Shameful push polling by the SN. Gas tax proposal.

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

I assume it's relevant for this community, since the SN's main office is in Davis Sq. Their recent poll asks:

"Interactive Poll

Are you in favor of Governor Patrick’s new gas tax proposal that would make Massachusetts the nation’s highest gasoline tax by raising it 19 cents, to 42.5 cents a gallon? "

http://www.thesomervillenews.com/

SN, tell us what you really think about the proposal.

This is just an excuse to ask what everybody thinks about the proposal. I'm neutral, since I don't drive.

Comments

[ron_newman]

Discussion of either local newspaper is relevant, but I consider their online polls to be utterly worthless. As far as I can see, they have no way to prevent people from voting multiple times. At least when we do an LJ poll here, you have to be an LJ member and you can only vote once.

As for the gas tax, I think it's fairer than jacking up the tunnel toll to $7, and if we want the Green Line here, it needs to be paid for somehow.

I wonder if ZIP car will increase their rates as a result.

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how many people use ZIP cars, but I dislike their policy that the hourly rates include unlimited mileage. That means that those who are just using it to get groceries nearby are subsidizing those who travel far. I hope they introduce a two-level system, with two hourly rates. One for local driving and one for non-local uses.

I'd be all in favor.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

And I drive. I agree that it is much fairer than a toll on the tunnel.

I just don't think it is a sustainable and politically wise strategy. If people are paying for transit with their gas taxes, they are going to want transit where they live, not in the city where transit is perceived to already exit. There is a rest of the state, and they vote.

Also, the $8 billion for high speed rail might have (might have) made the green line extension a little more complicated. The proposed Northern New England Corridor (Boston to Montral) intends to use the same ROW that the green line extension wanted to use through to Medford. Between commuter rail, any green line, and any high speed rail, there's only room for two of the three through Somerville :(

[soong.livejournal.com]

I am in favor of the gas tax, since I don't drive self-righteously. ;-)

[heliopsis.livejournal.com]

That's how I don't drive, too.

I don't not drive not self-righteously.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

Now I'm confused.

Anyhow, as long as gas is this inexpensive, I am in favor of collecting gas taxes.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

I'd be in favor of it. I drive, though not every day.

[jamiesquared.livejournal.com]

I am not in favor of it. It isn't fair for everyone around here to pay when all the people who move north to NH get lower cost of living AND still wont be paying to use our roads.

[cos]

Yeah, but in exchange for that, they don't get to live here.

(And they don't benefit much from the public transit that the biggest chunk of this increase is going to support)

... or maybe it's karmic balance for all the Massachusetts people who have been living along the southern part of the state, or driving through CT and back on their way to New York, because CT and RI's gas taxes have been significantly higher than ours for a long time.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I think the population difference between New Hampshire and Massachusetts is proof enough that tax structure is not the main deciding factor in where people decide to live.

Besides, for most people the $500 more they'd be paying for the gas tax is nothing compared to the increase in property taxes and fuel cost of living in New Hampshire and commuting to Massachusetts.

[eeyorecol.livejournal.com]

though if they buy gas in Massachusetts, they would be paying for using the roads...

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

I've known a number of people who have lived in states that, like NH, have much fewer taxes than us.

They all want to live here. (Or, for many of them, wanted to, until they moved here, and liked it here.)

One friend explicitly said that he wanted to live in a state with more taxes, because he was tired of living in a state where the government provided no services and did a lousy job of everything because it always had no money.

And, you may note that people from NH will occasionally pay our gas tax when they're here. Not a lot, but some.

NH isn't a totally tax free deal, you know

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

You don't get something for nothing.

NH uses high property taxes for their revenue. It's a "dirty" little secret in the Live Free or Die State.

So if you live in NH and commute to MA for work, you pay MA income tax, NH property taxes, and unless you're really good about filling up only in NH, MA gas taxes on occasion.

[cos]

Funny (though meaningless) that their current poll results show 81% yes :)

I may have cast the first vote...

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

Because when I did, yesterday, the results were 100% YES :)

"I'm neutral, since I don't drive."

[cos]

"I'm neutral, since I don't drive."

That doesn't doesn't make sense. Being neutral is a fine position, but the effect of any tax is systemic; not driving does not mean it doesn't affect you.

1. The biggest chunk of the gas tax increase is for preventing the T from collapsing. Do you ride the T?

2. Raising revenue for transportation in this way means not having to pay for those things in other ways, so other taxes are less likely to rise, or will rise by less, as an effect of a higher gas tax. Do you pay any other taxes?

3. People who visit you, people who transport stuff to stores where you buy that stuff, etc., will pay the gas tax. Do you buy stuff at stores that was transported there on gasoline-powered vehicles?

etc.

Re: "I'm neutral, since I don't drive."

[m00n.livejournal.com]

As a non driver, I am TOTALLY IN FAVOR of ANYTHING that increases the cost of gas. Anything that gets people to drive less and live closer to work directly benefits me and almost everyone else in the state. If that tax increase can also be used to fund public transit, it's like a double awesome bonus.

Re: "I'm neutral, since I don't drive."

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

I'm strongly in favor of the gas tax for environmental reasons. The cost of gasoline should include in it money that helps clean up the costs to the populace-at-large of driving, including health-care to kids with asthma, f'rinstance.

Still, that said, it's worth noting that unless the gas tax somehow does not apply to commercial drivers, a gas tax increases the cost of food, and impacts especially hard, local farmers.

[joyfulkel.livejournal.com]

I drive. I have to for work. I'm not thrilled about this, but I can suck it up to support the T. I hope they think about providing some sort of tax break or credit for folks who have to drive to work who make under a certain income to offset this though. I'm fortunate in that, while I don't make mad phat stacks of cash working in public mental health, I make enough where I can absorb this without too much stress. Other folks might not be so lucky. With the problems in the real estate and credit markets, people might not be able to move to be closer to their jobs if this becomes to burdensome. I also wonder if the government will talk to employers about increasing the mileage reimbursement for people who drive for work (if I remember correctly, there is a federal minimum, but that's it).

[masswich.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone is thrilled about this, but the state built a huge transportation infrastructure in the last 50 years (mostly 30-50 years ago) and it all needs to be repaired, as anything does after 50 years. We have enough gas tax to make some repairs but no where near as many as are needed. Add on top of that the need for new roads and transit lines, and we have to pay for them somehow.

There is no such thing as a "freeway." I personally would support more tolls on interstates in Mass. - esp. I-93 - but that does not seem to be feasible.

The fact that workers and employers have assumed the cost of transportation is covered under the current gas tax- and made important decisions about where to work and where to live based on them- is very unfortunate. But we cannot wish the current state of disrepair in the transportation system away by denying it. Eventually a bridge or two will collapse and people will die. Then the finger pointing would really start.

I'm personally supportive of a higher gas tax - as a daily driver who will pay a lot as a result of that decision. I just don't see that we have any choice...

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I'm concerned about the car-needing working poor - their existance makes this a regressive tax. If there's a provision that people who are at some % of the poverty line get the tax money back at the end of the year, then I'm in favor of it. I do own a car and a motorcycle, both of which I love dearly, and am more than willing to pay the extra tax for my vehicular habit knowing it's going towards public transportation - getting people who would rather do just about anything than drive off the road would make me a really happy camper.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

As it's set up right now, the largest share of this tax would go towards supporting the MBTA. I believe any kind of tax on carbon should go directly towards making more efficient alternatives more affordable for everyone. The net payout for each person should remain the same, but using more fuel should always end up costing more than using less. As far as I know, most of the proposals for taxing carbon and/or gasoline have focused on a similar distribution of the tax income.

The difficult part is that it *is* going to require a lifestyle change for a lot of people, but that's to be expected when we've so thoroughly designed our country around inexpensive fossil fuels. Money from these taxes should go towards making things as painless as possible for the people that have to make the change.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

This.

I'd like to see some kind of offset credit on MA state taxes for low-income taxpayers.

[tt02144.livejournal.com]

It's interesting how this tax increase has gone from being used to repair the roads to being used to prop up the T. Let's face it, as with any other increase, it will go wherever they feel like putting it at the time. Excise taxes, registration fees, and current gas taxes were supposed to go to maintain the roads. Guess what, that didn't happen. And the idea that the T needs more money is pretty ludicrous on its' face. They keep jacking up salaries and pensions (does anyone out there get the retirement/pension package a T worker gets?). And rather than cut back like other companies have to do, they just jack up the taxes to continue paying for their stupidity. In a year or two they'll only need more money, becuase without cutting back costs this will never end.
And by the way, let's think about the people who have to drive, and who can't just up and move closer to their jobs. How about the disabled, especially those who have to travel in adapted vans, which are expensive to purchase and certainly use more gas than a mini cooper. There's no rebate to these people, never has been never will be.
Do you know anyone over 6 feet tall, by the way? These people have no choice but to drive a somewhat larger vehicle. Should they be penalized also?
It's irritating to hear people make comments like 'people should just move closer to their job', or 'people should just drive less and take public transportation'. These options are just not possible for many people out here.

[ron_newman]

Do you really want the T to cut back service? I don't.

[tt02144.livejournal.com]

No, I didn't say they should cut back service. Government needs to learn to operate like a business. When you're losing money you need to address the causes. They need to eliminate the waste, the huge salaries, the huge (and early) pensions, etc. They can't just keep saying 'we're losing money, give us more'. People have only so much to give, and where does it end? They're telling us they need more tax dollars to run the T, while the Governor just gave the Legislators a raise! How many people out there (outside of government-Federal, state, local-employees got a raise while their 'company' was losing money. It's complete insanity and I think people are finally getting tired of it, because it looks much worse when times are bad!

It was just reported that...

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

The new Charlie Card system somehow lost 15M (I think) because of lack of coordination etc etc. Not sure how they can estimate that, but, if true, it seems scandalous.