Americans lean on credit cards and buy now, pay later as gas prices eat bigger share of income 47%

By Eric Revell74%

5/10/2026, 4:00:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 21.1% saturation with 166 hits. Analysis detected 1,591 faulty-reasoning hits from 785 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.5% and a BS Rank of 47% (11,697 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.40% of the article peer group.

American household budgets are under pressure from higher gas prices and new data shows that consumers are turning to credit to cushion the blow of elevated fuel costs. 
A report by the Bank of America Institute found that lower-income households saw the share of their incomes spent on gas rise to 4.2%, up from 3.9% a year ago and the highest level for the month of March since 2022, based on internal Bank of America customer deposit data that's been aggregated and anonymized. 
By contrast, the average household across income groups spent about 3.1% of their income on gas in March, an increase from 2.8% relative to the same time last year. 
Additionally, about 10% of lower-income consumers spent more than 10% of their household income in March on gas as prices jumped amid the Iran war constraining oil shipments from the Middle East, compared with just 6% of higher-income households. 
"Lower-income households spend more as a share of their income on gas just because they have less room for discretionary spending than middle- and higher-income households," David Tinsley, senior economist at the Bank of America Institute, told FOX Business. 
"Those two things together mean that the rising gasoline prices we've seen really squeezes lower income households the most." 
GAS PRICES SURGE PAST $4.50 NATIONALLY AS IRAN TENSIONS PRESSURE DRIVERS 
The war in Iran caused the price of oil to rise above $100 a barrel after trading in the $70 range before the conflict began. 
That, in turn, caused gas prices to surge over 40%, with AAA's national average rising to more than $4.50 a gallon. 
Similar gas shocks strained consumer budgets as the economy dealt with the financial crisis in 2008, and began its recovery in 2011 and 2012. 
It also surged in the wake of the COVID pandemic when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. 
"The rise in gasoline as a share of income right now needs to be kept in some perspective. 
There were also much bigger rises and higher peaks in terms of gas as a share of income and a share of spending just after the financial crisis and also just after COVID," Tinsley said. 
"So this is obviously a painful rise for people, no doubt, but it's not as large as those other incidents." 
GAS PRICE SURGE HITTING LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS HARDEST, FED STUDY FINDS 
American consumers are seeing some relief through higher wages, although the scale of those gains varies across income groups and some consumers are turning to credit and buy now, pay later to manage their finances amid the squeeze. 
Tinsley said that while higher-income households are seeing strong wage growth up over 5% year over year, lower- and middle-income households aren't seeing those gains. 
He noted that among lower-income households, the wage growth was just 1% through March, while it was 2% for middle-income households. 
"There's a couple of other things, wiggle rooms, that people have," Tinsley said. 
"They could borrow more on their credit card, and when we look at where people stand relative to their credit card limits, we know they're not particularly stretched right now relative to their credit card limits. 
The overall position is roughly where it was just before the pandemic." 
AVERAGE TAX REFUND UP NEARLY 11% FROM A YEAR AGO, IRS DATA SHOWS 
"The other thing they could do is use buy now, pay later more," he said, adding that more lower- and middle-income households are using those options to manage their budgets. 
"The downside of that is, at the end of the day, buy now, pay later only smooths your spending over a couple of months, so it's not going to make that big a difference to the overall story," Tinsley said. 
"As it turns out, the people that tend to use buy now, pay later tend to have less borrowing space on their credit cards." 
Tinsley said that one silver lining in the Bank of America Institute's data is that households across income levels have more savings in the bank relative to before the COVID-19 pandemic. 
"These households have about 10% higher deposits, savings deposits, in their accounts. 
The reason for that is largely tax refunds, so obviously the One Big Beautiful involved a lot of stimulus to consumers, a lot of which came through via refunds this year," he said. 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
"Refunds are running, give or take, around 10% higher and although people are spending some of that, they're also banking some of it and that can sort of help them weather some of this gas shock for a time," Tinsley added. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%Eric Revell: 2.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 1.5%Eric Revell: 4.7%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias1.5%This article: 7.6%Eric Revell: 3.6%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 14.0%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic14.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Eric Revell: 3.0%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias6.1%This article: 21.1%Eric Revell: 11.0%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect21.1%This article: 5.1%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion5.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%Eric Revell: 9.5%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias9.2%This article: 12.6%Eric Revell: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 16.9%Eric Revell: 6.9%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias16.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Eric Revell: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Eric Revell: 3.1%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect3.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.3%Eric Revell: 6.7%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 5.1%Eric Revell: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Eric Revell: 4.2%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.4%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.2%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 21.1%Eric Revell: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.6%Eric Revell: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.5%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground4.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.7%Eric Revell: 3.2%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice17.7%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.1%

785 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers64%attributed speech281writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageBank of America Institute • 55 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 39 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 35 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 36 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 40 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Tinsley • 41 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Tinsley

100%flagged-word coverage
449 attributed words89% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.8 ptsWriter: 23.8%David Tinsley: 16.0%16.0%Unattributed Quote+8.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Tinsley: 8.7%8.7%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%David Tinsley: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.