SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Friday November 14 2014, @01:12PM
It isn't the Democrats calling for this, it's simply some wingnut journalist who seems to have forgotten what happened when gas shot from $1.05 in 2000 to $4.50 in 2007. The idiot is calling for another economic meltdown. Money I spend on gasoline is money I don't have to spend on something else.
Having transportation costs more than quadruple in less than a decade really puts pressure on a family's budget. That $20 per week fill up becomes $95 per week, you might just lose your house; you have to get to work every day, after all.
The idea that gasoline is too cheap is ludicrous. What other of life's necessities costs almost three times what it did in 2000?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @01:43PM
Wait, are you trying to claim that the recession and financial crisis are actually due to US gas prices? Or that a $0.10 increase in gas tax would have the same effect as a $3.50 increase in material cost? I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make, and both of the obvious ones seem ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Friday November 14 2014, @02:37PM
You're going to need to pay to fix our deteriorating road infrastructure somehow. The question is whether you pay in proportion to your income or in proportion to the amount you drive. As a non-driver, I vote for the latter. ;)
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday November 15 2014, @02:06PM
Just because you don't drive doesn't mean you don't use roads. Those taxis tear up pavement just as much as private autos, busses even more, and those big eighteen wheelers that deliver your food to the grocery and all the other goods to the other stores tear up the roads more than anything. There's FedEx and UPS...
Really, you couldn't figure this out by yourself? Be glad we don't tax stupidity.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by jcross on Saturday November 15 2014, @06:30PM
I am in fact not too stupid to realize that. What I was getting at is the difference between a tax that's use-based and one that isn't. If the government is forced to pay for roads from income taxes, then I have no choice about how much road-use to support, but if the tax is based on fuel use (or in the future on ton-mileage or something), then the cost will be built into driving and all kinds of consumption that requires driving. Then I can choose to, for example, buy local produce or start a garden vs. having something shipped to me from California. I can and do choose to walk or bike rather than ride a bus or taxi. If enough people vote with their dollars that way, maybe it can have an impact on businesses, who might re-arrange their activities to be less road-intensive. My local economy can benefit by keeping more of my money circulating in it. I'm not saying that's the scenario everyone should use their dollars to vote for, it's just my vote, and I appreciate not being forced to subsidize activities I don't care for.