Bipartisan Senate Bill To Raise Fuel Taxes For The First Time Since 1993

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon

For over two decades, the federal fuel tax has held at 18.4 cents for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel per gallon sold. A bipartisan bill working through the United States Senate could soon change this, especially as the nation’s Highway Trust Fund — used for funding infrastructure projects — comes closer to running dry by August of this year.

Reuters reports Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Chris Murphy of Connecticut want to raise both taxes by 12 cents, which would be spread out over two years prior to linking future increases to inflation. The senators also proposed tax cuts to make up for the increase, though nothing was specified at the time.

Meanwhile, some legislators want to fund the trust through a corporate offshore profit tax repatriation holiday that would resemble a 2004 proposal led by former president George W. Bush: 12 months, 85 percent deduction for dividends paid. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the holiday would bring in $20 billion during the period, but would lead to expectations for more holidays down the road.

President Barack Obama opposes this method, believing “it would give large tax breaks to a very small number of companies that have most aggressively shifted profits, and in many cases, jobs, overseas,” according to White House representative Jay Carney.

Cameron Aubernon
Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 122 comments
  • 3Deuce27 3Deuce27 on Jun 20, 2014

    The raise in fuel taxes is long overdue, and it will mostly be absorbed by the suppliers, as a significant rise in fuel costs in today's economy will cool sales. We have seen the per gallon price of fuel rise significantly with no proportioned rise in road taxes at the federal and state levels, all the while our expensive infrastructure degrades to unsafe at any speed levels. The small increase proposed, is not near enough.

    • Lorenzo Lorenzo on Jun 20, 2014

      Horse puckey. Nobody in the supply chain absorbs any additional costs, they just pass it on, sometimes with a little extra tacked on. Every cent of the increase plus a few cents more will show up at the pump. As the Transportation Secretary told Congress in 2006, 30% goes to roads and bridges, the rest goes to "special projects". The backlog of deferred maintenance and replacement is so large, no gas tax increase will be enough. There's a crisis deadline coming up and this is just another band aid covering a gaping wound, aka, kicking the can down the road. Pay more and expect nothing in return.

  • Jeff S Jeff S on Jun 20, 2014

    @Roland--The original purpose of the fuel tax was to fund the building and maintenance of roads and bridges. Whether this is unfair to the lower income or not that was the original purpose. It is not fair to tax someone who does not use the roads. The excise tax on tires and heavy trucks also funds roads and bridges. If we start exempting users from the fuel tax because of their income then this will defeat the purpose of the tax and there will be even less revenue for roads and bridges. There are exemptions for farmers who use fuel for off road purposes and for reefer units on large trucks. It is one thing to exempt people below a certain income from income tax but this should not apply to a user tax for a specific purpose. @Big Al--I don't disagree with you about education.

  • Lynn Ellsworth Lynn Ellsworth on Jun 20, 2014

    "People who must rely on automobile transport to get to work, or who need automobiles because of the low-density housing development pattern typical of many parts of the USA, won't necessarily be able to reduce their mileage driven in response to a tax. They're just gonna get nailed. I guess from a lazy politician's standpoint, those people are easy targets to hit when you want money." Oh boy, another obvious comment about saving the poor and dumb. We make choices. Some decided to move far from work, ask for wide roads, and clutter our land with parking lots. Some moved to where they could walk to work. Now the poor and dumb are being asked to "save" themselves by paying higher taxes to maintain their roads, parking lots, and clean the air. Tough.

    • DenverMike DenverMike on Jun 20, 2014

      "Some moved to where they could walk to work. Now the poor and dumb are being asked to “save” themselves by paying higher taxes to maintain their roads, parking lots, and clean the air. Tough." There's not much to think about when the choices are, live in an urban ghetto near where the jobs are, or a rural spot with wide open spaces, where you can actually see the stars at night, that's also safe, affordable and away from too many humans stacked/crammed together in a small area. Point is, America was built on the promise of cheap gasoline. Urban sprawl and whatnot. Mistake or not, we can undo this overnight.

  • Jeff S Jeff S on Jun 20, 2014

    @Denver Mike--This is one time I agree with you. I think you meant we cannot undo the promise of cheap gas and the ability it gives us to live in more desirable area away from the problems of the inner city. Anyway the purpose of Federal Excise Taxes on fuel, tires, and heavy trucks is to pay the the roads and bridges. It would be hard to pay for these with an income tax or to exempt certain groups from this tax based on income.

Next