Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case for a War Tax — on Gas
Time Magazine ^ | April 19, 2004 | Andrew Sullivan

Posted on 04/18/2004 6:30:15 AM PDT by upchuck

Gas prices are too low. There. I said it. Even when they peak this summer, as most analysts predict, they will be too low. And they're too low in large part because gas is woefully undertaxed in this countrya state of affairs that is bad for the economy, bad for drivers and bad for our foreign policy. In fact, one of the simplest and best things any Administration could do right now would be to add a buck per gallon to the federal gas tax, which is currently just 18.4¢. Now that I have alienated almost every reader of this column, allow me to defend myself.

The worst knock against a gas tax is that it is, well, a tax. Who likes that? But with soaring deficits and a war to pay for, taxes are not an option — they're a necessity. The only relevant question is, Which taxes? The case for a gas tax is a straightforward one. Gas prices are strikingly lower in America than anywhere else in the world; such taxes are relatively easy to collect; since an overwhelming majority of Americans drive, few avoid the tax; and by adding a cost to the wanton consumption of gasoline, you actually encourage conservation, accelerate fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, cut traffic and help wean Americans off the oil that requires the U.S. to be so intimately involved in that wonderful cesspool of rival hatreds, the Middle East. So what's not to like?

The idea is so obviously a good one that in their recent absurd bickering over who is responsible for higher gas prices, neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry has gone near it. That would take a perspicacity most politicians lack. It's worth recalling that even Bush's chief economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, once supported it. During the golden five minutes of budget surpluses in the late 1990s, Mankiw favored raising gas taxes as a way to reduce income taxes. Such a policy mix, he believed, "would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads and reduced risk of global warming — all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer."

So why is it so unpopular? Some say it's inherently regressive — that it affects the poor more than the rich. In reality, it tends to affect the middle class more than anyone else, especially those in the suburbs with more than one car. The truly needy tend to consume less gas than their middle-class compatriots. Others say it penalizes those in remote and rural areas. So what? Very few taxes are perfect, and our electoral system — with its over-representation of big agricultural states in the Senate — already pampers the rural. (I'd gladly exchange a gas-tax hike for abolition of agricultural subsidies. Any takers in Iowa?)

Some conservatives say it's antithetical to the American Dream. Hooey. Conservatism in America rightly emphasizes personal responsibility alongside freedom. You can't have one without the other. And using a car affects not just you but many others. When your driving habits lead to higher levels of pollution, when your ownership of a gas-inhaling 2-ton SUV puts others on the road at risk, when traffic jams drastically reduce the country's productivity (as well as make radio shock jocks into millionaires), don't you think you might give a little back in return? To paraphrase the President, can't we shift from a philosophy of "If it feels good, do it" to one of responsibility?

The real reason so many Americans hate gas taxes is that they see them. The government can eat away at your life with payroll taxes, but because they are usually deducted before you get to see your paycheck, you don't notice. But the price of gas is broadcast on big placards across the country. When it goes up, eyebrows rise a notch. But that's a good thing! The government has to tax you somehow. Isn't it better to shift taxation to places where people notice it, so they can demand accountability? The gas tax is therefore a win-win conservative-liberal synthesis. It cuts the deficit, helps the environment and keeps the government fiscally honest and accountable.

Let me add one further reason, and it's a simple one. We're at war. So far, the Bush Administration has refused to ask for a general sacrifice to pay for this effort. But that leads to a sense that we're not all involved, that we do not all owe the troops our support. More important, the war is about the Middle East. A long-term strategy to protect us from constant involvement in that region would include greater energy independence. A gas tax helps pay for our current struggle and helps us avoid future ones. Why not therefore a wartime gas tax of a dollar a gallon? If we do not owe it to our fellow citizens, to the environment, to greater fuel efficiency, can we at least owe it to the troops? Or is that minimal level of personal sacrifice too much to ask of ourselves?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; gasprices; gastaxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: upchuck
How about a War Tax on the PRESS/MEDIA!! How about $200 dollars for every article a reporter publishes.
21 posted on 04/18/2004 7:51:50 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup (The Motto: 'Live and let live' is a suicidal belief...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
I'm not in favor of this tax, but sometimes I think that we that support our goals in Iraq should stop griping so much about the price of gasoline, and consider the price our part of the sacrifice to support what our brave troops are doing.
22 posted on 04/18/2004 7:59:07 AM PDT by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rageaholic
Yep, everybody wants the short term high of seeing American tanks roll through Bagdad, but nobody wants to pay for it. Makes no difference who gets elected, with Bush you'll all be paying for it in the future, with Kerry, you'll all be paying for it tomorrow. Like Powell said, "we broke it, we bought it." Whatever.
23 posted on 04/18/2004 9:47:34 AM PDT by rageaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KfromMich
If I rember correctly, the telephone tax was to pay for the Spanish American War, and Congress finally did repeal that one a couple years ago: about a century after the war the tax was supposed to pay for was over. So if we go by that example, we could very well be paying the proposed increased gas tax in the 22nd century.

Thanks for the history lesson. And you make a very valid point. Thank goodness I'll be gone long before then :)

24 posted on 04/18/2004 9:53:14 AM PDT by upchuck (Pay attention!! This tagline changes on an irregular schedule and without prior warning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Why don't we cut spending, Andy? Let's make it a national goal to put 1 million government workers on the street by the end of the year.
25 posted on 04/18/2004 9:55:05 AM PDT by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rageaholic
Mr. Sullivan states: "...help wean Americans off the oil that requires the U.S. to be so intimately involved in that wonderful cesspool of rival hatreds, the Middle East."

Rageaholic states: "Actually this is a tax I wouldn't mind paying. Knowing that a few pennies go to some Arabs every time I tank up pisses me off."

We can accomplish the goal of cutting off a revenue source to the Middle East without raising gas taxes one penny.

Drill for oil in Alaska to replace the same amount of oil we currently purchase from the Arabs. It is that simple.

26 posted on 04/18/2004 11:36:32 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
How about just disband 90% of federal, state and local governments. Then there would be no need for taxes.
27 posted on 04/18/2004 12:32:16 PM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; rageaholic; SVTCobra03; vbmoneyspender; Binghamton_native
Comments requested on this idea:

How about a $10 tax per barrel of imported oil?

That sure would spur American production.

28 posted on 04/18/2004 8:53:07 PM PDT by hripka (There are a lot of smart people out there in FReeperLand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka
as long as every penny that goes to an arab oil sheik is matched or exceeded by funds that go to kill moslem fundamentalists, I'd be for it.

I have a fuel efficient car, but still it pains me to tank up, knowing that some of the money will end up in Saudi, an enemy state. This is an intolerable situation, seems most people just want to ignore it.

29 posted on 04/19/2004 5:16:29 AM PDT by rageaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson