank doing it isn’t clearly linked with ALEC, the Koch octopus, or any number of right wing centers.
2. They do show that the gas tax is regressive in the income bins that they use. Their study dates to 2009, which is recent enough, although the consumption and miles driven is down since then in MA. Still, it does seem to be regressive according to this study.
3. The same study notes that
Wow! Relative to other states in the USA, we can afford to pay more gas tax collectively [although, admittedly, the regressivity makes it a bit of a challenge].
4. The folks who did the regressivity study (Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy) did a comprehensive study on gas taxes, located here. They had three recommendations for the fifty states:
Now, in the case of MA, we’re debating (2) — indexing the gas tax to inflation. The folks you cited to show that the gas tax is regressive are the same folks who argue in favor of tying the gas tax to inflation! They also argue that the state should mitigate the impact of gas taxes to low income families. I humbly point out that spending money on mass transit does in fact help a large percentage of families in Massachusetts reduce their exposure to the gas tax. Not all to be sure, but many. Not just the MBTA, but all transit agencies.
Bill Taylor says
And that’s the problem – we’re not mitigating the regressiveness. You don’t make the argument that spending money on mass transit is the progressive equivalent to tax credits for lower income individuals (which they propose). And for good reason: you can’t . . . If we did do what MassBudget proposes, we’d have to make up the lost revenue for those tax credits . . . Perhaps if the gas tax increases were done in a smart, more progressive way, I’d be for them, but alas . . .
stomv says
We’re certainly doing some things to mitigate the repressiveness. The state’s mass transportation systems (MBTA and other metro areas) operate at a loss. Every rider gets some “for free” — and guess what? Those who make the least benefit the most from the subsidy, because the subsidy is based on using the system, not in income. So, for folks who live in the regions with mass transit, the way we price mass transit is a progressive method which works to offset the regressive nature of the gasoline tax. It’s not equivalent, and it’s not perfect, but it is something. Don’t pretend that we’re doing nothing.
We have a number of progressive components of the state income tax. Standard deductions are but one example. That’s not equivalent, and it’s not perfect, but it is something.
Could we do more to make our overall tax system within the state more progressive? Sure. But even then, the gas tax will still, in a vacuum, be regressive. There will always be the argument that removing it will make the tax code more progressive, and in a one-year window, it will. In the long run, though, the impacts of pollution and climate change will cause some financial harm to the wealthy but will decimate the poor. Are you including that cost-benefit calculation in your regressiveness? I’m betting not, and those future harms which will result from increased gasoline consumption are real, are costly, and will disproportionately harm the poor.
We have *got* to consume less gasoline in this country and, by extension, this Commonwealth. We should use carrots [provide safe, convenient, low cost alternatives to driving, allow for more development near mass transit, expand mass transit, expand high speed Internet for telecommuting, encourage carpooling, increase mpg standards on vehicles, etc] and sticks [auto excise tax, gas tax, market rate parking prices, tolls, etc]. We should do our best to mitigate the harm that this inflicts on the poor and middle class, and to some extent the carrots do just that.
What do you propose?
jconway says
Is it more likely we will have a more progressive offset if we elect more progressives to the lege or is it less likely we have either of those things if we repeal the tax? Repealing the tax is a win for Barbara Anderson, Howie Carr, and Charlie Baker. It’s a cover under which all the DINOs in the leg can hide under as a security blanket and justify their center-right records.
Voting for the repeal is the equivalent of voting against Obamacare because you like single payer more, at the end of the day you are voting with the far right and against sanity. Same story here.
petr says
… is neither scalar nor general: it is relational and transitive. As is the term ‘progressive’ for that matter. That is to say they refer to points upon a spectrum and to movement along that spectrum. The gas tax is regressive only so far as car ownership is regressive and yet, as was pointed out earlier, car ownership is bounded along that spectrum… As well, the lower end of the vehicle owning economic spectrum, who might husband their gas usage and might make an initial purchase of a vehicle based more fully upon mileage, can easily spend less overall than the more wealthy counterpart who traffics to work in a 10mpg Hummer or Escalade. A tax where everybody spends the same amount per gallon isn’t necessarily regressive if not everybody uses the same amount of gallons. This is in contrast to, for example, a sales tax on foodstuffs where people, more or less, eat roughly the same amount of calories, whether rich or poor.
The pity of a regressive tax for the poor is the inability to make choices that mitigate the tax. On the other hand, the rich don’t feel the ‘pain’ no matter the choices they make… that’s what wealthy seems to mean in this country. But car ownership is itself a choice that can mitigate the tax and, once the choice to own a car is made, the tax can be further mitigated with choice of car, diligent upkeep and careful driving habits.
Scott Brown used to complain that it cost over $70 dollars to fill the tank in his pickup. The mileage for the GMC canyon in 2009 (the year prior to his senate election) was just under 12mpg. $70 will get me almost two and a half tanks on my 10 year old Hyundai that gets 30mpg. I daresay, each fill up will take me more than two and a half times the distance each fill up on the pickup would…
Additionally, (and as was pointed out earlier) car ownership is only practicable because of heavily subsidized and distinct infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, streetlights, street cleaning and snow removal, etc…) in a way that other taxes are not. (paying income taxes does not directly relate to making your income either better or easier, and sales tax on food and clothing doesn’t make your clothes easier to wear or your food taste better but paying a gas tax makes the use of your gas easier by virtue of it being directed right back into the infrastructure over which you will use that gas.) Further infrastructure improvements to public transportation, also, can improve private transportation by, for example, setting a sane bound on the amount of cars/trucks on the road.
Gas consumption isn’t always optional, but it can be mitigated and through careful use, a tax on consumption doesn’t have to mean a per se regressive tax.
liveandletlive says
Please keep shouting over the noise!
Mark L. Bail says
but it’s not the answer. It’s the flip side of the fallacy that cutting budgets will lead to more efficient government. The pace of innovation is not enough to keep up with the budget’s inflation.
We have some innovation happening, but it’s not going to solve our revenue problem. See http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/panel_named_for_reviewing_publ.html
jconway says
Can be cut over the fact that liveandletlive and btofthe3rd are coming from good places. But their opposition is totally misplaced and their votes will only hurt their short and long term goals. Rather than debate the semantics of ‘regressive’ and ‘progressive’ and run linear regressions to prove our minute points, let’s all agree that government is good. Good government is even better. But good government is expensive. By voting against a tax increase, even if ostensibly your objections are progressive, you set back the collective cause of good government because you are voting with the people that think government is bad. You are voting with the cynics that don’t want to contribute to a better society. In effect you are voting with Dan from Waltham, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman for good measure.
It is the equivalent of voting against the ACA since you prefer single payer, or voting to repeal the entire state income tax since you view it as regressive rather than progressive. It’s not a reasonable vote.
Christopher says
Believing that government is good does not mean we have to accept every proposal for a tax increase. There are still good ways and bad ways to raise taxes. Plus we risk setting ourselves back politically if we can’t shake the two big knocks on Democrats that we never met a tax we didn’t like and we tend toward nann-statism. Voters outside the bubble will react by voting in Republicans and where does that leave us?
thegreenmiles says
The gas tax is not as regressive as most people think, mostly because really poor people can’t afford SUVs – they can’t afford any car, so they walk or take the bus.
But here’s the thing: Most consumption-based taxes are regressive – sales, property, alcohol/tobacco – unless deliberately set up to hit the wealthy harder. The 1% has so much money, it’s simply hard to spend it all.
So raise taxes on things we want people to use less of (gas, cigarettes, highway tolls, parking fees) and use the money on things we want more of (schools, public transit, clean energy, Jacoby Ellsbury). And DEFINITELY raise the income tax on high earners any chance you get.
Christopher says
…you want to raise tolls and parking too? Tolls are basically user fees which we should be against. Parking in some places already costs and arm and a leg and in the case of parking available at MBTA stations that should be lowered (free would be nice) to encourage people to use public transit for the rest of their route.
thegreenmiles says
If you want to give people an incentive to use transit, shouldn’t you cut fares, not parking fees? Why don’t the people who have their spouse drop them off deserve incentives?
Christopher says
…that fares should also be drastically reduced, but not all of us have family to drop us off and even those who do don’t necessarily have the flexibility for that. Don’t demonize driving either. People seem to have this big blind spot regarding how essential roads are to our economy. If you want to incentivise transit make at as cheap and convenient as possible and so far we aren’t there, but don’t in the meantime burden many drivers who are barely making it as it is.
Trickle up says
because I am genuinely confused by your grammar. Did you mean to say
(maybe), or
(I strongly disagree.)
I would like to know, if the former, what’s wrong with tolls, if the latter, what on earth is wrong with user fees? Should scarce resources be given away for free?
Christopher says
I believe public resources such as infrastructure should be funded through general taxation. Leave it to the Republicans to raise fees then claim credit for not raising taxes.
Trickle up says
for taxes to pay for infrastructure, with its many positive externalities. Similarly fees for education, which local school boards are forced to resort to too often.
But “the latter” is a blanket condemnation of all user fees. I think they are appropriate, and superior to taxes for many goods and services, especially scarce ones and those with largely negative externalities.
stomv says
For parking, you charge market rate. Meter or lot, the idea is to charge the amount such that the lots are mostly full. That could mean different prices at different hours, and certainly at different days. You charge to fairly allocate a scarce resource; that it generates revenue you can use to (a) provide more services or (b) reduce the public cost [fee/fare/tax] of something else is a bonus. For parking at T stations, if the lots are typically full, perhaps expanding the lot would help…
For tolls, I’m more sympathetic to christopher’s argument. There is no logical reason to toll the Pike but not 95. My preference: treat all highways like parking spaces. Charge when they’re congested [the road or the whole city], and don’t charge when they’re not. Charge a little when they’re a little congested. Make HOV free, and when it’s not too full, let people buy their way onto the HOV lane by paying extra. Sure, the rich get more access this way, but when the poor guy is running late for his job he’ll lose if he doesn’t arrive on time, giving him the opportunity to pay a few bucks now to keep his job is a deal he’d gladly take.
fenway49 says
Christopher’s argument, as I understood it, is the opposite: no tolls at all. Pay for roads out of general tax revenues and make them free to all.
stomv says
I know christopher’s preference [no tolls at all] and my preference [tolls based on congestion, not on direct cost of maintenance or a historic dichotomy in toll use for pre- and post-Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956] are not the same.
But, it was a meet-halfway. The current toll system in MA is grossly unfair. A congestion tax at least helps raise revenue while allocating a scarce resource. A jammed up highway helps nobody. Congestion charges help people choose to travel during less congested times, on other roads, in a carpool or train, or even not at all, helping the remaining drivers get to their destination more quickly and more safely. My hunch: there’d be about 12 hours a day when the Mass Pike would be just like I-95 — toll free. If that isn’t meeting christopher halfway, I don’t know what is!
Mark L. Bail says
tax is likely to be regressive to some extent. The question, is how regressive is it? Overall, Massachusetts tax system is pretty regressive. But when it comes to taxes, there’s more to consider than fairness.
There is stability. Some of our revenue should be relatively immune to regular economic downturns. Another is adequacy, revenue should be “sufficient and sustainable revenue to pay for the things that people want to achieve through government.” Tax collection should be as simple as possible and efficient, so that there aren’t all sorts of ways to avoid taxes. Read the MBPC’s Understanding Our Tax System for a good education, not only on Massachusetts, but tax policy in general.
Of the gasoline tax proposed by the legislature and governor, the MBPC writes:
When we raise taxes, we should be looking at the entire system. There isn’t the political will, however, to do that. Costs to the bottom quintiles could be offset with other things as someone suggested above.
historian says
The popular thing is obviously to tell people that there are not costs associated with motor travel or gas. We can drive forever without repairing roads and bridges! That adult responsibility leaves aside entirely the environmental destruction caused buy using fossil fuels.
liveandletlive says
the reality that some people live. Let’s just say for example that the cost of living has gone so high above average wages that many people don’t meet their monthly household budget anymore. Let’s say that they are 3 % under budget every month after cutting every possible thing that they could, so that 3% goes on a credit card. So while you are saying it’s only a few dollars a month increase, or pennies a day or whatever, you are asking those in this state who are living under budget to actually pay that tax on credit. I guess it’s impossible for you to understand the implications of that, or the reality of it, but I really wish you would.
liveandletlive says
I mean not enough income to meet expenses, not “under budget” in the sense that they are spending less than they originally expected to. I wish that were the case for the people of this country.
fenway49 says
It’s wonderful how you assume yourself to be the martyred representative of the middle class while everyone else is a richie-rich who just doesn’t understand. You have no clue what my personal financial situation is, but if I had any cash around I’d bet that I’ve been in worse financial straits than you.
I said that a couple making $150K would be paying, on net, about $7 a month more, but that’s still not good enough for you. If you can’t make it in Central Mass. on $150K I don’t know what to tell you. I know plenty of people living in and near Boston with high student debt on less than half that. 60% of Massachusetts households make under $80K, over 40% make under 50K.
Somewhere Mitt Romney and the Koch brothers are reading your comments and smiling. It’s worked. Now they’ve squeezed people enough to win your support for the same anti-government policies that got us into this mess. Instead of going after them, you’re going after me. Personally, I’ll say “no thanks” to the austerity train to nowhere.
liveandletlive says
what is really going on in this country. A little strange since this website is pretty informative and does discuss the issue from time to time. You’d think you would have some understanding of the issue. You know, income inequality and all that……
fenway49 says
what anyone else writes? I just said I’m damn well aware of household budget struggles. You can keep trying to paint me as some out-of-touch millionaire but you’re barking up the wrong tree.
And I know plenty about income inequality. If there’s discussion of income inequality on here, I’m often the one who started it. You’re a fine one to talk about income inequality after your full-throated defense of protecting households in the top 10 percent from paying an extra $7 a month.
liveandletlive says
across the state. In some areas, earning $150,000 isn’t that much more than earning $75,000 someplace else, after you’ve paid your mortgage and property taxes.
fenway49 says
Please. At this point I’d be happy just to HAVE a mortgage and property taxes. If someone told me 10 years ago I’d be pushing 40 and still renting I’d never have believed it.
Just please don’t presume to tell me all about how tough it is to make it these days. I could fill an arena with my relatives and close friends with massive money problems. After my wife and I have paid rent, utilities, and student loans, we have very little to get by on most months. We have one car. It’s 10 years old and runs like crap. It’s tiny and I’m built like a linebacker. Not fun.
I spend four months a year sneezing and wrapped in blankets because we keep the house at 60 to save on heating costs. My wife grew up so poor she was 18 before she figured out not everybody qualified for Head Start and Section 8. Her parents had to borrow the neighbor’s VCR so they could watch videos. We still keep store-brand pasta around for the 3 days before payday. I get it.
I want nothing more (literally, nothing more) than to fix the inequality in this country. It’s even worse in Massachusetts and it’s really bad near Boston. And I agree with you 100% that the tax burden should fall more heavily on the wealthiest, who are more able than ever to meet it. I work for that in every way I know how.
But for the moment we have a huge revenue shortfall and a gas tax that hasn’t been increased since 1991. This is what DeLeo agreed to increase. And my wife and I, broke as we are, will pay that extra dollar every 10 days and I’m not going to complain about it because I believe the state is underfunded, not overfunded.
stomv says
It isn’t too often I wish I could give a 7 (on the 3 to 6 scale), or a doubleplus, or whatever the cool kids are doing these days to recognize a great post.
This is, however, one of those times.
SomervilleTom says
A family in the situation you describe is already in far deeper trouble than the contemplated change can fix. You describe a 3% structural debt, funded by a credit card that charges interest of at least 18%.
The rest of us ALREADY subsidize that failed lifestyle. Infrastructure costs are already skyrocketing because we’ve already spent the money that should have been invested in maintaining it. We’ve spent it, in large part, keeping YOUR roads too cheap, keeping YOUR gas too cheap, and YOUR tolls too low.
The family you describe will max out their credit cards sooner or later. The policy you advocate spreads the economic disease that has already destroyed that family to the state itself.
The rest of us can’t solve your budget imbalance. We didn’t make your life choices, you did. What we can do is change the public policy that threatens to drag the entire state into the same morass you describe.
Someone who is funding their lifestyle by borrowing from credit cards (no doubt increasing their limits whenever allowed) is already in trouble. Rejecting this gas tax only further enables the delusion that that behavior will somehow work out somehow. It won’t.
JimC says
… and assume the family has no credit card debt, but has a car that it needs, and is squeezed enough that a gas tax will make a difference to them.
What do we propose to buy them with the new revenue? Are we completely confident that the money will be spent on infrastructure? If we are, history argues against us.
Christopher says
…and frankly very Republican. You’re blaming someone for their lot in life, for making wrong choices – seriously?! I for one don’t like having debt and the only one I have is student loans. I don’t have a mortgage, car payment, or credit card. Nobody is asking for a subsidy, but also not to be squeezed. It’s not like we’re saying don’t tax at all or to give away gas for free. Why won’t you accept other sources of revenue. The income tax should be raised and there need to be immediate alternatives for transportation.
fenway49 says
You can thank the powers that be in the House for not getting it. Now the only question is whether we keep the scrap of revenue they threw off the table or if we jettison even that in the name of 1978-style anti-tax dogma.
And the squeezing of the middle class has been done by the private sector over four decades. It’s sad to see so many Democrats cite it as justification for more Norquist fiscal policy and Hayek economics.
petr says
… I think that what Tom is saying, and in which I concur wholeheartedly, is that you ought not posit irresponsible behaviour as responsible behaviour.
I don’t know what choices brought someone to the above described pass and wouldn’t necessarily pass judgement if I did, but the clearly wrong, and wrongheaded, choice of credit to cover monthly bills, month over month as implied therein, is not responsible behaviour, or even good math, and should not inform discussions of responsible taxation.
Then I don’t see any reason to object to indexing the tax to inflation. If you already stipulate that some amount taxed is good and free gas isn’t going to happen, then indexing the tax to inflation follows on pretty straightforwardly.
I concur with this wholeheartedly but that does not exclude a gas tax. Indeed, I think Gov Patricks proposals involved the gas tax, changing taxation on income taxes, especially for those over $150K/yr, closing some loopholes and overhauling exemptions… which looked a lot like what you are asking for: multiple sources of revenue fairly applied over all the population.
liveandletlive says
In truth, the person should really just go out and work nights after their day job. Unless, maybe they already are. Or maybe there is no job to be had.
petr says
…but you do what you gotta do.
My grandfather had no legs. Oh, he was born with legs and used them for six and a half years. When he was nearly seven, he was playing on some railroad tracks and lost his footing trying to get out to the way of an oncoming train. The train ran over his legs and severed them, quite neatly, above the knee. He was rushed to the hospital where the doctors figure he wouldn’t live past sundown. He lived 78 years longer than that.
When he was fifteen he lost his parents in a car accident (this was 1921) and he had to quit high school to support his four younger siblings. He started out selling newspapers on the street. He would pile the newspapers in two columns and then sit upon the columns. (I did mention, did I not, that he had no legs…?). Whenever he sold a newspaper he would lift a cheek and hand over the paper. The next sale meant lifting the other cheek. And so on, alternating cheeks until all the papers were sold and his butt hit the ground. That’s when he knew he was done.
He went on to a successful career in real estate. Every one of his siblings lived past 70. He had four children and six grandchildren. He bought a house that is still owned by his daughter this very day. She’s never had a mortgage on it because he took care of that. He gladly paid taxes. He never once had a credit card. He never once complained.
Whenever I’m tempted to complain, or to feel sorry for myself at the ‘squeeze’ put upon me.. I think of my grandfather and whatever self-pity or temptation to complain complete and totally evaporates.
liveandletlive says
and that’s irresponsible, isn’t it?
petr says
…My wife works a second job that is within walking distance…
Just sayin.
liveandletlive says
Happy for you. That is so awesome. Keep up the good fight for higher taxes for those who don’t have the luxury of work within walking distance.
petr says
… my wire she would tell you, in no uncertain terms, that walking to and from work, most especially in winter, is not ‘luxury’. But that’s not the point. The point is that there are ways around the squeeze, if you’re willing to work.
You keep raising objections, some of them marginally valid but still obviously corner cases, and use these objections to deny the any validity to the general case. The number of people who can’t find work within walking distance is most certainly miniscule in comparison to the people who commute to work using either an automobile or public transportation. The vast majority of people can find work without gas prices being the sole, or even the most impactful, variable.
petr says
… My WIFE, not my wire. … not that she isn’t full of electrical charge, but still…
JimC says
A logic knot, if you will.
liveandletlive says
what is really going on in this country. A little strange since this website is pretty informative and does discuss the issue from time to time. You’d think you would have some understanding of the issue. You know, income inequality and all that……
petr says
…If they can’t meet the budget then they can’t meet the credit card payments and thus they’re only adding about 18% to 26% of that 3% (if you make the minimum payments… which seems doubtful under this situation) without resolution. They are not just “paying the tax on credit” but also they are a paying a premium on the tax in order to kick the can down the road. There is a price for credit.
In other words… They should stop digging. If they still have a credit card after “cutting every possible thing that they could” then they did not, actually, cut every possible thing. Credit cards were the very first thing I jettisoned when I was in that exact situation. It helped immeasurably, not least because it cut out any and all impulse purchases. but also because I wasn’t adding red ink to red ink. Other than direct payments online, through my bank and accounts payments through check, I’m strictly cash. It wasn’t easy at first, to be sure, and I had to do a lot of bargaining with various entities to whom I owed money, but it was much better than the alternative. I had to learn how to plan better, also, to avoid being stuck somewhere without cash or gas, etc… But I wouldn’t go back to credit for anything.
liveandletlive says
So forgive me for trying to convey the message that there is no excuse for tax increases on the poor or the middle class right now. Because there really is absolutely no excuse for it.
petr says
… as legions before me have tried to convey, this is the tax that has the least impact, if any, upon the very poor and the one tax that can be mitigated by personal choice and frugality by the middle class. There are some 80 comments on this post arguing exactly that.
You and I would be in complete and comprehensive agreement regarding a sales tax or any attempt at levying a more regressive income tax. But that is not at issue here. Your arguments lose a great deal of steam in regards to a gas tax: which fuel tax, while far from perfect, isn’t the regressive and oppressive governmental overreach you paint it as…