Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
Re: Voting 'No' on question #2 (motor fuel tax)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
![]() |
And now there's this. I don't get this one AT ALL!! So maddening!!
Ballot Question 2: A 'no' vote on transportation means higher gas taxes, not lower
Posted on: 2016/11/8 18:20
|
|||
|
Re: Voting 'No' on question #2 (motor fuel tax)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
![]() |
From what I'm reading we are screwed either way.
Excerpts from http://www.northjersey.com/news/gas-t ... ballot-question-1.1688548 "One of the bills in the legislative package Christie signed, A10, authorizes up to $12 billion in borrowing for transit projects ? but that borrowing is ?contingent? on Question 2?s passage, according to the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services. Guadagno said the state?s Transportation Trust Fund is deeply indebted and that adding $12 billion to the debt load would increase costs for taxpayers down the line. ?A no vote is a vote against billions in debt without the means for repayment,? according to a fact sheet Guadagno posted on Twitter. ?A no vote will force the Legislature to reexamine the gas tax hike bill ? because the gas tax grab is tied in with the overall scheme.? If the ballot question fails, the Legislature could simply pass a new bill to authorize the borrowing of any amount different from $12 billion, without linking it to a referendum, according to Chris?tie?s Treasury Department. ?Regardless of the outcome of the ballot question, the Legislature could still authorize more than the $12 billion currently being contemplated,? Treasury spokesman Willem Rijksen said. Prieto said both houses of the Legislature would have the votes to pass that new bill ?in a heartbeat,? or any kind of ?cleanup? bill if needed.
Posted on: 2016/11/8 16:29
|
|||
|
Re: Voting 'No' on question #2 (motor fuel tax)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
![]() |
Its a very very deceptively worded question. I too only found out the reasons to vote NO late last night.
Our press failed to cover this one correctly.
Posted on: 2016/11/8 15:49
|
|||
|
Re: Voting 'No' on question #2 (motor fuel tax)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
https://ballotpedia.org/New_Jersey_Ded ... Revenue_to_Transportation,_Public_Question_2_(2016)
Question 2 and transportation bonds Gov. Christie signed Assembly Bill 10 on October 14, 2016. One provision of the bill would authorize up to $12 billion in bonds for transportation projects if voters approve Question 2.[8] If Question 2 is rejected, then the $12 billion would not be authorized. According to a New Jersey Department of Treasury spokesperson, the legislature has the power to pass a new bill authorizing the $12 billion in bonds without making it contingent upon a ballot measure.
Posted on: 2016/11/8 15:40
|
|||
|
Re: Voting 'No' on question #2 (motor fuel tax)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
should have posted this before election day. My understanding of the question was that it would ensure the existing gas taxes can not be redirected to other funds and must be used for the transportation fund. What's this about issuing new bonds?
Posted on: 2016/11/8 15:26
|
|||
|
Voting 'No' on question #2 (motor fuel tax)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
I am all for 100% of the motor fuel tax going to fund transportation. The people that use the roads the most, pay the most. Traffic goes up, so does revenue.
My issue is that the question allows the legislature to bond without voter approval. The legislature has continuously raided the transportation trust fund and now the revenues go 100% just to cover the interest. If this question passes, we will be right back where we are now as the legislature will bond against the additional revenues. The TTF should be a 'pay as you go' program, without being drained by additional bonding.
Posted on: 2016/11/8 14:10
|
|||
|