The gas tax
The Libertarian Party just issued a press release regarding the gas tax's part in making gasoline expensive, implying we should repeal it. While I support my party, I honestly do think that they're wrong on this issue.
First off, if you're going to tax something, you might as well tax in a way that some benefit may be derived. If you tax incomes, there will be less income... so that's not good. Tax sales, there will be less sales made... so that's not good. Generally, when you tax something, there's less demand for it... so it's best to tax things that you don't want to be overused, like land or, in this case, finite natural resources and things that pollute.
I know that there is a "purist" crowd in the LP that's all "We want no taxes whatsoever and we want them yesterday!" And, with a few minute exceptions, I generally agree with their sentiment, if not their methodology. But this is not one of those cases. Everyone is entitled to a share of the commons, and if that requires rationing through artificially high prices, with the extra money raised lowering the tax burden on everyone else, then so be it. Also, if we're going to give Kyoto the finger, we'd better have some other rational, logical way to cut down on pollution (which is a shame, because Kyoto made shitloads of sense too). There's also the matter that gas taxes go towards paying for roads, so it's a close approximation to a user fee, which is something the LP supports in lieu of taxation.
Given all of the above, if we're going to focus on a tax to cut, make it something that matters more, like the income tax or the payroll tax! Don't make it this. In fact, given that the payroll tax is already disgustingly regressive (and the gasoline tax's main flaw is its regressivity), we could have a revenue-neutral switch from the payroll tax to an expanded gasoline tax, with the gas tax's extra revenue going towards Social Security instead. You'd get to keep more of what you actually earned, and, as the rich tend to consume more fuel than the poor, the poorest among us would actually be paying a little less in taxes in total.
I don't see why we do this; everyone would win. There would be a better environment and a more progressive tax system for the liberals; there would be a simpler taxation system for the conservatives, and there would be another way to reduce one's tax burden for the libertarians (via driving more fuel-efficient cars). The Libertarian Party ought to be more pragmatic about this, and in things in general; finding ways to increase liberty that also naturally increase other values (and thus win us a broader audience).
First off, if you're going to tax something, you might as well tax in a way that some benefit may be derived. If you tax incomes, there will be less income... so that's not good. Tax sales, there will be less sales made... so that's not good. Generally, when you tax something, there's less demand for it... so it's best to tax things that you don't want to be overused, like land or, in this case, finite natural resources and things that pollute.
I know that there is a "purist" crowd in the LP that's all "We want no taxes whatsoever and we want them yesterday!" And, with a few minute exceptions, I generally agree with their sentiment, if not their methodology. But this is not one of those cases. Everyone is entitled to a share of the commons, and if that requires rationing through artificially high prices, with the extra money raised lowering the tax burden on everyone else, then so be it. Also, if we're going to give Kyoto the finger, we'd better have some other rational, logical way to cut down on pollution (which is a shame, because Kyoto made shitloads of sense too). There's also the matter that gas taxes go towards paying for roads, so it's a close approximation to a user fee, which is something the LP supports in lieu of taxation.
Given all of the above, if we're going to focus on a tax to cut, make it something that matters more, like the income tax or the payroll tax! Don't make it this. In fact, given that the payroll tax is already disgustingly regressive (and the gasoline tax's main flaw is its regressivity), we could have a revenue-neutral switch from the payroll tax to an expanded gasoline tax, with the gas tax's extra revenue going towards Social Security instead. You'd get to keep more of what you actually earned, and, as the rich tend to consume more fuel than the poor, the poorest among us would actually be paying a little less in taxes in total.
I don't see why we do this; everyone would win. There would be a better environment and a more progressive tax system for the liberals; there would be a simpler taxation system for the conservatives, and there would be another way to reduce one's tax burden for the libertarians (via driving more fuel-efficient cars). The Libertarian Party ought to be more pragmatic about this, and in things in general; finding ways to increase liberty that also naturally increase other values (and thus win us a broader audience).
posted by Kent Chamberlain at 3:04 AM
STUART RICHARDS
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home