For a long time I have felt the price of gasoline in the United States was way too low. Pretty much all economists believe this. Greg Mankiw blogged back in October about the many reasons why we should raise gas taxes.
The reason we need high gas taxes is that there are all sorts of costs associated with my driving that I don’t pay — someone else pays them. This is what economists call a “negative externality.” Because I don’t pay the full costs of my driving, I drive too much. Ideally, the government could correct this problem through a gas tax that aligns my own private incentive to drive with the social costs of driving.
Three possible externalities associated with driving are the following:
a) My driving increases congestion for other drivers;
b) I might crash into other cars or pedestrians;
c) My driving contributes to global warming.
If you had to guess, which of those three considerations provides the strongest justification for a bigger tax on gasoline?
The answer, at least based on the evidence I could find, may surprise you.
The most obvious one is congestion. Traffic jams are a direct consequence of too many cars on the road. If you took some cars away, the remaining drivers could get places much faster. From Wikipedia’s page on traffic congestion:
The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that in 2000 the 75 largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of delay, resulting in 5.7 billion US gallons (21.6 billion liters) in wasted fuel and $67.5 billion in lost productivity, or about 0.7% of the nation’s GDP.
This particular study doesn’t tell us what we really need to know for estimating how big the gas tax should be (we want to know how much adding one driver to the mix affects lost productivity), but it does get to the point that, as a commuter, I’m better off if you decide to call in sick to work.
A more subtle benefit of fewer drivers is that there would be fewer crashes. Aaron Edlin and Pinar Mandic, in a paper I was proud to publish in the Journal of Political Economy, argue convincingly that each extra driver raises the insurance costs of other drivers by about $2,000. Their key point is that, if my car is not there to crash into, maybe a crash never happens. They conclude that the appropriate tax would generate $220 billion annually. So, if they are right, reducing the number of crashes is a more important justification for a gas tax than reducing congestion. I’m not sure I believe this; it certainly is a result I never would have guessed to be true.
How about global warming? Every gallon of gas I burn releases carbon into the atmosphere, presumably speeding global warming. If you can believe Wikipedia’s entry on the carbon tax, the social cost of a ton of carbon put into the atmosphere is about $43. (Obviously there is a huge standard of error on this number, but let’s just run with it.) If that number is right, then the gas tax needed to offset the global warming effect is about 12 cents per gallon. According to this National Academy of Sciences report, American motor vehicles burn about 160 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel each year. At 12 cents a gallon, that implies a $20 billion global warming externality. So relative to reducing congestion and lowering the number of accidents, fighting global warming is a distant third in terms of reasons to raise the gas tax. (Not that $20 billion is a small number…it just highlights how high the costs are from congestion and accidents.)
Combining all these numbers, along with the other reasons why we should tax gas (e.g. wear and tear on roads), it seems easy to justify raising the tax on gas by at least $1 per gallon. In 2002 (the year I could easily find data for), the average tax was 42 cents per gallon, or maybe only one-third of what it should be.
High gas prices act just like taxes, except that they are more transitory and the extra revenue goes to oil producers, refiners, and distributors instead of to the government.
My view is that, rather than bemoaning the high price of gas, we should be celebrating it. And, if any presidential candidate should come out in favor of a $1 per gallon tax on gas, vote for that candidate.
2007
10:03 am
Heh. Yeah…no.
— Posted by mgroves
2007
10:12 am
Hi there,
I think one of the biggest factors to consider in this case is the price elasticity for gas.
In my opinion, (and it´s not figure based) is that the higher the gas costs, the better mileage your next car will have. Not the less you drive.
Here in Brazil gas prices are very high. (comparing with US). What we get here are small cars, with small motors. We usually get a 30-40 miles per gallon car. That without fancy techs and with cheap cars.
But nevertheless, the traffic is terrible, and in the big cities is not unlikely to have an 2hrs commute.
Sorry if my english is not perfect, feel free to correct.
Regards,
Gabriel
http://www.donttalkaboutlife.com
— Posted by gevil
2007
10:13 am
I can’t really complain about low gas prices since I like saving money as much as anybody but I do have to agree with you that our gas prices are artificially low. You’re spot on about the problems associated with traffic and congestion as well as the operation of privately owned vehicles but is it the governments job to adjust prices? I would like to see more of my tax money be used to support increased development of public transportation, hoping that one day it would become more appealing to the average American than driving. But really things such as this are better handled at the state levels of government and lower. There’s no reason for the Federal government to institute a tax on driving that would apply equally to a commuter in LA as it would to a rancher in Wyoming or a vacationing family in Florida. Wouldn’t a better solution be to allow the places where the congestion is a problem to correct fuel prices to accommodate local demand and let the less problematic areas enjoy the benefits of reduced fuel costs? America is a varied and changing country with so many aspects of the population I think our forefathers where correct in instituting a limited federal government and allowing the states to better institute what is best for their population. We don’t need a nationwide $1 gas tax, we need a $3 gas tax in large cities to help develop alternative transports and little or no tax in the more rural municipalities.
— Posted by Deviant
2007
10:18 am
The other option, that the UK Government has been considering, is a ‘per mile driven’ tax: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/533.html
I think mainly becuase the last time they significantly increased the tax on fuel (to the equivalent of $7.50 a gallon) there were blockades of fuel refineries: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/924882.stm
— Posted by Singletoned
2007
10:18 am
I’ll tell you what makes no sense to me: we tax gas, but then we subsidize the oil companies. Taxing gas makes it more expensive, and the subsidies make it cheaper. And in effect, it’s just like the oil companies raised prices, since the consumer pays more and it goes to the oil companies.
I say get rid of oil subsidies first, and reduce gas taxes so that it’s revenue-neutral (IOW, the reduction in taxes equals the amount no longer spent in subsidies). Then see what happens to the above costs.
— Posted by shanek
2007
10:22 am
You have so lost this one.
You are Quixote tilting at the windmills of Reagan conservatism. You are the best example of why guvment should limit voting to only rural white guys. You are fixin’ to be picked apart by the anti-tax gods for foolin’ around with America’s god given right to cheap gas.
“Eat at Joe’s and get gas”, I always say. It’s the American way. I’m a Texan. Just get off my roads or get out of the way. If you see my hummer in your rear view mirror, just consider it a flag waving tribute to our troops.
And if you have a bumber sticker that reads “2008 THE END OF AN ERROR”, then you are just a panty waist ignorant liberal probably farting around with dinky hybrids.
That’s a sin against god, really.
— Posted by egretman
2007
10:22 am
While I like the idea of using less gas, and while I like laughing at idiots who insist on buying gas-guzzlers, I’ve got that “fresh out of college” new smell to me and an empty bank account to go along with that. I think I can safely assume I feel the pain at the pump a little more than an a certain someone who has a book on the New York Times bestseller list.
— Posted by dickgrogan
2007
10:38 am
Taxes on gas (petrol) are a blunt instrument for dealing with the negative externality of congestion, although ideal for dealing with the externality of global warming. A driver in an isolated area will cause no congestion but use petrol.
If there were no privacy concerns, tracking vehicles to see where they went and when, and then taxing them according to how many others were on the same roads would probably be the way to go. Congestion charging in cities and major roads would also work.
— Posted by JobyRB
2007
10:42 am
One potential presidential candidate, (current) New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is pushing hard for congestion pricing. His proposal was considered dead on arrival- but he’s picked up significant support in recent weeks.
As a motorcycle rider, I’m hoping motorcycles get an exemption (or major discount), as they are not a cause, but a possible partial solution to congestion.
— Posted by jeffstier
2007
10:44 am
As a car-free cyclist, I wholeheartedly agree.
However, before I spout off too much about how my taxes subsidize drivers, I keep in mind that gas fuels the trucks that deliver products to my local stores, so I can ride at most a couple of miles to get anything I need.
My point is that the price of gasoline has far reaching impact. I’m not an economist, so I can’t put it in fancy economist language, but I do know that if the price of gas goes up, so does the price of a loaf of bread.
It would be nice if it were practical to have a ‘uselessness’ tax. So people joy riding around in their Hummers would pay more for gas than people who car pool in a Prius- or who deliver products to stores.
— Posted by wk633
2007
10:54 am
I’m in favor of a more realistic gas price because it would lead to more realistic human transportation. The “miles driven” fee is also a plausible idea. I’d add that vehicles should also be taxed by weight; after all, heavier vehicles cause more wear on the roads than lighter vehicles.
This may serve to reduce the congestion, but there’s one more tax required: tax parking SPACES. If you can put a car there, you pay a parking tax. More expensive parking makes people think twice about driving. Since the money collected is used for public transportation, there are more options for getting around without a car.
— Posted by jezsik
2007
10:57 am
Thank you for this entry, however unpopular of an idea it might present.
As an “extreme commuter” and someone who lives in the home of the American auto industry, I also think that people in the U.S. pay far too little for gasoline to fuel their automobiles.
Some earlier comments mention how difficult it is when one is just starting out. Well, it always has been difficult. Although I haven’t the numbers at my fingertips, the real cost of gasoline, even at $4 per gallon, seems less than the real cost during the mid-1980s.
In most proposals for higher taxes, the social argument generally rests on the government’s use of the funds raised. Citing the negative externalaties mentioned — and I suspect there are additional ones — the higher costs themselves may provide a social benefit.
— Posted by SmilinJack
2007
10:58 am
Congestion has more negative externalities than just the actually delayed cars. Think about a commuter who faces a commute with possible delays. She may decide not to make the trip, even though there would have actually been no delay. The uncertainty of the delays adds to the cost.
— Posted by nwhitehe
2007
11:01 am
#3 asks “is it the governments job to adjust prices?”
Yes. That’s precisely what the government should be doing: Adjusting prices where the market fails to create the socially optimal outcome. In fact, that is one of the major justifications for having government. That and providing public goods. But not much else.
— Posted by oddTodd
2007
11:08 am
I think the point about congestion is well taken. It made me recall a study that was done on a badly congested tunnel in a large city many years ago. By bunching the the cars (they held them for 30 seconds or so with a stop light) the average speed in the tunnel was vastly increased and because the car engines were operating more efficiently they were able to show there was a dramatic reduction in air pollution. They had no way to measure the change in fuel economy but no doubt it was also improved.
I have often wondered if bunching would work as well on a congested highway.
We drove in Scotland last year when gas prices were the equivalent of $7/gallon and I don’t recall seeing worse congestion in any city in the US.
— Posted by JSN
2007
11:09 am
it does get to the point that, as a commuter, I’m better off if you decide to call in sick to work.
Doesn’t all of this talk of gettingg other people off the road assume that they are not actually contributing to our national productivity? Those other drivers are not just running laps around the beltway. Presumably they’re driving to work or going shopping or delivering pizzas or whatever. Wouldn’t forcing those people off the road be ilkely to *reduce* productivity by making whatever they were doing more expensive?
— Posted by MikeWebkist
2007
11:12 am
I agree with #5. The real solution would be to allow gas prices to be the real market price. This would allow prices to move more freely with supply and demand. I’ve often said we should let gas get up to $8 a gallon. It’s the only real way to get people to change their behaviors, whether it be driving less, buying more fuel-efficient cars, etc. And it would also push auto makers to provide more fuel-efficient vehicles as demand rises, and push business to demand alternative fuels.
— Posted by econ2econ
2007
11:13 am
There’s a problem with the logic here. Congestion and accidents are not externalities. The costs for both are borne by the same people that create them. Thus, the system already takes them into account.
A solution that treats them as externalities is not going to work.
(Global warming IS an externality.)
There definitely is a skewing force on the market created by the oil subsidies (and by other taxpayer money spent on oil…).
“That’s precisely what the government should be doing: Adjusting prices where the market fails to create the socially optimal outcome. In fact, that is one of the major justifications for having government.”
WHAT? Major justification? Since when? Government fiat is the worst way to set prices available! The *major* justification for government is a stable framework of laws in which a market can operate.
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
11:20 am
What effect did the most recent increase in gas prices have on congestion? And MikeWebkist is right: What percentage of travelers are in a non-productive venture?
— Posted by jdshipley
2007
11:23 am
Because gasoline is so volatile (joke), it’s difficult for the market to make longer term adjustments.
Rather than a fixed tax on fuel, it might make more sense to have a floor price of, say, $4 a gallon, in effect a variable tax that fixes the price.
When consumers know that they’ll be paying that price for the foreseeable future, the incentives to adopt savings measures become stronger. Of course any interference in the market is going to have unintended consequences.
There are already several such distortions. Consider NIMBY. A big factor in gas prices, bigger than oil supply itself, is refinery capacity. We’re bumping up against 100% all the time now. Why hasn’t the market responded by providing more refineries? Mostly NIMBYism.
So the available solution to capacity problems is a reduction in demand. But we can’t do much in the short term to affect demand — people have the cars they have, and drive the same distance to work. Rapid fluctuations in price don’t send a strong enough signal into the long-term decision making process.
This will never happen, of course. But it’s fun to speculate.
— Posted by Mack
2007
11:24 am
What would Jesus drive?
A hummer of course,
1.big enough for all the apostles
2.maximum load of loaves and fishes
3.indirect support for the army of god
4.safe for Mary and the kids around town (See Da vinci Code)
5.one gallon gas lasts 8 days no matter how many miles are driven. (See Chanukka)
— Posted by egretman
2007
11:29 am
This would be just another nail in the coffin of so many families’s fiscal survival. If they can’t afford a car and gas, they may not be able to work. If they can’t work, the results are obvious.
— Posted by inagoddesseye
2007
11:30 am
Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38644
— Posted by mrbigred
2007
11:32 am
Based on the level of traffic I see blowing by my farm, I believe the demand for gas is inelastic and people will drive no matter what the price or how much you tax it. As anti-consumption tax severely penalizes people like myself that live in a rural area. For me it is 30 miles to the grocery store (one way) and 40 miles (one way) to check cattle. All an anti-consumption tax would do is suck money out of the economy. But I would not be wholly averse to an anti-consumption tax if it were only applied to the east and west coast states. Better to let markets determine the price of gas.
— Posted by feeblemind
2007
11:37 am
#18:
Well, actually congestion and accidents are externalities. The problems of congestion and the risk of accidents you cause yourself are factored into your own internal decisionmaking, but you do not consider the external costs imposed on others by the reduced capacity of the roads when you drive on them, nor do you consider the risk imposed on others of an accident when you drive.
— Posted by johnleemk
2007
11:52 am
I agree with gevil. A higher tax on petrol will not likely reduce congestion much - people will just move to more efficient cars, which is a much more acceptable substitute for them than quit driving. Consider Europe - the reason why people are driving less than in the U.S. is because they don’t need to drive more (shorter distances and better public transport), and because they don’t want to drive more (congestion, the same problem as in the U.S.). It is not because gas would be expensive. The effect of the gas tax on the amount of driving is extremely limited (and the gas tax for instance in the Czech Republic is in the range of 3.7-4 USD per gallon). However, as I said, people were very good in switching to more efficient cars, which is a good thing after all.
If you want to reduce congestion, you most likely have to introduce per-mile congestion fees, possibly depending on the time when you drive, so that you balance traffic. And the experience of London says that in order to have a significant impact, these fees have to be heavy (entry to London = 8 GBP ~ 16 USD).
The project of the British government to introduce time-dependent fees on highways sounds interesting, but it is still a very long path to be implemented.
— Posted by pinus
2007
12:02 pm
You mentioned only global warming but in my opinion it is a quite abstract externality, whereas the negative effects of the toxic fumes cars produce are much more tangible: asthma, noise etc. So apart from reducing congestion, the extra money can be spent on helping the effects above. However, the government rarely spends money properly…
— Posted by agent.bauer
2007
12:03 pm
“I think I can safely assume I feel the pain at the pump a little more than an a certain someone who has a book on the New York Times bestseller list.”
But do you drive as much? I’m not sure what it’s like in the US, with so much rural land, but in the UK the richer people are, the more they drive. So increasing gas prices don’t necessarily impact on poorer people worse.
“Taxes on gas (petrol) are a blunt instrument for dealing with the negative externality of congestion, although ideal for dealing with the externality of global warming. A driver in an isolated area will cause no congestion but use petrol.”
They’re blunter than per-mile road pricing, but they’re not entirely blunt; a car will burn more gas per mile in a congested street than on a wide open highway. The ideal is still per-mile tax, but that does raise privacy concerns.
— Posted by elfy
2007
12:48 pm
“Well, actually congestion and accidents are externalities.”
Hmm. Let’s see.
“you do not consider the external costs imposed on others by the reduced capacity of the roads when you drive on them,”
But this is true of everything. I don’t consider the impact on others of the reduced supply of peanut butter when I remove one from the store shelf, and I don’t consider the impact of the reduced supply of money when I decide not to buy peanut butter today (and keep my money in my pocket). Again, not an externality. If there’s congestion, I pay the price the same as anyone else.
Oh, there’s an externality in road maintenance — a friend of mine once claimed that trucking was effectively subsidized versus trains by the trucking firms not having to pay as much as it truly cost to maintain the roads. I don’t know about such things, and he was from a railroading family so he may have been biased; but anyhow, that may be a true externality, and a stronger one than global warming (I agree that pollution is also stronger, good point).
“nor do you consider the risk imposed on others of an accident when you drive.”
But my driving increases my risk of accident FAR more than it increases anyone else’s risk. My risk goes from almost zero to x; theirs goes from x-delta to x (where delta is very small). Again, I pay the price in terms of risk (although if I’m “lucky” in an accident I may not pay the final price as high as the other car’s occupants). Even if I’m a REALLY bad driver (so delta is big) my own danger of accident is _still_ high.
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
1:15 pm
Unfortunately, I can’t remember who wrote it, but I read an editorial that challenged the idea that higher gas prices will necessarily reduce gas consumption. His main argument being that gas prices *have* increased significantly in the past couple years, and it’s had virtually no effect on how much gas we use. I’m not an economist so I can’t verify his statistics, but as a layman I do seem to be reading a lot of articles about how, despite high gas prices, Americans will be traveling as much as ever this summer for their vacations.
If gas is a dollar more per gallon than it was a few years ago, and we drive just as much, I wonder how much difference an additional dollar per gallon in tax will really make. It seems to me the problem is that we are a driving culture, and it will take significant changes to change the culture. Significant meaning gas being double, maybe triple what it costs now.
Just a thought.
— Posted by dchai
2007
1:23 pm
Good point about railroads. Trucks do not have to pay roads maintenance (the government looks after everything), whereas trains must carry the entire burden alone. So, the trucking industry really is subsidized.
— Posted by jezsik
2007
1:42 pm
How about a progressive tax on vehicle size? Larger vehicles do more damage to other cars in an accident, generally get lower gas mileage, and put proportionally more wear on infrastructure.
— Posted by s-side
2007
2:45 pm
I agree with you, if people are paying more for their gas, they will drive less making it more convenient for me. It would be nice to see more segways and other modes of transportation, especially in cities.
— Posted by Adam
2007
2:56 pm
s-side, I have heard there are places that tax cars via proportional registration fees based on vehicle mass. can’t recall exactly where though.
I work for an oil company, and have no idea where the notion that they are subsidized come from. We get nothin’, pay a lot of royalties and taxes with no preferential rates. maybe this is just in the U.S. (I’m in Canada), or just a myth. I’m not arguing for subsidies by the way, in any industry.
If global warming is to be confronted, it may be more efficient to use a CO2 emissions cap-and-trade system than just more and more taxation. Taxes just end up being wasted by governments and distort markets, with no real solving of the problem.
— Posted by asparagus
2007
3:40 pm
gevil is right. in the short run, gas demand is pretty inelastic. after a few years when people start buying new cars, maybe they’ll make fuel efficient choices, so in the longer run, demand will be more elastic. but still not *very* elastic, to the extent of affecting congestion. I think the entire infrastructure of most cities, towns, and suburbs is set up for a car culture, and that car culture developed in large part because cheap gas made driving really easy. Once that gas is no longer cheap, maybe people will be less happy with the car culture, but they’ve still got the same infrastructure where affordable housing is a 45 minute drive to work and a 15 minute drive to the supermarket. That will need to change too, and denser development will take a long time. In the mean time, maybe the gas tax will lead to more telecommuting and a greater preference for renting (if you rent, it’s easier to change your housing when your job changes).
— Posted by sasha
2007
3:41 pm
Anyone can do a cost analysis, but what about the benefits? Many people including those arguing for driving curfews of teenagers talk about the costs that are reduced when less people drive. The fact is we could ban everyone, but emergency vehicles from driving and then there would be very very few road deaths, no contribution to global warming and we wouldn’t have any congestion.
But what would be the reduction in benefit from all those goods and services not running around the country. You have to assume that all those people who are currently driving are applying some sort of cost benefit analysis to their driving and that raising the price of gasoline would reduce some benefit and that the benefit in question would likely be greater than the congestion, fatality and gasoline usage that is involved.
The reduction in benefit might be much higher than you have anticipated and this could be a really bad idea, but by ignoring the loss of benefit you are missing it.
— Posted by Cliff
2007
3:45 pm
People will stop driving only after they don’t need to drive anymore. People drive a lot because of the way most metropolitan areas in North America are structured today: distant suburbs gravitating around a central business area. And some of those suburbs don’t even have a regular bus connection to downtown.
In Germany for example lots of people live in villages and small towns (less than 10000 people) but they don’t need to commute too much because many of the businesses are also located in similar places. Combine that with an excellent rail road infrastructure and get the complete opposite of North America.
I agree that rising fuel tax will have positive impact on the environment as people will move towards buying more fuel-efficient cars. This however will not stop commuters drive to work if it is located 20, 30 or 50 kms from home (if no decent public transport is available).
Another example from Europe: in some countries they use what they call “vignette” - a sticker that you put on your windshield and that allows you to drive outside of the premises of your place of residence. In fact that’s a permit to use the intercity roads. This sticker can be bought almost everywhere and its price is different for different types of vehicles - heavier trucks and buses pay more than a standard car.
So if you drive only inside your town, you don’t pay for a vignette. If you need to go to a different city or drive for your vacation, you buy the vignette for the period of time you need: one day, one week, month or a year. The money collected through vignettes is not considered tax money and goes directly for the road maintenance budget.
— Posted by Kirilius
2007
3:51 pm
to dchai
Yes it is true that prices are higher and driving habits haven’t changed much but the main reason for that is that prices have not been consistently higher. Because prices may come down, there is litte incentive to change habits. You bite the bullet and hope. Besides like others have said, it is very difficult to change driving habits overnight. It you live in a suburb with little or no mass transit, you have no other short term options. What a gas tax would do is raise the floor so that when people are making economic decisions, they would do it with the knowledge that prices are going back down so I have to adjust.
— Posted by jroane
2007
4:15 pm
wtanksleyjr:
You obviously have no understanding of an economic externality — the demand and supply of peanut butter is not at all like travel congestion. Just pick up an econ 101 text and read the chapter on externalities.
Second, the paper cited by Levitt on accident externalities supports the argument that the risk one imposes on OTHERS (in aggregate) by driving is in fact quite large, despite your apparent intuition that it must be a “very small” delta.
— Posted by bztips
2007
4:17 pm
A blanket tax doesn’t seem to be a good fit for solving the congestion problem. Marginal congestion is minimal for people who work and travel in off peak hours; it seems inefficient to tax them at the same rate as their counterparts.
As far as crashing is concerned, isn’t that why we pay insurance. The risk is an inherent cost with traveling by any means. If a bus crashes then the costs will be passed on to the patrons of said bus in some way.
Aren’t we already paying taxes on the gas for the environmental concerns, as well as suffering from higher prices due to environmental regulation on the gas production.
It frustrates me to read that anybody thinks higher taxes are an answer to any problem.
— Posted by CDButler
2007
4:47 pm
It frustrates me to read that anybody thinks higher taxes are an answer to any problem.
Taxes only benefit the guvment. And the polywogs that inhabit the Washington swamp.
Vote Ron Paul!!
— Posted by egretman
2007
5:04 pm
We are already overtaxed, and overtaxation only hurts the poor and middle class, the rich are insulated from any significant damage. I am amazed that someone actually believes that we need more taxes.
— Posted by paulcquillman
2007
5:32 pm
We are already overtaxed, and overtaxation only hurts the poor and middle class….I am amazed that someone actually believes that we need more taxes.
Where have you anti-tax folks been all day? Am I the only sane conservative on here?
You’ve let a bunch of liberal economists post 40 comments on the joys of higher taxes without one reference to the poor and middle class that we rich folks care about so much.
I know Bush has been hard on us guy’s reputations, but we got to shake it off. Get back in the game.
— Posted by egretman
2007
5:51 pm
Artificiality in economics, as in an artificially low price for gasoline, is always subject to the point of view of the beholder. Agreement on a point of artificiality, indicates a lot of people in that profession are artificially in agreement.
— Posted by edwinrogers
2007
7:27 pm
I would LOVE to see much higher gas prices! I realise this is a terribly unpopular opinion, but it is one of my dearest wishes. I would also like to see car insurance paid for at the pump( the more you drive, the more insurance you pay for). People who make the decision to car pool or bike, or walk, would be rewarded. The extra money spent at the pump would infuse public coffers with some extra money to use on public transit, on bike paths, pedestrian walk ways, police, police bikes/skateboards/horses. The air would be cleaner. The ground would be cleaner. People –please forgive this rhyming missive–would be leaner!
— Posted by poyma
2007
8:03 pm
Higher gas prizes will for sure have some effect, and are an effective way to get more fuel-efficient cars. However, here in The Netherlands, we have one of the highest gas prizes in the world (E1.5/liter, which is about 7.5$/gallon), and we still have a LOT of congestion. And problem here is the parallel import: a lot of people near the border get their gas from germany or belgium. (and everybody lives less than 250 km from that border :)).
— Posted by PanMan
2007
9:37 pm
To OddTodd: The role of government is to provide for the common defense and the rule of law so that society can naturally develop. The role of government is NOT to engineer “socially optimal outcomes.” That is called social engineering/socialism/communism. They do not work in practice because NO ONE, not even the omnipotent government, can perceive all eventualities from any given action. Market forces produce the optimal outcome. In this case, America likes to drive therefore gas is cheap. This is the “socially optimal outcome” for the 99.97% of American who drive.
To S-Side: You suggest a progressive tax scheme to penalize owners of large vehicles. We have it. It is called sales tax.
To the people who want car companies to make fuel-efficient vehicles: Americans do not want small, cheap fuel-efficient vehicles. While there is a market for Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas, the bigger more profitable market is in pick-up trucks and SUV. These are the cars American, by far, want and buy. Businesses respond to market forces. The surest way to put the big three out of business would be to have them make small, cheap fuel-efficient cars THAT AMERICANS DON’T WANT! Even Toyota, Honda, and Nissan are now heavily invested in light trucks and SUVs. Business respond to market demand, they do not drive it.
To the people who want more mass transit: You are the average American - would you take mass transit or do you only want it for the rest of the plebs? I tried mass transit in my city once. It tripled my regular commute time. I could ride my bike faster to work (15 miles) faster than mass transit. Mass transit is a pipe dream; the average American wants other people to use it. Even in New York and Chicago, people still prefer to drive to work if they can.
— Posted by Fateful Endeavors
2007
9:38 pm
On congestion: A lot of congestion is self-inflicted. Metro Phoenix is laid out as a perfect 1-mile grid system. Theoretically, with even major road being 5-7 lanes, congestion should not be that horrible – wrong. Why? Because traffic engineers (driven by elected officials) have the IQ of the common house fly. Want to reduce congestion? Make all turns out of commercial and residential areas right turns. In Phoenix, three right turns later you are going in the direction you originally wanted to go. How about disabling all trip lights during rush hour so that traffic is only stopped at major intersections. How about timing all the light in the city. Not one city in the Phoenix metro area is taking the simplest of steps to improve congestion because congestion gives government a reason to create mass transit and more restrictions on personal liberty. No one uses the MT buses in Phoenix but we are getting a light rail system to “improve congestion.” Want to improve congestion? Instead of concentrating everything downtown, build business parks on the outskirts of the cities. Western cities are designed such that mass transit can never be effective.
— Posted by Fateful Endeavors
2007
10:28 pm
How did we get from 12 cents to $1? Not that it matters. I suggest you issue a retraction of this blog entry that reeks of elitism and lacks any common sense. Saying we should raise the price of gas for the reasons mentioned is like saying we should raise the price of food because some people eat too much. Forget the people on minimum wage salaries, of which I know a few. In fact, I can personally give the names of people I know who have to drive an hour to work and back every day and can’t make ends meet. I’ll be sure to recommend your book.
Notwithstanding there are many areas of the country where there simply is no other way to get around. There are no subways, taxis, or even public buses. What you’re suggesting is ridiculous. How will raising the price of gas discourage driving if there is no alternative? Take five seconds to think about that one. Then think about this: Want to write the check for a 25% tax on books to save the rainforests? Didn’t think so.
— Posted by realitybytes
2007
12:07 am
Steven suggests that low prices of good A necessary to consume good B create supply shortages in good B. Perhaps.
I suggest that low prices of good B create supply shortages of good B. I.e. Drivers and people that otherwise profit from the use of roads in paying too little (or nothing at all) for the use of roads create congestion. The price of gasoline is negligible compared to above effect.
— Posted by lmcdowell
2007
8:55 am
A $1 a gallon isn’t going to do a whole lot to reduce car use, even in a city. I live in Philadelphia, and we have fairly decent public transportation. However, I still own a small relatively gas efficient car. With current gas prices, my cost per mile is 12 cents. I am not counting insurance or routine maintenance, because once I own the car, I have to pay those no matter how much I drive it. The public transportation costs per mile around here are closer to 25 cents per mile.
In other words, gas would have to be at least $6 for me to use public transportation instead of my car. In order to truly alleviate car problems, cities have to be designed so having a car is truly not a necessity.
— Posted by maatathena
2007
8:59 am
There’s been many posts pointing out the relative inelastic demand of gasoline. I think gasoline demand could be made more elastic when you consider one fact; many people in the US don’t really need to go to work. What percentage of the population has a job they can effectively do from home? With a business cell-phone and an internet connection people who don’t need to directly interact with customers in person, and those who don’t actually manufacture a product, don’t need to make a morning commute. The up-side to having your employees live at work is that they are always at work so increased productivity is another side effect while the employee will have more personal time by not having to commute to and from work.
— Posted by Deviant
2007
9:48 am
Fateful Endeavors says the role of government is to provide defense and rule of law. Don’t forget health and safety! If you leave that in the hands of industry … well, it would be bad.
“Market forces produce the optimal outcome.” Hmm, haven’t spent much time in late 18th century London, I guess.
“America likes to drive” or HAS to drive. Urban sprawl has many unintended consequences.
“To S-Side: You suggest a progressive tax scheme to penalize owners of large vehicles. We have it. It is called sales tax.” Sales tax is based on the value of the vehicle, not the damage it does to the roads and the environment. An earth-raper pays less sales tax than a Bentley.
“Even in New York and Chicago, people still prefer to drive to work if they can.” Big deal, I’d prefer to walk to work if I could.
— Posted by jezsik
2007
10:16 am
A presidential candidate *did* propose a gas tax. It was in 1992. The proposed tax was 50 cents per gallon, phased in 10 cents per year over 5 years. Critics decried it as wholly unreasonable. Imagine where we would be today if that tax had been implemented! The candidate was Ross Perot.
— Posted by scottso
2007
10:26 am
A presidential candidate *did* propose a gas tax, but he didn’t win the election. It was in 1992. The proposed tax was 50 cents per gallon, phased in 10 cents per year over 5 years. Critics decried it as wholly unreasonable. It would cripple the economy.
But imagine where we would be today if that tax had been implemented! The candidate was Ross Perot.
— Posted by scottso
2007
10:29 am
I agree that roads are often too congested because drivers do not consider the costs of their own driving. That cost, however, varies from location to location and by time of day. Certainly the roads in Provo, UT are not too congested at 3 AM (especially given the school enforced ban on members of the opposite sex in your apartment past midnight). In short, the gas tax is too imprecise a tool to try to optimize congestion. What would really solve the problem would be usage fees that use price to ration scarce road space. Driving at night in Provo would be cheap (perhaps free); driving at noon in Manhattan would be very expensive. With the advent of transponder technology, such a scheme is certainly within the realms of feasibility, even though it would require a significant adjustment to the status quo.
— Posted by justinekins
2007
10:32 am
I can understand this logic , if something is getting expensive make it more expensive, so that less people use it.
If a politician increases it and next time if he comes for reelection , let him pray for his soul.
Increasing cost will not solve anything
All the references given are from wikipedia !!!!!!!, it is like a conservpedia , but more liberal.
If you cannot control something , the best idea is to tax heavily. BTW wat do we with that excess tax money ?
— Posted by krishna
2007
10:44 am
Krishna:
Changing cost will virtually always have an impact in our bottom-line obsessed culture.
— Posted by jane
2007
11:48 am
“You obviously have no understanding of an economic externality — the demand and supply of peanut butter is not at all like travel congestion.”
Read in context, please. The post I quoted was claiming that a car using up the available capacity of the road is an externality. My point was that if that’s an externality, so’s buying a can of peanut butter. Both actions use up a finite resource.
Both are paid for directly by the actor: the driver experiences the congestion he helps cause, and the peanut butter eater pays cash.
“Just pick up an econ 101 text and read the chapter on externalities.”
Many times, thank you. I’ve gone well beyond the 101 level in my reading.
“Second, the paper cited by Levitt on accident externalities supports the argument that the risk one imposes on OTHERS (in aggregate) by driving is in fact quite large, despite your apparent intuition that it must be a ‘very small’ delta.”
Seriously — it IS a very small delta. Adding one car to a road with drivers on it does NOT add significantly to the risk of accident of the drivers already on it.
The paper cited is interesting, but its logic is a little too tortured for easy belief. I’m not sure exactly what’s wrong with it — possibly its total disregard for the value gained by driving (it speaks of marginal value, but then considers only the loss, not the profit).
I’m strongly in favor of converting externalities into internalities, through taxes if nothing else. There are definitely many externalities involved in driving. But these aren’t externalities.
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
12:09 pm
There are at least two more major externalities tied to gasoline use (in addition to pollution, which is a good one):
- The U.S. pays a high cost in aid and military expenditure to secure access to oil supplies.
- We are depleting a non-renewable resource. It’s a cost that will be paid by the following generation for wasteful use today.
I would love to see the first one quantified. I have no idea how one would treat the second using the tools of economics.
— Posted by kfattor
2007
12:17 pm
Bottomline is driving is a previlage and not everyone who has a $99 and a job should drive a car. Isn’t this kind of segregating people based on money ? The next thing for a better economic advise will be , only persons having a degree can drive a car. (already Geico is giving insurance based on that).
It might be good as an idea , but practically it would be a major disaster.
— Posted by krishna
2007
1:01 pm
There are many good points brought up here (and some not-so-good ones). The bottom line is that the market should set the price for ALL goods. However, in the case of gasoline, the negative externalities mean that we are not paying the full cost of our consumption.
So why don’t we create a market for the externalities? Local governments could create a limit on the amount of drivers in a state, county, or community that would push the cost of those externalities onto those who impose them. These permits could then be bought and sold on the open market with no government intervention. In some places, the amount of permits may exceed the amount of drivers because some externalaties are lower (congestion and risk of accidents) in those areas.
In other places, the amount of permits may be far lower than the current number of drivers. In this case, people would have to make decisions about how much value they place on the ability to drive a car.
This is the same argument that Harvard Economics Professor Greg Mankiw suggests in his introductory economics textbooks for passing the costs of negative externalities of pollution from manufacturing facilities on to those companies who pollute the air that we all breath. Instead of you and I having to pay the costs of bad air, the manufacturing companies would have to buy permits to pollute, and those permits could be openly traded on the open market. The idea is that if the cost for a specific company to pollute is greater than the benefits (profits), that company will chose not to pollute and sell their pollution credits.
The idea is the same for driving. If the cost of a permit for me to drive is more expensive than the benefits, than I will chose not to drive.
If there are any flaws in my logic or reasons why this principle wouldn’t apply to driving (and gasoline consumption) please point them out. I’m interested to see all responses.
— Posted by jlwillia
2007
1:39 pm
“if that’s an externality, so’s buying a can of peanut butter. Both actions use up a finite resource. Both are paid for directly by the actor: the driver experiences the congestion he helps cause, and the peanut butter eater pays cash.”
“Adding one car to a road with drivers on it does NOT add significantly to the risk of accident of the drivers already on it.”
…There are definitely many externalities involved in driving. But these aren’t externalities.”
Clueless… When you drive, even though you experience congestion that you helped create, you do NOT experience the full value of the increased congestion or the accident risk that your driving causes everyone else. Unless you experience that FULL VALUE, there is an externality. Now you can quibble with Levitt’s back-of-the-envelope calculations of how big those externalities are, but just saying that you don’t believe them doesn’t do much for the discussion.
On the other hand, buying a jar of peanut butter has no real effect on anyone else. And by the way, it is NOT a finite resource (nor is the cash you used to pay for it).
— Posted by bztips
2007
3:16 pm
bztips, you started your message with: “Clueless…”
Either you were humorlessly rude to me — a pointless practice in debate — or you just accidentally signed your name at the beginning of your post. I won’t bother figuring out which.
“When you drive, even though you experience congestion that you helped create, you do NOT experience the full value of the increased congestion or the accident risk that your driving causes everyone else.”
Of course not. Nor do you experience anyone else’s value for peanut butter. Value is subjective. When I drive, I experience the same congestion I cause. When I buy peanut butter, I pay for the shortage of peanut butter I cause.
An externality is when I do not pay for the shortage I cause — as is the case with road maintenance. People just driving through a town don’t pay for the town’s roads at all.
“Now you can quibble with Levitt’s back-of-the-envelope calculations of how big those externalities are”
Of course. I can also point out that they are not externalities _at all_.
“On the other hand, buying a jar of peanut butter has no real effect on anyone else. And by the way, it is NOT a finite resource (nor is the cash you used to pay for it).”
Both cash and peanut butter are in finite supply, and are demanded in excess of their supply. Hence, a phenomenon called “price” (or by some economists “market price”) applies to them. This allows the supply of peanut butter to be directed reasonably efficiently to the people who place it high enough in their valuation.
How do you claim that either good is not a finite resource? Do you mean it’s not a resource, or that it’s not finite?
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
3:19 pm
jlwillia: nice post. I think Kirilius’ post about the “vignette” system would provide a nice implementation of that. It seems not too hard to enforce, and focuses the expense very nicely on the consumer of the resources.
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
3:28 pm
I do not own a car. I ride my bike or take public transportation (for long distances I’ll fly). The unnecessary pollution and noise caused by cars infuriates me to no end. I know many people who drive rather than take public transit because they can save a few minutes on their commute or because they feel like public transit is dirty or only for the poor. But the simple fact of the matter is that those people who are driving are causing our cities to fill up with smog, ruining my quality of life, raising asthma levels among kids, and of course raising the overall temperature of the planet. People who drive are directly responsible for these consequences, and should pay higher taxes to help compensate for them (assuming the government puts money in the right places to help turn the tide of global warming, etc.).
Also, regarding the first of the arguments presented here, about congestion: If you had a 15 minute commute instead of 60 minute commute, would you spend that extra 45 minutes at work, or at home watching TV? I would imagine most people would be at home rather than at work, so your argument about 67.5$ in lost productivity is completely unreasonable.
Point b is well-taken. Higher gas taxes could help with safety measures because automobiles are dangerous things.
We should not celebrate higher gas prices simply because they are higher: the money goes directly to companies with no direct interest in the public good. (In fact, I’d argue that this is, if anything, something to lament.) Higher gas prices should instead be caused by higher gas taxes so the money can be used for government programs to help the greater good offset the many environmental and social costs of driving a car.
— Posted by martian
2007
4:35 pm
I give up, wtanksleyjr.
Now tell the truth… have you ever taken (or I should say, passed) an econ101 class?
Actually, externalities sometimes aren’t taught until the 200 level micro class, so i guess the better question is “have you ever taken an econ class where the professor discussed externalities?”. Your responses indicate not.
— Posted by bztips
2007
5:26 pm
I think that increasing the taxes on gasoline is a great idea. I’d specify two details, however:
* I’d dedicate the revenue to something gasoline-related (fewer potholes, more trees to soak up the smog, more frequent bus service, or whatever). This way the tax revenue is actually being used to solve the problems that the gasoline is causing, instead of paying for, oh, say, air conditioning at the Congressional Budget Office while we’re all contemplating the necessity of vigilante action to fill potholes.
* I’d introduce it slowly. We don’t need a sudden shock to the overall system, because it takes time for individual consumers (and professional drivers) to respond. I’d add 10 to 25 cents at a time, over four to ten years — and probably time it for the end of the summer driving season, when the commodity price usually goes down anyway, so the effect would be simply to keep the prices up at the higher summer price each year.
— Posted by htb
2007
8:58 pm
I’m surprised no one has mentioned corn ethanol subsidies yet. The best way of framing a gasoline tax proposal is, I think:
1. Ethanol subsidies are, in truth, pointless. (http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/)
2. People are widely concerned about global warming. (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?i d=1750492&page=1)
3. Implement gas taxes, and end the pernicious taxes that pay for those ethanol subsidies. Taxpayers can come out ahead while oil consumption is curbed.
— Posted by trevorburnham
2007
9:56 am
bztips, as tempting as it is to discuss education, I believe we’re actually discussing externalities. You’re now entirely off-topic. Please — either answer by argument or explain what the actual truth is.
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
10:52 am
Hi Prof,
Very good post and interesting statistics. Though what was missing was that all the three reasons were tied back to the gasoline. What are your thoughts on road tax to reduce congestion or increasing Tax on the purchase of car to reduce the number of cars on the road.
I have been here in Singapore for almost an year now and I find government’s way of controlling this negative externality amazing. First, they have something called COE (Certificate of Entitlement) which must be owned before you can buy a car. The certificate is awarded through an auction and generates major revenue. The number of certificates are capped every month and the prices go as high as SGD 10000. Second, the more important and high traffic roads are under the ERP System (Electronic Road Pricing) whereby you will be taxed everytime you get on those roads.
I agree that such central planning is easy to implement in a place like Singapore but it would be interesting to see such corrective actions on the negative externalities in the US Context.
— Posted by Anshuman
2007
2:01 pm
I like your reasoning on this, but living in a rural community, I would like to see higher gas taxes in metro area’s and less taxes in rural area’s. The biggest traffic jam I have ever seen on local roads was when I had to wait to pass a combine because a horse and buggy went by. No kidding.
— Posted by Amy K
2007
2:20 pm
So, looks like California may be on to something.
— Posted by dansage
2007
2:44 pm
jlwillia:
Hopefully you’re thinking of going into politics so that we get sensible leadership combined with great practical applications of ideas.
Wtanksleyjr:
Personally attacking a commenter only makes you look ill-informed on a blog with readership like this one.
— Posted by jane
2007
10:00 am
What a WONDERFUL idea! I’m so tired of the hoi polloi INDIGENT taking up space in my lane, making the commute to my six-figure job 4 minutes longer.
I can easily afford higher gas taxes … so naturally, I’m for them. It gets the poor people back on the bus, where they belong, since a lot of them would be removed from the market for lanespace. I’m SAFER too! And the reduced number of cars would make my insurance price fall.
While we’re at it, how about a $200 per ticket tax on airplane tickets. This would significantly improve safety in the skies, as it would price the SLOVENLY POOR out of the market for air travel. Plus, I could get a drink at the airport lounge without having some fat poor slob taking up my barspace and huffing down my peanut supply.
We should also eliminate the tax on sailing yachts. After all, sailing yachts are GREEN vehicles. They only use windpower. So, eliminating the tax on my yacht would help save the planet, and reduce the number of gas-powered HICK-DRIVEN bass boats littering my scenery.
A supertax on houses would also be in order. I can afford it, so no worries there. Fewer houses use up a LOT less greenhouse-inducing electricity. Eventually, those who can’t afford homes will die off, of course, as the winter sets in … so the planet will be that much better off as those poor meatbags stop consuming Mother Gaia.
Tax the poor out of existence! Make the planet safer, and greener!
Wonderful idea! It’s just not EXPANSIVE enough.
— Posted by freakyreader123
2007
12:22 pm
jane said: “Personally attacking a commenter only makes you look ill-informed on a blog with readership like this one.”
Why did you address that to me? I’ve performed no personal attacks; the worst I’ve done is refuse to interact with bztips’ challenges of my education. (I don’t consider those personal attacks, but I do consider them off-topic.) Before he can speculate about WHY I’m wrong, he’s going to have to show THAT I’m wrong.
If bztips wants to interact, he’s going to have to respond in some way to my arguments — not simply say “Clueless…” If he doesn’t want to interact, that’s fine too.
-Billy
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
12:35 pm
freakyreader123: you’re missing the point. The problem is that people who consume a resource do not always pay for the resource. Because they do not pay for it, it’s not conserved.
Because it’s not conserved, *everyone* pays a much higher price in the long run.
The point isn’t to find new ways to tax people; the point is to find ways to use the market to manage resources by providing economic signals for things that were previously unpriced.
I suggest a Pigovian tax scheme (such as this) must reduce non-Pigovian taxes to make up for the increased Pigovian revenues. (By the way, for reference: an explanation of “Pigovian”).
I do believe that Pigovian taxes are the least effective way to correct market failures caused by externalities, since they depend on the government correctly predicting and setting the appropriate prices (which, in theory and practice, is impossible). However, I can believe that they might be better than doing nothing, and are almost certainly better than simple prohibitive regulation.
-Billy
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
12:38 pm
#75 - doesn’t an externality mean that there is overconsumption and in order to correct this it must therefore mean that some people will move away from the good because it is now at its correct price. Just because somebody consumes something when it is cheap, it doesn’t give them the right to always consume that good.
— Posted by j0nesy
2007
5:26 pm
Billy,
I get the whole Piglovian argument … but the benefit is that I and other rich folks will benefit … that’s all we care about. Your pittance taxes don’t affect us.
Get poor people out of my sight and out of my lane with as many taxes as you want. I could care less, since I can afford to pay them without thinking for a moment about the effect such taxes have on my lifestyle. They don’t affect my lifestyle except in beneficial ways that reduce the liklihood that I’ll run into one of you poor types.
That guy in his beat up old Chevy in front of me on the interstate? He affects my lifestyle. So, I’m all for taxing his ass right off the road.
Same with Mr. Bass Boat and his beer belly. How gauche. Please, tax that man … and me! I can afford it and am happy to pay the price to see him priced out of my view.
I hate standing in line at the airport behind Ms. Bigbutt and her 9 screaming brats. Oh for the day when air travel was the provence of the sophisticated.
We should tax it … all in the name of making the planet “greener” of course, so as not to let the po-folk in on our little secret.
Tax everyone I say. I can afford it.
Can you? Then get to the back of the bus and shutchurpiehole.
— Posted by freakyreader123
2007
10:16 am
Freakyreader,
I hope there is extreme sarcasm in your posts, otherwise you’re just ignorant. The point of internalizing the costs associated with driving is not to make the lives of the wealthy better while punishing the less fortunate. The point is to make everyone pay the ACTUAL cost of consuming gasoline.
As was pointed out in many previous posts, the dollar amount of a gallon of gasoline is not the full cost of that consumption. The negative externalities of pollution, congestion, and increased risk of accidents need to be paid by those who choose to impose them on others.
So if you truely are wealthy and willing to pay those costs, I’m all for it. However, don’t assume that the motivation behind suggesting that you pay for those costs is to make your life better.
— Posted by jlwillia
2007
11:41 am
JLWillia,
I’m drawing you a picture of a society where the wealthy force tax increases on the poor so their limo can get them to their next yacht trip quicker.
My point is that taxes don’t affect everyone equally. Rich guys who have multi-million bestsellers are, of course, for increased gas taxes that lower their commute times, reduce their insurance rates and reduce the liklihood they’ll get killed in an auto accident.
I’m quite certain there are economic benefits internalizing economic costs. Isn’t it convenient how the benefit always accrues to the wealthy, who can pay the tax without such a tax impacting their lifestyle one little bit? In fact, isn’t it convenient how such taxes only IMPROVE the lives of the rich, at the expense of the poor?
Of course rich guys with multi-million dollar sailing yachts want to see taxes increased on gas-guzzling bass boats. Taxes don’t affect rich guys with multi-million dollar book deals.
The point of the taxes, I maintain, IS to make the lives of the wealthy better. It’s to price out of the market for transportation the poor schmuck just trying to get to work.
Get that prole onto a bus so we can save the planet!
The rallying cry of billionaires everywhere!
— Posted by freakyreader123
2007
12:48 pm
freakyreader,
What you are talking about is the effect of an efficient market. You can’t fault the wealthy for being able to purchase a good or service that someone who is less wealthy cannot afford.
I don’t own a mansion or an expensive car, but I don’t expect Bill Gates to feel bad about that. He provided a valuable good to people and businesses that allowed them to increase their productivity. I have yet to do that. So how is it fair that I should have the “right” to own a mansion?
If your are talking about morality that is another issue. However, you can’t argue an economic principle using morals. I’m not in a position to say what is right and wrong. However, I have the training in economics to say what the market dictates….
— Posted by jlwillia
2007
12:59 pm
At the very least the gas tax should be raised enough to pay for local streets and sidewalks as well as highways, including the cost of construction, repairs, cleaning, and public safety (police.) Let the full amount be collected as a federal gas tax. Then have the larger portion rebated to local governments based upon the volume of local gas sales.
— Posted by pgduffyjr
2007
2:03 pm
freakyreader, your logic would prove that the wealthy shouldn’t be wealthy. That’s what the word means — they own more resources so they can do more things.
I just don’t see why public policy should set out to deny that fact.
If my driving a mile costs a total of $20 (for everyone), then it seems that if I can’t personally pay at least $20, I shouldn’t drive that mile. I should at least *see* the full cost of my driving, so that I can weigh the costs against the benefits.
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
4:31 pm
I like the latest exchange of arguments - the truth is somewhere in the middle ;-)
I think the real issue is that if those who live in suburbs and drive to work every day are forced (with impossible taxes) to stop driving, they will simply not be able to go to work. The reason is that they don’t have an alternative.
How many suburbs have a good (fast and capable to handle high volumes) buss or train connection to the closest business/industrial area?
Unless such an infrastructure already exists, it does not make much sense to introduce higher taxes right now. The only reason that could justify rising the fuel tax is that people will start buying more fuel-efficient cars (a very good reason!) but it will not make congestions disappear or make the roads safer.
However if the tax burden becomes prohibitively high, people will stop driving and that will have bad consequences to all:
1) Poor people will try to move to the cities (closer to work) and as a result real estate market in the suburbs may collapse. Many will lose their jobs and will be forced to pay higher housing prices in the cities in the same time. Their quality of life will deteriorate drastically.
2) Middle and upper-middle class will also be impacted because we all know that businesses are thriving when there are enough consumers with enough money to pay for the goods/services they are providing.
In a situation like that the only ones who would profit would be the super-rich and the speculators who will be able to profit at the expense of the poorer (making them even poorer).
— Posted by Kirilius
2007
4:40 pm
And one more thing: I don’t think that the cost of the accident risk should be discussed here. That is supposed to be already covered by the insurance. And I might say that it is covered in a much better and fair way that the proposed flat tax solution. Insurance depends on the type of the car, driver’s history (bad drivers are penalized with higher premiums), time spent behind the wheel, etc.
— Posted by Kirilius
2007
6:45 pm
Good analysis, Kirilius. I disagree, but you’re thinking and explaining well.
“I think the real issue is that if those who live in suburbs and drive to work every day are forced (with impossible taxes) to stop driving,”
I have to interrupt to say that these high fees aren’t force, and don’t cause a specific end; they ideally give incentives to allow each person to evaluate the true cost of the given action (in this case driving).
“The reason is that they don’t have an alternative.”
Don’t they? We know of many things that serve as alternatives now; there are problems, but those problems can be overcome. Consider telecommuting; as driving becomes more expensive, the ability to telecommute will become more valuable, and thus employers will cause it to be more appropriate in more circumstances.
Moving closer to work is definitely an alternative, although you discuss some undeniable shortcomings:
“as a result real estate market in the suburbs may collapse.”
You mean the prices will become lower. Yes, this is a problem with maladjusted economics: correcting the maladjustment causes “dislocations” (i.e. pain caused by plans going awry). But the problem is that the correction cannot be prevented: the maladjustment is real, and everybody is going to pay for it, now in a controlled manner, or later in an uncontrolled matter. (Unless you can argue that there is really no maladjustment!)
You also are assuming that the suburb price drop will be an unmitigated evil. Why should that be?
“Many will lose their jobs and will be forced to pay higher housing prices in the cities in the same time.”
No, they’ll be forced to choose between higher suburban driving fees (although with lower living costs, but it’ll still be a net loss), higher city living costs, a job that requires less driving, or something I haven’t predicted. I don’t see the “losing their jobs” as a possible outcome.
“Their quality of life will deteriorate drastically.”
First, why drastically? Second, will it be as bad as the overconsumption and misallocation we’re building up now? Third, won’t people have more choices than you’re claiming in HOW their life changes (not only the ones I’m “clever” enough to think of, but also other solutions smarter and more entrepreneurial people invent)?
“In a situation like that the only ones who would profit would be the super-rich”
No; if your doomsday scenario were true, they’d be paying through the nose for their companies to stay in business. (There’s a LOT of commercial traffic, and really, all the money to pay for commuters comes from the salaries companies pay.)
The ones who profit would be _everyone_ who doesn’t have to pay for a good that they don’t get to enjoy.
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
6:54 pm
“And one more thing: I don’t think that the cost of the accident risk should be discussed here. That is supposed to be already covered by the insurance.”
Although I agree with you that insurance risk isn’t part of this problem, I think his point is that other drivers have to pay (through insurance) for the risk I create. I think he’s confusing correlation with causation, but if I’m not right his point does stand.
I suspect a better solution for the problem of risk will involve changes in insurance regulation rather than taxation, though.
— Posted by wtanksleyjr
2007
3:31 pm
“What you are talking about is the effect of an efficient market. You can’t fault the wealthy for being able to purchase a good or service that someone who is less wealthy cannot afford.”
Um … no, that’s not what I’m lamenting.
I’m lamenting the demands of the wealthy to IMPOSE UPON the rest of us increased costs in the form of HIGHER TAXES that don’t impact their lifestyles as a way of eliminating us from the market for what they want … in this case … lanespace.
It’s not that we are jealous that they have better cars. It’s that they don’t want my POS car in their way as they go to and fro. It’s that they don’t want me to have a car at all.
So, why not increase gas taxes? After all, it’s not going to affect the really important people. And it would tend to remove from the market for lanespace those least able to afford increased taxes, who also happen to be in the junk-mobile ahead of my limo.
Amazing coincidence? Or egalitarianism of Hitlerian porportions.
Why, the next thing you know, there will be a tax on having kids. After all, a new person makes Global Warming worse and increases societies risks (and thus, naturally, existing people’s insurance rates).
New babies grow up to be bad drivers, after all.
Why not tax people who give birth for the intrusion on the rest of us that their new child represents, such as their one day getting in my way on the highway when I’m off to the yacht club for a very important sailing event?
Yes … I can see the future now. Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Schmuck. You can’t afford to procreate. Too bad about your line. But, so much the better for the overall gene pool, which will no doubt benefit from your lack of continuation.
Quite Hitlerian indeed.
— Posted by freakyreader123
2007
12:04 am
While I agree with the three arguments, I’m not sure a steep gas tax is the right answer. First, if it costs only $0.12/gallon to relieve me of my green guilt, so be it. Let me pay my $0.12/gallon to be carbon “neutral” and leave me alone about my car and the environment. $0.12/gallon (
— Posted by jlaky2000
2007
12:09 am
Sorry, my comment doesn’t look like it posted correctly. Additionally, the low per gallon tax would might actually hurt the global climate control movement because people might see $0.12 as a small price to pay for feeling good about their Hummers.
— Posted by jlaky2000
2007
11:02 pm
Interesting blog. You may enjoy higher gas prices, but for those of us working stiffs trying to make a living, the higher gas prices are a problem and can make it difficult to make ends meet. Are others as sick of the prices as I am?
I ran across an interesting site recently that has a free 10-day mini-course that teaches how to use less gas. Watch also for the course that shows how to cut $520 per year off your gas bill. I thought it was bull at first, but after reading it, my family is already starting to see the savings.
Check it out at www.GasPricesWeb.com
–Tom Williams
— Posted by TomW
2007
9:28 am
Interesting observations, but my guess is that you had the conclusions first and the arguments followed. Congestion would seem more related to overall population density and the availability of an EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT shuttle system [rail, subway, buses] in metropolitan areas.
For example, in the Detroit area, there are virtually no alternatives to surface streets/expressways for moving about the city. Nevertheless, traffic is really a minor issue now that the city population is less than 1/2 of what it was at its peak and the county population is dropping rapidly as manufacturing is dying.
In no way, do I see higher fuel costs improving traffic… or the lives of those who must travel to work.
By the way, I enjoyed your book, Freakonomics, and have referred to in several times.
My take on this:
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/08/mullaly-and-fu el-taxes.html
— Posted by Bruce Hall
2007
11:27 am
Holy Cow! I don’t know if higher gas prices are good, but I do know that they’re, at least, partially our fault. Buy 10 gallons of gas when you stop by the local gas station. When you’re running close to empty, buy 10 more gallons. Don’t ever carry more gas in your tank than you think you’ll need in the short-term. How does this help? You force the local station/local distributor/big oil companies to store their own stuff. The more their surplus builds the more incentive they have to offer better prices to move it. Let them take showers and brush their teeth with the stuff. Very simple application of supply and demand.
— Posted by John
2007
11:41 am
The gas tax is a roughly fair way to pay for roads. If you drive more, you pay more. If you drive a bigger car, you pay more. It is easy to pay and collect with not much paperwork or opportunity to cheat. Toll booths or easy pass are more complicated and expensive for the state to run. “Miles Driven” would be complicated if they used the UK idea which involves tracking cars. If you have to report your mileage each year and pay up, it would cause cheating, bureaucracy and odometer tampering, if the miles driven were just reported or gathered by having your car checked at the Secretary of State’s office when you renewed you plates. With a gas tax, you pay for the miles as you drive them, so it is roughly identical to a miles driven system. But the gas tax gives Priuses a tax break. A gas should be roughly calculated by money needed for roads divided by gallons sold in state. None of this setting a floor price, as the price of gas goes up in general, the state will then loose the money it needs for roads.
— Posted by Eric
2007
1:33 pm
Couldn’t agree more with you. Bring on higher cash prices!
— Posted by Mark Evans
2007
1:11 pm
Gas is still cheaper than most of the liquids we consume everyday… http://oddspotting.blogspot.com/2007/08/gas-prices.html
— Posted by corey
2007
12:17 pm
Subject :- Driving Petrol Cars in an Environmentally-friendly Way.
Comments :- Not been able to find a single site that would accept changes and work with them rather
than against them to combat the fossil fuel car emissions & highly reduce the fuel consumption.
Do you have suggestions for new opportunities for the greater good!
— Posted by SKT
2007
12:19 pm
Subject :- Driving Petrol Cars in an Environmentally-friendly Way.
Comments : -Not been able to find a single site that would accept changes and work with them rather
than against them to combat the fossil fuel car emissions & highly reduce the fuel consumption.
Do have suggestions for new opportunities for the greater good!
— Posted by SKT
2007
11:35 pm
The price of gas should be a mute issue to our society (except for those who have invested in rising fuel prices). Detroit is stuck in the middle ages concerning automobile technology and fuel efficiency. Technology to improve efficiency plus power output is available but ignored by Detroit. Let’s save the earth AND drive fast fuel efficient cars at the same time!
— Posted by max zellwegr
2007
1:40 pm
I am a transportation engineer. Here is my perspective:
1- you need to consider losses in productivity if people cannot travel as freely.
2- you need to consider that price of goods will go up if trucking companies need to pay more to deliver goods
3- you assume that those taxes are going straight back to the public, whereas a large chunk of it will be put to sub-optimal use by bureaucrats as they do such things as ear mark millions of dollars for a bridge in Alaska to serve 50 people
I think that toll roads are a better way to manage traffic and allow people to buy a faster trip through congested corridors.
— Posted by LIP
2007
4:23 pm
I’m a lot more extreme then that. I think we should have a 25 cent tax increase on gasoilne each year until it’s 10 dollars per gallon. Also we should do everything we can to transfer over to 100% ethanol and apply zero taxes to drivers of electric cars.
— Posted by law
2007
7:39 pm
I have a simple solution- Ready?
Promote companies who allow employees to work from home.
Think about that for a while….
— Posted by Jason
2007
8:11 am
A tourist buying a US gallon in the UK would pay about $7.50 today.
— Posted by Bill mathers
2007
7:42 am
Hey! I know where everyone can get gasoline for 85cents/gallon!! It’s the best fuel you’ll ever get, too. Where?? Kuwait!! Yes, sir!! The MIDDLE EAST is LIVING IT UP!!! The USA gets screwed every day by CEOs & Politicians that continue to get rich. Meanwhile, the Kuwaitis are driving Hummers, Ferraris & Maseratis, and paying 85 cents per gallon for top-grade unleaded. American lives were sacrificed 15 years ago in Desert Storm, so that OPEC, Republicans and Oil Companies could tap into the Kuwaiti oil fields and get rich, rich, rich for decades to come. Naturally, they’re making the Kuwaitis rich, too, giving them the chance to live in 7,000 sq. ft. homes & oppress people from all over the world. Yes, sir = Saudi Arabia had slaves until 1962, and for all practical purposes, it still exists over here. So, every time you fill up your big luxury cars & trucks, remember that another Indian or Pakistani maid is quite likely getting beaten and/or raped (documented cases) under the oppression of her Kuwaiti “employer”, your Exxon CEO is setting up his $5BILLION retirment package, and your local Congressman is filling up HIS Lexus on YOUR tax dollars.
— Posted by Joe Johnson
2007
2:47 pm
hey! dont get middle east into this, we talking about america who cares about the other countries.
— Posted by jake
2007
4:09 am
I agree with #103. I’m all for working from home. Not only does this allow for less emissions and me not contributing to the global warming or risking someone hitting my ride, but this allow me to not contribute to these OUTRAGEOUS, UNCALLED FOR GAS PRICES!!!! I mean it—I’m sick of this! And I didn’t even consider that there were people out their that existed that are all for the increase on gas taxes until I read some of these comments. You should be ashamed of yourselves! (lol) What are you peops thinking??? Have you lost your natural minds?!?!?. As one poster said, gas is becoming less affordable and this will result in people losing their jobs. Why, some of us are already having to make a decision whether we’re going to by that loaf of bread and gallon of milk or get a gallon or two of gas. This is utterly ridiculous!!!
— Posted by juswan2003
2008
6:04 pm
In repsonse to #7: it’s people like egretman that are the reason for our high gas prices, and all the concomitant problems with respect to global warming, health problems, and dependency on hostile states, not to mention it’s RUNNING OUT thanks to PEAK OIL.
For the record, I drive a Prius. Do you realize that gas would have to go $54/gallon(!) before a caropool of 4 ppl in a Prius pays as much as a solo SUV driver today? (Hummer = $3.60/gal / 12 miles/gallon = $.30/mile per 1 person); Prius = $3.60/gal / 45 miles/gallon = $.08/mile / 4 people = $.02/mile/person. So, the prius pays 1/15 as much per person (with 4 ppl) as a hummer solo. So gas would have to go up 15x before they equal (15 x $3.60 = $54!)
So egretman, who’s more patriotic? Anyhow, I happen to keep an RPG-7 in my trunk. They seem to work pretty well against hummers, as we’ve seen in Iraq. If I ever see YOU in my rearview mirror, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull over and use it. Consider THAT my salute to you, you cracker cowboy!
— Posted by HummerKiller73
2008
1:40 am
Why Should I pay $30000 for a Toyota Prius, when I can buy a Nissan Titan that has more usage, aka travel trailer, trailer. This is Stupid, you buy a Prius, which can only transport you to work AND THAT IS IT!. Besides that, no functionality, no horsepower, nothing. However, you still pay the price at $30,000. Let’s do the math. Versatilty, versus overpriced Moped with shelter. GO FIGURE!!
— Posted by Michael Doss
2008
12:43 pm
If you are so concerned about global warming and burdening others on the road, why don’t you just stop driving all together? In fact, you should stop breathing because the c02 you are realeasing when you exhale contributes to global warming. I just think you environmentalists are all crazy, like burning down houses just because it’s made of wood and basically wasting what was there in the first place. You all are contradictory, and self-defeating. I am so sure that global warming is a normal thing. I know this because of research scientists have done. It’s happened in the past before cars were invented and it will continue to happen no matter what you do. I say just leave the whole pointless situation alone, but of course it remains your own choice if you want to waste your time worrying about whether or not the grass is finally growing while there’s a war in iraq going on behind your back. Wake up and hear the bullets you freaking environmentalists!
— Posted by Conservative
2008
2:11 pm
$1 a gallon tax. We are a sprawling nation. Ever wonder how we get all of those goods to market. That’s right transportation. And you want to eliminate it altogether, great. Ever think of all the jobs and people hurt by all of the taxes you propose. I am personally on the brink of disaster because of environmentalists. I drive 43000 miles a year to take care of my vending company. I give most of the profits to the loan on the business, and rising gas prices. Some not as direct as others, but it all ends up in the gas man’s hand. I have watched my daily expenditures double in 6 years, 6 YEARS!!! while my business has grown 20%. Thanks to environmentalist wackos, I am paying taxes in excess of 20% of the gross of my business and no money made to support myself. Thanks for your help in sucking all of the money OUT of this nation with EPA standards, higher food cost, and higher taxes.
— Posted by Chris
2008
4:02 pm
That’s all fine and dandy and it makes sense. However, unfortunetly we live in a time where driving is a necessity. I work 30 miles from where I live. Due to circumstances, the local job market and family reasons this is the way it needs to be. Americans are controlled by time. We are always rushed, on the move and in a hurry. This is life here. Maybe if society could learn to be more like countries in Europe, where they ride their bikes to work, relax and take their time, the traffic jams, accidents and global warming could be remedied. But right now, I need to work to live and I need to drive to work and the gas prices increasing doesn’t help this situation. If we’re going to raise the gas prices to eliminate the abundant problems associated with driving autos- then we need to do so because we’re pushing society into a new direction of thinking and useage- not to just empty our pockets with MORE taxes. Because in the long run people are still going to need to drive to get to work and therefore will cut spendings on other items to pay for their ever-needed gas!
— Posted by Katie
2008
6:54 pm
I’m a stay at home mother of 3 children, all involved in extra curricular activities. I recently traded in our SUV for a minivan to try and get better gas mileage and save money, but the constant rising prices are making it more and more difficult to run the kids to their events. You would figure with all of the technology that exists today, the government would mandate that newer cars be made to use other fuel alternatives. My husband did come across this website with an interesting idea, but I’m not sure whether or not to believe its contents (http://need2gogreen.blogspot.com/). If it is true, why wouldn’t the government utilize this technology? Does our government really that influenced by the major oil companies?
— Posted by Barry
2008
5:28 pm
Perhaps since gas has now risen way past the “hooray” days of 2007 when this article was first written, we may think twice about the “cheap price of gas” these days.
I have and idea that could actually bring prices down at the pumps for us average Joes & Janes out here and I would really like some feedback. My idea, as you will see below, is meant to pass on high prices to companies/industries and their customers so as to level out and reduce prices at the pumps…see what you think! Begin your thinking with one of the multi-billion dollar industries: NASCAR Racing —
As a kid of the mid 70’s just beginning to drive, I remember all to well the weekly…daily…hourly rises in fuel prices at the pumps. The “privilege” to sit in long lines which started at 5:00 a.m. to receive my ration of gasoline on the day my license plate dictated. I will stay away from the political side of things and focus on the economic and marketing issues surrounding this current fuel crises, what I refer to as “The 2nd Fake Fuel Shortage”. Granted our natural resources are diminishing and we all should do our part to conserve them. However from a marketing and free trade view point there are steps which could be taken in free enterprise to relieve the “pain at the pumps”. My idea…and I would really love to hear from fellow readers/bloggers about this or others concepts that could work.
RECREATIONAL BUSINESSES’ use of fossil fuels, Auto Racing, all venues; Boat Racing, all venues etc. I am NOT against them, however from a marketing standpoint, their fuels should be increased 2x’s; 3x’s; 5x’s their current prices. While reducing the public prices 20%; 40%; 50% etc all over the same short period of time. Therefore placing the burden of rising prices on to the fans (Racing Customers)”racing fanatics” (Repeat Customers) and the teams (Racing Industries). Basically equalizing prices of fuel for everyday use.
If someone has current information please share it on this Freakonomics Blog. This is the information I am currently researching: How much fuel costs are involved during (1) 300 mile stock car race? Per car, per mile, per race. Think of the savings of millions of dollars that could be passed on to the general public, absorbed by the “multi-BILLION dollar” Recreational Businesses
— Posted by Marion
2008
9:11 am
I was at the clinic yesterday and saw my 9 yr old nephew. he has leukemia. He’s probably not gonna live long but he remains optimistic and cheerful. On my way home from the clinic I needed gas and you know what? I fueled up and didn’t even realize or think about gas prices. strange huh? tell me something you sniveling whiners crying about gas. WHATS THE FRIGGING PROBLEM? oh I know boo hoo its effecting my pocket. money money money money money money money. hmmmm I wish that was my biggest problem. someday you might have to visit the hospital and the last thing your gonna think about is gas. Think about it.
ok your turn to rebut, best of luck.
— Posted by cabby
2008
8:20 pm
Mr Levitt
Why stop at simply raising the price of fuel? If you feel that gasoline is such a detriment to our society and the world at large, then don’t you think that you should call for more? If you are serious about saving the environment, eliminating traffic, or are concerned about the safety of people, then you should come to the ultimate conclusion and realize that gas is the problem. If you want to solve the problems associated with gas, then you need to write an article calling for our government to ban it completely from our society. While you are at it, call for the banning of “ALL” cars including the gas sipping Prius, Get rid of all things that burn gas and be done with it!
— Posted by Ed
2008
2:46 pm
In response to #108
HummerKiller73, people like egretman have the right to purchase any vehicle of their choice, for whatever reasons, just as you have the same right to buy and own a Prius for whatever reason you choose. People like you, do not have the right to impose your views on others no matter how much you disagree with them. People who own Hummers and other large vehicles certainly do not demand that you should buy a larger vehicle, why should you do the same?
As concerning your points; Global warming, health problems, dependency on hostile states, and the theory of Peak oil. You are sadly misinformed. There is plenty of evidence out there which suggests that global warming is not a man-made phenomena. The world isn’t a static place, but a dynamic one which geological time has proven with the evidence of past ice ages and warmer climates in cold places today. The sun itself experiences changes in it’s output. And nature emits far more of it’s own green house gases then we can. We know that based on this evidence, that future ice ages will come. In between those times will be warmth.
Health problems, yes you can suggest that there could be health problems associated with burning gasoline. What about the benefits of gas on health? Do you know that gas has contributed much to our advanced health care system? Gasoline as well as other forms of cheap energy has made many things possible. In transportation, we have the ability to travel great distances in short periods of time, this is especially critical in health care. We can send patients or donor organs across the country in a matter of hours. Even the simple things such as feeding our families is possible because we have the ability to transport food across the nation on the backs of trucks in less than a week. Gas plays a part, either directly or indirectly, in the development of new drugs, advanced research, and other areas of health care.
Dependency on hostile states; Much of the oil we purchase does in fact come from hostile states. Bad political decisions and poor energy policies prevent us from acquiring the oil we have available right here at home. The environmental movement in all of it’s good intentions has forced us to deal with tyrants and hostile nations. We could effectively render them useless by simply opening the spigots here, but we don’t because someone in Washington thinks that it’s better to be held captive to a bunch of snakes and socialists then to go after our own domestic oil over the fear of a theory.
Theory of Peak oil. The current energy crisis we face has nothing to do with us running out. It is certainly a supply problem, but it’s due to the mismanaged energy policies we hold to. There is still plenty of oil in the world and the oil companies are still finding more. The theorists can not even agree when or if Peak oil will occur. Some believe that it has already happened but they can’t agree on which year (Some say it occurred as early as 1965, others suggest 1979, etc) while some believe that it will occur in the next decade or two. But the reasonable conclusion we can logically come to is, they don’t know for sure. They can’t even be sure if oil is regenerating as the geological evidence shows that hydrocarbons is naturally occurring in the deep earth.
OK so you drive a Prius, based on your math, you state that gas would have to be $54/gal for a carpool of four to equal a solo driver in an SUV, lets look at it the other way too. If we had 4 carpoolers in a Hummer today and a solo driver in a Prius. The four carpoolers would pay about the same amount as the single solo Prius driver. ($.30 per mi.per person= $.075 or $.08, the same as the single Prius owner) Heres the difference, 4 carpoolers in a Prius is a tight fit for four full grown wage earning adults. Four full grown wage earning adults in a Hummer are far more comfortable and can take along personal belongings, such as luggage and even haul a boat or other trailer in safety. Whats more, you can take up to six in a Hummer further spreading the cost of fuel to $.06 per person/per mile.
Lets look at yet another area, I’m sure you will claim that a Hummer pollutes more than a Prius, however did you know that more pollution is produced making one Prius than there is making four Hummers?
Concerning your BS threats, you do not own an RPG-7, If in fact, you do know how to use an RPG-7, we can certainly understand where you got your views from, since this weapon is usually built in Communist countries. There is nothing patriotic about condoning the murder of someone who disagrees with you.
Ed
— Posted by Ed
2008
2:55 pm
“GAS” a monopoly among our community. A great leverage tool for the government to use to take advantage of the american people. Every commodity is priced accordingly from the cost of oil. All commodities are transported from clothes, food, lumber, etc. I personally have an opinion that the lobbyist are paid by the oil companies to pay the politicians to look the other way…and maybe our presidents partners are oil owners in Texas, and he maybe taking advantage of this while he has his chance still in office. I would hope he has more integrity than this, but I doubt he does! He could mandate the cost of fuel, but he would rather ruin the economy for his own benefit. This war is like watching a tyrant on a rampage. He keeps saying that the sacrifice of our young men, and woman is a sacrifice worth the cost….I disagree 100%, and I’m sure the parents of these young patriots would agree. The people will stand up when they have had enough of this misguided leadership.
The other topic I wanted to comment on is the comotion that the media is making about the white student that painted his face black and acted like obama getting a lapdance. I have to ask “Whats the big deal?” You know if this was a black guy like chappelle, and he was painted white and wearing a wig to make himself look like bill clinton getting a lapdance by someone…this would be a hilarious skit…..You know our society, and the black community takes this racism to far. If you want to know what racism is just look at this situation and the way they are reacting. Don’t take humor out of context!
Maximus
-Posted by Maximus
— Posted by Maximus
2008
9:02 pm
Of course the problems of global warming, congestion, etc. are big, but higher gas prices aren’t a great way to solve. If the government wants to enforce higher efficiency standards, they should get CAFE to raise or alter its standards then try to manipulate the market to achieve the same effect. Even with a fuel-efficient car (my family uses a Sentra and Corolla as our main drivers), high gas prices hit us hardest because we already can’t afford a gas guzzler or the initial price tag of one.
While some Americans might regard fuel-efficiency more now, many who can afford the 30K+ price tags of SUVs won’t be affected and won’t really care.
— Posted by Michael
2008
1:36 pm
I completely agree that demand for fuel should go down. There should be a progressive tax on large vehicles, with certain exemptions for people who do need a large truck for business purposes, or for other legitimate uses (if a person has a disability that is best accommodated by a large SUV, for example). In Europe, this is typically achieved by setting brackets for engine size and/or horsepower. Only that way will 100-pound girls stop driving a 6-liter-engine SUV to commute to and from the hair salon.
— Posted by Kiril
2008
5:20 pm
In response to 118, 119 and 120
118 Maximus.
You have a serious lack of knowledge in the role of the president according to the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. It’s obvious that you have a hate for the current president, nonetheless, the president or any other politician in high office should have no right or authority to establish by decree, or demand any sort of law which mandates a privately owned company how to run it’s business or set it’s prices. As much as you dislike the oil companies, they are in the business of providing a service, which you are not obligated to purchase. The reason why the price of oil has gone up is precisely due to politicians making mandates on the oil companies. The politicians have deliberately mandated that the oil companies cannot drill for more oil, they have restricted them from building new refineries and they have established other energy policies which prevents growth in the market and is causing a serious supply problem which is driving the price of oil and all other forms of energy up and one which forces us to depend on oil from unstable middle-east nations and communist dictators. We have plenty of oil available right here at home, we have over twice the coal available as an energy source, far away from terrorists and dictators, we could even put OPEC out of business if we wanted to flood the market, but we can’t, due to the numerous misguided mandates made by specifically left wing politicians who are using the global warming fear as a political tool.
119 Michael
Raising CAFE standards to meet efficiency standards is not a solution. In general, most Americans prefer larger cars to fill a variety of personal roles they have. A small fuel efficient commuter car may seem like the ideal car for the masses, but it lacks space necessary for many people to use their cars to transport people and cargo. Higher CAFE standards in the 70s ended the classic station wagon, but people still needed a vehicle that possessed capacity, so they began buying the next best vehicle which filled in that role, the SUV. If CAFE standards are made more restrictive, it may end the SUV, but Americans would simply buy another larger vehicle to replace them, because most Americans can’t do everything in a two seat commuter car, the size of a shoe box.
120 Kiril
The role of government is not to create tax to manipulate free will. Our founders believed in freedom and liberty. This freedom and liberty means that, that 100lb girl could drive anything she wants, no matter how much the govt and some members of society disapprove of her choice of vehicles, Frankly it’s really not your business! The concept of using tax to persuade society for political reasons is in line with the socialistic views of communal ownership of property. In this case thru taxation, the govt has established which vehicles are considered “undesirable” and which are “approved” Personally I’d rather not live in a society where others can tell me what I can do with my money, what kind of car I choose to drive, or limit me in anyway by the policies they make. If you want to believe in man made global warming, thats your choice, but don’t tell me and others, who do not believe in man made global warming, how to live. I’m sure you would not want me imposing my views on you, or force you to drive Hummers.
— Posted by Ed
2008
3:00 pm
Carbon Tax is just another way for the goverment to get into our pockets and push there political agenda. Enough is enough when it comes to global warming our earths enviroment is a bigger factor when it comes to climate change. This is a big farce and Al Gore needs to talk to those who really know what causes the earths climate change. It wasent to long ago we where being told that the earth was cooling and another Ice age was occuring. Funny how times have changed and our elected congressmen and senators just decide when and what is an issue to fit there political agenda to fit there needs and get brownie points with the secular worlds view. When it comes up to who is responsible for the enviroment all of us are responsible for our actions lets follow the guide lines of the EPA standards for gas emmissions then we will be doing our part. Come on lets all do a reality check and not fall off the cliff with the rest of the sheep following the leader.
— Posted by Robert Kassner
2008
7:53 pm
Check out http://www.freeonlinegascards.com a one of a kind site dedicated to giving out free gas cards! Signup is quick and easy.
— Posted by freeonlinegascards.com
2008
12:54 pm
oh yeah. blame it on the global warming.
— Posted by leaht.
2008
12:15 am
Find the cheapest gas in your area by going to this site: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/638321/find_ch eap_gas_prices_online_a_little.html?cat=3
It explains how to use different websites to find the cheapest gas in your area– and there is no signup at all. Just information. I wonder what the NYT author says now about high gas prices.. is this enough?
— Posted by findcheapgas
2008
1:47 pm
Somebody mentioned allowing local governments to raise taxes on gas. I like this idea better than an increase in the federal gas tax. I shouldn’t have to pay more for gas (I live in SW Missouri) because too many people live in NY city, LA, etc. Metropolitan areas that have problems with congestion should raise their gas taxes based on the amount of gas wasted due to congestion. They should also raise the tax on auto diesel, but make an exception for the diesel that is used by semi-trucks. The semi-truck exemption is because as a former semi-truck driver I know that if a truck driver is in a big city during rush hour it is not by choice, you deliver when and where you are told to deliver. This would put the tax burden on those who create the problem. I think this is a better solution than the mileage tax that the UK government and Mayor Bloomberg are advocating. Specifically because the mileage tax method would require the government to track individual vehicles and I don’t want the government tracking me. To those of you who will trot out that tired old “you shouldn’t care if you aren’t doing anything wrong”, I don’t assume that the government or anyone working for the government has my best interests at heart. The less the government knows about me the, the less information that they can “accidentally” allow some “never do well” to have access to.
— Posted by JR
2008
8:40 pm
So, are you willing to pay more for EVERYTHING? Independent trucks are going out of business, losing their equipment, their homes and their good credit ratings. Companies don’t want to raise the rates to haul their products so the shelf price does not go up because there is such a high unemployment rate, consumers will think twice before any purchase and only purchase base necessities. Keeping the fuel prices high are eventually going to increase everything you purchase, toothpaste, underwear, cars, everything. So then, the cost of everything goes up, what about the minimum wage people serving you your food at the restaurant? Do we increase minimum wage too? Where does it stop? Let’s keep what works going, low fuel prices, strong economy! Pretty simple math.
— Posted by Teresa
2008
11:41 am
In my opinion the internal combustion engine has long had a chokehold on the economy of the world being that it was most cost efficient to produce and run. But now that it is becoming more expensive to use, the demand for other forms of energy (electric cars, fuel cell, etc.) has skyrocketed. I believe that the current rising price of gasoline will lead to innovations that will bring the costs of energy (financially and environmentally)down extravegantly in the long run.
— Posted by Whit
2008
1:02 pm
Perhaps an additional benefit to higher gas prices is that it provides an increased monetary incentive to find an alternative energy source faster. If I have to provide an electric/hydrogen fueled car that has to beat $5 a gallon, I have a lot better shot than at $2 a gallon. Higher gas prices now, may mean relief comes to energy prices sooner in the future.
— Posted by Enoch
2008
1:04 pm
Aside from a dollar a gallon federal gas tax their needs to be an annual vehicle tax on the curb weight of each vehicle. Heavier cars taxed more heavily than lighter cars. But… would than lead to better public transportation and a willingness to use it?
— Posted by Victor
2008
3:05 pm
In response to JR 126
Advocating for the increase of local taxes is just as bad as advocating for a national tax. The purpose of tax no matter if it’s at the state level or national level is not to manipulate the behavior of people. A local tax that is intended to alleviate congestion will only result in city dwellers moving to the suburbs where the taxes and ultimately their cost of living is less, which increases congestion in the suburbs and results in similar increases in taxation there. If you want to solve congestion there are other ways without raising the tax rate.
In response to Whit 128
The internal engine has never had a choke hold on the economy. The existence of the internal combustion engine and oil has helped to increase the quality of life in modern society and contribute to our economy. Even from the very beginning, the internal combustion engine had competition from steam engines and electric motors. However in a capitalist system, the consumer chooses which product is the best. In this case, the internal combustion engine won out over the others. It was more powerful, more reliable, more dependable and had far greater range then either of the other machines. The current reason why internal combustion engines have become more expensive to use has to do with energy policies created under a political agenda that is intended to choke off the internal combustion engine and the oil which runs it. These same energy policies will effect other forms of energy and the machines which use them. The current electric grid is rapidly approaching maximum capacity. Converting over to millions of electric cars will overwhelm the power grid. Then there are the massive number of regulations and limits placed on electric generation. We aren’t allowed to use coal gas or other combustible energy sources, due to the same environmental concerns hovering over the automobile, we haven’t built a nuclear power plant in years, and renewable energy has it’s own environmental impact concerns (Such as dams) or is random at best (wind and solar)
Gasoline is an ideal energy source. It is relatively cheap, and abundant. If you want the economy to grow, request that the politicians change their energy policies. Lets flood the market by drilling for more oil, and build some more refineries.
In response to Enoch 129
Higher gas prices should never-ever be used as the excuse to create incentive because it puts many people at economic risk. The hardest hit are those who can’t even afford to buy a new car.
The price of energy has to come down and be affordable for all. What good does it do to have a car that gets 40-50 mpg but the price of gas is $100/gal?? The incentive for fuel efficient cars and alternative energy should come from the people. Let the free market work.
In response to Victor 130
Basically owners of larger cars are already being taxed more because they already have to buy much more gas which is already taxed too high. People want larger cars, they use their extra capacity to carry their families, carry things in them and even support their livelihoods. The solution isn’t to increase tax to manipulate people into driving smaller cars. This isn’t the freedom which our founders foresaw. People should have the freedom to exercise their option to buy any car, no matter it’s size. The govt should not have the right to force the people, by taxation or mandate, to drive smaller cars.
— Posted by Ed
2008
8:16 am
maybe Mr.Levitt should just not own a car if he is so glad prices are high since because of high prices we can no longer buy food and all the other dominoes are beginning to fall. I’ve never heard such a ridiculus in my life. There is no global warming idiots!!!!! Find some other prodject to hug to make yourselves all giddy inside.
— Posted by kbab
2008
8:58 am
i cant believe what i am reading on this blog, are you people crazy.Gas prices are at a all time high and we acually have people happy about it ,omg this is crazy.Something has got to be done about this as the oil companies and our messed up goverment officials,as they get there pockets filled ,we middle class people are becoming extinct.You want to tax something ,put a outragious tariff tax on all the companies in the U.S. leaving our soil to do buisness at slave rates in other countries, but stay away from our fule prices. i make around $60,000 a year working for a factory here in ohio,after the outrages taxes i pay for payroll tax i bring home about$38000 a year. i live about 30 miles from work and it cost me $100 a week to get back and fourth to work thats $400 a month $4800 a year, come on this is nuts and something has to be done before its to late for american people!
— Posted by jj
2008
11:08 am
So who gets to decide when and where someone gets to drive?
— Posted by glenn
2008
5:07 pm
Most normal people who have no choice but to drive to and from work each day don’t appreciate higher gas prices or the constantly rising taxes. Inflation affects us all in adverse ways. Unfortunately, barack and hilary want to raise taxes even more for the “benefit of the american people” Where is the free health care coming from? whose pockets are we emptying out? Environmentalists have become a very annoying obstacle in the way of correct decision and necessary law. Environmentalists are nothing more than obstacles. (Don’t they just love taxes?)
— Posted by Conservative
2008
10:59 pm
I actually took my spring break to try and find ways to improve the mpg of my truck and I wrote about it on a blog @ greenergas.blogspot.com… I hope some of the information is helpful, it was a really fun side project and I think a lot of people could use it to their advantage.
Cheers,
Justin
— Posted by Justin
2008
3:24 am
America should just get it’s economy running without wasting so much fuel. There should be more busses and trains (also commuter trains). Those aren’t ment for the poor only. They are ment for people who are going in the same direction. It just looks so ridicilous when there’s a traffic jam and hundreds of people all sitting in their own cars all alone waiting to get forwards. There’s a lot of space wasted too.
Be sure to remember that here in Finland oil prices are $8.41 and higher. And I’m okay with that. And our economy and everyone else is too, even though the distances are long. So I don’t travel on my own by car, ‘cos it’s so expensive. We have trains that don’t use oil at all.
— Posted by Otso
2008
10:28 pm
I saw a senator from Washington debating the problems with gas prices. Her argument came down generally to the fact that the U.S. has regulatory authority, but the U.S. is not enforcing that regulatory authority on the oil industry. This is very similar to how the U.S. had regulatory authority over mortgage and security firms but failed to regulate and avoid the housing bubble that we are currently struggling with. I am all for enforcing government regulation in favor of taxpayers, especially since the oil corporations are quarter after quarter announcing record profits.
Noah at ShortOnChange.com
http://www.ShortOnChange.com
— Posted by Noah
2008
6:45 am
from just an average stiff point of view : the spouse is unable to
go to work today bcause the budget gas portion was used up
2 months ago and we have travled to work on borrowed time and funds since. most working persons in this 2 state area are
driving 150 t0 225 miles to work each day [some 6 and 7 days per week] as long as they are able to endure. the 1st missed day due to lack of funds due to gas portion of budget increasing
in excess of 2.5 in past 2 months.
congestion? huge, but only at same specific hours of the day every day. why can’t hours be TRULY staggered so the roads are used during the ‘empty’ portion of the day ? stubborn
business owners,ceos, managers and supervisor/managers.
American business needs to wake up and realize GOD is not them. business officiates need to communicate to their apathetic governmant representatives there is need to get of their representative duffs and give emergency relief . what is happening to us is not just ‘the poor’, but is the general populace and influences negatively the whole economy from food to housing to utilities. Necessities. THEN miraculously one day, WallStreet finally has a bad day and every one accuires sight. HMM… these alices need to leave wonderland and get a great big one to the moon… and soon.
Myrt
— Posted by myrt
2008
11:37 am
I disagree with taxing to compensate for the first two externalities (congestion, accidents). That is because externalities theoretically should be paid to who suffers the externality. In these two cases this would be … other drivers! So every driver would put in and get out the same and it’s a wash. I suppose that people who drive bigger cars that use LESS gas should pay more, since they create more congestion and do more damage per gallon than others. But that’s senseless nitpicking. The only significant externalities it is worth pricing into a gas tax are pollution and road construction/repair.
— Posted by Free_marketeer
2008
5:09 pm
In response to Otso #137
I am not against public transportation, but it is not ideal under all circumstances. For it to work you have to have large populations to use them and a rather extensive system, in order to pay for itself. The ideal locations for such systems are in cities or other dense populations. In rural or less dense populations they can be a burden and an expense to their communities. Without enough riders, they cannot pay for themselves. The result is usually public transportation which has to be subsidized at tax payer expense. If the cost of fuel goes up, taxes to pay for the system has to go up too. Not everyone likes public transportation, it isn’t as safe to use, it requires much more time to travel, and you can forget it if you have to transport something. I’m sure that the average Finnish person would rather drive and would be willing to wait in traffic for the convenience of freedom of movement and the relative safety and privacy of a car, but cannot afford it due to your high gas prices. The reality here is that any country which purposely uses taxes to make a commodity unaffordable isn’t interested in strengthening their economy.
You stated that America should get it’s economy running without wasting so much fuel. What you have failed to see, is that our economy is driven by oil. That oil has a cost. If business wastes fuel, it’s wasting it’s profits, and profit is the main reason businesses exist.
— Posted by Ed