Think of California and CARB. Someone leads the way and others follow. Not everyone, but plenty do.
There are many good and many bad ideas and laws around the world and this nation. And what is good or bad might depend on what your objectives are. For example someone sees mass-transit as good if they believe people should live in congested urban area, and sacrifice individual schedules and comfort for the least affect on the environment. Others see mass transit as bad since they've been working to escape that urban lifestyle.
IMO this country stands for the pursuit of individual freedom and happiness. We allow everyone to decide for themselves whether they want to live in NYC without a car, or whether they want to live on a farm in Iowa, or switch every few years. The government was never intended to push people one way or the other. That is why I am against subsidies or tax penalties to push people 1 way or the other.
The government should collect taxes for a service they provide; that's it.
Do the French know why they are striking? It is high taxes that cause the grief. No thanks to a EU style tax and waste system of government. NO THANKS to being stuck without my own personal SUV. Even if the government wastes my gas tax on other than fixing roads I can get around in style and comfort.
Demonstrations are planned in about 200 towns and cities. Many schools are closed and public transport disrupted.
The national rail operator, SNCF, cancelled 40% of high-speed trains and half of regional services.
A third of flights out of Paris's Orly airport have been cancelled, while a tenth of France's electricity output has been shut down with workers on strike.
Many commuters on Thursday said they backed the action, but hoped it would be short-lived.
"Fundamentally I agree, but too much is too much," one was quoted as saying. "There are strikes in the transport sector too often and we have to put up with them."
Union demands Increase minimum wage Reverse 50% cap on income tax Suspend public sector job cuts Measures to protect employment
Hmm, when I was in France in July last year they also had at least 1 union on strike at the airport.
I'm certainly glad I don't live in a country where everyone is in a union, and the government directs you like sheep, on relying on them.
I really appreciate the indepence we are offered by the automobile. And I think that everyone should have this opportunity, not being economically squeezed out of driving, by artificially high taxes - whether it be registrations, tolls or gas taxes.
The reason I went to college and get up everyday and go to work, is to be able to live the lifestyle I want, not the lifestyle someone in government may think is "good for us a whole". I live in a house on a large plot of land on the outskirts of a small city, and enjoy the freedom of having a vehicle that takes me from door-to-door how, when, and where I want to go.
Since most people who have a choice of owning an automobile (money, reasonable price parking available at home and at work), do own one, then it seems pretty clear what most people prefer.
And I enjoy hearing non-Idaho and non-American perspectives about stuff - the government doesn't necessarily enter into that, but it's ok when it does. There's more than one solution to a problem and it's nice hearing about some of those solutions that you otherwise may not have thought of.
Here's what Gordon Brown says about gas taxes in the states:
There is a practice called Fuel Price Escalator that has been used elsewhere to reduce sudden shocks, but also to steadily increase fuel prices over and above inflation for any number of reasons. The article itself is old. A new 2 pence per liter raise was only recently added once again in the UK.
Do we in the USA need to consider something like this?
The Fuel Price Escalator (FPE) was the practice of automatically increasing hydrocarbon oil duty (better known as 'fuel tax') in the United Kingdom ahead of inflation. The escalator was introduced as a measure to stem the increase in pollution from road transport and cut the need for new road building which was then a politically sensitive topic. The escalator also resulted in significant increases in revenue for The Treasury.
The fuel price escalator was introduced by the Conservative government in 1993 and set at an annual increase of 3% ahead of inflation, later rising to 5%. After gaining power in 1997, the rate of increase was raised by the Labour government to 6% per year. The last rise due to the escalator took place following the budget on 9 March 1999 [1].
The end to the escalator was announced on 9 November 2000, following the UK fuel protests, of which it was a contributory factor. When the escalator ended, fuel in the UK was the most expensive in Europe, with fuel tax representing over 75% of the retail price of fuel. In 1993 UK fuel had been amongst the cheapest in Europe.
Fuel taxes will hit diesel just as hard if not harder. And it will hit trucking even harder yet. That would of course hit the grocery stores and our food bill in little or no time. And while my friend Nippon say 4 years is no time at all why not wait for that four years to come to pass before we decide if we need to raise fuel taxes to get us to buy those new diesels?
What works in Europe doesn't work here more often than not. How many times has the great salvation to the automotive world come from Europe only to fall on its bumper in the US? We have more room and more roads than any other nation in the world.
I am sorry about not wanting to hear from someone that isn't subject to our taxes about how good taxes would be for us. But I was always taught that it was bad form for people not affected by a action to suggest how the people affected by such actions should react. Men don't have a right to tell women how to deal with menstrual cramps. And someone not subject to American taxes have little credibility on how those taxes would affect Americans. They may be perfectly qualified to tell us how taxes have affected them but not how they will affect us. But I see I have drifted off topic.
New additional fuel taxes will have a direct affect on American families. Can't be a debate on that issue. It will have a side affect on all products transported to stores and purchased by Americans. The economy hasn't recovered to a point where people can afford additional short falls to their income. We are going to have to pay for the stimulus packages somewhere in the future and it will require more taxes. Everyone realizes that. So a fuel tax will only be the beginning and that can't be a good thing because it will never go away.
This is more than simple hypothetical opinion to me it is a conviction that I am more than willing to take to the polls with me when I vote.
I think you are confusing an outsider's perspective with "demands." My GP is a woman and she takes care of my plumbing fine (I bet male OB-GYN's still outnumber female ones too). I say bring on the comments from all corners.
Alan Greenspan suggested a federal tax of $3.00 per gallon in his recent book. In Europe they have been paying much more for decades. He also stated that Iraq was about the oil, as we all know.
And here's the thing, no-one who is against raising fuel costs will admit that the entire cost of the war must be included in the hundreds of hidden costs that are associated with being so dependent on foreign oil, and on oil in general.
Americans are very very bad at making and executing long-term plans. We WILL be the society that, like the proverbial frog, will boil to death because we took no action when the water's temperature was gradually rising. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Here's what Gordon Brown says about gas taxes in the states:
I agree that gas taxes should go up with inflation. But now consider that your state says the inflation since 1991 has been 327%! 327%! - I'll say again. There's something wrong there. Maybe the only thing that has gone up 327% in 18 years is health care.
NH is adjusting their gas tax similarly for inflation, with no increase since about 91-92. We're adding $0.05/gal for each of the next 3 years. $0.15 total. Colorado must be using golden snow-plows? which they shouldn't need with all the GW? :P
A reporter is looking to speak to consumers who purchased a larger vehicle but had considered a smaller vehicle when gas prices were high. Please send your daytime phone number to ctalati@edmunds.com by Thursday, March 19, 2009.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
He also stated that Iraq was about the oil, as we all know
And the same with Afghanistan and the cost of that war? That's about oil too huh? The fact is the only war that you can say really was about protecting the majority of the Middle east oil was the 90-91 Desert Storm war. That was a war that threatened Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and everyone else in the area. Maybe 25MM bbd of oil in jeopardy. That war was fought to prevent 1 maniacal dictator from getting that supply, and using the revenues to further build a military machine with WMD.
The war fought in Iraq since '02 was not about protecting all of OPEC. Iraq may have a lot of oil, but it does not produce much 2-3MM bbd? If Iraq suddenly stopped producing oil as it did when we first invaded and throughout 2002-03 - no big deal.
The war in Iraq is due partly to finish the first incomplete war (blame the UN for stopping the resolution), and partly due to bad information on WMD and harboring terrorists.
I admit I was mildly curious what the British PM had to say, and why it was being quoted out of a Colorado newspaper. I wasn't surprised when it turned out not to be THAT GB though. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The war in Iraq is only about maintaining a balance of power in the region (keep one country for the "good guys" ;-)) so that the oil supply won't be disrupted. The country of Afghanistan has nothing to do with the balance of power among oil-supplying states, as I'm sure you know.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The war in Iraq is only about maintaining a balance of power in the region (keep one country for the "good guys" ) so that the oil supply won't be disrupted. The country of Afganistan has nothing to do with the balance of power among oil-supplying states, as I'm sure you know.
Drifting again are we? Whenever I question Afganistan I simply put in the tape I made of September 11th. The people responsible for that were there when we decided that attack was uncalled for.
So if I have this straight, jobs are being lost? The working class is getting their wages frozen or even cut back so businesses can stay open? The only ones getting any money are the ones that lost the money in the first place. The people that gambled in the stock market want the working class to bail them out because they don't think they should suffer the risk they took now that it failed. Funny I don't remember them sharing the profits with us but we should share the loss with them?
The government is even willing to give the people that got us in this mess trillions of dollars rather than have them take responsibility for what they have done and the solution to all of this is raise the tax on the fuel the working class needs to get to work? Is that is in a nut shell? Is there something I am missing here? we are planning on a better future by destroying the present?
Let me ask again, how will that help today? The school district where I used to live announced they will be laying off 265 teachers this year. Please tell me how raising their fuel taxes will assist them? How will it assist the country? How will it be good for America? The orange county transit authority will be cutting runs do to budget cuts, some of their customers will now have to drive how will higher fuel taxes help them? Lets be absolutely honest. Who will higher fuel taxes Help?
No, you don't understand. The oil-supply will not be disrupted no matter who controls the oil. Even if Iran controls the oil - it will flow to us. Even if Saddam Hussein were alive and controlled the oil; say Desert Storm never happened and Hussein controlled the whole Middle East. The OIL HAS TO FLOW to have any value.
The problem the U.S. had was letting Hussein have the REVENUE of the oil year after year, and to grow his own empire. That would have led to faster development of WMD, and a serious war with Israel, which against an Iraq that kept getting stronger and stronger, would have involved Israel using nuclear weapons against much of the Iraqi controlled Middle East. That was the problem.
It is a fallacy to think that just because a country that really hates us - even publicly - like Iran, can stop selling its oil. None of those OPEC countries can stop selling their oil without inflicting more damage on themselves than on the West. The oil flows no matter who controls it.
It is good to see someone understands the big picture on oil. The issue of taxing it out of existence which is the goal of many environmentalist. Is totally unrealistic. We have built our economy on individual freedom to decide how we want to get around. To worry about oil running out for the near future is just crazy. We are developing viable alternatives to oil. Such as Algae diesel. I have faith if we do not tax our industry out of the country that they will come up with the answers. If left to our inept government we will have little to show for the money wasted. NO MORE TAXES ON OIL. I think the 25% tax we pay in CA is more than enough to gold plate our roads and bridges.
Raising gas taxes gradually could be beneficial in weaning people off of gas guzzlers and into more efficient vehicles, but only if the taxes were "strictly" used for roads and bridges. Many roads and bridges around US in poor condition.
Many politicians and tree-huggers just not realistic in their goals to drastically reduce or eliminate our dependence on imported oil. They fail to realize that there are hundreds of manufactured products that need a component of petroleum that is extracted in the distilling/refinery processes. There is a one-hour documentary on this matter that has been shown on History or National Geographic channel (can't remember which one I saw it on).
Raising gas taxes gradually could be beneficial in weaning people off of gas guzzlers and into more efficient vehicles
You could add "poorer" in front of people in that statement.
It will also decrease the travel of poorer people, which can be viewed as a reduction in lifestyle. Less trips to the beach or parks. Or less discretionary money to take those trips or buy fun things, because the money is being spent on gas tax.
And when families and people get short on $, people get stressed - and stress generally leads to all other sorts of ills - family fights, alcoholism, depression, and crime.
While I agree with your 2nd paragraph, I do want to state that the government already has CAFE as the way to wean people from "gas guzzlers". Maybe you don't agree with the numbers or the implementation date in CAFE? But a gas tax is not needed for that reason, CAFE would see to it that the average mpg is raised.
Raising gas taxes gradually could be beneficial in weaning people off of water.
Lots of stories in the news (out West anyway) about big oil buying up all the water rights they can get their hands on. Oil production takes a lot of water. Getting oil from shale takes a huge amount of water. Tar sand production takes even more water than getting oil from shale.
There is evidence that over production of Corn for ethanol has depleted the large water aquifer in the Midwest to treacherous levels. Not to mention destroying the fishing industry along the Gulf coast. I would be perfectly happy driving a smaller SUV with a 4 cylinder diesel engine fueled with algae biodiesel. See any money being spent by our government on practical solutions to the energy situation. They tax and waste. That is all our State and Feds are good at.
> The government is not going to develop alternatives. The private sector will do it when it is profitable
this looks pretty much true
> From what I read London is not much better than it was 200 years ago,
Depends on view point. Could be said for any large car-clogged US city. I lived in London for some time and it was quite a good experience imho
>And you talk about trains... that antiquated system of transportation
HST generally go 3 times the speed of cars, use electricity and need XX time less energy per passenger than cars over the same mileage. Let us not forget there are much fewer train deaths than road deaths per million passengers.
If we call HST "antiquated", then calling cars "prehistoric" would be an understatement.
>If science comes up with a decent system...
Science needs brain, money and will. Seems at least 2 are missing.
> there is a ground swell against this latest pork bill stimulus package
I don't take position over this as I am not knowledgeable enough. I just stand by my initial view that if this amount is invested in long term projects, it will create long term and strong growth. If just burned as a gifts to population, This will just be like a straw fire and vanish as soon as it was given.
>They have for decades stolen gas tax money for other projects
Looks like many other tax were used to pay for roads. If we draw the balance, I strongly doubt that the current gas tax would ever cover road maintenance.
>As far as mass transit replacing cars. It just does not make sense when we are spread out
As soon as traffic jams come as a recurring issues, that means mass transit are needed. This is the only system able to bring many people in a short time frame, within a limited real estate use.
There are many place in the US where traffic jams regulary happen. More people in MT means fewer motorists arguing over road territory. Win/Win situation
>Please spare me what other people do in other countries
Why would I? Most of the US founders, leaders and people have (sometimes fresh) roots in other countries. I think this is one of Americas's strength. Would you prefer US to close themselves like an oyster?
>all profit and wages along the way from that pipe to my tank gets taxed.
I meant direct tax. I estimate US Gas tax to be 1/3rd of European Gas tax, excluding indirect tax and social costs paid by all the companies in the loop.
Even if we added those to the mix, I suspect there would not be much change in the ranking.
>didn't you post that you drove your bmw 740 90 mph on a regular basis?
Absolutely. This was in Europe and I paid about US$7 per Gallon. I polluted, I enriched gulf/russian democracies, i degraded the trade balance, but at least I paid the price for it. My consumption was around 20 mpg and I made 5000 miles this way. I estimate I paid about 5X250 = 1250 USD of tax.
>'do as i say, not as i do
I claim for higher gas tax, alternative transports and less stringent speed limits. Please don't hesitate to underline where you believe I am inconsistent
I make a very clear distinction between rail infrastructures and the way to use them. France is a country where most trains are regretfully in the hands of heavily unionized public servants. Even the best tools in bad hands can become a nightmare.
If infrastructures are to be built and managed by the State, operators should be private and in a competition situation, which is not the case in France.
We should not throw the bath while the baby's still in it.
> I really appreciate the indepence we are offered by the automobile. And I think that everyone should have this opportunity,
I share your view, provided that everyone pays the real price that is attached to using a gas-burning car. If the real price is not paid, then gas prices are subsidized, which means other non gas burning activities are footing the bill.
I do not intent to withdraw the right for anyone to own and use a car. Many mass transit commuters in Europe have a car, but chose what is the most convenient way for them.
I am very bound to the idea of freedom, and I came to the conclusion that there is no freedom if there is no choice.
>The people that gambled in the stock market want the working class to bail them....
That is the problem of a country where growth was artificially fed by virtual or speculative profits. This fragile bubble just burst when it became too big.
The working class is paying the absence of long term project investment that could bring decades of genuine growth.
>and the solution to all of this is raise the tax on the fuel the working class needs to get to work?
Why is the working class so exposed to gas prices ? Simply because years of cheap gas made them dependant. If serious measures are not take to lower this exposure, what will happen when Barrel prices shoots against past the 150$ ? and at $200, even with zero tax, it still will be too expensive then.
We should act now, to establish expensive gas as a long term fact. Lower US dependancy will be good for the country, especially when the crisis is over and that Russia, China and India will burn fuel like hell.
>The school district where I used to live announced they will be laying off 265 teachers this year. Please tell me how raising their fuel taxes will assist them?
Raising or lowering gas tax now won't change their situation much. I think Education is a strategic service that should be guaranteed by the state.
Fore sure it will be painful to do it now. But it is painful because it wasn't done any earlier.
>Who will higher fuel taxes Help ?
Nobody in the short term. Everybody in the long term. it depends on how the funds will be used.
Science needs brain, money and will. Seems at least 2 are missing.
True, we have wasted billions on alternatives with little to show for it. When you give the money to politicians you do not get much back in the way of solid results.
I strongly doubt that the current gas tax would ever cover road maintenance.
That is just not true. Last I researched it was about 15% spent as it should be of the billions in gas taxes. Money spent on MT is not the same as road maintenance.
As soon as traffic jams come as a recurring issues, that means mass transit are needed. This is the only system able to bring many people in a short time frame, within a limited real estate use.
We have had traffic jams since I was a kid in the 1950s. I left San Diego for Alaska in 1970 because it was too crowded where I lived 20 miles from San Diego. Now I live 32 miles from the Zoo and it is still too crowded. However we did go to the zoo about 9:30 AM and it took about 40 minutes from the house. I would be lucky to get there in 3 hours by bus and trolley. I would still have to drive and leave my car somewhere all day. My time in retirement is much more valuable to me than that. Plus it would have cost more by bus/trolley than gas in the Lexus. So I see NO advantage and all disadvantages.
I meant direct tax. I estimate US Gas tax to be 1/3rd of European Gas tax, excluding indirect tax and social costs paid by all the companies in the loop.
That just sounds like sour grapes to me. You have to pay so everyone else should have to pay. Makes absolutely no good sense to give the government that kind of money. And just what do you have in France to show for all that money wasted on gas tax?
Please don't hesitate to underline where you believe I am inconsistent
You say the USA should conserve and yet you do not practice conservation. By your own admission you like to drive fast and use more fossil fuel than if you drove conservatively. That sounds hypocritical to someone that does try to limit driving fast to get a bit better mileage. Though most of my Interstate routes are posted 70 and that is the slow lanes.
France is a country where most trains are regretfully in the hands of heavily unionized public servants.
We have the same problem in our major cities. The subways in NYC were shut down for strikes not long ago. A major good reason not to rely on them for any kind of important transportation. I don't think our civil servants have gone quite as crazy as France, though close. And there is a real rah rah Union attitude from some quarters here.
If the real price is not paid, then gas prices are subsidized, which means other non gas burning activities are footing the bill.
I know many here would like to equate the price of gas to the cost of military conflicts such as Iraq. That just does not fly. We were not getting any oil from Iraq or Iran at the time of either Gulf war. We have plenty of suppliers more than willing to sell at market price. That price should be stabilized at closer to $65 per barrel. That is out of our control. What is in our control is to vote out any legislator that raises our gas tax. If you follow our news you will see a real ground swell against the current ignorance with the Pork Stimulus bill. I am sending my Tea Bag to the President on April 1st along with a lot of other people upset with the waste in our government. And it is not military waste. That is the main reason we have a Federal government. It has gone completely out of its Constitutional boundaries in more ways than can be addressed. Gas tax is just one of many infractions.
what will happen when Barrel prices shoots against past the 150$ ?
We will be less impacted than countries that are burdened with horrible Fuel Taxes. Again what are you getting for the gas tax they extort from you?
The USA has more than enough taxes to do all that needs to be done. It just needs to rein in worthless programs that only benefit the very wealthy and the very poor. They are squeezing the life blood out of the middle class.
Nobody in the short term. Everybody in the long term. it depends on how the funds will be used.
I would say, Nobody in the short or long term. And we know where it will go. To push socialist ideals down the throats of the tax paying citizens of the USA. Maybe a Bullet train to nowhere, like the proposed LA to LV boondoggle. Why should CA subsidize Las Vegas casinos. CA has the most Indian casinos in the USA. It would be taking food out of their mouths pushing more people to LV.
Any raising of taxes, as Benadick Arnold is doing in CA the 1st of April, is counter productive. Especially in a recession. The city, county, state & Federal Governments need to cut costs just like the people are doing. Not bury them in higher sales tax or gas tax.
We do not want to be like other countries. There are NO good examples you can give me of a country that opens its borders as we have and is still staying afloat. I sometimes wonder how or for how long.
The subways in NYC were shut down for strikes not long ago.
The last strike was in '05 and lasted two days. The president of the local was sentenced to ten days in jail and the union was fined 2.5 million dollars. There were two other strikes in '66 and '80 (both lasting about 12 days, leading to no strike legislation that resulted in the jail sentence and fines in '05). (Wikipedia).
I think the report hits the nail on the head. High mileage cars are not paying their fair share. Mass transit is stealing from auto drivers. What happened to the 40 cents per gallon CA adds to the price of gas. I don't see Caltrans doing much around here. Probably gold plating the road in front of Arnold's mansions. I don't trust the b_____s with my money. They are all thieves with their lobby friends to pay off and shove contracts toward.
do you think that someone with less money then you enjoys driving their own car less than you do? or is not worthy of having one? why should it be the 'other people' who are forced by high fuel tax to take 'alternate transports'?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
If expensive gas is bad in the long run then it is bad in the short run. There is no logic is saying what higher tax on gas could do or should do only what we "know" it will do. If it will not help us in the short run it will not help us in the long run.
Some day children's breakfast cereal may cost 10 bucks a box. But if the parent making 25 bucks and hour today has to pay ten bucks it will hurt a lot more than if that same parent is making 40 bucks an hour in the future when the price gets that high. But this is all a smoke screen. They is no provision for any fuel tax to go to inducing or helping pay for more fuel efficient cars. Never has been never will be. Not a consideration and not in any new plans. So that concept is all smoke.
So what it is in reality is an attempt to punish people because some minority "believes" low prices are somehow unfair or destructive. Where is the study proving this? Shouldn't we have a plan to fund with the taxes "before" we collect the taxes for a plan we don't have? And in our form of government should the people be presented with this plan before they are asked to participate in it? That is how things are supposed to work and it has never been, "trust us we know what is best." People say low fuel is what kept other from developing alternatives, show you proof, like in school when you had to show your work during a test.
Whatever people do just waving their hand and declaring that drinking the Koolaid of higher taxes is good for you have no concept of how bad the economy is right now. It is easy to say, suck it up and take it like a man when you aren't involved. But to those that are working this me be a recession. To those who aren't this is a depression. And tell us how the countries that taxed themselves to avoid the problems these taxes will save us from are doing "right" now. Are they better off than we who have at least lower fuel costs? Come on say it, they are not better off and it isn't easier on them even if they have paid higher fuel taxes for years. :confuse:
As they say, the proof is in the pudding, higher taxes haven't solved the problems of this economy in Europe and the darn sure will not help here. Unless it is because misery loves company. :P
what will happen when Barrel prices shoots against past the 150$ ?
We will be less impacted than countries that are burdened with horrible Fuel Taxes. Again what are you getting for the gas tax they extort from you?
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Because taxes are such a high percentage of their total gas costs, when the cost of the raw oil triples, their total cost might go up by 50%. Because tax is such a small portion of our total cost, when the raw oil triples in price our total cost will go up by a factor of 3 or more.
And with all the bailing out we are doing, the value of the dollar is going down down down again. Be prepared for $3 gas to return this year unless other governments copy the U.S., causing their currencies to decline relative to the dollar. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Because taxes are such a high percentage of their total gas costs, when the cost of the raw oil triples, their total cost might go up by 50%. Because tax is such a small portion of our total cost, when the raw oil triples in price our total cost will go up by a factor of 3 or more.
You have to be a politician to come up with that logic. At the end of filling your car the poor [non-permissible content removed] in the EU still is paying a lot more than we are. And not getting any more in return for his gas tax. I have seen pictures of the roads in the UK. Many you cannot even pass without pulling to the wrong side of the road. So I don't see where anyone but the queen and her children are making out with the extortion at the pump.
No one is going to budge. But I have never been part of a political action group before and this one issue could push me over. We recalled Grey Davis because he wanted to tax the people and maybe we will have to recall a few no responsive people in the future. Any of my representatives that decided to kick me and my friends and neighbors with a higher fuel tax during these hard economic times will see my name on any petition trying to get them recalled. I will vote for anyone that runs against them. And for the first time be willing to call to campaign against them. It is about time for a voter protest and the one way to a politicians heart is through re-election. Run them out of town and hope to never see them again.
It doesn't sound like the replacement governor has been cutting taxes either. Another flipflop? (link). Electioneering is one thing but actually trying to do the people's business isn't a walk in the park.
Even our conservative red state gov. tried to get gas taxes increased every year for the next five, warning of disasters looming with Idaho's bridges. (Forbes).
Over in Mass., the state's top transportation official is saying "the day of reckoning has come...the transportation system is broken and is going to cost billions to repair." Salem News
It doesn't sound like the replacement governor has been cutting taxes either. Another flipflop?
You referring to Benadick Arnold? He is a BIG disappointment. I should have guessed considering who he sleeps with. Any relative of the Kennedy's will by birth be a Ultra left wing elitist. Tax and spend "Other People's Money" Democrats. Yes they managed to up our gas tax with an increase of 1% of the sales tax that is added onto every gallon of gas at the pump. Some of the cities in San Diego County will have 9.75% sales tax as of April Fools day.
Even our conservative red state gov. tried to get gas taxes increased every year for the next five
Sounds like the Democrats in Idaho are more fiscally conservative than the Governor. Am I reading that vote wrong? I find there willingness to use the stimulus money instead of their own very Liberal in contrast to their voting. It looks to me like your legislature is filled with RINOs and DINOs.
Fifteen of 18 Democrats and 28 of 52 Republicans combined to defy the governor.
I am with Boaz on this excessive taxation and wasteful spending. There is a strong ground swell of a bipartisan nature to STOP the wasteful spending and over taxing the citizens. The Tea Party movement across the country has gained a lot of momentum. We shall see if our new President is interested in what the tax payers are saying. I got my tea bag all labeled to send on April First to Obama. The plan is, to send a tea bag to: Tea Party 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington DC 20500
Yeah, that's just typical "let's hammer the other party while pandering to our constituents while the roads fall apart" politics. Those same guys will turn around next week and get taken to lunch by the construction industry who will lobby them to fix the roads (and buy a few road graders in the process).
What happened with Schwarzenegger is what always happens - a lot of political bluster during the campaign followed by reality. It especially hits those pols hard who really don't have a clue about how government works in this country.
It's pretty funny that the tea protesters chose April Fool's Day to try to make a point.
>Last I researched it was about 15% spent as it should be
Yes, not all Gas tax is directly used for roads. but I believe some other tax (local tax among others) and national tax (income tax for instance) also contribute to road funding. Adding up all the ins and outs would roughly show balance between road income and expenses. This would need more supporting material though.
This is part of the problem though as gas cars cost more than road building and maintenance.
>Plus it would have cost more by bus/trolley than gas in the Lexus
That traffic jams were occuring much earlier than now does not contradict my view. In the contrary. MT was established very early (1900 for Paris, 1850 for London) There were horse drawn carsjams already. I guess we will have congestion with electric cars in 10/20 years from now and MT will still be an interesting alternative.
but cheap gas indeed creates some kind of unfair competition
>you like to drive fast and use more fossil fuel than if you drove conservatively
I need to travel about 10-15K miles a year, but I mitigated so that only a 1/3rd was done by car. The rest being done by a mix of bicycle, MT, trains and 70 mpg scooter. Even when driving quicker, I still use 50% less fuel. I think lowering the SL as a conservation measure is hypocritical indeed. (Forgot to add I avoid driving downtown where I can't do better than 15 mpg)
This loops back to this discussion's topic : expensive gas, whether Government driven or market driven, is a strong incentive to lower fuel consumption. With $7 a Gallon, I consider very carefully before taking the car. if USG was $2 I guess I would not be so considerate. Nobody's perfect.
>A major good reason not to rely on them for any kind of important transportation
I disagree with this. 1) If there is a strike, this is not MT's fault but the political power that allowed a situation with no competition. There are many other countries where MT are working reliably round the year, Japan being a prime example.
2) If I have an important meeting or schedule, I would rather take the train. Probability of delays are much lower than traffic jam occurence when driving.
>You have to pay so everyone else should have to pay.
Come on, it's not like my country is the only one in the world putting heavy tax on gas and the USA being middle in the pack in this respect. US are the only democratic country where gas is so cheap. This money is not going into my pocket but could help lower your budget deficit.
>And just what do you have in France to show for all that money wasted on gas tax?
Once again, gas tax is not a France's exclusivity. France is the country that invented communism (Proudhon, one century before Marx and Engles). That a good idea was sabotaged by heavy bureaucracy has more to do with internal politics.
>We have plenty of suppliers more than willing to sell at market price
Seems last year's spike just demonstrated the opposite. While I don't question the Afghanistan operations, I remain sceptical regarding the gulf wars. Some people say it's 100% down to oil, whereas some others say it's 0%... To cut further debates, I would say it was 50% motivated by oil and 50% by genuine (or mistaken?) safety concerns. Therefore 50% of the budget of the 2 wars should be covered by the gas tax. An increase is seriously overdue.
I won't comment further issues of the stimulus bill which is beyond the scope of this discussion. I would only say that if consumption is favored instead of investment, then it is a stimulus for the Chinese economy.
>We will be less impacted than countries that are burdened with horrible Fuel Taxes. (if Barrel goes pas $150)
I just don't get it. If Government increases gas tax, you claim it will ruin the country's economy, but otoh, you play down the consequences of an increase if it was market driven.
US exposure to oil prices is simply posing a threat that needs to be addressed. Previous governement mitigated that threat by asserting control over the source, but this has a limit.
>do you think that someone with less money then you enjoys driving their own car less than you do?
I am not sure about what to understand from this. I happen to think more people are earning more than I currently do.
>why should it be the 'other people' who are forced by high fuel tax to take 'alternate transports'?
Higher fuel tax can be worked around with fuel-efficient cars (that happen to be cheaper because smaller) or with other measures such as car pooling or journey combination or other methods. I did not intent to target a specific population or group of people. If I left you such a feeling, I apologize for this.
>If expensive gas is bad in the long run then it is bad in the short run
Actually, I was thinking that If expensive gas is good in the long run, then it could be good in the short run. US is a free and innovative country. I am sure there are many ways to work around higher gas prices.
What is bad is uncertainty around gas prices. Gas prices were divided by 2+ over a few months in the US, questioning many people's investment in a fuel saving car. Should expensive gas be a secure long term fact, it makes investment prospects much clearer.
> People say low fuel is what kept other from developing alternatives
Well, you have the proof everyday at edmunds. They always calculate the number of years necessary to recoup the investment of a fuel saving model over a traditional one. More often than not, the figure it so high that it makes no economic sense to go the "green" way. Every alternative investment is measured against traditional energy producing solutions. very often, the payback is too far remote for the latter solution to be reasonably considered.
>Are they better off than we who have at least lower fuel costs?
Fuel tax is not the only thing in a country's economy. It is very difficult to establish comparisons between different systems. I think Europe has a lot to learn from the US and US has still good ideas to take from Europe. For many reasons, Europe is doing slightly better than US right now. At the same time the crisis worsened, the gas prices dropped. It did not much infuence the course of the crisis AFAIK
> But to those that are working this me be a recession
I happen to think slow and expensive transports are a heavy burden to the economy, even more to the working class. Gasoline has hidden costs that have been debated over this forum, and that are not met by current prices imho. increasing the tax equates to transfer the cost to the gas consumer, which is healthier in my view. Healthy basis are necessary for an economy to restart
Sure, the most modest income will feel the pinch. This pinch is the result of a system where the automobile is the one and only way to survive. shouldn't we do something about that?
thank you for answering a couple of my questions. for me, it is ok if we do not always agree. sometimes it is just because we communicate differently. if i would try to reply to you in your native language, i would be very quiet. for transportation, you need to think about china or india, or maybe russia, not a bunch of small countries in europe for scale. we have large populations that live 3000 miles away from each other, not to ignore the midwest(mostly upper). national policy has a tough time handling that.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
MT was established very early (1900 for Paris, 1850 for London) There were horse drawn carsjams already. I guess we will have congestion with electric cars in 10/20 years from now and MT will still be an interesting alternative.
Mass transit was established and expanded in the USA long before it caught on in Europe. By the 1890s there was more electric trolleys in the USA than all the rest of the World combined. The suburbs were a result of Mass Transit via electric Trolley. By 1900 the USA had about 1% horse drawn MT and 1% Cable cars. The rest was all electric Trolley. I just happen to be reading a book on what created the suburbs in the US and MT is the reason. People did not have to live in the city where they worked. For a few pennies a day they could ride 10-15-20 or more miles on a trolley to work in the city. They had the best of both worlds. Cars did not pass up MT till much later. So you see the US is not behind in this MT business. They were there and people opted for personal transportation as it became available. Which brings US to electric vehicles. We need to upgrade our roads and bridges to handle the expanded traffic that will be seen when EVs do become mainstream. When people can drive a car for the equivalent 75 cents per gallon or less with plugging a car in at night. You will see some real traffic. If given the option most people would rather ride in the comfort of their own vehicle and not be jammed into some stinking form of MT.
I just don't get it. If Government increases gas tax, you claim it will ruin the country's economy, but otoh, you play down the consequences of an increase if it was market driven.
Quite simple oil is traded on the open World market. Most in US dollars for now. I do hope the powers put some sort of controls such as requiring traders to actually take possession of the oil they buy. That may curb some of the crazy speculation that we saw last year. Putting a higher tax does nothing to level out the price of gas. Even with the fuzzy math you use to show the price of gas in the EU is a smaller percentage when you have exorbitant taxes. We have a choice in this country, sort of. We vote against legislators that want more tax for less services rendered. At least the smart ones do.
is 53 years old. It had an expected lifespan of 40 years when it was built. For a decade we have been ignoring the requirement to replace all the expired parts, and from bridges in Minnesota to Volkswagen-swallowing potholes in California the price we are paying is getting clearer all the time. Do we really want to let our roads decline to third-world conditions because of a paltry $0.30 per gallon of gasoline?
You can mistrust the politicians all you want, but there is no-one ELSE that is going to get those roads repaired and repaved, unless some of the folks posting here plan to do it? Perhaps a groundswell of grassroots road-paving campaigns paid for by personal funds?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My mom and grandmother rode the streetcar from our home in Highland Park to the sewing factory in downtown Los Angeles when I was a baby in the early 1940s. They were always full. Times are different now. The EU finally caught up and think MT is the best way to get around. Most of the 250 million US car owners would disagree. For most Americans MT is very inconvenient. I will give you some examples of why. In the 1940s a lot in a city was 50'X100' or smaller. That means a lot more homes per block. The concentration of people even in the suburbs was much higher, making MT more practical. In much of San Diego county there is a one acre minimum lot size. That diminishes your population density, making MT nearly useless. The closest bus stop to my home now is 2.8 miles and it runs 4 times per day. It takes me 20 minutes to get 13 miles to Costco which is by Home Depot, Lowes etc. Riding the bus after parking and waiting for the bus would be an all day process. Plus hauling as much stuff as we get on our trip there less than once per week would be impossible on the bus to trolley to bus.
Is taking MT cheaper than owning a car. You bet it is. Because the automobile drivers are subsidizing the MT riders. MT was private in most cities a hundred years ago and made the owners wealthy. Today it is a HUGE drain on the city and county budgets. I would vote to raise the MT rates long before gas taxes be increased. Why should the MT riders get cheap transportation?
Those potholes that nippon mentioned do exist. They would be fixed if we did not waste so much on empty buses and trolleys running around San Diego county. The guy that built the MT system in Chicago told the stock holders when they wanted to add more Streetcars. Those people standing in the car hanging onto the strap in the aisle are making you big profits. It is time that Mass Transit paid for itself. Get government out of what used to be legitimate business.
>They were there and people opted for personal transportation as it became available
This happened also in France, where tramways (be steam or electric) were covering 50 cities. The development of automobile (and bus) wiped them out until 1980 when only 2 cities were left with aging tramways. I would agree that US was more advanced in this pattern. However, in the 80s and 90s, this trend was reversed and many urban councils pushed for the building of new tramway lines. Today 11 (+18 projected) French cities are equipped with totally new lines, which rolling stock has little to do with their ancestors. Silent motors, quick acceleration, easy access for wheelchair...
The drive behind such a development is that people were fed up with jams, noise, pollution and expensive gas/parking. Cars haven't disappeared mind you, but their pressure on city centers is lighter.
>If given the option most people would rather ride in the comfort of their own vehicle and not be jammed into some stinking form of MT
Maybe giving the option would yield interesting results. I am pretty pro-choice in this respect. I hope you will accept that the idea of comfort varies from one person's priorities to another's. MT is not necessarily stinking. Please don't look down upon the ridership of this transportation form.
>That may curb some of the crazy speculation that we saw last year.
So the big bad traders are fully responsible for last year's flare, but have nothing to do with the subsequent price drop? Maybe they suddenly stopped trading this commodity last fall, right ? We couldn't imagine one second that world (and US) gas consumption would play a role could we ?
Then we should forbid any trade for this commodity and just allow hedgers to purchase, shouldn't we? Looks like those dammed socialists had some ideas you may adhere to.
Comments
There are many good and many bad ideas and laws around the world and this nation. And what is good or bad might depend on what your objectives are. For example someone sees mass-transit as good if they believe people should live in congested urban area, and sacrifice individual schedules and comfort for the least affect on the environment. Others see mass transit as bad since they've been working to escape that urban lifestyle.
IMO this country stands for the pursuit of individual freedom and happiness. We allow everyone to decide for themselves whether they want to live in NYC without a car, or whether they want to live on a farm in Iowa, or switch every few years. The government was never intended to push people one way or the other. That is why I am against subsidies or tax penalties to push people 1 way or the other.
The government should collect taxes for a service they provide; that's it.
Demonstrations are planned in about 200 towns and cities. Many schools are closed and public transport disrupted.
The national rail operator, SNCF, cancelled 40% of high-speed trains and half of regional services.
A third of flights out of Paris's Orly airport have been cancelled, while a tenth of France's electricity output has been shut down with workers on strike.
Many commuters on Thursday said they backed the action, but hoped it would be short-lived.
"Fundamentally I agree, but too much is too much," one was quoted as saying. "There are strikes in the transport sector too often and we have to put up with them."
Union demands
Increase minimum wage
Reverse 50% cap on income tax
Suspend public sector job cuts
Measures to protect employment
I'm certainly glad I don't live in a country where everyone is in a union, and the government directs you like sheep, on relying on them.
I really appreciate the indepence we are offered by the automobile. And I think that everyone should have this opportunity, not being economically squeezed out of driving, by artificially high taxes - whether it be registrations, tolls or gas taxes.
The reason I went to college and get up everyday and go to work, is to be able to live the lifestyle I want, not the lifestyle someone in government may think is "good for us a whole". I live in a house on a large plot of land on the outskirts of a small city, and enjoy the freedom of having a vehicle that takes me from door-to-door how, when, and where I want to go.
Since most people who have a choice of owning an automobile (money, reasonable price parking available at home and at work), do own one, then it seems pretty clear what most people prefer.
Here's what Gordon Brown says about gas taxes in the states:
Increasing the gas tax makes sense (Denver Post)
Do we in the USA need to consider something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator
(excerpt)
The Fuel Price Escalator (FPE) was the practice of automatically increasing hydrocarbon oil duty (better known as 'fuel tax') in the United Kingdom ahead of inflation. The escalator was introduced as a measure to stem the increase in pollution from road transport and cut the need for new road building which was then a politically sensitive topic. The escalator also resulted in significant increases in revenue for The Treasury.
The fuel price escalator was introduced by the Conservative government in 1993 and set at an annual increase of 3% ahead of inflation, later rising to 5%. After gaining power in 1997, the rate of increase was raised by the Labour government to 6% per year. The last rise due to the escalator took place following the budget on 9 March 1999 [1].
The end to the escalator was announced on 9 November 2000, following the UK fuel protests, of which it was a contributory factor. When the escalator ended, fuel in the UK was the most expensive in Europe, with fuel tax representing over 75% of the retail price of fuel. In 1993 UK fuel had been amongst the cheapest in Europe.
What works in Europe doesn't work here more often than not. How many times has the great salvation to the automotive world come from Europe only to fall on its bumper in the US? We have more room and more roads than any other nation in the world.
I am sorry about not wanting to hear from someone that isn't subject to our taxes about how good taxes would be for us. But I was always taught that it was bad form for people not affected by a action to suggest how the people affected by such actions should react. Men don't have a right to tell women how to deal with menstrual cramps. And someone not subject to American taxes have little credibility on how those taxes would affect Americans. They may be perfectly qualified to tell us how taxes have affected them but not how they will affect us. But I see I have drifted off topic.
New additional fuel taxes will have a direct affect on American families. Can't be a debate on that issue. It will have a side affect on all products transported to stores and purchased by Americans. The economy hasn't recovered to a point where people can afford additional short falls to their income. We are going to have to pay for the stimulus packages somewhere in the future and it will require more taxes. Everyone realizes that. So a fuel tax will only be the beginning and that can't be a good thing because it will never go away.
This is more than simple hypothetical opinion to me it is a conviction that I am more than willing to take to the polls with me when I vote.
I think you are confusing an outsider's perspective with "demands." My GP is a woman and she takes care of my plumbing fine (I bet male OB-GYN's still outnumber female ones too). I say bring on the comments from all corners.
But thanks for bringing us back the topic.
Alan Greenspan suggested a federal tax of $3.00 per gallon in his recent book. In Europe they have been paying much more for decades. He also stated that Iraq was about the oil, as we all know.
And here's the thing, no-one who is against raising fuel costs will admit that the entire cost of the war must be included in the hundreds of hidden costs that are associated with being so dependent on foreign oil, and on oil in general.
Americans are very very bad at making and executing long-term plans. We WILL be the society that, like the proverbial frog, will boil to death because we took no action when the water's temperature was gradually rising. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree that gas taxes should go up with inflation. But now consider that your state says the inflation since 1991 has been 327%! 327%! - I'll say again. There's something wrong there. Maybe the only thing that has gone up 327% in 18 years is health care.
NH is adjusting their gas tax similarly for inflation, with no increase since about 91-92. We're adding $0.05/gal for each of the next 3 years. $0.15 total. Colorado must be using golden snow-plows? which they shouldn't need with all the GW? :P
Thanks,
Chintan
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
And the same with Afghanistan and the cost of that war? That's about oil too huh? The fact is the only war that you can say really was about protecting the majority of the Middle east oil was the 90-91 Desert Storm war. That was a war that threatened Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and everyone else in the area. Maybe 25MM bbd of oil in jeopardy. That war was fought to prevent 1 maniacal dictator from getting that supply, and using the revenues to further build a military machine with WMD.
The war fought in Iraq since '02 was not about protecting all of OPEC. Iraq may have a lot of oil, but it does not produce much 2-3MM bbd? If Iraq suddenly stopped producing oil as it did when we first invaded and throughout 2002-03 - no big deal.
The war in Iraq is due partly to finish the first incomplete war (blame the UN for stopping the resolution), and partly due to bad information on WMD and harboring terrorists.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Drifting again are we? Whenever I question Afganistan I simply put in the tape I made of September 11th. The people responsible for that were there when we decided that attack was uncalled for.
So if I have this straight, jobs are being lost? The working class is getting their wages frozen or even cut back so businesses can stay open? The only ones getting any money are the ones that lost the money in the first place. The people that gambled in the stock market want the working class to bail them out because they don't think they should suffer the risk they took now that it failed. Funny I don't remember them sharing the profits with us but we should share the loss with them?
The government is even willing to give the people that got us in this mess trillions of dollars rather than have them take responsibility for what they have done and the solution to all of this is raise the tax on the fuel the working class needs to get to work? Is that is in a nut shell? Is there something I am missing here? we are planning on a better future by destroying the present?
Let me ask again, how will that help today? The school district where I used to live announced they will be laying off 265 teachers this year. Please tell me how raising their fuel taxes will assist them? How will it assist the country? How will it be good for America? The orange county transit authority will be cutting runs do to budget cuts, some of their customers will now have to drive how will higher fuel taxes help them? Lets be absolutely honest. Who will higher fuel taxes Help?
No, you don't understand. The oil-supply will not be disrupted no matter who controls the oil. Even if Iran controls the oil - it will flow to us. Even if Saddam Hussein were alive and controlled the oil; say Desert Storm never happened and Hussein controlled the whole Middle East. The OIL HAS TO FLOW to have any value.
The problem the U.S. had was letting Hussein have the REVENUE of the oil year after year, and to grow his own empire. That would have led to faster development of WMD, and a serious war with Israel, which against an Iraq that kept getting stronger and stronger, would have involved Israel using nuclear weapons against much of the Iraqi controlled Middle East. That was the problem.
It is a fallacy to think that just because a country that really hates us - even publicly - like Iran, can stop selling its oil. None of those OPEC countries can stop selling their oil without inflicting more damage on themselves than on the West. The oil flows no matter who controls it.
It is good to see someone understands the big picture on oil. The issue of taxing it out of existence which is the goal of many environmentalist. Is totally unrealistic. We have built our economy on individual freedom to decide how we want to get around. To worry about oil running out for the near future is just crazy. We are developing viable alternatives to oil. Such as Algae diesel. I have faith if we do not tax our industry out of the country that they will come up with the answers. If left to our inept government we will have little to show for the money wasted. NO MORE TAXES ON OIL. I think the 25% tax we pay in CA is more than enough to gold plate our roads and bridges.
Many politicians and tree-huggers just not realistic in their goals to drastically reduce or eliminate our dependence on imported oil. They fail to realize that there are hundreds of manufactured products that need a component of petroleum that is extracted in the distilling/refinery processes. There is a one-hour documentary on this matter that has been shown on History or National Geographic channel (can't remember which one I saw it on).
You could add "poorer" in front of people in that statement.
It will also decrease the travel of poorer people, which can be viewed as a reduction in lifestyle. Less trips to the beach or parks. Or less discretionary money to take those trips or buy fun things, because the money is being spent on gas tax.
And when families and people get short on $, people get stressed - and stress generally leads to all other sorts of ills - family fights, alcoholism, depression, and crime.
While I agree with your 2nd paragraph, I do want to state that the government already has CAFE as the way to wean people from "gas guzzlers". Maybe you don't agree with the numbers or the implementation date in CAFE? But a gas tax is not needed for that reason, CAFE would see to it that the average mpg is raised.
Lots of stories in the news (out West anyway) about big oil buying up all the water rights they can get their hands on. Oil production takes a lot of water. Getting oil from shale takes a huge amount of water. Tar sand production takes even more water than getting oil from shale.
Peak Oil? Ha, try Peak Water.
Maybe a water-tax is needed to fund some pipelines from Alaska, for all those glaciers that are melting away from the GW? :P
this looks pretty much true
> From what I read London is not much better than it was 200 years ago,
Depends on view point. Could be said for any large car-clogged US city. I lived in London for some time and it was quite a good experience imho
>And you talk about trains... that antiquated system of transportation
HST generally go 3 times the speed of cars, use electricity and need XX time less energy per passenger than cars over the same mileage. Let us not forget there are much fewer train deaths than road deaths per million passengers.
If we call HST "antiquated", then calling cars "prehistoric" would be an understatement.
>If science comes up with a decent system...
Science needs brain, money and will. Seems at least 2 are missing.
> there is a ground swell against this latest pork bill stimulus package
I don't take position over this as I am not knowledgeable enough. I just stand by my initial view that if this amount is invested in long term projects, it will create long term and strong growth. If just burned as a gifts to population, This will just be like a straw fire and vanish as soon as it was given.
>They have for decades stolen gas tax money for other projects
Looks like many other tax were used to pay for roads. If we draw the balance, I strongly doubt that the current gas tax would ever cover road maintenance.
>As far as mass transit replacing cars. It just does not make sense when we are spread out
As soon as traffic jams come as a recurring issues, that means mass transit are needed. This is the only system able to bring many people in a short time frame, within a limited real estate use.
There are many place in the US where traffic jams regulary happen. More people in MT means fewer motorists arguing over road territory. Win/Win situation
Why would I? Most of the US founders, leaders and people have (sometimes fresh) roots in other countries. I think this is one of Americas's strength. Would you prefer US to close themselves like an oyster?
>all profit and wages along the way from that pipe to my tank gets taxed.
I meant direct tax. I estimate US Gas tax to be 1/3rd of European Gas tax, excluding indirect tax and social costs paid by all the companies in the loop.
Even if we added those to the mix, I suspect there would not be much change in the ranking.
Absolutely. This was in Europe and I paid about US$7 per Gallon. I polluted, I enriched gulf/russian democracies, i degraded the trade balance, but at least I paid the price for it. My consumption was around 20 mpg and I made 5000 miles this way. I estimate I paid about 5X250 = 1250 USD of tax.
>'do as i say, not as i do
I claim for higher gas tax, alternative transports and less stringent speed limits. Please don't hesitate to underline where you believe I am inconsistent
I make a very clear distinction between rail infrastructures and the way to use them.
France is a country where most trains are regretfully in the hands of heavily unionized public servants. Even the best tools in bad hands can become a nightmare.
If infrastructures are to be built and managed by the State, operators should be private and in a competition situation, which is not the case in France.
We should not throw the bath while the baby's still in it.
> I really appreciate the indepence we are offered by the automobile. And I think that everyone should have this opportunity,
I share your view, provided that everyone pays the real price that is attached to using a gas-burning car. If the real price is not paid, then gas prices are subsidized, which means other non gas burning activities are footing the bill.
I do not intent to withdraw the right for anyone to own and use a car. Many mass transit commuters in Europe have a car, but chose what is the most convenient way for them.
I am very bound to the idea of freedom, and I came to the conclusion that there is no freedom if there is no choice.
That is the problem of a country where growth was artificially fed by virtual or speculative profits. This fragile bubble just burst when it became too big.
The working class is paying the absence of long term project investment that could bring decades of genuine growth.
>and the solution to all of this is raise the tax on the fuel the working class needs to get to work?
Why is the working class so exposed to gas prices ? Simply because years of cheap gas made them dependant. If serious measures are not take to lower this exposure, what will happen when Barrel prices shoots against past the 150$ ?
and at $200, even with zero tax, it still will be too expensive then.
We should act now, to establish expensive gas as a long term fact. Lower US dependancy will be good for the country, especially when the crisis is over and that Russia, China and India will burn fuel like hell.
>The school district where I used to live announced they will be laying off 265 teachers this year. Please tell me how raising their fuel taxes will assist them?
Raising or lowering gas tax now won't change their situation much. I think Education is a strategic service that should be guaranteed by the state.
Fore sure it will be painful to do it now. But it is painful because it wasn't done any earlier.
>Who will higher fuel taxes Help ?
Nobody in the short term. Everybody in the long term. it depends on how the funds will be used.
True, we have wasted billions on alternatives with little to show for it. When you give the money to politicians you do not get much back in the way of solid results.
I strongly doubt that the current gas tax would ever cover road maintenance.
That is just not true. Last I researched it was about 15% spent as it should be of the billions in gas taxes. Money spent on MT is not the same as road maintenance.
As soon as traffic jams come as a recurring issues, that means mass transit are needed. This is the only system able to bring many people in a short time frame, within a limited real estate use.
We have had traffic jams since I was a kid in the 1950s. I left San Diego for Alaska in 1970 because it was too crowded where I lived 20 miles from San Diego. Now I live 32 miles from the Zoo and it is still too crowded. However we did go to the zoo about 9:30 AM and it took about 40 minutes from the house. I would be lucky to get there in 3 hours by bus and trolley. I would still have to drive and leave my car somewhere all day. My time in retirement is much more valuable to me than that. Plus it would have cost more by bus/trolley than gas in the Lexus. So I see NO advantage and all disadvantages.
I meant direct tax. I estimate US Gas tax to be 1/3rd of European Gas tax, excluding indirect tax and social costs paid by all the companies in the loop.
That just sounds like sour grapes to me. You have to pay so everyone else should have to pay. Makes absolutely no good sense to give the government that kind of money. And just what do you have in France to show for all that money wasted on gas tax?
Please don't hesitate to underline where you believe I am inconsistent
You say the USA should conserve and yet you do not practice conservation. By your own admission you like to drive fast and use more fossil fuel than if you drove conservatively. That sounds hypocritical to someone that does try to limit driving fast to get a bit better mileage. Though most of my Interstate routes are posted 70 and that is the slow lanes.
France is a country where most trains are regretfully in the hands of heavily unionized public servants.
We have the same problem in our major cities. The subways in NYC were shut down for strikes not long ago. A major good reason not to rely on them for any kind of important transportation. I don't think our civil servants have gone quite as crazy as France, though close. And there is a real rah rah Union attitude from some quarters here.
If the real price is not paid, then gas prices are subsidized, which means other non gas burning activities are footing the bill.
I know many here would like to equate the price of gas to the cost of military conflicts such as Iraq. That just does not fly. We were not getting any oil from Iraq or Iran at the time of either Gulf war. We have plenty of suppliers more than willing to sell at market price. That price should be stabilized at closer to $65 per barrel. That is out of our control. What is in our control is to vote out any legislator that raises our gas tax. If you follow our news you will see a real ground swell against the current ignorance with the Pork Stimulus bill. I am sending my Tea Bag to the President on April 1st along with a lot of other people upset with the waste in our government. And it is not military waste. That is the main reason we have a Federal government. It has gone completely out of its Constitutional boundaries in more ways than can be addressed. Gas tax is just one of many infractions.
what will happen when Barrel prices shoots against past the 150$ ?
We will be less impacted than countries that are burdened with horrible Fuel Taxes. Again what are you getting for the gas tax they extort from you?
The USA has more than enough taxes to do all that needs to be done. It just needs to rein in worthless programs that only benefit the very wealthy and the very poor. They are squeezing the life blood out of the middle class.
Nobody in the short term. Everybody in the long term. it depends on how the funds will be used.
I would say, Nobody in the short or long term. And we know where it will go. To push socialist ideals down the throats of the tax paying citizens of the USA. Maybe a Bullet train to nowhere, like the proposed LA to LV boondoggle. Why should CA subsidize Las Vegas casinos. CA has the most Indian casinos in the USA. It would be taking food out of their mouths pushing more people to LV.
Any raising of taxes, as Benadick Arnold is doing in CA the 1st of April, is counter productive. Especially in a recession. The city, county, state & Federal Governments need to cut costs just like the people are doing. Not bury them in higher sales tax or gas tax.
We do not want to be like other countries. There are NO good examples you can give me of a country that opens its borders as we have and is still staying afloat. I sometimes wonder how or for how long.
The last strike was in '05 and lasted two days. The president of the local was sentenced to ten days in jail and the union was fined 2.5 million dollars. There were two other strikes in '66 and '80 (both lasting about 12 days, leading to no strike legislation that resulted in the jail sentence and fines in '05). (Wikipedia).
Maybe inflation hit since your last gas tax research? Gas taxes, already high, aren’t covering road maintenance costs (Medill reports).
or is not worthy of having one?
why should it be the 'other people' who are forced by high fuel tax to take 'alternate transports'?
Some day children's breakfast cereal may cost 10 bucks a box. But if the parent making 25 bucks and hour today has to pay ten bucks it will hurt a lot more than if that same parent is making 40 bucks an hour in the future when the price gets that high. But this is all a smoke screen. They is no provision for any fuel tax to go to inducing or helping pay for more fuel efficient cars. Never has been never will be. Not a consideration and not in any new plans. So that concept is all smoke.
So what it is in reality is an attempt to punish people because some minority "believes" low prices are somehow unfair or destructive. Where is the study proving this? Shouldn't we have a plan to fund with the taxes "before" we collect the taxes for a plan we don't have? And in our form of government should the people be presented with this plan before they are asked to participate in it? That is how things are supposed to work and it has never been, "trust us we know what is best." People say low fuel is what kept other from developing alternatives, show you proof, like in school when you had to show your work during a test.
Whatever people do just waving their hand and declaring that drinking the Koolaid of higher taxes is good for you have no concept of how bad the economy is right now. It is easy to say, suck it up and take it like a man when you aren't involved. But to those that are working this me be a recession. To those who aren't this is a depression. And tell us how the countries that taxed themselves to avoid the problems these taxes will save us from are doing "right" now. Are they better off than we who have at least lower fuel costs? Come on say it, they are not better off and it isn't easier on them even if they have paid higher fuel taxes for years. :confuse:
As they say, the proof is in the pudding, higher taxes haven't solved the problems of this economy in Europe and the darn sure will not help here. Unless it is because misery loves company. :P
We will be less impacted than countries that are burdened with horrible Fuel Taxes. Again what are you getting for the gas tax they extort from you?
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Because taxes are such a high percentage of their total gas costs, when the cost of the raw oil triples, their total cost might go up by 50%. Because tax is such a small portion of our total cost, when the raw oil triples in price our total cost will go up by a factor of 3 or more.
And with all the bailing out we are doing, the value of the dollar is going down down down again. Be prepared for $3 gas to return this year unless other governments copy the U.S., causing their currencies to decline relative to the dollar. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You have to be a politician to come up with that logic. At the end of filling your car the poor [non-permissible content removed] in the EU still is paying a lot more than we are. And not getting any more in return for his gas tax. I have seen pictures of the roads in the UK. Many you cannot even pass without pulling to the wrong side of the road. So I don't see where anyone but the queen and her children are making out with the extortion at the pump.
Social services to support suicidal immigration policies probably loot a lot of gas tax money too.
Even our conservative red state gov. tried to get gas taxes increased every year for the next five, warning of disasters looming with Idaho's bridges. (Forbes).
Over in Mass., the state's top transportation official is saying "the day of reckoning has come...the transportation system is broken and is going to cost billions to repair." Salem News
Mileage tax gains some speed in Washington (DC, not the state - Richmond Times-Dispatch).
Oregon is trying for a .02 increase in gas taxes. (Fox 12 Oregon).
You referring to Benadick Arnold? He is a BIG disappointment. I should have guessed considering who he sleeps with. Any relative of the Kennedy's will by birth be a Ultra left wing elitist. Tax and spend "Other People's Money" Democrats. Yes they managed to up our gas tax with an increase of 1% of the sales tax that is added onto every gallon of gas at the pump. Some of the cities in San Diego County will have 9.75% sales tax as of April Fools day.
Even our conservative red state gov. tried to get gas taxes increased every year for the next five
Sounds like the Democrats in Idaho are more fiscally conservative than the Governor. Am I reading that vote wrong? I find there willingness to use the stimulus money instead of their own very Liberal in contrast to their voting. It looks to me like your legislature is filled with RINOs and DINOs.
Fifteen of 18 Democrats and 28 of 52 Republicans combined to defy the governor.
I am with Boaz on this excessive taxation and wasteful spending. There is a strong ground swell of a bipartisan nature to STOP the wasteful spending and over taxing the citizens. The Tea Party movement across the country has gained a lot of momentum. We shall see if our new President is interested in what the tax payers are saying.
I got my tea bag all labeled to send on April First to Obama.
The plan is, to send a tea bag to:
Tea Party
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington DC 20500
Yeah, that's just typical "let's hammer the other party while pandering to our constituents while the roads fall apart" politics. Those same guys will turn around next week and get taken to lunch by the construction industry who will lobby them to fix the roads (and buy a few road graders in the process).
What happened with Schwarzenegger is what always happens - a lot of political bluster during the campaign followed by reality. It especially hits those pols hard who really don't have a clue about how government works in this country.
It's pretty funny that the tea protesters chose April Fool's Day to try to make a point.
Yes, not all Gas tax is directly used for roads. but I believe some other tax (local tax among others) and national tax (income tax for instance) also contribute to road funding. Adding up all the ins and outs would roughly show balance between road income and expenses. This would need more supporting material though.
This is part of the problem though as gas cars cost more than road building and maintenance.
>Plus it would have cost more by bus/trolley than gas in the Lexus
That traffic jams were occuring much earlier than now does not contradict my view. In the contrary. MT was established very early (1900 for Paris, 1850 for London) There were horse drawn carsjams already. I guess we will have congestion with electric cars in 10/20 years from now and MT will still be an interesting alternative.
but cheap gas indeed creates some kind of unfair competition
>you like to drive fast and use more fossil fuel than if you drove conservatively
I need to travel about 10-15K miles a year, but I mitigated so that only a 1/3rd was done by car. The rest being done by a mix of bicycle, MT, trains and 70 mpg scooter. Even when driving quicker, I still use 50% less fuel. I think lowering the SL as a conservation measure is hypocritical indeed.
(Forgot to add I avoid driving downtown where I can't do better than 15 mpg)
This loops back to this discussion's topic : expensive gas, whether Government driven or market driven, is a strong incentive to lower fuel consumption.
With $7 a Gallon, I consider very carefully before taking the car. if USG was $2 I guess I would not be so considerate. Nobody's perfect.
>A major good reason not to rely on them for any kind of important transportation
I disagree with this.
1) If there is a strike, this is not MT's fault but the political power that allowed a situation with no competition. There are many other countries where MT are working reliably round the year, Japan being a prime example.
2) If I have an important meeting or schedule, I would rather take the train. Probability of delays are much lower than traffic jam occurence when driving.
>You have to pay so everyone else should have to pay.
Come on, it's not like my country is the only one in the world putting heavy tax on gas and the USA being middle in the pack in this respect. US are the only democratic country where gas is so cheap.
This money is not going into my pocket but could help lower your budget deficit.
>And just what do you have in France to show for all that money wasted on gas tax?
Once again, gas tax is not a France's exclusivity. France is the country that invented communism (Proudhon, one century before Marx and Engles). That a good idea was sabotaged by heavy bureaucracy has more to do with internal politics.
>We have plenty of suppliers more than willing to sell at market price
Seems last year's spike just demonstrated the opposite.
While I don't question the Afghanistan operations, I remain sceptical regarding the gulf wars. Some people say it's 100% down to oil, whereas some others say it's 0%... To cut further debates, I would say it was 50% motivated by oil and 50% by genuine (or mistaken?) safety concerns.
Therefore 50% of the budget of the 2 wars should be covered by the gas tax. An increase is seriously overdue.
I won't comment further issues of the stimulus bill which is beyond the scope of this discussion. I would only say that if consumption is favored instead of investment, then it is a stimulus for the Chinese economy.
>We will be less impacted than countries that are burdened with horrible Fuel Taxes. (if Barrel goes pas $150)
I just don't get it. If Government increases gas tax, you claim it will ruin the country's economy, but otoh, you play down the consequences of an increase if it was market driven.
US exposure to oil prices is simply posing a threat that needs to be addressed.
Previous governement mitigated that threat by asserting control over the source, but this has a limit.
I am not sure about what to understand from this. I happen to think more people are earning more than I currently do.
>why should it be the 'other people' who are forced by high fuel tax to take 'alternate transports'?
Higher fuel tax can be worked around with fuel-efficient cars (that happen to be cheaper because smaller) or with other measures such as car pooling or journey combination or other methods.
I did not intent to target a specific population or group of people. If I left you such a feeling, I apologize for this.
Actually, I was thinking that If expensive gas is good in the long run, then it could be good in the short run.
US is a free and innovative country. I am sure there are many ways to work around higher gas prices.
What is bad is uncertainty around gas prices. Gas prices were divided by 2+ over a few months in the US, questioning many people's investment in a fuel saving car.
Should expensive gas be a secure long term fact, it makes investment prospects much clearer.
> People say low fuel is what kept other from developing alternatives
Well, you have the proof everyday at edmunds. They always calculate the number of years necessary to recoup the investment of a fuel saving model over a traditional one. More often than not, the figure it so high that it makes no economic sense to go the "green" way.
Every alternative investment is measured against traditional energy producing solutions. very often, the payback is too far remote for the latter solution to be reasonably considered.
>Are they better off than we who have at least lower fuel costs?
Fuel tax is not the only thing in a country's economy. It is very difficult to establish comparisons between different systems. I think Europe has a lot to learn from the US and US has still good ideas to take from Europe. For many reasons, Europe is doing slightly better than US right now. At the same time the crisis worsened, the gas prices dropped. It did not much infuence the course of the crisis AFAIK
> But to those that are working this me be a recession
I happen to think slow and expensive transports are a heavy burden to the economy, even more to the working class. Gasoline has hidden costs that have been debated over this forum, and that are not met by current prices imho. increasing the tax equates to transfer the cost to the gas consumer, which is healthier in my view. Healthy basis are necessary for an economy to restart
Sure, the most modest income will feel the pinch. This pinch is the result of a system where the automobile is the one and only way to survive. shouldn't we do something about that?
for me, it is ok if we do not always agree.
sometimes it is just because we communicate differently.
if i would try to reply to you in your native language, i would be very quiet.
for transportation, you need to think about china or india, or maybe russia, not a bunch of small countries in europe for scale.
we have large populations that live 3000 miles away from each other, not to ignore the midwest(mostly upper). national policy has a tough time handling that.
Mass transit was established and expanded in the USA long before it caught on in Europe. By the 1890s there was more electric trolleys in the USA than all the rest of the World combined. The suburbs were a result of Mass Transit via electric Trolley. By 1900 the USA had about 1% horse drawn MT and 1% Cable cars. The rest was all electric Trolley. I just happen to be reading a book on what created the suburbs in the US and MT is the reason. People did not have to live in the city where they worked. For a few pennies a day they could ride 10-15-20 or more miles on a trolley to work in the city. They had the best of both worlds. Cars did not pass up MT till much later. So you see the US is not behind in this MT business. They were there and people opted for personal transportation as it became available. Which brings US to electric vehicles. We need to upgrade our roads and bridges to handle the expanded traffic that will be seen when EVs do become mainstream. When people can drive a car for the equivalent 75 cents per gallon or less with plugging a car in at night. You will see some real traffic. If given the option most people would rather ride in the comfort of their own vehicle and not be jammed into some stinking form of MT.
I just don't get it. If Government increases gas tax, you claim it will ruin the country's economy, but otoh, you play down the consequences of an increase if it was market driven.
Quite simple oil is traded on the open World market. Most in US dollars for now. I do hope the powers put some sort of controls such as requiring traders to actually take possession of the oil they buy. That may curb some of the crazy speculation that we saw last year. Putting a higher tax does nothing to level out the price of gas. Even with the fuzzy math you use to show the price of gas in the EU is a smaller percentage when you have exorbitant taxes. We have a choice in this country, sort of. We vote against legislators that want more tax for less services rendered. At least the smart ones do.
You can mistrust the politicians all you want, but there is no-one ELSE that is going to get those roads repaired and repaved, unless some of the folks posting here plan to do it? Perhaps a groundswell of grassroots road-paving campaigns paid for by personal funds?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My father rode electric MT in Seattle in 1906 to get downtown and sell his papers.
Both he & my grandmother referred to the electric units as "Streetcars".
Today Seattle has a South Lake Union Trolley, but who wants to ride the SLUT?
Is taking MT cheaper than owning a car. You bet it is. Because the automobile drivers are subsidizing the MT riders. MT was private in most cities a hundred years ago and made the owners wealthy. Today it is a HUGE drain on the city and county budgets. I would vote to raise the MT rates long before gas taxes be increased. Why should the MT riders get cheap transportation?
Those potholes that nippon mentioned do exist. They would be fixed if we did not waste so much on empty buses and trolleys running around San Diego county. The guy that built the MT system in Chicago told the stock holders when they wanted to add more Streetcars. Those people standing in the car hanging onto the strap in the aisle are making you big profits. It is time that Mass Transit paid for itself. Get government out of what used to be legitimate business.
Read my lips! "NO MORE TAXES" :sick:
This happened also in France, where tramways (be steam or electric) were covering 50 cities. The development of automobile (and bus) wiped them out until 1980 when only 2 cities were left with aging tramways. I would agree that US was more advanced in this pattern. However, in the 80s and 90s, this trend was reversed and many urban councils pushed for the building of new tramway lines. Today 11 (+18 projected) French cities are equipped with totally new lines, which rolling stock has little to do with their ancestors. Silent motors, quick acceleration, easy access for wheelchair...
The drive behind such a development is that people were fed up with jams, noise, pollution and expensive gas/parking. Cars haven't disappeared mind you, but their pressure on city centers is lighter.
>If given the option most people would rather ride in the comfort of their own vehicle and not be jammed into some stinking form of MT
Maybe giving the option would yield interesting results. I am pretty pro-choice in this respect. I hope you will accept that the idea of comfort varies from one person's priorities to another's.
MT is not necessarily stinking. Please don't look down upon the ridership of this transportation form.
>That may curb some of the crazy speculation that we saw last year.
So the big bad traders are fully responsible for last year's flare, but have nothing to do with the subsequent price drop? Maybe they suddenly stopped trading this commodity last fall, right ? We couldn't imagine one second that world (and US) gas consumption would play a role could we ?
Then we should forbid any trade for this commodity and just allow hedgers to purchase, shouldn't we? Looks like those dammed socialists had some ideas you may adhere to.