Gas Tax

[Danlikebooks 6]

After gas went up to $4-$5 here in the US, people started panicking (history repeats itself once again!) and driving less.  Sales of Hummers and SUV's fell dramatically as people rushed to buy hybrids and more fuel efficient cars.

THEN...

Gas prices started falling again, and now gas is around $1.70 a gallon (in Cincinnati, Ohio).  Sure, people said that they've changed their ways and will stick to their new, more fuel efficient cars, but will they really?  As shown from the oil crisis of the 1970's, people then also said that they would repent and buy only fuel efficient cars and drive less... and look how that turned out.

Here's my proposal:  Have a nationwide gas tax.  If the government truly cares about the environment (or wants to look like they do), they should implement this.  Keep the gas prices around... oh, say $3.00.  This could dramatically change American society (for the better).

Well, that's my thought at least.  Anyone else want to take a stab at it?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Sounds like a regressive tax that hits the poor hardest. The jobs lost would also fall on the poor first. A tax credit for higher mileage vehicles, and maybe a gov't buyout for those with low-mileage vehicles would make more sense.

[your_adress_here 11]

Your gas isn't already taxed?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: your_adress_here Your gas isn't already taxed?quote>

 

there already is a federal gas tax right?

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

It's only about 18 cents per galloon.

[hym 358]

Here's my proposal:  Have a nationwide gas tax.  If the government truly cares about the environment (or wants to look like they do), they should implement this.  Keep the gas prices around... oh, say $3.00.  This could dramatically change American society (for the better).quote>

$3 gas isn't sustainable for a surprisingly large chunk of the US population.  They simply can't afford the costs of having to drive their cars to work and back and pay a weekly gas bill like that.  Back when gas was about $3.50, I was working with coworkers who, quite literally, spent most of their weekly earnings buying gas.  They watched their gas bill suck up over 70% of their earnings.

It also isn't really sustainable for some businesses, as when gas prices were reaching their peak, there were businesses that were shutting down because they couldn't afford the gas to keep the company running.

[beebs 129]

Right now, Canadians get taxed ~23.5 cents per litre when they fill up... That's about 85 cents (US)/gallon... including sales taxes, that jumps up to about $1.30/gallon. I'm sure there's a bit of room to move tax-wise south of the border.

[djrules5454 5]

Originally posted by: beebs Right now, Canadians get taxed ~13.5 cents per litre when they fill up... That's about 85 cents (US)/gallon... including sales taxes, that jumps up to about $1.30/gallon. I'm sure there's a bit of room to move tax-wise south of the border. quote>

Individual states have their own gas taxes.

[GMT 389]

We have such gas taxes in europe.

some countries have higher, some lower.

I live in Germany where we have some of the highest gas taxes, and all I can do is to copy what manticorfan said:

It hits the poorest.

see this:

last week, CNN reported that gas was down to $1.41cheapest in Wyoming ($2.60 in Alaska and US average was about $1.60). A gallon that is.

makes $0.37 cent per liter in WY.

We in Germany actually pay about 1.13€ per liter.

In USD, that is $1.57 per liter, or $5.94 per gallon. a good 5 times as much.

In july, when gas prices where at their highest, we were close to $10 a gallon (with todays stronger USD it would be a little less, back then I calculated about $9.60/gal)

the taxes came in 5 steps with the last government as eco-taxes and guess who they hit the hardest:

the poor.

it's wierd, cuz the same government that raised gas taxes to a level that about 60% of the price you pay at the station goes to the national wallet, literally demanded that people should not refuse take longer trips to their job (as in 1.5 hours and more)

nice. really. who they're kidding?

see, when gas prices were so incredibly high, under consideration of all other taxes and social insurance contributions, people with lesser incomes that where bound to have a car because the way to work was not possible via busses or trains or something (and loads of others as well), many many people felt like they were only working to pay the daily way to work.

the idea behind these taxes where to force people to buy more fuel efficient cars and force those who won't buy such a car to pay for their ecological sins, but they forgot 2 things:

1) why buy a new car when the old one works just fine?

and even more important,

2) cars are expensive so you need the money to buy a new one first and buy the car second.

so, like almost all the time, the poorer ones where those who suffer and the richer ones... well, at least they didn't suffer as much as the others.

me personally, I'm making a good money so I'm not among those who really suffer under the prices and taxes, but it makes a difference for me as well whether I'm almost 1€ a liter (2 weeks ago) or almost 1.60€ a liter (4 months ago)

[duack 14]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Sounds like a regressive tax that hits the poor hardest. The jobs lost would also fall on the poor first. A tax credit for higher mileage vehicles, and maybe a gov't buyout for those with low-mileage vehicles would make more sense.quote>

 

Actually it would be a flat rate tax . They also hit the poorest hardest though. The US is unequal enough as it is so no. besides, you want everything to be as cheap as possible

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Yes, I fully support this idea. However, I think the government should keep it up around 3.20-3.80 a gallon.

This may seem oppressive, but it was around this level where people started to conserve gasoline and alternative energy projects got a lot of momentum and attention. Drive down the gas price, and that momentum stops.

It will be for the long-term benefit of the people to keep gas prices high, but not excessive, so that alternative energy projects can continue, and reach commercial viability. Then we will see the benefit.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: djrules5454_simtropolisedition

Originally posted by: beebs Right now, Canadians get taxed ~23.5 cents per litre when they fill up... That's about 85 cents (US)/gallon... including sales taxes, that jumps up to about $1.30/gallon. I'm sure there's a bit of room to move tax-wise south of the border. quote>

Individual states have their own gas taxes.quote>

As do we. Provinces all have their own tax, which seems to vary from about 9 cents/litre to almost 20 cents/litre, with a national gas tax being added on top that (10 cents/liter).

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

It will be for the long-term benefit of the people to keep gas prices high, but not excessive, so that alternative energy projects can continue, and reach commercial viability. Then we will see the benefit.quote>

but here you have to lead loooooooooong discussions at what level excessive starts.

especially in the us it's hard to say because around rural and modern suburban areas you pretty much rely on your car to get to work, the mall, shops and so on.

and as soon as this becomes more of a luxury than a regularity, something goes terribly wrong.

And I guess I'm nor mistaken neither projecting the worst if I say this possibly leads to a higher crime rate (the standard I-can't-get-it-legally-so-I-get-it-otherwise jealousy)

the tax idea as such isn't the worst of all ideas to at least try to force the people to reconsider their behaviour, but they way this idea is (going to be) realized should be very well planned and both sides, the pro as well as the cons should be considered.

[irdesi 0]

Originally posted by: duack

Originally posted by: manticorefan Sounds like a regressive tax that hits the poor hardest. The jobs lost would also fall on the poor first. A tax credit for higher mileage vehicles, and maybe a gov't buyout for those with low-mileage vehicles would make more sense.quote>

 

Actually it would be a flat rate tax . They also hit the poorest hardest though. The US is unequal enough as it is so no. besides, you want everything to be as cheap as possible

quote>

Since perhaps not everyone here knows how exactly a regressive tax is defined:

A regressive tax means that poorer segments of the population pay more as a percentage of their total income for a certain good, like gasoline. Although the gas tax is flat in the sense that everyone pays the same amount of tax per gallon, it is actually a regressive tax in that the poor lose a larger percentage of their income to that tax than do the rich, especially since the poor may have to use nearly as much gasoline as the rich without making as much income. There are no significant examples of economically-defined flat taxes in the United States at this time. Most taxes are either progressive (income tax) or regressive (sales tax, excise taxes like gasoline).

In regard to raising the gas tax, I am all for it. The infrastructure of the United States is crumbling. Sometimes people who live in areas of the country that are newer don't really see the effects, but I can see them all around me here in New England. I can think of 5 bridges off the top of my head that had become/are inservicable in the past two years for periods of months at a time. I had also driven over the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis less than a week before it failed, and my uncle had crossed it earlier that morning bringing his daughter from the airport. Nationally, one bridge used to carry motorized traffic fails every week. We need to repair our infrastructure.

There are some people who will have trouble paying the tax, but let's go back to the early 20th century, when this country had no minimum wage laws. Until the time that FDR with his forceful hand pushed through the Fair Labor Standards Act, business consistently complained that it could not afford to pay minimum wage, and it was an obstruction of commerce to have a minimum wage, and that they would hire less workers if they had to have a minimum wage.

I think the sweet spot for the cost of gas will be around $2.75-$3.00, where the majority of people were changing their ways while keeping the numbers of people extremely hurt by this down. Unfortunately, I think passing a significant gas tax increase nationwide will be a political nightmare. However, fights like the minimum wage battle started on the state level, where numerous individual states had already required minimum wage. We already have state gas taxes, so the precedent has been set.

Here in Massachusetts, a poll was recently conducted among drivers leaving the RMV as to whether to increase the gas tax. Although a majority, obviously, said they would rather have no tax increase, they overwhelmingly prefered an increase in the gas tax instead of an increase in the Mass. Turnpike tolls or in some wacky mileage-based taxation using a transponder chip proposed by the governor (that one appealed to the masses who go for anything with the word "computer").

Generally progressive states will have to take the lead in increasing the tax, as has happened for many other intiatives. Then, other states may catch on as well, until the federal government finally gets its act together and raises the tax nationwide. This method is also appealing because, like the minimum wage, it can be tailored state-by-state depending on the living conditions.

We have to do something. In September, most people at my high school were getting picked up in sedans and compacts. Now, even before the snow hit, the mid and large size SUV's have returned in full force. It's the '70s all over again unless we make changes now.

[Danlikebooks 6]

So then...

Pros:

-People start using less gas

-More fuel efficient cars are made and bought (and when more are made, the price [usually] for the cars go down)

-Demand for alternative energy and projects of the such go up.

-The government has more money, that should be used to pay for infrastructure repairs.

-LONG TERM:  Hopefully, cars are used less and mass transit usage rises.  People move closer to urban centers.  The government builds high speed train tracks, buses, and subways.

Cons:

-Gas price increases hit the poor the hardest, dramatically reducing amount of money available for other goods and needs.

-Sales of SUV's and other large gas-guzzling cars plummet (Like they are now).

-LONG TERM:  Cars become more of a luxury for the rich and upper middle class to use.  The government spends billions building a transportation network for everyone else to use (Trains, subways, etc.).

I guess it just depends on how you look at it...

EDIT:  Anyone want to add to the list?

[saltandsauce 0]

the USA is too spread out (suburban sprawl) so mass transit will have to be subsidised unless the suburbs were redeveloped into a low rise type area

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[GMT 389]

but then again, from a treasury secretary's point of view one of the most solid ways to make some extra cash.

There's rarely anything non-food like gas that we rely on that much. there's a good money to make from with extra taxes

[hym 358]

-People start using less gas

-More fuel efficient cars are made and bought (and when more are made, the price [usually] for the cars go down)

-Demand for alternative energy and projects of the such go up.

-The government has more money, that should be used to pay for infrastructure repairs.

-LONG TERM:  Hopefully, cars are used less and mass transit usage rises.  People move closer to urban centers.  The government builds high speed train tracks, buses, and subways.quote>

After looking at the highlighted lines, I have to ask:  The government is supposed to make more in tax revenue from something that people aren't buying as much of anymore?  Without some hard figures, that is a very shaky claim.

-Gas price increases hit the poor the hardest, dramatically reducing amount of money available for other goods and needs.quote>

And possibly forcing people onto government welfare that weren't on it originally.  Assuming that the government actually got more tax revenue from higher taxes on gas, who's to say that the increased tax money wouldn't simply be sucked up by increased welfare spending?  That isn't helpful to anyone.  Also, there is something called the "3% Rule"--once gas costs hit 3% of an American's income, they start cutting back and the economy suffers.  It has been said that OPEC's drive for higher gas prices helped put the US into the state  it is now.

-Sales of SUV's and other large gas-guzzling cars plummet (Like they are now).quote>

Maybe, maybe not.  They are working on developing hybrid trucks and SUV's, and no one is sure what impact they will have on the market should they be a viable option.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I think the sweet spot for the cost of gas will be around $2.75-$3.00, where the majority of people were changing their ways while keeping the numbers of people extremely hurt by this down.quote>

Well, that may work as a "sweet spot". Only one problem -- psychological support levels, in this case $3.00. People percieve $3 to cost more than $2.90 than it really does, since the first digit changes. Keeping gas above this psychological threshold will help a lot where alternative energy is concerned.

Gas price increases hit the poor the hardest, dramatically reducing amount of money available for other goods and needs.quote>

Short term, perhaps. Especially if the poor have SUVs that get 10-25 mpg -- then again, most poor people cannot afford gas-guzzling vehicles.

However, long term it will benefit the poor, and everyone by spurring the development of cheap clean energy.

The government spends billions building a transportation network for everyone else to usequote>

And pervasive mass transit is a bad thing? I don't think so.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I think the sweet spot for the cost of gas will be around $2.75-$3.00, where the majority of people were changing their ways while keeping the numbers of people extremely hurt by this down.quote>

Well, that may work as a "sweet spot". Only one problem -- psychological support levels, in this case $3.00. People percieve $3 to cost more than $2.90 than it really does, since the first digit changes. Keeping gas above this psychological threshold will help a lot where alternative energy is concerned.quote>

So the path to alternative energy is to be blazed by use of government-induced psychological stress on the citizens that said government is supposed to be serving?  That is just wrong.

Gas price increases hit the poor the hardest, dramatically reducing amount of money available for other goods and needs.quote>

Short term, perhaps. Especially if the poor have SUVs that get 10-25 mpg -- then again, most poor people cannot afford gas-guzzling vehicles.quote>

Actually, a lot of poor people do own SUV's or trucks.  Many of them got said vehicle when gas was still cheap, have hung on to the thing because they couldn't afford another vehicle, and when gas prices went up, found themselves in a world of hurt because they couldn't afford their gas and couldn't afford to get a better vehicle.

However, long term it will benefit the poor, and everyone by spurring the development of cheap clean energy.quote>

Exactly what "clean, cheap" energies are being proposed for autos?  We aren't getting off oil any time in the next decade or so, so the poor are going to be hurting for several more years yet under any kind of government "keep the gas prices high" plan.  Off topic but still related, people keep talking about how the wealth gap is growing, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and whatnot.  Keeping gas prices so high that you have poor people forced to 20% of their yearly income to buy gas is a good way to ensure that they remain locked in poverty and can't get out.

The government spends billions building a transportation network for everyone else to usequote>

And pervasive mass transit is a bad thing? I don't think so.quote>

And what if you have a multi-billion dollar system that nobody uses?  Is it a good thing then that you spent potentially hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure that has to be maintained, but no one uses?

The usefulness of mass transit is highly relative, and a lot of it hasn't been shown to be very useful.

[hamsterTK 93]

Spending hundreds of dollars on this public transit nobody uses? Maybe the combined total over the past 40 years you mean, and that would be pushing it. The 2009 FTA budget is like 10 billion in itself, and that's pretty high actually.

Personally, I'd just the leave the gas taxes the way they are. They function as a secondary user fee for public roads, in the way fares do on a public transit system. Both are still subsidized but this way people who use one aren't paying as much for the other.

Anyways I still your nuts if you think oil is just fine and perfect as a resource as it stands now, even if prices are deflated after an artificial inflation in price (which itself should be a warning, IMO). While it may not be celebrity cause or a political third rail, I think that both average people and small companies will continue to tinker with alternative sources and vehicles and eventually we'll dump it for the better.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: hym

And what if you have a multi-billion dollar system that nobody uses?  Is it a good thing then that you spent potentially hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure that has to be maintained, but no one uses?

The usefulness of mass transit is highly relative, and a lot of it hasn't been shown to be very useful.quote>

A well designed and managed system will be used. Heck, if Edmonton had any semblance of a decent mass transit system, I'd take it all the time instead of driving. But I don't quite feel like spending 2 hours on a bus to go somewhere I can drive in 20 minutes.

[duack 14]

Mass transit doesn't work it just doesn't. Most of the time, huge mass transit projects get built just for a government to get more votes rather than for it to work

And besides, a gas tax is unneccasary. Once peak oil production is past (It hasn't yet. They thought it was past in the 60's and it didn't) So when peak oil does pass, prices will rise slowly and this will encourage businessess to move on to other alternatives . Its happened before, In the 1850's billiard balls were made out of ivory. nobody really cared about the elephants, but of course ivory eventually came in short supply so an alternative was found which led tp the discovery of plastic.

[Ntq€310 1]

This is a bad idea, for both the nation and the economy.

First of All the Nation couldn't handel this because our transit system's areant prepared to handel what car's left behind. Do you really think the rular area's could take this? there lack of density, there need of the car, and low wages would be disasterious. This could olny be enacted when a alternative to the car that can pick it up, or a alternative to gas is found that could handel what the car leaves behind.

Besides that the effect on the Economy in general. With the lower classes and Rular america fighting to find a way to get to work the economy would take a nose dive. Also with the fact business rely on gas currently too, and many of those would be negitivly effected.

Besides that there are alot of other ways to help encourage good energy use, and discourage use of the car that dosent involve taxing.

[Deathtoall 28]

Rather than increase the tax on petrol as a whole just increase the price on unefficient vehicles, like SUVs, but dont put it on utes and small trucks that alot of farmers rely on. I dont really think that a 4x4 in the city or suburbs is really that neccesary and if you want a nice car just buy an european which can be powerful and suprisingly efficient, or gasp, a station wagon (Side-note, bring them back). You have to attack those that drive them in the cities where you dont need one. As for poor people stuck with them, bring down the taxes for them elsewhere. The need is to make cleaner tech more viable. A flat tax is on petrol is not the answer.

Here the luxury tax on cars was increased but if it was an efficient vehicle the tax kicked in at a higher price level( which prompted alot of makers consider sending more of their diesel cars here). We do make cars here (Australia), Ford, GM (under the Holden brand-Opal/Vuxhual in Europe) and Toyota but unfortunately alot of them are V6 gas guzzlers. The government is still cutting taxes on imports as part of FTA agreements but will sponsor green car iniatives. Toyota just got 35 Million to help them build Prius cars here and GM got some to produce a four cylinder car here (even though by the time it comes out, after 2012 8.8 litres per 100kms wont be that great) and Ford will produce some small cars here.

Simply flat taxes don't work and public transport does work Duack, you probably have bad experiences, i know i do, but thats becuase the government has spent the last 15 years ignoring all infrastructure, and i dont want to open that can of worms, i could go on for ever.

[hamsterTK 93]

How about just a 6000% tax on Truck Nuts®.

That would eliminate most of the douchey truck drivers leaving only working people driving them?

[Danlikebooks 6]

Yes, mass transit does work, but only when done properly.  For example, once you get used to the subway map in New York City, its probably one of the easiest way of transportation.  You get in, buy a ticket, hop on the train, and then you're at your destination.

If we want mass transit to work, then it has to be built properly.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks Yes, mass transit does work, but only when done properly.  For example, once you get used to the subway map in New York City, its probably one of the easiest way of transportation.  You get in, buy a ticket, hop on the train, and then you're at your destination.

If we want mass transit to work, then it has to be built properly.quote>

 

Their also has to be the proper population density for it to work at all.

NY, Boston,Londen,  places like that  it works because of the population density,were people live and work close to a station and it is eaiser and faster to get someplace by subway.

It dont work like that in suburbia.

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks Yes, mass transit does work, but only when done properly.  For example, once you get used to the subway map in New York City, its probably one of the easiest way of transportation.  You get in, buy a ticket, hop on the train, and then you're at your destination.

If we want mass transit to work, then it has to be built properly.quote>

 

Their also has to be the proper population density for it to work at all.

NY, Boston,Londen,  places like that  it works because of the population density,were people live and work close to a station and it is eaiser and faster to get someplace by subway.

It dont work like that in suburbia.

quote>

Hmm...  Solar Powered Buses?

Or in rural areas, [sarcasm] METHANE POWERED BUSES, CARS, AND TRUCKS!!!  [/sarcasm].

Maybe.