Mullaly: Gas Tax Worth Exploring

[LSFan00]

Remember when the government of x did away with taxing y completely when the need/purpose of the taxation went away?

 

I can't fill in 'x' and 'y' respectively, but I can come up with instances of exponential increases unrelated to the purpose of the tax.

[Furious1Auto]

Remember when the government of x did away with taxing y completely when the need/purpose of the taxation went away?

 

I can't fill in 'x' and 'y' respectively, but I can come up with instances of exponential increases unrelated to the purpose of the tax.

If their was a volume decrease the tax would not go away. Also lets assume for one second that everyone in the country did not drive unnecessarily, If the government imposed such a tax it still would not reduce our consumption. Are we never suppose to leave our homes? What good is it to have the freedom to come and go freely, when your finances make it impossible? I don't wish to be an economic slave either!

[FFAN]

Without taking either side of the oft-discussed fence, gas prices do seem to be the primary factor.

 

When gas approached $4 for unleaded in CA and $3.25+ elsewhere/gallon, all you ever heard was how Toyota couldn't keep enough Prius' in stock and the Big 3 were hemorrhaging sales due to the number of large trucks/SUV's making up their sales.

 

Fast-forward a few months - gas at $2.25-$2.50 around the country; no one wants 'small' cars and truck/SUV sales up 30+%.

 

There was a poster in this thread suggesting a rebate or tax cut/MPG on purchased vehicles. Personally, I think it's a terrific idea and doesn't attack anyone from driving/purchasing what they prefer and can afford. It also wouldn't penalize anyone who needs a large vehicle to run their businesses. In the end, no one is 'penalized' for anything and everyone pays the market rate for fuel. Manufacturers aren't pressured too highly to make tiny boxes just to satisfy a temporary market condition (driven by gas) and can continue to employ more Americans in American factories producing a variety of vehicles.

[macattak1]

Yep, he actually said it was "worth exploring." That's what he said. The CEO of Ford actually said it was "worth exploring". Precisely

 

You know I don't know if Mulehead has checked lately but he sells Fords. He's not selling Porsches or Lamborghinis. He sells cars that rank and file everyday Americans on a fixed budget buy. That's what Ford sells. Now he's telling them that maybe they ought to be paying more in gas tax. I don't care how you guys that are in favor of this try to redress it, the man just insulted the vast majority of customers that buy cars from him. Furthermore, again no matter how you try to dress it up, there's not one good reason to tack on another 50 cents a gallon in gas tax burden to the American consumer. It is a stupid idea and it was a stupid thing to say. Made more so by the fact that he just wants it done in order to get the damn CAFE standards off his back. Now I agree the CAFE standards were largely ineffective except that they did actually force domestic automakers to make more efficient cars and who knows how long that would have taken them if left to their own devices. But look, if CAFE is such a huge faliure, then just do away with it altogether. Where did this moronic notion come from that maybe we should pile on another tax onto the American people in place of CAFE standards? He get's a big fat dumb ass award for that one and so do those of you who think this proposed tax hike is a good idea.

 

You know, I was just thinking. What do you think Mulally would have done had the govt. started discussing applying the same tax to Jet Fuel as is now on auto fuel? I am not positive, but gee, I am pretty sure, as one at the very top at Boeing he would have gone Ape Poop all over the place. He would have been booking trips to DC and spreading money to lobbyists like it was going out of style.

 

Hello. Bueller? Bueller? Mulally? Mulally? Mulally Supporters? Supporters? Hellow?

[Biker16]

Yeh and you didn't dare say f-ck the elderly you insensitive prick, That's just two examples of many where a gas tax increase will unemploy people and leave needy without. WTF does Iraq have to do with a fuel tax increase. The fact that I support the war is a separate issue. The only correlation for me between the two issues for me is, I genuinely care for the health, welfare, and security of our natural born citizens! GFYS, if you want to pay more for gas move to California or the UK.

 

we are losing our best over in Iraq to secure oil.

 

WTF does Iraq have to do with a fuel tax increase

 

If you can't grasp simple concepts like supply and demand, you should not post in this thread.

 

high prices at the pump will reduce demand, thus consumption.

 

 

Actually, I don't think you understand. Improve efficiency is always part of the game. But we do not want to reduce consumption. We want to shift it to, if possible, cheaper, cleaner, local. Reducing consumption overall means shrinking the economy. Pretty sure you don't want to loose your job. I know I would not.

 

we are in a technology driven economy this is not the 1900s.

 

reducing consumption by higher taxes is not a new idea, what are tariffs.

 

Any gas tax will be revenue neutral, will will either reduce income, or credit the money back to the consumer. the goal is not to raise revenue, but to reduce consumption in a way that does the least amount of harm.

 

 

The US hardly gets any oil from Iran.

 

And are you SERIOUSLY bitching about a 4.6% unemployment rate?? A perfect economy requires unemployed workers, by most economists' estimates between 3-5%, to encourage job competition. That's certainly one area where the economy is NOT doing poorly.

 

We may not purchase oil from Iran but in a free market, oil prices increase for Saudi oil also increases oil prices, thus revenue for Iran.

 

I am not complaining about a 4.6% unemployment rate, I am countering the notion that we are losing jobs because of higher gas prices.

 

 

As oil steeples higher, things like Naptha extraction from shale oil become far more viable.

Naptha from this source is low sulphur which is really good news for emission technology.

 

Word locally is our Aussie shale oil plant is about to fire up next year after Sanderfer (Texas)

have done a lot of research in Colorado. Apparently the reserves of shale ol are in three massive

pockets down here and even more in the USA. The reserves are as big as the whole Middle East!!

 

what are we going to do about all the CO2?

[Biker16]

That is regoinal. Mosly due to Quebec they by more small cars per capita than any where else in US or Canada on the flip side Albertans buy more P/U's per capita than any where else in NA. We also average way more road miles per year than in the U.S.

 

So do Canadians buy more small cars yes we do, is it a signifigant amout no.

Remove the french factor and you would find that buying habits are pretty much the same.

 

Taxing gasoline to force people in to more fuel efficient cars will not produce the desired results.

yes it will force some people in to more fuel efficinat cars. Mostly lower income individuals.

 

Adjusting the CAFE is a much better solution.

 

As for the cold issue there are other nations where the bulk of population experiance more severe winters than the bulk of Canada's population. And have much much lower per capita energy consumtion. Rember most of Canada's population reside just across the border, and over 90% with in 300 miles of the U.S border.

 

So the bulk of the population experience winters no more severe than in the northern U.S.

 

Matthew.

100% of Canada is north of the continental US, it is colder up there. and it is alot warmer in the Us south where they use less energy to heat their homes.

 

CAFE dosen't address the issue of consumption.

 

the consumer will not have CHOICE, because the automakers cannot make gas-guzzling cars or trucks., and will be forced to make miserly underpowered vehicles, that people don't want. we will be back to selling cars at a loss just to be able to sell cars that actually make money. since the Big 3 have much higher costs than the imports this will kill them they CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE MONEY.

 

This renaissance of the small car is only due to the realties of higher gas prices, understand this is the only reason why small cars are profitable right now. increasing small car supply without the demand from higher fuel prices, is a recipe for disaster. we will bleed money

 

Remember the 80s.

 

There was a poster in this thread suggesting a rebate or tax cut/MPG on purchased vehicles. Personally, I think it's a terrific idea and doesn't attack anyone from driving/purchasing what they prefer and can afford. It also wouldn't penalize anyone who needs a large vehicle to run their businesses. In the end, no one is 'penalized' for anything and everyone pays the market rate for fuel. Manufacturers aren't pressured too highly to make tiny boxes just to satisfy a temporary market condition (driven by gas) and can continue to employ more Americans in American factories producing a variety of vehicles.

 

who will pay for the tax rebates? It is no better than the Big 3 putting a 3000$ to move metal. it is not the business model we want to embrace.

 

You know, I was just thinking. What do you think Mulally would have done had the govt. started discussing applying the same tax to Jet Fuel as is now on auto fuel? I am not positive, but gee, I am pretty sure, as one at the very top at Boeing he would have gone Ape Poop all over the place. He would have been booking trips to DC and spreading money to lobbyists like it was going out of style.

 

Hello. Bueller? Bueller? Mulally? Mulally? Mulally Supporters? Supporters? Hellow?

 

If I were working at Boeing I would embrace a gas tax it would make the advantages of our new 787 even more pronounced. The plane has is 30% more fuel efficient than the airbus.

 

open your eyes.

[BlackHorse]

If you can't grasp simple concepts like supply and demand, you should not post in this thread.

 

That's the tar pit calling the pot black Biker. Artificially inflating the cost of gas by means of unnecessary tax in order force consumers into a buying pattern that you deem fit and appropriate is not supply and demand. It's tyranny and the fact that you can't see that is really sad. I don't need you or my government to dictate to me what kind of car I should be driving.

reducing consumption by higher taxes is not a new idea, what are tariffs.

 

Any gas tax will be revenue neutral, will will either reduce income, or credit the money back to the consumer. the goal is not to raise revenue, but to reduce consumption in a way that does the least amount of harm.

 

It is entirely different from a tariff. A tariff is imposed on imported goods generally in order to protect your own market, YOUR OWN COUNTRYMEN. A tax increase does not do this, it takes more money from your own countrymen. Don't ever lecture someone about how the market works, your grasp of it is right up there with Marxism.

[matthewq4b]

100% of Canada is north of the continental US, it is colder up there. and it is alot warmer in the Us south where they use less energy to heat their homes.

 

 

Sorry Biker you better look at a globe once in while. I like think that you know more than most American's that have no clue about any thing out side thier own boarders.

 

FYI The southern most point in Ontario is Pelee as far south as Northern California.

 

About half of Canada's population resides further south than the northern most point of the continental U.S's northern boarder.

 

And the Average US house use's way more energy than Canadian ones do for climate control of their homes. You seem to have forgot a little thing called Air Conditioning. That uses way more enegry than a NG Furnace.

 

 

Matthew

[macattak1]

we are losing our best over in Iraq to secure oil.

 

WTF does Iraq have to do with a fuel tax increase

 

If you can't grasp simple concepts like supply and demand, you should not post in this thread.

 

high prices at the pump will reduce demand, thus consumption.

we are in a technology driven economy this is not the 1900s.

 

reducing consumption by higher taxes is not a new idea, what are tariffs.

 

Any gas tax will be revenue neutral, will will either reduce income, or credit the money back to the consumer. the goal is not to raise revenue, but to reduce consumption in a way that does the least amount of harm.

We may not purchase oil from Iran but in a free market, oil prices increase for Saudi oil also increases oil prices, thus revenue for Iran.

 

I am not complaining about a 4.6% unemployment rate, I am countering the notion that we are losing jobs because of higher gas prices.

what are we going to do about all the CO2?

 

Do you live in the US? The Boston Tea Party was over Tax on Tea. Tea. A 'nice to have' and no where near a necessity Be like a revolution over Pepsi and Coke taxation

 

Energy is a life necessity almost to the degree of Food, Clothing, and Shelter. Did you know that some states do not Tax Food, Clothing, or Shelter? That is because the govt is not supposed to make its money off of Must Haves to Survive. MN is one of the most liberal states and they don't tax F, C, or S.

 

Tariffs have very little to do with fighting local consumption. Tariffs are for competing in trade where your country can not compete. So you slap tariffs on imported products that you can not compete with. BTW, that is one huge reason why the USA is so strong. We try to avoid tariffs. Our companies survive on skill not government protection.

 

Ooops, missed that Boeing response. Clearly you do not work in any accounting or business area of Boeing "if you did" work for them. Because if you did you would understand that if Jet fuel were to all of a sudden be taxed as much as regular gasoline you would see a none necessity for the US public like flying become even more of a none necessity. Business would slow down 30% in the first year alone.

 

Why don't some of you educate yourselves on Fuel taxes. When they started? How much they started at? What the tax on Auto fuel is v/s on jet fuel.

 

Sorry. Not working.

Edited August 12, 2007 by macattak1

[Biker16]

Sorry Biker you better look at a globe once in while. I like think that you know more than most American's that have no clue about any thing out side thier own boarders.

 

FYI The southern most point in Ontario is Pelee as far south as Northern California.

 

About half of Canada's population resides further south than the northern most point of the continental U.S's northern boarder.

 

And the Average US house use's way more energy than Canadian ones do for climate control of their homes. You seem to have forgot a little thing called Air Conditioning. That uses way more enegry than a NG Furnace.

Matthew

 

ok.

 

How does quote "in fact I think Canadians consume more energy per capita than any other nation on the planet. " remain true?

 

 

Ooops, missed that Boeing response. Clearly you do not work in any accounting or business area of Boeing "if you did" work for them. Because if you did you would understand that if Jet fuel were to all of a sudden be taxed as much as regular gasoline you would see a none necessity for the US public like flying become even more of a none necessity. Business would slow down 30% in the first year alone.

 

I call bullshit.

 

is this your estimate or someone else's.

 

Tariffs have very little to do with fighting local consumption. Tariffs are for competing in trade where your country can not compete. So you slap tariffs on imported products that you can not compete with. BTW, that is one huge reason why the USA is so strong. We try to avoid tariffs. Our companies survive on skill not government protection.

 

the purpose of tariffs is to discourage consumption, by making the price of the item more expensive than the non tariffed items.

[macattak1]

ok.

 

How does quote "in fact I think Canadians consume more energy per capita than any other nation on the planet. " remain true?

I call bullshit.

 

is this your estimate or someone else's.

the purpose of tariffs is to discourage consumption, by making the price of the item more expensive than the non tariffed items.

 

Nope, just my guess. Fact is that flying has become cheaper and cheaper. 40 years ago it was business flight for the greater part. Now it is perhaps just as much for pleasure. What ever the ratio was and is, it has shifted significantly towards personal travel just because it is so affordable. However, when that changes, it goes back to the way it used to be. If people can not afford to fly they don't.

 

Cost of jet fuel is one of the largest costs for aviation. $15 per barrel to $70 per barrel in 17 years is huge. There is about $00.50 tax per road fuel. I believe it is about $00.07 for commercial aviation fuel.

 

Tariffs are for revenue and protection. Tariffs were not designed with regard to, have nothing to do with, and are not intended to reduce consumption. Tariffs are about safe guarding industry, protecting markets, preventing market dumping, etc. Simply look it up and you will see. Easy to verify.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff Not that they are a great source.

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/tariff

http://www.usitc.gov/tata/index.htm

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1816-1860.htm

http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/wtopdf/wtopdf_frm.asp

 

So there ya go.

[macattak1]

Nope, just my guess. Fact is that flying has become cheaper and cheaper. 40 years ago it was business flight for the greater part. Now it is perhaps just as much for pleasure. What ever the ratio was and is, it has shifted significantly towards personal travel just because it is so affordable. However, when that changes, it goes back to the way it used to be. If people can not afford to fly they don't.

 

Cost of jet fuel is one of the largest costs for aviation. $15 per barrel to $70 per barrel in 17 years is huge. There is about $00.50 tax per road fuel. I believe it is about $00.07 for commercial aviation fuel. Add up the growing cost and then slap a tax on there you have a significant jolt to the system.

 

Tariffs are for revenue and protection. Tariffs were not designed with regard to, have nothing to do with, and are not intended to reduce consumption. Tariffs are about safe guarding industry, protecting markets, preventing market dumping, etc. Simply look it up and you will see. Easy to verify.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff Not that they are a great source.

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/tariff

http://www.usitc.gov/tata/index.htm

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1816-1860.htm

http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/wtopdf/wtopdf_frm.asp

 

If one remembers back to middle school history class or took econ in HS you would remember what Tariffs were used for, who implemented them, and why the US has always tried to stay away from them while European countries have used them extensively.

 

So there ya go. Call what ever you like. But it does not change the truth.

[BlackHorse]

the purpose of tariffs is to discourage consumption, by making the price of the item more expensive than the non tariffed items.

 

Oh my we are indeed fortunate to be blessed with your sound pearls of wisdom Biker. Ok, you've worked out half the answer. Now why would you want to put a tarrif on brand A bicycle and not brand B bicycle? Think real hard biker. Is that gong to reduce the consumption of Brand B bicycle? A tarrif and a tax are in no way the same thing. I don't know how you came to that conclusion but it is wrong.

[matthewq4b]

ok.

 

How does quote "in fact I think Canadians consume more energy per capita than any other nation on the planet. " remain true?

I call bullshit.

 

is this your estimate or someone else's.

the purpose of tariffs is to discourage consumption, by making the price of the item more expensive than the non tariffed items.

 

 

A little thing called primary industry.

We supply the stuffs that the U.S Asia and Even Europe uses to produce goods.

 

And we all know it is way more energy intentsive to produce Virgin material than recycle it.

 

And since we have a huge primary resource base here. We have a much much higher per capita use of trucks heavy equipment and energy consuming industry.

 

Per capita Alberta uses more energy than any where period. We alone are responsible for over half of canada's CO2 emmsions. And we make up less than 10% of the country's population. Do the math on that one to figure out our energy consumtion per capita.

 

 

In Quebec they are hit with some pretty severe Gas Guzzler taxes at point of orginal purchase this is a big contributing factor for them driving more smaller cars then rest of the country.

 

Taxing Fuel does not just affect the guy driving his 8 MPG SUV. It affects all levels of the economy. From transportation of goods, raw materials, Primary materials and Manufactuered goods. It increases the production costs of raw materials , and the cost of food production.

 

So Mulally is saying lets explore a system that will increase the costs of every body's basic living needs.

 

Cars and light trucks are the largest consumers of Motor fuels. Wanna lower consumption. The only really effective way of doing it with out cripping the economy or hurting those that can least afford it is by rasing CAFE. And if a manufactuer can market that 6MPG SUV you tax the FN snot outta of it a the the point of sale with a Gas Guzzler tax this has been proven to work. (see Quebec referance). That way you do not take away any ones choice to buy what ever vehicle they want or cripple the economy.

 

If the Vehicle is at or below the CAFE ratings it has to be Excempt from having a GG tax. Taxing vehicles with a GG tax if it meets the Gov't regs it is not right nor even legal as far as I'm concerned.

 

They could Even keep CAFE where it is and introduce a GG tax. Then manufacturers that do offer More fuel efficiant modles in that class of vehicles will have a price advantage over thier competitors.

 

The Gov't wants a Fuel tax for one reason, and one reason only....... to increase revenues.

 

Remember the U.S trying to pay for a couple of very expensive wars right now.

I doubt the reason of conservation is actual motivation behind it. Especially when alternative solutions that are far less damaging to the populace and economy as a whole are avallible.

 

 

Matthew

[Biker16]

Taxing Fuel does not just affect the guy driving his 8 MPG SUV. It affects ll levels of the economy. From transportation of goods, raw materials, Primary materials and Manufactuered goods. It increases the production costs of raw materials , and the cost of food production.

 

So Mulally is saying lets explore a system that will increase the costs of every body's basic living needs.

 

any gas tax would be revenue neutral. meaning that we would tax gas and diesel while offering tax credits and or tax cuts.

 

instead of taxing the producer of wealth we would tax the users of wealth in a way that encourage less CO2 production.

It would be revenue neutral.

 

Cars and light trucks are the largest consumers of Motor fuels. Wanna lower consumption. The only really effective way of doing it with out cripping the economy or hurting those that can least afford it is by rasing CAFE. And if a manufactuer can market that 6MPG SUV you tax the FN snot outta of it a the the point of sale with a Gas Guzzler tax this has been proven to work. (see Quebec referance). That way you do not take away any ones choice to buy what ever vehicle they want or cripple the economy.

 

If the Vehicle is at or below the CAFE ratings it has to be Excempt from having a GG tax. Taxing vehicles with a GG tax if it meets the Gov't regs it is not right nor even legal as far as I'm concerned.

 

They could Even keep CAFE where it is and introduce a GG tax. Then manufacturers that do offer More fuel efficiant modles in that class of vehicles will have a price advantage over thier competitors.

 

The Gov't wants a Fuel tax for one reason, and one reason only....... to increase revenues.

 

Remember the U.S trying to pay for a couple of very expensive wars right now.

I doubt the reason of conservation is actual motivation behind it. Especially when alternative solutions that are far less damaging to the populace and economy as a whole are avallible.

Matthew

 

that could work, it will never be as effective as gas. it would change driving behaviors and buying habits. while allowing vehicle choice.

 

a gas guzzler tax doesn't discourage driving.

 

remember Revenue neutral energy tax.

 

True tax reform that doesn't taxes income but carbon production.

[macattak1]

Sorry Biker you better look at a globe once in while. I like think that you know more than most American's that have no clue about any thing out side thier own boarders.

 

FYI The southern most point in Ontario is Pelee as far south as Northern California.

 

About half of Canada's population resides further south than the northern most point of the continental U.S's northern boarder.

 

And the Average US house use's way more energy than Canadian ones do for climate control of their homes. You seem to have forgot a little thing called Air Conditioning. That uses way more enegry than a NG Furnace.

Matthew

 

 

He he too funny. Really, if you don't look and investigate you don't know. My wife tried to play that on me a year or so back. "Is Mpls/St Paul MN further north than Canada?" Of course I wanted to say, 'what are you crazy? Heck no, none of it'. But then I thought about it, the shape of a globe and our planet and refused to bite. MPLS/St Paul is further north than I believe Toronto CA is.

 

Peace and Blessings

[ANTAUS]

I've advocated for high schools to have at least one class in Geography. I used to tutor that way back when..and I can't begin to tell you how many people would point to India and call it Antarctica. Thats why so many in our nation are so lost in numerous ways LOL

[macattak1]

any gas tax would be revenue neutral. meaning that we would tax gas and diesel while offering tax credits and or tax cuts.

 

instead of taxing the producer of wealth we would tax the users of wealth in a way that encourage less CO2 production.

It would be revenue neutral.

that could work, it will never be as effective as gas. it would change driving behaviors and buying habits. while allowing vehicle choice.

 

a gas guzzler tax doesn't discourage driving.

 

remember Revenue neutral energy tax.

 

True tax reform that doesn't taxes income but carbon production.

 

Biker, you just don't have enough information and education on this subject. And that is what many people here are trying to deliver to you and doing so with some very sound information.

 

Revenue neutral? I wish I had an idea of taxes that started out revenue neutral and continue to be that way. Doubt there is such a thing. Revenue neutral. That is like believing the bully that beat you up every day after school for a year when he says he won't do that after school today.

 

China and India use less than 100 gallons oil per person per year. Japan and S. Korea about 15 barrels per person. S. Korea doubled to that from 1980 to 1990. The US uses 25 barrels per person per year.

 

Now, if China and India double their use of oil every 5 years...

[Sizzler]

People are lazy.

 

Paying taxes, while not a good time, is a relatively easy thing to do. It's rolled into the price of a gallon of gas, you pay a little more when you fill up. It's good conversation, nice chance to rant.

 

You want to affect usage? Try something that'll require a little effort from people, and less engineering from the car manufacturers. Instead of regulating mileage, regulate the size of a vehicle's gas tank.

 

Limit gas tank sizes to 10 gallons max, all in, all tanks, and you'll see a mass migration to high-mileage fuel misers. Because what that would do is, make all the lazy drivers get off their barcalounger drivers seats and fill up the tanks more often. Make them trudge into the station to pay more often. American drivers would revolt. You'd have rioting in the streets and protests at the gas stations.

 

And what would be needed from automakers? Smaller tanks. That's it. It would then be an incentive for them to engineer more efficient powertrains, ones that wouldn't require an SUV driver to make daily penitence at his local big oil shrine. It's all good. If nothing else, it would give American drivers a tiny bit more exercise (though they'd be hitting the Twinkie aisle more frequently ).

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Oh my we are indeed fortunate to be blessed with your sound pearls of wisdom Biker. Ok, you've worked out half the answer. Now why would you want to put a tarrif on brand A bicycle and not brand B bicycle? Think real hard biker. Is that gong to reduce the consumption of Brand B bicycle? A tarrif and a tax are in no way the same thing. I don't know how you came to that conclusion but it is wrong.

 

Seeing you are taking bikes here, there is a new French Revolution taking place in Paris at the moment with the government dumping 10,000 bikes on the streets Paris to cut congestion. London are thinking about doing the same as it has been a big hit so far.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2080595.ece

[ANTAUS]

That is true in sssoooo many ways...don't forget the Slurpee's too...which they will probably charge on their credit cards...the one thats are maxed out as it is since consumer debt is at an all-time high LOL

[BlackHorse]

People are lazy.

 

Paying taxes, while not a good time, is a relatively easy thing to do. It's rolled into the price of a gallon of gas, you pay a little more when you fill up. It's good conversation, nice chance to rant.

 

You want to affect usage? Try something that'll require a little effort from people, and less engineering from the car manufacturers. Instead of regulating mileage, regulate the size of a vehicle's gas tank.

 

Limit gas tank sizes to 10 gallons max, all in, all tanks, and you'll see a mass migration to high-mileage fuel misers. Because what that would do is, make all the lazy drivers get off their barcalounger drivers seats and fill up the tanks more often. Make them trudge into the station to pay more often. American drivers would revolt. You'd have rioting in the streets and protests at the gas stations.

 

And what would be needed from automakers? Smaller tanks. That's it. It would then be an incentive for them to engineer more efficient powertrains, ones that wouldn't require an SUV driver to make daily penitence at his local big oil shrine. It's all good. If nothing else, it would give American drivers a tiny bit more exercise (though they'd be hitting the Twinkie aisle more frequently ).

 

 

That's just, . . . . . fuckin nonsense lol, I mean seriously dude? You're serious about this idea? You think this would work? lol

 

Look I'm all in favor if burning less fuel too if for no other reason then it is good for your health on a local level not to have the emissions hanging in the air on a hot hazy day and breathing all that in. So don't get me wrong about being opposed to the idea of the tax just because I want to burn a bunch of gas. That's not it at all. But all of the ideas brought forth here about how to get our population on board with the practice of burning less fuel are entirely the wrong way to go about it. Why? Because in every idea that has been brought forth here from Mulally to Biker boy they are all centered around one failed and fatal flaw. You are forcing people to conform to your idea and the moment you do that you are automatically wrong and your plan will fail, every time, guaranteed. People don't like to be meddled with or forced to do something even if it's good for them in the long run. In this case, not only is it meddlesome the idea is also inherently wrong. A gas tax will accomplish nothing except to provide more revenue to a fraud ridden government that will waste it away on nonsense. Look at the settlements out to the lawsuits brought against big tobacco. All we heard was how they were going to use these huge settlements to fund medical care for those who have been afflicted by lung cancer and educational programs to prevent youngsters from taking up the habit. Did it turn out that way? Hell no. They spent less than 5% of the settlement on such things, the rest of it went into various other projects that had nothing to do with tobacco. They wasted it in short. Now all of sudden you trust them to do the right thing with a .50 cents per gallon tax increase that you want to force on the population in order to force them to conform to a certain driving habit or type of vehicle? Instant failure.

 

At the heart and core of the issue, you have to change the way people view transportation in this country. Why did everyone suddenly decide they needed an SUV in the 1990's? Because it was the "in" thing to do. An SUV is possibly the most boneheaded vehicle for family transportation. Take for instance the Explorer. It doesn't carry any more people then a passenger sedan and its only real advantage is added cargo space behind the seats, a feature that 99% of the time never gets used. On the down side, it drinks gas, doesn't handle very well and it's SUV nature makes it prone to rollovers. I promise you that 95% of the families that bought Explorers could have done just as well with a passenger sedan or station wagon and probably would have been better off with a minivan. But those aren't cool and everyone in this country is so damned worried about maintaining some kind of image.

 

You have to fight the hearts and minds battle in order to get to where you want the population to be Biker. Forcing people to conform is a recipe for failure. You have to find a way to get people to look at other forms of transportation not as "less than" what they really want but as a logical and responsible alternative. Because the truth is they don't really know what they want much of the time, they just want what everyone else says is cool to have. So you have to educate the population in other words, make them knowledgeable so that they can make a truly informed decision. Think about it, when you went to school where was the course that taught you about what kind of cars are available to you and which ones got the best mileage or the most cargo space, best off road capability and so on. There's no such course so drivers are forced to learn on their own via whatever outlets are available to them. This is the second largest purchase you will make and you are pretty much left to your own devices as to which one to buy. In many cases that's too much trouble so, they just follow the crowd, Hence Ford sells a gazillion Explorers and Toyota sells a gazillion Camry's. Knowledge is the key here, changing hearts and minds, not forcing some stupid draconian tax burden on people.

Edited August 12, 2007 by BlackHorse

[4d4evr-1]

Found some ideas on a gas tax and consequences.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pig...-manifesto.html

 

Maybe worth the read.

[matthewq4b]

Found some ideas on a gas tax and consequences.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pig...-manifesto.html

 

Maybe worth the read.

 

Again higher gas taxes will not work. In Canada over 70% of the cost of fuel is tax gas currently is almost $4 a gallon has it significantly changed consumers buying or driving habits ? No it did not. What finally and effectively changed buying habits in the provinces that introduced them were Gas Guzzler taxes. The gas tax thing was tried here already and it failed to meet any the goals promised, except increasing Gov't revenue.

 

You can not compare any country in Europe to NA in regards to this. Completely different life styles due to a much ,smaller regions and more densely packed populations. The only country that has similar issues life style and yearly distances traveled compared to the U.S is Canada. We have much higher Fuel taxes here like over twice the states. It did not and does not work. Finally anouther tax had to be added to accomplish the simple goal of getting people to buy smaller vehicles.

 

A GG tax will move people in to more appropriate vehicles Practically a Mid sized station wagon will accomplish the same day to day tasks as an Explorer. A CUV Or even a mini van.

 

If the family of 4 are looking at and Explorer (by far the most common buyers of them) And not Intending to use it for towing. A $5000 GG Tax is going to push them in to a more fuel efficient car.

Simple as that. They will reassess the purchase.

Also you not penalizing individuals for past buying habits. Which is not fair as far as i,m concerned.

 

For arguments sake lets say the explorer gets an average Fuel economy of 20 MPG it is going to take 5000 gallons of fuel or a 100K to cost the purchaser the same dollars as a $1.00 gasoline tax. To be quite honest affter the inital gasoline price shock it will not do any thing to reduce consumtion.

And the fact that it is to be introduced over the span of a decade. Will allow people to adust to the increased price of fuel. And will do nothing to change buying or driving habits.

 

If you want to reduce the number of miles driven then you index vehicle registrations costs to the number of miles traveled the previous year. That way it does not matter what they are driving but how much they are driving it. That solves the congestion problem as people will be more conscience about their driving habits. And it does not have to be much. At $0.05 per mile (Which is too high one or two cents per mile is more realistic) will generating the same revenue on a vehicle that averages 20MPG and averages 20K a year as a $1.00 per gallon gasoline tax. This is some thing state governments can do if it is deemed necessary in that local to reduce congestion and the funds can go directly back in to the infrastructure of that local. If the feds do a gas tax NO state or Municipality is going to see a friggen cent of it.

 

Raising gasoline taxes does not work in a society such as as ours. This is coming from experience in a country similar to the U.S that has already gone that down that road.

 

 

Matthew

Edited August 12, 2007 by matthewq4b

[Furious1Auto]

Listen weather it be for tax, or profit. The cost of fuels is already dictating to me what I can drive. F-ck your tax, build a new refinery! Do you think we're going to swallow your $0.50 tax increase just because fall is here and the cost of gas will fall $1.00. If we did that then next summer we would be paying $3.50 a gallon or higher. How many people do you think that will cause to go in debt, and/or lose their jobs? Even business's will tighten up! If they have repairs they need done they won't hire contractors. Services and skilled repairs are only feasible to pay for, when the cost is reasonable. For instance, I want my lobby remodeled. How much more does it cost me to employ a contractor, when the material cost have gone up do to shipping costs. Also he has to figure in what it costs for fuel to commute back and forth to the job! So, instead I'll elect to do it myself while putting the contractor out of work! In other countries where they pay more for fuel, the value of the currency is less and the citizens get payed more. Canada pays more for gas but, If I did the same job there as I do here than I would make $7.00 more an hour!

Edited August 13, 2007 by Furious1Auto