How to increase gasoline taxes progressively....

[catnhatnh]

"If you're so smart, then how.....", Followed by a blanket request to raise federal taxes $1 per gallon. Another thread wanted to penalize any trip by motor vehicle UNDER two miles because it was "wasteful" and proposed $500 fines for circling the block to beat the system. But neither idea was progressive. The first is a knee jerk suggestion to punish the poor, inconvenience the middle class, and would be unnoticed by those of means. The second is a green/health nazi who could care less how much you use as long as you do it large...and this second requires a HUGE investment in tracking and adjudicating...

But suppose we treated gasoline progressively? If you used little it cost you less and if you used moderately it cost more and if you used TONS it cost like plutonium?? Well, first of all, it would require a "national ID" but we are kind of there with our licences, aren't we? Now let's look at basics...Let's say that no federal tax accrued to the first 520 gallons per licensed driver per year-that's 10 gallons per driver, per week. Every gas purchase nationwide would be recorded by an ATM type card swipe. Between 520 and 1,040 gallons per year the normal pump price would apply. After 1,040 gallons till 1,560 gallons a .50 cent per gallon surcharge would be assessed.Eached additional 10 gallons would be assessed an additional .50 cents.

I made a chart for this, but don't know how to post it...but it works out like this...if you use under 20 gallons per week you would save money-and this is the majority of the working poor. At 30 miles per gallon per week you would pay a $5 premium per week...parity is passed when you pass 70 gallons per week-at the flat rate your surcharge is $70, but under my progressive plan you pay $75...By the point the flat rate charges $100 the progressive rate is $180...See my point...

You want to reward the reduction of use? Who can more easily afford to either trim use OR purchase fuel efficient vehicles? And look at the choices it offers...it suddenly incentivizes exactly the highest fuel users that need to go hybrid. SS retirees who travel once a week to shop are actually discounted, even in fossil fuel dinosaurs, which may be all they can afford.

To ease the problems of "gasoline indebtedness" at the pump lock in the tax rate to within 30 gallons of monthly usage and let people choose their tax surcharge for those who cannot afford a year end lump sum. This would allow people to "float" vacation travel.


I'm sure it sounds complex, and yet in Europe they compute the value added tax in every town and village. It is about fairness. Also picture the "barter" value of a licensed driver who was for whatever reason without a vehicle...His tax exemption or reduced rate would encourage EXACTLY the type behaviors environmentalists crave...a trading of their need for transport being translated into high occupancy vehicles...

So there's my idea in the down and dirty...a national entitlement to be transported a small distance more cheaply than those who needn't care. It ain't cheap or easy and requires a large infrastructure to track data-wise...but with a NEW- New Deal I understand we need to give some extra people jobs, and I'm betting some like math.

[gravity]

1. I don't think taxing gasoline affects behavior much

Even when gasoline was at $4, people were driving only 2% on average as a nation. People have to drive to work and to the store, and you can only save so much.

I would say you can put the taxes on the cars being sold based on fuel economy. Give tax credits on economy cars, and increase them on gas guzzlers. To make it progressive, you can make the tax increase based off the price of the cars, so that at $60K SUV is taxed more than a $25k one.

[catnhatnh]

10. Well perhaps that is because the tax IS flat...

and because poor folk can't and rich folk needn't. Perhaps if you paid progressively for your "footprint" you might make it smaller. And IF I'm wrong, why would it be bad for those better off to pay a progressive rate...picture this...my 10 gallons a week taxed many factors lower than someone using multiple vehicles...say a main suv, a 40' dual engine boat, a private jet, a limousine, three ATV's, a lawn tractor, a leave vacuum, a leaf blower, chain saw, chipper, and then a dozen other fossil fuel toys affluence is given too...my personal non-gasoline favorites are "patio heaters" which make being outdoor pleasant even when it ain't and mosquito traps which (get this) burn propane BECAUSE it gives off carbon dioxide and attracts them-got that...burns fossil fuel to trick mosquitos into thinking it is your breath...

So go to an upscale home and assess.If you do so fairly you will agree with me that in a just world starving Ethiopians would eat these bastards.

[Radical Activist]

2. That still unfailry punishes the rural poor

who have no other option than driving. I say we should raise the gas tax in major metropolitan areas first where people have other alternatives while we build up more public transportation alternatives in smaller towns. Also put a high tax on cars with poor gas mileage at the time of purchase.

[Idealism]

3. Let me get this straight

You are trying to punish commuters who have to drive far to work or school, and that isn't regressive?

Color me confused

[pampango]

11. So much of our development has resulted in people living far from work, school and shopping

that we are almost trapped into long commutes and trips. I suppose we should come up with a strategy to deal with this pattern of development, so that our communities are more compact and don't require so much driving to make them viable.

[Trillo]

4. You know, that might help the real estate market

near employment areas.

Not sure what it would do for outlying areas, probably put the market in worse shape, further encouraging poorer people to move either farther from job centers, or simply rent in the areas where property values are increasing!

Why not just tie it into drivers prior tax returns, instead? The more they make, the more they pay for gas tax.

Say, do the uber wealthy drive their own vehicles?

And how would your plan work for drivers working for corporations?

[MazeRat7]

5. Get rid of all consumption taxes... base it on "income".

Anything else hurts everyone but the most elite.

Peace,
MZr7

[exboyfil]

6. Simpler solution

Tax at the pump but give a portion back as a form of rebate for all individuals in the income tax code.

It is true that in the short run gasoline demand is inelastic, but I did see lots of behaviors changed even in the short run. In the long run folks will move closer to their employment, purchase more fuel efficient cars, mass transit will expand because a demand will exist for it.

I would like to see gasoline pegged at around $4/gallon with hopefully $2/gal of that in the form of taxes.

[Hydra]

7. I have to drive to work every day because I can't afford to live in the same town

And the fact that gas is semi-affordable means that I don't need to be cutting into my food budget anymore to put gas in my car.

tl:dr: STFU all of you!

[TahitiNut]

8. The government already knows how to use rationing.

While the spectre of rationing is depressing, people coped with it fairly successfully, as long as the "gray market" was tolerated. Those on limited and fixed incomes and the retired could use their unused rations as a supplemental income source. Those with fuel-efficient vehicles benefit by gaining greater mobility with their ration. Truckers of foodstuffs and essential commodities received rations adequate for their needs. Municipal transit, police, emergency vehicles, and others can also be appropriately accommodated -- unlike an excise tax at the pump.

The problem with eschewing an excise tax is that eventually it'll be imposed by OPEC and Global Oil ... and it'll be their profits instead of funds for mass transit and 'green' projects. So, whether we like it or not, the demand WILL be dampened by increased costs. (Pay no or pay more later.)

[catnhatnh]

9. I'll answer a few posts here...

Gravity..,poor folk are not buying new cars...they need relief-not car buyers whether they spend 25 or 60k....and neither is indicative of fuel efficiency.

Radact...at +$5 for 30 gallons most rural people will not suffer for a trip or two to town....and isn't 1000 miles a week just what needs to be limited? Some small cars can do that on 30 gallons.

HaloEx...Aren't students and regular commuters just those for whom car-pooling is easiest?

ExBoy...the rebate would need to be at LEAST monthly...that reflects the income of the poor.

Hydra...How far do you commute per week?

Tahiti-I believe you may get it...the fact is I laid out an outline...remember the boards of WWII and rationing...that could be done...if you have to travel a 1000 miles a week and your car was a hog they could bend the rules...but no one else replying even saw grey or the possibility it might exist. They saw only me somehow personally screwing them and never a progressive framework to help. And those tendencies make flat rates and simplification the way to go. But the sad part is that in the age of computers and databases progressive fairness is easily within reach.

[taterguy]

12. When gas was rationed in WWII our society wasn't based on cars

We built less than 100 cars for personal use during the war.

After the war we built the Interstates, which drastically changed the way people got around.

ps: I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" to be highly offensive.