Redistribution of Wealth- Highway Taxes Going Up

                                                Who Benefits,Who Pays

Who benefits and who pays for our nation's highway system deserves more than a passing thought. Historically, highways were seen as 'too important' to leave to the private sector. The building of secure nation and a strong economy was dependent upon a vigorous transportation system.

In the post World War II era, the north and the older inner cities, did not balk when disproportionate tax dollars went to the south, southwest and the suburbs to pay for the Interstate Highway System.

Now the United States Chamber of Commerce deserves a pat on the back for recognizing that Bush era tax cuts results in neglect to the nation's infrastructure which is in dire straits and a kick in the teeth for suggesting that hybrid fuel efficient vehicles be charged additional taxes.

The logic for the US Chamber is that since they use less fuel and therefore pay less tax, hybrids should be separately taxed to make up for the loss gasoline tax revenues.

If this era of regressive taxation, the Bush administration will probably embrace the idea.

Taxes need to be both distributive and redistributive.  In the long run, fuel efficient vehicles save taxpayers more money with reduced air pollution and reduced vehicle weights.  The same logic was used thirty years ago when it was determined that billions of dollars of the gasoline tax should go for public transportation.  Public transit systems were subsidized because the more people did not drive automobiles, the more we all saved in avoiding the cost of additional highway acquisition, construction, and maintenance costs.

Eveen conseravtives came to recognize that public transist subsidizies saved tax dollars. The study referred to in Governor Thompson's speech says there is no evidence to show why conservatives shouldn't support public transit.  Actually, that is wrong, the evidence existed in the late 1960's in a study done by the Charles River Bridge Consultants.

I am sure the Neocons will figure out away to mess that one up too. In the meantime an appropriate taxation policy for transpiration is a progressive income tax combined with fuel taxes, combined with ad valorem licenses that place a greater , not a lesser, burden on heavy inefficient vehicles.  The expenditures must go for our highways, bridge construction and repair with acknowledgment that public transit systems save money and are environmentally friendly.  How novel.