June 22, 2007
HERE'S A HINT--NO ONE:
Who'll Have Courage to Call for Gas Taxes as Energy Answer? (Mort Kondracke, 6/22/07, Real Clear Politics)
A hefty hike in gas taxes -- better yet, in taxes on all carbon-based fuels -- will accomplish far more than mandates and subsidies for what everyone claims to want: “energy independence” and “clean energy.” [...]Sensible though the idea is -- and despite evidence that $3 per gallon gas already is causing Americans to move from SUVs to hybrids -- gas and carbon taxes have not even been broached in the current energy debate in Congress.
Nor is President Bush or any candidate for his job advocating them, though all say they support freeing the United States from dependency on foreign oil and improving the environment.
It certainly would take courage. The instant reaction of voters to any tax increase is “no.” The last poll I could find on the subject, a New York Times/CBS poll in 2006, showed that 85 percent of voters opposed a gas tax hike.
And yet, 55 percent said they’d support such an increase if it reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and 59 percent said they’d support it if it resulted in less consumption or eased the threat of global warming.
Which leaves out the most important reason for a consumption tax on carbons: offsetting it with reductions in taxes on income. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 22, 2007 8:34 AM
They're not going to do that.
If W wanted to have some fun, he'd propose it.
Posted by: Sandy P at June 22, 2007 12:04 PMShifting the tax burden from income tax to a gas tax should have been done after 9/11. It was a wasted opportunity. I still think it could be done - but income tax reductions will have to be on the low end. No breaks on the other brackets. And with gas prices so high, it could not be as steep as it could be.
But baby steps.
The important point is not to sell it alone, but as a comprehensive package of steps needed to win the war on terror.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 22, 2007 12:13 PMGas prices aren't high.
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2007 3:26 PMWhat are you smoking??????
Higher gas taxes--like VAT taxes--won't replace the income tax. It'll just be another tax in addition to the [unchanged] income tax.
why?
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2007 7:06 PMBecause of the XVI Ammendment and the nature of any central state.
Posted by: fred at June 22, 2007 10:18 PMWe have the lowest federal tax burden since the '50s. You misjudge our state.
Posted by: oj at June 22, 2007 11:04 PMAre you listening to what's being discussed in D.C. these days? It's all dependent on the party in power. Thoughts and discussions about tinkering with the tax code in the name of 'fairness' is hitting a crescendo. Every time the new congressional majority opens it's mouth over the topic the DJIA goes down fifty points. The payroll tax is still the highest it's ever been as is the budget.
Posted by: fred at June 23, 2007 10:39 AMYes, the majority just cut taxes and is seeking to do so again in the AMT fix. The budget is, to the contrary, below 20% of GDP, so not particularly high and absurdly low for a country at war.
Posted by: oj at June 23, 2007 11:28 AMNo. The point is to replace the AMT (remember: Tax cuts need to be 'paid for'). 20% of GDP may not be particularly high in your mind if your historical perspective only encompasses the last 70 years. It's not particularly low either. Crazy tax schemes are being floated throughout congress right now.
Posted by: fred at June 23, 2007 11:36 AMThe GOP isn't going to let them pay for it. We'll just get another cut.
Historical perspective here is even less important than global--since no one is going back in time. Our spending and taxes are extraordinarily low for a developed nation.
Posted by: oj at June 23, 2007 3:10 PM