Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It hurts people who drive a lot. It hurts them more if they drive fuel-inefficient cars. Cigarette taxes hurt people who smoke. Alcohol taxes hurt people who drink. And in every case, they hurt more for people less able to afford them because they're poor. (BTW, I'd be interested in a study of how much poor vs. rich drive. I'd guess that for every maid who has to drive all the way across houston, there's a rich real estate agent who does the same).
If you're really concerned about regressivity, then make it (more) income neutral, and increase by a few thousand bucks the standard deduction. Everybody pays $100 less in income taxes, and an average of $100 more in gas tax.
Besides, how much are we talking here? If you drive 15k a year (a fair amount), that's 500-750 gallons of gas, for anything but a really fuel inefficient car (tough luck to you). So even a dollar per gallon is not a huge chunk.
|
Duh re: alcohol and cigarettes, but those are different from fuel. And it should be obvious that I have no problem with the fuel tax hitting the real estate agent driving the Range Rover. To some extent I agree with club re: refundable tax credit (oh, he didn't say refundable? well, I say refundable) though bnb's housekeeper, lawn service and pool service people may well not be filing taxes, either because they are illegal or because they get paid under the table, or both. Which are bad things to be, but to me maybe not so bad as, like, you know, an SUV used for commuting (unless you are commuting in the unroaded wilderness).
I was just commenting that raising the fuel tax has effects other than causing higher costs for the spoiled real estate agent or white-flight suburbanite.
ETA and tax credits etc. make the tax code more complex, which is generally to me not fabulous policy.
Threaded Mode