Submitted by wildfireonvenus t3_10aj2nv in Pennsylvania
IrrumaboMalum t1_j44y3mm wrote
Interesting that 19 Democrats voted to keep our gas taxes the second highest in the nation. I looked over the bill and it's a straight forward two page single subject bill - no pork or anything.
I wonder if the Democrats in the State House will also oppose reducing the gas tax.
Entire-Job7656 t1_j45avvo wrote
I wouldn't be surprised if it passes the house as well with such a slim majority. Maybe I'm wrong but I imagine there are a handful of Democrats that would vote yes, if nothing else because of fear of losing their seat next time around. Regardless, it's something that's unpopular for that majority of voters. I would be shocked if it doesn't end up getting lowered. If it doesn't it will certainly be an issue that Republicans will harp on the next election cycle.
[deleted] t1_j45tyv2 wrote
Republicans are the one who passed the tax in the first place
IrrumaboMalum t1_j4698yu wrote
And now the optics will be the Republicans trying to lower it and the Democrats keeping it high.
mattd1972 t1_j45vdpy wrote
They’re screwed either way. Either they’re painted as loving high taxes, or accused of defunding the police.
[deleted] t1_j45txhf wrote
Reducing revenue without any spending cuts, just caused deficits…no pork, just debt. Somehow, Republicans can’t get this
AbsentEmpire t1_j465yfk wrote
It's intentional, they use the deficits they create as the excuse to cut social services they don't like such as educational services, public health, food stamps, etc.
It like they want a dumb, poor, population living on the edge at all times.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46zmjb wrote
Republicans (via Mitch McConnell) have openly said that their game is to hurt the country so they can point at whatever they fucked up and say it doesn't work. They're pretty open about it.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j46a4wg wrote
There was already $175,000,000 freed up to go back towards the Motor License Fund by reducing allocation to the Pennsylvania State Police. The Democrats wanted a one time, and one time only, allocation of $225,000,000 from the state general fund to the Motor License Fund.
This was not a way of increasing revenue to compensate for the decrease in taxes - it was just a one time transfer of funds.
[deleted] t1_j46em1i wrote
What does that have to do with my point about reducing the gas tax?
IrrumaboMalum t1_j49tb6p wrote
Because the amendment the Democrats offered didn’t “pay” for the tax cut - it was a one-time deal and done. So even if the Republicans had voted for Sen. Hughes amendment and authorized the one-time $250,000,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Motor License Fund, there still would’ve been nothing in the proposal to reduce spending or increase revenue from another source to compensate.
[deleted] t1_j4akz89 wrote
That doesn’t excuse unfunded tax cuts at all.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j4kqf9f wrote
Even if the Republicans had voted to approve Sen. Hughes' amendment, the "tax cuts" would have still been "unfunded."
So it sounds like no matter what you would have been opposed to reducing the gas tax to a reasonable level that doesn't rape the poor and middle class.
[deleted] t1_j4kqh7j wrote
You’re just making weak excuses for debt policies of the right.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j4o63s4 wrote
Ah yes...the common "the right" excuse used by people to dismiss inconvenient arguments when their own ignorance of the topic is highlighted over the course of discussion.
[deleted] t1_j4o6pzi wrote
All you’ve done is highlight an irrelevant point to buck blame.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j4o9esm wrote
At least we've established that you would rather keep the tax high than lower it, since the higher tax disproportionately impacts the poor and lower middle class.
Apparently their plight isn't your concern, and helping them has to be "paid for" in some other fashion.
[deleted] t1_j4pm3xc wrote
Another weak excuse why you support unfunded tax cuts, debt adding
IrrumaboMalum t1_j4t9q0m wrote
You hate the poor and want to keep them destitute and unable to better themselves. Got it.
You must be a Republican.
[deleted] t1_j4ujajn wrote
Because you love debt policies, and unfunded tax cuts for the rich..sure
Rich don’t pay off the debt, the poor do
Excelius t1_j467rls wrote
There is an argument that gas taxes in the US are far too low, which encourages consumption and discourages efficiency, contributing to climate change and slowing the transition to greener alternatives.
That view is going to have more support among Democrats, especially those in deep-blue urban areas. But Democrats representing more suburban swing-districts really can't afford to adopt that sort of stance.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j469jlw wrote
The US is also significantly more spread out than comparable countries, forcing us to have to travel more often and further than people living in comparable countries.
The days of people living very close to their jobs are over. My job is a 30-45 minute from where I live, and I cannot afford to live closer to where I work because of the cost of living in that area. 40 or even 30 years ago, that would’ve been the exception.
Now it is more of the rule.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46t2a7 wrote
This situation has only existed since WW2. We could go back to pre-war living patterns if we wanted. The status quo just makes a lot of money for the right people at everyone's expense.
> My job is a 30-45 minute from where I live
Sounds like hell.
Raam57 t1_j46xjie wrote
That commute is pretty average for someone in PA. I mean people choose where they live. How exactly would you realistically get people back to “pre-war living patterns”
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46xssx wrote
I haven't driven to work in over a decade and my life is way better for it. Driving is a fucking chore.
You'd return to pre-war living patterns via high density housing, public transit, and clustering residences around business and commercial areas. Look at any pre-car small town in rural Pennsylvania.
The current status quo where people live an hour from where they work in an artificial country estate is unsustainable and the sooner we end it, the better.
The fun thing about threads like this is reading posts from people who choose to live 40 miles from their job cry about how they have to pay to fill their 12mpg gas guzzler. No one is forcing them to live that way but they think that everyone else should pay their way.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j49txkj wrote
>The fun thing about threads like this is reading posts from people who choose to live 40 miles from their job cry about how they have to pay to fill their 12mpg gas guzzler. No one is forcing them to live that way but they think that everyone else should pay their way.
I didn’t “choose” to live where I am. I cannot afford to live a convenient distance from work because the cost-of-living in Cranberry is so high, so I live in the city (where I can afford to live) and commute.
I wish I could live walking distance from work, but that is not realistic for me. So I live where I can afford to live. That is part of why people commute so far - they get decent paying jobs in Area A, but the jobs don’t quite pay enough to live in Area A. So they live in Area C or D, where their pay from Area A allows them to live a decent life, and then commute to Area A for work.
I don’t think you have a very firm grasp on the real world or how people interact with it.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j49vimi wrote
Today I learned that the only jobs to be had are in Cranberry.
Living far away from your job is a choice.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j4a5y83 wrote
No, it’s not.
It sounds like you’re either independently wealthy or a rich kid who doesn’t need to worry about balancing income to cost of living and, as such, can afford to live at a loss.
The rest of us can’t.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j4c6r1q wrote
You're aware that downtown Pittsburgh is the second largest concentration of jobs in the state, with Oakland representing #3, right?
If you're driving out to Butler County from the city every day for a job, you are doing that by choice, not because there are no other options. You have chosen to take a job so far from where you live and you choose to drive 50 miles a day.
Building society around supporting the poor choices is a recipe for failure. As we can see with the current state of carcentric development, sprawl, pollution, etc.
People who choose to drive fifty miles a day when alternatives exist get zero sympathy from me when they complain about how expensive the life they've chosen is.
> It sounds like you’re either independently wealthy or a rich kid who doesn’t need to worry about balancing income to cost of living
There are neighborhoods on public transit lines in the city with median house costs under $200K, "everyone who isn't commuting 50 miles a day like me must be rich" is a lie you tell yourself to feel better about your choices.
According to your post history, you own a lot of guns. Guns are expensive. If you bought fewer toys and lived within your means you wouldn't have to commute fifty miles a day.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j4kqp5z wrote
Let's put a huge industrial construction facility that builds I&C systems right in the middle of Downtown. Sounds great.
You're an entitled self-important little pissant who thinks he is better than everyone else, and it is tiring. Must be nice living off of mommy and daddy for life while the rest of us have to work for a living.
Not all of us are lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon shoved up our asses.
Get bent kid. And get blocked.
Alfonze423 t1_j47a7ra wrote
Are you in support of increasing income tax and paying for PennDOT out of the general fund? Because that's the trade-off. Other states have higher income taxes and pay for their DOTs as part of the normal budget, while we have the lowest flat income tax in the country and try to fund PennDOT with just fees and gas tax, which the State Police then take.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j49ugqn wrote
We have the lowest FLAT income tax - true. But not by much, nor do we have the lowest income tax. In fact there are several states with NO income tax that do not have the same problems we have involving the gas tax and it’s disposition.
More and higher taxes isn’t always the answer.
Also many states roll state and local taxes into one tax, and the state provides local municipalities with funding. Such as Utah. I was looking at Utah’s taxes since I was contemplating a job out there under my current company - they have a higher state tax, but no city tax. So despite having a higher state tax, I’d save several hundred dollars a month in taxes out there making the same pay.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46ssjs wrote
Gas should be highly taxed. People should be penalized for driving gas guzzlers.
If you can't afford to fill it up, don't drive it.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j49t00t wrote
Here is the problem. Gas guzzlers are expensive. Very expensive. People who can afford gas guzzlers aren’t too worried about the cost of gas.
High gas taxes disproportionately impact the poor, who have to be careful of every penny they spend because every penny is important. They are the ones who suffer most under high gas taxes.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j49vqku wrote
Automobiles and the gas that fuels them are tremendously destructive and should be taxed as much as the market will bear to discourage driving.
IrrumaboMalum t1_j4a6020 wrote
So you hate poor people and only want the rich to drive.
Got it.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j4c6eq9 wrote
"Everyone should drive a car forever and there are definitely no downsides. Gasoline and other resources are unlimited!"
The personal automobile is a dead end. The sooner we move away from it the better.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments