A tax on gas

Politics International Politics
21

Give me a break, tax in the US expensive? Not expensive enough … as a European we know what expensive oil is and we learned to live with it. No huge oil consuming tank like SUV’s on our roads, people think before they take the car to drive to the corner store … they changed to public transport or ride a bike …

Now that’s new to me, starting on ethanol and driving on compressed air … and refilling with a vacuum …? Driving from coast to coast on one fill?
I know a French company has a city car that drives on compressed air and it’s not that expensive … just recently they adapted the car to a multi fuel use to give extra range (burning fuel … not driving on air). But the first car they developed was solely using compressed air.

And believe me, no vacuum has enough power to refill compressed air tanks …

22

Uro -
You “solutions” are simplistic at best. Fine for chatting in the ‘Ivory Tower’ but not really applicable in the real world.
This is a USA dilemma, and California in particular is being used for example.
Pinesay -
You are giving solid examples of the tax situation in California. I moved here from there and was in one of the higher bracket. It sucked. I worked my a** off and was rewarded by increasingly paying more in taxes than I would hae in my hand. And I 2nd your examples of where and why my monies were spent…ILLEGALS.
Uro -
Sorry to burst your bubble, but most people are not the dreaded and feared “truly wealthy”…they are folks who have worked hard and wisely and think that if they are rewarded by the efforts with earning US$150,000 - US$250,000 a year they damn sure deserve to keep at least a US$125,000 of it for their own use.

If you can not understand that then maybe you should stay in a country where they will take your earnings but give you the illusion of “free health care.” Let the Nanny State tuck you in at night.

23

Stop whining altogether … you know, in Belgium the price of gas consist of the cost of the refined product + duty (tax) + VAT … in fact we pay a tax on a tax … once in while they used to increase the duty on gas which automatically increased the amount of VAT the government received … and recently they added a CO2 tax I believe

24

[quote=“urodacus”]

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. quote]

I’m sorry that I don’t understand this, but what, exactly does he win if he stops driving his 17 year old transprotation? No gas bill? No, that can’t be it.

Because now, he can’t get to work. If he car pools, there’s still a gas bill, and he can’t even do that, though, can he, cause he has no car for the pool. No, he’s got to pay someone else to get him back and forth to the office.

He can ride a bike, but like he said, they’d just tax that, too, and you know he’s right. And I bet he lives far enough from work and shopping to make that a non option. If he’s close to everything, what does he do with the family? What does he do when it rains? When it freezes?

No, now he’s got a whole new system of taxes to caugh up for the new public transportation infrastructure that will not be in place soon enough to keep him from losing his job. Then, when it’s built, or if there is one, made adaquate to handle all the new users who’ve given up their cars to avoid using gas, he’ll still have to pay to use it, right? I bet he’s not saving much on his gas bill after paying all those fares for himself and his family. And I bet some of that public transport runs on gas. Or electricity. I bet he even has to caugh up money for the new power plant, where he hopes to find his next job, and you know there will be taxes involved in his public consumption use of the energy produced by this plant.

I’m sorry. What does he win? Instead of a tank of gas in his car in his driveway, he now has to pay a fare both ways to work, shopping, the dr, the kid’s school, church, and wherever else he might venture. What if there’s and emergency? There’s no other choice than to call an ambulance for his child’s next asthma attack because you can’t use the subway for that.

Oh, I know, he could call a taxi! Well, there’s that gas tax again making that taxi ride almost as expensive as the ambulance. And let’s talk about this taxi. It’s going to be a rare thing because the poor taxi drivers can’t afford the new fifty cent tax on three dollar a gallon gas, and now they mostly only drive down to the food stamp office. But you know, when you take the sub way you can’t always stop where you need to be. Many times a taxi ride at one or both ends is still needful. Now there’s an expensive public transportation system.

Or maybe the new power plant will shuttle it’s workers to and from subway or bus stops, the shopping might do the same, but there goes that gas again. It’s going to make the price of every item on the shelf more expensive, and the shuttle at work is an extra cost figured out of the salary of the workers there.

I must need new glasses, because I just don’t see the prize.

25

[quote=“Belgian Pie”]Give me a break, tax in the US expensive? Not expensive enough … as a European we know what expensive oil is and we learned to live with it. No huge oil consuming tank like SUV’s on our roads, people think before they take the car to drive to the corner store … they changed to public transport or ride a bike …

Now that’s new to me, starting on ethanol and driving on compressed air … and refilling with a vacuum …? Driving from coast to coast on one fill?
I know a French company has a city car that drives on compressed air and it’s not that expensive … just recently they adapted the car to a multi fuel use to give extra range (burning fuel … not driving on air). But the first car they developed was solely using compressed air.

And believe me, no vacuum has enough power to refill compressed air tanks …[/quote]

Well, I’m not an engineer, so I’ll take your word for it, but that’s what I read about it. It sounds wonderful. I wish I still had the link to it, but I’ve lost it. Anyway the point was that I couldn’t afford it anyway, and couldn’t possibly fix it if it broke. It could be very expensive in that case. So these typs of cars aren’t the solution yet. But I’m saying that I think they Could be, if the incentives were there. We don’t need to be encouraged away from gas with no other real options to turn to.

26

[quote=“housecat”]
I’m sorry that I don’t understand this, but what, exactly does he win if he stops driving his 17 year old transprotation? No gas bill? No, that can’t be it.

Because now, he can’t get to work. If he car pools, there’s still a gas bill, and he can’t even do that, though, can he, cause he has no car for the pool. No, he’s got to pay someone else to get him back and forth to the office.

He can ride a bike, but like he said, they’d just tax that, too, and you know he’s right. And I bet he lives far enough from work and shopping to make that a non option. If he’s close to everything, what does he do with the family? What does he do when it rains? When it freezes?

No, now he’s got a whole new system of taxes to caugh up for the new public transportation infrastructure that will not be in place soon enough to keep him from losing his job. Then, when it’s built, or if there is one, made adaquate to handle all the new users who’ve given up their cars to avoid using gas, he’ll still have to pay to use it, right? I bet he’s not saving much on his gas bill after paying all those fares for himself and his family. And I bet some of that public transport runs on gas. Or electricity. I bet he even has to caugh up money for the new power plant, where he hopes to find his next job, and you know there will be taxes involved in his public consumption use of the energy produced by this plant.

I’m sorry. What does he win? Instead of a tank of gas in his car in his driveway, he now has to pay a fare both ways to work, shopping, the dr, the kid’s school, church, and wherever else he might venture. What if there’s and emergency? There’s no other choice than to call an ambulance for his child’s next asthma attack because you can’t use the subway for that.

Oh, I know, he could call a taxi! Well, there’s that gas tax again making that taxi ride almost as expensive as the ambulance. And let’s talk about this taxi. It’s going to be a rare thing because the poor taxi drivers can’t afford the new fifty cent tax on three dollar a gallon gas, and now they mostly only drive down to the food stamp office. But you know, when you take the sub way you can’t always stop where you need to be. Many times a taxi ride at one or both ends is still needful. Now there’s an expensive public transportation system.

Or maybe the new power plant will shuttle it’s workers to and from subway or bus stops, the shopping might do the same, but there goes that gas again. It’s going to make the price of every item on the shelf more expensive, and the shuttle at work is an extra cost figured out of the salary of the workers there.

I must need new glasses, because I just don’t see the prize.[/quote]

yeah, living in America sucks the big one, doesn’t it?

do you see the real point here: that global warming and the climate changes that it will bring, local and global, will make everything more expensive, and the longer we wait to tackle it, the worse it will be?

TC: I am not pointing at your taxes and saying they are good. I am saying that the truly wealthy should be taxed more, as they are avoiding their tax debt by shifting it onto you (not a wealthy person, or you would not be complaining about tax), yet still living the life of a fat cat. you jealous yet? jealous enough to get out there and rip it up? go for it…

and as for these ideals being fine “in the white tower, but not in real life”, so what? that’s your opionion, and a cheap way of saying i’m worthless and not to bother wasting your time reading my electrons on your screen. at least someone is raising alternatives, though they may not be palatable to all present. in fact, the american lifestyle stands to lose the most from the future environment changes, so it is not surprising to see more americans come out against any substantive change to their culture of the car than any other nationality. anyway, your arguments about taxation are really just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic while it sinks around you. the problem is, i am a passenger on that doomed ship too, and i will get to sink just as fast as you even though we all know that if you’d listened to voices like mine (and mine is not the only such voice, but you never read the stuff i read), this may have been averted. so how pissed off do you think that makes me then?

27

Other countries cope very well with the taxes, maybe you could see how they do it. And you sometimes get something in return for your taxes.

“As expensive as ambulances” ? Did I read that right ? So it’s ok to pay for ambulances but not for luxuries like cars ? :loco:

28

[quote=“Big Fluffy Matthew”]Other countries cope very well with the taxes, maybe you could see how they do it. And you sometimes get something in return for your taxes.

“As expensive as ambulances” ? Did I read that right ? So it’s ok to pay for ambulances but not for luxuries like cars ? :loco:[/quote]

Umm. I don’t know if I understand your post correctly, but I ment that emergency transport by ambulance is very expensive, and taxi’s wouldn’t be much cheaper in the above scenerio.

29

housecat,

Excellent posts. Welcome to the IP forum.

Gao

30

[quote=“urodacus”][quote=“housecat”]
I’m sorry that I don’t understand this, but what, exactly does he win if he stops driving his 17 year old transprotation? No gas bill? No, that can’t be it.

Because now, he can’t get to work. If he car pools, there’s still a gas bill, and he can’t even do that, though, can he, cause he has no car for the pool. No, he’s got to pay someone else to get him back and forth to the office.

He can ride a bike, but like he said, they’d just tax that, too, and you know he’s right. And I bet he lives far enough from work and shopping to make that a non option. If he’s close to everything, what does he do with the family? What does he do when it rains? When it freezes?

No, now he’s got a whole new system of taxes to caugh up for the new public transportation infrastructure that will not be in place soon enough to keep him from losing his job. Then, when it’s built, or if there is one, made adaquate to handle all the new users who’ve given up their cars to avoid using gas, he’ll still have to pay to use it, right? I bet he’s not saving much on his gas bill after paying all those fares for himself and his family. And I bet some of that public transport runs on gas. Or electricity. I bet he even has to caugh up money for the new power plant, where he hopes to find his next job, and you know there will be taxes involved in his public consumption use of the energy produced by this plant.

I’m sorry. What does he win? Instead of a tank of gas in his car in his driveway, he now has to pay a fare both ways to work, shopping, the dr, the kid’s school, church, and wherever else he might venture. What if there’s and emergency? There’s no other choice than to call an ambulance for his child’s next asthma attack because you can’t use the subway for that.

Oh, I know, he could call a taxi! Well, there’s that gas tax again making that taxi ride almost as expensive as the ambulance. And let’s talk about this taxi. It’s going to be a rare thing because the poor taxi drivers can’t afford the new fifty cent tax on three dollar a gallon gas, and now they mostly only drive down to the food stamp office. But you know, when you take the sub way you can’t always stop where you need to be. Many times a taxi ride at one or both ends is still needful. Now there’s an expensive public transportation system.

Or maybe the new power plant will shuttle it’s workers to and from subway or bus stops, the shopping might do the same, but there goes that gas again. It’s going to make the price of every item on the shelf more expensive, and the shuttle at work is an extra cost figured out of the salary of the workers there.

I must need new glasses, because I just don’t see the prize.[/quote][/quote]

yeah, living in America sucks the big one, doesn’t it?

do you see the real point here: that global warming and the climate changes that it will bring, local and global, will make everything more expensive, and the longer we wait to tackle it, the worse it will be?quote]

Do YOU see the real point here: that there is NO alternative at the moment and therefore nothing to push on consumers other than financial distress? Come on, man, I agree that fossile fules are not what should be used. I’m saying that OIL COMPANIES should be taxed into oblivion, not the everyman! Tax the damn oil companies 50 cents a gallon and use that money to subsidize companies developing alternatives. Can’t happen because of all the special oil interests in Wahsington. That’s reality.

One of the greatest culture shocks for me, still, and I’ve been back here for two years now, is the way that the average American can’t seem to think logically for him/her self! Go ahead, flame the hell out of me. Ya’ll are pissing me off. You’d rather argue for the sake of argument, or make such profound statments as, “Yeah, living in America sucks the big one, doesn’t it,” than show any intellagence. Do you not realize, urodacus, that policy that hurts the American bottom line, thought it be couched in feel good, tough love, excusive language, will hurt the bottom line all over the world? You’re not immune just because you live outside the States.

31

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]housecat,

Excellent posts. Welcome to the IP forum.

Gao[/quote]

Thank you, Gao, you just took a little of the edge off for me!

32

Not sure what you’re getting at here. Several states had poll taxes from the late Reconstruction era to the Civil Rights Movement, which were eventually deemed unconstitutional by a series of court cases in the latter mentioned period (which provided the foundation of the 24th Amendment). Those were in place to stop black people from voting. But poll taxes in the traditional sense of the term have always been illegal in the US, as our Founding Fathers specified in the Constitution that poll taxes could never be levied in the US. Poll taxes were always unpopular and caused civil unrest. Guess they did learn from (British) history, eh?

What TC is talking about is not a poll tax. He’s talking about changing the progressive income tax to a flat income tax, and completely eliminating the loopholes that the rich always seem to get around. I personally support that, because I don’t think the government is doing anything particularly useful with our tax dollars anyways. Our social security system is failing, we have no national health care program, we spent billions to dethrone a secular ruler who posed no threat to the US (and continue to spend billions to occupy his former country), and as housecat so aptly noted, most of our tax dollars end up supporting special interests, not the people. Despite all that, we already pay way too much in taxes (particularly in states like California). We pay nanny state taxes without nanny state services. I’d rather get more out of my paycheck, make my own investments, and take of myself and my family than continue paying loads of taxes to fund nothing but cronyism and pointless foreign wars.

I think that sums up the perspective of people like Ann “God Gave Us the Earth To Rape” Coulter, but not thinking conservatives who recognize the societial and economic value of lower taxes.

33

[quote=“housecat”][quote=“gao_bo_han”]housecat,

Excellent posts. Welcome to the IP forum.

Gao[/quote]

Thank you, Gao, you just took a little of the edge off for me![/quote]

It’s refreshing to read agenda-less, rational posts such as yours. I particularly appreciate your statements about how raising the gas tax (a bizarrely en vogue idea right now among liberals) will harm, not help, the middle class and working poor.

34

I don’t know what country you are from. I’m from America where the largest tax burden is on the wealthy.

Pinesay, huh…

35

I come from Australia, where the majority of tax is collected from the middle class, though it should be coming from the upper class. in America, I guess you also have your little tax evasion schemes that the rich use far more than they deserve: family trusts, companies that operate at a loss on purpose, off-shore accounts, employing tax minimisation accountants, etc., not to mention outright evasion of taxes.

nobody’s posts are agenda free. everyone has their own barrow to push. when the agenda pretty much matches your own, you’ll say its agenda free.

OK, so you say that 84.6% of taxes are paid for by the top 25% of earners. How much money do they earn? (Real money, not declared taxable income… there is a big difference there)

What do I care about your tax arrangements anyway, I’m in no rush to live in the USA. I do want to see the price of oil rise, and taxation at both ends of the scale is useful to do this. Sure, tax the oil companies more, yes, great idea, but you will see that passed on directly to comnsumers as a price rise.

High oil prices (and coal prices, and a carbon tax) are required before the investment cycle swings over to other energy supplies. Even if the govt puts money into the alternative energy sector, the incentive among comnsumers to change is low if there is no price incentive built in. The USA used to be a leader in alternative energy research, especially in the 1970s after the oil crunch. Since the Bush era (senior and junior) and notwithstanding a small increase under Clinton, the energy research sector in the USA collapsed and died, and the USA is now a total laggard in the fields of solar collection and wind power and photovoltaics. That is absolutely pathetic for a country where more than half of the worlds scientists live and work,but it is at the behest of the oil and coal companies, and as a direct result of personnel changes and policy changes in the main govt-sponsored research departments, including DoE and the various major University boards.

geez, thanks for calling an old curmudgeon like me a liberal. and welcome to forumosa IP forum, housecat, where we get to play at standing on soapboxes.

36

[quote=“pinesay”] I’m from America where the largest tax burden is on the wealthy.
[/quote]

which is exactly as it should be. Tax has two primary functions: one is to provide services and pay for the machinery of government, and the second is to minimise the income gap betwen the richest and the poorest. low wage earners should pay zero tax, and the tax should rise as you earn more, so that it become pointless to esaarn more than you need, or until such time as the poor have the services they need provided. flat taxes always seem nice (to the middle class, and especially to the richer classes) but are a great recipe for disproportionally taxing the poor.

or do you not philosophically believe that taxes have these two roles? i believe that tax also has a third role of being used to shape behaviour so that it follows ways that are best for the populace in terms of health, etc, whcih have their own costs associated with it. for example, taxing people according to their weight would reduce the health costs associated with obesity like high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. of course, that is not democratically possible in america now as the majority are overweight. democracy has its drawbacks…

:s

37

Yes, I believe taxes have these two roles, philosophically. Morally, I believe it is wrong. From the joy I read in your post about all the social benefits taxes has, I seriously dobut any further explanation on my part would make any sense. I look at taxes as a necessary evil and reserve advocacy of the forecable extortion of my neighbors property in only the most extreme cases.

38

Gas taxes in countries like the US, Canada and Australia are generally not going to have a great effect on consumption because those countries are built around cars. People live in suburbs where zoning laws insist on single-family dwellings and no commerce. You have to use your car if you want to go shopping, as well as to take the kids to school and commute long distances to work.

This means gas prices are very inelastic- people don’t start using less, because for most purposes they can’t. In recent years the price of a barrel of oil has gone from $25 to $70+, without making any noticeable dent in car use. A gas tax to reduce car use would have to be huge, and very disruptive to the economy.

Raising CAFE standards is the best method in the short-term- eventually rising oil prices will raise the price of gasoline anyway.

39

And if you count tax deductions by the wealthy, state taxes and license fees, and payroll taxes, the US basically has a flat tax already.

40

[quote=“MikeN”]Gas taxes in countries like the US, Canada and Australia are generally not going to have a great effect on consumption because those countries are built around cars. People live in suburbs where zoning laws insist on single-family dwellings and no commerce. You have to use your car if you want to go shopping, as well as to take the kids to school and commute long distances to work.

This means gas prices are very inelastic- people don’t start using less, because for most purposes they can’t. In recent years the price of a barrel of oil has gone from $25 to $70+, without making any noticeable dent in car use. A gas tax to reduce car use would have to be huge, and very disruptive to the economy.

Raising CAFE standards is the best method in the short-term- eventually rising oil prices will raise the price of gasoline anyway.[/quote]
But those rising prices will not pay for alternatives to oil. They will just pay for the oil itself.

Raising taxes on gas to influence consumption certainly will not have the same immediate effect that say cigarette taxes have on smoking, and it is exactly due to the reasons you describe. That doesn’t mean that taxes aren’t part of the solution, though. In my opinion, a moral hazard is perpetuated when we continue to tax gasoline at such low rates because people will continue to move out to developments that are unsustainable without private transportation. And no, I don’t believe that private transportation that uses alternative sources of energy will be cheap and convenient enough for it to be a viable option for most of today’s drivers. At least not in the near future. I think it is pure folly for we Americans to believe that the solution to this problem will be a technological one. The only solution that will save us before we choke is greater use of mass transportation and all of the changes in town planning that come with that.