5 ms·

Whether driving in the US is making a comeback or not, the lower price of fuel makes this an excellent time to raise the fuel tax, which hasn't seen an increase

Whether driving in the US is making a comeback or not, the lower price of fuel makes this an excellent time to raise the fuel tax, which hasn't seen an increase in 25 years [0]. Given the decrepit state of the US infrastructure [1], the funds will need to be gathered soon if we wish to avoid the deleterious effects of neglect. [0]http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/5DDB79194769C2BF852574D5003C28D5?OpenDocument http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/5DDB791947... [1]http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

marcoperaza 11y ago
Thankfully that has about 0% chance of getting through Congress. The last thing working people need is a tax increase on essential goods.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Given the huge drop in fuel prices, working people will still experience it as a net gain. If our legislators were smarter, they would have put a racheting carbon tax in when prices were high, set to be triggered by declines. Alas.
- pyre 11y ago
  Where to your propose that the money for infrastructure repair/maintenance come from?
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    The government is collecting plenty of revenue already. If the need for increased infrastructure spending is pressing, there's plenty of waste and pork-barrel to cut to make room.
    - intopieces 11y ago
      But by cutting spending elsewhere and putting it towards roads, we're still hiding the cost of driving and subsidizing the use of cars. We've already bailed out the Highway Trust Fund for at least $65B. It's a hole we'll keep digging -- a cycle of demand inducement that begets budget shortfalls that begets general tax hikes -- unless we re-align the tax with usage. I'm asking for people who use the roads to pay their fair share; you're asking the government to collect money from everyone so the road-users can keep believing roads are self-funding. When the users are forced to confront the true cost, they'll demand better solutions. In short: we should both cut wasteful spending and re-align the gas tax with infrastructure expenditures, because the bailout from the general fund is pork itself!
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        Okay. Then cut taxes by an equivalent amount elsewhere. My point is that I don't think that it's appropriate for total government revenue to move upwards at this point. I think that the government can do everything it needs to do with less money than it's currently spending. Therefore, having the government confiscate more of the people's wealth is immoral.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >The last thing working people need is a tax increase on essential goods. Working people already pay for the shortfall, whether they drive or not. But because the gas tax hasn't increased and the subisidy is made up out of the general budgets at the state and federal levels, the cost is hidden and alternative forms of transportation are not encouraged. [0] [0]http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20... (relevant pages: 6, 27)
- aworkingperson 11y ago
  The only question is whether the expenses will borne by drivers, by general taxpayers of today, or by general taxpayers of tomorrow. Shifting it to the general taxpayer creates incredibly perverse incentives that are essentially indefensible. It's a level of idiocy that I'd expect from a mouth-breathing moron and/or a Microsoft employee.
WillPostForFood 11y ago
That's a little misleading because individual states also levy taxes and fuel, and many states, especially the large ones like California, Pennsylvania, and New York have raised them quite a bit in the last 20 years. High state taxes combined with federal formulation means the while oil prices are low, gas prices at the pump are still relatively high.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >gas prices at the pump are still relatively high. Relative to what? Highway user revenue accounted for approximately 48% of the total public expenditure on highways and roads in 2012. In 1970, that number was 70%. Given that the people using the roads aren't making up the cost at the pump -- not even by half -- I'd say the gas prices are very low relative to the cost of maintainence. This has negative effects elsewhere: because we're basically subsidizing the use of cars, we're also inducing demand for roads that require federal bailouts to maintain. This, in turn, reduces the demand for more economically viable forms of transportion.
  - WillPostForFood 11y ago
    Gas prices are relatively high compared to the price of oil, and the reason the are high is that the taxes on gas have already been raised multiple times, just not at the federal level. You are ignoring both state taxes, and state expenditures on roads. A federal gas tax is a regressive tax on urban poor to pay for rural highways. States like California take more money in on gas taxes than they spend on roads, so force states to maintain roads instead of funneling the money through Washington DC.
    - intopieces 11y ago
      >Gas prices are relatively high compared to the price of oil. There are many costs associated with the use of gasoline, and the price of oil itself is a small portion of that. By this same simplification, the cost of a loaf of bread ($2.50 for 1.25 lbs) is relatively high compared to the price of wheat ($4.77 for 60lbs). But we know that there are many hidden costs to get us from wheat to bread. Add to our gasoline usage the external effects of Co2, safety, and the influence on the housing architecture -- the price of oil doesn't seem to be a particularly accurate measure of true cost. >You are ignoring both state taxes I ignored state tax hikes on fuel because they haven't haven't been particularly active. • Twenty states have gone a decade or more without an increase in their gas tax rate. • Fifteen states have gone two decades or more without a gas tax increase. • Among the thirty-one states levying a “fixed-rate” gas tax, the average length of time since the last gas tax increase is sixteen years. [0] >and state expenditures on roads. State expenditure on roads is precisely what I'm attempting to draw attention to -- the states don't make enough in gas taxes, they have to spend from their general budgets and raise bonds. Several states have now reached the point where the cost of servicing debt for past projects now soaks up nearly all current revenues from gasoline taxes.[1] >A federal gas tax is a regressive tax on urban poor to pay for rural highways. Absolutely it is. But subsidizing the urban poor's use of cars doesn't help their situation either -- it just leads to more roads and less investment in public transportation. Public transportation is more efficient and benefits the poor and middle class, and makes roads less congested and safer for people who can afford to drive. Additionally, mandated parking takes up valuable real estate in urban areas, driving up the cost of living. This negatives effects the working poor. [2] >States like California take more money in on gas taxes than they spend on roads, so force states to maintain roads instead of funneling the money through Washington DC. Current revenue from California's 42.35-cent gas tax covers only a fraction of the state's annual highway repair needs. This is why the Senate panel passed a recommendation for a 12.5 cent tax hike [3] [0]http://www.itep.org/pdf/gastaxincreases0515.pdf http://www.itep.org/pdf/gastaxincreases0515.pdf [1]http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20... [PDF page 9] [2]http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-... [3]http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_28668276/senate-panel-votes-raise-californias-gas-tax-12 http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_28668276/senate-pan...

marcoperaza 11y ago

Thankfully that has about 0% chance of getting through Congress. The last thing working people need is a tax increase on essential goods.

wpietri 11y ago
Given the huge drop in fuel prices, working people will still experience it as a net gain. If our legislators were smarter, they would have put a racheting carbon tax in when prices were high, set to be triggered by declines. Alas.
pyre 11y ago
Where to your propose that the money for infrastructure repair/maintenance come from?
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  The government is collecting plenty of revenue already. If the need for increased infrastructure spending is pressing, there's plenty of waste and pork-barrel to cut to make room.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    But by cutting spending elsewhere and putting it towards roads, we're still hiding the cost of driving and subsidizing the use of cars. We've already bailed out the Highway Trust Fund for at least $65B. It's a hole we'll keep digging -- a cycle of demand inducement that begets budget shortfalls that begets general tax hikes -- unless we re-align the tax with usage. I'm asking for people who use the roads to pay their fair share; you're asking the government to collect money from everyone so the road-users can keep believing roads are self-funding. When the users are forced to confront the true cost, they'll demand better solutions. In short: we should both cut wasteful spending and re-align the gas tax with infrastructure expenditures, because the bailout from the general fund is pork itself!
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Okay. Then cut taxes by an equivalent amount elsewhere. My point is that I don't think that it's appropriate for total government revenue to move upwards at this point. I think that the government can do everything it needs to do with less money than it's currently spending. Therefore, having the government confiscate more of the people's wealth is immoral.
intopieces 11y ago
>The last thing working people need is a tax increase on essential goods. Working people already pay for the shortfall, whether they drive or not. But because the gas tax hasn't increased and the subisidy is made up out of the general budgets at the state and federal levels, the cost is hidden and alternative forms of transportation are not encouraged. [0] [0]http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20... (relevant pages: 6, 27)
aworkingperson 11y ago
The only question is whether the expenses will borne by drivers, by general taxpayers of today, or by general taxpayers of tomorrow. Shifting it to the general taxpayer creates incredibly perverse incentives that are essentially indefensible. It's a level of idiocy that I'd expect from a mouth-breathing moron and/or a Microsoft employee.

WillPostForFood 11y ago

That's a little misleading because individual states also levy taxes and fuel, and many states, especially the large ones like California, Pennsylvania, and New York have raised them quite a bit in the last 20 years. High state taxes combined with federal formulation means the while oil prices are low, gas prices at the pump are still relatively high.

intopieces 11y ago
>gas prices at the pump are still relatively high. Relative to what? Highway user revenue accounted for approximately 48% of the total public expenditure on highways and roads in 2012. In 1970, that number was 70%. Given that the people using the roads aren't making up the cost at the pump -- not even by half -- I'd say the gas prices are very low relative to the cost of maintainence. This has negative effects elsewhere: because we're basically subsidizing the use of cars, we're also inducing demand for roads that require federal bailouts to maintain. This, in turn, reduces the demand for more economically viable forms of transportion.
- WillPostForFood 11y ago
  Gas prices are relatively high compared to the price of oil, and the reason the are high is that the taxes on gas have already been raised multiple times, just not at the federal level. You are ignoring both state taxes, and state expenditures on roads. A federal gas tax is a regressive tax on urban poor to pay for rural highways. States like California take more money in on gas taxes than they spend on roads, so force states to maintain roads instead of funneling the money through Washington DC.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >Gas prices are relatively high compared to the price of oil. There are many costs associated with the use of gasoline, and the price of oil itself is a small portion of that. By this same simplification, the cost of a loaf of bread ($2.50 for 1.25 lbs) is relatively high compared to the price of wheat ($4.77 for 60lbs). But we know that there are many hidden costs to get us from wheat to bread. Add to our gasoline usage the external effects of Co2, safety, and the influence on the housing architecture -- the price of oil doesn't seem to be a particularly accurate measure of true cost. >You are ignoring both state taxes I ignored state tax hikes on fuel because they haven't haven't been particularly active. • Twenty states have gone a decade or more without an increase in their gas tax rate. • Fifteen states have gone two decades or more without a gas tax increase. • Among the thirty-one states levying a “fixed-rate” gas tax, the average length of time since the last gas tax increase is sixteen years. [0] >and state expenditures on roads. State expenditure on roads is precisely what I'm attempting to draw attention to -- the states don't make enough in gas taxes, they have to spend from their general budgets and raise bonds. Several states have now reached the point where the cost of servicing debt for past projects now soaks up nearly all current revenues from gasoline taxes.[1] >A federal gas tax is a regressive tax on urban poor to pay for rural highways. Absolutely it is. But subsidizing the urban poor's use of cars doesn't help their situation either -- it just leads to more roads and less investment in public transportation. Public transportation is more efficient and benefits the poor and middle class, and makes roads less congested and safer for people who can afford to drive. Additionally, mandated parking takes up valuable real estate in urban areas, driving up the cost of living. This negatives effects the working poor. [2] >States like California take more money in on gas taxes than they spend on roads, so force states to maintain roads instead of funneling the money through Washington DC. Current revenue from California's 42.35-cent gas tax covers only a fraction of the state's annual highway repair needs. This is why the Senate panel passed a recommendation for a 12.5 cent tax hike [3] [0]http://www.itep.org/pdf/gastaxincreases0515.pdf http://www.itep.org/pdf/gastaxincreases0515.pdf [1]http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20... [PDF page 9] [2]http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-... [3]http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_28668276/senate-panel-votes-raise-californias-gas-tax-12 http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_28668276/senate-pan...