-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Speed Limiters, Too?
December 28, 2012 | 70 comments
Car Guy
Democrat Double Taxers
You should be hot under the collar over HOT lanes.
No one likes paying for the same thing twice.
So what is it with these High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes that charge people for the privilege of being able to drive on roads and highways financed by motor fuels excise taxes?
They’re sprouting up all over the country. Or rather, the infrastructure for charging motorists to use existing roads is sprouting up all over the country. Roads that were built (and continue to be maintained) with money extracted from these same people via motor fuels taxes, which average about 40 cents per gallon (see here for details).
In my home state of Virginia, for example, the last governor (Tim Kaine) wanted to give what amounts to taxing authority to a private, for-profit company (Transurban of Australia) over a major portion of I-95/I-395 in Northern Virginia, near D.C. — for the next 80 years.
Drivers would have to tithe to Transurban for the privilege of using these roads — roads that were built for public use and with funds derived from the motor fuels taxes that all drivers must pay, every time they fill up.
Naturally, there’s to be no reduction in the motor fuels tax, nor any rebate or credit given to drivers who pay the current taxes but don’t elect to use the for-profit HOT lanes.
A decent case can be made for privately financed and constructed toll roads that charge user fees. If, for example, a private company can gin up the capital from investors (not taxpayers) necessary to build a new road or highway — and restricts use of the finished road to drivers who pay to drive — fine. That’s free market capitalism in action. It could also be a great deal for motorists. There would be less traffic — and possibly, the owners of the private toll road could set higher (or even no) speed limits, since the state would not be involved.
But it’s outrageous to take existing and publicly financed, public-access infrastructure and turn it into an ATM for a privately held, for-profit vendor.
How is this any different from granting, say, “Justice Enterprises, Inc.” operating control of your local county courthouse — and giving it the power to hit you up for $5 every time you need to get a legal document filed or want to contest a traffic ticket?
Oh, yeah — I forget. They already do charge us for contesting traffic tickets.
And countless municipalities all around the country have turned over aspects of traffic enforcement to private, for-profit companies — taking a cut of the proceeds themselves, of course.
That’s bad enough. Big government teaming up with Big Business to make a profit off the enforcement of laws is quite literally the Mother of All Corruption.
But these HOT lanes are even more depraved because there is no longer even a weak attempt at justification based on the punishing of wrongdoing, or at the very least, law-breaking. With a photo radar or red light camera ticket, the argument can be made that, hey, you broke the law — and thus, the fine.
It’s certainly obnoxious to know that part of the fine you get hit with ends up going to help finance braces for the teenaged kid of the CEO of the private company that runs the automated cash machines — but there’s at least some comfort in knowing there’s a connection, however tenuous, between your actions and the handing over of your hard-earned money.
But HOT lanes?
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/19/democrat-double-taxers
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 5.19.10 @ 7:03AM
Straight up a demonrat party idea. Tell me I'm wrong. I thought double taxing was against the laws of this Nation. Can someone bring this to a Court, first of public opinion, and second a court of legal actions against this tactic?
I get sick of being taxed, I'm tired of watching our hard earned monies going to fund illegals, the president too, and all the victims classes bitching they are not getting there's. There needs to be a National tax revolt, starve this beast, make a law that states everytime a case such as this is enacted by corrupt politicians, these same politicians pay the court cost, repay the taxes to the public and then throw their asses in the cross-bar motel doing hard labor to pay off what their savings, investments, and personal property does not cover. Yeah we might see a little fairness by this act, I'll bet on it.
Melvin| 5.19.10 @ 7:49AM
Ret. Marine it is not a tax but a fee. According to the powers that be, this is how government rationalizes or gets around existing laws that prohibit dbl taxing.
Another thing that we should keep in perspective is, how in the world can politicians enter into a
long term agreement by selling off our infrastructure to the highest bidder? Who retains the ownership, what happens if the service provided by the contractor is sub-standard or non-existent but still collects the fees?
Entering into an 80 year agreement to maintain a highway when the environmental movement states, "Fossil Fuels" will be depleted in less than 50 sure doesn't make an sense.
But then again when do present day environmentalists and politicians make any sense to begin with.
Houston Rao| 5.19.10 @ 9:38AM
The public servant has been morphing into the public serpent - swallowing more and more as it grows. This is increasingly the government of the corrupt, by the moochers and for the looters.
dittoheadadt| 5.19.10 @ 12:29PM
Double taxation isn't against the law, double jeoparty is. Double taxation happens every time you're taxed on corporate dividends. The corporation is taxed on the profits that make the dividends possible, and then the shareholders are (generally) taxed on the dividend income with the corporate entity NOT being able to deduct the dividend payment from income. So that's how double taxation happens, and it's perfectly legal (if economically unsound and unfair). Same thing happens with SS income. It was taxed when you earned it and contributed it to the SS fund. And up to 85% of it can be taxed when you receive it in retirement. Double taxation is systemic in America. And legal.
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 9:28AM
That's ridiculous. The corporation is taxed on the income IT makes.... the individual is taxed on the income THEY make when they receive the income. And shareholder dividends are deductible for a corporation.
Social Security is a little different. You pay into the system through your FICA tax, but 1/2 of what is paid to FICA is paid by your employer - not you. On top of that, the amount of social security monthly income will far exceed what you AND your employer paid into Social Security in a few short years. And, it is only taxed in retirement if you surpass 25,000.00 in income as a single or 32,000.00 as a couple. So it's a red herring to say you are being taxed twice for Social Security. You're not.
A Balrog of Morgoth| 5.22.10 @ 12:15PM
So it's a red herring to say that your employer is paying 1/2 of your FICA tax...and the worst sort of ignorance to boot.
Apparently, the poster also thinks the 45 years or so the average employee pays into SS is only a "few short years."
Louis Jenkins| 5.19.10 @ 8:19AM
A Tax? The Libs don't use the word Tax when it suits them. Theyll instead use the word Fee. It just depends on what can and can't be taxed, kind of like rain...a period of moisture if you will.
Ret. Army| 5.19.10 @ 8:28AM
Double taxing against the law? Not by a long shot. I first realized it when I discovered that Michigan is one of 4 states that puts sales tax on gasoline at the pump. Yup, they figure in the 54.2 cents a gallon in fed & state fuel taxes, and then hit you with 6 cents a gallon on the total. So 3.25 cents on every gallon you buy in MI is a sales tax on fuel taxes.
Also MI state income tax requires you to include your last years federal tax refund in this years income. So they can tax you on last years excess taxes. No wonder that state and federal governments have large staffs to do nothing but figure out how to devise and disguise new taxes. "Land of the free...."
dittoheadadt| 5.19.10 @ 12:34PM
I'd double-check the idea that MI taxes you on your prior year's federal tax refund. That doesn't seem possible, UNLESS they allowed you to deduct that prior year's federal tax payments on your prior year's MI tax return. In that case, they'd be taxing you in Year 2 on something you deducted in Year 1, which is perfectly reasonable (in fact, that's generally how the Feds deal with state income tax deductions; if you deduct the tax in one year and in a later year get a refund of all or part of that tax, the refund is taxable in that later year, precisely because you deducted in the earlier year). So I'm guessing (and it's only a guess) that MI does NOT tax you on a federal refund unless they allowed you to deduct the federal tax in the first place.
Dennis Bergendorf| 5.19.10 @ 9:30AM
As I read this, I grabbed my road atlas to see if the highways in question were already toll roads. Were they already the rolling equivalent of "Pay-Go," it would have been one thing. My state of Indiana was the first to privatize an existing toll highway (Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels in 2006), leasing it to a foreign firm, a move that put $2 billion in the treasury but resulted in higher charges to the user.
But I see that the Virginia highways are regular Interstates, so count me as one who is at least somewhat perturbed by this development.
Nelson| 5.19.10 @ 10:00AM
I am a Civil Engineer working in the state of Texas were the state has been playing catchup for a while now. The toll Road Authority here issues bonds and then uses the tolls collected to pay off those bonds over a period of years. One of the side benefits of this arrangement is that this frees up money in the state coffers to build roads that are not toll facilities. Second, a certain amount of the revenue from the toll road gets funneled back into the local communities to further assist in build more infrastructure. Third, If the Federal or State government would funnel more money into our failing infrastructure rather than into some social programs that do not work there would be more money available. Fifth, here in Texas, we are a donor state when in comes to fuel tax dollars sent to the federal government. What do I mean by that? Every dollar that pump into my tank of fuel tax, Texas only gets back about $0.85. How is a big and growing state going to pay for or keep up with the infrastructure needs when it is not getting the full benefits of all of the fuel tax it send to Washington? Lastly, when you drive on a HOT lane, some of that money is going to pay for projects that might not otherwise be funded. I see this as a voluntary tax tht you have the choice to either drive in the HOT lane and help out with other roadway projects or not drive on the HOT lane and complain about being stuck in traffic because the infrastructure is not in place to move traffic along faster.
scott| 5.19.10 @ 11:15AM
Being a Resident of the great state of Texas, the Texas Civil Engineer is off it. The other word for this scheme is thievery. You are depriving me of the right to use the road I've already paid for. If the public wants these other projects the public will sell the required bonds, accept localized/project specific fees, or buy cookies...whatever. What's next, charging me for the time spent idling while waiting at a traffic light?
Nelson| 5.19.10 @ 11:37AM
You have not paid for the road if it is built with bond money that is put forth to investors. The only thing that you are paying for is the toll and the fuel tax when you put fuel in your tank. It your is your choice as to drive on a toll road or not. If you want better and more roads without having toll roads, then you should be prepared to pay more at the pump (higher fuel tax) to fund all of the necessary projects.
scott| 5.19.10 @ 4:28PM
I'm not opposed to paying a higher fuel tax if that is required, nor am I opposed to paying more in the various driving related fees if that is what is required and I absolutely love TOLL Roads.
There is a difference between a TOLL road and this HOT lane idea. A HOT lane is a road that has already been paid for by tax/Fee money that you are now wanting to charge me again to use. You've bought the water, now pay for the right to drink it.
A better way to resolve the budget issue is to be hard nosed about cost overruns.
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 9:31AM
Just pay your taxes or fees and shut up. waa, waa, waa... as if you are unique.
Joe| 5.22.10 @ 7:33AM
who do you think is paying the interest on the bonds to the investors?
Andrew| 5.19.10 @ 2:44PM
Here's an idea: Don't send your fuel taxes to Washington, and then you can make sure the money gets spent on the roads.
Ned| 5.19.10 @ 11:10AM
Here in wonderful Seattle (sarc alert) 'they' are preparing to add a HOT fee to state highway 520... which was a toll bridge across Lake Washington until the citizens sued the state to remove the toll as required by law, having paid for the bridge.
Now the Dimwit majority - elected by King County over the objections of the rest of the state - is going to institute the HOT money-grab to try to pay for some of their vast overspending.
Fortunately 'they' are being sued by eastside-of-the-lake business interests to block this travesty. Not sure how that will work out, but the essence of the suit is that we've already paid for that entire bridge, and now will be charged a fee to use it. Again.
Meanwhile, the only alternatives to using the HOT-fee bridge will be the I-90 bridge to the south, or drive 30 miles around the lake in horrendous traffic. They'd slap a fee on the I-90 bridge, too, if they could, but that "I" part means that the Feds have jurisdiction and local Dims can't do it. So, instead the plan is to add light rail to the I-90 bridge and drastically reduce it's vehicles-per-hour capacity, forcing drivers to pay the HOT fee or sit in traffic for more hours.
The unacknowledged intent is to divest people of the freedom to drive their cars. This will, of course, destroy the local economy.
Happily for me I reach retirement age this year. The day after this travesty takes effect I will quit my job downtown and begin preparations to move myself and my larger-average net worth to another state. Texas? Arizona? New Mexico? Anywhere but Washington or Oregon.
Average Infidel| 5.19.10 @ 8:22PM
Smart move there Ned. I did the same in 07 after the State of Oregon told me mind you that all the mineral and water rights under my property was now their's. So I said O-kee do-keee you commie bastards. I too took my substantial savings and the proceeds of my real estate and headed to middle country. Yeah this country living it the greatest, I can see them comming and have plebty of time to arm up the 300-mag. I'm just waiting for some stupid grubmint jerk to enter over the posted private property sign, which reads, WARNING Private Property, all violators will be shot, survivors will be shot again.
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 9:33AM
You need help... you sound deranged.
PolishKnight| 5.19.10 @ 11:32AM
I sympathize with the author's sentiments, but his arguments are flawed. Big government has teamed up with private enforcement and businesses in the past: Bounty hunters, road contracting, etc. And much of the corruption is now out in the open even if spun such as "minority and women owned businesses" getting preferential bids or Chicago politicians slushing contracts over to their brother-in-law's firm.
The idea of selling off a government asset for a short term fiscal crack cocaine fiscal injection is nothing new either. For example: Selling off government land mineral rights to BP and other oil companies. There is nothing wrong with it in principle. The problem in the case of a 80 year lease is that it allows current administrations to put great grandchildren into debt paying tolls to suit existing administration's fiscal needs.
Regarding less cars on the private roads. Indeed, that's the effect of robber baron capitalism: Robber barons can charge as high a toll as they know they can maximize profits and leave the peasants unable to leave their villages. There is an interesting side effect the liberals will like: It will make suburban sprawl much less affordable but also may trap many workers in crime ridden office parks that most American cities are like today...
Ed| 5.19.10 @ 12:32PM
Ohio has a Turnpike, but it was built from the get-go as a turnpike, and all other freeways are free.
Just the other day, Pennsylvania floated the idea of charging a one-dollar toll to enter or leave the state on any freeway (with the exception of the Pa Turnpike). This, along with the tolls on HOV lanes, is a twenty-first century version of the Stamp Act.
Pat| 5.19.10 @ 5:02PM
For a politician, seeing an enormous fund of taxes tied up for specific purposes causes actual physical pain. Kind of like an addict seeing a 2 pound bag of cocaine lying on the sidewalk directly behind the heels of a policeman unaware of its existence. How to raid the fund, how to legally divert the dollars to your purposes - nothing but a weary road of problems, honey.
California has a long history of special purpose taxes finding their way into general purpose uses. A few years back highway contractors sued the state to force California's government to pay back money it had loaned itself from the Highway Fund. Noble purpose on the surface, but the contractors wanted the vast surplus for themselves - repaving roads that shouldn't require repaving for another 10 years is common here in the sunshine state. In fact, sunshine and moderate winters can be a curse - where are the ice storms and freezing temperatures needed to crack the pavement and spawn potholes when you need them?
And bridge tolls which never expire once you've paid for bridge construction 10 times over. Even the toll collectors, with their powerful unions, understand that government levied taxes - or tolls - serve a useful purpose by keeping them in tacos and beans.
So, this latest swindle should come as no surprise. We may need expanded roads and freeways, but it's unfair to use money collected from taxpayers for that purpose - where's the opportunity for honest graft and bribes within that silly notion? And where's the money needed to pay back the Highway Fund for what was previously borrowed for other purposes?
The Social Security fund is the poster child for successful raids on a special purpose fund - the Feds set high standards for taxpayer swindles, the states just copy their big brother in Washington.
Danny Newton| 5.20.10 @ 12:02AM
I used to believe that tolling was double taxation but I have changed my mind about it. It is critical to understand what happens to the money after it is collected before characterizing it as double taxation. Depending upon first cost and the traffic yield, gas tax money may have to support the toll facility for the first few years. I think that situation is not double taxation but it is not transparent unless you are a CPA with full access to all transactions. What really drives me nuts is when tolls are moved to other projects to support other roads that should not have been built in the first place.
In a perfect universe ,all roads would be toll roads, thus linking supply and demand in a tight linkage that would respond to the economy. The average income per vehicle mile traveled would faithfully support the infrastructure. But, what we have is a bunch of roads that make excess money from daily traffic, mostly Interstates, and a bunch of roads that make less than is required to build and sustain them. The winners are spawning losers.
The gas tax was suppose to be a user fee and was considered by most to be fair. The Congress and state legislatures have over the years morphed the gas tax into a non-user fee by carving out categories that have little to do with the original intention, which was road building. Dr Robert Poole was the first that I can remember calling the process similar to turning the user tax into a general fund for transit, and so-called "enhancements." Toll roads, with the money dedicated to the road in a very strict way would put discipline back into road building and would improve public support because the public would come closer to getting what it pays for rather than trying to get something that someone else pays for.
Road financing is the art of taking from the rich and giving to the poor based upon very questionable or nebulous definitions of need. The word Socialism or allegedly benevolent theft seem to apply.
Bill30097| 5.20.10 @ 7:38PM
We have HOT lanes coming to Atlanta. The incompetent Gov. Perdue (RINO)'s GDOT and the incompetent Gwinett County Board of (Libtard) Commissioners (All about the same place on the political spectrum as Specter) have already held hearings to convert the I85 HOV lane to HOT. This after wasting millions on the Taj Mahal I85/316 interchange. The thing that may save us is tht the local Fox TV station caught the Gov with his hand in the GDOT cookie jar.
fdk| 7.1.10 @ 3:40AM
beijing massage