From the left-leaning Virginia Organizing Project, which disdains gasoline taxes because of their regressivity:

The Virginia Organizing Project has proposed as an alternative a two-part transportation funding plan. First, we would raise new revenue by imposing a small income tax surcharge. A five percent surcharge (not a 5 percent rate increase but a 5 percent charge added to existing tax liabilities) would raise approximately $450 million. We recommend using up to $400 million of this amount to finance ongoing maintenance deficits, with the balance dedicated to interest payments on newly issued revenue or general obligation bonds in the amount of $600 million. The proceeds from these bonds should be sufficient to finance the new transportation investments for Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads and throughout the Commonwealth. Such an approach would also finance these investments as they should be financed—on the basis of ability to pay—and it would rely on the state’s sterling credit where it should be counted upon—to finance relatively long-lived state assets.

Well, it’s an idea. Trouble is, Virginia’s tax structure also is “regressive and outdated,“ according to . . . the Virginia Organizing Project.

Sure, tax heavier vehicles, period.

Did you really want me to answer, or are you just self-flagellating?

Scott,

If you want to tax SUVs, tax new production of SUVs so that you grandfather in those who innocently bought a gas hog thinking it was the right thing to do at the time, but gradually shutting down future abuse. Of course this will never happen, because new vehicle production would target an already comatose Detroit. 

In fact, I think that SUVs are being singled out the same way “sprawl” is being singled out, as a scapegoat for a wide range of problems that don’t necessarily have that much to do with suburbanites.

Motor homes weigh more, have worse mileage, and tear up more roads than any 3 SUVs put together, but since sweet old grandpa and gramma drive motor homes, we can’t say anything. Horrible me-first boomers and upscale soccer moms and lawyers drive SUVs. Gag. Hate reflex.

Big trucks tear up roads but they bring us our Hanover tomatoes, so we love to hate SUVs.

Sprawl is a catchall phrase that is used as a vague put-down, but most often employed by those living in suburbia themselves, by those who would recoil in horror at curbs on their freedoms to “sprawl”, and sometimes by those who in the very same breath are bullish on unrestrained growth, future development, and lack of effective zoning and planning. Just pack ‘em in tighter and call it “no-sprawl” or put up a drug store and call it a planned community.

A few months back Bart posted on a town in Oregon that employs rigorous zoning and greenie friendly anti-sprawl measures, like public transit and no-car zones. Of course the post was uniformly castigated. Those damn eco-freaks.

No hypocrisy here. We have a solution for all those left-leaning types, high gas prices, which may sort things out naturally, no interference, in the forseeable future.

No need to hijack SUVs. The owners will do it themselves if gas goes up enough. I’m thinking of growing Hanovers in my backyard after the economy collapses. Damn the neighbors. Probably SUV/sprawl lovers every one.

Is no one innocent ?

What Bill says about tax incentives is correct, excepting sometimes localities go way, way, way overboard. Link below:

http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild/dmr50722.html

Nothing wrong with Swedwood or the mattress manufacturer or the incentives. Just an unanswered question of whether officials exceeded the boundaries of good judgment and common sense, something we know our elected officials would “never” do.

In the T-D today, a steel firm lured here. I did not read it yet, but I’m willing to bet sweeteners were applied liberally.

If conservatives apply liberally do liberals apply conservatively ?

Then there are “enterprise zones” which add the additional complicating factor of not only luring business but to specific underserved, industrial friendly, or disadvantaged areas. Are they good ? Don’t know. Depends.

Larry,

That’s funny (not really). If an ed tags a group as left or right, someone will be offended and accuse him of trying to delegitimize the org. If an ed doesn’t label the group, someone will be offended and accuse him of trying to sneak his bias into a story.

Bob,

Maybe we could impose a violent crime tax. No, wait, we can’t have 12% of the population paying 51% of the taxes. That would be unfair to the black community.

We also can’t tax remittence payments. That won’t help us with our voter outreach (multicult tribal demogougery)come November.

We could reduce the size of our bloated gov’t. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!

See Larry…now THAT"S funny!

I do think more taxation is the answer. Over the years I’ve learned that our political leaders and public servants are extremely frugal and responsible with our money. And if we give them more, that will mean WE have more say in how we live our lives because allowing someone esle to spend our money is what true freedon is all about. They pay the bills while we play in the yard.

Funny thing though. Every time I go out to play the yard looks a little bit smaller.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/gasoline-expensive-uk-europe-oil-energy.php

Taxes up, trees down, suburban sprawl costs us all.

How about putting extra taxes on SUV owners, since their vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads?

Notice how Bart inserts the descriptive “left-leaning” prominently in his opening sentence. As though we could not figure the political orientation of the group for ourselves.

But then again maybe Bart wasn’t doing that to be helpful at all. Maybe it was his way of drawing a mustache & devil’s horns on someone’s photograph.

‘Heh heh heh I’ll throw in the word ‘left-leaning’ and these redneck fools ‘ll be all over it like bees on honey. Heh heh heh. SOLD!!!‘

Look for similar tactics on all of Bart’s posts.

States compete for getting corporations to locate within their boundaries.  Why would the state promise to give a corporation certain tax breaks, just to get the corporation here?  Because in the long run, the expectation is it will be a good thing.

So the corp. gets maybe some breaks on its property tax or income tax.  Those breaks are always temporary - i.e., maybe it gets a reduced property tax rate - or no property tax - for 5 years or 10 years.  What does the state get out of it?  Jobs, for one.  And the feather in its cap of having the company HQ or mfg. plant located here.  Which maybe will lure others, which will create more jobs, etc. 

And ultimately, when the promised tax breaks expire, the state will then get the increased tax revenue. 

As far as whether it’s unfair or a bad thing, I dunno.  Let’s ask the people who got new jobs at the new factory.

Ok. So that’s the plan. Got it.

We knock on all the doors. If they answer but can’t quickly produce “papers” we knock ‘em in the head and put ‘em on a one-way truck to Tijuana, unless they produce cash, that is. Good plan. Probably traumatize the bejezzus out of the illegals though. We might have to knock down a few doors. No problem there. Make sure they don’t run out the rear exit or jump from the windows.

Now, where did I put my passport.

Bob’s plan better, but not so much.

It’s true that a gas tax is unpopular. They are proposing one for Va., by the way, to fund transportation issues. Not so popular.

Taxing corporations sounds good but it might not be good for business. I know state and local incentives for business are legalized extortion, and taxation without representation for you and I, but it’s the way the system works.

If you want to lure a Swedish or a Polish business to Va. you need sweetener. Luring Swedish models to Va. is very tough too. I have never had much success there either. In fact, have a hard time getting a decent Polish sausage lured to me, but that’s only my problem. “Come hither, my little kielbasa. Come to papa.“

I agree with Bob that business incentives have turned into legalized extortion but don’t know how to get around it.

D. Taylor Brooks—good idea! And I’ve long agreed that politicians, lawyers, EDITORIAL PAGE WRITERS and other quasi-philosophers prefer tangling-up really simple issues by making them appear complex.

Problems themselves are never complex—people make them that way. Its fun. Like a hobby I guess.

But I say we can make illegals pay these fees right now, by knocking on their doors and collecting.

Yeah right, a tax on gas at current prices and they are still soaring ?Whoever proposes that will not be in office too long unless gas prices dropdramatically.
  The VOP is not exactly in touch with reality. Lots of non-smoking veggie, latte, let the 80 year olds ride bicycles types.
  Tax the corporations. Historically southern states let corporations have about a million loop holes and all sorts of welfare. Close their loopholes.
  Want an example. A few months ago Bart was tauting the success of free trade when a Polish mattress manufacturer
moved to Danville with 800 jobs. And another company Swedwood also moved.
  In an article in the Business Section
a few weeks ago, in the same paper, it was revealed that the state of Virginia gave these two companies $9 million to move here.
  And of course, the T-D’s hard hitting staff did not explain whether it was a looan ,gift or bribe.
  People are always whining that African Americans are welfare cheats (especially R. Smith ), illegal immigrants are just killing us, but nobody questions the tax rates and loopholes of the corporate structures.

Post Your Comments: