Cato's Jerry Taylor Debates Tyson Slocum on the Federal Gas Tax on CNBC

[a4finger]

Great video, Jerry Taylor makes excellent accurate points. Tyson Slocum just spouts the same stupid "tax and spend" idiocy

[CornerTalker]

More power to the government! More control over the individual!

[RustyIronloins]

Transponder? Good grief . . . Why do these statist losers always suggest that more invasive powers are the answer?

[Nexus974]

The Statest stooge wants to add tracking devices to everyone's car...big surprise...

More power to government...more money to government...everyone living under a microscope...That is their answer to everything!

[ForTehNguyen]

..........the gasoline tax itself is already how you tax people per mile, why does this nazi want a transponder in every vehicle

[kusari86]

...Or we can go ahead and cut off the head of the snake (FED). Eliminating inflation would subsequently the value of the USD will rise and prices for commodities like oil will become much more affordable.

[jmelkis]

That deceiver Slocum justifies the federal gas tax by saying that it all goes to the states in the form of block grants. Well, if that's the case, then why can't the state collect the tax itself?!? Because then less corruption is possible! That's why!! Other states can't get the money then. Oops!!!! The money can't go elsewhere because the states have to pay for roads and such. They have to get that money for highways and public transit projects now from the feds....

[mikheii]

Another great thing would be that the drinking age could be changed without states having to forfeit federal money anymore.

[yougiberishtube]

thumbs up

[badaboomrock]

fuck that they are not going to track my car I will burn it first

[Firetribez]

Could always state your opinion in their poll.

cnbc(dot)com/id/43133610/

[LibertyDownUnder]

He wants a transponder to track every vehicle's movement in the country???

At 4:40

[greyed]

@LibertyDownUnder He did. Which is stupid since we get that effect now! He wants to have people who use the roads more to pay more. They do. More road usage means more fuel burned means more collected from a gas tax. Heavier vehicle means more wear and tear but also means more fuel used which means...more collected in the gas tax!

[bobsacamano1]

@greyed we have to pay for the roads somehow. I can't imagine a better way to pay for the roads than through user fees in the form of tolls. Tolls allow our roads to be used more efficiently because prices can reduce congestion by increasing the tolls at peak times or on certain roads. Also, making all roads toll roads opens the door to privatization. Overall our tax burden shouldn't increase if the gas tax paid at the pump is removed.

[greyed]

@bobsacamano1 Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the gas tax should remain. I'm not saying it shouldn't, either. That's a completely different discussion. I'm just pointing out that Mr. Slocum's reasoning to look into tracking mileage is severely flawed because we already get that via indirect, non-invasive means by the very system he is defending.

[jmelkis]

@bobsacamano1 Tolls would be great because you don't have anyone tracking your personal movements through something like GPS mandated by the government. You just put the coins in the bucket and off you go.  But then again, some states could not let you pay with cash (I think this is already the case in some places), and then welcome big brother all over again....it just never stops with big government.

[nogivenogets1]

@bobsacamano1 the gas tax is the most logical way to pay for roads if they would use the money collected to pay for roads. can you imagine the amount of toll booths we would need, the money wasted on either manpower to man the booths or the electricity to power those booths, the traffic jams or if we do the EZ pass system we're right back to being watched by the Gov. "increasing the tolls at peak times" puts a greater burden on those of us who work for a living.

[bobsacamano1]

@nogivenogets1 the gas tax is not a fair way to to pay for roads because not all cars are equally gasoline efficient and some vehicles don't use gas at all. it's the 21st century, toll booths are no longer required with the EZ pass system. if someone doesn't have an EZ pass, the system could take a picture of the license plate and mail a bill. tolls need to be higher at peak times because multi-lane roads only need their extra lanes during peak times. those that make the extra lanes should pay.

[nogivenogets1]

@bobsacamano1 the less fuel efficient the car is the heavier it is, the heavier it is the more wear on the road. on road diesel is also taxed, off road (dyed) is tax exempt. "toll booths are no longer required with the EZ pass system" I'd rather not have the gov monitor my every movement. it's bad enough that we have cameras everywhere already, with EZ pass toll booths they know the distance between the booths, ........cont

[nogivenogets1]

@bobsacamano1 .....cont

add a clock & they'll know how long it should take you between booths at the speed limit. if your early ...... let's hope they don't figure that out. so me as a 8-5 worker should pay more? aren't we ripped off enough?

[bobsacamano1]

@nogivenogets1 you're missing the larger point that having tolls is a path to privatization. to privatize roads cites, the states, and the federal government would let companies collect the tolls in exchange for maintenance and management of the roadways. private roads are better and the gas tax discourages them because one pays double when using private roads because they pay the toll and the gas tax. tolls could be adjusted for the weight of the vehicle.

[nogivenogets1]

@greyed Thank you, Common sense isn't common anymore.

[vts101]

@LibertyDownUnder That is absolutely insane, liberals are such fascists....

[jmelkis]

@LibertyDownUnder Liberals seem to support almost any kind of tyranny when it supports their agenda.

[Nexus974]

@LibertyDownUnder

Of course...that is how statests think. Everyone lives under a microscope.

If you object they will label you as a tinfoil hat paranoid.

If your a public figure and object, the Southern Poverty Law Center will label you as part of a hate group and link you with nutjob neo-nazis. They have already done this to people like Ron and Rand Paul as well as Judge Andrew Napolitano. It seems being opposed to big government makes you a hate group.

[shamgar001]

@LibertyDownUnder What if they made a GPS that only remembered how many miles you drive rather than where you drove? I think charging people by the mile makes more sense than taxing the gas they use on both public and private roads.

If the roads were based exclusively on user fees, the government's crime would only be monopoly rather than monopoly and theft.

[smpunditz]

One: Mass transit reduces pollution (and yes car pollution does have health consequences such as asthma) and helps the poor get access to jobs which reduces their dependence on far more expensive government services.

[smpunditz]

Two: The fact that you don't directly benefit from someone building or repairing the streets in another state isn't effective when we have an integrated economy. Have you heard of interstate? It was promoted on a federal level. Your goods come from trucks driving across state lines. Small population states in the Rocky's for instance might not be able to afford all the costs of repairing expensive highways but if you want your cheap junk from China you have through them from California.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz two: if your driving through those states then your buying gas at their stations, hence your paying the tax to maintain their roads.

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 i don't see how that is relevant to my point since I specifically stated that some states may fail to maintain the roads needed to get our goods across the country.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz you mean fail to maintain the roads bringing supplies into their state? how long do you think the businesses & motorists will allow a major road go unmaintained?

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 considering the fact that we even need the government to tax people so the roads can be built in the first place I would imagine businesses & motorists would likely wait forever. According to many reports our infrastructure is already in disrepair. It won't even be obvious to the average person that a bridge or highway system needs repairing until the problem is already very severe and by that point it will cost more.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz people are taxed already for the roads, the money isn't being spent on them, on the state or federal level.

[smpunditz]

Not to mention mass transport reduces congestion and therefore saves gas money in large cities. This also reduces demand for gas and keeps prices lower then what they would be.

[jmelkis]

@smpunditz Access to cheap cars helps the poor get access to jobs in areas not well served by public transit. In places like Portland, Oregon, many of the jobs are in outlying areas, not the city center, which makes getting there by public transit difficult. In reality, the train service there is used to subsidize those who live in subsidized housing, which has sprouted up along the East end of the Blue Line of the MAX. There aren't many jobs there, nor where the trains go. Buses are cut 2

[smpunditz]

@jmelkis it doesn't matter how cheap cars a congested city. I could only imagine the stressed caused by people being stuck in traffic with gas prices this high. And nobody is going to save any real money from abolishing this tax anyway. It is an ideological position that won't actually benefit anyone.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz one: if there's no Mass transit available in my area should I be forced to subsidize your travel & pay for my own? if you want the service you should pay for it, if the service is viable it will be able to sustain itself without subsidy.

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 the fact that all citizens don't benefit equally from a gov service isn't in and of itself an argument for eliminating said service. If it was 90% of the population would be illiterate and people wouldn't have enough money to complain about subsidizing said programs. I can understand not wanting to subsidize programs you think are wasteful or just handouts but if you don't want to be forced to subsidize anything at all you'd be better off living in a third world country.

[smpunditz]

Furthermore the fact that a service is not viable without subsidizes does not mean it not economically beneficial. That is a basic economic reality that libertarians refuse to accept. In a free market for instance education would always be underfunded, as would infrastructure and technology. Internet, satellite, cell phones, nuclear and solar power were all developed and/or funded by the government. Pretty significant technological innovations and huge cash cows in the case of internet and cell.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz "education would always be underfunded" for who? schools would be funded through money from my wallet directly instead of money from my wallet filtered through a bloated government to indoctrinate my kids with progressive Ideology. If i don't like what's being taught I could find a school that I prefer & give them the money from my wallet.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz sure it is. where is transportation a right?

my kids along with most peoples would still get an education in private schools.

I & the rest of the working population would have more of our paychecks if we didn't have to pay subsidies.

this country was founded on property rights, my paycheck is my property, you have no right to my property.

times are changing, I feel bad for those who are government dependent.

where do you get your statistics? 90% of all statistics are made up.

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1

How do you know most people will send their children to college on their own accord? Are there any instances in history where a country has had a highly educated population and developed economy without public schools? You make a lot of assumptions regarding what people would do in a 'free market' for someone who thinks my claim that most people would be illiterate is presumptuous.

[smpunditz]

I meant school not college.

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 I corrected myself in a later comment I meant school.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz ......cont

LOL your argument assumes the US has "a highly educated population". the public schools in the US are failing to teach the kids even the basics regardless of how much we waste on them. we have high Illiteracy & high school taxes

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1

No you are changing the subject. All developed countries have a public education system not just the US. And last time I checked yes our population is highly educated compared to say 100 years ago. So I will ask again do you know of any country's with an educated population and developed economy that doesn't have public schools?

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz "America has received scores around 500 on a scale that goes up to 1,000: 487 in math, 500 in reading and 502 in science." source - Huffpost education, article - "U.S. Falls In World Education Rankings, Rated 'Average' "

"Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math." source USA today, article - "In ranking, U.S. students trail global leaders".

That's what your side say's about it.

...cont

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 and the United States is being compared to who? Other developed countries with a public education system. How is a comparison between our education and that of other developed countries an argument against public education in general? How do you know it isn't a cultural problem other then one with our education system? Charter schools fare even worse in the US.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz your question is a loaded one, your assuming that public education = highly educated.

all countries with a developed economy have both public & private education.

so let's compare the 2

Stupid in America Part 1

watch?v=veYA0uy5gFU

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 "this country was founded on property rights"

Among which slaves and women were considered property. Fortunately we've evolved as a society since then, back when most of the population had no property to complain about losing to the government.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz Slaves & Indentured servants were property. take it out on the one's that sold blacks into slavery or get over it, I had nothing to do with it & I don't feel the least bit guilty about it.

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 WOW you got REAL defensive REAL fast. I was just pointing out the absurdity of your argument that our country should be a certain way because it was founded as such. No one asked you to express guilt and I was not about to go on a diatribe about slavery. Clearly though you have some issues to work out on the matter though lol

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz I've got no issues, just tired of hearing that argument. just thought I'd cut it short by bottom lining it for you.

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 well maybe you should stop using those tired forefather's no best arguments and maybe you wouldn't get them anymore.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz on property rights, the founders are right. slaves & indentured servants being considered private property has nothing to do with my paycheck being my property. you obviously know the debate as you quickly threw the race card into the ring to end it (typical liberal trick), I countered with my bottom line on the slave subject so we can move on to the real debate of my paycheck being my property.

.......cont

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 I simply pointed out that an argument from tradition is a stupid argument. It is completely irrelevant as to what values this country was founded upon as to what is the best way to govern. I could have gotten into how the founding fathers didn't really agree with one another on too much of anything (a fact that is well documented) but I found pointing out the absurdity of your logical fallacy to be the quicker route. (cont)

[smpunditz]

(cont) so yes you are right slaves have nothing to do with property rights IN THE MODERN SENSE but this country was founded upon a very twisted notion of property rights and YOU are that one who brought that archaic concept of property rights up not me. I merely pointed out how bad it was. By the way you are the one who brought up indentured servitude not me.

[smpunditz]

and on that note indentured servitude is completely consistent with libertarian values so it comes as no surprise to me that you are so gracious about it.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz the constitution isn't tradition, it's the law. totally relevant to how to govern

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 you never mentioned the constitution by name you simply stated

'this country was founded on property rights'

In any case he constitution does not explicitly say that the federal gov can only do what is authorized in the Constitution and legally that argument is all but dead. Even so not all the founding fathers agreed with the federalists interpretation and many of them like Thomas Jefferson for example where inconsistent on the matter.

[smpunditz]

I am also curious as to what's more important here your moral objections to government programs, your supposed claims of their universal incompetence or your legal interpretations?

As far as I'm concerned legal arguments don't carry a lot of weight. They certainly don't change minds and say nothing regarding the actual merits of your position.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz Article 1 Section 8 - "The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of the United States Congress" - Wiki

10th Amendment "explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people." - Wiki

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 see necessary and proper clause & commerce clause

They greatly expand congress' power well beyond what is explicitly stated in the constitution (including creating and overseeing an interstate highway system. And of course these clauses interpretation can be stretched ad infinitum because the founding fathers in their political games often deliberately made it so in order to undermine their conflicting interests.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz

federalists interpretation = federalists papers

the federal courts do the interpretation

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 and looking at the situation now I'm sure you are well aware what conclusions they drew.

[nogivenogets1]

@smpunditz BTW my ancestors were indentured servants, I'm glad they were. do you think you would fare better in Africa?

[smpunditz]

@nogivenogets1 you're gratitude for the plight of your ancestors is completely irrelevant to my point. 

[hughtub]

At :37, bad awkward editing where they put everything in cents but have Alaska's gas tax in dollars as $0.08

[WGS669]

@hughtub propaganda 101.

[jmelkis]

@hughtub I don't think that was an accident.

[hughtub]

@jmelkis Maybe true. "8 cents" is still longer than "$0.08" so maybe it was for shortening it.

[bleckmon]

What a bunch of idiots Rand Paul said the money that was lost would be covered by the billions we are throwing over seas!!! Wow am I the only one that notices the obvious?

[kstaylor98682]

@bleckmon Nope, I was wondering if the interviewer even watched the video when she asked that question. He stated it quite clearly.