> I've been a little curious about why this issue is, in the
> discussions of the past year or so, mainly framed in terms of
> taxing gasoline rather than in terms of taxing gas-guzzling
> vehicles. Taxing fuel is no doubt a sensible way to encourage
> conservation over the long run, but as listmembers have rightly
> pointed out, the impact is regressive. But I would guess that a tax
> on SUVs would be much more progressive, and would have a much
> faster impact on the average fuel efficiency of vehicles on the road.
>
> So why not a modest increase in gasoline taxes combined with a
> killer tax on gas guzzling SUVs?
Why not both a killer luxury tax on SUVs and a higher gasoline taxes?
Regressive taxes are already being levied on predominantly working- class consumer products: taxes on cigarettes, to take the most obvious example, to which no one here seems to object. A higher gas tax won't be as regressive as cigarette taxes. Speaking of regressive taxes, we might also tax the most commonly available weapons of mass destruction (see the highlights on the diabetes epidemic at <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of- Mon-20060109/028730.html>) -- franchise fast food, soda pops, and sugary and fatty readymade snacks -- at the same rate that cigarettes are taxed.
Jordan says:
> > The gasoline tax in the USA needs to be at least doubled ...
>
> This seems to come up often here, but you can't "just" raise the
> tax on gasoline without providing an alternative to those who then
> can't afford it.
Yes, we'll offer alternatives, but alternatives cost money, and the money for altenatives has to come from not only higher corporate, wealth, and income taxes (geared toward economic redistribution and infrastructure investment) but also excise taxes (to change mass behaviors of the broad middle, who need to become motivated to live, work, play, and shop in and thus regenerate cities). The combination of both, plus social programs, should be designed to make the overall tax burden -- _not each tax_ -- become more progressive.
> > the idea is to use price to change behavior.
>
> Given almost zero support for this kind of thing in the past --
> when gas went to $3 from $2 recently, consumption went up! -- I
> don't see why you'd think that this would work.
That only shows that gasoline is still too cheap for most Americans even at $3. The doubling of the gas tax probably won't be enough, then. We'll have to make the gas price go beyond the threshold where behavioral change begins.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>