Michigan lawmakers introduce plan to hike state gas tax.

[kraig]

January 27, 2010http://detnews.com/article/20100127/METRO05/1270409Michigan lawmakers introduce plan to hike state gas tax

TOM GREENWOOD
The Detroit News Lansing -- Two state representatives have introduced bills in Lansing that call for an increase of the state tax and both gasoline and diesel fuel.
The bills -- sponsored by Rep. Dick Ball, R-Bennington Township, and Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, call for raising the gas tax incrementally until motorists would eventually be paying 27 cents per gallon for both gasoline and diesel by Jan. 1, 2013.
Currently, the gas tax is 19 cents per gallon and 15 cents per gallon for diesel.
If passed, the first tax increase would go into effect on March 1 when the gas tax jumps by 4 cents per gallon for gasoline [[to 23 cents per gallon) and by 6 cents per gallon for diesel, raising it from 15 cents to 23 cents per gallon.
Ball and Byrnes said the bills would initially raise $240 million a year in additional revenues, and when fully implemented in 2013, raising $480 million a year thereafter.
Currently, Michigan is facing an annual transportation budget shortfall of $3 billion per year.
"Michigan's transportation infrastructure is at a critical juncture," Ball said. "These increases will allow our state, counties and cities to make the critical repairs our roads and bridges need, while also ensuring we can put forth the matching funds necessary for federal dollars."
""The poor quality of Michigan roads and bridges has already passed the crisis stage," said Byrnes, chair of the House Transportation Committee.
"This is neither a Republican nor Democrat issue. This is a Michigan issue -- an issue of doing what's right for Michigan drivers, businesses and taxpayers."
tgreenwood@detnews.com">tgreenwood@detnews.com [[313) 222-2023
© Copyright 2010 The Detroit News. All rights reserved.

[milesdriven]

When the smoking ban reduces sales tax revenues from purchases at bars and restaurants, get ready to pay tax on pop and candy, like OH and IL.

[Detroitnerd]

The good news for roads: Even the American Trucking Association wants to raise the gas tax.

The bad news for roads: The ATA also wants larger trucks on the road.

[Hermod]

As we have discussed before, the highway fuel tax pays for the roads.

If we don't have enough money for the roads, we either have to raise the per gallon fuel tax or we people need to buy a lot more gasoline.

[Detroitnerd]

As we have discussed before, the highway fuel tax pays for the roads.

Isn't it closer to the truth to say that the highway fuel tax helps pay for roads?

[Mikeg]

Kraig,

I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that you neither requested nor received authorization from the management of the Detroit News to reproduce their copyright-protected article here or anywhere else. Simply acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material is not a substitute for obtaining permission from them.

There is a reason why you do not see other members of this forum inserting entire articles that have been copied and pasted from print media sources. That is because they have learned about the "fair use" of copyright-protected materials and practice it when posting.

[Retroit]

I support the increase in gas tax [[as well as any other taxes, such as vehicle registration fees, toll roads, etc.) so that the funding of roads is paid for entirely by those who use the roads. Those who benefit from the roads, but do not actually use them, will be contributing to its funding by costs that are passed on to them by direct users.

As for copyright, I fail to see the infringement against Detroit News of their copyright rights. Fair Use allows for "reproduction...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching...,scholarship, or research.." It furthermore specifies that reproductions can be used for "nonprofit educational purposes" as distinguished from commercial, profit-making purposes, for which I am sure Lowell can attest does not describe this website.

Now, if kraig had copied just the main article and didn't attribute it to Detroit News, that would be wrong. If kraig copied the main article and any/no portion of all the attributional information and he put it on a website that actually generated a profit, that would be wrong. But the fact that he copied the article in its entirety without any attempt to take credit for the article or conceal its source, or to make profit from it, raises the question: what is the basis for a claim of infringement?

[esp1986]

When the smoking ban reduces sales tax revenues from purchases at bars and restaurants, get ready to pay tax on pop and candy, like OH and IL.

You would be shocked how little of an effect this could have on tax revenues from bars and restaurants... the effect wasn't that great in Ohio, I know that for a fact.

[bailey]

I support the increase in gas tax [[as well as any other taxes, such as vehicle registration fees, toll roads, etc.) so that the funding of roads is paid for entirely by those who use the roads. Those who benefit from the roads, but do not actually use them, will be contributing to its funding by costs that are passed on to them by direct users.

As for copyright, I fail to see the infringement against Detroit News of their copyright rights. Fair Use allows for "reproduction...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching...,scholarship, or research.." It furthermore specifies that reproductions can be used for "nonprofit educational purposes" as distinguished from commercial, profit-making purposes, for which I am sure Lowell can attest does not describe this website.

Now, if kraig had copied just the main article and didn't attribute it to Detroit News, that would be wrong. If kraig copied the main article and any/no portion of all the attributional information and he put it on a website that actually generated a profit, that would be wrong. But the fact that he copied the article in its entirety without any attempt to take credit for the article or conceal its source, or to make profit from it, raises the question: what is the basis for a claim of infringement?

To further expand on that point, in the link you provided Mikeg the following appears:

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The article as posted is entirely the quotes of the state legislators' and the facts of the proposal. There was no other commentary or opining in any fashion that would be protected...even if the conditions noted were violated.

[Mikeg]

From the US Copyright Office link:

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Certainly, Kraig's purpose for reproducing this article here on this forum meets those criteria. However, Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair and I think this is the one which has been abused in this instance:

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

While there is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission, when you copy the whole article as Kraig did, it cannot be claimed a "fair use" and the copyright holder can easily claim infringement.

[terryh]

From the US Copyright Office link:

Certainly, Kraig's purpose for reproducing this article here on this forum meets those criteria. However, Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair and I think this is the one which has been abused in this instance:

While there is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission, when you copy the whole article as Kraig did, it cannot be claimed a "fair use" and the copyright holder can easily claim infringement.

A little copyright infringement here or there doensn't hurt anyone.

[kraig]

Kraig,

I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that you neither requested nor received authorization from the management of the Detroit News to reproduce their copyright-protected article here or anywhere else. Simply acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material is not a substitute for obtaining permission from them.

There is a reason why you do not see other members of this forum inserting entire articles that have been copied and pasted from print media sources. That is because they have learned about the "fair use" of copyright-protected materials and practice it when posting.

I just went through this with MichMatters last week. I do the same thing with articles for facebook. If the papers have a problem with me posting their articles, I'm sure that they'll say something. In a matter of days or weeks the papers will probably have Detroityes included amongst the over 50+ websites that they currently allow to share.

[Mikeg]

If the papers have a problem with me posting their articles, I'm sure that they'll say something.

Yes, but they will go after the owner of the web site, not you. We are all guests here and your blatant disregard for the copyright laws could affect us all.

[Long Lake]

This will never happen. There is no political will for a regressive tax increase.

[kraig]

Yes, but they will go after the owner of the web site, not you. We are all guests here and your blatant disregard for the copyright laws could affect us all.

If Lowell tells me he has a problem with it. No muss, no fuss, it's a done deal.

[Lowell]

Please do not copy entire articles as it has led to complaints, ergo unpaid work for us. Use this method: Excerpt, Credit, Link to full article, add your own comments. Linking to the article gives the source site traffic and some actual or potential revenue. That is only fair. Adding your own comments is important too. As a thread starter it is your duty to offer context.

Our conditions of participation are clear on this.
"7-Pictures, text or any content that you post must be your property or permitted for posting by the contents' owners or fall under fair use acceptability. If you post content taken from a permitted outside source, it must be credited to the owners by name and link, if one exists."

[kraig]

Please do not copy entire articles as it has led to complaints, ergo unpaid work for us. Use this method: Excerpt, Credit, Link to full article, add your own comments. Linking to the article gives the source site traffic and some actual or potential revenue. That is only fair. Adding your own comments is important too. As a thread starter it is your duty to offer context.

Our conditions of participation are clear on this.
"7-Pictures, text or any content that you post must be your property or permitted for posting by the contents' owners or fall under fair use acceptability. If you post content taken from a permitted outside source, it must be credited to the owners by name and link, if one exists."

You've got it.

[Bcscott]

[quote=Retroit;115206]I support the increase in gas tax [[as well as any other taxes, such as vehicle registration fees, toll roads, etc.) so that the funding of roads is paid for entirely by those who use the roads. Those who benefit from the roads, but do not actually use them, will be contributing to its funding by costs that are passed on to them by direct users.

Well hey, I don't have any kids and I graduated high school a long time ago so I don't want to pay any taxes that will benefit public schools. Millage increases don't help me personally. Plus, my house didn't burn down so I don't want to fund those greedy firefighters either.

I a own a motorcycle and four V8 powered vehicles of which three are driven and registered, the fourth is being built right now. I give the state pleanty when it comes time to get new tabs and at the gas pump. Penalizing people for driving may cause them to drive less, decreasing revenue from lost gas taxes. This compunds the problem, it doesn't solve it. I think any politician is going to have a hard time convincing voters a tax increase is a good idea right now. Lucky for me I live two miles from work, I could drive a Sherman tank if I wanted to.

[DetroitPlanner]

I a own a motorcycle and four V8 powered vehicles of which three are driven and registered, the fourth is being built right now. I give the state pleanty when it comes time to get new tabs and at the gas pump. Penalizing people for driving may cause them to drive less, decreasing revenue from lost gas taxes. This compunds the problem, it doesn't solve it. I think any politician is going to have a hard time convincing voters a tax increase is a good idea right now. Lucky for me I live two miles from work, I could drive a Sherman tank if I wanted to.

I've always found it ironic that the people who complain the most about the taxes for the transportation system are the ones that have the 40 mile drives to work everyday. They are the ones contributiong to the congestion. The closer you live as you point out the more options you have and the less impact that you have. You could walk to work, bike it, take a bus, a cab, or drive a Sherman tank and it will still be affordable. Lots of folks don't get this simple equation if you drove your v-8 car to work every day for a week thats ten miles or half-gallon of gas. The guy 40 miles away? that equals 400 miles a day or two fill-ups because chances are they are in stop and go traffic, speeding to make up for it and getting terrible milage. Of you and the other guy who has more options? Who is contributing more to congestion? Who is wearing out the roads? Who is polluting more? It's not you.

Gasoline tax is a user tax. Keep on driving everyone and we will need more money to feed the pig known as the road system because pigs are using it. Its not rocket science, its the law of supply and demand with a compounded component of inflation.

[Retroit]

Bcscott:Well hey, I don't have any kids and I graduated high school a long time ago so I don't want to pay any taxes that will benefit public schools. Millage increases don't help me personally. Plus, my house didn't burn down so I don't want to fund those greedy firefighters either.

I'm not a big fan of public schools either, but unfortunately the majority of people think that an educated populace is beneficial to society [[like as if it has really helped! ). I'd also support private fire-fighting services, but that would go over like a lead balloon!

Penalizing people for driving may cause them to drive less, decreasing revenue from lost gas taxes. This compunds the problem, it doesn't solve it.

As DetroitPlanner said, if people drive less, less roads are needed, less maintenance is required, therefore less revenue is needed from gas taxes. Not to mention other benefits, like less dependence on foreign oil, less likelihood of conflict with oil producing countries, less pollution, demand for more fuel efficient modes of transportation, etc.

© Copyright 2010 Retroit. All rights reserved.

[Hermod]

As DetroitPlanner said, if people drive less, less roads are needed, less maintenance is required, therefore less revenue is needed from gas taxes. Not to mention other benefits, like less dependence on foreign oil, less likelihood of conflict with oil producing countries, less pollution, demand for more fuel efficient modes of transportation, etc.

Not the way it works, lad.

1. Gas prices go up [[Arabs jack the price or the politicians jack the tax).

2. People drive less or switch to electric cars, hybrid cars, or econo boxes.

3. Gas tax intake to the state and feds goes down.

4. Highway demons in their 18-wheelers keep trashing the roads.

5. Gas tax gotta go up to keep the bucks rolling in.


Same thing when you conserve water.

Dollar intake goes down at the water plant.

Money not enough to pay the salaries of the water bureaucracy.

Water rates per gallon go up.

[Retroit]

4. Highway demons in their 18-wheelers keep trashing the roads.

If the gas tax is high enough, more freight will be shipped via rail.

[Long Lake]

IMO, they can cut hundreds of these planned road projects. There is no current reason for road expansions or general improvements. We should only fund basic maintenance right now.

A gas tax is regressive because something like 96% of Michigan households own motor vehicles, including most poor. Even in Detroit, a majority of poor households own a motor vehicle. And businesses get totally screwed with such increases, given their vehicular needs.

Michigan already has some of the highest fuel prices in the nation. There should be no increase in the gas tax until the state can get petroleum refinery/transportation costs under control.

I think Michigan needs to change its income tax system to a progressive one. It's insane that poor folks are paying the same proportional share of taxes as rich folks. The strong majority of states [[especially more successful states) use a progressive tax.

[Hermod]

IMO,
I think Michigan needs to change its income tax system to a progressive one. It's insane that poor folks are paying the same proportional share of taxes as rich folks. The strong majority of states [[especially more successful states) use a progressive tax.

The most "progressive" state income tax is California. How is that working right now?

[mjs]

Not the way it works, lad.

1. Gas prices go up [[Arabs jack the price or the politicians jack the tax).

2. People drive less or switch to electric cars, hybrid cars, or econo boxes.

3. Gas tax intake to the state and feds goes down.

4. Highway demons in their 18-wheelers keep trashing the roads.

5. Gas tax gotta go up to keep the bucks rolling in.

Granted, but its not the whole story.

Assuming $2.50 a gallon plus a $0.19 tax switching to a $0.27 tax, a new gas tax that drives consumption down 3% would be break even for the average driver while increasing gas tax revenue by 42%.

Gas consumption would have to go down 30% before the tax creates no revenue gain and if that happened, the average driver would spend 28% less on gas and gas taxes.

Creating cleaner air while saving gas money. Sounds great to me. Sounds even better when its been shown that cleaner air reduces health care costs.