Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday November 13 2014, @10:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the pump-it-up dept.

Pat Garofalo writes in an op-ed in US News & World Report that with the recent drop in oil prices, there's something policymakers can do that will offset at least some of the negative effects of the currently low prices, while also removing a constant thorn in the side of American transportation and infrastructure policy: Raise the gas tax. The current 18.4 cent per gallon [federal] gas tax has not been raised since 1993, making it about 11 cents per gallon today, in constant dollars. Plus, as fuel efficiency has gotten better and Americans have started driving less, the tax has naturally raised less revenue anyway. And that's a problem because the tax fills the Highway Trust Fund, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, broke so that in recent years Congress has had to patch it time and time again to fill the gap. According to the Tax Policy Center's Howard Gleckman, if Congress doesn't make a move, "it will fumble one of those rare opportunities when the economic and policy stars align almost perfectly." The increase can be phased in slowly, a few cents per month, perhaps, so that the price of gas doesn't jump overnight. When prices eventually do creep back up thanks to economic factors, hopefully the tax will hardly be noticed.

Consumers are already starting to buy the sort of gas-guzzling vehicles, including Hummers, that had been going out of style as gas prices rose; that's bad for both the environment and consumers, because gas prices are inevitably going to increase again. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, taxes last year, even before the current drop in prices, made up 12 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, down from 28 percent in 2000. And compared to other developed countries, US gas taxes are pretty much a joke. While we're at it, an even better idea, as a recent report from the Urban Institute makes clear, would be indexing the gas tax to inflation (pdf), so this problem doesn't consistently arise. "The status quo simply isn't sustainable, from an infrastructure or environmental perspective," concludes Garofalo. "So raise the gas tax now; someday down the line, it will look like a brilliant move."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @01:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @01:54AM (#115741)

    Unless there has been a significant increase in vehicles per capita (currently the same as it was circa 1998) it is to be expected that the number of trucks would increase in proportion to the number of cars since trucks are primarily used to service the commercial need of the population.

    Of course what really matters isn't the number of vehicles, it is the number of miles driven. The number of miles driven in personal vehicles has dropped significantly since roughly 2010 but the population has not. Thus it is reasonable to expect that the proportion of truck-miles driven has increased relative to the number of the car-miles driven, making highway repairs even more underfunded.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @02:55AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 14 2014, @02:55AM (#115764) Journal

    it is to be expected that the number of trucks would increase in proportion to the number of cars since trucks are primarily used to service the commercial need of the population.

    Ok, there's two obvious problems here. First, your expectations aren't relevant. Second, even if your opinion was completely correct, that still doesn't explain why the US should increase its gasoline tax (much less have one in the first place). After all, since the "expectation" is proportional to the population, then why not have the gas tax per person rather than per gallon?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @03:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @03:03AM (#115767)

      > First, your expectations aren't relevant.

      Fuck your bullshit. Prove the expectation wrong or at least offer reasoning why it should be wrong. Empty snark is for assholes who prefer invective over thought.

      > After all, since the "expectation" is proportional to the population, then why not have the gas tax per person rather than per gallon?

      Yeah we should just tax people directly and forget about a usage-based tax for using up resource.

      With logic like that you can't be older than 14 years old.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @05:08AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 14 2014, @05:08AM (#115800) Journal

        Prove the expectation wrong or at least offer reasoning why it should be wrong.

        Don't care. It's not my expectation nor, even if true, is it relevant to the subject.

        Yeah we should just tax people directly and forget about a usage-based tax for using up resource.

        A fuel tax is not a usage tax either.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @05:14AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @05:14AM (#115802)

          > Don't care. It's not my expectation nor, even if true, is it relevant to the subject.

          What a pissy little fucktard you are. Yes, the fact that trucks beat roads more than cars do and that there is every reason to believe that the number of trucks on the road has increased at the same rate as the number of cars on the road has nothing to do with the topic. I am totally the one who brought trucks in the first place here. Just some random bullshit I felt like throwing out there to distract us from the callow wisdom of a 14-year old assburger.

          > A fuel tax is not a usage tax either.

          Assburger for the lose! Unless you plan on drinking that fuel it is effectively usage tax.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @05:32AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 14 2014, @05:32AM (#115808) Journal

            Yes, the fact that trucks beat roads more than cars do

            [...]

            Unless you plan on drinking that fuel it is effectively usage tax.

            Your whole argument was that taxes pay for road use, particularly, road maintenance. You also grant that "trucks beat roads more". Fuel taxes don't address that maintenance-focused usage and hence, aren't usage taxes.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @07:35AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 14 2014, @07:35AM (#115819) Journal
            As an aside, not all roads are equally used either or maintained by the federal govenrment. A fuel tax completely misses that nuance (I pay just as much, if I drive on state and local roads as I do on federally maintained roads) while a toll gets it right. So for your edification, the only true usage tax for transportation infrastructure is a toll not a fuel tax.