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?
A flat tax is regressive and punishes those with less money.
Instead, let's provide a reasonable ration of gasoline for each individual. Under this plan, rational gas consumption becomes a 100% tax-funded commodity. Each individual is awarded a reasonable number of gas credits and no more. If you need more gas than that (for your Hummer for example), you can buy on the spot market, which the government can tax the crap out of if they want because REASONABLE Americans who actually want to participate in a SUSTAINABLE energy policy will be shielded from the direct effects.
Under this plan, individuals can buy and sell their credits, which expire at the end of each year. Under this plan, Americans who use less gasoline will benefit MORE, because they can sell their credits for just marginally less than the official taxed-the-crap-out-of rate the government is selling fuel for.
People who never drive at all will likely make money under the plan, even if they are taxed at 100% of the cost of the credits.
If anyone is worried about the risk of deflation, we can set up an FDIC of sorts to cover the value of the credits.
Nonsense. "those with less money" should be taking public transport or living within walking distance of their work. A tax would drive this point home to "those".
Oh, my gosh. I can't believe you actually said that. But this is America and people are entitled to their opinion. Do you realize that you are basically saying that only poor people should live in the city and that only poor people should take public transportation? If that's not what you meant to say, that's what it was saying to me.
I actually thought that the reason Ray was talking about a gas tax was so that the government could come up with a way to pay for affordable, clean public transit that everyone could use that could even extend outside of the city.
You make it sound like only those with money should be able to afford to live outside of the city limits. And what's one of the reasons people like to live outside of the city limits? For fresher air. Outside of the city limits, there are less fumes from all of that traffic caused by all of the emissions.
However, I also admit that I am a hypocrit. I admit that it would be nice to have lower emissions on cars, but I don't like paying for it. Wisconsin has an emissions check and you can't reregister your car unless your cars passes the emission test. I paid over $995 to have my car engine repaired so that it would pass emissions. It passed. I got my car reregistered. A month later my engine light kicked on again. Argh! Am I doomed to get another loan to get the light off again?!
I got a chance to ride the monorail at Disneyland in California. I thought it would be noisy and clack like a train. It was wonderful! It was quiet and clean and fast. Why can't we get more of those throughout America? And what do those things run on?
A flat tax is regressive and punishes those with less money.
It does not "punish" People with less money are more sensitive to any price change, but a price change does not mean punishment.
Providing a base level of fuel would in effect eliminate any economic incentive to reduce consumption. In reality it would only result in a black market.
Ray's gas tax is spot on!
Rebuilding this countrys public transportation system would:
1. put people to work
2. reduce our need for oil.
3. save thousands of lives.
4. save natural resources, and improve quality of life.
I would point out that the car companys created this mess in the 1920's and 30's when General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillip petroleum conspired to buy up and destroy all light rail systems in the nation.
Any one that has used the high speed rail between London and Paris knows the technology is currently available.
Auto accidents kill about fifty thousand people a year in the US, cripple and injure many more.
I love cars, but there are alternatives that are faster, safer, cheaper, and easier on the environment.
"I would point out that the car companys created this mess in the 1920's and 30's when General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillip petroleum conspired to buy up and destroy all light rail systems in the nation."
Not only did you get the urban legend wrong (it was in the 1950's), but it's an urban legend. The old "National City Lines conspiracy" drivel is a nice conspiracy theory with lots of popular support and promoters (among them the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"), but the scholarly research by those who actually track transportation and corporate history on an academic basis shows that, at best, all the cohesion between those various entities did was hasten only slightly the inevitable demise of streetcars in cities where it would have perished on its own anyway, and give GM, Firestone, et al a firm market for its products. As partial proof, consider that trolleys also disappeared in most cities and towns without any help from NCL.
Regrettably, though, just as with any other juicy story or urban legend online, it's become all but impossible to debunk this legend, in part because one can't "prove a negative," in part because there's just enough truth to the reality to lend too much credence to the distorted version, and because everyone loves a good conspiracy theory to the potential exclusion of even common sense (see also Roswell, UFOs in general, the Bermuda Triangle, a myriad of theories about 9/11/2001 and the terrorist attacks, etc.).
I'm with you and Ray. However, the government is also complicit by giving tax breaks for buying SUVs and for keeping gas prices so much lower than they are in the rest of the world.
I can support a 50 cents per gallon gas tax if there are:
1) Rebate for the families in the bottom 1/2 of the tax bracket.
2) Clear, measurable and attainable goals.
3) Strict guidelines on how the money can be spent.
4) Quarterly progress reports by the President (i.e. how much energy we still import).
5) Finally, a sunset clause.
Ray is a genius. I heard Ray's rant this afternoon while walking back from the gym. It is a brilliant idea - raises revenue, improves the environment, improves the rail system, improves the economy through assisting the auto makers and is relatively painless.
And in response to the below guy who has to rant about government mis-spending - there's an easy solution which is called legislation - the gas tax bill needs to have conditions attached to it which would give the taxpayer standing to sue the government if they fail to enforce those conditions. Or, if that's too risky from the government's perspective, simply make the conditions enforceable by the attorney general and allow taxpayers to file on-line complaints with the attorney general if they find out something that gives them concern about where the gas tax money is going. The on-line filing can be analogous to the HIPAA filing process and in the same manner as with HIPAA there can be a provision in the gas tax bill that states that there are no private causes of action permissable under the bill. BUT unlike HIPAA, the bill should have a little more teeth so that if the attorney general investigates a complaint and determines that the filer was correct and that the gas tax bill has been violated, the wrong-doer can be heavily fined and the money can to the place it was supposed to go to in the first place.
Good Thinking. Raise Taxes And Let's Expand The Size And Scope Of Government, And Make It More Complicated And Intrusive!
It no doubt will lead to more problems, so take away some rights, pass some new laws that can't be enforced, and turn all of this over to a government that is the problem, not the solution.
This Is About Tax Increases And More Government Involvement. One Guy Just Said ... "And in response to the below guy who has to rant about government mis-spending - there's an easy solution which is called legislation - the gas tax bill needs to have conditions attached to it which would give the taxpayer standing to sue the government if they fail to enforce those conditions. Or, if that's too risky from the government's perspective, simply make the conditions enforceable by the attorney general and allow taxpayers to file on-line complaints with the attorney general if they find out something that gives them concern about where the gas tax money is going. The on-line filing can be analogous to the HIPAA filing process and in the same manner as with HIPAA there can be a provision in the gas tax bill that states that there are no private causes of action permissable under the bill. BUT unlike HIPAA, the bill should have a little more teeth so that if the attorney general investigates a complaint and determines that the filer was correct and that the gas tax bill has been violated, the wrong-doer can be heavily fined and the money can to the place it was supposed to go to in the first place."
A higher gas tax is absolutely necessary to internalize the negative externalities of gasoline usage. All of the problems (e.g, regressive) that have been mentioned with a higher gas tax can be solved. One possibility is a revenue neutral gas tax in which income taxes are reduced while the gas tax increased. There are many possibilities, but the bottom line is that we need a much higher gas tax and eventually a general carbon tax.
Here's a variation on the gas tax proposal...or maybe an 'add-on' proposal:
Flip the tax levels between diesel fuel and refined gasoline! Here's why...
Diesel typically costs more than gasoline...not because it is more expensive to produce than gas (it is actually far less refined) but because the taxes on it are higher. This increases the cost of products that are shipped by diesel powered trucks, trains, and boats. Manufacturers and distributors simply pass the costs of transportation up the line to the consumer. So...a reduced tax on diesel would keep the costs of products from rising...thus encouraging the consuming public to buy more widgets (not to mention groceries)...which thusly stimulates the economy. Conversely raising the tax on refined gasoline would encourage less driving, and more reliance on mass transit (which would also keep their costs down since many current mass transit vehicles run on diesel).
Yes, I know that diesels polute. I'll let the M.I.T.'ers do the math to see if there is a green enough offset by having fewer miles driven/gallons burned by gasoline powered vehicles.
Yes, I also realize that all the Jetta dieselers out there would have the advantage. I, myself, await Subaru's diesel.
12/21/2008 1:24:04 PM
