English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

y and y not

2007-11-27 14:46:03 · 10 answers · asked by sure y not 1 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

10 answers

This is an interesting question, and like most questions there are two side to the coin. .

There are those who would have you believe that if we were to increase the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, people would be FORCED to drive less. While this may be true at first examination, the realities are different.



Consider for example who the tax would affect most, and why. This argument was levied several years ago when the average price of gasoline was below a dollar a gallon. In march of 91 the average price per gallon was $1.02 (Note 1)

In sept 2000 the price was $1.56 (1) a 50% increase. Reaching 2.04 in may 2004. (1)

And reaching $3.00 in Aug 2006 (1) A 200% increase since 91.

So, in a frame work of 15 years, the price has effectively tripled.

According to a report published by the Federal trade commission (note 2) during the time when prices spiked shortly after Hurricane Katrina, in spite of rising prices, demand also increased!

The point here is that in spite of higher cost to purchase fuel, people still used MORE fuel.
It would appear self evident that those with higher disposable income, were driving more, however those with lower and fixed incomes were faced with the choice of driving less or spending more.

In this case, the higher prices acted as a REGRESSIVE tax, meaning that it disproportionately affected those with lower incomes.

There is a point however, where the increased price associated with taxation will cause an increase in theft of fuel and an associated Black market.

The only side to really benefit from such a tax would be the government, However one should also realize that many people, especially those with more disposable income would change their mode of transportation to something that offered less consumption (ie trading a Hummer for a Toyota or similar vehicle.)

In such a case, one would anticipate that the change to smaller lighter cars, would (could) increase the number of annual fatalities from auto accidents.

On the whole, ostensibly, such an increase in taxes would be regressive on people with lower incomes, and would take more disposable income from other classes of people. Depending on the amount of the increase, the net effect would be inflationary, taking a toll on all member of society.

higher gas tax = Bad for All!

In closing, irregardless of taxation policy, when the automotive industry comes out with a vehicle that uses alternative fuel, at a LOWER net cost of operation, market forces will dictate a transition to such vehicles. . . A much more likely outcome than one produced by increased taxation.

2007-11-27 16:03:15 · answer #1 · answered by Clara Nett 4 · 0 0

It increases revenue without drastically decreasing demand.

It has a small effect on conservation because some people will drive less.

However, the real problem is the government stealing more money from the average American in simply wrong.

2007-11-27 16:18:06 · answer #2 · answered by A Human Bean 4 · 0 0

Oh come now, You did no longer rather think of that stinkbomba gave his union acquaintances all that funds and does no longer assume some variety of style 'whilst the time comes', did you? And as nicely, stinkbomba desires to make effective that he gets his decrease till now the cost starts to upward push back simply by his mooselimb acquaintances elevating the cost of a barrel of oil and each and all of the government gets is 40% of the action by way of vast oil company income tax. this way stinkbomba can get $a million.00 greater proper off of the precise, then get greater income tax simply by inflation his erroneous miserably failing marxist-socialist regulations brought about the government can under no circumstances get adequate funds. and that i'm effective there are loser libs that still think of that stinkbomba is a large chief. that's in basic terms one greater reason i will under no circumstances very own a GM or Chrysler product ever back.

2016-10-18 06:37:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The freaking government already makes more profit on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do, and they produce nothing.

2007-11-27 17:43:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It has no advantages, it discriminates against the middle class and working poor. Of course to people like Hillery and Kerry it clears the streets and highways of all the low class riff-raff and allows them to drive as they please.

2007-11-27 16:12:37 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0 0

Not one damned thing...but it would be a great thing if we did away with rapacious taxes, and the liberals that impose them !

2007-11-27 15:07:10 · answer #6 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 1 0

Advantage

It produces more money for the government to give to the Pentagon so that the US armed forces can scare and bully the Arabs into selling oil to the USA as their preferred customer.

Disadvantage

It annoys them more than scares them.

2007-11-27 14:52:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

It gives the government more money to piss away.

2007-11-27 14:51:54 · answer #8 · answered by Johnny Reb 5 · 2 0

None

2007-11-27 15:26:22 · answer #9 · answered by Voice of Liberty 5 · 1 0

NOTHING

2007-11-27 15:22:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers