PDA

View Full Version : Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday slammed as bad idea



Txbroadcaster
04-30-2008, 03:03 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Score one for Obama," wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower."

Republican McCain and Democrat Clinton, who is battling Obama for their party's nomination, both want to suspend the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax during the peak summer driving months to ease the pain of soaring gas prices. The tax is used to fund the Highway Trust Fund that builds and maintains roads and bridges.

Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.

"You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Obama criticized the plan as pure politics and said the only way to lower the price of gas is to use less oil.

"It would last for three months and it would save you on average half a tank of gas, $25 to $30. That's what Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are proposing to deal with the gas crisis," he said on Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

"This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

This stance has prompted Clinton to accuse him of being out of touch with ordinary Americans as she campaigns ahead of key presidential nomination contests in North Carolina and Indiana on May 6.

CLINTON AT THE PUMP

The New York senator was commuting to work in South Bend, Indiana, on Wednesday and planned to pump gas at a gas station to draw attention to her plan to suspend the gas tax on consumers and businesses.

"We will pay for it by imposing a windfall profits tax on the big oil companies," she said on Tuesday. "They sure can afford it. This is a big difference in this race. My opponent opposes giving consumers a break from the gas tax but I believe the American people are being squeezed pretty hard."

The cost of a gallon of gasoline has touched $4 in some parts of the country as oil prices nudge toward a record $120 per barrel, hammering drivers at a time when higher food prices and falling home values are already crimping U.S. consumers.

Many economists implicitly agreed with Obama and said the McCain-Clinton gas tax plan sent the wrong signal on energy efficiency and was at odds with their pledges to combat climate change by encouraging lower U.S. carbon emissions.

"I think it is a very bad idea," said Gilbert Metclaf, a economics professor at Tufts University currently working with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

"If we want people to invest in energy-saving cars, we need some assurance that the higher price paid for these cars is going to pay off through fuel savings," he said. "It is a very short-sighted, counterproductive proposal."

Economists also saw it is a poor way of getting money to the households that need it most and warned that it might end up in the cash tills of the oil companies.

"If you want to provide households tax relief, a direct rebate ... is more effective. Not all of the tax relief from a gas tax holiday will be passed on to consumers. Some will likely be kept by refiners," Mankiw said in an e-mail response.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was similarly underwhelmed: "It's Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies," he wrote on his blog on Tuesday.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason in Winston-Salem, N.C., and Ellen Wulfhorst in Indianapolis

LH Panther Mom
04-30-2008, 03:13 PM
Link?

Txbroadcaster
04-30-2008, 03:15 PM
whoops

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080430/ts_nm/usa_politics_gastax_economists_dc;_ylt=AreSLZ8L.fP RW.lXu.Ho4Gms0NUE

Adidas410s
04-30-2008, 03:27 PM
Obama, Mankiw, et al pretty much hit this one on the head.

c-town_balla
04-30-2008, 04:05 PM
I don't know how any politition can call another one "out of touch" they are all rich and not like normal Americans

UPanIN
04-30-2008, 04:30 PM
:blahblah: :blahblah: Not one of these three stooges have a clue.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
04-30-2008, 06:06 PM
I think we shouldn't be able to trade futures of petroleum products on the stock market first of all. Second of all, I think it's ridiculous that the tax money that we're paying in now isn't up to standards to build and maintain the roads across America despite all of the roads that were built in the 1960s and 1970s solely from the taxes derived from gasoline. Keep in mind there were a lot fewer cars and lower taxes then. Makes you kind of think...

Adidas410s
04-30-2008, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I think we shouldn't be able to trade futures of petroleum products on the stock market first of all. Second of all, I think it's ridiculous that the tax money that we're paying in now isn't up to standards to build and maintain the roads across America despite all of the roads that were built in the 1960s and 1970s solely from the taxes derived from gasoline. Keep in mind there were a lot fewer cars and lower taxes then. Makes you kind of think...
You made the point for why the taxes for roads should be higher. When these taxes were set, there were fewer drivers and fewer cars...thus the necessary revenue needed to maintain such roads was less than it is today.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
04-30-2008, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Adidas410s
You made the point for why the taxes for roads should be higher. When these taxes were set, there were fewer drivers and fewer cars...thus the necessary revenue needed to maintain such roads was less than it is today.

Yes, but we're making so much more money with the number of cars on the road and the number of gallons that are consumed. In my mind, we're making a lot more money and thus should be able to keep up with the number of cars and traffic we currently have.

Adidas410s
04-30-2008, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Yes, but we're making so much more money with the number of cars on the road and the number of gallons that are consumed. In my mind, we're making a lot more money and thus should be able to keep up with the number of cars and traffic we currently have.
Not when the cost of raw materials has soared through the roof. Even if the number of roads needing to fixed is the same...the rate at which they need to be fixed goes up as the number of drivers goes up. Now you throw in double (and in some place triple) % increases in the cost of those materials...and now you have an underfunded program and thus the taxes need to be raised.

Necks_Fan
04-30-2008, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by UPanIN
:blahblah: :blahblah: Not one of these three stooges have a clue. :iagree:

Who cares at this point?


We will have a new president in 4 years anyway.

McCain= too old
Hillary= No ethics
Obama= No defense


The people will hate whoever gets elected and we will have a new one come next election.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
04-30-2008, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Adidas410s
Not when the cost of raw materials has soared through the roof. Even if the number of roads needing to fixed is the same...the rate at which they need to be fixed goes up as the number of drivers goes up. Now you throw in double (and in some place triple) % increases in the cost of those materials...and now you have an underfunded program and thus the taxes need to be raised.

Well, it doesn't help anything when we hire companies that are owned overseas that don't have to pay any taxes on the job that they're doing...I can see where you're coming from, I just think the system is flawed and our approach is flawed as well.