On raising gas taxes...

[Ilsa]

Hey donald, why don't you change the tax code to force oil and gas giants to pay an alternative minimum tax to help support infrastructure, instead of laying it all on the consumers? The big companies benefit from our infrastructure, too.

Granted, I don't know alot about taxes on gas corps. But I think any rise should be spread out to include other beneficiaries of the infrastructure.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. A Terribly Regressive Taxation Idea

Hit people the hardest who can least afford it. Nice.

[Orrex]

3. If they were Real Americans, they'd have more money

And if they don't have more money, then they deserve to have even less.

It's the Golden Rule of Conservative economic philosophy.

[SoCalNative]

4. If they use the roads and resources like everyone else

then I'm sorry but they should be required to contribute to the upkeep as well.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. You Sure We're On The Same Side?

That perspective seems uncomfortably Randian

[SoCalNative]

14. Can't stand Rand

but I'm also tired of carrying others all of the time. If they use the resources then they should have to pay like everyone else.

[LanternWaste]

5. Open to debate among rational minds.

Open to debate among rational people. However, I realize dogma often interferes with our conclusions.

(as per December 2003 study for the state of California)
Poor are more likely not to buy any gasoline (i.e. not own a car at all)

Poor families own fewer cars (and much fewer of the fuel-inefficient SUVs and minivans), and they walk and use mass transit more.

“A gas tax would be regressive only across upper-income groups, in this case only in the top half of the income distribution...”

As James Poterba (economist for MIT and the National Bureau of Economic Research) stated: “low-expenditure households devote a smaller share of their budget to gasoline than do their counterparts in the middle of the expenditure distribution.”

A 2002 New Jersey Policy Perspective Report pointed out that that people were increasingly buying SUVs, pickup trucks and minivan, and “Most, if not all … are purchased by mid- to high-income households.” The EPA has found that such vehicles “burn 66 percent more fuel annually than passenger cars.”

Etc.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Then I Disagree With That Assessment

In particular, the notion that people have choices as to when and what to drive when income goes down. Lower income drivers will, by simply entropy, drive less efficient vehicles than what they would actually prefer. And, the data i have from my tax study for the dem running against Kinzinger here in IL, is completely different than Poterba's and i pulled it from the Statistical Abstract of the United States database, so not sure where he got numbers that are different than the StatAbs.
And my work was done in 2014, not in 2002, or 2003.

And none of these cites mention fuel efficiency or operational efficiency.

So, you're point was?

[ProfessorGAC]

8. As I Expected

Another useless attempt at the devil's advocate position, wasn't it?
Didn't know I actually, as someone with mor credentials than your guy, might actually know about this topic
And quit posting the whole thought in your title and repeating it
That song has gotten very old
You don't know what you think you do

[Ilsa]

7. Location also determines gas use.

Those vast areas of rural America usually don't include mass transit, and they aren't biking/walking friendly, either. Even the poor have beat-up cars or trucks to get them from Marfa Tx to Fort Davis Tx where they work. Sure, the regressive nature doesn't hit the poorest of the poor, but does affect many of the poor, lower middle class, middle class, etc on up. Affects lots of small businesses as well.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. That's Why...

...the analysis referenced, from 15 years ago, was a dumbass analysis then and a dumbass analysis now
Plus, the SAUS data contradicts it
Thanks

[ProfessorGAC]

11. HaHaHaHaHa!

You have nothing and you seldom do
There are a few here that think that by constantly taking the devil's position that it makes them more clever than the rest
What it makes them is boring and predictable
Sound like someone you should know?

[oberliner]

15. Obama to propose $10-a-barrel oil tax

President Barack Obama is about to unveil an ambitious plan for a “21st century clean transportation system.” And he hopes to fund it with a tax on oil.

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/02/obama-oil-tax-budget-000038

[Orrex]

2. The oil companies would lay it on consumers anyway

But a consumer-end gas tax can be funneled into grants and incentives and kickbacks and corporate tax deductions that benefit only the preposterously super-wealthy, and if it screws the poor and middle classes along the way, so much the better.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Tell that...

...to the hate the poor folks above.
They seem OK with it

[Orrex]

13. Yes, DU has a disturbing undercurrent of that thinking (nt)

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Fuel taxes haven't risen in 25 years. They aren't even inflation indexed.

Higher fuel taxes mean more incentive for conservation and higher-MPG cars. Increasing the fuel tax (which is the lowest in the developed world) is, as they say, a no-brainer (especially considering that infrastructure spending is funded out of fuel tax).

[duncang]

17. To me a better idea would be to kick lobbyist out of Washington

You look at the spending budget. You could save and redirect a lot of money for things like infrastructure. There is a lot of money that is going from medicare directly in to the pockets of big pharma. When Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices for drugs all that means is the taxpayer pays a lot more for the drugs. With the extra profits pharma pay off repub's through direct donations and funding super pacs. The repub's have a nice thing going. It just lets the taxpayer indirectly fund their campaigns.

There is a lot of waste just due to the power of lobbyist's and the rich to influence decisions in Washington. With dipshit donnie's cabinet picks it will just get worse.

[Lee-Lee]

18. Gas taxes need to be much, much higher than they are now

Low fuel taxes are another form of corporate welfare for oil companies because it encourages mass consumption of fossil fuels.


That is the only way you will ever get this country off using so much fossil fuels and buying such monsterous gas guzzling vehicles.

Gas taxes need to rise 10% every year for the next 20 years in order to wean people off such a huge fossil fuel dependency and to drive demand for more efficient vehicles and more mass transit and drop demand for gas guzzlers. That will also spur more people to live closer to work in more dense urban housing, also good for yen environment.

We use taxation to drive people away from harmful behaviors like smoking and sugary drinks. Using it to reduce pollution, suburban sprawl and fossil fuel dependency is arguably an even more important goal for us as a nation.

Look at vehicle fuel tax rates in Europe. It works there and has led to fewer people driving, driving much more efficient and cleaner cars when they do, much more and better mass transit and no huge urban sprawl destroying the landscape with populations cemetery more in urban centers.