$10/bbl oil tax proposed by Obama Admin

[clacy]

To be used for infrastructure.  Does this sound like a good plan?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /79838620/

[clacy]

We hear a lot of buzz about needing more infrastructure. I would be for some sort of infrastructure initiative but is this the best way to do it? Maybe I could get on board with this if we knew gas was going to stay low for some time.

[ochotona]

The tax would have to come off I oil goes back above $XX

[Tyler]

I always find it interesting how every proposed tax hike is for infrastructure and education, yet infrastructure continues to crumble and education gets worse and worse.  It's almost as if our dear leaders aren't being completely honest about where the money is ultimately spent. 

I've got an idea -- let's increase taxes to be applied to infrastructure, but offset them by eliminating all of the corporate bailout and pork barrel taxes that we must have all voted for and forgotten. 

[I Shrugged]

I'm so glad it will be paid for by the oil companies and not the consumers.

[clacy]

As more details come out, it sounds like they want much of the money to be applied towards "clean transportation" such as high speed rail, etc.  Sounds like another government boondoggle, IMO.

[barrett]

My first reaction is that 10 billion over five years is nothing for a country with over 2.5 million miles of paved roads... not to mention bridges, water mains and a gazillion other things that fall under the definition of "infrastructure." For context, the new Yankee Stadium cost 1.6 billion.

[Mountaineer]

[dragoncar]

I'm all for infrastructure, but are they just proposing state grants with this cash?  Does the federal government directly maintain anything?

Would it break the market to set a variable tax that basically establishes a price floor of say $40/bbl?  Or is it better for it to slide ($10/bbl tax minus 25% of the price over $30)

The point being that we want to reduce externalities from burning this fuel, but that will be less of an issue at high prices.  And obviously the economy does better on cheap energy (short term)

Maybe the infrastructure should be limited to sea walls, levees, and wetland restoration.

[dragoncar]

My first reaction is that 10 billion over five years is nothing for a country with over 2.5 million miles of paved roads... not to mention bridges, water mains and a gazillion other things that fall under the definition of "infrastructure." For context, the new Yankee Stadium cost 1.6 billion.

How can it be so little? 

Where did you get that number?  The tax would generate more like $36 billion per year (obviously depends on amount of imports).  Maybe you are looking at the fact it will be phased in over five years? 

It's a lot, but it would still take 6 years to fund the highest estimates for California HSR (high estimates $200 billion, lowest around $70 billion)

[barrett]

My first reaction is that 10 billion over five years is nothing for a country with over 2.5 million miles of paved roads... not to mention bridges, water mains and a gazillion other things that fall under the definition of "infrastructure." For context, the new Yankee Stadium cost 1.6 billion.

How can it be so little? 

Where did you get that number?  The tax would generate more like $36 billion per year (obviously depends on amount of imports).  Maybe you are looking at the fact it will be phased in over five years? 

It's a lot, but it would still take 6 years to fund the highest estimates for California HSR (high estimates $200 billion, lowest around $70 billion)

Ha! Good thing I'm not doing brain surgery today. Totally misread that. I took a red-eye flight back from the left coast and only slept for maybe 45 minutes. You all carry on. I'm going to take a nap!

[moda0306]

As more details come out, it sounds like they want much of the money to be applied towards "clean transportation" such as high speed rail, etc.  Sounds like another government boondoggle, IMO.

I'll be honest... I've never actually looked at the numbers on high-speed rail.  I've heard a conservative try to tear them apart and liberals talk about the convenience, productivity, and environmental benefits of it generally but with no "Freakonomics" type of accuracy.

It hurts me to say this, but I want HSR because 1) it seems cool, 2) I hate flying, and 3) it SEEMS like it's environmentally friendly and relatively efficient. 

Do you have a source that you think has validly parsed through the numbers on high speed rail?

[Reub]

"Scandal: Less than 7% of Trillion-Dollar ‘Stimulus’ Spent on Infrastructure"

http://humanevents.com/2010/09/08/scand ... structure/

[dualstow]

Oil is cheap. A tax on it makes sense. Unfortunately, the problem is still how they spend the money...
As Tyler wrote earlier:

I always find it interesting how every proposed tax hike is for infrastructure and education, yet infrastructure continues to crumble and education gets worse and worse.  It's almost as if our dear leaders aren't being completely honest about where the money is ultimately spent. 

I've got an idea -- let's increase taxes to be applied to infrastructure, but offset them by eliminating all of the corporate bailout and pork barrel taxes that we must have all voted for and forgotten.

[Kriegsspiel]

As more details come out, it sounds like they want much of the money to be applied towards "clean transportation" such as high speed rail, etc.  Sounds like another government boondoggle, IMO.

I'll be honest... I've never actually looked at the numbers on high-speed rail.  I've heard a conservative try to tear them apart and liberals talk about the convenience, productivity, and environmental benefits of it generally but with no "Freakonomics" type of accuracy.

It hurts me to say this, but I want HSR because 1) it seems cool, 2) I hate flying, and 3) it SEEMS like it's environmentally friendly and relatively efficient. 

Do you have a source that you think has validly parsed through the numbers on high speed rail?

Travelling by trains IS awesome. When I lived in Europe, that was my favorite. America would fuck it all up though. Probably make it as bad as flying.

[Libertarian666]

My first reaction is that 10 billion over five years is nothing for a country with over 2.5 million miles of paved roads... not to mention bridges, water mains and a gazillion other things that fall under the definition of "infrastructure." For context, the new Yankee Stadium cost 1.6 billion.

How can it be so little? 

Where did you get that number?  The tax would generate more like $36 billion per year (obviously depends on amount of imports).  Maybe you are looking at the fact it will be phased in over five years? 

It's a lot, but it would still take 6 years to fund the highest estimates for California HSR (high estimates $200 billion, lowest around $70 billion)

Ha! Good thing I'm not doing brain surgery today. Totally misread that. I took a red-eye flight back from the left coast and only slept for maybe 45 minutes. You all carry on. I'm going to take a nap!

So you are actually Ben Carson? Good luck with your challenge to the Iowa results!

[WiseOne]

I may be off base but this strikes me as a terrible idea, for a lot of reasons:

- new tax = new overhead/administration which will take/waste some of the profits off the top.
- it's regressive and also will unfairly impact people who live in old cities in cold climates (heating oil), or places that have oil-fired electric power plants.
- it'll be yet another nail in the coffin when oil prices rise again
- last thing we need is yet another hidden tax

If the US government wants infrastructure to happen, then make it happen within the usual budget constraints.  Cut something, reduce a tax credit/writeoff, or raise income tax rates.  Sure that's painful, but it should be painful to spend $$.

High speed rail on heavily used routes would be great and likely cheaper than building new airports in congested areas.  But do you REALLY think Amtrak will spend the money responsibly?  The Acela service between Boston and DC is maybe half the speed of fast trains in Europe/Japan.  It has to abide by speed limits set by the various towns along the route and is also limited by old rail, sharing track with slower trains, etc.  It costs around $200 more than standard (NY - DC round trip) and cuts only about 30-45 minutes off the trip.  The main attraction is that it's business class, with nice comfortable seats and work areas.

I say fix Amtrak first and then think about pumping more money into the rail system.  And anyway I'd rank bridges and utilities ahead of high speed trains.