Slashdot Mirror
The Downside to Low Gas Prices
HughPickens.com writes 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 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, 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."
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, 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."
you also have an annual deficit of $564 bn
Your whole insistence of spending more than you take in tax is the reason the economy has had trouble recovering - mainly as when Bush left office the deficit was $1.3tn. Those election promises didn't come cheap!
Damage to roads is usually considered proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. Cars are generally calculated to average 2 tons, even "big" SUVs aren't usually as heavy as their size might imply. I don't like SUVs either, but that's no excuse for bad policy. According to this GAO report, a fully-loaded tractor-trailer does as much damage to the roads as at least 9,600 cars. Fuel consumption is proportional to weight at low speeds, and at higher speeds wind resistance rises as the square of velocity; it is obvious just looking at the exponents that a simple fuel tax will not tax large vehicles in proportion to the damage that they cause. Taxing consumers as opposed to commercial vehicles is a terrible idea; it would have the effect of subsidizing heavy vehicular traffic. If we're going to subsidize freight, we should invest in rail infrastructure.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
To enter (or leave) New York by car, one has many options â" most of them involving a toll of $10+ (in addition to the fuel-taxes). Why can't those bridges and tunnels be privately owned and compete with each other? Maybe then they'll start treating drivers as a profit opportunity, rather than a nuisance...
I'm guessing you don't know much about privately owned roads/bridges/tunnels, because they're de facto natural monopolies.
Not only because of the very high initial costs, but also because the private companies enter into contracts with the State that exclude the construction of alternatives. Without that exclusivity, no private company would ever recoup its initial and ongoing costs. And even if there were alternatives, the discussion has only moved from the ills of a monopoly to the almost exact same ills that exist in an oligopoly.
Honestly, it sounds like your problem is with the Constitution, which gives government the power to collect taxes and establish (post) roads.
This really isn't the best windmill to be tilting at.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This does not square with the facts. Total highway spending was under $43 billion in 2012. Total gas tax was around $30 billion.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Considering I rode a bike to work for years, including in the Michigan winter, I will stand by my statement.
A bicycle is not an acceptable solution for most of the working public. For many reasons, two of which I mentioned.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.