Virginia looking to eliminate their gas tax?

posted at 7:21 pm on January 14, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

President Obama likes to include ‘infrastructure investment’ as part of the justification for his pushes for new spending, but he often conveniently forgets to mention how we’re supposed to pay for all that infrastructure development when we’re currently racking up trillion-dollar deficits every year — unless you count “asking the wealthy to pay a little more” as a viable solution for our spending problems, which I don’t.

Inflation, fuel efficiency, alternative vehicles, and other factors that mean that gas consumption no longer grows in tandem with road use mean that many states’ gasoline taxes are an outmoded method for collecting revenue for infrastructure and transportation projects, and in Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell is proposing what he says will be a more efficient way of financing and caretaking Virginia’s (amazingly congested, I might attest) highways and byways and funding transportation projects.

On the eve of the 2013 General Assembly session, Gov. Bob McDonnell proposed increasing the state’s sales tax and eliminating the gasoline tax in an overhaul of how the state funds transportation.

He wants to increase the state and local sales tax to 5.8 percent from 5 percent and permanently shift the revenue source for transportation to a tax with rising revenue, from one with diminishing buying power.

If lawmakers approve the plan, Virginia would be the first state in the country without a gas tax.

In the last full session of his term McDonnell is seeking a solution to the road-funding problem that has vexed Virginia lawmakers for decades. Overall, McDonnell says the plan would raise $3.2 billion in additional funding over the next five years, or through 2018.

Yet another reason why more federalism is usually an excellent idea: Competition between states can lead to innovations in tax codes, just like everything else. The proposal is getting a wide range of mixed reviews, but if nothing else, it’s a bold new plan for tackling the obviously glaring problem of transportation funding, and certain businesses at least seem to like the idea. Here he is on Cavuto on Monday afternoon defending his plan:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why is shifting the tax burden from gas to everything else a good thing?

Count to 10 on January 14, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Keep the gas tax.
Eliminate the state income tax.

Jeddite on January 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM

This is thinking outside the box. I live in VA and would welcome the change.

I would like to see the day when the VA income tax is eliminated.
I assume we would have a higher VA sales tax. Might be a model for the Feds.

groundhunter on January 14, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Too bad no one will want to drive through DC to get there to buy the cheap fuel. Trucks already fill up there. I don’t know why they think sales tax is so palatable. You are taxing your economy.

Buddahpundit on January 14, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

LOL, the same poor people who are already subsidized by the rest of us..the needle didnt move on the pity meter.

hillsoftx on January 14, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Keep the gas tax.
Eliminate the state income tax.

Jeddite on January 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Eliminate all sales tax — the income tax is the only tax they should keep. You might have to keep the gas tax until technology progresses enough for all roads to be privatized and electronically tolled.

Count to 10 on January 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Maybe they can eliminate the unlimited text package on their cell phone. That could save a couple of bucks.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

.
What’s wrong with the “poor” paying their “fair share”?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Yes, we should tax cell phone usage because the poor folks can’t afford a cell phone and therefore would not be affected.

VegasRick on January 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Are the people who drive the only people dependent on our roads and infrastructure?

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM

VegasRick on January 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM

I see what you did there. :-)

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 7:52 PM

I see what you did there. :-)

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Wait, what?

VegasRick on January 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You must be new here. The ultimate goal of this anti middle/working class party is and always will be to increase taxes on the working American.

You will never here them propose any “tax reshuffling” scheme that moves the burden back to the wealthiest Americans. The ironic thing is that most of these fringe uneducated old white conservatives live below the poverty line. Their wealthy masters have done an excellent job brainwashing them into thinking they too can be “small business owners” by exempting him from paying any taxes.

HotAirLib on January 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Why is shifting the tax burden from gas to everything else a good thing?

Count to 10 on January 14, 2013 at 7:27 PM

I can’t imagine that it is. Sometimes Republicans governors go RINO. Othertimes they go dumb.

thuja on January 14, 2013 at 7:55 PM

What’s wrong with the “poor” paying their “fair share”?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Paying tax for their imaginary use of the road is fair? Interesting.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM

You will never here them propose any “tax reshuffling” scheme that moves the burden back to the wealthiest Americans.

However you will constantly “here” our liberal idiots proposing “tax reshuffling schemes” that move the burden to the wealthiest Americans. I doesn’t matter if revenues go down. It doesn’t matter if it hurts the economy for everyone. See how smart they are.

Math is hard, HAL.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Yes, we should tax cell phone usage because the poor folks can’t afford a cell phone and therefore would not be affected.

VegasRick on January 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Except anyone using a cellphone already pays the communications tax:

Under legislation enacted by the 2006 General Assembly, House Bill 568, the Virginia communications sales and use tax, also referred to as the communications sales tax, replaced most of the previous state and local taxes and fees on communications services, effective January 1, 2007.

The communications sales tax, which is imposed on the charge for or sale of communications services at the rate of 5%, is generally collected from consumers by their service providers and remitted to the Department of Taxation each month. In cases where a consumer purchases taxable communications services and no tax is collected from the consumer on the purchase by the service provider, the consumer is responsible for paying a communications use tax.

http://www.tax.virginia.gov/site.cfm?alias=CommunicationsTaxes

Rich or poor.

I see what you did there. :-)

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 7:52 PM

When one looks so much “between the lines” that they fail to read the actual lines.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Imaginary? Who doesn’t benefit from our roads and highways?

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Jeddite on January 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM

.
Eliminate all sales tax — the income tax is the only tax they should keep. You might have to keep the gas tax until technology progresses enough for all roads to be privatized and electronically tolled.

Count to 10 on January 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM

.
Ok … keep the Income Tax, but limit Government spending to pre-LBJ standards (allowing for “inflation”).

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Say no. Cause 10 minutes after a democrat is elected Gov he will say ” Hey we cab have a SMAll gas tax to help our poor economy” then more and more until we have a higher sales tax AND gas tax.

faol on January 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Paying tax for their imaginary use of the road is fair? Interesting.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Stands With A Latte Warren said that the public pays for roads which private businesses succeed, and since roads are necessary for commerce shouldn’t the poor pay their fair share?

Besides, public buses use the roads too, and since roads take greater damage from heavier vehicles such as buses, those who can’t afford a car are responsible for that damage.

Bishop on January 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Eliminate Its Gas Tax… not “their.”

Warner Todd Huston on January 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM

mcdonnell, despite being the consumate rino, gets little air time here at hotgas.

it’s the coiffed hair right?

renalin on January 14, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Lester

I do not know a single poor person in Virginia that does not own a car. I might add that I used to be considered poor according to the Old Dominion welfare office whose nipple I never sucked from. Now I am fairly well off (179k in gross income last year). All it took was hard work on my part and a good mentor.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/13/we-have-met-the-1-and-he-is-us/

F15Mech on January 14, 2013 at 8:08 PM

However you will constantly “here” our liberal idiots proposing “tax reshuffling schemes” that move the burden to the wealthiest Americans. I doesn’t matter if revenues go down. It doesn’t matter if it hurts the economy for everyone. See how smart they are.

Math is hard, HAL.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Lol. Thanks for pointing out the “here” typo. Anyway the typo doesn’t negate the fact that you all don’t care about lower taxes for all. You only care about lower taxes for your bosses because you have been brainwashed into thinking you will get to where he is someday.

HotAirLib on January 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Bishop on January 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Lester’s assertion that the poor somehow aren’t using roads is of course ridiculous. Everyone uses the roads unless they’re a complete shut-in.

He also seems to have trouble recognizing sarcasm.

That said, seems to me that public transportation road use is a bit convoluted. One expects that at least some of the taxation is built into the ticket prices, but on the other hand they receive tax dollar subsidies in order to run…

Sockpuppet Politic on January 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM

The communications sales tax, which is imposed on the charge for or sale of communications services at the rate of 5%, is generally collected from consumers by their service providers and remitted to the Department of Taxation each month. In cases where a consumer purchases taxable communications services and no tax is collected from the consumer on the purchase by the service provider, the consumer is responsible for paying a communications use tax.

I see what you did there. :-)

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 7:52 PM

When one looks so much “between the lines” that they fail to read the actual lines.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Perhaps you should try reading what you post moron. FREE obama phone owners do not pay for anything in regard to their FREE cell phone.

VegasRick on January 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Gas prices are in front of people every day. A fantastic idea, if only for the demonstration.

MT on January 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Imaginary? Who doesn’t benefit from our roads and highways?

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM

A: Every individual with their own car pay directly by a gas tax.

B: Bus driver pays the tax and transfers part of the charges to the tickets.

C: Truck driver pays the tax and transfers part of the charges to business clients.

As long as you tax the endpoint, best effort is made to charge no one twice and only those who use the services. The proposed sales tax model would transfer the burden of A to everyone else.

Of course this is a simplified model and roads generally improve things in a way everyone benefits from them but gas tax is the best way to make it so those with most direct benefit pay the largest share.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

You only care about lower taxes for your bosses because you have been brainwashed into thinking you will get to where he is someday.

HotAirLib on January 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM

I got there, at least according to the Barky administration which considers me “rich”. So either the brainwashing didn’t take or it really isn’t brainwashing, your choice.

Bishop on January 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

HotAirLib on January 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM

And that is a damn lie. Projecting your @ss off here. Conservatives would have been thrilled to let the Bush tax cuts become permanent for everyone, cutting taxes for everyone. Why didn’t that happen for everyone. Cause you liberals only care about class warfare and buying votes. It is that simple.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

A. Didn’t answer my question.
B. Didn’t answer my question.
C. Didn’t answer my question.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM

What’s wrong with the “poor” paying their “fair share”?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM

.
Paying tax for their imaginary use of the road is fair? Interesting.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM

.
People who do not own motor vehicles, still couldn’t live life without roads. Nothing “imginary” about it.

People who do not own motor vehicles, also do much less purchasing than those who do own one (or more).

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Lester

I do not know a single poor person in Virginia that does not own a car. I might add that I used to be considered poor according to the Old Dominion welfare office whose nipple I never sucked from. Now I am fairly well off (179k in gross income last year). All it took was hard work on my part and a good mentor.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/13/we-have-met-the-1-and-he-is-us/

F15Mech on January 14, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Let me guess, a tractor trailer driver who after paying his truck note and other truck related expenses only ends up with $40k a year…… Or another wishful thinking conservative quoting his bosses salary. How do I know this? So called grassroots conservatives don’t have the qualified educational skills to make more than the average American with a Bachelors degree. Sad but true.

HotAirLib on January 14, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.
lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You mean those same ‘poor’ people who we already subsidize with ObamaPhones, ObamaBucks and section 8 ObamaHomes who also have flat screen TV’s and Xbox’s?

Damn you leftists are stupid. How can you be this stupid and still have enough brain power to breathe?

jawkneemusic on January 14, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Perhaps you should try reading what you post moron. FREE obama phone owners do not pay for anything in regard to their FREE cell phone.

VegasRick on January 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM

ObamaPhone the conservative fantasy version or the actual program?!

Back in the 1980’s the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under the Ronald Reagan administration, created the Universal access initiative, which aimed to “promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable and affordable rates for all consumers.” Through this initiative the Federal Lifeline Assistance program was developed.

The Federal Lifeline Assistance program began offering discounted phone service to needy Americans who were unemployed or living at or below the poverty level. In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created the Universal Service Fund, stating that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute a specified fee to the fund to be used to increase nationwide access to advanced telecommunications services” and “advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.” Thus the program shifted from discounted landlines to mobile phones, since they were thought to be more useful.

Let’s have a chat when you stop by reality.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:22 PM

A. Didn’t answer my question.
B. Didn’t answer my question.
C. Didn’t answer my question.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Read again.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:24 PM

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:22 PM

They should be limited to 911 calls.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:24 PM

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:22 PM

How is it a fantasy when Obama and his jerks are the ones who expanded it to just about every single loser jackhole they could? Just because it was a program started for landlines and was shifted to Obamabots cell phones doesn’t make it a fantasy you ignoramus.

jawkneemusic on January 14, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Read again.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:24 PM

read it again. Same result.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Lester

I do not know a single poor person in Virginia that does not own a car. I might add that I used to be considered poor according to the Old Dominion welfare office whose nipple I never sucked from. Now I am fairly well off (179k in gross income last year). All it took was hard work on my part and a good mentor.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/13/we-have-met-the-1-and-he-is-us/

F15Mech on January 14, 2013 at 8:08 PM

I don’t know anyone in Virginia personally but it’s a safe bet that many households can not afford a car or just use public transportation and pay the gas tax indirectly through tickets. Point is neither group should be charged a second road tax by the 0.8% increase.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Virginia looking to eliminate their its gas tax?

sesquipedalian on January 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Oh how in the world did these ‘poor’ people every survive without ‘free’ cell phones paid for by you and me?

Molester and HAL are such scum. In order for their tyrants to stay in power they need people to remain ‘poor’ or see themselves as poor and as victims. Otherwise what use would there be if scum of the earth leftists no longer held crown of being ‘for the poor & middle class’?

jawkneemusic on January 14, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Trolls are out in full force today. They must feel emboldened by their masters pep talk today at his bully presser. Full of all the anti-American, anti-business, anti-freedom messaging these little totalitarian lovers eat up.

jawkneemusic on January 14, 2013 at 8:32 PM

HotAirLib

Speaking of lying retards. Sing “Daisy”, libtard. Lester can hum for you in the background. The sheep could use a break.

xblade on January 14, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

How else are they going to complain that the rich business owner transports his products on roads the rest of us built if they don’t contribute???

CJ on January 14, 2013 at 8:35 PM

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Based on the premise that public transportation actually makes money?? Wouldn’t they have to have some profit over their operational costs to have capital to contribute to roads and infrastructure? I think it is a safe bet that they are actually subsidized by the tax dollars instead.

KCB on January 14, 2013 at 8:36 PM

How is it a fantasy when Obama and his jerks are the ones who expanded it to just about every single loser jackhole they could?

How do you know all that? Because of a video on Youtube or was it Rush Limbaugh brainwashing you on a daily basis? Or maybe you have some actual numbers that millions upon millions have got Obamaphones. Care to provide your evidence?

Just because it was a program started for landlines and was shifted to Obamabots cell phones doesn’t make it a fantasy you ignoramus.

jawkneemusic on January 14, 2013 at 8:25 PM

When I got rid of my landline at $25 a month it was a little less than half of monthly cellphone bill which has unlimited voice and “unlimited” data. None of those will exist on an Obama(Reagan?)phone. Cellphones are also easier and cheaper to setup and decommission.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM

President Obama likes to include ‘infrastructure investment’ as part of the justification for his pushes for new spending, but he often conveniently forgets to mention how we’re supposed to pay for all that infrastructure development when we’re currently racking up trillion-dollar deficits every year — unless you count “asking the wealthy to pay a little more” as a viable solution for our spending problems, which I don’t.

Racist!!!

Didn’t you hear the man call them “investments?!” Investments pay for themselves!

Any salesman could tell you that!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to take my wife shopping so she can save me lots of money.

(Gee, I hope no one notices how I called attention to the word ‘racist’ by making it blacker…..)

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 14, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I don’t know anyone in Virginia personally but it’s a safe bet that many households can not afford a car or just use public transportation and pay the gas tax indirectly through tickets. Point is neither group should be charged a second road tax by the 0.8% increase.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:27 PM

.
Neither ?
.
Alright, I can work with that . . . . .

How does my 8:02 PM comment work for you?

Count to 10 on January 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM

.
Ok … keep the Income Tax, but limit Government spending to pre-LBJ standards (allowing for “inflation”).

listens2glenn
on January 14, 2013 at 8:02 PM

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

True. A progressive would have called it an ‘investment‘ and everything would have been hunky-dory.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 14, 2013 at 8:44 PM

When I got rid of my landline at $25 a month it was a little less than half of monthly cellphone bill which has unlimited voice and “unlimited” data. None of those will exist on an Obama(Reagan?)phone. Cellphones are also easier and cheaper to setup and decommission.
lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Right so since they’re so easy and cheap everyone should get a free Obama phone. Got that about right you schmuck?

jawkneemusic on January 14, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Molester, I don’t even listen to rush. My evidence, the damn ‘universal service charge’ I pay every damn month so schmucks like you can get a ‘free’ phone.

jawkneemusic on January 14, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Paying tax for their imaginary use of the road is fair? Interesting.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Unless these poor people manage to live their lives without goods or services from those that do need roads then their dependence on those public roads is not imaginary.

Frankly I’m surprised that liberal oppose the sale tax so much. It is in essence a consumption tax. The more you consume the more you pay. Of course if we rename it and call it a “carbon tax” those very same fickle liberals will be all for it.

Browncoatone on January 14, 2013 at 8:53 PM

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

.
True. A progressive would have called it an ‘investment‘ and everything would have been hunky-dory.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 14, 2013 at 8:44 PM

.
“Investment”? … damn … why didn’t I think of that?

I must be Conservative, or something.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You must be new here. The ultimate goal of this anti middle/working class party is and always will be to increase taxes on the working American.

You will never here them propose any “tax reshuffling” scheme that moves the burden back to the wealthiest Americans. The ironic thing is that most of these fringe uneducated old white conservatives live below the poverty line. Their wealthy masters have done an excellent job brainwashing them into thinking they too can be “small business owners” by exempting him from paying any taxes.

HotAirLib on January 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM

After the Bush tax cuts, the wealthy paid more as a share of the tax burden than they had before. Oops, there goes your point, and after saying it with such confidence and condescension, too!

Well, maybe that was a fluke. Let’s check. Hey, who was the last person to cut the tax rates, and what was that result?

Oh, that’s right. It was Reagan who drastically flattened and reduced the tax rates in the 80s, which led to expansion of the economy, and … wait for it … the rich paying a bigger share of the tax burden than they did before the tax cuts.

Be careful, you’re veering into Sam Donaldson territory. All those things you just know that just ain’t so…

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 14, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Simplification of the tax code?! Inconceivable!

Next thing you know there’ll be talk of eliminating the income taxes and business taxes (since business taxes are just sales taxes anyway), and they’ll discover a simple, transparent tax code actually generates more net revenue while encouraging monthly savings.

It’s everything Neil Boortz dreamed of!

It is nice that the people who traverse farther on roads that are less in need of repair will pay a bit less at the pump, though. Virginia’s roads are still light-years ahead of DC & Maryland’s, even at their most snarled.

Sgt Steve on January 14, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Frankly I’m surprised that liberal oppose the sale tax so much. It is in essence a consumption tax. The more you consume the more you pay. Of course if we rename it and call it a “carbon tax” those very same fickle liberals will be all for it.

Browncoatone on January 14, 2013 at 8:53 PM

.
A “Carbon tax”!

That’s it, … a “carbon tax” for “investment”!

Who could turn that down? … : )

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Let me guess, a tractor trailer driver who after paying his truck note and other truck related expenses only ends up with $40k a year…… Or another wishful thinking conservative quoting his bosses salary. How do I know this? So called grassroots conservatives don’t have the qualified educational skills to make more than the average American with a Bachelors degree. Sad but true.

HotAirLib on January 14, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Communist scum low IQ Hotairlib:

This is the exit 2012 results by income and it shows that those who make more than $ 50,000 a year voted 53% for Romney and 45% for Obama… And those who make less than $ 50,000 a year voted 60% for Obama and 38% for Romney… In other word those who make more than average salary voted by a majority for Romney and those who male less than average less voted by a majority for Obama the parasite class President… In addition the super vast majority of parasites living fully or partially on the producers expenses voted for Obama… In fact the Obama Presidency is about empowering the parasites… Now after I showed all the facts and expose your lies you can go and f*** yourself…

2011 total family income:
Total Obama Romney
Under $50,000
41% 60% 38%
$50,000 or more
59% 45% 53%
Sample: 24157 respondents

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll

mnjg on January 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM

HotAirLib on January 14, 2013 at 8:18 PM

LMAO.

See that is the problem you have. You honestly think there is no way in hell a person could ever earn less then 18k in 1999 but in 2012 earned more then 170k.

And to make your head completely explode I never went to college (I hated school)

If you want proof I will send my 1999 tax return and 2013 tax return to Ed to prove I am right if you do the same thing.

That is what is so great about the USA IMO. Someone like me hated school but found something I love with computers and was able to thrive after the USAF gave me a boost.

F15Mech on January 14, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Take from poor people who can’t afford a car but still have to pay for basic necessities to pay for the roads. Makes perfect conservative sense.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

HILARIOUS! You people really are proof of Dunning-Kruger.

You poor in mind and spirit. May you suffer immeasurably under the democrat regime.

tom daschle concerned on January 14, 2013 at 9:52 PM

F15Mech on January 14, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Yes the communists do not believe in the American Dream and that people can rise from poverty through hard work and become well off and in some cases very wealthy… In fact this is the only country where it is possible… So the communists low life like Hotairlib and Lester want the poor to remain poor depending on tax payers handouts given to them by the liberal politicians through taxes and in return the poor will vote for liberals…

In fact I showed this low life low IQ communist scum Hotairlib in my previous post above that the 2012 exit polls showed that a majority who make more than average US salary ($ 50,000) voted for Romney and a majority of those making less the average US salary voted for Obama… Of course add to that the super vast majority of parasites living fully or partially on the producers expense voted for Obama…

mnjg on January 14, 2013 at 10:00 PM

And by the way F15mech, I assume that you were a mechanic who worked on the F-15, your skills and IQ are vastly better and higher than most of the college graduates who have meaningless, stupid, and worthless degrees in liberal arts and that do not require more than an IQ of 95 to obtain them… They burden themselves with $ 200,000 debt to get those most worthless liberal art degrees and they spend all their lives trying to pay it as most of them, if they get a job, get low paying jobs because no business need their stupid degrees… So low IQ fools like Hotairlib and Lester who have those meaningless liberal arts degrees and making little money are full of envy and hate for those who make more than them and hence their love for communism… Since they cannot make the money because they are stupid or lazy or both then they want to punish everyone else and want everyone else to make much less money…

mnjg on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 PM

mnjg on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Don’t discount a liberal arts degree. My brother has one and earns more money than I do. Hell if I waned to go to college I would pick one that would teach me to think. Only 3 F-15 I worked on have crashed but I never have corrupted a clients data.

F15Mech on January 14, 2013 at 11:03 PM

F15 Mech, thanks for your service. Loved how the Lib couldn’t conceive that you had gone from what I presume was a non-comm’s salary to that of someone who is well-off thanks to their hard work and industrial knowledge.

Meanwhile, there’s this bit of misunderstanding, to which I will respond point by point:

A: Every individual with their own car pay directly by a gas tax.

B: Bus driver pays the tax and transfers part of the charges to the tickets.

C: Truck driver pays the tax and transfers part of the charges to business clients.

As long as you tax the endpoint, best effort is made to charge no one twice and only those who use the services. The proposed sales tax model would transfer the burden of A to everyone else.

Of course this is a simplified model and roads generally improve things in a way everyone benefits from them but gas tax is the best way to make it so those with most direct benefit pay the largest share.

lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

A: Yes, they can, but the majority of wear and tear on roads is not done by cars, small trucks, or motorcycles. Also thanks to increasing fuel efficiency, less fuel is consumed, meaning less taxes are collected. Huge problem.

B. You obviously don’t understand how transit systems are funded. An industry metric had the metric of a “successful” bus line collecting 40 cents of every dollar of its operating cost at the fare box. Who do you think pays for that other 60 cents? Hint: it ain’t the bus rider. Additional hint: buses are heavy vehicles, ones that contribute to road wear and tear.

C. Even more misunderstanding regarding how businesses operate. When a truck driver “transfers part of the charges to business clients”, those businesses are shipping companies, warehouses, and grocery stores, to name a few. Where do you think *they* transfer those charges? Hint: people who purchase their goods and services. Additional hint: those are called *customers*.

If you really want to tax the “endpoint”, you tax sales, as every company is dependent upon roads – from grocery stores, to parcel companies, manufacturing companies, and even automobile manufacturers.

Those poor people you say don’t own a car? Hmmmm. Do they eat? If so, did they buy their groceries from a store? Does that store have a farm right behind it so that it can stock its shelves without requiring someone to transport food into it? Only *then* can you make your claim.

Otherwise, as we say down here, “pull your head in, mate”…

Wanderlust on January 14, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Privatize all roads. Let the owners figure out how to pay for it.

It worked for the Internet.

Rich H on January 15, 2013 at 12:10 AM

roads generally improve things in a way everyone benefits from them

good lord you are an ignoramus…

tom daschle concerned on January 15, 2013 at 12:36 AM

Privatize all roads. Let the owners figure out how to pay for it.

It worked for the Internet.

Rich H on January 15, 2013 at 12:10 AM

^This^ You’re not suggesting that the free market take care of it are you? That’s libertarian thinking and way too conservative for HA.

air_up_there on January 15, 2013 at 12:59 AM

This isn’t about gas exactly, rather a smart attempt to prove a small economic point, and once that is made, go for the bigger prize that is currently out of reach. So, yes, it would be great to clean up the tax system, but ain’t gonna happen in one movement.

This will probably spur some economic growth and it won’t be lost on the surrounding states populations as to why it is they prefer to buy gas in Virginia. And why businesses, big or small, will chose to locate there.

Even if it does not work, at the very least we should credit the state of Virginia for actually trying something to solve their problems. Contrast that with the disgusting toga party that is Washington DC, where the only thing they did in response to the fiscal crisis was to order more pizza and beer.

virgo on January 15, 2013 at 3:12 AM

The purpose of the gas tax was to help take care of the roads. People who don’t drive, or who do but use electric or diesel fuels are getting hit by a double whammy here. Not only do they have to pay more for everything else, their fuel prices aren’t going down either. As a Virginian, I say cut the retail tax by a percentage point and leave gas tax alone.

wolfva on January 15, 2013 at 3:49 AM

Solutions.

Schemes.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM

Back in the 1980’s the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under the Ronald Reagan administration
 
lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:22 PM

 

…None of those will exist on an Obama(Reagan?)phone. Cellphones are also easier and cheaper to setup and decommission.
 
lester on January 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM

 
And that’s where you told on yourself.
 
If it wasn’t wasteful, broke even, or was any sort of even marginal money saving accomplishment, you (specifically you, not general you*) would celebrate the savings:
 

If anything Obama has brought more economic freedom.
 
lester on January 10, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Thank you president Obama, no thanks to GOP.
 
lester on May 26, 2012 at 2:57 PM

 
and wouldn’t be shuffling around hoping to tie the modern cell phone aspect to Reagan.
 
Twice.

rogerb on January 15, 2013 at 6:33 AM

* Unless this isn’t the lester we all know and love:
 

Makes perfect conservative sense.
 
lester on January 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You must be new here.
 
HotAirLib
on January 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM

 
That was hilarious, btw, and thanks for the twofer, HAL.
 
1) New liberal poster unable/unwilling to pay enough attention (Obama 2013!) to know a longtime HA liberal poster, and
 
2) Said longtime HA liberal poster’s demonstrated inability to ensure value even among compatriots.
 

You are the most pathetic commenter on this website.
 
lester on August 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

rogerb on January 15, 2013 at 6:49 AM

Pundits, politicans, and tax increase lovers all like to point out that whoa is the tax collector who cannot seem to get a break on collecting his fair share of gas taxes due to increased fuel efficiency, alternative autos (still a tiny amount on the road), and the like. Everyone seems to conveniently forget that since the gas tax was added there have been millions upon millions of more cars on the road sucking up more and more gallsons of gas. So, please, Virginia, be mindful that, yes, the gas tax was last raised in the late 1980′s but miles driven have more than made up for any fuel efficiency. Bottom line? Politicians submit all their pet projects (roads to no where)to their transportation departments then cry the blues when there is “no money” to fund their project. How about this novel approach: how about elected officials making tough decisions and saying, “No, this project is wasteful and not worthy of funds”? No, instead it’s easier to hammer Americans over the head who willingly (or unwillingly) bought more fuel efficient cars. I am tired to hear the beast of government must be fed first. ENOUGH.

stop2think on January 15, 2013 at 7:59 AM

Then, the move will be to install black boxes so they can charge the tax by the mile. The pols always find a way to raise revenues.

Kissmygrits on January 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM

I believe some of my fellow conservatives are missing the point. The fact that they’re shuffling taxes around isn’t the point. The bottom line is that part of this plan involves ending a tax. That’s a non-starter for our socialist friends on the left. Eliminating a tax, any tax, for any reason, grates on every fiber of their being.

The freedom to confiscate money at will from the hapless tax-paying public is in the Liberals’ Bill of Rights.

P.S. It’s not just our “poor” people that don’t have cars. Our urban liberal friends frequently don’t own cars, and are proud of it.

P.P.S. Hmmm, except when they really need a car, then they rent a ZipCar.

FlatlanderByTheLake on January 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM