Posted on 09/21/2011 5:41:57 AM PDT by Puppage
I do not see how the entire progressive taxation system is not a violation of the ‘equal protection’ clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. How can you have one set of laws for hard-working people and then another set of laws for lazy people? The 14th Amendment states that there must be equal protection under the law for all and not one set of laws to punish hard working people and another set of laws to benefit lazy people.
But this guys argument is idiotic on many levels. The increased toll itself is supposed to be to help poor people, without programs may need to be eliminated. His argument more seems to be that he wants a progressive style system for charging tolls. He wants only for rich people to be punished and for poor people to get through for free.
Hmmm... Perhaps Brock Yates could organize another race in protest.
I left the rotten apple when the toll was $5 swore never to return. I haven’t.
Most fees are regressive. They impact the poor the most. Such fees reduce discretionary income and hurt businesses and the private sector.
Municipal court employees, municipal workers, city and state university faculty, and their families by use of certain vehicles.
Agreed.
I read a great book he wrote about the original Cannonball Run. He and Dan Gurney organized it as a form of protest over the 55 mph speed limit.
“I do not see how the entire progressive taxation system is not a violation of the ‘equal protection’ clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.”
This has been ruled against over and over again by SCOTUS. So long as they steer clear from red flags like race and religion, and they can come up with some justification that it serves “legitimate government interest,” it’s a-okay. There is idle talk about the law not being irrational, arbitrary, capricious, etc. But I don’t know what would constitute rational discrimination, except that it’s not race, religion, etc.
and if they can con us all into taking EZ Pass they will be tolling us for every yard of pavement driven, take it to the bank
“Most fees are regressive. They impact the poor the most. Such fees reduce discretionary income and hurt businesses and the private sector”
That does not regressive make. People confuse the term with taxes that affect poor people at all, as opposed to the accurtate definition of taxes which hit poor people disproportionately. Certain sin taxes, like those for cigarettes and soda pop, are truly regressive since generally rich people don’t buy them. But I’m not sure rich people don’t drive into New York. Maybe they all take helicopters and this truly is regressive.
I read the same book. He put all of the stat tables in the back and what is amazing considering everything we have been told about "Speed Kills" public safety laws is that with the cars of the Seventies they had people going coast to coast in less than 30 hours with no fatalities and very little bent sheetmetal.
kind of puts the lie to speed limits as a safety measure.
“Who’s getting the free passes?”
Don’t know if it’s happening now but I’d say if you have an EBT card, it could be connected to your EZPass account. To the person hoping that this guy wins the lawsuit, be careful what you wish for. There will be a class of people driving around who will be allowed to go without car insurance, get “free” food, and drive on toll roads/HOT lanes for nothing.
What Does Regressive Tax Mean?
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.
I believe toll money was subverted to Ground Zero building. There are lawsuits being filed.
I hope this guy wins, too. I’m going broke paying all these tolls for bridges and tunnels that are in disgraceful shape.
Your comment is wide of the mark. On most California bridges, tolls were doubled and only collected in one direction. It improved departure congestion from cities like San Francisco and reduced collection costs. As much as I hate California government, this was a good idea. What’s not good is that the original bridge tolls of $.25 each way were supposed ( by law ) to be suspended once the bonds sold to build the bridges were paid off. That happened decades ago. Now bridge tolls are in the $5 to $6 region and are used to pay for everything. Not as bad as New York, but outrageous nonetheless.
“This toll increase does hurt poor people disproportionately.”
Okay, but it’s not a question of “hurt.” Like I said, the income tax hurts people more lower down the scale, even though it’s progressive. That’s because everything hurts rich people less moneywise, since they have less money.
“regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly”
No it’s not. Or if it is, that’s only because we’ve gotten so used to progressive taxation that we take it as normal and any reversion to fair taxes as a step backwards (and hence “regressive”). According to the conventional definition, though, regressive taxes are ones for which there is an inverse relationship between the rate and ability to pay relative to resources. The relativity of resources is the important part.
Poorer people will pay more of the tax, since there are more of them. And it will be harder on them to pay, since they have less total money. But that doesn’t make it regressive. What would do so is not the burden being large reltive to their total income. It would be the burden falling on them disproportionately after you’ve controlled for income volume. As in sin taxes, for instance, which are regressive because rich people don’t as much buy that stuff.
What you have with bridge tolls is more of a burden on lower incomes than the income tax, for instance. But since it is (ignoring special passes not based on wealth) applied uniformly, it is neither. It is a flat tax, or what they call a “proportional” tax.
“tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people”
People often pretend like this is the case, but it’s not so much. Taxes are not regressive simply if poor people pay more of them than others. They are so if they fall more heavily, relative to income, on people with lower incomes. Poor people paying a larger percentage of the total revenues does not necessarily (though of course it could, just not by itself) constitute this.
It is definitely true of sin taxes that they fall more heavily on poor people relative to income. I doubt it for bridge tolls, especially considering the relationship between car ownership and income.
“I believe toll money was subverted to Ground Zero building”
That shouldn’t have surprised anyone, as the Port Authority owned the twin towers. Anyone wondering why things work out this way should read the classic biography “The Power Broker” or the classic sociological study “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.”
Please, I just want to pay one tax..period. Maybe two=state and federal. Someone make it stop!
Can’t we just pay one indentical tax so we can all get along..huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.