What do you think of Ray's gas tax rant? Is Ray on to a genius idea that will point our country towards a sustainable transportation future? Or does he have his headlight firmly implanted in his tailpipe? Is it even a political possibility?
I agree in principle (become energy independent) with your lame brain idea, but I need to rant about a few reasons why I can't support it. First, our government has plenty of our money to do the things you suggest, but they can't seem to spend it on the right things. No doubt we could all come up with a list of government abuse of tax payer's money without a lot of effort. Next, if you siphon another $0.50 per gallon tax out of my wallet, there is no guarantee the government will spend it on infrastructure or energy independence. Again, there are plenty of examples where this has happened (Social Security for example). I'll stop being negative for a second and assume the government will spend this money on rebuilding roads. If the tax does what it is supposed to do, we will use less gasoline and the tax base will reduce to a point the government will have to seek other ways to fund their projects, i.e., more taxes. It's like using a cigarette tax to fund health care. Finally, while $0.50 per gallon doesn't seem like a lot to you, it's a lot to people that can't afford it. If we had responsible politicians that really cared about this country more than just getting re-elected and padding there own wallets, I think your idea would work like a charm. Then again if we had politicians like that, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Ray is absolutely correct. The real goal that we must reach is to dramatically cut back on our carbon dioxide (and other global warming causing) emissions. The only practical way to do that is to impose a fee on carbon emissions. One justification for such fees is that we are not currently paying the true cost of using fossil fuels. When you consider the environmental damage (air and water pollution, global warming effect, landscape destruction, etc.), health problems, and other side-effects of using these fuels, the price we currently pay doesn't come close to the true cost to society and the earth.
Talk about a tax, we are paying many hundreds of billions of dollars to overseas oil suppliers, money that never comes back except as loans. That is a terribly expensive tax. How about adding a tax that stays right here where we can use it? It will help us reduce demand and thus reduce the amount of money we send permanently overseas, and we can use that money here to further reduce our demand, AND at the same time, create millions of jobs by creating a green economy producing alternative fuels, electric cars, solar electricity technology, all of which we can then sell to the rest of the world, and start bringing the dollars back to the USA. Only a carbon tax can stimulate the private sector to invest the money to develop these critical new technologies by showing them they can make a profit doing so. If the price of gas is $1.60 a gallon, nobody is going to invest in inventing new and efficient ways to produce bio-fuels.
If you don't believe me, read Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America". He connects the dots AND presents a workable strategy for fixing our economy, global warming, and many other serious problems that we face.
Sure, you can come up with lots of vague reasons not to do this but the fact is that if we don't change how we use fossil fuels, we will soon damage our climate beyond repair.
The basic problem with the gas tax is that it would depress the economy even more than it is right now. Remember, high oil prices nudged us into this recession, whatever the other problems may be, so hiking gas prices further might not be that smart, Ray.
Instead, how about we cut taxes on green clean renewable energy? We need to boost this economy, Ray, and the only way to do that is with smart tax cuts. Jimmy Carter pretty well proved that raising spending and taxes leads only to stagflation. If you want to shift this economy away from oil and to renewable energy and a smart grid, to more energy efficient, alt-fuel vehicles and equipment, just make all the good stuff tax free.
And I do NOT mean phoney-baloney tax credits that subsidize failures, like ethanol. I mean real tax cuts (sales, corp. income, interest, dividends, cap gains tax cuts) tied to the amount of revenue from green energy, vehicles, infrastructure, efficiency. That way, we promote success, not failure, because the best green businesses get the biggest tax cuts, without the chance for politicians to waste the money on more boondoggles.
That is also how we save Detroit AND get them to shift green: piles of private money will pour in for tax free investment in plug-in, flex-fuel hybrids, etc., without the need for a bailout. Exxon itself will diversify into green investments if doing so can decrease corporate and shareholder taxes.
One of the best things about a green energy tax cut, Ray, is that energy is such a fluid commodity, so the tax cut benefit flows right through to the rest of the economy in lower energy prices and efficiency saving. Not only can it supercharge investment in green energy, efficiency, infrastructure and advanced vehicles, it can help supercharge the whole economy.
But if your gas tax make the economy tank, Ray, general tax revenues will also tank, and then the gas tax funds will be raided for general expenses, and your pet project will be unfunded. On that you can bet your pants.
You can learn more about this proposal at www.greenenergytaxcuts.com
Ummm... 50 cents is NOT "a lot to people that can't afford it"... Sorry, I once worked for the welfare department, and most folks spend HUNDREDS of dollars on beer and pot! So, and extra fifty cents would NOT be noticed by poor folks, or even by blue collar folks! However, instead of fifty cents, the tax should be $1.50... Why? Because, fat, lazy Americans are ALREADY buying big trucks again! Why? Because gas is "cheap"!!! Sorry, folks, but gas will go UP UP UP, and if we don't prepare NOW, we shall be royally screwed by the Saudis and Iranians! So, yes, a tax, but ONLY for rail systems and alternative energy!
I am not worried about the Iranians and Saudis screwing us. They have shown a very reasonable restraint in trying to controland level out the cost of gas. I worry about getting screwed by our own government and enviromentalists who insist they know everything and we ignorant people need to be taxed out of all of our money so they can spend it as they see fit. Between Federal, state, and sales tax everyong is paying 50% or more in taxes. That is enough and it should be cut.
I like the gas tax idea. Our national debt currently exceeds $10,500,000,000,000 ($10.5 trillion) and annually we pay about $412 billion just in INTEREST on that debt. Recently, our deficit spending rose to over $400 billion (i.e., annual revenues from taxes are about $2.5 trillion and expenditures are about $2.9 trillion) so our debt will go up by over $400B this year and maybe more in years to come. Imagine if an individual had the equivalent situation: you earn $25K per year but spend $29K, putting the extra $4K on your credit card, which already has $105,000 on it already! That doesn't make sense, you say? Correctamundo! On this basis alone, there is a good reason for additional taxation.
The choice of a gas tax makes sense as the right place for it since (1) the price of gasoline doesn't include costs to society of all the negative impacts from the CO2, and (2) because our dependence on foreigners for both oil and money (the debt comes largely from foreigners such as the Chinese) is a very risky national strategy.
The main problem with a gas tax is that it is regressive, hitting the poor more than non-poor because so much of a poor person's income goes to things like gasoline or heating oil. But there are ways to help mitigate that problem, especially if much of the tax revenue goes to reducing the need for oil products.
The majority of people in this country hate taxes. Don't mention taxes. They don't want any of the services that they get that make their lives so much better. I don't make a lot of money, but feel for the most part what I'm paying for in taxes is worth it. Anyhow, I think monorails are the answer. Monorails can go up above existing roads with the least expense, and how cool would that be to be able to get a high speed ride across the country? Would we have stations with "smart cars" or "volts" for rent at each stop also? I'm all in. The U.S. is way behind the times for something like this. I think they have other ideas for funding infrastructure and crumbling roads. The 50 cents should go all in for the monorails. GM, Ford,Chrysler-get in on futuristic technology, safety and quality above stockholders! Build some awesome monorail cars, and some track modules that are easily assembled over existing roads.
I would estimate that we need to have gas priced at around $3.50/gallon to create the proper incentives for alternative energies to thrive. But, while I agree with the fundamentals of the argument, I think Ray has oversimplified the solution.
Much like the “Frictionless Plane” from freshman physics, or the “Infinite Gaussian Surface” from Electro-magnetics, Ray has fallen victim to a similar simplification ploy commonly used by Political Scientists known as the “Honest Politician constant”. Because of the failure to include this constant, which I believe today sits somewhere between 0 and 0.00000000001, the solution is fundamentally flawed.
To be certain, even if there were some way to guarantee that revenues from such a tax actually went to infrastructure, I’d be hesitant to give yet more money to the people that bring us tobacco museums in West Virginia and vacation excursions to the Dominican Republic. The Feds already have all the money, and they've been doing a great job of printing more. We need to starve the beast.
chslop is using old numbers for the coefficient- in fact, new nonlinear multidimensional analysis shows that the coefficient is defined in imaginary numbers. That being said, Ray, while I sympathize with the need for more and better public transport (imagine a high speed rail between Tucson and Phoenix, AZ- my neck of the woods- it would be hugely popular!), the Congress cannot be trusted with even more $$$- howsabaout they eliminate waste and earmarks first and apply those savings to public transport??
I agree we need to increase the gas tax to reduce our consumption of gasoline. Lower gasoline prices induces more use, more Hummers, more CO2 in the atmosphere, more smog, toxins etc. However, at the same time, we need to make sure that the added revenues are spent appropriately, as Ray suggests, not in bailing out dying dinosaur companies.
i'm tired of hearing the hummers use alot of fuel story! hummers are no more than a handful when counted against all the cars in this country or the world for that matter. count how many hummers you see in your town. then count how many other vehicles are in your town. "huge difference". they probably put out less pollution than half the vehicles in your town that haven't been tuned up since the day they were bought.
Tom’s proposal addresses the root problem. Our country consumes an embarrassing share of the world’s fossil fuel. Twenty to thirty years ago some advocated a sixty-cent per gallon increase in the gas tax in order to change our consumption and, in fact high gas prices over the last several months caused us to dramatically reduce fuel consumption. However, as soon as large vehicle prices fell and gas prices started to abate some people have traded their more fuel efficient vehicles for larger less efficient vehicles. It is naive to expect consumers and automobile companies to voluntarily change their behavior.
In addition to increasing the gas tax to 50 cents, the federal government should outlaw all state gas taxes and routinely allocate half the tax increase to states based on 1) gas tax remittances from each state, 2) total publically maintained road miles in each state or 3) other equitable formula that is sustainable over time. States use of gas tax revenue should be limited to transportation construction and maintenance and mass transit. Federal use of gas tax revenue should be limited to transportation related purposes including high speed rail, research and new technology which would reduce our use of fossil fuels. In other words the federal government and states should not be allowed to use gas tax revenue for non-transportation purposes.
Further the gas tax should increase by ten cents each year until the gas tax equals $2.00 per gallon but the state’s portion would progressively decline from 50 percent to 25 percent. The federal government would make grant money available to states for construction and repair of interstate highways, mega transportation projects that support economic development and mass transit.
For the next ten years the federal government could use a portion of the new revenue to subsidize automobile companies during a reinvention and restructuring period, progressively reducing the available subsidy each year. Companies who accept subsidies and bailout money would have to repay those funds. The federal government should send a clear message that the subsidy is all the money the automobile companies can expect to receive and they have ten years to fix their businesses but not encumber the subsidies with lots of rules.
Lastly, I acknowledge gas taxes negatively impact those who can least afford taxes and the federal government would need to provide a tax credit to low income people for gas taxes they paid during the year or a standard deduction based on income.
The bold change I have outlined would also send a signal to the rest of the world that our country is ready to do the right thing regarding one of our behaviors which negatively impacts the world politically, environmentally and economically and that we can move beyond self interest. Reducing our consumption could possibly prove to be a win-win situation for our country and the rest of the world.
Further, this is an opportunity to demonstrate for the first time in decades that our elected officials have the courage and conviction to lead the United States to cause significant, long range, positive change.
"Tom’s proposal addresses the root problem. Our country consumes an embarrassing share of the world’s fossil fuel."
With that energy we also are one of the most productive countries, and due to that abundance, the most charitable.
Should that be considered bad?
Also consider that to provide that level of productivity, we tend to produce products in centralized factories. The products then must be transported, which again consumes energy but overall is more efficient than having many small factories.
On the tax issue - NO NO NO NO NO. Although I am in favor of consumption taxes (e.g. I want the fair tax instead of the insane tax game currently in play), adding more federal taxes to try and change our habits is WRONG. The last thing the US Govt needs to do is grow. They can't manage the money they have now, we need to give them LESS not more and require the US govt to shrink like our wallets do when the economy is soft. All Govt. ever does is grow - and grow - and consume more producing very little. No, the federal govt. needs to be cut so we can pay off our debt and stop paying interest to China!
And no, Tom and Ray, I don't want to pay for your mass transit project in Massachusetts. I live in the west where mass transit makes no logical (or economic) sense as our cities are horizontal, not vertical. If you want mass transit - then you vote to raise your city or county sales taxes, or state income tax, not the federal tax that I also have to pay, but get nothing for!
One of the best lines from any movie is from the movie "Hawaii" where the Queen said to the missionaries "Laws, laws, laws, too many laws make the people mad".
"Lastly, I acknowledge gas taxes negatively impact those who can least afford taxes and the federal government would need to provide a tax credit to low income people for gas taxes they paid during the year or a standard deduction based on income."
A three-hundred dollar refund in April doesn't make up for the fact that Dad had had to skimp on his medication on a weekly basis to pay for the gas in his tank.
I think Ray missed one important part. We all make decisions. We all like to make our own decisions and not have government or our boss make them for us. However if we are to make good decisions, they need to be made based on all the facts.
When it comes to cars, we should pay for all the true cost of our cars, including: purchase price, fuel, insurance, maintenance, repairs, roads, bridges .... and the effect on others like noise and air pollution. Fifty cents would be a start toward all those goals. Paying additional tax to offset the cost to society for the pollution would be fair. As it is now, those who don't drive still pay higher food bills, acid rain etc. but they don't have anything to say about it and can not control it.
Great idea! I'm all for it. Money drives most decisions. What kind of car to buy. Where to live. Where to work. Vacations vs. Staycations. Look at Europe. They don't have suburban sprawl. They live near work. Gas is 4 EU a liter. The best defense for the US against Islamic extremism us to pump fewer dollars into middle eastern countries.
Ray! Start a petition. Be Obamaramic! Get an e-mail list so huge any politician would fear and decide to follow the wish of the people.
12/21/2008 10:31:15 AM
