[Speed Gibson,
Sunday January 16, 2005 at 3:41pm]
Transportation Funding
Our local Legislators held a couple of town meetings this month, one of the topics being transportation funding.
The proposal to dedicate 100% of the Minnesota Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) to transportation came up. I believe about half currently goes to the General Fund. It would seem to make sense to dedicate MVET to roads, but I'm not sure exactly what the MVET really is. Is it the sales tax on purchasing vehicles, the annual registration tax, or both? I did some Google'ing, found no hard definitions and many sites one way or the other.
If we're talking sales taxes here, then I would say 100% should go to the General Fund. A car is a purchase like anything else subject to sales tax. As for the registration tax, the first $35 or so should fund the record keeping, and any excess be devoted to roads (IMO). Better still, just charge $35 for all passenger vehicles.
You'll note I said roads, not public transit. And you'll note I said public transit, not mass transit, because it now handles such a small percent of the trips. Governor Pawlenty's proposal for a 60-40 split between roads and public transit is yet another reason why he will likely not get my vote for re-election. Like Light Rail and related proposals, this makes no sense at all. Public transit can benefit from some road construction, like bus lanes and park & rides. But the operating losses should come out of the General Fund like any other subsidy.
Roads can and should be paid for by fuel taxes, including the fuel consumed by public transportation buses. If that takes an increase in the gas tax, so be it. At least we know where it's going. Pawlenty has waffled on so many other topics that he might as well raise taxes, too. Just call it a "pump fee" as one candidate did recently.
The proposal to dedicate 100% of the Minnesota Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) to transportation came up. I believe about half currently goes to the General Fund. It would seem to make sense to dedicate MVET to roads, but I'm not sure exactly what the MVET really is. Is it the sales tax on purchasing vehicles, the annual registration tax, or both? I did some Google'ing, found no hard definitions and many sites one way or the other.
If we're talking sales taxes here, then I would say 100% should go to the General Fund. A car is a purchase like anything else subject to sales tax. As for the registration tax, the first $35 or so should fund the record keeping, and any excess be devoted to roads (IMO). Better still, just charge $35 for all passenger vehicles.
You'll note I said roads, not public transit. And you'll note I said public transit, not mass transit, because it now handles such a small percent of the trips. Governor Pawlenty's proposal for a 60-40 split between roads and public transit is yet another reason why he will likely not get my vote for re-election. Like Light Rail and related proposals, this makes no sense at all. Public transit can benefit from some road construction, like bus lanes and park & rides. But the operating losses should come out of the General Fund like any other subsidy.
Roads can and should be paid for by fuel taxes, including the fuel consumed by public transportation buses. If that takes an increase in the gas tax, so be it. At least we know where it's going. Pawlenty has waffled on so many other topics that he might as well raise taxes, too. Just call it a "pump fee" as one candidate did recently.