I can't believe I have to say this: highway tolls are not a conspiracy to destroy freedom.

[TheWraith]

One of the proposed amendments to the current transportation bill in Congress is to add highway tolls to some federal interstates in order to help pay for the cost of repairing and rebuilding transportation infrastructure, by directly billing the people and organizations that benefit most such as trucking and long-distance travelers.

For gobsmacking reasons, some people seem to have come to the immediate conclusion that this is a massive conspiracy to destroy American freedom, by privatizing all roads and instituting a massive government program to track the movements of all Americans via toll booths. And no, this isn't something off Freeperville, it originated right here on DU.

I didn't think I'd have to say how ridiculous that is, but apparently I do. It's ridiculous in the extreme. Not only are the concerns ridiculous, but they run directly opposite to most of the premises that we ostensibly believe in, i.e. that investing in transportation infrastructure is good for the economy, good for the public interest, and good for the future. Leave the rants about how the Big Gubmint spending a few bucks to rebuild roads and make safer bridges is going to destroy America to the Glenn Beck wannabes.

[MADem]

1. I am not a fan of tolls, but I concur with your evaluation.

They aren't a conspiracy--they are a way to raise revenue.

[HappyMe]

3. I concurrently concur with your concur.

Repair & upkeep aren't free.

[TheWraith]

8. I'm not a fan either, but nor do I overly dislike them.

Most of the time, I tend to avoid toll highways, the biggest of which around here is the NYS Thruway. But nor do I object to them overmuch. And frankly, it's a system that works. (Or at least does when the state government doesn't fuck with the budget, but that's another matter.) The tolls both raise revenue and discourage too-casual use of highways, spreading out the congestion. And it's a convenience fee which is sometimes well worth it. I took toll highways on my way to Pittsburgh a few years ago, and to Maine a year after that. Both times it was well worth the money for the time I saved.

[hedgehog]

21. Here in New York, the yahoos constantly whine

"but we paid for the Thruway years ago, why are the toll booths still there?"

That's when they aren't whining about all the repair crews up and down the road all summer!



Seriously, some of the adjoining states without toll roads have terrible road surfaces!

[Lawlbringer]

27. I think the fear is that

Privatizing would lead to toll hikes purely for profit rather than betterment.

[hedgehog]

29. I think we need to fight any attempt at privatizing any utility -

but we need to make the cost of automobile and truck usage more transparent.

[woo me with science]

52. This is a massive corporate giveaway and profit-making scheme,

even without privatizing highways...for now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=424182
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=424168

[LiberalFighter]

74. That will be difficult to do.

Everyone benefits from interstate roads even if they never or seldom use them.

1) Reduced traffic on other roads.
2) Companies base many of their decisions on location of major roads such as interstates. Those jobs help increase the tax base and thereby keep local taxes low. Offshoot of other jobs based on other new jobs.
3) Expands the distance one is able to seek a job in the area.

[TheWraith]

32. Thing is, there is NO privatization.

The bill actually makes it HARDER for roads to be privatized. Anyone saying otherwise is simply lying.

[atreides1]

2. Tell me something

Prior to 9/11, did you think that the US Congress would pass something like the Patriot Act?

Or did you think such concerns were ridiculous?

[TheWraith]

5. Prior to 9/11, Congress wouldn't have passed it.

However, there's a huge difference between authorizing constitutionally suspect practices with regard to search and surveillance, and believing that TOLL BOOTHS are a massive conspiracy to track the whereabouts of every American via facial recognition.

[Initech]

4. People need to turn off Coast To Coast AM and remove their tin foil hats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Oh wait, it's a great place for story ideas!

Or role playing game scenarios...

[denverbill]

6. They are not a conspiracy to destroy freedom. It's just another regressive tax.

No billionaire is going to pay any more in tolls, personally, than I would. Fund infrastructure maintenance through the general fund and make tax rates more progressive.

It's not the end of the world as we know it. It's just another punch in the face of progressive taxation.

[ProSense]

13. Frankly

They are not a conspiracy to destroy freedom. It's just another regressive tax.

No billionaire is going to pay any more in tolls, personally, than I would. Fund infrastructure maintenance through the general fund and make tax rates more progressive.

...the opposite is the case. Here in the NY/NJ area, people pushed for Christie to increase the tolls instead of hiking public transportation costs. The latter disproportionately impacts the low- and middle-income Americans.

[TheWraith]

15. Some people might be more comfortable thinking of it as a luxury tax.

In some areas, it's a tax on the luxury of having a car, or living in the suburbs.

[sudopod]

18. And so does the former.

[denverbill]

19. I don't think taking the less regressive option necessarily makes it progressive.

Tolls are preferable to hiking public transit costs, but tolls are more regressive than even a flat income tax. At least with a flat tax, the wealthy pay a larger dollar amount in taxes. Tolls hit everyone for the same dollar amount, and it's not like rich people disproportionately use the roads.

Ask someone making minimum wage who has to commute on interstates every day if paying $10 in tolls every day would disproportionately affect them.

If you want to make tolls progressive, make the toll vary based on the value of the vehicle at least.

[girl gone mad]

38. Exactly. It's super regressive.

What happened to the Democratic party? We used to be against taxes that would hit working people harder than the idle rich. Now we're supposed to believe regressive taxation is wonderful?

[FarCenter]

62. Tolls can be made less regressive through discounts

For example, crossing the Hudson River from NJ to NYC costs anything from $12 for a car with cash payment, to as little as $3.50 for a car with EZPass on a carpool discount plan.

Besides, if you are making enough to afford parking in Manhattan, you are rich enough to pay the toll. Poor folks ride the train, PATH or the bus.

[unionworks]

7. Our Government

... set up a surveillance system on the highways of America? NOOO, NEVER!!!

[Mojorabbit]

26. There was a time when I would have laughed at the idea

but not now. I could post a dozen articles on the utilization of and improvements in surveillance technology. It totally creeps me out.

[MineralMan]

9. The only problem I have with tolls on the Interstate system is if there

is no practical alternate route.

For example, Pennsylvania wants to make I-80 a toll road. The Pennsylvania Turnpike, which is a combination of I-76 and I-70 is already a toll road. It costs a motorist in a passenger car about $36 to cross Pennsylvania in an east-west direction or the reverse. I-80 is a free alternative across the state. If both become toll highways, it will be next to impossible to cross that state without paying a toll. Secondary highways are too convoluted.

If I have no business in Pennsylvania, but must cross it to get to another state, then I would be forced to pay a toll to do so. That seems to me to be a problem with US citizens freedom of travel. It's not that I don't have the $36, but the principle of the thing.

[TheWraith]

17. I can't speak to Pennsylvania.

I know that here in New York, there's lots of alternate routes that avoid the main toll highway going from one end of the state to the other. US Route 20 is one perfect example: it runs all the way from Erie, PA across the state to Albany, where you can head for NYC or continue on to MA. Yes, it's trickier than just getting on the interstate and zoning out to your music player, but there's a reason that tolls are considered convenience fees.

[pipi_k]

73. And to continue on...

Route 20 from NY crosses Mass (we have to use it to get from home to the city) out to Boston, and, in fact, was called the Boston Post Road.

Parts of it are easy to travel, other parts go through large cities, but, to paraphrase a New England saying...

"You cahn get theyah frohm heyah"

without having to pay a toll on the Mass Pike.

[Ikonoklast]

47. One of the reasons people that live on the East Coast of this country pay inflated prices

for anything that is shipped east by truck is the tolls paid by trucking companies.

Tolling is regressive, those carriers are not going to eat those tolls, if they can do it, tolls get passed onto the shipper, and eventually the consumer.

If I haul a load at max gross across the PA pike, it costs me $330. I am not going to take that out of my pocket, it gets added on to the rate when I qhuote a price to a shipper.

Last year I paid over $18,000.00 just for tolls, and I don't even run east too much because of how much tolling cuts into my net.

I can't always recoup 100% of the cost, no one does, they end up eating the loss due to tolls.

[dixiegrrrrl]

53. The only problem I have with planned tolls is the privatization of them.

Fortunately, Congress is..sorta...addressing that:

"One surprising development was the passage on a 50-47 vote Tuesday of an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) that would make it much more difficult to privatize existing highways and turn them into toll roads.

Truckers and the AAA have strongly opposed creating more toll roads. On the Senate floor, Bingaman said his amendment "would simply remove these privatized toll roads from consideration when we allocate highway funds."

Privatization watchdogs were enthusiastic. "I think it's a defeat for Wall Street interests that have counted on Congress being asleep at the wheel when it comes to their subsides for private projects," said Phineas Baxandall, federal tax and budget policy analyst at the consumer group U.S. PIRG. He credited rural Republicans and truckers for the amendment's narrow passage."

Transportation bill amendment would "make it much more difficult to privatize existing highways"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002423665

[unionworks]

10. Tee Hee!

[Starry Messenger]

11. Why aren't we raising taxes on the rich?

They are the ones who profit from the people who use the roads to get to work. Truckers and commuters aren't on those highways for shits and giggles.

[TheWraith]

14. We already have, and it's happening again at the end of the year.

However, we currently have a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans.

[Starry Messenger]

37. Yes, I'm aware of the make-up of the House, thanks Wraith.

I was objecting to the breezy assertion that this burden be shouldered by the people who use the system, like they need an added slap on the ass because they have to work.

Obviously we need to change the composition of the House. And then the Bush tax cuts must be allowed to expire. Not some penny ante snips to their wealth. There are far too many people in crushing poverty for more regressive taxes.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. no we already didn't and we won't again at the end of the year.

[TheWraith]

51. Yes, we did. Check your facts.

The healthcare reform bill included a tax increase on the top bracket of wage earners from 35% to 39.6%. It also imposes Medicare taxes on individuals making over $200k or families making over $250k, and capital gains taxes to 20% from 15%. Those two moves alone raise taxes on top earners by $210 billion dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Income tax increase from 35 to 39.6? Not in your link.

Summary of funding
The Act's provisions are intended to be funded by a variety of taxes and offsets. Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as improved fairness in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.[33]
Summary of tax increases:
Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion
Original budget estimates included a provision to require information reporting on payments to corporations, which had been projected to raise $17 billion, but the provision was repealed.[34]

But I checked here as well: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/web/20102724.htm
Nope.

I think perhaps such big news like Obama kept his word and repealed the Bush Give-away to Billionaires would be recorded somewhere.

But I could be wrong.

Or you could be wrong. I see no evidence that you are right.

[TheWraith]

56. It's right there in line item 1: "Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 bil"

Wikipedia simply doesn't include the distinction between standard Medicare taxes and the 4.6% surcharge on the highest income tax bracket, because that surcharge goes entirely into Medicare/Medicaid, not into the general fund as income tax increases usually would.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. here is what you said

"The healthcare reform bill included a tax increase on the top bracket of wage earners from 35% to 39.6%. It also imposes Medicare taxes on individuals making over $200k or families making over $250k"

There is no change in income tax brackets in the affordable care act. That is just a flat out misstatement of fact.
You are now trying to weasel out of it by claiming that there is an effective increase in income tax rates. Note that you claimed the tax bracket change was in addition to the medicare tax increases.

[FarCenter]

12. If you strategically oppose tolls, it is easier tactically to whip up opposition on privacy grounds

Than arguing about the merits of tolls as a mechanism for funding highways.

BSing about privacy is the easy route to mass hysteria.

[sudopod]

16. Heya Dorothy, this is the Tin Man!

You can tell the Lion that I found the Scarecrow!

[woo me with science]

20. How predictable, that corporate giveaways

and anticipating the behavior of Homeland Security based on current and past behavior of Homeland Security, gets twisted and labeled as "conspiracy theory" by the defenders of corporate Democrats.

There is nothing here that isn't entirely consistent with the recent behavior of Homeland Security and with the goals of corporations who have bought into both parties in this country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002422667

But we have seen this sort of rhetorical twisting before, as on Meta right now...

Have fun with your thread. Unfortunately, we have seen very well over the past twelve years, over and over again, the way this song plays out...

[TheWraith]

25. It really is amazing that your view is so faith based you can't acknowledge facts.

A simple thing like the government raising revenue for itself magically becomes "corporate giveaways!!!!!11one!" Because you are either unwilling or unable to conceive of the difference between a highway toll paying for maintenance, and privatizing a highway for profit.

So please do enjoy your ludicrous conspiracy theory.

[girl gone mad]

39. Government doesn't need to raise revenue via regressive taxation.

It's wholly unnecessary.

[dionysus]

31. woo. just more woo.

[girl gone mad]

43. Corporatist woo at that.

Yes, we must create a system of inefficient tolls which will amount to another burdensome tax on the working classes so the government can maybe break even after paying the contractors to maintain and operate the system. Cronies get rich, people who have to drive to their jobs get screwed. Proclaiming that this is a smart Democratic idea is the worst woo of all.

[woo me with science]

45. "Cronies get rich, people who have to drive to their jobs get screwed."

Indeed.

[LanternWaste]

42. Or labeled as post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

"gets twisted and labeled as "conspiracy theory""

Or labeled as post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Which I believe, in this instance, is quite valid as a descriptor.

[hedgehog]

22. Between the toll fee and the cost of gas, it's cheaper for me

to take Amtrak or a bus between Syracuse and Buffalo. It's not as convenient because the schedules are so bad, but it is cheaper. Put a couple passengers in my car and it's cheaper to drive.

The deal with the toll is that the person doing the driving is not only paying but is seeing the cost up front. You're paying for the road one way or another, you just aren't always aware of what you're paying.

[msongs]

23. we could spend a tiny bit less on the welfare parasite military and not NEED highway tolls at all nt

[Politicalboi]

24. Just raise registration fees and get rid of tolls

I live in Ca and we hardly have any tolls. But we pay a lot in registration fees. Toll booths clog traffic, cause accidents if your not familiar with the area, and is just a pain in the ass. With registration fees you get more money. Some can avoid the tolls by using surface streets, and some don't even go near a toll booth in their daily trips.

[dana_b]

63. I live in the Bay Area

and we pay a lot in tolls - unless we take BART. And you are right about the booths - they added 30 minutes to the commute this morning.

[tularetom]

28. Actually the gas tax is the least regressive and closest to a true user fee

One fully loaded 18-wheel truck has the same impact on the road as 96,000 passenger cars and while it doesn't use 96,000 times as much gas it consumes a large amount of fuel and pays much more in taxes on that fuel.

Drive more miles in a heavy vehicle that uses more fuel - you pay more in fuel taxes. As close to a progressive tax as you can find.

[hedgehog]

30. But already some jurisdictions are worried

about alternative fuel vehicles escaping the gasoline tax.

[kemah]

33. Toll Roads Do Not Pay For Themselves

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/28b773b9f18cdb23da3e48a8d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf

Studies show that toll roads do not pay for themselves. All toll roads run a deficit. The money used to collect the tolls is used up by the toll collection process.

[LanternWaste]

34. I'd much rather see a federal tax rather than toll roads to maintain and improve highway

I'd much rather see a federal tax instead of toll roads to maintain and improve highway infrastructure, but yeah-- toll roads as a de-facto conspiracy, with zero evidence to validate it, based on nothing more than the logical fallacy of after-this-therefore-because-of-this does seem to elevate one into the realm of Glen Beck Absurdity.

[Rex]

35. You had to make a post about it?

Series? That is sad.

[RC]

36. What seem to have escaped everyone so far is that the Federal Government used to

share the cost of road maintenance with the States. Now, since bu$h the lesser, not so much.
Toll roads hit the commuters, also faced with rising gas prices, pretty hard. Those two or three part time jobs needed to keep food on the family, suddenly may not be enough.

And when public roads are turned over to private companies to run and maintain, how is that not a loss of some of our freedoms? And for those that have driven back into the US from Canada or Mexico, you can see it is only a few steps from border style check points.

The Interstate system was instituted to haul military supplies. Can you imagine some of those big military trucks trying to get through the bottle necks into and out of the toll roads? Some vehicles are so big they have to go up and over exchanges now. try to picture that the next time you go on or off a toll road.

[TheWraith]

40. What seems to be escaping some here is, this is not about private companies.

Some people are conflating government tolls to raise revenue for maintenance, with giving the interstate highway system to for-profit companies. There is absolutely no connection.

[woo me with science]

44. Great obfuscation here by you.

We are talking about a massive new structure to collect tolls on highways across this nation. Somebody has to provide that technology. Just as someone is making great money on Rapiscan, and someone will be making great money from the Internet ID technology, and someone will make great money from the plan to blanket New York City with 24/7 cameras...somebody will make billions on this new, regressive, completely unnecessary manner of collecting money from all of us.

It is ridiculous to suggest, given what Homeland Security does every single day, that they will not find this new infrastructure extremely convenient for what they do best.

And the poor will find their options for moving freely within this country even more limited.

[NeedleCast]

41. While I don't like the regressive nature of toll roads, I otherwise agree with you totally

[KamaAina]

46. Toll booths are DANGEROUS

Tin foil hats off, please.

Connecticut dropped tolls statewide after a fiery crash killed seven when a truck driver plowed into, you guessed it, a tollbooth. It's happened elsewhere, too.

The correct way to collect tolls, if you must, is by limiting the number of entrances to the toll road, then having drivers pick up a ticket when they enter and pay the toll when they exit. The NY State Thruway, NJ Turnpike, PA Turnpike and others use this approach.

[FarCenter]

55. High-speed EZPass lanes don't slow traffic significantly

You pick one of the left two lanes and drive through at highway speed.

[KamaAina]

57. Not on the Garden State Parkway

Republican Stepdad has to (well, is supposed to, anyway ) slow down to 5 mph to go through the EZPass lanes.

And what do you do with drivers who don't have EZPass? Here in the Bay Area, for instance, we use Fastrak insteasd of EZPass; I doubt the two are compatible.

[FarCenter]

61. GSP high-speed lanes are 55 mph, converted booths and on-off booths are 15 mph.

The NJ Turnpike reads the tag at on and off ramps, as does the PA Turnpike.

There are NYC bridges that are 35 mph in the high-speed lanes and 5 mph in the toll booths.

Practically speaking, drivers on the GSP don't slow much for the high-speed lanes, and many go through the old toll boths at 20-25 mph.

EZPass works from Maine to Virginia and west to Illinois.

California is always different, but in the future with $10 gas not many people will be driving between the east and west coasts.

If for example, NY Thruway can't read your tag, they use your license plate to contact NJ EZPass. If your license is in the NJ database, they ding your EZPass account and pay NY Thruway. This could be used between EZPass and other states with incompatible responders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass

[snooper2]

76. If you are too stupid to avoid a tollbooth you shouldn't be on the road in the first place

[Warren Stupidity]

48. raise the damn gas tax.

stupid congress

And yes, every tollbooth is another monitoring point where every vehicle tag is recorded.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Here is the problem at a policy level

Toll booths are highly regressive and do limit the ability of poorer Americans to use those roads, unless we have a choice of toll free roads, usually older, less straight roads.

As to the fear, the potential is always there. Toll booths do make ideal checkpoints. You don't believe me? Ask your neighbors to the south. The Army loves to set them just before or after toll booth plazas.

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. CA St Rte 91, AKA Riverside Freeway has 10 miles of "toll" lanes privately administered

by an outside company. So, let's stipulate that NOT ALL tolls benefit ONLY the government and taxpayer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91_Express_Lanes#history

[Warren Stupidity]

65. How ironic they continue to call it s freeway.

But the defenders here of this junk will continue to igonore the sorry history of corruption and creeping fascism over the last 30 years.

[KG]

66. it's all a bunch of 'woo', don't ya know

[jpgray]

67. You can't believe you have to say it because you have not really considered your position

Let alone the arguments of those who would oppose such a measure. A few questions:

1. Are tolls the only or best way to fund infrastructure investment?

2. Is the extra spending necessary to build and maintain toll infrastructure better spent elsewhere?

3. If we aim to boost the economy through this investment, is it consistent with that goal to place a regressive drag on the boost, taking money from those whose small income is almost wholly returned to the economy as consumer spending?

If your answers are no, yes, and no, as they can hardly fail to be, then why do you find it so hard to believe support for such an unnecessary and regressive measure has to be said aloud?

[myrna minx]

68. It's a regressive tax that shovels the money of a captive market into private hands.

I think *that's* ridiculous. There's ways to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure without regressive taxes that enrich for-profit entities.

[Robb]

69. How is a toll any more regressive than a fuel tax or federal highway use tax?

[jpgray]

70. Is a toll system free to build and maintain?

Or does it incur initial and ongoing costs in addition to those of the tolled roads? Do most toll systems pay for themselves?

[Robb]

71. Inefficiency is not in and of itself regressive.

It is merely inefficient.

[jpgray]

72. But if both methods are regressive, and one is less efficient...

Which is more regressive? Or on edit, I should say, which requires more regressive collections to sustain?

[Zalatix]

75. So you don't mind adding one regressive tax on top of an existing regressive tax?

You don't see the problem with that? Seriously?