Thomas Friedman recently
wrote that we should institute an additional $1 per gallon gas tax, phased in at 5 cents a month. To me, this is the most sensible of the new taxes - except for 3% on all income earned over a certain amount (Obama says $250,000, I would be fine just over $500,000. It's only income earned over that amount, not all income earned. But I digress). One dollar is a lot, but smaller increments are a perfect way to raise revenue without the average person really feeling it. Starting at 5 cents gallon, that's probably up to $1 every time you fill your tank. However, the benefits to the country would be huge. We could pump money into infrastructure, public transportation, clean air, and green technology all while reducing our dependence on middle eastern oil. Friedman compares our politics in the middle east as building a house at the bottom of a volcano that is about to blow. In his words:
Legislating a higher energy price today that takes effect in the future, notes the Princeton economist Alan Blinder, would trigger a shift in buying and investment well before the tax kicks in. With one little gasoline tax, we can make ourselves more economically and strategically secure, help sell more Chevy Volts and free ourselves to openly push for democratic values in the Middle East without worrying anymore that it will harm our oil interests. Yes, it will mean higher gas prices, but prices are going up anyway, folks. Let’s capture some it for ourselves.
Even if these goals are not that important and you think that the tax might really affect some people, it means fewer cars on the road, less traffic and congestion, and less productive time lost commuting. To me, that's a win-win situation.
5 comments:
Wait a minute, isn't the incremental increase intended to make it less noticeable and more manageable for people? Isn't that counter productive to your last paragraph and Friedman's long-standing point that we need to raise the tax to force people into the rationality re: fossil fuels? Shouldn't the tax shock people and force them to realize and not let them adjust to the tax?
Incidentally, while I acknowledge that OPEC is a cartel and therefore free market arguments should be analyzed carefully, what is wrong with letting the current price at the pump and the market that sets the price do the work? It may be giving "the people" too much credit but you'd think that watching the volatility of the price at the pump, (+9% yesterday!) based on international events, would be enough to convince people that we need to unhinge ourselves from that albatross.
Just a thought.
I was trying to get address the general mindset in our country with that last paragraph. It is unacceptable to even broach the subject of an increased tax in this country at any time, for any reason, and for any amount. Remember when all this tea party nonsense started about "taxation without representation" when the country just had a huge election that was followed by tax cuts? Wait for the uproar when anyone even mentions raising the gasoline tax.
As for your argument aobut market setting the price, please allow the cynical view. International events will not lead to us unhinging ourselves the "albatross." There is simply too much money being made by big oil and too many people beholden to their interests. It just won't happen unless gas hits $5/gallon or higher.
If American corporations start paying their fair share of taxes to the IRS like the rest of us, that would solve a great deal of our financial woes in this country. Check out US Uncut, . http://www.usuncut.org/
and
http://www.thenation.com/article/158282/how-build-progressive-tea-party
Also, if election reform (my oldest complaint) actually took place in which:
1. No candidate/politician had to worry about gathering a "war chest" to be advertised.
2. Candidates had to participate in REAL debates in REAL town meetings that are televised as a public service, and not for profit.
A lot of the tragedies passed for laws, both nationally and locally, would not take place, IMHO.
Thinking of John Lennon's "Imagine."
hey to burst your bubble but this statement " it means fewer cars on the road, less traffic and congestion, and less productive time lost commuting" is completely wrong. There is statistically no correlation to gas prices and traffic and the number of cars on the road. Perhaps to the number of hybrids and new car PURCHASES but not on the road. In fact, higher gas prices means you are less likely to upgrade to a more energy efficient car.
Additionally, like sales tax, I am against any tax that is proportionally unfair to the less privileged. Percentage wise you are hurting the poor WAY more than the upper quarter of americans. Faulty logic
Anonymous, I'm speaking mostly from my own observations. As someone who uses public transportation to get to and from work everyday, I noticed a significant spike in ridership on bus and rail when gas hit $4/gallon a few years back.
Also, I'm sorry to say it, but USA Today and Gallup disagree with your statistical correlation. A quick internet search - very scientific, i know - revealed that higher gas prices DID have an effect on miles driven and the desire to buy energy efficient cares. Check it out:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-05-08-gasprices_N.htm
Post a Comment