[ROCKMAN]

It appears that while China has been modestly increasing motor fuel taxes at the same time they been decreasing the state mandated retail price of fuel much more. So the net effect is that Chinese motor fuel has become significantly less expensive:

BEIJING, Jan. 12 (Xinhua) -- China's finance and taxation authorities on Monday announced that consumption tax on oil products would be raised from Tuesday. The tax on gasoline, naphtha, solvent oil and lubricating oil will be increased to 1.52 yuan (about 25 U.S. cents) per liter from 1.4 yuan. The levy on diesel, jet fuel and fuel oil will be increased from 1.1 yuan per liter to 1.2 yuan, according to the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the State Administration of Taxation (SAT). This will be the third increase in as many months, following one on Nov. 29 and another on Dec. 13.

The retail prices of gasoline and diesel will be cut by 180 yuan and 230 yuan per tonne after taking the higher tax into consideration, the National Development and Reform Commission announced in a separate statement. This the 12th retail fuel prices cut since July 2014, as the government reacts to lower global crude oil prices.

Proceeds from the higher taxes will mainly be allocated to counter-pollution initiatives and the new energy sector, according to the MOF and the SAT. However, experts warn that the drop in oil prices is bad news for the new energy sector. For example, new-energy cars will see reduced sales, said Liu Shangxi, director of the research institute for fiscal science at the MOF.

China's energy consumption accounted for about 22.4 percent of the world's total in 2013, but its energy consumption per gross domestic product (GDP) was 3.5 times of that of the United States and seven times of that of Japan, according to Liu. Fuel tax and pricing reform measures began five years ago, and have featured consumption tax hikes and the introduction of a pricing system more closely linked to the international market. Consumption tax was first imposed in 1994 on consumer goods with a high energy cost and high pollution to make production and consumption more environmentally-friendly and promote sustainable growth.

[JV153]

delete

[JV153]

It appears that while China has been modestly increasing motor fuel taxes at the same time they been decreasing the state mandated retail price of fuel much more. So the net effect is that Chinese motor fuel has become significantly less expensive:

The pump price in China, which was what the end consumer pays, has gone up 3 fold in 10 years and is higher now than it was in 2008. It's 1.20 USD a liter. In Turkey it's over 2.00 USD a liter.

[careinke]

Since Washington States 1 August gas tax hike, fuel prices have dropped over 10%. We have the second highest gas tax in the nation. I would not object to being number one. But then, I believe ALL taxes should be consumption taxes, with an even higher premium on FF taxes.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Since Washington States 1 August gas tax hike, fuel prices have dropped over 10%. We have the second highest gas tax in the nation. I would not object to being number one. But then, I believe ALL taxes should be consumption taxes, with an even higher premium on FF taxes.

A great big +1 on that, especially the higher premium on FF taxes.

Now, how you get the current system to even seriously CONSIDER changing the rules -- that's the challenge.

[Tanada]

Oklahoma lawmakers are staring into a budget hole that's nearly $900 million deep — and they might not be able to cut their way out of it. Legislators are considering tax increases to help fund state government, and one idea is gaining traction: Hiking taxes on gasoline and diesel.

This year could see a wave of state tax hikes on gasoline and diesel. Oklahoma is one of about a dozen states seriously considering increases, a list that includes Republican strongholds like Mississippi, Louisiana and Alaska, where Gov. Bill Walker has proposed tripling taxes on motor fuel.

Oklahoma's taxes on motor fuel haven't been touched since 1987, and there are a lot of similarities between the situation then and what the state now faces: An economy shaken by low oil prices and dwindling revenue streams that fund state government.

Raising fuel taxes helped the state in the 1980s, and lawmakers might try it again. Carl Davis, research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, says Oklahoma lawmakers have good reason to raise taxes at the pump.

There's really no such thing as a Republican pothole or a Democratic bridge. It's an issue that brings the parties together.

Carl Davis, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy

"The state has one of the oldest gas tax rates in the country," he says. "It's turning 30 years old, having not budged a single penny in 30 years."

Over the decades, the value of that unchanged tax rate — 16 cents per gallon of gasoline and 13 cents per gallon of diesel — has eroded with inflation. Today, Oklahoma has some of the lowest motor fuel taxes in the country, the American Petroleum Institute reports.

Davis says more fuel-efficient cars and trucks have also taken a bite out of that revenue stream.

"It's just the math just doesn't work to levy the same gas tax rate for 30 years. It just loses purchasing power," he says.

Pay at the pump

A lot of stars have to align for these tax increases to pass through various state legislatures, but there are a few reasons why politicians — even in red states like Oklahoma — don't always mind raising them.

One is that the lion's share of gasoline and diesel taxes in Oklahoma and other states are directed to transportation — agencies and programs that build and maintain highways, roads and bridges.

"There's really no such thing as a Republican pothole or a Democratic bridge," Davis says. "It's an issue that brings the parties together."

Second, motor fuel taxes also paid by users, which, "in conservative circles," Davis says, "can be an especially appealing aspect of it."

Motor fuel taxes are regressive: They affect low-income people more than those with higher incomes. But, in recent years, gasoline and diesel prices have been pretty low. And, unlike other taxes, Davis says there's a third reason motor fuel tax increases can be more politically palatable: The business community often supports them.

U.S. Likely To Become Net Exporter Of Energy, Says Federal Forecast

"At some point it's just not worth refusing to pay a few more pennies per gallon if the cost is going to be having to hit a pothole and get your vehicle realigned or wasting time and money stuck in traffic," he says.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has backed increases of federal taxes levied on motor fuel and the State Chamber of Oklahoma supports raising motor fuel taxes as long as the increase funds transportation infrastructure, says Mike Jackson, senior vice president of political affairs and advocacy.

"We have always maintained that the tax must be dedicated to the sole purpose of the preserving and improving our roads and bridges," he wrote in an emailed statement.

Fill it up

Motor fuel taxes are a relatively small revenue stream for Oklahoma, generating about $474 million in 2016, state tax commission data show. That number includes revenue from taxes on other fuels, including compressed and liquified natural gas and aviation fuels — a drop in the bucket compared to the $4.1 billion and $2.5 billion in income and sales tax revenues.

Even if the stars do align as Davis suggested, any tax increase proposed by Oklahoma lawmakers will need a legislative supermajority — a tall order, even with a $900 million budget gap. A state ballot question to raise fuel taxes was trounced in 2005, and a bill introduced during the 2016 legislative session died in committee.

New motor fuel tax legislation is being written for Oklahoma's upcoming legislative session, which starts in February. State lawmakers and Davis point to one final reason why these tax hikes might fly in 2017: It's not an election year.

"That's a major reason why this is an issue worth watching this year," Davis says.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/12/509344237 ... dget-holes

[Outcast_Searcher]

Since Washington States 1 August gas tax hike, fuel prices have dropped over 10%. We have the second highest gas tax in the nation. I would not object to being number one. But then, I believe ALL taxes should be consumption taxes, with an even higher premium on FF taxes.

(red font mine, for emphasis).

This seems like a terrific idea. Kudos, and enthusiastic clapping sounds.

We wouldn't be penalizing people for earning an income.

With consumption taxes we would (or could if we governed wisely) penalize/discourage people from consuming things that are very bad for various things. Or for luxury goods if we want to penalize the rich for "overconsumption" or "outrageous consumption". And most definitely pollutants including fossil fuels if we wanted to provide a strong push toward clean fuels. With no income tax, we could have some SERIOUSLY behavior altering taxes on FF's.

But you can't get the vast majority of the right to do that because of how strongly they are against any kind of a CO2 tax, even with all the evidence CO2 is a big problem. And you can't get the vast majority of the left to support that because in their minds, not having lots of income taxes is somehow some sort of moral sacrilege, in the completely unthinkable realm.

It's like the liberals in Washington state which recently rejected the proposed new CO2 tax for various reasons recently (see Proposition 732). My "favorite" were those who were against it because it had the temerity to try to be tax neutral overall. I know not raising taxes is something the left hates, but really, is refusing to compromise on that worth not doing the right thing and setting a good example with an actual CO2 tax, even as there is endless hate thrown at the right for ... being against a CO2 tax? It's enough to make a logical person's head explode.

[Zarquon]

You would massively penalize people for being poor, even more so than is already the case. Consumption, next to rent, is the biggest expense item for those with low income.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/go ... e-earners/

[Tanada]

Funny but Europeans have massive fuel taxes and they seem to get by. One of the biggest differences is the tax money gathered in Europe on fuel goes a long way to offsetting the cost of socialized medicine. The only way a single payer system can function is with very high consumption taxes, but the American Congress was too chicken to enact the necessary taxes to fund the Affordable Care Act.

[GHung]

Carbon fee/dividend basics:

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics- ... -dividend/

[careinke]

You would massively penalize people for being poor, even more so than is already the case. Consumption, next to rent, is the biggest expense item for those with low income.

This is so easily fixed with a "prebate" to all citizens that pre pays your taxes up through say, double the poverty rate. Instantly ALL of the poor are untaxed, and you don't even need to prove your income level sense everyone gets the "prebate". Gee, how hard was that to fix????????

Consumption taxes and tarrifs should be our only forms of taxes.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You would massively penalize people for being poor, even more so than is already the case. Consumption, next to rent, is the biggest expense item for those with low income.

Well, that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and say we should do NOTHING about a CO2 tax, when AGW is an existential problem. Just because the far left deems anything that affects "the poor" a non-starter, doesn't mean such problems shouldn't be addressed.

As I've suggested in the past, one approach would be a fuel tax credit for the poor. They already tend to pay negative income taxes (net, the feds pay them) due to things like the EITC (earned income tax credit), so it's not like this is a novel concept.

Or, the poor could live more like they're poor, given that they're getting tax credits for being poor, social programs for being poor, etc. So, taking the bus or biking or walking instead of driving a gas guzzler (especially long distances) would seem to be in order.

Or some combination of the two -- like a strictly limited fuel tax credit for the truly poor.

...

And I know, suggestions like this tend to be very unpopular in some circles. However, I find the idea of destroying the planet in a century or three due to ignoring AGW stupid enough that I think some "unpopular" remedies are likely in order.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Funny but Europeans have massive fuel taxes and they seem to get by. One of the biggest differences is the tax money gathered in Europe on fuel goes a long way to offsetting the cost of socialized medicine. The only way a single payer system can function is with very high consumption taxes, but the American Congress was too chicken to enact the necessary taxes to fund the Affordable Care Act.

Well, first, I agree and applaud your point that we need to actually PAY FOR things we want like the ACA -- far too few people on either side of the aisle (both voters and congress-critters) are willing to acknowledge that, much less adhere to a balanced budget (in all except dire economic emergencies).

However, one reason much of Western Europe can live with a big fuel tax is that they planned for and structured their society around it. They have relatively good public transit. They are crammed relatively close together (generally) compared to rural America which is all spread out and therefore requires lots of driving for rural living.
Those living rurally needing to drive generally seem to accept a very efficient car is a given, re affordability.

I'm ALL FOR a very large US transportation fuels tax, ramped up over time -- even to the point of replacing much or all of the income tax. However, getting by the impact that this has on what most Americans deem as their right to a chosen lifestyle (i.e. cheap gasoline), given the way the US is structured -- that would be a very big hurdle to cross.

Heck, almost NO one wants even a very small gas tax raise to fix the roads and (especially) bridges which are decaying around us, for crying out loud.

[kublikhan]

This is so easily fixed with a "prebate" to all citizens that pre pays your taxes up through say, double the poverty rate. Instantly ALL of the poor are untaxed, and you don't even need to prove your income level sense everyone gets the "prebate". Gee, how hard was that to fix????????

That untaxes those making less than $15,000. However those making between $15,000 and $200,000 would see a substantial rise in their taxes. Nor is the tax rate 23%. When the president's tax advisory panel reviewed this tax plan they found the tax rate would be 34%. And even then that assumes a 100% sales tax base. No state has a 100% sales tax base. It is more like 50% because many items are excluded from sales taxes such as rent, utilities, medical bills, interest, etc. If the sales tax base was similar to the one current states use, that would raise the rate to 58%. Fairtax made alot of bogus assumptions to get it's fairy tale low tax rate and the numbers don't stand up to scrutiny. Every reputable tax expert who has ever looked at the FairTax has concluded that the true tax rate would be much higher than 23%.

Unspinning the FairTax

[careinke]

This is so easily fixed with a "prebate" to all citizens that pre pays your taxes up through say, double the poverty rate. Instantly ALL of the poor are untaxed, and you don't even need to prove your income level sense everyone gets the "prebate". Gee, how hard was that to fix????????

That untaxes those making less than $15,000. However those making between $15,000 and $200,000 would see a substantial rise in their taxes. Nor is the tax rate 23%. When the president's tax advisory panel reviewed this tax plan they found the tax rate would be 34%. And even then that assumes a 100% sales tax base. No state has a 100% sales tax base. It is more like 50% because many items are excluded from sales taxes such as rent, utilities, medical bills, interest, etc. If the sales tax base was similar to the one current states use, that would raise the rate to 58%. Fairtax made alot of bogus assumptions to get it's fairy tale low tax rate and the numbers don't stand up to scrutiny. Every reputable tax expert who has ever looked at the FairTax has concluded that the true tax rate would be much higher than 23%.

Unspinning the FairTax

Using 15,000 as a base, the person spending $30,000 per year would effectively be paying 50% of the tax rate, because his first $15K is untaxed with the prebate. Someone spending $60K/yr would be taxed at 75%. No one pays 100% because of the prebate, but the rich would certainly be very close.

Finally, used products are not taxed. So if your poor (or smart), you buy used clothes, used vehicles, shop at garage sales, habitat for humanity etc. You can also grow your own food and avoid paying even more taxes.

Consumption taxes implemented well, offer some valuable benefits including: Untaxing the poor, economic privacy, vastly reduce/eliminate tax lobbyists, discourage overconsumption, eliminate the IRS, encourage more robust longer lasting products, just to name a few.

Of course it will never happen because it eliminates a revenue source for our corrupt politicians. Then again, Pence was a co-sponsor of the Fair Tax Bill.

[Cog]

Progressives never met a tax they didn't embrace.

[Tanada]

Progressives never met a tax they didn't embrace.

They also never met a tax cut or spending reduction they could stomach unless it involves harm to the military.

[Cog]

Progressives never met a tax they didn't embrace.

They also never met a tax cut or spending reduction they could stomach unless it involves harm to the military.

Indeed this is so. My suggestion for those who live in liberal enclaves like New York and California is to immediately call for a $5/gallon tax increase on diesel and gasoline at the state level. You can show the rest of us fly-over states how its done and how much good it has done you. Lead by example. After all, if large gulp soda is bad, just think about how bad under-taxed fuel is.

[C8]

Progressives never met a tax they didn't embrace.

They also never met a tax cut or spending reduction they could stomach unless it involves harm to the military.

Part of the reason for this is that they generally do not pay the tax. Progressives tend to be made up of the very poor and very rich- one doesn't make enough to pay taxes and the other is wealthy enough to uses tax dodges.

Progressives value government because it is a sanctioned form of theft from Republicans.

[careinke]

All taxes are theft by force. Labor taxes and property taxes, are just a particularly oppressive and controlling version of armed robbery.