Uh, cancel that gas tax holiday. Attytood has already said that the gas-tax "vacation" boosted by Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton is a silly idea, and today come two Wharton profs who believe that America would be better served by people paying higher taxes on petrol products:
How do we know that the price of gas is too low? The current price of gas doesn't cover the true cost of using gasoline. The tax portion of the current price is insufficient to provide the funds necessary to maintain our roads and bridges, and the non-tax portion fails to cover the environmental cost of using gasoline.
Because the price of gas is too low, we are using too much gas and building too much driving into our lives by neglecting transit investment and encouraging urban sprawl. So let's put aside this talk of holidays and talk about raising the price of gas by increasing the gas tax.
"But wait a minute," you say, "we can't afford to buy gas at the current price." Not true. We can afford it, we are affording it - and that's the essence of our problem. If the price were still higher, we couldn't afford to buy the quantities of gas we're buying today, so we would conserve - not just because conservation is the right thing to do, but because it would be the only thing we could afford to do.
I have mixed feelings -- the short-term economic pain on many low-income Americans would be considerable. The authors cite the example of Philadelphia in noting that many poor people don't drive, but Philly with its extensive mass transit system is something of exception. What about poor people in, say, West Virginia? Given the state of our current political debate, opposing an ill-conceived gas-tax holiday is about the most courage anyone can muster now, anyway.
Continuing a system which requires revenue for infrastructure requires taxes. The taxes currently collected are insufficient. That isn't sustainable
The current system requires importation of foreign oil, subjects us to political repercussions such as fighting wars in the ME. Given the trillions we're spending in the ME to fight such a war = not sustainable.
Our current level of automobile use causes unsustainable environmental damage.
The reality of finite reserves makes current trends of demand for oil unsustainable
Granted, funding public transportation is unsustainable in some sense. Public transportation requires government subsidization: prices that would make public transportation revenue neutral would put it out of reach of many. But when you figure the "costs" of the unsustainability of our current dependency on automobile travel and add in the indirect costs of health costs do to auto accidents, law enforcement, etc., it is much, much less sustainable than public transportation
db so kindly explains that the problem with public transportation is that it doesn't address problems such as commuting from one suburb to another suburban community. That scenario, obviously, covers a small percentage of miles traveled; so, the impact of those scenarios is relatively negligible - but saying that is a fixed problem is incredibly short-sighted. The same could have been said about horses being insufficient to address such travel needs. Technology solved that problem. So, that goes back to your point about unintended consequences, legatus. I would disagree with you about the unintended (I presume in your opinion negative) consequence of publicly funded education. Our country build its supremacy through public education. But even if we say that we don't know for sure about the relative unintended consequences of increased funding of public transportation - what we have now ain't sustainable.
"Oh, and your 'question' about supporting government helping things that affect 'everybody'" That was not my question. I asked, "why are you you unwilling to allow the gov't to continue helping drivers, but want the gov't to help with health care & education?"
Btw, simply because conservatives (or liberals) voted for someone doesn't make that person conservative (or liberal).
Actually a good question, legatus.
One reason is that you have to look at the long-term effects and unintended consequences. Conservatives talk about creating a "culture of dependency." While I think that phenomenon is vastly overstated when you look at the actual numbers involved, but it is to some degree a legitimate issue. On the other hand, the unintended consequences of supporting artificially low gas prices are hugely negative. Further, there could be ways to adjust gasoline taxes to help those who can least afford it. So, I think it is possible to be consistent with the liberal concept that the poorest among us should get the most help from the government (and that in the long run, that will benefit us all). Third, this is not a zero sum game. The money that is collected from a gasoline prices that reflect the real cost of private autos could be used to provide other options as a compensation.
Exactly. So why are you you unwilling to allow the gov't to continue helping drivers, but want the gov't to help with health care & education?
So, db, I guess people would rather find options to driving long distances in their cars? Oh. I thought you were just explaining that in your vast experience of interviewing "working stiffs" on the subject, you determined that people just like driving.
I've got no problem with more telecommunicating - but talk about options that leave behind the working stiff. How's that cashier at Wal-mart going to check people out from home, db? Further, how is that shift going to take place as long as automobile travel is supported through artificially low gas prices?
How are you going to come up with cost-effective and time-effective mass transit to cover a commute from Downingtown to Collegeville?
There is no one size fits all solution. Granted, examples like Europe and Japan don't apply directly since the distances that need to be traveled in this country are greater - but solving that kind of problem, given today's transportation, are not insurmountable. But even if the Downingtown to Collegeville commute problem isn't solved by better public transport, the overall dimensions of the problem are the dramatically changed by providing better transportation to hubs and providing better transportation with urban centers. Again, that isn't happening because the funds/leadership/will don't exist. And that situation will be perpetuated as long as gasoline prices are kept low artificially.
No disagreement there.
You think there should be more mass transit and less private driving. Yup
So you thereby engage in the specious argument that drivers are not paying their way. They aren't specious. There is no way that drivers are paying their way. Just. Isn't. Happening. I've stated it numerous times above. The taxes collected don't pay for infrastructure maintenance. Not. Even. Close. And you dismiss the the indirect costs categorically, but I notice that you haven't supported that contention with < b> any substantial argument.
So you thereby engage in the specious argument that drivers are not paying their way. I like driving too. But I don't mind paying for the option. And I'd like to have better public transportation options. And in my experience, the desire to have better options is not exclusive to those who live in urban environments. In my experience (I lived in Appalachia as well as poorer urban neighborhoods), most poorer Americans like to have options for saving money and improving the natural environment. I don't want to make driving beyond the "reach of the average working stiff." I believe that subsidizing auto travel at the cost of offering other options (a non-free market policy, btw), does no one any good, and is a dead end policy that locks us into increased debt, increased destruction to our environment, huge opportunity cost (by not taking the lead on many fronts), and future dependence on foreign oil.
I'm sure that the "large number of Americans" appreciate you speaking for them. But tell me, db, where did you find the time to ask all of them about whether they'd object to having better public transport to use for, say, commuting to and from work? No one's saying take their cars away from them, only that they should have the option of taking viable public transport.
Government should stop utilizing its resources to favor one option rather than the other? BY TAKING MONEY FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS IN THE FORM OF HIGHER GAS TAXES?
And here you are suffering from the same ill-logic as Xi Jah. Current taxes are highly insufficient to cover the cost of private automobile travel. You can casually dismiss the evidence of that, but it is overwhelming. And at the very least, the gasoline tax only covers 60% of the cost of road infrastructure. That means that the government is already taking money from other taxes, or simply borrowing the money, to support private automobile travel.
Try to understand this, db. Right now, Americans are using their cars without paying the real costs. THAT MEANS THAT GOVERNMENT IS COMPLICIT IN THE PUBLIC NOT ASSUMING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. The government should be requiring people to pay as they go.
Why is this so hard to understand, db? Of course the lack of interest is related to the lack of will. But the point is that the lack of interest exists because the price of gasoline is artificially reduced due to (1) government influence from politicians who have direct ties to the oil industry, and (2) government support which deflects the true cost of automobile travel from being reflected in the price of gasoline.
Your side seeks to use taxes to force these people to bend to your will.
I don't know exactly who "my side" is, but if I understand your point correctly, you're wrong. I'm not saying that anyone should be "bent to my will." I'm simply saying that government should stop utilizing its resources to favor one option rather than the other. The way our resources are utilized should be adjusted to reflect the disproportionate favor given to private auto travel at the expense of public transportation. Let people who want to travel cars pay an appropriate price for doing so, and take the steps necessary to provide those who don't want to pay the true cost another option - public transportation that is actually a viable option.
And BTW, a public transportation initiative would provide a huge economic stimulus in terms of spending and the provision of jobs. It's time for this country to take a leadership role once again. There's no reason that we don't have the best public transportation system in the world.
Essentially, when you refuse to increase those taxes, then, you are increasing the level of "help" that the government is providing to the society. I know this is a hard concept to understand, Xi Jah, but the money does have to come from somewhere.
Current gas taxes cover only 60% of the cost to our government for building roads and other infrastructure needed to support our automobile system. And that doesn't include myriad other costs: the cost of highway traffic enforcement, the cost of municipal parking, the cost of police investigation of stolen automobiles, the indirect costs to to the health impact of automobile emissions and traffic accidents.
And unlike "straight talking" John McCain, I won't retract that statement and lamely claim I'm only referring to the first Gulf War. "Straight talker," yeah.
Precisely, Pleeby. And as long as this thread continues, you won't get a response to that question.
The whole point is that the gas price is artificially low for Americans due to political wrangling (or I guess no one's seen the photos of Bush holding hands with Saudis?). It's time for that artificial, non-free market condition to end. In addition, it's time for the price of gasoline to reflect the true cost of private automobile travel to our society. It's not just the repair of roads, it's the cost of building them, it's the cost impact on health care due to accidents, it's the enormous cost to our environment, it's the cost to productivity in terms of time people spend in traffic jams, it's the economic and lifestyle costs associated suburban sprawl.
First, there's no reason why higher gas taxes couldn't have provisions to help poor people or people who need to travel for a living. Secondly, the money collected could be used to support vast development of public transportation. Better public transportation is, simply, the answer to all of these problems.
And who does the leading economic power in the world, with the best technical capabilities, have public transportation systems that are far inferior to those of many other countries? Because of a lack of will and a lack of leadership. The lack of will would change if gasoline prices were not artificially kept low, and even more so if gas were taxed in a way reflective of its true cost to our society.
Unfortunately, the lack of leadership is a tough nut to crack - although I have hope that maybe Obama might have enough guts to take a step in the right direction.
who. like our host, make more than enough money to not cringe every time they pass a gss station, and are in a position to not have to worry about gas prices.
what we need is an arrogance tax hike --- make it cost a lot more to show contempt for the concerns of working people. Bunch and all these Wharton professor types would take a big chunk out of our national debt if we taxed self-serving pronouncements like this one.
For what it's worth, Archie, I'm convinced also.
Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.
E-mail Will by clicking here.
PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...
...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.
Thanks.
- Atrios
- Kiko's House
- Suburban Guerilla
- Booman Tribune
- All-Spin Zone
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Afro-Netizen
- Rowhouse Logic
- MyDD
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- iFlipFlop
- CorrenteWire
- upyernoz
- Tattered Coat
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- Slacktivist
- Citizen Mom
- The Next Mayor
- Philly Future
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Young Philly Politics
- Phillyblog
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Phawker
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Keystone Blog
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- BlankBaby
- Above Average Jane
- Phillyist
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- The Clog
- Josh Marshall
- Daily Kos
- Juan Cole
- Oliver Willis
- Andy Borowitz
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- BuzzFlash
- Raw Story
- Cursor
- Crooks and Liars
- Swing State Project
- Kevin Drum
- Talk Left
- AmericaBlog
- Hullabaloo
- Mad Kane
- Think Progress
- Jesus' General
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Majikthise
- Echidne of the Snakes
- David Sirota
- Glenn Greenwald
- TBogg
- Fire Dog Lake
- Taylor Marsh
- Matthew Yglesias
- Jon Swift
- Drudge Report
- Beer Leaguer
- The 700 Level
- Dick Polman
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Shallow Center
- Philling Station
- Phillies Nation
- A Citizen's Blog
- The Good Phight
- Romenesko
- Editor and Publisher
- Pressthink
- Buzzmachine
- The Inksniffer
- Media Bloodhound
- Eat the Press
- Mickey Kaus
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Blinq
- The Corner
- Instapundit
- Andrew Sullivan
- Free Republic
- James Taranto
- Blonde Sagacity
- ScrappleFace
- Blogorrhea
Get it now
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
- Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Marketplace | Celebrations
