Washington state is number eight among the states for highest taxes on gasoline, according to an article in today's Wall Street Journal.
It would be hard to get to first place in this contest — which is now a tie between New York and California, but I think that if Jay Inslee is elected governor, we might be able to move into the top five. (Just two cents more a gallon would bring us into a tie for fifth with Michigan.)
I seldom drive when there might be traffic congestion so I can't tell from personal experience whether this high level of taxation has kept our traffic problems to a minimum, as it should have — assuming reasonably competent governors and legislatures. But I expect most of the commenters here can fill me in on that.
The comparisons to other, similar states are interesting. Right now, for example, our tax is 55.9 cents per gallon, while Oregon's is 49.4 cents. Even more interesting is Colorado's tax of 40.4 cents per gallon. I assume that the roads there must be terrible, so terrible that drivers would be wise to carry emergency equipment, even for brief trips to the neighborhood grocery store.
The Journal article does not mention the distributional effects of the gas tax, so I will. It tends to be regressive, hitting the poor harder, proportionately, than the wealthy. It also tends to hit rural and suburban areas harder than urban areas. (For some of our urban imperialists, that might be an advantage.)
A few years ago, the New York Times had a sobering article on the effects of high gas prices on rural poor in Mississippi. Many of them, it turns out, had relatively long commutes to their jobs, and high gas prices were rough on their budgets. As far as I can tell, that sad story had almost no effect on the urban imperialists who run the Times.
(Minor technical point: State taxes on gasoline are not always the same as state gasoline taxes, since some states impose both sales taxes and gasoline taxes on gasoline.
You may have to get to the article as I did, using Google News search. Since I had bought a copy this morning, I just used the reporter's name, "Michael Totty", for the search string.)
Posted by Jim Miller at September 17, 2012 07:06 PM | Email ThisRepublican Governor, Bobby Jindal and the Republican led legislature of the state of Louisiana have clearly produced a better place to live than forever Democratically controlled Washington, .... yet you stay here in this gas tax hell hole.
Praise be the miracles of the Republican mind!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 17, 2012 08:14 PMAlso, too, a good place to buy your alcohol now that Stefan Sharkansky, the host of this blog, led an effort to let you pay more than you would at a communist run State Store.
Ain't it grand?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 17, 2012 08:24 PMIf higher booze prices are what it costs?
Small enough sacrifice to get your sort on unemployment.
Posted by: Hinton on September 17, 2012 10:17 PMI'm quite happy with the connivence of the new liquor system, my only wish is that restaurants could buy in bulk from Costco/Sam's Club, etc rather than relying on the distributors who are walking away with a huge chunk of change for doing virtually nothing.
My local former state run liquor store currently possesses a much wider variety due to privatization. This has allowed me to support more local distilleries with my purchasing choices.
Sometime you have to pay a little extra for connivence and choice. In this case I'd say it's well worth the money.
Posted by: Cato on September 17, 2012 11:28 PM> It tends to be regressive, hitting the poor harder, proportionately, than the wealthy.
No s**t, when did the GOP start caring about the poor? I seem tor recall the current GOP presidential candidate saying: "I'm not concerned about the very poor."
For Leftists an expensive elitist Orwellian world is the goal.
The Seattle Leftist always hates this part of the cycle. Because every four years they have to fake like they actually care about the middle class and the United States in order to get reelected so they can continue their damage.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 18, 2012 09:07 AMWhat this state needs is a modest income tax. There are only five states that don't have an income tax -- and you can deduct it from your income tax, so it really doesn't cost you anything anyway.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on September 18, 2012 09:12 AMWhat this state needs before any new taxation is a reduction in spending and the growth of spending.
Until they learn to implement the above, no amount of taxation will ever be enough - regardless of the source.
By the way, an income tax when unemployment (no income) is above 8% is not a silver bullet for state revenues.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2012 09:42 AMHow do you arrive at this conclusion?
What this state needs is a modest income tax.
Right. So Democrat's can spend more of our hard earned money on silly, ridiculous and wasteful programs than they already do. Brilliant. Wow, is there a disconnect with reality in dorkville.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 18, 2012 09:58 AMPlease base your pronunciamentos on something factual. The following is a good source of information.
Also, although you may not have noticed it, the statement of yours that I quoted is contradictory.
TAX REFERENCE MANUAL Information on State and Local Taxes In Washington State:
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/2010/Tax_Reference_2010/TRM%202010%20-%20Entire%20Document.pdf
If you base
Posted by: dorky dorkman on September 18, 2012 11:13 AMI'm starting to see why Democrats don't see any problem with spending 24% and collecting 16% of GDP indefinitely.
Posted by: Dirk Van der Huge on September 18, 2012 11:29 AMThe state does not effectively prioritize its spending. The state does not effectively monitor its spending programs to eliminate those that are not producing the results originally promised when the program was instituted.
All of these practices mean that the state will constantly need ever increasing revenues and sources of revenue for it is much easier for them to raise taxes than to admit that not everything needs to be run by government.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2012 11:36 AMWhat are the state's spending priorities now? How and why do you think that they should be changed?
AND -- I did not give you a link to a 250 page document to disprove anything that you said, I merely gave you the information to back up your assertions -- but I guess being 'steamed' about taxes, like a Bush League Don Rickles, is what you are really all about.
'Too many pages. Too many words. I don't like it.' -- That's the wingnut refrain.
re 17: "A state income tax doesn't cost anything if you can deduct it on your Federal return? Wow! You'll need to show your work on that one. If you pay $1,000 in state income tax, you'll get a deduction that will save you from about $150 to about $350. It's not a credit, it's a deduction."
My answer to that is that the sales taxes that we pay in WA amount to almost 48% of the money collected. In states where there is an income tax, there is only 30% of taxes collected in sales tax. Hence, the additional savings.
It's all in the 250 page report. Take a look.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on September 18, 2012 12:15 PMBased on data from 2007, in Washington, 47.5% is General sales Taxes, 14.5% is Selective Sales Taxes and Income tax is 0%, making revenues from these sources 62%.
All States, 23.5%, 10.9%, and 27.4% respectively, adding up to 61.8%.
All States average 3.2% more in property taxes while Washington is 3% more in "All other Taxes".
Hardly a "savings", just a different set of buckets to fill.
One example of misplaced priorities: K-12 education spending. If "It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children", then education funding should be first on the list and take precedence over all other proposed spending. With all of the lawsuits filed and rhetoric claiming that education is underfunded, it is obvious that the legislature has failed to provide adequate funding for education before they begin funding other programs.
What percentage of our gas tax revenues go to bureaucratic mandates? What percentage of our DOT dollars are "laundered" via construction material sales taxes back into the general fund?
I notice that you tried to bolster your credibilty with snide over-generalizations. Good luck with that.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2012 01:43 PMI'm starting to see why Democrats don't see any problem with spending 24% and collecting 16% of GDP indefinitely.
Dirk, don't forget the two wars GWB got us involved in without a clue as to how to win them and with no real way to pay for them without borrowing. The Republicans have been just as reprehnsible about over-spending as the Democrats have been. The only thing either wing of the Big Government Party cares about is getting elected and staying elected!! They'll both happily spend us out of existence in order to save their precious seats in the House and Senate.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 18, 2012 02:51 PMHere we are discussing Jim's gas tax map, and Mitt Romney (loser of 2012 election as of yesterday) brings up an issue that shows us another map.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding Willard when I say this is a map of moocher states, and lo and behold the similarity between those Southern Republican run moocher states and low gas tax states.
http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2012/09/where-romneys-non-payers-live.html
Coincidences are a funny thing, aren't they?
I also notice it uses data from 2008. Wonder how the numbers have changed in 4 years?
Coincidence? More likely just spin.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on September 18, 2012 06:54 PM'Libby resigned Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on five charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.'
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-10-28/politics/leak.probe_1_lewis-scooter-libby-patrick-fitzgerald-leak-probe?_s=PM:POLITICS
Posted by: dorky dorkman on September 18, 2012 09:42 PM