Search 2.0

Saturday, December 27, 2008

The idea of a fluctuating gasoline tax

Given the choice between purchasing a fuel efficient Prius or a gas guzzling Hummer, I'm convinced most Americans would pick the Hummer. Americans just love big cars, pickup trucks and SUVs. The only thing that drove a lot of consumers to seek more fuel-efficient automobiles was the spike in gasoline prices this year drove them to around $4 a gallon. Now that the price of gas is back around $1.50, the idea of the smaller car is not all that appealing to most Americans.

Call me paranoid, but I'm convinced the price of gas is being artificially manipulated by those who really are afraid that President-elect Barack Obama is going to do whatever he can to fulfill his promise of a reduced reliance on oil imports. I can see this plan working, too. Critics of Obama's plan can proclaim "Hey, gas is cheap. Let's worry about more important things like easing the credit crunch so I can negotiate a loan to buy the family a Cadillac or a big Benz."

Me, I still think fuel efficiency is the way to go. But how do you accomplish this when gas prices are at the levels they are today? One interesting idea floating around is that of a fluctuating gasoline tax. Here's the way it would work. Gas prices would be established permanently at, say, $4 or even $5 a gallon. At those prices, Americans will go back to wanting more fuel efficient cars and will be demanding once again auto manufacturers develop vehicles that run on other types of fuel -- exactly the atmosphere needed to make Obama's energy plan work. When the actual price of gas is $1.50, the difference between that price and the established price would be the amount of the gasoline tax that would flow into the U.S. Treasury. Should the price of gas begin to climb, the amount of the tax falls correspondingly. So, if gas prices rise back up to $3.50 a gallon, the gasoline tax is 50 cents a gallon versus $2.50 a gallon when the per-gallon price of gas is $1.50.

It's an idea worth further discussions.

No comments: