I Think Democrats Should Push All Out For This One.

Kandahar said:

Presumably the chemical plant is producing something of marketable value (or else it wouldn't be in business). That does not absolve them of their responsibility to not foist their expenses off onto the local taxpayers.

Click to expand...

/Agree they should not do that and actionable laws are in place to prevent that activity. They end up paying for cleanup anyway.

No need for new burdens on the average taxpayer..

Chemical supplier W.R. Grace to pay toward clean-up of hazardous waste sites

Kandahar said:

On the contrary, a gas tax encourages innovation. If gas costs $4 per gallon instead of $2 per gallon, there is a much stronger demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. This lights a fire under the asses of the auto companies to supply the market with these fuel-efficient vehicles.

Click to expand...

The funding is in place to develop these already. Shutdown by the automotive repair industry.

There is no shortage of oil. There is no global warming.

You cannot run out billions of years of development in a thousand years. The math simply is not there. Yes we are that small.

Please. How would feel about having to suddenly buy a new car because your old was was obsolete?

I want my old POS to run as long as possible to forbear that cost as long as possible.


Besides any of that the Automotive repair industry has a strong percentage of congress in their pockets to prevent any such action. Just like the Federal reserve just forced the "stimulus" bill into their pockets.


Besides all that. There are other ways to "incentivise" the development of fuel efficiency.

Clean Car Challenge

1 Gallon of Gas, 100 Miles — $10 Million: The Race to Build the Supergreen Car


These ideas are already out there. There is no need to body slam the American Taxpayer once again.

akyron said:

/Agree they should not do that and actionable laws are in place to prevent that activity. They end up paying for cleanup anyway.

No need for new burdens on the average taxpayer..

Click to expand...

I completely agree, which is why I support a gas tax. The gasoline consumers in question are the equivalent of the chemical plant in my example. They should pay to clean up after themselves (even if they're using gas to produce something of value), rather than make the public pay for it.

akyron said:

The funding is in place to develop these already. Shutdown by the automotive repair industry.

Click to expand...

Except a gas tax is much simpler, more efficient, and requires less government bureaucracy than any other alternative energy program. Rather than fund thousands of alternative energy startups, give people tax subsidies for installing solar panels, mandate higher CAFE standards, and install gadgets in every new car to track the number of miles and report it to the government...a gas tax requires no expansion of government while accomplishing everything that those programs aim to accomplish.

akyron said:

There is no shortage of oil. There is no global warming.

Click to expand...

There certainly is a shortage of oil. I'm undecided about global warming, but in any case it does not change the fact that there are public costs associated with oil consumption that are borne by the entire public, rather than the specific oil consumer.

akyron said:

You cannot run out billions of years of development in a thousand years. The math simply is not there. Yes we are that small.

Click to expand...

Uhh how do you figure? You're comparing two things that are not alike at all. Dead animals don't turn into oil nearly as fast as my gas tank burns it.

akyron said:

Please. How would feel about having to suddenly buy a new car because your old was was obsolete?

Click to expand...

That's the beauty of a gas tax. With a gas tax, the government isn't monkeying with what types of cars you do and don't get subsidies for buying, or trying to ration the number of Hummers on the road, or forcing automakers to produce fuel-efficient cars that no one wants, or anything like that. If you feel that your car is adequate with the gas tax, that's completely fine.

akyron said:

I want my old POS to run as long as possible to forbear that cost as long as possible.

Click to expand...

But eventually you will probably get a newer car. And when you do, you're probably more likely to consider fuel efficiency if gas is $4 per gallon than if gas is $2 per gallon. It might not make you rush out and buy a hybrid, but it might persuade you to get a 30mpg car instead of a 20mpg car next time you're in the market for a car.

akyron said:

Besides any of that the Automotive repair industry has a strong percentage of congress in their pockets to prevent any such action. Just like the Federal reserve just forced the "stimulus" bill into their pockets.

Click to expand...

The automotive repair industry?

akyron said:

Besides all that. There are other ways to "incentivise" the development of fuel efficiency.

Click to expand...

Indeed there are. But few (none?) of them are as effective and simple as a gas tax.

Kandahar said:

The automotive repair industry?

Indeed there are. But few (none?) of them are as effective and simple as a gas tax.

Click to expand...

A good documentary about the already successful electric vehicle and why it was killed.
Who Killed the Electric Car?
Video


Electric cars do not require nearly the maintenance and part replacements. Kills the whole industry.


When has the government done anything simple and effective?

There is no point in raising taxes on gas until there are substitutes that consumers can choose from to replace gas, otherwise you are just trapping people into paying higher prices in a no-way-out situation.

There are definitely people who don't care about their own waste, but I think most people rely on gas because it's all there is. Until there is a widely available alternative, there is no point in punishing gas consumption with hikes that people cannot afford, especially during a recession.

Orius said:

There is no point in raising taxes on gas until there are substitutes that consumers can choose from to replace gas, otherwise you are just trapping people into paying higher prices in a no-way-out situation.

There are definitely people who don't care about their own waste, but I think most people rely on gas because it's all there is. Until there is a widely available alternative, there is no point in punishing gas consumption with hikes that people cannot afford, especially during a recession.

Click to expand...

There are alternatives to gas. Granted, they aren't as sexy as some of the alternatives you're probably thinking of (e.g. affordable cars that run on hydrogen or electricity), but they exist. A few such alternatives would be a more fuel efficient car, a home closer to your job, carpooling, or public transportation. Not every alternative works for everyone, but they are out there.

Kandahar said:

There are alternatives to gas. Granted, they aren't as sexy as some of the alternatives you're probably thinking of (e.g. affordable cars that run on hydrogen or electricity), but they exist. A few such alternatives would be a more fuel efficient car, a home closer to your job, carpooling, or public transportation. Not every alternative works for everyone, but they are out there.

Click to expand...

Until refueling with hydrogen is as convenient as gas, with stations all in proximity, it's not going to happen. Also, hydrogen cars simply don't have the mileage of gas vehicles.

I agree with your theoretical restructuring of society, but I don't think people or government would ever choose to go the local route. It would take a nation wide collapse to force people into that lifestyle, and it is more likely that a fuel alternative will be created before that ever happens.

Electric and hydrogen cars also need to exist in a competitive market. GM of course likes this taxation idea because once it rolls out of the volt, it will have an essential monopoly on the market.

Oil consumption does have externality costs that are not covered by the market. I don't think anyone can deny that. There is some pollution (though with emission laws, I'm not sure how problematic it is anymore). More importantly, many nations to us have economies driven by oil money - the Middle East, Venuzuala, Russia. What particular country or countries we buy OUR oil from is irrelevant. Oil is a global commodity that who's price is set by global supply and demand. The US is a big player in driving up global demand for oil. Even if we don't buy a SINGLE DROP of mideast oil, they still sell it at a price driven up in part by US demand.

Taxing gasoline (and other oil products as well) would help drive down global demand. Just as opening up domestic drilling would help increase global supply, thereby driving down the price and profit of oil - effectively taking a large chunk out of the economies of those hostile nations mentioned above.

I'm not sure if the timing is right, but the idea isn't a bad one. I don't know if now that fuel prices have finally dropped and our economy is so shakey if we could withstand the economic impact of jacking fuel prices back up, but it something that could be phased in.

For those complaining about increasing taxes, this could be made to be revenue neutral by having off-setting federal income tax cuts. I wouldn't even oppose having income tax cuts not completely match the new revenue if those new tax revenues were used to fund alternative fuel development and infrastructure. Unlike an income tax, this is a tax you could legally avoid by simply making lifestyle adjustments. As mentioned above, oil unquestionably has externality costs. Why not have people who use oil pay those costs?

GM's endorsement of this idea is entirely self serving, but hell, do we expect anything different from a corporation? Capitalism is driven by self interest. That doesn't make it a bad idea though.

Fuel taxes should be dual taxed, so much per gallon PLUS a percentage of price. Funds gathered should be used ONLY for infrastructure related to transportation, or roads and bridges....