Hat tip to Kenton Ngo.

Suppose you drove 20,000 miles per year (a bit above average).  And your vehicle got 20 mpg.  This would mean you consume roughly 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year.

At a 1 cent per gallon tax increase, that would cost you an extra $10.00 per year.  Wow - this is what the flat earth ideologues are fighting for?  This is why they are threatening average drivers with multi-thousand dollars fines?  They want to save $10 per year????

Ok, how about 10 cents per gallon increase?  Well, that drives the cost up to $100 per year.  Maybe you think that's a bit much given that we already pay quite a bit in taxes.  Fair enough, but consider this: if that $100 dollars improved the roads to the point you saved 10 minutes each way on a daily commute, you'd have more than an hour and half each week of time to do whatever you want.  On a yearly basis it's around 80 hours of extra time.  You'd be paying a tad over $1 per hour to buy back time.  Given that even minimum wage is much higher, that's among the cheapest time you'll find.

Gasoline. Tax. Increase.

And once we get this crap cleaned up we can talk about reasonable and fair ways to improve driving safety.  Which we do need to do - just not with this idiotic transportation funding disaster.

Kaine said that 29% of his vote was from Republicans....you know the flat-earth, far right-wing idelogues. 

Would Kaine have won if these flat earth voters had not voted for him?

Personally, I'd like to see us go in the opposite direction of raising the gas tax, further REDUCE the burden on poor and middle-class people.

But I respect your difference of opinion- I understand the good intentions behind it.

1. For anyone who is upset that the poor will suffer due to a gasoline tax increase of a few cents I urge you to consider the actual market costs of gasoline.  The increase of well over a dollar per gallon in recent years dwarfs any tax increase we're talking about.  It's a rounding error when prices are hovering around $3 per gallon.  To put it another way, if the government increased the gasoline tax by 3 cents and didn't tell anyone, I guarantee that no one would even notice.

2. A gasoline tax increase is the most direct way of charging people for a service they will benefit from.  If you drive you contribute to the transportation problem.  If you drive you buy gasoline.  Put those two together and you've got the people who contribute to the transportation problems paying for transportation solutions.  Rich or poor, if you're driving you are part of the problem so you should be part of the solution. 

3. The gasoline tax infrastructure is already in place and would not cost Virginia much more money to manage.  Almost every other revenue generating idea would require new or significantly modified infrastructure - which means big chunks of the revenue will be wasted on managing the new revenue stream.

4. Lest I be accused of hating the poor, I will say the same thing I've said on this issue before.  If a gasoline tax increase does create a burden on poor families then the government can and should offset that additional burden in some manner.  There are already programs that do this for the poor - but if new taxes change the balance then changes will need to be made to how the government supports poor families.  There are many ways to do it (Lowell hits on a few) - I don't have a preference at this point but I do fully support the concept that additional tax burdens for the poor should be offset somehow.

2.  Exactly, and you also have a CHOICE in this matter; if you feel like you're spending too much on gasoline, there are innumerable ways to reduce your expenses (e.g., keep your tires inflated and save 5%-10%).

3.  In contrast, these new "abuser fees" are going to be a legal nightmare, clog our courts, cause people to lose their jobs, etc.

4. We can also provide transportation alternatives - trolley, light rail, sidewalks, etc. - that are highly appealing and that are heavily subsidized for the poor. 

The "regressivity" argument is a good one, as far as it goes, but it only goes so far.  Again, look at the countries in Europe, the same ones that right wingers like to accuse of being "socialist" (not true, of course), with their $3-$4 per gallon gas taxes.  Last time I was in Europe, I didn't see the sprawl we see here, but I DID see thriving farms and cities, beautiful countryside, high-speed trains that get you from Paris to Rome overnight, etc.  I know, it's not the American Way, regardless, it rocks!

1. This is like saying since health care costs are skyrocketing maybe it's not a bad idea to have a doctor visit tax.

2. See my recent post on my blog responding to this assumption that transportation costs must be linked. Furthermore, it's not quite as perfect as you might think. A gas tax disproportionately punishes those that may have no choice. Those that can't afford to own a home in Arlington so have to move further out. Rural folks. And it punishes people who can't afford to buy a new car or maybe even make simple repairs to improve their car's fuel efficiency.

3. This is the only real argument for a gas tax - as I say it- it's "elegant". No muss, no fuss. But you could say the same thing of ANY flat tax.

4. And this is probably where (if I'm lucky) we'll have to compromise. I understand there's a lot of gravitation toward a gas tax (as confounding as it is to me- as opposed to say, a .25% increase in taxes on income over $50K) so maybe we can talk about enhancing the state EITC and/or increasing the minimum tax threshhold.

Look, we've got to face it: we've got a major problem.  We are addicted to fossil fuels, which is killing our planet and seriously harming our national security.  In order to slash fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions, we're going to need to start internalizing some of those costs.  Again, the "real price" of gasoline has been estimated at $8-$15 per gallon.  Right now, we pay $3 per gallon, which means we're subsidizing (implicit and explicit) gasoline to the tune of $5-$12 per gallon.  I can think of a lot better things to subisidize than a product that pollutes the air, encourages sprawl, and provides hundreds of billions of dollars to unstable and unfriendly regimes (and non-state actors) around the world.

Seriously, I may be able to win you over (at least somewhat) on the other two points as well.

1. My point here wasn't that we should increase the tax just because it is easily hidden in the high cost of gasoline.  The main point was that prices have gone through the roof due to market conditions and that that market driven price increase would be the cause of any burden on poor (or even middle class) families.  With an increase of over $2 per gallon, another 3 cents is practically meaningless to a consumer but would help cover the costs of improving the transportation system.  And, when (IF) the market price falls again the extra tax would be completely lost to the consumer because they're happy to be paying significantly LESS per gallon.

2. I hope I didn't use "perfect" - although I probably did at some point during months of discussing this issue.  The gasoline tax increase is NOT perfect.  It is, however, the BEST option available.  Consider one of your examples - an increase of taxes for $50K+ income.  This does address the rich(er) vs poor issue, but in terms of transportation responsibility it isn't necessarily fair.  Let's say a person earns $75K but goes out of their way to take public transportation, walks, rides a bike, anything but contribute to the transportation gridlock.  This person would be paying for solving a transportation problem they have nothing to do with.  And that's completely unfair to someone who is busting their butt to do it the "right way".  It's absolutely the wrong message we want to send.  The same argument applies to most (if not all) other taxes, like a sales tax increase, as well.

We may not like the environmental effects of the direction transportation has gone in, but those are much more effectively, rationally, and fairly addressed outside of the revenue source question.

One last point- you can't claim both that the tax is unburdensome AND that it creates an incentive to improve the environment, efficiency, etc.

The main car I drive gets 30MPG and fill up is usually 10 gallons. That cost is 1 dollar per fill up or around 65 dollars annually. So what is the problem?

The main problem is the anti-tax people who refuse to pay for what they get.

A gasoline and diesel tax is the only fair tax. Who has to pay that tax? The people who use the roads in one form or another.

By the way, the International Center for Technology Assessment estimates that "The Real Price of Gas" - counting "subsidies for the petroleum industry such as the percentage depletion allowance; tax-funded programs that directly subsidize oil production and consumption, like government-sponsored R&D for the oil industry; the costs of protecting oil supplies, shipments and motor vehicle usage, including military expenditures for protecting the Middle East and other oil rich regions; and environmental, health and social costs including those for global warming" - is "as high as $15.14 [per gallon]."  I'm not advocating that, but it just puts a 1 1/2-cent-per-gallon increase into perspective.  In other words, it's absolutely nothing.

Don't you think we might be headed down a long road before this "crap" can be cleaned up since many of our legislators fit wikipedia's description of anal retentives:  "anal" personality traits, namely those associated with a child's efforts at excretory control: orderliness, stubbornness, a compulsion for control.

Regarding your comment - I actually agree with your main point.  Driving cars with improved fuel economy would certainly take away from the tax base - much in the same way improved driving habits will take away from the abusive driver fees.  Good for the environment, bad for revenue.

I've heard a few people propose an alternative that would be fuel economy neutral - tolls.  But that would be a disaster for many reasons and I sure hope no one is taking that one seriously.  Well, there are those HOT lanes, which aren't looking that good right now.  Don't get me started.

Many of the other environmentally friendly approaches to transportation (such as car pooling, mass transit, walking, bike riding, working from home, etc) would also take away from the gasoline tax revenues, but these would also lessen the burden on the transportation system and thereby lower the need for tax revenue.  That's a win-win.

I digress.  Basing revenues for Virginia's transportation plan on bad drivers is absolutely not the way to go.  I'm still leaning toward a gas tax as my top choice but I've heard good arguments (some in this post) for other types of taxes.  And this point that the environmentally friendly vehicles (the right way to go IMO) do take a bite out of gas tax revenues doesn't help the gas tax argument. 

So, is the gas tax perfect?  No.  It's still my favorite but I'm feeling better about some of these other options.  The abusive fees is NOT one of them.  That one, as it stands,  sucks and always will suck.

Out of staters, not  having to worry about said fees, will drive as fast as ever.

What happens when  cars are going different speeds on the road???
more accidents, and more fatalities.

I propose that we make D el Albo personally responable for the mayhem and pain that will happen in virginia, because of his obscene republican  piece of crap laws!

That is 50 miles a day (about $6) and 1 1/2 hours added to my life less all the wear and tear on the Buick!

The posted speed is 60 MPH, so of course the average is probably 65 MPH.

I drive that area often and I stay alert all the time and very seldom talk to my passengers. Why? Because there are many places where the road will throw a vehicle either left or right. Even being alert, I some times end up in the middle of the road or jerk the steering wheel because I am being thrown towards the side of the road. One has to know that when the yellow line ends the grass with many dip holes begins, so if part of the car tires are off the road at 65MPH, lookout.

Why is this of concern in a tax increase question?

Just how many have to die because of bad roads and anti tax people.

I do not believe that raising gasoline taxes will provide a steady, reliable stream of funding for transportation specifically (what about railroads, airports, ferries, trolleys, etc, as well as roads?  What about reduced income from more fuel-efficient vehicles?). Higher gasoline taxes may be part of a funding package, but the real answer lies in a broad-based tax that everyone in the society pays because everyone benefits from the project. I refer to a small addition to the state sales tax, say one-quarter of one percent. If there is concern that such a small increase would adversely impact the poorest among us, then provide them with an income tax rebate.

Of course, when the right-wingers privatize our roads and sell them to foreign corporations, we'll pay tolls, which are user fees with a vengeance.