Louisiana House Bill HB659

Louisiana 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/19/17
• Refer: 4/20/17

Caption

Levies an additional tax on motor fuels

Impact

The ongoing revenue generated from this tax is earmarked for critical needs, including funding for the Statewide Flood-Control Program. Additionally, the proposed legislation allows portions of the tax revenue to be used for securing bonds or other financial instruments, which may further enhance funding for infrastructure projects. This is expected to improve state roadways and flood defenses, areas that have seen increasing demand for attention given recent environmental challenges.

Summary

House Bill 659 is designed to levy an additional tax of 9¢ per net gallon on gasoline, diesel, and special fuels sold in Louisiana for domestic consumption. This tax is intended to generate revenue for state infrastructure initiatives, particularly in the realm of transportation. The legislation also outlines provisions for a potential future increase of this tax to 17¢ per gallon on January 1, 2022, contingent upon the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) meeting specific compliance criteria as assessed in ongoing audits.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 659 appears cautiously optimistic, particularly from proponents who highlight the necessity of maintaining and improving Louisiana’s aging infrastructure. Nonetheless, there are concerns from various community stakeholders about the burdens that additional taxes may place on consumers, especially in a state where fuel prices are already a significant consideration for many families. Legislative discussions indicate a recognition of the balance needed between infrastructure funding and potential financial implications for citizens.

Contention

Noteworthy points of contention include the potential impact of tax increases on low and middle-income households, as these groups may feel the strain of higher fuel costs more acutely than others. While support largely comes from those acknowledging the dire need for infrastructure improvements, opponents argue that imposing additional taxes could exacerbate existing economic strains. The bill thus invites a broader discourse on how best to finance public goods while considering the economic realities of the state's residents.