Can you believe this?

Question

Sorry for the vague wording of the question but I couldn't think of anything more fitting.

I'm not trying to call anyone out here, but I just read this statement "The USA would certainly benefit from a high gas tax, but the population would not stand for it, so it won't happen." posted by a frequenter of this section.

I cannot believe that anyone could actually think this way. When taxes on necessary goods are raised, it only hurts the poor while the rich continue to overconsume. I think that principle is pretty easy to comprehend. And gasoline IS a necessity for many people in America. It is easy to forget that sometimes for those of us who live in areas with good public transportation, but most of America lives in rural areas or small towns and many of them are struggling to make a living.

If we ever have the need to drastically reduce gasoline consumption, it should be a ration where everyone gets an opportunity to purchase an equal amount at fair price, not a tax.

America does not equal Europe. If we want better mileage, make these companies do it. They can; they just don't want to because they are all in bed with the oil companies. All of capital America has become one big monopoly which includes the government. Take a trip through Ozarkia/Appalachia sometime and see how those people live.

fredrick z, I like your idea better.

I swear, some environmentalists are worse than the Republican party ever thought about being. If you can make a car that gets better mileage with no other differences, who is honestly going to object? Even when gas was a dollar per gallon people didn't walk into the dealership and say "I think I'll get whatever will waste the most gas."

"higher initial cost"

That is why people don't buy hybrids.

And also, public transportation is a great idea, but how do you propose bringing it to rural America, where towns have populations lower than 2,000 and people are spread out down back roads? And what do you propose farmers and ranchers do when they can't afford gas for their trucks? A gas tax would kill of the final remnants of the family farm.

Answer 1

I don't for one minute think that a high gas tax would work. Here in the UK gas is $8 to $9 a gallon. It's ever increasing in price and so too are the number of vehicles on the roads and the number of miles they drive.

All that high gas prices does is push up the cost of goods and services so ultimately it's the consumer who pays.

The argument that high gas prices encourages people to use small cars doesn't really hold true. In Europe we've always driven small cars even before gas prices were hiked up and in fact, from observation I'd say that there's significantly more large cars on the roads than ever before. In other countries that have low gas prices they too drive small cars.

The large car as standard is very much an American and Canadian ideal and I suspect if gas prices were dramatically increased then the population would have no option but to stand as the only alternative would be to abandon the motor vehicle altogether. Those that would be hardest hit are the poor and the elderly who contribute a comparatively small amount to the total mileage driven.

So yes, a small reduction in milage may be acheived but at a much more significant cost to the economy.

There is no one size fits all solution. No matter how much gas costs and what financial incentives are available some people are always going to drive gas-guzzlers.

Educating people, encouraging them and providing tax and other financial incentives for them to switch to smaller, more economical cars and alternative fuels does work.

Answer 2

You're right raising the gas tax will only hurt the poor. But making the cost of owning of automobiles too high for the average person seems to be part of the plan.

I've heard that there are those in government who'd like to force the majority of the population into "dense urban cores" much like the way most people lived 100 years ago.

The best remedy would be put more research into alternative and renewable energy. Cellulosic ethanol is a good start.

Answer 3

Well in Europe they have settled the argument a long time ago! Most of their cars are economic ones, and few peoples have the choice to get bigger... My ex purchase a Pegeot C5 (or something like this), having a quit 4 cylinders, but high performance, with little comsumptions... And it was about 20k$ so not sure its more expensive to get efficient cars, as the technology is already there! Also, who have asked the car makers to make V8 and V10 in series, while we did not see any of those in the 90`s!! And guess what they all appeared on the market in the year 2003 when the deal between the oil producers and car makers have terminated... Or just rewriten...
Anyways, the American market cannot complains that its the foreign competitions that drives the comsumption higher, as the Japanese don`t go that far at all, and are very happy with their 4 cylinders! So its only the US car makers that have forced this drives in higher consuptions vehicles over the whole American market, while the Americans never really wishes other things than what the industry brags about! So saying that its the market that ask those, its like living in a sea shell!! Our businesses have long time pass the time when they were following the market trend, as they are now MAKING the market trends thanks to their complicity with the media industry!
So all in all, taxes only serves the purpose of invading peoples life, without giving any benefits to them, but only to the government layers. We got many like those in Canada! Most here are paying over 40% of their salary PLUS a service taxes on ''luxury'' goods of 15.6%... And we got so, so educations and even more so, so health care, but still most peoples always complains even if everything was perfect, so, I guess we will never be happy....

Answer 4

Its true that taxing gas "out of use" will actually just move its use to the more affluent population. the same amount of gas will still be used, just by fewer people ( and probably less efficiently in bigger cars ).

So, taxing gas will not reduce polution or global warming.

rationing would work, so long as there was safeguards for some key situations. It wold also have the masssive benefit of localizing the economies again as people bought more locally.

in the UK, gas is $8/gallon and a typical family car does 40 MPG. It stops no-one and doesn't even reduce trivial travel - people still travel 100 miles just to go to a big shopping centre for junk or to look around....now if cars all did 40 MPH and 80 MPG we would be getting somewhere near a solution......

and if the USA switched to stick shifts the fuel efficiency would go up by 20% overnight....so that kind of sums up the ( lack of ) desire to reduce global warming. It woudl cost you nothing, you'd just need to waggle your right hand a few times on each journey....but still no-one wants to even make that small effort

Answer 5

Having lived both in Europe and in America I have formed a better opinion than some. [ In my mind at least..and don't try to pop my bubble :) ]
People in America do not have near the opportunities that Europeans have in the subject of transportation. In Europe there are mass transit systems that have been in place for a long time. They are fairly well maintained and produce far less pollution. Also Americans do not have access to vehicles like "Smart Cars" where they can buy a car that easily gets them from point a to point b, just with out so much horsepower and consuming far less gas. Currently in America, gas prices continue to rise making it harder and harder for them to even get to work to make their living. I believe that America should look into more mass transit throughout the country so there is less dependency on gasoline. There should also be considered a plan to implement the rationing of fuel as there was in the days of the old wars...people were rationed fuel by priority and other factors. There were "A","B",and"C" cards. It was a system that was made to work for the time due to the needs of supply and demand, and availability of citizen funds. I'm not saying the system wouldn't need modification for today's standards, but maybe it would be worth some officials looking into.

Answer 6

I searched but could not find an answer I gave a while back concerning fuel taxes. The idea got a bevy of "thumbs down", but then, what's new? It went something like this:

Have a tiered tax/ration system. Calculate a weekly gas allowance for each driving adult based on CAFE averages and the amount of miles that person drives to work, day care/school, and allow for a couple of trips to purchase groceries/necessities. Toss in a vacation fuel allowance for each year. This amount of fuel will be available to all consumers at a frozen price of $2.50 with adjustments made for inflation and large market swings. Any amount of fuel over that allowance will be priced at $7.50 with a portion given back to oil companies to assure them a fair market return and the rest rolled into development and maintenance of public transportation.

In my opinion this rewards those who are already frugal with their choice of car and or driving habits, those who utilize public transportation, carpool, bicycle or walk with no added expenses to those who depend on their cars for work or the needs of their family. For those who are frivolous with gas consumption, it might make them reconsider their habits ( and I wouldn't have a problem with bumping that up to $10 or more a gallon if not enough conservation was taking place.)

I wouldn't use a coupon system, but rather it would be done electronically, with a type of credit card. Those saving their fuel credits could apply them towards more vacation usage, or better yet, to trade online or at kiosks located at service stations with a type of ebay/ paypal/craig's list way of selling your excess credits to people willing to pay for a bit of a discount.

Business/manufacturing/agricultural use vehicles are already taxed in separate ways than those for private use, and they would be exempt from this system. A different incentive system would have to be used, probably one that involves a major shift in technology use, even eliminating the need for vehicles altogether in some paradigms.

Answer 7

Pollution is not related Taxes, is completely diferent there are more than 1000 factories that are making damage to the earth and cars all over the world, each country not only America has to do something.
America is not the center of the world.

Answer 8

because of the fact the angel Gabriel instructed me that Jimmy Carter will become the Antichrist aka Dajjal (8th King in Rev. 17) and he will serve yet another term in place of work after the dying of Obama (seventh king). The angel Gabriel instructed me in Aug. 1973 while i grew to become into in Phillipsbrug, Montana that Jimmy Carter will become the Anti-Christ, and that he is going to alter his call, and divorce his spouse! Obama is going to die first and then the Anti-Christ aka Dajjal who grew to become into between the previous 7 Presidents will take his place! Rev. 17:10 And there are seven kings: 5 are fallen, and one is, [and] the different isn't yet come; and while he cometh, he could proceed a short area. All 7 kings have been all alive till the dying of Ronald Reagan June 5, 2004 while George W. Bush grew to become into in place of work ; a million. Gerald Ford 2. Jimmy Carter 3. Ronald Reagan 4. George H. W. Bush 5. invoice Clinton 6. George W. Bush.... is spoken of interior the present annoying (and one is) because of the fact till Reagan died (June 5, 2004) all 7 have been alive! 7. Barack Obama.......and one is yet back! he will die some days after he will strengthen taxes! Obama is likewise in Dan. eleven:20 Then shall get up in his assets a raiser of taxes [in] the honor of the dominion: yet interior of few days he would be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in conflict. Rev. 17:eleven And the beast that grew to become into, and is not, even he's the 8th, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Answer 9

We currently have the technology to nearly triple the fuel efficiency in automobiles (I can't remember the source for this. It was probably SciAm). We aren't doing so because no one wants more fuel efficient vehicles when gas is so cheap. So the idea behind the "gas tax" is to provide the consumer with incentive to demand more fuel efficient vehicles.

Personally I don't like it. Taking more of people's money to get them to do something isn't ever the way to go. I think a better system would be one in which consumers are somehow =rewarded= for purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles, and not punished if they don't.

Answer 10

To increase gas mileage, get rid of the CAFE. This law, while passed with good intent gave birth to the SUV market. Change the law to include SUV's, the you'll get even bigger cars running on dirtier diesel fuel on the roads.

You're right. Raising taxes only hurts the poor. This is what the elite do because they like to control other people's lives. Which is the basis of this whole global warming BS.