Should We Raise the Gas Tax?

[NOTKyle]

Even at its highest, the price of gas in America hasn't come close to European prices. Governments there have made taxes the keystone of their campaign to cut consumption, promote alternative transportation and go green. It's time for the United States to do the same. Gas prices have been rising in Europe for more than a decade, and much of the increase comes from tax hikes that now account for 40 to 50 percent of the cost to fill up. The Netherlands and Britain have nearly doubled their gas taxes, to $4.04 and $3.82 a gallon respectively, since the early 1990s. Compare that to America, where Uncle Sam tacks a paltry 18.4 cents onto every gallon of gas.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/12/gargantum-gas-t.html

I think gas being at $4 a gallon was one of the best things that could've happened to this country, and I'd have no problem with it being up near there again.

DISCUSS

[Titus_Pullo]

My commute is too far.

[Archangel]

You'd have people rioting in the streets.


Also, you're more dependent on petrol than we are: Most logistics is America are handled by trucks, not rail. Interstate travel is still mostly done by car, as is commuting. Plus, as a country, you're far less urbanised than any country in Europe. Subways and buses are fine in Chicago or New York, but in the Midwest, people need their cars and trucks.

How retarded is comparing the Netherlands to the US? They're like half the size of Maine, and totally urban; you can fucking walk through that country. Driving is basically a luxury in such countries.

[Claydon]

is this how we are keeping the black man down?

[STDSkillz]

I agree with Arch. Everyday people and business in America rely on cars much more than most everybody in Europe. For many, it's necessity, not luxury.

[IdiotBrain]

Outside of most major cities in the US, a vehicle is a requirement. If you wanna go green be my guest... but don't expect the majority to do it until is a practical choice.

[Hoser]

As said by others, far to much space covered by far to many people on a consistent basis and it is always done by car.

I am all for higher excises taxes on gas in urban areas, but most of the country does not fit that description.

[Morfin]

The fact that social-program-laden European countries have higher gas taxes is not a basis to say that the U.S. tax is low. A tax is a tax, whether on income, gas usage, or sales. It needs to stop.

While as a flat tax advocate, I am more in favor of usage taxes like the gas tax than the graduated income tax system, raising the gas tax without lowering the income tax is not something I advocate.

[Claibo]

I drive a Dodge Ram crew cab... no more taxes.

[Archangel]

I still can't get over the author's ridiculous comparisons.

Yes, our petrol taxes (+additional "eco"-taxes, VAT etc) are ridiculously high. But in Germany and its neighbours, you have affordable 200-mph trains departing every hour, domestic flights starting at €20 (+tax, obviously), basically free public transport for students, old people etc, and no vast wildernesses with half a person per square mile. It's basically like saying that real estate prices in Nebraska should go up because those in Manhattan are so high.

So with the exception of sales reps, very few people here do really need a car. Most people have one, sure, but they could get to work, go on a holiday, or visit their relatives easily even if they didn't. Having driven through quite a bit of America, I honestly could not imagine living in most of the country without a car. There's a reason your driving licences are given out earlier, cheaper, and more easily than anywhere else in the civilised world.

[Claydon]

I just got an airline ticket roundtrip to honolulu for $190 at prime hours.

No taxes!

And in california we pay an additional 19 cents per gallon, so we are at around 37 cents per gallon, oh and 7 cents in sales tax/gallon.

[Nosebuckle]

It's meaningless to talk about how much the federal government taxes gas if you don't account for the state rate, which of course varies greatly from state to state.

[Genius]

Outside of most major cities in the US, a vehicle is a requirement. If you wanna go green be my guest... but don't expect the majority to do it until is a practical choice.
While I don't agree with the article, I believe the position is that significantly higher fuel taxes will force the green option to become a practicality. I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think levying debilitating taxes on what is an item necessary for livelihood for most is the way to accomplish it.

[Claydon]

if i am not mistaken, california has the higest fuel tax when combined with the federal. Lets not forget all the extra taxes that are paid on diesel.

[heelsguy]

i am all for increasing use-taxes if it means lowering across-the-board taxes. gas taxes to me are like toll roads.

[freegood]

^The highway fund that the gas tax provides is about to run out in part because it hasn't been increased with inflation. If our highways are considered a toll road, they might need to hike it up to improve quality.

[Debo]

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/12/gargantum-gas-t.html

I think gas being at $4 a gallon was one of the best things that could've happened to this country, and I'd have no problem with it being up near there again.

DISCUSS

$0.184 per gallon is only the Federal government's take when you buy gas.

Below are the additional state taxes that you pay:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/gas-tax-690px.jpg

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1054.html

[Rover]

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/12/gargantum-gas-t.html

I think gas being at $4 a gallon was one of the best things that could've happened to this country, and I'd have no problem with it being up near there again.

DISCUSS$4 a gallon gas would cripple the economy just like it did. The gas prices were a leading cause of the economic crisis. People cannot spend 1/2 of their income on getting to and from work. It is impossible for us to sustain high gas prices. Look at what happened. OPEC cut production by a milion barrels and the oil price didn't even blink as it spiraled down. Then OPEC cut by 2.5 million and oil dropped to $36 on Friday. The US economy is so dependent on oil that it cannot sustain high prices.

The best thing that could happen to help lead us out of the economy recession is for gas prices to crash. Especially since high gas prices were a leading cause of the economic problems to begin with.

If you think that $4 dollar gas is one of the best things that's ever happened to this country, what you're really saying is: "I think it's awesome that the government just had to spend $2 trillion dollars to keep the economy stable, and I think its' pretty cool that people can't afford to live in their house and the best part is that unemployment is about to hit double digits."

[kid_vidrio]

I think calling it a tax is a misnomer.
When you pay to go to a movie, is that a tax?
If we want to perpetuate our existence, we need to maintain the current infrastructure while improving the means by which me travel. The caveat here is that making petrol based travel prohibitively expensive it spurs all the right moves in all the right directions. People should make the decision to live closer to work, or work closer to home. Communities should put their allotment of the fees generated into public transport, and overall people should quit acting like motor transport is a right for us to rape the future.
Jack that fee. $20/gallon wouldn't be too little for me. You'd see some people getting motivated. Maybe it would kill a few off too, which wouldn't be a bad thing either.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

that is fucking retarded

[kid_vidrio]

that is fucking retarded
you are right. we should give gas for free, and food hand outs.
you fucking liberal fuck.

[Gary_Busey]

You people do realize all your food comes in on semi trucks, right? Even if you never drive, you'd take a huge hit in your bank account due to everything you buy's price being jacked up to accommodate for the gas prices being so high. I agree that higher gas prices facilitate innovation in the energy sector, which is a good thing. We need to find a better way than relying on a finite resource, but hoping gas prices soar is ridiculous.

[Debo]

I think calling it a tax is a misnomer.
When you pay to go to a movie, is that a tax?
If we want to perpetuate our existence, we need to maintain the current infrastructure while improving the means by which me travel. The caveat here is that making petrol based travel prohibitively expensive it spurs all the right moves in all the right directions. People should make the decision to live closer to work, or work closer to home. Communities should put their allotment of the fees generated into public transport, and overall people should quit acting like motor transport is a right for us to rape the future.
Jack that fee. $20/gallon wouldn't be too little for me. You'd see some people getting motivated. Maybe it would kill a few off too, which wouldn't be a bad thing either.

When I pay to go see a movie, I am trading my cash for the right to view the movie company's property. Just like when I buy a ticket to a sporting event, I am paying to watch [insert team] play.

Our current infrastructure problems are the result of not enough spending on infrastructure because social spending is eating up more and more of the budget and to pay debt service for the bonds issued to fund the budget deficit (see chart below).

Adding $20 a barrel in taxes puts upward pressure on inflation because oil is used in virtually everything that we use on a daily basis (e.g., gasoline, plastics, lubricants, rubber, food via transportation, etc).

I challenge you to go a week without using something that is not derived from petroleum. It is virtually impossible to do.

As Arch correctly pointed out above, a massive public transportation system cannot work here in the USA because of how large our country is. Hell, I live in NYC and our public transportation system sucks and it losses about a billion dollars a year. And NYC is the most heavily taxed city, in one of the most heavily taxed states in the country.

http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges31.png

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/djh4085/Spending.gif
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/djh4085/Spending.gif)

[Aegis]

I'd just like say go fuck yourself to the 4 of you that said yes. I want to drive a 4x4 truck again and at $4 a gallon it dosen't make sense.

I want to be fat, waste gas and only care about myself...it's the American way.

[kid_vidrio]

When I pay to go see a movie I am trading my cash for the right to view the movie company's property. Just like when I buy a ticket to a sporting event, I am paying to watch [insert team] play.


When you pay to go to a movie, the cash you fork over is portioned out to the relevant parties; the theater owner, the studio (and it's contractees), the distribution company, the company that cleans your popcorn and shit off the floor....You can simplify it all you want, as is typical of the modern american simpleton, but every time I get on the road, I am paying a bunch of people for my opportunity to get from A to B.

As for my food coming in on semi's, yeah, because we've made it affordable. If it wasn't, perhaps we'd be eating more relevant food while supporting local companies. Just because 'food comes on semi's' does not mean it is the highest use of time and resource. We are choking on the status quo in this country while wondering why we are challenged.

idiots.

[Claydon]

I guess I should not mention that the majority of modern fertilizers are petroleum based.....

[kid_vidrio]

I guess I should not mention that the majority of modern fertilizers are petroleum based.....
Well, you just did. And it was as pointless as anything else you have posted here.
Hurrah.

[Claydon]

Well, you just did. And it was as pointless as anything else you have posted here.
Hurrah.

actually no, putting more taxes on fuel, or hell oil in any shape or form just raises the cost of well....EVERYTHING. At my wife's practice for instance, their cost for syringes, a basic need for her to practice when up 55% in the last year with oil price increases, and with the additional taxes the state of california wants to levy on so called 'oil based products' in order to save the planet, she can expect another 10-20% increase in her overhead costs.


yah...so no more fucking taxes, you are under the false assumption that if the government has the money then the best things will happen. You are, as per the usual proceeding from a false assumption.

[NOTKyle]

All of you saying that gas is a necessity aren't really getting the point behind why the $4 a gallon scare was so great for this country.

People used less gas, yet somehow still got to work/the dentist/Ruby Tuesday. They carpooled, started using public transportation more often, stopped driving someplace if it was less than a mile from their home. Nobody quit their job or lost their livelihood because gas was expensive, and if they did they're dumb enough to deserve it.

I'm not suggesting taking gas away, just helping raise government money and public awareness by increasing the gas tax by a few dimes a gallon.

[Archangel]

Yeah, and when people are starving, they'll eat rats, but that doesn't mean that they should be on the menu at restaurants.

Oh, and as for people not losing their jobs, I suggest you look at hauliers, freight forwarders, and logistics/trucking companies in general. Didn't DHL just fire a bunch of people by shutting down its US operations? Tell them that they're idiots.

[kid_vidrio]

Tell the people that thought air transport was BS and stuck with trains that they were idiots.
Oh wait.

[kid_vidrio]

actually no, putting more taxes on fuel, or hell oil in any shape or form just raises the cost of well....EVERYTHING. At my wife's practice for instance, their cost for syringes, a basic need for her to practice when up 55% in the last year with oil price increases, and with the additional taxes the state of california wants to levy on so called 'oil based products' in order to save the planet, she can expect another 10-20% increase in her overhead costs.


yah...so no more fucking taxes, you are under the false assumption that if the government has the money then the best things will happen. You are, as per the usual proceeding from a false assumption.
it's 'as' or 'per'. you probably say atm machine though.

the word 'tax' is marginally defined and typically used in such way to support one's point. i see some fees as investments. potato potahto.
i have faith in humanity's ability to build a better mousetrap and i abhor the status quo as a justification for anything.

[freegood]

When you pay to go to a movie, the cash you fork over is portioned out to the relevant parties; the theater owner, the studio (and it's contractees), the distribution company, the company that cleans your popcorn and shit off the floor....You can simplify it all you want, as is typical of the modern american simpleton, but every time I get on the road, I am paying a bunch of people for my opportunity to get from A to B.

As for my food coming in on semi's, yeah, because we've made it affordable. If it wasn't, perhaps we'd be eating more relevant food while supporting local companies. Just because 'food comes on semi's' does not mean it is the highest use of time and resource. We are choking on the status quo in this country while wondering why we are challenged.

idiots.

NO!! TAXES BAD!

When a bridge from Minnesota collapses, that's BAD GOVERNANCE! It's NOT an issue of funding!=====D~~~~~!!!11


And I'd like to see semi owners stop their trucks at every toll road fumbling around for different amounts of change from state to state...assuming toll roads even do let them on. They are the ones who benefit from the gas tax because they are the ones aging the highways quicker. But hey, food is cheap and gas MUST be cheap! Until we run everything to the ground, cause supply shortages and THEN wonder why those useless politicians didn't plan anything sooner.

[Claydon]

it's 'as' or 'per'. you probably say atm machine though.

the word 'tax' is marginally defined and typically used in such way to support one's point. i see some fees as investments. potato potahto.
i have faith in humanity's ability to build a better mousetrap and i abhor the status quo as a justification for anything.

i have tons of faith in humanity, i have zero faith in the government. you are all for forking over your money to the government, yet you are probably the same crowd that were screaming genocide when the US invaded iraq. So which is it? the government is good and right? or the government is bad and makes really bad choices?

[Debo]

NO!! TAXES BAD!

When a bridge from Minnesota collapses, that's BAD GOVERNANCE! It's NOT an issue of funding!=====D~~~~~!!!11


And I'd like to see semi owners stop their trucks at every toll road fumbling around for different amounts of change from state to state...assuming toll roads even do let them on. They are the ones who benefit from the gas tax because they are the ones aging the highways quicker. But hey, food is cheap and gas MUST be cheap! Until we run everything to the ground, cause supply shortages and THEN wonder why those useless politicians didn't plan anything sooner.

We already tax gasoline at multiple levels. As I stated before, we have the money to spend on bridges and roads but our politicians choose to spend it on social programs that make them feel good.

Until an economically viable substitute for oil emerges, we are forced to use oil to enhance our standard of living. If you want to live oil free, by all means enjoy your cave. I hear that there are plenty of them for sale in Afghanistan.

RE: Foods prices - aren't you the same poster that went on and on about how the middle class is getting squeezed? Please tell me what is going to happen to the middle class, and even more so the lower class, when we raise the price of energy and food. Or should we only make people earning over $250K pay higher prices?

[Satan]

Only if that money were used to drastically improve public transit. Right now its mediocre at best in most areas of the US. I only take transit because I'm able to acquire a pass dirt cheap. And even with that I still do a lot of driving because I have to.

[freegood]

We already tax gasoline at multiple levels. As I stated before, we have the money to spend on bridges and roads but our politicians choose to spend it on social programs that make them feel good.


Oil is still subsidized in the US compared to other places like Europe. I'm not sure how they survive from taxing their gas to death. Jedi Socialist mind tricks they have.

Government money and its availability is pretty subjective. For instance, Social Security has the surplus money to spend on its recipients, but politicians choose to spend it on social programs and tax cuts to make them feel good...

We had the gas tax in order to pay for roads through the Highway Trust fund. Which is why a gas tax holiday is irresponsible and based on the naive assumption that those feel good politicians would be inclined to redirect funding to highways by magically rolling over their pet social programs.

Even if you're not inclined to a 4 dollar hike, raising the tax to meet inflation would at least provide adequate funding for an well maintained infrastructure commerce desperately needs.


Until an economically viable substitute for oil emerges, we are forced to use oil to enhance our standard of living. If you want to live oil free, by all means enjoy your cave. I hear that there are plenty of them for sale in Afghanistan.


Nice strawman. A proportionate tax hike would not make the US oil free or a breeding ground for terrorist hideouts.

There are environmentally minded groups that want to expand the gas tax's intended function, but even if you oppose that position, you don't have to eliminate the entire tax and everything that came from it.


RE: Foods prices - aren't you the same poster that went on and on about how the middle class is getting squeezed? Please tell me what is going to happen to the middle class, and even more so the lower class, when we raise the price of energy and food. Or should we only make people earning over $250K pay higher prices?

You're painting me into a position I'm not making, but I'll bite and play Devil's Advocate. I'm guess a crazy tax hike that tops off the total price at around 3.50 would not devote it's entire earnings to the Highway Trust fund. A genuine environmentally minded politician would either direct the extra money to reduce taxes/broaden tax exceptions on base foods or use it to subsidize funding into energy alternatives. And I doubt there would be a dramatic increase on food prices that is disproportionate to inflationary effects of a gas increase. This isn't a supply limited price increase, so the price for alternative fuels such as corn ethanol would not increase. Therefore the incentives to reduce the food supply through corn conversion would not be as lucrative.

If truckers are really butthurt from the tax, reduce the tax burden (from the 3.50 proposed cap) on diesel and promote subsidies for refineries that are near the cutting edge for producing ultra low sulfur diesel. Diesel is already more expensive than gasoline as it already is, so in the short term, truck drivers would not be as hit hard compared to regular drivers. This might even open the market for European auto models that have very efficient diesel engines. Yes, that would be an added subsidy to truckers, but the food prices! Think about the food prices!...

I'm guessing from an environmentalist's standpoint that a simple ginormous gas tax hike would not spark a green revolution, but using it in conjunction with other policies would enforce a basement standard for promoting alternatives. That should be what's debated instead of the crazy tax on it's own merits.

[06z71silvy]

$0.184 per gallon is only the Federal government's take when you buy gas.

Below are the additional state taxes that you pay:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/gas-tax-690px.jpg

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1054.html

Ny has been getting screwed by that 62.9

For 87 octane just w/ in the last week we went under $2.00 /gal

Personally i wish gas would just stay where its at , and not move anymore.. Its at a perfect price now.

[IdiotBrain]

1.49 for 87 in deep south Texas right now.

ftw.

[hatepoppy]

i filled up for 1.38 last week.

BONG!

[Okie Medicvet]

I filled up for 1.55 a gallon..and that was a waste of money, because the jeep crashed.

But you know I would love to see our rail system expanded and more light rails going further in some major metropolitan cities.

[Hoser]

But you know I would love to see our rail system expanded and more light rails going further in some major metropolitan cities.

I agree, that rail should be expanded, but the problem is the huge distance it has to cover and the extremely high cost associated with building the infrastructure to accomplish it.

The money will have to come from somewhere. Higher taxes?? Cut funding to other programs?? What are people willing to give up to get it??

Also in the US I think people are so dependant on their cars, once they got somewhere with the train they wouldn't have a clue what to do or how to get around.

The negative stigma of public transit will need to be dropped before people are willing to take buses and ride trains on a large scale.

[Das Kahlua]

i have faith in humanity's ability to build a better mousetrap and i abhor the status quo as a justification for anything.

Who is going to invent this 'better mousetrap'? At the rate things are going, it certainly isn't going to come from any of the 'Big 3' in Detroit who are struggling to remain solvent, let alone have a couple hundred mil to invest in advanced 'green' technology. And heaven forbid we actually get a 'Car Czar,' some bureaucrat from Washington dictating how to design the new line of cars...that would be the coup de gras for the American auto industry.

The fact remains that there is no production car made anywhere that can do 50+ mpg, and who knows when we would realistically have one. You can't spur invention by saddling the both the company that would create it, and the people who would buy it, with added taxes, which is exactly what would happen.

[Archangel]

The fact remains that there is no production car made anywhere that can do 50+ mpg, and who knows when we would realistically have one.

Um, I don't know under which rock you have been living, but VW has been mass producing 70+mpg compact road cars since 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VW_Lupo#Lupo_3L), and will start producing a 240-mpg car by 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car#Production_and_price).

Every other European car maker, from Renault to BMW, also has a bunch of turbodiesels, from superminis/subcompacts to sports saloons, that easily do 50mpg (combined). By the way, many of them are from American parent companies. If you want to be really pissed off at Detroit, try googling "mpg" with "Ford Focus TDCi"...

[Whiffleball]

I voted no primarily because raising the gasoline tax without a huge plan to go along with it would be dumb. You'd have to change many, many things in regards to transportation and American society in general. And while "impossible" may be too strong a word, affecting those changes are insanely unlikely.

One of the dumbest things in the first post's article is that it's somehow acceptable that gas be at 4 dollars; people weren't rioting, but they were clearly unhappy and severe economic hardships accompanied the spikes. I just hope that people realize that, once the economy improves, gas prices may very well spike again.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2h4x2ky.jpg

Obviously, the consumption of oil has increased over time. Looking at the chart, we see that consumption decreased in the 1970s due to the oil crises of that decade and then substantially decreased in the 1980s. What happened then was a response to the problems of the '70s: greater fuel efficiency standards and greater federal regulations such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE), which made it more costly for automakers to make inefficient tanks-on-wheels for soccer moms to drive to the supermarket.

Which is exactly what we have in the present day, thanks to SUVs, Hummers and so on. Americans, as has been pointed out, love their cars, and just like with their hamburgers and breasts, they want their cars and light trucks STUPIDLY LARGE, KID!

At the same, countries like China and India were modernizing at rapid rates, their economies booming like nobody's business. And in today's world, you need oil! Lots of it! The demand for oil went up, up, up!

http://i42.tinypic.com/34qmjig.jpg

Okay, all you economics students... Make the "X" with your arms... Supply and demand! When the demand goes up and the supply stays the same or falls, what happens? Prices go up!

So while we are in a recession (and hopefully that's all it is), prices have fallen, as they have done for nearly everything. It's because consumers have less buying power, not because we've solved our dependence on foreign oil or high world oil consumption.

So what do we do? Raising the tax on gas would be thing, but only one thing. When the gas tax was increased in 1956 under Eisenhower and in 1991 under Bush the Elder, major reforms went along with it. Otherwise you would just be maintaining the status quo while taking money out of the pockets of high income and low income Americans alike.

Invest in High Speed Rail: Obviously this would be more about long distance traveling than commuting from the suburbs to the nearby city, but it would help a lot in terms of transporting goods and people alike over long distances (commuting from New Jersey to New York, for example). According to the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01756r.pdf), building a high speed rail system in the densely-populated Northeast would cost 3.5 billion a year over two decades.

Invest in Renewable Power Sources: It is becoming more and more viable to use solar, wind, etc. technologies to our benefit. We have only invested 28 billion in wind power from the 1980s until today (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43025.pdf) which is a shame. Consider how much power we could get from wind power in places like Oklahoma, Texas, the Great Lakes area, etc. with increased investment.

No, seriously. You can consider it by clicking on the states on this site (http://www.awea.org/projects/Default.aspx).

Invest in Improving/Updating Our Existing Power Grid: According to a study by the Manhattan Institute (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_03.htm), it's within our power to modernize our power grid to make it not just greener, but more efficient:

High-voltage wires mounted on towers erected on narrow (200-foot) rights of way can quite easily move huge amounts of power, over thousands of miles, with very modest losses. Direct-current systems operating at about 600,000 volts are optimal for certain applications; alternating-current systems operating at close to a million volts are more suitable for many others. A single line operating at 765 kV AC can transmit almost 1 percent (4 GW) of the total average power generation of the entire United States, or 0.5 percent of the power that Americans collectively consume during the most power-hungry minute of the year.

According to one recent analysis (http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/docs/windtransmissionvisionwhitepaper.pdf), windmills located principally in the heartland could meet over 25 percent of current U.S. electricity requirements (or 20 percent of projected demand in 2030) if linked to population centers across the country by 19,000 miles of high-voltage grid. Such a grid would cost an estimated $60 billion to build. A somewhat larger, 21,000-mile grid designed to network all major sources of electricity, including wind, might look something like the one shown in the accompanying conceptual map, and would cost about $75 billion. That would add roughly 0.3 cents to the current 9-cent average retail price of electricity. There surely is a precedent for a gas tax accompanied by these kind of reforms. As the Brookings institute points out (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0822transportation_puentes.aspx):

History has shown that, to be effective, significant increases in revenue should be tied to meaningful updates and upgrades of the federal program. During their times President Dwight Eisenhower and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had both bold new visions for transportation as well as a revenue stream for implementation. Significant gas tax increases accompanied major transportation reforms in both 1956 and 1991.


This should be another one of those times. The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993 even to keep pace with inflation. In order to not waste the opportunity for the federal government to get the most out of its enormous investment we should connect any gas tax increase to better programmatic responsibility. So you don't just raise taxes and hope everything turns for the best. If you're going to have higher taxes to fund something, you need a plan.

And, honestly, raising the price of gas back to 2 dollars or even 3 dollars will not cause a revolt. The federal government's revenue would increase from approx 30 billion to over 200 billion.

Yes, people will be upset, but it wasn't until gas broke the $4 barrier that you had people up in arms. And it's also important to point out that people might react differently if $2 or $3 gas was actually going to something that might benefit them rather than just lining the pockets of oil company CEOs who were already making record profits.

(As for low income families having to choose between gas and groceries, I would just say increase the income tax on the wealthy and lower it for low income people, but I'm a dirty hippie socialist.)

Will any of this happen? Probably not. Low gas prices are becoming a political third rail like Social Security. Americans dislike public transport and have bad memories of Amtrak. Nuclear power is tried and true and has more supporters than "green" technologies, even though dealing with toxic waste is a thorny issue.

[Morfin]

I have an admittedly simplistic idea: I will agree to an increase in the gas tax if every penny went to debt reduction. At some point, the debt needs to be repaid. Let's start now, with a use tax, that applies across the board and is not based on a progressive system of "the rich should pay more." Who's with me? Anyone? Anyone? Hey, is this mic on?

[Archangel]

Go away.

[Whiffleball]

I have an admittedly simplistic idea: I will agree to an increase in the gas tax if every penny went to debt reduction. At some point, the debt needs to be repaid. Let's start now, with a use tax, that applies across the board and is not based on a progressive system of "the rich should pay more." Who's with me? Anyone? Anyone? Hey, is this mic on?

You had me until "that applies across the board and is not based on a progressive system of 'the rich should pay more.'"

[Phil Theehor]

You had me until "that applies across the board and is not based on a progressive system of 'the rich should pay more.'"

Commie.

[Morfin]

Libertarians Unite!

[Archangel]

None of this would be a problem if you democrats, republicans, free thinkers and heathens hadn't gotten it into the rabble's heads that they had a right to move away from their lord's land.

Oh, and despite all I said, I voted "yes", because, let's face it, the fuck do I care about your wallets?

[Phil Theehor]

None of this would be a problem if you democrats, republicans, free thinkers and heathens hadn't gotten it into the rabble's heads that they had a right to move away from their lord's land.

Oh, and despite all I said, I voted "yes", because, let's face it, the fuck do I care about your wallets?

Monarchist.

EDIT: Oligarch!

[Whiffleball]

Libertarians Unite!

RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

http://i44.tinypic.com/33c40ub.jpg


RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

http://i39.tinypic.com/2m44mjc.jpg

[Phil Theehor]

Don't judge us on Ron Paul. You can hold Libertarian ideals without being a crackpot.

You, though, we are going to judge by Hot Karl Marx.

[Archangel]

I'd rather read a detailed, 700-page account of Face's bowel movements than anything else by Ayn Rand.

[Nosebuckle]

Um, I don't know under which rock you have been living, but VW has been mass producing 70+mpg compact road cars since 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VW_Lupo#Lupo_3L), and will start producing a 240-mpg car by 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car#Production_and_price).

Every other European car maker, from Renault to BMW, also has a bunch of turbodiesels, from superminis/subcompacts to sports saloons, that easily do 50mpg (combined). By the way, many of them are from American parent companies. If you want to be really pissed off at Detroit, try googling "mpg" with "Ford Focus TDCi"...

We had this conversation on the old forums earlier this year where Americans here bemoaned how US automakers like ford produce terrific cars available in Europe, cars that get 50+ MPG and don't look like a fucking chicken egg. Perhaps we could at least start by making these vehicles available for purchase in the states by lifting the importation restrictions.

[Archangel]

Yeah, but why would European firms spend money to have cars qualified for the US market just to have some rednecks ridicule them? Do you think they like having their products being labeled "faggy little soapboxes"?

Fuck the US market. Go on driving your F-150s.

[freegood]

I have an admittedly simplistic idea: I will agree to an increase in the gas tax if every penny went to debt reduction. At some point, the debt needs to be repaid. Let's start now, with a use tax, that applies across the board and is not based on a progressive system of "the rich should pay more." Who's with me? Anyone? Anyone? Hey, is this mic on?

If we eliminated the need to import oil, we would save 133 billion a year with gas at $26/barrel.

I'm not saying you raise taxes to the point where we don't import anything. There are other realistic ways to accomplish this.
(http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-02_EndOilDepend.pdf)

[Morfin]

http://i39.tinypic.com/2m44mjc.jpg

Dammit! I wanted to remain anonymous.

[Morfin]

We had this conversation on the old forums earlier this year where Americans here bemoaned how US automakers like ford produce terrific cars available in Europe, cars that get 50+ MPG and don't look like a fucking chicken egg. Perhaps we could at least start by making these vehicles available for purchase in the states by lifting the importation restrictions.

I realize I am old and senile, but is this true? Are there import restrictions on Ford cars built outside the U.S.? I would like to know why these Ford cars that Arch tells us about are not available in the U.S.

[IdiotBrain]

As far as I understand it's because the major automakers believe that the US buyers wouldn't go for them.

My parents for example, when faced with the choice of driving my grandfathers Toyota Highlander Hybrid, and their 2008 Dodge 2500 MegaCab Heavy Duty 4x4 Cummins TurboDiesel... will choose the dodge every time, hands down. Granted, my parents need a truck alot of the time, they don't need it to run to the supermarket and back.

Then again there are people like me who want to buy a motorcycle because they get such good mileage.

[Nosebuckle]

Yeah, but why would European firms spend money to have cars qualified for the US market just to have some rednecks ridicule them? Do you think they like having their products being labeled "faggy little soapboxes"?

Fuck the US market. Go on driving your F-150s.

That's the whole point. There's no reason for European firms to spend anything to change anything for US markets because my idea involved changing US import laws. Change ours laws to accomodate your cars, that's a fairly win-win situation.

[Whiffleball]

As far as I understand it's because the major automakers believe that the US buyers wouldn't go for them.

From The Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20081216/BUSINESS01/812160393/1210/BUSINESS):

The Bush administration on Monday continued considering a lifeline for automakers, but longer-term policy questions about how to balance consumer demand with the nation's goals of energy independence linger.

Years of sales data show that consumers buy fuel-efficient cars en masse only when gas prices jump higher. When gas prices decline, consumers simply buy more trucks.

Just look at Toyota, which on Monday announced it would indefinitely delay plans to build the Prius, the world's best-selling hybrid, near Tupelo, Miss. Toyota said the decision was related to the steep decline in sales, not gas prices, but evidence shows interest in fuel-efficient vehicles plummets in lockstep with gas prices.

In November, as gas prices fell, truck sales actually made up 52% of all vehicles purchased in America. That is 3 percentage points higher than in October, when gas prices averaged more than $3.01 a gallon.

But that didn't stop members of Congress from demanding the Detroit Three -- during hearings on the yet-to-be-announced financial rescue package -- build greener cars.

"A business model based on a gas-guzzling past is unacceptable," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who supported financial assistance for the Detroit Three, said during hearings in November. "We need a business model based on cars of the future."

But for better or worse, domestic automakers still sell hundreds of thousands of trucks each year and depend on those vehicles for profits.

So if Congress forces Detroit to build more small cars, and fewer people are buying them, the automakers could end up in even worse financial shape.

That's why some industry experts have called on Congress to enact policy changes that keep consumers purchasing the kind of fuel-efficient vehicles that Congress has been pushing the Detroit Three to build, which are in line with the nation's goal of becoming energy independent.

The proposals include a gas tax, which is widely used to keep gas over $5 a gallon in Europe, or additional tax incentives for fuel-efficient cars, such as those available for buyers of hybrids.

Industry experts have said that influencing consumer purchases would be far more effective than federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards at achieving the nation's energy objectives. In 2007, Congress passed new rules to push the industry toward improved fuel economy -- a push that won't likely be financially supported by consumers if gas prices remain low.

While implementing a gas tax is politically unpopular, industry insiders say the topic must be broached to force a lasting move toward fuel-efficient vehicles.

"We need to talk about it," Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation Inc., with 239 dealerships in 15 states, said earlier this month.

[redsox39]

All of you saying that gas is a necessity aren't really getting the point behind why the $4 a gallon scare was so great for this country.

People used less gas, yet somehow still got to work/the dentist/Ruby Tuesday. They carpooled, started using public transportation more often, stopped driving someplace if it was less than a mile from their home. Nobody quit their job or lost their livelihood because gas was expensive, and if they did they're dumb enough to deserve it.

I'm not suggesting taking gas away, just helping raise government money and public awareness by increasing the gas tax by a few dimes a gallon.

Who did?!?!?! The only thing I noticed was the price of food went up. People live outside of the cities you know. And we drove the same ammount. What it DID do though, was take money away from the bars, resturants, movie theaters, stores, shopping malls...etc because all of our expendable cash went to gas. My God, what planet do you live on?

The only thing that suffered was...everything that people might have spent money on. Seriously, there are no trains, buses, or public transport for 70% of the US population you fuck. (minus taxi's which are just as bad and more expensive). The Majority of people live outside of Chicago, LA, and New York. In Omaha, there are 3 buses, and unless I want to report to work 2 hours early and stay until 6PM it is not an option for me. Plus, it is 4.5 miles to the nearest bus stop, and I don't live in the boonies by any means.

You just might be the most idealistic retard I have ever met. People DID lose their jobs and their houses. And not because they drove SUV's. It is because they had to shut down their stores and business because no one was spending money there. But hey, Wal-mart did ok.

[Whiffleball]

Who did?!?!?! The only thing I noticed was the price of food went up. People live outside of the cities you know. And we drove the same ammount. what is DID do though, was take money away from the bars, resturants, movie theaters, stores, shopping malls...etc because all of our expendable cash went to gas. My God, what planet do you live on?

The only thing that suffered was...everything that people might have spent money on. Seriously, there are no trains, buses, or public transport for 70% of the US population you fuck. (minus taxi's which are just as bad and more expensive). The Majority of people live outside of Chicago, LA, and New York. In Omaha, there are 3 buses, and unless I want to report to work 2 hours early and stay until 6PM it is not an option for me. Plus, it is 4.5 miles to the nearest bus stop, and I don't live in the boonies by any means.

You just might be the most idealistic retard I have ever met. People DID lose their jobs and their houses. And not because they drove SUV's. It is because they had to shut down their stores and business because no one was spending money there. But hey, Wal-mart did ok.

Well, there's nothing really to say that a gas tax would have to raise the price of gas to its highest point (I believe the average was $4.11 across the country); as I pointed out, you could raise the price of gas to 20%-25% that and still generate a substantial amount of revenue. But redsox39 does indeed highlight an important problem with just raising the gas tax without giving them something back to insure they stimulate the economy.






















(nationalize the commanding heights and kids selling lemonade on street corners too and impose a punitive Wealth Tax of 110% on the richest Americans)

[Morfin]

Maybe it's just me...

The Big 3 are selling higher-mileage cars along with SUVs, pick-ups, and other gas guzzlers. The Big 3 is telling Congress, as are others, that Americans continue to want to buy SUVs, pick-ups, etc., especially when gas is going down in price.

Congress seems to be telling the Big 3, "We don't care what your customers want, you need to be selling more gas-efficient cars." Isn't that the equivalent of forcing Frito-Lay to stop selling Doritos because they aren't healthy, even if Americans want to eat Doritos?

I'm not absolving the Big 3, but no one is putting a gun to the Americans' heads forcing them to buy SUVs and pick-ups. Why are the Big 3 bad for giving people what they apparently want to drive?

[Claydon]

You know, if we made Claydon Emperor of the world, all your problems would be solved. Keep a steady supply of asian women to my harem, and all will be good for all of you.

[Morfin]

If "we" made Claydon Emperor of the World, there would be mass suicides, led by Asian women.

[Claydon]

If "we" made Claydon Emperor of the World, there would be mass suicides, led by Asian women.

YOU LIE!

I would be a benevolent dictator!

[Debo]

Oil is still subsidized in the US compared to other places like Europe. I'm not sure how they survive from taxing their gas to death. Jedi Socialist mind tricks they have.

They also have less road to travel and they have substitutes for cars (e.g., high speed railroads, subways, goats. etc.). In the USA, we don't have the same options that our friends across the pond have.

Government money and its availability is pretty subjective. For instance, Social Security has the surplus money to spend on its recipients, but politicians choose to spend it on social programs and tax cuts to make them feel good...

My main problem with this is that we all know that our elected representatives from both parties have been spending money out of the SS trust fund for decades, yet we don't have a problem with this?

When SS goes bust, we have ourselves to blame. Book that.

We had the gas tax in order to pay for roads through the Highway Trust fund. Which is why a gas tax holiday is irresponsible and based on the naive assumption that those feel good politicians would be inclined to redirect funding to highways by magically rolling over their pet social programs.

Even if you're not inclined to a 4 dollar hike, raising the tax to meet inflation would at least provide adequate funding for an well maintained infrastructure commerce desperately needs.

When did we have a gas tax holiday? I remember McCain proposing one, but I don't remember the government enacting one. There is a difference between the two.

Like I said before, the money is there...we just choose to spend it on poor people instead of the people that are actually paying the bills (e.g., social spending instead of spending on infrastructure).

Nice strawman. A proportionate tax hike would not make the US oil free or a breeding ground for terrorist hideouts.

There are environmentally minded groups that want to expand the gas tax's intended function, but even if you oppose that position, you don't have to eliminate the entire tax and everything that came from it.


Yes and no. You don't need to eliminate the gas tax, but you also don't need to raise it to fight a boogie man like global warming.

And I don't know where you got the terrorist thing from.

You're painting me into a position I'm not making, but I'll bite and play Devil's Advocate. I'm guess a crazy tax hike that tops off the total price at around 3.50 would not devote it's entire earnings to the Highway Trust fund. A genuine environmentally minded politician would either direct the extra money to reduce taxes/broaden tax exceptions on base foods or use it to subsidize funding into energy alternatives. And I doubt there would be a dramatic increase on food prices that is disproportionate to inflationary effects of a gas increase. This isn't a supply limited price increase, so the price for alternative fuels such as corn ethanol would not increase. Therefore the incentives to reduce the food supply through corn conversion would not be as lucrative.

If truckers are really butthurt from the tax, reduce the tax burden (from the 3.50 proposed cap) on diesel and promote subsidies for refineries that are near the cutting edge for producing ultra low sulfur diesel. Diesel is already more expensive than gasoline as it already is, so in the short term, truck drivers would not be as hit hard compared to regular drivers. This might even open the market for European auto models that have very efficient diesel engines. Yes, that would be an added subsidy to truckers, but the food prices! Think about the food prices!...

I'm guessing from an environmentalist's standpoint that a simple ginormous gas tax hike would not spark a green revolution, but using it in conjunction with other policies would enforce a basement standard for promoting alternatives. That should be what's debated instead of the crazy tax on it's own merits.
[/QUOTE]

I am not painting you into a corner at all, you are the one that complained about the status of the middle class, not me. I simply pointed out that the tax hike that you are advocating will have a greater impact on the poor than it will the wealthy.

There is no denying that a spike in the price of oil will have an impact on everything that we, as consumers, purchase. It ranges from gasoline to plastics to chemicals to lubricants [insert KY joke here].

Simply jacking up the price of petroleum without having a viable substitute is insanity. We shouldn't even be wasting our time talking about a tax on oil unless we have a real alternative to it available to us in massive quantities.

[freegood]

Yes and no. You don't need to eliminate the gas tax, but you also don't need to raise it to fight a boogie man like global warming.


I want to raise it to match inflation.


And I don't know where you got the terrorist thing from.


I took the cave in Afghanistan mention and went with it.


I am not painting you into a corner at all, you are the one that complained about the status of the middle class, not me. I simply pointed out that the tax hike that you are advocating will have a greater impact on the poor than it will the wealthy.

Hmm, a gas tax increase can hurt the middle/lower class, but there can be efforts to mitigate expected impacts.


There is no denying that a spike in the price of oil will have an impact on everything that we, as consumers, purchase. It ranges from gasoline to plastics to chemicals to lubricants [insert KY joke here].


Then increase the tax at the pump.


Simply jacking up the price of petroleum without having a viable substitute is insanity. We shouldn't even be wasting our time talking about a tax on oil unless we have a real alternative to it available to us in massive quantities.

There are real alternatives, but none are economically viable with an on-demand infrastructure. Improving fuel efficiency by 15% would in itself save as much fuel as an ANWR or whatever was saved from adding corn ethanol to the gas blend.

Again, improving efficiency by itself won't end environmental and supply problems, just as raising a tax by itself would not wean consumers off a largely inelastic good.

[Yelram]

Oh god, anyone in favor of this is a fucking mental midget, and deserves to be drawn and quartered. If you want to make more revenue for the government, you need to make GDP HIGHER not lower, you raise taxes on fuel, and immediately you will see a loss in government revenue, and a loss of disposable income, and LESS FUEL WILL BE CONSUMED. Many of you are so fucking brain dead, that you think LESS fuel being used is GOOD for the economy. So even if you raise the tax, overall people will use less, which will produce less revenue, while robbing the wealth producing citizens of this country of their means of production.

[Claydon]

This is right up there with taxing the shit out of cigarettes with the concept of lowering demand for cigarettes to prevent cancer, heart disease etc. Well, this is a flawed concept because for one, states depended on the revenue from tobacco taxes (when they were reasonable) and now that people are smoking less the states are having to come up with the income elsewhere (increase in property taxes, payroll taxes etc). When in reality it has been shown that smokers actually save us money because quite frankly, they do not live as long.

[Hoser]

Claydon that is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen you say.

I have estimated that in 1995, under universal health insurance, people who never smoked will pay $55 billion toward the health-care costs of smoking. This is one of many important, but less quantifiable external costs of cigarette use. The $11 to $12 billion increase in net revenues in 1995-- to be derived from the Administration's proposed cigarette tax hike-- will not come close to covering these external costs.
http://www.mit.edu/people/jeffrey/House_Testimony_Nov_1993.html

Yes it is true that smokers will die earlier and will not collect as much of their social security, but at the same time you need to realize that if they did not smoke they would have thousands upon thousands of dollars to put into the economy. They would also take far less in health care, which they are not making up for with the taxes on their smokes. There is also the extra health care for those who have to breath in the second hand smoke.

Everything I have ever seen that didn't come from a cigarette company or smokers lobby has shown the same thing. Smokers are now and have always been a burden on society.

A higher excise tax on smokes would make very few quit, and the revenue lost by those who quit would be made up by those who are still smoking and paying more tax on those smokes.

[Insomniac]

The same could be said of alcohol; that's just wasted money.

But they die before they stop being productive, which saves us money and frees up wealth.

[Claydon]

Claydon that is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen you say.


http://www.mit.edu/people/jeffrey/House_Testimony_Nov_1993.html

Yes it is true that smokers will die earlier and will not collect as much of their social security, but at the same time you need to realize that if they did not smoke they would have thousands upon thousands of dollars to put into the economy. They would also take far less in health care, which they are not making up for with the taxes on their smokes. There is also the extra health care for those who have to breath in the second hand smoke.

Everything I have ever seen that didn't come from a cigarette company or smokers lobby has shown the same thing. Smokers are now and have always been a burden on society. By purchasing cigs they are putting billions into the economy, to the tobacco farmers, to the share holders of tobacco companies, to the employees of tobacco companies, to the truckers to carry the tobacco products, to the store employees that sell the tobacco......and on and on.

A higher excise tax on smokes would make very few quit, and the revenue lost by those who quit would be made up by those who are still smoking and paying more tax on those smokes.

You fail...we don't have universal health care in the US (thankfully) and if smokers are dieing in their 60s and 70s that is billions less in SS payments They put billions into the economy by purchasing cigs, to the tobacco farmers, to the employees of tobacco companies, drivers who deliver said products, stock holders of tobacco companies, and the employees of the stores who sell the tobacco.

[Mustard]

I say no.

The governments need to figure out how to do more with less or the same, not the same with more.

[Claydon]

I say no.

The governments need to figure out how to do more with less or the same, not the same with more.

That is mighty republican of you sink!

[Hoser]

Why is it that you mention your political stance or others political stance every chance you get? i see it more from you then anyone else by far.

Again I think gas taxes, if raised at all, should be done on a per states or even per city basis. Someone who likes in NYC (has no real need to drive) should have to pay more for gas then someone who live in the middle of Wyoming (must drive).

If the taxes are raised, there would have to be a very strict plan on how the money is used. ie. road repair, health care, or other set out programs. This isn't just another way for the higher ups to fatten their wallet.

[Claydon]

Why is it that you mention your political stance or others political stance every chance you get? i see it more from you then anyone else by far.



it was a joke dipshit.....man up and move on.

as for gas taxes, i prefer paying $1.60 for gasoline, raising the tax will only go to programs I do not want to pay for. For instance, this pregnant bloated cunt at my office for whom we pay $18/hr to do nothing but answer the phones and because she knows how to spread her legs for random guys she gets free health care, free food, 50% of her rent paid, and god knows what other kind of assistance (not to mention her $2500 'tax' refunds). Yah, thats right, fuck her and her bastard children, I want my tax dollars to go for the many and not the few who are fucking stupid.

Therein lies the problem, tax increases that are suppose to go to something specific tend to end up in bullshit programs. And yes, women who get knocked up by dipshit irresponsible men is a waste of money.

Why we cannot have laws that say you cannot reproduce if you are on the government dime I will never understand, and why we can't go after these dead beat fucking fathers and put them to work scraping gum off of city sidewalks, or cleaning public toilets I will never understand either.

[Mustard]

That is mighty republican of you sink!
I am of the mind that common sense knows no political party.

[Claydon]

I am of the mind that common sense knows no political party.

You are like a massive enigma....... quite massive indeed ;)

rumor has it you bend light

[Mustard]

You are like a massive enigma....... quite massive indeed ;)

rumor has it you bend light
I wish I could bend light like a star can.

[Kerjack]

Blah

[Da Raider]

I think calling it a tax is a misnomer.
When you pay to go to a movie, is that a tax?
If we want to perpetuate our existence, we need to maintain the current infrastructure while improving the means by which me travel. The caveat here is that making petrol based travel prohibitively expensive it spurs all the right moves in all the right directions. People should make the decision to live closer to work, or work closer to home. Communities should put their allotment of the fees generated into public transport, and overall people should quit acting like motor transport is a right for us to rape the future.
Jack that fee. $20/gallon wouldn't be too little for me. You'd see some people getting motivated. Maybe it would kill a few off too, which wouldn't be a bad thing either.

I hope you are trolling here...taking good ideas that people should do and then forcing it on them with a consumption tax is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of and spits in the face of the Constitution. How come everyone automatically thinks that the government (and tax increases) is always the solution, when in reality, they are closer to the problem?

How about maybe giving people tax breaks instead of hikes? Like, a tax cut for working remotely instead of driving in to work everyday? Or additional credits for carpooling rather than driving solo to work? I prefer incentive base solutions for our problems, rather than taxing the shit out of gas and giving the government cart blanche to spend like drunken sailors.

[Debo]

Why is it that you mention your political stance or others political stance every chance you get? i see it more from you then anyone else by far.

Again I think gas taxes, if raised at all, should be done on a per states or even per city basis. Someone who likes in NYC (has no real need to drive) should have to pay more for gas then someone who live in the middle of Wyoming (must drive).

If the taxes are raised, there would have to be a very strict plan on how the money is used. ie. road repair, health care, or other set out programs. This isn't just another way for the higher ups to fatten their wallet.

As I pointed out on the first page, NY already has the highest gas tax in the country. You seem to be fine with this because a larger percentage of NYC residents use public transportation. Fair enough, but you also need to realize that our public transportation system bleeds cash out of its anus.

In summary: we have the highest gas tax, the highest city - state tax combo and our MTA fares are going to go through the roof because some guy that drives a bus is demanding that he receives a gold plated medical and pension plan.

Raising taxes is always a way for the pols to fatten their coffers. Show me an example of when it wasn't.

[justhere]

Yes. Roads need to be maintained.

[conkling]

I'm all for a gas tax, even if it hits us financially-- we need to stop using oil for burning in cars. A 50 cent a gallon gas tax would do the following:

1. people would drive less. Not everyone, but enough to make a dent.
2. The tax would fun alternative fuels/transit, creating a much needed base for the upcoming future without oil (at the rate we're going the world will run out).
3. less reliance on foreign oil = less dealing with crappy countries
4. less use of oil will bring down the prices for oil so it will offset the actual cost (not 100%), and take more money out of those crappy peoples' hands
5. fuel inefficient old trucks would become a liability instead of an asset, and the companies that use them would buy new ones that would then put the people who build them/sell them to work.
6. Poor people can get a subsidy to offset this cost.

Things are so bad now we have the opportunity for real change, finally.

[Claibo]

I'm all for a gas tax, even if it hits us financially-- we need to stop using oil for burning in cars. A 50 cent a gallon gas tax would do the following:

1. people would drive less. Not everyone, but enough to make a dent.
2. The tax would fun alternative fuels/transit, creating a much needed base for the upcoming future without oil (at the rate we're going the world will run out).
3. less reliance on foreign oil = less dealing with crappy countries
4. less use of oil will bring down the prices for oil so it will offset the actual cost (not 100%), and take more money out of those crappy peoples' hands
5. fuel inefficient old trucks would become a liability instead of an asset, and the companies that use them would buy new ones that would then put the people who build them/sell them to work.
6. Poor people can get a subsidy to offset this cost.

Things are so bad now we have the opportunity for real change, finally.


you really are an idiot....

[wonderllama]

I find it annoying when the only solution offered to problems like this is to raise the tax.
How about making the price of the alternative cheaper.
Electric cars, Hydrogen cars, Hybrid cars...the reason we don't buy these things is because they cost a frickin fortune!

Don't be under any allusion that an increase in the tax on gas/petrol would simply be a money-grabbing exercise. If the US created smaller cars with better mileage, the cost of gas would be far less of a problem.

It's like a tranny complaining about his toenails ripping his pantyhose and deciding the solution is to cut them. That ain't addressing the issue!