Trump suggests 25 cent increase in gas tax to pay for his infrastructure plan

[Travis B]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/polit...tax/index.html

President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday that a 25 cent increase in gas and diesel taxes would be needed to help pay for the administration's new infrastructure plan, according to Democratic Sen. Tom Carper.

In a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers at the White House, Trump noted that the federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, said Carper, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

"He said that he knew it was a difficult thing for legislators to support and said that he would support the leadership to do that and provide the political cover to do that," Delaware's Carper told CNN in an interview. "And he came back to that theme again and again and again."

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao did not rule out a gas tax Tuesday when she spoke to reporters at the White House, but she described it as "not ideal."

"The President has not declared anything out of bounds, so everything is on the table. The gas tax, like many of the other pay-fors that are being discussed, is not ideal," she said. "There are pros and cons. The gas tax has adverse impact, a very regressive impact, on the most vulnerable within our society; those who depend on jobs, who are hourly workers. So these are tough decisions, which is why, once again, we need to start the dialogue with the Congress, and so that we can address these issues on this very important point."

Carper said Trump also offered "full-throated support for an increase in user fees" for roads, highways, and bridges.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, who was also at the White House meeting Wednesday, took issue with the way Carper characterized Trump's support for a gas tax increase.

"He was not advocating that. He was looking at all the options," Inhofe said. "All he said was we need to do something and that is still on the table."

Asked if Trump offered political cover to lawmakers who supported a tax hike, Inhofe said he didn't recall "that word being used."

"I think that's an exaggeration," he said. "A combination of exaggeration and wishful thinking."

The administration laid out an infrastructure plan on Monday that aims to turn $200 billion in federal money into $1.5 trillion by leveraging local and state tax dollars and private investment. While the administration has not explicitly laid out a plan for revenue, local governments will likely turn to tolls and other user fees if asked to come up with more of their own funding in order to win federal incentive grants.

[Wyrt]

Regressive taxes are the best. This will really help the poor and middle class Americans.

[Machismo]

Look at all these tax-and-spend liberal Republicans these days...

[Dontrike]

You know what would have helped this infrastructure plan? The $1.5 trillion we gave to companies and businesses that had no need of it, but why spend only $1.5 trillion once when you can do it twice while taxing middle America and taking away that small bonus they just got.

#winning #MAMAGAA

[Breccia]

I posted in another thread, the WH saw the immediate hue and cry from, well, everyone, and starting What He Meant Was-ing.

So, it was over in a couple hours. Trump said something monumentally stupid and incompetent, and his handlers explained that those things he said didn't mean those things he said. Same tune, different verse.

[Thekri]

I posted in another thread, the WH saw the immediate hue and cry from, well, everyone, and starting What He Meant Was-ing.

So, it was over in a couple hours. Trump said something monumentally stupid and incompetent, and his handlers explained that those things he said didn't mean those things he said. Same tune, different verse.

You might as well copy this entire post to a word document and repost it every day Trump is still president. It is somehow going to be completely valid every time.

[Templar 331]

I wouldn't have minded an increase in gas tax to pay for infrastructure if we didn't just pass a huge tax break for the rich/corporations.

[Machismo]

I wouldn't have minded an increase in gas tax to pay for infrastructure if we didn't just pass a huge tax break for the rich/corporations.

Whoops, wrong thread.

[Breccia]

I wouldn't have minded an increase in gas tax to pay for infrastructure if we didn't just pass a huge tax break for the rich/corporations.

That's the GOP's main objection as well. The tax cut for the rich was disproportionate enough, but their voters have to drive to work. A lot of them drive trucks (hey, a lot of jobs need those). Dropping that before midterms would have cost them.

[alexw]

That's the GOP's main objection as well. The tax cut for the rich was disproportionate enough, but their voters have to drive to work. A lot of them drive trucks (hey, a lot of jobs need those). Dropping that before midterms would have cost them.

So after the midterms it is then.

[josykay]

And there goes the bonus for small businesses.... any everyone who is regulary using a car.

[Skroe]

Regressive taxes are the best. This will really help the poor and middle class Americans.

There is absolutely no reason that something like an infrastructure tax of this sort should be graduated. Infrastructure is infrastructure and there are 2/3rds the number of cars in America as people. Just because we have a graduated income tax (which is of course, fine), in no way means ALL taxes are or should be like that.

[josykay]

It's not about using a car individually. The majority of goods sold from producers to wholesalers and then retailers are transported by vehicle. Any price hike in the cost of gas will inevitably end on all consumer goods.

Yeah, but most large companies probably get discounted diesel... at least it is in Germany that way for large trucks and farming equipment.

[PosPosPos]

There is absolutely no reason that something like an infrastructure tax of this sort should be graduated. Infrastructure is infrastructure and there are 2/3rds the number of cars in America as people. Just because we have a graduated income tax (which is of course, fine), in no way means ALL taxes are or should be like that.

That's hardly what Wyrt was arguing. He's saying that adding more flat(regressive) taxes hurts the lower and middle classes more than it does the upper classes.

Not that things like gas tax should be graduated per se. >_>

[Deja Thoris]

But your gas is too cheap. It needs to be more expensive to stop your driving the guzzlers and driving from one shop to the other that are next to each other.

[Skroe]

That's hardly what Wyrt was arguing. He's saying that adding more flat(regressive) taxes hurts the lower and middle classes more than it does the upper classes.

Not that things like gas tax should be graduated per se. >_>

I mean, yes. It does. It does hit society unevenly in terms of a greater share of the middle and lower classes income compared to the wealthy, if they all utilize infrastructure to the same degree.

So at what is the definition of "fair" then? Everyone paying an absolute percentage (a flat tax) or a relative percentage (progressive/graduated tax)? Is it the same in every case?

I think clearly a progressive income tax system is fair. But for other taxes it should be scaled to use, regardless of wealth. You pay the fee to ride the rides so to speak. This is the concept of sales tax, in effect, and should be for gas tax too. Call it "gas sales tax" if it's easier. Or tolls.

And yes, I'm screw the George Washington bridge toll. But it's the fair and required price of riding the ride.

- - - Updated - - -

But your gas is too cheap. It needs to be more expensive to stop your driving the guzzlers and driving from one shop to the other that are next to each other.

Adjusted for inflation, not even a 25 cents hike would change driving habits. Gas is still cheap for Americans. And let's not forget, cars have been and continue to get significantly more efficient. Americans are filling less.



It also would never work at a cultural level. Cars are part of the American identity.

[Wyrt]

There is absolutely no reason that something like an infrastructure tax of this sort should be graduated. Infrastructure is infrastructure and there are 2/3rds the number of cars in America as people. Just because we have a graduated income tax (which is of course, fine), in no way means ALL taxes are or should be like that.

Maybe not give corporations and the wealthy massive tax cuts right before considering implementing a regressive tax?

[PosPosPos]

I mean, yes. It does. It does hit society unevenly in terms of a greater share of the middle and lower classes income compared to the wealthy, if they all utilize infrastructure to the same degree.

So at what is the definition of "fair" then? Everyone paying an absolute percentage (a flat tax) or a relative percentage (progressive/graduated tax)? Is it the same in every case?

I think clearly a progressive income tax system is fair. But for other taxes it should be scaled to use, regardless of wealth. You pay the fee to ride the rides so to speak. This is the concept of sales tax, in effect, and should be for gas tax too. Call it "gas sales tax" if it's easier. Or tolls.

And yes, I'm screw the George Washington bridge toll. But it's the fair and required price of riding the ride.

Yeah, nobody is saying that sales tax should be graduated. Not sure why you are obsessively arguing this all of a sudden.

[Deja Thoris]

It also would never work at a cultural level. Cars are part of the American identity.

It's sometimes hard to distinguish "culture" from fear of being forced into different habits. Theres lots of "culturally" bad / stupid things we do that should change. What I will say though is in my mind threatening to tax gas has always been politically suicidal in the USA. I'm surprised Trump suggested it.

[draynay]

I'm surprised Trump suggested it.

Its almost as if he doesn't understand politics and is terrible at his job.