Hate to say it, but the Congressman is right: such a tax will discourage consumption of gasoline. (Personally, I think it would have to be greater--$1-$2--to have a significant impact.) All of you who think Global Warming is a crisis that we must deal with RIGHT NOW? I expect you to stand up and support taxes such as these. Or, are the only acceptable solutions to the "crisis" those which put direct costs only on others?
Of course, of course. That would follow the logic of government: increase the tax to discourage consumption a good, then levy more taxes on some to help others afford that very same good. The whole federal involvement in post-secondary education works on the same principle.
Absolutely, and it's clear where that money should go, as well: To offset the real additional costs of burning gasoline, which the current system shifts to other people or even delays for further generations. Of course, this approach, which I find reasonable, still means that rcih people will be able to drive. This is the point where you call Al Gore hypocrite for believing in global warming as well as property rights.
The problem with government intervention of this sort is that you inevitably get the current screwup the government has caused by subsidizing ethanol. Food costs have gone up while actual improvements in fuel efficiency have been negligible. When the money confiscated actually goes to anything related to the actual problem, that is.
Some of these tired old members of Congress never learned from the mistakes of the Carter administration.
I remember when Tsongus suggested the increase in tax on fuel and that killed his big for president. For many rural people there simply is no option other than driving to work. You don't drive you are not employed, period. City people and politicians cannot relate to this and think everyone can take the bus or train or whatever. A tax like this would hurt working people that make the least.
According to consumption statistics, it hasn't by very much. And I don't think $.50 would really make too much of a dent, like I said. $1, $2, you probably see some serious declines. What I'm getting at is: making it expensive is the ONLY way to get people not to use i.t The state of affairs where gasoline is cheap and no one wants it is never going to happen. So if you don't want people to use it, what's your excuse for keeping the price at the current level?
Actually, I think it has. But even so, there's some amount of tax you could place on cigarettes that would definitely curtail smoking, if for no other reason than it would become unaffordable to many. Of course, one can usually obtain cheaper cigarettes on the black market...not so with gasoline.
Yeah but its only 8 bucks for the equal of one of out gallons there 3.78 litres as opposed to your 4.55 litres. Still, most Brits don't have to drive.
Are you kidding me?! People are just going to bitch and moan, but when all's said and done, they'd rather make sweet love to their SUVs and kawaii gas guzzlers than drive a ugly car or, God forbid, take public transportation. And I'm aware that in some places the public transport system is shit--which is another problem, but one no one has felt much motivation to fix. EP mentions Brits don't need to drive, but considering Europe seems to have had higher gas prices on average than the U.S., I'm thinking their government developed a better transit out of necessity. Maybe--just maybe--when the price of gas per month is more than the note for the car itself, America will get it and stop bending over and opening the cheeks so wide. Perhaps.
The Europeans developed theirs out of traffic congestion that occured way earlier than it did here, sometimes as early as the horse and cart days. That area is just so compact that everybody owning and driving a car like we do here is not possible.
That's the whole point of the legislation. It won't go anywhere, but it stabs everyone in the side who voted to raise the CAFE standards. Americans piss and moan about their oil addiction while they fill up their Hummers. Suddenly gas costs too much, what do we do? We make laws to punish automakers if they make inefficient cars (read: sports and luxury cars and trucks). We don't actually change our habits, we just pass the buck. But you know what happens as we edge closer to $4/Gallon? People cut back on fuel consumption. They drive less, buy more efficient cars, and start living closer to work. But what have we done? We enabled our addiction and increased the cost of an already expensive "inefficient" vehicle. And for what? So people can drive 200 miles back and forth from work? So people can get in their cars to travel a block? So California can add another lane for an overcrowded highway filled with single-passenger cars? Fuck that. Fuck you.
Not everyone has public transportation. Hell, even Houston doesn't have public transportation that covers its entire city. To use it where I live I still have to drive 5+ miles to a "park and drive" parking lot and then wait for a bus, and leave my car in this huge lot. And that would be IF the bus drove to where I worked, which it doesn't. Doesn't even go near my place of work. So no, I am not able to use public transportation, and most folks where I live are in the same boat. And the city is only fixing mass transit for the center of the city - which means tearing up streets and residential areas to create "mass transit."
Mind you, I'm not saying it's a good idea, only that he's right that the higher price will tend to discourage consumption. People are attached to their SUVs and gas guzzlers, but they will change if gas becomes sufficiently more expensive. As I said, I kinda doubt $.50 would do it; that sounds like just a way for Uncle Sam to siphon some more funds from our wallets in the name of fighting the sham of global warming. Until very recently, most Europeans couldn't afford to drive. Affordable driving is an American tradition, not a European one. So I take it you'd vote "no" against the new tax?
Thank you for illustrating a point that Paladin made in his last post. America hasn't had to invest much in working public transportation because gas has been cheap for the last four decades or so, so American infrastructure was built around the car a lot more than the other way around. That you can't access most parts of the the city--a major metropolis, no less--is EXACTLY the problem so many face--there *are* no other viable options if you live in the stix or, like I do, the bus system is run by a gang of chimps. When--not if--the gas does reach an unbearable point, you can be sure there will be more people lobbying for better bus service and more transportation to different areas.
Which is precisely why I'm writing a business proposal for General Motors to get back into the bus business, especially with their new heavy-duty hybrid powertrains coming out.
Screw that shit. I'm not riding no bus. Not anymore. And I suspect millions upon millions of Americans agree with me. So instead of building buses wasting money, lets dump all that tax money into a "Apollo" type program to get cars that are fueled on Hydrogen.
