No conflict of interest, there, at all. (insert sarcasm emoticon here)
An organization which BUILD ROADS is worried that if the taxes for using those roads are raised or eliminated by a different system, then maybe all of a sudden the guvmint might need FEWER roads and thus put them out of the loop.
we are more concerned with the survival of field mice and spotted owls than the American way of life.
The so-called "American way of life" is based heavily on a pretext that it is now obvious was never sustainable: that there will always be an infinite supply of cheap resources (energy and raw materials) available to Americans.
Oh, and another pretext that was also unsustainable: that growth in consumption is always good.
Uh oh Houston, we have a problem....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The problem is everyone wants to now live at the same level as the United States does. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Growth will continue until the access to the resources are reduced to eliminated. We are no different than any other species save that we are taking longer to find our hard limits. This is because our soft limits have been overcome generally by our intelligence and creativity.
As for fuel taxes or toll roads or whatever one desires to stick it to those one disagrees with, punish those who do the most in the economy and create a larger divide between the haves and have nots and enjoy the chaos.
As for making businesses pay more taxes, either the business passes those costs on to the downstream customers or they go out of business. Unless we desire to sacrifice quality for price for everything we will eventually be forced to deal with the consequences of higher taxes. Because I own a small business as well as work as a contract technology worker, I see the effects on both sides on a daily basis.
Even if taxes push people to the cities and force them to us public transportation like the socialists desire, raw materials still need to be transported, utilities still need to produce power, purify water and provide energy for heating and people will still need to eat. Stick it to the fossil fuel producers and users, for that matter stick it to those who produce the power we need to operate our society and you raise the costs of living for everyone. Those least able to take on the higher costs will be pushed out while increasing suffering for those who lost out.
If greenies want to play hardball, bring it on. I can trump their Prius with a Honda Rebel which can easily make 80 mpg when ridden conservatively.
No matter how bad it gets, it will still be called The American way of Life. I do what I can to sustain it. What do you think of The Saudi Way of Life? They have Oil and need Food. We have food and need Oil. Without corruption, things can work out fine for 100 more years. Spare me the cramped econobox that CR worships. I can afford a starter motor and water pump a few years after my payments ended.
I will admit I have been incredulous when discussing the very prospect of taxing anyone right now in the face of our economy. Listening to the President tonight for one of the few times we agree that this is the time to help the American taxpayer and he has promised a tax break by April. That is this April not next April. Tonight he said we need to give 90 percent of the American people a tax break to get us back on our feet. So he said we can’t govern out of anger in an attempt to punish but out of a need to help people. Not banks or Wall Street or even the failed companies that ignored doing what they should have been doing. So let me clearly state why I believe what I do.
We are in one of the worst recessions in our country since 1929. Our unemployment rate is reaching numbers we haven’t seen in a very long time. People are losing jobs and their homes and are afraid of losing their home or their job. People do not have the discretionary income to go out to dinner let alone risk getting a new car. Recreational sales have dropped off of the map and we have discovered the big six has lied to us and the government when they said EV wouldn’t be possible unless they cost 60k. A small company in Vista has proved that was a lie.
So here is the point. I can’t go back and fix excess spending from the last 40 years. I can say I have no credit card payments and I own my own home not the bank. So this isn’t my fault. Nothing I did caused my neighbor to pay more. And no matter how my neighbor may have gotten into trouble it isn’t my place to kick them when they are down.
So you tell me. If the government can give almost a trillion dollars to Wall Street with no strings attached. They could have addressed the oil problem and they could have addressed the transportation problem with a trillion dollars. Then they decided to give another Trillion dollars to the banks that gave themselves bonuses of over a billion dollars, without increasing the taxes they pay. They paid the auto manufacturers that have been lying to us billions and are going to give them billions more without increasing their taxes. California is getting billions to balance their budget, a budget that was just passed this week with the one caveat that they didn’t approve the gas tax hike.
During all of this bail out time what has happened to the working class? They are losing their homes. Losing their jobs. Remember we just had State unpaid furloughs for many state workers, Fridays off without pay. We also received a promise of an IOU for our tax refund. The working class will be asked to pay for the trillions in bailouts and their children will be asked to pay for them. The domestic automakers are going to be asked to come up with a whole new generation of cars and trucks that they should have built years ago. But they won’t be punished. No the working class will just bail them out. The average tax payer is spending their savings at an alarming rate and can’t get loans to help them survive through this time. One of our local School districts may be laying off 300 employees, many of them teachers.
So the Money men and being taken care of and are getting a tax break. The auto manufacturers have been taken care of and will get tax concessions. The States are going to be taken care of and they aren’t taxed anyway. The federal government has promised to pay for whatever infrastructure we need to get back on top. Infrastructure is roads and bridges and jobs. But what about the common man?
So let me ask a serious question. 1. How will taxing fuel more benefit the average worker today? 2. How will it affect the small business owner with a few small Pickup trucks? 3. How will it affect the over the road truck driver trying to make a living? 4. How will it affect the working poor that can’t afford a new car let alone a new home closer to work? 5. How will it affect people on fixed incomes? 6. How will it affect all of the new unemployed? 7. And whom will it benefit? 8. Who will be better off with less money in their wallet or check book?
I am not talking about philosophy or what should happen but what is happening and what we know will happen if we increase taxes on the working class.
I will admit I am toast on this issue. I have been talking to and working with people trying to find a way to help people get enough gas to get to work or to go look for a job. I have met with people working at helping people find places to live because they lost their house. This is not theory to me it is real and I know more than one family with kids that are right on the edge.
I have this one ethical pledge I will promise right now. I will not vote to punish my neighbor’s choices at a time like this with more taxes. I will not vote for anyone who sees this as an opportunity to reward political friends or dishonest companies by taxing my neighbors. And I will continue to do everything I can to reduce my carbon footprint, which is already smaller than more people I know. So we will disagree on this issue till they put me in a box.
But I’ll still consider you a friend. Still look at and answer the questions as best you can.
Great idea. Somewhere I have a story Mark Twain wrote about learning to ride a bike, a smaller version of the Penny Farthing. I laughed so had my side hurt.
Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer – Fri Feb 27, 4:53 am ET
WASHINGTON – Raise federal gasoline taxes to help pay for road projects?
Not during a recession, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said.
Then how about moving toward a system that finances highway construction by charging motorists by the mile?
When LaHood suggested last week that be considered among other potential financing schemes, he got bushwhacked by the White House. "It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," the president's press secretary said.
With the administration's position seemingly clear, a special commission created by Congress is nonetheless endorsing those two ideas.
Its report Thursday warns that if government fails to find a new way to raise money, "we will suffer grim consequences in the future: unimaginable levels of congestion, reduced safety, costlier goods and services, an eroded quality of life, and diminished economic competitiveness as a nation."
The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission says the current 18.4 cents a gallon gas tax and 24.4 cents a gallon diesel tax are not raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of highway, bridge and transit projects. The commission proposes lifting the gasoline tax by 10 cents per gallon and the diesel tax by 15 cents per gallon, and adjusting both for inflation.
The report also says fuel taxes increasingly will become a less reliable way to pay for highway construction as people drive more fuel efficient vehicles and the number of electric and alternative fuel cars and trucks grows.
Last fall, Congress transferred $8 billion from the general treasury to the highway trust fund to make up for a shortfall between revenue and money promised to states for highway projects. Last week, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press that a vehicle-miles-traveled tax was an idea that should be considered to shore up the trust fund.
The report recommends moving to such a tax, which would mean equipping cars and trucks with a device that uses GPS technology to track the number of miles driven and compute the tax owed. The amount could be adjusted to charge more for travel during peak traffic hours.
Commission members said the transition to a national system would take about 10 years.
The concept was tried in a pilot program in Oregon. Idaho's governor is talking about it. A North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars because gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Advocates said the tax is environmentally friendly because it encourages motorists to drive less and that technology solutions are available for any privacy concerns.
Commission member Geoffrey Yarema, a Los Angeles transportation lawyer, said the commission examined more than 40 types of funding schemes before arriving at a consensus that a mileage-based system makes the most sense.
"If someone else can come up with a solution that achieves the goals we all know need to be achieved and is more politically acceptable, that's great. But we haven't seen that alternative and we tried hard to find it," Yarema said.
Yarema said he isn't discouraged by the White House's rejection of a mileage-based tax.
"I say let's wait and see," Yarema said. "We're all looking for solutions and I'm sure the Obama administration will be looking for solutions as well."
Well maybe the government can cut the cost of highway and road repairs by hiring the now unemployed and paying them minimum wage, in non-skilled jobs on construction crews.
It would lower costs and put more people back to work.
I am sure all the projects will fall under the Davis Bacon act. So any labor will be at the local Union wage.
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is a United States federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects.
The act is named after its Republican sponsors, James "Puddler Jim" Davis, a Senator from Pennsylvania and a former Secretary of Labor under three presidents, and Representative Robert L. Bacon of Long Island, New York. The Davis-Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931.
And I'm sure many of the 10 million illegal immigrants in this country who do construction work, are in this union/ when they're picked up on the street corner. Who do you think's pocketing the difference, between what the construction firm gets paid, and what the illegal worker gets?
We might as well do away with that law and at least give the construction firms reason to hire U.S. citizens at a reduced rate.
A North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
Well, at that rate I would only pay about half as much annually as I do now paying $0.18/gallon in gas tax, and I drive a 40 mpg car. People driving SUVs would only pay 1/4 or less of what they are paying today. That doesn't sound like a formula for funding necessary road maintenance unless it is IN ADDITION TO the existing gas tax. Which maybe would be OK, charged once per year with reg fees. But why not just adjust the gas tax for inflation? Bring it up to around $0.30/gallon, since it has been 16 years since it was last adjusted.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
nippononly: It is one thing if it were per mile tax only (I still have problems with the GPS montoring aspect though) but from the same story is the following, indicating that the VMT is IN ADDITION to an inflation adjusted (i.e always going up per year) gas tax. Plus, we get to buy and maintain the equipment to monitor all our travels, and pay for yet another layer of petty officials to oversee the whole thing.
"The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission says the current 18.4 cents a gallon gas tax and 24.4 cents a gallon diesel tax are not raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of highway, bridge and transit projects. The commission proposes lifting the gasoline tax by 10 cents per gallon and the diesel tax by 15 cents per gallon, and adjusting both for inflation."
You would still be stuck with the 18 cents from the Feds. In CA it is about 55 cents per gallon total tax. For me it would only be about 3.75 cents per gallon at a quarter of a cent, getting 15 miles per gallon. The Oregon plan was in the 1.5 cents per mile range. That would still be cheaper than I am paying now. Of course the guy with the Prius will be paying 75 cents per gallon as he gets to use the road a lot more on each gallon of gas. Seems fair to me.
I don't think the GPS is good or necessary. Odo reading once a year added to your license is cheap and simple.
I guess I still don't get it. If the government can give wall Street close to a Trillion dollars couldn't they have funded road construction in the first place before all the fertilizer hit the fan? And if they didn't spend the fuel tax 100 percent before now couldn't they have funded roads and bridges in the first place simply by spending the other 50 percent or whatever they diverted to other things other than roads and bridges?
Now they are sending out another Trillion dollars so couldn't part of that be used for roads and bridges? Now I would assume if they couldn't be bothered to spend the tax money they already had for roads and bridges and they aren't all that interested in spending what they are getting in bail out funds on roads and bridges that there is between zero and no chance that any funds raised by increasing fuel taxes would be used on roads and bridges. That is zip, Nada, zero not a cent.
So I ask again just who will benefit from raising fuel taxes? What is the history of the use of fuel tax? Why should we believe giving people that poured the fuel taxes they already had down a rat hole would suddenly see the light and not earmark the new fuel tax for something else? I don't know about you but I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny a long time ago. So just what benefit will the working class get from their raised taxes? How will things be better for them with less in their paychecks?
The feds are great for building stuff like roads and building.
When it comes time to maintenance and repair, forget it. Politicians don't get to go to ribbon cuttings when a pothole is patched and local government can't keep up with the maintenance.
I agree but the con they are giving us is what bothers me. The roads needed repair and bridges needed fixed before the economy went in the dumper. They obviously could have financed those repairs because they came up with the money in a hurry to fix Wall Street so no executive would lose a bonus or no bank would have to forgo a party. They had not been using the fuel tax money for fixing roads and bridges when they were flush how can anyone in their right mind even dream that when you increase the funds they are already misusing they will suddenly use them the way they were designed? A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.
all this money is borrowed from future generations, loaned to the government mostly by foreign investors in exchange for treasury bonds.
And I guess the feds didn't consider the backlog of national road maintenance and repair to be worth borrowing for.
This is why we had Prop 1A two years ago here in California, to borrow MASSES AND MASSES of money to catch up the CalTrans road maintenance program. That's why you see huge swathes of interstate suddenly being repaired, widened, and repaved. But it sucks that the state had to take on that massive debt because the fed funding for interstate highways was so deficient, simply because the gas tax has not kept pace with inflation.
Obviously once it is revised it should also be indexed to inflation in some way.
If they have to begin to account for electrics and hybrids with an extra cent/mile in your reg fees, I can understand that. Smog check records your odo every two years anyway. But it should be a graduated fee, starting small while there so few (less than 2%?) electrics and hybrids on the road.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
is NOT the time to increase any tax on anybody including those who make $250,000+ a year. They don't use that much more government and public facilities.
>If they have to begin to account for electrics and hybrids with an extra cent/mile in your reg fees, I can understand that. Smog check records your odo every two years anyway. But it should be a graduated fee, starting small while there so few (less than 2%?) electrics and hybrids on the road.
Are you saying electrics and hybrids should pay an extra tax since they don't pay for it in fuel use and the concurrent tax when purchasing fuel. I'm all for that. Tax the cars that are rated as high fuel mileage. Anything over 35 put a tax on 'er to be paid after odometer check to get new license plates.
you have to consider the yahoo's who will be entering your mileage reading. i averaged driving about 2k per year with my mustang. we used to have emissions testing every year. one year the mileage on the report read 6xxx miles. the next year it was 8xxxx miles! year after that was 1xxxx miles. i probably would have gotten arrested for odometer rollback if there was any tax money involved.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
another 9% for insurance. What to do with the other 56%? I just got a solicitation in the mail from my gas company to sell me utility line insurance. Just $14.95 a month to start, for the rest of my life. It says the utility lines underground in my yard are not their responsibility.
I just read an article in Fortune that said a person earning $500,000 would have to pay $4000 more in taxes that they are not expecting, as AMT, due to deductions on their $50,000 of mortgage interest will be capped under Obama's planned changes. Dividing $50,000 in interest by .06 gives a loan amount of $833,000. These are the people who got million dollar bonuses from bailed out banks that have loans like that.
Remember Joe Diffie's song: I wish I had a problem like that.
Avg. Joe can't afford a new tax. especially one that is driven by unusually low gas usage during a spike in fuel prices. Tax intake always temporarily falls when we are in a recession. Lets let the smoke clear and the economy get on an even keel with steady, leveled out fuel costs and people driving the vehicles that can handle that new future leveled out fuel price and then figure out if the tax needs anything more than an indexing to inflation. Smaller cars do less wear and tear on the roads so any advantage to high mileage is due them, and with the current system, they get it.
It seems there is a consensus regarding a limited gas tax raise which would finance overdue road maintenance and investments
however my view is that gas prices should also cover all the human / environmental /political costs which were involved in the chain.
Taking for example the environmental burden, there are all the health issues due to air pollution which price is definitely not included when fueling up. I don't even mention all the climate change issues which promise to be pretty dear.
The political cost of oil wares is pretty well documented but absolutely not included in the Gallons we burn. While I am sure many people are convinced the Iraqi expedition was done just to punish the evil saddam, I think it would be reasonable to consider that, say 50% was motivated by the desire to maintain the thirsty American way of life.
In this case wouldn't it make sense to have the gas tax help finance the 2000 Billions the operation cost ? I don't even mention the cost of declining goodwill.
We should also take into account the fact that Oil is pushing US trade deficit further, and gives plenty of petrodollars to countries which are not necessarily US friends. This has a cost in terms of safety and a cost on our global finances.
While it is not easy to calculate the amount of tax increase to cover those hidden costs, I am pretty convinced it should be calculated in Dollars per Gallon instead of cents.
When did an economy ever tax itself into prosperity?
What is needed is to have the existing petrol tax directed to highway infrastructure and not bled off to some idealistic feel good destination such as "all the human / environmental /political costs". :P
I often wonder if the dead Kerds were worth anything? Even if they were not the reason to keep a modern day Hitler for destroying people there seems to be reason to believe we wouldn't have wanted to be called Nevil Chamberlain. But it is true we are using their oil while not using what ever oil we have. Is doing right worth any good will? Is doing nothing worth the condemnation from history?
But I also don't remember hearing that you can tax yourself our of a depression.
however my view is that gas prices should also cover all the human / environmental /political costs which were involved in the chain.
And similarly do you support that general tax $'s should not be used to pay for health care for all those who are overweight and have bad diets? I think those people should pay a tax to cover the environmental damage of extra farms, and the tremendous cost to our health care system.
And since I don't have kids, maybe I should get most of property tax back that pays for the schools.
Give me back all the taxes I pay and get nothing for, and then I'll support your idea to pay for hidden costs of oil!
I don't even mention all the climate change issues which promise to be pretty dear.
>90% of all CO2 released is natural. If you know anything about CO2 emissions you'd know the majority of manmade emissions is from electricity generating power-plants. Coal and natural gas are full of carbon and when you burn those as well to heat your home or turn on the TV, you're creating CO2. Personally I burn about twice as much oil in my home directly, as I do in gasoline.
Millions of people here in the Northeast use oil to heat their homes. We'll gladly reduce our oil consumption if and when the Earth heats up a little.
> When did an economy ever tax itself into prosperity?
I am not American, but I understand that most US houshold fall in the 25% income tax bracket. It basically means paying 5-10K USD in tax or even more is pretty common place.
I am very surprised everybody supports this kind of tax system which strikes something that is good for the country : creation of wealth.
Making money is just plain good in many aspects , yet everybody agrees on paying that much income taxes. Otoh, taxing oil burning which is bad for our lungs, bad for US economics and bad for US security, is seen as a disaster ?
>I often wonder if the dead Kerds were worth anything?
Do you mean the Kurds ?
Good thing we went to help them, but they were already doing not too bad thanks to US supports since 1991. Strangely enough, we are pretty lukewarm when it comes to saving the Darfur with its estimated deathtoll of 200.000 or the North Korean people dying under their dictatorship.
I am not saying oil was everything, but we can't reasonably discount this motive can we?
Whatever the debate outcome which is off-topic, there is Iraki oil flowing in US refineries, therefore gas tax should help pay for the total costs involved in securing the supply.
> I think those people should pay a tax to cover the environmental damage of extra farms, and the tremendous cost to our health care system.
Even jokingly, you raised a valid point.
I heard that cigarettes are pretty heavily taxed, so that smokers help support lung cancer treatment fees. A tax on junk food would make sense somehow and help raise awareness that unhealthy foods end up with a large health bill.
>And since I don't have kids, maybe I should get most of property tax back that pays for the schools.
Even if the schools don't raise your kids, they raise the future generation that will be in command when we get older. I egoistically prefer this future generation to be educated.
>Personally I burn about twice as much oil in my home directly, as I do in gasoline.
You raise a very valid point that oil burning is not the exclusivity of cars. I support a tax on oil burning, regardless of the purpose for which it is done. I am not specifically finger-pointing road transport.
"Whatever the debate outcome which is off-topic, there is Iraki oil flowing in US refineries, therefore gas tax should help pay for the total costs involved in securing the supply. "
Sorry about misspelling Kurds and the number that died at the hands of the Iraqis. But it was reminiscent of the Jews in Germany and the willingness of some to allow it to happen.
Help who pay for the supply? Help the working class? If the tax is increased there is no reason to believe it will be used for roads or paying for oil. Our government doesn't buy the oil, companies like Union, Chevron, Mobile and yes BP do. They pay taxes on the profit. Taxing the consumer will simply lower the amount of money that consumer has to spend on other things, like medical care for their children. While many of us are in the 25 percent bracket after deductions we can drop to 11 percent. That is a lot less than the fuel tax we are already paying. And speaking of that tax even it doesn't all go to roads and bridges.
As a nation it is hard to believe anyone would suggest taxing the consumer out of a recession. What ever percentage people are taxed will reduce the amount people spend on taxable products that pay other peoples salaries. This is theory it is reality. Simply look at our unemployment rate and the freezing of the working classes salaries. Any additional tax will reduce those salaries even further. Basic math.
For decades we Americans have paid ridiculously low gas prices that are not the true price of gasoline. Gas needs to be a good $3-$4 a gallon. The true price in meaning the price we inflict on our environment, the price politically we must pay. Any new taxes should go into infrastructure. Build better roads and bridges. Build data/networks to better handle traffic flow/congestion issues in large cities. I was amazed at how Americans changed when gas hit $5 in some areas of the country. If you are smart you could see the future of what gas IS going to cost.
I support a tax on oil burning, regardless of the purpose for which it is done. I am not specifically finger-pointing road transport.
I do respect your opinion. I disagree on oil being singled out because of its negative aspects. First a primer on US income taxes. 50% of workers in the USA pay 3.6% of the total income tax in this country. The top 25% pay the bulk of the income taxes. While taxing oil would even that out considerably. It would have a negative impact on the poor and lower middle income classes. We have had instances in this country where people froze to death because they did not pay one of their utility bills. A tax on oil would not just be added at the pump for gas. As Kernick pointed out a big percentage goes to heat homes, run tractors and generate electricity. All things we in the USA consider essential. Basically a higher tax on oil would take away some of those essentials to those least able to afford it.
We have an administration that has vowed to help the lower income brackets with tax breaks. To tax gasoline would erase the meager tax break in an instant. There is not going to be a large conversion in this country to mass transit. Many transit authorities are barely surviving right now. The cost to ride the bus/trolley in San Diego is more than the cost to drive my gas guzzler. People that can afford to drive don't use the transit system unless it saves them money on parking. When the price of fuel went up it impacted everything. If the government does add a tax I hope it is a floating tax that goes down as the price of oil and gas goes up.
You raise a very valid point that oil burning is not the exclusivity of cars. I support a tax on oil burning, regardless of the purpose for which it is done.
I could support that AFTER the government supplies people with an alternative to oil, NOT BEFORE. If you tax people now you are hitting them with a tax they can not avoid. If you are trying to push people from oil, what do you suggest they use in place of it? You could sit down and figure out how much oil we use each day, and say we're going to use 50% less. Figure out how much energy that is, you can google "BTU's / barrel of oil". Then tell us what fuel you would like us to use to replace that. Electricity? When will the electrical generating plants be built to replace that much oil? What will they burn? Or are they going to use solar and wind? Tell me when the solar and wind projects are complete and providing cheap electricity.
It is THEN that I could support creating taxes to push people off oil, not BEFORE. You might as well be telling the people struggling with bills now "There's no bread, Let 'em eat cake".
Without going to nuclear energy we will not be able to wean ourselves from fossil fuel for generations to come. So taxing it will not have any impact. Maybe giving tax credits to companies that clean up their coal emissions is a better direction. Additional taxes are just passed onto the masses.
You have said the magic words. And because there has been a segment of our society that has been all over the place on what we do and don't need to "protect" the environment we have viewed the most logical means of power production as something to protest. With no alternative to oil in place and no infrastructure being built to replace it taxing oil cannot decrease its useage beyond the point where people have to have it. Then all they are doing is taking money from the consumer and pouring it down a rat hole.
>and the willingness of some to allow it to happen.
Fair enough, but some peoples prefer to be brutalized by their own dictators than saved by foreigners. Saving those guys against their will could fuel their resentment towards their saviors whom they consider as the source of their "humiliation". Good to know kurds don't react this way.
> If the tax is increased there is no reason to believe it will be used for roads or paying for oil.
Then what if it wouldn't ? Currently, Gas tax are not enough to fund current US roads ' maintenance and construction, which means other tax fill the gap and did so for many years. Why would the other way around be unacceptable ?
When Eisenhower launched the huge Interstate investment program, how much do you think gas tax contributed to that ? I think it would be fair to allow a change.
> Our government doesn't buy the oil.companies like Union, Chevron, Mobile and yes BP do.
Yes, they do because US goverment are doing their job of creating an environment that allow them to secure their supply. Especially in the face of US' Huge oil consumption, this job is far from free and payed by all US taxpayers. I am not suggesting the job should not be done, but those who burn oil should contribute to a much stronger extent than those who don't
> Taxing the consumer will simply lower the amount of money that consumer has to spend on other things
That's very true for income tax. No escaping (unless earning less or cheating). For gas tax, there are many ways to work around.
>That is a lot less than the fuel tax we are already paying
I heard the current fuel tax is around 0.4 USD per USG. If one pays 11% income tax on, say, USD50K =5500 USD, You will need to burn 13750 USG in the year to pay as much in gas tax as in income tax. If you drive a 33 mpg Honda Fit, that is 453750 miles driven in a year. of course, if you drive a 10 mpg H1, that goes down to 137500 miles.
My math may have been mistaken somewhere, but I see the point where Gas tax overtakes income tax as pretty high
>it is hard to believe anyone would suggest taxing the consumer out of a recession.
Despite Gas shooting past 4USD/Gal, gas prices were not the cause for the US recession. Moreover, falling gas prices since september did nothing to prevent or slow down the recession. If we increase gas prices, this won't much affect the recovery plan, but it could allow the government to raise the funds for their various plans.
>Simply look at our unemployment rate... and add the consequences of GM or Chrysler (or both) filing for C11 and the situation will be even worse.
I have a theory that cheap gas in US contributed to the former big 3 being lazy in developing fuel efficient cars. Because US models were thirsty, they were not very succesful in the export markets where gas is more expensive (pretty much the rest of the developed world) As a consequence, US manufacturers became more dependant on their home market. When gas price flared, the 3 took a beating at home as their fuel efficient car product line was too thin in comparison to competitors'.
bottom line : cheap gas may come at a huge price in the end.
>, they were not very succesful in the export markets where gas is more expensive
That may have had more to do with the rules of various countries set up to keep out manufacturers and cars that weren't produced in their country
>former big 3 being lazy in developing fuel efficient cars.
Actually we can turn that around that it was much easier for foreign manufacturers who had already produced smaller little cars in other parts of the world, to just switch them for importation here. Are we to infer they were lazy by having done that?
>4USD/Gal, gas prices were not the cause for the US recession. reover, falling gas prices since september did nothing to prevent or slow down the recession.
Indeed. Your address says you're in China. I find it interesting someone not even in the country can know what happens here. The reduction in the overpricing of fuel has helped move the recession on through its course faster. The high price of fuel made the US move into the depth of the recession because of the lessening of income to spend on other things. Otherwise the stimulus cash refunds sent out would have helped smooth the recession. Instead they were spent on fuel.
>If we increase gas prices, this won't much affect the recovery plan, but it could allow the government to raise the funds for their various plans.
Bad idea. We already have a tax-and-spend administration. They will be happy to tax and spend it all on socialism.
>Gas tax are not enough to fund current US roads ' maintenance and construction
It's my belief that lots of the tax fund goes into silly stuff that's not directly related to rebuilding and maintaining the roads. Bike trails comes to mind first.
> Basically a higher tax on oil would take away some of those essentials to those least able to afford it.
I was expecting this from you and I sincerely applaud your concern for the low/modest tax paying bracket.
Basically, Government is already helping a big chunk of the population, allowing them not to pay (or pay very little) tax. I understand from your point that because those people are poor, they should be allowed to pollute the country or severely impair US trade balance (among other issues) for a bargain.
The oil tax I support is not a welfare tax, helping the poor with money taken from the rich. It is a tax that strikes behaviours which imho do more harm than good to this country. Oil is certainly a necessity in the US but it is plain unsustainable and we know it.
I do not dismiss that in the short term it may be difficult, but I trust the American people are innovative and will find ways to find other solutions.
>he cost to ride the bus/trolley in San Diego is more than the cost to drive my gas guzzler
Whereas there is Local /Federal support to road infrastructures, Government involvement is surprisingly absent in alternative infrastructures. Those are left to private entities which just can't compete with their limited means. Gas is so cheap why would one bother consider anything else?
Those stimulus refunds were worthless in the scope of the overall economy no matter the price of gas. Give everyone double that today, and it will be no more than a blip. It's just more debt.
"They will be happy to tax and spend it all on socialism."
Like corporate welfare and more unjustifiable breaks and perks for the irresponsible rich? Oh yeah, that was the previous regime
I do have to wonder if the public sector actually used tax funds for what they claim instead of fluffy niceties like bike trails and bloated underfunded pensions for civil servants, if roads wouldn't be in better condition.
Then what if it wouldn't ? Currently, Gas tax are not enough to fund current US roads ' maintenance and construction, which means other tax fill the gap and did so for many years. Why would the other way around be unacceptable ?
We don't tend to approve of taxes for tax sake. We toss tea in the harbor when that happens.
But yes the Domestic market took a beating for bad management. And we the consumer should pay for that because??? Nissan almost went belly up when Renault bailed them out but I don't remember Japan raising taxes to save them. They we 58 Billion in the red by the way. And they are hurting now without being an American company. How much better off is the rest of the developed world than we are right now? Has higher fuel taxes saved their economy? If so I have to wonder why the Brits were just here talking to our congress about a world wide "New Deal." Or why Toyota has asked their government for a 2 Billion dollar loan?
But if oil is selling for less than $40,.00 a barrel why should we pay more than $40.00 a barrel? We have no obligation to pay more and it would help our economy to do so. And why should the consumer care why it is only $40.00 a barrel? No one ever asks why paint is on sale. No one pays more for Soda when it is on sale.
Our government was designed to provide for defense and to develop commerce and interstate transportation and that was pretty much it. Much of the rest is something the government has decided they can do better than the people they govern. If they can't afford to fix the roads decrease foreign aid. Cut back on pork barrel spending. Launch a few less space probes. Cut spending. What a concept! Isn't that what every American was told was the way to get out of debt? If they want to increase the fuel tax let them bring it to a vote. The politician with his name on the proposal might want to think twice about his next job however.
I got your point which I respect naturally. I would rephrase it with my impaired English: " I want the fruit before I grow the tree which is going to bear it"
The problem with this kind of credit is that the product or service that will bring serious alternative to oil is not ready yet, as you underlined it.
Either the technology exist but political or economical reasons went in the way (Nuclear power plants, High speed trains....) or the technology needs development but is going slow because of limited funds (Solar technologies, Fusion, renewable energies...)
Take for example Fusion technologies. Should it be mastered, it could really solve the issue of power generation for the whole mankind. Look at the struggle to raise a few hundred millions USD for Fusion R&D spread over one or 2 decades. Comparatively, some corporations received Billion USD bailouts in less than a semester.
Not saying it was a bad idea, but investing in future technology wasn't a priority and that will cost money later. Just sitting and waiting for a new technology to arrive is a guarantee it won't.
it seems however that oil consumption went down 5% mostly due to last summer price hikes. Maybe we could say those 5% were not so badly needed.
Either the technology exist but political or economical reasons went in the way (Nuclear power plants, High speed trains....) or the technology needs development but is going slow because of limited funds (Solar technologies, Fusion, renewable energies...)
You left out the biggest obstacle to alternative energy. ENVIRONMENTALISTS
In California alone they have blocked, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Nuclear, Power distribution through public lands, along with coal & oil. Right today in San Diego County there are wind and solar energy projects on hold due to environmental roadblocks. Valuable time and money is being wasted to combat these eco terrorist so-called environmentalist groups.
How much does our consumerism of Chinese made goods cause environmental damage. We buy the products that force the Chinese to build more coal fired generators. Not that long ago they were constructing a new coal fired generator every week.
And the gas tax is far more than enough to maintain and expand the infrastructure. It is being used for all sorts of other programs. It is about 60 cents per gallon in CA on regular unleaded. More for diesel and premium.
Trying to get us to pay $1.99 in town today. Many people are just getting by with things as they are. 75% of my customers had excuses for having to pay their rent late last month. We can't tax our way out of a depression. With all the outstanding handling cars out there like Hondas and Toyotas, what's the big deal with dodging a few potholes? The silverado has a venomous rattle (loose jack tie down) when speeding off-road that dodge and ford don't have. Why do we even need pavement? How about the dodge commercial with swinging I-beams, railroad ties and fire, and the truck gets through. We are being taught to 'floor the Hemi'.
In California they even block the coastal bullet train. Alternatives to oil are available environmentalists are calling for it all the time. But every time someone tries to fund the alternatives some group of hemp wearing environmentalists throw a tantrum. They would be happy if we all starved so long as some Three Toed Ground Newt wasn't forced to move from one field to another. That made me feel better.
It's pretty funny that you can't get a building permit to add a bathroom if you don't have a place for the waste to go, but people are happy to dump radioactive waste on upcoming generations. Pretty funny that the other electric plants don't have sirens or iodine pills to give out. But we digress.
Back to the topic, "LAS VEGAS — With gas tax revenue declining and fuel efficiency the holy grail of car manufacturers, officials across the country are testing systems that could move Americans from paying a per-gallon tax at the pump to some form of fee based on road usage.
The challenges with such a shift are immense. Economists are not sure the idea will be practical, and privacy advocates oppose the notion of governments monitoring motorists’ driving habits. But millions of dollars are being spent on experiments with ways to collect such fees, and the idea seems to be gaining support in some quarters."
The AutoNation CEO is still in the news about gas prices. Now he wants a $4 a gallon gas tax.
"Michael J. Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc., said on Thursday that the surest way to reduce fuel consumption and wean the country off foreign oil is to make consumers pay more at the pump.
If the government increased gas taxes to push prices higher, drivers would opt for smaller, more-fuel efficient cars and drive less, he said at the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nonics conference here.
“We need more expensive gasoline to change consumer behavior,” Mr. Jackson said. Otherwise, Americans will continue to favor big vehicles, not matter what kind of fuel-economy standards the government imposes on auto makers. Four dollars a gallon, he added, “is a good start.”
It's pretty funny that you can't get a building permit to add a bathroom if you don't have a place for the waste to go, but people are happy to dump radioactive waste on upcoming generations. Pretty funny that the other electric plants don't have sirens or iodine pills to give out. But we digress.
Yes and it is equally funny that even the French can make power plants using the most common energy making method in the universe. Or that the US can power their submarine fleet with such a dangerous product? Several Aircraft carriers as well if I read correctly. But you are correct we digress.
So mister Jackson suggest we stop driving and start walking? Or he has a way to fund public transportation and infrastructure? Or does he simply like the movie Blade runner?
what mr Jackson hasn't said is if the average commute in a state like California is 28 minutes to drive less people would have to drive lest say 14 minutes to make up for the fuel tax. That is only halfway to work. So how would he get the people the rest of the way? Maybe his knee jerk will propel them the rest of the way? How about this? We tax people like Mr Jackson in direct proportion to the size of their carbon footprint. If his is bigger than my carbon foot print he has to sell his house and get a smaller one? He has to make sure his office building doesn't use more energy than the average home owner and if it does he has to move into a smaller office building? To be fair cars only represent just a fraction less than 50 percent of our energy use. Mr. jackson still has 50 percent to adjust?
Not as easy when it comes home to roost. But I could see a $4.00 tax driving unemployment to 30 percent or higher. It would stop immigration however. Just how much is mr. Jackson saying we should cut the salaries of CEOs to reduce the cost to companies? Maybe he would be willing to spend 50 percent of his salary on the coffee his secretary brings him? Without the infrastructure in place he is blowing smoke. Unless he is suggesting that he is going to raise all the employees salaries enough to cover how much they will lose to a $4.00 per gallon gas tax. Because he hasn't said where the money will come from to buy these better cars?
Comments
An organization which BUILD ROADS is worried that if the taxes for using those roads are raised or eliminated by a different system, then maybe all of a sudden the guvmint might need FEWER roads and thus put them out of the loop.
HHHHMMMMMMMM.......................
The so-called "American way of life" is based heavily on a pretext that it is now obvious was never sustainable: that there will always be an infinite supply of cheap resources (energy and raw materials) available to Americans.
Oh, and another pretext that was also unsustainable: that growth in consumption is always good.
Uh oh Houston, we have a problem....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As for fuel taxes or toll roads or whatever one desires to stick it to those one disagrees with, punish those who do the most in the economy and create a larger divide between the haves and have nots and enjoy the chaos.
As for making businesses pay more taxes, either the business passes those costs on to the downstream customers or they go out of business. Unless we desire to sacrifice quality for price for everything we will eventually be forced to deal with the consequences of higher taxes. Because I own a small business as well as work as a contract technology worker, I see the effects on both sides on a daily basis.
Even if taxes push people to the cities and force them to us public transportation like the socialists desire, raw materials still need to be transported, utilities still need to produce power, purify water and provide energy for heating and people will still need to eat. Stick it to the fossil fuel producers and users, for that matter stick it to those who produce the power we need to operate our society and you raise the costs of living for everyone. Those least able to take on the higher costs will be pushed out while increasing suffering for those who lost out.
If greenies want to play hardball, bring it on. I can trump their Prius with a Honda Rebel which can easily make 80 mpg when ridden conservatively.
I will admit I have been incredulous when discussing the very prospect of taxing anyone right now in the face of our economy. Listening to the President tonight for one of the few times we agree that this is the time to help the American taxpayer and he has promised a tax break by April. That is this April not next April. Tonight he said we need to give 90 percent of the American people a tax break to get us back on our feet. So he said we can’t govern out of anger in an attempt to punish but out of a need to help people. Not banks or Wall Street or even the failed companies that ignored doing what they should have been doing. So let me clearly state why I believe what I do.
We are in one of the worst recessions in our country since 1929. Our unemployment rate is reaching numbers we haven’t seen in a very long time. People are losing jobs and their homes and are afraid of losing their home or their job. People do not have the discretionary income to go out to dinner let alone risk getting a new car. Recreational sales have dropped off of the map and we have discovered the big six has lied to us and the government when they said EV wouldn’t be possible unless they cost 60k. A small company in Vista has proved that was a lie.
So here is the point. I can’t go back and fix excess spending from the last 40 years. I can say I have no credit card payments and I own my own home not the bank. So this isn’t my fault. Nothing I did caused my neighbor to pay more. And no matter how my neighbor may have gotten into trouble it isn’t my place to kick them when they are down.
So you tell me. If the government can give almost a trillion dollars to Wall Street with no strings attached. They could have addressed the oil problem and they could have addressed the transportation problem with a trillion dollars. Then they decided to give another Trillion dollars to the banks that gave themselves bonuses of over a billion dollars, without increasing the taxes they pay. They paid the auto manufacturers that have been lying to us billions and are going to give them billions more without increasing their taxes. California is getting billions to balance their budget, a budget that was just passed this week with the one caveat that they didn’t approve the gas tax hike.
During all of this bail out time what has happened to the working class? They are losing their homes. Losing their jobs. Remember we just had State unpaid furloughs for many state workers, Fridays off without pay. We also received a promise of an IOU for our tax refund. The working class will be asked to pay for the trillions in bailouts and their children will be asked to pay for them. The domestic automakers are going to be asked to come up with a whole new generation of cars and trucks that they should have built years ago. But they won’t be punished. No the working class will just bail them out. The average tax payer is spending their savings at an alarming rate and can’t get loans to help them survive through this time. One of our local School districts may be laying off 300 employees, many of them teachers.
So the Money men and being taken care of and are getting a tax break. The auto manufacturers have been taken care of and will get tax concessions. The States are going to be taken care of and they aren’t taxed anyway. The federal government has promised to pay for whatever infrastructure we need to get back on top. Infrastructure is roads and bridges and jobs. But what about the common man?
So let me ask a serious question.
1. How will taxing fuel more benefit the average worker today?
2. How will it affect the small business owner with a few small Pickup trucks?
3. How will it affect the over the road truck driver trying to make a living?
4. How will it affect the working poor that can’t afford a new car let alone a new home closer to work?
5. How will it affect people on fixed incomes?
6. How will it affect all of the new unemployed?
7. And whom will it benefit?
8. Who will be better off with less money in their wallet or check book?
I am not talking about philosophy or what should happen but what is happening and what we know will happen if we increase taxes on the working class.
I will admit I am toast on this issue. I have been talking to and working with people trying to find a way to help people get enough gas to get to work or to go look for a job. I have met with people working at helping people find places to live because they lost their house. This is not theory to me it is real and I know more than one family with kids that are right on the edge.
I have this one ethical pledge I will promise right now. I will not vote to punish my neighbor’s choices at a time like this with more taxes. I will not vote for anyone who sees this as an opportunity to reward political friends or dishonest companies by taxing my neighbors. And I will continue to do everything I can to reduce my carbon footprint, which is already smaller than more people I know. So we will disagree on this issue till they put me in a box.
But I’ll still consider you a friend. Still look at and answer the questions as best you can.
Good point. If the real reason was to save fuel people would have flocked to motor bikes.
However I dare to say I can beat your best fuel useage mileage for the last 2200 miles I have put on my vehicle. :P
Note that by 1914, every state collected car registration fees, 90% of which went for road construction and maintenance.
The other 10% went for Penny Farthing trails.
Great idea.
Panel: Raise gas tax, charge drivers by the mile
Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer – Fri Feb 27, 4:53 am ET
WASHINGTON – Raise federal gasoline taxes to help pay for road projects?
Not during a recession, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said.
Then how about moving toward a system that finances highway construction by charging motorists by the mile?
When LaHood suggested last week that be considered among other potential financing schemes, he got bushwhacked by the White House. "It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," the president's press secretary said.
With the administration's position seemingly clear, a special commission created by Congress is nonetheless endorsing those two ideas.
Its report Thursday warns that if government fails to find a new way to raise money, "we will suffer grim consequences in the future: unimaginable levels of congestion, reduced safety, costlier goods and services, an eroded quality of life, and diminished economic competitiveness as a nation."
The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission says the current 18.4 cents a gallon gas tax and 24.4 cents a gallon diesel tax are not raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of highway, bridge and transit projects. The commission proposes lifting the gasoline tax by 10 cents per gallon and the diesel tax by 15 cents per gallon, and adjusting both for inflation.
The report also says fuel taxes increasingly will become a less reliable way to pay for highway construction as people drive more fuel efficient vehicles and the number of electric and alternative fuel cars and trucks grows.
Last fall, Congress transferred $8 billion from the general treasury to the highway trust fund to make up for a shortfall between revenue and money promised to states for highway projects. Last week, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press that a vehicle-miles-traveled tax was an idea that should be considered to shore up the trust fund.
The report recommends moving to such a tax, which would mean equipping cars and trucks with a device that uses GPS technology to track the number of miles driven and compute the tax owed. The amount could be adjusted to charge more for travel during peak traffic hours.
Commission members said the transition to a national system would take about 10 years.
The concept was tried in a pilot program in Oregon. Idaho's governor is talking about it. A North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars because gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Advocates said the tax is environmentally friendly because it encourages motorists to drive less and that technology solutions are available for any privacy concerns.
Commission member Geoffrey Yarema, a Los Angeles transportation lawyer, said the commission examined more than 40 types of funding schemes before arriving at a consensus that a mileage-based system makes the most sense.
"If someone else can come up with a solution that achieves the goals we all know need to be achieved and is more politically acceptable, that's great. But we haven't seen that alternative and we tried hard to find it," Yarema said.
Yarema said he isn't discouraged by the White House's rejection of a mileage-based tax.
"I say let's wait and see," Yarema said. "We're all looking for solutions and I'm sure the Obama administration will be looking for solutions as well."
It would lower costs and put more people back to work.
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is a United States federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects.
The act is named after its Republican sponsors, James "Puddler Jim" Davis, a Senator from Pennsylvania and a former Secretary of Labor under three presidents, and Representative Robert L. Bacon of Long Island, New York. The Davis-Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931.
Who do you think's pocketing the difference, between what the construction firm gets paid, and what the illegal worker gets?
We might as well do away with that law and at least give the construction firms reason to hire U.S. citizens at a reduced rate.
Well, at that rate I would only pay about half as much annually as I do now paying $0.18/gallon in gas tax, and I drive a 40 mpg car. People driving SUVs would only pay 1/4 or less of what they are paying today. That doesn't sound like a formula for funding necessary road maintenance unless it is IN ADDITION TO the existing gas tax. Which maybe would be OK, charged once per year with reg fees. But why not just adjust the gas tax for inflation? Bring it up to around $0.30/gallon, since it has been 16 years since it was last adjusted.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission says the current 18.4 cents a gallon gas tax and 24.4 cents a gallon diesel tax are not raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of highway, bridge and transit projects. The commission proposes lifting the gasoline tax by 10 cents per gallon and the diesel tax by 15 cents per gallon, and adjusting both for inflation."
I don't think the GPS is good or necessary. Odo reading once a year added to your license is cheap and simple.
Now they are sending out another Trillion dollars so couldn't part of that be used for roads and bridges? Now I would assume if they couldn't be bothered to spend the tax money they already had for roads and bridges and they aren't all that interested in spending what they are getting in bail out funds on roads and bridges that there is between zero and no chance that any funds raised by increasing fuel taxes would be used on roads and bridges. That is zip, Nada, zero not a cent.
So I ask again just who will benefit from raising fuel taxes? What is the history of the use of fuel tax? Why should we believe giving people that poured the fuel taxes they already had down a rat hole would suddenly see the light and not earmark the new fuel tax for something else? I don't know about you but I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny a long time ago. So just what benefit will the working class get from their raised taxes? How will things be better for them with less in their paychecks?
When it comes time to maintenance and repair, forget it. Politicians don't get to go to ribbon cuttings when a pothole is patched and local government can't keep up with the maintenance.
And I guess the feds didn't consider the backlog of national road maintenance and repair to be worth borrowing for.
This is why we had Prop 1A two years ago here in California, to borrow MASSES AND MASSES of money to catch up the CalTrans road maintenance program. That's why you see huge swathes of interstate suddenly being repaired, widened, and repaved. But it sucks that the state had to take on that massive debt because the fed funding for interstate highways was so deficient, simply because the gas tax has not kept pace with inflation.
Obviously once it is revised it should also be indexed to inflation in some way.
If they have to begin to account for electrics and hybrids with an extra cent/mile in your reg fees, I can understand that. Smog check records your odo every two years anyway. But it should be a graduated fee, starting small while there so few (less than 2%?) electrics and hybrids on the road.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Are you saying electrics and hybrids should pay an extra tax since they don't pay for it in fuel use and the concurrent tax when purchasing fuel. I'm all for that. Tax the cars that are rated as high fuel mileage. Anything over 35 put a tax on 'er to be paid after odometer check to get new license plates.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
i averaged driving about 2k per year with my mustang.
we used to have emissions testing every year.
one year the mileage on the report read 6xxx miles.
the next year it was 8xxxx miles!
year after that was 1xxxx miles.
i probably would have gotten arrested for odometer rollback if there was any tax money involved.
I just got a solicitation in the mail from my gas company to sell me utility line insurance. Just $14.95 a month to start, for the rest of my life. It says the utility lines underground in my yard are not their responsibility.
I just read an article in Fortune that said a person earning $500,000 would have to pay $4000 more in taxes that they are not expecting, as AMT, due to deductions on their $50,000 of mortgage interest will be capped under Obama's planned changes. Dividing $50,000 in interest by .06 gives a loan amount of $833,000. These are the people who got million dollar bonuses from bailed out banks that have loans like that.
Remember Joe Diffie's song: I wish I had a problem like that.
Avg. Joe can't afford a new tax. especially one that is driven by unusually low gas usage during a spike in fuel prices. Tax intake always temporarily falls when we are in a recession. Lets let the smoke clear and the economy get on an even keel with steady, leveled out fuel costs and people driving the vehicles that can handle that new future leveled out fuel price and then figure out if the tax needs anything more than an indexing to inflation. Smaller cars do less wear and tear on the roads so any advantage to high mileage is due them, and with the current system, they get it.
however my view is that gas prices should also cover all the human / environmental /political costs which were involved in the chain.
Taking for example the environmental burden, there are all the health issues due to air pollution which price is definitely not included when fueling up. I don't even mention all the climate change issues which promise to be pretty dear.
The political cost of oil wares is pretty well documented but absolutely not included in the Gallons we burn.
While I am sure many people are convinced the Iraqi expedition was done just to punish the evil saddam, I think it would be reasonable to consider that, say 50% was motivated by the desire to maintain the thirsty American way of life.
In this case wouldn't it make sense to have the gas tax help finance the 2000 Billions the operation cost ? I don't even mention the cost of declining goodwill.
We should also take into account the fact that Oil is pushing US trade deficit further, and gives plenty of petrodollars to countries which are not necessarily US friends. This has a cost in terms of safety and a cost on our global finances.
While it is not easy to calculate the amount of tax increase to cover those hidden costs, I am pretty convinced it should be calculated in Dollars per Gallon instead of cents.
any suggestions ?
What is needed is to have the existing petrol tax directed to highway infrastructure and not bled off to some idealistic feel good destination such as "all the human / environmental /political costs". :P
But I also don't remember hearing that you can tax yourself our of a depression.
And similarly do you support that general tax $'s should not be used to pay for health care for all those who are overweight and have bad diets? I think those people should pay a tax to cover the environmental damage of extra farms, and the tremendous cost to our health care system.
And since I don't have kids, maybe I should get most of property tax back that pays for the schools.
Give me back all the taxes I pay and get nothing for, and then I'll support your idea to pay for hidden costs of oil!
I don't even mention all the climate change issues which promise to be pretty dear.
>90% of all CO2 released is natural. If you know anything about CO2 emissions you'd know the majority of manmade emissions is from electricity generating power-plants. Coal and natural gas are full of carbon and when you burn those as well to heat your home or turn on the TV, you're creating CO2. Personally I burn about twice as much oil in my home directly, as I do in gasoline.
Millions of people here in the Northeast use oil to heat their homes. We'll gladly reduce our oil consumption if and when the Earth heats up a little.
I am not American, but I understand that most US houshold fall in the 25% income tax bracket. It basically means paying 5-10K USD in tax or even more is pretty common place.
I am very surprised everybody supports this kind of tax system which strikes something that is good for the country : creation of wealth.
Making money is just plain good in many aspects , yet everybody agrees on paying that much income taxes. Otoh, taxing oil burning which is bad for our lungs, bad for US economics and bad for US security, is seen as a disaster ?
What's the rationale behind this ?
Do you mean the Kurds ?
Good thing we went to help them, but they were already doing not too bad thanks to US supports since 1991.
Strangely enough, we are pretty lukewarm when it comes to saving the Darfur with its estimated deathtoll of 200.000 or the North Korean people dying under their dictatorship.
I am not saying oil was everything, but we can't reasonably discount this motive can we?
Whatever the debate outcome which is off-topic, there is Iraki oil flowing in US refineries, therefore gas tax should help pay for the total costs involved in securing the supply.
Even jokingly, you raised a valid point.
I heard that cigarettes are pretty heavily taxed, so that smokers help support lung cancer treatment fees. A tax on junk food would make sense somehow and help raise awareness that unhealthy foods end up with a large health bill.
>And since I don't have kids, maybe I should get most of property tax back that pays for the schools.
Even if the schools don't raise your kids, they raise the future generation that will be in command when we get older. I egoistically prefer this future generation to be educated.
>Personally I burn about twice as much oil in my home directly, as I do in gasoline.
You raise a very valid point that oil burning is not the exclusivity of cars. I support a tax on oil burning, regardless of the purpose for which it is done. I am not specifically finger-pointing road transport.
Sorry about misspelling Kurds and the number that died at the hands of the Iraqis. But it was reminiscent of the Jews in Germany and the willingness of some to allow it to happen.
Help who pay for the supply? Help the working class? If the tax is increased there is no reason to believe it will be used for roads or paying for oil. Our government doesn't buy the oil, companies like Union, Chevron, Mobile and yes BP do. They pay taxes on the profit. Taxing the consumer will simply lower the amount of money that consumer has to spend on other things, like medical care for their children. While many of us are in the 25 percent bracket after deductions we can drop to 11 percent. That is a lot less than the fuel tax we are already paying. And speaking of that tax even it doesn't all go to roads and bridges.
As a nation it is hard to believe anyone would suggest taxing the consumer out of a recession. What ever percentage people are taxed will reduce the amount people spend on taxable products that pay other peoples salaries. This is theory it is reality. Simply look at our unemployment rate and the freezing of the working classes salaries. Any additional tax will reduce those salaries even further. Basic math.
I do respect your opinion. I disagree on oil being singled out because of its negative aspects. First a primer on US income taxes. 50% of workers in the USA pay 3.6% of the total income tax in this country. The top 25% pay the bulk of the income taxes. While taxing oil would even that out considerably. It would have a negative impact on the poor and lower middle income classes. We have had instances in this country where people froze to death because they did not pay one of their utility bills. A tax on oil would not just be added at the pump for gas. As Kernick pointed out a big percentage goes to heat homes, run tractors and generate electricity. All things we in the USA consider essential. Basically a higher tax on oil would take away some of those essentials to those least able to afford it.
We have an administration that has vowed to help the lower income brackets with tax breaks. To tax gasoline would erase the meager tax break in an instant. There is not going to be a large conversion in this country to mass transit. Many transit authorities are barely surviving right now. The cost to ride the bus/trolley in San Diego is more than the cost to drive my gas guzzler. People that can afford to drive don't use the transit system unless it saves them money on parking. When the price of fuel went up it impacted everything. If the government does add a tax I hope it is a floating tax that goes down as the price of oil and gas goes up.
I could support that AFTER the government supplies people with an alternative to oil, NOT BEFORE. If you tax people now you are hitting them with a tax they can not avoid. If you are trying to push people from oil, what do you suggest they use in place of it?
You could sit down and figure out how much oil we use each day, and say we're going to use 50% less. Figure out how much energy that is, you can google "BTU's / barrel of oil". Then tell us what fuel you would like us to use to replace that. Electricity? When will the electrical generating plants be built to replace that much oil? What will they burn? Or are they going to use solar and wind? Tell me when the solar and wind projects are complete and providing cheap electricity.
It is THEN that I could support creating taxes to push people off oil, not BEFORE. You might as well be telling the people struggling with bills now "There's no bread, Let 'em eat cake".
Fair enough, but some peoples prefer to be brutalized by their own dictators than saved by foreigners. Saving those guys against their will could fuel their resentment towards their saviors whom they consider as the source of their "humiliation".
Good to know kurds don't react this way.
> If the tax is increased there is no reason to believe it will be used for roads or paying for oil.
Then what if it wouldn't ? Currently, Gas tax are not enough to fund current US roads ' maintenance and construction, which means other tax fill the gap and did so for many years. Why would the other way around be unacceptable ?
When Eisenhower launched the huge Interstate investment program, how much do you think gas tax contributed to that ? I think it would be fair to allow a change.
> Our government doesn't buy the oil.companies like Union, Chevron, Mobile and yes BP do.
Yes, they do because US goverment are doing their job of creating an environment that allow them to secure their supply. Especially in the face of US' Huge oil consumption, this job is far from free and payed by all US taxpayers.
I am not suggesting the job should not be done, but those who burn oil should contribute to a much stronger extent than those who don't
> Taxing the consumer will simply lower the amount of money that consumer has to spend on other things
That's very true for income tax. No escaping (unless earning less or cheating). For gas tax, there are many ways to work around.
>That is a lot less than the fuel tax we are already paying
I heard the current fuel tax is around 0.4 USD per USG. If one pays 11% income tax on, say, USD50K =5500 USD, You will need to burn 13750 USG in the year to pay as much in gas tax as in income tax.
If you drive a 33 mpg Honda Fit, that is 453750 miles driven in a year.
of course, if you drive a 10 mpg H1, that goes down to 137500 miles.
My math may have been mistaken somewhere, but I see the point where Gas tax overtakes income tax as pretty high
>it is hard to believe anyone would suggest taxing the consumer out of a recession.
Despite Gas shooting past 4USD/Gal, gas prices were not the cause for the US recession. Moreover, falling gas prices since september did nothing to prevent or slow down the recession.
If we increase gas prices, this won't much affect the recovery plan, but it could allow the government to raise the funds for their various plans.
>Simply look at our unemployment rate...
and add the consequences of GM or Chrysler (or both) filing for C11 and the situation will be even worse.
I have a theory that cheap gas in US contributed to the former big 3 being lazy in developing fuel efficient cars. Because US models were thirsty, they were not very succesful in the export markets where gas is more expensive (pretty much the rest of the developed world)
As a consequence, US manufacturers became more dependant on their home market. When gas price flared, the 3 took a beating at home as their fuel efficient car product line was too thin in comparison to competitors'.
bottom line : cheap gas may come at a huge price in the end.
That may have had more to do with the rules of various countries set up to keep out manufacturers and cars that weren't produced in their country
>former big 3 being lazy in developing fuel efficient cars.
Actually we can turn that around that it was much easier for foreign manufacturers who had already produced smaller little cars in other parts of the world, to just switch them for importation here. Are we to infer they were lazy by having done that?
>4USD/Gal, gas prices were not the cause for the US recession. reover, falling gas prices since september did nothing to prevent or slow down the recession.
Indeed. Your address says you're in China. I find it interesting someone not even in the country can know what happens here. The reduction in the overpricing of fuel has helped move the recession on through its course faster. The high price of fuel made the US move into the depth of the recession because of the lessening of income to spend on other things. Otherwise the stimulus cash refunds sent out would have helped smooth the recession. Instead they were spent on fuel.
>If we increase gas prices, this won't much affect the recovery plan, but it could allow the government to raise the funds for their various plans.
Bad idea. We already have a tax-and-spend administration. They will be happy to tax and spend it all on socialism.
>Gas tax are not enough to fund current US roads ' maintenance and construction
It's my belief that lots of the tax fund goes into silly stuff that's not directly related to rebuilding and maintaining the roads. Bike trails comes to mind first.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I was expecting this from you and I sincerely applaud your concern for the low/modest tax paying bracket.
Basically, Government is already helping a big chunk of the population, allowing them not to pay (or pay very little) tax. I understand from your point that because those people are poor, they should be allowed to pollute the country or severely impair US trade balance (among other issues) for a bargain.
The oil tax I support is not a welfare tax, helping the poor with money taken from the rich. It is a tax that strikes behaviours which imho do more harm than good to this country. Oil is certainly a necessity in the US but it is plain unsustainable and we know it.
I do not dismiss that in the short term it may be difficult, but I trust the American people are innovative and will find ways to find other solutions.
>he cost to ride the bus/trolley in San Diego is more than the cost to drive my gas guzzler
Whereas there is Local /Federal support to road infrastructures, Government involvement is surprisingly absent in alternative infrastructures. Those are left to private entities which just can't compete with their limited means. Gas is so cheap why would one bother consider anything else?
"They will be happy to tax and spend it all on socialism."
Like corporate welfare and more unjustifiable breaks and perks for the irresponsible rich? Oh yeah, that was the previous regime
I do have to wonder if the public sector actually used tax funds for what they claim instead of fluffy niceties like bike trails and bloated underfunded pensions for civil servants, if roads wouldn't be in better condition.
We don't tend to approve of taxes for tax sake. We toss tea in the harbor when that happens.
But yes the Domestic market took a beating for bad management. And we the consumer should pay for that because??? Nissan almost went belly up when Renault bailed them out but I don't remember Japan raising taxes to save them. They we 58 Billion in the red by the way. And they are hurting now without being an American company. How much better off is the rest of the developed world than we are right now? Has higher fuel taxes saved their economy? If so I have to wonder why the Brits were just here talking to our congress about a world wide "New Deal." Or why Toyota has asked their government for a 2 Billion dollar loan?
But if oil is selling for less than $40,.00 a barrel why should we pay more than $40.00 a barrel? We have no obligation to pay more and it would help our economy to do so. And why should the consumer care why it is only $40.00 a barrel? No one ever asks why paint is on sale. No one pays more for Soda when it is on sale.
Our government was designed to provide for defense and to develop commerce and interstate transportation and that was pretty much it. Much of the rest is something the government has decided they can do better than the people they govern. If they can't afford to fix the roads decrease foreign aid. Cut back on pork barrel spending. Launch a few less space probes. Cut spending. What a concept! Isn't that what every American was told was the way to get out of debt? If they want to increase the fuel tax let them bring it to a vote. The politician with his name on the proposal might want to think twice about his next job however.
I got your point which I respect naturally. I would rephrase it with my impaired English: " I want the fruit before I grow the tree which is going to bear it"
The problem with this kind of credit is that the product or service that will bring serious alternative to oil is not ready yet, as you underlined it.
Either the technology exist but political or economical reasons went in the way (Nuclear power plants, High speed trains....) or the technology needs development but is going slow because of limited funds (Solar technologies, Fusion, renewable energies...)
Take for example Fusion technologies. Should it be mastered, it could really solve the issue of power generation for the whole mankind. Look at the struggle to raise a few hundred millions USD for Fusion R&D spread over one or 2 decades.
Comparatively, some corporations received Billion USD bailouts in less than a semester.
Not saying it was a bad idea, but investing in future technology wasn't a priority and that will cost money later.
Just sitting and waiting for a new technology to arrive is a guarantee it won't.
it seems however that oil consumption went down 5% mostly due to last summer price hikes. Maybe we could say those 5% were not so badly needed.
You left out the biggest obstacle to alternative energy. ENVIRONMENTALISTS
In California alone they have blocked, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Nuclear, Power distribution through public lands, along with coal & oil. Right today in San Diego County there are wind and solar energy projects on hold due to environmental roadblocks. Valuable time and money is being wasted to combat these eco terrorist so-called environmentalist groups.
How much does our consumerism of Chinese made goods cause environmental damage. We buy the products that force the Chinese to build more coal fired generators. Not that long ago they were constructing a new coal fired generator every week.
And the gas tax is far more than enough to maintain and expand the infrastructure. It is being used for all sorts of other programs. It is about 60 cents per gallon in CA on regular unleaded. More for diesel and premium.
With all the outstanding handling cars out there like Hondas and Toyotas, what's the big deal with dodging a few potholes? The silverado has a venomous rattle (loose jack tie down) when speeding off-road that dodge and ford don't have. Why do we even need pavement? How about the dodge commercial with swinging I-beams, railroad ties and fire, and the truck gets through. We are being taught to 'floor the Hemi'.
So true.
The fearsome Enviros in Oregon voted to take the Trojan Nuclear plant off line and it has been gone, including the cooling tower, for over 5 years.
Uninformed and uneducated Enviros are as afraid of Nuclear Energy as their great grandparents were overly cautious of electricity.
Back to the topic, "LAS VEGAS — With gas tax revenue declining and fuel efficiency the holy grail of car manufacturers, officials across the country are testing systems that could move Americans from paying a per-gallon tax at the pump to some form of fee based on road usage.
The challenges with such a shift are immense. Economists are not sure the idea will be practical, and privacy advocates oppose the notion of governments monitoring motorists’ driving habits. But millions of dollars are being spent on experiments with ways to collect such fees, and the idea seems to be gaining support in some quarters."
Officials Seek Way to Fill a Gas Tax Gap (NY Times)
The AutoNation CEO is still in the news about gas prices. Now he wants a $4 a gallon gas tax.
"Michael J. Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc., said on Thursday that the surest way to reduce fuel consumption and wean the country off foreign oil is to make consumers pay more at the pump.
If the government increased gas taxes to push prices higher, drivers would opt for smaller, more-fuel efficient cars and drive less, he said at the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nonics conference here.
“We need more expensive gasoline to change consumer behavior,” Mr. Jackson said. Otherwise, Americans will continue to favor big vehicles, not matter what kind of fuel-economy standards the government imposes on auto makers. Four dollars a gallon, he added, “is a good start.”
WSJ - may be a registration only link
Yes and it is equally funny that even the French can make power plants using the most common energy making method in the universe. Or that the US can power their submarine fleet with such a dangerous product? Several Aircraft carriers as well if I read correctly. But you are correct we digress.
So mister Jackson suggest we stop driving and start walking? Or he has a way to fund public transportation and infrastructure? Or does he simply like the movie Blade runner?
what mr Jackson hasn't said is if the average commute in a state like California is 28 minutes to drive less people would have to drive lest say 14 minutes to make up for the fuel tax. That is only halfway to work. So how would he get the people the rest of the way? Maybe his knee jerk will propel them the rest of the way? How about this? We tax people like Mr Jackson in direct proportion to the size of their carbon footprint. If his is bigger than my carbon foot print he has to sell his house and get a smaller one? He has to make sure his office building doesn't use more energy than the average home owner and if it does he has to move into a smaller office building? To be fair cars only represent just a fraction less than 50 percent of our energy use. Mr. jackson still has 50 percent to adjust?
Not as easy when it comes home to roost. But I could see a $4.00 tax driving unemployment to 30 percent or higher. It would stop immigration however. Just how much is mr. Jackson saying we should cut the salaries of CEOs to reduce the cost to companies? Maybe he would be willing to spend 50 percent of his salary on the coffee his secretary brings him? Without the infrastructure in place he is blowing smoke. Unless he is suggesting that he is going to raise all the employees salaries enough to cover how much they will lose to a $4.00 per gallon gas tax. Because he hasn't said where the money will come from to buy these better cars?