So, after reading about the proposed funding for roads in the Observer and the interwebs, along with Mr. Green's editorial comments, I'm throwing in my 2¢.
The proposed sales tax hike was referred to as a "regressive tax" because it's supposedly more of a burden on lower income people.
I would think the same could be said for raising the gasoline tax 18¢ per gallon along with registration fees increasing by 80%.
I personally would rather see the proposed 2% sales tax increase with the elimination of the fuel tax. This, in my opinion would be more fair for everyone.
Yes, it will still be a larger percentage burden of the lower income households when purchasing goods. But, it wouldn't cause the lower income earners to possibly need to make a choice of putting gas in the car or buying food. Along with driving with expired plates because of an 80% increase for registration.
Now some of you may be thinking, "Russ, you're cold hearted toward the lower income people."
Ah, contraire. I do care about the lower income worker. This is why I think an increase of the sales tax would be more fair. In case you may be unaware, lower income households generally don't have the means to buy a hybrid or newer, more fuel efficient vehicle. Let alone trying to maintain their present one for the best fuel economy.
How much do you think the Amish contribute to funds for road repairs as it stands now?
Do they use the roads?
With a 2% increase in sales tax that would be constitutionally destined for use of road repairs and construction and the elimination of the gas tax the Amish, bicyclists, joggers, or anyone else that uses the roads would be helping contribute to the funding for road repairs and construction.
So that is my take on the road funding proposals as they now stand.
– Russell Davis