HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Apr 12, 2004 Andrew Sullivan recently wrote a piece entitled Tax Gas More. While you might expect a fiscal conservative to take the opposite stance, Sullivan makes a decent case for increasing the gas tax from the viewpoint of a war hawk. Essentially, his argument can be boiled down to the following points. Gas taxes, Andrew argues, could be used to pay down the deficit and offset the spending binge that the Bush Administration has engaged in both domestically and with respect to the War on Terror (yes, including Iraq). Further, a gas tax would encourage decreased gas usage and thereby indirectly decrease our dependence on foreign oil. He also points out (I think somewhat incorrectly) that, although such taxes are regressive in nature, the poor use less gas anyway and so would not be as hurt compared to a tax on milk (my example). Finally, he makes the point that the tax could be sold to the American People by putting it in terms of ‘shared sacrifice’ in the struggle against Terror. My take on such a proposal is, at first, a knee- jerk Conservative one. I start from the position that all taxes are bad. Then, I am willing to consider allowing that bad thing to exist is there is a good reason for it. I’ll admit, this leads to no small amount of consternation on my part concerning our government, but that’s beside the point for now. So, what’s my specific beef with increasing the Gas Tax? To start, such a tax really is regressive in nature. We constantly hear liberals whining about ‘tax cuts for the rich’ being unfair. Unfortunately for the poor, we never hear anything from either side of the political aisle about ‘taxes on the poor’ being unfair. The concept of a regressive tax is quite simple; any tax that is collected on a percentage of a product’s cost effectively taxes a poor person to a greater extent than a rich person. If I make $10,000/year, then $1.50 gas tax is a greater percentage of my income than someone who makes $100,000/year. Simple enough. Our friend Andrew, though, would argue that gas is a different animal than, say, milk. Everyone (almost) buys milk, but not everyone buys gas (it should be noted that Mr. Sullivan lives in Washington DC and rides a bike or takes public transport everywhere…not an option when living in central CT or much of Middle America, etc.). To make this reasoning stick, he says: “So why is it so unpopular? Some say it's inherently regressive, i.e. that it affects the poor more than the rich. In fact, it tends to affect the middle class more than anyone, 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 or rural areas. So what? Very few taxes are perfect; and our electoral system - with the over-representation of big agricultural states in the middle of the country in the Senate - already pampers the rural. (I'd gladly exchange a gas tax hike for abolition of agricultural subsidies. Any takers in Iowa?)” So, the poor consume less gas (I assume he means it terms of volume as a group), making it fair to penalize them to a greater extent than the ‘rich.’ While it is technically true that the poor consume less gas than the middle class, they most likely do so because of financial concerns. So while the tax might affect the middle class more, as a whole, it will affect the poor to a greater extent on a personal level. He then goes on to equate everyone who must drive a car to “big agricultural states in the middle of the country”. Tell you what, I grew up in Central New York. You absolutely need a car, and you need more than one if you want members of your family to be two places at once. Perhaps this falls under the heading of unreasonable waste to Mr. Sullivan, some might disagree. Considering Andrew’s typical stances on fiscal issues, the most amazing point he makes is this: “Take another look at that word "conservatism". See that word "conserve" buried in there? Why should that always be construed so as not to refer to energy?” Did I just hear an argument for, ‘Let’s force conservation of __ (in this case, gas) by making it prohibitively expensive’? This is amazing and somewhat disturbing. This sort of reasoning goes so directly against everything that free- market Conservatives believe that I am speechless. The two most persuasive, if not completely convincing, arguments that are presented involve transparent taxation and shared sacrifice. By transparent taxation I mean exactly what Andrew refers to in that: “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're usually deducted before you even get to see your paycheck, you don't notice.” Exactly. The only problem here is that simply raising the gas tax will not make people realize how much the government sucks away in payroll taxes. Imagine if there were no deductions for income tax throughout the year and we all had to write a check for 15%, 30% or 40% of our income to the Federal Government on April 15th. There would be an armed revolution. Unfortunately, simply increasing one of the few in-your-face taxes doesn’t get at the heart of the issue. The one argument that does seem to hit home is that of ‘Shared Sacrifice.’ Sullivan is absolutely correct in asserting that I have not personally had my day-to-day life affected by the wars in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Perhaps I should see something concrete in my daily life that reminds me we’re at war. On the other hand, raising a regressive tax hardly seems the ‘fair’ way to do this. Without choice, there can be no piety. Similarly, without choice there can be no patriotism. If the purpose of raising the gas tax is to raise money to fight the War on Terror, ok. If the purpose is to instill patriotism in the general population, it is an abject failure from its conception. I think that there is something to the idea that we should all share some sacrifice to support the War on Terror. The best way to do that is to take the initiative and give of your time, money and love. You might even consider checking out Adopt a Platoon. They’re a great organization and are doing exactly the right thing. If we could get enough people doing this sort of thing of their own free will, maybe we wouldn’t ‘need’ compulsatory volunteerism. ------------ About the author: Tom is a conservative medical student in liberal New England who probably spends too much time paying attention to politics and never lacks topics for friendly discussions. Check out his blog MuD&PHuD. Email Thomas Carroll: carroll@student.uchc.edu Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
