And I’m not talking about going to the gym
Washington state motorists would welcome lower fuel prices in today’s tough economy. The average price of fuel is near $4 per gallon. So when stations in Yakima, Spokane or Tacoma sell gas for less than their nearest competitors, consumers will notice and start filling up at the cheaper stations.
But what if those cheaper stations had an unfair advantage? What if they were able to undercut their competitors because the governor gave them back 75% of the gas taxes they collected? In Washington, motorists must pay 37.5 cents per gallon in state gas taxes. These gas taxes are collected at the pump and remitted to the state.
In 2007, the legislature passed Senate Bill 5272, which authorized the governor to enter into new fuel tax compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes who operated fuel stations in Washington state. The governor settled tax agreements with 23 Indian tribes. The new agreements require tribally owned fuel stations to collect the state’s full gas tax rate from motorists at the pump, but then state officials give back 75%, or 28 cents per gallon, to Indian tribes. Since 2005, motorists lost more than $90.55 million in gas tax revenue to Indian tribes.
I live not too far from the Puyallup Indian Reservation. Their newest gas station, the “Tahoma Market” is more like a truck stop than a mini-mart and I refused to go there because I knew something was up. Their prices were just a couple of pennies cheaper than the nearby Chevron and Shell station when they should have been at least $.025 less.
Now that I know, I’m informing all of my neighbors and co-workers about this. This is simply, and almost quite literally, highway robbery.
“Since 2005, motorists lost more than $90.55 million in gas tax revenue to Indian tribes.” And to every other tax revenue funded program. If you accept the concept of coercive redistribution, you can’t get offended at stuff like this. If you don’t accept the concept of coercive redistribution, this is offensive no matter what happens afterward. That the money is taken by force in the first place is the original offense. What happens to it after that is trivial detail.
Look at it this way; gangsters hold up a Rotary Club meeting at gunpoint and get away with a bunch of dues money. Now at their trial, the discussion should focus purely on what the gangsters did with the money? That’s what you’re saying?
OK sure, the armed robbery would be somewhat less offensive to some people if the gangsters gave some of the money to charity, as Al Capone did back in the 1920s. I understand that, but the concepts of property rights, and of justice, are not served unless Capone serves time.
Once the state takes your money, the damage has been done. More precisely; once we’re convinced that it’s ok or even laudable to take by force, the damage has been done (to the glue that hold civilization together– principles) . Whether confiscation is used to pay someone to hold up a shovel for 35 hours per week, with benefits, or it’s used to pay for a nice powwow, really doesn’t matter so much. Go to the next powwow, Man, and have fun. While you’re there you might want to broach the subject of basic principles to the other participants.