Paul Carpenter is a FIRST CLASS JERK

Tim

U.S.Constitution
Paul Carpenter of The Morning Call wrote this story about Pennsylvania's governor Tom Corbett's plan to redo the Oil Company Franchise Tax. The last few line in the story qualify Paul in the running for Asshole of the Year award.

Gov. Corbett's gasoline untax may raise $1.85 billion
January 22, 2013|Paul Carpenter


There are things that make California more attractive, in some ways, than Pennsylvania. There is Yosemite, of course, and it's nice to have either an In-N-Out or a sushi joint on just about every block in some areas, such as the San Fernando Valley.


It is great that Pennsylvania has more greenery, less smog and more horse-and-buggy communities, but we have no redwoods or sequoias at all. Not everyone loves Death Valley as much as I do, but you cannot deny that it's interesting. And everybody loves La Jolla.


In recent years, whenever I had a yen to move back to California, two things helped me get over it.


First, I could not live in a state that refuses to let adults decide for themselves whether they want to wear helmets on motorcycles. Second, California recently surpassed Hawaii when it comes to the price of gasoline. It's now up over $5 a gallon for regular in the Golden State.


According to news reports in recent days, Pennsylvania's governor may be ready to take steps to help us catch up to California regarding that second item.


Before we get to the details, we must stress that Gov. Tom Corbett is not — repeat NOT — contemplating a tax increase. That would break his political campaign promises. So please think of this as an untax.


Corbett is expected to announce details Thursday, but already it has been reported that a new untax would add an anticipated $1.85 billion in revenue to help the state upgrade its tattered roads and bridges.


The untax would be on wholesale gasoline prices. Currently, the Oil Company Franchise Tax is "capped," applying only to the first $1.25 in the price of a gallon of gasoline. The new plan would apply to the entire "average wholesale price," which is now at just over $3.11 a gallon. The plan is not a tax, mind you, because Corbett only wants to fiddle with a "cap." It is not a tax increase; it is just a cap increase.


"How is he raising taxes?" Kevin Harley, a spokesman for the governor, was quoted as saying after some pest (probably a reporter) asked about the plan. "I'm curious how he's raising taxes."


The Pennsylvania Highway Information Association reported that the untax would result in wholesalers paying about 28.5 cents per gallon in untax on top of the 19.2 cents per gallon they now pay in the Oil Company Franchise Tax. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which broke the story on Friday, said the change will have an "uncertain impact on pump prices."


I, for one, am confidant that the big oil companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, will not pass along that extra 28.5 cents per gallon untax to people who buy gasoline at service stations. But if they do, it would mean Pennsylvania essentially had 60.8 cents in state taxes for each gallon.


At the moment, according to the American Petroleum Institute, California has 48.7 cents per gallon in state taxes at the retail level, more than 50 percent higher than Pennsylvania's current tax of 32.3 cents.


The Corbett untax plan would mean — if the oil companies do decide to pass along the hike to consumers — that Pennsylvania would be grabbing nearly 25 percent more than California.


We'd be paying a dime per gallon more in gasoline tax and untax than New York State, which now has the highest gasoline taxes. We could be number one!


When I checked my math with the state Department of Revenue, spokeswoman Elizabeth Brassell said that the way the Post-Gazette portrayed the proposed increase "is not the way we in the taxing community view the tax."
She said it is a levy "imposed on distributors. … How much of that [new] tax is passed on to the consumer is unknown."


As I said above, I'm confident the oil companies will not pass along any increases to consumers. If you are not as trusting, you're probably wondering what it might take to persuade Corbett to call off his crusade to move us closer to California's glorious $5 per gallon signs at the pump.


Keep in mind that he kept his promise not to tax the gas drilling robber barons. Pennsylvania is the only gas-drilling state in America that does not require drillers to pay a severance tax on their wells. That happened after the drilling companies gave Corbett more than $1 million in so-called "political campaign contributions."


So if you are fretting over an anticipated jump in the price of gasoline, you have only yourself to blame. Where were you with your million-dollar contribution, chump?


By the way, the justification for Corbett's new gasoline untax is perfectly valid. It will help pay for highway repairs. Personally, if $5 a gallon gasoline helps keep bridges from collapsing from under my car, or motorcycle, I'd just as soon pay it.



The only reservation some of us have is that virtually all damage to roadways and bridges is caused by heavy trucks. Studies have shown that one large truck causes 9,600 times as much damage as one car.


If truckers were required to pay their fair share — even if we go by the current 32.3 cents per gallon state levy on gasoline you pay at the pump for your car — the tax on each gallon of truck fuel should be more than $3,000 a gallon, based on the amount of damage they do.


Personally, I'd be satisfied if they were required to pay only a tenth of that.


[email protected] 610-820-6176

http://articles.mcall.com/2013-01-2..._tom-corbett-gallon-wholesale-gasoline-prices


I can only hope and pray to God Paul gets his wish to raise diesel fuel tax on trucks to $3000 a gallon. I haven't been to PA in a few years but nothing would make me any happier then to take a load to PA and charge a $5.00 per mile line haul rate with a $1000 per mile fuel surcharge
 
It's very easy to get most people to agree to sticking it to those big bad trucks, Not realizing there are shooting themselves in the foot.

The people I have talked to have realized the cost of their groceries has gone up. They just haven't figured out why.
 
It's very easy to get most people to agree to sticking it to those big bad trucks, Not realizing there are shooting themselves in the foot. The people I have talked to have realized the cost of their groceries has gone up. They just haven't figured out why.


Didn't I start a debate on this very subject not that long ago?
 
You may have. I am sure all truckers and trucking companies will agree, We will not be the ones to eat any additional costs.


And why would they/we? Vicious circle it may be but the root cause IMO is:

Investors
Insurance
Lawyers.

Eliminate food and medical from the "profit" side of investments and move them to NON profit. Forbid Insurance companies from profiting to the tune of $2.5 Billion Dollars a year...

The first two.. take care of the third.

Oh wait... the debate was about the cost of french fries... my bad.
 
Or was it cake? and German flavored cake? LMAO!

Steak cake.


Why shouldn't a farmer be allowed to profit from his labor? Isn't that what we're all trying to do?

And my question to Mr. Carpenter is this: Would that exploded figure be for the life of the vehicle, or per mile? What is the mileage lifespan of the average car? Motorcycle? Truck?
 
Steak cake.


Why shouldn't a farmer be allowed to profit from his labor? Isn't that what we're all trying to do?

And my question to Mr. Carpenter is this: Would that exploded figure be for the life of the vehicle, or per mile? What is the mileage lifespan of the average car? Motorcycle? Truck?
My Question to Mr. Carpenter would be how much is he willing to pay for a loaf of bread? He may be privileged, His constituents are not. He may want to do a re-think.
 
No. The root cause is our lazy and bloated government that spends our money without consequence.

Fix the government.


We can't fix Gov't.. but...(and here's the good part...)

...if we all pool our money we can lobby for those 2 things and get that under control then.... some postulators will see a decrease in there portfolio and get out?

One can wish.
 
Years ago I remember reading a report on cars vs trucks weight distribution and road damage. It was actually proven that a car with the right amount of people did more damage due to displacement of the weight. This was mainly concerning the amount of tire to the road and the fact a car isn't very long or wide.

that being said, I wonder where this genius got the idea trucks are doing so much more damage than cars..? Wonder if he bothered to look it up, or if its maybe changed over the years?
 
Years ago I remember reading a report on cars vs trucks weight distribution and road damage. It was actually proven that a car with the right amount of people did more damage due to displacement of the weight. This was mainly concerning the amount of tire to the road and the fact a car isn't very long or wide.
Someone with money to waste proved the same principle on sidewalks. It showed that women's high heel shoes caused more damage to sidewalks than anything else, including fully loaded car and truck tires.
 
My Question to Mr. Carpenter would be how much is he willing to pay for a loaf of bread? He may be privileged, His constituents are not. He may want to do a re-think.

Loaded or unloaded miles?

Years ago I remember reading a report on cars vs trucks weight distribution and road damage. It was actually proven that a car with the right amount of people did more damage due to displacement of the weight. This was mainly concerning the amount of tire to the road and the fact a car isn't very long or wide.

that being said, I wonder where this genius got the idea trucks are doing so much more damage than cars..? Wonder if he bothered to look it up, or if its maybe changed over the years?


All valid questions. I looked here.........

car vs. truck damage on roads - Google Search


A variety of studies to choose from, I found the one that said 9,6OO times more than a car and it seemed to have the LEAST amount of scientific basis, rather than just assuming the worst case scenario, loaded with 8O,OOO lbs. and assuming equal weight on all axles........right.
Many of the others go in depth into mathematics and formulas.
Then there is traffic analysis that must be considered. For example, does that truck follow the same path day after day like a car? How many times a week, month or year does that truck travel that road? What is the thickness of pavement to begin with or weight rating?
What about guys in pickups, hauling trailers of stuff?
Finally, what are the numbers of cars on the road vs. number of trucks daily?

Most studies agree that semis pay roughly 2/3 of the taxes collected for the highway system, cars 1/3.
Without a long mathematical analysis, I'd say big trucks likely cause about 2/3 of the wear and tear. But the road taxes also pay for roads that you guys NEVER travel on, like that suburban cul de sac that soccer mom lives on.
So in conclusion, the statement that you should pay 9,6OO times more taxes based on ONE small part of a complicated formula means I agree with the verdict that the guy is an a$$hat with a dingleberry mustache.
 
I sent that Paul jerk an e-mail. He has yet to respond.


I doubt he ever will.

I doubt it too.
It never fails to amaze me how mathematically challenged some people are.
Besides the problem of giving the DOT more $ than the nat'l budget for roads, just how much does peabrain think milk and bread will cost when it takes 1/2 a million dollars to fill a rig's tank?
Yeah, great plan, ding dong!
 
Back
Top