"Raise the gas tax", USA Today Editorial Board says

Hi All,

I have not read through all of this. But I really do not think that raising the gasoline tax , will raise the taxes people are paying above the value of the services they are getting for the money. And, it will reallgn the tax paid to the service received issue.

Right now, as others have mentioned, alot of this road repair going on in the country is being paid not by the people who run down the roads in cars and trucks, but by the federal taxes collected from the general population. Low income people pay a much smaller fraction of this. But, they are still getting the same service as the high income people. This is fine, but the point is, there is a great imbalance.

If gas taxes went up, the roads would get paid for from fuel taxes, not by waiting to the economy slumps, then forcing through a stimulous package justified (legitamately) because of the circumstances of the national workforce. Without this tax, the government (us) has to spend on credit, and creditors walk off with a great windfall. A windfall that WE are funding.


So, from my point of view. The fact that we get a BIG uproar about the credit spending by the government, is proof enough the government is not collecting enough taxes to fund the stimulous (which is needed). And the fact that allot of that stimulous (majority?) is going into road repair is proof enough gasoline taxes are out-of-wack low. And apparently, it because on average all vehicles get allot more mileage than 12 mpg 1970 Ford Galaxie V8 (et al) when the taxes were set, as USA Today points out.

Transportation Fuel Taxes should go up for that reason alone. Emissions controls have improved mileage, and that means the tax is too low for the modern vehicle fleet. And the fact that we have to provide windfall profit for creditors to fix the roads (in lieu of going into an economic depression) is proof enough of that for me.

 

I'm fine with a higher gas tax to maintain our national infrastructure, but I did want to note that higher income people will continue to pay more than low income people. They tend to drive (or be driven!) more than low income people. Of course Adam Smith said that that was a good thing.

 

Everyone, even your house-bound granny, needs good roads. Good,
safe, efficient roads are how the essentials of life in a modern urban-
centric society move from where the are made/grown to where they
are consumed.

The food in the grocery store was not grown/raised in a lot out back.
The goods sold in retail stores was not made in the basement.
I have to wonder what % of the cost to the consumer is transportation
for bananas from the Caribbean, lettuce/celery from California, water
from Figi, etc.

From this reality comes the thought that up to some point everyone,
well-to-do and needy alike, has to bear some of the cost of building
maintaining roads. Using some portion of income taxes for this makes
sense to me. However, the size and scope of our national highway
system goes well beyond what is needed for commercial needs. The
question then is how is this "excess capacity" paid for. On it's face at
least, taxing gas has the users paying for thier use. This is the same as
the pay-as-you-use reveue schemes of toll roads.

Somewhere, back behind the thicket of government programs,
subsidies, give-backs, and political smoke-and-mirrors the real cost of
a gallon of petro-based fuel can be found. I've read estimates of
$10-$15/gal.

It would take a wholesale change in the way we think, the way we live,
the way we govern ourselves, and the way we pay for government to
get it so that is the cost we see at the pump. It would be fundamentally
honest and transparent.

I suspect that this is too much to ask of ourselves.

 

This is exactly why we should pay for roads solely with gas taxes.
Companies will raise the cost of their goods to cover the costs of transportation. So 'granny' will be paying for roads IF she buys goods that need to be delivered. The further the deliveries, the higher the cost.
This actually would make locally grown foods more competitive.

 

The Koch brothers would not like that. They are the oil barons who have spent $100 million in the media fueling right wing anti-everything causes.

 

This makes a lot of sense. But I do believe that at this point *any* tax increase has to be accompanied by spending cuts elsewhere. Raising the overall tax burden creates lower ultimate income across the boards, which creates a vicious cycle of less money ultimately making it into the consumer's pockets, which results in less spending on commodities like gas, which results in fewer tax dollars collected. And around it goes. Personally I'd rather see a greater share of my tax dollars going to things like infrastructure improvements. If only the average tax payer could have a real influence in decisions like that...

 

A higher tax to maintain our national infrastructure? Are you nuts?

We already have more government than we know what to do with. What we need is less government. (That government which governs least, governs best.)

Keith

 

Even if we could shrink government tomorrow, we would still have a legacy of massive debt left over from the excesses of the past several decades. Tax increases will be needed to pay off that debt.

 

Your problem is that you are thinking in a logical and responsible manner. Our government is so financially irresponsible that any new (or additional) tax revenue that they see coming in won't be allocated for retirement of past debt. They will see this new money as a launching point for some new additional government bureau.

Think of the government like a human being - irresponsible, senile, and one that should have their drivers license taken away.

Keith