Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

JNDCLLC t1_j44tqu4 wrote

How about taking all that tax collected and fixing the roads?

260

Ihaveaboot t1_j44yq75 wrote

That's the crux of it. Where does the weed tax money get allocated? PA has more miles of roads than all of New England combined.

I've got nothing against legalization, but a big portion of that tax revenue has to be allocated to mundane infrastructure costs, at least if one considers it an alternative to gas taxes.

88

djarvis77 t1_j4634qf wrote

Weed isn't really legal in PA.

Weed is legal in PA like Oxy is legal in PA. Oxy is actually more legal than weed in PA. You don't need a special card to get Oxy, just a prescription.

Medical weed should not be taxed at all.

55

larrylee13 t1_j465ipg wrote

Weed also isn’t protected like Oxy. You can be fired for the prescription for weed but not for Oxy.

31

FlipSchitz t1_j467bxb wrote

I'm not a smoker, but I was under the impression that a medical MJ card afforded one certain protections as far as jobs go. This is based on hearsay, so I have no idea. I just find this surprising.

Edit: Jesus Christ y'all, what are you downvoting? I'm just trying to get clarifications. Also, What a backwoods, puritanical, state we live in where people can get in trouble for DUI even if you're not high.

20

larrylee13 t1_j467i0v wrote

No protections are allocated to anyone with a MMJ card due. Only thing my card is good for is buying it.

31

JetSetDynasty t1_j46dcn7 wrote

We are protected from the crime of possession within state lines. Cars and transport need much more clear definition, we need job protections, and we need less hostile police.

To say we have no protections, doesn’t help. We’re patients, not whiny stoners. We need to be clear and concise if we really want improvements to the system rather than people continuing to fuel their negative stereotypes.

We can buy it and possess it. That’s step one. We need to keep working to improve education of our people and our lawmakers especially. That’s the only way we’ll get things like home grow, price clarity or corporate accountability.

9

larrylee13 t1_j46eg47 wrote

Depending on the officer you are pulled over by they can still take my medication. They won’t do that with pills. Don’t be dumb. Saying I’m a whiny stoner for being a realist about comparing my protections to Oxy is hilarious. I can’t take my medicine with me on vacation like an Oxy script. I can be criminalized for medical marijuana for it being opened and no longer sealed. I open my pill containers multiple times with no risk of punishment.

14

JetSetDynasty t1_j48103o wrote

A lot of what your bringing up are issues bigger than PA MMJ.

Look up Civil Forfeiture. It’s terrifying. Cop’s definitely have abused their power to take tons of things for no real legal reason, mainly cash but also including prescriptions they “felt” weren’t proper for whomever they were interacting with.

When transporting any medical marijuana, put it in the trunk. Any cop is going to have a very hard time mounting a case to take it if there is no proof of impairment and you clearly can’t access it while you are driving. Until DUI rules get established for MMJ, this will always be a problem.

Transporting your medicine beyond state lines is a federal issue. Until it’s legal there, even medically, PA can’t do anything for you.

I honestly was not trying to call you a whiny stoner. My point was simply complaining isn’t going to get us any improvements when plenty of people in the state want it gone. They don’t give a shit that we have trouble. They see it as our price of business.

We need to be communicate effectively and efficiently if MMJ is ever going to be treated like any other prescription. Talk to your lawmakers and vote appropriately. That’s the only way shit will change.

1

Critical_Band5649 t1_j46dkin wrote

There are employers who will treat it as a regular prescription and ignore positive results but there is not any sort of blanket protection. Hell as a someone who has their mmj card, I could catch a DUI at any point even if I'm not actively high, as you can test positive day/weeks later depending on usage.

14

No-Setting9690 t1_j47r6be wrote

Weed has zero protections, the same with Tobacco. While one may be legal for rec use over the other, there are some jobs that will not hire you if you smoke Tobacco. Fucking weird world we live in. They can even fire you if they implement a policy about no tobacco smoking, does have to give you time to kick the habit.

1

Carl_the_neighbor t1_j46roou wrote

Anybody saying otherwise is Misinformed. You do get worker protections as long as you do it off the clock. I’m pretty sure it is also written that you can’t be denied employment based solely on a failed drug test. I remember reading it when I got my Med card. However, what I also did read is that there hasn’t been a case of it being taken to court so there isn’t any case law to back it up.

0

Mijbr090490 t1_j47fqx1 wrote

It is an at will state. They can simply say they found a better fit. Don't tell any employer you have a medical marijuana card. Best bet is to get clean or use fake piss. Protect yourself because the state won't.

5

Impressive_Bus11 t1_j4938og wrote

Pretty sure we have a court ruling that protects. MMJ users now. Not legislative though.

1

Excelius t1_j4664jk wrote

> Medical weed should not be taxed at all.

Apparently there is a 5 percent gross receipts tax, but MMJ is exempt from the state sales tax so it's kind of a wash.

https://www.revenue.pa.gov/TaxTypes/MedMarijuana/Pages/default.aspx

5

Independent-Drive-18 t1_j46eqgs wrote

I pay 50 to 60 bucks for an oz costing 200 in PA. I am not saying how I get it without the taxes and other fees. But it's perfectly legal.

2

Mijbr090490 t1_j47f9x0 wrote

You also can't get a DUI days after using Oxy or be denied employment for taking it weeks before.

4

TwitterTapeParade t1_j49jpht wrote

They only want it legal so they can generate tax. They do not care about the welfare of Americans.

2

willclerkforfood t1_j45pj1y wrote

…or we can just use it to subsidize old people like we do with every other funding stream in the commonwealth

24

AbsentEmpire t1_j465hpa wrote

Or we can burn it to continue expanding free state police coverage for mostly Republican townships who are too cheap to pay for thier own police force but like to talk about fiscal responsibility all the time.

30

Critical_Band5649 t1_j46dyfd wrote

I live in a county where all local police forces have been disbanded. Every single township or borough depends on PSP because they can't afford them, it's ridiculous.

11

AbsentEmpire t1_j48il62 wrote

If individual townships truly can't afford their own police department, they should be able to apply for state coverage, but be assed a special tax to cover half the cost of the service if they want it.

2

Allemaengel t1_j45x81v wrote

Hey, hey, hey they're on "fixed incomes" unlike the rest of us moneybags with unlimited funds, lol.

17

Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j4ael2k wrote

Or we can give it to one of the biggest group of state legislators in the country who also get a ton of perks, allowances, cost of living increases, and amazing health care during and after serving with a crazy good pension to boot.

1

dtcstylez10 t1_j45zw94 wrote

PA also has the most expensive tolls by about 2x the next closest state

16

StupiderIdjit t1_j469iay wrote

lol friend, the PA turnpike is literally the most expensive toll road in the world.

13

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46s21x wrote

No, it isn't.

−5

StupiderIdjit t1_j46uoh7 wrote

Dude, it literally is. Just Google "what is the most expensive toll road in the world"

https://vista.today/2021/03/report-pennsylvania-turnpike-the-most-expensive-toll-road-in-the-world/

9

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46uto2 wrote

Except it isn't, by mile. You're spouting Facebook grandpa stuff. The Tappan Zee bridge is 1400 feet long and costs nearly $5 to cross.

−8

StupiderIdjit t1_j46vg8x wrote

That's a fucking bridge.

11

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46vszn wrote

And the Turnpike is a 360 mile superhighway. If paying 31 cents per mile to drive end-to-end is too expensive for you, don't use it. No one is forcing you to.

−8

CrzyDave t1_j48ejjj wrote

They just said it’s the most expensive road in the world. They didn’t even say they used it or not! What are you the commissioner? If so get back to work and off Reddit! No wonder it costs so much! 😂

I use it everyday but don’t care that it is expensive because I have a work provided EZpass.

2

Joe_Jeep t1_j461q3y wrote

And it doesn't cover the roads so...

7

Modestkilla t1_j47aeol wrote

I have to pay $13 a day in tolls to go to work. It is absolutely insane.

3

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46rzc0 wrote

The thing about toll roads in PA is that you don't have to use them if you don't want to.

−2

dtcstylez10 t1_j46so4e wrote

You have to drive from Philly to Pittsburgh. How are you getting there? Philly to Allentown? Or Lehighton...how are you getting there? Private helicopter?

8

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46td1x wrote

US-22 to US-322. If you can't afford the turnpike don't use it. Simple as that. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use it.

−4

dtcstylez10 t1_j46ujk1 wrote

I think you're missing the point

8

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46uo6r wrote

I think you're missing the point.
 

You're paying for convenience. If you can't afford it take the long route. No one's forcing you to use it and you aren't owed a cheap superhighway.

−2

dtcstylez10 t1_j46v1m7 wrote

So if PA were to tax you more than 2x the next closest state, you'd move right? Bc no one is forcing you to live here.

7

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46v48y wrote

Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take the turnpike?
 
If you can't afford it, don't use it. I don't complain that I can't afford a Ferrari.

−1

dtcstylez10 t1_j46vczb wrote

Wow. That's not even close to the same thing. I'm honestly dumber for having participated in this conversation. Thanks..bye.

3

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46vfun wrote

If you can't afford it, don't use it. It's that simple. No one is forcing you to use it.

0

Modestkilla t1_j47akhq wrote

Sure let me just add another hour to my already 2 hours of commuting a day.

6

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j47aunr wrote

Nobody owes you a free superhighway to make your poor life choices easier to bear.
 
If you can't afford it, don't use it. No one is forcing you to use it.

1

Modestkilla t1_j49kpq3 wrote

Lmao i didn’t say I couldn’t afford it, but I already pay more than my fair share in taxes why should I have to pay even more for roads that should be paid for by my taxes?

2

PM_ME_DIRTY_DANGLES t1_j462xab wrote

Listen pal, the PSP isn't going to fund itself.

86

Tacodude5 t1_j4bfx78 wrote

Yeah how will they offer free policing to communities that don't pay for it

5

stacy_142 t1_j470y8y wrote

This is largely an issue with how the state( and most of North America) has developed itself. See this video series on land development for more information. It’s really interesting.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa

3

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j476m58 wrote

In the post-WW2 era, the United States (via FHA) made a conscious decision to channel white people into artificial car-dependent country estates, and channel non-white people into city housing developments like Cabrini Green.
 
The United States also made the decision, via tax policy, to incentivize businesses to relocate near these artificial housing developments at the cost of cities. Surburban shopping malls were an accelerated depreciation scheme.

 
People did not choose to live this way and drive 40 miles a day organically, the government made it happen.

5

e30eric t1_j479676 wrote

> People did not choose to live this way and drive 40 miles a day organically, the government made it happen.

Oh man, I've got some bad news for you about who "the government" is in a democracy...

2

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j479cfp wrote

The US is a plutocracy and always has been. Decisions are made with a mind to how the rich benefit, and autocentric development has worked out really good for them.

4

e30eric t1_j47bq1j wrote

It is because that's what people voted and continue to vote for, simple as that. It isn't some natural order or outcome, there are similar democracies with fantastic infrastructure 🤷‍♂️

0

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j47bwim wrote

Medicare for all and legal marijuana are two of the most popular policies in America, across all sides of the political spectrum. They're never getting instituted because Washington represents the rich, not you or me.
 
The choice to strand white people out in segregated, car-dependent country estates was a deliberate policy decision that has been incredibly destructive to the American countryside and American way of life, but it benefited the right people and that's why it was done.

 
When you've got a spare hour or so, watch this:
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2022/01/24/independent-lens-owned-a-tale-of-two-americas

5

e30eric t1_j47gao3 wrote

I completely disagree. Sure they are examples of a popular policy, but people vote for who they vote for and it's on all of us individually for getting what we deserve for those decisions. No person gets a special excuse for having a leopard eat their face just because a few rich pricks use their resources to convince them that it's patriotic to jump in the cage.

A few hundred billionaires can't control an unwilling population, only a willing one.

It's so odd that a country that beats its chest about personal responsibility struggles the most with this concept.

−2

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j47gpew wrote

Did you watch that documentary yet?

 

The electorate has a whole host of problems that we'd like to see addressed. This incoming House of Representatives is going to spend two years talking about Hunter Biden's dick instead. What the people vote for and what the people get are two very different things.

2

e30eric t1_j47ki21 wrote

Will do, thank you for sharing :)

1

Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j4aez6x wrote

Wow. They have you completely brainwashed.

1

e30eric t1_j4b2n4p wrote

You think voters aren't responsible for their government in a democracy? What's brainwashed about pointing out the literal principal of what separates a democracy from other forms of government?

And Pennsylvania of all states 😂 The state that has been fooled into electing the same people for a few decades now, long enough for slow burn gerrymandering -- and then act all surprised pikachu that things no longer change or get better.

1

Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j44l42p wrote

Now pass recreational cannabis to make up for lost revenue.

119

seattlesnow t1_j461qbe wrote

Its not that simple. Especially with MJ, a lot of legacy states are going to learn the hard way that pot taxes isn’t going to pay the bills.

−14

Excelius t1_j468ovj wrote

Every little bit helps, and cannabis should be legalized for it's own merits regardless of the revenue potential.

That said the activists obsessed with this issue tend to vastly overstate the revenue potential.

Just as a comparison of size, over a decade PA diverted $4.2 billion from the infrastructure piggybank funded by the gas tax to the state police. As I recall, that amounted to about a quarter of the fund.

Since Colorado legalized cannabis in 2014, they've collected $2.4 billion in total.

I think people tend to forget that cannabis is kind of a niche recreational product, and inherently can't produce that much tax revenue in the grand scheme of things. It's almost like... the average person buys a lot more gas than weed.

10

seattlesnow t1_j46cy8h wrote

Legacy States — pot is not going to pay the bills. Weed shouldn’t even be taxed. I should be able to buy a sac, a cart, and some dabs form Giant Eagle with my OJ.

We could tax millionaires but gawd forbid we shift the tax burden to the wealthy. Instead lets keep the boot on the necks of the working classes.

Seriously — people are bit overzealous thinking about revenue from pot taxes. Then go cite some rural state or state like Colorado that ain’t The Commonwealth.

Toll I-80.

−7

piperonyl t1_j46dxls wrote

Tolling the interstate is the opposite of taxing the wealthy. Its taxing the working class.

6

seattlesnow t1_j46g59b wrote

The US is not serious about climate change.

−2

piperonyl t1_j46gblh wrote

No shit but wtf does that have to do with taxing the wealthy and a toll road

7

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j45obqa wrote

What makes you think most stoners aren't using the mmj program?

Edit: Down votes for a question? This sub sucks so much ass.

−53

mangusman07 t1_j45u2x2 wrote

What makes you think paying $175-$225 per year in license renewal fees isn't a barrier of entry to many in our state?

50

squatcharchist t1_j45x8d6 wrote

Why require a license in the first place if they’re pretending it’s medicinal only? I’ve never needed a license for Tylenol. Either make it recreational or decriminalize if it’s just for the revenue or let people get their medicine.

17

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j45yh7w wrote

I never said it wasn't a dumb program. I just think it's already heavily used and most recreational users already are on it. Folks have lost their shit over a question about market penetration 🤣. Y'all need a joint.

−10

squatcharchist t1_j45ze5r wrote

Wasn’t disagreeing with you, figured I could expand on the point. Don’t even smoke due to work, just think the whole thing is crazy.

6

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j45yc2s wrote

Never said it wasn't. I just question how many people are kept off the program and how much additional revenue it would bring in. Not that we can prove it either way but I'd be happy to make a bet that 85% of stoners have their mmj card and are using the program. I just can't see a huge influx in tax revenue. I'm all for recreational. Folks are getting their pitchforks out over their weed 🤣.

−13

mangusman07 t1_j4669eg wrote

Can't use banks

Can't buy edibles

People are being denied jobs because they possess a MMJ card https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2022/09/pennsylvania-medical-marijuana-job-fired/

What about all the people who are curious to try it, but aren't going to go out of their way to get diagnosed with anxiety (or are 'lucky' enough to have a more serious medical issue), get approved for MMJ by a certified MMJ doctor, pay the state $50 for a card, wait two weeks for it in the mail, and then fight through the first-timer scpheel at the dispensary?

What about the tax money wasted on policing/arresting/convicting marijuana use?

There is a ton of tax revenue yet to be captured by legalization. I'm glad you're not opposed to legalization, but you're getting downvoted (by others) for stating your opinion as supposed fact. https://www.cato.org/tax-budget-bulletin/budgetary-effects-ending-drug-prohibition here's an article that discusses decriminalization vs legalization and the impact on tax revenue, in case you'd like an informed opinion.

9

full_bodied_muppet t1_j46ay1i wrote

Asking a question is fine. You're being downvoted for asking in bad faith. It's clear you already had your answer decided, and starting with "what makes you think..." is antagonistic.

10

djarvis77 t1_j463kha wrote

The answer to the question is, many stoners do fake illness to get the weed.

But that doesn't matter.

Medicine should not be taxed and a medical program should not be used instead of a recreational program. Weed should be legal...not sorta legal with a bit of lying and what not. It should be legal. We should be able to buy a pack of weed at wawa...or at least at a regular dispensary, or even state store if you must, like they have in civilization.

8

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j46582k wrote

I'm not saying it's not dumb. I'm saying it's already in use and there is little additional revenue to be had. Everyone is being all sorts of tribal any this question lol.

−1

untilyouredead t1_j47z29r wrote

what are you even talking about? little additional revenue to be had? where is your logic in this bahahahah

2

MrP3rs0n t1_j46rgc6 wrote

Because black market is still way cheaper

3

untilyouredead t1_j47yy2k wrote

“why am i being downvoted for being obtuse and asking a controversial question in bad faith???”

1

CrzyDave t1_j48evuv wrote

They arent- because I know a lot of stoners. Many have carry permits or jobs where the MMJ card would be frowned upon.

1

Sombomombo t1_j45vz6b wrote

Without legalization, you have no other avenue but mmj? Maybe start sucking ass.

−1

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j45xxy4 wrote

Oh yes, I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of stoners in PA not using the mmj program. And there is so much revenue left on the table from them?

Folks are really salty that I question the amount of additional tax revenue?

Bravo 👏👏👏

−2

PregnantSuperman t1_j45ye56 wrote

Bro, nearly everyone I know who smokes weed gets it the old fashioned way, they don't bother with the ridiculous hoop jumping of the MMJ program. I also have friends who get stuff over in NJ and bring it back. There's no question PA is missing out on a giant revenue stream.

13

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j45z263 wrote

> I also have friends who get stuff over in NJ

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard unless they are real close to the border. Prices over there suck ass. Plus the gas to get there. No thanks.

−5

PregnantSuperman t1_j460lyw wrote

They're in Philly, so yeah, literally right on the border. I'm not saying people drive from Erie to NJ...

10

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j465c4y wrote

Gotcha. With prices that still seems insane though. Why do they do that?

2

PregnantSuperman t1_j46u0d7 wrote

Because you get a quality, reputable, consistent product from a known quantity without the hassle of going through the whole PA MMJ hoopla and getting a doctor signoff when they don't actually have medical reasons.

4

mainelinerzzzzz t1_j45y45x wrote

Because MMJ users have real medical issues that only a bong hit will cure, they’re not stoners. My uncle louie has the gout and the only relief he can get is from his daily Volcano sesh. Lol.

−11

Weary_Ad7119 t1_j45zcwt wrote

Yeah but the vast majority of revenue is coming from the stoner's, not the small % of users with serious illness. It's a recreational program with extra steps for the majority of users.

4

mainelinerzzzzz t1_j461e56 wrote

Im with you, my Lol at the end was supposed to indicate sarcasm. Its all bullshit. The black market is still very strong in PA.

1

mattd1972 t1_j45v8t8 wrote

The tax wasn’t the problem. The PSP cutting line ahead of PennDOT is.

81

CltAltAcctDel t1_j46b2qd wrote

Funding PSP out of the motor license fund was a legislative decision

10

Bobbyjohns t1_j46ipgv wrote

That’s what we’re all complaining about. Funding PSP from these funds instead of charging the munis that refuse to fund their own departments and instead rely on PSP for everything.

21

Meatfrom1stgrade t1_j45wz0n wrote

It seems there's some confusion over the headline. This would decrease the tax to 2022 levels. On January 1st there was an automatic 3.5 cent increase. This bill would remove the automatic increase.

56

PregnantSuperman t1_j45zdh7 wrote

Thank goodness I'll save 35 cents every time I fill up my gas tank now. Watch out, Warren Buffett!!

45

StupiderIdjit t1_j469n3u wrote

The gas companies will just charge more. You're already paying it, why lower the prices?

16

jetsetninjacat t1_j470pv4 wrote

Remembers when bars in allegheny county bitched that when the county made a drink tax it would raise their prices as they'd lose business.

also remembers when the county lowered the tax they didn't lower anything

8

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j47182d wrote

In 2010 (IIRC) there was a government shutdown that resulted in the feds not collecting the per-ticket tax on plane tickets.
 
The airlines just temporarily raised the price for the duration of the shutdown.
 
Businesses aren't going to charge you less than you've already shown you're willing to pay.

3

enemy_of_your_enema t1_j46bd2c wrote

Because if they lower their price more than their competitors, they get more business.

−3

StupiderIdjit t1_j46d7kf wrote

Me looking crude prices at prepandemic prices, but gasoline still 75‰ higher Yeah okay.

10

aoeudhtns t1_j476b3p wrote

You're one avocado toast away from billionaire-hood.

2

Hib3rnian t1_j4649hx wrote

Shhh.. your facts will ruin people's ranting

5

0_0here t1_j4786wg wrote

And once they do that the pumpers will keep the price the same and pocket the 3.5 cents

2

No_Purpose4705 t1_j45q064 wrote

How are we going to pay for cop pensions now!?!?

40

PregnantSuperman t1_j45ym2d wrote

Wow, I was going to reply and be like "the gas tax is used for road maintenance" but then I looked it up and you're right, a big portion goes to state police. Wtf?

25

BEHodge t1_j464dwf wrote

Small population counties and municipalities have long relied solely on PSP to police their areas. So these areas are saving their citizens tax money by offsetting those costs into everyone else in the state through the gas tax.

15

Carriage4higher t1_j457s7n wrote

Short term relief at the pump VS long term ecological disaster.

25

Stonecutter_12-83 t1_j45m8lx wrote

100 percent true.

There will he huge budget gaps and then people will try to make up for it by cutting programs that help people.

All the natural gas, casinos, and medical cannabis we have and they still can find a balance? Wtf

19

HeyZuesHChrist t1_j45wpkb wrote

Well we currently have a large surplus in money thanks to Governor Wolf’s leadership. The budget has been handled fantastic the last eight years. A lot still needs fixed so we will have to wait and see what happens under Shapiro.

6

[deleted] t1_j45x7hx wrote

[deleted]

3

Joe_Jeep t1_j4620o9 wrote

This boarders on mathematical illiteracy

Your entire argument is utterly insane

No. Fuel being a few cents more expensive will not cause a never ending loop of cost overruns

Your idea is essentially saying most of the cost is from fuel....its not.

8

[deleted] t1_j463nhn wrote

[deleted]

3

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46z73y wrote

> Depending on the job about 20-25% of construction costs are in fuel

 
Wait, are you saying that people have to pay for what they consume? Fucked up if true.

1

Alfonze423 t1_j479e7f wrote

Ok, so the fuel costs of a construction project will go up 1%, making the entire thing cost 0.25% more, leaving the fuel price increase in the clear to the tune of 75% of the increase.

1

usaf_photog t1_j45gdqr wrote

But how will the state police fund themselves now? :/

20

psychcaptain t1_j45s33g wrote

Do we charge extra to the townships that no longer have police?

10

yeags86 t1_j46fkmz wrote

Pretty sure they don’t get charged.

4

psychcaptain t1_j47bw6n wrote

Well, that should change. If you want extra services from the Highway Cops, you should be on the hook.

2

yeags86 t1_j47uhwv wrote

Absolutely agree with that. I don’t give a shit if they don’t have their own police force in these places. If PSP is going to do local police work, they should be getting paid for it. But they just say “we can’t afford police, do it for us but we aren’t paying you.” Let ‘em rot. Public services require money to operate, they aren’t a fucking charity.

2

Petkorazzi t1_j46id1y wrote

Maybe by doing FUCKING ANYTHING.
If I drove the speed limit around the Capital Beltway I'd be crushed to death. Never see any police there ticketing anyone. Ever. Idiots in BMWs drive down I-83 at 90MPH weaving in and out of traffic like it's a goddamn NASCAR race. No cops. No tickets. I see more PSP in sleepy little towns like Red Lion and Dover than I ever see on the state highways.

PSP could fund themselves in a fucking day if they wanted to actually work.

10

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46sb2o wrote

Back in 2008 a cop got shot on the Parkway West outside Pittsburgh and since that happened the cops don't pull anyone over for anything. You can do 130mph out to the airport if you want. They'll come scrape you up if you crash, but until that happens they won't lift a finger.

5

IrrumaboMalum t1_j44y3mm wrote

Interesting that 19 Democrats voted to keep our gas taxes the second highest in the nation. I looked over the bill and it's a straight forward two page single subject bill - no pork or anything.

I wonder if the Democrats in the State House will also oppose reducing the gas tax.

15

Entire-Job7656 t1_j45avvo wrote

I wouldn't be surprised if it passes the house as well with such a slim majority. Maybe I'm wrong but I imagine there are a handful of Democrats that would vote yes, if nothing else because of fear of losing their seat next time around. Regardless, it's something that's unpopular for that majority of voters. I would be shocked if it doesn't end up getting lowered. If it doesn't it will certainly be an issue that Republicans will harp on the next election cycle.

11

[deleted] t1_j45tyv2 wrote

Republicans are the one who passed the tax in the first place

9

IrrumaboMalum t1_j4698yu wrote

And now the optics will be the Republicans trying to lower it and the Democrats keeping it high.

1

mattd1972 t1_j45vdpy wrote

They’re screwed either way. Either they’re painted as loving high taxes, or accused of defunding the police.

7

[deleted] t1_j45txhf wrote

Reducing revenue without any spending cuts, just caused deficits…no pork, just debt. Somehow, Republicans can’t get this

7

AbsentEmpire t1_j465yfk wrote

It's intentional, they use the deficits they create as the excuse to cut social services they don't like such as educational services, public health, food stamps, etc.

It like they want a dumb, poor, population living on the edge at all times.

3

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46zmjb wrote

Republicans (via Mitch McConnell) have openly said that their game is to hurt the country so they can point at whatever they fucked up and say it doesn't work. They're pretty open about it.

3

IrrumaboMalum t1_j46a4wg wrote

https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pa-roads-bridges-to-get-extra-175m-as-funding-is-freed-up-from-state-police/

There was already $175,000,000 freed up to go back towards the Motor License Fund by reducing allocation to the Pennsylvania State Police. The Democrats wanted a one time, and one time only, allocation of $225,000,000 from the state general fund to the Motor License Fund.

This was not a way of increasing revenue to compensate for the decrease in taxes - it was just a one time transfer of funds.

1

[deleted] t1_j46em1i wrote

What does that have to do with my point about reducing the gas tax?

2

IrrumaboMalum t1_j49tb6p wrote

Because the amendment the Democrats offered didn’t “pay” for the tax cut - it was a one-time deal and done. So even if the Republicans had voted for Sen. Hughes amendment and authorized the one-time $250,000,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Motor License Fund, there still would’ve been nothing in the proposal to reduce spending or increase revenue from another source to compensate.

1

[deleted] t1_j4akz89 wrote

That doesn’t excuse unfunded tax cuts at all.

1

IrrumaboMalum t1_j4kqf9f wrote

Even if the Republicans had voted to approve Sen. Hughes' amendment, the "tax cuts" would have still been "unfunded."

So it sounds like no matter what you would have been opposed to reducing the gas tax to a reasonable level that doesn't rape the poor and middle class.

1

[deleted] t1_j4kqh7j wrote

You’re just making weak excuses for debt policies of the right.

0

IrrumaboMalum t1_j4o63s4 wrote

Ah yes...the common "the right" excuse used by people to dismiss inconvenient arguments when their own ignorance of the topic is highlighted over the course of discussion.

1

[deleted] t1_j4o6pzi wrote

All you’ve done is highlight an irrelevant point to buck blame.

0

IrrumaboMalum t1_j4o9esm wrote

At least we've established that you would rather keep the tax high than lower it, since the higher tax disproportionately impacts the poor and lower middle class.

Apparently their plight isn't your concern, and helping them has to be "paid for" in some other fashion.

0

[deleted] t1_j4pm3xc wrote

Another weak excuse why you support unfunded tax cuts, debt adding

0

IrrumaboMalum t1_j4t9q0m wrote

You hate the poor and want to keep them destitute and unable to better themselves. Got it.

You must be a Republican.

1

[deleted] t1_j4ujajn wrote

Because you love debt policies, and unfunded tax cuts for the rich..sure

Rich don’t pay off the debt, the poor do

0

Excelius t1_j467rls wrote

There is an argument that gas taxes in the US are far too low, which encourages consumption and discourages efficiency, contributing to climate change and slowing the transition to greener alternatives.

That view is going to have more support among Democrats, especially those in deep-blue urban areas. But Democrats representing more suburban swing-districts really can't afford to adopt that sort of stance.

7

IrrumaboMalum t1_j469jlw wrote

The US is also significantly more spread out than comparable countries, forcing us to have to travel more often and further than people living in comparable countries.

The days of people living very close to their jobs are over. My job is a 30-45 minute from where I live, and I cannot afford to live closer to where I work because of the cost of living in that area. 40 or even 30 years ago, that would’ve been the exception.

Now it is more of the rule.

1

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46t2a7 wrote

This situation has only existed since WW2. We could go back to pre-war living patterns if we wanted. The status quo just makes a lot of money for the right people at everyone's expense.
 
> My job is a 30-45 minute from where I live

 
Sounds like hell.

3

Raam57 t1_j46xjie wrote

That commute is pretty average for someone in PA. I mean people choose where they live. How exactly would you realistically get people back to “pre-war living patterns”

2

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46xssx wrote

I haven't driven to work in over a decade and my life is way better for it. Driving is a fucking chore.

 

You'd return to pre-war living patterns via high density housing, public transit, and clustering residences around business and commercial areas. Look at any pre-car small town in rural Pennsylvania.

 
The current status quo where people live an hour from where they work in an artificial country estate is unsustainable and the sooner we end it, the better.
 
The fun thing about threads like this is reading posts from people who choose to live 40 miles from their job cry about how they have to pay to fill their 12mpg gas guzzler. No one is forcing them to live that way but they think that everyone else should pay their way.

0

IrrumaboMalum t1_j49txkj wrote

>The fun thing about threads like this is reading posts from people who choose to live 40 miles from their job cry about how they have to pay to fill their 12mpg gas guzzler. No one is forcing them to live that way but they think that everyone else should pay their way.

I didn’t “choose” to live where I am. I cannot afford to live a convenient distance from work because the cost-of-living in Cranberry is so high, so I live in the city (where I can afford to live) and commute.

I wish I could live walking distance from work, but that is not realistic for me. So I live where I can afford to live. That is part of why people commute so far - they get decent paying jobs in Area A, but the jobs don’t quite pay enough to live in Area A. So they live in Area C or D, where their pay from Area A allows them to live a decent life, and then commute to Area A for work.

I don’t think you have a very firm grasp on the real world or how people interact with it.

1

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j49vimi wrote

Today I learned that the only jobs to be had are in Cranberry.

 
Living far away from your job is a choice.

0

IrrumaboMalum t1_j4a5y83 wrote

No, it’s not.

It sounds like you’re either independently wealthy or a rich kid who doesn’t need to worry about balancing income to cost of living and, as such, can afford to live at a loss.

The rest of us can’t.

1

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j4c6r1q wrote

You're aware that downtown Pittsburgh is the second largest concentration of jobs in the state, with Oakland representing #3, right?
 
If you're driving out to Butler County from the city every day for a job, you are doing that by choice, not because there are no other options. You have chosen to take a job so far from where you live and you choose to drive 50 miles a day.

 
Building society around supporting the poor choices is a recipe for failure. As we can see with the current state of carcentric development, sprawl, pollution, etc.
 
People who choose to drive fifty miles a day when alternatives exist get zero sympathy from me when they complain about how expensive the life they've chosen is.
 
> It sounds like you’re either independently wealthy or a rich kid who doesn’t need to worry about balancing income to cost of living

 
There are neighborhoods on public transit lines in the city with median house costs under $200K, "everyone who isn't commuting 50 miles a day like me must be rich" is a lie you tell yourself to feel better about your choices.

 
According to your post history, you own a lot of guns. Guns are expensive. If you bought fewer toys and lived within your means you wouldn't have to commute fifty miles a day.

0

IrrumaboMalum t1_j4kqp5z wrote

Let's put a huge industrial construction facility that builds I&C systems right in the middle of Downtown. Sounds great.

You're an entitled self-important little pissant who thinks he is better than everyone else, and it is tiring. Must be nice living off of mommy and daddy for life while the rest of us have to work for a living.

Not all of us are lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon shoved up our asses.

Get bent kid. And get blocked.

1

Alfonze423 t1_j47a7ra wrote

Are you in support of increasing income tax and paying for PennDOT out of the general fund? Because that's the trade-off. Other states have higher income taxes and pay for their DOTs as part of the normal budget, while we have the lowest flat income tax in the country and try to fund PennDOT with just fees and gas tax, which the State Police then take.

1

IrrumaboMalum t1_j49ugqn wrote

We have the lowest FLAT income tax - true. But not by much, nor do we have the lowest income tax. In fact there are several states with NO income tax that do not have the same problems we have involving the gas tax and it’s disposition.

More and higher taxes isn’t always the answer.

Also many states roll state and local taxes into one tax, and the state provides local municipalities with funding. Such as Utah. I was looking at Utah’s taxes since I was contemplating a job out there under my current company - they have a higher state tax, but no city tax. So despite having a higher state tax, I’d save several hundred dollars a month in taxes out there making the same pay.

1

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46ssjs wrote

Gas should be highly taxed. People should be penalized for driving gas guzzlers.
 
If you can't afford to fill it up, don't drive it.

−1

IrrumaboMalum t1_j49t00t wrote

Here is the problem. Gas guzzlers are expensive. Very expensive. People who can afford gas guzzlers aren’t too worried about the cost of gas.

High gas taxes disproportionately impact the poor, who have to be careful of every penny they spend because every penny is important. They are the ones who suffer most under high gas taxes.

1

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j49vqku wrote

Automobiles and the gas that fuels them are tremendously destructive and should be taxed as much as the market will bear to discourage driving.

0

IrrumaboMalum t1_j4a6020 wrote

So you hate poor people and only want the rich to drive.

Got it.

1

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j4c6eq9 wrote

"Everyone should drive a car forever and there are definitely no downsides. Gasoline and other resources are unlimited!"

 
The personal automobile is a dead end. The sooner we move away from it the better.

0

PhillyAccount t1_j45vkha wrote

Congratulations to everyone who drives a huge car

10

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j47an7o wrote

A few months back the news had a huge guy in a huge truck complaining about the cost of gas. He pointed at his similarly oversized son and said, "gas is so expensive I can't buy him a bag of chips anymore!!!" I don't think his kid needs more chips.

3

Vast-Support-1466 t1_j45kh03 wrote

Hole up - this legislation would fix the wholesale cost at 2.99/gal.

What is it now? Articles like this drive me batty - give me a metric being legislated with no comparison...

Honestly, it's not even 25%ing it.

5

Excelius t1_j466u1g wrote

> Hole up - this legislation would fix the wholesale cost at 2.99/gal.

That confused me, it has to be a misunderstanding because there's absolutely no way that PA can fix the price of gas.

I'm guessing the wholesale tax fluctuates based on the market price, which is why it shot up at the beginning of this year because the average wholesale price shot up last year.

So the legislation is probably saying that for the purposes of the amount of the wholesale tax, we're just going to pretend that gas is $2.99/gal forever.

5

kellzone t1_j464n6s wrote

Yeah, it seems like this article is really burying the lede.

1

JohnDeere714 t1_j467vrd wrote

Great now start slimming down the fees on traffic tickets. Why are people getting dinged for ems fees on minor violations?

4

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46wplv wrote

The cool thing about traffic violations is that you don't get any tickets if you follow the law.

−4

BadDesignMakesMeSad t1_j4652ns wrote

I see that we’re slowly regretting completely shifting our infrastructure to cars without any real alternatives in most places. You can cut the taxes as much as you want but it’s not going to help with the core issue that most people are completely reliant on their cars for basically all of their trips in much of the US. I guess we never learned from the oil crisis in the 70s.

3

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j471lq5 wrote

We're about fifteen years into nationwide oppositional defiant disorder, too. If someone with authority says that we should maybe cut down on the amount of gas we consume, 30% of the country will buy extra gas to pour into a ditch out of spite. Great country we've got.

3

BadDesignMakesMeSad t1_j47tz9l wrote

Those people are not the core issue though. The core issue is down to policy. Strict zoning policies disallow denser and mixed use development to allow places to be more walkable, we aren’t properly funding our public transit systems, and we’re constantly trying to make fossil fuels cheaper rather than trying to face the reality that moving away from fossil fuels is better for the environment, public health, and the economy (though that’s largely down to an exceeding amount of political power that the fossil fuel industry has. There are other reason too such as vocal opponents of all things density and transit but those voices are getting drowned out by the large amount of people who are demanding better alternatives to driving. Just a handful of policies on all levels of government that change zoning laws and prioritize transit projects could make a huge difference.

1

discogeek t1_j46ah0k wrote

We're talking about gas tax here so I expect the recreational bros to spam up this topic with their opinion on that matter instead, instead of discussing the article.

3

Ct-5736-Bladez t1_j46rre6 wrote

A lot of that goes towards the state police.

Just spitballing here but what if our state government were to lift restrictions on our sheriff departments and give them back their investigative and arresting powers? They already have the same training as local and state police no? Let them patrol the streets that local municipalities and townships cannot cover. Keep the state cops to state roadways and assisting local jurisdictions on cases/incidents when asked by those jurisdictions.

A system close to what our neighboring states do.

PSP could down size no? Just a thought.

2

thaiatom t1_j466fq8 wrote

The pa gas tax also helps to fund the state police.

1

wagsman t1_j47ov5x wrote

>The Transportation Committee also passed a bill that dedicates gas tax revenues to road and bridge safety projects.

Yeah ok, until the PSP needs to cover the second half of their budget.

1

CrzyDave t1_j48ircn wrote

So what are the chances of it passing the house and surviving the veto?

1

Eurisfat t1_j45qegq wrote

Interesting. But wondering how are we going to fund the police?

0

HeyZuesHChrist t1_j45wt44 wrote

Make local municipalities hire their own police force and make the local residents pay for it.

11

PregnantSuperman t1_j45z37p wrote

Realistically this would cause huge problems for communities. Small and financially distressed communities wouldn't be able to pay for it and jacking up tax rates would be a huge burden on people and/or incentivize them to leave.

You could counter that with an even stronger emphasis on regionalizing police departments, which I suspect is what would happen should the state police have to downsize.

1

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46ubrr wrote

> jacking up tax rates would be a huge burden on people and/or incentivize them to leave.

 
Sounds good to me, there's no reason for anyone to live in most of Schuylkill County in 2022.

0

PregnantSuperman t1_j46vu8c wrote

A lot of people don't have the means to just get up and move, but if you want to screw over impoverished people, having this attitude is a great way to do it.

3

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j46w2xa wrote

Rural Pennsylvania is highly subsidized to begin with, and they use their outsized weight in the legislature to fuck over the urbanized and productive parts of the state. I'm not going to cry for them and I don't owe them a thing.

0

BukkakeKing69 t1_j472py2 wrote

This is BS. Plenty of destitute people have managed to move thousands of miles throughout history in huge migration waves. Today's poor don't move because they are subsidized enough to stay comfortably in place, even if the conditions aren't great.

0

TwitterTapeParade t1_j49itjs wrote

Yeah, Wolf kept increasing the gas tax, and absorbed some of the massive savings Trump gave us with his energy policies. I haven't seen gas that cheap since the early 90's. I saw $1.29 in PA. Would have been under $1.00 if Wolf didn't increase the tax on us. The reality should be extremely obvious to us now. The Democrats are enslaving us all. They want to keep us down and keep us fighting among ourselves to distract us from their theft of our wealth.

0