Question A: Decreasing state highway spending for the next five years by repealing increases to the state gas tax would create economic benefits that outweigh the policy's economic costs.
Question A: Decreasing state highway spending for the next five years by repealing increases to the state gas tax would create economic benefits that outweigh the policy's economic costs.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Most economists, right and left, agree that gas taxes are generally too low in the USA because they don't even pay for roadway spending nationally, much less the environmental costs and other negative externalities of driving. And reducing investment in road maintenance would just be robbing the future in order to cut taxes today. |
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Disagree | 8 | |
| Jay Corrigan | Kenyon College | Disagree | 7 | |
| Glenn Dutcher | Ohio University | Agree | 8 | |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Disagree | 10 | The highway spending will happen. The only question is if it is funded from the higher gas tax. Those citizens and businesses using the roads more should pay more through the gas tax to maintain those roads (benefits principle). Moreover, driving causes large negative externalities through air pollution, congestion, and accidents and thus is efficient to be taxed more to encourage less driving and/or driving more fuel efficient vehicles. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Disagree | 7 | |
| Bob Gitter | Ohio Wesleyan University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | Ohio roads need a lot of work. We would benefit from a better infrastructure |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Disagree | 8 | |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Uncertain | 1 | The outcome of the cost-benefit analysis depends on the specific infrastructure projects in the state; and I don't have the background or knowledge on these projects. However, the benefits from a reduction in gas taxes will affect many more people overall than particular highway projects. |
| Fadhel Kaboub | Denison University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | This policy will reduce funding available for roads repair, which will have a negative economic impact on the state. If the goal is to reduce transportation costs on Ohioans, then a broader transportation strategy is needed, including investing in public transportation, replacing heavy trucks with rail, and accelerating the decarbonization of the transportations sector. Ohio can lead the effort by calling on the Federal government to fund a a structural transportation of transportation and logistics across the country. Unfortunately, SB 277 is shortsighted and misleading. |
| Bill Kosteas | Cleveland State University | Disagree | 6 | Gasoline is underpriced given the negative externalities associated with its consumption. Roadway quality is an important component of transportation costs for goods. |
| Charles Kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Disagree | 7 | |
| Bethany Lemont | Ohio University | Disagree | 3 | According to the ODOT’s 2021 annual report, “The bulk of ODOT’s budget, approximately 64 percent, is currently prioritized toward highway construction, where it is most effective in meeting the state’s transportation needs. Of the department’s construction funds, 96 percent is devoted to preservation.” Therefore, it is likely that any decreases in state highway spending would result in less money be spent on maintaining the state’s highway system. I believe that the benefits of maintaining the current highway system outweigh the costs of doing so. However, it is also likely that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the burden of who is primarily paying the gas tax. Many lower-income workers do not have an option to work remotely and are required to commute to work, while many higher paying jobs do have remote options.* If the gas tax is unusually regressive right now due to the pandemic, there could be substantial equity benefits from temporarily repealing the increases to the gas tax that could theoretically outweigh the costs of having more poorly maintained highways. |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | |
| Paul M Holmes | Ashland University | Disagree | 8 | |
| Michael Myler | University of Mount Union | Strongly Disagree | 9 | Improving the infrastructure increases economic efficiency. |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Uncertain | 5 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Disagree | 7 | State gas taxes tend to be pushed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices, so not having the tax may free up a spending for consumers. However, the effect is not likely to be very large and highway maintenance is also very important for economic growth (and is overdue). |
| Cort Rodet | Ohio University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Gas taxes are highly efficient in terms of tying the use of a public good to paying for its provision. Drivers benefit from good roads, and a gas tax allows state government to target road users to pay for them. Research also shows they are a better means of addressing climate issues than are fuel standards. Furthermore, I doubt the benefit to individual households of freezing tax increases will be substantial. If the average household consumes 1,200 gallons of gas per year and pays $0.28 per gallon in taxes, that implies a total gas tax bill of $336 per year per household, which is about 0.5% of the average Ohio household's income. Stopping increases will not do much for the average household, while it could mean roads and improvements fall by the wayside. |
| Lewis Sage | Baldwin Wallace University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Taxes are the price of civilization. |
| AJ Sumell | Youngstown State University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Repealing the tax would further reduce the quality of our roads, create incentives to drive more, increasing congestion and pollution. The economic costs would far exceed the benefits in tax savings. |
| Melissa Thomasson | Miami University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | |
| Thomas Traynor | Wright State University | Uncertain | 5 | Spending from the 2021 federal infrastructure package (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) will at least partially offset the reduced spending. I would need more granular information to be able to answer the question, and that is not available yet. |
| Ejindu Ume | Miami University | Agree | 8 | |
| Andy Welki | John Carroll University | Strongly Disagree | 8 | Tying costs of road usage to users makes sense. |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Strongly Disagree | 7 | Ohio, like the rest of the country, has underinvested in infrastructure such as roads. While I do not know the exact magnitude of the effects, I expect that less spending on highways will increase maintenance costs of vehicles (such as flat tires, suspensions, etc.) and potentially increase accidents. At best, it will push required highway repairs and upgrades into the future and place a higher burden on taxpayers in the future. |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Strongly Disagree | 8 | There is no indication that the highways are over funded. Infrastructure is vital commerce. |