if the bill is revenue neutral as suggested and they already have enough revenue, why not simply move the money from the general fund to the Highway Trust without having to raise the tax and do the off-setting tax credit????

I smell some rotten turnips here.....

Seems like that would be easier.

The tax credit would benefit the wealthy proportional to their income, i.e., quite a lot.

Spread the tax cut equally but slant the tax cut to the wealthy and redistribute the wealth UPWARDS. Republican agenda successfully promoted.

signed a pledge or something about this when entering congress.

All others, especially sales and gas taxes, aren't 'taxes' to them. Unless they are applied to yachts.

Oh, I guess I forgot the "x".

x= "must never be seen as raising taxes".

You get a 133 dollar tax credit.

Assuming one drives 25,000 miles a year, and gets an average of 18.7 mpg.

They will use 1,336 gallons of gas a year and spend an extra 133 dollars in gas taxes, and get a 133 dollar refund on their taxes, and break even.

I assume most people don't drive 25,000 miles a year, and most people who do can get better than 19mpg. I would spend about 50 extra in gas taxes, and get 133 dollar refund and come out ahead.

This tax would incentive better fuel economy as well. I would assume most of poor people will pay less in taxes. Some may take the bus and not own a car, and most don't drive 25k miles a year.

Which is how another big infrastructure bill that dedicates more money to highways would likely be seen.

So they would, I would bet, get nothing -- except higher gas taxes. Meanwhile, the wealthy will get another tax break.

Stop raising taxes on the average American. We pay enough.

That tax has not been raised in years and Americans enjoy some of the cheapest gas in the world. Just because the republicans are doing it is no reason to be against it.

are the ones who again have to suffer.

I am on a fixed income. SSDI

I don't file taxes.

It certainly will not be revenue-neutral for me.

I live in a rural area.

I have zero access to subways or trains.

I have very limited access to cabs.

I have zero access to buses.

If the closest grocery store is a 22 mile round trip

you have to drive to get there.


Stop the subsidies to the fossil fuel corporations !!!

and you don't owe any taxes (unless the credit is a "fully refundable" one).

So this would in effect be a tax increase on some of the very poor.

You have to pay.

I live in a rural area too and also on a fixed income.

every direction.

If it is something that has to be claimed, what about people that don't itemize?

How are they going to determine if one even owns a car?

I thought the Rethugs thought taxes are too complicated and they are wanted to add more paperwork?

Cowardly Conservatives can't do things the right way, let's do it this cumbersome way, instead.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

So I say get it done. I really think their future is limited.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

There is a tax credit to offset the increase. This burdens the people who actually drive and use the roads... the ones who should be paying for it. Use a heavy car that damages the roads and you'll pay more. Drive more miles and damage the roads more and you'll pay more. This is as fair as it gets for paying for infrastructure.

Unless you just want to tax the rich to pay for it. Then, you're just not serious about wanting infrastructure improvements.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.), would offset the gas tax increase with a $133 income tax credit that would be offered to drivers to minimize the impact of higher prices at the pump.

Sort of a revenue-neutral accounting trick.

See post #35.

If they wanted more money for highways and infrastructure all they would have to do is vote for it. Instead the Repubs are using a convoluted "tax and credit" structure to hide the fact that they are once again skinning the everyday person and giving the tax break disproportionally to the wealthy.

Mass transportation is not nearly as common as it should be. And having the tax credit is just like a company offering a rebate -they hope that the majority of people forget about it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

file for taxes, others file for earned income credit but do not get tax refunds. Unless they are going to connect the tax credit to earned income as an added return the working poor will not get anything back - they will just pay more for gas. And they are the least able to pay anything more out of their income.

Also for those who think that mass transit will not be effected they are wrong. The cost of gas for the vehicles goes up the cost of the ride goes up.

This is just another sales tax scheme by the Rs to make those on the bottom pay.

If they wanted more money for infrastructure they could do so without the sleight of hand "tax and credit" method. Instead, this will spread the tax burden while concentrating the tax credit to the wealthy.

The former trust funds were immune from the budget battles in congress. Now it is all one big pot.

I say that we should "balkanize" the budget with pockets like defense, infrastructure, social security, etc each with its own "trust fund" and its own supporting taxes. As an example, make defense a "trust fund" and support it with corporate income taxes. Make medical care for all a "trust fund" and support it with taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. With everything in a separate fund, we can see where the deficits are and can either reduce spending or raise the dedicated taxes which support that fund.

This is the most fair proposal for funding road infrastructure the I've seen. I fully support this 100%... heck they should raise it by .20-.30 at least.

You need to leave room for the states to raise there's as well. Federal transportation funds can only be used for new construction, not maintenance. The states have to fund maintenance through their own revenue streams, usually a state fuel tax.

We've built more than we can maintain. The states need to have room to raise their fuel taxes as well so that they can fund proper maintenance. A combined $0.40-0.60 increase in the fuel tax is a bit much, especially all at once. Fuel prices are relatively low right now, but they won't stay that way.

that you don't see.

how else are you going to fund infrastructure, exactly? And the tax on fuel has not been increased in over 20 years. Also higher fuel taxes would lead to less driving, eventually, which is a good thing because of carbon emissions and climate change. Which is kind of a thing, in case you haven't noticed, and it's getting quite a lot worse (wildfires in the Pacific Northwest, drought, etc). You don't get to claim to be concerned about that while also being totally unwilling to make any lifestyle changes to mitigate it.

what about the worker who lives in the country (because it is cheaper to live there) and cannot get "welfare" programs unless he/she is working. So the worker gets a job for minimum wage. One of the first things that worker learns is that they are not making a living - that the job is not paying for the expenses. How do we protect that worker. And yes raising the minimum wage will help but not if their costs also rise.

Example: The cost of living increase for Social Security - they give you a small raise and immediately your Medicare goes up and if you live in HUD housing your rent is increase also. Your food stamps go down and so on. I have yet to get an cost of living increase that I had more than a month before everything was billed away.

One way that tax credit could work for the low income worker is if it is given in the same way as earned income credit is done.

to reduce the need to spend money from the general fund on things other than roads, I would consider it.

I am not in favor of a reduction in revenues from the general fund in, of and by itself.

their corruption and crimes and put it in the highway fund. On a side note I doubt that they really cut the checks. The media just says so.

7 years on from crisis, $150 billion in bank fines and penalties.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/

The latest settlement involved Bank of America, which agreed this week to pay $180 million to settle a lawsuit that claimed the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank and others manipulate foreign-exchange rates, according to The Wall Street Journal. JPMorgan Chase has already settled with the same investor group, while others, including Citigroup, are expected to settle soon, the The Journal notes.