Say it again and again…!!!
Yeah!!! Right now we are paying $1.60 a gallon, but wait, the money hungry Exxon people won’t have those low prices for long, and the Commonwealth wants their share too, we’ll be paying over six bucks a gallon by summer, and who says the feds will use that money to fix roads, the pols still have a lot of people to bail out.
Why is it that you tree hugging latte sippers think the only solution to any problem is another tax??? Taxes do not generate income - they only siphon it from other more productive parts of the economy. In this case, it would siphon off up to $100B (your number) from hard working Americans, only to dump it into the coffers of our corrupt politicians, for them to dole it out to all their well-connected friends and family and those pork barrel projects - witness the Boston Big Dig.
And you Taxachusetts folks know all too well about corrupt politicians (ie Dianne Wilkerson (D-MA$$$$)).
President Reagan was correct - “Government is not the solution, government is the problem”.
Name me three government bureaucracies that operate more efficiently than their private counterparts… Your local DMV? Nope. Your pothole filling MassDOT? Don’t think so. The US Postal Service? Ha. You get the idea.
Dumping insanely large amounts of money into politician controlled programs is, well, insane. Why not let the invisible hand (remember Adam Smith from your 1/2 day in higher education?) work as it always does to give the people what they want?
Next time you get a hare-brained idea like this, keep repeating to yourself - Government is not the solution, government is the problem.
I thought the rant was brilliant (play it again, every week!!!). Can anyone out there get this suggestion to the new Transportation Secretary or head of the EPA???
Lets make the tax hike fair. Charge everyone 4% of there gross earnings. The person making $20,000 a year won’t feel it anymore than the the jackass making $200,000.00. I’m refering to the jackass that thinks a poor person must move and walk to work. What a “Dick”
I also agree in principal. But I would go further. I would recomend a floating tax that insures gas cost about $4 per gallon. At $4 people really alter their behavior and it would generate lots more $ to fund the R&D that would elilminate our fossil fuel dependancy.
Ray,
I couldn’t disagree more with your proposal for a $.50 a gallon additional tax on gasoline. What was a major cause of our current economic difficulties? HIGH GAS PRICES. They have affected everything from your daily commute to the food you eat, the clothes you wear, your heating costs even your luxury vacation in Bora Bora! Besides, the “Poor”, for whom most of your listeners’ hearts bleed, would be disproportionately affected. They drive older, less fuel-efficient cars and any increase in their gasoline budget, would be a hardship no one would want them to bear. Wise up, get off your duff, and invent a car that will run on hot air or methane!
All kidding aside, our family really loves you guys. You’re a highlight on Saturday mornings. Our kids have grown and still torture themselves by listening. I just don’t think another tax is the way our of this mess. Electing people of character who will carefully review our entitlement programs seems a better way.
Raise the gasoline tax is a bad idea. OPEC raised the gas price and it killed demand and may bankrupt them. Raising the gasoline tax will reduce the demand even more. Lower gas sales equals less gasoline tax receipts. The solution may be to increase the annual car registration tax and earmark the additonal receipts to road and bridge repairs. The customer will not associate this tax with the cost of gasoline, thus demand will not be affected.
While I would like to reduce our oil nation’s oil consumption I think your idea is extremely foolish.
I drive a hybrid (and love it) so I’m not a gas-guzzler. However, if you believe that our govt would use this additional tax money “to help rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges, and develop new technologies for more fuel-efficient cars…”, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you. Until our legislators have the integrity to stop stuffing the pockets of their campaign-contributing corporations, banks & special interest groups, I am against giving them another nickel to waste.
Good intentions but a really BAD idea.
Your Nutz If everybody lived in Boston,it might be alright but for those of us in
the red states who have to drive 49 miles to Walmart it imposes another unfair taxes.
Your idea is comparable to the Cow Fart tax that The EPA wants to impose which will result in milk and meat being imported from China.
Dear Click and Clack,
How bold! Not incredibly original or insightful, but an excellent start. I do fear you’re right that no wuss (either party) would pony up to the idea. The last time I was in Europe (April '06) gas was about $6.80/gal. I think it got up to nearly $9/gal when we were at 4 bucks. Gas there is taxed heavily whereas here, one can argue that it is heavily subsidized by our government in regards to whom they consider friends or enemies, and the subsequent carrots and sticks they dole out. I’m sure it’s come down since then but the points you make are right on. As long as the tax goes only for what you say; infrastructure, research, mass transit, etc., and I don’t include an Alaskan bridge to nowhere. Been there, done that. I voted for the Man, I think he already picked a transportation secretary but I know the commerce secretary is now open. I’ll give him a call and recommend you for the post with the caveat that you two continue to do your show from the capitol building. Seen your gold leafed window in Harvard Square, love it but you are two guys who could appreciate a rotunda for the next several years.
Yours Truly,
Mark Mizukami (me-zoo-ca-me)
Las Vegas, NV
I am entirely in favor of the gas tax. I think it should be phased in to allow people to adjust to it but ultimately should be much higher than 50 cents.
As far as the “we don’t need new taxes” argument: the government is going to need to raise money so taxes are going up. The question is which ones. Now, I think that rich people (myself included) are not paying their fair share so the highest marginal tax rate should go up. But I also think the gas tax is a good idea. If you tax something, people do less of it. It has worked for cigarettes and elsewhere. We need to use less gas, we should tax it more. Gasoline use imposes costs on other people (“negative externalities” in economics jargon) and that argues for the tax too.
A gas tax will be burdensome to some poor people, but that impact can be offset by tax credits and other programs at a small fraction of the total revenues the gas tax would raise.
This is long overdue. A tax to maintain a fuel price of about $3.50 would solve a lot of this country’s problems, and, hopefully, start us on the way to solving the world climate crisis-to-be. If, instead of just whining about our dependence on foreign oil since the early 70s, we had had a government with the b*lls to do something about it, this would be a much better world.
I’m OK with it, providing that it is used for fixing roads and bridges and maybe just a small portion for mass transit and alternative fuels research.
On the other hand, people don’t like TAXES!
There was a news item the other day, that one of our states (Oregon maybe?) has proposed, that because cars are getting more fuel efficient, that the state tax on mileage traveled, rather than on fuel consumed. I disagree with that approach, since it reduces the incentive to get more fuel efficient.
The US has 5% of the world’s population and 22% of the world’s GDP. We spend as much for military as the whole rest of the world. Half our national government non discretionary expense is for military. Conseratives: want to cut that? The other half of the non discretionary federal budget does all the other things some posters seem to think are wasteful and superfulous. Like the Justice Department. I’m sure it’s expensive hire all those lawyers (who could make much more as corporate lawyers) to prosecute federal crimes. The FBI. The EPA. Want to breathe the air we had in the 50’s, only many times worse? Want clean water? Remember when Lake Erie was a cesspool? Want national parks? Interstate highways? These are the kind of things we waste half our discretionary spending on. Government is the probelem, not the solution? Well maybe in the last eight years with the trashing of the Justice Department and EPA etc. As many posters have pointed out, mass transit in many other countries is much better, because people decided to tax gas and cars to subsidize it. Unfortunately decades of car driving (and I am a car freak) without paying for the externalites of it has resulted in a built environment based on that fact. Not to mention millions of uninsulated buildings etc. The first suburbs were “streetcar suburbs”. Now we have freeway suburbs and we can see how that has worked out. (Just fine in a small city, a disaster in a large metro area). We have an enormous amount of work to do. A fifty cent a gallon gas tax or carbon tax is only the beginning. We have to look at the problems in an objective and overall way and not be afraid to do what we have to do. Then there’s global warming, rising oceans…
The government already gets a huge chunk of change from every gallon of gas - more than the profit the oil companies make off a gallon of gas. And they haven’t been able to keep the infrastructure maintained with that. What makes you think they’ll do any better if we give them more? Every time they get more money, they go crazy spending it on pork and other stupid things that sometimes don’t even benefit their own constituents.
Article from: www.thenewspaper.com/news/14/1494.asp
12/12/2006
Billions in Highway Taxes Diverted to General Spending
Only one-third of fees collected by state and local government from motorists goes directly to road construction and maintenance.
Billions of dollars collected from motorists from gasoline taxes, tolls, and registration fees are being diverted by state and local governments into uses that have nothing to do with roads and highways.
According to the latest figures from the Federal Highway Administration, motorists gave state and local government $40.3 billion in 2005 for the ability to drive and own a vehicle. Gasoline taxes accounted for $20.5 billion in revenue while registration fees and miscellaneous taxes generated $13.5 billion. State and local toll roads also collected $6.4 billion from motorists.
After accounting for administration and overhead, $28.5 billion remained for all fifty states to spend in 2005. Of this amount, only $13 billion was spent on state and local road construction and maintenance.
A total of $8.9 billion of motorists’ money was diverted into unrelated uses. A total of $1.4 billion went to mass transit and $7.5 billion was used for social spending. The remaining amount went to related uses such as paying down transportation debt and funding highway law enforcement.
The actual facts: the federal tax is 18.4 cents a gallon. 83.9 per cent goes to the highway fund, 15.5 per cent to mass transit, .5 per cent to other. So in terms of federal taxes, I drive 26 miles on the interstate for 18.4 cents. Interstate type highways are incredibly expensive to build. The earlier parts have been completely renovated as they are at the end of their lifespan, starting at least ten years ago. (Maybe the trucks that pound them should be charged a lot more than they are, which may be a big subsidy for trucking. Anyone know?) By the way, German autobahns, supposedly Ike’s inspiration, are built to a significantly higher quality standard. (More layers of more thickness and better drainage etc.)
This along with an equal (or more) reduction in one’s payroll tax wold be excellent idea to stimulating the US economy for the near and long term. Our country need a refocus in it’s transportation system. Wake up, America! Stop whining and kick your addiction to Big Oil.
Ray:
Rather than add to an established tax (currently 18 - 24 cents/gal. gas/diesel, I’d rather see the government use what money it’s spending now more efficiently. Instead of paying farmers NOT to grow anything, why not pay them TO grow something, like bio-fuel products. It would increase the amount of corn, beets or whatever gets the most biofuel for the crop and, at the same time, keep from reducing the amount of corn, beets, etc. that’s going to feed us. Prices on both then could come down!