Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
| COUNTRY | GASOLINE TAX (Cents/Gallon) | DIESEL TAX (Cents/Gallon) |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 479 | 313 |
| United Kingdom | 447 | 450 |
| Germany | 437 | 333 |
| Belgium | 426 | 299 |
| France | 412 | 309 |
| Italy | 395 | 314 |
| Japan | 281 | 179 |
| United States | 39 | 46 |
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
51 Comments:
Yeah, but the health care is "free".
Why this is just a silly willy thread, to who ever is the author...
As, Che is dead said, free health care, free education (Canada) and a variety of other free government services...
Is it possible to stick with pea to pea comparison...?
Those countries have, over many years, developed a system of small, fuel efficient cars, electrified rail, high taxes, and large entitlement spending.
The U.S., on the other hand, has stayed with a system of Larger cars, not much rail, low taxes, and large entitlement spending PLUS Very High Defense Spending.
I guess, the good news is: We have more room to cut. :)
People in those countries HAVE adjusted with various strategies including not living that far from work unless mass transit is available.
I'm not sure what they use the tax for.
I was under the impression that it was used to provide wide and deep mass transit but would welcome further enlightenment.
they also appear to be better insulated from the capricious nature of oil prices and availability.
I have not heard that there is a "drill baby drill" advocacy in Europe despite the price of fuel.
The average family (two people working) probably uses 1,200 gallons of gasoline/yr.
When the price goes from $2.50 to $4.00 their transportation costs go up by about $145.00/mo, or $1,800.00/yr.
Now, that Average family that only spends 5.2% of their disposable income on gasoline (which would have to be making $92,307.69/yr, btw) might not be to awfully much impacted by this. However, . . .
Oh wait, that $92,307.69 would be the "Disposable" (after tax) Income of that family. I'm going to say That family, depending on the type of income/job is making in the $120,000.00/yr range.
Well, that's about Twice the Median family income. What about the 40%, or so, of American families that have a "Disposable" Income closer to $600.00, or $650.00 wk?
Is that extra $145.00/mo. going to put a crimp in Their spending? I submit it will.
Disposable Income of said Fisher Group family would be $4800.00/0.052
This comment has been removed by the author.
Taxes are a drag but what if the true cost of imported oil into the U.S. was accounted for? Maybe a more direct relationship between foreign oil and U.S. military efforts could be established by a fee on imported oil.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I favor consumption taxes over income taxes, so a gasoline tax hike would be okay by me, if offset by lower income taxes,
There is an oddity in Los Angeles--when gas prices go up, more people car pool or take mass transit. Commute times go down.
Some people say they save 15 minutes both ends of their commute. What is half an hour of time worth?
Times five, every week.
Rural America, driving on state or federally subsidized highways, will never tolerate a gasoline tax, and rural states have two Senators each, no matter how dinky or unimportant they are.
It's always been a bit inexplicable to me how much of the rest of the world has managed to put $3-4-5 tax on gasoline but in this country we've not even been able to index the existing Federal one to inflation although several States have.
It's been more than 20 years that the Fed tax has been adjusted for inflation as well as a number of states
As a result after paying for maintenance and operations there is very little money left over for new projects.
More and more new projects will be toll projects including HOT Lanes in the congested urban areas.
HOT Lanes are thought by many to be a "better" direct user fee than gas taxes which don't differentiate where and when you drive - which also has a cost - congestion which is computed out at a cost in time.
The other "innovation" in toll roads is that of late - a given toll road does not have to stand alone on it's toll revenues.
It can be subsidized by other, more lucrative toll roads.
The more lucrative toll roads are also being used to subsidize transit as the Dulles Toll Road in DC is being used as a cash-cow to finance the METRO extension to the airport and the HOT lanes on the beltway and I-95 will use tolls to fund METRO and other mass transit such as commuter rail.
Yea, the American robber class is far less efficient than the European robber class, but we better watch out or they'll beat us down the path to achieving a 15th century society.
well..... who should pay for public roads?
are publically-owned roads "socialism"?
should the default condition be privately owned roads that you pay a fee to use?
As, Che is dead said, free health care, free education (Canada) and a variety of other free government services..
Free promises is not the same thing as free services.
Already, if taxes are so enormous, you can't reasonably say that any of these things are "free", correct? And certainly, you are not free to choose. In European countries, you pay the government to decide your level of consumption for you.
In other words, you are forced to sell your option to the government and, as one who has lived in Europe, you get something very substandard in return.
those countries have, over many years, become progressively poorer and poorer than the US. germany is poorer than alabama.
their citizens live in smaller homes, with fewer possessions.
this sort of taxation creates stagnation.
it is not worthy of emulation.
well ...they do live in smaller homes and drive smaller cars but they live longer than we do because they all have access to primary health care and disease is detected early enough (and cheaply enough) to deal with.
They also are not near as vulnerable to gyrating oil prices as their taxes on fuel are higher than the fuel itself.
The Europeans actually have the option to "float" their tax on fuel so as to keep the price more stable.... and incorporate increases over the longer term, giving people time to adjust their finances rather than having immediate adverse impacts.
....just saying....
" Already, if taxes are so enormous, you can't reasonably say that any of these things are "free", correct?"
well... taxes in the USA are the lowest since 1960... right?
Outside of tolled roads who, or what, pays for the construction and maintenance of the US road network?
Federal and State gasoline taxes pay for most Federal and State roads.
In most States, the local jurisdiction pays for local roads but in some states like Virginia, the State handles a lot of the local roads including subdivisions which is why VDOT has the 3rd largest road network in the US.
larry-
and they live without washers and dryers, dishwashers, and all manner of other modern conveniences.
they also die far more often of curable cancers, live with debilitating injuries that you would not have to in the us.
an EU man is 20X as likely do die if he contracts prostate cancer than one in the US. they are twice as likely to die if they get melanoma or breast cancer.
overall, an european man is 55% more likely do die if he gets cancer than an american.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/5-yr-cancer-survival-rates-us-dominates.html
also, contrary to reports, have higher infant mortality rates than we do.
the difference is all in how it is calculated.
the US counts any baby that takes a breath as a live birth no matter how premauture. the EU doe not count premies at all or any baby that has not lived 24 hours or was born too small.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3848
note that this skews their life expectancy significantly as well. it does not take too many 0's to wreck your GPA...
your illusions of EU health seem to be poorly grounded in fact.
and this:
"The Europeans actually have the option to "float" their tax on fuel so as to keep the price more stable"
seems like very flawed logic to me. so we should be thankful to pay more because it's stable? do you shop at "everyday high prices" stores? by that logic we should be grateful for a $100/gallon gasoline tax because it means that with oil up this much, we'd only see a 1% increase in cost.
you are also conflating "can" with "do". do you have any evidence that they actually adjust tax rates to offset prices?
hey thanks for the links - seriously!
the National Bureau of Economic Research is a reputable group.
but there's an issue here with the cancer:
" ... people in the US who are diagnosed with cancer have higher 5-year survival probabilities."
how about people who are not? the 30-40 million who do not have primary care?
and what do you think of this with respect to infant mortality:
" Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] The report concluded, however, that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortality_rates
notice the footnotes....
6 a b Bill Hendrick (2009-11-04). "Preemies Raise U.S. Infant Mortality Rate". WebMD. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
7 Gabriel Duc, "The crucial role of definition in perinatal epidemiology," Sozial- und Präventivmedizin/Social and Preventive Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 6 (November 1995): 357-360.
^ Definition of data collected in the European Union, see item
8
9 Mike Stobbe (2009-11-03). "Premature births worsen US infant death rate". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
10 a b CDC (2009-11). "Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe". Centers for Disease Control. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
Key findings
In 2005, the United States ranked 30th in infant mortality.
Differences in the reporting of live births between countries can have an impact on international comparisons of infant mortality.
The U.S. infant mortality rate was still higher than for most European countries when births at less than 22 weeks of gestation were excluded.
The United States compares favorably with European countries in infant mortality rates for preterm, but not for term infants.
The percentage of births that were born preterm was much higher in the United States than in Europe.
Much of the high infant mortality rate in the United States is due to the high percentage of preterm births.
" and they live without washers and dryers, dishwashers, and all manner of other modern conveniences."
my understanding was that they compared equivalently and in fact used things like tankless water heaters verses our more energy intensive ones.
have you got a credible link to convince me?
ps -
i think that most of you are missing the fact that che was being sarcastic.
having seen his past posts, and taking into account the "" around "free" i think he was attempting to make it clear that EU healthcare is anything but free.
links:
this link shows that out poor are just as rich as those in the EU, it's just that our rich and middle class are much richer.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/30/study2.gif
figures are from OECD data
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S1G0KKd2DjI/AAAAAAAAMfA/JN1sFmb3VyQ/s1600-h/eu2008new.jpg
again from OECD data showing medians.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/01/eu-vs-usa-part-iv.html
our poor have bigger homes than the EU middle class.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/us-vs-europe-standard-of-living.html
this data comes from a swedish study.
they lose out badly.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-on-us-poor-getting-richer-envy-of.html
this goes further and shows that the swedish middle class is about equivalent in appliances to the US poor.
Hey morganovich you should consider using Tiny URL so your links are easier to use...
Well at 39 cents tax per gallon of gasoline means something like $54 billion dollars per year, shouldn't that buy quite a bit of roadway repair and expansion?
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/prematurebirths.aspx
and sorry, but wikipedia is not credible on issues like that.
i'd recommend actually looking at some hard data.
this is from the NCHS.
the whole issue is that the US has more premature births.
these are not counted on most of the world.
premature births have less to do with healthcare than with age and lifestyle.
not only do we have more of them, but unlike most of the world, we count them.
The World Health Organization [WHO] defines a country's infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.
WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any sign of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one single breath, or has one heartbeat.
The U.S. uses this definition. But other countries do not -- so they don't count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.
The United States actually counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity, or size, or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross.
And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries do not count, much less report.
Also, what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.
In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says.
And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.
Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway's underweight infants who are not now counted, says Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
if you use perinatal mortality, which the WHO claims to be a better indicator of healthcare, the US looks MUCH betetr.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241563206_eng.pdf
http://confutata.com/2009/04/30/ct-us-infant-mortality/
juandos-
how are you making you links come up as click-able?
tiny look like it makes them short, but not hyper linked.
"They also are not near as vulnerable to gyrating oil prices as their taxes on fuel are higher than the fuel itself."
Wow! Let me see how this works out:
If I pay $3/gal in the US, and the price goes up $1/gal to $4/gal, based on the number of miles I drive, I'll pay $50 more per month. That's a whopping 33% increase!
In Europe, paying $7/gal, that same $1/gal increase makes my price $8/gal. Driving the same number of miles, I'll now pay ...$50 more per month. BUT, that's only a trivial 14% increase.
I see your point. I'm MUCH better off paying a higher price at all times, so any change is a smaller percentage swing. Although, I sometimes wonder what I could buy with the $200/mo difference. I guess it's not important, as long as my gas budget remains stable.
That's using the old noggin, Larry, keep up the good work.
@morganovich
thanks for the links... they look like food for thought.
On the infant deaths... if you look at what I posted - it came from Wiki but the footnotes showed the sources and the sources say that we have comparatively more preemies and that drives the mortality rates.
but the info provided in your links - noted....
morganovich,
In case juandos doesn't get back soon, here's some HTML link code info.
I use the following which I paste from a text file so I don't have to type it each time, then copy & past the URL between the quotes " " and then type my description between the > and < where you see the word text.
<Xa href="url" >text<X/a>
Don't include the bold Xs. I only use them here to make the code visible in this comment.
'url' and 'text' aren't part of the code either, but are used here only to indicate where they go.
Morganovich,
You have to use the html anchor tag on the link.
morganovich,
In case juandos doesn't get back soon, here's some HTML link code info.
I use the following which I paste from a text file so I don't have to type it each time, then copy & past the URL between the quotes " " and then type my description between the > and < where you see the word text.
<Xa href="url" >text<X/a>
Don't include the bold Xs. I only use them here to make the code visible in this comment.
'url' and 'text' aren't part of the code either, but are used here only to indicate where they go.
well ...they do live in smaller homes and drive smaller cars but they live longer than we do because they all have access to primary health care and disease is detected early enough (and cheaply enough) to deal with.
No, Larry. They don't live longer. If you compare the
Americans of European extraction to Europeans (i.e., exclude blacks and South Americans - both of whom have a lower life expectancy), then Americans live longer.
Now that's out of the way, do you understand that correlation does not mean causation? Also, just because two things happen together doesn't mean that one causes the other?
Why should I give a crap about the finer points of the much higher fuel tax if I'm taxed more, live in poverty (compared to the United States), have poorer health care outcomes, and a lower probability of finding a job (higher unemployment)?
@methinks I'm persuaded that people who DO have health care in the US .. have a competitive life expectancy but have not yet seen a study that compares ONLY those with health care to the universal care countries.
One would think though that if there were similar demographics that the universal care countries would ALSO be impacted with respect to life expectancy,
right?
so... what is the life expectancy of people in the US who do not have insurance?
do we have that comparison?
finally - we spend TWICE as much PER CAPTA for health care so why don't we rank number 1 in the world?
Methinks
"Americans of European extraction to Europeans (i.e., exclude blacks and South Americans - both of whom have a lower life expectancy), then Americans live longer."
I predict that Larry will have trouble with this, as everything is aggregated and collectivized in his world.
I'm sure you would agree, that all Americans must have equal outcomes, and the only possible reason for different life expectancies must be discrimination.
The solution will be easy. An affirmative action program to equalize life expectancies can be created, that provides each child of non-European extraction with an age of 4.6 years at birth.
Another benefit of this program - a positive externality, for you Pigou disciples out there - is that minority children will be starting school much earlier in life, thus giving them a head start.
Perhaps "Head Start" would be a good name for this program. I'll check to make sure it's available, and not already in use.
:)
Larry,
What about comparisons of genetically similar people do you not understand? What the hell does health insurance have to do with anything? Are you too thick to realize that health insurance is not health care?
finally - we spend TWICE as much PER CAPTA for health care so why don't we rank number 1 in the world?
I'm assuming you're using the WHO rankings and you've never been to an Italian hospital. Did you look into HOW those statistics were compiled? Over 1/3 of the weight was given to having socialized medicine. Half your country could be on wait lists for treatment for acute, life-threatening disease and your country will still be ranked higher than the United States.
You should learn to delve into the crap you read before you swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Ron H.,
I think they'll seriously propose a program of murdering everyone with the temerity to survive pas the average age of those "less fortunate".
Methinks
"I think they'll seriously propose a program of murdering everyone with the temerity to survive pas the average age of those "less fortunate"."
I've been hearing about this "Death Panel" feature of Obamacare. Is that their task?
...or perhaps "taxed to death" isn't really just a figure of speech anymore.
"What about comparisons of genetically similar people do you not understand? What the hell does health insurance have to do with anything? Are you too thick to realize that health insurance is not health care?"
I'm asking if that's true - would it not apply everywhere in the world where you have those genetically similar people?
that would be fairly easy to prove if it were true, right?
I'm assuming you're using the WHO rankings and you've never been to an Italian hospital.
I'm look at the stats created at a number of organizations including our own CDC and National Center for Health Statistics. the data about health care costs in the USA comes from the USA.
"Did you look into HOW those statistics were compiled? Over 1/3 of the weight was given to having socialized medicine. Half your country could be on wait lists for treatment for acute, life-threatening disease and your country will still be ranked higher than the United States."
I duly note the wait list, delayed treatment in some of those countries but I also note that in this country the wait times for some are infinite and the delays long until their condition has worsened to the point they seek care at the ER.
Do you think that our lower life expectancy rates might be due to people who do not get health care and die early because of it?
You should learn to delve into the crap you read before you swallow it hook, line and sinker."
I don't take things on face value from any source but especially so those who have agendas.
But even the supposedly independent organizations who have no policy or political advocacies have to be checked.
That's why I never rely on a single source for the data and seek at least two other sources that replicate the results.
Two sources - the CIA FACTBOOK and the World Bank are two that seem to have no agendas to grind and their data often is consistent.
It's hard to believe from a common-sense point of view that 30-40 million people who do not have access to primary care - are going to have the same life expectancy as an equivalent group that regularly sees a primary care provider.
to make that claim would essentially be saying that access to health care does not matter.
right?
" I'm sure you would agree, that all Americans must have equal outcomes, and the only possible reason for different life expectancies must be discrimination"
as I said before - if you believe that people who don't have access to primary care will have the same life expectancy as people who do - (for a given racial group) then you'd be saying that access to primary care (or not) does not affect mortality.
and that essentially that having health care won't benefit you in terms of outcomes.
I look for inconsistencies... or apparent ones and I ask that they be explained - as here.
It doesn't make sense that access to health care plays no role in mortality. that's an inconsistent proposition.
" I'm sure you would agree...equal outcomes"
"as I said before - if you believe that people who don't have access to primary care will have the same life expectancy as people who do - (for a given racial group) then you'd be saying that access to primary care (or not) does not affect mortality."
(for a given racial group) Well, THAT'S new, you haven't said anything about racial groups before. Is it uncomfortable for you to discuss such an un-PC concept as the idea that different racial groups have different life expectancies because of their race and not from some other cause such as access to medical treatment?
Did you understand what you quoted from my previous comment? Did you realize the *sarc* tag was on?
Your response doesn't indicate that you understood what I wrote.
You have used the term "health care" to mean medical treatment, emergency care, medical insurance, and medical payment plan. They are not the same.
Although many several people have carefully explained your errors to you, you are still obsessed with the idea that amenable mortality is the only possible factor affecting life expectancy, and infant mortality rates.
When you claim that 30-40 million people don't have access to "health care" in the US, do you really mean to say medical treatment? If so, you are wrong. As you pointed out repeatedly, EMTALA requires that most hospitals must treat emergency patients without determining ability to pay. Many mecicaid eligible patients are not currently enrolled, but would be enrolled if they sought medical treatment.
In addition, there are many people, especially young, healthy people, who choose to accept the financial risk of high cost medical treatment, and choose not to pay for medical coverage, or insurance.
So, how about picking a much smaller number to complain about, and explain why you think there's a problem when 90-95% of Americans are happy with what they have.
...Perhaps what you perceive to be a lack of adequate health screening and early detection doesn't really affect life expectancy much.
however one wants to characterize - people with regular access to primary care are going to have different outcomes than people who do not no matter the racial makeup and no matter the country.
You say 90-95%.
the number is 30-40 million and that number is GROWING as insurance companies shed more that they won't cover.
Providing universal care as a safety net to all does not prevent others from paying more to get more as they do already in several European countries and as we do in this country with MediGap policies for Medicare.
People who do get have regular access to primary care in this country ultimately do get access to medical care but a later stage when diseases have progressed and at urgent care providers which charge 4 times as much.
.. and the 90-95% you cite - they not only pay for them but their premiums increase and in the process more people lose their insurance.
If you did not have EMTALA - those without insurance would likely not get treatment and cost-shifting not as rampant.
But EMTALA is not going to go away and people without regular access will continue to get late-state more expensive care and those with insurance will continue to pay for it.
health care costs have doubled in 10 years and are projected to double again going from 16% of our economy to 30%+ of our economy and sucking up most of the productivity rather than it going to improving the standard of living.
It's a dumb system when you WILL pay the heath care costs of the uninsured..and you WILL pay 4 times as much than you would for a more cost-effective system that would provide access to primary care, reduce disease and reduce costs.
The folks who are ideological driven don't care about the practicalities and continue to seek ideological purity in policy - and continue to foster a system that is broke in doing so.
The only real way to accomplish idealogical purity for free-market health care is to repeal EMTALA but as stated before - as far as I know there is not a single elected official who advocates that and anyone who did would likely not get elected.
So there is no way in heck that's ever going to happen.
End of Game for ideological purity.
Now move on to practical solutions.
which is to provide a safety net that allows anyone to buy up from it but the safety net itself provides cost-effective care - as it does in 40 other countries who pay 1/2 what we do for health care.
I have little patience for those who demand ideological approaches and are willing to see things go to heck in a handbasket if they don't get their way.
Those folks take themselves out of the political process - the 10% who are more like political vandals than folks looking for practical solutions.
"People who do get have regular access to primary care in this country ultimately do get access to medical care but a later stage when diseases have progressed and at urgent care providers which charge 4 times as much."
But is it affecting their life expectancy? That's the question.
" But is it affecting their life expectancy? That's the question. "
are you serious?
If NOT going to a doctor does not affect life expectancy... then why are we spending all this money on health care?
"If NOT going to a doctor does not affect life expectancy... then why are we spending all this money on health care?"
Larry, Larry, what am I to do with you? As always, you fail to read & comprehend, so you have missed the point. In fact, I believe it's one of YOUR points. Don't you understand your own argument? Why is this so hard for you?
It's obvious you are in over your head in this area, this area being logical thinking.
they also appear to be better insulated from the capricious nature of oil prices and availability.
Actually, they have a lower standard of living. If Sweden were a state, Americans would be talking about the Swedish problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home