In the aftermath of the Minnesota bridge collapse, of course we will find the Government wanting to increase taxes to fund more Government intervention. Article:
http://www.mises.org/story/2670
I think if you'll reference the previous post, you'll find that we re already taxed enough in this country. How about if existing Government expenditures try to become more efficient?
Cato senior fellow Randal O'Toole said: "Now why would I be suspicious that this might not be a good idea, especially when a huge share of federal gas taxes do not go to roads and another large share is 'flexible,' meaning cities can spend it on either roads or rail transit? A federal gas tax increase would just mean more money spent on wasteful rail projects." Mr. O'Toole has it right - the problem with increasing gas taxes is that the funding most often goes to the General Fund, and only a small proportion will be used to fund road repairs.
Also from CATO:
"Many experts believe that gasoline taxes should be increased for a variety of reasons. Their arguments are unpersuasive. Oil is not disappearing, and when it becomes more expensive, market agents will substitute away from gasoline to save money. The link between oil price shocks and recessions, although real in the 1970s, has been much more benign since 1985 because of the termination of price controls. Market actors properly account for energy costs in their purchasing decisions absent government intervention. Pollution taxes, congestion fees, and automobile insurance premiums more closely related to vehicle miles traveled are better remedies for the externalities associated with automobile travel than a simple fuel tax. Gasoline consumption does not necessarily distort American foreign policy, impose military commitments, or empower Islamic terrorist organizations.
State and federal gasoline taxes should be abolished. Local governments should tax gasoline only to the extent necessary to pay for roads when user charges are not feasible. If government feels compelled to more aggressively regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions or access to public roadways, pollution taxes and road user fees are better means of doing so than fuel taxes. Regardless, perfectly internalizing motor vehicle externalities would likely make the economy less efficient—not more—by inducing motorists into even more (economically) inefficient mass transit use.
The arguments advanced against increasing gasoline taxes are applicable to the broader discussion about America's reliance on oil generally. The case for policies designed to discourage oil consumption is nearly as threadbare as the case for increasing the gasoline tax—and for largely the same reasons."
Complete article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8629
