TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

The TCI is wrong for three reasons:

1. It is a de facto tax masquerading as fee to bypass the normal democratic process of enacting a tax. In other words, TCI is taxation without representation, and no amount of fancy words or legal manipulation changes that.

2. TCI is based on unproven assumptions about human-caused climate change. The science is not settled! At a minimum, this is still a highly controversial issue and therefore not one upon which a tax should be based. Indeed, the eagerness to create a tax based on this so-called science reveals the true agenda of the climate change hysterics, which is economic restructuring toward socialism and a "new world order."

3. Even aside from the first two reasons, TCI is economically harmful. Low and middle-class workers, along with business owners, will bear the burden most acutely.

For these reasons, I urge the TCI be abandoned. Thank you.

I have never seen a bigger scam perpetrated on the American public than Climate change and to institute new taxes based on the climate hoax is unacceptable! I will move to NH if this thing passes!

This TCI will increase the price of products being transported, what you are thinking of doing is not right to all businesses , but will hurt the little guy as well as consumers. What the heck is wrong that you don't see this. If you need money, stop supporting illegal immigrants. Stop giving tem everything for free, while your elderl and veterans suffer by the hands of you all. American citizens should be first to be taken care of.
I am so disgusted by m elected officials that I elected to fuck me over. If this goes through, I will never vote for any Democrat again.

No more taxes!!!! Take it from the newly legalized pot industry. The working and retired people of MA do not want another frivolous tax!!!

Enough: Sales tax when we buy a car, tax on each and every gallon we buy, excise tax every year for the privilege of owning a car, mandatory, inspection tax every year, and NOW YOU ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT A MILEAGE USAGE TAX???? are you guys nuts - ENOUGH!

I am opposed to this initiative until the investment scheme is revealed in detail. It should be clear where the proceeds will be invested and how the success of the investments will be measured. The added financial burden will fall to the consumer and those most vulnerable will be adversely impacted. Therefore the pay back should be clearly measurable.

I oppose Massachusetts participating in the Transportation Climate Initiative.

The TCI will be paid for by working families and small businesses across Massachusetts in the form of a gas tax. The current proposal could see an additional five to 17 cents per gallon, and these costs will be passed down to consumers in more ways than one. Not only will it cost more to fill the gas tank, run errands, and pick up the kids from school, businesses will be forced to raise the prices of goods to cover the cost of this proposal.

In addition, living in a part of Massachusetts close to New Hampshire, consumers will take their money across the border. Instead of buying their gas in Massachusetts, consumers will go to New Hampshire (who has already opted out of this proposal) to buy gas, as well as other goods like groceries and lottery tickets, that they would usually buy in Massachusetts.

Despite its good intentions, the TCI’s effect on reducing carbon emissions will be marginal. Carbon emissions are already expected to fall in the next decade by at most 19%. The TCI will only see a reduction in carbon emissions between 1-6%.

Before imposing this new tax, the proposal should come for a vote before the legislature. Unilaterally levying a gas tax is not just bad practice, it’s bad policy. Massachusetts needs to take a hard look at the TCI before saddling Massachusetts families and businesses with new taxes.

I support the TCI and hope it is implemented at the 25% emission reduction model. This seems to be a well-considered plan to distribute the costs of combating climate change, using regional buy-in to maximize impact and minimize short-term economic loss for local businesses, with potential for medium- to long-term economic and structural gain for the region as whole. The projected gas price increases that some groups are so upset about -- 17% on the high end -- can happen from a refinery fire or hurricane, and hardly seems enough to matter much to individuals with sensible vehicles. (In my case, I have calculated that would be an extra $5 most weeks, $10 if I travel. People who bought unnecessary gas-guzzlers can and should pay to help offset the problems they cause -- travel to Canada or England for a taste of what gasoline SHOULD cost to offset damage.) Local commercial producers who need heavy vehicles and are are anxious that their goods may be slightly more expensive to ship out of state should consider that others will be correspondingly more expensive to ship in (especially as we are in the interior of the planned region), potentially giving them an advantage with local consumers. Even if not, infrastructure improvements should ultimately benefit both commerce and individuals, as will the obvious health benefits of local emissions reductions.