Though it sometimes seems like the minority wants to control the majority.
It depends how you view personal freedoms, and also your own opinions. I am fine with no smoking in restaurants or public areas. I resent being told what to drive.
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.
Right, which has nothing to do with the EPA, CARB, or CAFE, that is FMVSS stuff. And if more than 3 people had motorcycles and the resulting injuries and fatalities increased, you would see more legislation on safety requirements for motorcycles. BMWs and Hondas have linked brakes and ABS. That creeps me out.
I also think safety stuff is spiraling out of control because of the differential in vehicle size. If everyone had a golf cart, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but if your Suburban nails my golf cart, that would be ugly.
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.
Depending on the bike, the engine could be bigger than the Civic too. A big twin Harley is in the 20s for MPG, and a Goldwing has more displacement than some Civics.
The Ninja 500 (much more of a standard than a sport bike) gets mileage in the high 40s low 50s and is, to me at least, about 1000x more fun then a Prius, excepting weather conditions.
My old 850 shaft drive Yamaha got 45 but I wasn't a kid at the time. My 250 Honda got closer to 70 and even hitting it hard in never dropped below 50. If people wanted to save the planet they could commute on something other than a 25-35 MPG 4 door car. They don't want to go that far so any debate on who is driving for your family or mine is BS. They are driving what they want because that is how they want to get from point A to point B. Just exactly like people did when they decided not to get a sub compact and got a SUV instead.
No one gets a Pruis for the benefit of mankind that is nothing more than a excuse for why they got what they got.
The main thing the politicians need to do is stop wasting so much money. They are just like kids you give money to that don't have to work for it. They never learn to manage what they have and can never get enough.
I think some of the people commenting in these carspace forums would do alot better job running the country than what we've got, or had! A little honesty and common sense mainly common sense would work wanders.
I was driving my 50 mpg motorcycle instead of my 25 mpg car. An 8.2 liter Caddilac Eldorado came up along side me and ran me into the median of I-95 at 70 mph. The motorcycle was relegated to non-commute use and I sold it soon after. I wanted to be able to play sports with my sons when they got older and not be in a wheelchair over a few thousand dollars worth of gas.
A recent closer look at where all my money goes each month revealed that 35% goes to taxes and 8% for insurance, which is gov't mandated. I get 57% to decide what to do with. The gov't sees me get that 57% and their mouth waters. They think...how can we snatch another chunk of that from him? Enter new Gas tax.
Thanks to sub $2 gas recently and moving to a closer to work location last year, my gasoline expenses have fallen from 7% to 2% of my budget and I drive a 3650 lb car or a 3850 lb truck. With 35% of all my money, the gov't is now suddenly feeling the pinch from me not using enough gas? I drive a '96. What is the gov't guy driving who thinks he needs more of my money in taxes driving? My neighboring city just bought 80 new Camry hybrids. They also said their police fleet isn't able to turn over inventory every 48 months like they want to and will have to start putting two officers in some cars unless they can get more tax money. GDP going down 3.8% in 4th quarter is driving down tax revenues but aren't 5% more people now stay off roads, home on unemployment? Check the parking lot at restaurants at lunch time.
I wanted to be able to play sports with my sons when they got older and not be in a wheelchair over a few thousand dollars worth of gas.
Probably a wise move. I always worried about my son in law riding on our crazy freeways here in San Diego. A very good friend that I raced moto cross with in the 1970s was killed when an 80 year old woman in a Cadillac pulled out of a mall without looking. She only lost her license as a result. His wife and child were devastated.
They think...how can we snatch another chunk of that from him? Enter new Gas tax.
That is exactly right. The only protection we have is the 50% of the population that pays little or no income tax will be hit the hardest with a gas tax. They cannot afford a Prius or even a Yaris. About all they can afford is a 10 year old Impala with 150k miles on the odo.
"I was driving my 50 mpg motorcycle instead of my 25 mpg car. An 8.2 liter Caddilac Eldorado came up along side me and ran me into the median of I-95 at 70 mph."
Valid point and one I understand completely. But it is part of the same argument against driving a Smart Car. It was the same conclusion the NHTSB made in the 1998 large vehicle verses small vehicle accident study. Nose to nose or nose to door the bigger vehicle wins and the small vehicle gets hauled away with a stick and a spoon. But that is the choice small car drivers make. And most make it because? Small cars get better fuel mileage, are easier to park, more manuverable and mostly cost less to insure. So they propose a fuel tax to get us into small cars. I say that if you use that logic then small motorcycles and scooters should be a better choise. Extream I know but just as logical.
The key here is the tax fuel people want to force people to see things the way they do and are frustrated when people choose comfort or safety rather than the choices they make. They aren't satisfied to let the market move where it will.
I once asked if the debate would stop if we had fuel efficient SUVs. Would they be happy if we got 45 MPG in a SUV that could pull 8000 pounds and seat 6. No that wouldn't do because of a lot of other reasons, like size, visibility, and bumper height. The people that don't like trucks, SUVs and big road cars are in the minority and have been for years, Accord and Camry are no longer considered small cars. So when you are a minority consumer and you can't get people to follow your lead what do you do? You try to make it a moral issue, and it isn't, or you try to force other to follow your example by taxing them.
Sometimes that works for a while, like it did with the manufactured fuel crisis in the 70s. People were reduced to small cars. Why do I say forced? As soon as things leveled off people started buying bigger cars. They may have legislated big Station wagons off the road but people moved to Mini-vans then trucks and SUVs. Showing clearly what people prefer. Now the economy is in the dumper and the minority once again sees a chance to force the minority to see the wisdom the small car people believe they have always had. It is not a moral issue and they aren't doing it for the rest of us. How could it be moral to tax a suffering working class at this time? It is kicking the consumer while they are down because they feel no one will fight back. Even the new leaders just elected to office like the President have said, "this is not the time to raise taxes". The republicans agree and yet there are people calling for increased fuel taxes? They must like their dogma a lot more than they have any compassion for their neighbors.
They don't have compassion and they don't care. They just want to look like they are doing the best they can while riding around in limos, busses and private planes. They need to learn self control before they raise any tax.
Wow, the heat is so hot in here, I am COOKIN' just reading all the posts! LOL!
A lot of times people mix up two different sets of arguments concerning SUVs, made by two different sets of people. I believe you may be doing that here. One group doesn't like SUVs because of the problem of mismatched bumper heights, the way they obscure forward visibility etc, but I don't think those people care much about their fuel economy. Perhaps I am wrong.
Some posters here are thinking very much in a static way - the cost of the oil in each gallon of gasoline is $0.80, the supply is for all intents and purposes unlimited, and automakers can't produce a full-size SUV that makes better than 20 mpg (and even THAT one is a $50K hybrid that few can afford).
But neither the cost or supply of oil, nor the automakers' product mix, is static over time. All of these things will change. The one of these three that has spurred talk of a gas tax is the supply of oil, for which we are far too dependent (about 1/3 of our daily use) on the Middle East, on places that may not be too fond of us today, or perhaps tomorrow, or who knows when. If they choose to squeeze us, especially if Saudi Arabia decides to take part, we are at their mercy. Don't you think that's a situation that needs remedying? If so, do you really think that today's status quo is going to change it before the next crisis occurs?
As for automakers' product mixes, what if market forces made it profitable for Ford and GM to offer 45 MPG in a SUV that could pull 8000 pounds and seat 6.? Don't you think they would? I do.
So, taxes are never popular, and certainly folks can stand by their belief that taxes for social engineering are "un-American". But if you agree that overdependence on foreign oil is a problem, both for price and for national security, then I would ask you to come up with a more effective way to reduce that overdependence. Certainly, CAFE isn't going to get us there, and that one isn't too popular in this forum either. Is it really better just to wait until the whole thing blows up in our face again?
PS For those who would advocate "drilling our way out of the problem", I would ask you to look me in the eye and swear to me that in the next 20 years we would get ANYWHERE NEAR replacing ONE THIRD of our daily consumption of oil by increased domestic drilling.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
...with the fuel tax is that like sales tax it is the most regressive type of tax. That means it hits harder the less you make. When I mention this fact it is truly astounding at some of the nasty and downright elitist comments I hear. "Oh those poor people can just drive less or buy a Hybrid" Or "There will always be poor people, so what?". The best comment I have heard is "All the poor people I see have plenty of money for cigs and beer"
I've got news for you folks, some people CAN'T cut back, they CAN'T buy a hybrid and they CAN'T pay any more taxes. If you insist on raising the price of gas get ready to start paying for more welfare as well.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Happy Super Bowl day and I hope that you all are having a nice day.
Enjoyed many of your comments and there may be more to the argument for national security.
Some wise person once said that if goods and services do not cross borders, than tanks and armies will.
The best way to ensure pease between countries is to have mutually beneficial trade. Our problems with many of these coutries may be due to blowback over the years from meddling in their internal affairs.
"Peace, commerce and friendship with all nations, foreign entanglements with none"
"PS For those who would advocate "drilling our way out of the problem", I would ask you to look me in the eye and swear to me that in the next 20 years we would get ANYWHERE NEAR replacing ONE THIRD of our daily consumption of oil by increased domestic drilling. "
We might not be able to do that any more than you can assure us that you are positive that increasing the tax on fuel will decrease our fuel dependance any more than drilling and finding a way to retrieve the shale oil we have will. What is the penalty if I am wrong and drilling only saves us 10 percent? But look at the penalty to the working poor if you tax them. They suffer now and you can't promise them it will do any good or that it will decrease our consumption 30, 20, or even 10 percent.
We have seen what high fuel prices can do to our economy as little as five months ago. We know how food prices go up in direct relation to the price of fuel. We see how heating oil expenses cost people more simply because fuel cost more. You are not talking a few bucks here you are talking Hundreds and even thousands for some households.
The suggestion is a hot button because we "know" the result. We have seen it in less than a year. The tax more people keep saying that the taxes "could be used, should be used, can be used," for a number of things. They say the tax could be offset. Well if that tax had been in effect in California this year and the offset was a refund at the end of the year guess what? We wouldn't get it because they have put our refund on hold.
Here is a pointed question, what do you know the result of a increase of .50 cents a gallon would be on our economy? How will it effect the cost of food and transportation? Not what you wish would happen but what does your experience tell you will happen/
I own and run a small concrete cutting business. I am just a hillbilly from Southeast Ky. I had a real good job that paid me between 40 and 50k per year that I quit to start my own business. I have a high school diploma a strong back and a willingness to work hard. Ain't nobody ever gave me nothin'. I ain't never drawed no foodstamps or welfare. I have a family of four and live in a trailer. We live below our means, we have been very conservative with what we have. I don't mean conservative as in republican neither, they have changed the meaning of the word.
Here's a thought: instead of taxing it, ration it. 25 gallons/month per driver's license, anything over ration costs double. Small business owners keep their receipts and get the extra cost back in their business returns at year's end. If it's a war on terror we want, we ought to be rationing critical supplies, right?! ;-)
BTW, seems like you are saying we can't drill our way out of the problem, but taxation is too harsh a solution. So, if we can't drill our way out what will we do to supplement said drilling? I am looking for ideas, IF and only IF you agree there is an issue worth addressing here. I will concede that you may not, you can just say so if not. But the leadership of the country (both current and outgoing) DOES consider this an important issue, so there may be action on it one way or another.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
(about 1/3 of our daily use) on the Middle East, on places that may not be too fond of us today, or perhaps tomorrow, or who knows when. If they choose to squeeze us, especially if Saudi Arabia decides to take part, we are at their mercy.
I think your view of the geopolitical is "static", being a view from the 1970's. In the 1970's OPEC did not have much invested in the West - they had little built wealth. Relatively their income was high compared to what they had invested in the West. Today their income is a much smaller relative to the hundreds of billions each has invested in the West.
So today even countries that publicly hate us, or mildly dislike sell the West oil. They HAVE TO. Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya ... all sell oil to the West. It is the only thing many have to sell, so to keep their population fed ... they have to sell oil.
If you want to know more do some research on Iran for example. Even selling us oil, they have a budget deficit, and have no capacity to produce gasoline. If Iran stops exporting oil, then the West could simply stop selling them refined oil products. Lets see how far Iran can go without gasoline and jet-fuel.
So there is no practical, logical threat of an oil embargo, unless they want to commit suicide while strangling us.
You can add Venezuela to that list also. With all the ignorance coming from Chavez, he knows that without the USA he is doomed to failure. His Socialist state is in disarray with the low price of oil. Chavez is begging US oil companies to come back and develop his deteriorating oil delivery system. He knows he is going to lose control of his country without the help of the US. Russia and Putin have their own serious problems with cheap oil. Cheap oil is how the BIG guys keep these punks in line.
For the last 50 years or so everyone has spent much more than they earned with little or no savings and now everyone is broke, including the government.
Their solution is that we just need to spend more, that we should not be saving and we should be spending. Makes perfect sense to me.
This whole tailspin started because the artificially high cost of gasoline tipped the fragile balance of our economy and now the solution is to raise the price even more.
The crooks running things have finally just about killed the golden goose (normal hard working Americans) that has kept this country afloat. Now I guess the fall back position is to try to strip the carcass as clean as they can.
Nobody said anything about them stopping oil sales to the West, they just need to squeeze supplies to cause dramatic changes in its price. Saudi Arabia certainly has the breathing room to do that. And look at gagrice's Venezuelan example - just one more place oil is good one minute, the next it's not. Oil production in many of the world's largest exporters is rife with worker strikes and other mayhem, not to mention political shenanigans like Hugo Chavez's antics. It will always be the tail that wags the dog (us) unless we do something about it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Colonize the oil rich nations. Set up a tough dictator that will not take any crap from dissidents. We have done it many times in the past. Or have we gotten WEAK?
You were worried about stability of the oil supply. I was giving a solution. One that worked for many years in places like Iran, Panama, Philippines, Cuba etc... We should not being going in if we are not willing to take control. Our liberal weak mentality does not allow for that. So we have to be satisfied with every two bit dictator pushing US around.
Do you think Obama will be making friends with the Steel mandate in the stimulus plan?
Issue of higher gas tax (for roads, bridges?) is moot in that Pelosi and Dems wrote a stimulus plan that covers roads and bridges somewhat. That stimulus plan needs major revision to allocate even more money for roads, bridges other infrastructure AND to be used this year and next. To get more for roads, bridges, they need to remove "ridiculous" funding such as National Endowment for the Arts, neighborhood stabillzaton (acorn), gangster museum in NV and other Pork. Of course we taxpayers still end up paying for the stimulus plan.
"ridiculous" funding such as National Endowment for the Arts, neighborhood stabillzaton (acorn), gangster museum in NV and other Pork
I think the current Congress and administration's spending plans, will make the last 8 years of waste look like chump change. This Congress is up to about a $Trillion and looking for another $trillion. It was most of the same people that are in control of this Congress that pushed for the $700B to bail out wall street. They will need to increase the cap on the debt before this year is out.
Nobody said anything about them stopping oil sales to the West, they just need to squeeze supplies to cause dramatic changes in its price.
Whether it is squeeze or stop, it is the same result. If they squeeze us such that oil price goes high, it disrupts the Western economies, and the Saudis or others lose more on their investments then they make in extra profit from the price being higher.
For example let's pick a number since no one really knows - say Saudi Arabia princes and government had $1T invested in the West (at least before the current stock market reductions), and they make $7B/month at $75/bbl oil. If they were able to push the oil price to $125/bbl, they would make $15B/month profit. Would this be good for the Saudis? No. Why? 1) Because now they push their customers to use less or go to other fuels - so the $15B is now really $13B/month; and 2) within a month they lose $100B on their investments as the price-shock of the higher oil ravages the world economies.
The members of OPEC are mostly businessmen looking to make personal and national fortunes foremost. Ideals are secondary.
God help us if OPEC nations diversify their revenue sources in the next 20 years, eh?
gagrice: it sounds like you are saying you didn't really mean your suggestion, just wanted to toss one on the pile? How about one that is a good idea to implement?
Sounds like a number of posters here don't feel there is any problem with importing 1/3 of our oil, with price shocks as global demand fluctuates and supply rushes to meet it, as supply is disrupted time and again as it inevitably is, etc etc. I guess we can learn this one the hard way, that's usually the American way. Just look at the banks - I bet we STILL won't put needed regulation in place in that industry after the fuss dies down.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Sounds like a number of posters here don't feel there is any problem with importing 1/3 of our oil
As long as we keep a large surplus in reserve. No, I don't have a problem with importing oil. Until a viable alternative comes along, there is not much we can do. I don't consider the Yugo plan a good one. Nothing comes close to oil for personal and mass transportation. Maybe a nuclear buses and trains would be a good start on weaning ourselves off of oil. I don't see any change from the status quo in my lifetime. Taxing to control peoples lives I find reprehensible. It goes against all that is left good about this country.
Gary says, "Taxing to control peoples lives I find reprehensible."
I agree, when it's framed that way and INTENDED that way.
But most of these taxes are merely intended to keep the states in the black.
More people buying more fuel-efficient cars = fewer dollars in collected gas taxes.
Possible solution? Raise the gas tax to make up for the deficit. If people want to CHOOSE to pay less of that particular tax (and it would be a choice) then they have the choice of driving fewer miles or moving to a more fuel efficient vehicle.
More people buying more fuel-efficient cars = fewer dollars in collected gas taxes.
While I do agree we need to tax enough to keep the infrastructure in good condition. I believe many states CA being one of them, has diverted the gas tax to non infrastructure programs. Tax the users of the services.
My possible solution would be to tax more based on the usage. If you only use half as much gas to travel a given distance, as another vehicle. Double the tax. Make the hummer the base. It gets 10 MPG and pays the 64 cents per gallon. The prius goes 50 MPG so they pay $3.20 in tax per gallon. Then it is fair. Each person is paying the same per mile driven.
Then it is a fair use tax. Face it, all the econo boxes clogging up the highways are NOT paying their fair share of the cost of maintenance. If the Prius drivers had to pay the same per mile as a Hummer they may not run all over the place wasting gas. And causing congestion. :P
God help us if OPEC nations diversify their revenue sources in the next 20 years, eh?
I think they're stuck. Because whoever's buying the oil is where all the economic activity is, and that's where the oil producers money has to go.
Sounds like a number of posters here don't feel there is any problem with importing 1/3 of our oil, with price shocks as global demand fluctuates and supply rushes to meet it,
I'm fine with importing it, though I would PREFER us to be energy independent. But where we differ is you want to penalize people using oil without replacing the oil/gasoline with a similar cost energy. If you want us to give up 100 Trillion BTU's of energy from oil and gas, tell us what fuel/energy you're going to use to add that 100 Trillion BTU's.
You want the policy "of taking away through higher taxes"; I say "before you take it away, have a replacement available". There should be no net loss of energy availability or cost increase. If you want to discourage the use of A by raising the cost 10%, give us B at the old cost of A.
But most of these taxes are merely intended to keep the states in the black.
The states and other governments need to cut like everyone else. If your government is spending money faster than the inflation rate or raising your overall taxes faster than inflation, that is an unsustainable situation.
My property taxes, which if I don't pay cause me to lose the house I supposedly own, went from $8,100 to $9,100 this year (11% increase). I don't even get garbage pickup for that. I'm sure many of us have similar bad tax stories. How exactly after paying my federal taxes, social security, medicare, paying my health insurance, and then paying taxes on phone and electricity bills, a few hundred property tax on my car, and more; why do you think I want to pay more tax?
that Oregon is suggesting was just on TV and if I want to be selfish it is one I might support. It is a tax by mileage as has been suggested here before. Sounds a lot like a road useage tax to be but one of the officials sponsoring the suggested tax explained the states reasoning. If they simply put in a gas tax people might switch to EVs and Hybrids and that would reduce the tax intake by the state. To assure the continued revenue to the state they want to put a black box in our car and tax us by mileage.
On the face of it I would think Larsb and Nippon should love this plan. It looks like the State legislature may be getting ready to enact this plan.
Love it? Not unless it takes into account that the smaller car drivers are doing more good things for the environment and should get a graduated tax break.
Go ahead and tax with on the mileage and use the black boxes - just do so at a lower percentage rate for the most fuel-efficient cars.
Those owners are polluting the air less and are impacting the roads less severely than larger, more polluting vehicles.
"Sounds like a number of posters here don't feel there is any problem with importing 1/3 of our oil, with price shocks as global demand fluctuates and supply rushes to meet it, as supply is disrupted time and again as it inevitably is, etc etc. I guess we can learn this one the hard way, that's usually the American way. Just look at the banks - I bet we STILL won't put needed regulation in place in that industry after the fuss dies down."
What percentage of your electronic goods are imported? What percentage of our Automotive good are imported? Should we tax electronics and imported cars to decrease our dependance on those imports. They effect our tax base and the number of Jobs in the US. We used to call that Tax a tariff much like what japan does with American rice. So do you suggest we add a tax to any imported goods that exceed 33 percent?
I don't get it. You didn't indicate a tax break for small cars with a fuel tax? So here is a law about to be passed to tax people into driving less and using less fuel and you don't love it either? :surprise:
Yeah, the mileage-driven plan makes a lot of sense - it taxes you for miles travelled over the roads, which at least doles out the costs of road maintenance fairly.
Does my little 2100-pound Echo do as much damage to the road as a 5000-pound Chevy Traverse or almost-6000-pound Lincoln Navigator? Will commercial trucking pay the majority of these user fees, as they do the majority of the damage? These are some questions I have. If I get some time, I may look up the details of Oregon's plan.
As to reducing oil use, of course the miles-driven plan does nothing. Someone commuting 15K miles a year in a V-6 Camry is using more gas than I would use driving 30K miles in my Echo. The only way to reduce oil use is to tax it, ration it, or in some other way impact its use DIRECTLY.
But the majority of folks here don't think we need to reduce oil consumption, so there we reach our impasse.... :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So do you suggest we add a tax to any imported goods that exceed 33 percent?
No, to be clear, I suggest we tax all oil consumption regardless of its source. If cars were having a pressing, negative, long-term impact on our society, I would suggest a tax on all cars as you mentioned. I would not tax only the imports.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
well at least if the Oregon plan passes and California ever adopts such a plan I can see I will benefit a lot. My fuel taxes would be less that most Prius owners. I will not put 10k on the Tahoe or the 4 banger econo box. I may put more miles on my Bicycle this year than my SUV. I just changed medical services to a place about 4 miles from my house so that will reduce my driving even more. My other doctor was about 40 miles away.
he news reported that the small car and Hybrid owners were not happy with the Oregon plan yet because the tax effects them just like it does every one else. darn the equality of it all. :P When I heard they were squawking I almost fell on the floor laughing. What ever happened to taxing for the good of all mankind?
That sounds like a plan every politician will love, spend five million dollars to put the black box in everyones cars make two million back, decide its not making as much as they had hoped spend another million getting all their black boxes back!
Comments
It depends how you view personal freedoms, and also your own opinions. I am fine with no smoking in restaurants or public areas. I resent being told what to drive.
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.
Right, which has nothing to do with the EPA, CARB, or CAFE, that is FMVSS stuff. And if more than 3 people had motorcycles and the resulting injuries and fatalities increased, you would see more legislation on safety requirements for motorcycles. BMWs and Hondas have linked brakes and ABS. That creeps me out.
I also think safety stuff is spiraling out of control because of the differential in vehicle size. If everyone had a golf cart, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but if your Suburban nails my golf cart, that would be ugly.
it could have been something to do how he drove them.
Depending on the bike, the engine could be bigger than the Civic too. A big twin Harley is in the 20s for MPG, and a Goldwing has more displacement than some Civics.
The Ninja 500 (much more of a standard than a sport bike) gets mileage in the high 40s low 50s and is, to me at least, about 1000x more fun then a Prius, excepting weather conditions.
No one gets a Pruis for the benefit of mankind that is nothing more than a excuse for why they got what they got.
A recent closer look at where all my money goes each month revealed that 35% goes to taxes and 8% for insurance, which is gov't mandated. I get 57% to decide what to do with. The gov't sees me get that 57% and their mouth waters. They think...how can we snatch another chunk of that from him? Enter new Gas tax.
Thanks to sub $2 gas recently and moving to a closer to work location last year, my gasoline expenses have fallen from 7% to 2% of my budget and I drive a 3650 lb car or a 3850 lb truck. With 35% of all my money, the gov't is now suddenly feeling the pinch from me not using enough gas? I drive a '96. What is the gov't guy driving who thinks he needs more of my money in taxes driving? My neighboring city just bought 80 new Camry hybrids. They also said their police fleet isn't able to turn over inventory every 48 months like they want to and will have to start putting two officers in some cars unless they can get more tax money. GDP going down 3.8% in 4th quarter is driving down tax revenues but aren't 5% more people now stay off roads, home on unemployment? Check the parking lot at restaurants at lunch time.
Probably a wise move. I always worried about my son in law riding on our crazy freeways here in San Diego. A very good friend that I raced moto cross with in the 1970s was killed when an 80 year old woman in a Cadillac pulled out of a mall without looking. She only lost her license as a result. His wife and child were devastated.
They think...how can we snatch another chunk of that from him? Enter new Gas tax.
That is exactly right. The only protection we have is the 50% of the population that pays little or no income tax will be hit the hardest with a gas tax. They cannot afford a Prius or even a Yaris. About all they can afford is a 10 year old Impala with 150k miles on the odo.
Valid point and one I understand completely. But it is part of the same argument against driving a Smart Car. It was the same conclusion the NHTSB made in the 1998 large vehicle verses small vehicle accident study. Nose to nose or nose to door the bigger vehicle wins and the small vehicle gets hauled away with a stick and a spoon. But that is the choice small car drivers make. And most make it because? Small cars get better fuel mileage, are easier to park, more manuverable and mostly cost less to insure. So they propose a fuel tax to get us into small cars. I say that if you use that logic then small motorcycles and scooters should be a better choise. Extream I know but just as logical.
The key here is the tax fuel people want to force people to see things the way they do and are frustrated when people choose comfort or safety rather than the choices they make. They aren't satisfied to let the market move where it will.
I once asked if the debate would stop if we had fuel efficient SUVs. Would they be happy if we got 45 MPG in a SUV that could pull 8000 pounds and seat 6. No that wouldn't do because of a lot of other reasons, like size, visibility, and bumper height. The people that don't like trucks, SUVs and big road cars are in the minority and have been for years, Accord and Camry are no longer considered small cars. So when you are a minority consumer and you can't get people to follow your lead what do you do? You try to make it a moral issue, and it isn't, or you try to force other to follow your example by taxing them.
Sometimes that works for a while, like it did with the manufactured fuel crisis in the 70s. People were reduced to small cars. Why do I say forced? As soon as things leveled off people started buying bigger cars. They may have legislated big Station wagons off the road but people moved to Mini-vans then trucks and SUVs. Showing clearly what people prefer. Now the economy is in the dumper and the minority once again sees a chance to force the minority to see the wisdom the small car people believe they have always had. It is not a moral issue and they aren't doing it for the rest of us. How could it be moral to tax a suffering working class at this time? It is kicking the consumer while they are down because they feel no one will fight back. Even the new leaders just elected to office like the President have said, "this is not the time to raise taxes". The republicans agree and yet there are people calling for increased fuel taxes? They must like their dogma a lot more than they have any compassion for their neighbors.
A lot of times people mix up two different sets of arguments concerning SUVs, made by two different sets of people. I believe you may be doing that here. One group doesn't like SUVs because of the problem of mismatched bumper heights, the way they obscure forward visibility etc, but I don't think those people care much about their fuel economy. Perhaps I am wrong.
Some posters here are thinking very much in a static way - the cost of the oil in each gallon of gasoline is $0.80, the supply is for all intents and purposes unlimited, and automakers can't produce a full-size SUV that makes better than 20 mpg (and even THAT one is a $50K hybrid that few can afford).
But neither the cost or supply of oil, nor the automakers' product mix, is static over time. All of these things will change. The one of these three that has spurred talk of a gas tax is the supply of oil, for which we are far too dependent (about 1/3 of our daily use) on the Middle East, on places that may not be too fond of us today, or perhaps tomorrow, or who knows when. If they choose to squeeze us, especially if Saudi Arabia decides to take part, we are at their mercy. Don't you think that's a situation that needs remedying? If so, do you really think that today's status quo is going to change it before the next crisis occurs?
As for automakers' product mixes, what if market forces made it profitable for Ford and GM to offer 45 MPG in a SUV that could pull 8000 pounds and seat 6.? Don't you think they would? I do.
So, taxes are never popular, and certainly folks can stand by their belief that taxes for social engineering are "un-American". But if you agree that overdependence on foreign oil is a problem, both for price and for national security, then I would ask you to come up with a more effective way to reduce that overdependence. Certainly, CAFE isn't going to get us there, and that one isn't too popular in this forum either. Is it really better just to wait until the whole thing blows up in our face again?
PS For those who would advocate "drilling our way out of the problem", I would ask you to look me in the eye and swear to me that in the next 20 years we would get ANYWHERE NEAR replacing ONE THIRD of our daily consumption of oil by increased domestic drilling.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've got news for you folks, some people CAN'T cut back, they CAN'T buy a hybrid and they CAN'T pay any more taxes. If you insist on raising the price of gas get ready to start paying for more welfare as well.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"I hate the guys that criticize
And minimize the other guys
Whose enterprise has made them rise
Above the guys that criticize."
And what business do you own & run Professor?
Enjoyed many of your comments and there may be more to the argument for national security.
Some wise person once said that if goods and services do not cross borders, than tanks and armies will.
The best way to ensure pease between countries is to have mutually beneficial trade. Our problems with many of these coutries may be due to blowback over the years from meddling in their internal affairs.
"Peace, commerce and friendship with all nations, foreign entanglements with none"
George Washington,
Prosperity to all.
We have forgotten so much of the wisdom of our forebears.
We might not be able to do that any more than you can assure us that you are positive that increasing the tax on fuel will decrease our fuel dependance any more than drilling and finding a way to retrieve the shale oil we have will. What is the penalty if I am wrong and drilling only saves us 10 percent? But look at the penalty to the working poor if you tax them. They suffer now and you can't promise them it will do any good or that it will decrease our consumption 30, 20, or even 10 percent.
We have seen what high fuel prices can do to our economy as little as five months ago. We know how food prices go up in direct relation to the price of fuel. We see how heating oil expenses cost people more simply because fuel cost more. You are not talking a few bucks here you are talking Hundreds and even thousands for some households.
The suggestion is a hot button because we "know" the result. We have seen it in less than a year. The tax more people keep saying that the taxes "could be used, should be used, can be used," for a number of things. They say the tax could be offset. Well if that tax had been in effect in California this year and the offset was a refund at the end of the year guess what? We wouldn't get it because they have put our refund on hold.
Here is a pointed question, what do you know the result of a increase of .50 cents a gallon would be on our economy? How will it effect the cost of food and transportation? Not what you wish would happen but what does your experience tell you will happen/
Ain't nobody ever gave me nothin'. I ain't never drawed no foodstamps or welfare. I have a family of four and live in a trailer. We live below our means, we have been very conservative with what we have. I don't mean conservative as in republican neither, they have changed the meaning of the word.
BTW, seems like you are saying we can't drill our way out of the problem, but taxation is too harsh a solution. So, if we can't drill our way out what will we do to supplement said drilling? I am looking for ideas, IF and only IF you agree there is an issue worth addressing here. I will concede that you may not, you can just say so if not. But the leadership of the country (both current and outgoing) DOES consider this an important issue, so there may be action on it one way or another.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think your view of the geopolitical is "static", being a view from the 1970's. In the 1970's OPEC did not have much invested in the West - they had little built wealth. Relatively their income was high compared to what they had invested in the West. Today their income is a much smaller relative to the hundreds of billions each has invested in the West.
So today even countries that publicly hate us, or mildly dislike sell the West oil. They HAVE TO. Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya ... all sell oil to the West. It is the only thing many have to sell, so to keep their population fed ... they have to sell oil.
If you want to know more do some research on Iran for example. Even selling us oil, they have a budget deficit, and have no capacity to produce gasoline. If Iran stops exporting oil, then the West could simply stop selling them refined oil products. Lets see how far Iran can go without gasoline and jet-fuel.
So there is no practical, logical threat of an oil embargo, unless they want to commit suicide while strangling us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/world/americas/15venez.html?_r=1&hp
I am waiting to hear if Congress says Domestic oil has to be used with the Stimulus bill. As they did with Steel.
Their solution is that we just need to spend more, that we should not be saving and we should be spending. Makes perfect sense to me.
This whole tailspin started because the artificially high cost of gasoline tipped the fragile balance of our economy and now the solution is to raise the price even more.
The crooks running things have finally just about killed the golden goose (normal hard working Americans) that has kept this country afloat. Now I guess the fall back position is to try to strip the carcass as clean as they can.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
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)
Do you think Obama will be making friends with the Steel mandate in the stimulus plan?
I think the current Congress and administration's spending plans, will make the last 8 years of waste look like chump change. This Congress is up to about a $Trillion and looking for another $trillion. It was most of the same people that are in control of this Congress that pushed for the $700B to bail out wall street. They will need to increase the cap on the debt before this year is out.
As power centralizes and governments become regional unions, you'll eventually see that dictator right at home.
Whether it is squeeze or stop, it is the same result. If they squeeze us such that oil price goes high, it disrupts the Western economies, and the Saudis or others lose more on their investments then they make in extra profit from the price being higher.
For example let's pick a number since no one really knows - say Saudi Arabia princes and government had $1T invested in the West (at least before the current stock market reductions), and they make $7B/month at $75/bbl oil. If they were able to push the oil price to $125/bbl, they would make $15B/month profit. Would this be good for the Saudis? No. Why? 1) Because now they push their customers to use less or go to other fuels - so the $15B is now really $13B/month; and 2) within a month they lose $100B on their investments as the price-shock of the higher oil ravages the world economies.
The members of OPEC are mostly businessmen looking to make personal and national fortunes foremost. Ideals are secondary.
gagrice: it sounds like you are saying you didn't really mean your suggestion, just wanted to toss one on the pile? How about one that is a good idea to implement?
Sounds like a number of posters here don't feel there is any problem with importing 1/3 of our oil, with price shocks as global demand fluctuates and supply rushes to meet it, as supply is disrupted time and again as it inevitably is, etc etc. I guess we can learn this one the hard way, that's usually the American way. Just look at the banks - I bet we STILL won't put needed regulation in place in that industry after the fuss dies down.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As long as we keep a large surplus in reserve. No, I don't have a problem with importing oil. Until a viable alternative comes along, there is not much we can do. I don't consider the Yugo plan a good one. Nothing comes close to oil for personal and mass transportation. Maybe a nuclear buses and trains would be a good start on weaning ourselves off of oil. I don't see any change from the status quo in my lifetime. Taxing to control peoples lives I find reprehensible. It goes against all that is left good about this country.
I agree, when it's framed that way and INTENDED that way.
But most of these taxes are merely intended to keep the states in the black.
More people buying more fuel-efficient cars = fewer dollars in collected gas taxes.
Possible solution? Raise the gas tax to make up for the deficit. If people want to CHOOSE to pay less of that particular tax (and it would be a choice) then they have the choice of driving fewer miles or moving to a more fuel efficient vehicle.
How is that "controlling" anyone's life?
While I do agree we need to tax enough to keep the infrastructure in good condition. I believe many states CA being one of them, has diverted the gas tax to non infrastructure programs. Tax the users of the services.
My possible solution would be to tax more based on the usage. If you only use half as much gas to travel a given distance, as another vehicle. Double the tax. Make the hummer the base. It gets 10 MPG and pays the 64 cents per gallon. The prius goes 50 MPG so they pay $3.20 in tax per gallon. Then it is fair. Each person is paying the same per mile driven.
Then it is a fair use tax. Face it, all the econo boxes clogging up the highways are NOT paying their fair share of the cost of maintenance. If the Prius drivers had to pay the same per mile as a Hummer they may not run all over the place wasting gas. And causing congestion. :P
I think they're stuck. Because whoever's buying the oil is where all the economic activity is, and that's where the oil producers money has to go.
Sounds like a number of posters here don't feel there is any problem with importing 1/3 of our oil, with price shocks as global demand fluctuates and supply rushes to meet it,
I'm fine with importing it, though I would PREFER us to be energy independent. But where we differ is you want to penalize people using oil without replacing the oil/gasoline with a similar cost energy. If you want us to give up 100 Trillion BTU's of energy from oil and gas, tell us what fuel/energy you're going to use to add that 100 Trillion BTU's.
You want the policy "of taking away through higher taxes"; I say "before you take it away, have a replacement available". There should be no net loss of energy availability or cost increase. If you want to discourage the use of A by raising the cost 10%, give us B at the old cost of A.
A Prius should pay more than a Corolla but far less than a Hummer if that is factored into the tax.
Think about this: every Prius owner would be driving something else if they did not own a Prius. So Prius has done no additional clogging.
The states and other governments need to cut like everyone else. If your government is spending money faster than the inflation rate or raising your overall taxes faster than inflation, that is an unsustainable situation.
My property taxes, which if I don't pay cause me to lose the house I supposedly own, went from $8,100 to $9,100 this year (11% increase). I don't even get garbage pickup for that. I'm sure many of us have similar bad tax stories. How exactly after paying my federal taxes, social security, medicare, paying my health insurance, and then paying taxes on phone and electricity bills, a few hundred property tax on my car, and more; why do you think I want to pay more tax?
In lieu of better ideas, a gas tax increase will probably happen.
On the face of it I would think Larsb and Nippon should love this plan. It looks like the State legislature may be getting ready to enact this plan.
Go ahead and tax with on the mileage and use the black boxes - just do so at a lower percentage rate for the most fuel-efficient cars.
Those owners are polluting the air less and are impacting the roads less severely than larger, more polluting vehicles.
What percentage of your electronic goods are imported? What percentage of our Automotive good are imported? Should we tax electronics and imported cars to decrease our dependance on those imports. They effect our tax base and the number of Jobs in the US. We used to call that Tax a tariff much like what japan does with American rice. So do you suggest we add a tax to any imported goods that exceed 33 percent?
It's really the same as it always has been - if you drive less, you pay a smaller gas tax.
From that perspective, nothing is changing really.
Does my little 2100-pound Echo do as much damage to the road as a 5000-pound Chevy Traverse or almost-6000-pound Lincoln Navigator? Will commercial trucking pay the majority of these user fees, as they do the majority of the damage? These are some questions I have. If I get some time, I may look up the details of Oregon's plan.
As to reducing oil use, of course the miles-driven plan does nothing. Someone commuting 15K miles a year in a V-6 Camry is using more gas than I would use driving 30K miles in my Echo. The only way to reduce oil use is to tax it, ration it, or in some other way impact its use DIRECTLY.
But the majority of folks here don't think we need to reduce oil consumption, so there we reach our impasse.... :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No, to be clear, I suggest we tax all oil consumption regardless of its source. If cars were having a pressing, negative, long-term impact on our society, I would suggest a tax on all cars as you mentioned. I would not tax only the imports.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
On the other hand, you must not have any other taxes there, since NH is #45 on the tax burden index. Census.gov. 49th per CNN.
Your gas tax rate is lower than mine (NH is #38 - I'm in the top ten, but the data may be stale).
he news reported that the small car and Hybrid owners were not happy with the Oregon plan yet because the tax effects them just like it does every one else. darn the equality of it all. :P When I heard they were squawking I almost fell on the floor laughing. What ever happened to taxing for the good of all mankind?
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-gas-tax4-2009jan04,0,76460- 17.story