The Downside to Low Gas Prices 554
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."
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."
Stupid, trucks cause the problem (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.
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
we as a group are saving billions a day after a very long recession. The gas prices are still not low enough to help those who need it most, the poor and lower middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they go by foot, bicycle, moped / low-cc motorcycle, electric car or use public transport.
Cheap fossil fuels are not a necessity, they will run out.
Re: (Score:3)
Except in most parts of the country those methods are practical. foot and bicycle limit you to living within a few miles of where you work. that just isn't possible as rents in the cities are massively higher homes in the country where you still need a car. motorcycles don't work well in rainy, or snowy areas. Public transport is limited to cities. Electric cars are possible. especially if you own two cars. one for long distance driving and one for driving around town.
Re: (Score:2)
rents in the cities are massively higher homes in the country where you still need a car.
Obvious solution: Repeal zoning laws that block construction of dense urban housing. Last year, in San Francisco, 95% of multi-unit housing building permits were rejected. Many other cities are nearly as bad.
The rest of the country needs to face reality (Score:3)
Our current culture in the US, where unsustainable transportation (driving personal automobiles) is prioritized over sustainable transit, needs to change, and the sooner the better.
The hope would be that people would start building sustainable transit BEFORE the roadways reached their breaking point, but cities like Atlanta, LA, and Houston have proved that humans really are not that smart.
At some point, you have to stop building endless low density suburbs and start infilling with high density transit corr
Re:The rest of the country needs to face reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point, think of right fucking now where large swaths of the country are buried in 2' or more of snow. Have fun walking or riding a bike in that.
And you think ICE vehicles are a rational response? Have you seen the way these people drive? If there is any reason for a better way to transport people and goods through a snowstorm, I don't know what it would be. Barring that, perhaps we could make sure that people graduating high school were comfortable with the concept of friction, the inclined plane and conservation of momentum and energy.
Except we've sort of tried that and the results are plastered all over the road.
Re: (Score:3)
MrL0g1cc, you need to think more logically about this
Re: (Score:2)
A 20 mile round trip is easily doable on a bicycle. During the rush hour it is actually faster than using a car.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the half of the country that gets snow for months at a time. Or for anyone that needs to carry more than a change of clothes in a dufflebag.
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Snow is not really a problem for a bicycle. Neither is carrying stuff, for that matter. That is what racks are for. Your picture of a bicycle is a bit skewed by all these fixie riding hipsters, but this kind of a bike is, thankfully, a small minority (but with loud owners).
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Considering I rode a bike to work for years, including in the Michigan winter, I will stand by my statement.
A bicycle is not an acceptable solution for most of the working public. For many reasons, two of which I mentioned.
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I have done the same, in Germany though. None of your mentioned problems whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
I commute to work, by bike, from an affordable house that's technically in the suburbs (less than a quarter mile from the main city). My commute is 5 to 8 miles (say 8 to 13 km).
This is in the US, in the north where it's snowy. It was a fun week last week, that's for sure. It was below 10F (-10C for everyone else), which wasn't bad - easy enough to dress for. However, for the most part, we're automobile-centric enough
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to switch. I use studded tyres (these are actually more for good traction on ice) from December until maybe April. You don't need to switch over to different tyres when it gets warmer, just keep using studded ones for additional safety. You aren't as fast using them as summer slicks, but riding fast in winter isn't nice to the lungs anyway. There isn't that much snow here in Germany, but there is a lot of ice. Cycling with studded tyres is safer than even walking, that is why I use my bicycle
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I have arthritis in both knees, my friend has a deformed hand, an acquaintance is eighty and a young man I know has asthma. Glad to see you think in broad, general terms instead of myopically focusing on solutions that work for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that might work in most places around the world where everyone lives on top of each other
Although the mean population density when you average across land mass is pretty low in the US, the modal and median population densities (averaged across people) are actually compared to most places in the western world. The problem is the batshit insane zoning policies of US cities that insist that people live on top of each other in one place and then work on top of each other somewhere far away, and shop on top of each other in a third place.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Usually people around here go nuts when someone proposes a regressive tax. I guess it's ok for fuel though.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a regressive tax. It can be offset with other, progressive, changes. For instance, part of the increased revenue could be used to fund an increase in the EITC [wikipedia.org] for low income households.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no downside to lower gas prices. lower prices on anything is always a positive.
There is no downsides to crumpling roads causing lower speed limits and bridges collapsing taking lives, lower taxes is always a positive, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually a good portion of that should come from other sources. As one of the early posters pointed out, commercial vehicles do far more damage to the road than simple passenger vehicles, but the cost of the gas tax hits all drivers. Yet, all people, drivers or not, benefit from commercial traffic since commercial traffic is what brings them their food and goods.....so why specifically target drivers?
I mean yes, gas taxes for the roads makes a lot of sense but, the idea that it should be the sole input for
Re: (Score:3)
Semis burn 5x more fuel yet cause 80x more damage.
Cost should be passed on to those that cause it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's everyone elses fault. You don't buy anything right? Something like 85% of all cargo moved around the US is done by truck because the rail system is shit and inefficient compared to the roadway system. So pretty much everything everyone buys, moves by truck.
When I look at fuel costs, the consumer at the pump is probably the bottom rung of ladder. Lower fuel brings construction costs down (what you think a loader, grader, excavator or a crane run on batteries?), and makes it cheaper to move bulk go
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter much, it's the same people that drive their cars that also buy supplies that require trucking.
So what? You're artificially buoying up industries that perhaps shouldn't be. Nearly all of our shipping is done over the road, due to cost and convenience. Make roadway shipping pay to repair its fair share of damage done to the roadway. Initially, shipping costs will rise. Costs for all products would rise across the board as those increased operating costs trickle down to consumers. Over time, those companies will find new ways to reduce costs. Money would be pumped into the rail system, expanding
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining infastructure is entirely orthogonal to fuel prices. If anyone thought it was a priority, then it would get done regardless of what kind of revenue was being generated from fuel taxes.
We have been ignoring our roads and bridges for a lot longer than fuel has been cheap.
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Because outright propaganda is what they get from the major news networks (Fox, MSNBC, et. al.), so they can't tell the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
And, obviously, Slashdot...
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:4, 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.
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to look at the issues, and the pros and cons individually.
Austerity is terrible.
Depends on what you think is more important: preventing a recession from becoming a depression, or minimizing government spending, taxes, and government debt. I agree that generally governments should only be spending what they collect in taxes, but in exceptional circumstances, like a financial melt down, it IS a good idea to have the government spending to prop up the economy until things get better. Generally les
Re: (Score:2)
There is no downside to lower gas prices. lower prices on anything is always a positive.
And you buy all your milk and pet food from China.
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Except greater gas consumption and the associated pollution. But hey, profits are private, costs are public, right?
So you'd prefer Iran to have been able to afford the price of acquiring weapons-grade plutonium? Or perhaps you'd celebrate a pay cut for yourself?
You, as a group, are externalizing costs and setting yourself up for an even harder fall when the next price hike comes.
Higher minimum wage and unemployment benefits would do a lot more to help the poor while avoiding the problems associated with direct and indirect gasoline subsidies, which is what ignoring pollution ultimately amounts to.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no downside to lower gas prices. lower prices on anything is always a positive.
Heartily disagree with this. To me, the OP points it out perfectly:
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.
Problem. On so many levels. We as a collective need to stick to the fuel efficient vehicles to conserve the supply. It's not limitless. I agree also with the OP, if people are going to be morons with the memory of a stoner, then yeah, crank up the taxes to discourage a return to the gas guzzlers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, why shouldn't the government save that group of idiots from their own actions? The government does it for so many other groups already. It seems to be its default action nowadays.
Cars and even SUVs do not cause much damage (Score:5, Informative)
Damage to roads is usually considered proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. [pavementinteractive.org] Cars are generally calculated to average 2 tons, even "big" SUVs aren't usually as heavy as their size might imply. I don't like SUVs either, but that's no excuse for bad policy. According to this GAO report [gao.gov], a fully-loaded tractor-trailer does as much damage to the roads as at least 9,600 cars. Fuel consumption is proportional to weight at low speeds, and at higher speeds wind resistance rises as the square of velocity; it is obvious just looking at the exponents that a simple fuel tax will not tax large vehicles in proportion to the damage that they cause. Taxing consumers as opposed to commercial vehicles is a terrible idea; it would have the effect of subsidizing heavy vehicular traffic. If we're going to subsidize freight, we should invest in rail infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Consumers will subsidize commercial traffic no matter what - either directly by higher fuel taxes, or indirectly through higher prices for goods. Agree 100% on expanding our rail options though.
Re:Cars and even SUVs do not cause much damage (Score:4, Insightful)
It is much better for the price of the goods to reflect the full cost of the roads the trucks use to haul them than for fuel taxes for all vehicles to provide indirect subsidies for the "road hogs". If the full cost of the road use is included in the cost of an item then there is direct pressure to make the use of roads for any particular item maximally efficient. The items which don't need to be hauled far will properly cost less, encouraging efficient use of the roads and other infrastructure. That is how pricing is supposed to work in an efficient free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Cube of velocity actually, and cube of velocity times frontal area, times coefficient of drag. The frontal area of an 18 wheeler is much larger... That said, they're also long and slender, which I suspect means that their coefficient of drag is fairly low for their volume.
Re:Stupid, trucks cause the problem (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And what if that large car burns less oil than a small one? Why not tax gas instead?
Re: (Score:2)
So tax the trucks; not gas.
You do realize that taxing either has a negative effect on things you and I buy every day, right? No one likes the big 18-wheeler trucks, but none of the local supermarkets get restocked with food without those big, nasty trucks. If we make it more expensive for those trucks to operate, guess who's really going to pay for it?
That would be: us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stupid, trucks cause the problem (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because we all want to be stuck in traffic all day because of the all the freight trains going through our cities every half hour.
Re: (Score:3)
There is some societal benefit to keeping the cost of freight transportation low. Given that trucks pay about 35 times the amount of taxes that non-commercial vehicles do, I think they already pay more than their fair share.
I am also not convinced that a truck causes hundreds of times the damage
Re: (Score:2)
And as an added benefit, when the trucking companies go out of business, we won't have to fund the roads anymore at all because everyone will die of starvation except for the farmers, and they won't need the roads.
... Until they need fuel for all that farm machinery.
Re: (Score:2)
They can convert to using biofuel, and grow their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does your totalitarian streak run in the family, or only in your social clique?
Totalitarianism would be "You can not drive SUVs and other monstrosities in cities", not "They have no place in cities", that's merely an opinion. One that can be reasonably backed up by citing road widths, corner radiuses turning circles, car widths etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If delivery vans can make it through city streets, then Hummers should have no problems doing so too.
Sigh (Score:3, Funny)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Prior to the 1956 Highway Revenue Act and the establishment of the Highway Trust Fund roads were financed directly from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. The 1956 Act directed federal fuel tax to the fund to be used exclusively for highway construction and maintenance. The Highway Revenue Act mandated a tax of three cents per gallon.
It's been a political ping pong ball, and whenever I read the word "consumer" I think "stupid". seriously think of the implications of calling people " consumers, the psychology there.
It's very much like a rancher discussing his cattle.
What other word means the same? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
'tude of those on Ultra Right (Score:2, Interesting)
So eating is a basic necessity of life, and we need to provide a social safety net that people don not starve, but meals above a bare subsistence level are a luxury good?
I have heard Conservatives argue that instead of Welfare and Foodstamps, we should just have these government stores where everyone can purchase as much whole-wheat flour, lard, and powdered milk as they want, and if a person wanted more than these subsistence food items, they s
Re: (Score:2)
"Citizen" sounds good.
The impact of gas prices (Score:5, Insightful)
"The increase can be phased in slowly, a few cents per month, perhaps, so that the price of gas doesn't jump overnight."
Oh yeah, because that never happens today when Puxatawnie Camel farts in the wrong direction...give me a break.
How about no... (Score:2, Insightful)
Take your social engineering tax and go suck my balls
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you also have an annual deficit of $564 bn [usgovernmentspending.com]
Your whole insistence of spending more than you take in tax is the reason the economy has had trouble recovering - mainly as when Bush left office the deficit was $1.3tn. Those election promises didn't come cheap!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to the final year of Bush's term? When a Democrat controlled Congress insisted we needed to throw a couple trillion dollars to Wall Street, or poor people would starve to death?
How about using the 6 years from the middle of his terms? Then you eliminate the first year that he had less to do with, and the final year for the same reason.
Lucky America (Score:2)
Although the world seems to focus on America, we must remember that aside from subsidized countries like Venezuela, Americans enjoy an average gas price that is much less than the global averages. That said, we must understand that the recent movement in crude prices is in direct correlation to the ongoing strategy that the United States has with choking off Russian monetary supplies. It's not a conspiracy theorist and as a pure market technician, which can be defined in my book The Market is not Random., [tminr.com]
Re:Lucky America (Score:5, Insightful)
Although the world seems to focus on America, we must remember that aside from subsidized countries like Venezuela, Americans enjoy an average gas price that is much less than the global averages. That said, we must understand that the recent movement in crude prices is in direct correlation to the ongoing strategy that the United States has with choking off Russian monetary supplies. It's not a conspiracy theorist and as a pure market technician, which can be defined in my book The Market is not Random., [tminr.com] the market foretold this sell off going all the way back to the swing sell in May...
Whenever one mentions that gas prices are so much higher elsewhere and that American's are lucky, one should also mention the why of gas prices being higher else where. It's almost always, if not always, entirely due to punitive taxation on fuel. According to the BBC filling up a 55 liter tank would currently cost about 68 pounds, of which 43 is bloody taxes. So, gas in the US isn't cheap. It just isn't taxed to death like in other parts of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
It also has the desirable effect of pushing people towards more efficient cars. If you want to buy a high pollution car that's your choice, within reason, but you can't expect the rest of us to subsidise the cost of your lifestyle choice.
Maybe you haven't noticed but the cool engine in the new Rustang is a 4-pot with a turbo and direct injection. The cheap engine is a V6 and it's slower than the little ecoboost and the big engine is far and away more expensive. And this is the trend in autos in general, the 12s are becoming 8s, the 8s 6s, the 6s 4s, and the 4s are just shrinking and getting more technology. All the engines will have direct injection soon and most of them will have turbochargers. And why? Fuel prices went down! But we finall
Re: (Score:2)
You should have debunked Mandelbrot's Misbehavior of Markets instead. You understand Fama's efficient market hypothesis was a mathematical proof, yes? Where is your math?
Your price theory is obvious bullshit, simplistic on the level of "What comes down must go up." I hope that being a nutcase was worth your "federal conviction and permanent ban from the securities industry."
Sure, but how? (Score:2)
I can agree the gas tax needs to go up, particularly the federal one. Will congress agree? I doubt it.
Reeeallly? (Score:2)
I wonder who's actually behind this message? I mean, most folks aren't exactly going to come up with a mythical downside to "low gas prices". Who even goes, "Oh my god, gas prices are too low!" when they wake up in the morning?
No one. No one who isn't in the gas industry. Lower gas prices mean higher possible margins for those selling gas. Low gas prices mean you get more money for your buck on your long drive to work, that your bread costs less in the store, etc, etc, ad nauseum. .
Re: (Score:2)
Who even goes, "Oh my god, gas prices are too low!" when they wake up in the morning?
Hard core environmental whackos? :D
Re: (Score:2)
the problem isn't when rich people buy big cars to flaunt status. Frankly, If you are rich, there isn't much of a difference in the gas mileage you get out of a Viper vs an Escalade. The problem in general is when everyone else can afford to buy big cars and run them. There is a general culture of buying big cars in the US, and while the gas price spikes in 2006-2008 and the recession have stunted that, there is an argument for not going back to where we were, both from a traffic safety standpoint and en
The Highway Trust Fund (Score:5, 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.
Re:The Highway Trust Fund (Score:4, Insightful)
Rename it 'The Transport Infrastructure Trust Fund' (which is what it has become). Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Rename it ...
I hope that was sarcasm. Unfortunately that bait and switch is all too common; create a source of revenue for a purpose that most people support (e.g. Highway Trust Fund) then switch what it's used for on the assumption that "the American people are too stupid to understand the difference" (tm - Jonathan Gruber) .
Comparison Chart (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
Or, I dunno... (Score:3)
Find another way of funding the HTF that doesn't rely upon bleeding more gas money from people.
People drive less and buy more fuel efficient vehicles because the price of gas is so fucking high. Lower the price and people will drive more because the amount they spend on gas every month won't be the same as their rent.
Basic Economics 101. Not surprising it goes right over their heads.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of Economics 101, a far better way to pay for the roads than a gas tax is express tolls (variable congestion tolls), because they permanently eliminate traffic congestion, and without traffic congestion, you no longer need to widen any freeway just to prevent traffic congestion (which doesn't really work well anyway), so it saves taxpayers a LOT of money.
Also, because the toll is low or free during off hours, it gives you a way to avoid paying for the roads that doesn't exist today with the gas tax
Re: (Score:3)
That's an interesting proposal. The downside I see is that it requires installing a lot of toll infrastructure. A few years ago Denmark looked hard at doing something like this, but rather than installing toll infrastructure on the streets they were going to install GPS tracking in all vehicles, with a cellular data connection to report travel. This was much more cost-effective, but ultimately died due to privacy concerns; and Danes are much less worried than Americans about being tracked by their governmen
Stupidity of people (Score:2)
The stupidity of people will always amaze me. Sure the tax will go away when needed... Just like the death tax that was put into place to pay for World War 2. That will go away once that is over too right? Right guys?
All economics news is bad news (Score:2)
The wonderful thing about markets is that human activity adjusts to whatever economic reality is out there, just as we adapted over time to any given set of conditions in nature. Whenever some parameter in the economy changes, a constituency somewhere feels pain. If the oil price rises or the oil price falls, someone gets hurt and has to readjust. Every squawk makes the news; people who are happier at the change that just occurred are the ones who keep quiet and enjoy it.
how about (Score:2)
We stop using "tax the fucking citizens" as our go-to everytime something is broken?
My suggestion: stop pouring $billions in subsidies, tax incentives, sweetheart land-use deals etc at the petro companies, and then let them sell their gasoline at market-necessary pricing?
It should be raised slowly to another .5-1.0/gal (Score:2)
BUT, the question becomes, where should the money go? The diesel tax should go exclusively to DOT who then uses it only federal highways, dams, etc. It must be infrastructure use ONLY.
The gas money should likewise, go to the state in w
Too Simple (Score:2)
Good idea, BUT... (Score:2)
... it will never happen with a Republican Congress.
I wish that they would bring back hummers (Score:2)
BUT, the smart thing to do, is to not have one large engine/gen, but 2 or more smaller units in the hummer. By making these smaller units, they can use them in a number of other vehicles. In addition, it simplifies maintenance. Just pull it out and replace it with another one that was fixed.
Sadly, GM is STILL ran by M
Not all states tax gas the same... (Score:2)
Why do you hate magic fairies? (Score:2)
Way to cherry pick the data (Score:2)
That's only true if you compare to gasoline consumption during the economic bubble from 2003-2008 [ritholtz.com]. If you look over a longer period [taxfoundation.org], gas tax revenue is the highest it's been since before 2003 in nominal dollars, and is roughly the average it's been from 1990-2014 in inflation-adjusted dollars. The tax is due for an increase to counter inflation, not because of the reasons
Trolls in the machine? (Score:2)
It's not often I see an entire /. article written by a troll.
Well played sir.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to....what.. not fixing roads?
But that's exactly the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read what GP posted? The money in his state goes tot he GENERAL FUND. So the gas taxes can go up, and they can STILL not fix the roads. These are entirely independent variables.
So if the money is from the general fund anyway, any claim that the gas tax being low is why the roads don't get fixed is also.... absolute bullshit. Its because they didn't consider it a priority and didn't want to do it.
Re:Oh fark off (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Oh fark off (Score:5, Informative)
This does not square with the facts. Total highway spending was under $43 billion in 2012. Total gas tax was around $30 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
The top 1% of American income earners pay 24% of Federal taxes per the Congressional Budget Office.
If you look at the actual CBO report, it shows that the top 1% of income earners are paying less tax now than they did in 1995, even calculating the new higher 2013 rates.
Nice try Koch brothers.
Re:An Illiberal's solution to every problem - taxe (Score:5, Insightful)
The USPS hasn't raised prices several-fold. The price for a stamp has gone down [usnews.com] in inflation adjusted terms since 1975. And we all know WHY the USPS is broke. Not because it can't deliver letters, but because it's being forced by Congress to prefund its pension/healthcare/workers comp funds to an absurd extent [cepr.net], and not permitted to invest in anything but government bonds.
Bridges have a natural monopoly over their local environment. In fact, in NYC there are completely free [freeinnyc.net] options to get out of the city, but most people still use the toll bridges because time equals money, and most people aren't willing to drive five miles out of their way in traffic to save $7.50 or $10.00. With that in mind, why would a private bridge owner have any incentive to lower prices? They would be like cable companies, using their monopoly to gauge consumers to the greatest extent possible. Prices would likely go up since the owners would be completely unaccountable to their customers.
And btw it might be decent in some parts of the country but $30/hr is a shitty wage in NYC.
Re:An Illiberal's solution to every problem - taxe (Score:5, Informative)
To enter (or leave) New York by car, one has many options â" most of them involving a toll of $10+ (in addition to the fuel-taxes). Why can't those bridges and tunnels be privately owned and compete with each other? Maybe then they'll start treating drivers as a profit opportunity, rather than a nuisance...
I'm guessing you don't know much about privately owned roads/bridges/tunnels, because they're de facto natural monopolies.
Not only because of the very high initial costs, but also because the private companies enter into contracts with the State that exclude the construction of alternatives. Without that exclusivity, no private company would ever recoup its initial and ongoing costs. And even if there were alternatives, the discussion has only moved from the ills of a monopoly to the almost exact same ills that exist in an oligopoly.
Honestly, it sounds like your problem is with the Constitution, which gives government the power to collect taxes and establish (post) roads.
This really isn't the best windmill to be tilting at.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng... [bbc.com]
Relax about electric cars (Score:2)
First off, you need to realize that electric and hybrids are less than 1% of 1% of all cars. IOW, they do not amount to a hill of beans at this time.
Secondly, if an electric car charges at nighttime ONLY, this will actually lower our electric rates. The reason is that it increases demand on electricity during the nighttime and helps even out the loads. As such, it enables electric companies t