Gas taxes and your bottom line
Many industries rely heavily on time in their vehicle, not just truck drivers and delivery trucks. Sales professionals hop in their vehicles throughout the day, as do many other types of professionals (service providers like plumbers, and so forth). For that reason, gas prices and taxes are a relevant line item that must be budgeted for 2015, but with politicians making the rounds to push for higher gas taxes, budgeting becomes more complicated.
Gas prices are down roughly 50 cents per gallon compared to a year ago, which some analysts say have contributed to more money in consumers’ pockets. Some believe that this will improve holiday sales, but others believe the timing is just right to increase federal taxes on gas. The current tax on gas is 18.40 cents per gallon, and on diesel are 24.40 cents per gallon.

Supporters and opponents are polar opposites
Supporters argue as follows: gas prices are low, so it won’t hurt to increase federal gas taxes, in fact, those funds must go toward improving our infrastructure, which in the long run, saves Americans money because smoother roads mean better gas mileage and less congestion.
Gas taxes have long been a polarizing concept, and despite lowered gas prices, the controversial nature of the taxes have not diminished.
While some are pushing for complete abolition of federal gas taxes, others, like former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell (D) tell CNBC, “Say that cost the average driver $130 a year. They would get a return on that investment” in safer roads and increased quality of life, he added.
The Washington Post‘s Chris Mooney points out that federal gas taxes have been “stuck” at 18 cents for over 20 years, last raised when gas was barely a dollar a gallon and that the tax must increase not only to improve the infrastructure, but to “green” our behavior, and help our nation find tax reform compromise.
Is a gas tax politically plausible?
Mooney writes, “So, this is not an argument that a gas tax raise is politically plausible — any more than a economically efficient tax on carbon would be. It’s merely a suggestion that — ignoring politics — it might be a pretty good idea.”
Rendell noted, “The World Economic Forum, 10 years ago, rated us the best infrastructure in the world,” adding that we “need to do something for our infrastructure, not in a one or two year period, but over a decade.”
Others would note that this rating has not crumbled in just a few years, that despite many bridges and roads in need of repair, our infrastructure is still superior to even the most civilized nations.
Regardless of the reasons, most believe that Congress won’t touch this issue with a ten-foot pole, especially leading up to another Presidential campaign season starting next year.
“I think it’s too toxic and continues to be too toxic,” Steve LaTourette (the former Republican congressman best known for his close friendship with his fellow Ohioan, Speaker John Boehner) tells The Atlantic. “I see no political will to get this done.”
Whether the time is fortuitous or not, and regardless of the positive side effects, many point to a fear of voters’ retaliation against any politician siding with a gas hike, so this matter going any further than the proposal stage is unlikely.
Roland Estrada
January 5, 2012 at 12:38 am
How convenient for them to say that. And in an election year no less. What a bunch of DBs!!
Brad Officer - Jacksonville REALTOR
January 5, 2012 at 7:54 am
Wow. The white paper is spot on with current conditions and raises all the issues that we in the field debate daily. I'm one never for any government intervention, but with short sales it seems to be 9 out 10 times I'm dealing with the gov as the investor.
The problem is rarely with finding a legitimate buyer with financing for all the properties, the problem is getting the bank or servicer, MI, and the investor to agree to taking the short sales.
Roland Estrada
January 6, 2012 at 2:04 am
I’ve had a couple of days to stew about this. Every time this issue comes up I have to go back and review that the problem starts and ends in Washington. The banks are to blame to the extent that they were allowed to go to extremes in their financial dealings. And, I’ll say I'm not a big fan of the banking and financial services sector.
I made a comment in a previous post that Ronald Reagan once said – The scariest thing a citizen can here is “ We’re the government and we’re here to help.” Another apt saying is – the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Our government, in a grandiose moment of political pandering, declared that home ownership needed to go up.
The problem is that it didn’t happen organically. It was cobbled together in a way that created a monster even Doctor Frankenstein couldn’t conjure up. Then we were told the banks are to big to fail. Not true. For the last few years we have been led to believe the housing market is to big to fail in one fell swoop. So for the last few years the housing market has been in some bizarre “Weekend At Bernie’s” state of being – dead and very few people willing to bury it and start over.
Now, back to the banks. The problem with the bailout is that the feds should have had some really heavy-handed but temporary conditions. The banks were shored up but nothing was done to insure that the investors behind the loans would be made to knuckle under and make real and quick advances on loan modifications and short sales.
And so her we stand, pitifully grateful as we stand in line for our “Government Cheese”.