Making a Gas Tax Work
Jeff Alworth
Oregon's current gas tax is $.24 a gallon, unchanged since 1993. Had it kept pace with inflation, the tax would be $.35 a gallon--about what it is in Washington (37.5 cents) and California (35.3 cents). Oregon Dems would like to raise the tax but naturally, everyone's going crazy over the idea. Even a stinkin' two-cent tax proposed in 2000 was defeated at the ballot.
Oregonians like their cars, but they don't want to pay for the true costs associated with driving. Tough tires, I say--it's time to hike this sucker up, and not minimally. Putting it in line with the West Coast states--raising it twelve cents to $.36/mile--would at least be an acknowledgement that the actual costs of driving are far higher than we admit. It would also raise on the order of $350 million a year.
Costs
The budget for ODOT in this biennium is $3.5 billion (.pdf). Almost all of the revenue (95%) comes from restricted sources--"motor fuel receipts, weight-mile tax collections and motor vehicle licensing and registration fees." Beyond road and bridge development and maintenence, there are costs associated with accidents and spills, injury and death (414 people died on Oregon roads last year), and global warming. That last item in particular is hitting Oregon especially hard through sea dead zones, forest fires, rising seas, and droughts--all of which experts expect to dramatically worsen in the coming century. In order to cover these actual costs, folks like James Hansen argue (another .pdf) we should raise the gas tax a buck a gallon. Politically untenable, I realize, but let's not confuse politics and reality.
Exemptions
In order to make a gas tax effective, we need to recognize that some rural drivers will be hit disproportionately hard. The costs associated with a twelve-cent increase are modest, though: for a driver who logs 20,000 miles in a fuel-inefficient car (20 mpg), the cost would be just $120 a year. It would be easy enough to add an income-tax deduction for people earning less than, say, the poverty line. Such a mechanism would allow future increases to compensate for inflation.
As responsible citizens, we have to recognize that we're not paying for the true costs of driving. Increasing the gas tax twelve cents to $.36 a gallon wouldn't begin to pay for these costs, either. But it would be a start.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 10, '09
Sounds good to me. The mechanism is already in place for this. We need to kill the stupid GPS based idea once and for all. That means no more money spent on studies.
Mar 10, '09
Why not a bicylcle sales tax and a registration fee for them. Any one under 16 is expempt from registration but not sales tax. Similar to FET. Other revenue could include an internet tax. Poverty should not exempt anyone from paying road use tax. Just who would determine who is at poverty level? Maybe you could even cut out the MAX funding and put it into roads and bridges. I guess if you could tell me how the MAX train benefits the road and bridges in the entire road system them I may change my mind on that one. Remember that Oregon spans a large area out side of Portand.
Mar 10, '09
The GPS car idea and new bike tax proposal are linked. It is all about Orwellian surveillance for "smart" roads(also known as intelligent transportation systems) that OSU nerds and PSU are working on with ODOT. They want GPS in everything on the roads so our ODOT overlords can manage and control us better. How does it feel to be "sustainable" ? Answer: Like you are being watched. Here is your new bike ID-pay no attention to the embedded chip, it is for your own safety.
Mar 10, '09
I'm not opposed to increasing the Oregon gas tax. However, if our gas tax is 12 cents less, on average, than other west coast states, why is our gas 10 cents more than Washington and only 7 cents less than California?
AAA Gas Averages
How about we raise the gas tax, but remove the law requiring an attendant pump your gas for you? Make that an option, not a standard. Gas prices could stay the same for self service, and raise for full service. I'd still pay for full service, but it gives lower income families the option of paying less or at least the same.
Is that pretentious?
12:05 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
Let’s us recognize that in the gas tax we have the Achilles heal of our global democratic civilization. The public just will not support a gas tax. Not for better roads. Not for safer bridges. We are too in love with our cars. It’s one of those afflictions at the core of our national decline. Recently, we even had to take stimulus funds from schools and other state funded programs to fund the backlog of infrastructure projects unsupported by the current national gas tax.
We need a gas tax that goes beyond funding transportation infrastructure. We need a substantial gas tax to give the pricing signals for the development of cleaner alternatives, to bring part of the $700 billion we are now paying to oil producing states home, and to cut funding for petro-states hostile to our national interest. Of the 23 states that get 60% or more of their revenues from oil, not one is a democracy.
We need to get the price of gas back up to at least $4.00 per gallon. I’m not aware of any bill yet introduced in this session of the Oregon legislature to do this.
Such a substantial gas tax should be largely or entirely revenue neutral. Some funding could come out for road and bridges, but the rest should be refunded to the public. It’s about changing the pricing. At the national level, reductions in the payroll tax are often suggested. At the state level, we could send refunds to those with driver’s licenses or to car owners. We could even collect and refund the tax by county to account for the impact on rural drivers.
It's not just about infrastructure. It's the big choice about our future.
Mar 10, '09
Here is your new bike ID-pay no attention to the embedded chip, it is for your own safety.
The conspiracy theory of big brother tracking us is getting old. If the feds want to find you, they will. And if you don't want to be found, then you wouldn't register anything in your name anyway, or register at all.
What's wrong with a bike license fee? We pay dog license fees that help fund humane societies. Bikes have bike lanes on roads, bike paths in parks, etc. Why not pay a small license fee? The license fee is minimal compared to the money someone saves on fuel.
Mar 10, '09
How about an registration surcharge on car registration? When I lived in Indiana 20 years ago, we paid a percentage that was based on the blue book value of your car. Different than a sales tax that only captures revenue on the front end. This was a much smaller percentage, and as the value of your car decreased year after year, the amount you paid decreased. This functioned well because lower income families usually didn't purchase high priced cars, so their tax was much lower. If I remember correctly, at the time, the amount of tax dropped to a minimum registration fee of around $40/year after your car was about 7-10 years old depending, of course on the blue book value.
Mar 10, '09
Welcome to Orwellgon buddy. They can find me whenever they want. They started with mandatory pet chips. Then our local(Eugene)library chipped the books. Now it's bikes. I am not telling you not do drink the Koolaid I just suggest that some people MAY want to read the label. You can put a RFID chip under your skin if you prefer. Some people actually do that now. They think it make them safe and it is more convenient for others who do not want to carry a smart card.
Mar 10, '09
Oh even better. Since I can afford gas and my meth addict neighbor is in the "poverty" level, then I should pay for his gas, his insurance, and his car. Then we would all be equal. Maybe i could even pump the gas for the octomom so she wouldn't have to pay an attendant. No keep the attendants, I have seen people drive, you think they could figure out a gas pump. But they should figure out reading, eating breakfast, and doing make up/shaving is not smart but they still do it while driving.
If you want to change Oregon to make it like it was where you came from, then go back where you came from. take you GPS and sale tax and pump your own with you. Why did you move to Oregon anyway, just so you could have everything you left?
Mar 10, '09
OK, I'll agree to a tax increase per gallon as soon as the legislture agrees that Oregon Motorists are smart enough to pump their own gas!
One major reason our gas is almost the same as WA and CA is the imbedded employment surharge we all pay to have someone else pump our fuel at least at the state minimum wage.
12:42 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
How about we raise the gas tax, but remove the law requiring an attendant pump your gas for you?
Works for me.
We need to get the price of gas back up to at least $4.00 per gallon. I’m not aware of any bill yet introduced in this session of the Oregon legislature to do this.
Of course the issue with that is that gas prices fluctuate. Dramatically. And quickly.
Oh even better. Since I can afford gas and my meth addict neighbor is in the "poverty" level, then I should pay for his gas, his insurance, and his car. Then we would all be equal.
Don't be dim. The gas tax is refunded to the poor. You don't pay more. And take your class warfare with you.
Mar 10, '09
Why did you move to Oregon anyway, just so you could have everything you left?
Actually I left Oregon and served in the Air Force for 8 years. Traveled the states and the globe. Now I can understand issues from different perspectives with an open mind and not as a cynical conspiracy theorist who believes people are too stupid to pump their own gas in Oregon, but somehow they are smart enough to do it in the other 48 states. Don't move to New Jersey either, because they are as stupid as Oregon I guess. Maybe YOU should leave and go to a state with people as smart as yourself.
Mar 10, '09
Jeff, what are your thoughts on a registration surcharge? I know it's off topic from a gas tax, but I'm curious if the concept has been introduced in Oregon, and even if the concept has validity.
1:11 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
and once we get rid of gas station attendants, we can pump more money into unemployment while we're at it. those aren't great jobs, but they are jobs. and last time i looked, money that gets put into jobs has quite an excellent multiplier effect.
and does anyone honestly think the oil companies are going to drop rates to reflect the jobs that get ditched? dream on. there'll be a partial, and temporary, decline, but in the end, we'll lose service at the pump, thousands of jobs and we'll have gas prices that have no reflection on that change whatsoever.
besides, when was sacrificing jobs so people could save a few bucks a progressive principle?
Mar 10, '09
Kurt is wrong. The current average price for a gallon of regular gas in CA and WA is above $2.20 while OR is at $2.06.
1:25 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
It would be easy enough to add an income-tax deduction for people earning less than, say, the poverty line.
How, exactly? Keep in mind that there are a lot of folks who make too little to pay any income tax at all.
1:53 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
How, exactly? Keep in mind that there are a lot of folks who make too little to pay any income tax at all.
You don't have to owe taxes, just file, right? In which case it wouldn't be an income-tax deduction, just a tax refund, but I'm a blogger and loose with my language. Which you knew already.
1:56 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
Terry, I think a gas tax is a better way to link use and cost.
TA, we've been down that road before, and to my memory, gas-pumping has no relationship to employment. Find the evidence that people laid off from pumping gas couldn't find work elsewhere and I'm with you. Otherwise, as an employment law, couldn't we do better? I mean, no one's dying to pump gas.
Mar 10, '09
OK lets raise the gas tax to what Jeffy wants, but, only when they raise rates to light rail to reflect what the true cost of it is and not take the money for it out of highway funds. Let the people who ride light rail pay for it, not car drivers.
Mar 10, '09
Damn straight Mike!
And I never use the Burnside Bridge - so why should I pay for that?
And I send my daughter to private school - so why should I pay for public education?
My house has never had a fire, yet I still have to pay for those #$%^ fire fighters!
I use the library, so I'll pay for that. But I'll be damned if I have to shell out another dime for public water treatment plants because I get all my water out of plastic bottles!!!!
3:12 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
Jeff, did we go down that road with 10% unemployment (and growing) in the middle of the new great depression? what job is that the gas-pumpers will simply go find when we eliminate a state-wide source of employment? say it out loud and tell me how it sounds: "We will get rid of thousands of jobs with no effect on the economy or job market."
Mar 10, '09
But I'll be damned if I have to shell out another dime for public water treatment plants because I get all my water out of plastic bottles!!!!
Fine, but where does all that water go
Mar 10, '09
Oregon's current free pass for bicyclists is unchanged since a bicycle tax existed in Multnomah County around the turn from the 19th to the 20th century. Had that bicycle tax (which predates Oregon’s gas tax that was only designed to pay for roads and bridges) kept pace with inflation, the bicyclists today would be paying for the full costs of providing bicycle infrastructure. Naturally, bicyclists are not going crazy over the idea of accepting any responsibility and paying their own way. The majority of bicyclists are even unwilling to accept the responsibility for their own safety by ignoring traffic laws and not supporting mandatory helmet laws. Moreover, the BTA and other bicycle lobby groups routinely use diversionary and stacked deck tactics to charge others (such as motorists) for their own responsibilities, and thereby keep the concept of taxing bicycles off the table and out of the conversation with the public.
Oregon bicyclists like their bikes, but they don't want to pay for any of the true financial costs associated with constructing and maintaining the specialized bicycle infrastructure the bicyclists themselves want. Sharing the road must also require sharing the financial responsibility. It's time these freeloading pedal pushers sucker up instead of continually receiving a trough of motorist paid highway dollars from which they have a free lunch feeding frenzy.
Sustainability starts with financial self sustainability. Bicycling can never be considered sustainable until bicyclists are directly taxed to pay for specialized bicycle infrastructure. Coupling HB 3008 with any increase in the gas tax and/or increased motor vehicle registration fees is one way to start that transformation. Without some sort of bicycle tax where by bicyclists completely accept the financial responsibility to pay for bicycle infrastructure, there must be NO increase in the Oregon gas tax and/or other motorist assessed fees.
3:59 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
Jeff, did we go down that road with 10% unemployment (and growing) in the middle of the new great depression?
Well, TA, I think since you're making the arguments that getting rid of the current system will a) result in mass layoffs and b) that those laid off can't get a job, it's up to you to show YOUR work. I can't really refute the claims without seeing the data. My guess is that this is one of those vague suspicion things that makes a poor rationale for public policy. Show me the numbers.
Mar 10, '09
This 2 cents a gallon proposal is not worth the time or political effort to get it passed. And the satellite tracked mileage fee is a joke for at least the next 10 years.
These are transformative times with resource depletion, massive international monetary transfers, and climate catastrophe all related in part to our consumption of oil.
The $4 target for the gas tax is spot on. Thomas Friedman has been proposing this for years. We need a minimum stable price for fossil fuels. The tax is not the $4 itself, but the difference between the 'weighted average delivery price' in Oregon and $4. Then folks all across Oregon will know how to plan their commutes, where to buy a house, and which vehicle to buy.
And the proceeds? There is a lot of talk about rebating the employee portion of the payroll tax.Yes, this does mean we have to change the Oregon Constitution - right there among the most poorly written of all public documents.
4:24 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
You don't have to owe taxes, just file, right? In which case it wouldn't be an income-tax deduction, just a tax refund, but I'm a blogger and loose with my language. Which you knew already.
No, it wouldn't.
A "deduction" reduces your taxable income. If your taxable income is already zero, all the deductions in the world won't help you.
A "credit" reduces the tax you pay. In some cases, like the EITC, some or all of the credit is refundable - which means that your tax could literally be negative (which means the government pays you money.)
But you know all this.
Are you suggesting that we'd offset the regressivity of the gas tax by creating a refundable tax credit?
Mar 10, '09
I agree with the earlier comment by Terry, that we get rid of the gas station attendant. We are about the only state that still has them, and they don't "attend" to our cars, they just pump gas. I have been to other states, and I discovered that I could do that myself!
Not to sidetrack Jeff's central issue, but why do we have to vote on self-serve gas? I'm all for raising gas tax, but let's get rid of self-serve.
4:38 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
Terry asked: However, if our gas tax is 12 cents less, on average, than other west coast states, why is our gas 10 cents more than Washington and only 7 cents less than California?
Thanks for the link, Terry. Unfortunately for you, I actually clicked on it.
The Portland vs. Vancouver comparison is probably the most apt, since they are basically the same market.
It's not apt to compare, say, Portland and Seattle - because there many more factors than just the tax structure.
For example, it's worth noting that the price driver can't possibly be state gas tax - since Spokane is so much cheaper than the rest of that state.
Same for Medford/Ashland, which is roughly halfway between the price in Redding, CA and Portland, OR.
Even if you look at the statewide averages, as Terry pretends to do but clearly didn't, you'll find:
You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. (Note dear bloggers, that's why you'll often see commenters say, "Please provide a link to document your claim.")
Check it out for yourself: Metro averages from OR, WA, and CA. Statewide averages here.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be long-term trends on that site - just snapshots of today, yesterday, 30 days ago, and 365 days ago.
Mar 10, '09
I think I misspoke myself. I meant, let's implement self-serve.
5:03 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
Or are you suggesting that we just lock in a fixed tax break for low-income folks that roughly approximates the average increase in the gas tax for them?
I am not a tax expert, so my suggestions are worth about what you pay. However, I meant your second suggestion, quoted above. If you have a vehicle registered in the state of Oregon and your income falls below a certain line, you get, say, $100 back.
Mar 10, '09
As a rural driver, I probably average 25,000 miles a year in my "fleet" of cars that average about 30 MPG. So, a $.12/gallon increase would cost me almost $100 per year. The assumption that rural drivers drive more is partly based on a false understanding of what "rural" is. Most rural people actually live in small towns, with services close at hand. Most rural people then will drive less than urban commuters.
Having said that, I have driven the passes between the Willamette Valley and Central Oregon for years visiting family and friends, and doing work related things. The roads in Oregon are not "terrible", but they are a little worse than they were 25 years ago. We do need more revenue.
I would gladly pay any of the following:
A $.12 gas tax increase.
A tire tax at $5/tire and $7.50 per tire studded.
An increase in auto registration fees based upon the age/miles of my vehicle.
7:10 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
My dilemma is whether or not to support the twelve cents per gallon increase in the gas tax as something good, as in not letting the “best” get in the way of the “good.” “Best” would be a game-changing, big increase that creates the pricing signal that cuts gas usage, cuts carbon emissions, brings petro-dollars back to the US for alternative energy, and defunds some of our petro-supported enemies. Should I even care about making a twelve cent gas tax work? Not an easy choice.
We have roads and bridges that need fixing. Better to fund them out of a gas tax than general revenues (like the stimulus package).
But at some point one just has to say “enough.” We can not go on bailing out the auto companies, building a new Columbia River bridge, expanding metro suburbs, and now paying to fix our roads and bridges, all on the assumption that transportation based on cheap gas will continue and last forever. It won’t. Expensive gasoline is coming back. When global economic growth again picks up, the laws of supply and demand will continue to operate. Prices will again go way up, all the money again will go abroad in a steady transfer of global wealth. Not to us, but from us.
And we can continue to discuss whether we want gas station attendants, higher registration fees, and/or bicycle registration fees, and all the other nuances of the current transportation system. But we will be much poorer.
Mar 10, '09
I think Terry and 72h are the same person.
Is there anything here that hasn't been hashed over?
Mar 10, '09
A more accurate poverty line is the "double poverty line". A dollar gas tax increase would be reasonable if it was coupled with an income tax exemption for the first $15,000 for singles or $30,000 for couples.
Mar 10, '09
Are you kidding me Mr. Alworth?
I'm glad you support raising the gas tax...me too!
Isn't it a little hypocritical to support raising the gas tax (which isn't a progressive tax at all--everyone who drives pays the same...and don't give me this you choose to drive business...not a reality for most people...especially working people with children) but vehemently opposing raising the tax on beer and wine (which is more of a user fee or sin tax in my book...doesn't make it bad, however).
Beer tax hits too close to home, eh...perhaps the clouds in your hef have clouded your thinking on raising the beer tax.
10:49 p.m.
Mar 10, '09
i'm a bit flummoxed here, Jeff. if we get allow self-serve, almost every gas pumper job will be gone. and since they already have folks behind the counters, there will be no jobs for those folks at the station.
and we already have too few jobs in this state. i'm not sure what facts i am not showing you, what data is missing. is there a bunch of jobs not available to the 10% of our workers who are unemployed (not to mention the thousands who don't even count as unemployed) that the gas pumpers will have access to?
or are you saying the oil companies will keep most of the pumpers employed?
Mar 11, '09
TA, I would answer that most gas stations are owned by independent business folks, not the oil companies. In a small business setting where an independent owns 1-3 stations, they have to watch the bottom line for both revenue and costs. If the station across the street has fuel that is a nickle cheaper per gallon, motorists will choose to go there.
Witness the phenomenon of gas stations popping up at fred Meyer and Safeway. There, folks will seek out the fueling station to "save" between $.03 and $.10 per gallon. Of course they have to allow their purchase patterns being tracked in order to gain this "savings".
11:20 a.m.
Mar 11, '09
TA, I guess I'm just not willing to make the leap that gas stations will lay off a bunch of people if we adopt self-service. It seems patently obvious to you, but I'd like to see some numbers. If your hypothesis is indeed correct, I'd like to further know that the laid off people will remain unemployed. (It would be easy enough to delay implementation of such a law for a year or two, until the economy recovered.)
Just because you think something will happen doesn't make that actual data.
However, if I could see those data, I might be more persuaded. Though I think that Oregon could do a lot more to spend its dollars in ways that would give real opportunity to people, like education. That's a far better way to spend money than keeping a corps of people employed in an unskilled, dead-end job.
Mar 11, '09
Thanks for the link, Terry. Unfortunately for you, I actually clicked on it.
Kari, wow, I feel like a total goob. I swear I looked at the numbers yesterday and the averages had Oregon higher than Washington. I assure you, my intent was not to make up numbers. If I wanted to do that I wouldn't have included a link. I'm not sure where I went wrong, but obviously I did and I have no problem apologizing for my mistake, even if it was unintentional.
Mar 11, '09
TA, I guess I'm just not willing to make the leap that gas stations will lay off a bunch of people if we adopt self-service.
That's just being obstinate. Of course those jobs get cut. Where is the incentive to keep them?
Pumping gas sucks- I have no desire to do that myself in a self-serve future. And since it appears to cost me little or nothing at the pump, it's a nice little bonus we have in this state.
The self-serve advocates just don't get it. We're Oregon. We don't want it. Never have.
Oh, and those dead end, no skill gas pumping jobs? That's called entry level work in most parts of the country. You aren't expected to stay there forever-- but its a good starter job.
Mar 11, '09
Thank you Mo. And you too, t.a. Mr. Alworth's hypocrisy was the first thing that came to my mind when I read this post.
By citing global warming as one of "the true costs associated with driving," and suggesting that a large tax increase ($1/gal.) would mitigate these costs, isn't this another name for a "sin" tax?
I searched for a definition of a sin tax. This one seemed to capture the spirit of what most people refer to when talking about "sin taxes." From Answers.com Investment Dictionary:
"A state-sponsored tax that is added to products or services that are seen as vices, such as alcohol, tobacco and gambling [and, increasingly, gasoline]. These type of taxes are levied by governments to discourage individuals from partaking in such activities [like driving] without making the use of the products illegal. These taxes also provide a source of government revenue."
I'm not saying that raising the gas tax wouldn't be effective, (like Mo, I support raising it) but taken in this context it's far more of a "sin tax" than the proposed beer tax increase is. Lawmakers may have been overreaching when they proposed so high of an increase, but many brewers and their supporters still argue against any kind of a tax increase at all. And not one of the people sponsoring the beer tax bill have made any allusion to trying to "discourage individuals from partaking in such activities [craft beer drinking]."
We need money people! The beer tax hasn't been raised in over 30 years. Mr. Alworth uses the fact that the gas tax has been "unchanged since 1993" as one argument to justify an increase there, but noticeably makes no mention of the fact that the beer tax hasn't been raised in over 30 years in his post there.
Oh, and BTW, how many of those "accidents and spills, injury and death (414 people died on Oregon roads last year)" that you attribute to the cost of driving, are alcohol related? Funny how you glossed over this issue in the anti-beer tax post. Funny how you think its fair to tax the hell out of smokers to pay for health care for kids (and now, everyone else), but don't take into account the negative health effects from alcohol use and the costs they impose on the state.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you drinkers of fine crafted Oregon brews are never alcoholics, never get DUIIs, and never go to treatment. Right. You are different than all the rest of the "piss beer" and hard alcohol drinkers and should not be penalized for their mistakes. So... I haven't had a ticket or an accident in 30 years, can I be exempted from a portion of the gas tax then?
Mr. Alworth, why are you so flippant about the prospect of thousands of gas jockeys losing their jobs in this economy (and apparently, the distinct possibility that gas stations might go out of business as well), yet so vehemently defend the "5,700 direct" jobs generated by the brewing industry (according to Irene Firmat and Gary Fish, owners of Full Sail and Deschutes)? Crazy.
You have the temerity to write:
"Well, TA, I think since you're making the arguments that getting rid of the current system will a) result in mass layoffs and b) that those laid off can't get a job, it's up to you to show YOUR work. I can't really refute the claims without seeing the data. My guess is that this is one of those vague suspicion things that makes a poor rationale for public policy. Show me the numbers."
Yet we're expected to just believe, because the people who don't support a beer tax say so, that these exact same things will hold true for the local brewing industry? OK.
And we're expected to just believe that their much touted argument that each link in the distribution chain will seek to gain profit off the tax, thus resulting in a price increase of "$2 per six pack" and $1.50 (or more) per pint, without any data to back it up?
Oh no, THAT'S certainly not "one of those vague suspicion things that makes a poor rationale for public policy" is it?
You tell t.a. to "show me the numbers," and "find the evidence that people laid off from pumping gas couldn't find work elsewhere" conveniently ignoring Oregon's current 10% unemployment rate. Any fool can see that factor alone will certainly mean that a significant portion of those "laid off can't get a job" in any industry, whether it be gas stations, breweries, or any other.
Show ME the numbers, all you brewers (and other beer tax opponents), on your unsupported claims of massive price hikes that a beer tax increase and the other nebulous factors cited like "pitcher sales, waste, overrings, and the occasional sendback and comp," will cost in the end. Show ME the numbers that prove what the market for hand crafted micro brew will bear as far as retail prices. Geez, the duplicity is amazing.
You write: "I mean, no one's dying to pump gas." (And yet, apparently, we're all dying to brew beer, tend bar, and drive beer trucks.) Speak for yourself, Mr. Alworth. In this economy, thousands of people are literally dying for a job - any job - even pumping gas. And you wonder why liberals get labeled as elites?
Mar 11, '09
Is there anything that would preclude a higher gas tax in metro areas dedicated to funding public transportation? When I see operating levies on ballots for transit it just makes me shake my head.
Mar 12, '09
Egad: No mention of cracking the gas tax for transit, bicycles and rail? This good progressive position has not been expressed in this whole column of posts, nor in Mr. Alworth's column. Where are the environmentalists? Have they given up on Blue Oregon? Is anyone out there aware that we need to reduce vehicle miles traveled to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
There is perhaps no better issue to demonstrate that our Democratic leadership is out of touch with the people. A recent poll showed only 12% of Oregonians support an increase in the gas tax. This has been covered up by the same Democratic leaders who want all this paving.
Our mass transit system is at record levels of ridership, and under-funded agencies like Tri-Met are cutting back on service, but we want to sink all of this money into increasing highway capacity, including building a $4.2 billion bridge across the Columbia? Our democratic leadership supports it because it wants green jobs? Building additional highway capacity is hardly green. What about high speed rail -- where do we get the money for that?
Mar 12, '09
I guess I just had to go peruse Beervana, your beer blog, to get some of my answers, Mr. Alworth. Funny, I don't remember these points being brought up over here.
Show ME the numbers, all you brewers (and other beer tax opponents), on your unsupported claims of massive price hikes that a beer tax increase will cost in the end.
"The bill proposes an excise tax on beer at the production side, not a retail tax. No one has any idea how much the excise tax will affect beer prices. - Jeff Alworth, February 26, 2009
Show ME the numbers that prove what the market for hand crafted micro brew will bear as far as retail prices.
<h2>"Here's another interesting thing. It appears that there's no correlation between tax rates and per-capita consumption. ... Upshot: taxes don't appear to influence consumption." - Jeff Alworth, February 18, 2009</h2>