Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on May 10, 2010 at 2:53am

I believe the right to own a car (or a house, or a yacht, or the entire first season of Hogan's Heroes on Betamax, or whatever you'd really like for that matter) doesn't come from a higher power or a sovereign or anyone. It's is rooted in our very existence. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that it isn't even granted to us by the United States Constitution which acknowledges that the right exists and explicitly forbids it being taken away.

And youthinks foolishly because you are not omnipotent. You have no way of knowing how poor people manage their income or what goods they are or are not able to afford. This is the fatal conceit of paternalistic busybodies. They proclaim to know what's best for everyone on account of some extrasensory capability to determine individual conditions.

It's also telling that you arrived at the conclusion that somebody will get the shaft from such a proposal, because ideas like this are never about the common good. They're wholly punitive, and as long as somebody feels the pain then the measure is considered a success. It doesn't really matter who that somebody is.


Duppie said:

True.. but also a bogus argument, since I fail to see how a poor person can afford a car today. After all, federal poverty guidelines, define poverty as an individual making less than $10,830. After rent and food, that leaves not much room for a car methinks.
Also, where does that notion come from that people in this country have a God given right to own a car? Lastly, somebody will always get hit hardest by legislation. Whether it's the poor, the sick, the healthy, working people, retirees.... That in itself is no reason not to enact legislation....

Michael Perz said:

Precious few people ever seem to take into consideration the undeniable fact that the poor would be hit hardest by what is being proposed. Absolutely no one earning an income around or below the commonly agreed upon poverty level has the option of purchasing a new, fuel efficient hybrid that runs on unicorn farts and good intentions. Even with the most generous subsidies for the initial purchase one is left with the cost of general upkeep which for an emerging technology is astronomically high. Worst of all, it is the poor that are often reliant upon motorized transportation as a simple matter of survival. Whether it is due to physical limitations, family obligations, or work needs, they often do not have the luxury of abandoning their cars in favor of whatever "alternative" modes of transportation there may be.

Permalink Reply by Jack on May 10, 2010 at 3:31am

You know, one of the great things about this country is the freedom of choice. If I choose to cycle, its great for the environment, my health, and lowers traffic. If I chose to drive my SUV to the store, its convienent and allows me to do other things with my time. I had to pay for my bike, as I have to pay for my truck, the insurance, gas, & maintanence. I pay for the truck costs without complaining.

I would have my choices severely altered if a $6 tax on gas was imposed to attempt to force me to alter my methods of transportation. The current cost of gas/oil/etc is set at (roughly) market value. Jacking it up to force a "choice" (or method of transportation) on someone isn't really the answer. Let the free market dictate such decisions. Hybrid cars currently cost more than non-hybrids and payback in fuel savings takes years....

What if this was a discussion about having an annual bike registration that runs $185/year (varying scale for the value of your bike) and you have to carry insurance on your bike like you would for an automobile. These costs would help develop cycling infrastructure and maintain it. It would cost you roughly $100 a month for insurance plus annual registration. You still up for widely taxing a group for the further development of eco-friendly power at $1385/year? Or would that be outrageous?

The proposed $6/gallon gas tax would have cost me on average over each of the past 5 years a little over $8,000 (6722gal used and 121K driven in the past 5 yrs) on top of the $16,805 I paid for fuel (avg $2.50/gal est). Aren't there taxes for road projects already levied on gasoline? How well is that fund being spent? Taxing more doesn't mean the money will go to its intended target (just look at social security).

I am not "enraged" about this idea as it doesn't have real legs, but find it interesting that a lot of people think that if implemented that the funds would be directed and applied towards the further development of such infrastructure and technology in a more efficient manner than the free market.

Permalink Reply by Ali on May 10, 2010 at 6:39am

There is plenty of petroleum to be had...The issue with oil is that most of the oil reserves are in hard to reach places sometimes under thousands of feet of water, or deeper in than the Saudi oil which after only a few hundred of feet of drilling literally sprays out of the well...Most of the oil is deeper, in harder to reach places. Also there are different grades of oil some inferior to others, these reserves used to be considered "uneconomical" when the oil was cheaper as the price of oil goes up all these reserves are becoming more profitable to harvest. Siberian oil is a perfect example of this. As are the huge oil reserves that are resting under the North Sea and the Caspian Sea.

We are not going to run out of oil anytime soon, and for the you to suggest a $6 dollar tax, is not only ridiculous, but simply not doable in this world...We are the largest consumer of oil, but China is not that far behind. Chinese technology is a lot more underdeveloped, not to mention that it is a lot more dirtier compared to the US. Want to do a world a favor? Suggest Chinese to develop greener technologies, have them start using unleaded gasoline, have then equip their cars with catalytic converters. You can also add India to this list sooner than later...

While we are on the subject, might as well mention without the fossil fuels we would not be able to get to work, heat our homes, or run the computers that is enabling us to have this discussion. For some reason, general public is against one of the greenest forms of energy that is also very affordable; which is nuclear power...Everyone thinks about the Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island when nuclear power is mentioned, but we are more than capable controlling nuclear power plants, and we are not nearly as shoddy at engineering as the Soviets were. What's more is that the only pollution nuclear energy produces is warm water, which is relatively a lot less harmful compared to coal burning plants which we are getting most of our energy from. Spent fuel could be safely disposed of underground disposal sites, which would be relatively cheap to store it once we are willing to commit to a large nuclear energy building program.

Honestly, green energy is mostly a myth at this point and our dependence on oil is a truth. Want to make green energy a reality? Than we have to spend money on other forms of green energy at first such as nuclear while we let other technologies develop. Wind farms are an unrealistic and a relatively inefficient way of producing green energy...Want real green energy? I suggest you look into geothermal, wave generators which we can easily generate a lot more energy by occupying a smaller area and generating energy on a more reliable basis and are more efficient.

So with that being said I urge you to think twice about suggesting such a ridiculous, unrealistic, laughable and pointless tax that will accomplish absolutely nothing for the human kind...

-Ali

jillnerkowski said:

not to mention that, we are using beyond our stores of petroleum, and buying form overseas, which is expensive both with money and lives.

Permalink Reply by Lee Diamond on May 10, 2010 at 8:39am

File this under: "Just as reliable as the rest of my advice and ideas."

jillnerkowski said:

to tank ridin' ryan:
you can keep half an eye on the road below and pick up all dropped and discarded liquid lip balm products or any silicon based lubricants for any body part,hair included, those work the best on chains.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 10, 2010 at 10:20am

Where are they already doing this and what kind of 'research' have you done to get these facts?

I also want to be clear on something else; I could not get through the piece you have on your FB page about the Taliban but am I right in the understanding that you are pro-taliban?

jillnerkowski said:

also form my research, overseas everywhere they are already doing these things, they have smaller more economical cars and alternative vehicles, and in poor countries they have bicycles.
were the only ones who are still all american, all 19050's-1970's vehicles.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 10, 2010 at 2:04pm

jillnerkowski said:

also form my research, overseas everywhere they are already doing these things, they have smaller more economical cars and alternative vehicles[..]

Can you add some links? I'd be interested in those alternative vehicles that apparently are available everywhere

jillnerkowski said:

[...]and in poor countries they have bicycles.[...]

You do realize that people in poor countries ride bicycles because they are poor, not because they prefer bicycle over a car? Once their standards of living rise, they will switch to cars en masse, as is currently happening in China. Which, by the way, is one of the best reasons why we need improve the energy efficiency of our cars rigorously. Once all these new consumers are able to afford a car, gas consumption will rise significantly.

May I suggest that you rethink your message. I agree with what I think is the underlying message: reducing carbon footprint, create new jobs, and reduce dependence on foreign oil, but you bring it in a very negative way. $6 tax? small cars? Given the objections in this thread, I doubt that this will fly in a larger, less bike friendly enviroment.
If you haven't already done so, I suggest that as part of your research, you read Thomas L Friedman's excellent book "Hot, flat and crowded". You'll recognize a lot of ideas, but packaged in a much more upbeat pro growth message.

After all, this lady got it right 45 years ago

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on May 10, 2010 at 4:04pm

Howard, it's not a price hike to $6 per gallon. It's a $6 tax per gallon from what I can surmise from the post (I don't have, nor will I ever have a MyFace account, so I can't view the details).

So it would close to triple the price of gas assuming the price per gallon is about the same as it is today - around $3.25 by me.

H3N3 said:

I really wanted to stay out of this discussion.
But I have to add here that the CTA locked in a set rate on gas back when it was pushing $4 a gallon.
Not sure when it expires, but $6 a gallon would not be 'triple' . . .

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

To add to that, even if poor people have the option of using public transit, it's not like the transit systems are going to eat the increase in gas costs. Just look at the CTA's recent budgeting fiasco. Tripling the price of a gallon of gas would force them to raise fares (and probably lay off more workers and cut more services just for fun).

Michael Perz said:

Precious few people ever seem to take into consideration the undeniable fact that the poor would be hit hardest by what is being proposed. Absolutely no one earning an income around or below the commonly agreed upon poverty level has the option of purchasing a new, fuel efficient hybrid that runs on unicorn farts and good intentions. Even with the most generous subsidies for the initial purchase one is left with the cost of general upkeep which for an emerging technology is astronomically high. Worst of all, it is the poor that are often reliant upon motorized transportation as a simple matter of survival. Whether it is due to physical limitations, family obligations, or work needs, they often do not have the luxury of abandoning their cars in favor of whatever "alternative" modes of transportation there may be.

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on May 10, 2010 at 5:09pm

I seem to have lost the plot here. Sorry about that. I went off on the tangent of this idea affecting ALL oil products and not just being a tax on gasoline.

So, instead of calling you out for being a hypocrite (if you have a vehicle with an internal combustion engine, I can only assume it's diesel), I'm going to call you out on your sanctimonious BS.

While I realize that some people in big cities drive out of a matter of convenience, habit, or just laziness when they could just as well be on a bike or public transit, there are many people who don't have the option due to schedules, location or distance. I naively said that driving was a convenience to a woman I struck up a conversation with while doing the annual ride across Iowa last year. In her case, she has no choice but to drive due to how far she lives outside of Denver where she works. I stood corrected and enlightened. And as far as the "Just move" argument goes, ever heard of someone being offered a job somewhere but not able to afford the price of moving closer to his or her possible new workplace?

This tax would be an unjust punishment (some might even say cruel and unusual) for those who have no choice but to hop behind a steering wheel instead of a pair of handlebars or on public transit.

On top of that, as I said before, I hope you're ready to pay out the nose for a gallon of milk (and everything else).

And why just gasoline? Why is diesel fuel being let off the hook? Diesel vehicles are louder than gasoline vehicles - that's noise pollution right there while we're on the subject of reducing pollution. Or are you too concerned about actually having to pay out the nose for everything due to the fact that the vast majority of freight in this country travels by rails, and those locomotives run on....wait for it.....DIESEL FUEL!

jillnerkowski said:

to tank ridin' ryan:
you can keep half an eye on the road below and pick up all dropped and discarded liquid lip balm products or any silicon based lubricants for any body part,hair included, those work the best on chains.

Permalink Reply by Jack on May 11, 2010 at 4:08am

I understand that gasoline is not at market cost. There is a $0.18/gallon federal tax already imposed on it along with varying state taxes, local taxes, taxes on the total cost plus tax (i.e. chicago) The total cost in taxes per gallon in Chicago is $0.90/gallon currently. These taxes were imposed to (among other things) fund the transportation infrastructure that the vehicles utilize. My point is that taxes, no matter at what level, do not get spent in avenues they are "designed" to when implemented. Or if the money does go to for profit companies to complete research and development, they are inefficient at best. So, jacking the tax up to $6 per gallon (plus current "market cost") would not benefit the cause as much as people think.

Its not a perfect world, but government and politics have the final say in these decisions and they sure aren't going to work towards a solution that doesn't benefit them imediately or directly.

Jeff Schneider said:

Gasoline is not sold at market cost, because many costs are shifted onto the general public. We spend about $400 billion on our military every year; a significant part of this is used to provide security for the flow of oil world-wide. The costs of our wars in the middle east are IN ADDITION to this.

Also, EVERY business (practically) provides 'free' car parking for EVERY employee. Land is not 'free'. This cost is included in EVERYTHING you buy.

Persons more educated than myself can produce many other examples of the ways in which the oil culture is subsidized.

Other countries tax oil heavily, in part in order to avoid being so dependent on it as we are. I understand the contrary arguments, but overall wish that we had less oil, and less war.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on May 11, 2010 at 4:15am

I really don't know the best way to address this, so I'll just be blunt. You really should spend some time examining the basic principles of economics before giving way to your convictions. Currently your posts indicate a severe lack of understanding of the subject.

Demand does not in any way guarantee supply. Imagine that you govern an area that produces both wheat and rice, and that you decide to prohibitively tax wheat consumption because you feel that too many acres of land are being tilled in its production. Doing so will not give any incentives whatsoever for rice farmers to increase their production. In effect the rice farmers would end up with a monopoly on grain production and you'd end up with a lot more hungry people than there were before.

jillnerkowski said:

I found that after searching for alternative vehicles to post on my facebook page, just yesterday, and that, there are an incredible amount of electric and three wheel, hybrid, and miniature vehicles out for sale to drive as opposed to the standard 4 cylinder petrol car.
the problem is, that if they cost more money then a standard 4 cylinder, and there are no regulations governing what we drive, then who will buy them?
but if we tax gasoline, then the vehicles will at first appear to be cheaper ,as the cost to drive them will be cheaper, and then little by little as more and more of them appear for sale for this reason, DEMAND, then the actual cost of them will be cheaper as well.
This will not brush under the carpet the very poor like myself, because, already there are options of bicycles and motorized bikes , and public transportation, and these will become more and more available, as our roads change.
we have to admit that with our love of freedom, a gas tax sounds less supressive than govt. regulations would be, if our world becomes so polluted that it warrants such.
it seems better too because we would have govt. money to improve the roads.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on May 11, 2010 at 4:23am

Wow, that really went flying over your head.

jillnerkowski said:

Michael Perz said:

I really don't know the best way to address this, so I'll just be blunt. You really should spend some time examining the basic principles of economics before giving way to your convictions. Currently your posts indicate a severe lack of understanding of the subject.

Demand does not in any way guarantee supply. Imagine that you govern an area that produces both wheat and rice, and that you decide to prohibitively tax wheat consumption because you feel that too many acres of land are being tilled in its production. Doing so will not give any incentives whatsoever for rice farmers to increase their production. In effect the rice farmers would end up with a monopoly on grain production and you'd end up with a lot more hungry people than there were before.

jillnerkowski said:

I found that after searching for alternative vehicles to post on my facebook page, just yesterday, and that, there are an incredible amount of electric and three wheel, hybrid, and miniature vehicles out for sale to drive as opposed to the standard 4 cylinder petrol car.
the problem is, that if they cost more money then a standard 4 cylinder, and there are no regulations governing what we drive, then who will buy them?
but if we tax gasoline, then the vehicles will at first appear to be cheaper ,as the cost to drive them will be cheaper, and then little by little as more and more of them appear for sale for this reason, DEMAND, then the actual cost of them will be cheaper as well.
This will not brush under the carpet the very poor like myself, because, already there are options of bicycles and motorized bikes , and public transportation, and these will become more and more available, as our roads change.
we have to admit that with our love of freedom, a gas tax sounds less supressive than govt. regulations would be, if our world becomes so polluted that it warrants such.
it seems better too because we would have govt. money to improve the roads.

thats exactly what Im hoping for, the wheat ( the oil will become too expensive, and the alternative vehicles, the rice, will become competitive, instead of a luxery for yuppie and die hard greenies)

Permalink Reply by Ali on May 11, 2010 at 4:36am

It wasn't the Hudson River that caught fire as far as I know. It was the Cuyahoga River in Ohio...Please get your facts straight before claiming such things...For someone that is fighting for the environment, you seem to have a lot of your facts wrong. Also just hiking the tax on gasoline will not necessarily work, in fact it will never work. You seem to have a flawed understanding of economies of scale and an infant's understanding of economics in general...I suggest you go to your local library, and do some research before advocating such an laughable idea...

-Ali

jillnerkowski said:

I agree with you Jack. I wish we had less oil and less war too.
or maybe more oil, and less that has and will be burned. I like to imagine we are not all evil oil consumers only interested in driving with free spirits at the cost of our health and environment and futures, and I like to use the example that I learned in college: my teacher told us a story about in the midst of the industrial revolution, we burned and polluted and burned and polluted until the hudson river in new york caught fire from so much pollution and toxic dumping. Then the fight for the environment began, and it has been working.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page