The race between Clinton and Obama got me thinking this week. Clinton supports a suspension of the federal tax on gasoline (as does McCain). Obama does not. My family and I are going to be driving about 1500 miles this summer when we move. Our van gets about 20 miles per gallon, actually it is more than that, but as a safe average, we'll use it. That means that we are going to burn 75 gallons of gasoline on our trip. If we assume that gas is going to be around $4 a gallon, which it could be, we will spend $300 on gas. If we do get a tax break this summer, at 18 cents per gallon, we would spend $286. So, we save $14 on a 1500 mile trip. Really, it isn't that big of a deal for us, or for a lot of the US. What will happen though is that the US will loose billions of dollars in highway revenue.
I think that it is a sad state of things for sure if we are deciding who will be our next president based on their willingness to save us $14 on a 1500 mile trip, while placing our federal transportation dollars in trouble. Maybe we should decide who is going to be our next president with a wider view in mind, and not be so myopic.
3 comments:
Also, at least some of any tax break would be eaten up by the oil companies and (to a greater extent) the refineries and retailers. So in the end we wouldn't be saving the full 18 cents per gallon.
Here is my (extremely unpopular) opinion: we Americans have lived for way too long on ridiculously low gas prices which has caused a variety of social ills: air pollution, dependency on foreign oil, the disappearance of cohesion in local communities, probably global climate change, shockingly high rate of mortality due to traffic accidents. . . What we need is a leader who will tell us that gas prices are now too low and who will guarantee a steady climb in prices so that we will make the changes we need to make in our society. Like I said very unpopular.
I almost wasn't going to leave a comment - because I have the same opinion that jamie does!
Giving a tax break on energy (any energy - gasoline, electricity, gas - any of it) is the wrong way to go. Americas ONLY make changes based on their pocketbook. All this noise about reducing dependence on foreign energy sources is noise unless Americas are serious about changing habits. In the US, we have THE CHEAPEST energy cost (compared to other industrialized nations) and the biggest difference is how much their energy is taxed.
You can't reduce energy costs AND simultaneously reduce our dependence on energy. Won't work.
Well, I haven't really thought about it much, but now that I have read your opionions on the subject, I agree!
Post a Comment