IT MAY SHIFT THE COST BUT IT’D BE SHIFTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

The article’s about how taxpayers should not have to pay for the increased cost of highway maintenance caused by truckers.

He’s right but fails to mention the main reason: if we start demanding trucking companies pay for road repairs the taxpayers DO save money but the costs will be transferred to middle men and consumers.

That’s where it should be given so many people already pay no taxes. This will make them pay higher prices for goods and services but the cost is spread out between hundreds of millions instead of those few who pay out the nose for federal taxes already.

America’s taxpayers spend billions of dollars a year repairing damage caused by semi trucks to highways and bridges. Now the trucking industry wants Congress to allow heavier trucks on the road, which would force taxpayers to shell out even more.

The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) devotes more than a third of revenues to non-highway purposes, meaning true repair and maintenance needs often go unmet. As a result, Congress has transferred some $140 billion from the General Fund to the HTF in the past seven years to help keep roads and bridges graded a D and C+ by the American Society of Civil Engineers functional.

The general fund dollars represent money that we all pay in various taxes on top an already-hefty gas tax drivers pay at the pump. A significant cause of these crumbling transportation systems are the impact that commercial users – particularly trucks – place on infrastructure. Because a truck weighs more than a trendy Vespa or the family minivan, and the gas tax does not account for impact – only raw consumption, anyone who drives a car extends corporate welfare to the trucking industry.

So it is questionable, if not troubling, that the trucking lobby is quietly begging the Senate Appropriations Committee to increase federal truck weight limits by 14 percent. A recent government study found that a similar increase in weight limits would result in trucks only paying for half of the impact they place on bridges, highways and roads. Taxpayers pick up the remainder of the tab.

The newest push, this time fronted by foreign-owned Anheuser-Busch InBev, is nothing new. In 2015, the same cast of characters made the same plea to Congress – to expand federal weight limits from 80,000 pounds to 91,000 pounds – and were handily rejected in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.

Leaders in Congress likely listened closely to the unanimous concerns of our nation’s police officers, sheriffs, emergency responders, mayors and non-behemoth trucking entities that upping the weight limit would destroy our roads and bridges, and leave taxpayers on the hook for the repair bill.

Only this time, proponents of heavier trucks have seemingly arrived at a new and misleading “pilot” program whereby these enormous trucks can drive alongside you and your loved ones in a data collecting mission. The reasoning is that the U.S. DOT supposedly lacks needed stats, and highways can be a testing ground to gather more information.

That is hardly responsible governing.

In fact, the data already proves heavy trucks do not pay for the damage they inflict, and even heavier trucks would only intensify the underpayment.

Bridges across the highway system are in disrepair and require billions to fix, and that more and bigger trucks would create a larger funding need paid by taxpayers. And perhaps more importantly, public opinion data couldn’t be clearer: a 2015 poll found nearly eight in ten Americans oppose putting larger trucks on roads and highways.

Even in today’s sad state of politics, Congress wouldn’t ram through policies on the wrong side of 80 percent of Americans, right? If they did, I suppose using a “pilot” measure to bypass legislative protocols and ignoring public opinion would the only way.

Until trucks pay for their fair share of infrastructure costs, it’s completely ridiculous to discuss allowing heavier trucks to do even more damage to our nation’s roads and bridges, while forcing hardworking taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Misc. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to IT MAY SHIFT THE COST BUT IT’D BE SHIFTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

  1. bogsidebunny says:

    Common sense: When costs are piled on manufacturers, the “middle-men” and the retailers, it’s the consumer who eventually pays. Ya got to be a God Damn moron not to see that.

  2. BobF says:

    Trucks are heavy enough without having heavier ones on the road. ‘

    Truckers, companies and independents, can pay thousands of dollars per truck for road use. That two dollars you pay out to travel a section of toll road can cost a trucker $50 or more. Big trucks pay though the nose to use public highways, much more than automobiles do. You hit the truckers up with more road use taxes and they’re only going to pass it on to us. The food on our tables got there due to truckers.

  3. antzinpantz says:

    But that’s the point, Bob. It NEEDS to be passed on to the consumer. The government should NOT be subsidizing trucking companies by repairing the roads they damage/use. Yes, things will get more expensive but given that so few people pay taxes, cutting those subsidies and making the trucking companies pay their way (and pass it on to the consumer) means the “pool” of people is much bigger and those cost increases, when factored for the increased pool, means that as taxpayers, you end up paying less. Those that are paying no taxes now will now start paying their “fair share.”

    Of course, that’s in a perfect world where the decreased infrastructure expenditure would result in a decrease in federal budget meaning you’d pay less taxes. But those greedy fucks in Congress would probably never do that.

  4. Having seen how this game is played in the Peoples Republic of Mexifornia,
    I am not for ANY tax increases for ANY reason whatsoever! These laws or
    ballot measures always end up being diverted to teachers unions, pumping
    cash into the near bankrupt public employee unions, ANYTHING but what
    they promised they would do with the money.

    If you took the graft, corruption, cronysim, kick backs and other crap out of the
    cesspool that is the civil engineering racket, we could have every highway and
    bridge in America for 1/10 the cost.

    Have Trump negotiate the contracts himself. See what difference an honest
    bidding system will do both for cost and productivity!

Comments are closed.