It’s the sort of news that makes conservative anti-tax groups go ballistic. The one silver lining of the ailing economy is the lower gas and oil prices we’ve enjoyed in recent months. But rather than let consumers enjoy that respite and save a few bucks, a federal commission is arguing that now is the time to raise gasoline taxes.
Maddening, yes, but perhaps necessary. At the very least, the National Commission on Surface Transportation Financing, by making the federal gas tax hike proposal, is bringing attention to the nation’s decaying road and bridge infrastructure and the diminishing funds to pay for repairs. Fuel tax revenue has declined because we all heeded government and other advice and are driving less. The cost of road and bridge work spiked in recent years, largely because of demand for materials in China and India, and because of the higher cost of petroleum products associated with paving.
The most logical and equitable system for distributing the pain of paying for the work is to tie it to use. The commission is expected to call for the federal gasoline tax to be raised from the current 18.4 cents per gallon to 28.4 cents per gallon, and the federal diesel tax to be increased from the cur-rent 24.2 cents per gallon to about 36 cents per gallon. The commission also recommends states raise their fuel taxes and institute more tolls.
The Maine Legislature’s Transportation Committee and Department of Transportation have wrestled with this dilemma in recent years, and have not discovered any easy answers. Sen. Dennis Damon, D-Trenton, crafted a plan that would have put a portion of the sales tax on vehicles and the excise tax paid when a vehicle is registered into the road and bridge work pot, along with fuel taxes. But an important part of his plan was to use those funds to capitalize a sort of revolving bond fund to pay for long-term, big-scale projects. It’s a good approach, especially the reliance on bonding, which is a good buy in this era of low interest rates.
Raising fuel taxes will be a tough sell, though, coming so soon on the heels of the highest fuel costs in U.S. history. But short of devoting general tax revenue to paying for the work, a combination of user fees and consumption taxes — perhaps creatively structured in combination with bonding — is the best bet for fixing the circulation system of our economy, our roads and bridges.
On 1/5/09 at 6:21 AM,
vichet wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
The current downtick in gas prices is only a temporary fluke. They will rise again to even higher levels as the economy recovers with the new taxes. Soon only the upper middle -rich folks will be able to afford the luxury of putting gas in their tanks.
On 1/5/09 at 6:31 AM,
hankwilliams wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Raise the gas tax by a dollar and use the money to pay for public transportation.
On 1/5/09 at 6:56 AM,
Coolfusion wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Remember.. business and corporations DON'T pay taxes. The're just tax collectors. They just treat taxes as overhead and add the cost to the wholesale price. The consumer (YOU) end up paying the bill in cash.. and in your pension and 401k investments.
On 1/5/09 at 7:01 AM,
vichet wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
hankwilliams -"Raise the gas tax by a dollar and use the money to pay for public transportation." How about Public transportation in say "Alton" or "Meddybemps" or are you asking the people who live there to transfer their money to say Bangor or Portland?
On 1/5/09 at 9:20 AM,
pjramsay wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
America imports nearly 10 million barrels of oil per day. Rather than a per gallon tax at the pump, we should have a $5 per barrel tax on imported oil. That would be $50-million per day, $350-million per week. A year would give us $18.2-trillion or 6 times our entire yearly budget.
The existing taxes on gas and diesel could stay as is. Thus, irregardless of the price of a barrel of oil the tax would remain the same. If the price of gas goes up again (as we all know it will), the public will reduce the number of miles driven. The only response the government would have is to, guess what, raise the gas tax again.
The oil companies have profited immensely. And yes, they will pass this $5 tax on to the public. But we have taught big oil a valuable lesson - the higher the price, the less we buy. Hopefully, we have taught Washington an important lesson as well - keep your hands out of our pockets and read the newspaper.
Some of us who pay the country's bills are thinking for you.
On 1/5/09 at 9:42 AM,
SteveyDee wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
pjramsay, sounds like a good idea.
On 1/5/09 at 10:57 AM,
vichet wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
pjramsay... Best suggestion I've seen posted here ever.
On 1/5/09 at 2:04 PM,
hankwilliams wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Vichet, whatever works to de-centralize the place of the private automobile in our transportation picture should be considered. If this means that rural areas are a little less subsidized by larger towns, so be it. People in Bangor pay for the upkeep of roads that lead to small towns, so people who live in small towns should help pay for expanded bus service in and between population centers.
PJRamsay, "irregardless" is not a word. But you are right that higher gas prices discourage driving. Did you know that a round trip between Bangor and
Rockland on a comfortable Concord Trailways bus costs only $30? The private automobile is the most subsidized form of transportation there is. We need to invest in alternatives.
On 1/5/09 at 2:11 PM,
SteveyDee wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Bus service from cooper to bangor sounds like fun.
On 1/5/09 at 9:30 PM,
vichet wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
You dont get out much do you SteveyDee?
On 1/6/09 at 6:56 AM,
SteveyDee wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I'm not allowed. Safer for everyone else.
On 1/6/09 at 9:51 PM,
vichet wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I see from a recent news article that the Peoples Republic of China is cutting their tax rate... to stimulate income growth for the lower income groups... You don't suppose the Communists are on to something do you.
On 1/10/09 at 8:27 AM,
wallyo wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Tax free speech
On 1/10/09 at 8:29 AM,
wallyo wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
We cant get out much up here in the Tundra , it costs too much.
Post a comment about this story
You must be logged in to post a comment.
click here to log in.
