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."

9 of 554 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid, trucks cause the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Simply change the tax structure on commercial trucks which are the ones that do all the damage to the roads and highways. You fuel efficient Toyota Prius couldn't damage the road if it tried.

    1. Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem by SourceFrog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is no downside to lower gas prices. lower prices on anything is always a positive.

      Yup. You have to look carefully at where the "information" in this "article" is coming from - this is not even an article, it's basically a piece of political propaganda for the government - the same "author"'s other "article" headlines look like this: "More Evidence Austerity Is Terrible", "President Obama Deserves a Vacation", "Sympathy for the IRS on Tax Day", "How Cheap and Free Parking Is Screwing Up Cities".

      Why do people seem to take political propaganda at face value, as if this article actually carries weight as a piece of economic advice, ha ha ha.

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
    2. Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem by Pikoro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny thing. In Japan they tax cars based on engine sizes. You have the minimally taxed "Kei" class cars (660cc and less), then you got the 500 plated cars (2000cc and less), then the cars with over 2000cc. They all pay a "road tax" every year based on that engine size. The bigger the car, the larger the tax. Makes sense to me.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    3. Re: Stupid, trucks cause the problem by JWW · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, but the trains are all to busy hauling oil because Obama won't let the pipeline be built. There's no extra capacity on trains right now.

      Oh and for all the greenies worrying about the pipeline causing environmental damage, the pipeline is orders of magnitude safer for the environment than train cars. It's not a matter of if but when there will a catastrophic fire from hauling all that oil by rail.

    4. Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yup. You have to look carefully at where the "information" in this "article" is coming from - this is not even an article, it's basically a piece of political propaganda for the government - the same "author"'s other "article" headlines look like this: "More Evidence Austerity Is Terrible",

      Italy is currently being roiled with strikes and protests over austerity.
      France recently presented their budget and told the EU to stuff its immediate cuts to social spending.
      Besides Germany, you can throw a dart at Europe and it'll land on an example of austerity not-working.

      I'd be happy to see your examples of successful austerity since the global recession started.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the purpose of austerity isn't to keep everyone happy, it's to prevent bankruptcy.

      Well that's your problem right there, you don't understand the point of austerity measures.
      Except for a handful of countries, austerity has nothing to do with preventing bankruptcy.

      The theory behind austerity is twofold. First, cutting deficit spending and increasing taxes will reassure lenders/creditors and prevent a governmental debt crunch. Second, the reduced spending will reduce inflationary pressures and prevent a rise in interest rates.

      Somehow all of this is supposed to create economic growth. The reality is that austerity created unemployment and poverty in most countries that tried it, which is pretty much what non-austeritians said would happen. There's really not enough room to explain just how poorly austerity has gone. Any random google search will kick back more than enough real world results.

      Even the IMF (the original wielder of the austerity wrecking ball who spent decades ruining the economies of South American and African countries) has said that austerity isn't automatically the solution, once they saw the effects of their traditional austerity measures in Europe.

      If you lose your job and have to take a new lower-paying job, and you have to cut your daughter's allowance [...]

      To reply directly to your analogy: it's wrong. Government spending isn't a household budget and anyone who tries to make that comparison is explicitly demonstrating their ignorance of economics.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. The Highway Trust Fund by cirby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is "broke" because we're funding a lot of things out of it that aren't highways.

    If the money was used as originally intended - to fund building and maintenance of the Interstate highway system - it would be brimming with cash. Instead, it's also being used for lots of other projects, like mass transit, bicycle paths, and landscaping for roads. About a quarter of the income from the HTF goes to non-highway projects.

    Oddly enough, if you moved the non-highway spending out of the Highway Trust Fund, it would be completely solvent, with a decent surplus for more highway spending on things like bridge repair.

  3. Comparison Chart by lu-darp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A week back the BBC posted a chart comparing world gas prices. Might be of interest:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21238363

  4. Re:Oh fark off by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As opposed to....what.. not fixing roads?

    You miss the point. If 100% of our gas tax went to roads and bridges we'd be golden. Instead it goes into the general fund, where it gets pissed away on politician's whims. Raising the gas tax in California does nothing for roads and bridges.