I guess it's how you define "poor".
"Poor" to me is when you don't know when you're going to eat next, or where it's going to come from.
BTDT.
I might have no money two days before my next paycheck, but I have a job and a roof over my head and I mostly eat when I want, not just when I can. I consider myself to be rather well-off.
Yeah that's true, the poorest people only own cars when they live in them.
Knurled wrote: I guess it's how you define "poor". "Poor" to me is when you don't know when you're going to eat next, or where it's going to come from. BTDT. I might have no money two days before my next paycheck, but I have a job and a roof over my head and I mostly eat when I want, not just when I can. I consider myself to be rather well-off.
I generally agree with your definition of poor, however it is certainly not the "textbook" definition.
The city I live in was recently rated the 4th poorest city on the country by Daily Finance.com.
There aren't too many people missing meals around here.
I'm pretty sure most people would consider a financial threshold that compared incomes to other incomes as a definition of poverty. Of course, this one doesn't work so well either... there are plenty of wealthy people with no income.
Poverty is a complicated issue. It includes education, income, buying habits, regional influences, among many, many other things.
However, (related to the original post) as many people have noted in this thread, gas taxes hit the poor heavily, and CAN mean they are unable to work because they are unable to afford a car to get to work. At that level (which is certainly a gross over-simplification), I can't agree with the idea as proposed.
Also, a 10% hike in prices at the pump will be reflected throughout the economy in the transport costs of EVERY SINGLE product sold, which is an enormous impact on the poor.
I also think it is a little self-serving for Bob Lutz to back ideas that would make a large number of vehicles obsolete, and essentially force the purchase of new efficient vehicles (which I am sure Mr. Lutz would be more than happy to provide). I'm pretty sure Volt sales would jump dramatically with $7 per gallon gasoline.
Kudos to the OP for posting a Forbes link on a financial/ economic question. I like (reasonably) reputable sources.
Are we arguing about what poor is?
I think we're arguing about what the definition of 'is' is 
JoeyM wrote: I think we're arguing about what the definition of 'is' is
logdog wrote: Are we arguing about what poor is?
Didn't mean to be.
I meant to be stating that in my city (a very poor one), the idea of taxing gas would be a very big hit to the poor (whoever they are).
Damn poor people, ruining' it for everybody with their fancy old ass cars berkin' up the environment. I say good chap, it's time we did something about that. 
One of the things that currently has me baffled is the prevailing opinion here that only "new" cars can be fuel efficient. That notion, obviously, is absolute hogwash. Any smallish 4-cylinder car from the last three decades would qualify. Heck, my '89 Mazda 626 LX, then the very epitome of mid-size luxury , routinely hit 40mpg on the highway, and averaged 32 mpg. I dare say that the market value of that automobile today would be within the grasp of most car owners.
In reply to 1988RedT2:
You are right, but they are becoming increasingly rare.
An Ebay search of "Mazda 626" for that generation (1987-1992) returned zero hits, including searching for expired listings.
A search for "Prius" returned 405 hits, plus 421 expired hits.
"Volt" was less (35 current and 37 expired).
As someone who doesn't mind wrenching, I love cheap old cars. But for the average buyer (perhaps a single mother) who is not familiar with car repair, there are very few sub $3000 options that can get through emissions checks and also get 30 mpg+.
Poor fuel economy lowers the purchase price, which is one reason poor neighborhoods seem to have so many land barges and Crown Vics.
Plus big car look better with 22's. 
...I'm not saying poor people can't find cheap fuel efficient cars.
I'm saying gas taxes effect the poor more dramatically than the middle class.
Somewhat relevant regarding where the majority of the poor live now.
http://www.upworthy.com/the-growing-trend-that-should-terrify-walmarts-everywhere-2?c=ufb1
I can tell you that I live in a cheap neighborhood, in a cheap state. Even though you can buy quite a decent house in my neighborhood for $90-110k, you could absolutely not get by without a vehicle.
My '92 Sentra gets 30+ miles to the gallon.
1988RedT2 wrote: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.
when you're poor, it means you can't buy a new vehicle whenever you want.
the gas hogs the poor are driving are affordable for just that reason ... they're gas hogs ... the poor would then be relegated to public transportation ..
don't get me wrong ... I've nothing against public transportation ... well I've actually got one LARGE problem with public transportation ...
it's not available in very many places .... if you don't live in a decent sized city, it's damn near nonexistent ... here in the county (15mi from the city) the buses make 2 maybe 3 runs per day ...and even then it's only out on the highway ... many live as much as 10 - 15 - 20 mi (or more) off the main highway ....
if they can't buy a new car, then they can't get to work .... more people for the government to take care of ...
SVreX wrote: Also, a 10% hike in prices at the pump will be reflected throughout the economy in the transport costs of EVERY SINGLE product sold, which is an enormous impact on the poor.
Yeah, it's going to cost truckers a lot more to put 87 octane in their big rigs.
SVreX wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: You are right, but they are becoming increasingly rare. An Ebay search of "Mazda 626" for that generation (1987-1992) returned zero hits, including searching for expired listings. A search for "Prius" returned 405 hits, plus 421 expired hits. "Volt" was less (35 current and 37 expired). As someone who doesn't mind wrenching, I love cheap old cars. But for the average buyer (perhaps a single mother) who is not familiar with car repair, there are very few sub $3000 options that can get through emissions checks and also get 30 mpg+. Poor fuel economy lowers the purchase price, which is one reason poor neighborhoods seem to have so many land barges and Crown Vics. Plus big car look better with 22's.
and even $3000 is out of reach of many/most of the "poor" folk that I know .... at least compared to the paid for clunker they drive now
If gas gets much more expensive, filling up my truck will damn near double it's value.
DoctorBlade wrote: My '92 Sentra gets 30+ miles to the gallon.
And the flip side (whether it should be that way or not), is MOST people aren't capable of maintaining an aging vehicle.
Things like changing spark plugs, timing belts, a clutch, or an automatic transmission service isn't something most know how to do, then they are back in a repair shop for expensive service. Hell, I bet the avg non-car person would struggle changing a serpentine belt and tensioner! So they are caught in the never ending negative equity of used cars with $125 month payment, to keep something relatively reliable.
It's too bad when they raised gas taxes they made it a fixed number, vs a %. The Libertarian in me supports "use taxes", unfortunately, decades of kicking the can down the road make it basically unfeasible now.
Beer Baron wrote:SVreX wrote: Also, a 10% hike in prices at the pump will be reflected throughout the economy in the transport costs of EVERY SINGLE product sold, which is an enormous impact on the poor.Yeah, it's going to cost truckers a lot more to put 87 octane in their big rigs.
I didn't see anything in the article that said anything about 87 octane, did you?
If the gasoline tax jumps from 18.4 cents to 43.4 cents (a $.25 increase), I am quite confident the diesel tax will NOT remain at 24.4 cents.
But I could be wrong...Let's try it and see!
we've already seen it in several states ... if usage goes down, think gas crisis of some type and the price tops $4/gal ... so people cut way back on their driving (and the amount of tax $$ collected goes with it) then the state starts to panic and look for ways to increase their revenue (i.e. tax ..) with most of them thinking a per mile tax would be the best way to go ...
so if the tax were to be increased to 40+¢ and then usage went down ... the net would be the same ... then there would need to be another increase because the expected revenue "windfall" wouldn't be there .... and the need for the increase would still be there ... starts a pretty vicious cycle
1988RedT2 wrote: One of the things that currently has me baffled is the prevailing opinion here that only "new" cars can be fuel efficient. That notion, obviously, is absolute hogwash. Any smallish 4-cylinder car from the last three decades would qualify. Heck, my '89 Mazda 626 LX, then the very epitome of mid-size luxury
It wouldn't be if gas suddenly jumped to $7 a gallon. There are only so many older gas sippers on the used market, and if everyone abruptly wanted to get something with better mileage at the same time, you'd have a massive crimp in the supply. If that tax happened, you can bet that a non running Geo Metro parts car would be worth $3,000 overnight.
SVreX wrote: I didn't see anything in the article that said anything about 87 octane, did you? If the gasoline tax jumps from 18.4 cents to 43.4 cents (a $.25 increase), I am quite confident the diesel tax will NOT remain at 24.4 cents. But I could be wrong...Let's try it and see!
Gasoline and diesel are already taxed at different rates. No reason why that couldn't continue and just tax gasoline more. As people are pointing out, there is a very strong incentive to keep taxes on diesel lower since that is what moves pretty much all the land freight in this country. Gasoline really only moves people.
Gee, I wonder if Lutz has a vested interest in selling Chevy Volts.
In reply to SVreX:
Negro please. I can't swing 3 grand.
And if I could, I'd be the proud owner of a pristine late 70s Charger SE.
The article says: "Lutz suggests increases of 25 cents per gallon until the price at the pump reaches $6 to $7."
It sounds like he's not saying "increase the price of gas to $7 tomorrow" but gradually increase it over the course of many years instead of simply leaving it at the same level for 20 years. Of course, that's just my interpretation of it, the article didn't explain it (or I missed it because I didn't read it very well). Slowly raising it over several years would give people time to adjust.
Lutz has also argued that raising the gas tax is much more appropriate than simply mandating that cars get higher fuel economy through CAFE standards. CAFE forces the automakers to make cars that people don't necessarily want, while raising the gas tax would get customers to demand that automakers produce cars with much higher fuel economy.
You'll need to log in to post.
