Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The 27 cents per gallon gas tax thread

By

Sound off, folks, on the proposed plan.

First, identify yourself!  Which category do you fit in?

1. You tend to oppose tax increases and cheer almost all tax cuts.  

2. You support most tax increases, particularly if rich people get hit, because you want to spend lots and lots more on schools and social services.  

3. You’re mixed!    You sometimes snarl at people in Group 2, because they’re shockingly tolerant of gov’t excess, and refuse to apply cost-benefit analysis to their beloved programs.   But Group 1 folks get on your nerves, too, particularly the tax cutters on steroids crowd that Pablo parodied recently.  

* * *

If you are in Group 3, you might want to read this.  It’s about the economics of gas taxes in particular….

* * *

So what of it?  

The GGW $.02 (which is admittedly 25 cents short of the proposed tax)

1. Good idea

2. Politically courageous

3. Be really clear exactly what the $ will pay for – nobody wants taxes going to The Blob

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. The plan seems to retain the Regional Transportation Authorities.  This leads us to disjointed service that arbitrarily ends at the end of the district.  They should get rid of the individual transit agencies and create a statewide agency like NJ Transit.

    <

    p>The 27 cents per gallon gets us the elimination of certain tolls and holding the line on others.  Why not go all the way and eliminate all tolls, and the bureaucracy that is associated with toll booths.

    • In my experience there are links between regions.  Gallagher Terminal in Lowell serves MBTA (commuter rail), Lowell Regional Transit Authority, and Merrimack Valley Transit Authority.  I assume the Worcester and Providence stations at which those MBTA lines terminate also serve whatever regional system those cities have.

      <

      p>As to the question in the diary, I generally fall in category 2, but find a gas tax increase too regressive for my liking.

  2. Some thoughts:

    <

    p>Regarding your link to Greg Mankin, for years he’s always advocated Pigovian taxes for some time, but in this, a gimme a stimulus world, he says, give us a gas tax, but first

    <

    p>

    I would institute an immediate and permanent reduction in the payroll tax, financed by a gradual, permanent, and substantial increase in the gasoline tax. I would make the two tax changes equal in present value, so while the package results in a short-run budget deficit, there is no long-term budget impact. Call it the create-jobs, save-the-environment, reduce-traffic-congestion, budget-neutral tax shift.

    <

    p>Second, 27 freaking cents per gallon, with no proposed offsets other than removing a handful of the non-producing toll booths.  Raise the gas tax; lower the income tax.  I’m there for you.  I’ll feel your pain at the pumps but I’m there.

    <

    p>Third, you take the MBTA with its layers of 6 figure executives, the MTA with its layer of 6 figure executive, the MARTAs with their 6 figure executive, the various gold plated fully funded pensions and health benefits, add them all together subtract the tolls, tickets sales, fees and you’re left with a shortfall of roughly $1.3 billion that is presently funded by the General Fund.  It’s no coincidence, I think, that the $.27 gas tax will raise about $1.2 billion, leaving an extra $100 million to build 2 gazebos.

    <

    p>That is to say, by my math, implicit in the number, is ZERO cost reduction in the various agencies.  Show me the cost reduction; show me an effort.  

    <

    p>Forth, the audacity!  It’s all about the environment, not the money, just like the Bottle Tax.  Heh! Did I say Bottle tax?  I meant Deposit to save the state from litter.  We’re raising the gas tax to save Mother Gaia, the all caring Democrat mother. Kumbaya.  And they can say it without laughing.

    <

    p>Fifth.  Bite me.  Have I said that yet.  Geez…27 freakin’ cents per gallon.

    <

    p>

    • This is not enough of a “plan” for a detailed analysis or a real response.

      <

      p>Will that 27 cents a gallon mean hiring back the 100 DMR Case managers?

      <

      p>Will that 27 cents a gallon mean that chunks of concrete will stop falling on cars?

      <

      p>What will it buy?  What fund does it go into?  Don’t tell me it will vanish into the so-called “general fund” without a trace.

      <

      p>Hint – when people pay fees at court – the money doesn’t go to the courts – it goes into that general fund.  Whatever it is.

      <

      p>Hint – when indigent folk pay the highest “indigent counsel fee” of any state in the USA – the money doesn’t go to the attorneys, it doesn’t go to public  defenders or DAs – guess where it goes – ka plog – into the general fund.

      <

      p>I would feel better about that if the legislature, the courts, and governor’s office hadn’t all legislated themselves immune from the open records laws – wouldn’t you?

      <

      p>I am not with Gary on cut the income tax if you raise the gas tax, but I absolutely want to know where the money will go.

    • as I agree almost entirely.

      <

      p>On the upside, at least its not frickin a PROGRESSIVE tax.

      <

      p>You know, the ones where you get something for free but somebody else pays for it?  Make everyone pay taxes and we’ll get rid of em soon enough.  

      <

      p>

  3. I would definitely classify myself as Group 3, definitely scornful of the amoral libertarian-NIMBY school of hating all taxes irrationally, but just as skeptical of government waste and corruption and the general moral scruples and competence of our elected officials, especially in my native state of MA and even more so in my adopted state of IL.

    <

    p>That said this seems like a reasonably good tax though I would offset this tax with a cut in statewide payroll taxes that way it is a tax that strictly encourages good behavior and is revenue neutral and does not hit working people. I would go as far as to argue that a suspension of payroll taxes for this year at the federal and the state level would do far more to stimulate the economy than any stimulus package.

    <

    p>As a student on work study who will be inheriting lots of debt when he gets out of college but wants to be a teacher I think its the best course for me to have reductions in taxes I actually pay. Raise property taxes, raise income taxes at the higher brackets, don’t hit me with higher sales taxes, higher meal taxes, things that prevent me from having both my bread and my roses so to speak.

    <

    p>But again this specific tax seems reasonable, I use public transportation and if those money goes right back into funding and improving the T then it will be money well spent. Frankly I wish IL would have a similar tax and put the money into the struggling CTA but anyway thats another story.

    <

    p>My moms commute is short enough that it wont affect her that drastically and my dad does not do that much driving even though he will grumble about the increased tax. That said though I think cutting payroll taxes will make it easier for people like my mom and dad who have both my college fees, mortgage payments, and are living off only one regular paycheck. This will still hit them when they don’t need to be hit and I think decreasing some taxes elsewhere is justified.

    <

    p>Also Gov. Patrick should take real steps to reduce the size of waste and corruption. We cant afford police details, we can’t afford three different agencies that cover the same area (merge Mass Pike, Mass Highway, Massport, MBTA, cut costs, redundencies, and waste). We should consider privatizing Massport as Daley privatized Chicago airports to save cash and divert public funds to people that need them more. Its time also to ease up on perks, cut legislative pay, and for the Governor to take real leadership instead of across the board cuts that hurt working people and tax increases that affect them as well.

    • As a student on work study who will be inheriting lots of debt when he gets out of college but wants to be a teacher I think its the best course for me to have reductions in taxes I actually pay. Raise property taxes, raise income taxes at the higher brackets, don’t hit me with higher sales taxes, higher meal taxes, things that prevent me from having both my bread and my roses so to speak.

      <

      p>Kind of sums up the whole debate right there, don’t you think?

      • Sorry you find my families financial troubles amusing. Frankly I dont think its funny that my mothers job could be downsized with state budget cuts while toll workers make more money than she does for less work and state cops can eat donuts on the sides of roads at overtime pay. I dont think its funny that our state legislators are not satisfied with the six figure incomes we give them for part time labor and then sell out the public interest to lobbyists and corporations. i dont think its funny that we are taxing the poor through consumption taxes during a time of economic recession or proposing an additional tax on the poor and stupid through illegal gaming.

        <

        p>Not all of us are yuppie Ivy educated lawyers that can afford hybrids.

        <

        p>And forgive me for wanting to serve my country and community by being a teacher, dont saddle me with more taxes when I am volunteering my labor to my community. How about forgiving my debt instead of bailing out some CEOs? How about rewarding my academic success and commitment to public service instead of corporate frauds and cheats? Its a question of fairness and equity. I support a gas tax to get SUVs off the road, but I think it must be coupled with a tax cut in other areas so working people dont once again have to pay the burden.

        <

        p>Why should my family be screwed because we are too rich to get paid not to work by the government but too poor to get buy?  

        • we’re all sucking wind here (private sector far more than the public sector BTW).  Your analysis did strike me a little funny:  essentially the way out of this situation in your eyes is to raise taxes on things that won’t affect your personal situation.  Think your parents might think twice about you blithely raise their property taxes (and you may be surprised if they are a dual income family that they may be interpreted as “rich” when it comes time to goose income tax rates).

          <

          p>No easy way out of this; but my line of “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, let’s tax that man behind the tree” still stands.

          • unless you think the “rich” spend their time idly cruising the roads 24/7 in supercharged Hummers, I’d venture that a gas tax is a pretty regressive way to go.

  4. Tolls within Route 128, from Weston to Boston, would come down as the state shifts to a program of tracking — and charging — all Massachusetts drivers based on the miles they travel.

    Trips would be measured by a chip installed in a vehicle inspection sticker as soon as 2014, and in-state drivers would receive a gas-tax refund for their mileage to avoid double payments.

    <

    p>There’s a world of difference between:

    <

    p>1.  Having a list of exactly when each vehicle (with FastPass) crossed any of two dozen different points in the state, and

    <

    p>2.  Being able to tell within 100 feet where all vehicles in the state have traveled, ever.

    <

    p>The best I can tell is that they’re using the Oregon model — satellite tracking to measure distance.  There’s no info in the article, and maybe there’s some other way.  Maybe they’ll use the odometer during yearly inspections and have the info tied to the chip in the sticker.  But, since the Oregon model uses satellite tracking and there’s no reason to think that MA is different I’ll assume that they’re using the satellite and then gripe about it.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>What is this interest of following Oregon’s lead in tracking vehicle travel?  I understand the idea of taxing use instead of gas because it’s use that requires maintenance.  After all, a 17 mpg Cadillac and a 40 mpg Honda use the same road and ought to pay the same.  But, since burning gasoline is a detrimental externality (carbon, air pollution, foreign oil dependence, risk of spill, etc etc) simply taxing the gas without this other system just plain works.  It doesn’t require loads of technology.  It doesn’t require invasion of privacy by tracking the location of every citizen’s personal auto (even if optional!).  It just plain works.

    • I agree with you stomv! I am in group 3 we need to raise the gas tax for many reasons. It is a pure user tax.

      <

      p>As you state Deval should forget about the chip in the inspection sticker. Invasion of privacy at its worst! I will lobby my state rep AGAINST this tax if the chip stays in.

  5. did see that we would then have the highest gas tax rate (by 10 cents over NY) in the entire United States.  Think my new job will be opening up a gas station in southern NH or RI (of course that’s assuming that the Commonwealth doesn’t decide to post state troopers at the pumps to arrest any wayward MA drivers from evading the tax).

    <

    p>Fall into category 3, but think that if we are going to do this, we also provide for a HARD freeze on MBTA pensions as these are at absurd levels.  The MBTA after all is already getting 20% of all state sales tax revenue to begin with; I know many here support public transportation, but the authority that we have in place right now certainly doesn’t engender any trust by anyone other than pollyannas.

    • Mike, I should of said earlier that I am OK with gas tax but we do need reform in the transportation area. Pension reform, plain old management reform too much overtime, that can be managed. Get rid of toll takers, align pensions to private sector.

  6. Employment, down
    GDP, down
    Auto sales, down
    House prices, down
    401(k) balances, down
    Wages, down

    <

    p>In this Great Downsizing, the only thing that’s up, is the size of State Government, as taxes are levied so that State pensions and salaries and benefits can survive.  The life style of government is being maintained by the taxpayers.  

    <

    p>Taxpayers, that is, who’ve now been hit twice, once by the economy and next by this Governor’s levies.  Stay tuned for the next shoe:  auditors and actuaries are calculating, as we speak, the new underfunding as of 12/31 of all the pension funds in the State.

    <

    p>If only I had some tea, and access to a harbor without passing through a toll booth…

  7. We need $20 billion over the next 20 years to simply maintain our transportation system statewide. That means roads, bridges, train tracks, trolley cars, and pesky, pesky tunnels.

    <

    p>Here is a chart of national gas prices over the past 2 years. We’ve fluctuated not in terms of pennies or dimes, but multiple dollars, from $2 to $4 and now back to $2 (with rounding). $0.27 is a small fraction of that range of fluctuation.

    <

    p>Yes, there are needed reforms. The bureaucracy that oversees the state’s transportation agencies needs to be consolidated. The retirement structure for the T is unacceptable and should be changed. But we simply cannot reform our way out of this mess. We’ve neglected transportation infrastructure for too long and now it’s biting us in the ass at the worst possible time.

    <

    p>It’s a necessary investment.  

    • Didn’t you read how this increase would pop MA to $.10 over the highest gas tax in the country? Why don’t you write me a check for $100 every year.. after all it will only be a tiny tiny fraction of your annual salary?

      <

      p>Reforms are needed but very rarely if ever happen. And with politicians lying through their teeth to us every day, I would give them a penny until reforms were identified and then enacted. Show me the reforms and THEN we can talk gas tax increases. This won’t happen since we all know the reforms will never happen.

      <

      p>$1B/year for transportation for the next 20 years. The numbers just keep getting bigger. Millions mean nothing anymore. What happens in 20 years? Will it all be fixed then? Will we move to $2B per year. You will never stop the “Big Dig” like appetite for infrastructure projects. Wait till the mismanagement begins on infrastructure projects from the next Big Dig Stimulus Package.

      • “The numbers just keep getting bigger”, you say.

        <

        p>My response – Duh!

        <

        p>Prices go up as does the population, so yes, generally speaking the numbers will get bigger.  My guess is your cost of living goes up a bit each year.  Well, so does our collective cost of living.

        • Numbers for things these days have gone off the chart, well beyond any “cost of living” rates. Dollars that the Senate debated for weeks and months ($ millions) are now replaced by $$$ Billions without a blink. Think of recent fights on the hill for a single digit million dollar item and now we throw 10-20 Billion at it like it’s a quarter. The truly bad part about that is this “insensitivity” about money will cause even larger deficit spending than is needed.

          <

          p>Nobody has told me exactly how we are going to pay for all this, both good programs and the pork.

  8. Is that this doesn’t close all the tolls. I think people would be okay with it, by and large, if it closed the tolls. The MBTA certainly needs the cash, so I’m fine with that chunk of the tax, but this plan only gets my support if it closes down all the tolls. Otherwise, what’s the point, other than paying higher taxes?

    • the point is that to maintain the infrastructure more money is needed.  Without the higher taxes, the bridges fail, the roadways fail, mass transit fails.  Not often a single colossal failure, but rather a gradual failure of potholes, missing signs, closed lanes, unsafe crossings and intersections, etc.

      • it would take slightly less than 15 cents to maintain the status quo. Obviously, we needed to do more than maintain that status quo – and I’m completely fine with that. Yet, the impetus of this whole process was the inherent unfairness of the toll system. If the gas tax goes up 27 cents on the dollar, a truly massive increase, and it doesn’t get rid of the metro Boston tolls, there’s going to be rioting on the streets and Patrick’s a one-term gov. You can’t raise the gas tax nearly 30 cents and not close down the worst tolls. Maybe you can keep the NY/Conn border tolls, but that’s about it.  

        • In 2006 MA used 68,400,000 barrels of gasoline = 2,872,800,000 gallons (EIA.

          <

          p>According to the MassPike the W. Stockbridge to Newton stretch brought in $136,000,000 in revenue.  The Newton and Allston tolls were worth another $78,000,000 and the Sumner and Williams combined for another $71,000,000.

          <

          p>So, if we’re just doing the “Newton and West” then we need to make up $136mil with 2.8728bil gallons of gas.  That’s 5 cents a gallon.

          <

          p>The gas tax increase needed to offset the toll revenue from Newton and West is 5 cents a gallon.

          <

          p>If we’re also doing just Newton and Allston tolls, we need to make up $136+$78mil with those 2.8728bil gallons of gas.  That’s seven and a half cents a gallon.

          <

          p>The gas tax increase needed to offset the toll revenue from the Mass Pike (excluding tunnels) is 7.5 cents a gallon.

          <

          p>If you want to remove all tolls, you’ve got to make up $136+$78+$71mil.  Same math.

          <

          p>The gas tax increase needed to offset the toll revenue from the Mass Pike (excluding tunnels) is 10 cents a gallon.

          <

          p>But…

          <

          p>If you remove the tolls, you save costs too.  How much in costs?  Well, the cost of collection and the cost of maintenance of the tollbooths, electronic system, etc.  Because of contracts you may not save quite as much up front due to pensions, etc. but over time those savings increase.  Since costs are being cut, the state wouldn’t have to match the entire Pike revenue to break even.  What’s the offset?  No idea.  I looked at the Mass Pike financial docs a bit, but you’d need far more info to make a good projection.

          <

          p>If you increase the gas tax substantially, you lose sales to NY VT CT RI NH either because people stop coming to MA to fill up or because they start leaving MA to fill up (depending on which state they’re near).  What’s that offset?  No idea.  Maybe a few percent but I don’t imagine a whole lot since most people in MA live at least 30 miles from a border.

          <

          p>

          <

          p>Coming back to your numbers

          <

          p>$.15 maintain infrastructure
          $.07 new infrastructure (bond debt existing, new projects)
          $.05 revenue offset to remove some tolls

          <

          p>Of course the $0.07 is just made up from my head, and we agree that the $.05 is an overestimate — it should probably be something like $.03 because we’re also eliminating costs at the same time.

          <

          p>My feeling is that for 27 cents they could get rid of the Pike (not tunnel) tolls.  The other thing I’d point out is this: 2/3rds of Pike highway tolls are collected electronically, but only half of tunnel tolls are electronic.  My guess is that means that the state could siphon off more revenue from out-of-staters by keeping the tunnel tolls and the gas tax down slightly because more out-of-staters are either (a) driving N-S through the state and may or may not fill up once for gas but will throw in a fistfull of dollars for the toll, or (b) are coming to and from the airport in their rental car and may or may not use a tank of gas while visiting Boston but will go through those tunnels.

          <

          p>I’m not arguing that I like or don’t like the plan… just pushing around some numbers w.r.t. the plan, that’s all.

          • but not tunnel tolls. None of them are particularly fair, especially when only half the tunnel users ever get hit with the fee (and that’s not going to change, either).

            <

            p>And what about the bridge? That’s almost always ignored.

            <

            p>I’ve heard from various people, including state legislators who I consider intelligent and nicely progressive, that it’s around 11 or 12 cents to cover the cost of all the tolls. I trust the number is at least close to right. It seems reasonable to increase the gas tax by 27 or 29 cents if you get rid of all the metro and pike tolls. Border state tolls are a separate issue, one that I don’t hold an opinion on.

            <

            p>Or do it this way: 10 cents to get rid of/reduce the cost of tolls, 10 cents to highway, 10 cents to public transit. All the bases are covered that way and we can get rid Metro Boston’s tolls (maybe charging $1 or 2 for the Ted Williams).

            <

            p>BTW – I do appreciate the numbers and analysis you bring to the table, Stomv.

      • the globe article I read last night wasn’t specific. It talked about closing down some, but not others. I didn’t see anything that said the Tobin & Ted Williams would definitively be closed. A lot of that would probably depend on the regulatory agencies that are in charge of those bodies in the future (and who really knows what that’ll be at this point?). However, I don’t foresee those tolls being closed unless we specifically require it in legislation. Ditto, really, for all the Pike tolls.  

  9. He puts out a high number, the lege cuts it in half and claims that they’re protecting the taxpayer, and Patrick gets the number he really wanted in the first place.

    • is that when the halve the number to 11.5 cents, they keep 50%+ of it for mass transit and not some other ratio that favors road to rail.

        • for the entire state to make huge ongoing contributions subsidising Boston area transportation, and water, and sewer, schools, undeserved pension benefits, etc.

          <

          p>The existing level of geographic wealth redistribution within the state is downright criminal. Amazingly, some rent-seeking greedheads are trying to even increase it. Unbelieveable!

          <

          p>

          • Because I’m not sure it’s true.  The big dig was expensive, and so is the consistently mismanaged T.  But the population density is much higher in greater Boston (areas served by the T and/or I-93) and incomes (and hence taxes paid) tend to be much higher as well.  There are far fewer miles of road per capita inside of 128 than out in the boondocks.  

          • to cross a bridge or a tunnel?

            <

            p>Didn’t think so.

            <

            p>The North Shore is largely working/middle class. We’re not exactly wealthy people and can barely afford the status quo. People will lose work over this. Ditto much of the Metro West.

            <

            p>The 27 cent plan would have helped the entire state, not just metro Boston. Having spent 5 years of my life just recently in New Bedford, I understand and empathize with the inequities. That’s precisely why I support a gas tax increase: we can’t afford the status quo, which is leaving the rest of the state behind. What makes you think it would be good policy to continue the status quo – what makes you think that will help the rest of the state?  

            • It’s not like Boston area (and other urban areas of MA) don’t already receive massive redistributive Chapter 70 aid, public transport subsidies, the lions share of state infrastructure and jobs.

              <

              p>It’s already way too lopsided. Redistribution only goes so far before it just ends up fostering even further dependency and entitlement.

              • The North Shore, by and large, gets obliterated by Chapter 70. Literally, we’re talking about tens of millions, maybe hundreds, every year that certain towns in the NS miss out on, but should be getting, every year.

                <

                p>I’m talking about basic livelihood. Simply put, many people in Winthrop, Lynn, Revere, etc. could not afford the massive hikes planned for the tolls. It would be roughly 5-10% of their actual income, just to pass the stupid bridge. There is a redistribution of income that goes on in this scheme and it’s from the cities and towns that can’t afford it, directly to the rest of the state, most especially the South Shore towns that pay zilch to use the very same tunnels and bridges.

                <

                p>You really just have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re shooting from the hip, angry about the “Boston-centric” ness of this state, without considering for one iota that I’m not talking about Boston and not talking about places that have particularly good public transit. Even for the areas that have adequate public transit, it’s no cheaper to use the tunnels and subway or train than it is to cross the tunnel. It really isn’t.  

          • is not mutually exclusive with getting rid of the tolls. It will take years to have any true quantitative improvement to public transit, yet it will be months until people will be paying double the tolls – tolls they can’t afford.  

          • when the MBTA is extended to Lynn. Great idea. I’m sure I’ll see that extension at some point in my lifetime… though, my grandmother probably thought the same thing… and she’s old enough to remember when there actually was light rail in the city of Lynn!

            <

            p>We can think a lot of things, Stomv. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. It’s simply not fair for the tolls to be doubled, to over $2k a year for regular drivers, when there aren’t better, more affordable, fairer options on the table. Hell, not only is there not enough mass transit in the NS, but the few options we do have are also becoming mass-ively more expensive.  

        • Metro West is home to some of the wealthiest communities in the state and a huge road with quick access to downtown Boston.  While I agree that a toll can be regressive, given that towns like Weston, Newton, Belmont, Wellesley, Needham, Natick and Watertown are impacted by the tolls, I’m not that sympathetic – okay, Framingham and Waltham have a much more mixed income, but still.  

          <

          p>I say this as a former resident of Watertown and current resident of Natick.  The Pike is a nice big road, I can get to the airport without traffic in 30 minutes, downtown in less – traffic is a pain, but as anyone who’s sat in bumper to bumper 93S traffic can tell you, it comes with or without tolls.  The idea that it costs me an additional few bucks for this luxury is, in my opinion, justified.  As for the Tobin, it’s a bridge, it costs money to keep up, asking the folks who use it to pay for a big chunk of that also seems pretty reasonable.  

          <

          p>BTW, I support a gas tax even if we weren’t facing an economic crunch, $1 a gallon sounds about right.      

          • and treating people from Framingham the same as Wellesley makes sense how? Metrowest is a very large place. Not all of the people taking the Pike live in Newton and Westwood. I realize that the gas tax also treats people the same, but because it spreads the costs around, it ensures that no middle class/working class communities are spending most of what would be their discretionary spending to pay to cross an arbitrary toll.  

            <

            p>The fact of the matter is we’re not talking about ‘a few extra bucks.’ We’re talking about $2-3k a year. That’s $2-3k that could be going into the local economy in this disastrously bad economy. If everyone pays a little bit more to help offset communities that will be getting absolutely demolished in tolls, that’s going to make for a stronger, better, fairer Massachusetts. This ain’t exactly rocket science.

            <

            p>

            As for the Tobin, it’s a bridge, it costs money to keep up, asking the folks who use it to pay for a big chunk of that also seems pretty reasonable.  

            <

            p>I would never expect the people of Cape Cod to pay for their bridges, or for the people of Lowell to pay for theirs. Infrastructure is a shared burden and benefits us all. There should be no tolls to cross them, especially tolls so high that it forces people who live in the area – often middle/working class areas – to pay thousands a year. This is doubly true since almost every bridge/tunnel/combo forces people living on only one side of the bridge to pay up. Triply so since the Tobin, as with the Pike, has been paid for in tolls over and over again.

            <

            p>The fact is Boston wouldn’t be anywhere near the economic engine it is for this state if the Tobin and tunnels didn’t exist, which would hurt everyone across this state. The same goes for every other bridge and tunnel in Massachusetts, which I’m more than happy to put my fair share into through a general pool such as the gas tax. I would love nothing more, for example, than for this increased gas tax to be used to help pay for a new train to New Bedford or for a line that connects Springfield to Hartford.

  10. I guess I land in Camp 3.

    <

    p>I have always been OK with a gas tax, trading off for some other cuts, like the Pike tolls.

    <

    p>I suspect that what we are in for here is a huge hike in the gas tax, a toll hike on the Pike, and a hike of the income tax, all so that we can do all of this infrasturacture “maintenance” in compliance with prevailing wage laws that assume a prevailing wage that does not exist.  I therefore remain dubious, at best.

    <

    p>I am particularly grumpy that the governor thought that having the government track my personal movements, and billing me for them, is a reasonable proposal.

  11. Support the gas tax increase, but would add the following changes.

    <

    p>1. Increase the personal exemption on the State income tax by $1000.  (As a way to make the gas tax a little progressive).

    <

    p>2. Get rid of all tolls, except for the tunnels.

    <

    p>3. Consolidate all transportation administration into a single agency. (One whose personnel benefits are no greater than the State as a whole).

  12. GEtting rid of the tolls or some of the tolls is only the “front” of the Pike. The bloated bureaucracy filled with so many hacks, as well as a bloated administration is a giant cost. Remove the Pike completely. Get rid of everyone from toll takers, secretaries to former House members in their phony roles. Then take the outstanding bond balance and fund it through a new gas tax.

    <

    p>PS. How much money do we collect now with gas taxes and where does all that go?

  13. …to bleed wealth from outside Rt128 to inside Rt128

    <

    p>Not only are we relentlessly taxed. We need to put up with an absurd level of geographic “wealth redistribution” on the spending side.

    • Got any facts to back up your claim?

      <

      p>My suspicion is that wealth redistribution actually goes from inside Rt128 to outside Rt128.

      • …until I see some statistics that show otherwise.  The general rule in this country is that the higher density, higher income states (mostly the northeast and the west coast, in fact) subsidize the lower density, lower income states:
        http://www.taxfoundation.org/r…
        This may be somewhat skewed by the nature of the US Senate, but I suspect a similar thing happens on the state level, especially when you’re talking about transportation dollars.  City living just plain uses less resources.

  15. I think government tracking of citizen’s travels is a really bad idea.  Before you know it, we will all have chips installed in our wrists so we can be scanned throughout the year to see what we owe the government. I also think the gas tax is a bad idea.  What I think is a good idea is to get rid of the waste that is so ridiculously apparent in government. That would save a lot of money.  They could probably cut taxes and still be ahead.  Really had it with our elected officials. They turn a blind eye to sensible solutions and ask us for more money instead.  I think Governor Patrick and our state legislature should take a lesson from President Obama’s example and speak out against government and corporate excesses that aren’t necessary, reasonable, or deserved.  

Archives