The Chainlink

 

  

Views: 684

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Joel makes a lot of excellent recommendations here. Reducing our oil consumption requires a multi pronged approach, including investment in public transit, new vehicle technology, new energy production methods and well-directed incentives that change the behavior of companies and consumers alike.
This of course costs money, a lot of money. With the soaring government deficits I don't think there is the appetite to go on another spending binge. So to make this happen, we need it to pay for itself (at least partially).
That's where tax comes in. Taxation creates government revenue that can be spend on all those points below. By taxing unwanted behavior, we can also limit the amount of incentives required to make desirable alternatives competitive.

Clark touches on another good point in a separate post. Countries with high gas taxes didn't arrive there overnight. Instead it was a decades long process of small increments, sometimes a few penny per gallon, sometimes a little more. Except for a few drastic increases, none of them really had a negative impact on economic growth. I googled for facts on historic gas taxes, but came up emptyhanded.

Joel said:
Whether for political or environmental reasons, I think nearly everyone agrees that we need to use less gasoline. However, a $6/gallon gas tax is a terrible idea. Let me enumerate some of the problems, and then go on to suggest some alternatives.
1. A gas tax isn't the same as other "sin" taxes. Alcohol and tobacco aren't necessary, transportation is. Yes, there are multiple modes of transportation, but some aren't always options. 2. Gas taxes are regressive. Wealthy people can buy a more fuel efficient car, the poor cannot. The wealthy can move closer to work, the poor cannot. The wealthy can better absorb the increased cost of gas and keep driving, the poor cannot.
3. Cars are necessary. There are maybe a dozen cities in the US that have usable transit. Even in cities like Chicago there are areas that have little to no coverage -- in any usable sense. Just take a look at the CTA map. Notice all of the areas with no train and only minimal bus service?

I think there are ways to use taxes and incentives to change gasoline usage. There are many things we can do, and it isn't simply a matter of making gasoline too expensive to buy.

We need to realize that cars and trucks are a necessity and will remain as such for decades. There are things to do that will reduce their usage at least.

4. Tax vehicles at the time of purchase based on their MPG rating. Gas guzzling SUVs get taxed at a higher rate than small compacts. SUVs are expensive already, so the extra tax burden is on those that can afford expensive new cars, and pushes people towards more efficient vehicles.
5. Incentives for companies and organizations to increase carpooling and transit usage. More people per car/bus means fewer vehicles on the road.
6. Make flexible work hours more common. A huge amount of the pollution caused by cars is the result of idling or traveling slow. Rush hour and gridlock are horrible for the environment. Smoothing traffic so that the roads run at better efficiency all day would reduce pollution, even without reducing the number of cars. (There are policies in the works for this, mostly in the form of peak-hour toll increases).
7. Improve public transit. Like I said before, even in Chicago it is mediocre at best. Busses run infrequently and have terribly short running hours.

We can also make cars themselves more efficient. Mostly, make them electric. Yes, electricity may cause pollution, but it is more efficient in generation than individual cars and doesn't rely on gasoline.

8. We need incentives for electric vehicles.
9. We need more clean power plants.
10. Encourage nuclear power.

As for alternative fuels... None are entirely ready, at least not in the US.
11. Corn-based ethanol is a farce. It is nothing more than another handout to the corn industry. It is inneficient and has sent food prices soaring.
12. We can invest in different types of ethanol (algae, switchgrass, etc.), but it takes time. More money only helps progress so much.
13. Remember, it has to work for cars currently on the roads. Once again, the poor cannot purchase new cars immediately, so it will be a long, gradual transition to any new fuel.

And of course, we can help bicycling.

14. Install proper bicycling infrastructure. Chicago is trying, but is still a billion years behind places like The Netherlands. We need actual bike lanes that aren't in the door zone. Law enforcement to penalize drivers and cyclists who are a safety hazard.
15. Once there is infrastructure, maintain it. The bike lanes always have the most potholes and garbage. They don't get plowed in the winter.
16. Better integration across modes. More park & ride stations for the CTA and Metra, make it easier to take bikes on busses and trains, indoor bike parking at all El stops. If it is a massive pain in the ass to change modes, people will just drive.
17. Make bikes tax-free. The opposite of taxing cars or gas, give people a direct reason to buy and use a bike.
Cars in Europe aren't smaller because of bureaucratic central planning in the aftermath of war or because of absurd rates of taxation. Even if WWII had somehow been averted Europeans would still be driving tiny cars because the majority of their cities were developed long before the advent of internal combustion so the streets are smaller.

I also find it particularly annoying when people claim, "I love the US," and proceed to qualify it with, "but..." as if that first part of their statement is merely rhetorical window dressing. If you want to gain traction in pointless dinner table debates with your European in-laws over who keeps the cleanest house, you should start by not referring to freedom in quotation marks.

Clark said:
I agree with Duppie's continuing argument. My wife is from Europe, and we go over there annually, so I can tell you that even for advanced countries, you seldom see more than 4-lane divided highways. The reason? Many fewer people drive hours every day. And they drive smaller cars, and they drive much less annual milage. And there are very few long-distance trucks on those highways too...most freight travels by high-efficiency rail or water...so their roads and highways stay in excellent shape with little maintenance.

As usual Wikipedia has some interesting statistics - remember a liter is about 1/4 of a US gallon:
...Most European countries have high fuel taxes. The prices have traditionally been three to four times the price in the United States, with prices during 2000-2005 of €1,50/liter (about US$2.14/liter or $8.10/gal) while the US had prices around $1.50/gal or $0.40/liter....

Since WWII many of those countries have had "planned" economies where developers were forced to build compact towns around transit hubs, leaving great amounts of natural space for recreation. With our "freedom" in the US, we've sprawled Chicago and other US cities out 80miles in all directions. I love the US...but it is increasingly difficult to defend our national positions in my debates with my in-laws. Getting our gas taxes in line with the rest of the First World would almost be a no-brainer...despite the howls of outrage from various uneducated and small-minded Americans.


Duppie said:
...if we tax gasoline, then the vehicles will at first appear to be cheaper as the cost to drive them will be cheaper...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...
Just curious but what do you think the increase in the price of fuel is going to do to the very poor when the public transportation they rely on has to raise prices in order to offset the fuel tax?

Do you understand that you are not just going to have the fuel price increase from the tax but also see an increase in the actual price of the fuel pre-tax because of the increased delivery cost?

And this is the one question that you never seem to answer, one I would think that as someone who identifies themselves as 'very poor' you would find important: What about what a tax like this is going to do to the price of the necessities in life? What are you going to do when the prices of the food you buy at the store doubles because of the cost of shipping is now sky high? How do you expect the 'very poor' to be able to afford a GIGANTIC increase in their cost of living?

Really unless you can address the questions in that last paragraph with a clear and well thought out answers you are nothing but a complete and total crack put with a poorly thought out and impractical harebrained scheme who is just trolling the board up here.

Use your brain and address the biggest problem with your idea or shut up.

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.
Did you even read what he wrote!?

He just explained to you yet another reason your scheme is a horrible idea and you are either choosing to completely ignore it or just don't get it...

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)
Owned one, converted several and am going to be converting another.

It is not as easy to run as it seems on the surface and modern diesel engines with pollution controls and computer controlled injection pumps on them do not much care for grease a as a fuel source. If we switched to that as a fuel we would have to take 2 giant steps BACK in the arena of efficiency and emissions on diesel engine. An old school diesel is one of the dirtiest motors out there.

I think that it is safe to say that I am one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to diesel engines and running them on other fuels and I can tell you right now that large scale conversion to greasal on over the road trucks is not a realistic idea due to power out put, emissions and parts wear and tear issues. Ever wonder why new diesel engines can only run about a 10% bio fuel?

Also, diesels where not made to run on *any* fuel, try running one on gas and let me know how it goes. Or try running unaltered Jet-A (which is just a drier version of #1 or #2 diesel) or kerosene (also VERY close to diesel fuel) and let me know how long your injection pump lasts.

Roger said:
greasecar.com. These diesel engines run on used, post consumer, vegetable oil. The kind of oil that every restaurant that uses a deep fryer has to pay to get ride of. The environmental impact is lower that petroleum, the availability is unbelievably higher, it is a renewable resource, and it saves money from every angle of production.
This is not a new idea, in fact, diesel engines were designed to run on a whole myriad of fuels. Guess who doesn't want you to know that.
In short, the solution to fossil fuels already exists. The fact that the US is afraid to implement them is due to the public lack of knowledge. The nail in to coffin to the argument of a non viable "grease engine" is the fact that Wal Mart (arguably the most money hungry and socially irresponsible business in the US) has a whole fleet of these green machines delivering lead coated toys to our nations children at super low prices. When you don't pay for gas, delivery is more profitable.

I hope this helps you realize that there are solutions to this giant problem that is currently killing the Gulf of Mexico.

notoriousDUG said:
OK, tell me a readily available fuel source, one that is not based on a staple of our food supply, that is going to be able to, in less than two years, replace diesel fuel.
Jill,

I just ran numbers because I was interested in it but your fuel tax would actually put me out of business or increase the cost of my service to my customers.

I have a need to get technicians all over the Midwest, and sometimes the country, in a timely manner with hundreds of pounds of parts and tools. I have jobs that occasionally require me to transport a large welder/generator and air compressor to customers sites as well as some where I have to utilize a truck with a crane on it.

How would you expect a business such as mine to cope with the fuel tax?
Bike there! Bicycle trailers do exist.

notoriousDUG said:
Jill,
I just ran numbers because I was interested in it but your fuel tax would actually put me out of business or increase the cost of my service to my customers.
I have a need to get technicians all over the Midwest, and sometimes the country, in a timely manner with hundreds of pounds of parts and tools. I have jobs that occasionally require me to transport a large welder/generator and air compressor to customers sites as well as some where I have to utilize a truck with a crane on it.

How would you expect a business such as mine to cope with the fuel tax?
Simple, pass on the cost to the consumer. Businesses don't pay taxes in a direct sense, it is a cost of doing business and the customer ultimately foots the bill.

notoriousDUG said:
Jill,

I just ran numbers because I was interested in it but your fuel tax would actually put me out of business or increase the cost of my service to my customers.

I have a need to get technicians all over the Midwest, and sometimes the country, in a timely manner with hundreds of pounds of parts and tools. I have jobs that occasionally require me to transport a large welder/generator and air compressor to customers sites as well as some where I have to utilize a truck with a crane on it.

How would you expect a business such as mine to cope with the fuel tax?
Yes Doug, just screw your customers - who might not be your customers much longer if you do.

Joel said:
Simple, pass on the cost to the consumer. Businesses don't pay taxes in a direct sense, it is a cost of doing business and the customer ultimately foots the bill.
notoriousDUG said:
Jill,

I just ran numbers because I was interested in it but your fuel tax would actually put me out of business or increase the cost of my service to my customers. I have a need to get technicians all over the Midwest, and sometimes the country, in a timely manner with hundreds of pounds of parts and tools. I have jobs that occasionally require me to transport a large welder/generator and air compressor to customers sites as well as some where I have to utilize a truck with a crane on it.

How would you expect a business such as mine to cope with the fuel tax?
Do you think businesses don't factor the cost of taxes into their services? It is no different than employee salary, rent, raw materials, etc. It is just another bill that needs to be paid, so the price of the product or service must be sufficient to pay that bill.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Yes Doug, just screw your customers - who might not be your customers much longer if you do.
Joel said:
Simple, pass on the cost to the consumer. Businesses don't pay taxes in a direct sense, it is a cost of doing business and the customer ultimately foots the bill.
notoriousDUG said:
Jill,

I just ran numbers because I was interested in it but your fuel tax would actually put me out of business or increase the cost of my service to my customers. I have a need to get technicians all over the Midwest, and sometimes the country, in a timely manner with hundreds of pounds of parts and tools. I have jobs that occasionally require me to transport a large welder/generator and air compressor to customers sites as well as some where I have to utilize a truck with a crane on it. How would you expect a business such as mine to cope with the fuel tax?
Here's a dose of real life for you all . . .

A friend is the head of an urban bike advocacy org and has a seat at the table at state planning/budgeting meetings. She's had to sit there and listen to these folks try to brainstorm ideas for getting people to drive more.

That's right, if you start basing tax revenues on the amount of gasoline used, government bean counters will plan and budget around that revenue, and will become focused on making sure they get it at the expense of any possible spirit or original intent of the tax.

I disagree strongly with the bulk of arguments against such a tax in this thread, but can apparently find common ground that the gas tax idea is borne of a shallow understanding of how government and taxation work.
I know they do, but massively raising the price of gasoline would effectively screw the customer.

Joel said:
Do you think businesses don't factor the cost of taxes into their services? It is no different than employee salary, rent, raw materials, etc. It is just another bill that needs to be paid, so the price of the product or service must be sufficient to pay that bill.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Yes Doug, just screw your customers - who might not be your customers much longer if you do.
Joel said:
Simple, pass on the cost to the consumer. Businesses don't pay taxes in a direct sense, it is a cost of doing business and the customer ultimately foots the bill.
notoriousDUG said:
Jill,

I just ran numbers because I was interested in it but your fuel tax would actually put me out of business or increase the cost of my service to my customers. I have a need to get technicians all over the Midwest, and sometimes the country, in a timely manner with hundreds of pounds of parts and tools. I have jobs that occasionally require me to transport a large welder/generator and air compressor to customers sites as well as some where I have to utilize a truck with a crane on it. How would you expect a business such as mine to cope with the fuel tax?

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service