Proposal to Eliminate State Taxes on Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Nationwide
We propose the passage of federal legislation to permanently eliminate all existing state taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel and to prohibit any future state-level taxation of these essential energy sources. This policy would be especially impactful in high-tax states such as California, where fuel prices are significantly inflated due to excessive levies. By standardizing and reducing the cost of fuel across the United States, we can ensure fair pricing for all Americans, regardless of their location.
Such a measure would bring immediate relief to working families and individuals who rely on personal vehicles for commuting, employment, and daily necessities. It would also provide meaningful support to small businesses, agriculture, and the transportation sector, all of which are heavily impacted by fluctuating and uneven fuel costs.
Beyond economic relief, this initiative would serve as a safeguard against the misuse of fuel taxation as a political tool to enforce controversial and often unaffordable energy mandates, such as blanket transitions to electric vehicles without public consensus or infrastructure readiness. Americans should have the freedom to choose their mode of transportation without being penalized through artificially inflated fuel prices.
A fuel tax-free policy across all 50 states would help restore economic balance, promote energy independence, and protect consumers from unjustified financial burdens. Let us take a decisive step toward affordability, fairness, and common-sense governance.
" States rely heavily on gas taxes to pay for transportation construction and maintenance costs. In 2021, state motor fuel taxes generated about $50 billion in revenue. State and local motor fuel tax revenue accounted for 26 percent of all highway and road spending."
While opinions may vary depending on one’s proximity to California, it’s increasingly clear that the state is burdened by a deeply flawed fiscal structure and a long history of inefficient spending. One area that demands immediate and bold reform is the state gasoline tax, which now exceeds 61 cents per gallon, the highest in the nation. When combined with federal taxes and regulatory costs, Californians are paying nearly $1 per gallon in taxes and fees, disproportionately affecting working-class families, commuters, and small businesses.
Instead of taxing necessities like fuel, California should reassess and reallocate resources from its vast inventory of bloated and underperforming programs. One example is the high-speed rail project, which has become a symbol of cost overruns, endless delays, and dubious public benefit. Billions have already been spent with minimal progress or utility for the average resident. The same is true for numerous redundant environmental agencies, duplicative social initiatives, and overlapping transportation departments, all ripe for consolidation or elimination.
Removing the state gasoline tax would:
• Lower transportation costs for working Californians, especially those in rural or underserved areas with limited access to public transit.
• Alleviate inflationary pressure on consumer goods, many of which are delivered by fuel-dependent logistics networks.
• Level the economic playing field, ensuring that low-income families aren’t disproportionately penalized by regressive fuel pricing structures.
• Protect economic freedom by reducing reliance on mandates and politically charged energy transitions not yet viable for all communities.
Critics often argue that gasoline taxes fund road maintenance and public infrastructure. But California voters passed Proposition 69, which restricts transportation tax revenues from being diverted, yet inefficiencies persist. A full audit and reprioritization of the existing transportation budget would yield better returns than continuing to squeeze drivers at the pump.
In short, eliminating the state gas tax isn’t about ignoring infrastructure needs, it’s about demanding fiscal responsibility, policy efficiency, and economic fairness in a state that has long lost sight of all three.
I totally agree, but it is not a Federal (Big G government) problem. It is a California problem. As long as California keeps electing the type of politicians they have elected for decades, the problem will continue.
I have stated many times on this site I would like to see the elimination of the majority of the federal government’s tentacles into private lives and leave it up to each individual state to rule that population, the way the Founders designed the country. United States, not United One Government. That way if you do not like the laws and government in one state, find another one where you find the laws more acceptable.
I live in the Midwest and have nothing to do with California except for 1 cousin that lives there, but this one 2018 story would have made me start looking for a different place to live.
" Employees of San Francisco’s “Poop Patrol” are set to earn $71,760 a year, plus an additional $112,918 in benefits, the San Francisco Chronicle reported."
Respectfully, your view oversimplifies the issue and ignores how California’s policies, especially those around energy and taxation impact the rest of the country, not just its own borders. When the most populous state in the union pushes extreme fuel regulations, mandates, and environmental restrictions, it warps the national market. Supply chains, fuel prices, and even federal policies are influenced by California’s actions, so no, this is not just a “California problem.”
Additionally, the idea that people should just “move” if they don’t like their state’s laws is neither practical nor just. Millions of working families can’t simply uproot their lives, leave their homes, jobs, schools, and support systems because a small political elite continues to pass burdensome policies. That’s not freedom, it’s displacement.
And let’s not forget: federalism doesn’t mean the federal government turns a blind eye when a state becomes a case study in mismanagement. We’re the United States and if one state’s dysfunction starts creating economic or social ripple effects, especially around energy policy, immigration, or taxation, it becomes everyone’s business.
Pretending California’s problems are confined within its borders is just willful ignorance.
Explain how forcing states that are fiscally responsible to change the way they manage their money to fix a corrupt government in another state fixes that corrupt government?
I don’t see a lot of support for the Federal government when it tries to help. Maybe the Main Stream Media is just not reporting it.
You’re missing the point entirely. No one is asking fiscally responsible states to bail out corrupt ones. The issue is that some states, like California implement policies that create national level ripple effects, especially when it comes to energy, emissions, transportation, and taxation. When one state with outsized economic influence distorts markets or pushes federal agencies to adopt its standards, that stops being a “state issue” and becomes everyone’s problem.
No one’s proposing fiscal punishment for well-run state, we’re proposing national-level reforms that remove destructive incentives, reduce federal overreach enabled by states like California, and restore balance so that no one state can leverage its size to push failed policies onto the rest of us.
And let’s be honest, if your neighbor is polluting your water supply, you don’t just say, “Well, that’s his yard, not mine.” You step in, because interconnected problems require national solutions, not isolationist slogans dressed up as federalism.
It’s like if one state jacks up taxes on life-saving diabetes medication, and because of its market size, the price rises across the country—are we supposed to just accept that, or address the root policy that’s punishing everyone else? Yes, fuel is also a necessity.
And getting fiscally responsible states to remove the gas tax revenue, as you purpose, is not punishing fiscally responsible states? Please explain that?
That’s the rub. With EV’s not paying the road maintenance infrastructure, the people whom choose those instead are getting a free ride as petrol fuel drivers pay their road costs.
The proposal has some merit. The road tax for maintenance and service has not been at all times used for it’s intended purpose, flowing into state budgets.
Privatized roads are very not appealing as well. Paying a special fee to get on the highway, with the inevitable tiered payment costs which result in disproportionate costs to those whom either do not drive on these areas enough to make full passes worth it, or simply can’t afford the full passes. As it stands now the pay lanes on highways are looking like a rich mans special lane more than anything else. What happened to just being able to drive them if you had three or more people, without a surcharge.
Having a general tax for infrastructure maintenance does not work either, because then we’re taxing those whom do not drive, equally unfair.
Auto registration should be where this fee is applied, if it needs to be applied at all. Personally I’d prefer less infrastructure and bare minimums with less upkeep charges. The never ending road maintenance turns into an embezzlement scheme itself quite often. Nobody actually audits where the money goes as tens and hundreds of millions go to insider connections with cozy relationships with local city managers.
What’s the root problem? An excessive size government that has no effective oversight from the people. That’s why they always have the biggest paychecks, nicest spaces, least oversight, and the most power and control.