The federal gas tax. It needs to be raised. We’ve hammered this point home enough. Our infrastructure needs help, and that help involves money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Politicians know this. But they won’t touch the gas tax with a ten-foot pole. Why not? Because come election time, no one wants to be the candidate responsible for raising the most soundbite-ready and execrated tax on earth. Just think of all the campaign slogans you could come up with — and if you can’t think of any, there are about 200 strategists in Washington who can.
But what we may not realize is that much of the problem lies in public perception of the tax — specifically, what Americans know (or don’t) about how often it gets raised. Here’s a startling fact we came across in a poll done last year by Building America’s Future, Public Opinion Strategies, and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research: There is widespread agreement, among people of all demographics and political parties, that the federal gas tax goes up every year (unrelated to state gas taxes, which vary). Even people who closely follow infrastructure/transportation news believe this.
The survey was done from June 30 through July 2, 2009, and involved 800 adults, with a +3.46% margin of error. And a whopping 60% of the respondents — Republican and Democrat alike — believe the federal gas tax is raised annually. Geographic location didn’t make much of a difference — 61% believed this incorrect statement in the Northeast, 58% in the South, 54% in the Midwest, and 67% in the West.
The truth, of course, is that the federal gas tax has been unchanged at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. And, in a colossal error of judgment, the government neglected to index it for inflation. So it’s worth even less now than it was then.
Other results of the poll made this lack of education on the tax even more striking: When asked, “Thinking about your experience with transportation infrastructure in your area today…in general, how would you rate the condition of and your experience with traffic congestion?” 31% answered “very poor.” A majority also answered that traffic congestion was not “a fact of life” — in other words, people believe something can be done about it. A majority (55%) also responded that our country’s infrastructure is outdated, unreliable, and inefficient. On the statement, “Transportation infrastructure funding decisions are based more on politics than need?” a whopping 62% said they strongly agree.
So in other words, we know that our infrastructure needs money, and that our lives could be improved by investment in it. We know that the principle way to raise money for infrastructure is through taxes, and that politicians are making infrastructure decisions based on political gain rather than public good. But what we don’t know is that we’re objecting to the raising of a tax that hasn’t been raised in almost 20 years, and could do wonders for all the troubles we’ve identified. Maybe it’s time for a Gas Tax Education Initiative?
Image courtesy of MCT.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Any idea how much of highway spending is paid for by the gas tax? I’ve had multiple people tell me that highways are fully paid for because of gas taxes. That’s a somewhat strange arguement, because I can pay gas taxes and never go on a highway — or I can drive an electric car and never pay gas taxes.
But regardless, I’d love to know how much of highway/road spending is covered by gas taxes.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:39 pm
What’s the current federal excise tax on transit fares?
January 21st, 2010 at 4:15 pm
About 50 % of road spending is covered by all user taxes and fees (gas taxes, tolls, motor vehicle fees not eaten by the DMV/MVA, fees paid by the trucking industry) combined–national average for all levels of government combined, I forget the source at the moment.
At the state level this number varies from state to state.
January 21st, 2010 at 4:36 pm
My guess is that most people just notice the overall price increases in the pump. These often include state and local increases in gas taxes, and people don’t distinguish that from the federal tax. For example, in Washington state where I live, the gas tax was raised by 9.5 cents per gallon in 2005 and phased in with annual increases every year through 2008. It was previously raised in 2003 and 1991. Though there was a big gap there, between 2003 and 2009 the tax was raised annually in 5 of 7 years.
Also, there have been several roads and transit measures that raised or general sales tax here, and I would not be surprised if many people conflate those with gas taxes in their memories.
I suspect similar things happen in other states.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:17 pm
What’s the current federal excise tax on highway usage fees? Oh wait, there isn’t one.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“The federal gas tax. It needs to be raised.” I think this would be easier to sell if the government hadn’t just spent nearly a trillion dollars on handouts to politically connected a-holes. Its a bit disingenuous to waste that kind of money and then say “we cant pay for our infrastructure, we need to raise taxes.”
January 21st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Depnding upon where you are the gas tax can sometimes only pay for roads outside of urban areas. Cities still use general fund money and bonds for thier own road programs, sometimes levened with State and Federal monies. The federal Highway Trust Fund needed 2 infusions of money from the general fund in the last couple of years of $8 and $9 Billion each to keep it solvent
Gas taxes need to be replaced for the very reason that Evan says, as electric and hybrid vehicles become more common, not to mention the federally mandated mileage improvements, the monies needed to support the infrastructure shrinks. They need to be replaced with a mileage based tax. It is only fair.
An easy way to think of it is if one rounds say the Ohio gas tax up to 48 cents per mile (from 46.4) and drive an average car that gets 24 mpg right now, you pay roughly 2 cents per mile. If you drive 10000 miles a year (a good basic level that mimics lease language) you end up paying $200 a year in taxes.
Now put that up to a future 36 mpg standard car and you end up paying 1.33 cents per mile and $133 per year. A drop of a third….if the tax remains the same (great Led Zeppelin song)
Now we are hearing that the Chevy Volt gets 230 mpg utilizing a small gas engine for only recharging the batteries and you get .2 cents per gallon and a total gas tax of only $20 a year (all based upon 10,000 miles)
Tying the tax to a percentage of the price would cover when inflation drives the price up like it did a couple of years ago, but what happened when the pices dropped by over half in less than a year from $4 back down to $2. It would make budgeting anything virtually impossible if the price of gas contines to be as volatile as it has over the last couple of years.
The only way to create an equitable method of funding roads would be a mileage tax.
Americans think they have a god given right to drive, they must then realize they have a god given obligation to pay for that right.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:39 pm
VMT tax alone is not the answer either. Switching to a VMT tax would remove a disincentive to driving inefficient vehicles which pollute more and cause more wear and tear on the roads, and it wouldn’t distinguish between miles driven at 10 mph in stop-and-go traffic during peak commute times and miles driven at 55 mph on uncongested roads at off-peak times which have far less negative environmental and economic impact and are not usually redundant trips where the driver could choose to take transit or carpool instead. We need a combination of tactics to get our highway spending under control: a moratorium on new single occupancy vehicle capacity until maintenance on the existing system for both highways and transit can be paid for without borrowing, a higher gas tax, a VMT tax IN ADDITION to the gas tax, more tolls, market-priced parking, and better pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and transit service so that so many roads aren’t needed.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Matt Roberts, Part of the thinking behind a gas tax is to incentivize (sp?) people to use gas more efficiently. If you use more gas, you pay more taxes, its an incentive to buy a more fuel efficient car or find ways to use your car less. It isnt entirely equitable, but it does help monetize the externalities of gasoline.
January 21st, 2010 at 7:10 pm
The funding of the infrastructure should not be driven by social ideals such as people using gas more efficiently (dang need a spell check in these boards!), especialy if one raises the mileage tax to truly reflect the costs of maintaining and building the needed roads people would have an incentive to not drive as much and possibly utilize alternate sources of transportation - then you have a similar problem to what we have now with declining funding to maintain existing networks. The 2 cent per mile I used in my example is only what is now paid here in Ohio (actually a bit less) for an average car. The price of gasoline will continue to be the primary cost that drives what people drive, taxes are a minor chunk compared to teh overall price. Right now removing it completely would only drop price of a gallon right now to $2 per gallon here in Central Ohio, and that 15-20 percent that tax currently adds to the price makes little differance except to grandstanding tax cut politicians. If I remember ECON 200, from a long time ago, correctly gas is a pretty stable commodity in that people won’t drive a hell of a lot more - or less if the price drops 20% or increase 20% - though 100% like two years ago and you have something.
If what the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) say is correct and we are facing a SHORTFALL of $2.2 trillion dollars over the next 5 years for infrastructure funding - of which I believe $600 billion is for roads - $120 billion a year on top of what we pay now, just for maintaining and expanding the current network a stable funding source must be found. And I do realize that ASCE has an interest in the issue.
If an infrastructure bank is a potential solution to this - and I believe a series of regional ones versus one national one is warranted - then to fund a bank a stable source of income must be found and a mileage tax is a way of doing it, as well as taxes on other forms of transportation and utilities.
By taxing mileage versus gasoline usage one will finally get the true cost of driving to be reflected, people may not drive as much and therefore perhaps not as much expansion of capacity would be needed.
To get anything this radical passed in the current political - not economic - climate, it must be presented in concrete terms (excuse the pun) and not have any of the taint of social engineering or environmental aspects as a primary motive to the need for it. By using examples of shortfalls whether the I-35 bridge collapse or the potholes in front of you house that is the way to revolutionize how we pay for our freedom to travel.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Matt, the expense you impose on the ifnrastrucutre isn’t just a matter of the miles you drive, but the weight of the vehicle taking you for those miles.
And gas is a good proxy for that.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Omri, actually, gas is a terrible proxy for road wear. Road wear is proportional to the fourth power of axle load. Gas consumption isn’t even linear in axle load - raising axle load by a factor of 10 (e.g. large sedan to bus) raises gas consumption by a factor of about 5, even though it actually raises road wear by a factor of 10,000.
Basically, if you want to just fund roads, then put tolls with higher charges on buses and trucks than on cars. Gas taxes should be for things that have to do with gas - i.e. the various environmental problems associated with tailpipe emissions, and military protection of oil sources.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I think that there is a way to maintain a bit of the gas tax’s ability to punish inefficientcy is by applying sales tax to gasoline. - 6.5% here in Ohio, give that directly to the general fund.
One thing I have not figured out the best way to approach is interstate trucking. A mileage tax that is state or regionally levied thru state registration, may result in the trucking equivilant of the Liberian or Panamanian flagged ship. If say the Great lakes region sets a regional mileage tax but say Texas doesn’t that maycause a migration of all interstate trucking registrations to Texas where taxes are lower, dropping the funds available in the Great Lakes region by that perhaps not insignificant amount. How would that work in regards to interstate commerce regulations - I don’t know.
I believe the basic mileage tax is just a beginning, over time there is the possibility to add road useage fees, time of day (congestion pricing) or electronic tolls that could be rolled into existance over a period of time as technical solutions are found to measure useage more accurately.
There also is the question of how one would collect the mileage tax, how many want a $200 fee assessed when you get your plates, or do you receive monthly or quarterly bills based on the previous years driving. That is one angle that the gas tax assessed at the pump excels at.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:24 pm
With the current proposals being floated for a mileage tax, there’s also the little matter of “Big Brother”.
It should also be noted that, the two recent transfusions from the general treasury notwithstanding, the Federal gas tax is 100% what has paid for Federal highway and transit funding for the past 30 years.
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:16 am
Matt, one of the earliest achievements of the good roads movement in the US was exempting gas from sales tax. The political difficulty of levying sales tax on gas is the same as this of a direct gas tax.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:41 am
[...] Clueless Americans Convinced Gas Tax Goes Up Every Year (Infrastructurist) [...]
January 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 am
“The funding of the infrastructure should not be driven by social ideals such as people using gas more efficiently” Why not? Hell, im as libertarian as they come but even I recognize the need for *some* kind of taxation, and taxing something that generates an externality seems as rational and fair as you are going to get.
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 am
What I meant when I said no to social ideals is that many, many people look to any spending as not serving any good and as soon as one throws social ideals or environmental reasoning (green jobs…or global warming, energy independance or whatever buzz word of the moment is) you will raise the hackles of 48-52 percent of teh population and immediately throw any possibility of getting anything done out the door.
We need to be able to speak clearly and simply on this subject. Throw buzz words and ‘politician speak’ or worse yet ‘economist speak’ into the public discourse and immediately people tune out as nobody who uses these verbal gymnastics can seemingly agree on anything, even if the sun rises in the East.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I dont know about that. The 48-52 percent of teh population that gets irritated at all the social ideals does so because those ideas are largely bullshit, not because they are ideologically opposed to any form of government spending. Spending money on rail, or highways, or sewers is much more palatable to those people then spending money on some pie in the sky “green” power or dubious environmental scheme (or just totally wasting it, like the stimulus or TARP). Again, its the silliness of the ideals that rankles, not the concept of a social ideal in itself.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
One route to improved MPG is lighter vehicles. Light vehicles don’t tear up the roads as much as heavier vehicles do. If everyone switched to more efficient cars, we might not need as much revenue from gas taxes to maintain the roads. Indexing to a gas tax to inflation, perhaps modified by the degree of need for infrastructure maintenance sounds entirely reasonable to me.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
[...] Americans Convinced Gas Tax Goes Up Every Year (Infrastructurist) More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol [...]
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Colin, thanks for even copying my trademark typo (dyslexic fingers typing ‘the’)
I an a currently unemployed Traffic Engineering designer (not an engineer) with a background in Geography and planning - there are two very incompatable sides to my professional psyche…like having Joe Friday over my shoulder in my day to day life in a cube (just the facts ma’am)and having John Lennon singing in the background on the other (Imagine no constraints), but I also have a history background as my true love that levels the gulf between those two sides - in my mind at least.
I have tried to use my background to influence on line debate and discussions over the last year and it amazes me the disconnect from reality that most have regarding anything doing with infrastructure. Right now proposing anything gets one shouted down as an Obama Stooge or socialist if one says anything about the need for increasing spending, just like 4 years ago you were a front for Haliburton if you said that we needed to spend money on our obsolescent infrastructure. Take a look at last weeks WSJ article on supporting a federal infrastructure bank, and the comment section on it. It amazes me to think the writers in the comments section are basically calling the Wall Street Journal a front for socialist ideas!
We have to have the ability to look forward 25 to 50 years to what we want on a national scale. My historical favorite of the Founding Fathers is Alexander Hamilton, whose dream was setting America on the proper course for future greatness. So I guess I am a Hamiltonian Federalist in my thinking.
This is a grab from a Fox news commentary a few weeks ago that to me states best the four political types that we have in the US at the moment. This was really the only part that I found useful in it.
from Is Obama the New Carter? By Walter Russell Mead
‘In general, U.S. presidents (Americans) see the world through the eyes of four giants: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Hamiltonians share the first Treasury secretary’s belief that a strong national government and a strong military should pursue a realist global policy and that the government can and should promote economic development and the interests of American business at home and abroad. Wilsonians agree with Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy, but see the promotion of democracy and human rights as the core elements of American grand strategy. Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Jacksonians are today’s Fox News watchers (Republicans). They are populists suspicious of Hamiltonian business links, Wilsonian do-gooding, and Jeffersonian weakness.’
Currently the Jacksonian distrust of nearly everything is what I see, and that is not a mind set that sees solutions even when problems are apparent.
Alon mentions the Good Roads movement of the early 20th Century, and it is a good example of what can be done, but it took over half a century of advocating and promoting thier agenda to reach it’s ultimate fruition in the Interstate Highway act, but even historically successful ideas such as the gas tax and the funding of roads may need reapproaching. Sometimes good ideas can have run thier course.
What does this have directly to do with the Federal gas tax…not sure….but I believe it is all part of trying to present our concerns and ideas to the public in a way which does not either turn them off or leave them scratching thier heads in confusion.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:54 pm
[...] Americans Convinced Gas Tax Goes Up Every Year (Infrastructurist) More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol [...]
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:31 am
Matt, honestly, I don’t see the Jefferson/Jackson/Hamilton/Wilson division in the US. On most issues, the major ideologies in the US don’t line up so neatly with the old Jefferson/Hamilton battle lines.
For example: Jefferson supported agrarianism, small holdings over big business, laissez faire, and free trade; Hamilton supported growth industries, big business, industrial policy, and protectionism. But today, the battle lines are different: neo-liberals agree with Jefferson on laissez faire and free trade and with Hamilton on nurturing growth industries, while protectionists are the opposite (they’re typically pro-industry, but they support traditional industries, not growth industries).
For another example: on foreign policy, there are about four major political streams in the US - liberal internationalism, neoconservatism, isolationism, and realism. A fifth stream, left-wing radicalism, enjoys some popular support but is irrelevant at the establishment level beyond its influence on isolationism and liberal internationalism. Those don’t match up very well with the four historical figures mentioned by Mead, none of whom had neocon or radical ideas. Neoconservatism instead draws inspiration from Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan, and the liberal internationalists; radicalism draws inspiration from social critics and anti-war leaders, not politicians.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:37 am
For the record, the federal fuel tax accounts for about 45-50% of the national spending on roads and bridges each year. It covers capital improvements, from construction and repairs to signage. It does not apply to things like salaries of transportation department employees or police cars or personnel. More than 95% of the money paid into the Highway Trust Fund (it is funded by the federal fuel tax) is distributed to state departments of transportation and spent on highway/bridge infrastructure. The less-than-5% that doesn’t go to the states is spent on roads and bridges on federal lands, such as military posts and national parks and forests. A miniscule amount is spent on the federal transportation bureaucracy, mainly the Federal Highway Agency (FHWA), a division of US DOT.
As a side note, in recent years, I’ve asked several politically conservative state DOT professionals if they think FHWA is worth the investment. Each one has said yes.
The federal fuel tax also funds the federal trust fund for mass transit. Off the top of my head, I believe this amounts to $5-6 billion a year; like the Highway Trust Fund, this money is spent at the state and local level on capital projects rather than operating expenses. Some transit activists are trying to change that policy to allow funds to be used for operating expenses because most transit systems operate at a large deficit that is made up by general revenues at the state and local level.
Indexing the fuel tax carries its own perils. The main one is, grandstanding politicians suspending the tax to appear to constituents as though they are doing something in times of financial stress. This happens now, even with our tiny, outdated flat tax, even though its suspension for would save the average motorist something like $10 or $15 a month at best–enough to buy maybe two packs of cigarettes where I live.
I agree with the original post on this subject–American voters are generally reactionary when it comes to taxes. We have evolved from the Free Love society of the early 1970s to the Free War society of the 21st Century. Most of us believe we can have smaller government and more government services just by pitching a fit about it–or electing spineless pols who are willing to do that for us.
January 25th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
[...] Infrastructurist | Image: El Caganer - C.C. License [...]
January 25th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
[...] Infrastructurist | Image: El Caganer - C.C. License [...]
January 25th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Some clarification on the origins and evolution of gas taxes. My grandfather, C. M. Rynerson, was one of the instigators of it as part of the progressive movement in Oregon. The original idea was that state highways should be built on a user pay concept, rather than burdening the then majority non-auto owning public.
This 1917 expediency inadvertently evolved into a perpetual motion machine by WWII, as until 1927, Oregon counties - maintaining most of the roads - got nothing from the tax. Until 1935, Oregon cities, where much of the tax was generated, got nothing from it. Most of the traffic over Portland bridges was carried with property-tax financed county-owned bridges until the late 1960’s. This led to suburban development focusing on state highways and then interstates, because that’s where the money for new construction and maintenance was. Rural-controlled legislatures, prior to the One-Man, One-Vote supreme court ruling, structured the system to transfer money from urban areas to rural highways.
During WWII, the highway lobbies in Oregon, Colorado, and some other states then locked in the money through constitutional amendments. What they failed to recognize was the possibility that their legislative power would not extend to being able to adjust the rates for inflation. What they also failed to recognize is that by grabbing almost the last dregs of business off of the rail and transit systems — rush hour crowds, special events, mass tourism — they were acquiring traffic on the highway network that would be far costlier to handle than the farm-to-market and Sunday joyriding that my grandfather’s circle imagined.
Though the Federal gas tax is not constitutionally protected, the same political factors are at work. Trying to build interstate-quality highways to remote subdivisions and to relieve a few hours a day of congestion is far more costly than even a simple inflation adjustment can handle. A colleague of mine at Oregon DOT told me that he had objected to building a commuter-oriented freeway as being subject to being soon jammed up. BPR officials, he said, looked at him as if he were stupid. Of course it would be jammed up and then they would get funding for more construction. That was the doctrine at least till 1973-74.
Build it and they will fund some more?
–rwr–
(Note: the years cited are from memory and they may be off by a year or two either way.)
January 25th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Here are the correct dates for when we were set up for today’s debates. Slightly later dates in most other states.
1913 State Highway Department created by the Legislative Assembly. Oregon Highway Commission established.
1916 Columbia River Highway dedicated. [Old US30.]
1917 Legislative Assembly shifts road-building responsibilities from the counties to the state.
1919 Oregon enacts the nation’s first gasoline tax.
1922 Highway Department establishes a Maintenance Division.
– from the Oregon Blue Book. Note what step was taken last. Some things never change.
January 25th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
[...] Infrastructurist | Image: El Caganer - C.C. License [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 11:46 am
[...] Via Infrastructurist: [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
[...] window.google_analytics_uacct = “UA-472984-2″; The clueless American voter How often is the gas tax raised? [...]
January 31st, 2010 at 1:32 am
I know this is a radical concept, but I sometimes wish the Federal government would just stop collecting the tax. Force states and cities to figure this out. Density, location and a whole host of other variables makes determining the perfect tax a nightmare.
If you have a millage tax, people who live in the burbs and rural areas will scream. And yet, their highways are used for more than just servicing homes “out there”. Distributing funds fairly is always going to be a challenge but if taxes were raised and growth decisions were considered based on what local governments were able to raise, then I think we could at least begin to start at a more equitable position.
s
January 31st, 2010 at 11:41 pm
The government still makes more per gallon than the oil companies make in profit on the same gallon.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:27 am
[...] at http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/01/21/how-often-is-the-gas-tax-raised-most-americans-have-no-cl….) [...]
April 9th, 2010 at 11:35 am
[...] at http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/01/21/how-often-is-the-gas-tax-raised-most-americans-have-no-cl….) [...]
April 28th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
All of the comments above about driving lighter, more efficient vehicles are off base. Pickups and SUVs as well as cars do little, if any, damage to roadways. Weather and heavy semi-trucks account for the vast majority of roadway damage. If you need proof, look in any pavement design manual; semi-trucks are nearly always the governing design vehicle because they cause the perceivable damage to the roadway.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
[...] the Pennsylvania delegation," Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) told Rendell after the governor cited surveys that show the majority of the public incorrectly believes the tax is already indexed for inflation. "I [...]
July 7th, 2010 at 11:07 am
[...] course, seeing as how most Americans mistakenly already think the gas tax goes up regularly, and gas prices have fluctuated within a 24-cent range in just the last three months, you could [...]
July 9th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
[...] 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax has stayed flat since 1993, and the USA Today report points out what policymakers have understood for a while: volatile [...]
July 17th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
[...] Via the Infrastructurist: We keep gas taxes low in this country – heck, the federal gas tax hasn’t been raised a cent since 1993 (which, when you consider inflation, means that it’s worth practically nothing — which is why [...]
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:44 am
Should the national gas tax be raised? Probably, but not because it hasn’t been raised since 1993. Time shouldn’t be a factor in whether or not it’s “time” to raise a certain tax. Who determines that the 17 years that have passed since the last gas tax increase is much too long a time for it to not be raised?
Instead, the gas tax should be raised because the Highway Trust Fund is insolvent. The amount of money we need to spend to maintain our crumbling infrastructure and invest in much-needed improvements in order to transform our transportation system to face 21st century problems far exceeds the revenues going into the trust fund. In fact, in the past couple fiscal years, the Highway Trust Fund has had to borrow from the General Fund in order to make ends meet.
Also, let’s not forget that the gas tax is a flat-tax, meaning revenues are based solely on how much gasoline is consumed. This a problem when considering the effort on all levels of government to improve gasoline efficiency in vehicles. Increased fuel efficiency means less gas is consumed, which means less revenues. These shortfalls are only exacerbated by inflation.
So, yes, we do need to raise the gas tax because we do not have the funding to maintain, much less improve, our decrepit transportation infrastructure. Raising the gas tax would be a good start to tackling this problem. Although down the road, we are going to need new funding mechanisms in the form of user-fees in order to make our transportation system self-sustainable and well-funded.
August 4th, 2010 at 6:57 am
The government wastes money left and right and all you can do is call for them to get more of our money.
In what other profession does failure and incompetence get so richly rewarded?