Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then why not just raise the gas tax? An immediate influx of revenue , without any investment. Or is there another reason ? The politics of continuing to have vehicles using gasoline? Bills to keep promoting green solutions and climate change reactions ?
If you take the time to read what I wrote about fracking, I didn't say it was the answer to our energy problems.
This is what I said...
" massive negative impact " . That statement is actually not true, and when done properly and under regulatory oversight the results have been quite good. Another scare tactic by the Environment Lobby , but the evidence doesn't back up the claim. I am not saying it would work here, but to close out any concept of it sounds to me like an ideology based response.
And...
Maybe we could raise some revenue from fracking ?
How do you know the answers to questions that are not addressed by research or a study? It isn't logical to just shut it out of your mind because it isn't politically fashionable. And that is really the problem these days, isn't it ?
In the early 1970's , I was operating a transportation and delivery service in New York City. I was commuting in from Long Island into the city, and then driving all around the NY Metro area . Because of the political upheaval in Iran , gasoline was hard to get. Green Flags , Yellow Flags, odd and even license plates, and 4 hour waits to get 5 gallons. Closed stations. Bribery and fist fights.
I needed gas for multiple vehicles. It was a nightmare.
While I sat in my car and listened , " experts' having done " studies" told us that we were running out of oil . " Peak Oil" was coming down the Pike. We are going to run out , in 25 years. No oil. That's around the same time the NY Times was telling us that the next " mini Ice age" was on the way.
So what happened to those predictions? What if it was so believed , so " settled" as we are told over and over today , that people just accepted it and put their heads down ?
When you base your actions on emotions , when your mind is made up even before you allow your horizons to expand, you paint yourself in a corner. And that's what many CT Democrats are doing today.Locked into the mantra , they all know better than us.
That being said , I don't appreciate your attempt to insult me . I know what I am talking about. When I post an opinion , you can bet that it has substance to back it up. Opinions are never right or wrong. However they become more acceptable when it can be supported by facts. We are bombarded by information on a daily basis , a person's belief in specific information becomes their personal knowledge.
You know little to nothing about me. Believe it or not, there may be people out there that could actually know more than you regarding a certain subject.
Well said. Your logic is sound and backed by facts, which is always the proper way to do things. Some folks here are held by the nose and led down a path dictated by others, incapable of thinking for themselves or possibly having an opinion or thought contrary to the "state approved thought". Wind and PV are not the answer, as there is currently no viable energy storage solution. Gee, what to do on windless, cloudy days that can persist for weeks in some cases??
Parts of the Governor's Budget address. Get ready for some new taxes. more money for " green jobs", let's hope he does better than Obama and Biden. Tolls are in the future , as is a $ 15 minimum wage , paid family leave sure to be paid for by a tax on employees. Kind of what one would expect from a modern Democrat. No increase of the gas tax however, which helps the working class. If you want to save some money, you can grow your hair a bit longer. More money for rail to get us out of cars. Doing some research recently, I was surprised to uncover that all the wonderful high speed rail options in Europe and Japan, only two of the lines actually turn a profit. Maybe we can improve on that ?
My sales tax reform would broaden the base so that digital goods are treated equally and more significantly that we are capturing a growing segment of the economy. For example, Movie theatres charge a tax, and Netflix should be treated the same.
Under our budget proposal, consumer-oriented services will no longer be tax exempt. For example, why do you have to pay a tax on manicures but not when you get a haircut?
A $15 minimum wage, enacted responsibly and over time would raise wages for almost a third of our workforce, a third of whom are female workers, forty percent of whom are African-American workers, and more than half of whom are Hispanic workers.
Passing a Paid Family and Medical Leave program will ensure that workers who need to take time off for a new baby or recover from illness are not punished financially, and businesses do not risk losing good workers during these emergencies.
I also support fully funding our clean energy and energy efficiency programs, which have been shortchanged over the last few years. These funds help bring down electricity costs for working families, and they further reduce our carbon footprint. I will make sure that we work with labor and vo-tech schools so that more of our citizens get the skills training they need for good paying, green collar jobs.
I’ve supported truck-only tolling which could generate $200 million if applied to all major Connecticut highways. While we are awaiting a ruling from the courts regarding truck-only tolling, our attorneys tell me that even if permitted, the tolling could only be done on specific bridges to pay for their rebuild. Assuming our attorneys are correct, the truck-only tolling could provide a down payment on repairing our bridges, but not enough to rebuild our transportation system without additional revenues.
Let me be clear- I do not support raising the gasoline tax, which is already high.
I know there are proposals in the legislature that include tolling for cars and trucks. I would only consider this option if we maximized the discount for Connecticut EZ-Pass users and/or offered a “frequent driver” discount for those who are required to frequently travel our major roadways. It’s estimated that out-of-state drivers could provide over 40% of tolling revenue for Connecticut. We foot the bill when we travel through neighboring states, it’s time out-of-state drivers do the same for Connecticut.
Speeding up our rail service from Hartford to New Haven, to Stamford and New York City, with more frequent service to Waterbury and New London, with easier access to Bradley Airport and an upgraded Tweed Airport – working with the community to make sure it benefits everyone - all while moving some drivers from roads to rail, incentivizing trucks to drive at off peak hours - these transportation upgrades are the building blocks of our economic future—but we must start now.
Why did Malloy eliminate net metering as of this year?
That will kill solar.
As much as I love the concept of Net metering it comes to a point where it's unsustainable. I believe the new system allows the selling of energy back to the utility just at wholesale rates. That pains me to say as I hate eversource with an unending passion.
Well said. Your logic is sound and backed by facts, which is always the proper way to do things. Some folks here are held by the nose and led down a path dictated by others, incapable of thinking for themselves or possibly having an opinion or thought contrary to the "state approved thought". Wind and PV are not the answer, as there is currently no viable energy storage solution. Gee, what to do on windless, cloudy days that can persist for weeks in some cases??
Batteries. Of course there are some questionable environmental issues with that as well. I think we are up to over a Giga Watt or installed batteries tied to the grid now.
Then why not just raise the gas tax? An immediate influx of revenue , without any investment. Or is there another reason ? The politics of continuing to have vehicles using gasoline? Bills to keep promoting green solutions and climate change reactions ?
If you take the time to read what I wrote about fracking, I didn't say it was the answer to our energy problems.
This is what I said...
" massive negative impact " . That statement is actually not true, and when done properly and under regulatory oversight the results have been quite good. Another scare tactic by the Environment Lobby , but the evidence doesn't back up the claim. I am not saying it would work here, but to close out any concept of it sounds to me like an ideology based response.
And...
Maybe we could raise some revenue from fracking ?
How do you know the answers to questions that are not addressed by research or a study? It isn't logical to just shut it out of your mind because it isn't politically fashionable. And that is really the problem these days, isn't it ?
In the early 1970's , I was operating a transportation and delivery service in New York City. I was commuting in from Long Island into the city, and then driving all around the NY Metro area . Because of the political upheaval in Iran , gasoline was hard to get. Green Flags , Yellow Flags, odd and even license plates, and 4 hour waits to get 5 gallons. Closed stations. Bribery and fist fights.
I needed gas for multiple vehicles. It was a nightmare.
While I sat in my car and listened , " experts' having done " studies" told us that we were running out of oil . " Peak Oil" was coming down the Pike. We are going to run out , in 25 years. No oil. That's around the same time the NY Times was telling us that the next " mini Ice age" was on the way.
So what happened to those predictions? What if it was so believed , so " settled" as we are told over and over today , that people just accepted it and put their heads down ?
When you base your actions on emotions , when your mind is made up even before you allow your horizons to expand, you paint yourself in a corner. And that's what many CT Democrats are doing today.Locked into the mantra , they all know better than us.
That being said , I don't appreciate your attempt to insult me . I know what I am talking about. When I post an opinion , you can bet that it has substance to back it up. Opinions are never right or wrong. However they become more acceptable when it can be supported by facts. We are bombarded by information on a daily basis , a person's belief in specific information becomes their personal knowledge.
You know little to nothing about me. Believe it or not, there may be people out there that could actually know more than you regarding a certain subject.
I am not trying to insult you but you are making claims of facts but did not back them up with any references. If you have them, please provide them. That is all I am asking.
Also, I am not aware of any oil deposits in our state that would be accessible with fracking. Why then should we study it?
I also remember some of those claims made back in the 70's and questioned their validity too but you must remember things were very different back then. Oil exploration was somewhat primitive back then (at least by today's standards) and there have been great strides in finding oil deposits as well as the ability to tap oil in places that were inaccessible back then.
Furthermore a lot more is known about climate change. We can argue about that too but that would be off topic to this forum. But when the VAST majority of scientists agree on something it is real. Jay
The last time the Connecticut gas tax was raised was 1997 when it was raised to 39 cents. After that the tax was dropped to 25 cents in 2000 where it has remained since. Jay
You are still incorrect. Ct's gas tax has two components the flat tax of .25 cents and the gross receipts tax which is about .24 cents a gallon (giving CT a total of .49 cents a gallon tax.) The gross receipts tax was last raised in 2013 to my knowledge.
"Over the past twenty years, the Gross Receipts Tax has been increased from the former 3% to the now 7.53%. As of the middle of March, Connecticut tax-payers were paying an average of $4.00 per gallon according to AAA. The price includes the state's 25 cents per gallon gas tax and roughly another 24 cents per gallon with the gross receipts tax. The Gross Receipts Tax rate is currently scheduled to increase from 7.53% to an effective rate of 8.81% on July 1st 2013."
Batteries. Of course there are some questionable environmental issues with that as well. I think we are up to over a Giga Watt or installed batteries tied to the grid now.
Batteries can certainly help. But with the weather in most of the US, PV is limited to being feasible in the Nevada desert. It certainly can generate a good amount of power, but without viable storage for a long term cloudy spell or wind deficit, you’ll need to consider more viable solutions. Flywheels could work, Safe nuclear is high in the list.
You are still incorrect. Ct's gas tax has two components the flat tax of .25 cents and the gross receipts tax which is about .24 cents a gallon (giving CT a total of .49 cents a gallon tax.) The gross receipts tax was last raised in 2013 to my knowledge.
"Over the past twenty years, the Gross Receipts Tax has been increased from the former 3% to the now 7.53%. As of the middle of March, Connecticut tax-payers were paying an average of $4.00 per gallon according to AAA. The price includes the state's 25 cents per gallon gas tax and roughly another 24 cents per gallon with the gross receipts tax. The Gross Receipts Tax rate is currently scheduled to increase from 7.53% to an effective rate of 8.81% on July 1st 2013."
In only 20 years the gross receipts tax has more than doubled, but the flat tax has remained unchanged.
The gross receipts tax is not the gas tax. They are different. I said the gas tax has not been increased which it has not. And in fact the gas tax was decreased in steps from 1997 to 2000 as I posted. It went from 39 cents to 25 cents which is a 36% decrease.
Because of the the way the gross receipts tax is calculated (it is not a simple straight percentage) it is difficult to pinpoint how much the changes in it impacted gas prices but it generated 36% less revenue in 2017 than it did in 2013. That is a significant decrease so I highly doubt it added anything to the price of gas. Jay
The gross receipts tax is a gas tax. It is not the excise tax but it absolutely is a gas tax. The American Petroleum Institute notes that the total state taxes on gasoline is 36.85 for 2019. 25 cents is the excise tax, 11.85 other taxes and fees. The API explicitly states that the other fees includes the gross receipts earnings tax. I cannot believe that this does not affect the price of gas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT
The gross receipts tax is not the gas tax. They are different. I said the gas tax has not been increased which it has not. And in fact the gas tax was decreased in steps from 1997 to 2000 as I posted. It went from 39 cents to 25 cents which is a 36% decrease.
Because of the the way the gross receipts tax is calculated (it is not a simple straight percentage) it is difficult to pinpoint how much the changes in it impacted gas prices but it generated 36% less revenue in 2017 than it did in 2013. That is a significant decrease so I highly doubt it added anything to the price of gas. Jay
The gross receipts tax is a gas tax. It is not the excise tax but it absolutely is a gas tax. The American Petroleum Institute notes that the total state taxes on gasoline is 36.85 for 2019. 25 cents is the excise tax, 11.85 other taxes and fees. The API explicitly states that the other fees includes the gross receipts earnings tax. I cannot believe that this does not affect the price of gas.
Argue what you want but this goes back to the questioning my original statement on the gas tax, not the Gross Receipts Tax.
As I pointed out it is a fact that the state is receiving less revenue from gasoline sales and is likely to see even less in the future unless something is changed. Other states have chosen to raise their taxes on gasoline. That includes states that currently rely on tolls.
If the State wants to address its transportation needs and build a system that will serve us well in the 21st Century, more revenue is needed. How we get that revenue is up for debate. We could continue to keep what is a rapidly decreasing revenue source and do nothing to improve our transportation.
We could raise the gas tax which places the financial burden of transportation pretty much only on Connecticut residents. Or we can implement tolls which would place as much as 40% of the burden on out-of-state drivers who currently use our roads for free.
I don't think it can be argued that our transportation system needs improvement and to do that we need additional revenue. I also don't think the burden of that should be placed solely on the residents of Connecticut in the form of increased gas taxes. We are the only state on the east coast that does not have tolls. We can no longer afford to pay for out-of-state drivers to use our roads for free. That is why tolls seem to make the most sense for solving our transportation revenue problem. Jay
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
