The Conservative Case For a Higher Gas Tax
I think Jim has made one, inadvertently, though I am, as always, open to being shown the error of my logic.
In my comment to Jim’s post from yesterday, I argued the following:
If the goal is to reduce oil consumption (for ecological or other reasons) then to the extent that demand [for oil] is elastic a tax should be efficacious in achieving that goal (because higher taxes should drive down demand).
If the goal is to raise more revenue in an efficient manner (or to reduce the inefficiency of the current code by offsetting the increased revenue with cuts in other taxes that have a bigger economic drag), then to the extent that demand [for oil] is inelastic the tax should be efficient in achieving that goal (because the tax will not cause material changes in demand, and therefore will not materially distort economic decisionmaking in aggregate – much as a VAT is considered highly efficient).
To the extent that a higher tax on oil has both goals (which is I think the argument most advocates would make), then the real impact of whatever the actual elasticity of demand for oil turns out to be is on which goals are more effectively achieved. The more elastic demand for oil proves to be, the lousier the tax will be as a revenue-raiser, and the more distorting it will be of economic choices, but the better it will be at achieving the ecological goals of the tax. The less elastic demand for oil proves to be, the lousier the tax will be as an ecological measure, but the more effective and efficient it will be as a revenue raiser.
Jim conceded this essential point. He believes the evidence points to the conclusion that demand for oil is not very elastic, and therefore a tax would not be terribly efficacious in changing consumer behavior or in driving innovation, at least not at any seriously plausible levels of tax. But for that very reason it would be a good – in the sense of economically efficient – revenue-raiser.
Jim makes two points against adopting a new carbon tax or value-added tax, however. First, he argues, it’s important to limit the number of taxes, simply because the multiplication of points of taxation makes it easier for the government to raise the tax burden overall, as none of the headline numbers seem terribly large. Second, a carbon tax or any other complex attempt to price the externalities associated with fossil fuel production and consumption would fall prey to special-interest pleading and would result in something full of loopholes, unlikely to make any material impact on the externalities it was intended to address, raising relatively little revenue, and introducing distortions into investment and consumption decisions that result in a material drag on economic performance.
It seems to me that, however strong you think these arguments are with respect to a carbon tax or a value-added tax, they are much weaker arguments against a higher gas tax. First, the gas tax already exists; we’d be raising an existing tax rather than creating a new one. Second, it is difficult to see how special interests could materially introduce exceptions to a rise in the gas tax – certainly relative to a value-added-tax or a carbon-tax. Or, for that matter, an income tax or a property tax.
Jim makes the point in today’s post that a solution to the problem of climate change will require either a massive drop in living standards or significant technological advances. He thinks the best way to achieve significant technological breakthroughs would be for the government to fund basic research. Such research would have to be funded, which would require additional revenue. Such revenue would, I should think, be better raised from more-efficient taxes than from less-efficient ones. I should further think that a tax that had a clear relationship to the problem being addressed would be politically preferable than relying on general federal revenues.
The bottom line: if consumer behavior doesn’t change when it is raised, then a gas tax is an efficient way to raise revenue. If consumer behavior changes greatly in response to small changes in the tax, then it’s an efficient way to reduce oil consumption – and the costs of changing to an economy less-dependent on oil may have been overestimated. Since the gas tax already exists, and is extremely simple, raising it poses fewer risks of special-interest capture than imposing a new tax. If the goal is to restrain government spending, a rise in the gas tax could be offset with cuts in other, less efficient taxes, for a net gain to economic efficiency.
Noah,
I think what I’ve made is a conservative argument for the position that (1) increasing the gas tax, is preferable to (2) implementing a new economy-wide carbon tax / cap-and-trade system, or a economy-wide general purpose VAT. If forced to choose only one of these two, sure, I’d agree that raising the gas tax is a better option.
For the record, I don’t believe that those are our only two options.
Best,
Jim
— Jim Manzi · Apr 26, 04:49 PM · #
Fair enough – obviously, you may have the opinion that, in aggregate, taxes should be lower than they, and that therefore the gas tax shouldn’t be raised unless some other, more pernicious tax were also lowered. Or, alternatively, that there is some even better way to raise taxes that would be even more efficient than raising the gas tax. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
However, I do think it’s significant to say that you’d prefer a rise in the gas tax to the establishment of a broad-based VAT, since a VAT is considered by most economists to be among the most efficient.
Best,
-Noah
— Noah Millman · Apr 26, 06:38 PM · #
This is a great back-and-forth, and much food for thought. I think my rejoinder to Noah would be: while a tax on gas appears to be relatively efficient, it starts to become quite unfair at higher rates because a tax on a single consumption item will fall much more heavily on some people rather than others, and the allocation between the two might not be justified under either their ability to pay or their relative costs to society. A VAT on the other hand falls much more evenly and maintains a closer connection between tax burden and the various justifications for taxation, including both ability to pay and cost to society.
Having said all that, as someone who doesn’t drive much, I would LOVE a super-high gas tax ($20 a gallon!), lower income taxes, and no VAT. Which, even though it is against my own self-interest, I think illustrates the problems.
— Jay Daniel · Apr 26, 08:04 PM · #
Noah,
Yes I think it is important, and didn’t intend to try to trivialize it.
In general, IMO, best policy is rarely theoretically-optimal policy, because all of the models being optimized are so incomplete.
Best,
Jim
— Jim Manzi · Apr 26, 08:04 PM · #
How about the fact that increased gasoline taxes hit the working and middle classes – in the form of increased transportation expenses, as well as food and retail prices – harder than others? The rich can afford it, while the poor use mass transit. And about mass transit, such an increase means that city and school buses become more expensive to maintain, also leading to an increase in local sales, property, and vehicle taxes, or cuts in government services (which generally hurt the poor).
That is a heaping helping of regressive taxation. What it is not, however, is a conservative case for raising taxes that conservatives do not believe should be spent in the first place.
— INTJ · Apr 26, 09:35 PM · #
Nice conversation — thank you both. I think the important x-factor is how higher gas prices affects the economics of electric vehicles or high-speed rail, and drives alternative technology investment. High gas prices spur consumption of electric vehicles, allowing greater investment and economies of scale throughout the industry value chain. That eventually could have a major impact on net energy consumption by popping the (long term) inelasticity of demand. The innovation process is hard to predict, but progress to-date has been encouraging.
I’d also love to see gas taxes that fluctuate to offset volatility in gas prices, providing more price stability for consumers and clarity for gas-alternative technology investments.
— Walker Frost · Apr 27, 03:53 AM · #
Your presentations will be better if you skip the “you know“s.
— forrest walters · Apr 29, 04:17 AM · #
Mizuno Corporation is a Japanese sports equipment manufacturer, which was established in 1906. Nowadays, [url=http://www.soccercleatsonsales.com/mizuno-soccer-cleats.html]Mizuno[/url] develops so fast that it gets large numbers of loyal consumers, especially those sports lovers. For example, the players who love tennis, football, baseball, skiing, hiking and cycling can get satisfaction from Mizuno products. The company also has expanded its operation centres opening new factories in Germany, France, China PR, Scotland and Hong Kong. What’s more, Mizuno products are selling very well in the overseas market. If necessary, please seek for much more related information. (xu)
— xuyang · Apr 29, 07:36 AM · #
Most of us have heard of CCTV security systems at some point, however there are those who are not quite certain as to the benefits, or for that matter, what CCTV actually stands for. CCTV means “closed circuit television” which, as the name implies, is a camera that has been hooked up to a TV screen on a closed circuit type system.
— DCCTV · May 6, 07:58 AM · #