The Hill reported that Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is in favor of a tax on how far travelers go, and that it looks like a promising way to fund President Biden’s infrastructure bill.
Biden said during his first solo press conference on Thursday that he will announce the $3 trillion proposal on Friday in Pittsburgh.
The next day, his Transportation head said a mileage tax could be one way to help pay for the plan.
“I think that shows a lot of promise,” Buttigieg said. “If we believe in that so-called user-pays principle, the idea that part of how we pay for roads is you pay based on how much you drive.”
“The gas tax used to be the obvious way to do it; it’s not anymore,” he continued. “So, a so-called vehicle miles traveled tax or a mileage tax, whatever you want to call it, could be the way to do it.”
Sorin Varzaru says
So, who in your opinion should pay for road infrastructure? It seems pretty fair to me that users pay for it, no? The weight of the car should probably be a factor, as my truck probably does more damage to a road then a smart car.
Note: Now do public education.
Paul Plante says
Earth to Sorin
Earth calling Sorin!
In the United States of America right now, before Pete Buttigieg’s silly idea, EVERY time you top off your vehicle at the pump, you’re paying federal and state gas taxes that are included in the price of every gallon of gasoline.
The federal tax, at 18.4 cents per gallon, is meant to help the federal government pay to build and fix things like highways and bridges, and it has been that way for a long time now, but who on earth would expect a Democrat political hack like Pete Buttigieg, who so far an anybody knows, has absolutely no credentials or qualifications to be in the position he is now in, other than being a failed Democrat presidential contender.
So if you have some big gas guzzler like your truck, you are paying more into the fund than the smart car is.
The Tesla is using the road and causing the same damage as you, but is paying nothing, so certainly, the Teslas should be slapped with a separate tax to make up for the loss in gasoline tax revenues.
Put a hefty tax on the use of those charging stations to help equalize out the burden of repairing roads because of big heavy vehicles like Sorin’s truck.
As to the tax, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Highway Trust Fund tax revenue will total $43 billion in fiscal year 2020 and revenue from the federal excise tax on gasoline ($25.8 billion) and diesel fuel ($10.5 billion) accounts for 84 percent of the total.
How come you don’t already know this, Sorin?
Sorin Varzaru says
“Put a hefty tax on the use of those charging stations to help equalize out the burden of repairing roads because of big heavy vehicles like Sorin’s truck.”
What about most people that charge their electric cars at home? what about hybrids or fuel cell cars? But ultimately, as long as all users contribute, it doesn’t matter how is implemented
Stuart Bell says
Go on Home, your Momma’s calling You!
David Muir says
Stuart Bell reminds of one of those dolls that kids used to have back in the ’70s. You pulled a string and it would say one of three or four phrases. That’s it. The same phrases, again and again. “Bless Your Heart,” “Your Momma’s Calling You,” and “Go on Home” are the three on this particular model. Pull the string….
Paul Plante says
Same old political BULL****, different day:
IMPACTS OF EXPECTED HIGHWAY TRUST FUND INSOLVENCY
———-
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009
U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Cardin, Klobuchar, Udall, Merkley, Voinovich, Vitter, and Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The hearing will come to order.
Thank you so much, Secretary LaHood and the rest of today’s witnesses for being here today to discuss such as important issue, the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a document that shows the 24 entities that are calling upon us to fix this Trust Fund before August.
I will just read a couple of them: Alaska Department of Transportation, Arizona Department of
Transportation, California, the Rural Transportation Advisory Council of Arizona, Kent County, Delaware, a lot of agencies in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Oregon, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington State, Wisconsin, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American Society of Highway Engineers and the National Governors Association.
Senator Boxer. So, I think we all understand that the job before us is urgent.
The good news is, I think we all do agree on that across party lines.
I certainly know that Secretary LaHood made himself available to come to the Hill with a team from the Administration to discuss this matter, and I know that he is very bound and determined to work with us across party lines to solve this problem.
Look, this is about jobs, it is about our economy.
For every billion dollars in Federal funds invested in transportation and matched by State and locals, there are 34,779 jobs created and $6.1 billion of economic activity.
I know all of us are focused on economic recovery.
We cannot come forward with a plan that is a year.
That does not do it.
I like what the Administration did on an 18-month timeframe because that gives certainty to our people.
I am open, personally, to many ways of filling the gap.
I had suggested to the Administration using some of the unused stimulus funds.
It is something that I know Senator Vitter has written a bill on.
But, unfortunately, from my standpoint, it is a very short term.
It expires right before the election, which may or may not have been his intent.
I am not saying it is.
But the fact is, we know where we are right before an election.
It is hard to get the permanent fix done.
I would prefer to see 18 months because it gets us past the politics and, in addition to that, and this is very, very key, it gives certainty to the people.
And that is very, very important.
We have a lot of issues on the table in terms of a long-term solution to our funding.
So, I am going to ask for unanimous consent that my entire statement be placed in the record, and I will continue to read part of it.
We know that we expect to encounter the sharp shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund as early as August.
The Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund is also expected to run out of funds soon.
The Highway Trust Fund provides Federal funding for highway, bridge and transit systems.
I think that it is important to remember that the Federal Government provides about 40 percent of the capital expenditures for highway transportation nationwide.
That spurs the States and locals to act.
We then, putting all of our funding together, really stimulate this economy and do what we have to do to move people, to move products.
It is very, very important.
I am proud that the American Recovery Reinvestment Act provided $48 billion for transportation improvements.
I have to say I stood shoulder to shoulder with my Ranking Member trying to get more funds in that particular—-
Senator Inhofe. Yes, three times more.
Senator Boxer. I will repeat.
I stood shoulder to shoulder with my colleague trying to get three times more funding into the Stimulus Bill for highways and transportation.
When we stand together, I think it sends a powerful signal.
That is why some of us think that it would be good to go to the unused stimulus funds from other areas because we think that this particular use puts people to work, keep them working and keeps our economy moving.
Let me just say that transportation investments have a positive impact on our communities, regardless of where we are from.
We must have continued investment.
We must have continued job creation.
Again, I want to thank Secretary LaHood.
I think this is key.
He answered our call.
We sent a letter to him.
He said we are going to fix this problem together.
He said 18 months is what we want to do.
I think that is an intelligent number of months to give the certainty to our people at home, and to give us enough time to really reform the way we do transportation.
So, the time is short.
I know that Secretary LaHood has offered to work with us, give us the technical assistance we need.
But we intend to do this job and I think our date is what?
To mark up a bill?
The middle of July.
We will get our work done.
I thank you very much and I turn to my Ranking Member.
Ray Otton says
Doesn’t matter how it’s implemented? C’mon man, how it’s implemented is at the core of the issue. (Sorry, the “c’mon man” meme just won’t die).
1 – Privacy concerns.
2 – Moving away from a gas tax would disincentivize buying fuel-efficient vehicles.
3 – A mileage tax would unfairly tax working people who can’t afford to live in expensive cities but drive long commutes to reach jobs in metropolitan areas.
4 – Low income communities and minorities would be disproportionately impacted by the tax.
5 – Did I mention the privacy issue?
The devil is in the details and our trust in government is at an all time low so the details are going to be very, very important.
I think you’ll also see more and more states employ nullification of these overreaching edicts until we reach a point where the union dissolves into red countryside tribes and blue city tribes.
At that point the blues have a problem. They don’t make food nor produce energy.
Sorin Varzaru says
Sure, privacy is a concern. The implementations I saw proposed seem to address that by having a device on that car that while using gps to calculate position, it doesn’t spit out the position, only the calculated tax. I would oposd an implementation that send out my location.
As far as the tax unfairly targeting people that live out of town, well, you can’t have it both ways. YOU call any effort to use taxes for the benefit of society communism. So,vthis is an effort to mitigate that, make the users pay. I would be fine with paying for road repairs from regular taxes, which are a lot more progressive.
Sorin Varzaru says
As far as favoring SUVs, adding the vehicle weight into the calculation would solve that.
Ray Otton says
“YOU call any effort to use taxes for the benefit of society communism.”
Uh, oh, assumptions dead ahead!!!!!
To be absolutely clear, I never said that.
What I have said is that we should not be conflating government spending with socialism. It displays either ignorance, lazy thinking, or ………………….wanton dishonesty.
I’m going with wanton dishonesty based on all the other Leftists lies we are inundated with daily.
You see, Leftist incorrectly argue that any kind of government institution, even the DMV, is socialism. However, just because it’s a part of the government doesn’t make it socialist.
Socialism involves abolishing private ownership of the things we all need and use. Things like factories, banks, offices, natural resources, utilities, communication and transportation infrastructure and replacing it with social ownership.
Social ownership being a euphamism for government owned.
So please, once and for all, can we retire the tired fallacy that government services and socialism are one and the same?
They’re not.
Back on topic.
On the privacy issue you have way more confidence in the government’s promise that the data collected won’t be used to further limit our rights.
I honestly don’t know where your confidence comes from with all the examples available that show just how intrusive the government already is.
I’ll leave you with this thought to cogitate on.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to limit the government, NOT the citizens.
Just because the Left has done everything it could to turn that on it’s head doesn’t change their original intent.
Sorin Varzaru says
“On the privacy issue you have way more confidence in the government’s promise that the data collected won’t be used to further limit our rights.
I honestly don’t know where your confidence comes from with all the examples available that show just how intrusive the government already is.”
I have no confidence in the government in that regard. If the proposed device is allowed to store (or even worse, transmit data), then I am against it. But a device that uses GPS to simply calculate miles traveled presents no privacy issues, it’s just a high tech odometer. People usually object because they don’t understand how gps works. A GPS receiver, by itself, does not reveal it’s position to anyone.
“Socialism involves abolishing private ownership of the things we all need and use. Things like factories, banks, offices, natural resources, utilities, communication and transportation infrastructure and replacing it with social ownership.”
I apologies for misunderstanding. Then we are in agreement, let’s abolish the gas tax, road use tax , tolls , etc and fund the roads and infrastructure from income taxes.
Bob says
There’s been too many taxes put in place that were to be used for exactly that. Then politicians decided, Why not just move funds around to accommodate our agendas! Time to stop taxing make them restructure their policies to fit the amount of money allocated . We all have to .
Ray Otton says
I don’t have a problem with the basic concept but the devil is in the details. Obviously there will be some sort of tracking device installed on the cars.
The question is, how long before our totalitarian inclined government decides to look at where you go, like the parking lot of the local gun store, and then decides you are a domestic threat?
Think that’s an outlandish claim? Um, no. We’re experiencing it right now with people who were NEAR the 1/6 Capitol riot being held for questioning in violation of their civil rights.
My tip of the day?
Start looking for a pre-electronic era car with an easy to disconnect speedometer cable………………..Also good if there’s an EMP attack, but that’s a conspiracy for another day.
Nancy says
This is just one more tax on the working class. Who can afford to live in the expensive downtown apartments, so that they don’t have to drive very far to work, if at all? Rich people. Who has to live outside of the city and drive in? The poor working class. So who really gets taxed? the poor working class. they talk about wanting to tax the rich, but the actual taxes they impose are on the poor.
Joe Average says
Nancy since you used the words “downtown” and “city” I would think that “Mass Transit” would be one you should be familiar with too.
Publius Americanus says
Just checked the schedule, it takes 3 hours and 5 minutes to bus from Exmore to Va Beach.
Why do you and Sorin hate poor people?
Over 6 hours of commuting daily? Hey, poor folks don’t need sleep or families or a life, right?
Sorin Varzaru says
As I mentioned before, republicans/conservatives are against paying for “communal” stuff from general taxes which are a lot more progressive then a use or sales tax. I would be fine with roads being funded though income taxes. Are you? Since you expressed concern for poor people.
Publius Americanus says
Nope, pro interstate commerce and feel it fits in nicely although I’d reform the FHWA.
So, sorry, we agree on common good usage.
Don’t feel too badly about it….;)
Sorin Varzaru says
“Nope, pro interstate commerce and feel it fits in nicely although I’d reform the FHWA.”
I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
Joe Average says
You sure seem to be a linear thinker. You don’t think the introduction of this tax would also increase access to mass transit?
I’m sure that “poor person” who is traveling 120 miles per day with a bridge toll in between, with gas and car maintenance isn’t really that “poor”
It’s costing that poor person 1,500 per month or 18,000 per year to commute. You might think you are poor but you’re making decent money. Try finding a closer job
Note: Actually, with the commuter rate, to work ACB runs around 2500 per year, that is commuting every day. If you add work from home days, holidays, PTO, or vacay into the mix, that number comes down faster. By the way, the Shore is known for a lot things, like lots of trash, but jobs is not one of them.
LuckyVaGirl says
Imagine how hard this will hit people in rural areas!
Gee will the tax tractors?
What about tractor trailers?
Up goes the price on Everything!
They need to trim the fat in WASHINGTON!
Paul Plante says
“Advanced Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimation Methods for Non-Federal Aid System Roadways Using GPS Vehicle Trajectory Data and Statistical Power Analysis”
June 2019
Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board
2673(7):036119811985079
DOI: 10.1177/0361198119850790
Authors:
Arefeh Nasri, University of Maryland, College Park
Lei Zhang, Shandong University
Junchuan Fan, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Kathleen Stewart, University of Maryland, College Park
It is of interest to federal and state agencies to develop an advanced uniform method for estimation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on local roads which can be used as a guideline for agencies nationwide.
The purpose of this study is to propose advanced innovative approaches for estimating VMT on local roads and analyze the feasibility of applying these methods.
The paper presents a methodology and procedure for estimating local road VMT using GPS vehicle trajectory data and an all-street road network and expands these methodologies and results to determine the minimum required GPS sample size.
The Federal Highway Administration and other transportation agencies may consider using these methodologies as a future guide to update VMT estimates with minimal additional cost requirements.
The key finding of the research is that it is feasible to use new GPS vehicle trajectory data to estimate VMT on non-Federal Aid System roadways.
The sample size of this data allows the application of this new method across the nation.
The accuracy of this method was tested for the State of Maryland.
Once such statewide GPS data is obtained by a given state, the methodology can be easily applied to that state as well.
Blue Hoss says
I am amazed that you sheep would even consider paying it. China has killed 2.8 million people with a biological weapon, an election was stolen and you all discuss the possibility of doing just what you are told. Wow! you all really were programmed well.
Ray Otton says
Yeah, this isn’t going to be voluntary. There’s not going to be a choice of whether or not to pay it.
Unless you stop driving, of course.
Blue Hoss says
I’d rather die on my feet, than live on my knees and
I don’t ask for anyone’s permission to be free…
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation….
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Ray Otton says
That’s nice.
Problem is, those ideals only work for people with the moral character to support them.
Demonstrably, the present regime and it’s supporters lack that character yet they have the power to either force you to accept their vision for the country or die on your feet.
For myself, I’ll heed the words of General Patton when he said a soldier’s duty isn’t to die for his country, it’s to make the other guy die for his.
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Blue Hoss says
That’s nice.
Thomas Jefferson once said that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Dan says
This isn’t even the proposal the White House put out, not sure why it’s being reported this way.
The bill would be paid by a modest tax increase on large corporations. Considering that Amazon and 91 Fortune 500 companies use various loopholes so they pay not a single, solitary penny in federal income tax.
Infrastructure should be a bipartisan issue both sides of the aisle agree on. If the right has a better solution to pay for these necessary repairs I am sure they would have already proposed them.
Paul Plante says
It’s probably being reported that way because in a CNBC article entitled “Vehicle mileage tax could be on the table in infrastructure talks, Buttigieg says” by Thomas Franck @tomwfranck on Mar 26 2021, “Pistol Pete” Buttigieg, the failed Democrat presidential contender who was made “Corn Pop” Biden’s highway dude as a consolation prize to give him a source of graft to rake off of to pay his bills, especially to the Democrat party for expenses, the way Hussein Obama made the loser Hillary Clinton the secretary of sate, for the same reason, was quoted by CNBC as saying a vehicle mileage tax could be on the table in infrastructure talks, contending that President Joe Biden’s forthcoming plans to rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges and waterways would lead to a net gain for the U.S. taxpayer, and “I’m hearing a lot of appetite to make sure that there are sustainable funding streams,” Buttigieg said.
A mileage tax “shows a lot of promise.”
A vehicle mileage tax could be on the table in talks about how to finance the White House’s expected multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure proposal, according to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
Buttigieg, who spoke with CNBC’s Kayla Tausche on Friday, also contended that President Joe Biden’s forthcoming plans to rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges and waterways would lead to a net gain for the U.S. taxpayer and not a net outlay.
“When you think about infrastructure, it’s a classic example of the kind of investment that has a return on that investment,” he said.
“That’s one of many reasons why we think this is so important.”
“This is a jobs vision as much as it is an infrastructure vision, a climate vision and more.”
He also weighed in on several potential revenue-generating options to fund the project.
He spoke fondly of a mileage levy, which would tax travelers based on the distance of the journey instead of on how much gasoline they consume.
“A so-called vehicle-miles-traveled tax or mileage tax, whatever you want to call it, could be a way to do it,” he said.
Democrats have slowly pivoted away from a gasoline tax in favor of a mileage tax amid a simultaneous, climate friendly effort to encourage consumers to drive electric cars.
A mileage tax “shows a lot of promise if we believe in that so-called user-pays principle: The idea that part of how we pay for roads is you pay based on how much you drive.”
The Transportation secretary’s comments came as President Joe Biden prepares to detail during a trip to Pittsburgh next week sweeping infrastructure proposals that could cost $3 trillion to $4 trillion.
end quotes
This above article you are commenting on was posted on March 28, 2021.
It was not until TWO DAYS (2) LATER, however, on March 30, 2021 that “Pistol Pete” did his “BIG WALK-BACK,” being quoted in the venerable New York Post article “Pete Buttigieg says infrastructure plan won’t be funded by mileage tax” by David Meyer on March 30, 2021, to wit:
President Biden’s multi-trillion dollar infrastructure plan won’t be funded by increased taxes on gas or vehicle mileage, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Monday — backtracking on comments he made last Friday.
end quote
Note the use of the word “backtracking,” which in Washingtonian political parlance means “eating his words.”
Getting back to the article:
Buttigieg on Friday suggested that taxing motorists by the number of miles they travel showed “a lot of promise” for funding road construction and maintenance.
But on Monday night, Buttigieg reversed course — telling CNN’s Jake Tapper that both a mileage tax and gas tax increase were “not part of the conversation about this infrastructure bill.”
“I want to reiterate the president’s central commitment here,” Buttigieg said.
“If you’re making less than $400,000 a year, this proposal will not involve a tax increase for you.”
end quotes
Now, Dan, you seem nice and you sure sound smart, so can you figure out what just happened there?
Sounds like “Pistol Pete” got himself a talking-to for talking out of turn, doesn’t it, from the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?
I thought so, anyway, especially when you see the haunted look on his face in the article, like a man who just got his *** reamed out but good by his commanding general for being an A-HOLE in public, so no wonder the dude is backtracking, pronto!
Getting back to that article:
Biden announced plans to unveil a $3-4 trillion infrastructure bill next week.
He has yet to explain how the plan will be funded.
end quotes
And there is the salient point, is it not, Dan – despite what you are saying, “Corn Pop” Biden has no idea where the money is going to come from, and doesn’t need one, because he is going to emulate the Weimar Republic and just print the money as he needs it, which is a sure recipe for disaster.
Paul Plante says
“Corn Pop” Biden himself has no clear idea of where the money is going to come from, and for $2 TRILLION, “Corn Pop” is going to create a paltry 18 million jobs:
The White House
Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan
March 31, 2021
Carpenters Pittsburgh Training Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
JOE BIDEN: What I’m proposing is a one-time capital investment of roughly $2 trillion in America’s future, spread largely over eight years.
It will generate historic job growth, historic economic growth, help businesses to compete internationally, create more revenue as well.
They are among the highest-value investments we can make in the nation — investing in our infrastructure.
But put it another way, failing to make these investments adds to our debt and effectively puts our children at a disadvantage relative to our competitors.
That’s what crumbling infrastructure does.
And our infrastructure is crumbling.
We’re ranked 13th in the world.
What’s more, it heightens our vulnerability to — it attac- — attracts our adversaries to compete in ways that they haven’t up to now.
And our adversaries are worried about us building this critical infrastructure.
Put simply, these are investments we have to make.
We can afford to make them — or, put another way, we can’t afford not to.
So how do we pay for it?
I spoke to the Majority Leader and — no longer — I guess he’s no longer the Majority Leader; he has been for a long time.
I spoke for the Republican — I spoke to the Republican Leader about the plan.
Everybody is for doing something on infrastructure.
Why haven’t we done it?
Well, no one wants to pay for it.
Ray Otton says
Always have to demonize someone or something, eh?
Problem is, we’ve heard it all before and folks are becoming tired of the Same Shite, Different Day narrative.
You see, Amazon pays no corporate tax precisely because it reinvests those profits into its operations. Under a scenario where Amazon had no corporate tax breaks, the company wouldn’t bother with reinvestment. Reinvestment that creates greater opportunity for the businesses, cities and people in which it operates.
As always, the data portraying corporations as the bogey man is pulled out of context and inaccurate story lines touting that data gain momentum. (Where have we seen THAT before?)
The Liberal mantra demanding we tear down existing economic structures without a even passing look at why the structures exist will land us in a worse position. (SOP for Liberal morons who base things on the feelz, not on science.)
The question to address is not why Amazon pays no taxes, but why our legislature set up the tax structure they way they did?
The answer lies within another question.
Why do politicians get so rich while in office?
Stuart Bell says
Just remember We The People subsidize Amazon by letting them send packages through Our Post Office for less than the actual shipping cost we pay… it seems Liberals always need a subsidy, even while screwing over the American People.
Sorin Varzaru says
“The Liberal mantra demanding we tear down existing economic structures without a even passing look at why the structures exist will land us in a worse position.”
Increasing the taxes on corporations hardly qualifies as “tearing down economic structures”. Taxes have been much higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s and US did just fine.
Ray Ottonr says
I could go on a bit in detail about how regressive progressive economic policies are but it would be a waste of time.
Instead, I’ll just sum up everything I was going to say by adding that NO COUNTRY has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
Sorin Varzaru says
How do you define “prosperity”? Crumbling infrastructure? People not getting medical care because it will bankrupt them ?
Sal Gentio says
In the 50’s to 70’s, America was reaping the benefits of being one of the only industrialized economies not ravaged by World War 2. We had control of the world market and the dollar was the international currency.
That no longer applies. An increase in taxes now is a bad idea.
Publius Americanus says
Um, in 2020 Amazon paid over 3.5 BILLION in federal taxes.
Stop reading Mother Jones.
ANY company that loses money pays no INCOME taxes but other taxes still apply.
Joe Average says
Maybe you want to check on those facts a bit.
https://itep.org/amazon-has-record-breaking-profits-in-2020-avoids-2-3-billion-in-federal-income-taxes/
Publius Americanus says
Yup, Income is the only tax an employer pays. That’s the ticket!
Paul Plante says
Contrary to the beliefs of Joe Biden as to his own omnipotence, and the beliefs of his followers and acolytes as to his omnipotence, Joe DOES NOT set tax rates in the United States of America:
U.S. Department of the Treasury
The Constitution says that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” and that “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.”
Presidents can, and frequently do, recommend changes to current tax laws, but only Congress can make the changes.
Congressional Tax Legislation
Under the United States Constitution, all legislation concerning taxes must “originate” in the House of Representatives.
The House usually must take action on the legislation before the Senate can begin its consideration.
end quotes
As to his ideas or suggestions or just plain wishful thinking or perhaps simply delusions, regarding corporate taxes, we have as follows:
The White House
Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan
March 31, 2021
Carpenters Pittsburgh Training Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
But here’s the deal: Right now, a middle-class couple — a firefighter and a teacher with two kids — making a combined salary of, say, $110-, $120,000 a year pays 22 cents for each additional dollar they earn in federal income tax.
But a multinational corporation that builds a factory abroad — brings it home and then sell it — they pay nothing at all.
We’re going to raise the corporate tax.
It was 35 percent, which is too high.
We all agreed, five years ago, it should go down to 28 percent, but they reduced it to 21 percent.
We’re going to raise it back to — up to 28 percent.
No one should be able to complain about that.
It’s still lower than what that rate was between World War Two and 2017.
Just doing that one thing will generate $1 trillion in additional revenue over 15 years.
In 2019, an independent analysis found that are 91 — let me say it again, 91 Fortune 500 companies — the biggest companies in the world, including Amazon — they used various loopholes so they’d pay not a single solitary penny in federal income tax.
I don’t want to punish them, but that’s just wrong.
That’s just wrong.
A fireman and a teacher paying 22 percent?
Amazon and 90 other major corporations are paying zero in federal taxes?
I’m going to put an end to that, and here’s how we’ll do it.
We’re establishing a global minimum tax for U.S. corporations of 21 percent.
We’re going to level the international playing field.
That alone will raise $1 trillion over 15 years.
We’ll also eliminate deductions by corporations for offshoring jobs and shifting assets overseas.
You do that, you pay a penalty; you don’t get a reward in my plan.
And use the savings from that to give companies tax credits to locate manufacturing here — in manufacturing and production here in the United States.
And we’ll significantly ramp up the IRS enforcement against corporations who either fail to report their incomes or under-report.
It’s estimated that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars.
All of this adds up to more than what I’ve proposed to spend in just 15 years.
It’s honest.
It’s fiscally responsible.
And by the way, as the experts will tell you, it reduces the debt — the federal debt over the long haul.
But let me be clear: These are my ideas on how to pay for this plan.
If others have additional ideas, let them come forward.
I’m open to other ideas, so long as they do not impose any tax increase on people making less than $400,000.
end quotes
And Joe is talking from straight out of his *** with his inane comment that “(W)e’re going to level the international playing field; that alone will raise $1 trillion over 15 years.”
For one, Joe doesn’t even know what is going to take place this afternoon with regard to corporate profits, and he sure as hell cannot predict fifteen years into the future what is going to be happening, although the morons and mental midgets who cleave to his standard and kiss his boots more than likely are not aware of that, believing Joe to be omniscient.
And two, just yesterday it was announced in the news that Janet “Toodles” Yellen, Biden’s secretary of the treasury, is attempting to get a global corporate tax, which is hardly assured, to wit:
REUTERS
“Yellen pledges U.S. international cooperation, calls for global minimum tax”
By David Lawder
April 5, 2021
(Reuters) -U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Monday that she is working with G20 countries to agree on a global corporate minimum tax rate and pledged that restoring U.S. multilateral leadership would strengthen the global economy and advance U.S. interests.
In a speech ahead of her first International Monetary Fund and World Bank Spring Meetings as Treasury Secretary, Yellen signaled stronger U.S. engagement on issues from climate change to human rights to tax base erosion.
A global minimum tax proposed by the Biden administration could help to end a “30-year race to the bottom on corporate tax rates,” Yellen told an online event hosted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The global minimum tax is a key pillar of President Joe Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure spending plan, which calls for an increase in the U.S. corporate tax rate to 28% while eliminating some deductions associated with overseas profits.
Without a global minimum, the United States would again have higher rates than a number of other major economies, tax experts say, while the U.S. proposal could help jump-start negotiations for a tax deal among major economies.
Sal Gentio says
Paul –
I have been following your posts despite not being a local 9not even in VA).
You should get a dedicated website and a professional editor.
You have great insight, but you would benefit from:
a) A more organized forum that addresses specific issues rather than an impromptu bantering with random participants.
b) A cleaning up of your posts to turn them into articles that can more easily be digested by the masses. Your facts are very good, but many readers need a more clear explanation/summary.
Just my 2 cents…
SG
Paul Plante says
Comments are appreciated, Sal, thank you!
But I really like it here as the Cape Charles Mirror!
And the CCM is global, so you don’t need to be a local or even a Virginian to follow it and comment in it.
Paul Plante says
And from the tough-talking rhetoric in his heroic, as many in the nation’s media talk show circuit are calling it, and rousing progressive patriotic speech to all the carpenter’s apprentices at the Carpenters Pittsburgh Training Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on March 31, 2021, many are saying, and many more are cheering what seems o be a Fidel Castro-like declaration by Joe Biden that he is going to nationalize the internet and thereby bring it under federal government control, to wit:
The White House
Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan
March 31, 2021
Carpenters Pittsburgh Training Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
JOE BIDEN: American Jobs will make sure every single — every single American has access to high quality, affordable, high-speed Internet for businesses, for schools.
And when I say “affordable,” I mean it.
Americans pay too much for Internet service.
We’re going to drive down the price for families who have service now, and make it easier for families who don’t have affordable service to be able to get it now.
end quotes
In the meantime, since Joe Biden has taken control of the internet away from Trump, my service is downright crappy to the point of where I’m thinking of contracting with a service in Yemen to get better service.
What used to be almost instantaneous under Trump has now become a matter of days under “Corn Pop” Biden’s tutelage, with people joking that now, with Joe Biden in charge of the internet, you can get out and walk faster.
But it is not surprising that Joe would make a bid to bring the internet under his control, as we can clearly see from this following from Chapter II, titled “Proletarians and Communists,” of what is known in the countryside of America as the Barack Obama Bible, that being the Manifesto of the Communist Party, to wit:
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
* Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
* Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Paul Plante says
According to news that is circulating around the country, on Sunday, the Senate released the final text of the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill — all 2,702 pages, and said to be buried on page 508 of the 2,702 page infrastructure bill is a pilot program for a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee (MBUF), which despite its name, is really a tax on the middle class ijn America, as well as the rural poor, which news takes us back to a CNBC article entitled “Vehicle mileage tax could be on the table in infrastructure talks, Buttigieg says” by Thomas Franck on Mar 26 2021, where we had “Pistol Pete” Buttigieg, the failed Democrat presidential contender who was made “Corn Pop” Biden’s highway dude as a consolation prize to give him a source of graft to rake off of to pay his bills, especially to the Democrat party for expenses, the way Hussein Obama made the loser Hillary Clinton the secretary of state, for the same reason, being quoted by CNBC as saying a vehicle mileage tax could be on the table in infrastructure talks, contending that President Joe Biden’s forthcoming plans to rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges and waterways would lead to a net gain for the U.S. taxpayer, and “I’m hearing a lot of appetite to make sure that there are sustainable funding streams,” Buttigieg said.
A mileage tax “shows a lot of promise.”
A vehicle mileage tax could be on the table in talks about how to finance the White House’s expected multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure proposal, according to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
Buttigieg, who spoke with CNBC’s Kayla Tausche on Friday, also contended that President Joe Biden’s forthcoming plans to rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges and waterways would lead to a net gain for the U.S. taxpayer and not a net outlay.
“When you think about infrastructure, it’s a classic example of the kind of investment that has a return on that investment,” he said.
“That’s one of many reasons why we think this is so important.”
“This is a jobs vision as much as it is an infrastructure vision, a climate vision and more.”
He also weighed in on several potential revenue-generating options to fund the project.
He spoke fondly of a mileage levy, which would tax travelers based on the distance of the journey instead of on how much gasoline they consume.
“A so-called vehicle-miles-traveled tax or mileage tax, whatever you want to call it, could be a way to do it,” he said.
Democrats have slowly pivoted away from a gasoline tax in favor of a mileage tax amid a simultaneous, climate friendly effort to encourage consumers to drive electric cars.
A mileage tax “shows a lot of promise if we believe in that so-called user-pays principle: The idea that part of how we pay for roads is you pay based on how much you drive.”
The Transportation secretary’s comments came as President Joe Biden prepares to detail during a trip to Pittsburgh next week sweeping infrastructure proposals that could cost $3 trillion to $4 trillion.
end quotes
TWO DAYS (2) LATER, however, on March 30, 2021, “Pistol Pete” did a “BIG WALK-BACK,” being quoted in the venerable New York Post article “Pete Buttigieg says infrastructure plan won’t be funded by mileage tax” by David Meyer on March 30, 2021, as follows:
President Biden’s multi-trillion dollar infrastructure plan won’t be funded by increased taxes on gas or vehicle mileage, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Monday — backtracking on comments he made last Friday.
end quote
Note the use of the word “backtracking,” which in Washingtonian political parlance means “eating his words.”
Getting back to the article:
Buttigieg on Friday suggested that taxing motorists by the number of miles they travel showed “a lot of promise” for funding road construction and maintenance.
But on Monday night, Buttigieg reversed course — telling CNN’s Jake Tapper that both a mileage tax and gas tax increase were “not part of the conversation about this infrastructure bill.”
“I want to reiterate the president’s central commitment here,” Buttigieg said.
“If you’re making less than $400,000 a year, this proposal will not involve a tax increase for you.”
end quotes
So, people, what just happened there?
Doesn’t it sound very much like “Pistol Pete” got his *** called on the carpet and got himself a stern talking-to or ***-chewing for talking out of turn by the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?
I thought so, anyway, from the haunted look on his face in the article, like a man who just got his *** reamed out but good by his commanding general for being an A-HOLE in public, so no wonder the dude was backtracking, pronto!
And now, it looks like the cunning and sneaky Democrats, after saying it wouldn’t be in there, have managed to bring the vehicle mileage tax that will indeed fall hardest on the middle class and rural poor.