Bill Overview
Title: Maritime Fuel Tax Parity Act
Description: This bill extends the exemption from the excise tax on motor boat or motor vehicle fuels sold or used as supplies for certain vessels or aircraft engaged in trade between U.S. Atlantic or Pacific ports.
Sponsors: Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in U.S. maritime and aircraft trades across Atlantic and Pacific ports
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill deals with the extension of an exemption from an excise tax on motor fuels used by certain vessels or aircraft.
- This exemption is specific to those vessels or aircraft that are engaged in trade between U.S. Atlantic or Pacific ports.
- The primary group affected by this legislation are maritime operators and potentially aircraft operators involved in trade across U.S. ports.
- Indirectly, individuals working in the maritime and related industries (such as shipping, port operations, and related supply chains) could also be affected due to economic changes stemming from tax adjustments.
- Consumers might see changes in prices of goods transported by such vessels or aircraft, as changes in fuel costs could affect transportation costs.
- This bill primarily impacts those involved in specific geographic trade routes and does not apply to vessels operating under international, non-U.S. trade routes.
Reasoning
- The core population affected by this policy includes maritime operators and related workers engaged in domestic trade routes.
- While the direct impact is limited to specific trading routes, the trickle-down effects could influence people in related industries like logistics and port operations.
- The wellbeing impact will vary, with some experiencing significant economic benefit, while others may see minimal change.
- The 10-year budget constraint requires that the policy efficiently targets those most likely to benefit from cost savings on fuel taxes.
Simulated Interviews
Maritime shipping operator (Long Beach, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will improve my business's cost structure as fuel is a significant expense.
- I expect some savings to be redirected towards expanding operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Port manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could boost throughput at my port, increasing employment.
- Logistics and scheduling might get more intense, which has pros and cons.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Customs officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More traffic might mean job security, but also more workload.
- I hope this translates to better funding for our department.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freight forwarder (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If shipping costs go down, it can lead to more competitive pricing.
- However, any regulatory changes bring uncertainties initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Logistics coordinator (Houston, TX)
Age: 54 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been through many tax changes, they're manageable but require adjustment.
- Savings often go to company, not employee benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Longshoreman (Savannah, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our work might increase, which is good for job security.
- Would like to see increased hiring or overtime compensation.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Trade policy analyst (Portland, OR)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a nuanced policy with potential for both positive and negative effects.
- Needs careful monitoring to manage unintended consequences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Shipbuilding project manager (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might increase demand for U.S.-built vessels over time.
- Good potential for job growth in our sector.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Marine biologist (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about increased shipping harming marine habitats.
- Advocate for policies that balance trade growth and environmental protection.
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 |
Truck driver (Mobile, AL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in shipping costs might translate to more jobs for us.
- I've weathered many changes in the logistics world, adaptability is key.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10200000 (Low: $8200000, High: $12200000)
Year 3: $10400000 (Low: $8400000, High: $12400000)
Year 5: $10608000 (Low: $8568000, High: $12688000)
Year 10: $11328249 (Low: $9127599, High: $13528899)
Year 100: $201665100 (Low: $162664080, High: $240666120)
Key Considerations
- Policy primarily impacts domestic maritime trade routes, limiting its scope.
- The exemption extends a pre-existing policy, making its economic impacts evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
- Indirect effects on related industries like logistics and port services should be accounted for in broader impact assessments.