Ron Sims has now come up with a plan to increase sales tax by another 0.3% with the vast majority of that going to just keep the current bus service, and much of the rest going to light rail and transit. We have already established that the vast majority of users of transit are not transit dependent, but merely people like CS who desire "transportation choices." Since fares only cover about 25% of the operating costs (and none of the capital costs) of these transportation choices, why don't we just RAISE THE FARES?

We've had a number of discussions on resource allocation and the allegation that auto users in general (and SOV users in particular) don't really pay their own way. Here's a chance for the "transportation choices" crowd to put their money where their mouths are. Just raise the fares to offset the difference for those who can pay. Give scrip or reduced fare passes to those who truly are transit dependent.

We have seen several complaints posted concerning the regressive nature of sales taxes, how they most impact the least wealthy. Why should healthy people with family-wages jobs expect the poor to pay more for their clothing and other essentials to subsidize their "transportation choices." the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 31, 2000

Answers

Did you notice in the Seattle Times about the $30 million that King County has just wasted on a new computer system that doesn't work? It's currently $10 million over budget and 18 months behind schedule. The county has just halted the project and fired its main consultant. To restart the project will take at least another $20 million. It's OK, though. Last week Ron Sims said that he wasn't "fixing blame on anyone" for the snafu.

And this is the guy that wants to raise sales taxes in King COunty to 8.9%!

The sad thing, this being King County and all, is that he will undoubtedly get this passed overwhelmingly by the voters. To go along, of course, with that $262 million bond issue Sims wants on the fall ballot.

A King County voter's favorite fantasy: "Yes! Yes! Tax me more - Oh it hurts so good!"

-- Albert Fosha (Afosha@aol.com), June 01, 2000.

to Craig: You ask: why don't we just RAISE THE FARES?.

A better question would be: why don't we ELIMINATE bus routes with low ridership?

If we focused on the NICHES where buses have high ridership, then the fares might come a lot closer to meeting the operating expenses.

Ironically, if the county raises it sales tax, then this might result in LESS SHOPPING in King County, which would result in lower sales tax revenues. However, it would be a good move for internet retailers who are not based in Washington.

That's one benefit of higher sales taxes - it's a positive development for internet retailers from other states. Unlike higher gasoline prices, which is a major negative.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 01, 2000.

"If we focused on the NICHES where buses have high ridership, then the fares might come a lot closer to meeting the operating expenses. " True, but in the spirit of user fees, I'd like those who "simply want transportation choices" to have their transportation choices, just so they pay for them with their own money. Except for the poor/transit-dependent, they ought to be able to cover the costs of their choices, both capital and operating costs.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 01, 2000.

Craig: You write: "True, but in the spirit of user fees, ... they ought to be able to cover the costs of their choices, both capital and operating costs."

Well, Craig, apparently the voters don't subscribe to the "spirit of user fees". The voters don't want "user fees" for schools, libraries, and parks. So, I guess they RATIONALLY applied their methodology to transit.

So, drop the "user fee" canard. It's bad public policy. Eliminate the gasoline tax and replace it with higher sales taxes!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 02, 2000.

"Well, Craig, apparently the voters don't subscribe to the "spirit of user fees". The voters don't want "user fees" for schools, libraries, and parks. So, I guess they RATIONALLY applied their methodology to transit. " You have an inherent assumption that the voters are always right. were that the case, all incumbents would always be re-elected, and nothing would ever change, because it's perfect right now. Voters DO make mistakes and they do make changes. I think you would assume that the Narrows Bridge vote was a voter mistake. They voted DOWN the RTA on three occasions prior to passing it. They were wrong (depending on your perspective) either 75% of the time, or 25% of the time. And what does rationality have to do with a situation, if they have either erroneous facts, or no facts, from which to make a decision?
In short, why should I give up on trying to educate people and advocate what I believe are desirable goals?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 02, 2000.

"So, drop the "user fee" canard. It's bad public policy. Eliminate the gasoline tax and replace it with higher sales taxes!!! "

or Tolls. If charged by weight and sq footage, that could make both the trucking industry and bus transit more efficient to keep costs down and also pay the fair amount. It would also impact SOV usage.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), June 02, 2000.

to Craig: I'm not trying to imply the voters are always right, because new information might change their minds. But, I have to repsect their assessment of information as it is currently perceived. As for the Narrows Bridge vote, that is an example of taxation without representation. It is completely analagous to the people in Great Britain voting to impose a tax on the "colonies".

The bottom line is this: if you really have compassion for the poor, then you would not favor user fees of any kind.

Sales taxes are always preferable, because you can shop in another county; or shop on-line or; buy used goods from private individuals. There are many ways to avoid or mitigate sales taxes.

Screw user fees!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 02, 2000.

to Jim Cusick: You write: "or Tolls. If charged by weight and sq footage, that could make both the trucking industry and bus transit more efficient to keep costs down and also pay the fair amount. It would also impact SOV usage."

Tolls are user fees, so from the perspective of the poor, they are horrible, perhaps even worse than gasoline taxes.

I have no objection to new roads being built as toll roads, as long as communities are not forced to use them. How would you feel if all the streets leading to your home were turned into toll roads, but only your neighborhood was impacted?

I like the idea of a parallel network of roads funded, in part, by tolls. If the roads are intleligently planned, then tolls may very well provide all the funding.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 02, 2000.

Matthew,

As usual, there is something wrong in your theory.

"Sales taxes are always preferable, because you can shop in another county; or shop on-line or; buy used goods from private individuals. There are many ways to avoid or mitigate sales taxes."

So if we fund projects through sales taxes under your scenario, and people find a way around paying them, it would be a failing revenue source for those projects.

In addition, it is difficult for the poor to shop in the next county and even more difficult for them to buy online. So they can buy used...lucky them.

Instead of posting just to see your name in print, try thinking an idea through for once.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

To Matthew: "Tolls are user fees, so from the perspective of the poor, they are horrible, perhaps even worse than gasoline taxes."

Bus fares are user fees. GASOLINE TAXES are NOT USER FEES. The gas tax does not differentiate between COMMUTE trips taken during congested periods, nor does it take into account that 80% of a person's daily trips are local in nature and do not require the same facilities that commute trips do. In other words, why should my gas tax revenue be "paid back" to me (my municipality) as capacity improvements so those who choose to live outside my area can use my neighborhood as a through route.

"I have no objection to new roads being built as toll roads, as long as communities are not forced to use them. How would you feel if all the streets leading to your home were turned into toll roads, but only your neighborhood was impacted?" Check out this web site : http://www.trainweb.com/mts/fmt/fmt07.html

It's the web site for the Modern Transit Society, and the 'see figure' link adresses that. It's rather intriguing, although I imagine implimenting it would be a task.

"I like the idea of a parallel network of roads funded, in part, by tolls. If the roads are intleligently planned, then tolls may very well provide all the funding."

Sounds like a great idea to me. However, it's traditional in Washington state to NOT have to pay a USER FEE for roads. The question now is, who gets what roads, and who pays for them.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), June 04, 2000.

to Marsha: You write: "So if we fund projects through sales taxes under your scenario, and people find a way around paying them, it would be a failing revenue source for those projects."

It's no so much that people would find a way around paying them, but that they would have a variety of options as to when and how much of their money they throw away on sales taxes. The point you're missing, Marsha, is higher sales taxes do not adversely impact internet retailers, whereas higher gasoline prices (and higher gasoline taxes) do. The choice is yours. If you prefer lowering the cost of capital for new technology (i.e., internet-based businesses), then support sales taxes over other forms of revenue generation.

You write: "In addition, it is difficult for the poor to shop in the next county and even more difficult for them to buy online. So they can buy used...lucky them."

Yes, Marsha, lucky them. There's nothing wrong in buying used products. A lot of us buy used cars and used homes. The bottom line is the poor would have a say via the elections as to whether or not they would prefer higher sales taxes in return for no gasoline taxes, or do they prefer the status quo.

So, yes, I do think things thru. I believe the poor would prefer no gasoline taxes.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 05, 2000.

to Jim Cusick: You write: "Check out this web site : http://www.trainweb.com/mts/fmt/fmt07.html... It's the web site for the Modern Transit Society, and the 'see figure' link adresses that. It's rather intriguing, although I imagine implimenting it would be a task."

If the people of the state of Washington vote to implement such a plan, then so be it. But, it won't get my vote. Driving your car around is essential to the notion of freedom of movement.

However, even the web site is more fair than what is planned for my community with the new Narrows bridge. If everybody were equally screwed in terms of tolls, at least society would be treating everyone consistently.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 05, 2000.

>"Driving your car around is essential to the notion of freedom of movement."

Nobody's trying to take your car away, Matty-boy. And besides, driving one's car around is indeed NOT essential to the notion of freedom of movement.

Only "freedom of movement" is essential to the notion of freedom of movement. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not. Freedom of movement may include any mode of transportation, be it walking, biking, driving, riding, sailing, paddling, climbing, or whatever.

Unfortunately, those who claim freedom of movement only involves the car often restrict the freedom of movement by those who would choose other modes of transportation. Example: the auto-centric culture has often come at the expense of destroying walkable communities, sidewalks, etc.

But back to the point that someone's trying to take your little car away from you: nobody is. I think you misunderstood. Because nobody's going to storm into your four-car garage at 3 a.m. and Shang-Hai your Chevy. Nope. But honestly, that's how some of you act.

I think what's intended is a multi-modal transportation system where cars aren't the first, last, and only answer when it comes to getting from point A to point B.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

Sorry to sound so snotty in that last posting. It's only Monday and I've already had a bad week. . .

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

"I think what's intended is a multi-modal transportation system where cars aren't the first, last, and only answer when it comes to getting from point A to point B. "

And I have no problem with that as long as those who choose to use the alternate modes, pay for them. That isn't the case with transit fares covering 20 cents on the dollar of operating funds, and nothing on the dollar of capital funds.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 05, 2000.

to Common Sense: Yeah, going to work on a Monday after a gorgeous weekend is a real pain in the you-know-what.

I was just indicating to Jim that having every inch I drive be tolled is not my cup of tea. Especially with the price of the toll fluctuating based in congestion. I can see it now, I pull out of my driveway to go to the store for a loaf of bread, and a flashing sign says the toll is $10. I think I'll walk instead of drive.

My personal opinion is that an auto-centric culture is the most productive, and, simultaneously, the most free. If you can point to a society which is freer and more productive, then we should follow their example, assuming they're not auto-centric, as well.

For me, roadways are an essential element to civilization, and, therefore, should be funded out of sales and income taxes. There is no need for a gas tax. And, any tolls should be optional. No one should be forced to pay tolls, IMO.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 05, 2000.

Matthew,

"The point you're missing, Marsha, is higher sales taxes do not adversely impact internet retailers,(who cares?) whereas higher gasoline prices (and higher gasoline taxes) do"

And the point your missing Matthew, is that it is all too easy now for people to avoid sales tax, whether they buy used, new online or in Oregon. People would likely do this on major purchases.A FAILING REVENUE SOURCE!

One of your more hair-brained ideas. "Gee, should I choose to pay sales tax on this purchase or avoid it today?"

It's far harder to avoid the gas tax. I suppose some deadbeats could always Vanpool.....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), June 06, 2000.

to Marsha: Let the voting public decide. If the majority prefer to fund roads with gas taxes instead of sales tax revenue, then that's fine. I'm merely expressing my preference for replacing funding of the roads with alternative taxes, preferably the sales tax. I'm aware of no data showing sales tax revenue to be declining significantly. So, I think your fears are slightly exaggerated.

Even license tab fees are preferable to a gas tax, since I can deduct the license tab fees. I can't deduct the gas tax I pay.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 06, 2000.

"I can't deduct the gas tax I pay." Nor can you deduct your sales tax. Why hasn't someone from the state banded together with the other 6 states that don't have an income tax and taken on the feds under the equal protection clause? Why should citizens from states who elect to fund their government through state income taxes be given deductions for federal income tax, while citizens from states which elect to fund their government from other taxes (including consumption taxes) not be permitted to deduct these expenses?

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 06, 2000.

On that last point, craig, you and I are in complete agreement (yikes!).

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), June 08, 2000.

Scares me too, CS!

;-)

the craigster

PS: Usually if people talk long enough, they can find some common ground, however limited.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 08, 2000.

In honor of the rare occurrence of agreement between myself and CS, I thought Id give him an article that hed enjoy. The cartoon is pretty good also, but youll have to go to the url to see it. I havent figured out html enough to post it.

We're just a few dinosaurs short of a full tank
By DAVE BARRY 
Cartoon by Jeff MacNelly 



If you've been to a gas station lately, you have no doubt been 
shocked by the prices: $1.67, $1.78, even $1.92. And that's just for 
Hostess Twinkies. Gas prices are even worse. 
Americans are ticked off about this, and with good reason: Our rights 
are being violated! The First Amendment clearly states: ``In addition 
to freedom of speech, Americans shall always have low gasoline 
prices, so they can drive around in 'sport utility' vehicles the size 
of minor planets.'' 
And don't let any so-called ``economists'' try to tell you that 
foreigners pay more for gas than we do. Foreigners use metric 
gasoline, which is sold in foreign units called ``kilometers,'' plus 
they are paying for it with foreign currencies such as the ``franc,'' 
the ``lira'' and the ``doubloon.'' So in fact there is no 
mathematical way to tell WHAT they are paying. 
But here in the U.S. we are definitely getting messed over, and the 
question is: What are we going to do about it? Step one, of course, 
is to file a class-action lawsuit against the cigarette companies. 
They have nothing to do with gasoline, but juries really hate them, 
so we'd probably win several hundred billion dollars. 
But that is a short-term answer. To truly solve this problem, we must 
understand how the oil business works. Like most Americans, you 
probably think that gasoline comes from the pump at the gas station. 
Ha ha! What an idiot. In fact, the gasoline comes from tanks located 
UNDER the gas station. These tanks are connected to underground 
pipelines, which carry large oil tankers filled with oil from the 
Middle East. 
But how did the oil get in the Middle East in the first place? To 
answer that question, we must go back millions of years, to an era 
that geologists call the Voracious Period, when giant dinosaurs 
roamed the Earth, eating everything that stood in their path, except 
for broccoli, which they hated. And then, one fateful day (Oct. 8), a 
runaway asteroid, believed by scientists to be nearly twice the 
diameter of the late Orson Welles, slammed into the Earth and killed 
the dinosaurs, who by sheer bad luck all happened to be standing 
right where it landed. The massive impact turned the dinosaurs, via a 
process called photosynthesis, into oil; this oil was then gradually 
covered with a layer of sand, which in turn was gradually covered by 
a layer of people who hate each other, and thus the Middle East was 
formed. 
For many years, the Middle East was content to supply the United 
States with as much oil as we wanted at fair constitutional prices. 
But then the major oil-producing nations -- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, 
Kuwait and Texas -- got all snotty and formed an organization called 
OPEC, which stands for ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization.'' In the 
1970s, OPEC decided to raise prices, and soon the United States was 
caught up in a serious crisis: The Disco Era. It was horrible. You 
couldn't go to a bar or wedding reception without being ordered onto 
the dance floor to learn ``The Hustle.'' 
At the same time, we also had an oil crisis, which was caused by the 
fact that every motorist in the United States was determined to keep 
his or her automobile gas tank completely filled at all times. As 
soon as your gas gauge dropped from ``Full'' to ``Fifteen-
sixteenths,'' you'd rush to a gas station and get in a huge line with 
hundreds of other motorists who also had nearly full tanks. Also a 
lot of people, including me, saved on heating oil by buying kerosene 
space heaters, which enabled us to transform a cold, dank room into a 
cold, dank room filled with kerosene fumes. 
Buying gas and dancing ``The Hustle'' with people who smelled like 
kerosene: That was the seventies. 
So anyway, the oil crisis finally ended, and over time we got rid of 
our Volkswagen Rabbits and replaced them with Chevrolet Suburbans 
boasting the same fuel economy as the World Trade Center. Now, once 
again, we find ourselves facing rising gas prices, and the question 
is: This time, are we going to learn from the past? Are we finally 
going to get serious about energy conservation? 
Of course not! We have the brains of mealworms! So we need to get 
more oil somehow. As far as I can figure, there's only one practical 
way to do this. That's right: We need to clone more dinosaurs. We 
have the technology, as was shown in two blockbuster scientific 
movies, Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park Returns with Exactly the Same 
Plot. Once we have the dinosaurs, all we need is an asteroid. Or, if 
he is available, Marlon Brando. 
If this plan makes sense to you, double your medication dosage, then 
write to your congressperson. Do it now! That way you'll be busy when 
I siphon your tank. 

http://www.herald.com/thispage.htm?content/archive/living/barry/conten t.htm

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 09, 2000.