Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Is a Higher Gasoline Tax Good Or Bad For America?
hpmctorque
Member Posts: 4,600
A tax increase has been a political third rail in the U.S. Therefore, the idea of increasing the gasoline tax, as a way to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil, has gained little traction thus far. This results in a conundrum. Why? Low fuel prices encourage the sales of vehicles with low fuel economy, while undermining the effort to introduce fuel efficient vehicles and alter wasteful habits.
I dislike higher taxes as much as you do, but I believe that increasing the gasoline tax is a necessary component of achieving the Obama Administration's goal of becoming less dependent on foreign oil and, at least in some cases, governments that don't like us. Incidentally, you don't have to be an Obama supporter to be in favor of becoming more energy independent, since this goal enjoys a lot of Republican support too. I happen to be an independent who, at various times, has voted for candidates of both major parties.
I believe that CAFE has generally been a failure, and that most other proposals for reducing fuel consumption, such as the Clunker Plan, have serious inherent flaws. Although a gradual increase in the gasoline tax is not politically popular, it would be the most efficient and effective way to alter consumer behavior, in my opinion.
Michael Jackson - not the singer, but the CEO of Autonation, the largest of the megadealers - strongly favors a gasoline tax increase, and recently suggested raising the tax by 10 cents per gallon for the next 10 years. I don't know if 10 cents is the right number, but I buy into the idea of applying the increases gradually, to give people a chance to factor higher fuel costs into their driving habits and car purchasing decisions.
The argument that higher taxes are bad, or that raising taxes during a recession is bad policy, could be dealt with by making the gasoline tax revunue neutral. This could be achieved by reducing other taxes by a similar amount.
I dislike higher taxes as much as you do, but I believe that increasing the gasoline tax is a necessary component of achieving the Obama Administration's goal of becoming less dependent on foreign oil and, at least in some cases, governments that don't like us. Incidentally, you don't have to be an Obama supporter to be in favor of becoming more energy independent, since this goal enjoys a lot of Republican support too. I happen to be an independent who, at various times, has voted for candidates of both major parties.
I believe that CAFE has generally been a failure, and that most other proposals for reducing fuel consumption, such as the Clunker Plan, have serious inherent flaws. Although a gradual increase in the gasoline tax is not politically popular, it would be the most efficient and effective way to alter consumer behavior, in my opinion.
Michael Jackson - not the singer, but the CEO of Autonation, the largest of the megadealers - strongly favors a gasoline tax increase, and recently suggested raising the tax by 10 cents per gallon for the next 10 years. I don't know if 10 cents is the right number, but I buy into the idea of applying the increases gradually, to give people a chance to factor higher fuel costs into their driving habits and car purchasing decisions.
The argument that higher taxes are bad, or that raising taxes during a recession is bad policy, could be dealt with by making the gasoline tax revunue neutral. This could be achieved by reducing other taxes by a similar amount.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I am not thrilled with the Federal Tax on gas. I have gotten used to it. Though I do not believe it is all used as it was purported to be used. If it is a tax to maintain the infrastructure that is fine. If it gets used for any other purpose I am against it. The issue for me is the huge state tax in some places. CA being the worst. And what are we getting for that tax? Last I checked CA tops the list of the 50 states at about 64 cents per gallon. It changes as there is sales tax of 7.75% added on top of the other taxes. I would be surprised looking at all the potholes in the roads around here, if even half goes for the intended purpose. Next to Illinois and NY I would imagine we have the most shysters in our legislature and administration. They have stolen every source of revenue to support their pet projects and social programs. They even ripped off the schools by not using the lottery money as it was intended. So for me to say I would agree that one penny more tax on anything in this state was good, is not going to happen. Where is that rope. Hang em all from the Golden Gate Bridge would be my remedy for this states government thieves.
The Main problem with your idea is that people will not react necessarily the way you want to this tax increase. What do I mean? I think you assume the only result is that people gradually move to more efficient cars, or to electric cars and such?
But the actual results of a gradual tax increase results in these varied results (and I'm sure I won't get them all).
1) It is the wealthier people in society who buy the largest, most powerful, and least fuel-efficient vehicles in many cases. The gas taxes you propose would have no effect on these sales.
2) After people cut a little of their consumption, they reach the point where they can not cut more driving, and then they cut other stuff instead, which hurts the economy.
3) If you propose cutting foreign energy, then I say the proposer needs to propose where an equivalent amount of domestic energy will come from.
4) The population of this country is growing and we need more energy every day. That makes it doubly hard to cut foreign energy sources.
5) No other fuel or energy source has proven as convenient (available, time to refuel) and offers the range of gasoline. A fuel also has to be available even when natural disasters shutdown an area's power-grid.
6) I just started doing my taxes, and thank god for Turbo Tax for importing stock gains from my broker. Taxes are already too complicated, without making further deductions and exemptions. The tax code should be 10 pages long, and a maximum of 2 pages to fill out. Sorry for all those people who make billions of $ selling software, and doing peoples' taxes.
7) The gas tax is supposed to be used for roads and bridges only, If it becomes so much larger, what would be done with the money? Given to banks so they can buy $1,400 garbage cans and (2) chairs for $87,000 - Merrill Lynch CEO (2008)?
Anyway you get the idea. I'm for everyone keeping their money and not giving it to DC to build a bureaucracy around, and waste the $.
I'd rather have a freer society that makes individual blunders, then have a government that we feed, to herd and protect us like sheep. The U.S. government was NOT created in the 18th century to alter (coerce) consumer choices.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I'll respond to your points in the order you presented them, as follows:
1) True, but what you leave out is the fact that the vast number of people are not wealthy or even well off, so the fact that the behavior of the wealthy may not be affected by a gasoline tax has less impact on total usage than you imply.
2) I don't really understand your logic here of "...and then they cut other stuff instead, which hurts the economy", especially if the incremental gasoline tax were to be revenue neutral.
3) The higher gasoline tax would reduce energy consumption, and that reduction could come entirely from our purchases of foreign oil. Domestic production would be unaltered; that is, it would be neither more nor less than what it would have been without the gasoline tax increase.
4) True, unlike most western countries, our population is increasing. Whatever our energy needs are, given our population, we'll use less if prices are higher. That can translate into less demand for foreign oil than would be the case without the tax increase. In the short term people will adjust their driving habits. In the longer term, people will make changes in vehicle choices and how far they choose to live from work.
5) I agree. Consumers will continue to decide whether, and/or to what extent they want to substitute the convenience and other advantages of hydrocarbons with other types of power, as they do in Europe, for example.
6) I agree with you 110%. I favor simplification of the tax code. To your point, though, how would raising the federal tax on gasoline make doing your tax return more complicated? You would just pay more at the pump than you do now.
7) The total amount of our gross domestic product that's taxed would remain the same if the gasoline tax were offset by tax reductions elsewhere (made revenue neutral). Look, I'm as horrified and concerned by the huge budget deficit, the national debt and wasteful spending as other concerned citizens are. We're in total agreement on the need to cut waste and pork. Beyond that, whether it would be preferable to reduce government spending or raise taxes to balance the budget, or some combination of these two, is subject for another discussion. There's no need to get into that here.
"I'm for everyone keeping their money and not giving it to DC to build a bureaucracy around, and waste the $.
I'd rather have a freer society that makes individual blunders, then have a government that we feed, to herd and protect us like sheep. The U.S. government was NOT created in the 18th century to alter (coerce) consumer choices."
You won't get any argument from me on these points.
The old gasoline supply chain has many broken links, folks. Time to ease future pain for ALL of us by levying a tax and getting us off the stuff.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2) What I meant was you assume that people will cut back on gas consumption with every increase; I think you may find many keep using the same amount of gas and start cutting back on going to restaurants instead.
3) I don't want to see people forced to cut back on energy consumption. Energy provides a better lifestyle. If you want to cutback on foreign energy, I want an increase in domestic energy.
4) Same as 3). I want the same or more energy per person.
6) You were talking about offsetting the tax increases, and the usual proposals are for people to fill out forms to get rebates. I'd assume you'd need to keep records of what gas you bought, and keep track of what miles (commuting, but not recreational driving) you drove and what would be deductible, and this would be another section to fill out.
You might see how that could easily be done as a whole, but when you go to apply that all hell breaks lose on trying to get that neutral on the individual level.
For instance drop the sales tax on other items 1/2% to compensate, and what happens. The rural minimum wage worker driving 40 miles each way to work, who doesn't have the money to buy much is hit hard, while a guy living in NYC working on Wall Street taking the train, says "I love this new program". You run into the same inequities when you start trying to reduce property or income taxes to compensate. You get a big mess arguing over what's fair. Taking extra tax from 200+M drivers and then trying to get them back their share in some other tax is next to impossible.
I think simplicity is a virtue regarding taxes, and I assume, from your comments, that you would agree with that. Therefore, I would make the gasoline tax increase revenue neutral on an overall basis, and accept the consequence that some would benefit from this change while others wouldn't. That happens with virtually all tax changes. Overall, however, the country would be better off, in my opinion, than if we continue along the current path.
I'd prefer to let those with more experience and facts than I have decide the size of the incremental increases, and whether they should continue, for 10 years, or 8 or 11. The purpose of this discussion, at least at this point, isn't to get bogged down on these details.
You have mentioned revenue neutral in every post. Just what tax do you plan to cut to neutralize this new gas tax? You have to remember that about half the citizens do not pay much if any income tax. So the guy on minimum wage driving grandmas old 88 Buick to work will be hit the hardest with the least chance to survive this gas tax.
I find it a big mistake to even think about.
Some issues require difficult choices, because there are negative consequences regardless of what you do or don't do. Doing nothing is a choice. I think our overdependence on foreign oil from unstable parts of the world is one of those issues. In my opinion, it would be best for our country to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, for economic and foreign policy reasons. Since our ability to increase domestic production at competitive prices on a sustained basis appears to be limited, the question is which method for achieving this goal would work best.
As I've stated, I don't like tax increases, but I think doing nothing, and continuing our wasteful ways, will result in worse consequences than raising the tax on gasoline.
As to which tax or taxes I would increase, to offset the gasoline tax, I'd probably choose the income tax. The "the guy on minimum wage driving grandmas old 88 Buick to work" that you mentioned would get a tax (cash) rebate. Another approach would be a reduction in state sales taxes. Since the federal government would receive the incremental revenue from the gasoline tax increase, it could then refund the increase to the states.
Let me hasten to add that I'm not a tax expert, so I expect that people who are more knowledgeable on tax matters than I am might have better ideas concerning the best mechanism for achieving revenue neutrality. Maybe other discussion participants know of a better approach for offsetting the tax increase.
China and India are 2 countries that have a desire for more and more oil. They have plenty of manpower to raise security forces. The U.S. has the latest technology. I suggest an alliance, where if the people can't behave, we send the forces to make them peaceful. I had always suggested that the problem in Iraq was that every Iraqi male should have an escort for a while; anyone found out without an escort would be shot. The U.S. did not have the manpower there to prevent these bums from forming militias. If Iraq had to be emptied, and a Chinese soldier stationed every 25 yards along the entire border so be it.
As I've stated, I don't like tax increases, but I think doing nothing, and continuing our wasteful ways, will result in worse consequences than raising the tax on gasoline.
When gas hit $4.00+ this summer, consumption went down what 5%? With the known amount of oil and some reasonable increases to be found, this change in consumption based on the tax increases you propose is minimal. Maybe 50 years of oil becomes 55 years. Since the future is much longer
Plus you miss the fact that reducing gasoline consumption here in the U.S. by 5% simply puts less demand on oil, lowers the price, and the global market thus buys slightly more.
Look before this topic gets all fired up, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Once it became known that oil could be burned and was so useful, the course is set to drill and use it all. The only thing that stops that is to discover a new source of energy. People of the globe will continue to use any and all fossil fuels for their comfort and enjoyment until they are exhausted (except the renewable wood). The only solutions are better solar, wind, and tidal systems, some sort of deep geothermal tapping, or fusion.
Your proposal to give a rebate to the lower income is just the sort of additions to the tax code we dislike. Why not raise the minimum wage to compensate for the additional tax they pay?
What a gas tax is designed to do is change peoples' car-buying choices, more than change their daily driving habits. Gas is up today, it could be down next week, is what many will think during price spikes like the one last summer. OTOH, if the government imposes a gas tax, people know gas is going up and staying UP, and the next time they are car-shopping they will be thinking "I need a vehicle that is 20% more fuel-efficient than my last one, because gas is up 20% or more for GOOD".
And BTW, while I am all in favor of it being revenue-neutral, I don't think it should just be one gigantic federal give-back to the states - the gas tax hasn't kept pace with inflation for more than 20 years. An immediate increase of some sort is needed just to keep pace with the costs of road maintenance and repair. The 40-year life expectancy of the concrete surfaces of all those interstates built in the 50s and 60s has already reached or is just reaching its end. That's a lot of repaving that's needed, folks, and it won't be free.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not to worry. Obama has an extra $$Trillion set aside to fix all the roads and bridges. We can eliminate the gas tax completely...
As I said before I don't think MOST new car shoppers care much if the gas-tax is going up $0.10/year. The average price of a new car is about $25K right? Maybe $20K right now after all discounts in this market. It is not the average person making $40K/year who is buying new cars. The people buying new cars are typically upper middle class and businesses. A person making $75,000+/year really isn't concerned if gas cost $1.00 or $2.00 or $5.00 more per week.
It is the person who buys the used car making $40K/year who cares! But they do not make the decisions on what is bought initially, thus they do not control what type of vehicles are on the used market.
Vehicle choice is mostly from the better-to-do who care less about these small gas tax increases!
If you are concerned about small increases in gas costs, then certainly after all we've been thru with people getting loans they shouldn't take ... the system really shouldn't allow them to buy a new car.
A new car is such an extravagence and waste of money, that if you can't pay cash for it, I would really question whether you should buy it.
Heh, I think that might depend on how many boat, 4-wheeler, car and mortgage payments they have.
If you want to discourage the burning of gasoline for transportation, raising the taxes would be an efficient way of doing it. And the bump in tax revenues until people really quit driving or switched fuels would pay for a lot of bridge and road repair.
Didn't think so.
Bottom line . . we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.
Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH?
AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
Ah yes, good ole beauocracy. And now we are going to turn the Banking system over to the congress? God Help us.
Actually with the credit I got up there with my furnace upgrade rebate, and the tax credit I got a couple of years ago with my more efficient water heater, I've saved thousands, thanks to those "bureaucrats."
Yes, but you know what they DO affect? Resale values. If small fuel-efficient cars retained way more of their value than trucks and SUVs, don't you think that's one important factor that would play out in peoples' minds when they select a new vehicle? Just look at how hard-hit the SUV resale values were last summer, and that was with gas at $4/gallon for less than 6 months.
And BTW, there are plenty of middle-income people who WOULD care about a gas tax if it started at an increase of $0.50 - that would mean an additional $35/month in gas expense, and $420/year. That's enough to get people to add it to the list of things they consider when purchasing a new vehicle, especially if they know it will continue to increase slowly.
Lastly, say what you will about what SHOULD be the case, but there are plenty of people in the $30-40K annual income bracket buying new cars, even now. I know two that have purchased within the last 3 months. For both, gas cost was a priority in the purchasing decision, one went with a Corolla and the other with a Mazda3 2.0.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Of course, DOE now thinks it's a national security agency.
But if consumption is supposedly so bad, then I'd like to see gas tax proponents put their money where their mouth is and propose the elimination of ALL federal income and estate taxes (shouldn't we be encouraging people to make MORE money and save it to pass on to their heirs?) and make increased gasoline taxes part of a larger federal consumption tax scheme.
But that isn't the premise of this topic. It was +$0.10/gal/year, which is too small for new car purchasers to really be concerned about.
Lastly, say what you will about what SHOULD be the case, but there are plenty of people in the $30-40K annual income bracket buying new cars, even now
Wrong. There aren't "plenty of people" buying cars right now of any income bracket! You know a couple. And if there was an additional $0.50/gal gas tax that may have been enough income from their pockets, to keep these couple of people from buying that Corolla or Mazda.
As before I'm with you on there should be more smaller cars, and I'm personally turned off by many of our lager vehicles. I would like to see more small cars on the road. But raising the gas tax is a p__s-poor way to do so for various reasons.
I watched the Tokyo Auto Show last night and thought many of their cars were very interesting, and if not exactly practical - at least fun. I wish our government did not legislate either for emissions or safety that many of them can't be sold here. But I certainly don't want the government to coerce/punish people either.
Lets say that tax is 50 cents more. If I work at Walmart and drive to work every day and fill up once a week with 20 gallons I just hit my paycheck and extra $10.00 on top of what ever my gas cost me normally. If gas goes up to $3.50 a gallon I will pay $70.00 to fill the tank normally. But with the additional 50 cent tax I get to pay $80.00. The average commute in Southern California is something like 35 miles one way. So if your Mini Van Averages 17.5 MPG for you and your three kids. 2.2 is the average I believe, or something close. You just took a 25 cent an hour pay cut. If you get to work 8 hours 5 days a week.
My friend Nippon says all they need to do is get a new small car. 12 to 15K should be no problem to the average person making minimum wage. Oh wait there will be car payments on top of a gas tax. What can we do but decide not to take the kids to the doctor just because they have a little fever.
I know, I know, hyperbole. But theory verses what "is" happening in the US right now in front of us should show how hard a new gas tax will damage the working class in the US. In our State our state legislation can't pass a budget but they are not taking a financial hit. They may cut state workers salaries and close the DMV three days a week but they aren't suggesting they take a cut in pay. They simply want to send out IOUs for tax refunds on money they already have that belongs to the tax payer.
Tax fuel and you raise the price of groceries, building supplies, the travel industry. To pay for those increases the grocery store cuts employees as does Home Depot and the airlines. Don't believe it just look at the unemployment results on TV.
Our newly elected President comes on TV and tells us we can't afford to raise taxes right now. One thing he seems to agree with the old president on and some Automotive editor suggests we raise fuel taxes for our own good? I have to ask, where is a rope when you need one? I hope he works for part of the Time Warner group and his job is in danger.
The gas tax can be used as a sin tax much the way cigarette taxes are used. You tax things that you want society to use less of b/c there are huge repurcussions with overuse. We really have to get over the idea in this country that we have to maximize our consumption of natural resources to provide the best possible life for us and our kids. That is not what I call quality of life. We are not building the next Athens here folks by buying F-150s, we just have gotten used to our toys and distractions and think that anyone who lives without them really isn't living. I've visited places where they do pay a lot for gas (New Zealand, Israel, Germany) and they're lifestyles are not "sabotaged" by high fuel costs. In fact they are democracies that chose that path after considering all the facts.......
It's known as trade. They in turn buy our computers, and consumer goods. And those countries have little else to sell, so I feel purchasing foreign oil is my charity to the world. Trade is the best thing to bring the peoples of the world together and promote peace.
If you want to apply the gas tax to a 'shovel ready' set of projects I suggest the 150,000 structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges in this country.
Yes the gas tax should have been used for auto-transport before much of it is siphoned off to build subways and such, and subsidize their annual operation.
The gas tax can be used as a sin tax much the way cigarette taxes are used.
Now here you're really veering off track, if you want us all to agree to this "sin" principle. Whether you consider cigarettes, gasoline, gambling ... a sin is your personal or religious belief. It is not my belief or many other people, that using the resources the Creator has provided us is a sin. I do not consider a sin that the Creator is fusing materials all over the universe - in the stars - for little apparent use other than to create little lights for us to look up at.
I consider most processed foods to be sinful. Feeding coco puffs to your kid is just as bad as smoking around him. Tax that stuff big time. Make a box of processed cereal $20 and use the tax to treat the diabetic & obese. Is it a sin to go to work? That is a lame idea, calling gas tax a sin tax.
It certainly will if we don't do something about reducing our consumption of it. But PLEASE let's not just presume this to be true. Let's do something about it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If you live two blocks from a bus station that delivers you within a half mile to your job site and you still drive, when you have no other errands to run other than going to work, then that's wasteful can be considered mildly sinful.
No reason to pollute more than necessary.
Anything guvmint can mandate or people can willingly do to reduce fossil fuel usage and reduce pollution and is within reasonable cost is good for all of us.
If a higher gas tax makes a few more of the people who could commute to work in other ways than "one person one car" do so, then it's a good thing.
My thought would be to institute $0.05-$0.10 tax to help fund these projects to help offset the proposed stimulus package. Here are a few simple calculations (Please help if the numbers I have are not correct).
The best number I could find is that we use roughly 178 million gallons per day of gasoline.
178,000,000 x $0.05 = $8,900,000 dollars a day
$8,900,000 per day x 365 days = $3,248,500,000 each year. Of course if you have a $0.10 tax, it's roughly $6.5B.
I know it doesn't begin to make a dent in the proposed stimulus package but it does go a long way to help fund much needed projects and secures some jobs for the construction segment. And we aren't passing the debt onto to our children and grand-children.
Any thoughts?
Just what makes you think they would use it for infrastructure? They are working on the stimulus package right now. They have included money for abortions. Pelosi says that will help the economy. Only if they abort all future politicians. I don't think that bunch of losers need any suggestions on ways to screw the American tax payer out of more money. I would only suggest that I will vote against any spending of any taxes for anything they were not proposed for. And anyone that votes to spend money we have not got will not get my vote.
Dirty Harry wants to use stimulus money to build a Mobster Museum in LV. That ought to help with failing bridges.
Maybe I wasn't going to post that vebatum but I was thinking the same thing.
We are hearing a lot of, If they do this and If they do that with the money. Just were are we living that we can't see what they are doing with the money they already have? 800 billion, looks more like 1 trillion, was passed as a bailout before the election. Why? To help support the infrastructure of the banking industry and wall street. Now one of the bailed out banks is buying a French Jet with some of the money we the taxpayers forked out. Does that make me part owner on a French Jet? Piffle and I can't see that as infrastructure either. So don't for a minute give us what they could use the tax money for because they "aren't" using the tax on fuel for infrastructure right now. They are using that money for other programs that we never voted to fund in the first place, like the bailout.
Now the election is over and the new president is offering up another 850 Billion stimulus, infrastructure bailout. Do any of you realize that the gas tax would be like spitting in the ocean to pay the interest on almost two trillion dollars?
Wake up and smell the corruption. Your fuel taxes are not going anywhere near getting people to buy the car you want them to buy. Companies are not getting loans on building magic cars getting 100 MPG with your fuel tax money and they will not get any, I say any of your proposed increased fuel taxes.
How do we know? Because they are so deep in debt they would have to use the money to cover part of the taxes we have already committed in the pre election and the post election bail outs. If you raise fuel taxes on the working class we can be like the countries mentioned earlier and reduce our average yearly income to what theirs are. There is a reason that boat loads of Americans aren't moving to Israel and Europe. We don't want to live like they do. If you use their methods to control the working class you will have their problems.
Take off our rose colored glasses and see what happened when gas hit $4.00 a gallon. Think about how high food prices got. Think about how high transportation costs got. Higher fuel taxes will simply be another nail in our economy's coffin and anyone buying groceries, or building supplies "knows" it.
Those that suggest they could give trucking a break know that is not going to happen. Those that say it could be made to be a neutral tax know it isn't possible in practice unless you got the money back as fast as you spent it. Those that say we just need to tighten our belts need to understand that such suggestions sound a lot like Marie Antonette, People can't afford bread, let them eat cake. People can't afford the new gas tax, let them ride the bus.
Once again we see what happened when gas hit $4.00 do we need more "proof" that a fuel tax would be bad?
A United Nations study estimates the world population will continue exploding, from 6.6 billion to 9.3 billion by 2050. By 2050 America's population is expected to be 400 million, give or take one or two. That's an increase of ~30% from today's level. That means we'll be vastly outnumbered by 8.9 billion others across the planet, all competing with us.
Some experts warn that it won't be long before "The Age of Oil" is over. Soon the marginal cost of extracting a barrel will equal the sale price. We are on the downside of the bell curve. No? Check out LifeAftertheOilCrash.com: "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This isn't the proclamation of a wacko. It's the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely respected geologists, physicists, bankers and investors in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global 'peak oil.'" The solution? Stabilize the population. The problem is that this is so much easier to prescribe than to implement.
Should we factor a rapidly growing population into our energy consumption plans, or should we continue on our present course and just hope that the Rev. continues to be wrong? Hopefully, new technologies will continue to bail us out, but maybe not. I don't know the answer to that one, but I sure think about it.
I'll work on my proposal and get back to you.
150,000 SD and FO bridges is only part of what is needed. Last I saw the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. infrastructure a grade of 'D' for the entire system, not just bridges. Nothing wrong with subways and as someone who has lived and worked in the D.C. area I can attest that they can be economically justifiable. If you doubt me just look at the change in property values adjacent to subway stations.
I used "sin" is quotes b/c it is subjective. Unless you can prove man-made climate change does not exist I would say that there is a chance for sin on a massive scale. Yes the creator in addition to fossil fuels has also made available renewables that humans have been using for much longer than we have gasoline. To not use these renewables that don't pollute - see a picture of modern day Vietnam and everyone wearing masks as an example - is a sin b/c other people's lungs will suffer as a result. I also do distinguish between 'use' and 'overuse' when it comes to prescription medications for our bodies as well as natural resources for our transportation.
The UAE is more likely to build roads with the money than MN. They want roads for US to drive on and use their oil. MN is infiltrated with some of the goofiest politicians in the nation. They cannot even keep their bridges from collapsing. Why would you trust them with more money... I know MN, as I am a property owner in the state.
Unless you can prove man-made climate change does not exist
The weight is on YOU to prove it exists, not us to prove it does not exist. We do have a thread for that if you would like to join in on the debate. Man made GW/CC is a grand scam pure and simple. Just another way to extort money from the masses.
That's a lot of qualifiers you have to use to get on that bus. You assume that everybody lives in sunny AZ like you and can have a pleasant walk to the bus stop. Where I live it is 20 degrees (a warm spell) and snowing.
You also assume that everyone is healthy enough for such a walk. Right now I'm limping around due to one of my many age-related infirmities. Even if the sun was shining and the birds were singing I would have a hard time walking a half mile.
I admire your single minded pursuit to save the planet but you have to consider some of your fellow creatures who live here.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Unless you can prove man-made climate change does not exist I would say that there is a chance for sin on a massive scale.
This is the sort of illogic that people used centuries ago when making a case for witchcraft, or appeasing the God in the volcano. That sort of reasoning has for the most part been purged from our society.
see a picture of modern day Vietnam and everyone wearing masks as an example
Most of Vietnam is rural and pleasant, though I have seen what you're saying in their several cities. But Vietnam does not have pollution controls as we do. And particulate pollution that you wear masks is not the same as CO2. Masks do not stop CO2.
I also do distinguish between 'use' and 'overuse' when it comes to prescription medications for our bodies as well as natural resources for our transportation.
As long as your concerned with yourself and don't want to tell me what to decide - fine. I consider it a "sin" when people try to impose their opinion, such that I can't decide for myself. You may wish to ride a bike or Segway, and have little power or protection. My priorities might be power and safety, and thus an armored Hummer H1 is my choice.
My point is that MANY MANY more people COULD commute in more environmentally-friendly ways if they just sat down and thought about it for a second or two.
And YES, there are millions who CANNOT, for whatever various hundreds or thousands of reasons.
The truth is that when Oprah bought her gas guzzling G500 Mercedes SUV, the cost of premium gas was not even on her mind. I would also bet if she drives it there is no thought of hypermiling.
All the gas tax will do is cause further inflation during hard times for 12 million people that are out looking for work. I can hear the person doing the interview for a job. "What is that smell?" Oh, I rode the bus down for my interview and the person next to me had not bathed in months. There were 3 teenagers smoking a joint in the back so I did not want to move there and smell of reefer.
He is just the next perfect example of, well they could do something only to see what they are going to do. Plug loop holes? Not in our life.
In this country you can get a tax deduction for mortgage interest but not credit card insurance. This is to encourage home ownership in the former case and in the latter to not promote credit card debt. Sounds good to me, the only difference would be a gas tax would be for a different set of reasons.
I really don't get this whole tax purity thing. Maybe it is a libertarian agenda item from Ron Paul that I missed. You have to tax something to get the infrastructure up to snuff otherwise we will detoriate into a "developing" country. Something like a gas tax which relates more to roads and bridges than any other tax is a great idea.
Of course the tax really won't be raised since its static amount has been losing ~3% to inflation each and every year since 1993. 16 years times 3% = almost half its value has been lost since the early 90s. And that is not the whole story inflation related to roadbuilding has been going up faster than the general inflation rate b/c of steel, concrete and asphalt prices.
Wikipedia says that Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona (as well as the District of Columbia and Bernalillo County, New Mexico) are CARB states.
Arnold isn't quite a lone voice in the wilderness.
I emailed Transport Canada about this question, but they didn't reply(go figure). Can anyone help?
"I am enquiring to know how the minimum age of non-American vehicles is set at 15 years and even why there even is a regulation now. I was/am interested in importing a minivan from Japan until I noticed the minimum age(15yrs) requirement. I am also perplexed, since new imports from any country can be readily bought in Japan(they don't have any age rule). I understand how Canada would want to protect some of it's industry from foreign competition, but I grew up in the West(Calgary) where the auto manufacturing industry is insignificant if almost non-existent. So, from my perspective this rule should be re-examined. Another point is that Canada does have a textile industry that does employ a large number of people, but I don't/don't know about any restrictions on cheap imported clothing from China, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc.
If you could give me a logical answer to my question it would greatly be appreciated!
What I do see problems with are artificially high increases, used to motivate people to do something. I don't necessarily agree with the many deductions, credits, fines, fees, and taxes that our bureaucracy creates simply to force the likes-and-desires of the majority on all. The bureaucracy makes things needlessly complicated such that even the current Treasurer of the U.S. could not do his taxes properly for several years! Before you say what does this have to do with the topic; it is in reference to those who would someone come up with a set of rules to somehow refund this money back to low and moderate income groups.
Honestly, how bad does it hurt if gas goes up $.20 a gallon? For me, another another $.20 comes out to an extra $2.40 per tank. If paying that much more will help make a dent in the aging infrastructure we have, then I'm for it. I'm not wealthy by any means and I am actually unemployed,thanks to the current economy. But still, another $2.40 per tank won't kill me financially.
There should be stipulations attached to a gas tax, that I agree with. No one likes paying taxes, but taxes are a fact of life. Taxes are what pays for things. Taxes aren't always fair. But we can't just keep piling on more debt, then selling it to other nations. A a small but steady increase in the gas tax up to $.50 a gallon could help with that.
Think of how postage increases. No one really complains when stamps go up a penny or two. A couple pennies increase in the gas tax annually could help our sagging bottom line and our sagging bridges and roads.
As I've indicated on more than one occasions. I strongly agree with you on this matter, kernick. In fact, I agree with many of the things you say. I disagree with you, though, on the desirability of reducing our dependency on foreign oil, and what to do about it. I feel this dependency hurts our economy, compromises our flexibility, and weakens our foreign policy options.
Maybe we should forget about tax refunds to those who don't pay income taxes, and accept the suffering of the hypothetical working poor guy who drives his '88 Buick to work, that someone cited a while back, as a reasonable tradeoff to keep the our taxes from becoming even more complicated.