VA Gov. McDonnell to eliminate gas tax, tax alternative fuel vehicles instead

[Cain]

Look, Wildcat, in addition to being wrong about non-drivers overpaying for roads, you're endorsing a system where Virginians subsidize non-Virginians who are passing through. As for truckers, they have their own agreements, licensing and taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fuel_Tax_Agreement

If they're not paying enough, then raise taxes on them. Those taxes will then be passed along to consumers purchasing transported products.

 

[Random]

Does your mail come via light rail? Your furniture? Do police, ambulance, and fire have access to a road in front of your home? How about when you buy furniture or other items too bulky to take on the train, do they arrive by pack mule or via a truck on the road? When you have work done how do the workers and material get to your house? And what % of the things you buy everyday haven't traveled on a road at some point? I'm guessing it's very close to zero.

But every single one of those indirect benefits that I recieve from roads are also recieved by the automobile driver. Assume X is the per person cost for the indirect benefits of living in a society with roads. I am responsible for X dollars of wear and tear on the roads, while the other guy is responsible for X dollars of wear and tear on the roads plus whatever damage he does when he himself drives. I would be subsidizing his driving.

If you want to argue that pedestrians and people who use public transportation should help subsidize people who use private automobiles, go ahead. But I am just not causing the same amount of damage to the roads as the person driving a personal automobile.

 

[Babbylonian]

The personal vehicle does negligible wear and tear to the road compared to heavy vehicles like the bus you ride.

I can't speak for anyone else but the buses I ride compensate for the additional wear and tear by carrying many, many people along their routes. The average personal vehicle is going to typically carry no more than four people at a time (more often one or two) and will drive on more roads to do it.

Again, I'm not necessarily against general tax increases to pay for roads if the money is really needed. What I'm against is eliminating a tax that is useful for more than just paying for infrastructure maintenance - mainly discouraging what has become the profligate waste of natural resources by those who, for example, think that they need an SUV to drive alone to and from work every day. Ideally, any personal automobile that gets under 50 mpg (city) would be banned; since that's unrealistic at this point, keeping the taxes on gasoline nice and high should be a priority.

 

[jj]

I don't see the problem with that. Everything bought at the retail level has to travel on roads, even if you don't have a car you still use roads and are dependent on them.

So, then, eliminate the gas tax. Right. Wow, you spin in circles.

Beam me up Mr. Peabody, this mine isn't big enough.

 

[jj]

Seriously does anyone here actually read the website? These aren't fees levied in an attempt to stimulate or deter either kind of fuel; they reassessed income and expenditures. They folded IN the taxes on oil fuels into the SUT...

You guys...you used to be smarter than this.

Intention is irrelevant.

The obvious effect is to discourage alternative fuels. Don't try to obscure the obvious, please.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Was the tax created in an effort to promote conservation or was it just meant to provide funds for infrastructure?

Your basic argument is that ignorance or denial of externalities is sufficient reason to support policy that encourages externalities.

I appreciate exploring counter argument and playing devil's advocate, but I don't believe you will seriously hold this position if you honestly reflect on it. Even well intentioned ideas pave the road to hell, or so goes the old saying. I think that anyone honestly concerned with pragmatic consequence will agree that policy ought be judged on its actual impact rather than an imperfect or dishonest impact encouraged by its promoters. I can't imagine you honestly could disagree.

 

[Lowpro]

Absolutely not. For all you know the gas tax achieved its goal. Cars now use gas more efficiently therefor the law achieved its purpose and now is more sensible to repurpose by folding into the SUT because it doesn't achieve it's established goal of generating revenue for infrastructure well enough.

I guess the battle of ideology here is whether the tax should be kept because its side effect (which I could argue has already been achieved) may reduce the use of gas which is environmentally desirable. It would be tantamount to a cigarette tax meant to eschew use.

Go make that bill with that purpose then.


As for you jj I don't think a 100 dollar fee is meant to discourage the use of alternative fuels in any meaningful way; if it's a hundred dollars a year that scares you away (considering the amount of breaks already for alternative fuel cars) then you've stumped me. The rationale behind the fee makes sense in its declared purpose and trying to warp it to a fee meant to punish alternative fuels is spin. If it means anything 27 states already put a fee on alternative fuels.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Absolutely not. For all you know the gas tax achieved its goal. Cars now use gas more efficiently therefor the law achieved its purpose and now is more sensible to repurpose by folding into the SUT because it doesn't achieve it's established goal of generating revenue for infrastructure well enough.

Are you claiming that burning gasoline no longer causes major externalities, or that consumers cannot be further incentivized to use technologies that decrease overall externalities?

 

[Lowpro]

Of course not. You're never going to eliminate gasoline use unless you eliminate the car altogether (Well the combustion engine rather). If we're taking the pulse of this externality you could say "mission accomplished" already: Vehicles are now designed to save gas to a point where the gas tax for Virginia is rendered to little effect on that externality but a problem is that it also has little effect on its goal: provide the state with revenue for its transportation.

So I don't support keeping a law like the gas tax around if it doesn't do its job of generating the revenue I need; I'd need to change something. I could reanalyze the gas tax to increase it. Apparently the state tried to impose regional authorities to impose taxes and fees (and earlier idea I mentioned) however that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2008 so you can't do that. But you have the SUT which is already established, fluctuates with the economy, and best of all everyone who is a consumer pays into it; you have a reliable revenue source. Doing this would be good decision for the purpose of generating revenue; the purpose which the gas tax can't do anymore.

So again what you want turtles is a tax on gasoline in such a way that we tax cigarettes. You want it to be designed to discourage its use and to encourage any alternative to it. That's the design you want; go make it. Between keeping an externality and actually making the law do what it's supposed to do I think a good lawmaker would draft law based on a logos, not on a happy accident. And if there is a happy accident you take credit for it and say it was your intention all along by making it its own logos.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Of course not. You're never going to eliminate gasoline use unless you eliminate the car altogether (Well the combustion engine rather). If we're taking the pulse of this externality you could say "mission accomplished" already: Vehicles are now designed to save gas to a point where the gas tax for Virginia is rendered to little effect on that externality but a problem is that it also has little effect on its goal: provide the state with revenue for its transportation.

So you're claiming that mileage is so high in Virginia now that the gas tax fails to both reduce externalities and raise revenue? And you agree that burning gasoline still causes major externalities. If you actually believe these things, why would you not simply increase the gasoline tax?

I could reanalyze the gas tax to increase it. Apparently the state tried to impose regional authorities to impose taxes and fees (and earlier idea I mentioned) however that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2008 so you can't do that.

I'm not sure I understand. The tax rate was constitutional until the most recent attempt to raise it? Or were the regional authorities imposed for taxes and fees actually not necessary to raise the gasoline tax?

But you have the SUT which is already established, fluctuates with the economy, and best of all everyone who is a consumer pays into it; you have a reliable revenue source. Doing this would be good decision for the purpose of generating revenue; the purpose which the gas tax can't do anymore.

I don't know how much the gasoline tax generates, but I'm willing to bet it's well above zero. If it is already established, fluctuates with the economy, and all drivers pay into it, why remove it? Especially considering that folks are used to it...

So again what you want turtles is a tax on gasoline in such a way that we tax cigarettes. You want it to be designed to discourage its use and to encourage any alternative to it. That's the design you want; go make it.

Yes. That's exactly what I want. I want what already exists. If the tax needs to be increased to be effective in shaping consumer behavior and raising revenue, then be definition raising it will not cause undue burden on consumers. So raise it if necessary.

This thread isn't about crafting new tax policy. This thread is about the removal of a tax that clearly reduces externalities. The entire argument in the OP is that it doesn't make sense to replace a tax that reduces externalities with one that does not. And honestly, there's not any room for argument there. It's really very simple. I don't mean to sound aggressive here, but I really can't understand what the hell you're even arguing.

And so I'm just going to come out and ask it: Do you believe that Earth is warming due to human-caused fossil fuel emissions, that reductions in fossil fuel emissions will significantly reduce future warming, that climate change damages the natural environment, and that economic losses from future warming will greatly outweigh the costs to reduce emissions now? In other words, do you believe that there is a clear need to aggressively reduce fossil fuel emissions as soon as possible?

 

[Lowpro]

Before anything else I want you to stop with the environmental shtick. Yes I have knowledge that vehicle exhaust contributes to climate change. I'm a little wary on calling it global warming because I find climate change to be more accurate. The exhaust from cars and other sources keeps more energy within our system and that energy changes our climate from a previous norm. Don't ever bring this up again because while that's important a state also needs to fund for roads; not just maintenance but also new infrastructure. The gas tax didn't do it, and raising it may not bring in the revenue needed to fund new project. I don't know where VA sits but I know Maryland's gas tax barely pays just for maintenance and they cannot get new funds for projects even with a gas tax increase.

The reason you would use the SUT is simple: You'll gain more revenues through an increase in the SUT than you would through the gas tax. You would have to raise the gas tax a lot to meet the same increase through the SUT. The gas tax won't raise as much as you grow than the SUT unless you raise it a lot. And if you raised the gas tax more you will probably see a few things happen. People will use gas less (this is what you want) and it will cost more disproportionately to people who need to use more gas (we're assuming most vehicle use isn't recreational). If less gas is used then that's less tax revenues so you again run into the same problem you had before you increased the gas tax. You can increase it again which again effects those who use gas more disproportionately but overall you're not going to get the revenues that the SUT would especially if the state's economy grows.

Maybe, just maybe VA either hit that limit or realizes they may which is why they folded it into the SUT. There is no argument against this as far as increasing revenue for transportation, it's going to work better than a gas tax that you keep increasing.

However you are correct that removing the state gas tax (again people will still pay the federal gas tax which does NOT go towards the state's infrastructure so again and diesel still pays the state gas tax) may reduce the manufacturing and habit externalities. That's because the gas tax has an effect on usage; if gas costs too much people find ways to use less or none at all. This is good for the environment because as I mentioned at the top exhaust contributes to climate change.

However between raising revenues for transportation to service the state by the SUT increase or by the gas tax increase the clear winner is the SUT increase. There is no argument on this. You'll lose some of the externality effect.

So if you want the externality back you can either go back to a gas tax increase which won't provide the revenues you need in favor of the externality effect or maybe blend the two: VA made their choice. If it means anything I just emailed them about it and maybe I'll get a response.

The value of the externality in this gas tax I cannot assess myself. Because there are probably more factors than just the state gas tax I don't know how much it will slow the momentum of a shift to alternative fuel cars and higher efficiency engines.

I don't think I've missed anything in my response and I want to make sure I didn't because I don't want to give you the opportunity to have a reason to ignore the purpose of the transportation revenue reform. If you want your gas tax with a logos of curbing use, then go make that law. The gas tax originally want meant to be used for transportation revenue not for curbing use. The revenue would go to projects such as light rail and public transport all of which also curb gasoline use; the same externality you want which you're going to get IF you are able to generate the revenues and the gas tax (even an increase) won't be as effective at generating that revenue. Basically don't hold your transportation revenue hostage with the externality. That bulletwound in the foot's going to bleed a lot. Now I'm sure you'll say something witty like "not as much as when <insert environmental effect here> does" but again I'd say handle it with another law: break the tie on the transportation revenue and go make your law

ETA: Oh forgot this:

I could reanalyze the gas tax to increase it. Apparently the state tried to impose regional authorities to impose taxes and fees (and earlier idea I mentioned) however that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2008 so you can't do that.

I mentioned earlier in the thread how generating revenues by use could be done so that the higher road users (not necessarily gas users but it should probably run together) would be taxed more. VA tried to initiate a plan to make these agencies that would do that however it got struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[WildCat]

Look, Wildcat, in addition to being wrong about non-drivers overpaying for roads, you're endorsing a system where Virginians subsidize non-Virginians who are passing through. As for truckers, they have their own agreements, licensing and taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fuel_Tax_Agreement

If they're not paying enough, then raise taxes on them. Those taxes will then be passed along to consumers purchasing transported products.

1. I never said non-drivers were overpaying for roads.
2. Virginians already subsidize non-Virginians who are just passing through. Hell Illinois subsidizes heavy trucks just passing through, and pass through is all they do since we have higher gas taxes than all bordering states. Few truck stops in Illinois, as soon as you cross that border it's truck stop city.
2. The additional licensing and taxes does not make up for the extra damage they do to roads.

 

[WildCat]

But every single one of those indirect benefits that I recieve from roads are also recieved by the automobile driver. Assume X is the per person cost for the indirect benefits of living in a society with roads. I am responsible for X dollars of wear and tear on the roads, while the other guy is responsible for X dollars of wear and tear on the roads plus whatever damage he does when he himself drives. I would be subsidizing his driving.

If you want to argue that pedestrians and people who use public transportation should help subsidize people who use private automobiles, go ahead. But I am just not causing the same amount of damage to the roads as the person driving a personal automobile.

I'm saying that we are all equally dependent on roads, whether we drive or not. You jumping in a taxi doesn't wear down the road any less than a driver driving himself. And heavy vehicles like buses run their routes whether there's passengers on them or not, and they do far more damage to a road than a 4,000 lb passenger car. Someone who has their groceries delivered by truck because they don't drive is still using the roads.

In short, I think there's a negligible difference between drivers and non-drivers both in their dependence on roads and the wear and tear they put on roads. If we had no private automobiles we'd still need all the roads we have now.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

as a resident of northern Virginia, basically this is another way for Richmond to shift the state's tax burden to us.

 

[WildCat]

I can't speak for anyone else but the buses I ride compensate for the additional wear and tear by carrying many, many people along their routes.

What about the buses that are nearly empty?

The average personal vehicle is going to typically carry no more than four people at a time (more often one or two) and will drive on more roads to do it.

So? Those roads still need to exist.

Again, I'm not necessarily against general tax increases to pay for roads if the money is really needed. What I'm against is eliminating a tax that is useful for more than just paying for infrastructure maintenance - mainly discouraging what has become the profligate waste of natural resources by those who, for example, think that they need an SUV to drive alone to and from work every day. Ideally, any personal automobile that gets under 50 mpg (city) would be banned; since that's unrealistic at this point, keeping the taxes on gasoline nice and high should be a priority.

How do you presume to know what people use their SUVs for? If you see me driving my SUV alone can you see the hundreds of pounds of tools I need to have with me at work? Do you see the equipment I have to occasionally tow? The lumber, doors, and other stuff I often have to haul?

Probably you don't, and just cluck your disapproval from your bus seat based on incorrect assumptions.

 

[Babbylonian]

What about the buses that are nearly empty?

What about them? If they're consistently running nearly empty then the line(s) will be adjusted/discontinued. The route servicing my street runs about twice per hour during the week but only about once per 1.25 hours on Sundays, with increased hour-to-hour variation during the week based on ridership (more during rush hour, less at other times). If you see a lot of empty buses then that's either a function of where you're seeing them (at the beginning or end of their lines), the purpose of the buses (commuter-type lines will tend to be full for long periods while others may carry only a few people at any given time but many over the course of the route, each person riding a shorter distance), or inefficiency in management.

So? Those roads still need to exist.

Not necessarily. A sidewalk would be sufficient for those walking from their homes to a nearby bus stop. Even if the roads are still necessary for service purposes, they wouldn't require as much maintenance if there were fewer personal vehicles in use.

How do you presume to know what people use their SUVs for? If you see me driving my SUV alone can you see the hundreds of pounds of tools I need to have with me at work? Do you see the equipment I have to occasionally tow? The lumber, doors, and other stuff I often have to haul?

Probably you don't, and just cluck your disapproval from your bus seat based on incorrect assumptions.

Yawn. "I have real need for my SUV, so everyone does."

 

[Cain]

1. I never said non-drivers were overpaying for roads.

I said you were wrong about non-drivers overpaying for roads. I didn't say you claimed non-drivers are overpaying for roads.

2. Virginians already subsidize non-Virginians who are just passing through.

This is not a good argument.

[3]. The additional licensing and taxes does not make up for the extra damage they do to roads.

If that is not the case -- and I'm just taking your assertion at face value, which is rapidly approaching zero -- then fees need to be increased.

 

[WildCat]

What about them? If they're consistently running nearly empty then the line(s) will be adjusted/discontinued. The route servicing my street runs about twice per hour during the week but only about once per 1.25 hours on Sundays, with increased hour-to-hour variation during the week based on ridership (more during rush hour, less at other times). If you see a lot of empty buses then that's either a function of where you're seeing them (at the beginning or end of their lines), the purpose of the buses (commuter-type lines will tend to be full for long periods while others may carry only a few people at any given time but many over the course of the route, each person riding a shorter distance), or inefficiency in management.

So? The buses need a road, yes?

Not necessarily. A sidewalk would be sufficient for those walking from their homes to a nearby bus stop. Even if the roads are still necessary for service purposes, they wouldn't require as much maintenance if there were fewer personal vehicles in use.

OK, you get rid of the road in front of your house. How does your furniture get to your house? How is garbage hauled away? How do your repair contractors get their with all their tools and material? How do police, fire, and ambulance get there? How does your mail and packages get delivered? How do you get appliances to your house?

See? You need roads. They will have to exist even if there's not a single private vehicle.

Yawn. "I have real need for my SUV, so everyone does."

Yawn. "I've seen people with no need for an SUV, therefore nobody needs one".

 

[Babbylonian]

So? The buses need a road, yes?

Yes, and in my area not only does every rider pay but there are also taxes paying for the buses. If only buses and trains were left, there would obviously be money available to pay for roads for those buses.

OK, you get rid of the road in front of your house. How does your furniture get to your house? How is garbage hauled away? How do your repair contractors get their with all their tools and material? How do police, fire, and ambulance get there? How does your mail and packages get delivered? How do you get appliances to your house?

I added my disclaimer. You did read my post, right?

See? You need roads. They will have to exist even if there's not a single private vehicle.

I have never proposed getting rid of all roads.

Yawn. "I've seen people with no need for an SUV, therefore nobody needs one".

I was fairly specific when I made my SUV reference; no one person needs an SUV just to get to and from work - certainly not in an urban setting and really not anywhere in paved America.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Before anything else I want you to stop with the environmental shtick. Yes I have knowledge that vehicle exhaust contributes to climate change. I'm a little wary on calling it global warming because I find climate change to be more accurate. The exhaust from cars and other sources keeps more energy within our system and that energy changes our climate from a previous norm.

I'll ask again: Do you believe that there is a clear need to aggressively reduce fossil fuel emissions as soon as possible?