>You have to be a politician to come up with that logic.
I just can't believe my eyes, Gary. This was a real politician's answer. What Nippon elaborated was basic math to my eyes.
>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.
Because Gas in US is sold at a same price than other countries which subsidize it. You may not pay the price at the pump but the price is payed eslewhere (crappy roads, total dependence, oil wars, bankrupted detroit, jams, pollution, enriched oil dictatorships...) Many other countries made different choices.
I feel sympathy for the inprisoned US motorist. Oil is cheap but he is condemmed to take this drug for the remainder of his life. This gives me the creeps...
You may not pay the price at the pump but the price is payed eslewhere (crappy roads, total dependence, oil wars, bankrupted detroit, jams, pollution, enriched oil dictatorships...) Many other countries made different choices.
I don't think there are many here in the U.S. who would really want to live in Europe. I'd move to Australia or S. America before ever considering living in the coddling welfare states of Europe.
Before we start getting too critical of how things are priced in the US and how thins are done in the US, let's ask about this article and child labor in India. Can vchiu tell us more about labor practices? Better than taxing other countries maybe India needs to tax their labor checking inspectors to do better work:
"It isn't only in the garment industry. In India, an estimated 55 million children work in various conditions of servitude, many as bonded laborers-virtual slaves-under the most appalling conditions. Each child has his or her own story. A few months after his rescue from forced labor, Devanandan told a reporter that he had been coaxed to leave home by a promise of wages up to $100 a month for working at a loom two hours a day while going to school. When he agreed, he found himself locked up in a room where he ate, slept, and was forced to work knotting carpets from four in the morning till late evening for pennies in pay. "Former Indian Chief Justice P. M. Bhagwati has publicly testified to observing examples of boys working fourteen to twenty hours a day: "They are beaten up, branded [with red-hot iron rods] and even hung from trees upside down." The carpet industry in India exports $300 million worth of carpets a year, mainly to the United States and Germany. The carpets are produced by more than 300,000 child laborers working fourteen to sixteen hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year. Many are bonded laborers, paying off the debts of their parents; they have been sold into bondage or kidnapped from low-caste parents. The fortunate ones earn a pittance wage. The unfortunate ones are paid nothing at all. The carpet manufacturers argue that the industry must have child laborers to be able to survive in competition with the carpet industries of Pakistan, Nepal, Morocco, and elsewhere that also use child laborers."
Many are bonded laborers, paying off the debts of their parents; they have been sold into bondage or kidnapped from low-caste parents.
Sounds like Rocky's description of the work load carried by the UAW workers. :P
There are a lot of injustices in the world. The article made me think about all those "Persian" rugs dealers that travel from city to city. I would hate to think I was a part of that by buying them. They were advertising a big sale on those carpets. Selling for 5 cents on the dollar. Makes you wonder just how cheap they get them made with slave labor. Very sad, and makes me thankful to live in a country where you are free to work where you like. I would imagine they would say those jobs are better than begging on the streets of Calcutta.
Read my lips - what are you doing, trying to guarantee a tax increase? :P
How about a different kind of gas tax?
"The Obama administration's push to raise taxes on the oil industry is reigniting a battle the industry fought and won last year.
Under pressure to narrow projected deficits, President Barack Obama's 2010 budget proposal calls for raising more than $31 billion over the next decade by eliminating the oil and gas industry's eligibility for various tax breaks."
EVERY TAX ends up being paid ultimately by the consumer. Looks like the budget will take away the tax break for middle class tax payers. I can guarantee that measly $400 a year will end up costing US all a lot more in utilities and essential needs. CA raised our sales tax by 13% starting April 1st. Smart shoppers will use Amazon.com to do their buying. Many areas of CA will have 9.75% sales tax. Ahnold must think he is in Chicago politics with that kind of taxation.
Yes, I was being facetious with the Read my Lips comment. The people will not be happy till they are in complete subjection to the government. It reminds me of years back when someone researched the tax on a loaf of bread. Something over 100 different taxes. I am sure a big share of oil produced in the USA is taxed to the max already.
NEW YORK (AP) - Officials running the nation's largest mass transit system voted Wednesday to impose steep fare hikes and painful service cuts to close a $1.2 billion budget gap.
The base fare on city subways and buses will rise from $2 to $2.50, two subway lines and 35 bus routes will be eliminated entirely and service will be curtailed on other lines. Fares will rise on commuter rail lines, and bridge and tunnel tolls will go up.
"Every single person who rides or uses the system will be affected," Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger said after the MTA's board approved the cuts, fare increases and toll hikes in separate 12-1 votes. "That's how bad it is."
MTA officials blamed the authority's fiscal woes on the economic downturn. They said ridership is down and revenue from taxes on real estate transactions have fallen steeply.
So why are real estate taxes used to support MT? When will this country learn how to tax those that use a service instead of taxing everyone else for services rendered? :sick:
I don't think there are many here in the U.S. who would really want to live in Europe. I'd move to Australia or S. America before ever considering living in the coddling welfare states of Europe.
There really is a lot less difference between those places and the U.S. than we would all like to believe. But why view things in such black and white terms? Can we adopt useful parts of other peoples' systems while acting to avoid the parts or consequences of their systems we view as negative?
I am confident we can.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Can we adopt useful parts of other peoples' systems while acting to avoid the parts or consequences of their systems we view as negative?
Yes I support that as long as it fits the original intent of what this country stands for as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of rights. I am a strong supporter of "freedom, justice, and liberty for all", not that the government shall pass laws based on the wants of the majority, and institute laws and programs (thru taxation) to control all to the same set of standards - which is loosely defined as the common good.
I am against laws and programs which aren't necessary, but which 50+% of the people want to impose on 100% of the people. I am against missionary-style government - example: Mass. requirement that everyone needs to buy health insurance.
I do not want my gas tax increased because 51% of the population thinks MT is good for society, or that the highways are too crowded, or they believe in man-made GW. I do not want my gas tax increased if 51% of people don't like SUV's and trucks. yada, yada, yada
The gas tax should cover the cost of building and repairing roads and bridges, and not be used to influence, or coerce for some supposed societal good.
If you want to take MT go ahead, if you don't want to contribute to congestion stay home when possible, if you don't like producing GHG get a Prius; BUT don't try and force me to hold your views. OR to pay for the supported projects.
As I say to people who want to put more and more tax $ into GM and Chrysler; I say "you and other supporters put your own $ into GM and Chrysler, not the rest of our money."
In general in life support what you want, but don't involve the government and force the rest of us to support these "wants" of the majority.
I am not competent do discuss this, nor do I think this has any link with the current topic. What kind of link are you trying to establish between me and child labor ?
I am a car and transport enthusiast and I wish we can have interesting debates on how to make transports in the US safer, quicker, cleaner and, with economic sense.
Thank you for your support in getting back to topic
> am against laws and programs which aren't necessary,...
What does not "necessary" mean ? To one person, to one group or to a whole country ? There is no easy answer to this.
> or they believe in man-made GW
Are you telling there is no pollution associated with burning gas and that those who burn gas should not pay the price of cleaning thereafter ?
You are talking like burning gas like there is no tomorrow would not have any impact on others whatsoever.
I also fully support freedom, justice, and liberty for all, but those come to a price.
If someone is polluting the air I expect him or her to pay for the fees to clean after. if someone is giving money to terrorist states, I expect him to pay for the security costs if someone is degrading the road with his/her 6 ton truck, I expect him/her to pay for the maintenance.
Freedom and justice don't allow to do anything regardless of the others
Everybody should be entitled to burn gas, but not at the current subsidized prices
Everybody should be entitled to burn gas, but not at the current subsidized prices
If you don't like for gas to be subsidized, why do you think mass transit should be subsidized? We are paying about the same for oil and refining that you in the EU are paying. The difference in price in the EU is a horrible added tax that is repressive. Much more than is needed to build and maintain roads and bridges.
Historically, the country as a whole has been better when the government acted wisely in the interest of the greater good.
Increasing the gas tax has little to do with whether people like or dislike SUVs. I like SUVs. I like them a lot. I've owned 4 in the past 10 years. However, I have realized that I don't like big, gas-guzzling SUVs more than the best interest of my country.
It is NOT in our national interest to shovel mountains of cash at countries who mostly hate us. It is in Exxon's interest and it is in General Motors' interest to encourage excessive energy consumption.
Our leaders have cowed to GM's and Exxon's will for far too long. Pure market forces are powered by short-term fear and greed and cannot be counted on to keep your family safe and our country prosperous.
Now that oil prices are low, this would be an optimal time to start increasing gasoline prices up to European levels, but only on the condition that other taxes be reduced. This would provide strong incentives to economize on transportation and reduce one's overall taxes at the same time. Just because 51% of people don't see the wisdom of such a policy doesn't make it wrong. Re-institute a draft and you'll see how quickly that number changes when it's your kid that's being shot at in a Middle Eastern desert rather than somebody else's kid. 51% of American families didn't have a friend or relative in the World Trade Center, but that doesn't make efforts to prevent a repeat attack by starving funding for these kinds of evil activities wrong.
And on a broader basis, we have allowed companies to grow to the point that they are just too big to fail. This includes banks as well as manufacturers. We have created a system where benefits are shared by a limited group of entities, but risks are distributed around the entire economy or system of intertwined economies.
I agree in the principle of life, liberty and property, and I believe in the Bill of Rights, as well as the notion of equal protection under the law. To me, one application of these principles is some protection from the actions of a company that has little to do with me directly (e.g. AIG) to cause a financial panic that erodes my net worth by half or more. The government allowed this to happen and so the government must take action to protect innocents from being dragged underwater by this nonsense.
Now that oil prices are low, this would be an optimal time to start increasing gasoline prices up to European levels, but only on the condition that other taxes be reduced.
How do you propose to do that? If you make gas tax a deduction it would not be much incentive to use less. If you do away with income tax and just tax gas, people riding the bus will pay NO tax. This has been suggested. I have not seen anyone post a solution that would work. If Sam raises gas tax, it will be on top of all the other taxes we currently pay. So I am against additional taxes until our leaders in the State and Federal governments learn to live with what they have.
Are you telling there is no pollution associated with burning gas and that those who burn gas should not pay the price of cleaning thereafter ?
Is that any different than the person who is using electricity from a coal or natural gas powered generating plant? Or the pollution that comes from factories producing goods around the world? No. The person using electricity or buying products is not paying extra because of the fossil fuels burned. Gasoline is only a small part of the pollution humans make.
You may similarly ask if farmers are paying the environmental costs of using pesticides and fertilizers which are altering entire waterways and rivers. No, actually the opposite - we subsidize farmers, and encourage large-scale agro business.
if someone is giving money to terrorist states, I expect him to pay for the security costs
Canada and Mexico haven't directly attacked us yet.
It is NOT in our national interest to shovel mountains of cash at countries who mostly hate us.
The #1 recipient of U.S. consumer money is China. That has nothing to do with oil/gasoline. Our #1 and #2 recipients of oil money is Canada and Mexico.
It is in Exxon's interest and it is in General Motors' interest to encourage excessive energy consumption.
I can see Exxon benefitting, but not GM. They don't care how much gas is burnt (in Toyotas, Honda, Ford) as long as it is in 1 of their vehicles. Gm only benefits when their vehicles sell.
This would provide strong incentives to economize on transportation and reduce one's overall taxes at the same time.
Why does that have to be my goal, and not just yours? Why can't we make individual choices?
Just because 51% of people don't see the wisdom of such a policy doesn't make it wrong.
It's not a question of right or wrong. We have the freedom to individually choose what our goals are and what is right or wrong, as long as it isn't directly negatively affecting others (ex. I can't punch you). I have the freedom to choose to drive around in a circle 24-hours a day, or to drive cross-country to sight-see, or whatever just because I want to. I don't need to justify that to you or the government.
And on a broader basis, we have allowed companies to grow to the point that they are just too big to fail
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we then need to keep businesses from getting this big, and that businesses have way too much influence in Washington, and other levels of government.
But none of that has anything to do with our freedoms to spend our money how we want, and to set our own goals. I do not want the government deciding for me what size house I can have, what the temp. in it needs to be set at, how much I can drive, what kind of mpg my individual vehicle can get, or similar. The government is here to set rules for economic and social stability, and for defense.
The silly idea that raising gasoline taxes for whatever purpose will just cause more economic problems in the US. GAsoline taxes are high already. What is needed is more industry and more economic activity to generate more fuel use and gasoline taxes.
Our economy has been decimated through the decades by manufacturing being moved to countries using cheap labor or slave labor with human rights abuses. Odd that we still buy from those countries. If those jobs were moved back to the US, then our economy would be generating much more income for the government entities to use to supply services and maintain roads.
And we're supposed to build trains for commuters between Cincinnati and Cleveland because it sounds like a good idea to the liberal green folk in the area? (What commuters?)
The UN is now is proposing their typical world changes which of course mean that the US would pay the bill, lose the jobs, etc., etc.
I definitely resent having people in other countries who have taken jobs from this country through cheap and slave labor tell us, US, what should be done here with one example of how we should increase gasoline taxes and spend it on things they suggest.
Put simply, an increase in the gas tax would be an appropriate and equitable way to generate needed revenue. It is far more straight forward and less prone to the monkey business usually associated with our complicated income tax code. And, the gas tax avoidance schemes (drive less/drive more fuel efficient vehicles) are less likely to produce the perverse accounting behaviors associated with our income tax code.
Put simply, an increase in the gas tax would be an appropriate and equitable way to generate needed revenue.
While I might agree with you in principle that people should pay a fair share, our incomes and tax rates are setup such that taxes are set to hit the higher incomes harder. A gas tax is regressive and hits the poor harder, or hits anyone who has a business doing a lot of driving harder. The poor right now pay little to no income tax, while the middle and upper income pay some to a lot of tax. So what you are proposing is shifting more tax to the poor.
Once again, the topic is whether higher gas taxes are good or bad for the US.
Multiple mixed answers:
Good for the government. They can spend on whatever they want, and the $ brings the ability to control.
Good for roads. Some of the increased tax money would actually get used on the roads. A lot of the rest of the money might go to pork, or the great black-hole of increased education funding?
No difference for the wealthy. They're not really going to car if gas is $2 or $8/gal.
Hurts the middle class reducing their lifestyle.
Devastates the poor, causing many to give up any sort of driving. High gas prices increase the cost of all goods including food. More desperate people = increased crime, and personal stress.
It's pretty straightforward, and has been done many times previously. Let's say we raise the gas tax such that the average car would pay $3000 per year. At the same time, build a $3000 per car tax credit into the income tax, so that it's revenue-neutral for both the taxpayer and the government, assuming the consumer does nothing.
Given that a larger car consumes more gas than a smaller car, the consumer is incented to buy a smaller car to save on gas (including paying less on the gas tax).
He still gets the same $3000 credit on his income tax, but might actually pay out only $1500 additional tax at the pump.
And in cases where people use their cars as part of their business, then there could be allowances for type of business, etc., when determining the income tax credit.
While we're at it, we should consider heavier taxation of long range trucking and/or tax breaks for rail usage, since heavy rail shipping is so much more fuel-efficient than trucking.
The #1 recipient of U.S. consumer money is China. That has nothing to do with oil/gasoline. Our #1 and #2 recipients of oil money is Canada and Mexico.
Look a little further down the list. The money we send to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia is astronomical. Our petrodollars are paying to train people to fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up, and steal nuclear technology. And by the way, China's demand for oil and our demand for oil is on a collision course. Russia is becoming stronger by the day with their own energy boom.
I can see Exxon benefitting, but not GM. They don't care how much gas is burnt (in Toyotas, Honda, Ford) as long as it is in 1 of their vehicles. Gm only benefits when their vehicles sell.
GM has never made a profit on a small car in the US. They have only made money on big cars, trucks and SUVs over the past 25 years.
Why does that have to be my goal, and not just yours? Why can't we make individual choices?
Because it's a national security issue, just like we can't make individual decisions on which country to invade, or how to otherwise manage our national security. It's not like deciding to buy a house on this street or that street.
Just because 51% of people don't see the wisdom of such a policy doesn't make it wrong.
It's not a question of right or wrong. We have the freedom to individually choose what our goals are and what is right or wrong, as long as it isn't directly negatively affecting others (ex. I can't punch you). I have the freedom to choose to drive around in a circle 24-hours a day, or to drive cross-country to sight-see, or whatever just because I want to. I don't need to justify that to you or the government.
Again, it's a national security issue. It's not a matter of individual choice or preference. Energy independence is vital to survival of our culture.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we then need to keep businesses from getting this big, and that businesses have way too much influence in Washington, and other levels of government.
But none of that has anything to do with our freedoms to spend our money how we want, and to set our own goals. I do not want the government deciding for me what size house I can have, what the temp. in it needs to be set at, how much I can drive, what kind of mpg my individual vehicle can get, or similar. The government is here to set rules for economic and social stability, and for defense.
Don't get me wrong. I think that the Bill of Rights is the single greatest contribution that America has made to humanity. I, like you, believe deeply in the rights of the individual. The thing is that I'm looking at a gas tax as a big and necessary step to protect our national security. Energy independence is a foundation of our national security. If we don't take care of it, we will leave our grandchildren a 2nd or 3rd rate power, kind of like what happened to England over the past 100 years (for different reasons). China, Russia and India will be pushing our grandchildren around and I don't think that will be a very good inheritance that we leave them.
At the same time, build a $3000 per car tax credit into the income tax, so that it's revenue-neutral for both the taxpayer and the government, assuming the consumer does nothing.
It's not simple, and tax forms never are. For instance if I'm living in a city and don't have a car, I'm going to get a $3,000 credit? or if you want proof I have a car, I'll buy a junker for $100, to get $3,000/year. Do you think the IRS has the resources to check who has cars and who doesn't? Elderly people who may never drive, all of a sudden will have cars in their names to get the credit. Any income tax refund plan would be difficult and expensive to administer, and full of fraud.
Governments NEVER do anything the simple way. If they wanted to implement gas tax by the mile. The SIMPLE way would be to check the odometer when you renew your license and charge so much for the miles you drove. Instead they come up with some expensive Big Brother POC to tell the gas pump where you were since last fill-up and how much you owe. There is still no guarantee the money will be spent for the intended purpose of maintaining roads and bridges. As you have made it more convoluted by offering a tax credit. It is about time the Feds and states gave an accurate accounting of where our gas tax dollars are spent. Then if it is all used for building roads and bridges as well as maintenance. Add a penny per gallon to keep the budget ahead. The truth is they do not spend any where near what the steal from US for the purpose that it was intended. Politicians by their very nature are BIG FAT LIARS. As well as thieves and charlatans. Many of them make Madoff seem like a two bit flim flam man.
The money we send to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia is astronomical.
So if we cut back on oil purchases from those countries, do you believe that their oil won't sell. Last I knew the U.S. used 25% of the world's oil. Anyway even if we decreased our gasoline usage 10% per year for the next 5 years, gasoline usage in India in the new Nanos and China and Russia and the rest of the world is going up. The amount of industry is going up. More and more houses are built here in the U.S. that burn oil for heat. If oil is low-price then electric power companies would also join in, using oil to produce electricity. Your fooling yourself to think that the oil these countries have will not be sold and used whether this year or next or the year after.
They have only made money on big cars, trucks and SUVs over the past 25 years.
But that would not explain why burning a lot of fuel benefits GM. Rick Wagoner has actually been pushing for the higher tax the last year, as GM is investing a lot in high mpg vehicles like the Volt.
Because it's a national security issue,
My decision on how much $ to spend on energy is a national security issue? Even our harshest critic Iran has no choice but to continue to sell oil to the world; they have no choice to stop selling oil, unless they commit national suicide.
Energy independence is vital to survival of our culture.
That's ridiculous. First the world survived for many centuries before oil was discovered. People were as happy as they are today. Second there are countries like Japan who have very little energy and food production relative to their population and they're not paranoid about it. They understand they can trade.
I've noticed that some of my staples have gone down in price. Half and Half especially, but there's a dairy glut here. My King Arthur flour went up a couple of bucks and it hasn't come down - guess shipping from Vermont is still pricey.
I think corn production for ethanol has impacted wheat more than shipping. I would not bet on that. Just seems like flower in general has gone up over the last 3 years. We spend most of our food money in the produce department. We watch the sales close on our three stores. Bought some really nice big tomatoes yesterday two lbs for a buck. Usually we pay 99 cents or more per pound. Got the nicest asparagus for 99 cents a lb. We eat very healthy for a lot less than welfare people get in food stamps per month. My wife bakes 90% of our bread. We have tried that King Arthur flour. I have a hard time telling the difference. My wife uses a combo of sourdough starter and regular yeast. and lots of oatmeal along with flax and other stuff. It tastes good I know that.
I do think taxing diesel for transport is counter productive. That goes right on the food we buy.
I like shopping at local farm markets. California is doing their best to eliminate the farmers markets. They have shut down two locally for trumped up charges. kickbacks from the big grocers probably.
"...some really nice big tomatoes yesterday two lbs for a buck..."
Here in the northeast we pay closer to $3 bucks a lb. The difference is all in the cost of transportation. Increased gas taxes are passed along to the consumer sooner or later.
In your case you are close to where most of America's produce is grown---Mexico.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
where most of America's produce is grown---Mexico.
That is a fact. With all the avocados grown in CA it is hard to find any in the supermarket that did not come from Chili. Blocking Mexican truckers from entering the US has not had any impact on the price of Mexican produce as of yet. We still get lettuce from the Imperial Valley. Iceberg was 2 for a $1 at Albertson's this week.
Being close to where much of the produce is grown, makes it less expensive to eat healthy. That and the new higher sales tax does not apply to food. Is NY making it hard for the local farmer to sell his produce? CA is controlled by the big farmers. Organic farming has become a joke with the FDA involved. The more each individual grows for their own consumption the better off we will be.
>Is that any different than the person who is using electricity from a coal
This is pretty much true. Modern Coal /Gas plants are complex mechanisms which maximize efficiency and lower emissions. The regular burning method as opposed to the alternate explosions in a gas engine allow for a cleaner exhausts. we could say all in all that those plants are marginally more efficient and less polluting than individual cars.
I also support some form of taxation for electricity generated from hydrocarbons. This could fund nuclear power plants and alternative power supply. This could also raise consumer awareness that energy is dear and should be saved.
>Or the pollution that comes from factories producing goods around the world?
Yes, products manufactured in countries with lax pollution regulations are posing a threat of unfair competition. I would welcome a carbon footprint summary on the product we buy and a tax on bad performance. In my business, I often see products being dwarfed by their package, for pure marketing reasons. With the millions of tons of un-recyclable waste they generate, I think there is an outstanding opportunity for improvements.
>You may similarly ask if farmers are paying the environmental costs
Excellent question. My grandfather was a farmer. I wholeheartedly support a heavy pesticide / fertilizer tax. There is a huge potential for pesticide and fertilizer-free food, but they have to compete with dirty ones because those drugs are so cheap.
>Canada and Mexico haven't directly attacked us yet
Right, but as the US is representing 20% of the world demand, US is contributing to world demand and to oil prices as they are. Even indirectly, US oil purchases are enriching less friendly states. Just look how a US slow down in oil consumption could drive the barrel price down.
> more industry and more economic activity to generate more fuel use and gasoline taxes
why should we stick to the old model of more pollution for more activity? We should innovate instead. More activity and less carbon fuel = clean technologies. We won't go out from recession if we stick to outdated concepts that less developed countries can replicate so easily.
All I can say is you would fit well into our Congress. They are just like you. Tax everything you can as many ways as you can. That is why all the Tea Partys around the USA. I see one place in Florida was worried too many people would show up and canceled their permit. That is about as un American as it gets.
I just do not share your sentiments AT ALL. Except we should be building more Nuclear power plants if we want to wean off of fossil fuel. Nuclear has been fought by environmentalists since inception. The odds on the US building any nuke plants is slim. We will need it if the enviros push for HS Rail systems. They suck up a lot of electricity that CA does not have to spare. They are expecting more shortages this summer in the AC season.
I guess we could just run the HS trains at night and when it is cool.
>....such that taxes are set to hit the higher incomes harder
How income tax could be fair after all ? Earning more is good for everyone and bad for nobody. Otoh, burning gas has a lot of cons.
Why would the ones who are working harder / are more talented / more competent pay for the ones who pollute ? Just because they are less numerous? And we should kiss the poor oil thirsty motorists just because they are plenty?
Gary, I Like US, really. If I didn't, why would I care discussing my views?
I understand how difficult it is to encompass the potential of something new. What made US successful in building their strenght is their ability to reach new frontiers despite all the fears and challenges ahead. Car industry is the old model that made US get rich in those last decades, but this model is worn out and needs other growth relays. Innovation is the key word. Lack of innovation is what turned the big 3 into three big holes. This effort must be supported for I don't see any other exit from the current crisis.
>Any income tax refund plan would be difficult and expensive to administer, and full of fraud
OK, so let's go simpler and just cut $3000 tax straight from income tax and add the corresponding amount on gas tax. No fraud, no form, no paperwork, no need to own a car (but still free to).
"...Is NY making it hard for local farmers to sell his produce?..."
A few years ago we started a farmer's market at a local church. We invited the town supervisor to come and cut the opening ribbon. Instead he threatened to send the police to have us all arrested. Seems we neglected to go through a lengthy and expensive permitting process. Yep, it seemed we were right up there with the bank robbers and child molesters as threats to the public.
Perhaps the town fathers just wanted to make sure they got their cut of gas tax revenue from the trucks coming in from Mexico.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
But not during a recession. That being said a gas tax is the quickest way to persuade auto companies to make more fuel efficient cars. What if the public was given a vote: Auto-Bailouts for an increases in gas tax?
Car industry is the old model that made US get rich in those last decades, but this model is worn out and needs other growth relays.
On that issue I completely agree. Aside from a very weak attempt at hybrids by Ford the Domestics have not done anything innovative with saving fossil fuel. Diesel is the obvious way to go. It offers viable options with biodiesel from algae. That being my fuel for the future choice. Our government has done every thing in its power to block diesel cars as sold in the EU. Which leads me to believe the powers in Washington are beholden to the Oil industry. So to give them more taxes without giving US better choices for fuel economy is just not smart. They will waste it as they always do. I would not mind paying twice the tax if I was allowed to buy a vehicle that offered twice the mileage. Do you get my point. The US regulators consider the EU emissions totally inadequate. To put it more plainly, they think you are total polluters in the EU for allowing diesel cars. The fact that you use half the fuel is irrelevant.
we could say all in all that those plants are marginally more efficient and less polluting than individual cars.
You "could" say all you want, supposedly having all the dream-answers. But either you don't know the details or ignore them. For instance, do you know that about 50% of all the energy (in the fuel) generated at electrical power-plants is lost in cooling and transmission?
I also support some form of taxation for electricity generated from hydrocarbons. This could fund nuclear power plants and alternative power supply.
The U.S. is currently running many nuclear plants past their design lifetime. These plants will eventually be shutting down. Our population is growing. So if we start building 10 nuclear plants a year, we'll still be using the same amount of hydrocarbon fuels 20 years from now. The only nuclear solution is a new technology - not fission. I support something similar to a Manhattan Project for this. That I could see paying a little more tax for.
>The U.S. is currently running many nuclear plants past their design lifetime
That's the result of allowing politicians rather than people knowledgeable in the field to determine that nuclear power has risks and therefore shouldn't be used. Somewhat Gorelike in the tunnel vision involved.
Now we have politicians involved in "helping" the US auto industry.
Nuclear power plant building should have gone on through the last two decades at a high rate. I recall a local plant being harrassed and blocked by a vocal but small group. Indeed in the 70s a part time instructor at a UC extenson campus in, duh, biology was the great expert in nuclear physics determining how dangerous a power plant would be in the neighborhood. His merry band would picket daily. Eventually the plant was completed as a coal plant. Hope the idiot is unemployed and worries about coal pollution daily.
So today the politicals sit around trying to figure out how to tax more so they can apply their use of the money to buy votes... while the energy needs go unmet.
Drill, baby, drill, for the future 10 years from now. But 10 years from now the tax folks will be sitting wondering how to get more energy. They'll be thinking maybe little green men from Mars will bring pellets of krypton that we can extract energy from... :P
"...to give them more taxes without giving US better choices..."
I think you have made a very good point here. Increasing taxes on gas without offering any real alternative is just punishment. There are NO CHOICES for some people. Not everybody has access to public transit. Not everybody can (or would) sell their house at a loss and move closer to work. Not everybody can afford a hybrid or solar panels.
Even if you could trust the government to use 100% of the tax to improve transportation choices it would take years to implement. In the meantime I don't intend to walk several miles in the snow to catch a bus that doesn't travel any where near where I have to go.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Comments
I just can't believe my eyes, Gary. This was a real politician's answer. What Nippon elaborated was basic math to my eyes.
>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.
Because Gas in US is sold at a same price than other countries which subsidize it. You may not pay the price at the pump but the price is payed eslewhere (crappy roads, total dependence, oil wars, bankrupted detroit, jams, pollution, enriched oil dictatorships...) Many other countries made different choices.
I feel sympathy for the inprisoned US motorist. Oil is cheap but he is condemmed to take this drug for the remainder of his life. This gives me the creeps...
That's pretty funny. You must be living in France? with that attitude. How's the French economy, unions, and lifestyle. I'm always hearing of strikes, and maybe the frustration with the high-tax state and high unemployment is turning to violence? http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSLO654287200903- - 24
I don't think there are many here in the U.S. who would really want to live in Europe. I'd move to Australia or S. America before ever considering living in the coddling welfare states of Europe.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Korten/RaceBottom_WCRW.html
"It isn't only in the garment industry. In India, an estimated 55 million children work in various conditions of servitude, many as bonded laborers-virtual slaves-under the most appalling conditions. Each child has his or her own story. A few months after his rescue from forced labor, Devanandan told a reporter that he had been coaxed to leave home by a promise of wages up to $100 a month for working at a loom two hours a day while going to school. When he agreed, he found himself locked up in a room where he ate, slept, and was forced to work knotting carpets from four in the morning till late evening for pennies in pay.
"Former Indian Chief Justice P. M. Bhagwati has publicly testified to observing examples of boys working fourteen to twenty hours a day: "They are beaten up, branded [with red-hot iron rods] and even hung from trees upside down." The carpet industry in India exports $300 million worth of carpets a year, mainly to the United States and Germany. The carpets are produced by more than 300,000 child laborers working fourteen to sixteen hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year. Many are bonded laborers, paying off the debts of their parents; they have been sold into bondage or kidnapped from low-caste parents. The fortunate ones earn a pittance wage. The unfortunate ones are paid nothing at all. The carpet manufacturers argue that the industry must have child laborers to be able to survive in competition with the carpet industries of Pakistan, Nepal, Morocco, and elsewhere that also use child laborers."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Sounds like Rocky's description of the work load carried by the UAW workers. :P
There are a lot of injustices in the world. The article made me think about all those "Persian" rugs dealers that travel from city to city. I would hate to think I was a part of that by buying them. They were advertising a big sale on those carpets. Selling for 5 cents on the dollar. Makes you wonder just how cheap they get them made with slave labor. Very sad, and makes me thankful to live in a country where you are free to work where you like. I would imagine they would say those jobs are better than begging on the streets of Calcutta.
How about a different kind of gas tax?
"The Obama administration's push to raise taxes on the oil industry is reigniting a battle the industry fought and won last year.
Under pressure to narrow projected deficits, President Barack Obama's 2010 budget proposal calls for raising more than $31 billion over the next decade by eliminating the oil and gas industry's eligibility for various tax breaks."
Obama Revives Battle With Oil Industry (WSJ - looks like a free link at the moment).
Yes, I was being facetious with the Read my Lips comment. The people will not be happy till they are in complete subjection to the government. It reminds me of years back when someone researched the tax on a loaf of bread. Something over 100 different taxes. I am sure a big share of oil produced in the USA is taxed to the max already.
The base fare on city subways and buses will rise from $2 to $2.50, two subway lines and 35 bus routes will be eliminated entirely and service will be curtailed on other lines. Fares will rise on commuter rail lines, and bridge and tunnel tolls will go up.
"Every single person who rides or uses the system will be affected," Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger said after the MTA's board approved the cuts, fare increases and toll hikes in separate 12-1 votes. "That's how bad it is."
MTA officials blamed the authority's fiscal woes on the economic downturn. They said ridership is down and revenue from taxes on real estate transactions have fallen steeply.
So why are real estate taxes used to support MT? When will this country learn how to tax those that use a service instead of taxing everyone else for services rendered? :sick:
There really is a lot less difference between those places and the U.S. than we would all like to believe. But why view things in such black and white terms? Can we adopt useful parts of other peoples' systems while acting to avoid the parts or consequences of their systems we view as negative?
I am confident we can.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes I support that as long as it fits the original intent of what this country stands for as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of rights.
I am a strong supporter of "freedom, justice, and liberty for all", not that the government shall pass laws based on the wants of the majority, and institute laws and programs (thru taxation) to control all to the same set of standards - which is loosely defined as the common good.
I am against laws and programs which aren't necessary, but which 50+% of the people want to impose on 100% of the people. I am against missionary-style government - example: Mass. requirement that everyone needs to buy health insurance.
I do not want my gas tax increased because 51% of the population thinks MT is good for society, or that the highways are too crowded, or they believe in man-made GW. I do not want my gas tax increased if 51% of people don't like SUV's and trucks. yada, yada, yada
The gas tax should cover the cost of building and repairing roads and bridges, and not be used to influence, or coerce for some supposed societal good.
If you want to take MT go ahead, if you don't want to contribute to congestion stay home when possible, if you don't like producing GHG get a Prius; BUT don't try and force me to hold your views. OR to pay for the supported projects.
As I say to people who want to put more and more tax $ into GM and Chrysler; I say "you and other supporters put your own $ into GM and Chrysler, not the rest of our money."
In general in life support what you want, but don't involve the government and force the rest of us to support these "wants" of the majority.
I am not competent do discuss this, nor do I think this has any link with the current topic. What kind of link are you trying to establish between me and child labor ?
I am a car and transport enthusiast and I wish we can have interesting debates on how to make transports in the US safer, quicker, cleaner and, with economic sense.
Thank you for your support in getting back to topic
What does not "necessary" mean ? To one person, to one group or to a whole country ? There is no easy answer to this.
> or they believe in man-made GW
Are you telling there is no pollution associated with burning gas and that those who burn gas should not pay the price of cleaning thereafter ?
You are talking like burning gas like there is no tomorrow would not have any impact on others whatsoever.
I also fully support freedom, justice, and liberty for all, but those come to a price.
If someone is polluting the air I expect him or her to pay for the fees to clean after.
if someone is giving money to terrorist states, I expect him to pay for the security costs
if someone is degrading the road with his/her 6 ton truck, I expect him/her to pay for the maintenance.
Freedom and justice don't allow to do anything regardless of the others
Everybody should be entitled to burn gas, but not at the current subsidized prices
If you don't like for gas to be subsidized, why do you think mass transit should be subsidized? We are paying about the same for oil and refining that you in the EU are paying. The difference in price in the EU is a horrible added tax that is repressive. Much more than is needed to build and maintain roads and bridges.
Increasing the gas tax has little to do with whether people like or dislike SUVs. I like SUVs. I like them a lot. I've owned 4 in the past 10 years. However, I have realized that I don't like big, gas-guzzling SUVs more than the best interest of my country.
It is NOT in our national interest to shovel mountains of cash at countries who mostly hate us. It is in Exxon's interest and it is in General Motors' interest to encourage excessive energy consumption.
Our leaders have cowed to GM's and Exxon's will for far too long. Pure market forces are powered by short-term fear and greed and cannot be counted on to keep your family safe and our country prosperous.
Now that oil prices are low, this would be an optimal time to start increasing gasoline prices up to European levels, but only on the condition that other taxes be reduced. This would provide strong incentives to economize on transportation and reduce one's overall taxes at the same time. Just because 51% of people don't see the wisdom of such a policy doesn't make it wrong. Re-institute a draft and you'll see how quickly that number changes when it's your kid that's being shot at in a Middle Eastern desert rather than somebody else's kid. 51% of American families didn't have a friend or relative in the World Trade Center, but that doesn't make efforts to prevent a repeat attack by starving funding for these kinds of evil activities wrong.
And on a broader basis, we have allowed companies to grow to the point that they are just too big to fail. This includes banks as well as manufacturers. We have created a system where benefits are shared by a limited group of entities, but risks are distributed around the entire economy or system of intertwined economies.
I agree in the principle of life, liberty and property, and I believe in the Bill of Rights, as well as the notion of equal protection under the law. To me, one application of these principles is some protection from the actions of a company that has little to do with me directly (e.g. AIG) to cause a financial panic that erodes my net worth by half or more. The government allowed this to happen and so the government must take action to protect innocents from being dragged underwater by this nonsense.
Ok, I'm done ranting for now
How do you propose to do that? If you make gas tax a deduction it would not be much incentive to use less. If you do away with income tax and just tax gas, people riding the bus will pay NO tax. This has been suggested. I have not seen anyone post a solution that would work. If Sam raises gas tax, it will be on top of all the other taxes we currently pay. So I am against additional taxes until our leaders in the State and Federal governments learn to live with what they have.
Is that any different than the person who is using electricity from a coal or natural gas powered generating plant? Or the pollution that comes from factories producing goods around the world? No. The person using electricity or buying products is not paying extra because of the fossil fuels burned. Gasoline is only a small part of the pollution humans make.
You may similarly ask if farmers are paying the environmental costs of using pesticides and fertilizers which are altering entire waterways and rivers. No, actually the opposite - we subsidize farmers, and encourage large-scale agro business.
if someone is giving money to terrorist states, I expect him to pay for the security costs
Canada and Mexico haven't directly attacked us yet.
The #1 recipient of U.S. consumer money is China. That has nothing to do with oil/gasoline. Our #1 and #2 recipients of oil money is Canada and Mexico.
It is in Exxon's interest and it is in General Motors' interest to encourage excessive energy consumption.
I can see Exxon benefitting, but not GM. They don't care how much gas is burnt (in Toyotas, Honda, Ford) as long as it is in 1 of their vehicles. Gm only benefits when their vehicles sell.
This would provide strong incentives to economize on transportation and reduce one's overall taxes at the same time.
Why does that have to be my goal, and not just yours? Why can't we make individual choices?
Just because 51% of people don't see the wisdom of such a policy doesn't make it wrong.
It's not a question of right or wrong. We have the freedom to individually choose what our goals are and what is right or wrong, as long as it isn't directly negatively affecting others (ex. I can't punch you). I have the freedom to choose to drive around in a circle 24-hours a day, or to drive cross-country to sight-see, or whatever just because I want to. I don't need to justify that to you or the government.
And on a broader basis, we have allowed companies to grow to the point that they are just too big to fail
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we then need to keep businesses from getting this big, and that businesses have way too much influence in Washington, and other levels of government.
But none of that has anything to do with our freedoms to spend our money how we want, and to set our own goals. I do not want the government deciding for me what size house I can have, what the temp. in it needs to be set at, how much I can drive, what kind of mpg my individual vehicle can get, or similar. The government is here to set rules for economic and social stability, and for defense.
The silly idea that raising gasoline taxes for whatever purpose will just cause more economic problems in the US. GAsoline taxes are high already. What is needed is more industry and more economic activity to generate more fuel use and gasoline taxes.
Our economy has been decimated through the decades by manufacturing being moved to countries using cheap labor or slave labor with human rights abuses. Odd that we still buy from those countries. If those jobs were moved back to the US, then our economy would be generating much more income for the government entities to use to supply services and maintain roads.
Local transit income drops due to sales tax drop due to spending decrease
And we're supposed to build trains for commuters between Cincinnati and Cleveland because it sounds like a good idea to the liberal green folk in the area? (What commuters?)
The UN is now is proposing their typical world changes which of course mean that the US would pay the bill, lose the jobs, etc., etc.
The UN is now is proposing their typical world changes which of course mean that the US would pay the bill, lose the jobs, etc., etc.
I definitely resent having people in other countries who have taken jobs from this country through cheap and slave labor tell us, US, what should be done here with one example of how we should increase gasoline taxes and spend it on things they suggest.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Bad.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
While I might agree with you in principle that people should pay a fair share, our incomes and tax rates are setup such that taxes are set to hit the higher incomes harder. A gas tax is regressive and hits the poor harder, or hits anyone who has a business doing a lot of driving harder. The poor right now pay little to no income tax, while the middle and upper income pay some to a lot of tax. So what you are proposing is shifting more tax to the poor.
Multiple mixed answers:
Good for the government. They can spend on whatever they want, and the $ brings the ability to control.
Good for roads. Some of the increased tax money would actually get used on the roads. A lot of the rest of the money might go to pork, or the great black-hole of increased education funding?
No difference for the wealthy. They're not really going to car if gas is $2 or $8/gal.
Hurts the middle class reducing their lifestyle.
Devastates the poor, causing many to give up any sort of driving. High gas prices increase the cost of all goods including food. More desperate people = increased crime, and personal stress.
Given that a larger car consumes more gas than a smaller car, the consumer is incented to buy a smaller car to save on gas (including paying less on the gas tax).
He still gets the same $3000 credit on his income tax, but might actually pay out only $1500 additional tax at the pump.
And in cases where people use their cars as part of their business, then there could be allowances for type of business, etc., when determining the income tax credit.
While we're at it, we should consider heavier taxation of long range trucking and/or tax breaks for rail usage, since heavy rail shipping is so much more fuel-efficient than trucking.
Look a little further down the list. The money we send to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia is astronomical. Our petrodollars are paying to train people to fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up, and steal nuclear technology. And by the way, China's demand for oil and our demand for oil is on a collision course. Russia is becoming stronger by the day with their own energy boom.
I can see Exxon benefitting, but not GM. They don't care how much gas is burnt (in Toyotas, Honda, Ford) as long as it is in 1 of their vehicles. Gm only benefits when their vehicles sell.
GM has never made a profit on a small car in the US. They have only made money on big cars, trucks and SUVs over the past 25 years.
Why does that have to be my goal, and not just yours? Why can't we make individual choices?
Because it's a national security issue, just like we can't make individual decisions on which country to invade, or how to otherwise manage our national security. It's not like deciding to buy a house on this street or that street.
Just because 51% of people don't see the wisdom of such a policy doesn't make it wrong.
It's not a question of right or wrong. We have the freedom to individually choose what our goals are and what is right or wrong, as long as it isn't directly negatively affecting others (ex. I can't punch you). I have the freedom to choose to drive around in a circle 24-hours a day, or to drive cross-country to sight-see, or whatever just because I want to. I don't need to justify that to you or the government.
Again, it's a national security issue. It's not a matter of individual choice or preference. Energy independence is vital to survival of our culture.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we then need to keep businesses from getting this big, and that businesses have way too much influence in Washington, and other levels of government.
But none of that has anything to do with our freedoms to spend our money how we want, and to set our own goals. I do not want the government deciding for me what size house I can have, what the temp. in it needs to be set at, how much I can drive, what kind of mpg my individual vehicle can get, or similar. The government is here to set rules for economic and social stability, and for defense.
Don't get me wrong. I think that the Bill of Rights is the single greatest contribution that America has made to humanity. I, like you, believe deeply in the rights of the individual. The thing is that I'm looking at a gas tax as a big and necessary step to protect our national security. Energy independence is a foundation of our national security. If we don't take care of it, we will leave our grandchildren a 2nd or 3rd rate power, kind of like what happened to England over the past 100 years (for different reasons). China, Russia and India will be pushing our grandchildren around and I don't think that will be a very good inheritance that we leave them.
It's not simple, and tax forms never are. For instance if I'm living in a city and don't have a car, I'm going to get a $3,000 credit? or if you want proof I have a car, I'll buy a junker for $100, to get $3,000/year. Do you think the IRS has the resources to check who has cars and who doesn't? Elderly people who may never drive, all of a sudden will have cars in their names to get the credit.
Any income tax refund plan would be difficult and expensive to administer, and full of fraud.
Governments NEVER do anything the simple way. If they wanted to implement gas tax by the mile. The SIMPLE way would be to check the odometer when you renew your license and charge so much for the miles you drove. Instead they come up with some expensive Big Brother POC to tell the gas pump where you were since last fill-up and how much you owe. There is still no guarantee the money will be spent for the intended purpose of maintaining roads and bridges. As you have made it more convoluted by offering a tax credit. It is about time the Feds and states gave an accurate accounting of where our gas tax dollars are spent. Then if it is all used for building roads and bridges as well as maintenance. Add a penny per gallon to keep the budget ahead. The truth is they do not spend any where near what the steal from US for the purpose that it was intended. Politicians by their very nature are BIG FAT LIARS. As well as thieves and charlatans. Many of them make Madoff seem like a two bit flim flam man.
So if we cut back on oil purchases from those countries, do you believe that their oil won't sell. Last I knew the U.S. used 25% of the world's oil. Anyway even if we decreased our gasoline usage 10% per year for the next 5 years, gasoline usage in India in the new Nanos and China and Russia and the rest of the world is going up. The amount of industry is going up. More and more houses are built here in the U.S. that burn oil for heat. If oil is low-price then electric power companies would also join in, using oil to produce electricity. Your fooling yourself to think that the oil these countries have will not be sold and used whether this year or next or the year after.
They have only made money on big cars, trucks and SUVs over the past 25 years.
But that would not explain why burning a lot of fuel benefits GM. Rick Wagoner has actually been pushing for the higher tax the last year, as GM is investing a lot in high mpg vehicles like the Volt.
Because it's a national security issue,
My decision on how much $ to spend on energy is a national security issue? Even our harshest critic Iran has no choice but to continue to sell oil to the world; they have no choice to stop selling oil, unless they commit national suicide.
Energy independence is vital to survival of our culture.
That's ridiculous. First the world survived for many centuries before oil was discovered. People were as happy as they are today. Second there are countries like Japan who have very little energy and food production relative to their population and they're not paranoid about it. They understand they can trade.
This won't help:
Gas Tax May Go Up In Vermont (Fox44)
"Vermont's gas tax could go up by five cents a gallon for gasoline and diesel, forcing drivers to shell out more money if they fill up in Vermont."
I do think taxing diesel for transport is counter productive. That goes right on the food we buy.
I like shopping at local farm markets. California is doing their best to eliminate the farmers markets. They have shut down two locally for trumped up charges. kickbacks from the big grocers probably.
Here in the northeast we pay closer to $3 bucks a lb. The difference is all in the cost of transportation. Increased gas taxes are passed along to the consumer sooner or later.
In your case you are close to where most of America's produce is grown---Mexico.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
That is a fact. With all the avocados grown in CA it is hard to find any in the supermarket that did not come from Chili. Blocking Mexican truckers from entering the US has not had any impact on the price of Mexican produce as of yet. We still get lettuce from the Imperial Valley. Iceberg was 2 for a $1 at Albertson's this week.
Being close to where much of the produce is grown, makes it less expensive to eat healthy. That and the new higher sales tax does not apply to food. Is NY making it hard for the local farmer to sell his produce? CA is controlled by the big farmers. Organic farming has become a joke with the FDA involved. The more each individual grows for their own consumption the better off we will be.
This is pretty much true. Modern Coal /Gas plants are complex mechanisms which maximize efficiency and lower emissions. The regular burning method as opposed to the alternate explosions in a gas engine allow for a cleaner exhausts.
we could say all in all that those plants are marginally more efficient and less polluting than individual cars.
I also support some form of taxation for electricity generated from hydrocarbons.
This could fund nuclear power plants and alternative power supply. This could also raise consumer awareness that energy is dear and should be saved.
>Or the pollution that comes from factories producing goods around the world?
Yes, products manufactured in countries with lax pollution regulations are posing a threat of unfair competition. I would welcome a carbon footprint summary on the product we buy and a tax on bad performance. In my business, I often see products being dwarfed by their package, for pure marketing reasons. With the millions of tons of un-recyclable waste they generate, I think there is an outstanding opportunity for improvements.
>You may similarly ask if farmers are paying the environmental costs
Excellent question. My grandfather was a farmer.
I wholeheartedly support a heavy pesticide / fertilizer tax. There is a huge potential for pesticide and fertilizer-free food, but they have to compete with dirty ones because those drugs are so cheap.
>Canada and Mexico haven't directly attacked us yet
Right, but as the US is representing 20% of the world demand, US is contributing to world demand and to oil prices as they are. Even indirectly, US oil purchases are enriching less friendly states. Just look how a US slow down in oil consumption could drive the barrel price down.
why should we stick to the old model of more pollution for more activity? We should innovate instead. More activity and less carbon fuel = clean technologies. We won't go out from recession if we stick to outdated concepts that less developed countries can replicate so easily.
America HAS the potential for it.
I just do not share your sentiments AT ALL. Except we should be building more Nuclear power plants if we want to wean off of fossil fuel. Nuclear has been fought by environmentalists since inception. The odds on the US building any nuke plants is slim. We will need it if the enviros push for HS Rail systems. They suck up a lot of electricity that CA does not have to spare. They are expecting more shortages this summer in the AC season.
I guess we could just run the HS trains at night and when it is cool.
How income tax could be fair after all ? Earning more is good for everyone and bad for nobody. Otoh, burning gas has a lot of cons.
Why would the ones who are working harder / are more talented / more competent pay for the ones who pollute ? Just because they are less numerous?
And we should kiss the poor oil thirsty motorists just because they are plenty?
I understand how difficult it is to encompass the potential of something new.
What made US successful in building their strenght is their ability to reach new frontiers despite all the fears and challenges ahead.
Car industry is the old model that made US get rich in those last decades, but this model is worn out and needs other growth relays.
Innovation is the key word. Lack of innovation is what turned the big 3 into three big holes. This effort must be supported for I don't see any other exit from the current crisis.
OK, so let's go simpler and just cut $3000 tax straight from income tax and add the corresponding amount on gas tax. No fraud, no form, no paperwork, no need to own a car (but still free to).
True, they may even favor locally produced goods.
Even if something else I bought went up.
A few years ago we started a farmer's market at a local church. We invited the town supervisor to come and cut the opening ribbon. Instead he threatened to send the police to have us all arrested. Seems we neglected to go through a lengthy and expensive permitting process. Yep, it seemed we were right up there with the bank robbers and child molesters as threats to the public.
Perhaps the town fathers just wanted to make sure they got their cut of gas tax revenue from the trucks coming in from Mexico.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Or you could jut put windmills on top off them and they could generate their own power.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Solar panels should be able to do it. They are Green.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That being said a gas tax is the quickest way to persuade auto companies to make more fuel efficient cars.
What if the public was given a vote: Auto-Bailouts for an increases in gas tax?
On that issue I completely agree. Aside from a very weak attempt at hybrids by Ford the Domestics have not done anything innovative with saving fossil fuel. Diesel is the obvious way to go. It offers viable options with biodiesel from algae. That being my fuel for the future choice. Our government has done every thing in its power to block diesel cars as sold in the EU. Which leads me to believe the powers in Washington are beholden to the Oil industry. So to give them more taxes without giving US better choices for fuel economy is just not smart. They will waste it as they always do. I would not mind paying twice the tax if I was allowed to buy a vehicle that offered twice the mileage. Do you get my point. The US regulators consider the EU emissions totally inadequate. To put it more plainly, they think you are total polluters in the EU for allowing diesel cars. The fact that you use half the fuel is irrelevant.
You "could" say all you want, supposedly having all the dream-answers. But either you don't know the details or ignore them. For instance, do you know that about 50% of all the energy (in the fuel) generated at electrical power-plants is lost in cooling and transmission?
I also support some form of taxation for electricity generated from hydrocarbons.
This could fund nuclear power plants and alternative power supply.
The U.S. is currently running many nuclear plants past their design lifetime. These plants will eventually be shutting down. Our population is growing. So if we start building 10 nuclear plants a year, we'll still be using the same amount of hydrocarbon fuels 20 years from now. The only nuclear solution is a new technology - not fission. I support something similar to a Manhattan Project for this. That I could see paying a little more tax for.
That's the result of allowing politicians rather than people knowledgeable in the field to determine that nuclear power has risks and therefore shouldn't be used. Somewhat Gorelike in the tunnel vision involved.
Now we have politicians involved in "helping" the US auto industry.
Nuclear power plant building should have gone on through the last two decades at a high rate. I recall a local plant being harrassed and blocked by a vocal but small group. Indeed in the 70s a part time instructor at a UC extenson campus in, duh, biology was the great expert in nuclear physics determining how dangerous a power plant would be in the neighborhood. His merry band would picket daily. Eventually the plant was completed as a coal plant. Hope the idiot is unemployed and worries about coal pollution daily.
So today the politicals sit around trying to figure out how to tax more so they can apply their use of the money to buy votes... while the energy needs go unmet.
Drill, baby, drill, for the future 10 years from now. But 10 years from now the tax folks will be sitting wondering how to get more energy. They'll be thinking maybe little green men from Mars will bring pellets of krypton that we can extract energy from... :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think you have made a very good point here. Increasing taxes on gas without offering any real alternative is just punishment. There are NO CHOICES for some people. Not everybody has access to public transit. Not everybody can (or would) sell their house at a loss and move closer to work. Not everybody can afford a hybrid or solar panels.
Even if you could trust the government to use 100% of the tax to improve transportation choices it would take years to implement. In the meantime I don't intend to walk several miles in the snow to catch a bus that doesn't travel any where near where I have to go.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible