On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:10:44 -0500, "Gene Kearns"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:31:02 -0500, DSK wrote:

del cecchi wrote:
Maybe we should have tolls or permits or licences to use ICW? Collect
from every boat. $50 for less than 20 feet, $250 for less than 28 feet,
$1000 for 36 feet. Some appropriate price for commercial vessels. Add
daily and weekly options and away you go. Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

Well, we already do. If the fiscal burden of paying for the ICW is
levied specifically on users, all other taxes should go down, right?


SNIP

DSK

You could make the same argument for hard surfaced roads. Would you?

I can't believe I'm going to jump in here, but I'm bored.

Actually, no - that dog won't hunt so to speak.

Take the Mass Pike for instance. When first envisioned, the Pike was
designated as a toll road only for the time needed to pay for the road
itself. What eventually happened was that the Pike started to eat
it's own money with patronage, incredible amounts of pilferage,
unnecessary road "repairs/improvements" so that essentially, the Pike
became a breakeven operation - it cost as much as it made. With the
advent of the "Big Dig", it became a monster cash cow contributing to
the money pit for the 30 second improvement in traffic flow through
Boston. Add to that the concept of "General Funding" in which all
fees, taxes, fines and other revenue are not designated but allocated
by a budgetary process from a "general revenue pool", obfuscating
fiscal accountability for individual departments and state
organizations and presto - the toll just becomes, in essence, another
tax disguised as a "user fee". To put it another way, because the
revenue is placed into a general budgetary process it's not a
pay-to-pay system at all - the person paying income taxes in Revere is
contributing to the health of the Pike as I do when I drive up to the
Northshore for a weekend of striper fishing.

And it's pretty much the same in other states that have tolls on
interstates

In Connecticut, tolls were actually removed from our three interstate
routes (395/95 and older portions of 84) and have never been replaced.
It was the result of a very bad accident involving a runaway cement
truck and 10/12 cars stopped at a toll booth. The reasoning is that
we can maintain the roads with Federal matching funds, so why add
another tax/user fee which in this state, is an amazing concept. ;)

So essentially, "user fees" will not allow for other "taxes" to go
down because it's all one general revenue pool - the "General Fund"
revenue stream/budgetary process does not allow for reduction of one
source of as a result of increasing another one.

I hope I explained that properly - I'm not an accountant.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

Basic Fishing Program:

10 - Fish
20 - Eat
30 - Sleep
40 - Goto 10