> Not to mention that a well tailored and targeted gas tax can
> actually provide choice. A good gas tax would be adjusted so
> that the rate would increase with population density, i.e.,
> the higher the density the higher the tax. This way rural
> people and those in the resource sectors do not get hit by
> high fuel prices. But here is the key: the revenues raised
> from the tax must be legislatively directed towards projects
> which reduce fuel consumption and provide alternatives for citizens.
> The obvious is of course public transit which is only really
> cost efficient in high density areas.
In principle, you are right, but tax rate varying by geographical areas would have a lot of undesired effects, such as high density residents driving to the sticks to refuel at a lower cost, which would actually increase traffic, smuggling, etc. A better solution is a flat gas tax rate across the nation, and targeted refunds. The benefit of that solution, in addition to avoiding the negative consequences I just mentioned is to provide financial incentives for the low density areas folk to find alternative to driving. Consider, for example, simple carpooling - four guys driving to work in one car - they pay higher gas tax for only one car, but four of them gets the refund, so they pocket the difference - which is their reward for being resourceful.
As far as public transit is concerned it is far more feasible even in lower density areas than most people think. Of course, I am not talking about high speed rail in rural Montana , which obviously is absurd, but a combination of bus and rail in suburban areas. For example, you can run mini-buses with somewhat flexible routes. I saw that in Moscow in the glorious days of state socialism - they called it "marshrootnoye taxi" which roughly translates as "fixed route taxis," and of course most African cities have an extensive mini-bus service running semi-fixed routes as the main form of semi-public transit. Even in Baltimore, poor blacks use a system of "urban hitchhiking" - flagging private cars for a small fee as an alternative to more expensive taxis or car ownership. So the US-sers can actually learn something from the rest of the world instead of thinking they know it all. In this country, the service can be enhanced by the availability of telecommunication system, and the cost can be kept down by tax breaks or even subsidies to mini-bus operators. Further enhancements can be achieved by using these mini-buses as a "feeder system" for suburban rail transit that most major cities already have in place in one form or another.
Implementing such a system here would be very easy - all it takes is a set of proper incentives that are currently lacking. High gas tax would certainly create such a system of incentives - I am pretty sure that if the gas prices started hitting $4-5 per gallon, these solutions would appear virtually overnight. Of course, the Detroit gang would fight that tooth and nail because that would reduce car sales - but that is a very different story from the claim that public transit is not feasible in lower density areas. It is - all it needs is a right system of incentives and curbing the auto industry lobbyists.
Wojtek
>
>
> Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> >--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wojtek objects to my label of gas tax as 'arbitrary'
> >>and calls it an
> >>efficient means of collecting user fees. As to 'arbitrary'
> I suggest
> >>he drive around this vast country of ours and compare how
> much tax he
> >>pays in each little hamlet; and maybe Doug will go with you
> and find
> >>out how much of that tax is spent on externalities.
> >>Color me stubborn,
> >>but I don't think there is such as thing as an efficient
> user fee: we
> >>all use the infrastructure whether we drive or not, so we
> all ought to
> >>pay for it. Unequally, if we can manage that. The only
> progressive
> >>tax we have in the US is the income tax, so I'm all for taking
> >>everything that the government pays for and putting it
> under one tax:
> >>the income tax. Yes, that includes Social Security and Medicare.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Jordan, it is a well known fact that densely populated
> industrialized
> >states pay more in federal taxes than the less industrialized ones.
> >Let's face it - rural or sparsely populated areas pay less taxes and
> >receive more subsidies, not to mention more power in the
> congress and
> >the senate. We, and by that I mean folks like me living in coastal
> >states and paying high tax rates on higher income, subsidize those
> >rural folk and their wasteful gas guzzling life styles big time.
> >They require more roads per tax payer and thus more road
> services, they
> >drive farther than folk in densly populated areas, and they
> could not
> >afford that luxury if they were not subsidized by urban areas. The
> >same holds for telecommunication services.
> >
> >I have no problem with anyone living on ten acres of land
> and driving
> >20 miles to the nearest human settlement (I'm exaggerating
> of course),
> >but let him pay for that privilege. I see no reason
> whatsover why his
> >lifestyle should be publicly subsidized.
> >
> >Another problem - you seem to look at this issue in black
> and white we
> >either burn oil and rive with no restrictions, or dump oil and cars
> >altogether. This does not seem to me like a realistic
> position. In my
> >postings I suggested a more balanced position of changing
> the mix- less
> >driving, more public transit, and said nothing about dumping oil
> >altogether.
> >Contrary to what you said, this is a very realistic and attainable
> >position that has been implemented in many countries.
> >
> >Therefore, behavior modification through changing the cost structure
> >seems like a very reasonable proposition and the one that is
> likely to
> >work.
> >Again, I'm not suggesting herding everyone to buses and
> trains but to
> >increasing the use of them while decreasing the use of
> autos. Driving
> >is a privilege and convenince, and requiring drivers to pay the full
> >price for that privilege and convenience is not only fair but also
> >produces tangible public benefits (less pollution, less traffic
> >congestion, etc).
> >
> >Now, if you want to talk about income redistribution - that is an
> >altogether different story that has little to do with transportation
> >policy. Taxation by itself (unless confiscatory) does not
> strike me as
> >a very effective mechanism of income redistribution. The
> state has a
> >much more effective policy tools at its disposal to achieve
> that goal
> >at the income end - from strengthening collective bargaining
> >(unionization) to living wage legislation.
> >Progressive taxation is relly a wimpy copeout for the governemnt
> >unwilling to grab the bull by the horns and reduce the insane income
> >disparities at their source.
> >
> >
> >Therefore, your concerns about regressiveness of gasoline
> tax seem to
> >be misplaced. If you want to talk abot ways of reducing income
> >inequalities, let's do that separately and set the right
> priorities of
> >what needs to be done to that end. But let's not mix that with
> >transportation and its externalities and the policies to change the
> >current situation. And if you want to consider the economic
> impact of
> >car based transport on the poor, let;s just say that car-based
> >transport is already a huge drain on the income of the poor, and
> >steering them toward public transit - even through initially painful
> >measures like gasoline tax - will eventually have a
> beneficial effect
> >on their incomes.
> >
> >Wojtek
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com ___________________________________
> >http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>