I'm a bit late on this one -- but, wouldn't you know it, as soon as The New York Times puts its editorials behind a subscription-only wall, they publish something worth reading: semi-libertarian John Tierney waxing rhapsodic about gas taxes (sorry, the link is subscription only).
To summarize, Tierney argues for a 50 cent per gallon gas tax, with all receipts used to fund private Social Security accounts. This, he says, would reduce gas consumption, pollution, congestion, and all the other costs that drivers impose on the rest of society, while enhancing retirement revenue. And if gas-tax revenues are split evenly among all citizens, the poor (who drive little) will get far more out of the deal than they put in.
I'll ignore his Social Security proposal -- which isn't a real proposal, just a sketch of an idea -- except to say that I'm skeptical, but (hopefully) open-minded. But what's important to note here is this: Tierney is calling for gas taxes to be used for something other than transportation. And that seems like a really big deal to me.
Traditionally, gas taxes are earmarked for roads and highway spending: The federal gas tax is devoted almost entirely to transportation projects. Likewise, Washington state's gas tax receipts must be spent on highways. It's in the state constitution, even.
All of which means that gas taxes are mostly used to build new roads and "improve" old ones -- which encourages more driving. That's good news for oil companies, auto manufacturers, and for people who really like to spend time in their cars; but obviously bad in lots of other ways.
The thing is, gas taxes are fairly unique in this regard. Sales taxes aren't earmarked for programs to increase sales; income taxes aren't earmarked for programs to enhance income; so why are gas taxes, and gas taxes alone, treated as a dedicated funding source that can only be used to increase driving and, indirectly, gas consumption? It doesn't make much sense -- and, obviously, it's a major reason that our society spends so much money on roads and transportation generally.
It doesn't have to be that way. There's no reason that gas taxes can't be treated as just another general revenue source, just like sales and income taxes; or that they can't be earmarked for something other than transportation. That, rather than his thoughts about Social Security, seems to be the important thing to take away from Tierney's article.
Comments
View as Flat
accel2 Posted 6:30 am
11 Oct 2005
Agreed
I agree with everything you've said. I guess people may see transportation as a specific enough sector (as opposed to "sales" or "income") that they feel it's appropriate those revenues go to something transportation-related. A good start, though, would be putting more of that towards alternative modes of transportation (like transit) which have positive benefits (many of which Tierney mentioned) besides just mobility.
Permalink
Payton Chung Posted 6:47 am
11 Oct 2005
The diversions
Fights over "diversions" of the gas tax began with the first diversions, to fund transit back in the 1970s, and continue with every single TEA revision. The auto-oil-pavers lobby still bitterly opposes shifting any funds from the gas tax -- their sacred "highway trust fund" -- to anything else, even other transportation-related uses.
The 4.6-cent (?) gas tax that made it into Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction package (as a replacement for proposals to do either a carbon or BTU tax) is the only federal gas tax that goes to the general budget.
.pc
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:12 pm
11 Oct 2005
But Gas Tax Should ...
go to transportation. However, it should be used to build more and better PUBLIC transportation, not more environmentally destructive roads. Ideally, public transit should be free, paid for by gas taxes.
Also, while it's great to hear a libertarian (even a "semi" one) advocating more taxes, $.50/gallon is far too low. $5/gallon would come a lot closer to meeting the goals outline above.
Permalink