• HOME
  • NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
Wednesday, April 1, 2026
BIOENGINEER.ORG
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • HOME
  • NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
        • Lecturer
        • PhD Studentship
        • Postdoc
        • Research Assistant
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
  • HOME
  • NEWS
  • EXPLORE
    • CAREER
      • Companies
      • Jobs
        • Lecturer
        • PhD Studentship
        • Postdoc
        • Research Assistant
    • EVENTS
    • iGEM
      • News
      • Team
    • PHOTOS
    • VIDEO
    • WIKI
  • BLOG
  • COMMUNITY
    • FACEBOOK
    • INSTAGRAM
    • TWITTER
No Result
View All Result
Bioengineer.org
No Result
View All Result
Home NEWS Science News Biology

How voters would accept higher gas tax

Bioengineer by Bioengineer
January 25, 2018
in Biology, Science News
Reading Time: 2 mins read
0
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on RedditShare on Telegram
IMAGE

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Americans would be more likely to accept a gas tax increase if they knew the extra revenue would improve energy efficiency, repair roads and bridges or be refunded to taxpayers equally, indicates a new study by two Michigan State University sociologists.

Past survey research found widespread opposition to a gas tax hike but generally didn't specify how the extra revenue would be spent.

The new findings, published in the journal Energy Policy, confirmed that if the revenue use was unspecified or simply dispensed to the U.S. Treasury, the public would overwhelmingly oppose the tax increase. However, when people were told how the money would actually be spent, their views changed.

"Our results suggest that if a gasoline tax increase aims to decrease fuel consumption in a revenue-neutral manner or directs the extra revenue toward energy-efficient transportation or road and bridge repairs, then such an increase could be acceptable to the American public," said Stan Kaplowitz, who authored the paper with Aaron M. McCright.

Past research showed that while 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans were willing to pay higher prices for cars and electricity that use renewable energy, some 70 percent opposed higher taxes on gasoline and electricity.

In fact, gas tax increases were consistently the least popular option for reducing use of fossil fuels, and in the face of unsupportive surveys and polls few national politicians have taken up the cause. On a state level, Michigan voters in May soundly rejected a gas tax increase, though many said the proposal failed because it was too convoluted.

The study, which consisted of eight survey experiments comprising about 3,000 total participants, found:

*On average, people would accept (i.e., support or be neutral towards) a gas tax increase of 51 cents per gallon if the proposal was revenue-neutral, meaning any extra revenue would be refunded to taxpayers equally.

*On average, people would accept a slightly larger increase, 56 cents per gallon, if the proposal directed extra revenue toward energy-efficient transportation.

*If extra revenue were directed toward road and bridge repairs, and people were also told why current gas tax revenue is inadequate for that purpose, they would accept an average gas tax increase of 53 cents.

Kaplowitz said many economists, from both Democratic and Republican camps, believe that increasing the gas tax is the most effective way to cut gasoline usage.

"Raising the gas tax is widely considered the most market-friendly solution to reducing fuel consumption, since you're not restricting people's choice. If they want to drive more, or use a less fuel-efficient vehicle, they may do so, but they've got to pay more," Kaplowitz said. "But this also creates an interesting paradox: What works best is also least popular. As we've seen, no major politician in 30 years has been willing to touch it, including President Obama."

###

Share12Tweet8Share2ShareShareShare2

Related Posts

Author Corrects Study on Neck Training Effects

Author Corrects Study on Neck Training Effects

April 1, 2026

Fluorothiazinone Suppresses Burkholderia Lung Infection

April 1, 2026

Enabling Long-Haul 400G Optical Networks

April 1, 2026

Moiré Engineering Reveals Tunable Cooper-Pair Modulation

April 1, 2026
Please login to join discussion

POPULAR NEWS

  • blank

    Revolutionary AI Model Enhances Precision in Detecting Food Contamination

    96 shares
    Share 38 Tweet 24
  • Imagine a Social Media Feed That Challenges Your Views Instead of Reinforcing Them

    1006 shares
    Share 398 Tweet 249
  • Promising Outcomes from First Clinical Trials of Gene Regulation in Epilepsy

    51 shares
    Share 20 Tweet 13
  • Popular Anti-Aging Compound Linked to Damage in Corpus Callosum, Study Finds

    43 shares
    Share 17 Tweet 11

About

We bring you the latest biotechnology news from best research centers and universities around the world. Check our website.

Follow us

Recent News

Author Corrects Study on Neck Training Effects

Fluorothiazinone Suppresses Burkholderia Lung Infection

Enabling Long-Haul 400G Optical Networks

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 78 other subscribers
  • Contact Us

Bioengineer.org © Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Homepages
    • Home Page 1
    • Home Page 2
  • News
  • National
  • Business
  • Health
  • Lifestyle
  • Science

Bioengineer.org © Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved.