While I applaud the ideas behind this tax and encourage its passage, you still haven’t addressed the root problem with funding infrastructure. A decrease in the number of miles driven would cause a decrease in incoming funds which would require another increase in the tax, which causes fewer miles to be driven, and so on. This is the problem with relying on a consumption tax to fund projects for public use.
The root of this problem is the priorities of our elected officials. For decades the Highway Trust fund was the nation’s way of hedging its bets for our current infrastructure crisis of falling bridges and “crumbling” road systems. As a giant pile of cash just sitting around as a rainy day fund the politicians who cycled in and out of our various governments determined that if they only siphoned a little bit at a time from the fund that no one would notice. This led to an increase in spending for education, welfare, and other government “programs”. (To talk of reducing these programs is even less PC than increasing taxes.) So as the years went by, and the infrastructure monies ran out from the pilfering by politicians, the infrastructure crumbled. Next thing you know the price of gas increases sharply leading to an decrease in miles driven and a reduction in income to the Trust Fund. The current value of the Trust Fund is $0.
The irresponsible spending of politicians is the root of this problem and a simple increase in the amount of money they are given is just as irresponsible. While I believe that the increase of 50 cents would be a welcome addition to infrastructure funding we must be careful that the money is responsibly used in the future.
<To qualify these opinions, I am a pavement engineer that is peeved at the mismanagement of our infrastructure.>
Ray - I like it! It makes good sense. We’ll pay for this trillion dollar package one way or another. Why not pay for part of it via a gas tax. n that spirit, I suggest you check out this facebook sight: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2221911717. It is a group of several thousand like-minded individuals, but they are for a $1/gallon tax. If you can buy into their approach, and tell your listeners to sign up for it, you cold provide the spark this idea needs to get broader attention. Check it out, keep up the great work!
The only problem I have is that the poor people would be paying a higher percentage of tax compared to the rich in that case. I would like to tax cars based on the fuel efficiency instead. If you buy an SUV with 15 mpg, then you pay 25% of the cost of SUV as tax. If you buy a car with more than 35 mpg, then you pay no tax. If you buy a car with more than 45 mpg, the government should discount the purchase by 5%.
Putting aside the notion that an additional .50 cent tax would actually be used for the purpose intended, applying such a tax–and others like it–would reduce demand for oil and larger, less fuel efficient cars.
“European governments imposed very high gasoline taxes and taxes on engine size–and kept imposing them–and guess what? Europeans demanded smaller and smaller cars. America wouldn’t impose more stringent gasoline and engine taxes, so American consumers kept wanting bigger and bigger cars. Big Oil and Big Auto used their leverage in Washington to shape the market so people would ask for those cars that consumed the most oil and earned their companies the most profits.” – Thomas L. Friedman
With Detroit on the ropes and crude oil less than sixty dollars a barrel, now is the time to move America toward a new future. A future where we reduce our domestic demand and dependence on foreign oil. A .50 a gallon tax is a first step in the right direction.
Ray’s comments about our politicians are right on. They’re pansies who would rather pander to popular beliefs rather than do the right thing. True leadership is explemplified when someone blazes a trail that’s not popular, yet is able to make it into something popular. The fact that this step approaches energy independance via multiple avenues (less fuel consumption and advanced research) should make it easier to popularize!
First of all, Ray can show us all the way by getting rid of his tax accountants and checking the box on his Mass. state tax return that lets him pay taxes at a higher rate. Next, he can take his hand out of my pocket and take the money to pay for this new tax he proposes out of his own pocket. You can pay all the taxes you want to pay Ray. Nobody is stopping you. You don’t need me to go down with you. I have all the taxes I can handle already. In fact, I have to work a part time job just to pay them. You can pay my share, too.
He can then explain why he believes, at his age, that politicians will actually use a gas tax to do the things he thinks they will. Then he can explain what the politicians will do when we have no money left to pay any more taxes.
Why is it that you liberals when faced with a problem automatically propose an increase in taxes? Can’t you come up with something else? Like slowing down? Like a tax decrease for buying a fuel efficient car? How about a reward for doing the right thing?
Agree; even if you don’t believe in global warming, a fuel tax is needed for the long term health of the US economy, and energy security. Any taxes collected can be refunded based on income level, and invested in alternate energy program development. In the 50s, Eisenhower imposed a modest 4 cents/gallon fuel tax to build the Interstate Highway system. I’m sure there were types denouncing this move as illegal fleecing of the motorist!
Ray’s proposal is right on the mark. I would like to see more of the money go toward trains and other forms of transit but otherwise I agree totally. We are way behind on improving our train infrastructure as well as our other forms of mass transit. This is the right time to develop a groundswell of opinion to get our politicians to act before it’s too late. I’m sending my senators and congressman a letter and talking it up with all my acquaintances.
Good job.
A simple response to a creative idea: I eagerly support a gas tax increase to support infrastructure and mass transit. It?s a small price to pay to gain independence once again from a foreign power.
Ray is absolutely right! A nickel a gallon in the 1950’s built the Interstate Highway System; now 50 cents a gallon is a lower percentage tax, but just as necessary. However this time the tax should be used for a total transportation system–some new roads, lots of road and bridge repair, and most crucially mass transit everywhere. This woule include transportation coordination at critical interchange points, similar to Frankfurt Airport and railroad station in Germany.
Although I feel we need more/better public transport the problem that right now as it is I can not buy a car that gets 80-100 mpg or ride a train to work because it does not exists. I would love that but We have wasted 20-30 years and we are worse off now then we were in years past.
Back when Norman Rockwell was painting Saturday evening post covers he could take a train from Stockbridge MA to New York city today no train runs that route in-fact the tacks only go between stockbridge and danbury CT and the only train that runs on it is a tourist attraction in the summer.
We once had trolly cars running down every main street in new england today only a few cities like philly PA have trollies and they no longer run into the suburbs as they once did. Why? the car and oil companies that is why. we do not have electric cars why? again big oil lobby. There is no reason except there is no resolve to do it. Not because the technology is not their.
Is it really fair to blame the consumer? When at the beginning of the 20th century we had better public transport options then we do at the beginning of the 21st. As a consumer you can not buy what does not exist. And as consumers a car has become needed we have no choice but to buy the cars. we do not have a option to not buy the cars that today only get at best 40mpg (and that is only one or two models) so consumer choice won’t drive the market.
Should we be forced to pay a tax when we have no choice because the car companies and the oil companies have a vested interest in keeping things as they are.
If as a consumer I had a choice to not drive and it was a luxury to have a car and only cars used fuel then fine tax away. But unless the government is also going to provide alternatives to consumers first it seems unfair to make them pay a penalty on the fuel they need to get to work and is used to transport goods and is used to drive tractors that cultivate the food we eat.
So don’t forget about all the other stuff that moves buy truck today all that stuff would increase in price also because of a fuel tax. So even if you do live in a area where you can take a train you would still pay the price of a fuel tax when you go to the grocery store. Also all the food you eat is cultivated using tractors that burn diesel fuel so that would also increase food prices. so your fuel tax would get passed on to people that don’t even drive a car. Is that fair?
Sure those that live in a greater metropolitan area have the option of public transport. But most of america is not urban and out side of the major urban areas you have no choice but to drive. And the choices of what you drive is poor. The worst SUVs get 20mpg and even the best Hybrids only get 48-49mpg not much to brag about if you ask me. And at actual real world highway speeds hybrids mileage actually drops down to around 24mpg. So even if we all ran out and bought new Hybrids we still would not reduce fuel consumption that much.
And a gas tax alone would do nothing to improve this. There would be no reason for the auto companies to do better unless they paid the price not the consumers.
And right now they are passing off these 40mpg cars as fuel saving cars when in fact they are no better then a 1977 VW. In 30 years we can’t get better Milage then 40mpg??? You would think in 30 years since the oil embargo of the 1970’s we would now have cars that did not use any gas
So sure we must increase the use of public transport and get alternative fuel vehicles and a fuel tax maybe the only way to get the money to pay for it but a tax without mandates that the money will actually go to pay for alternative transport methods and alternative energy sources. Simply A tax without mandates would be ineffective in actually solving anything we would just get used to paying it and again we would just go back to driving the same as we do now.
Genius? That would be pushing it, but ya got guts and I appreciate that. I am in agreement! The allocation of those funds between roadway infrastructure and public transit is still in question.
For those who complain about another tax, just like everything else that we have so good in the US (but doesn’t always happen), someone has to pay for these things! I realize that our quality roads that provide us with the awesome freedom of travel in a car need maintenance, and I don’t mind paying for them. I would love the oppurtunity to use a quality public transit system as well. The one we have now is weak.
I would like the funds collected from this tax to go directly to the purpose they were intended for, not the general fund. A rarity today, but you have to ask. Once things are in better shape, the tax should be reduced, another rarity, but again, you have to ask.
Do the politicians have the guts? A year ago I would have said ‘no way’. Things have changed more for the positive recently, so I say ‘They should get the guts!’
Ray is right on! The idea just needs a slight modification. We need to start a little smaller, but have a gradually increasing tax that will nudge us away from fossil fuels with less immediate pain. Start the tax at 25 cents a gallon now and increase it by a nickel every six months up to a maximum of $1 a gallon. People will have plenty of time to see where this is going and get ample use out of their Hummers before sending them to the scrap heap. Once the gradual tax increase is in motion, anyone who doesn’t move toward more fuel efficient vehicles has no one to blame but themselves. By the way, the auto industry can’t say it’s impossible to make a fuel efficient truck. I had a 1950 Chevy 3/4 ton that got better mileage than any modern pickup.
It may be a simplistic summary or view of a complex problem but I think it has longer term benefits and is worth pursuing despite arguments that it is a regressive tax, politicians will muck it up etc…
When I first started driving in the 1980’s gas dropped from around $1.39 a gal to under $1 a gallon and I thought we should do a gradual increase in the tax back then. I used to support CAFE or at least the principle guiding CAFE but I do not think it has achieved the goals of increasing fuel efficiency and CAFE as it exists in many ways caused other problems or unintended consequences. I think higher fuel prices would achieve greater efficiency. I will add that to some degree I am skeptical of the global warming arguments but regardless, greater efficiency would be less pollution and less imported materials and would be an overall benefit to the U.S.
While I’m generally not in favor of taxes of any kind we have to do something to get this issue under control. I think there needs to be some controls in place to make sure the money is correctly allocated and not siphonned off(no pun inteneded). We have demonstrated that we are unable to curb our desire to consume gas without some incentive and with the price at it’s current level there’s no reason to conserve.
Also I think there needs to be a vehicle tax based on size and weight. Smaller vehicles use less total resources(oil, metal, plastics, clean air, road material, etc) than larger vehicles and should be rewarded as such.
Before we raise gas taxes, lets expand the gas guzzler tax to all vehicles, not just cars. Do you know why minivans have truck tags? It’s because they would most likely require a guzzler tax of at least $1000 since their average mileage is less than 22.5 MPG.
This is a GREAT idea! You are correct, the recent price spikes to almost five bucks a gallon show that Americans will, and can, pay a fifty or even seventy five cent tax on gas. Our infrastructure is failing and we need to move to nonrenewable energy sources…GO RAY!
A $50/barrel import duty on all imported petroleum products would be a FAR better solution to accomplish Ray’s goals…As global oil prices continue to slide, any move towards alternative energy or domestic exploration is slipping away and will remain dormant until the next price shock. GM has bet the farm on the Chevy Volt. But if gas is selling for $1/gallon, these cars will be unsellable…Wind farms, solar, forget all of it…But as demand increases (again) the price will skyrocket (again), with the same severe impact as the last time…The import duty could be indexed to the world oil price, which would set a $75/dollar/barrel floor price in the United States and prevent all the wild speculation that was the REAL cause of $4.25 gasoline…