SVreX wrote:logdog wrote: Are we arguing about what poor is?Didn't mean to be. I meant to be stating that in my city (a very poor one), the idea of taxing gas would be a very big hit to the poor (whoever they are).
If you drove a 20mpg car 24,000 miles per year, doubling the federal tax would amount to $18 per month.
MadScientistMatt wrote: It wouldn't be if gas suddenly jumped to $7 a gallon.
If you figure in all of the costs of fuel including how much we spend to keep the oil flowing via political means, we're already spending $8/gallon or so. I'll find the link if you'd like.
Schmidlap wrote: Lutz has also argued that raising the gas tax is much more appropriate than simply mandating that cars get higher fuel economy through CAFE standards. CAFE forces the automakers to make cars that people don't necessarily want, while raising the gas tax would get customers to demand that automakers produce cars with much higher fuel economy.
Right, he's trying to price the externality back into driving/burning gas so people make rational choices based on the actual global cost of burning fossil fuels. Reduce the externality and then let the free market take care of it rather than force changes through ham-handed regulation.
Unfortunately for him congress seems to have dropped Econ 101 before the midterm.
All I know is I would be in much better financial shape if gas was $1 per gallon.
Dropped driving my big gas hog truck as a dd and now drive a '94 civic. Mamma didnt raise no fool here 
Schmidlap wrote: It sounds like he's not saying "increase the price of gas to $7 tomorrow" but gradually increase it over the course of many years instead of simply leaving it at the same level for 20 years. Of course, that's just my interpretation of it, the article didn't explain it (or I missed it because I didn't read it very well). Slowly raising it over several years would give people time to adjust.
Good point, but I think Lutz is forgetting that these things don't happen in a vacuum. The middle class is under many different pressures in this country. For some people, such an adjustment (as delayed as it might be) could become deciding what meal to skip.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-american-wages/
I agree with you about CAFE, that's why I snipped your comments about it in my reply. 
The only thing I could add to the discussion is that I see many people around here (lower middle class to working poor) that don't actually act like gasoline is as expensive as it already is! Idling in the parking lot for 20min. while the missus is in the store, so they can run the A/C. Hell, I've got a neighbor across the street that likes to run the engine so that he can play his car stereo without killing the battery. Even an old lib'rul like me admits there's no way to legislate that kind of behavior.
in this thread:
people who think taxes should be use to socially engineer society, moreso than simply fund the institutions that govern it...
I get 66 mpg on premium. All I have to do is take my life into my hands daily (motorcycle.)
nicksta43 wrote: All I know is I would be in much better financial shape if gas was $1 per gallon.
NO! We don't want to go back to those dark, scary days of the 90's, when all the roads and bridges were crumbling! (sarcasm.)
madmallard wrote: in this thread: people who think taxes should be use to socially engineer society, moreso than simply fund the institutions that govern it...
Thank God someone said it before me.
Here's an idea. Government: Stop trying to tax us into behaving the way you want us to. The sales tax should be a percentage. If it's gas, booze, tobacco, crack, tires or a soda.
Everyone thinks we need more fuel efficient cars, great, start driving them yourselves and stop asking the government to force you into it.
I'm reminded of the town hall meeting where some recently-unemployed-Dad-of-many asked what Obama was going to do about the price of gas. Obama told him to stop driving a monster SUV. He responded that he had six kids and a van. Obama told him to buy a hybrid van. Which doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure that if it did, poor unemployed Dad couldn't swing it.
Unintended consequences are real. Start monkeying around with taxes, trying to drive certain behavior that society deems acceptable at the moment, and you're bound to mess up someone's life.
lollerskates...what a bag of fail. I cant even begin to wtfomfgbbqsauce!!1!mad tyte vtec-y01!! This whole thread sucks man bags
Schmidlap wrote: The article says: "Lutz suggests increases of 25 cents per gallon until the price at the pump reaches $6 to $7." It sounds like he's not saying "increase the price of gas to $7 tomorrow" but gradually increase it over the course of many years instead of simply leaving it at the same level for 20 years. Of course, that's just my interpretation of it, the article didn't explain it (or I missed it because I didn't read it very well). Slowly raising it over several years would give people time to adjust.
That's possible (and a perfectly reasonable interpretation), but the article doesn't say that.
There is no mention of a timeframe. Might be years, but it might also be months.
Knurled wrote: If you drove a 20mpg car 24,000 miles per year, doubling the federal tax would amount to $18 per month.
Your math is correct.
Except the article doesn't say that. It says increase until fuel hits $6-7 dollars per gallon.
Doesn't really matter how they get to it, $6-7 per gallon would hurt.
tuna55 wrote:madmallard wrote: in this thread: people who think taxes should be use to socially engineer society, moreso than simply fund the institutions that govern it...Thank God someone said it before me. Here's an idea. Government: Stop trying to tax us into behaving the way you want us to. The sales tax should be a percentage. If it's gas, booze, tobacco, crack, tires or a soda. Everyone thinks we need more fuel efficient cars, great, start driving them yourselves and stop asking the government to force you into it. I'm reminded of the town hall meeting where some recently-unemployed-Dad-of-many asked what Obama was going to do about the price of gas. Obama told him to stop driving a monster SUV. He responded that he had six kids and a van. Obama told him to buy a hybrid van. Which doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure that if it did, poor unemployed Dad couldn't swing it. Unintended consequences are real. Start monkeying around with taxes, trying to drive certain behavior that society deems acceptable at the moment, and you're bound to mess up someone's life.
Agreed. Mortgage interest write-offs, extra deductions for children, all should go as well.
z31maniac wrote:tuna55 wrote:Agreed. Mortgage interest write-offs, extra deductions for children, all should go as well.madmallard wrote: in this thread: people who think taxes should be use to socially engineer society, moreso than simply fund the institutions that govern it...Thank God someone said it before me. Here's an idea. Government: Stop trying to tax us into behaving the way you want us to. The sales tax should be a percentage. If it's gas, booze, tobacco, crack, tires or a soda. Everyone thinks we need more fuel efficient cars, great, start driving them yourselves and stop asking the government to force you into it. I'm reminded of the town hall meeting where some recently-unemployed-Dad-of-many asked what Obama was going to do about the price of gas. Obama told him to stop driving a monster SUV. He responded that he had six kids and a van. Obama told him to buy a hybrid van. Which doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure that if it did, poor unemployed Dad couldn't swing it. Unintended consequences are real. Start monkeying around with taxes, trying to drive certain behavior that society deems acceptable at the moment, and you're bound to mess up someone's life.
Agreed. Even as a Dad of four with a mortgage.
z31maniac wrote:tuna55 wrote: Here's an idea. Government: Stop trying to tax us into behaving the way you want us to. [...] Unintended consequences are real. Start monkeying around with taxes, trying to drive certain behavior that society deems acceptable at the moment, and you're bound to mess up someone's life.Agreed. Mortgage interest write-offs, extra deductions for children, all should go as well.
+1: It is amazing how many people are willing to submit to government influence when it is something they wanted to do anyway. They only get annoyed when the government manipulation runs counter to their wishes 
madmallard wrote: in this thread: people who think taxes should be use to socially engineer society, moreso than simply fund the institutions that govern it...
I don't agree that it applies in this case. As noted above, gasoline taxes as a percentage of the total retail price of a gallon have diminished significantly since 1993. Gasoline tax receipts should fund new road projects and repairs to existing ones. No one is trying to manipulate your behavior, just pay for what you're using!
But since we're on the subject: We hear people whining about global warming and the polar ice caps melting and polar bears drowning. How many of those same people holler the loudest about how they don't want to pay a higher gasoline tax because it might actually reduce demand? Hypocrisy much?
I think an increased gas tax is an excellent idea. A tax increase will have a lasting effect on consumer behavior. People will reduce their overall driving levels to offset the tax and demand more fuel efficient vehicles from auto manufactures. Traffic congestion will decrease over time as people learn to drive less which will result in cleaner air quality and lessen our nation's dependence upon oil.
On a long term view more people will choose to live in urban environments to be closer to their source of employment (because gas is expensive) which makes mass transit more feasible and cost effective. US cities will become denser and more Europe like.
On the flipside people will lose some of their mobility outside of cities, and the prices of some goods would increase. Overall I think a tax increase would be beneficial. Short term it would be painful, but over the long term it would encourage beneficial behaviors from people.
Quasimo1 wrote: I think an increased gas tax is an excellent idea. A tax increase will have a lasting effect on consumer behavior. People will reduce their overall driving levels to offset the tax and demand more fuel efficient vehicles from auto manufactures. Traffic congestion will decrease over time as people learn to drive less which will result in cleaner air quality and lessen our nation's dependence upon oil. On a long term view more people will choose to live in urban environments to be closer to their source of employment (because gas is expensive) which makes mass transit more feasible and cost effective. US cities will become denser and more Europe like. On the flipside people will lose some of their mobility outside of cities, and the prices of some goods would increase. Overall I think a tax increase would be beneficial. Short term it would be painful, but over the long term it would encourage beneficial behaviors from people.
Who decides? What's beneficial? I don't think dense cities are beneficial. I don't think mass transit is beneficial. Taxing people is not for driving behavior. If the majority of the people felt that way, it would happen. No need to tax people into thinking like you do.
Quasimo1 wrote: I think an increased gas tax is an excellent idea. A tax increase will have a lasting effect on consumer behavior. People will reduce their overall driving levels to offset the tax and demand more fuel efficient vehicles from auto manufactures. Traffic congestion will decrease over time as people learn to drive less which will result in cleaner air quality and lessen our nation's dependence upon oil. On a long term view more people will choose to live in urban environments to be closer to their source of employment (because gas is expensive) which makes mass transit more feasible and cost effective. US cities will become denser and more Europe like. On the flipside people will lose some of their mobility outside of cities, and the prices of some goods would increase. Overall I think a tax increase would be beneficial. Short term it would be painful, but over the long term it would encourage beneficial behaviors from people.
Thank you for making Tuna55's point. Further thank you for your reasoned approach to reducing my freedom. I do live outside of the city so I can provide a better life for my family. I guess I made the wrong choice and should pay the price!
I am sure glad we have Progressives in this country to help us know how they want us to live and if we don't we will be punished.
Somebody wrote: ...eliminate unnecessary travel...
Where does racing fall in this discussion, exactly?
110 race fuel was $10 a gallon in Wisconsin two weeks ago. If the price of regular unleaded drives from $3.30 to $7 and you assume similar increases in race fuel, it'll cost us $300 for a tank of fuel. And we're burning a tank of fuel every 2 hours. Running 14 hours of racing a weekend.
That's prohibitive.
1988RedT2 wrote:madmallard wrote: in this thread: people who think taxes should be use to socially engineer society, moreso than simply fund the institutions that govern it...I don't agree that it applies in this case. As noted above, gasoline taxes as a percentage of the total retail price of a gallon have diminished significantly since 1993. Gasoline tax receipts should fund new road projects and repairs to existing ones. No one is trying to manipulate your behavior, just pay for what you're using! But since we're on the subject: We hear people whining about global warming and the polar ice caps melting and polar bears drowning. How many of those same people holler the loudest about how they don't want to pay a higher gasoline tax because it might actually reduce demand? Hypocrisy much?
1988RedT2, I agree with you - the cost of travel by car isn't covered by gas taxes so the way they are now they are socially engineering society by subsidizing car ownership with other taxes. So if you're opposed to the government encouraging you to do certain things by taxing them differently then the gas tax should go up.
But your second point, you wholesale invented a person then claimed them to be hypocrites. I doubt the human you've described exists. most people that are global warming advocates would welcome increased gas taxes.
z31maniac wrote:tuna55 wrote:Agreed. Mortgage interest write-offs, extra deductions for children, all should go as well.madmallard wrote: in this thread: people who think taxes should be use to socially engineer society, moreso than simply fund the institutions that govern it...Thank God someone said it before me. Here's an idea. Government: Stop trying to tax us into behaving the way you want us to. The sales tax should be a percentage. If it's gas, booze, tobacco, crack, tires or a soda. Everyone thinks we need more fuel efficient cars, great, start driving them yourselves and stop asking the government to force you into it. I'm reminded of the town hall meeting where some recently-unemployed-Dad-of-many asked what Obama was going to do about the price of gas. Obama told him to stop driving a monster SUV. He responded that he had six kids and a van. Obama told him to buy a hybrid van. Which doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure that if it did, poor unemployed Dad couldn't swing it. Unintended consequences are real. Start monkeying around with taxes, trying to drive certain behavior that society deems acceptable at the moment, and you're bound to mess up someone's life.
LOL .... I got no problem with that ... disclaimer: my house is paid for and I don't have any kids ... LOL
tuna55 wrote: Who decides? What's beneficial? I don't think dense cities are beneficial. I don't think mass transit is beneficial. Taxing people is not for driving behavior. If the majority of the people felt that way, it would happen. No need to tax people into thinking like you do.
Governments have the role of taxing individuals and driving beneficial behaviors (think laws, EPA, military, etc.). Taxes and laws can play an important role in changing consumption habits. If gas spikes up to $10 a gallon due to taxes I guaranty that people will drive less.
Sometimes in order to bring about change it takes more than a majority of the people's will. A good example of this is the EPA. I think everyone would be in agreement with the statement that clean water if beneficial to everyone and we shouldn't pollute our drinking water. Yet people dumped all sorts of crap into rivers and lakes before the EPA was formed. It took the creation of laws and regulation in order to clean up our rivers.
Taxes can act as a dual purpose mechanism, serving to raise revenue and to discourage certain behaviors. I’m not trying to argue if it is right or wrong for governments to encourage a certain behavior but am merely trying to point out that it is an effective tool at the government’s disposal.
Quasimo1 wrote: Governments have the role of taxing individuals and driving beneficial behaviors (think laws, EPA, military, etc.).
OK, I back up to the Constitution on this one. Please tell me specifically where in the Constitution (which explicitly states the roles of the federal government) it says that this is the governments job. Can't find it? Perfect, then stay out of my life. Tax me, sure. Want to tax my sales? Tax them all the same.
You'll need to log in to post.
