What should the federal gas tax be?

[Dave from Michigan]

how much should the federal gas tax be per gallon. The current tax is 18.4 cents a gallon, hasn't been raised since 1993.

I say at least double it.

[opebo]

Eliminate it.   Taxes should be on income or capital, not consumption.

[TNF]

Eliminate it.   Taxes should be on income or capital, not consumption.

[DC Al Fine]

It's probably the closest thing we have to a usage fee to pay for roads. I support retaining it in some form.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

I agree with keeping it, but it should definitely be lowered to at least 10 cents a gallon.

[bedstuy]

how much should the federal gas tax be per gallon. The current tax is 18.4 cents a gallon, hasn't been raised since 1993.

I say at least double it.

Doubling it sounds good.  But, earmark most of the extra revenue for public transit and not roads.

[traininthedistance]

But, seriously, enough to pay for both transportation infrastructure and the externalities involved in burning fossil fuels.  If you're worried about equity, institute a feebate system (and, perhaps, try to get past the stereotypes in your head and realize that the people who don't pay gas tax are overwhelmingly drawn from the poor, young, and elderly.)

[Del Tachi]

Eliminate it and replace it with a Vehicular Mileage Tax (VMT). 

A driver should have to report the mileage on his vehicule at least once every year, and a tax or fee should be levied on this mileage.  Higher rates could be applied to commerical vehicles, gas guzzlers, or "luxury" vehicles (i.e., when the number of vehicles owned exceeds the number of drivers in a household).

This way, funding for infrastructure projects does not diminish when fuel standards are increased and drivers are encouraged to opt for air/rail when traveling longer distances.   

[dead0man]

It should be whatever it needs to be to pay for all Federally paid for road fixes/repairs/upgrades and administrative costs that apply. 

And it should be (at least for the time being) tied to gallons used, not miles driven as to encourage people to use more efficient vehicles.  If in ten years (or whatever) that becomes a problem, we can look at it again.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

John Anderson campaigned in 1980 on a 50¢/gal fuel tax to deal with the energy crisis by cutting back consumptions and spurring the development of alternatives and more efficient vehicles.  I supported it then, and I support it now, tho it should probably be at least $1/gal to adjust for the effects of inflation since then.  However, considering that our primary concern these days relative to gas is not an inadequate supply, but rather the effects of global warming, I'd support increase the motor fuel tax used for transportation spending to 25¢/gal and a more broadly applied carbon tax that would amount to around $1/gal on gas after being phased in over ten years and which would go into the general fund and be used to reduce our deficit and/or cut other taxes.

[angus]

John Anderson campaigned in 1980 on a 50¢/gal fuel tax to deal with the energy crisis by cutting back consumptions and spurring the development of alternatives and more efficient vehicles.  I supported it then, and I support it now, tho it should probably be at least $1/gal to adjust for the effects of inflation since then.  However, considering that our primary concern these days relative to gas is not an inadequate supply, but rather the effects of global warming, I'd support increase the motor fuel tax used for transportation spending to 25¢/gal and a more broadly applied carbon tax that would amount to around $1/gal on gas after being phased in over ten years and which would go into the general fund and be used to reduce our deficit and/or cut other taxes.

how do you come up with those numbers?  seems arbitrary.  Is there a study showing that for each extra quarter motorists pay they will emit X fewer moles of carbon dioxide molecules?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

John Anderson campaigned in 1980 on a 50¢/gal fuel tax to deal with the energy crisis by cutting back consumptions and spurring the development of alternatives and more efficient vehicles.  I supported it then, and I support it now, tho it should probably be at least $1/gal to adjust for the effects of inflation since then.  However, considering that our primary concern these days relative to gas is not an inadequate supply, but rather the effects of global warming, I'd support increase the motor fuel tax used for transportation spending to 25¢/gal and a more broadly applied carbon tax that would amount to around $1/gal on gas after being phased in over ten years and which would go into the general fund and be used to reduce our deficit and/or cut other taxes.

how do you come up with those numbers?  seems arbitrary.  Is there a study showing that for each extra quarter motorists pay they will emit X fewer moles of carbon dioxide molecules?

The 25¢ I came up with simply because I want more money spent on maintaining transportation infrastructure.  The $1 is also somewhat arbitrary.  I doubt that it will do enough to halt the increase in carbon dioxide by itself, but it will help with that and I figure a $1/gal carbon tax that is phased in over ten years (with equivalent taxes on other carbon sources) can be imposed without causing major economic disruption, especially with the revenue being used for the purposes I mentioned.  In ten years time we should be able to tell whether we need to increase it more and if the economy can stand additional increase.

[angus]

I understand.  I agree with you in principle but I think we don't put much thought into the actual amounts for fees, fines, and taxes.  They are always too perfect.  One dollar.  10%.  25 cents.  That sort of round number always makes me think that the decision was too arbitrary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yet we can get bogged down in arbitrary precision as well.  While I suppose it's possible that a detailed study might find the optimum tax to be $1.185/ gal,  another might find it to be $1.314 and a third $1.286.  (Made up numbers for purposes of illustration.) That's why when it comes to setting tax rates and the like, I think it is better to be in the ballpark and choose rounder numbers than pretend to have an ability to divine the exact optimum value that we smiply do not have.

[angus]

Touché.  You make a good point about the numbers, and about revisiting them in the near future to adjust if necessary.

You also said something about our immediate concern not being about supply, but that seems somewhat short-sighted.  Before the rash of articles about the dangers of fracturing there was a rash of articles about the new fracturing technology, and just a few years before that there was a rash of articles--TIME, NGM, Newsweek, WSJ, to name four publications we were getting at the time, about ten years ago--about the "end of cheap oil."  I don't think you can rule out that concern at this point.

In any case, some increase seems merited for both of those reaons, and for a third:  to pay for badly needed street and bridge maintenance, at least in this area.  Perhaps yours as well?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fracking has considerably increased the supply of available oil, but it's not cheap oil.  We won't be seeing $20/barrel or less again in our lifetimes as you can't frack profitably at those prices.  The shortage of oil posited in the peak oil scenario neglected that at higher prices supplies such as shale oil and tar sands that were not economically exploitable would become exploitable.  Indeed, we've been seeing the replacement of one fuel by another that the peak oil prophets of doom foresaw, it's just that they didn't foresee it would be another form of petroleum.

Long term we may face a supply problem, but except for potential disruptions caused by war, I don't see us having a supply problem in the next couple of decades.

[traininthedistance]

Touché.  You make a good point about the numbers, and about revisiting them in the near future to adjust if necessary.

You also said something about our immediate concern not being about supply, but that seems somewhat short-sighted.  Before the rash of articles about the dangers of fracturing there was a rash of articles about the new fracturing technology, and just a few years before that there was a rash of articles--TIME, NGM, Newsweek, WSJ, to name four publications we were getting at the time, about ten years ago--about the "end of cheap oil."  I don't think you can rule out that concern at this point.

In any case, some increase seems merited for both of those reaons, and for a third:  to pay for badly needed street and bridge maintenance, at least in this area.  Perhaps yours as well?

Yeah, the era of "cheap oil" is dead and gone.  As far as conventional fluids go, we probably hit peak oil back in 2006.  The fact that we're still (sorta) ticking is good evidence that the worst doomsayers were wrong... but it is also true that a major cause of the 2008 crash was a pattern of development and real estate speculation that assumed $10 barrels of oil like we had in the '90s, and that we will never, ever, ever see again.  It's quite obvious that our overall economic health depends on retrofitting our built environment so that we are not so gasoline-dependent: the opebo dream of steel-body gas guzzlers for everyone is, in reality, the nightmare of supply shocks, rationing, and permanent recession.

[angus]

It's not just the big Lincolns and Cadillacs.  Look around you.  The keys you are typing on, the speakers playing the background music, and the faux wood-grain laminate vinyl on your desk are all from cheap oil.  How much of your last Wal-Mart purchase went into the trash.  Maybe you bought a trinket weighing 100 grams that came in 200 grams of packaging.  We'd need more than just a federal gas tax to deal with the reality shock that would come with the end of cheap oil, if it is nigh, although I agree that there are several reasons why a per-gallon tax might be merited.  I haven't answered the original question only because I'm not exactly sure what that amount should be.

[barfbag]

eliminated

All the gas tax does is put a burden on average families. What this country needs is more cap and trade legislation to regulate the amount of pollutants in our atmosphere. Mercury clean up is a must. Hydrogen powered cars could be produced too. It starts at the local level by encouraging each other to recycle. We should all do our part rather than just taxing people who need to drive to work in order to feed their children. Imagine if the gas tax caused poorer transportation to work due to higher costs resulting in less work options and more hungry children?

[Franknburger]

 

[barfbag]

Just what I like to see.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Outrageously high but implemented in a manner that allows our economy to adjust slowly over the course of a decade or two and with ample tax credits/infrastructure projects to ensure that the increasingly poor/brown suburbs aren't disproportionately hurt. This is coming from a bike enthusiast that lives in Portland so my opinion is irrelevant but whatever.

[Torie]

Far higher than now, not only to cover the true cost of maintaining the highway system, but also to cover the negative externalities (which are numerous and large), of urban sprawl - and yet another reason why the Torie man is totally unelectable to any elective office.

[Redalgo]

Eliminate it.   Taxes should be on income or capital, not consumption.

[Vosem]

How does Mexico have a negative gas tax? What even is that?