I disagree with you, though, on the desirability of reducing our dependency on foreign oil, and what to do about it. I feel this dependency hurts our economy, compromises our flexibility, and weakens our foreign policy options.
You're not really disagreeing with me on this intent of reducing dependency, or the effects. Where we disagree is what should should be done about it. If we can replace the energy we get from oil in some other fashion - great. I want us to still get the same amount of energy and at pretty much the same cost. I am not for increasing a tax on oil, to force people to change their consumption without giving them a replacement - that's my position. I do not want to see people forced from using 50 gal/month to 40gal/month at the same cost, without somehow providing people with the equivalent of 10 gal/month of some sort of other energy.
The effort to reduce oil dependency should not come down to forcing people to use less and pay more/unit. The effort needs to consist of replacing the energy at the same time, at near the same cost.
He is just the next perfect example of, well they could do something only to see what they are going to do. Plug loop holes? Not in our life.
Boaz old chum, I don't like to hear you so distraught, so I thought I would let you know that the "loophole" you mentioned for manufacturers selling less than 60,000 vehicles a year is only for the first 3 years. Beginning in year 4, the exemption only applies to manufacturers selling less than 4000 vehicles per year. Maybach will probably still be exempt, but in California the exemption may not even include such tiny niche brands as RR and Bentley, we will see. And Hummer? It will be gone by then. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Arnold isn't quite a lone voice in the wilderness.
I am sure the other states will follow suit but I wonder if they see what some of this has done to our California economy?
The tax till you drop people seem to believe that taxes have no effect on families. We see here in our state that working class families with children take a bigger hit the Arnold and his friends do percentage wise. It is simply heartless to suggest higher taxes at a time when unemployment is going up and more people will be out looking for a job. The value of people's houses has fallen. And it should be clear that a higher gas tax isn't going to get people into the show room to buy a new car in thins economy.
Just stop and look what happened when gas was $4.00 a gallon? People simply stopped supporting their local businesses and places that were heavily involved in Tourism suffered. Don't think so? California Touring companies used the book tours to Mesquite Arizona's CasaBlanca Hotel. That hotel is closing and it is a big part of the economy of that town. The tour companies had to raise prices to get to Mesquite, fuel costs being a major cause, and so the hotel had to drop rates to get people to come. Then visitors fell off and now the Hotel is closing. That tax base for the city is now gone. So what do the tax till you drop people suggest? Now that there is some relief fro $4.00 gas we should tax it back up to make things better?
Stop and look around at what is happening in this country. Then stop and see what is happening to the rest of the world. Read the news and you will see that a higher tax on fuel right now would be like a attack directed right at the heart of our businesses and consumers. Shoot, last night the news said Sony reported a 95 percent decrease in profit.
We are in a depression no matter what some want to call it. You don't raise taxes in a depression. For the first time in years both political parties agree it is not the time to consider raising taxes, the new President keeps saying it. The Republicans agree. That in itself is a rare event. And yet someone that is not an elected official says we need higher taxes? Do such people cut themselves in private for entertainment?
I like the suggestion someone made earlier in this forum. If you don't believe you pay enough in taxes increase what you send to the government. But you know the problem with that? I was looking at a study on one of the networks the other night and they listed how much different groups gave to charity. Liberals, the biggest supporters of higher taxes gave far less than Conservatives. The highest listing our new Vice President had on giving was .3 or .5 percent. That was Point Three or Point five percent. The average conservitive gave more like five to six percent.
(WARNING, CYNICAL MUSING.) If you want to see food prices increase, raise fuel taxes. If you want to see tourism decrease, raise fuel taxes. If you want people to choose between driving to work or taking their children to the doctor, raise fuel taxes. If you don't think the American consumer has suffered enough in this falling economy, raise fuel taxes. If you hate your fellow American that much couldn't you consider moving to another country and maybe you will like your fellow citizen a bit better?
It is simply the hypocracy of it all. We are getting our tax refund put on hold and our state budget is on hold and we are deep in debt as a state. We have one of the worst problems with welfare and workers compensation claims in the 50 states. Businesses are leaving the state because they can't afford to work here and they want to make exemptions for even ten minutes so their friends can drive their limozines for another 3 years? When do you start to think your chain is getting jerked?
We have a new treasury director who doesn't pay his taxes till he is nominated to take over the IRS. We were promised that our changed government would listen to the people and we would restrict access of Lobiest and that same director was a Lobbyist. His first hire as an assistant is another Lobbyist and I should believe for a nano second they should be allowed to raise my fuel tax for the "good" of the state? Should I try looking for a white Rabbit and the Mad Hatter?
The very Idea of raising taxes now is closing the barn door after the horse is out.
Tourism is down all over. My guide friend up in Alaska is way behind on bookings so far for next season. Not sure what that has to do with a dozen states following California's lead on air quality. Poor air quality costs money too.
"If we can replace the energy we get from oil in some other fashion - great. I want us to still get the same amount of energy and at pretty much the same cost."
T'aint gonna happen. At least, not any time soon, because the energy produced from each barrel of oil relative to the cost of producing it beat every other source of energy by a wide, wide margin. Nuclear is efficient for certain applications, so we should follow France's lead on nuclear power generation but, for now, oil trumps all others.
" Nuclear is efficient for certain applications, so we should follow France's lead on nuclear power generation"
This is one case where I agree. If they want to rebuild the economy and create jobs start building Nuclear power plants. With a half life of what? 360,000 years? Fuel would last longer and we would have the added advantage of a larger electrical grid. I believe in truth automotive fuel is less than 50 percent of our energy useage in this country. So if we change our industrial energy useage to nuclear we would save a lot more than we ever would gain from a fuel tax.
I think that a faster means to get people to change their behavior and buy more efficient vehicles would be to tax inefficient vehicles at the time of sale and/or resale, and use this revenue to credit or subsidize more efficient cars. You tack on a $1000 guzzler tax on a vehicle getting 15 mpg, and give a $1000 credit or rebate of some sort on a car getting 30+. The actual numbers could be altered, I'm just using them for example. Very few people NEED a 15 mpg vehicle--yeah a FEW do. Maybe instead of a lump sum, you make some sort of added fee, like a property tax, that you pay yearly if you drive an inefficient vehicle.
I think people buy relatively small quantities of gas at a time, so a gas tax would meet with relatively little success in changing behavior. I mean, so you pay 10 cents a gallon more, or something like that. Yeah, it sucks, but you drive on. Now, when you get socked for $500 when you buy a car, you pay a lot more attention. You get a $1000 tax credit, you pay more attention.
Yes, there are flaws with this approach. Yes, the wealthy are going to own whatever inefficient car they want regardless of the tax. Percentage-wise, I think the wealthy own a relatively small proportion of the total number of inefficient vehicles on the road. You could even levy the tax on inefficient used vehicles when they are re-sold, and credit sales of efficient used vehicles. I don't know, maybe you incentivize people to live close to work with a deduction if they work within "x" miles of their home...give people a financial incentive to seek housing near work when possible...
Efficiency is like anything, really. You have to give people a logical reason to alter their behavior, and the reason needs to be immediately apparent and significant. If I have to pay $10,000 for solar cells on my roof, but can buy a gas water heater for $500, I'm going to go with the gas water heater no matter how neat I think it would be to have solar power. You give people some incentive to go solar, you get their interest. Maybe I get a $500 tax credit per year for 10 years, maybe I pay a $100 charge on my taxes every year because my furnace is old and inefficient. The carrot and stick can be used to make it make sense for people to change.
In the end, my rationale is that taxing gas hits people spread over time too easy to ignore or deal with the pain. You need to make the pain more immediate and noticeable to get people to change. 10 or 20 or 30 cents a gallon even, eh, most people will gripe but keep doing what they always do.
You tack on a $1000 guzzler tax on a vehicle getting 15 mpg, and give a $1000 credit or rebate of some sort on a car getting 30+. The actual numbers could be altered, I'm just using them for example. Very few people NEED a 15 mpg vehicle--yeah a FEW do. Maybe instead of a lump sum, you make some sort of added fee, like a property tax, that you pay yearly if you drive an inefficient vehicle.
The problem with that strategy is it completely ignores actual use. The person living in Santa Maria and driving to Santa Barbara for work (~50 miles) each way every day driving a Prius isn't going to use any less gas than someone with a 5 mile commute within Santa Barbara in an Expedition (the person in SB will pay 3x the rent, but that is neither here nor there)..
Yes agree. We already have a gas guzzler tax on the worst mpg cars, and we already have credits on the best mpg cars (hybrids and clean diesels). I believe bricknords idea is to expand what gets taxed and credited.
But no matter the specifics of where you draw the line, I see the idea of taxes-and-credits as being mettlesome and needlessly complicated. In summary here's my position:
1) the gas tax should cover road and bridge maintenance fully. 2) the gas tax needs to increase as costs increase for roads and bridges 3) the federal gas tax should not increase for grandiose projects benefiting a limited area. Anyone from New England knows of the $15B spent for a few miles of tunnel and bridges, of a project the was origianlly supposed to be $2B. After $2B was spent, the feds should have said "Mass. you can pay for this with your local taxes". 4) the gas tax should NOT be used for Green purposes. While everyone may want everyone to be efficient, I feel that is fine. But I do not want the government determining how efficient I should be and in what ways (that in itself is inefficient - a waste of government resources). The government should educate, not penalize or determine how much energy anyone can use and how. 5) if someone wants to tell me to use less oil/gasoline, I want a replacement energy. Start building nuclear plants, clean coal electrical plants, wind mills and solar, and make decent electric cars available.
BTW: if we as a society do want to decrease oil/gasoline usage, before coming to the motorist I can name a bunch of things that use oil/gasoline that are less beneficial to society. For example I would first look at eliminating recreational activities that use such (millions of power/recreational boats, snowmobiles, ATV's) and then limit recreational driving (your state tourism bureau sure wouldn't like me, and I also have a problem with states wasting money on tourism ads, while they can't afford to feed and care for the poor!).
The government should educate, not penalize or determine how much energy anyone can use and how.
As long as the government has to go to war all over the Middle East just to keep the oil flowing, it is an ENORMOUS vested interest of the government's to get people using less oil overall. I'm just saying...
As for the gas tax, we would need an almost $0.20/gallon increase TOMORROW just to restore it to the level it was in 1993, after inflation. I say make it $0.30 tomorrow instead, and then increase it a dime a year after that. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
people have weighed in on this subject in the last week or two as well:
Automakers Join Call for Higher Federal Gas Tax
If you don’t think the automotive world is shifting beneath our feet, think again. USA Today reports on a growing trend: car makers and dealers pushing for higher fuel taxes, of all things. The auto industry’s newfound love of eco-friendly policy comes down its need to satisfy increasingly stringent federal fuel economy regulations. If gas prices stay low, the government-pleasing vehicles will continue to languish on the lots and docks, Prius-like. Small car profit margins will disappear, Prius-like. AutoNation CEO Mike Jackson was ahead of this particular curve ball when he called high gas prices a good thing. MJ is now joining the New York Times editorial board (amongst others) calling for increased federal taxes to git ‘er done. (After all, European motorists pay their governments through their nasal passages for the privilege of fueling their vehicles.) One of Uncle Sam’s new BFFs agrees. “GM CEO Rick Wagoner said taxing gas or providing rebates on fuel-efficient cars ‘is going to be the most effective way to move the needle fast.’” While Jackson and Wagoner are of one mind on raising gas taxes (or something), the AutoNation jefe is no fan of all this wild needle swinging stuff. “We watched the consumer stampede to fuel efficiency in May, and now the herd is getting ready to stampede back to their old ways,” says Jackson.
Price shocks like the one last year are much worse for the economy as a whole than a slow but steady increase in the price of gas over time via taxation. The latter is predictable and stable, the former isn't.
Here:s one example of that:
Price swings are used-auto 'nightmare'
Dealers say volatile fuel costs make planning tough
Used-vehicle prices have fluctuated so much recently that dealers say they are having trouble choosing which used cars and trucks to buy and how to price them at retail.
The chief culprit, dealers say, is the price of gasoline, which has swung from about $3 a gallon a year ago to more than $4 last summer to less than $2.
As gasoline prices drop, dealers say, used-vehicle customers are more interested in trucks and less drawn to fuel-efficient cars. When fuel prices spiked last year, they say, the preferences were reversed. Those changes affect used-vehicle sales and prices.
Compounding the problem, dealers add, are the decreased availability and higher cost of floorplan loans, which make decisions about used-vehicle inventory even more critical.
"I've never seen anything like this," says Dave Conant, who owns eight dealerships in Southern California. "The volatility has been really hard to get your arms around. It affects the opportunity for dealers to make any kind of business decision."
Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation Inc., the nation's largest dealership group, says drastic changes in fuel prices have made used-vehicle inventory management at his company's 278 stores a "nightmare."
"We've been on a roller coaster," Jackson told Automotive News. "Last March I couldn't give away a used Prius. In June I was paying $4,000 over book to get a Prius. Today I can't give away a Prius."
As long as the government has to go to war all over the Middle East just to keep the oil flowing,
Surely you jest? I count 1 war we were involved in - Iraq. Was the oil flowing before and immediately up to the beginning of the war in 2002? Yes. So we never went into Iraq to GET the oil flowing. We went into Iraq mainly so that a man like Saddam would not have the oil revenues to rebuild his military.
As for the gas tax, we would need an almost $0.20/gallon increase TOMORROW just to restore it to the level it was in 1993, after inflation.
That's fine. As long as it is used for roads and bridges only; and not schools and subways.
LOL - you're quoting GM's Rick Wagoner, as his view is correct! Well hey if he keeps saying enough things maybe he will be correct some time! :P This is the guy who's brought one of the largest corporations in the world to beggar-status!
Before that it was Kuwait/Desert Storm 10 years prior, and if the military were big enough we would already be at war with Syria and/or Iran. Got to keep those Middle Easterners reminded of American military might, so they don't turn down that precious flow of oil....
As for Rick Wagoner, say what you will about him, but he was far from the only one quoted in that article, and if you read the original article it was sourced from, there were even more saying it's high time, even PAST time to do this.....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Believe me, we have been in ZERO "Wars For Oil" because if we had, gas would be twenty cents a gallon and we'd all be driving Escalades, Navigators, and Hummers.
LOL! False conclusion. I could just as easily say that if there had been neither of the oil wars in the Middle East, gas would be $10/gallon today and we would all be riding bicycles. The point being, you have insufficient information to draw the conclusion you did.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Spoils of war is an obsolete concept as a literal term...have there been any spoils of war in this world since half of Europe was thoroughly looted in 1945?
Quite a few American corporations have reaped windfall profits since this war began, some of them directly tied to oil...seems close enough.
And what happens when corporations make more money? It gets filtered down to their employees, who earn higher bonuses, better salaries and better benefits.
War is always profitable to SOMEONE. Does not mean wars are started for profit.
Before that it was Kuwait/Desert Storm 10 years prior,
The war in 2002 was just a continuation of Desert Storm. Desert Storm was prematurely ended due to it being a "UN War", and all the political issues involved with that. Again that war was fought to keep Saddam Hussein from getting the oil and using its revenue, to build a larger military and increase his empire. For oil to be of any value - it must flow, it does no one any good to sit in the ground or to embargo anyone.
Similarly Iran which hates the West openly, sells as much oil as it can to the West. It has to. There is no worry that they shut it off, as they absolutely need the $$, and they need to sell oil as they don't refine anything. If they don't sell oil, guess what - no refined oil products come back into Iran to keep it going! They import gasoline!
As for Rick Wagoner, say what you will about him, but he was far from the only one quoted in that article, and if you read the original article it was sourced from
I probably won't read it, but yes I'm sure there are many people and organizations who want the government to set a policy to improve mpg; and for many reasons. Rick Wagoner certainly wants that - why? because it would simplify his product-planning for the future, knowing what to design. He and other auto manufacturers thus would BENEFIT financially (not losing money by designing and producing vehicles people may not want next year). So does this surprise you that someone wants something they gain from? And any tax plan is not going to affect Rick Wagoner, or his cohorts, as they personally could wouldn't be bothered if gas was $15/gal, and GM (I mean the taxpayer) picks up the bill for whatever GM Exec. vehicle he has.
I'm with Larsb on this one. If we were in it just for the oil. We would have set up a colonial government and killed anyone that got in our way. No oil in Afghanistan. No nothin' worth going in there for. We have high ideals and they don't always lead US in the right direction. I can see 30 cents tax that would be put into an Infrastructure only fund. NO MASS TRANSIT waste. Roads and bridges and the potholes in San Diego. Our roads look third World with the welfare state we have become.
Yeah right, trickle down. Exxon posted a record $42 billion profit but profit was down in the fouth quarter so they are laying off people. If I made 42billion I think I could pay some people to sweep the floor or something for a while. The big guys forget the little man til they need him.
why we decided to send solders to the mid east I watch my video we made on the morning of 9-11. I got up that morning and got ready for work. We, the US wasn't at war with anyone we were just cruising along minding our own business when out of the Blue a group of people that had "said" they were at war with us decided to Kill 3000 people and destroy two of our biggest buildings. I would rather send my tax dollars to hunt the people that started that down even if it means they have to hear our rockets chasing them all the way to Hades. You want to get me to support a higher gas tax? Promise to spend it hunting down every Hamas, Taliban, El Queda member till they no longer suck air anywhere on earth.
However when someone talks about increasing taxes on fuel after bailing out Wall street for wasting their money. When you take my tax dollars to bail out the banks that simply are buying banks in China with the money or airplanes from France I'm not so supportive. Oh and the best part? They took the bailout money and gave the top executives a monster bonus while we the tax payer are getting laid off?
Tax our fuel so they can send more money to the banks? Didn't they get a big enough bonus already?
Even suggesting that if they increase fuel taxes it will go to roads or stimulating better cars is calling everyone in these forums a fool. It simply isn't going to work.
How do you know the people Exxon is laying off are the LITTLE People? Maybe if GM had laid off excess people when they were making a profit they would not be begging US to bail them out. Besides Exxon is only laying off 25-50 people this coming June. That should be time for them to research another job. It comes from closing an off shore refinery in Aruba.
If the government wants to tax me more on the fuel I use, fine. I will just raise the prices for my small business and pass it on to my customers. Since it seems my one full size half ton pickup I use to pick up supplies and make sales will now be taxed more because it is not a fuel sipper, fine. I will simply pass those extra costs on to my customers. I can also use those extra taxes as itemized deductions on my Schedule C for income tax purposes.
Tax businesses and small business owners all you like. We will pass the costs on to the customers. I hope you like higher prices.
By the way for those who think that everyone can use public transportation to get to work or can always find a place to live close to work, get outside of the Left and East Coast metro areas. The majority of the United States does not have easy access to public transportation and many people cannot afford to live close to work due to housing costs. If you want to penalize working class folks, go right ahead. We may just string up the environmentalists and the Liberals and the Democrats as wind chimes.
As for encouraging more fuel efficient vehicles, until we can get the diesel powered vehicles they often use in Europe we will still be behind on fuel economy standards. Even the Prius is nothing compared with the economy numbers of most diesel vehicles of that size and smaller. We also don't have many more efficient models of commercial vehicles for small business owners and contractors. Figure out how to get those European diesel vehicles on our shores and by simple economics most of us would see the logic and economics in buying a vehicle.
Right now the choices are few when you look at practical things such as payload capacity, fuel economy and comfort for the size of the vehicle, especially for those used by small businesses.
By the way, my 2000 Ford F-150 with a 4.2L V-6 and 5 speed manual overdrive gets 27 mpg on the highway. I eat the lunch of most currently produced compact cars, let alone other smaller vehicles. Only the currently produced smaller engined econoboxes and hybrids get better mileage. I can also out distance them even with a full payload, when my economy drops to about 25 mpg.
Where can I find a more fuel efficient cargo hauler that can carry at least a half ton of payload?
Also, if I just needed something to get me from point A to point B, I would buy a motorcycle or larger scooter. Those vehicles are even better on fuel and are more easily parked.
I'm with Larsb on this issue also. Using military might to grab resources and other assets has been the norm for powerful countries throughout history. The U.S. has had the military might to take over the oil fields in the Middle East and elsewhere by force, but it hasn't done that.
If the government wants to tax me more on the fuel I use, fine. I will just raise the prices for my small business and pass it on to my customers.
You will charge what the market will support. Or you will have fewer customers. Or you have something about your business that differentiates you so much that price isn't an issue.
Tax businesses and small business owners all you like. We will pass the costs on to the customers. I hope you like higher prices.
I don't think business, large or small, was singled out. And as mentioned before, you will charge what the market will give.
The majority of the United States does not have easy access to public transportation and many people cannot afford to live close to work due to housing costs. If you want to penalize working class folks, go right ahead.
A very valid point. But "afford" is also relative. Can the working class "afford" to live in a 2000 sq ft ranch on an acre in the city, probably not. Can they get a 3 bedroom townhouse with a park across the street...that might be more do-able. Can they cyber-commute? Can they tele-commute?
As for encouraging more fuel efficient vehicles, until we can get the diesel powered vehicles they often use in Europe we will still be behind on fuel economy standards. Even the Prius is nothing compared with the economy numbers of most diesel vehicles of that size and smaller. We also don't have many more efficient models of commercial vehicles for small business owners and contractors. Figure out how to get those European diesel vehicles on our shores and by simple economics most of us would see the logic and economics in buying a vehicle.
I think the other thing that needs to happen with that is diesel needs to be produced in the US in enough volume to maintain similar pricepoints (or the taxes could be used for that as well).
By the way, my 2000 Ford F-150 with a 4.2L V-6 and 5 speed manual overdrive gets 27 mpg on the highway. I eat the lunch of most currently produced compact cars, let alone other smaller vehicles. Only the currently produced smaller engined econoboxes and hybrids get better mileage. I can also out distance them even with a full payload, when my economy drops to about 25 mpg.
So if you have this great pickup that gets great fuel economy, what are you complaining about?
I agree with gagrice. Exxon is not a charitable institution, nor should it be one. The primary role of corporate management is to maximize shareholder value, over the long term, and to do so within the framework of the law. In so doing, it's in the best interest of the company and its employees alike for the company to treat its employees fairly. This doesn't preclude laying employees off when business conditions justify it.
Is our system perfect? No, but then no system is perfect. Even the best system requires making difficult choices and accepting tradeoffs. I'd say that, despite its imperfections, the U.S. system of business and governance has served the citizens of this country very well over the years.
If you want to penalize working class folks, go right ahead. We may just string up the environmentalists and the Liberals and the Democrats as wind chimes.
I like how you think Welcome to the FORUM.... We don't need more tax and spend.
Isn't charging more than the market will support either a way to destroy the business one has acquired through just means or otherwise, or a means to destroy the market itself? Either way, you lose.
And what business have you owned and run to support your theory?
Okay, you go ahead and charge more than people are willing to pay and let me know how it goes. I will wait here.
This is the whole argument about the domestic auto industry...if you can't turn a profit making your product, then maybe you shouldn't be in business. Thats what the American people said to the auto industry, I don't see why mom and pop should be any different.
The US was born over a small tea tax, Taxation without representation.
Some brilliant thinkers over the centuries have argued that taxation is theft.
Lower income individuals would be most adversely impacted by this tax.
So why should we steal more of the taxpayers money?
When will the world improvers please leave us alone?
The free market place has always been the best allocator of scarce resources. Witness technology.
The areas where the world improvers have most helped and regulated us are a dissaster. Witness the financial industry.
My answer to the question of a gas tax is no.
As a matter of fact if we eliminated all current taxes on oil and the thousands of federal and local regulations gas would probably cost us: 80 cents per gallon.
Exxon earns approximately six cents per gallon profit while total Federal and local taxes are close too fifty cents. Who is more greedy??????
if you can't turn a profit making your product, then maybe you shouldn't be in business.
Seems like a simple logical process. However as the oil bubble showed US it can have some very negative aspects. Several trucking companies around here went broke during that period. They could not compete against Mexican truckers getting diesel for half the price. By the time the bubble burst it was all over for them. It is bad enough that outside forces are destroying competition. When the government does it we have no where to go but down.
What is ironic 50+ years ago General Motors used their clout to destroy the competition. Now they are getting their just dues. Only it is the financial sector that has brought them to their knees, along with high labor and legacy costs. RIP
If we had Federal and state governments we could trust. It would be nice to believe an extra 20 cents a gallon would fix the bridges so they do not collapse and kill people. Sadly we cannot trust them to do with taxes as they say. So I would have to vote against any politician that was for adding more taxes to anything. My advice is CUT spending. They have more than enough money coming in.
Exxon earns approximately six cents per gallon profit while total Federal and local taxes are close too fifty cents. Who is more greedy??????
No question in my mind. The government IS the PROBLEM, not companies like Exxon. They are making a reasonable profit. No more than Pepsi or Coca Cola, that do US NO good at all. CA gas tax is about 64 cents and diesel 68 cents. I believe we have the distinction of being the highest taxed.
Seems like a simple logical process. However as the oil bubble showed US it can have some very negative aspects. Several trucking companies around here went broke during that period.
Survival of the fittest, right? Only the strongest survive.
They could not compete against Mexican truckers getting diesel for half the price.
Yup, and whose legislative nightmare was that? Why are there truck drivers from other countries even driving in the US? Why are they using trucks for that at all, rail is more efficient and environmentally friendly.
What is ironic 50+ years ago General Motors used their clout to destroy the competition. Now they are getting their just dues. Only it is the financial sector that has brought them to their knees, along with high labor and legacy costs. RIP
So you do feel that its tough nuts for the domestic auto industry? And then you want people to cry about small business? Better start learning Hindu or Cantonese and start whining to them.
Gas should be $4/gallon. Taxes take it from $2/gallon up to its current price. That money can be used to develop better batteries for electric cars and hybrids, fixing the transportation infrastructure, and supporting new technologies. As the President said, "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
That money can be used to develop better batteries for electric cars and hybrids, fixing the transportation infrastructure, and supporting new technologies.
You just don't get it do you? They only say that kind of stuff to get votes. They all know that raising the gas tax will hurt their main voting base. If there is money to be made the new technologies and batteries will be developed by the private sector. The government has a long history of wasting money on failed ideas. There are a lot of EVs being sold in Japan and the EU. Wonder why they are not for sale here? I'll give you 3 guesses. EPA, CARB & the gas tax collectors.
I honestly have nothing against nature or being frugal with resources. I am a conservationist of wildlife, a hunter and also one who helps improve wildlife habitat. I try to find the most practical, economical and environmentally friendly products and services, and provide the same to others, as best I can.
To be blunt, if I can figure out how to get a Honda Fit to work for a large part of my business for foul weather and a motorcycle for fair weather majority of the year use and save my pickup for the times when I absolutely have to have a heavier cargo hauler I will try to implement that as a better plan for resource uses. My issue is figuring out how to find solutions that will work with existing options, such as using trailers attached to smaller vehicles to get around in/on vehicle cargo limitations.
Were I able to make a Prius work for me, it would be nice from the fuel economy standpoint, but not the cargo capacity/volume standpoint.
Taxing to change behaviors often has unintended consequences. In the case of motor fuels it puts more pressure upon those who have less disposable income and those who don't have access or feasible access to public transportation options. It also pushes the cost of fuel downstream to the final consumers. Say gas is four dollars a gallon again and we add a dime a year to it right then. Say the next year after that gas rises another dollar and we stand at 5.20 a gallon. The need to transport products by trucks is still needed, but with the cost of fuel rising businesses have to cut back more and/or pass along fuel costs to stay in business. Consumers are then paying more for fuel, have less income for other needed items plus they are now paying more for those same other needed items.
On top of that we want to put even more taxes on vehicles that are used by businesses, farmers and ranchers. The costs will have to be passed along or those businesses, farmers and ranchers will need to fold.
Figure out ways to give me options that I can use in a practical manner and I am willing to see if they will work for what I need them to do. Tax me higher and higher and I have less incentive to change willingly because instead of giving me carrot options that I might really want to use, I receive stick taxes that punish me for not having the practical options I need to change over voluntarily. Giving me stick taxes motivates me to have a long memory and push back hard against even ideas that I might have agreed with had I not been punished for trying to do the best with what options I have available.
In most cases you are spitting in the wind. The tax us more people are only interested in solutions "they" are doing. They take pride in supporting hybrids and then hand out BS that they are doing it for everyone else. It is BS because I have tried the do my part thing and I did ride a motorcycle every day to commute for more the 8 years. When the hybrid drivers were still driving their old diesels spewing black clouds of smoke in school children's faces I was burning gas at the rate of 50 to 60 MPG. They weren't car pooling they were driving by themselves down the road in a car getting maybe 20 to 25 MPG.
Motorcycles are less expensive, get better fuel mileage are easier to park and cost less to insure than a Smart car. Even today if they were doing it for the rest of us they could give up their Tree Hugger hybrids and get a motorcycle in the 250 range and get a lot better fuel mileage and better performance than any car in their driveway. But they aren't doing it because they have an excuse. It wasn't their idea of how the planet could be saved.
Some will come on and say, "ya but I need a car" for a hundred different reasons but the truth is they are just like everyone else and they are only interested in the image of doing good even if they aren't willing to do the best they can to do good.
There are times we need a car but 99 percent of our commuting is not one of them. Lets be kind, 75 percent of the time a car isn't necessary for commuting. And that is exactly the excuse the hybrid and small car people use to attack people that don't drive a small car or hybrid. Maybe if we gave the motorcycle people a tax break for commuting on one rather than drive a car that will force people into riding motorcycles. Think of all the fuel we could save. Over night you could make the ugly Prius obsolete.
And for those that say people will only pay what the market will support if a business raises prices to pass on the tax? How many in here have noticed the price of children's cereal in the store? How many realize how high milk has gotten? How many have stopped feeding their children rather than pay the higher prices?
They all know that raising the gas tax will hurt their main voting base.
Short term, short sighted views are a lot of what created the current mess over the last 8 years. Not having a total reliance on foreign oil (or foreign manufacturing, or foreign goods) would be a good start.
If there is money to be made the new technologies and batteries will be developed by the private sector.
Right, just not in the US. Other national governments fund research to support their industries and needs.
The government has a long history of wasting money on failed ideas.
And private industry never does that? We have a guy in this forum right now that is apparently a small business owner that doesn't understand how to price his product or service. Best of luck to him.
There are a lot of EVs being sold in Japan and the EU. Wonder why they are not for sale here? I'll give you 3 guesses. EPA, CARB & the gas tax collectors.
While I agree that CARB is totally worthless, followed by the CAFE standards, I don't see them as inhibitors in this. Diesel technology maybe, but not EV. Most direct foreign models have more issues with FMVSS than with the EPA.
I don't really expect a gas tax, but thats not what the question is asking. The question is asking if its good for America, and I believe it is. As relayed in other forums, based on this being a democracy and all, my vote/opinion counts just as much as yours. I just lack the cynicism.
Short term, short sighted views are a lot of what created the current mess over the last 8 years.
How about the previous 8 years when gas was cheap and SUVs really went mainstream? The mess the last 8 years can very well be attributed to the last 30-40 years of failed policies.
based on this being a democracy and all
We are not a Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. I don't think you really want the majority to pass laws to take away the freedoms of the minority. Though it sometimes seems like the minority wants to control the majority. I have a long history of cynicism. Ever since JFK bought the 1960 election. I was only 17 and not old enough to vote in that one.
As far as EVs. The only ones sold in this country are the very elite Tesla. And the Xebra. The latter gets around the rules by the fact that it only has 3 wheels and is considered a motorcycle. Now I want you to think about the ignorance of our regulators. They will allow you to buy and drive a 3 wheeled vehicle without any special airbags, crash tests or crumple zones. Yet a company that would like to build and market a 4 wheeled EV without all the safety and crash tests is blocked. Are those people that ride motorcycles less important than people driving cars. Why no crumple zones on a motorcycle that can do 0-60 in 4 seconds. And you wonder why I am cynical.
last summer, when gas prices were high, a guy at work told me he got better mileage from his civic that he did from his motorcycle. it could have been something to do how he drove them.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Not having a total reliance on foreign oil (or foreign manufacturing, or foreign goods) would be a good start.
Our #1 supplier is Canada. Mexico is pretty high also. Because Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and UAE are so reliant on us, they are friendly to us which they otherwise might not be. There is nothing wrong with us using oil, any more than there is a need for Saudi Arabia and others that need our wheat and corn. The U.S. economy is by far the largest so I don't see where these statements of yours are exaggeration.
I also don't see the government as being particularly effective in anything they do. Why? Because they don't judge projects like the private sector does, with the incentive to make profit. This is much the same reason that socialistic countries failed economically and collapsed when competing with the West.
We need a smaller government that does not dictate directions. Government should provide the basic, fair capitalistic rules-of-the-game and enforce them; but not be trying to micromanage people's daily lives and choices. The government should not try and determine for anyone how much fuel they should (or need to) use, or artificially set the price for someone's idea of "greater good".
There is plenty of energy in this universe, and it is not a "sin" in any form, to use the resources provided us.
I guess my question would be, what are businesses supposed to do when taxes eat them alive? Simply shutter their business? Lay off people until they make up for the extra taxes? Pay their employees less? Reduce the quality of their products and services? Offshore more or all of their production?
The reality is that I can only absorb a certain amount of increased taxation before I have to pass it on to customers. I am no different than the food companies that have had to reduce the sizes of their products rather than raise prices. Other products have gone up in price. Some brands or companies just don't exist anymore.
The way I see it, it would be fitting irony if those who are so adamant about increasing fuel taxes would receive the unintended consequences of their actions through wage freezes, being laid off or having to figure out how they are going to make ends meet when the prices of everything go up even more.
Right now, even without the increased fuel taxes, our economy is in the septic tank. Does it really make sense to increase fuel costs even more and drive our economy even farther down into the sewer? The increased taxes for the sake of infrastructure only helps the status quo. Those who use less fuel in more efficient vehicles create the vicious cycle that requires ever higher taxes on fuel just to keep the existing structure in place. Perhaps those who don't pay enough in fuel taxes should also be required to pay per mile driven as an additional means to equalizing the burden. Thus those who drive a Prius would pay the same amount as those who drive a Hummer. I see this as fair since the Prius is still causing wear and tear on structures yet not paying enough to cover the costs. The Hummer already pays quite a bit because of all the fuel it uses.
I overriding irony about all of this is there are so many who want to control how others live rather than actually offer the freedom to choose among more choices so that people can decide what they want to do. Public transportation options do not work, or are not in existence, for everyone. Living across the street from where one works is not something everyone can do. Not everyone can walk or bicycle to work either
Comments
You're not really disagreeing with me on this intent of reducing dependency, or the effects. Where we disagree is what should should be done about it. If we can replace the energy we get from oil in some other fashion - great. I want us to still get the same amount of energy and at pretty much the same cost. I am not for increasing a tax on oil, to force people to change their consumption without giving them a replacement - that's my position. I do not want to see people forced from using 50 gal/month to 40gal/month at the same cost, without somehow providing people with the equivalent of 10 gal/month of some sort of other energy.
The effort to reduce oil dependency should not come down to forcing people to use less and pay more/unit. The effort needs to consist of replacing the energy at the same time, at near the same cost.
Boaz old chum, I don't like to hear you so distraught, so I thought I would let you know that the "loophole" you mentioned for manufacturers selling less than 60,000 vehicles a year is only for the first 3 years. Beginning in year 4, the exemption only applies to manufacturers selling less than 4000 vehicles per year. Maybach will probably still be exempt, but in California the exemption may not even include such tiny niche brands as RR and Bentley, we will see. And Hummer? It will be gone by then. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am sure the other states will follow suit but I wonder if they see what some of this has done to our California economy?
The tax till you drop people seem to believe that taxes have no effect on families. We see here in our state that working class families with children take a bigger hit the Arnold and his friends do percentage wise. It is simply heartless to suggest higher taxes at a time when unemployment is going up and more people will be out looking for a job. The value of people's houses has fallen. And it should be clear that a higher gas tax isn't going to get people into the show room to buy a new car in thins economy.
Just stop and look what happened when gas was $4.00 a gallon? People simply stopped supporting their local businesses and places that were heavily involved in Tourism suffered. Don't think so? California Touring companies used the book tours to Mesquite Arizona's CasaBlanca Hotel. That hotel is closing and it is a big part of the economy of that town. The tour companies had to raise prices to get to Mesquite, fuel costs being a major cause, and so the hotel had to drop rates to get people to come. Then visitors fell off and now the Hotel is closing. That tax base for the city is now gone. So what do the tax till you drop people suggest? Now that there is some relief fro $4.00 gas we should tax it back up to make things better?
Stop and look around at what is happening in this country. Then stop and see what is happening to the rest of the world. Read the news and you will see that a higher tax on fuel right now would be like a attack directed right at the heart of our businesses and consumers. Shoot, last night the news said Sony reported a 95 percent decrease in profit.
We are in a depression no matter what some want to call it. You don't raise taxes in a depression. For the first time in years both political parties agree it is not the time to consider raising taxes, the new President keeps saying it. The Republicans agree. That in itself is a rare event. And yet someone that is not an elected official says we need higher taxes? Do such people cut themselves in private for entertainment?
I like the suggestion someone made earlier in this forum. If you don't believe you pay enough in taxes increase what you send to the government. But you know the problem with that? I was looking at a study on one of the networks the other night and they listed how much different groups gave to charity. Liberals, the biggest supporters of higher taxes gave far less than Conservatives. The highest listing our new Vice President had on giving was .3 or .5 percent. That was Point Three or Point five percent. The average conservitive gave more like five to six percent.
(WARNING, CYNICAL MUSING.)
If you want to see food prices increase, raise fuel taxes. If you want to see tourism decrease, raise fuel taxes. If you want people to choose between driving to work or taking their children to the doctor, raise fuel taxes. If you don't think the American consumer has suffered enough in this falling economy, raise fuel taxes. If you hate your fellow American that much couldn't you consider moving to another country and maybe you will like your fellow citizen a bit better?
We have a new treasury director who doesn't pay his taxes till he is nominated to take over the IRS. We were promised that our changed government would listen to the people and we would restrict access of Lobiest and that same director was a Lobbyist. His first hire as an assistant is another Lobbyist and I should believe for a nano second they should be allowed to raise my fuel tax for the "good" of the state? Should I try looking for a white Rabbit and the Mad Hatter?
The very Idea of raising taxes now is closing the barn door after the horse is out.
T'aint gonna happen. At least, not any time soon, because the energy produced from each barrel of oil relative to the cost of producing it beat every other source of energy by a wide, wide margin. Nuclear is efficient for certain applications, so we should follow France's lead on nuclear power generation but, for now, oil trumps all others.
This is one case where I agree. If they want to rebuild the economy and create jobs start building Nuclear power plants. With a half life of what? 360,000 years? Fuel would last longer and we would have the added advantage of a larger electrical grid. I believe in truth automotive fuel is less than 50 percent of our energy useage in this country. So if we change our industrial energy useage to nuclear we would save a lot more than we ever would gain from a fuel tax.
I think people buy relatively small quantities of gas at a time, so a gas tax would meet with relatively little success in changing behavior. I mean, so you pay 10 cents a gallon more, or something like that. Yeah, it sucks, but you drive on. Now, when you get socked for $500 when you buy a car, you pay a lot more attention. You get a $1000 tax credit, you pay more attention.
Yes, there are flaws with this approach. Yes, the wealthy are going to own whatever inefficient car they want regardless of the tax. Percentage-wise, I think the wealthy own a relatively small proportion of the total number of inefficient vehicles on the road. You could even levy the tax on inefficient used vehicles when they are re-sold, and credit sales of efficient used vehicles. I don't know, maybe you incentivize people to live close to work with a deduction if they work within "x" miles of their home...give people a financial incentive to seek housing near work when possible...
Efficiency is like anything, really. You have to give people a logical reason to alter their behavior, and the reason needs to be immediately apparent and significant. If I have to pay $10,000 for solar cells on my roof, but can buy a gas water heater for $500, I'm going to go with the gas water heater no matter how neat I think it would be to have solar power. You give people some incentive to go solar, you get their interest. Maybe I get a $500 tax credit per year for 10 years, maybe I pay a $100 charge on my taxes every year because my furnace is old and inefficient. The carrot and stick can be used to make it make sense for people to change.
In the end, my rationale is that taxing gas hits people spread over time too easy to ignore or deal with the pain. You need to make the pain more immediate and noticeable to get people to change. 10 or 20 or 30 cents a gallon even, eh, most people will gripe but keep doing what they always do.
The problem with that strategy is it completely ignores actual use. The person living in Santa Maria and driving to Santa Barbara for work (~50 miles) each way every day driving a Prius isn't going to use any less gas than someone with a 5 mile commute within Santa Barbara in an Expedition (the person in SB will pay 3x the rent, but that is neither here nor there)..
But no matter the specifics of where you draw the line, I see the idea of taxes-and-credits as being mettlesome and needlessly complicated. In summary here's my position:
1) the gas tax should cover road and bridge maintenance fully.
2) the gas tax needs to increase as costs increase for roads and bridges
3) the federal gas tax should not increase for grandiose projects benefiting a limited area. Anyone from New England knows of the $15B spent for a few miles of tunnel and bridges, of a project the was origianlly supposed to be $2B. After $2B was spent, the feds should have said "Mass. you can pay for this with your local taxes".
4) the gas tax should NOT be used for Green purposes. While everyone may want everyone to be efficient, I feel that is fine. But I do not want the government determining how efficient I should be and in what ways (that in itself is inefficient - a waste of government resources). The government should educate, not penalize or determine how much energy anyone can use and how.
5) if someone wants to tell me to use less oil/gasoline, I want a replacement energy. Start building nuclear plants, clean coal electrical plants, wind mills and solar, and make decent electric cars available.
BTW: if we as a society do want to decrease oil/gasoline usage, before coming to the motorist I can name a bunch of things that use oil/gasoline that are less beneficial to society. For example I would first look at eliminating recreational activities that use such (millions of power/recreational boats, snowmobiles, ATV's) and then limit recreational driving (your state tourism bureau sure wouldn't like me, and I also have a problem with states wasting money on tourism ads, while they can't afford to feed and care for the poor!).
As long as the government has to go to war all over the Middle East just to keep the oil flowing, it is an ENORMOUS vested interest of the government's to get people using less oil overall. I'm just saying...
As for the gas tax, we would need an almost $0.20/gallon increase TOMORROW just to restore it to the level it was in 1993, after inflation. I say make it $0.30 tomorrow instead, and then increase it a dime a year after that. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Automakers Join Call for Higher Federal Gas Tax
If you don’t think the automotive world is shifting beneath our feet, think again. USA Today reports on a growing trend: car makers and dealers pushing for higher fuel taxes, of all things. The auto industry’s newfound love of eco-friendly policy comes down its need to satisfy increasingly stringent federal fuel economy regulations. If gas prices stay low, the government-pleasing vehicles will continue to languish on the lots and docks, Prius-like. Small car profit margins will disappear, Prius-like. AutoNation CEO Mike Jackson was ahead of this particular curve ball when he called high gas prices a good thing. MJ is now joining the New York Times editorial board (amongst others) calling for increased federal taxes to git ‘er done. (After all, European motorists pay their governments through their nasal passages for the privilege of fueling their vehicles.) One of Uncle Sam’s new BFFs agrees. “GM CEO Rick Wagoner said taxing gas or providing rebates on fuel-efficient cars ‘is going to be the most effective way to move the needle fast.’” While Jackson and Wagoner are of one mind on raising gas taxes (or something), the AutoNation jefe is no fan of all this wild needle swinging stuff. “We watched the consumer stampede to fuel efficiency in May, and now the herd is getting ready to stampede back to their old ways,” says Jackson.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/automakers-join-call-for-higher-federal-gas-tax- - /
Price shocks like the one last year are much worse for the economy as a whole than a slow but steady increase in the price of gas over time via taxation. The latter is predictable and stable, the former isn't.
Here:s one example of that:
Price swings are used-auto 'nightmare'
Dealers say volatile fuel costs make planning tough
Used-vehicle prices have fluctuated so much recently that dealers say they are having trouble choosing which used cars and trucks to buy and how to price them at retail.
The chief culprit, dealers say, is the price of gasoline, which has swung from about $3 a gallon a year ago to more than $4 last summer to less than $2.
As gasoline prices drop, dealers say, used-vehicle customers are more interested in trucks and less drawn to fuel-efficient cars. When fuel prices spiked last year, they say, the preferences were reversed. Those changes affect used-vehicle sales and prices.
Compounding the problem, dealers add, are the decreased availability and higher cost of floorplan loans, which make decisions about used-vehicle inventory even more critical.
"I've never seen anything like this," says Dave Conant, who owns eight dealerships in Southern California. "The volatility has been really hard to get your arms around. It affects the opportunity for dealers to make any kind of business decision."
Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation Inc., the nation's largest dealership group, says drastic changes in fuel prices have made used-vehicle inventory management at his company's 278 stores a "nightmare."
"We've been on a roller coaster," Jackson told Automotive News. "Last March I couldn't give away a used Prius. In June I was paying $4,000 over book to get a Prius. Today I can't give away a Prius."
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090126/ANA06/901260361/1132- /ANA09&template=printart
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Surely you jest? I count 1 war we were involved in - Iraq. Was the oil flowing before and immediately up to the beginning of the war in 2002? Yes. So we never went into Iraq to GET the oil flowing. We went into Iraq mainly so that a man like Saddam would not have the oil revenues to rebuild his military.
As for the gas tax, we would need an almost $0.20/gallon increase TOMORROW just to restore it to the level it was in 1993, after inflation.
That's fine. As long as it is used for roads and bridges only; and not schools and subways.
As for Rick Wagoner, say what you will about him, but he was far from the only one quoted in that article, and if you read the original article it was sourced from, there were even more saying it's high time, even PAST time to do this.....
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)
War for oil means we went to oil to acquire oil. Have we acquired any oil as spoils of war?
No.
Quite a few American corporations have reaped windfall profits since this war began, some of them directly tied to oil...seems close enough.
War is always profitable to SOMEONE. Does not mean wars are started for profit.
The war in 2002 was just a continuation of Desert Storm. Desert Storm was prematurely ended due to it being a "UN War", and all the political issues involved with that. Again that war was fought to keep Saddam Hussein from getting the oil and using its revenue, to build a larger military and increase his empire.
For oil to be of any value - it must flow, it does no one any good to sit in the ground or to embargo anyone.
Similarly Iran which hates the West openly, sells as much oil as it can to the West. It has to. There is no worry that they shut it off, as they absolutely need the $$, and they need to sell oil as they don't refine anything. If they don't sell oil, guess what - no refined oil products come back into Iran to keep it going! They import gasoline!
As for Rick Wagoner, say what you will about him, but he was far from the only one quoted in that article, and if you read the original article it was sourced from
I probably won't read it, but yes I'm sure there are many people and organizations who want the government to set a policy to improve mpg; and for many reasons. Rick Wagoner certainly wants that - why? because it would simplify his product-planning for the future, knowing what to design. He and other auto manufacturers thus would BENEFIT financially (not losing money by designing and producing vehicles people may not want next year). So does this surprise you that someone wants something they gain from?
Salaries for a few at what cost, now and in the future, for everyone else? Or does it all trickle down.
Profit and the demands of special interest groups are what make modern war.
However when someone talks about increasing taxes on fuel after bailing out Wall street for wasting their money. When you take my tax dollars to bail out the banks that simply are buying banks in China with the money or airplanes from France I'm not so supportive. Oh and the best part? They took the bailout money and gave the top executives a monster bonus while we the tax payer are getting laid off?
Tax our fuel so they can send more money to the banks? Didn't they get a big enough bonus already?
Even suggesting that if they increase fuel taxes it will go to roads or stimulating better cars is calling everyone in these forums a fool. It simply isn't going to work.
Tax businesses and small business owners all you like. We will pass the costs on to the customers. I hope you like higher prices.
By the way for those who think that everyone can use public transportation to get to work or can always find a place to live close to work, get outside of the Left and East Coast metro areas. The majority of the United States does not have easy access to public transportation and many people cannot afford to live close to work due to housing costs. If you want to penalize working class folks, go right ahead. We may just string up the environmentalists and the Liberals and the Democrats as wind chimes.
As for encouraging more fuel efficient vehicles, until we can get the diesel powered vehicles they often use in Europe we will still be behind on fuel economy standards. Even the Prius is nothing compared with the economy numbers of most diesel vehicles of that size and smaller. We also don't have many more efficient models of commercial vehicles for small business owners and contractors. Figure out how to get those European diesel vehicles on our shores and by simple economics most of us would see the logic and economics in buying a vehicle.
Right now the choices are few when you look at practical things such as payload capacity, fuel economy and comfort for the size of the vehicle, especially for those used by small businesses.
By the way, my 2000 Ford F-150 with a 4.2L V-6 and 5 speed manual overdrive gets 27 mpg on the highway. I eat the lunch of most currently produced compact cars, let alone other smaller vehicles. Only the currently produced smaller engined econoboxes and hybrids get better mileage. I can also out distance them even with a full payload, when my economy drops to about 25 mpg.
Where can I find a more fuel efficient cargo hauler that can carry at least a half ton of payload?
Also, if I just needed something to get me from point A to point B, I would buy a motorcycle or larger scooter. Those vehicles are even better on fuel and are more easily parked.
I'm with Larsb on this issue also. Using military might to grab resources and other assets has been the norm for powerful countries throughout history. The U.S. has had the military might to take over the oil fields in the Middle East and elsewhere by force, but it hasn't done that.
You will charge what the market will support. Or you will have fewer customers. Or you have something about your business that differentiates you so much that price isn't an issue.
Tax businesses and small business owners all you like. We will pass the costs on to the customers. I hope you like higher prices.
I don't think business, large or small, was singled out. And as mentioned before, you will charge what the market will give.
The majority of the United States does not have easy access to public transportation and many people cannot afford to live close to work due to housing costs. If you want to penalize working class folks, go right ahead.
A very valid point. But "afford" is also relative. Can the working class "afford" to live in a 2000 sq ft ranch on an acre in the city, probably not. Can they get a 3 bedroom townhouse with a park across the street...that might be more do-able. Can they cyber-commute? Can they tele-commute?
As for encouraging more fuel efficient vehicles, until we can get the diesel powered vehicles they often use in Europe we will still be behind on fuel economy standards. Even the Prius is nothing compared with the economy numbers of most diesel vehicles of that size and smaller. We also don't have many more efficient models of commercial vehicles for small business owners and contractors. Figure out how to get those European diesel vehicles on our shores and by simple economics most of us would see the logic and economics in buying a vehicle.
I think the other thing that needs to happen with that is diesel needs to be produced in the US in enough volume to maintain similar pricepoints (or the taxes could be used for that as well).
By the way, my 2000 Ford F-150 with a 4.2L V-6 and 5 speed manual overdrive gets 27 mpg on the highway. I eat the lunch of most currently produced compact cars, let alone other smaller vehicles. Only the currently produced smaller engined econoboxes and hybrids get better mileage. I can also out distance them even with a full payload, when my economy drops to about 25 mpg.
So if you have this great pickup that gets great fuel economy, what are you complaining about?
Riiight and I am sure the UN and the rest of the world would just be stoked about that. I wonder how much support we would get...spoils of war?
Is our system perfect? No, but then no system is perfect. Even the best system requires making difficult choices and accepting tradeoffs. I'd say that, despite its imperfections, the U.S. system of business and governance has served the citizens of this country very well over the years.
I like how you think Welcome to the FORUM.... We don't need more tax and spend.
And what business have you owned and run to support your theory?
And what business have you owned and run to support your theory?
Okay, you go ahead and charge more than people are willing to pay and let me know how it goes. I will wait here.
This is the whole argument about the domestic auto industry...if you can't turn a profit making your product, then maybe you shouldn't be in business. Thats what the American people said to the auto industry, I don't see why mom and pop should be any different.
Some brilliant thinkers over the centuries have argued that taxation is theft.
Lower income individuals would be most adversely impacted by this tax.
So why should we steal more of the taxpayers money?
When will the world improvers please leave us alone?
The free market place has always been the best allocator of scarce resources. Witness technology.
The areas where the world improvers have most helped and regulated us are a dissaster. Witness the financial industry.
My answer to the question of a gas tax is no.
As a matter of fact if we eliminated all current taxes on oil and the thousands of federal and local regulations gas would probably cost us: 80 cents per gallon.
Exxon earns approximately six cents per gallon profit while total Federal and local taxes are close too fifty cents. Who is more greedy??????
Seems like a simple logical process. However as the oil bubble showed US it can have some very negative aspects. Several trucking companies around here went broke during that period. They could not compete against Mexican truckers getting diesel for half the price. By the time the bubble burst it was all over for them. It is bad enough that outside forces are destroying competition. When the government does it we have no where to go but down.
What is ironic 50+ years ago General Motors used their clout to destroy the competition. Now they are getting their just dues. Only it is the financial sector that has brought them to their knees, along with high labor and legacy costs. RIP
If we had Federal and state governments we could trust. It would be nice to believe an extra 20 cents a gallon would fix the bridges so they do not collapse and kill people. Sadly we cannot trust them to do with taxes as they say. So I would have to vote against any politician that was for adding more taxes to anything. My advice is CUT spending. They have more than enough money coming in.
No question in my mind. The government IS the PROBLEM, not companies like Exxon. They are making a reasonable profit. No more than Pepsi or Coca Cola, that do US NO good at all. CA gas tax is about 64 cents and diesel 68 cents. I believe we have the distinction of being the highest taxed.
Survival of the fittest, right? Only the strongest survive.
They could not compete against Mexican truckers getting diesel for half the price.
Yup, and whose legislative nightmare was that? Why are there truck drivers from other countries even driving in the US? Why are they using trucks for that at all, rail is more efficient and environmentally friendly.
What is ironic 50+ years ago General Motors used their clout to destroy the competition. Now they are getting their just dues. Only it is the financial sector that has brought them to their knees, along with high labor and legacy costs. RIP
So you do feel that its tough nuts for the domestic auto industry? And then you want people to cry about small business? Better start learning Hindu or Cantonese and start whining to them.
Gas should be $4/gallon. Taxes take it from $2/gallon up to its current price. That money can be used to develop better batteries for electric cars and hybrids, fixing the transportation infrastructure, and supporting new technologies. As the President said, "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."
You just don't get it do you? They only say that kind of stuff to get votes. They all know that raising the gas tax will hurt their main voting base. If there is money to be made the new technologies and batteries will be developed by the private sector. The government has a long history of wasting money on failed ideas. There are a lot of EVs being sold in Japan and the EU. Wonder why they are not for sale here? I'll give you 3 guesses. EPA, CARB & the gas tax collectors.
To be blunt, if I can figure out how to get a Honda Fit to work for a large part of my business for foul weather and a motorcycle for fair weather majority of the year use and save my pickup for the times when I absolutely have to have a heavier cargo hauler I will try to implement that as a better plan for resource uses. My issue is figuring out how to find solutions that will work with existing options, such as using trailers attached to smaller vehicles to get around in/on vehicle cargo limitations.
Were I able to make a Prius work for me, it would be nice from the fuel economy standpoint, but not the cargo capacity/volume standpoint.
Taxing to change behaviors often has unintended consequences. In the case of motor fuels it puts more pressure upon those who have less disposable income and those who don't have access or feasible access to public transportation options. It also pushes the cost of fuel downstream to the final consumers. Say gas is four dollars a gallon again and we add a dime a year to it right then. Say the next year after that gas rises another dollar and we stand at 5.20 a gallon. The need to transport products by trucks is still needed, but with the cost of fuel rising businesses have to cut back more and/or pass along fuel costs to stay in business. Consumers are then paying more for fuel, have less income for other needed items plus they are now paying more for those same other needed items.
On top of that we want to put even more taxes on vehicles that are used by businesses, farmers and ranchers. The costs will have to be passed along or those businesses, farmers and ranchers will need to fold.
Figure out ways to give me options that I can use in a practical manner and I am willing to see if they will work for what I need them to do. Tax me higher and higher and I have less incentive to change willingly because instead of giving me carrot options that I might really want to use, I receive stick taxes that punish me for not having the practical options I need to change over voluntarily. Giving me stick taxes motivates me to have a long memory and push back hard against even ideas that I might have agreed with had I not been punished for trying to do the best with what options I have available.
Motorcycles are less expensive, get better fuel mileage are easier to park and cost less to insure than a Smart car. Even today if they were doing it for the rest of us they could give up their Tree Hugger hybrids and get a motorcycle in the 250 range and get a lot better fuel mileage and better performance than any car in their driveway. But they aren't doing it because they have an excuse. It wasn't their idea of how the planet could be saved.
Some will come on and say, "ya but I need a car" for a hundred different reasons but the truth is they are just like everyone else and they are only interested in the image of doing good even if they aren't willing to do the best they can to do good.
There are times we need a car but 99 percent of our commuting is not one of them. Lets be kind, 75 percent of the time a car isn't necessary for commuting. And that is exactly the excuse the hybrid and small car people use to attack people that don't drive a small car or hybrid. Maybe if we gave the motorcycle people a tax break for commuting on one rather than drive a car that will force people into riding motorcycles. Think of all the fuel we could save. Over night you could make the ugly Prius obsolete.
And for those that say people will only pay what the market will support if a business raises prices to pass on the tax? How many in here have noticed the price of children's cereal in the store? How many realize how high milk has gotten? How many have stopped feeding their children rather than pay the higher prices?
Reality sucks doesn't it? :P
Short term, short sighted views are a lot of what created the current mess over the last 8 years. Not having a total reliance on foreign oil (or foreign manufacturing, or foreign goods) would be a good start.
If there is money to be made the new technologies and batteries will be developed by the private sector.
Right, just not in the US. Other national governments fund research to support their industries and needs.
The government has a long history of wasting money on failed ideas.
And private industry never does that? We have a guy in this forum right now that is apparently a small business owner that doesn't understand how to price his product or service. Best of luck to him.
There are a lot of EVs being sold in Japan and the EU. Wonder why they are not for sale here? I'll give you 3 guesses. EPA, CARB & the gas tax collectors.
While I agree that CARB is totally worthless, followed by the CAFE standards, I don't see them as inhibitors in this. Diesel technology maybe, but not EV. Most direct foreign models have more issues with FMVSS than with the EPA.
I don't really expect a gas tax, but thats not what the question is asking. The question is asking if its good for America, and I believe it is. As relayed in other forums, based on this being a democracy and all, my vote/opinion counts just as much as yours. I just lack the cynicism.
Short term, short sighted views are a lot of what created the current mess over the last 8 years.
How about the previous 8 years when gas was cheap and SUVs really went mainstream? The mess the last 8 years can very well be attributed to the last 30-40 years of failed policies.
based on this being a democracy and all
We are not a Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. I don't think you really want the majority to pass laws to take away the freedoms of the minority. Though it sometimes seems like the minority wants to control the majority. I have a long history of cynicism. Ever since JFK bought the 1960 election. I was only 17 and not old enough to vote in that one.
As far as EVs. The only ones sold in this country are the very elite Tesla. And the Xebra. The latter gets around the rules by the fact that it only has 3 wheels and is considered a motorcycle. Now I want you to think about the ignorance of our regulators. They will allow you to buy and drive a 3 wheeled vehicle without any special airbags, crash tests or crumple zones. Yet a company that would like to build and market a 4 wheeled EV without all the safety and crash tests is blocked. Are those people that ride motorcycles less important than people driving cars. Why no crumple zones on a motorcycle that can do 0-60 in 4 seconds. And you wonder why I am cynical.
it could have been something to do how he drove them.
Our #1 supplier is Canada. Mexico is pretty high also. Because Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and UAE are so reliant on us, they are friendly to us which they otherwise might not be. There is nothing wrong with us using oil, any more than there is a need for Saudi Arabia and others that need our wheat and corn.
The U.S. economy is by far the largest so I don't see where these statements of yours are exaggeration.
I also don't see the government as being particularly effective in anything they do. Why? Because they don't judge projects like the private sector does, with the incentive to make profit. This is much the same reason that socialistic countries failed economically and collapsed when competing with the West.
We need a smaller government that does not dictate directions. Government should provide the basic, fair capitalistic rules-of-the-game and enforce them; but not be trying to micromanage people's daily lives and choices. The government should not try and determine for anyone how much fuel they should (or need to) use, or artificially set the price for someone's idea of "greater good".
There is plenty of energy in this universe, and it is not a "sin" in any form, to use the resources provided us.
The reality is that I can only absorb a certain amount of increased taxation before I have to pass it on to customers. I am no different than the food companies that have had to reduce the sizes of their products rather than raise prices. Other products have gone up in price. Some brands or companies just don't exist anymore.
The way I see it, it would be fitting irony if those who are so adamant about increasing fuel taxes would receive the unintended consequences of their actions through wage freezes, being laid off or having to figure out how they are going to make ends meet when the prices of everything go up even more.
Right now, even without the increased fuel taxes, our economy is in the septic tank. Does it really make sense to increase fuel costs even more and drive our economy even farther down into the sewer? The increased taxes for the sake of infrastructure only helps the status quo. Those who use less fuel in more efficient vehicles create the vicious cycle that requires ever higher taxes on fuel just to keep the existing structure in place. Perhaps those who don't pay enough in fuel taxes should also be required to pay per mile driven as an additional means to equalizing the burden. Thus those who drive a Prius would pay the same amount as those who drive a Hummer. I see this as fair since the Prius is still causing wear and tear on structures yet not paying enough to cover the costs. The Hummer already pays quite a bit because of all the fuel it uses.
I overriding irony about all of this is there are so many who want to control how others live rather than actually offer the freedom to choose among more choices so that people can decide what they want to do. Public transportation options do not work, or are not in existence, for everyone. Living across the street from where one works is not something everyone can do. Not everyone can walk or bicycle to work either