Bill Overview
Title: Relief for our Truckers Act
Description: This bill repeals the excise tax on diesel fuel.
Sponsors: Rep. Mast, Brian J. [R-FL-18]
Target Audience
Population: Truck drivers and sectors dependent on trucking worldwide
Estimated Size: 7000000
- Truck drivers around the world will benefit from reduced fuel costs, increasing their disposable income or profitability margin.
- The logistics and supply chain sectors may see slight improvements as fuel costs decrease, potentially lowering operational costs.
- Businesses relying on trucking for shipment will likely experience lower costs, which might be passed on to consumers.
Reasoning
- The primary beneficiaries of the Relief for our Truckers Act are likely to be truck drivers, particularly those who own their rigs and are responsible for their own fuel costs, as they will directly save money on fuel expenses.
- The logistics and supply chain sectors, as well as businesses reliant on truck transportation, will experience moderate benefits since these savings could translate into lower operational costs, potentially passed onto consumers.
- Citizens in general might experience indirect benefits if reduced transportation costs lead to lower prices for goods, although these effects will likely be marginal and diffuse over a large population.
- The budget and target population considerations suggest focusing on direct stakeholders who will see a clear financial impact, especially small business truck owners.
- It is important to consider individuals who might be weakly affected or rise concerns around environmental impacts of reduced incentives for fuel efficiency.
Simulated Interviews
Independent truck driver (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The repeal means I can save more on fuel costs.
- Every bit helps, especially with rising costs elsewhere.
- It's a much-needed break for us independent truckers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Logistics coordinator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lower fuel costs could streamline our operations, potentially leading to bonuses.
- The company's shipping costs may reduce, but it's unclear how quickly this will translate to savings for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Iowa)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could reduce our operational costs significantly, as diesel is a big expense.
- I hope to see some of these savings passed on through lower trucking rates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerns about potential increase in emissions due to reduced fuel costs.
- While I understand economic benefits, there must be a balance with environmental impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Owner of small trucking company (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing this tax helps lower operational costs directly, offering some financial relief.
- It gives us a bit more room to invest or save for unforeseen expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retail store manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Possible cost savings on logistics, but not significant enough to impact store operations immediately.
- I'm hoping for more competitive pricing for inventory replenishment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Consumer advocate (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reduced logistics costs could mean lower prices for consumers if businesses pass savings along.
- I remain skeptical about how much of these savings reach the wider public.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Tech worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Doesn't impact me directly, but I'm hopeful it leads to systemic cost reductions.
- I am generally positive about economic measures but prefer greener policy approaches.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
E-commerce business owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in shipping costs allows us to balance prices or invest in other areas.
- While any reduction helps, it's not game-changing for my business's current model.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hoping for trickle-down benefits that might reduce costs of goods.
- I am wary of whether benefits will trickle down significantly enough to impact me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $11468000000 (Low: $10321200000, High: $12614800000)
Year 2: $11468000000 (Low: $10321200000, High: $12614800000)
Year 3: $11468000000 (Low: $10321200000, High: $12614800000)
Year 5: $11468000000 (Low: $10321200000, High: $12614800000)
Year 10: $11468000000 (Low: $10321200000, High: $12614800000)
Year 100: $11468000000 (Low: $10321200000, High: $12614800000)
Key Considerations
- The reduction in fuel costs could provide significant immediate relief to truckers and potentially lower consumer prices for goods transported by truck.
- The lost tax revenue would significantly affect the Highway Trust Fund, requiring either cuts in infrastructure spending or alternative revenue sources.
- Equity concerns might arise if road infrastructure deteriorates due to decreased funding, potentially affecting areas reliant on federal infrastructure projects.