A friend told me tonight that there’s a plan in the works, in the US, to put a big ole tax on gas, so as to encourage people to buy hybrid cars. Stupid, Stupid Dick Heads! If this passes, I’ll meet the rest of y’all Americans in Washington.
I actually wouldn’t mind paying a tax on gas if I thought the money was going towards improving the sorry state of the environment. Why not push people towards cars which burn less fuel and produce less CO2? Maybe half of the hillbillies driving around in these huge pick-up trucks they don’t need would trade them in for something smaller.
Its a plan being put forth by a Democrat - John Dingell (D-Mich)
“House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) will propose a new carbon tax that would increase the gasoline tax by 50 cents”
Dingell proposes ‘Carbon Tax’
It was on Yahoo.News but it looks like they pulled it.
[i]Rep. Dingell floats ‘carbon tax’ plan
23 minutes ago
A House committee chairman is trying to show his Democratic colleagues that people in the U.S. are not ready to pay the full costs of fixing global warming.
Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says he will propose a “carbon tax” on the burning of fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But he says he only is offering the plan to show how unpopular it would be.
“I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them,” Dingell, D-Mich., said in an interview Friday on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers,” which is to air Sunday.
His proposal would boost the federal gasoline tax by 50 cents a gallon, he said, and establish a “double digit” tax on each ton of carbon dioxide emissions. The federal tax on a gallon of gas is now 18.4 cents and has not risen in 14 years.
His remarks coincided with the weekend of Live Earth, a series of concerts around the world aimed at raising awareness of climate change. The concerts are backed by former Vice President Al Gore, a proponent of a carbon-based tax.
Dingell is under pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to put forward a bill on climate change this fall. He is counting on his proposal being unpopular to make a statement.
“I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people really feel about this,” he said. “When you see the criticism I get, I think you’ll see the answer to your question.”[/i]
Finally, they are getting brains in the US (Washington), in most EU countries the tax on gas is about 70% …
[quote=“Belgian Pie”]Finally, they are getting brains in the US (Washington), in most EU countries the tax on gas is about 70% …[/quote]I would suggest that EU tax rates, which prop up their government hand out programs, show a mis-placement of their brains.
Right … tax is evil … it only keeps a country afloat and it’s infrastructure modern …
[quote=“Belgian Pie”]Finally, they are getting brains in the US (Washington), in most EU countries the tax on gas is about 70% …[/quote]In some cities you need to pay to be able to drive into the centre. The one in London’s so successful they made the area larger and increased the charge. Shocking 
Why is this stupid, besides the fact you don’t agree with it? Make an argument please. If the tax lessens our dependence on cars that surely is a plus. If it increases production of hybrid cars, and thus reduces their cost to where everyone can afford one, then the tax will have no impact on people’s bankbooks as the increase in gas cost is offset by the better gas mileage. But it will have noticeable effects on air quality. Whether it can reduce dependence on foreign oil is a longer debate. I’ve heard both sides provide convincing arguments.
In the US most tax could/might be defined as evil. And its business that keeps a country afloat - generated tax revenue is a by-product of that business.
As to the infra-structure, which does need constant maintenance and upgrading to meet increasing demand, those are under the individual states. With generous Federal subsidies of course.
Personally I have long been in favor of a flat tax Federally, with no exemptions and starting at US$10,000 in income, abolishing state taxes, as some states have done, and using sales tax revenue in a ore intelligent manner.
And, of course, I favor legalizing recreational drugs and taxing the heck outta the stoners. That alone should put a comfortable cushion in place.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Personally I have long been in favor of a flat tax[/quote]You’re not a huge fan of learning from the mistakes of history then ? Re The Poll Tax (twice).
Who do you think will cope better when the oil starts to run out or get more expensive ? You with you’re “I have a god given right to have has much as I want, cheap” and your gas-guzzling SUVs or us who are used to having it expensive and know how to look after it ?
[quote=“Muzha Man”]Why is this stupid, besides the fact you don’t agree with it? Make an argument please[/quote]It usually boils down to “Me, me, me. I want as much money as possible and I don’t care about the environment, others, or the future”.
Whether you favor gas taxes or not (I don’t) the timing seems a little ridiculous, considering over the past couple years gas prices have already skyrocketed.
double post
Sorry for the brief post. I don’t have a lot of time and usually don’t post if I don’t have time to do I well enough, but I thought it would be clear why this is a bad idea.
Sorry, it’s not the “Me, me me” problem. But the fact is that the cost of gas has already gone up to such a point that the cost of everything has gone up. Gas is more expensive so transporting goods is more expensive, producing food and other crops is more expensive, and then when it’s grown, corn is almost like gold because it’s being used for ethanol. So all corn products are very expensive. A gallon of milk is more than three dollars at my local market.
Gas has already be taxed by war!
The truth of it is that the poor can’t afford it anyway, already. The guys in the middle who support the country, are getting squeezed harder and harder. And it’s their interests that serve the nation’s interest.
The costs of electric cars, alternative fuel cars, and hybrids is out of range of most people. Plain and simple. I doesn’t matter if the higher costs of fossil fuels will off set the gains from all the cleaner, more efficient cars if no one can buy those cars.
I’m friends with an inventor. He’s lived in my home town, and been a friend, for a very long time. He’s an electrical engineer. He owns and electric car. He bought it, but had to re-build it using discontinued parts that he had to modify himself. Even though the model he bought was current when he bought it. It wasn’t actually functional, and it cost a small fortune. He believes in alternative fuel. I believe in alternative fuel. But I’m not him.
He says there is only one other electric car owner in the state. How many people do you know who could afford the car in the first place, and who could fix it when it didn’t work-- because you can’t just take it down to the local garage.
In fact, I’ve found a compressed air car I’d love to own. It actually uses ethanol to start, then runs on air tanks that can be refilled with a vacuum, and will run coast to coast on one tank. But I can’t afford it, and besides the nearest ethanol station from my home is more than fifty miles away.
See what I’m saying? You can’t just tax already terribly expensive gas to push people into alternative fuels. All you can do is push more and more people below the poverty line and then spend government funds to sustain them as meagerly as possibly.
What’s stupid? Stupid is not subsidizing the companies that make these alternative fuels or cars so that they will become affordable. Put rewards out there for makers and researchers who can help the man in the middle succeed, prosper even, without the fossil fuels. you wanna tax gas and extra 50 cents, then at least spend it, every cent, on this.
But that won’t happen. Why doesn’t it occur to any one here that companies like, say, Haliburton, who are having one record breaking financial surg after another, would stand to lose if people really were able to rely on non fossil fuels? Doesn’t anyone think that maybe it might be in the best interest of American security if we didn’t import foreign oil any more? Screw the price of gas. Even at $5 a barrel, just don’t use it any more. We could develop an alternative that WE could export. Or just keep to our selves, but at least there wouldn’t be an oil noose tightening around our necks.
Yes, I’m for alternatives. I’m just not for idiotic policy that makes things harder on the plumbers, and the pharmacists, and the teachers, and such.
ride a bicycle. you know, a personal powered vehicle.
tax the fuel to reduce consumption, tax the fuel-producing companies to reduce their profit and force them to invest in higher revenue-stream industries, and use the extra tax revenue to generate power from renewable sources. make the use of oil an uncomfortable choice for most people. don’t replace it with biofuels, as they’re even worse from a carbon emission POV.
if there is no impediment to life as usual, then we will still have the same emissions problem in 50 years, and then we’re screwed.
Just a thought…
What if governments were to raise taxes on gas and then give tax rebates to;
A. Low-income car owners
B. Those driving more fuel efficient cars.
C. Transport companies.
The gas tax in California is 36.4 cents per gallon: 18 cents federal tax and 18.4 state tax. Every time they try to raise the tax, the bleeding hearts say the money will go to “the environment” or the transporation budget. Problem is that the fund gets raided each year by politicians using it for special interests or for other liberal causes, like keeping hospitals open that are going bankrupt for giving free health care to Mexican citizens or the billions of taxpayer money spent on incarcerating tens of thousands of illegal aliens … or educating hundreds of thousands illegals in schools that are collapsing. Meanwhile, the Govenator wants to issue more debt (i.e. bonds) to help rebuild our crumbling highway infrastructure, even though we were supposed to have plenty of money for that.
So, I wish we would stop lying about taxes. Taxes rarely ever go where they say they will go. Of course they sing, “for the children”, “for the environment”, “for the poor”, for the whatever. In the end, the environment gets screwed. The children get screwed. The poor get poorer. The reality is this: Taxes are spent mostly to keep a few thousand people at the top in power. Now that all my taxes are at about 50% of my income, I have very little sympathy for those who say we are not paying enough:
- Car Tax
- Property Tax
- Federal Income Tax
- State Tax
- Sales Tax
- Gas Tax
- Social Security Tax
- Medicare
- Medicade
- Phone Taxes
etc.
This is from a guy that drives a 17-year-old, 3 cylinder, 45 mpg Geo Metro as his only car, while my more wealthier Liberal Democrat buddies drive their gas-guzzling sport cars and SUVs, all the time saying that gas taxes should be raised … which wouldn’t hurt them because they are isulated from that nominal price increase. It would hurt people like me and much poorer people. And of course, the tax money would be pissed away on some crony interest.
so maybe now you’ll investigate ways to reduce your tax burden, by avoiding buying gasoline.
taxing tobacco outrageously has been the single biggest incentive for most westerners to give up smoking, far more than claims for them to consider the health aspects. people think with their wallets, and taxation is a way to influence those decisions.
the poor are disproportionally affected by most of these indirect taxes, so they should have generous income tax provisions made for them to offset it, and these should be coupled with painful taxes for those much higher up the food chain. no-one deserves to pocket a million bucks a year when people all around are starving, but that is of course even more unpalatable a thing to say in america.
from a purely environmental standpoint, it is actually better to get the poor and the lower middle classes to reduce their oil consumption, as there are so many more of them compared to very rich people. not a socialist viewpoint, thogh, but who says socialism has all (or any) of the answers?
This is another example of the big lie about taxes in general. Politicians told us here in the US that the tobacco tax was to get people to stop the habbit. So, they said they would take the money from the tax and put it towards the public health care system. And … they did for the most part. Then, as always, the government got addicted to the tax revenue. Now that people are dropping habit in increasing numbers, so is tax revenue. I heard a news report two days ago that the government will now be looking to ways to supplement the drop in tax revenue by taxing the general public in some other way, or just plain raising taxes on everyone.
SO, now what was a sin tax on smokers is now MY TAX to pay as a non-smoker.
It always works this way. When you say, “sure, tax the wealthy”, sure “tax big oil”, sure “tax THEM” … what you are really saying is “please tax me”.
So, even if I stop driving my car along with millions of Americans, when the government gets less in gas taxes, they’ll supplement it by taxing my bicycle or tax me for using the sidewalks or just plain raise my state taxes to supplement.
It always works this way when you petition your government to tax someone else.
perhaps we’d all be better off with no government.
hell, the govt can’t make money from taxing slaves anymore, so they have to find something else.
the beauty of living in a democracy is that you can protest, and if enough people agree with you, you can change the government. hell, even you can be president if you just convince enough people to vote for you.
[quote=“pinesay”]It always works this way. When you say, “sure, tax the wealthy”, sure “tax big oil”, sure “tax THEM” … what you are really saying is “please tax me”.
So, even if I stop driving my car along with millions of Americans, when the government gets less in gas taxes, they’ll supplement it by taxing my bicycle or tax me for using the sidewalks or just plain raise my state taxes to supplement.
It always works this way when you petition your government to tax someone else.[/quote]
you neglect to mention that when you stop using your car, you stop paying the fuel tax, so you do actually win, for a while. and then when there are no more cars to tax, yes, the govt tries to tax something else. where else is your road and your water supply and your military protection going to come from?
anyway, we all know that the truly wealthy pay no tax anyway, so what’s the issue here? tax their earnings better, and then you need pay less tax yourself. you could win two terms of govt on this point alone, if only you could shut up the big boys’ mouthpeices. get Jack Abramoff on your team, and you’re almost elected.