Waiting for the Advertiser to update their web edition was worth it to read this mis-titled article Rail debate focuses on taxes. I say mis-titled because the bill is NOT a rail bill, it IS a tax bill that happens to fund transit and most people presume that “transit means rail.” This is more than just semantic quibbling, because if the various other schemes discussed as alternatives to a GET increase were to be adopted, the revenue might not be sufficient to support rail. Anyway, on with the blogging.

First, I’ll point out a key section:

Members of a governor’s task force on transportation concluded last year, however, that the excise tax is the only vehicle in Hawai’i that could generate enough money to cover the estimated $300 million per year needed to build a rail line on O’ahu.

“The group found that the excise tax was the best way to raise the funds,” said City Councilman Nestor Garcia, who was on the task force along with Moses.

That “along with Moses” clause is worth noting because the article quoted Representative Moses saying, “right now, we’re suckering people into believing that the excise tax is the only way.” Moses and a few other thinking-out-loud legislators tossed out alternatives at the hearing:

Property tax
City sales tax
Gasoline tax
Hotel room tax
Eliminate tax credits

Eliminate tax credits: Ah, maybe Wakai reads my blog! This might work—once. It’s not a long term solution, obviously, since any money in the state general fund can be used to pay for any number of programs as political winds change.

Gasoline tax: I like this idea off the cuff. The nexus is obvious. However, between the time the tax increase is imposed and the time the transit system is available for use, transportation would become un- or less-affordable for many people.

Hotel room tax: Tourists (and the tourism industry) should not shoulder this whole burden, and what happens when tourism slumps?

City sales tax: Most people think of the GET as a sales tax anyway, so why not? It would need to be more than another 1% on each purchase, though, if they intend to generate as much revenue as the (pyramided) GET.

Property tax: This would be a bit more progressive than a GET increse, but the Counties have so many other uses for the revenue that unless an amount or percentage is allocated by statute/ordnance for transit I fear it might be an unreliable source.

Finally, I have to point out that Henry Curtis from Life of the Land was the lone voice in the wilderness pointing out that transportation and land use are intertwined. He sounds like Mr. Yuen from Hawaii County, i.e. the guy you want to ignore but speaks the truth.

http://poinography.com/index.php?m=20050226