WSJ Blogs

Real-time commentary and analysis from The Wall Street Journal
Environmental Capital

A Taxing Question: Why Are Gas Taxes Taboo?

    • Why does it only have to be an across-the-board gas tax hike? Why can't we punish the Hummer drivers and unnecessary pick-up drivers at the pump every time they fill up by charging them more pre gallon than others? You just ahave a bar code that contains info aboutt he number of cylinders, weight of the car, fule economy of the car, etc, and it applies some formula to charge different prices for different cars/trucks.
      Seems like a pretty simple and fair solution, no?

    • The political problem of high gas taxes may be due to the state of the economy more than anything else. During Carter's time we were in a recession. Proposing new consumption taxes in a time of recession makes people feel like thy're getting salt rubbed in a wound. Same for the current time. In the midst of our current recession (with attendant job losses, etc.), proposing new consumption taxes just feels like piling on... We can all step back and agree that high gas prices (whether $4 by the market or by taxes) could indeed motivate a lot of good change, but you won't get political traction on this concept until we're in a strong economy with low unemployment and good wages regardless of what the market price of gas happens to be...

    • The gas tax is one of the few
      "no-brainers" around yet it will take tremendous political courage to educate the public that it's a good idea.

      A gas tax creates great incentives for building a green industry that will generate jobs in the US that are high paying and difficult to out source. It encourages production of energy efficient vehicles and conservation. For people who drive Hummers and gas gazzlers pay a disproportionate amt of tax because they consume more gas. In the end, the only issue is that it tends to be a regressive tax. So, if you fix this by taking the monies raised by the tax and rebating it to every US citizen, it takes this issue off the table. The wealthy who likely consume more gasoline end up paying more tax. The poor, more likely to be using less gas or riding public transportation, effectively get a subsidy for their energy efficient ways. In theory, this would also make it more palatable for the general public to accept this since they get the money back. In the end, the only net effect is to provide incentives away from wasteful energy use and to promote clean energy--an industry where we can establish a lead vs the rest of the world. Didn't I say it was a no brainer?

    • Why don't these people get some guts and put forth the only real cure for our energy consumption.........nuclear power. Wake up and educate the public that we're not making nuclear power and nuclear bombs are different. It's strictly an educational shortcoming.

    • Save the planet higher gasoline taxes needed?
      Just who is going to save me from the planet?From the smallest microbes to a Tungaska event, it appears there is a whole lot of things out to get us people.
      No more taxes!

    • We should create a carbon tax instead of just a gasoline tax. Tax all fuels according to their carbon content. Then use the money to lower taxes on income and investment, making it revenue neutral. We could repeal all existing energy subsidies and tax credits and replace them with the carbon tax, and it would be more effective. However this will never happen, because Republicans will never vote for a tax increase, even if it is coupled with tax cuts and budget cuts in other areas. No matter how much economic sense it might make overall, Republicans are ideologically opposed to any and all tax increases.

    • This is fairly typical of Democratic initiatives. They think they know what's good for the country, but the public doesn't support it. So Democrats are endlessly striving to find ways to accomplish what they want in indirect ways which make it hard for the public to understand the cause and effect. Direct gas taxes are too easy for the public to understand and blame on Democratic politicians. So they prefer more indirect greenhouse gas legislation which doesn't directly impose taxes, but puts limits on CO2 which then indirectly drives of the cost of energy. It's easier for them to sell as a good for the planet while ducking the blame for the cost increases they will cause. They can then blame the oil companies or some other scapegoat to avoid the fallout. Most Democratic policy making is a shell game where they try to obscure their true intent. See, e.g., the comically named "Employee Free Choice Act" which takes away employees' rights to an anonymous vote in union elections so employees can be subjected to union coercion and marked for union retaliation. Also see Obama's use of the term "tax cut" to describe what is actually "welfare."

    • Adam @ 2:23, do you appreciate the level of control which a carbon tax gives the government over every aspect of its citizens' lives? There's a reason why Democrat politicians love the carbon tax, and it's not because they want to save the planet. It's because it gives them direct means to centrally plan not only the economy but the personal lives of all Americans. It puts the government's tentacles in every life choice you make that consumes energy and lets the government play favorites. If you think the government will objectively allocate the tax to activities in a neutral way and will use the proceeds in a sensible way to offset the burden of the tax in other areas you're nuts. The government will use the tax to force people to live in the way the policymakers want them to live (Democrats, for example, what everybody in an urban setting living in modest apartments and riding mass transit) and will use the proceeds to play favorites among interest groups. Democrats would use the proceeds to allocate as much of the burden of the higher taxes to the so-called "rich," would be made to subsidize the poor (i.e., Democratic voters) so the poor wouldn't have to alter their lives so much (i.e., wouldn't have reasons to vote against their Democratic leaders). The government needs to stay away from telling me how big my house can be and how far I can live from my job. Instead of trying to use CO2 concern as a lever to get control of people's lives, why don't you focus on developing technologies that will reduce CO2. Besides, every study in existence shows that no solution based on the carbon tax model will achieve any meaningful reduction in global warming. It's just an angle to push liberal policies which the public has been unwilling to accept previously.

    • Why do proceeds from a variable gas tax which keeps prices at $4/gallon need to be used to bail out Detroit? Why not use permanent $4 gas to drive both "good bahavior" and investment in alternative fuels - including nuclear, clean coal and drilling? The alternative is the yo-yo OPEC has us on where everyone gets amnesia and buys an F-150 or an Escalade before the next run-up in oil prices.

    • Why not raise Carbon taxes (or alternatively gasoline taxes) while simultaneously lower payroll taxes. It seems to me that you are trading one regressive tax for another and in the case of gasoline taxes at least there is something that a savvy consumer can do about them like using public transport.

    • The proceeds from a variable tax that puts a floor under gasoline prices at $4/gal could be used to create the infrastructure and incentives for natural gas/gasoline flex fueled vehicles. Virtually every metro area gas station has access to NG. As Pickens and McClendon say it's cheap and it's abundant right here in the US. The benefits of reducing dependence on foreign oil and job creation truly makes this a no brainer. I believe GM and Ford already make flex fueled cars overseas.

    • Why not provide an income tax cut that averages out to offset a gas tax increase so those who conserve would be financially rewarded?

    • A carbon tax is the way to go. It seems though that many have a bias against big SUV's well I have one and I chose to locate myself very close to work, I have a much smaller house than if I lived 30 miles out as many do and commute to work. I doubt that I consume more gas (8000 miles per year) than the Prius owners driving 15000 - 20000. Driving a Prius makes no economic sense unless gas prices are over $4/gallon and you drive a huge number of miles. So put on a carbon tax or gas tax I will gladly pay to drive my SUV instead of those little coffins on wheels.

    • Increasing gas taxes need not be a shock to the system; a penny every three weeks would gradually become $0.52 after three years, and $0.69 in time for the next election.


    • Barf at 2:50: Put a floor of $4/gallon on gas? How will the poor deal with this? I suppose you'll next propose that the poor get credits against their gas costs so that they're not actually subject to the $4 per gallon floor. the "rich" are paying for their $4 gas and a portion of the $4 gas of others and the poor will keep on driving! WHOOPS, so much for that idea! A carbon tax will quickly turn into a rabbit hole of taxes and tax credits and tax offsets as competing interest groups try to use it to shape society to their preference, which will ultimately make the economy impossibly more complicated and result in gross misallocation of resources. After several years we'll all wonder how the heck we got into this nonsense and willingly subjected ourselves to so much pain for so little gain. The intelligent answer to global warming is to develop fossil fuel alternatives the old fashioned way -- i.e., by smart investment decisions and good policy -- not by using tax policy to make incorporate technologies into the economy before they are ready for wide usage. In 200 years, historians will look back and call the global warming hysteria of the early 21st century one of the greatest debacles to afflict human society. It is going to cause us to waste enormous amounts of wealth on pointless "feel good" solutions that could have been used for much better purposes and will result significantly reduced economic growth and corresponding poverty, death and hardship for millions around the earth. The consequences of 12 inches increase in sea levels over 100 years will pale in comparison to the devastation which environmentalists seek to wreak on human society.

    • Adam,
      It's not a Republican or Democrat thing (even though history is filled with examples of Repubs raising taxes). Even the Dems are afraid to raise taxes significantly during a deep recession! (Obama may want to spread the wealth, but he won't do that until the economy recovers a bit) You may think the Dems are greener than Repubs, but in reality they are still just politicians with no more courage than anyone else. Better savvy up.

    • If the government wants to help Detroit automakers it should abolish the gas tax altogether and encourage people to drive more. Forcing automakers to make low margin cars that people don't want to buy is not the answer. We need to subsidize oil companies more and encourage them to drill for the oil we already own here in our own country. Alternative energy is great, but even if a good alternative was discovered today it would be 30 years before it would be cheap enough to become mainstream. And by the way, why should I be penalized because I drive a certain vehicle that some people do not like? This is America. Individuals should be free to drive whatever they want. Who determines whether I need the truck I drive or not? And carbon taxes, perhaps I should drive you to the unemployment office myself. I have to admit I am quite shocked at some of the posts I read above.

    • Jim Bob:
      Let me begin by agreeing with you that Al Gore and his band of minions are nothing more than 21st century "flat-earthers". Unfortunately, "good policy" is in short supply on both sides of the aisle and "smart investment decisions" on the part of the private sector will not wean us off of oil anytime soon at sub-$80/barrel prices. Given the choice between continuing down the path of oil slavery/ wealth transfer and private sector alternative energy solutions at a predictable return level, I'll choose the latter. As far as a carbon tax being "regressive", your implication that cheap gas is somehow a "right" is the kool-aid that will bring us nationalized health care, Soak-the-rich Robin Hood wealth transfer schemes, and a host of other government schemes. Heck, just rebate the gas tax back to the poor who never paid taxes in the first place, if you like. Let's just agree to find a way to incentivize private industry to find profitable alternatives to OPEC.

    • Taxing gas would hurt the consumers and make American export even less competitive than it is now. It will also not save the planet (assuming it needs saving) as there is no alternative if you don't count the just-around-the-corner and only trillion dollars in government "investments" away technological breakthrough. While at one point we will depart from using oil as our chief source of energy the transition will be much slower and market will adjust to it.

      By the way, has anyone noticed that more and more scientists are now predicting at least a vacation from the global warming if not ouright global cooling, while others question the cause and effect of CO2 vs. warming phenomenon (seem to reversed)?

    • Barf, I have no clue what you mean by "oil slavery/wealth transfer". I certainly don't feel enslaved by any oil producing countries. Quite the contrary, actually -- I'd say that the oil producing countries are closer to being the slaves, basically expected to the taps open for Western industry or face military intervention. Particularly obnoxious in this regard is Western conservationism, which has basically had us take the approach of conserving our own resources while demanding that the third world proffer up all of theirs first. And what is this "wealth transfer" that you and T. Boone Pickens like to refer to? Why don't we say we are no experiencing the greatest "oil transfer" in the history of time? We give dollars, we get oil. Who's better off? I don't know -- depends on how we use the oil and how they use the dollars. Would we be better off keeping the dollars? Apparently not since we're racing to trade them for oil and goof balls with too much time on their hands have to dream up ways to stop us from trading our dollars for oil. At least with T Boone, I know he knows it's a bunch of malarkey and he's just trying to increase the value of his wind mills and natural gas. But people who actually believe it? Suckers -- taken in by the green business lobby and socialists who think they've found in global warming the key to the Western kingdom. I am completely neutral on cheap gas. I don't think there's any more of a right to cheap fuel than I do a right to constant climate. A central tenet to American society is individualism and the "pursuit of happiness." But when goofballs in universities sit around thinking up schemes to coerce people to live in a "better way," whether through criminal laws, carbon taxes, income taxes, gas taxes or by glorious revolutions, they invariably trample all over these principles and destroy what makes this country great. You worry about yourself and stop telling us what to drive, what to eat and where to live.

    • I view the gas tax as a negative solution and as such am reluctant to support. It is negative because it punishes behavior. I'd much prefer a positive solution such as encouraging other sources, wind, solar, hydrogen, hydroelectric, ethanol and nuclear as well. I've made this case numerous times but I'll do so again. No one really cares what fuel propels their vehicles. What they care about is price and availability. It's a bonus is we can eliminate the foreign policy interventions and be clean also. However until something is available that is as efficient as gasoline and as available we'll still use it. Oh and for all of you opponents to "big oil" - they'll always be involved simply because they have the distribution systems. The key for me is for the solution to be an American one, using American workers and American ingenuity.

    • Back in the Carter days, the $.18/gallon federal tax on gas that was just breaking $1/gallon was significant.

      Now, 30 years later, with gas at $2.50 to $4/gallon, the $.18/gallon tax just isn't significant.

      I am really conservative and buy lots of fuel for some really inefficient vehicles and even I would support a higher gas tax.

    • Peter,

      The problem with your idea is that you can't even coherently describe it. That and you have no way of determining if that larger vehicle with more cylinders is carrying 6 people vs. that smaller vehicle that always only carries one. The Hummer carrying 6 beats a Honda Civic carrying one any day in the category of passenger miles per gallon.

      Charging the same price, but a higher price per gallon, regardless what tank you put it in is the best way to encourage the use of less fuel, whether through buying a smaller car, carpooling or using public transit.

      We need to get away from micro-managing decisions. If the problem is too much fuel being used (resulting in pollution and energy insecurity) then tax fuel period. If we can't agree what the problem is, then we come up with idiotic schemes like CAFE standards.

    • On the subject of emissions, why dont we just use what we already have and just improve on it? It erks me that theses new cars that are coming into the market are so choked by emissions that they hurt mpg just so a few tree huggers can sleep at night. I work as a finance manager in the auto industry (Chevrolet dealer), and am glad in the advancement the domestic automakers have made in improving mpg while keep up with the increasing emissions. I drive an 02 escalade currently to transport my beautiful wife and 2 little girls around. I wasnt happy with the fuel milage at first, so I looked into an after market (K+N) cold air intake and exhaust(dynomax). My before average milage which was 12.5mpg, with a 65% city and 35% highway average. Ive logged more than 10k with these miles done, and the last 5k miles ive averaged just under 16mpg (15.9 actual). Thats a 27% increase in mpg!! That is a HUGE %!!! So I figure there is a catch (should be right?) I thought I would be killing the environment faster or something. After alot of research, the small 1-3% difference in emissions is more than made up for in the nearly 30% better efficiency! Ive since done this to my other car, and freinds vehicles, and they all recived very similar results! (08 HHR 5-speed getting consistant 40mpg highway!) Conclusion: Let the automakers utilize the technology they have worked so hard on, and lighten up the emissions standard.

    • Instead of a gas tax that hurts everyone how about a feebate program that consists of fees or rebates on all new vehicles purchases. Fees will be added on to the price of gas guzzlers. The revenues collected from the fees will be used to pay rebates to those consumers who purchase hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles. With the exception of the need to exempt small business vehicles, this is really a straight forward program to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Add a Comment


About Environmental Capital


    • Environmental Capital on Twitter
    • Environmental Capital on Facebook