Listen! It's the voice of reason:
I should add that I am very much in favor of a huge reduction in government spending, and am in general against any increase in taxes, but the argument in favor of a significant increase in gasoline taxes is compelling.
The argument isn't compelling for the poor who can't afford a newer car. And the thought of giving more money and therefore power to the government is insane. If electric cars make sense then they will win in marketplace and building a false incentive is wrong.
Bob Lutz said: Mr. Lutz contends that his gas tax strategy would be fine with the public, who "wouldn't even notice" the change
Please explain how the American consumer wouldn't notice a doubling of the cost of fuel; Mr. Lutz certainly hasn't so now it's your turn.
Doubling the tax would not double the cost of fuel. Gasoline taxes have not been increased since the dark ages, while consumption per vehicle has dropped by virtue of increased fuel economy. A gasoline tax is a perfect "use tax" for those who travel our roads. It also creates incentives to eliminate unnecessary travel, buy fuel-efficient vehicles, and reduce demand for foreign oil.
Tax cigarettes. Tax liquor. Tax gasoline. Win, win, and win. 
Edit: What was the gas tax as a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas back in 1987? What is it today?
Nah, it's not the voice of reason. It's the voice of one guy who has enough money to buy a newer car and pay twice as much for gas. Not my demographic.
I'm in favor of higher gas taxes, private automobile use creates this huge negative externality (your driving creates a bunch of costs you don't necessarily pay for: traffic congestion, infrastructure wear, pollution, need to give a E36 M3 what happens in the middle east, etc.) and an increase in taxes that goes to the right places would reduce that externality (by reducing the driving, but also by doing things like repairing roads or building better ones with the tax revenue), but the $6 or $7/gallon Lutz suggests would launch a cascade of inflation that would look like the '70's. Higher fuel costs mean higher transportation costs for virtually everything we consume, from People magazine to navel oranges.
ShadowSix wrote: I'm in favor of higher gas taxes, private automobile use creates this huge negative externality (your driving creates a bunch of costs you don't necessarily pay for: traffic congestion, infrastructure wear, pollution, need to give a E36 M3 what happens in the middle east, etc.) and an increase in taxes that goes to the right places would reduce that externality (by reducing the driving, but also by doing things like repairing roads or building better ones with the tax revenue), but the $6 or $7/gallon Lutz suggests would launch a cascade of inflation that would look like the '70's. Higher fuel costs mean higher transportation costs for virtually everything we consume, from People magazine to navel oranges.
I should add that I too find the magnitude of Mr. Lutz' proposal to be well beyond the level that I could endorse.
1988RedT2 wrote: Doubling the tax would not double the cost of fuel. Gasoline taxes have not been increased since the dark ages, while consumption per vehicle has dropped by virtue of increased fuel economy. A gasoline tax is a perfect "use tax" for those who travel our roads. It also creates incentives to eliminate unnecessary travel, buy fuel-efficient vehicles, and reduce demand for foreign oil. Tax cigarettes. Tax liquor. Tax gasoline. Win, win, and win.
Tax cigarettes. Tax liquor fine, they are excise taxes. You don't need cigarettes and the cash not going into that still makes its way into the economy as it gets spent in other area.
Gas as a staple when taxed effects the poor to a significantly higher degree then even the low middle class. That income differential is important to the lower income and would cause large scale problems for people on the edge.
Its the same argument against a vat style tax across the board and not on luxury.
I have been in favor of increasing gasoline taxes, like double it for a 50c to $1.00 increase per gallon. My only problem is I can not trust it would be used properly for road, sidewalk, infrustructure. I feel an extra dollar in tax would not truly hurt anyone.
In reply to 1988RedT2:
In other words, he's not quite "the voice of reason" you proclaimed.
I'm also a bit concerned about your naivete regarding the extra income from higher fuel taxes and that government will actually spend it in ways you deem appropriate. And, do you really want to put drivers in the same category as those people who now pay a "sin tax" on alcohol and nicotine?
wearymicrobe wrote: Gas as a staple when taxed effects the poor to a significantly higher degree then even the low middle class. That income differential is important to the lower income and would cause large scale problems for people on the edge.
And the poor could mitigate any negative impact of a higher gasoline tax by choosing to drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. Driving is not a luxury. Driving a bloated, inefficient land yacht is.
Um.
Unless Bob is willing to loan me money for an efficient vehicle, I'm going to have to stick with my 500 dollar truck.
1988RedT2 wrote: Edit: What was the gas tax as a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas back in 1987? What is it today?
About 50%, vs. about 15% today.
I remember the Federal plus Ohio taxes back then were on the order of 44 cents per gallon, and it hasn't really changed since then. But the cars on the road now are far more fuel efficient and the roads are 25 years more decrepit now so they're in that much more need of repair/re-engineering. And also, things cost just a little bit more nowadays, including all of that engineering and construction work needed to fix the roads...
I am 110% in favor of doubling the fuel tax at a minimum. It will cost a bit but it's a lot cheaper than doing nothing.
Yah, if I could afford a newer, more fuel efficient vehicle, don't you think I would? Making my commute more expensive is not going to help me. Not to mention how much more I will have to work to afford food if gas prices go up. Expensive gas makes everything that has to be transported more expensive too.
Taxing gas is the most punishing tax you can do....and it hits the poor the hardest. It inflates the price of absolutely everything you will touch. I can assure shipping costs are very high now and this would skyrocket them.
My brother in law is an exec. For a shipping company most here would recognize, and they are barely keeping their head above water now. Since 2008 their costs have doubled and they haven't been able to pass those costs on. A large increase in fuel again would have big implications. And keep in mind we are only a mideast crisis away from big increases anyway.
if it were me, i'd reduced rrduce tax. What is our tax now? 2 Dollars a gallon or so given federal, state and local taxes.
1988RedT2 wrote: Edit: What was the gas tax as a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas back in 1987? What is it today?
You are totally correct about this. Taxes used to be a much larger component of the price of gas.
You're also right that a rise in tax would cause an effective rise in the overall price of gasoline, and that this, in turn would reduced demand in SOME MARKET segments. It would also be very regressive, in that it would have the least effect on those with a large income, and the most effect on those with a small income.
1988RedT2 wrote:wearymicrobe wrote: Gas as a staple when taxed effects the poor to a significantly higher degree then even the low middle class.And the poor could mitigate any negative impact of a higher gasoline tax by choosing to drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. Driving is not a luxury. Driving a bloated, inefficient land yacht is.
I drive a small appliance-type (non-sporty) car, but if you buy me a plug in hybrid I'll gladly drive it instead to be more fuel efficient the problem is that my car is alread paid for, and taking on a payment for a new car would require me to do some uncomfortable belt tightening.
I would like to interject that not all fuel efficient cars are necessarily expensive new ones. There are plenty of good choices, new and used at all price points.
1988RedT2 wrote: And the poor could mitigate any negative impact of a higher gasoline tax by choosing to drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. Driving is not a luxury. Driving a bloated, inefficient land yacht is.
I'm laughing here. Obviously your poor aren't like the poor I'm very familiar with.
racerdave600 wrote: Taxing gas is the most punishing tax you can do....and it hits the poor the hardest. It inflates the price of absolutely everything you will touch. I can assure shipping costs are very high now and this would skyrocket them. My brother in law is an exec. For a shipping company most here would recognize, and they are barely keeping their head above water now. Since 2008 their costs have doubled and they haven't been able to pass those costs on. A large increase in fuel again would have big implications. And keep in mind we are only a mideast crisis away from big increases anyway. if it were me, i'd reduced rrduce tax. What is our tax now? 2 Dollars a gallon or so given federal, state and local taxes.
Average US gasoline tax is about 50c/gallon right now. Highest I see is California at 69c.
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/web_gas_taxes.php
I just edited the post that (I think) you were responding to. It now has some decent graphs that support one of your earlier posts.
1988RedT2 wrote: I would like to interject that not all fuel efficient cars are necessarily expensive new ones. There are plenty of good choices, new and used at all price points.
It would be better to say "many price points." My car with no payments is cheaper than any fuel efficient car, even a geo metro.
Taxing unleaded fuel shouldn't affect shipping costs. Leave the diesel tax where it is and bump gasoline up 0.25.
racerdave600 wrote: if it were me, i'd reduced rrduce tax. What is our tax now? 2 Dollars a gallon or so given federal, state and local taxes.
Federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. National average is 48.8 cents per gallon including state taxes.
DoctorBlade wrote:1988RedT2 wrote: And the poor could mitigate any negative impact of a higher gasoline tax by choosing to drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. Driving is not a luxury. Driving a bloated, inefficient land yacht is.I'm laughing here. Obviously your poor aren't like the poor I'm very familiar with.
The poor I'm familiar with don't drive because having a car is expensive.
All "fuel effecient" cars are more expensive than my 20 year old, paid for tiny truck.
Knurled wrote:DoctorBlade wrote:The poor I'm familiar with don't drive because having a car is expensive.1988RedT2 wrote: And the poor could mitigate any negative impact of a higher gasoline tax by choosing to drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. Driving is not a luxury. Driving a bloated, inefficient land yacht is.I'm laughing here. Obviously your poor aren't like the poor I'm very familiar with.
Urban poor folks can ride the bus, walk, ride a bike, bum rides from friends fairly easily so they (rationally) don't own cars.
Rural poor folks frequently have to own a car to get or maintain a job, buy groceries, etc.
You'll need to log in to post.
