One problem. If you make a gasoline tax revenue neutral, then people can buy just as much gas as they ever did, and have just as much money left over afterwards.

Of course, one could drop that whole revenue neutral thing.

And we could end up just like Europe.

Jeff:

No, they can't. The folks hit by gas taxes won't be the ones getting tax breaks. But the point is to base taxes on consumption anyway.

> But the point is to base taxes on consumption anyway.

I have no problem with that. A national sales tax, to replace all federal taxes, would tax gasoline the same as it taxed anything else. but that's not what you're calling for, oj--in this case, you favor the social engineering of a drastically higher tax on gas than on other things. Bah, humbug, I say.

> But the point is to base taxes on consumption anyway.

I have no problem with that. A national sales tax, to replace all federal taxes, would tax gasoline the same as it taxed anything else. but that's not what you're calling for, oj--in this case, you favor the social engineering of a drastically higher tax on gas than on other things. Bah, humbug, I say.

A dollar wouldn't do it. We pay nearly that much more than you do and have for years, and we love our SUVs.

It isn't even a political issue.

Orrin:

I will NOT support any increase at all in the gasoline tax unless it is matched by a concomitant reduction in other taxes, particularly FICA, which takes as much from my paycheck as income tax and isn't even deductible (something which I deeply resent). This means, in practice, that I will never support such a tax, because in fact Congress as it is currently constituted will never, ever agree to eliminate any class of taxes; if they pass that gasoline tax they'll just pile it onto every other tax we already pay. I already have to pay $16 or so every time I fill the tank of my Hyundai Accent, which is extremely fuel-efficent compared to a SUV. If you're talking about a consumption tax, let the people who consume the most pay that tax (meaning SUV owners).

Sin taxes depend on who gets to define the sins. Since a lot of sins are hard to tax, prudes are forced to go after the easy ones, like alcohol, nicotine and gasoline, and coming soon- sugars and fats.

FICA, Social Security, etc. should be raised until they reflect what you'll get back later.

We have an SUV--I'll pay the tax and just drive less.

Raoul:

What's hard about determining that sugar and fats should be taxed?

The most realistic conservative blogger on the web continues to surprise me when he suggests that a rise in the gas tax would be used to offset cuts in other taxes.

We're conservatives, and by nature wary of the Garden of Make Believe.

Aren't we?

There's a veto. George Bush isn't going to raise taxes. Just make offsets.

Jeff:

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that you will get a tax cut if you buy less gas, and a tax increase if you buy more. An 'ideal' consumer will consider buying less gas to afford other things.

mike:

Jeff doesn't believe economies are rational and involve intelligent decision-making.

Mike:

You are right. Some people will choose to change their habits to avoid a tax increase. But it is unwise to underestimate the tendency of people to continue doing what they want to do when they have more money than they used to have (due to greater after tax income).

Lileks does an outstanding job today of exposing the superficial thinking behind this proposal.

Jeff beat me to the Lileks reference. It's a good one, go see it.

Lilek's best point is this - the gas tax is inflationary. The price of gas is built in to just about anything you buy. It isn't just a matter of driving less. Everything you buy has to be delivered from where it is made/grown to where you buy it using gas. Our economy runs on gas. Gas usage is not discretionary, it is not a luxury. Don't expect telecommuting to suddenly take off. Telecommuting will never take off, at least not for the average Joe who can't afford the gas tax. He either drives to work or loses his job. And pays more for everything else he buys, from food to clothes to toilet paper.

What problem are we trying to solve, anyhow?

Robert:

Inflating the price of gas is the point. We want to reduce dependence on fuels that are dirty and that we import.

The only way to do that is to move fewer people and goods shorter distances.

You're going to get awfully hungry during the winter in N. Hampshire, unless you're prepared to eat pretty much turnips and potatoes.

There is no alternative fuel to gasoline. NPR had a nice piece yesterday on the fatuity of fuel cells.

Now they can do wind, solar, OTEC, tides, whatever. None of 'em work.

Rebuild the rails--expensive enough gas will make it feasible.

All taxes are inflationary; I don't see why a gas tax is any worse than corporate income taxes, or personal ones, for that matter.

Actually, the railroads failed several times, including two or three before the internal combustion engine was built, again before a national road network was built, and yet again when gasoline was relatively much more expensive than it is now.

Price of cheapest gas in country in 1931--10 cents/gal v. average weekly income of $8.

Price today, $2 v. average weekly income of $500.

Disparity ratio in favor of gas, about 3:1.