Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   It's silly season in Washington, where Republicans pretend to want to raise taxes and Democrats pretend Republicans are negotiating in good faith   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States, beaming face of the state, stolen election, President Trump, Voting, President Biden  
•       •       •

691 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2021 at 10:48 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



59 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-05-13 10:57:23 PM  
Time for Charlie Brown to kick the football, right?
 
2021-05-13 10:57:35 PM  
Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.
 
2021-05-13 10:57:48 PM  
Let me guess...They want to raise taxes in a regressive way, so those who earn the least pay the most as a percentage of income?

*opens article*

Republicans in Congress want to raise the federal gas tax.

Yep, called it.
 
2021-05-13 11:00:35 PM  
So the plan is spend way too little money to fix our infrastructure and pay for it with regressive tax plans. Cool cool cool cool.

F*ckin A I'm gonna do a jaunty little dance when McConnel dies.
 
2021-05-13 11:01:08 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Haulers do the majority of the damage to roads.  Somehow I doubt McConnell's plan is to force Amazon and Wal*mart to pay for that.
 
2021-05-13 11:01:47 PM  

Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.


Thank you, Ms. Rand, for dropping that lovely turd into the punchbowl right at the beginning of the thread.
 
2021-05-13 11:02:03 PM  

Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.


Why do we need yet another regressive tax?  Do you somehow think the poor and lower middle class are not being crushed enough?
 
2021-05-13 11:02:09 PM  

Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.


This is the way all of the highways around Dallas. A rare area of bipartisan support when you can find New York and Texas on the same side of an issue.

Thing is, it's not like we can't correlate driving data (license plates) to registrations (owners) to income (state taxes). All of the data is out there, and if you connect the dots you could easily create a system where high earners pay more per mile or corporate/interstate/fleet owners pay more. But no, that hurts right in the freedums, so better to just accept billions of dollars a year in pothole repair while schools continue to get worse and worse.
 
2021-05-13 11:02:38 PM  
A raise in taxes on something that should be already increasing or decreasing with use and inflation is stupid.  If expenses are surpassing funding, you're either spending too much or it's getting misused (probably misused by corrupt politicians and comptrollers).
 
2021-05-13 11:03:47 PM  

Murkanen: [Fark user image image 425x363]

Haulers do the majority of the damage to roads.  Somehow I doubt McConnell's plan is to force Amazon and Wal*mart to pay for that.


I would love to see the methodology where a crossover SUV that weighs 50% more than an average car does 35% less damage to the roads.

That whole chart is idiocy just based on that one item alone.

RAV4 = 3,600lbs
Accord = 3,150lbs
 
2021-05-13 11:03:49 PM  
I can help you with that one. They always negotiate in bad faith. Always.
 
2021-05-13 11:03:57 PM  
Wanderlusting:

Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up.

On big rigs, yes.  On regular cars?  Not so much.
 
2021-05-13 11:06:02 PM  

Wanderlusting: Murkanen: [Fark user image image 425x363]

Haulers do the majority of the damage to roads.  Somehow I doubt McConnell's plan is to force Amazon and Wal*mart to pay for that.

I would love to see the methodology where a crossover SUV that weighs 50% more than an average car does 35% less damage to the roads.

That whole chart is idiocy just based on that one item alone.

RAV4 = 3,600lbs
Accord = 3,150lbs


You think 3.6k is 50% more than than 3.1k?

No one wonder you're so bad at anything that deals with money or the economy.
 
2021-05-13 11:06:40 PM  

pehvbot: Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

Why do we need yet another regressive tax?  Do you somehow think the poor and lower middle class are not being crushed enough?


Do the people at the bottom not use the roads? It's not regressive if the taxation is based on your use factored by the choice of vehicle.

Want to pay the least? Buy a 1989 Honda Civic that gets 40mpg and weighs 1,800lbs.
 
2021-05-13 11:06:54 PM  

Murkanen: [Fark user image 425x363]

Haulers do the majority of the damage to roads.  Somehow I doubt McConnell's plan is to force Amazon and Wal*mart to pay for that.


I am offended by your table. 350lb for rider and bike creates unrealistic expectations for what a normal bike rider should weigh and contributes to negative body image. It should be at least 450.

media.istockphoto.comView Full Size

*huff*...*puff*...*Gasp*...M'Lady..
 
2021-05-13 11:07:31 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-13 11:08:30 PM  

Murkanen: Wanderlusting: Murkanen: [Fark user image image 425x363]

Haulers do the majority of the damage to roads.  Somehow I doubt McConnell's plan is to force Amazon and Wal*mart to pay for that.

I would love to see the methodology where a crossover SUV that weighs 50% more than an average car does 35% less damage to the roads.

That whole chart is idiocy just based on that one item alone.

RAV4 = 3,600lbs
Accord = 3,150lbs

You think 3.6k is 50% more than than 3.1k?

No one wonder you're so bad at anything that deals with money or the economy.


I said an average car. An accord is a large sedan.

Let's compare to an average car, should we?

Corolla - 2,640lbs.
Yaris is even less.
 
2021-05-13 11:09:21 PM  

Wanderlusting: Murkanen: [Fark user image image 425x363]

Haulers do the majority of the damage to roads.  Somehow I doubt McConnell's plan is to force Amazon and Wal*mart to pay for that.

I would love to see the methodology where a crossover SUV that weighs 50% more than an average car does 35% less damage to the roads.

That whole chart is idiocy just based on that one item alone.

RAV4 = 3,600lbs
Accord = 3,150lbs


I think it would depend on what you're defining an "average car" as.  The Prius would be more comparable to a four door sedan whereas just "average car" could include a lot of older, heavier models or even F350s if you're generous enough on the definition of "car".  My guess would be their definition of "average car" is the average non-commercial use passenger vehicle.
 
2021-05-13 11:10:16 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
Why is McCarthy taking a leak right in front of reporters? Even McConnell is disgusted.
 
2021-05-13 11:10:29 PM  

Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.


But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?
 
2021-05-13 11:11:08 PM  

Summoner101: Wanderlusting: Murkanen: [Fark user image image 425x363]

Haulers do the majority of the damage to roads.  Somehow I doubt McConnell's plan is to force Amazon and Wal*mart to pay for that.

I would love to see the methodology where a crossover SUV that weighs 50% more than an average car does 35% less damage to the roads.

That whole chart is idiocy just based on that one item alone.

RAV4 = 3,600lbs
Accord = 3,150lbs

I think it would depend on what you're defining an "average car" as.  The Prius would be more comparable to a four door sedan whereas just "average car" could include a lot of older, heavier models or even F350s if you're generous enough on the definition of "car".  My guess would be their definition of "average car" is the average non-commercial use passenger vehicle.


Also, the have the Hummer H2 and the Tahoe on there with significant differences in road wear when they are badge engineered versions of the same farking car.

That whole chart is ludicrous.
 
2021-05-13 11:11:32 PM  

Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.


Wow that's just insanely regressive. What did some uppity poor cut you off and flip you the bird from their rusting beater?
 
2021-05-13 11:13:23 PM  

casual disregard: I can help you with that one. They always negotiate in bad faith. Always.


I do wonder if there's not a way to counter this by either having one or more key Republicans co-sponsor the bill upfront to prevent a 'surprise' on the day of the final vote. Or, better yet, include it in some big omnibus spending bill that allows for earmarks so individual senators have some skin in the game to see it pass. If we need 50 cornhusker kickbacks, so be it.
 
2021-05-13 11:13:39 PM  

a far candle: [Fark user image 836x574]Why is McCarthy taking a leak right in front of reporters? Even McConnell is disgusted.


He's just using a wide stance.
 
2021-05-13 11:13:40 PM  

Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?


Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.
 
2021-05-13 11:14:26 PM  

Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.


Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things
 
2021-05-13 11:14:50 PM  

Horizon: Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

Wow that's just insanely regressive. What did some uppity poor cut you off and flip you the bird from their rusting beater?


Why do the most liberal cities and states in our country have the highest tolls and most tollways?

Don't see many toll roads in Idaho, but cross the Hudson? Yeah, you're going to pay for that.
 
2021-05-13 11:15:34 PM  

Summoner101: I think it would depend on what you're defining an "average car" as.


8 inches.
 
2021-05-13 11:16:59 PM  

qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.

Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things


Property taxes aren't progressive ... they are flat (which is somehow regressive for some reason on Fark). The doubleplus ungood with vocabulary here is astounding when it comes to the metal gymnastics you need to do to somehow consider flat taxes regressive - when flat taxes by their very definition are neither progressive or regressive, but flat.
 
2021-05-13 11:18:45 PM  

Wanderlusting: qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.

Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things

Property taxes aren't progressive ... they are flat (which is somehow regressive for some reason on Fark). The doubleplus ungood with vocabulary here is astounding when it comes to the metal gymnastics you need to do to somehow consider flat taxes regressive - when flat taxes by their very definition are neither progressive or regressive, but flat.


They're regressive because they have a greater, and disproportionate, impact on lower income members of society.
 
2021-05-13 11:19:10 PM  

Wanderlusting: qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.

Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things

Property taxes aren't progressive ... they are flat (which is somehow regressive for some reason on Fark). The doubleplus ungood with vocabulary here is astounding when it comes to the metal gymnastics you need to do to somehow consider flat taxes regressive - when flat taxes by their very definition are neither progressive or regressive, but flat.


lol
 
2021-05-13 11:20:51 PM  

Murkanen: Wanderlusting: qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.

Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things

Property taxes aren't progressive ... they are flat (which is somehow regressive for some reason on Fark). The doubleplus ungood with vocabulary here is astounding when it comes to the metal gymnastics you need to do to somehow consider flat taxes regressive - when flat taxes by their very definition are neither progressive or regressive, but flat.

They're regressive because they have a greater, and disproportionate, impact on lower income members of society.


By that definition, that's every tax, no?

Hard to take people seriously when they choose to redefine objective terminology to their own whims.

Regressive/Progressive/Flat are all descriptors of the RATE of taxation, not it's utility. You sound like an idiot when you redefine terminology to suit your ideology rather than using accurate descriptors to define your points.
 
2021-05-13 11:20:52 PM  

Wanderlusting: Horizon: Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

Wow that's just insanely regressive. What did some uppity poor cut you off and flip you the bird from their rusting beater?

Why do the most liberal cities and states in our country have the highest tolls and most tollways?

Don't see many toll roads in Idaho, but cross the Hudson? Yeah, you're going to pay for that.


Your 120 hours of real estate classes obviously makes you are a farking genius when it comes to infrastructure and taxation. GTFO with your Fark Independent™ bullshiat.
 
2021-05-13 11:22:55 PM  

monsatano: Wanderlusting: Horizon: Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

Wow that's just insanely regressive. What did some uppity poor cut you off and flip you the bird from their rusting beater?

Why do the most liberal cities and states in our country have the highest tolls and most tollways?

Don't see many toll roads in Idaho, but cross the Hudson? Yeah, you're going to pay for that.

Your 120 hours of real estate classes obviously makes you are a farking genius when it comes to infrastructure and taxation. GTFO with your Fark Independent™ bullshiat.


Well, when the MTA makes all the bridges and tunnels in NYC free because they are far too regressive, I'll give you a gold star, until then, I'll say it's the best and fairest way to deal with taxation for infrastructure.
 
2021-05-13 11:24:34 PM  
Wanderlusting:

By that definition, that's every tax, no?

No.
 
2021-05-13 11:26:06 PM  
PS. The poor can always use local roads if they feel the tolls are too regressive. Nobody forced anyone to pay a toll. Even in NY, you *could* drive the backroads to Albany, cross the Hudson for free, and then drive the backroads back down into the city. Otherwise, ever other crossing costs money.
 
2021-05-13 11:27:43 PM  

Murkanen: Wanderlusting:

By that definition, that's every tax, no?

No.


Our progressive income tax is incredibly regressive on people who earn less than $20k a year.
 
2021-05-13 11:29:44 PM  

Wanderlusting: Murkanen: Wanderlusting: qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.

Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things

Property taxes aren't progressive ... they are flat (which is somehow regressive for some reason on Fark). The doubleplus ungood with vocabulary here is astounding when it comes to the metal gymnastics you need to do to somehow consider flat taxes regressive - when flat taxes by their very definition are neither progressive or regressive, but flat.

They're regressive because they have a greater, and disproportionate, impact on lower income members of society.

By that definition, that's every tax, no?

Hard to take people seriously when they choose to redefine objective terminology to their own whims.

Regressive/Progressive/Flat are all descriptors of the RATE of taxation, not it's utility. You sound like an idiot when you redefine terminology to suit your ideology rather than using accurate descriptors to define your points.


False. "Regressive taxation" has nothing to do with the absolute rate.

Fuel taxes are a textbook example of a regressive tax to the point that the IRS uses them for that exact purpose.
 
2021-05-13 11:30:24 PM  

Wanderlusting: monsatano: Wanderlusting: Horizon: Wanderlusting: Gas taxes and road use taxes SHOULD go up. In fact, interstate highways should all be toll roads with open road tolling as well. Bridges, tunnels, highways. We need to take the NYS approach and just make nearly everything and anything a tollway.

We also need to do taxation by mileage with multipliers based on GVWRs. Want to drive an SUV? That's a 1.5x multiplier. A large pickup truck? 2x. A semi-truck? 4-5x.

Increased gas taxes. Taxes on electric charging. The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

Wow that's just insanely regressive. What did some uppity poor cut you off and flip you the bird from their rusting beater?

Why do the most liberal cities and states in our country have the highest tolls and most tollways?

Don't see many toll roads in Idaho, but cross the Hudson? Yeah, you're going to pay for that.

Your 120 hours of real estate classes obviously makes you are a farking genius when it comes to infrastructure and taxation. GTFO with your Fark Independent™ bullshiat.

Well, when the MTA makes all the bridges and tunnels in NYC free because they are far too regressive, I'll give you a gold star, until then, I'll say it's the best and fairest way to deal with taxation for infrastructure.


Tolls are regressive bullshiat - they are not a fix for anything. They are a tax on people who can afford it the least, and they are designed to make alternative routes even harder to use (especially when those toll roads are owned by private companies - e.g., toll roads in Texas)
 
2021-05-13 11:33:22 PM  
Biden wants billionaires to cough up for his ambitious infrastructure plans.

Mitch "Fee-fee" McConnell wants everyone else to pay.

Because of course he does.

A "tax trap" the GQP can point at in mock horror in the run up to 2022 and 2024.
 
2021-05-13 11:33:27 PM  

qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Murkanen: Wanderlusting: qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.

Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things

Property taxes aren't progressive ... they are flat (which is somehow regressive for some reason on Fark). The doubleplus ungood with vocabulary here is astounding when it comes to the metal gymnastics you need to do to somehow consider flat taxes regressive - when flat taxes by their very definition are neither progressive or regressive, but flat.

They're regressive because they have a greater, and disproportionate, impact on lower income members of society.

By that definition, that's every tax, no?

Hard to take people seriously when they choose to redefine objective terminology to their own whims.

Regressive/Progressive/Flat are all descriptors of the RATE of taxation, not it's utility. You sound like an idiot when you redefine terminology to suit your ideology rather than using accurate descriptors to define your points.

False. "Regressive taxation" has nothing to do with the absolute rate.

Fuel taxes are a textbook example of a regressive tax to the point that the IRS uses them for that exact purpose.


Are you really this stupid?

"A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases."
 
2021-05-13 11:34:20 PM  
Where _Republicans_ pretend to raise taxes?

Obama 35%
Biden 28%
Democrats 25%

/sure, Jan
 
2021-05-13 11:35:07 PM  

Wanderlusting: qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Murkanen: Wanderlusting: qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.

Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things

Property taxes aren't progressive ... they are flat (which is somehow regressive for some reason on Fark). The doubleplus ungood with vocabulary here is astounding when it comes to the metal gymnastics you need to do to somehow consider flat taxes regressive - when flat taxes by their very definition are neither progressive or regressive, but flat.

They're regressive because they have a greater, and disproportionate, impact on lower income members of society.

By that definition, that's every tax, no?

Hard to take people seriously when they choose to redefine objective terminology to their own whims.

Regressive/Progressive/Flat are all descriptors of the RATE of taxation, not it's utility. You sound like an idiot when you redefine terminology to suit your ideology rather than using accurate descriptors to define your points.

False. "Regressive taxation" has nothing to do with the absolute rate.

Fuel taxes are a textbook example of a regressive tax to the point that the IRS uses them for that exact purpose.

Are you really this stupid?

"A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases."


"Regressive tax - A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups."

"Is the state gasoline tax regressive, progressive, or proportional? Why?
Regressive; it takes a higher percentage of lower incomes than of higher incomes"
 
2021-05-13 11:35:51 PM  

Wanderlusting: PS. The poor can always use local roads if they feel the tolls are too regressive. Nobody forced anyone to pay a toll. Even in NY, you *could* drive the backroads to Albany, cross the Hudson for free, and then drive the backroads back down into the city. Otherwise, ever other crossing costs money.


Go drive through Austin if you think toll roads aren't that big of a deal. Enjoy sitting at stoplights on a frontage road for an hour longer than your usual commute, you farking dumbass. Since most of that toll money doesn't go to the state, I'm sure the companies profiting off of their tollways will gladly donate the proceeds to help the state move away from the model that makes them money.
 
2021-05-13 11:35:57 PM  

Wanderlusting: Murkanen: Wanderlusting: qorkfiend: Wanderlusting: Meatsim1: Wanderlusting: The use of vehicles needs to pay entirely for the infrastructure it requires. Full stop.

But why?

Seriously, but why? I guess it sounds nice in a kind of "perfectly balanced" kind of way but why is that a good idea? Maybe some things, like basic infrastructure, should be subsidized so people who can't "pay a proportional share of the upkeep" can still use it so that everyone has access to basic infrastructure?

Same reason why all those ultra liberal people in the Bay Area pay a toll to cross the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate.

It's easy revenue and the people who use those roads should pay for them. I see nothing inherently wrong with taxing people for their use of the roads they use in the same way I don't see anything inherently wrong with taxing people for the schools, libraries, parks, police, and firefighting they use.

Then let's make the taxes nice and progressive like we do for those other things

Property taxes aren't progressive ... they are flat (which is somehow regressive for some reason on Fark). The doubleplus ungood with vocabulary here is astounding when it comes to the metal gymnastics you need to do to somehow consider flat taxes regressive - when flat taxes by their very definition are neither progressive or regressive, but flat.

They're regressive because they have a greater, and disproportionate, impact on lower income members of society.

By that definition, that's every tax, no?

Hard to take people seriously when they choose to redefine objective terminology to their own whims.

Regressive/Progressive/Flat are all descriptors of the RATE of taxation, not it's utility. You sound like an idiot when you redefine terminology to suit your ideology rather than using accurate descriptors to define your points.


Math is not your best thing.
 
2021-05-13 11:38:08 PM  

Wake Up Sheeple: Where _Republicans_ pretend to raise taxes?

Obama 35%
Biden 28%
Democrats 25%

/sure, Jan


Jesus farking christ, get over this shiat already. Your argument is tired, and the chicken you're farking just wants to go to sleep.
 
2021-05-13 11:41:04 PM  
User fees would force Biden's hand

I don't want to kink shame, but I can't imagine that being on the long list of things that force my hand.

/good on you regardless, old man
 
2021-05-13 11:44:51 PM  

Wanderlusting: Murkanen: Wanderlusting:

By that definition, that's every tax, no?

No.

Our progressive income tax is incredibly regressive on people who earn less than $20k a year.


Which is why people keep pointing out that taxes on the wealthy need to go up.

Congratulations on catching up.
 
2021-05-14 12:28:42 AM  
So, just another day ending in 'y' then?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-14 2:04:47 AM  
Why do we care what Republicans want, again?
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.