An Argument for a Gas Tax
|
|
I know it’s not the typical “conservative” position, but after much thought, I find myself in favor of a state-wide gas tax. This is for many reasons.
First, it’s a fiscally responsible way to increase revenue, if there must be an increase. The infrastructure is already in place, all you have to do is raise the percentage. No building of tolling structures, no hiring of new employees or creating new bureaucracies. You won’t have to spend more money to bring in more money.
Second, it’s the fairest way to increase revenue. It’s become cliche, but it’s true, the gas tax is the ultimate user fee. And it applies to everyone driving on Virginia roads, whether they are from here or not. Vacationers will pay, as will the big transport companies whose tractor-trailers do the most damage to our roads.
Third, the gas tax has not been raised since 1987. Everything has gone up in price since 1987; people understand and expect this. It only makes sense that the tax rate go up as well. It will hurt, but it’s something we can understand.
Fourth, we must think about the personal financial implications. Which will be easier to handle for the single mom struggling to make ends meet - a couple extra pennies to the gallon at the pump, or a new $150 fee at the DMV every year? I would submit that the fines and fees that became the patchwork known as HB 3202 would hit the “little guy” harder than a moderate increase in the gas tax.
I know that some will argue that the Western portion of the state shouldn’t have to pay taxes when the majority of the problems are in two Eastern, urban regions of the state. To them I say, think about the economic impact of our roads. A state-of-the-art transportation system will benefit everyone, not just the localities whose roads are to benefit. The Virginia Port is growing rapidly, with plans to be the largest port on the East Coast within the next two decades. This they cannot do without a better transportation system. The economic boost that will come from this growth alone, just as one example, will benefit the entire state, not just Hampton Roads. The distribution centers in the Western portion of the state will grow. New ones will crop up. Along with that will come new jobs, which means people will move to these areas and where the people move, there the businesses follow.
In the age of instant gratification, we need to look ahead to the future and see the long-term benefits of current sacrifices. Maybe the Western portion of the state won’t see immediate benefit. But eventually, their economies will grow as a result of a better transportation system in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia. And this is the ultimate goal. Not saving a few pennies at the pump.
on 
Fifth, a gas tax will reduce the total consumption of oil. Thus the revenue stream will be shifted (even if slightly) from the treasuries of oil-rich nations into those of the United States, additionally the end cost to the consumer (when the reduction in comsumption/ demand is factored in) may be the same or less.
Ragnar, if that’s true, the revenue stream isn’t exactly stable, is it?
Two people, one makes $25,000 a year, the other $100,000 a year.
They both drive the same distance to work, both drive about the same for shopping and other places.
Who does pays more in gas tax? Gas costs the same amount in actual dollars to both but relative to income it is more to the $25k person and thus ANOTHER tax costs him more.
The $100k may or may not drive less, he can afford, but the poorer person won’t drive less… it is not like they are going to the Outer Banks on the weekend!
Did i hear Squeaky just argue a consumption based tax is bad because its regressive? You must have gotten caught in the stampede and trapped inside a Dem caucus tonight up there in Ohio. Don’t worry, it will unfortunately wear off soon.
Actually a gas tax is only not a traditional “conservative” position in the sense its a tax period. But in general such consumption taxes are very much a core conservative position, and yes, on the basis of income they tend to be regressive. I’m of two minds - i do like the user-fee aspect of it, but i also do shudder at the regressive aspect, though it does bottom out. Those at the lowest income levels are more frequent users of public transportation, and as such not direct payers.
..because those buses run on air…
… and hence my use of the phrase “direct payers”. Drink your coffee Brian, your brain’s not awake yet. And, as a fed/state/local/fare funded transit agency, would HRT even be affected?
Soooooo, as long as poor people pay more, but indirectly, you’re fine with it. Gotcha.
Well, it is not like the poor are being taxed on something they have to buy, right? I mean they could walk or bike to work!
Brian,
NEWS FLASH: as a government agency, HRT doesn’t pay tax on it’s fuel.
Jeremy is right - for once.
Yet another way we subsidize them.
Actually, I’m not wholly opposed to a gas tax for roads. Democrats threw the only Republican delegate out of office who pushed for one, so I don’t see any reason to rush to it.
Gee. I thought someone would think that maybe fuel is used for other than going to and fro from work. Kind of like delivery of goods and services, unit production and other things that effect the economy. Helloooo… it’s the economy folks. Government spending is beyond its peak. There ain’t no mo’ money that can be got without hampering economic velocity. Divert existing revenue streams to resolve problems, not put everyone in the poor house.
So, HRT isn’t paying their fair share of taxes on fuel? Typical. Why are taxpayers subsidizing HRT anyway? Why aren’t the users paying adequate fares to cover the costs HRT incurs?
Wally, without new or improved roads, those “delivery of goods and services, unti production and other things that effect the economy” come to a pretty hard stop. Now, there is an argument to be made about the existing revenues being used to fund transportation at a higher clip, but seriously, a nickel or dime a gallon isn’t going to “put everyone in the poor house.”
So a tax-exemption is a subsidy? By that definition, the government is subsidizing churches and non-profits.
I don’t think so.
Brian - a nickel or dime a gallon isn’t going to “put everyone in the poor house.”
That’s relative, isn’t it? At what point is that nickel or dime the breakpoint of one’s disposable portion of a dollar that it tips the scales of household solvency? Your statement reflects that households should be willing to decrement their budgets to satisfied growth in government spending faster than existing revenue streams can satisfy. Please define when the point of household financial extremis, in the macro sense, is attained.
As to a hard stop, logistics and dispatching techniques are scheduled around the four hours of traffic gridlock caused by rush hour. Accidents will not be prevented by bigger roads.
Wally - gas tax is an existing revenue stream. Besides, the idea of simply restraining growth to match pre-existing revenue streams is overly simplistic, and only works under the assumption that govt spending starts with a “clean slate” of income/liabaility each fiscal calendar. Transportation is a perfect example of how unrealistic that is. Maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure is an outlay somewhat out of the control of the govt, yet is a significant financial liability. If the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure (not even counting new projects) escalates due to market factors, isn’t it better for the govt to try and increase/stabilize the revenue stream to to meet future expected liabilities? Or should they just be constrained by out-of-date revenue formulas (relative to the changing market factors impacting their liabilities) and just start to abandon infrastructure? Sure, you can shuffle money around (and yes, in our budget case that still can likely be done), but that has its own issues.
Henry,
If HRT isn’t paying their $0.17.5 cents per gallon state tax for the gas they buy then that money is not being collected by the state and thus the state is forced to raise taxes on everyone else to cover the short fall - so yes, the taxpayers of all of Virignia are subsidizing HRT’s gas.
Reid,
Name one government agency that pays taxes, Please.
Henry solved the problem! Since Republicans think tax cuts stimulate growth, the absence of taxes on government encourage more government growth! No wonder government keeps getting bigger! Government is one big enterprise zone.