Whaddaya know? I actually agree with Bob Lutz!

we already own/drive fuel efficient cars. The wife is getting close to 40mpg on her $2000 beater we bought 6+ years ago. I'me getting low 30's in the newer Forte. But double the price of gas and we're going to get destroyed. When the wife drives 75 miles a day, and I drive 50 miles a day, that's a bit ridiculous. To make it even better, we moved to lower our tax rates (income, property, sales) and that made our drives what they are today. I'd just love to go from $70/wk in fuel costs to $140/wk.

Nah.... that won't destroy the week economy or anything.

"We the people of the United States, in order to drive benificial behaviors...."

Quasimo1 wrote: I think an increased gas tax is an excellent idea. A tax increase will have a lasting effect on consumer behavior. People will reduce their overall driving levels to offset the tax and demand more fuel efficient vehicles from auto manufactures. Traffic congestion will decrease over time as people learn to drive less which will result in cleaner air quality and lessen our nation's dependence upon oil. On a long term view more people will choose to live in urban environments to be closer to their source of employment (because gas is expensive) which makes mass transit more feasible and cost effective. US cities will become denser and more Europe like. On the flipside people will lose some of their mobility outside of cities, and the prices of some goods would increase. Overall I think a tax increase would be beneficial. Short term it would be painful, but over the long term it would encourage beneficial behaviors from people.

Your food would also become expensive as berkeley due to us poor bastards living in the country feeding the shiny happy people in the cities who make this E36 M3 up. Hell, we already burn through roughly 2000gal of dieselex-4 a year(on a 1k acre farm).....and even without the road tax its still in the upper half of the $3 range. Thank god we don't have anything that uses DEF yet(I'll figure out how to bypass it when we do)

The problem is, the more people you cram into urban centers equals more severe issues with infrastructure, pollution(whether you believe it will help or not), logistics, and the inevitable culture & political shift that goes along with it(we have been watching this trend for a long time now).

This thread has officially gone batE36 M3 crazy.

poopshovel wrote: This thread has officially gone batE36 M3 crazy.

I agree. I am stepping out of this thread as things are getting heated very fast.

poopshovel wrote: This thread has officially gone batE36 M3 crazy.

Yes it has. Mainly due to a nearsighted comment completely ignoring cause and effect.

I'm enjoying those that think that a 100% tax on gas is something that we need to concern ourselves with.

The minute somebody mentions the constitution, the thread is done.

[Invokes Godwin's Law]

Zomby Woof wrote: The minute somebody mentions the constitution, the thread is done.

and that right there is why 90% of the time i think ZW is a berkeleying douchebag.

Twice in one day! Not all of us live in Canada.

OK guys, I'll leave, too. Continue on your Merry way.

Seriously, show me 3 threads where the C word came out, that didn't go bad.

Where I live has nothing to do with it.

tuna55 wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote: The minute somebody mentions the constitution, the thread is done.

and that right there is why 90% of the time i think ZW is a berkeleying douchebag. Twice in one day! Not all of us live in Canada. OK guys, I'll leave, too. Continue on your Merry way.

It's not just him. With all the canadians I now deal with daily, it's a common theme. Treat people like crap. Ignore rules. Then bitch because you can't have it your way.

This is one of those issues that shows us that a "one solution for everyone" doesn't work in our country. Not everyone has mass transit, nor is that even a possibility outside the urban areas like the coasts. The majority of the country is just too far spread out.

I just posted because I want people to rightfully acknowledge their own POV for what it is.

Once they do, then we can have a discussion about it intelligently.

But people shouldn't delude themselves. Raising the gasoline highway tax for any reason other than the direct maintenance and development of the highway system for its use is at best a supreme naivety, or at worst using the tax code to socially engineer the taxpayers. If you think thats right, then own it on principal.

JohnInKansas wrote: [Invokes Godwin's Law]

[Invokes retaliatory gay slur]

Okay, I have been asked to stop working on the magazine in order to referee and, to be honest, I'm kinda busy today.

So, either this gets civil very, very quickly, or I'll have no choice but to lock it.

Thanks.

tuna55 wrote:

Quasimo1 wrote: Governments have the role of taxing individuals and driving beneficial behaviors (think laws, EPA, military, etc.).

OK, I back up to the Constitution on this one. Please tell me specifically where in the Constitution (which explicitly states the roles of the federal government) it says that this is the governments job. Can't find it? Perfect, then stay out of my life. Tax me, sure. Want to tax my sales? Tax them all the same.

Notice: I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate here. My actual stance on the issue probably falls between the two of you arguing. I just wanted to answer your question:

Taxation and Spending Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1)
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3)
"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18)
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Now, these granted powers do not explicitly state that it is the role of Congress to socially engineer good behavior. However, it does not seem to be much of a stretch to say that the constitution gives the congress power to levy taxes that directly impact interstate commerce for the goal of promoting general welfare (improved air quality and fewer deaths due to accidents as a result of road congestion), particularly if those funds are being levied in order to support maintenance of public infrastructure.

I think it is very reasonable to raise the gasoline tax to a level that it suppresses roadway use and raises revenues to a point where the money brought in from taxes is greater than the costs of maintaining infrastructure and seeing to the health and environmental costs from road pollution. I would also be in favor if it was also able to raise funds to pour into research and development of newer transportation technologies that will take our transportation into the future.

Indeed, but i wuzn't making the case weather or not that power exists implicitly or explicitly. I was just wanting people to grasp the reality & principals of the POV they were extolling, thats all.

madmallard wrote: Indeed, but i wuzn't making the case weather or not that power exists implicitly or explicitly. I was just wanting people to grasp the reality & principals of the POV they were extolling, thats all.

I wanted to counter your argument that for the government to assume a particular role, it has to be stated explicitly in the constitution that the government is supposed to do that. Much of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is that they knew they did not have all the answers, and left room for interpretation in much of what they wrote.

I think neither of you are right or wrong about what the role of government should be in terms of socially engineering behaviors, but that this is a situation where the best answer lies in the mass decision of the people in this Republic. I think the Founding Fathers would have wanted these decisions to be made by the subtly shifting public opinion that comes from the debate of opposing ideals, not from a set-in-stone legislation from on high.

dculberson wrote: But your second point, you wholesale invented a person then claimed them to be hypocrites. I doubt the human you've described exists. most people that are global warming advocates would welcome increased gas taxes.

Well, I always did have a knack for writing fiction! Remind me to get back to work on my novel!

poopshovel wrote: This thread has officially gone batE36 M3 crazy.

Woohoo! My work here is done!

David S. Wallens wrote: Okay, I have been asked to stop working on the magazine in order to referee and, to be honest, I'm kinda busy today. So, either this gets civil very, very quickly, or I'll have no choice but to lock it. Thanks.

C'mon guys. Let's keep it nice. I think we all can agree that the magazine is more important than this petty bickering.

Bobzilla wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote: The minute somebody mentions the constitution, the thread is done.

and that right there is why 90% of the time i think ZW is a berkeleying douchebag. Twice in one day! Not all of us live in Canada. OK guys, I'll leave, too. Continue on your Merry way.

It's not just him. With all the canadians I now deal with daily, it's a common theme. Treat people like crap. Ignore rules. Then bitch because you can't have it your way.

And I get called the douchebag.

Now that's just funny

I'm glad I didn't reply in the "should I buy next to a church thread"

Bobzilla wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote: The minute somebody mentions the constitution, the thread is done.

and that right there is why 90% of the time i think ZW is a berkeleying douchebag. Twice in one day! Not all of us live in Canada. OK guys, I'll leave, too. Continue on your Merry way.

It's not just him. With all the canadians I now deal with daily, it's a common theme. Treat people like crap. Ignore rules. Then bitch because you can't have it your way.

Oof. Maybe that's just worried badly, but as written, that's pretty terribly offensive.

Just sayin', Bob.

WTF happened here......while I don't believe the canadians on here have room to complain about our constitution, Beer Baron pointed out how the government can do this(and where they have this power).

Quit your petty bickering.

yamaha wrote: while I don't believe the canadians on here have room to complain about our constitution

Awesome.