Should we abolish federal gasoline excise tax?

[AggregateDemand]

Should we abolish federal gasoline excise tax and give states more control over their transportation infrastructure?

http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/22/death-to-the-federal-gas-tax

Local control of policy is often appealing, but I wonder if the states will pursue national security objectives by developing road systems that can be used for national evacuation and troop movement. Perhaps the point is moot since the federal government is not securing national transportation.

[© tweed]

I'm a bit torn on things like this, that disincentive things that should be disincentivized but yet are regressive in their application.  tobacco is the archetypal example.  I lean towards "yes, abolish and find another way to achieve the desired outcome"

[ajackson]

Support. I've never understood why we have taxes that fund singular programs - seems inefficient. How hard would it be to fund transportation infrastructure out of general tax revenue (income, corporate, etc)? Besides that, regressive taxes of all sorts cause unnecessary financial strain on the lower class, which is economically destructive.

[Del Tachi]

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

[MaxQue]

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

And how do you track that?

[Maxwell]

There is the issue of Federal Revenue, as we are still running deficits. However, I would support this, if it means it does move to the states and we get broader tax reform. This seems like smaller potatoes toward the big picture.

[Franzl]

It should be significantly increased.

[DINGO Joe]

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

And how do you track that?

By putting a secret device on your car so that the gov't can track you.

[DINGO Joe]

Besides that, regressive taxes of all sorts cause unnecessary financial strain on the lower class, which is economically destructive.

Do the lower classes purchase much gas?

[traininthedistance]

It should be significantly increased.

This, and also it's worth mentioning that state DOTs are the single most damaging and regressive force in transportation planning today, and have been for at least a couple decades now.  Their responsibilities should be sharply decreased, and divided among the federal government, MPOs, and counties/municipalities as appropriate.

Besides that, regressive taxes of all sorts cause unnecessary financial strain on the lower class, which is economically destructive.

Do the lower classes purchase much gas?

Depends.  In some areas yes, in others no.  The proper response if we collectively determine this to be a dealbreaking problem is not to scrap the gas tax (since virtually every other consideration militates towards its adoption and being set at a high level), however, but to earmark some of the proceeds towards a feebate system/flat credit.

[Gass3268]

It should be significantly increased.

Exactly! We need to reduce our dependence on automobiles. Should be raised by at least $2.  

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

That might hurt long distance truckers more than the gasoline tax.

[AggregateDemand]

Support. I've never understood why we have taxes that fund singular programs - seems inefficient. How hard would it be to fund transportation infrastructure out of general tax revenue (income, corporate, etc)? Besides that, regressive taxes of all sorts cause unnecessary financial strain on the lower class, which is economically destructive.

It is tax inefficient. Excise tax is supposed to offset the marginal cost of regulation, hence the per unit tax, not ad valorem. But political economics theory says that Congress will pass what the people will allow. At the time, rich people did most of the driving, and gasoline excise tax was an easy win.

[AggregateDemand]

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

How does this encourage fuel efficiency or alternative fuels? VMT discourages driving, which could destabilize our economy.

[Randy Bobandy]

We should do the opposite--increase it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Support. I've never understood why we have taxes that fund singular programs - seems inefficient. How hard would it be to fund transportation infrastructure out of general tax revenue (income, corporate, etc)? Besides that, regressive taxes of all sorts cause unnecessary financial strain on the lower class, which is economically destructive.

It is tax inefficient. Excise tax is supposed to offset the marginal cost of regulation, hence the per unit tax, not ad valorem. But political economics theory says that Congress will pass what the people will allow. At the time, rich people did most of the driving, and gasoline excise tax was an easy win.

The gas tax is a stand-in for vehicle mileage at a time when odometers were not necessarily standard equipment nor reliable measures of distance covered.  While weather can cause roads to deteriorate, the amount of traffic is a greater influence.  Certainly South Carolina gas taxes could use an increase as our roads are not as good as they should be.

[DINGO Joe]

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

That might hurt long distance truckers more than the gasoline tax.

Well, since semis are low mileage it would actually work to their favor.  The tax on diesel is actually higher I presume because semis are more damaging to roads.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It should be significantly increased.

I used to think this way... but it is so regressive that it will really only hurt the rural poor while building shiny new freeways and trains for urbanites.

Instead, we should keep increasing fuel efficiency standards.

Raising the gas tax today is about changing behavior from personal transport to mass transit.  And while mass transit is important in cities because of its efficiency... we can't soak the rural poors.  Especially when the future is clearly not everyone taking trains... but self driving cars that ultimately will be incredibly efficient compared to today's cars.

And because self driving cars are safer and responsive, you can fit more cars on any given stretch of road.  Increased traffic capacity without increasing the footprint of freeways in cities will make cities denser without mass transit.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think what we may end up seeing replacing "mass transit" as we know it... will be universalizing self driving technology so vehicles can operate in closely packed "road trains".  Your car would be able to join road trains and leave them but would offer safety by coordinating traffic in more manageable blocks.

[Indy Texas]

I think what we may end up seeing replacing "mass transit" as we know it... will be universalizing self driving technology so vehicles can operate in closely packed "road trains".  Your car would be able to join road trains and leave them but would offer safety by coordinating traffic in more manageable blocks.

That still doesn't address the fact that each of those self-driving cars will have its own engine that requires fuel and/or its own battery that requires power from somewhere. In that regard, they'll never be as energy efficient as mass transit.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Guess what commie pinko socialist had it right when they said "Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States" and proposed an increase in taxes?

Dick Cheney.

[Del Tachi]

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

And how do you track that?

Easy.  The government requires that all registered vehicles be "checked" once a year.  The tax can then be assessed on one's personal income tax form.

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

That might hurt long distance truckers more than the gasoline tax.

Well, that not bad if you consider that those who have the most to gain from better highway infrastructure should be the ones having to foot most of the bill for said improvements.

We should abolish the national gasoline tax and replace it with a vehicular mileage tax (VMT), where drivers are taxed based on the number of new miles they put on their personal vehicles every year.

How does this encourage fuel efficiency or alternative fuels? VMT discourages driving, which could destabilize our economy.

The point of a VMT is not to encourage better fuel efficiency or alternative fuels.  Gasoline taxes already do that.  A VMT ensures that funding for national infrastructure projects is not negatively impacted by increased fuel economy.

[AggregateDemand]

The point of a VMT is not to encourage better fuel efficiency or alternative fuels.  Gasoline taxes already do that.  A VMT ensures that funding for national infrastructure projects is not negatively impacted by increased fuel economy.

So you believe we should pay for our roads with usage taxes, as if our roads were owned and administrated by private companies? Actually, it's not even as good as a private road arrangement because taxpayers have no guarantee that their tax revenue will maintain the roads they use.

VMT solves a critical funding issue, if you believe roads should be paid for with a separate revenue base, but VMT dies in committee for a reason.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So it turns out that in California,. pollution from cars actually kills more than car crashes. It's pretty obvious that taxes on gas (and maybe somehow tax emissions?) should be raised.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/california-air-pollution-_n_143521.html

[King]

Don't fix something that isn't broken.