CTA Tattler

There are so many additional benefits to raising the gas tax - less congestion, less pollution, more fuel-efficient cars - that it completely makes sense to do this.

You also need to consider the rural areas of the state that have few transportation choices and little congestion. I'd rather see less of an increase on gas taxes and more state income tax on higher incomes, e.g. leave it at 3% for incomes under $150,000 but raise it for incomes over that level.

I guess since I don't make alot, I'd like to see us move to a graduated income tax like the feds. You make more money, you pay more tax..I'd like to see the numbers based on that. That could be a palatable tax increase for most people.

Also, something I always didn't understand..why make buses buy city stickers, pay tolls and actually purchase license plates and stickers every year...this just seems like a taking from one pocket and putting it in another..same thing on fuel purchased for the buses..Do they pay the sales tax on fuel they buy?

KevinB

I think a gas tax increase is a great idea. The more it costs to transport goods, the more cost-efficient it becomes to manufacture things here. Some things will always be so cheap they'll be built elsewhere, but other things are closer to the edge. For those, we will keep our factories in place if it costs too much to ship things from elsewhere.

I think that we should raise the gas tax. People are used to paying a higher price at this point and will be less likely to complain about it.

I do think that a greater portion of it should go to transit and that all gas taxes should only fund transit projects, roads/bridges included.

That being said, I support consumption taxes over income taxes. You must remember that we didn't always have income taxes in this country or in Illinois. We started them in the US due to war. I'm not sure why we started them in this state.

A couple of points to understand here:

1) A shift to a graduated income tax system couldn't occur until next year for various legislative and procedural reasons. While I personally think it's a good idea, it's not available in the time frame necessary.

2) Raising the income tax rate is a poor idea, because it essentially dissolves our state's only real advantage in terms of taxation. For instance, the tax environment in Chicago is extremely high, which means we lose businesses or must resort to throwing TIF dollars or the like to retain current business or attract new business. Our single advantage is the low income tax rate. In addition, raising the rate of a flat income tax disproportionately affects the middle class, and especially the poor.

3) Additional casinos are a terrible idea, and not only from a moral/societal viewpoint. Casinos revenues everywhere have plummeted, and even more so here in IL, where we share borders with other casino states that don't have smoking bans. (I like the smoking ban, but it has had an adverse effect on casino revenues).

4) A gas tax increase is a good idea, but only if the revenue is used to modernize and expand mass transit, and shore up existing roads. New roads should not be considered, at least in the Chicagoland area. If you want to make the price of fuel high, at least provide would-be drivers with a viable alternative.

5) A tax on services is also a good idea. We're no longer primarily a goods-based society. It's more equitable this way, since it's essentially a user fee. However, it should be coupled with a reduction in the sales tax rate, which is oppressively high in Chicago and Cook County.

Raise the gas tax to pay for the state capital bill - the price of gas is far too low, and the state gas tax hasn't been raised in almost 20 years. But the capital bill is only one of Illinois's problems, and we desperately need to increase revenues to fund state services. The only viable solution - as well as the only fair solution - is to abolish the constitutionally mandated flat income tax and sharply increase taxes on the rich.

Why do we never talk about raising the tax on existing casinos. I can't imagine those palaces raking in money based on the monopoly they've been given by upstanding state legislators is currently taxed at the rate that maximizes our take.

Anyway, I'm okay with a gas tax, though I wish we could convince our friends in Indiana to do the same. A federal gas tax makes more sense.

KevinB:
At least in the case of Pace, its requests for proposals indicate that it obtains fuel tax free, and also supplies that fuel to most of its contractors.

There was also the legislation that Pace buses in transit service don't have to pay tolls (605 ILCS 10/19 http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1746&ChapAct=605%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B10%2F&ChapterID=45&ChapterName=ROADS+AND+BRIDGES&ActName=Toll+Highway+Act).

The city sticker question, I understand that the buses have to have them, but don't understand why. It also seems like that recent stories about CTA paying their drivers' red light camera fines indicates that the city is again using the CTA as a revenue source.

As far as the main question, I think the state has to prove that it has eradicated the corruption (and not just the last governor) and has proposed a zero based budget before it can come back to ask for more taxes. However, the "gas is down to $2 from $4.25, so another dime in taxes won't hurt" train is probably out of the station.

Cut the state budget dramatically -- $5 billion next year, $5 billion the year after that, $5 billion more by three years after that.

Next question?

I may have to admit I was wrong about the graduated income tax.

I did not take into account that this would probably cause those CTA officials making over 125K to take home less money. Please forgive me! I knew not what I suggested.....

KevinB

ryanwc: The state did that a couple of years ago. At that point, the casinos cut back hours. They are also complaining about the smoking ban.

If you are going to do something about casinos, give out 3 more licenses. Except that apparently the Combine was associated with the Waukegan application, unsavory elements with the Rosemont one, and Daley wanted the Chicago one without paying the license fee that would otherwise be required in an auction among private bidders.

It's too bad the poll only allows for one answer. We need a combination of higher gas taxes and a switch to graduated income taxes with higher rates. Add to that a low (2%) corporate revenue tax. Raise all those taxes enough to drastically lower or entirely eliminate sales taxes so our retailers don't have to keep fighting a losing battle against other states and the Internet.

I agree with DaveW that we need a combination--my thought was a higher gas tax immediately and a graduated income tax later. But doesn't the graduated income tax require a constitutional amendment?

More casinos during a recession/depression? Well...that'll surely generate all the extra cash you need. Raise gas taxes? Joy...with unemployment soon to skyrocket there'll be few driving so no money there either. Raise income tax? Brilliant! With unemployment soon to skyrocket that'll bring in a LOT of cash.

When will someone come up with a truly innovative idea? These warhorses haven't worked before and they won't work this time either.

Unemployment already skyrocketed and there are still plenty of drivers. There are still plenty of residents with incomes, too. Higher taxes will raise the base of state revenues. If we get responsible government for a change, that will enable the state to build a surplus to deal with bad times like we're in now, and replenish it in good times. Failure to raise enough revenue is the reason we're in such trouble now.

When exactly didn't these "warhorses" work before? Most people think the Eisenhower/pre-Reagan era worked just fine economically, when marginal federal tax rates topped off at 91 percent. Most of our problem now comes from the deadly combination of tax cuts, record deficits, and expenditures for useless activities (Iraq, for example) absorbing all the money that should have gone to states and municipalities.

"Most people think the Eisenhower/pre-Reagan era worked just fine economically, when marginal federal tax rates topped off at 91 percent."--Dave W.

Like whom? Were you around for the rampant inflation during the Nixon/Ford years? The 16% mortgages in the Carter years (I paid one of them)? The ineffective gasoline price controls?

The only thing claimed effective at that time was when Kennedy reduced tax rates.

Enough said.

I think that it must be a combination of several different solutions. First, the state must prove that it is serious about cutting spending. Rolling back Blago's giveaways (free rides for seniors, etc.) would be part of this. People need to be convinced that the state works for them before they will allow for higher taxes. Graduated income taxes at the state level is a bad idea because of the additional complexity that will be introduced.

The problem with the state having a surplus is that such a situation is not possible politically in this country. That money belongs to the citizens and if the state has more than it needs, it will soon find itself giving it back in the form of tax rebates or additional programs for citizens. For example, several years ago, the collection of the gas tax was suspended temporarily because the state had collected too much from it.

**Most people think the Eisenhower/pre-Reagan era worked just fine economically

*Were you around for the rampant inflation during the Nixon/Ford years? The 16% mortgages in the Carter years...

While they were bad, those phenomena have little or nothing to do with high marginal tax rates on the extremely wealthy, which were extremely successful in raising government revenue and had a negligible effect on growth.

It's as if I said, "The Clinton era was great for the US economy" and you responded, "but Bolivia had a bolivar crisis."

Bad stuff happens. It's not always related. Your examples have much more to do with OPEC and our economy's growing oil dependence during that era than tax policy.

"I think a gas tax increase is a great idea. The more it costs to transport goods, the more cost-efficient it becomes to manufacture things here. Some things will always be so cheap they'll be built elsewhere, but other things are closer to the edge. For those, we will keep our factories in place if it costs too much to ship things from elsewhere."

I don't understand your logic at all, Thomas. You do realize that people live in places other than Illinois, right? So an increase in the gas tax would be just as likely to cause manufacturers to avoid locating here so that they wouldn't have to pay it to transport goods to other places.

theo: I bet you don't remember the term "stagflation." Or, during the Carter years, people making about $20K getting raises, supposedly to deal with inflation, which were immediately eaten by the increased marginal tax rate.

Yes, there was a relationship, although the oil crisis also entered into it. As well as the "bread and bullets" financial theory during the Vietnam War. However, then you couldn't raise the tax rate much above the marginal 91%.

In any event, I don't buy Dave W's theory that everyone believes the economy was in good shape in the late 60s, early 70s.

...and certainly the late 70s.

I find it interesting that people are actually voting for tax increases in the poll. In the real world, it doesn't work that way.

Occasionally you can rally people behind a temporary levy for a specific purpose. To do so, you have to take a high moral ground, and pre-paint anyone who might be against the increase as the anti-christ. This can be useful for new schools, firehouses, police stations and such. But you still need to hit hard, fast and organized, and appeal to people's emotions more than their logic.

The bottom line is that once you put something in front of "the people", locical discussion is over. It's all about which side creates the best emotional arguement, and the "no new taxes" arguement is always an appealing one -- especially in hard times.

Put this question in front of everyone rather than just people interested enough in transit to read this blog, and the final choice, cut the budget, would win hands down. The only way to get a different answer from the people in general is to ask a loaded question that leads them to some other choice.

Blago was/is an idiot in that he thought/thinks that magic can happen, and it's funding will come from someplace other than taxes. That's delusional fantasy. But it's what the people want to hear. It's how he got elected even though thinking people knew he had a screw loose.

In this day and age, you're not going to be able to depend on one source of funding to do anything. You can't just raise income taxes. You can't just raise property taxes. You can't just raise gas taxes or sales taxes. You can't just create new fees, or raise existing fees.

If government could move fast enough, they could take advantage of the lower bids that come with downturns in the economy. So many projects become more expensive than they need to be because they're built during the good times when there are many private jobs competing for the limited resources any capital project needs. There are two ways to take advantage of this: One is to build a surplus when times are good. The other is to borrow when times are bad. But we didn't build a surplus, and borrowing is an expensive route to go, with limited funds availible to borrow in this particular financial crisis.

The only answer that is going to have any chance is one that isn't even on the poll: "To some extent, all of the above, and in another light, none of the above."

But what needs to happen is we need to get people back to work. We can't waste too much time arguing about the finer points of this or that theory. People need to get to work.

It's like arguing about whether love or respect is better when there's not enough food to live in the first place. We just need to get things moving now. Once things are moving again we can pick-up the pieces, and make things neat and tidy to fit our particular political agendas.

I would strongly support raising fuel taxes even more than that. I would caution against raising the state income tax on the wealthy though. Its very easy for someone with that income to simply "move" to a state with no income taxes like Nevada and just retain a "business-related" second home in Illinois.

"Graduated income taxes at the state level is a bad idea because of the additional complexity that will be introduced."

What additional complexity? Right now when you flip to the back of the tax preparation book, you find your income on the chart and it tells you how much you owe. Under a progressive income tax you'd do the same thing, only rich people would finally pay their fair share.

"I would caution against raising the state income tax on the wealthy though. Its very easy for someone with that income to simply "move" to a state with no income taxes like Nevada and just retain a "business-related" second home in Illinois."

This can't be too big a problem, or states like New York, New Jersey, and California couldn't maintain their progressive income tax systems. But anyway, the way to deal with rich people extorting you is not to give in, it's to step up enforcement.

jack, no one thinks the economy was in good shape in the 1970s - as usual, capitalism produces terrible crises every 30-40 years. But the causes behind that one had nothing to do with high tax rates. The oil crisis and inflationary spending involved in the attack on Indochina were both key factors, but maybe even more important, Germany and Japan had recovered from World War II and were outcompeting the US in international trade.

High taxes and a highly regulated economy dominated from World War II to the early 1970s, producing higher growth rates and far more equitable growth than we've seen since the early 1980s - and that doesn't even figure in how much of the growth of the last three decades was an illusion caused by serial speculative bubbles. Not only are high taxes and strong regulation more fair, they are demonstratively more successful.

Money needs to be cut from other parts of the state budget.

I'm about to make myself really unpopular here, but I think that there should be cuts to off-peak service. For example, the Pink Line should be cut on Sundays.

Where exactly would you cut from the state budget?

I'd start with any CTA salary over 125K. I don't see them taking any furlough days like other state employees and they are whining that they aren't making as much when you take inflation into account....poor babies!

KevinB

"jack, no one thinks the economy was in good shape in the 1970s"

Except DaveW who said:
"Most people think the Eisenhower/pre-Reagan era worked just fine economically, when marginal federal tax rates topped off at 91 percent."

Now, it is either "no one" or "Most people."

One can argue over causes, equity, the effect of the 86 tax cuts, the effect of the 90s Internet boom and bust, and other factors. But it is clear that not even Obama is suggesting that the tax cuts scheduled to sunset in 2011 should be reversed now, or until the economy is straightened out. Thus, no matter what some people (many of which I believe did not live in the 60s or 70s) thought about the 91% marignal tax rate, it is not coming back.

It is also irrelevant to a discussion of state taxes, unless some of you are suggesting that the state confiscate what the feds aren't taking.

No discussion of increased taxation can begin without a serious discussion on governmental employee entitlement reform. It's a ticking time bomb that's set to go off within the next decade - everyone in the legislature has kicked this can down the road for too long. Pensions and health insurance are just the starting point for this action.

It is not "capitalism" that is producing these crises every 30 to 40 years. These problems can all be traced back to the Federal Reserve (which is as federal as Federal Express). The people in charge of this private bank have been allowed to have too great of a control over economic activity in this country. They create booms and busts to the benefit of their own investors. If you really think that your federal income tax goes to programs to help the poor and national defense, you are a fool. All of the money you pay in income tax is used to pay interest on the money the Federal Reserve has in circulation. It is no coincidence that the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve came into existence at the same time (1913). That's right; the money you pay in income tax goes to people who are obscenely wealthy. The last president who tried to end the Federal Reserve was assassinated (Kennedy). The last presidential candidate to talk about this issue (Reagan) was forced to take on a vice president who did not share his views and quietly let the issue drop.

"not even Obama is suggesting that the tax cuts scheduled to sunset in 2011 should be reversed now"

That's because he has right-wing economists like Larry Summers making his decisions for him and because he's taking a very timid approach to the Republicans' lunacy, not because it's good economic policy. This is the same reason the stimulus bill is weighed down with ineffective tax cuts.

"unless some of you are suggesting that the state confiscate [sic] what the feds aren't taking."

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. This is the choice we face: cut vital state services - harming not only society's most vulnerable but worsening the recession as well by eliminating jobs - or increase taxes on the rich, who would otherwise put that money in savings. A progressive income tax is not only the right thing to do, it's the best thing for the health of the economy too.

"I'm about to make myself really unpopular here, but I think that there should be cuts to off-peak service. For example, the Pink Line should be cut on Sundays."

Either that or they should cut the bus route that essentually duplicates that service. And on the north side, there needs to be a reduction from four parellel non-express transit lines in the reletively small area between the lake and Clark (or the red line south of Belmont) to three. Doing so would cause almost no inconvienance to anybody. And if it is done right, it could actually improve the commutes of a significant amount of people. Yet unfortunely, this is not going to happen. I suggested this around a month ago and two people started screaming at me. And I don't think they are unusual.
Many people get scared of any change and if something is proposed they will not think things through. They will just get outraged whenever anyone discussed anything involving a reduction of service. The same thing will happen with your suggestion of the pink line(although apparently not on this blog because it seems everybody who reads it lives on the north side). You still see people complaining about the closure of green line stops a few decades ago when there are two bus routes that operate a few blocks from these stops. You even see people complaining that there isn't a third bus route in that area anymore.

MK, I am a "near south sider" (closest thing you'll get to south side on this blog) and you're totally right. I hear people bitch about the 22 all the time but I never hear anyone complain that the 1/Indiana Hyde Park still isn't on the bus tracker!

Cutting service though?!? You're right that there is a lot of redundancy throughout the CTA but I think cutting service would hurt the CTAs budget more than it would help. But you have a great point about buses following train routes. My biggest peeve, and Jake will agree with me on this, is the redundancy of buses on the south side that service neighborhoods through which the ME travels. Thats the #1, #2, #3, #x3, #4, #x4, #6, #10, #26, #x28, #71, #111, #128, #170-#192... and thats not even including half the feeder buses! A lot of those are also redundant with the green line in some neighborhoods.

"but I think cutting service would hurt the CTAs budget more than it would help."

It depends where you cut the service. If you cut the total number of bus runs without diminishing the conveinance to passengers (and perhaps even improving it) then you won't have a problem. I made the suggestion earlier about combining the #36 and the #151 (essentually using the #151 routing south of Diversey or Belmont and the #36 routing north). It is very hard for me to see how that would make the CTA less attractive to very many people. At most it means a walk of a couple more blocks to some riders. And a lot of people (far more, in my opinion) would have a better commute if this change were to occur. So the CTA wouldn't have to worry about losing very many riders.

The fare cannot keep being raised. If the economic situation continues to be as bad as some people say there are going to be some sacrifices people will need to make. The most obvious ones would be the sacrifices that actually improve most people's commutes. So hopefully some people can get through to people such as Kiel and Strannix and let them know that change is not always bad.

"I'm about to make myself really unpopular here, but I think that there should be cuts to off-peak service. For example, the Pink Line should be cut on Sundays."

I'm afraid that wouldn't make a difference - the $9 billion deficit is projected for the state's budget, not the CTA's budget, and for the most part, the RTA has its own dedicated funding sources. Any money the CTA could save by cutting back on service wouldn't automatically get forfeited and put back into the state's budget.

[So hopefully some people can get through to people such as Kiel and Strannix and let them know that change is not always bad.]

Disagreeing with MK on a particular service cut = thinking change is always bad

Also:

Disagreeing with MK = screaming at him

And you wonder why I think you're childish?

MK, do you live in Chicago? Change is not always bad, but service cuts are. And that's what you're proposing: cutting service in a system that needs more service, more routes, more frequency.

The Green Line was shut down a little over a decade ago, not "decades ago." If you can't see the massive inconvenience that caused people, you're not living in reality. The Red Line has parallel bus routes too. If I took the 36 or the 22 to Edgewater, it would take me about three times as long as the train. The same goes for people in Oak Park and Austin.

Your thinking is the same thinking that ended the Ashland bus at Irving Park. The same thinking that has rendered the 50 and 11 buses almost completely useless.

And in case you forgot, we did three tracking for two years and it added about 15 minutes to everybody's commute and any disruption or delay caused much more trouble.

The area "between Clark and the Lake" may be "relatively small" but it's also very dense. If anything, this area needs more transit. Have you ever tried to get on an express bus during rush hour?

Route the 151 on the 36 route north of Belmont? What a brilliant idea! North of Foster, Clark St. is a good half-mile from Sheridan. Let all those elderly people hoof it -- they could use the exercise.

Seriously -- what qualifies you to play transit planner?

m, we've already had this conversation with MK, and I'm warning you that it's pointless. MK goes out of his way not to grasp concepts like population density and even ridership statistics, preferring to limit his focus exclusively on a) geographical distance between routes, and b) how many people are on the bus when he rides it.

And when you challenge him on those factors, you get the same Bill O'Reilly routine as above, where everyone's yelling at him for daring to have the courage to suggest changes. It was a ridiculous argument, and I actually regret my participation in it.

You can read it here:

http://www.ctatattler.com/2009/01/top-tattler-tales-of-2008-november-bus-tracker-complaints-threetrack-progress-and-barack-elected.html

People on here don't necessarily have anything all that useful to say about transit, but oh my goodness it is a black hole for tax policy.

I hate what this site has become. I only check it every few days now because of all of the pontificating. The funny stories said so much more about the CTA than do lectures about whether $125K is too much and whether Illinois should have a graduated income tax.

Thanks for the heads-up strannix. I'll ignore MK.

I can comment on this;

"Your thinking is the same thinking that ended the Ashland bus at Irving Park."

According to the great Mary Anne Smith, this bus route was truncated due to a member of a certain "faith" not liking the noise of the bus disturbing his sermons, I mean masses. Not for a more practical or financial reason.

M,

If you want to disagree me, fine. Having discussions is, in fact, one of the main purpses of this blog. And disagreements are usually neccessary for good discussions. But I really don't appreciate the hostillity. It is extreamly rude, in my opinion, to say "Seriously -- what qualifies you to play transit planner" simply because I made a suggestion that you disagree with. If you think it would be the wrong thing to do then argue with the merits. I don't appreciate these personal attacks.

Contrary to what Strannix said, I respect people who disagree with me. If you look at that thread you will see that Kiel and Strannix were the ones who called me a "jerk" (or something close to it, I'm not going to look at the thread now) for doing nothing more than making the suggestion of combining the two bus routes. Only after that did I start taking a hard stance with them. When someone calls you a jerk for no good reason it generally doesn't make sense to be polite with them.

" North of Foster, Clark St. is a good half-mile from Sheridan. Let all those elderly people hoof it -- they could use the exercise."

I have no idea why you think I'm suggesting anything of the sort. First of all, there would still be a bus route between Clark and Sheriden. It would be the combined bus route I suggested and would run on Broadway. Also, there will still be bus routes on Sheriden. There just won't be any local routes that stop throughout the north side. There will be the express routes such as the #146 and #147. So if people (such as the elderly) don't want to walk anywhere they don't currently they will not have to. The most that would be neccessary is the transfer between buses. And, of course, there also are people who currently may need to make a transfer but wouldn't under my plan. Just about everything has drawbacks. But what is important is determining whether the benefits outweigh these drawbacks. You shouldn't just get stuck on the negatives and determine prematurely that something is a bad idea.

If the economy continues to slide for the rest of the year (which most people are predicting) the CTA will have further diminished tax revenue and will need to make some choices for next year. I think it wouldn't make sense to raise the fair any higher. So they should take a look at how they can reduce service without significantelly reducing the conveinance to customers. In fact, I think they should have implemented this plan even if they had plenty of revenue and reallocate the resources, as possible, to other service (perhaps such as increasing the frequency of the Damen bus, which you mentioned).

"MK goes out of his way not to grasp concepts like population density and even ridership statistics, preferring to limit his focus exclusively on a) geographical distance between routes, and b) how many people are on the bus when he rides it."

I don't even know how to respond to that. It really is a laughable statement. I was VERY SPECIFIC in the other thread as to how I thought the things you and Keil were measuring were not as useful as you thought. And I explained what would be better measurements. If you really believe that I go "out of my way not to grasp" things then I suggest you reread that thread.

[ If you look at that thread you will see that Kiel and Strannix were the ones who called me a "jerk" (or something close to it, I'm not going to look at the thread now)]

Maybe you should look at it, because neither kiel nor I did anything of the sort.

It's especially inappropriate for you to accuse kiel, who never said anything in that thread that was less than completely civil, of name-calling.

Yeah, at rush hour, the system is basically strained to capacity. I'm a Columbia student, and I frequently ride the 3 or 4 around campus, and the buses can be standing room only, sometimes even during the middle of the day. Just because it's near an alternative route, doesn't mean that it isn't needed.

However, I feel that cutting service in off peak times makes sense, since many parts of the system are underutilized once rush hour ends.

I think at this point in the discussion it is important to point out that I'm rubber, and you're glue; whatever I say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Thank you.

Also, the CTA should just cut odd-numbered buses. I mean, do they really need both odd- and even-numbered buses? That kind of luxurious redundancy is something we can do without.