Sponsored Links

[Just Leave me Al...]

No Mullah Left Behind

By Thomas L. Friedman

By adamantly refusing to do anything to improve energy conservation in America, or to phase in a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax on American drivers, or to demand increased mileage from Detroit's automakers, or to develop a crash program for renewable sources of energy, the Bush team is - as others have noted - financing both sides of the war on terrorism. We are financing the U.S. armed forces with our tax dollars, and, through our profligate use of energy, we are generating huge windfall profits for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, where the cash is used to insulate the regimes from any pressure to open up their economies, liberate their women or modernize their schools, and where it ends up instead financing madrassas, mosques and militants fundamentally opposed to the progressive, pluralistic agenda America is trying to promote. Now how smart is that?

The neocon strategy may have been necessary to trigger reform in Iraq and the wider Arab world, but it will not be sufficient unless it is followed up by what I call a "geo-green" strategy.

As a geo-green, I believe that combining environmentalism and geopolitics is the most moral and realistic strategy the U.S. could pursue today. Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax.

What would that buy? It would buy reform in some of the worst regimes in the world, from Tehran to Moscow. It would reduce the chances that the U.S. and China are going to have a global struggle over oil - which is where we are heading. It would help us to strengthen the dollar and reduce the current account deficit by importing less crude. It would reduce climate change more than anything in Kyoto. It would significantly improve America's standing in the world by making us good global citizens. It would shrink the budget deficit. It would reduce our dependence on the Saudis so we could tell them the truth. (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) And it would pull China away from its drift into supporting some of the worst governments in the world, like Sudan's, because it needs their oil.

TOPICS TO DEBATE:
Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
Would you support it?

Edited to include debate question, with author's permission.

This post has been edited by Jaime: Mar 7 2005, 11:32 PM

[Jaime]

Topic closed...

Reason: Question to debate too vague or missing.

Recommended action:
If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.

Helpful links:
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory

Note: This is an automated response.

[Jaime]

REOPENED.

TOPICS TO DEBATE:
Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
Would you support it?

Please enjoy your debate.

[SWM28WDC]

Gasoline Tax, No. Oil Tax, Better, but still, No. Carbon Tax, especially when offset by a reduction in other taxes, Yes.

A gasoline tax is out because folks could easily switch to diesel.
An Oil tax would be better, reducing use of oil & oil products, but leaving coal and natural gas.

I prefer the carbon tax:
It catches all nonrenewable energy sources (exc. uranium, but whatever).
It is, by exclusion, a government-spending free subsidy to clean, domestic, completely renewable forms of energy such as solar and wind.
Because solar & wind power require high technology, high use of capital, they will encourage well-paying jobs in the US. Most of the work in oil was done millions of years ago by earth itself.
It is completely avoidable: you can simply not use carbon emitting products, or, you can offset your emissions by creating new biomass (forests).
It may reduce global warming, which may actually be real.

To make the carbon tax less economically damaging, because it will raise the price of energy, the net revenue from such a program should be used to do three things, in equal dollar amounts: 1) reduce rates on corporate income. 2) increase the personal exemption for personal income taxes. 3) Rebate a portion of the tax, hidden in just about everything to each citizen through a one-size-fits all individual rebate.

[Ol Sarge]

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
Would you support it?

I wouldn’t support the tax because it has been proven ineffective in Europe. Anyway America has a gas tax and many states add a state tax to it already. Here in PR we have no tax other than income and SS tax and our gas costs about $1.60 a gallon. In Germany and other European states it is around $7.00 a gallon and has zero difference in use of vehicles compared to here. When a tax is started it is almost never stopped so why beg to be taxed for eternity? Should the tax be successful to correct anything the government would keep it forever like the taxes we are still paying for the war of 1812.

[Cube Jockey]

In Germany and other European states it is around $7.00 a gallon and has zero difference in use of vehicles compared to here. 

Correct about the price, wrong about the impact. The price of gas in the UK and Europe has had a huge impact on the culture there. For one thing, people rely heavily on public transportation to travel long distances.

Secondly cars are much smaller and more fuel efficient due in part to the price of gas. The average car in the UK and Europe is smaller than a Honda Civic (which is one of the smallest cars they make here). It is pretty rare to see someone driving an SUV. If you go to some suburb in Texas it is pretty rare NOT to see someone driving an SUV.

Just as one example of the impact. In the UK if I lived in York and had relatives in London that would be a commute via car of about 3 to 4 hours I believe (as much as 6 with bad traffic). Here that distance is nothing, it is roughly the distance from Dallas to Austin (possibly a little further) and you wouldn't think twice about getting in your car to drive it. However over there, it is actually a pretty big deal, almost one of those things you plan pretty far in advance for. This is partially due to the prohibitive price of gas.

Now that isn't the whole reason for the culture differences but it certainly plays a large part based on my experiences talking with people there.

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
I would say that it would not be a good thing. I like the intent behind the author's statements, but it isn't a realistic solution. Creating a large gas tax like the ones found in Europe would drastically increase the price of doing business overnight and bring the economy crashing down with it. We don't have the infrastructure in place to support the widespread use of cheaper alternatives. America is a car culture and that isn't something that changes quickly.

The author strikes me as one of those progressive types that wants radical change right now. I prefer to take realistic steps toward an ideal because that way you'll actually get things done and not come off as an extremist.

We definitely do need to take steps towards getting off fossil fuels, building our public transit infrastructure and removing our dependence on mideast oil, but putting some oppressive gas tax in place is not the solution.

[overlandsailor]

...  We don't have the infrastructure in place to support the widespread use of cheaper alternatives.  America is a car culture and that isn't something that changes quickly.

The author strikes me as one of those progressive types that wants radical change right now.  I prefer to take realistic steps toward an ideal because that way you'll actually get things done and not come off as an extremist.

We definitely do need to take steps towards getting off fossil fuels, building our public transit infrastructure and removing our dependence on mideast oil, but putting some oppressive gas tax in place is not the solution.

This is the second time in one night that I agreed with CJ! Might be a record. You know CJ, you're starting to sound like a moderate.

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?

The issue for me in regards to such gas taxes is the sudden impact on every single thing you buy in the store. Most of the goods you by get there by truck. The sudden jump in fuel prices (as I have yet to see a gas tax that did not include diesel) would cause an equally sudden increase in the cost of getting raw materials to manufacturers, getting manufactured goods to the distributers and then on to the stores, not to mention the sudden increase in costs to get produce from farms to cities, etc, etc.

Trains could make up for some of this (if we even had the infrastructure left in that industry to take on a sudden increase in business), if not for the issue that most, if not all freight trains have multiple diesel engines. Shipping and river barges would help, again if not for the fact that most run on diesel.

Of course maybe we could develop electric based freight trains? But then you have to consider how all that new demand for electricity would be met. What would be used to make this electricity? Would there really be an environmental benefit?

Then of course there is the idea that it would jump start the alternative fuel research. Problem here is that once we get used to such tax revenues, it is hard to live without them. We recently had a topic on this issue, regarding the idea of some parts of the west coast seeking to replace the gas tax with a milage tax, thus eliminating one of the incentives to make the move to a hybrid.

No, Gas taxes are the wrong way to go. Their impact is massive. I know the proponents love to point to all the "wealthy" people and their Saves. However, if they would consider the poor and their food budget maybe they would see the error in their ways.

It would not be the first time we created taxes to stimulate change, and target the well to do. Problem is, most times we do that, we end up hurting the poor and middle class a heck of alot more then the wealthy.

This post has been edited by overlandsailor: Mar 8 2005, 05:19 AM

[Argonaut]

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole and would you support it?

Aw shucks and golly gee! And here I thought I was already being taxed 32.4 cents per gallon State (CA) and 18.4 cents per gallon Federal on every single gallon of gas I buy. Ya'all might want to check my figures, but I do believe that comes to ~50.8 cents per gallon. Heck, that's damned near a 25% tax on me gettin' from here to there.

And now you ask if I would "support" a gasoline tax. I must tell ya'all that this is a mighty strange reality to be a' jumpin' into, Lil' 'ol me philosophizin', considering that I was never invited to opine about the existing (and yet apparently unbeknownst to you) 25% tax on gasoline extracted to date.

Your clever inquisition requests the sanction of and implies an increase in an existing tax structure simultaneously non-existant in light of your question as asked.

[Ol Sarge]

Correct about the price, wrong about the impact.  The price of gas in the UK and Europe has had a huge impact on the culture there.  For one thing, people rely heavily on public transportation to travel long distances.

Well I understand traffic in London is so bad from overcrowded auto congestion that heavy tariffs are applied to drive inside of the city. I agree the car sizes are smaller in France and England but in Germany? I think the rush to the mass transit is because the roads are full of cars.

From my experience in Germany they love the car just as much as Americans and while limit themselves to SUV’s they love the big Mercedes and BMW’s. The train system is more suitable for point-to-point in Germany and quite efficient and takes some of the load from the highway. My experience in Germany is the people will maintain their standard of living even if the gas goes to $10.00 a gallon and to maintain it they simply don’t have families or only have one child.

By raising the tax on auto gas in the states the impact on the economy would be devastating and responsible people would have less children while irresponsible people would have more children and the result would be a government ran by the irresponsible ending in doom.

[Just Leave me Al...]

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
Would you support it?

I wouldn’t support the tax because it has been proven ineffective in Europe. 

As earlier pointed out, a gas tax is effective in Europe. Even in Germany where the BMW and Mercedes are more common, the average fuel consumption in 1998 was 30.8 mpg vs 21.6 mpg in the United States. I consider 30% better fuel millage effective.

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
I would say that it would not be a good thing.  I like the intent behind the author's statements, but it isn't a realistic solution.  Creating a large gas tax like the ones found in Europe would drastically increase the price of doing business overnight and bring the economy crashing down with it.  We don't have the infrastructure in place to support the widespread use of cheaper alternatives.  America is a car culture and that isn't something that changes quickly.

Agreed that a $1 increase overnight is not realistic. The author clearly states that the US should "phase in" the tax though. Obviously a reasonable timeline would have to be established for implementing this, but I do not believe that it detracts from the overall value that the idea has.

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?

The issue for me in regards to such gas taxes is the sudden impact on every single thing you buy in the store.  Most of the goods you by get there by truck.  The sudden jump in fuel prices (as I have yet to see a gas tax that did not include diesel) would cause an equally sudden increase in the cost of getting raw materials to manufacturers, getting manufactured goods to the distributers and then on to the stores, not to mention the sudden increase in costs to get produce from farms to cities, etc, etc.

A good point. A question though. If gasoline costs were a very large portion of the total costs of goods sold, would we be able to afford buying manufactured imports from China? The costs will increase, but not on the massive scale of significance that you suggest. As a side note, the tax would eventually encourage more fuel efficient methods of transport from companies as well.

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole and would you support it?

Your clever inquisition requests the sanction of and implies an increase in an existing tax structure simultaneously non-existent in light of your question as asked.

Fair enough. I'll take it that you feel gas is taxed too heavily already. I have to disagree with you though because I think that gas taxes are completely justifiable. The reason they are justifiable is that using gasoline puts a burden on the entire US society. #1) It creates a national security situation because the profits finance terrorism. The cost of the military, intelligence, and homeland security resources used to combat terrorism is passed on to all of us, and we need more resources because we are partially financing the opposition with our buying of gas. #2) Interest rates. Oil makes up over 7% of the trade deficit. This trade deficit hurts all Americans in the form of decreased US credit and higher interest rates. #3) Environmental factors. Smog effects us all. Is it not reasonable to expect the people who use the gasoline that causes these adverse effects on society to burden a larger portion of the costs?

This post has been edited by Just Leave me Alone!: Mar 8 2005, 09:04 PM

[SWM28WDC]

Quoth CJ-The author strikes me as one of those progressive types that wants radical change right now. I prefer to take realistic steps toward an ideal because that way you'll actually get things done and not come off as an extremist.

Let me clarify my position regarding this: the federal tax on carbon should start our very very small, with a clear schedule of increases, so that there are no sudden shocks, by the time the tax is significant, the subtle pressure of the tax over the previous years would have changed the majority of behavior: less commuting, smaller cars, closer producers, more efficient freight, cleaner power. It's not an extreme idea, and the idea of taxing someone for burning an irreplacable natural resource and polluting our common atmosphere seems much more acceptable to me than taxing someone for the productive work they do.

Quoth OLS-The issue for me in regards to such gas taxes is the sudden impact on every single thing you buy in the store. Most of the goods you by get there by truck. The sudden jump in fuel prices (as I have yet to see a gas tax that did not include diesel) would cause an equally sudden increase in the cost of getting raw materials to manufacturers, getting manufactured goods to the distributers and then on to the stores, not to mention the sudden increase in costs to get produce from farms to cities, etc, etc.

Exactly because of the widespread effect on EVERYTHING, a very small but growing tax would be effective in changing behavior, without suddenly dumping people into a tax that is onerous.


Quoth OLS-No, Gas taxes are the wrong way to go. Their impact is massive. I know the proponents love to point to all the "wealthy" people and their Saves. However, if they would consider the poor and their food budget maybe they would see the error in their ways.

No doubt that 'the poor' spend a higher percentage of their resources on energy...hence the need for income tax reduction and a universal rebate: therefore those who use less-than-average amounts receive an economic boon, while those who use more compensate the rest. Such a compensation is just, for exactly the reasons mentioned by JLMA. The idea being: you are not taking more money out of the economy, and you are not putting the screws to the poor, 'clean' companies benefit and expand, 'dirty' companies stagnate, or become clean. Actually, such a tax should eventually result in a more larger and efficient domestic economy, as 'externalities' are corrected for, and more demands for American technology, and American workers operating wind & solar farms, or possibly 'clean' coal plants, algae farms, or even pebble bed nuclear reactors. vs. demand for oil beneath some other country.

Economically, such taxes are known as Pigouvian Taxes. A very good background in taxation can be found on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

Ol Sarge (and OLS) I agree with the fear of allowing new taxes, however we as a nation should realize that some taxes are better than others, and should shift taxes, as we can, from productive activities wages (income, payroll) and investment (dividends, corporate income taxes) to non-productive activies.

This post has been edited by SWM28WDC: Mar 8 2005, 10:36 PM

[Little-Acorn]

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
Would you support it?

I assume you mean, an increase over the tax that's already on gasoline? The Federal tax is either 17 or 18 cents per gallon. Many states also add their own state taxes.

Is an increase of these taxes, good?

No.

Would I support it?

I'm one of those rare nutcases who does NOT think that Americans don't already pay enough taxes.

[Ol Sarge]

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
Would you support it?

I wouldn’t support the tax because it has been proven ineffective in Europe. 

As earlier pointed out, a gas tax is effective in Europe. Even in Germany where the BMW and Mercedes are more common, the average fuel consumption in 1998 was 30.8 mpg vs 21.6 mpg in the United States. I consider 30% better fuel millage effective.

That is a very good point! But the difference in tax is quite significant and it seems millage and polution standards would be more effective.

Fair enough.  I'll take it that you feel gas is taxed too heavily already.  I have to disagree with you though because I think that gas taxes are completely justifiable.  The reason they are justifiable is that using gasoline puts a burden on the entire US society.  #1) It creates a national security situation because the profits finance terrorism.  The cost of the military, intelligence, and homeland security resources used to combat terrorism is passed on to all of us, and we need more resources because we are partially financing the opposition with our buying of gas.  #2) Interest rates.  Oil makes up over 7% of the trade deficit.  This trade deficit hurts all Americans in the form of decreased US credit and higher interest rates.  #3) Environmental factors.  Smog effects us all.  Is it not reasonable to expect the people who use the gasoline that causes these adverse effects on society to burden a larger portion of the costs?

Now you have my attention and I agree totally gas is the villain with you but I simply disagree tax is the silver bullet to kill the beast. I think things will start to happen fast when they start to change but the "players" of the big money have to arrange themselves. Once the "replacement" for gas is revealed the world will be out of wack until the replacement is comfortably in place. One must ask what impact would a "replacement" have on American oil industry and maybe more importantly what would happen to the peoples in the sand that totally depend on it to support their societies? Hydrogen fuel has a lot of hype but the problem is it requires fuel to produce hydrogen. Actually we have few refineries to produce our gas so one could relate hydrogen production centers equal to refineries. Guess what, the waste heat from nuclear power plants could be used to produce hydrogen? The question is how to make the buck and how to corner the market?

[overlandsailor]

Is it not reasonable to expect the people who use the gasoline that causes these adverse effects on society to burden a larger portion of the costs?

That depends. You are limiting the question to those who use gasoline when the effect of the tax will have a far greater reach.

The real question is:

Is it reasonable to increase the cost of living on those who don't even own cars in an attempt to 'punish' the users of combustible fuels?

Perhaps a better approach would be to look into funding options for alternative fuel research.

Of course there are problems with alternative fuels.

After in vesting decades in R&D Exxon/Mobile (formally Exxon) ended the bulk of there research into Solar and Wind power because of the technologies limitations. It takes too much real estate (an expensive commodity itself) to produce power from these sources. The reoccurring costs of the real estate (like property taxes for example) make it impossible the generate power from these sources at a cost that enables resale at a profit (this according the lamp magazine (sorry I don't have a link).

After investing years in R&D of bio fuels, ExxonMobil is drastically reducing it's investment into this research because of the limitations of this alternative. To grow the crops you need land. According to Exxon's estimates, to grow enough to fuel the entire country with 100% ethanol would require 52% of the land mass of the United States. Since this amount of land is simply not available (even if we decide to stop growing food crops) this alternative is not viable.

Exxon Mobile moved a good portion of their investments into Alternative energy research into Hydrogen Cells. However, as has been mentioned many times, the problem with Hydrogen is that it takes an industrial process to produce it. That process requires power, and there are not many "clean" power generation options out there other then Nuclear power, which is has it's own political drama to contend with.

The same holds true with electric propulsion. Something has to generate that power.

Hydro Electric Power generation is efficient, but comes at a major cost to the local environment and the environment down stream (though there are some interesting ideas regarding ocean waves and the use of hydro turbines).

Geothermal power is another interesting source, but the research is a long way off. Currently however there has been some success in the use of geothermal heating and cooling on the small scale.

The bottom line is, we do not really have a viable alternative at this time.

So we tax gasoline to motivate people to accept alternative energy sources that do not currently exist on the scale needed to make the switch. The result is a higher cost of living for all, with the poor being hit the worse because the effects of this tax will be a much higher percentage of their income then the more fortunate among us.

Besides the economic damage it would do, it seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

This post has been edited by overlandsailor: Mar 9 2005, 03:31 AM

[SWM28WDC]

Is it reasonable to increase the cost of living on those who don't even own cars in an attempt to "punished" the users of combustible fuels?

Not owning a car doesn't mean you don't use gasoline (or other hydrocarbons), nor does it mean that your lifestyle doesn't burden others through the uncaptured associated costs of the products you consume.

If this question is strictly referring to a tax on gasoline, it's a ridiculous idea, as the substitutes for gas (diesel, kerosene) have the same costs associated with their use.

I really do think that this administration's insistance on fuel cells (which will be very lucrative technology when developed) has absolutely nothing to do with reducing dependence on foreign oil. Even when fully developed, fuel cells will not be an energy source, but an energy storage medium.

Edited to add:

I'm not arguing for a tax that would drastically increase the cost of hydrocarbon fuel, say starting at roughly equivalent <$.05/gal, increasing to about $.75 in 50 years. I say equivalent, because such a tax shouldn't be per gallon of gasoline, but rather per Ton of Carbon emitted. Such a tax could also be made progressive by figuring out how much of a burden to the average family of consumers that would be, and relieving that burden with a combination of lowered income taxes and direct universal rebates.

Note that the price of gasoline generally fluctuates much more than 5 cents without drastic and lifechanging economic consequences.

As for alternatives not being ready, OLS, horsehockey! I know that you know the best alternative: frugal use and conservation. Being fair, the others are not quite here yet, but even a 10% reduction in oil used for personal transportation would be significant. Home heating also accounts for a significant portion of domestic fuel use, such a tax shift would encourage AND allow more families to improve the heating unit and the insulation in their homes, to the benefit of largely domestic industries. I forget how much more efficient a train is than a truck, but I do know that the gap has closed, mostly due to the development of high efficiency trucks and the stagnation of train technology. One of the few 'big government' programs I could get behind would be the federalization of railways, similar to the highway system: private users, public (toll) roads. Of course no one 'profits' from conservation, so no political 'donations' ar available....

Wind energy is almost here, wind farms exist, and more are being built: I know of plans in WV, VA, MD, and another in new england. Here's a map of existing generators. Increasing the cost of carbon based fuels by a small amount would make wind energy price competitive.

Ethanol is a bad idea, i've heard statistics similar to yours. Biodiesel is a better idea: Here's a story from the Univ. of New Hampshire on how to replace existing use of transportation fuels with biodiesel using 10 million acres of land, compared to the existing 450 million acres used for crops and the 500 million acres used for grazing.

Aparently there's new technology in the coal industry making new plants much much cleaner than old ones. Exaust gases from boilers can be captured and used to 'fertilize' plants, particularly algae, effectively capturing the carbon emissions. Having a tax shift from income to carbon emissions would effectively subsidize power plants that made improvements. Improvements require investment and workers to implement, adding a positive ripple through the economy, though not as much as the operation and maintenence of wind farms, or even algae farms.

Hydroelectric is pretty much maxed out, all of the good, steep river valleys have been dammed. The verdict on 'tidal' energies is still out, but I'm going to bet the environmental costs of fragile, important, and visible tidal areas will preclude their use there. The wave thing is a neat idea, though it's rough on the equipment.

Geothermal, real geothermal, is a long way off, though ground source heat pumps are the most efficient way to heat and cool your house, and as clean as the energy source. However, you do have to have a certain distance from you're neighbors, there is a limit to howmany GSHP wells you can fit into a given area, unless you want to drill REALLY deep.

All of these methods require more intensive use of labor and capital, which means that someone will get paid for working or building something, being productive, rather than spending money on oil, which goes mostly to the guy with the 'legal' claim to the source.

The best part about a shift from income tax to a carbon tax is that we don't have to decide which combination of these is the best, we merely let the relatively free market decide.

This post has been edited by SWM28WDC: Mar 9 2005, 04:13 AM

[Just Leave me Al...]

It's not an extreme idea, and the idea of taxing someone for burning an irreplacable natural resource and polluting our common atmosphere seems much more acceptable to me than taxing someone for the productive work they do.

Ol Sarge (and OLS) I agree with the fear of allowing new taxes, however we as a nation should realize that some taxes are better than others, and should shift taxes, as we can, from productive activities wages (income, payroll) and investment (dividends, corporate income taxes) to non-productive activies.

I'm in the same boat here with you SWC.

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
Would you support it?

I'm one of those rare nutcases who does NOT think that Americans don't already pay enough taxes.

Generally I agree that Americans pay too much in taxes as a whole. Would a shift in taxes to gas and away from income taxes appeal to you?

As earlier pointed out, a gas tax is effective in Europe.  Even in Germany where the BMW and Mercedes are more common, the average fuel consumption in 1998 was 30.8 mpg vs 21.6 mpg in the United States.  I consider 30% better fuel millage effective.

That is a very good point! But the difference in tax is quite significant and it seems millage and polution standards would be more effective.

One of the reasons that I prefer the gas tax is over millage standards is that I believe that those who can afford to pay the gas tax, and actually want to should be able to drive a giant car if they choose. I prefer to discourage instead of prohibit.

Is it not reasonable to expect the people who use the gasoline that causes these adverse effects on society to burden a larger portion of the costs?

That depends. You are limiting the question to those who use gasoline when the effect of the tax will have a far greater reach.

The real question is:

Is it reasonable to increase the cost of living on those who don't even own cars in an attempt to "punished" the users of combustible fuels?

I disagree with your assertion that this last question is the "real" question? Prices of goods will go up slightly in the short term, but in the long term many product prices will actually go down. Here is why. A two percent decrease in US fuel consumption will drop the price of oil one percent. Less demand drops the price of oil, which is used to make plastics. And plastic prices effect everything from the price of milk to the price of cars. So I assert that you are not punishing those who don't even own cars at all. This talk of economic mayhem and poor people suffering mightily are just scare tactics coming from persons who just do not want to suck it up and take a little pain now to avoid a lot of pain later(sounds a lot like Social Security). The fact of the matter is that the average gas price in the US one year ago was 25 cents less than it is today. The economy seems to have done fine last year and I don't recall seeing any reports of mass starvation. That said, the real question is: Would you rather pay the money to Uncle Sam sooner and do something to fix the problem, or would you rather pay it to OPEC later to prop extremist dictatorships unfriendly to the United States?

edited for: PS - SWC, I'm assuming a tax on diesel as well, perhaps not one as large as on unleaded, but similar.

This post has been edited by Just Leave me Alone!: Mar 9 2005, 03:52 AM

[Little-Acorn]

Keep in mind, too, that the only effective way (so far) that most people have found to use less gas, other than radically changing their driving habits, is to drive a smaller, more lightly built car with thriftier gas mileage. And it's a well-documented fact that such smaller cars are more dangerous to their occupants in a crash. Newer designs are making the small cars safer than previous editions, but they are also making large cars safer than previous large cars too.

The fact remain: Crash two small cars together, and you are more likely to get serious injuries and death, than if you crash two big cars together. And if you crash a small car with a big car, you know who loses.

So, perhaps the question should be phrased:

Is an increase in gas taxes, with its decrease in gasoline usage and attendant increase in highway deaths and injuries, good for America as a whole?

Rather puts a different light on the subject, doesn't it....

[Just Leave me Al...]

Keep in mind, too, that the only effective way (so far) that most people have found to use less gas, other than radically changing their driving habits, is to drive a smaller, more lightly built car with thriftier gas mileage. And it's a well-documented fact that such smaller cars are more dangerous to their occupants in a crash. Newer designs are making the small cars safer than previous editions, but they are also making large cars safer than previous large cars too.

The fact remain: Crash two small cars together, and you are more likely to get serious injuries and death, than if you crash two big cars together. And if you crash a small car with a big car, you know who loses.

So, perhaps the question should be phrased:

Is an increase in gas taxes, with its decrease in gasoline usage and attendant increase in highway deaths and injuries, good for America as a whole?

Rather puts a different light on the subject, doesn't it.... 

That is a fair point Little-Acorn. You are only looking at one side of the equation though. Higher prices would cause less driving, and they would cause less large vehicles to be on the road as well. I see little to no correlation between higher gas prices, and an increase in highway deaths and injuries. If anything, I would argue for the opposite. Here is why. The International Road Traffic and Accident Database consistently shows that Britain, Norway, France, and other European countries(small cars and all) have lower fatality rates per person and per mile driven than the United States. This despite having higher speed limits. It's a nice try, but there must be more important factors to highway safety than the size of the general population's cars or Europe would not have lower fatality rates.

I understand your aversion to any taxes. I generally have the same aversion. This is a different animal though because we are going to end up paying more for gas either way. Neither option is appealing but that is what we are faced with. I just think that it is wiser to go ahead and pay the US government now instead of paying the oil companies later.

This post has been edited by Just Leave me Alone!: Mar 9 2005, 09:41 PM

[DaffyGrl]

Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?
Would you support it?
Since I live in the state with the highest gas tax in the country, I thought I'd add my answers: No and HELL no.

It has already been proven that Americans will pay more for gas. They have to. Our industrial/business centers and living spaces are not as condensed as they are in Europe. This is a big, sprawling country. Until a workable, comprehensive public transportation system exists in major metropolises (metropoli? ) or alternative fuel vehicles become more affordable and more widely available (and supported by infrastructure), a good many of us are stuck commuting. An exhorbitant gas tax like the one being discussed would put a burden on those least able to afford it - the working folk.

By the way, regular unleaded in LA is $2.45/gal. (as of yesterday 3/8).

[SWM28WDC]

[b]Is a gasoline tax good for America as a whole?

It has already been proven that Americans will pay more for gas. They have to. Our industrial/business centers and living spaces are not as condensed as they are in Europe. This is a big, sprawling country. Until a workable, comprehensive public transportation system exists in major metropolises (metropoli?  ) or alternative fuel vehicles become more affordable and more widely available (and supported by infrastructure), a good many of us are stuck commuting. An exhorbitant gas tax like the one being discussed would put a burden on those least able to afford it - the working folk.

Daffy; the layout of our business/industrial centers and living spaces will not change until it becomes more economically efficient to do so, nor will public transportation be put in place, nor will communities become livable withoute a car.

Unless we empower our government to dictate the location of our houses and our business, a situation I strongly oppose, the only means to encourage efficient communities with efficient transport networks is to capture the externalies associated with oil & road use. The specific structure of such a tax can be made to be progressive, I suggest by rebate everyone an equal amount, coupled with income tax reductions, enough for the poverty-level person to get by with no additional economic burden.