House bill seeks to increase [federal] gas tax by 15 cents per gallon

[pctech]

This is very a very modest increase, I would support it.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Gas tax needs to be a percent of the dollar amount, like the sales tax, not a fixed amount per gallon.  If it had always been that way, they wouldn't have to be upping the gas taxes right now to make ends meet.

[vtk]

Gas tax needs to be a percent of the dollar amount, like the sales tax, not a fixed amount per gallon.  If it had always been that way, they wouldn't have to be upping the gas taxes right now to make ends meet.

Over the long term, gasoline prices have roughly matched inflation, so this would be a way to keep up.  But year-over-year, gasoline prices have also fluctuated wildly in a way that has nothing to do with inflation or highway funding needs, and a tax based on a fixed percent of dollar amount would have brought those extraneous fluctuations to the Highway Trust Fund as well. 

I think the most sensible approach (from a mathematical point of view) would be a per-gallon tax indexed to Consumer Price Index and average gasoline vehicle fuel economy.  This will compensate both for inflation and the decrease in fuel consumption compared to miles traveled.  Similar taxes should be levied on alternative fuels, such as ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity at public electric recharge stations.  The electric vehicle that's only charged at home is probably only used locally, so somehow taxing that for highway maintenance costs might as well be left as a local issue.

The biggest drawback to this approach (which is already a drawback the way we currently collect fuel taxes) is it subsidizes fuel-efficient (or, more generally speaking, energy-efficient) vehicles.  But not everyone sees this as a bad thing.

[hbelkins]

And I don't care about European pricing, and neither should any other American. It's not relevant to the discussion.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

When we complain about the price of gas being $4 per gallon (or even $3.50 or $3) we are often lectured, "They pay a lot more for it in Europe, so quit complaining."



I've already stated elsewhere that due to economic realities, I will be doing a lot less traveling in 2014 than I did this year or in previous years. What personal pleasure travel I do undertake will probably be to places that tend to have lower gas prices, such as TN, VA or SC, than places where it runs higher (IL, the Northeast).

[PHLBOS]

If the tax were a percentage instead of a fixed amount, then when prices go down, the amount of tax revenue would be less.  A fixed amount prevents some uncertainty when collecting the federal fuel tax (as well as state taxes).

During the 1980s, MA actually tried such a tax mechanism.  Gov. Ed King signed it into mid-way into his term (1979-1983) and additional revenue came in until gas prices came crashing down (to less than $1/gallon) in the mid-80s.  I remember one station in Swansea, MA was selling regular-leaded gas (which was still around at the time) for $0.62/gallon circa 1986.

Needless to say, those low prices on the pump translated into less revenue per gallon being collected than the old flat 8-1/2 cents/gallon rate MA had before.  One needs to remember that during the very early 80s, nobody Republican or Democrat, thought for a moment that gas prices would tumble down as much as it did.  As a result, Gov. Mike Dukakis re-established a flat (but higher) gasoline tax rate.

If one were to make the gas tax rate based on percentage; one would have to place a minimum threshold where a flat rate would take hold should the wholesale price of fuel should drop below a certain point (tax would be X% or Y cents/gallon whichever is higher).  While nobody's predicting such a pricewould happen today; keep in mind that many thought the cost of gas would be $5/gallon by 1990.  The only issue of such a price mechanism involves whether it would pass Constitutional muster.

As far as the necessity of increasing gas taxes are concerned; seeing the absolutely pitiful percentage of stimulus funds (roughly $30 billion out of $787 billion overall) that actually went towards roads & transportation projects despite the marketing & hype (I saw much of it first-hand via e-mail at where I work), I can see why many (who want to see transporation improvements) have become skeptical whenever ways of increasing revenue for said-projects are discussed.   

[cpzilliacus]

As far as the necessity of increasing gas taxes are concerned; seeing the absolutely pitiful percentage of stimulus funds (roughly $30 billion out of $787 billion overall) that actually went towards roads & transportation projects despite the marketing & hype (I saw much of it first-hand via e-mail at where I work), I can see why many (who want to see transporation improvements) have become skeptical whenever ways of increasing revenue for said-projects are discussed.

I have not seen the breakdown - though there was a lot of repaving and some bridge deck replacement funded by the ARRA, which was (and is) a good thing.

The big issue with increased transportation funding (which in practice means increased highway user taxes and fees) is this - urban transit agencies and their friends (especially the unions that represent their employees, but also anti-highway groups of all kinds) have unlimited resources when it comes to various forms of lobbying (and other rent-seeking practices) to make the case that all increased revenue should go to transit (which often means wage and benefit increases for their employees - which do not benefit users of the transportation system). 

Over the years, I have noticed that anti-highway groups often do not care what or where the money is spent, as long as it does not improve or expand the highway network.

[NE2]

the absolutely pitiful percentage of stimulus funds (roughly $30 billion out of $787 billion overall) that actually went towards roads & transportation projects

Duh. The stimulus wasn't merely a transportation program.

[NE2]

urban transit agencies and their friends (especially the unions that represent their employees, but also anti-highway groups of all kinds) have unlimited resources when it comes to various forms of lobbying

The fuck?

[PHLBOS]

the absolutely pitiful percentage of stimulus funds (roughly $30 billion out of $787 billion overall) that actually went towards roads & transportation projects

Duh. The stimulus wasn't merely a transportation program.

Understood! 
However, given all the marketing, whining ("no stimulus means more bridges collapsing" or equivalent being one common politician quote), crying, lobbying (from consultant firms, this one I know of first-hand) only to have less than 4% (based on the above-numbers) of the stimulus money devoted to road/transportation projects (which most people want) is absolutely criminal IMHO.  Given the amount of the above, one would've thought that at least 25% to 30% of that $787B was allotted to such shovel-ready projects.

I have not seen the breakdown - though there was a lot of repaving and some bridge deck replacement funded by the ARRA, which was (and is) a good thing.

Mind you, I'm not saying that no stimulus money was spend on roads & transportation projects; I'm just stating that a pitiful percentage of it was devoted towards such when it perceived/marketed/trumped up as being been more.

[NE2]

Sounds like you're crying that your workplace didn't get enough.

[vtk]

As I recall, much of the rhetoric in support of ARRA indeed played up transportation infrastructure significantly.  That less than 10% was spent on such is disappointing, and suggests the advertisement was misleading.

[Brandon]

As I recall, much of the rhetoric in support of ARRA indeed played up transportation infrastructure significantly.  That less than 10% was spent on such is disappointing, and suggests the advertisement was misleading.

Yes, that's what I recall as well.  I do know, from first hand experience, that some ARRA money was used for remediation projects.  I worked on a few of them in Illinois.

[Alps]

Weird site.

Politics is a no-no but salty language is OK.


Can we cuss congress  ??

Politics is okay if it's on-topic. Same with cursing. In this case, politics is very on-topic.

[Mr_Northside]

Gas tax needs to be a percent of the dollar amount, like the sales tax, not a fixed amount per gallon.  If it had always been that way, they wouldn't have to be upping the gas taxes right now to make ends meet.

I think the most sensible approach (from a mathematical point of view) would be a per-gallon tax indexed to Consumer Price Index and average gasoline vehicle fuel economy.  This will compensate both for inflation and the decrease in fuel consumption compared to miles traveled.  Similar taxes should be levied on alternative fuels, such as ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity at public electric recharge stations.  The electric vehicle that's only charged at home is probably only used locally, so somehow taxing that for highway maintenance costs might as well be left as a local issue.

This.

Another reason I thought of for a per-gallon vs. percent-of-price is that not only do prices fluctuate in general, but also -during the same time- regionally as well.  Now, from state to state a lot of the differences can be rates of state gas taxes, but the pre-tax price can vary as well.  Even just here in Allegheny county, for some reason gas prices in the Monroeville area are 9-10 cents cheaper than most elsewhere in the Pittsburgh region (for at least the last 2 months now).

If it's a federal tax, then it should be equal for everyone.  Anyone buying a gallon of gas anywhere in the country should pay the same tax on that gallon, no matter where they buy it.  But people in an area that have cheaper (pre-tax) prices for whatever reason would be paying less in taxes in a percentage-of-price situation.

[NE2]

Politics is okay if it's on-topic. Same with cursing. In this case, politics is very on-topic.

Except 'hey let's stop funding the stuff I don't like and use the money for roads' is off-topic.

[PHLBOS]

Except, that I was actually against the whole stimulus bit because I knew it was a flat-out fraud from the get-go.  Whenever the head of my company sent an e-mail suggesting that we (the employees) contact our Reps. & Senators to support the package; I opened it, deleted it and moved on.

[BrianP]

I wonder if this passes will states (e.g. MD) with recent state gas tax hikes roll back their gas tax rates since they'll get more from the feds.  I'd guess yes.  So this passing makes little difference to me.  I'm already starting to pay a higher rate and will get this 15 cent rate increase in the future without it passing. 

By mid-2016, motorists can expect to pay between 13 and 20 cents more per gallon than they do now, according to the March estimates by legislative staff.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-27/local/40229015_1_gas-tax-increase-gas-tax-design-work

[oscar]

I wonder if this passes will states (e.g. MD) with recent state gas tax hikes roll back their gas tax rates since they'll get more from the feds.  I'd guess yes.  So this passing makes little difference to me.  I'm already starting to pay a higher rate and will get this 15 cent rate increase in the future without it passing.

That would be so un-Maryland-like.  The politicos have already taken whatever heat they're going to get from the state gas tax increase, it seems really unlikely they'll give back that money even if new Federal money comes in.  Could happen in some other state with a strong tax-cut lobby -- but not Maryland. 

[NE2]

Mr. Fullofbs is full of BS.

[formulanone]

A flat tax is woefully steady for twenty years, and the thought that it be adjusted somewhat (in the same fair, across-the-board, free market manner [i.e. it only charges the direct user]) and yet some conservative news outlets are still losing their mind over this. Adjusting it 20 cents is crime, but letting the free market raise it a dollar is okay.

I'm not being anti-capitalistic, but I know when a spoonfull of bullshit is being served up as medicine. Here's the deal: keep your platform steady, don't help things go further down the gutter.

[Duke87]

When we complain about the price of gas being $4 per gallon (or even $3.50 or $3) we are often lectured, "They pay a lot more for it in Europe, so quit complaining."

I've already stated elsewhere that due to economic realities, I will be doing a lot less traveling in 2014 than I did this year or in previous years. What personal pleasure travel I do undertake will probably be to places that tend to have lower gas prices, such as TN, VA or SC, than places where it runs higher (IL, the Northeast).

With regards to this argument, there are a couple of notable points.

Firstly, people in Europe where gas is more expensive do drive less. The average European car is driven about 14,000 km a year, or only about 8600 miles. Compare to 12,000 miles being typical in the US. But this is helped by several facts:
1) that things in Europe are closer together, so you cover less distance getting where you need to go.
2) that alternative methods of transportation are often more convenient and readily available than they are in the US. The great European road trip is not a thing like the great American road trip is. People fly or take trains to get places.
3) that the average European car is much smaller and more fuel efficient than the average American car. Drop Street View peg man on any random European freeway and look around. No pickups or huge SUVs in sight.

Secondly, while Europe pays higher taxes than the US does, they do get a lot in return for it. Free healthcare is the obvious example that a lot of people will jump on, but if you want something less controversial and more relevant to our interests: when was the last time you heard anyone say anything about "Europe's crumbling infrastructure"?

[mgk920]

Gas tax needs to be a percent of the dollar amount, like the sales tax, not a fixed amount per gallon.  If it had always been that way, they wouldn't have to be upping the gas taxes right now to make ends meet.

Over the long term, gasoline prices have roughly matched inflation, so this would be a way to keep up.  But year-over-year, gasoline prices have also fluctuated wildly in a way that has nothing to do with inflation or highway funding needs, and a tax based on a fixed percent of dollar amount would have brought those extraneous fluctuations to the Highway Trust Fund as well. 

I think the most sensible approach (from a mathematical point of view) would be a per-gallon tax indexed to Consumer Price Index and average gasoline vehicle fuel economy.  This will compensate both for inflation and the decrease in fuel consumption compared to miles traveled.  Similar taxes should be levied on alternative fuels, such as ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity at public electric recharge stations.  The electric vehicle that's only charged at home is probably only used locally, so somehow taxing that for highway maintenance costs might as well be left as a local issue.

The biggest drawback to this approach (which is already a drawback the way we currently collect fuel taxes) is it subsidizes fuel-efficient (or, more generally speaking, energy-efficient) vehicles.  But not everyone sees this as a bad thing.

Wisconsin did it that way (flat dollar amount per volume unit with annual administrative adjustments to keep it level with inflation) from the late 1980s until four or five years ago.  Why was that deep-sixed?  The usual suspects, mainly on the right, were very bitterly complaining about "increasing taxes without voting on it!  ".



That's why I'm strongly advocating a percentage of the price rate, just like with the general fund sales tax - or putting transport on the general fund.

Mike

[jeffandnicole]

I wonder if this passes will states (e.g. MD) with recent state gas tax hikes roll back their gas tax rates since they'll get more from the feds.  I'd guess yes.  So this passing makes little difference to me.  I'm already starting to pay a higher rate and will get this 15 cent rate increase in the future without it passing. 

By mid-2016, motorists can expect to pay between 13 and 20 cents more per gallon than they do now, according to the March estimates by legislative staff.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-27/local/40229015_1_gas-tax-increase-gas-tax-design-work

I would seriously doubt it, because even if such an increase were to occur, it'll be over 2 years away from now.  The recent gas tax hikes over the past few years will be distant memories.  The increased money should go to more badly needed improvement projects, which will also mean putting people to work, etc. 

It also depends who gets that money.  There's no guarantee that all 15 cents (or whatever the increase will be) will go directly back to the state where it was paid.  Here in NJ for example, we get back one of the lowest returns on our gas tax money paid to the feds (something like 65-70%).  For us, it'll just be better to raise the money within the state with a higher state tax.

[jeffandnicole]

Secondly, while Europe pays higher taxes than the US does, they do get a lot in return for it. Free healthcare is the obvious example that a lot of people will jump on, but if you want something less controversial and more relevant to our interests: when was the last time you heard anyone say anything about "Europe's crumbling infrastructure"?

When was the last time you heard anyone say "North America's Crumbling Infrastructure"? 

Not exactly fair to compare a single country to an entire continent, regardless of size.

Taking a random country - France - I can see why their infrastructure may be better than the US: Mostly all their main roadways are toll roads.  Generally in the US, people oppose toll roads.  And France's gas tax?  Over $3 a gallon.

So, if you want better roads and bridges...Open your wallet.

[SP Cook]

Reality is, of course, that money is fungible.  Governments have been building roads since there have been governments.  Governments have been subsidizing those who make foolish life decisions for less than 50.

This is all part of the ruse.  They pick something you like and TELL you the tax increase is for that.  It is not.