Gasoline tax

The only circumstance I will ever support a Federal gas tax increase is if it's used to fund the construction and maintenance of roads.

I drive a Prius. I use nothing but Obama bulbs in my place, hoping I don't break one and have to fumigate the place for mercury. I crush and sell all my cans for scrap. I'm doing the best I can to reduce my environmental impact. And I support the notion that we can stop damaging our environment and still get on with our lives.

I just wish you would come here to extol the virtues of an alternative-energy economy. Perhaps cajole or encourage others to do the same. But no, you're insistent on using the heavy hand of government, possibly with the threats of fines and jail, to force people to change their lifestyles to fit your narrow worldview.

Well, the problem with this paragraph is that almost none of it's true. More money was spent on Obama's stimulus package OR the Wall Street bailouts than had spent on the entire war to date (as of 2008-2009).

Spending is a bipartisan problem. Medicare spending is reaching the stratosphere thanks to George Bush's expansion. Medicaid and Food Stamps have both ballooned under our current President, there's more people on food stamps now than ever in the program's history.



But I would be willing to go forward with say, a 33% immediate cut in Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare in general combined with an immediate withdrawal of all ground forces from Afghanistan and steady reduction of the Army (probably by attrition) from it's current size to say, a mobile force of four to six divisions plus fixed garrison formations. Also, we don't need 30,000+ troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. we can reduce those to a skeleton force and save a decent chunk of $.

Would there be dire consequences for the people on the programs were the programs slashed? Sure - I'll be the first to say it would completely suck. But it would do wonders for getting this country's fiscal house in order.

You do realize that the number one country we import oil from is Canada, right? Only 16% of our oil comes from the Middle East.



(Mods: Can we move this thread to the politics forum and add all interested parties as members?)

 

Because Prius weighs 3,000 lbs and Yaris 2,300 and weight is major factor in wear on the roads and bridges.

So any road usage tax has to be based on weight and mileage.

Collection of taxes is a major consideration as it eats into revenue generated and creates all kinds of collection and enforcement nightmares. Gas tax is easy and costs very little.

Figuring out and collecting a yearly (monthly?) weight and usage tax would be a collection nightmare.

An easy way to do it would be charge a per barrel of oil transportation tax. Trying to parse out "road taxes" is almost impossible since the issue is transportation. We need more mass transit which lessens road use, reducing road costs. Which is why the issue of "just for roads" is so misguided.

 

IMO, mass transit is only useful in over-crowded city situations. This country is too large for mass trasit to have any real effect on fossil fuel usage.

 

Maintenance of Middle East oil army is as much a cost as roads.

Me too. On a definite path to achieve the IPCC goal of 80% reduction in carbon use by 2050.

Gas tax has proven to be a very effective in cutting oil use in Europe and should be used in the same way in the US.

2000-08 saw Medicare/Medicaid cuts of $500B. 2009-2011 cut it $300B and 2012 plans another $400B. Cuts are devastating to seniors and poor who depend on both for health care. Health insurance for family of four in US is $20K and that's before you get any health care.

About $3T in Medicare cuts over last three years. Like Social Security it is cut to fund Middle East oil army.

Answer is to raise Medicare taxes to cover costs.

Because poverty, joblessness and bankruptcy boomed last four years due and failed US economic policy of tax cuts and deficit spending over last 30 years. It was supposed to produce GDP growth to pay for it. It never did but some would not give up the dogma and bill is due $14T in debt and wrecked economy.

But we digress. Oil use has very direct costs, $500B in oil trade deficit, $500B in oil based military spending add in $500B in environmental costs (destruction of Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, air, water pollution, climate change).

These direct costs of US energy inefficiency and resulting oil use can be fixed by increasing gasoline tax to European levels, discouraging oil use, paying for oil use costs.

 

Hence my proposal to base the tire tax on tire size. Because there is a direct correlation between OEM tire size and vehicle weight.

 

Over the last 3-4 years my payroll taxes have gone up.
My property taxes have gone up.
My sales taxes have gone up.
My income taxes have not changed.

Where are these tax cuts you speak of? Spending has gone through the roof, mostly to entitlement programs and bailing out of failed companies. We need spending control, not higher taxes. If you don't have it, don't spend it.

 

Maybe. I see people here putting on bigger tires on Prius but weight of car doesn't change.

Plus the issue is not just weight but how often you put the weight on the road.

Tracking tire size and usage and sending people bills for it is a enforcement and collection impossibility.

We don't really care about it as people who don't drive at all benefit from the roads that are essential to economy and need to contribute.

Roads cost what roads cost. They are not some luxury frill that justifies a usage tax.

Ike's reasons for Interstate road system and much of it's design was based in large part on military logistical needs. His experiences moving armies around the world.

Gas tax is to pay for cost of gas as a fuel, cost of oil imports which are a tax on US economy of $500B year, cost of military associated with securing oil supplies of $500B per year, pollution costs (destruction of Gulf of Mexico, climate change, air and water pollution). To provide economic incentive for people to use less oil. To provide financing for mass transit alternative so people don't need to use gas or the roads, lowering road build/maintain costs. To pay for military costs to secure oil.

 

I'll make a proper reply later today (tonight?) but I'm going to call some serious bull on that statement.


In the year 2000, the Federal government spent $214.9 billion on Medicare. Source
As of the current President's budget, for 2013, Medicare spending has ballooned to $482 billion. Source

So I don't know where you're making up these numbers from, but please stop spreading FUD.

 

Bush tax cuts eliminated the Clinton tax increase surpluses, put US back on the deficit/debt spiral of previous 12 years prior to Clinton.

Those tax cuts. The tax cuts we just re-authorized. The additional tax cuts for SS payroll tax.

Nope. Medicare/Medicaid were cut. Social Security funding tax was cut. Military spending is $1.3T though, mostly for to secure oil which is the reason for tax on oil use including gasoline tax.

SS and Medicare pay for themselves with dedicated taxes. Paid in full to 2030 at this point. But I'm for raising SS and Medicare taxes to pay all current expenses and forgiving the $4T that SS lent to Pentagon for oil wars.

In return, all Pentagon spending associated with oil should be paid for by oil tax.

As you say, we shouldn't be spending it if we don't pay for it. So we need to pay for failure to regulate Wall St, failure to increase our energy efficiency, failure to keep to policies of 1992-2000 that saw US budget surplus.

Oil tax to pay for current and accumulated costs of oil use.

 

Keep focused on SS and Medicare TAXES and spending.

Keep focused on $4T owed to SS/Medicare for the surplus they ran over last 30 years.

$4 trillion surplus over last 30 years!

But REALLY keep focused on this thread, the costs of oil use in the US. Easily 50% of the current yearly cost of military in the US of $1.3T is due to US energy inefficiency (50% less than Europe) and the resulting need to import 50% of our oil and the need for military to secure those oil supplies in Middle East.

Purpose of gasoline/oil tax is to pay for the military costs and pollution costs of oil use, discourage its use, pay its cost of use in military, trade deficit, budget deficit/debt, pollution, to pay for alternative transportation solutions that use less oil and increase overall US energy efficiency.

 

In this weight range the wear factor is almost negligible. Road congestion is a far bigger issue. Weight becomes a major factor when it reaches the five digit range.

 

Driving a car is about more than just roads. The third-party effects (how an activity affects people not directly involved in the transaction) must also be taken into account. And cars should be taxed in a manner that pays for the real and full cost to society of their use.

Maybe not a complete list, but driving a car places the following burdens on society:

1. Building and maintaining roads and bridges.
2. Policing the highways.
3. Installing and maintaining related infrastructure such as lights, curbs, drains, rest stops, etc.
4. Health effects of pollution.
5. Global climate change due to carbon emissions.
6. Construction of dams insofar as electricity from them is used to power the car or to refine gasoline.
7. Direct subsidies to oil companies, such as the oil depletion allowance.
8. Wars and other military action used to obtain or secure oil and its trade routes.
9. Medical costs due to accidents caused by uninsured drivers.

Cars should be taxed in a fair and equitable manner so as to pay for all of these, plus any I've missed, in proportion to their actual impact. E.g., heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads; gas guzzlers do more of all the gasoline-related effects; my car, being electric in a hydro state, makes more use of federally-funded dams, etc.

Tires are a good approximation of the road-related effects if you factor in the longevity of the tire. A direct gas tax is obviously the best way to tax for the gas-related effects. I am not wedded to any particular accounting scheme. What matters to me is that we all pay our fair share of ALL of the above. A bicyclist should not have to pay, through general tax revenue, for oil wars or carbon emissions, as just one example. But anything transported by truck should carry with it the costs related to trucking, as another example. The real and full costs of transportation, including all the items listed above and any I've missed, should be included in anything that's transported. This would allow the social benefits of consuming local products to accrue to those who use them, rather than subsidizing transportation to the benefit of those who choose to buy products produced far away.

The best punishment for bad behavior is to pass along the real costs of that behavior. And the best reward for energy efficient choices is to not have to subsidize those who make inefficient choices. The price of jet fuel should include the real and full cost of obtaining, refining, and burning it, and if I choose to fly, my ticket price should include that cost.

No subsidies, no give-aways. Everyone should pay the real direct and indirect costs of the choices they make.

 

Every engineering road study says the opposite. Weight is major factor in road wear.

Road damage rises steeply with axle weight

30% increase in weigh it not "negligible".

Congestion has nothing to do with road wear and more to do with number of vehicles for road capacity. To reduce congestion, use gasoline/oil tax to fund mass transit to reduce number of vehicles on the road.

 

Precisely.

In economic terms, this is known as full-cost pricing. No subsidies, no sweeping anything under the rug by calling it an externality. We'd still have to trust people to make the right choice, but at least with complete and accurate information - very unlike our current economic model - we can make an informed choice.

Of course, the world would be very different, which is why the status quo will argue vociferously against it. Ultimately, full-cost pricing is the only responsible, ethical option for the long term. How we get there from here will be interesting - there's no map, and the road's definitely not paved.

 

People who consume food and goods, but don't own a vehicle still pay for roads via the cost of the goods they consume.

How would collecting what would amount to a simple tire sale tax be complicated? Businesses already collect sales taxes and in the case of tires, they already collect special tire fees. Why couldn't the fee simply be increased and a monthly check sent to the appropriate fee collection agencies that are already in place?

If people needlessly upsize their tires, they pay a higher fee. Oh well. Obviously, they had money to burn anyway.

 

...besides, I have no issue with fewer "monster trucks" on the roads.

 

Only if there is a tax on those using the road based costs but we don't have that which is the problem. And then there are police, fire, garbage, maintenance and all kinds of others costs that use roads but don't "pay" for them.

It's a transportation network. Increasing mass transit greatly reduces road wear is just one example.

Since tire purchase has no relationship to road wear, no idea of weight of car, or usage, it is meaningless. We don't really care about road usage since it is oil usage that has the huge national security costs that are not being paid for.

Road maintenance is what it is and gets paid out of general revenue since the economy requires a good road system and it benefits all, even those who don't use it directly.

Roads are essential. Using oil to power vehicles on the road is the problem.

 

Transportation is essential. But not necessarily roads.

A good rail system benefits all, too. So do air and water transport. Why do we happily pay for one mode, and decry all other funding as 'subsidies'? All modes of transportation cost money.

Gasoline taxes and road tolls are among the fairest of all funding methods, because they affect the users directly, and vary according to frequency of use.

 

You're talking in circles here. The point that was brought up was that with increasingly fuel-miserly vehicles, the tax revenue from fuel will, at some point, fail to meet the needs for road maintenance and construction. So my idea was to tie the expenses to something that all current road-based vehicles share in common, tires. Tax tire sales based on tire size, which corresponds very closely to vehicle weight, and thus road wear. Heavy, multi-wheeled vehicles pay more due to larger and more numerous tires. Motorcycles pay the least. Makes good sense to me.

 

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. Gasoline taxes are just one of many possible funding sources. Perhaps I should have used a different example. Perhaps the gas taxes should be raised?

The direct user fees (tire levies included - we have them where I live) don't begin to meet the road costs now. We're already well past that point, if we were ever there.

I hunch we're agreed that unrelated sources, such as taxes on property and income, are not a fair way to fund automobile transportation.