Gas Tax

[Duke87 1,070]

I question whether a gas tax really hits the poor all that hard. Think about it. It's middle and upper class people that drive cars everywhere. Working class people use public transportation a lot more. Many of them don't even own a car. Those that do probably don't use it as often. Sure, it would seem to hit rural and suburban areas harder, but poor people don't live in suburbia, they live mostly in urban areas. Where there's mass transit.

This sounds awfully similar to an argument going on in New York about putting tolls on the bridges over the East River that currently do not have them as a way to fund the MTA, which desperately needs the money. The key argument against it is that it regressively penalizes the poor for living in the outer boroughs as opposed to in Manhattan, where they cannot afford to live. The problem is that the vast majority of people who live in Queens or Brooklyn and work in Manhattan do not drive to work. They use public transportation (chiefly the subway). Those that do drive in to work are the more affluent types who turn their nose up at public transportation. They drive their car to work not because they have to, but as a luxury. So, tolling the bridges is anything but a tax on the poor, it's quite the opposite. Problem is, the politicians don't see it that way. A lot of people (and thus a lot of votes) don't see it that way either, in blind ignorance of the facts. It's just emotionally entrenched in our minds that we expect those bridges to be free. We don't want that to change.

But anyways, back on the gas tax issue... I'm all in favor of it. I say the best way to do it is have it be automatically variable. Each week, the tax is determined by taking the national average price sans the tax but including state taxes, and taking the difference between that and $4.00 a gallon for regular, $4.10 for plus, and $4.20 for premium. So, if the national average price for regular is $1.95, the tax is $4.00-$1.95, or $2.05 a gallon (this would replace the existing federal tax on gas, not add onto it). If the price rises above $4.00, the math still holds. So if the national average price is $4.45, the tax is $4.00-$4.45, or a 45¢ subsidy per gallon. The law would then also have to contain provision to raise the "target price" if the market value remained over $4.00 for an extended period of time. Can't keep subidizing it forever.

This extra revenue would then go to fund maintenance and upgrades on infrastructure (transportation and otherwise), with the transportation part, of course, having the emphasis put on mass transit.

[jammy 0]

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot It's only about 18 cents per galloon.quote>

WHAT! 18 cents per gallon! here in the UK 'gas tax' is 50p per litre so... that works out as us being taxed $2.80 per gallon.

[jammy 0]

Originally posted by: hym

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.quote>

well this is ridiculous then, if the richest country on earth cannot afford their gas to be just $3.50, and when your gas was that expensive people in most of Europe where paying in excess of $6.00-$7.00 per gallon. Yes we were grumbling but gas prices in Europe have not being below $3.50 per gallon for years upon years.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: jammy

Originally posted by: hym

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.quote>

well this is ridiculous then, if the richest country on earth cannot afford their gas to be just $3.50, and when your gas was that expensive people in most of Europe where paying in excess of $6.00-$7.00 per gallon. Yes we were grumbling but gas prices in Europe have not being below $3.50 per gallon for years upon years.quote>

Ridiculous or not, I really was working with coworkers who didn't earn enough money to afford that kind of gas bill.  You said that your gas tax works out to about $2.80 a gallon.  Even if the gas was given away for free, some of my coworkers couldn't afford gas that expensive.

Also, to you gas that is "just $3.50" is cheap.  For a lot of Americans, $3.50 is painfully high.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I concur completely. While some cities may have good transit networks, the suburban and rural areas have little or none. Some suburbs don't even have sidewalks! The simple fact is that you need a car to go to work or get groceries, in an overwhelming majority of places in the US.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Why not integrate a part of the gas tax into your registration fees?

Penalise those idiots that buy SUVs and trucks purely for the "status" symbol.

That tax could then be easily waived for businesses who need to use trucks for work. Could work out quite nicely.

But seriously, you guys are very, very lucky to get $1.50 a gallon - that's like 35c a litre. We're paying probably around 65c US a litre at the moment. That's about $2.80 a gallon.

Proportionally, I'd say that if gas prices are kept around the $2.50-2.80 mark, that would work for the vast majority of people, so long as mass transit links are well-maintained. Subsidise the cost for poor people - reduce the cost to around $2.40 or thereabouts, but put restrictions on the use (ie. can only be used by the person who owns the "gas card", can only get a maximum of 100L or so) of the subsidy?

These are only a few ideas - I don't even know if they will work, but it can't hurt to make suggestions.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Manticorefan said: Some suburbs don't even have sidewalks!quote>

OMFG, you hit a nail on the head! I have noticed this for years and years. My best friend lives in an addition with no sidewalks. Every time I go for a visit, I have to dodge children and morons walking down the middle of the street. You made a nice observation. Its drives my wife and me nuts!

Barbarossaquote>

 

The suburbs of dallas are the same way, ( except for the sidewalk thing, never heard of a housing division with no sidewalks ). you have bus service to most suburbs, but unless you live and work by a stop you gonna need a vehicle to get around. Uless you want to wait for a bus every time you want to go somewere or do something.

we dont have little grocieie shops in every building, the grociers are sometimes miles away from the housing areas.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa I will tell you that the mass transit system in Oklahoma stinks more than a skunk.  It might as well not exist. quote>

And some of the money from my gas tax could fix that. It is a problem in need of fixing.

Originally posted by: manticorefan While some cities may have good transit networks, the suburban and rural areas have little or none. Some suburbs don't even have sidewalks! The simple fact is that you need a car to go to work or get groceries, in an overwhelming majority of places in the US.quote>

Uh huh. And who lives in suburbs? Working class people? No. The residents of suburbs are middle to upper class people who can afford to pay that much for gas. Consider it a luxury tax for living in less sustainable and less efficient suburban sprawl.

As for rural areas... well, that's a different story. There are less well-off people in rural areas. Farmers, principally. Still, their tractors and whatnot likely run on diesel, which I'm not proposing taxing, and as for their cars they drive... well, it's encouragement to think before you buy. If they can't afford to drive the car they've got, good. Next time they'll get a more fuel efficient car that they can afford. If not something smaller or a hybrid, hey, diesel! Remember how I'm not taxing that? Yeah.

And yes, it is a problem that such people may not be able to afford to abandon their gas guzzler since they can't afford a new car at the moment since their current one isn't old enough yet.

But that's a temporary problem that will correct itself given a few years. So in the long run, it's a non-issue.

And the long term benefits make it worth the short term sacrifice.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: jammy

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot It's only about 18 cents per gallon.quote>

WHAT! 18 cents per gallon! here in the UK 'gas tax' is 50p per litre so... that works out as us being taxed $2.80 per gallon.quote>

That doesn't include various state, county, and municipal taxes that are much higher. The average state tax alone is 48.4¢ per gallon.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Uh huh. And who lives in suburbs? Working class people? No. The residents of suburbs are middle to upper class people who can afford to pay that much for gas. Consider it a luxury tax for living in less sustainable and less efficient suburban sprawl. quote>

The suburbs aren't all middle to upper class. I am only familiar with the 'burbs close to where I have lived, but I could point you to a few that are really, really poor. In IL, there's Posen, Dixmoor, and Phoenix; while Portland, OR has Oregon City. I'm sure others here can think of a few.

It may be a surprise that more poor live in the burbs than the cities according to an NPR story [link].

I'm sure NYC has some poverty-stricken ring towns, as does LA. Gentrification is driving the poor into the suburbs, as they cannot afford what was once a ghetto, but is now $500,000 condos (see Logan Square, Chicago).

And even if there are upper-class people who can afford it, does that make it fair to just dismiss their right to fight an extra tax burden? The rich have just as sacred a right to their property as the poor do, to paraphrase John Adams.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: jammy

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot It's only about 18 cents per gallon.quote>

WHAT! 18 cents per gallon! here in the UK 'gas tax' is 50p per litre so... that works out as us being taxed $2.80 per gallon.quote>

That doesn't include various state, county, and municipal taxes that are much higher. The average state tax alone is 48.4¢ per gallon.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Uh huh. And who lives in suburbs? Working class people? No. The residents of suburbs are middle to upper class people who can afford to pay that much for gas. Consider it a luxury tax for living in less sustainable and less efficient suburban sprawl. quote>

The suburbs aren't all middle to upper class. I am only familiar with the 'burbs close to where I have lived, but I could point you to a few that are really, really poor. In IL, there's Posen, Dixmoor, and Phoenix; while Portland, OR has Oregon City. I'm sure others here can think of a few.

It may be a surprise that more poor live in the burbs than the cities according to an NPR story [link].

I'm sure NYC has some poverty-stricken ring towns, as does LA. Gentrification is driving the poor into the suburbs, as they cannot afford what was once a ghetto, but is now $500,000 condos (see Logan Square, Chicago).

And even if there are upper-class people who can afford it, does that make it fair to just dismiss their right to fight an extra tax burden? The rich have just as sacred a right to their property as the poor do, to paraphrase John Adams.quote>

 

In the DFW area suburbs are much cheaper to live  in then down town were in dallas untill recently there were no places for people to live. now they have some places built up around

victory plaza but like Logan Square they are high priced condos, out of the reach of most people who work in the office buildings.The dallas suburbs are a mixed up conglomeration

of High ,mid, low and lowest income brackets within the same suburbs most of the time.

 

[screamingman12 30]

Not only would gas taxes fund public transit, but if upper/upper middle class people drove enough, they may be encouraged to move to the city to avoid driving so much, giving that transit system more customers. I support higher gas taxes, we need them not only to fund public transit (which we need more of), but also to prevent stuff like the I-35W collapse.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

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

It will be a long time before it benefits the poor because cheap, clean energy is still a scientific myth.  They know how to make clean energy, but it's still not cost-effective to do so.  The only possible exception to that currently in existence is nuclear power, but that's got so many social taboos that I'm not even going to try to explain all the problems it would run into, not including the mere fact that it takes forever to get the permits to build one.

In an entirely different venue of looking at this, there is the issue of the economic standpoint of this and what taxes do to supply and demand.  When you create a tax to deal with a negative externality, you mess with the natural process of supply and demand and the point of market equilibrium.  In other words, trying to fix a social problem with a tax creates problems in and of itself.  You mess with the consumer surplus and what you are left with is fewer people that can afford the good.  When the price is determined by the market, you reach price equilibrium.  At price equilibrium, the largest portion of the market can afford the product.  If equilibrium drops, then more people can afford it and the market expands.  If equilibrium goes up, then fewer can afford the product.  When you impose a tax to fix a social problem, you create a natural inefficiency in things.And with that inefficiency, you only create more problems than you solve.

[duack 14]

What are you talking about Duke? Wealthy people live in the inner city areas or at least inner suburbs which are way expensive. Its poor people who live in outer suburbs and have longer commute times and therefore have to drive longer, usually with older cars that are more gas-guzzly. 

Thankyou Voar Tok, great explanantion. After the 1980's, it became apparent that free markets work best

[Deathtoall 28]

I disagree Duack, in the US alot of the rich people fled to the out skirts and semi-rural properties, the inner city areas tend to be slums/ghetto which a large majority tend to be immigrants.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: duack What are you talking about Duke? Wealthy people live in the inner city areas or at least inner suburbs which are way expensive. Its poor people who live in outer suburbs and have longer commute times and therefore have to drive longer, usually with older cars that are more gas-guzzly. 

Thankyou Voar Tok, great explanantion. After the 1980's, it became apparent that free markets work best quote>

What?

What makes that happen, in the situations that it does, is the mass transit that you said a page ago "will never work". In areas such as SF Bay Area and DC, a lot of wealthy people do live in the cities but just as many, if not more, live in the suburbs. Take Los Angeles as an example. It can be debated whether or not the free market works best, I support some regulation myself.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

It will be a long time before it benefits the poor because cheap, clean energy is still a scientific myth.  They know how to make clean energy, but it's still not cost-effective to do so. quote>

But see, the point is that by taxing the dirty energy you make the clean energy more economical.

Originally posted by: duack What are you talking about Duke? Wealthy people live in the inner city areas or at least inner suburbs which are way expensive. Its poor people who live in outer suburbs and have longer commute times and therefore have to drive longer, usually with older cars that are more gas-guzzly.quote>

You refer to the phenomenon of gentrification. And while it may be true that rich people are increasingly living more in urban areas, poor people don't live in outer suburbs, they also live in the city, albeit not in the center city areas ("inner city" and "center city" are not the same thing). Just look at places like Harlem, the South Bronx, Bedford-Stuyvesant and Bushwick... areas which would be considered "inner city" which are very poor, and which have quite ample access to subways and buses, which the residents use. If you want to talk about outer suburbs or "exurbs"... yes, there are places out there which aren't very nice like Danbury or Bridgeport, but those are in and of themselves urban areas which have public transportation in the form of buses, which the working class people use while the non-working class people do not. Get on a CT Transit bus and count the white people. There won't be too many, if there are any. The majority of exurbs, however, are not represented by such satellite urban areas but rather by areas which are, well, exurban. Look at places like Easton, Mahopac, Tuxedo Park, Butler... not exactly "poor" areas. And need I bring up Greenwich and New Canaan? Some of the most expensive places in the country and, indeed, (if you adjust for average income) in the world, to live. Again, "outer suburbs".

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Manticorefan said: Some suburbs don't even have sidewalks!quote>

OMFG, you hit a nail on the head! I have noticed this for years and years. My best friend lives in an addition with no sidewalks. Every time I go for a visit, I have to dodge children and morons walking down the middle of the street. You made a nice observation. Its drives my wife and me nuts!

Barbarossaquote>

My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks, it drives me insane!

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Manticorefan said: Some suburbs don't even have sidewalks!quote>

OMFG, you hit a nail on the head! I have noticed this for years and years. My best friend lives in an addition with no sidewalks. Every time I go for a visit, I have to dodge children and morons walking down the middle of the street. You made a nice observation. Its drives my wife and me nuts!

Barbarossaquote>

My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks, it drives me insane!quote>

The no sidewalks thing drives me crazy.  My mom gets especially pissed, because she grew up in the heart of Damascus and she walked everywhere.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Manticorefan said: Some suburbs don't even have sidewalks!quote>

OMFG, you hit a nail on the head! I have noticed this for years and years. My best friend lives in an addition with no sidewalks. Every time I go for a visit, I have to dodge children and morons walking down the middle of the street. You made a nice observation. Its drives my wife and me nuts!

Barbarossaquote>

My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks, it drives me insane!quote>

The no sidewalks thing drives me crazy.  My mom gets especially pissed, because she grew up in the heart of Damascus and she walked everywhere.quote>

 

Whos desicion would that be to not put in sidewalks?

My dad does building building inspections and i think sidewalks are required  by city code

to be installed. Mabey if only to allow handicaped access.

 

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87

But see, the point is that by taxing the dirty energy you make the clean energy more economical.

quote>

I fail to see how artificially inflating the price of one makes the other any cheaper.

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Whos desicion would that be to not put in sidewalks?

quote>

In some wealthy areas, it was a deliberate decision. I have heard that walking more than a certain distance in Bel Air, CA is illegal, but was unable to confirm it. The law may have been repealed in the years since I heard this.

Residents of Encinitas, CA are trying to get sidewalks eliminated to preserve the town's "rural character". Carlsbad found that the only documented traffic injuries were on the few streets that had sidewalks. [link] [sarcasm] Evidently, they're dangerous.[/sarcasm]

Actually, the linked site (Earth Times) cites several studies that show sidewalks do actually increase accidents. Makes sense, you just can't trust some people with a sidewalk.

[Duke87 1,070]

It's not sidewalks that increase accidents, it's pedestrians. Things is, having a sidewalk will encourage pedestrian travel, so it indirectly causes more accidents.

It's dangerous for the pedestrians, not the drivers. Considering how much more massive a car is than a person, naturally, if the two collide, the person loses.

At the same time, though, if there are things within walking distance, it makes sense to walk. It drives me nuts when people get in their car to drive to their friends house around the corner, especially if the weather is nice (it's perhaps justifiable if it's pouring rain or freezing cold).

There are no sidewalks on my street, but considering the nearest store or bus stop is over a mile away, that's understandable. Not much you can easily reach by walking, and that which you can... well, it's a quiet little sidestreet in a no outlet little loop. You can just walk in the street without worrying about getting run over. So people around here prefer not having the sidewalks since they wouldn't be worth the expense to maintain (rational and true) and would scar our pretty lawns (stupid suburban attitude).

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Duke87

But see, the point is that by taxing the dirty energy you make the clean energy more economical.

quote>

I fail to see how artificially inflating the price of one makes the other any cheaper.quote>

It doesn't.  It works like this - say you have two forms of energy - one that costs $10 per unit and one that costs $30 per unit.  If you tax the cheap but dirty stuff up to $27 per unit, suddenly the $30 per unit, clean energy looks a lot better.  Granted, that's an extreme case, but it illustrates the point.  In all reality, you don't make the clean energy any more economical.  You make the dirty energy less economical, the overall cost of doing business goes up, and any supposed cost benefits to going with the cleaner energy are purely an illusion and the result of mind games.

[hamsterTK 93]

Economies of scale. Once there is significant demand for this clean technology, it can be mass produced and it's design continuously improved until the price has dropped.

I think you'll get to see this soon. Electric cars, and cars with self-driving technology in them, are really the future of transportation.

[jack11 0]

It's all about taxing people JUST because they make a bigger dime -rolleyes- If you want to make a difference, urge rich people to get incentives such as tax breaks or other things that they would find useful for donating to causes. Such as what we have now. I'm middle class, my parents suffer from all these stupid ideas

Q: If you tax MIDDLE and UPPER who suffers?

A: Middle!

Q: Why is this?

A: Because Middle are making it by on the Middle Class level why should they have to "come down" to that level. I don't mean to sound harsh against lower class, but why should they suffer?

My dad is a hard working American, he's earned his job, it's fairly steady where he is, I'm not going to say where (no not the military lol) and he makes money with a little extra here and there to spend. Which is the way everyone would like it to be.

My friend Chris was a logger (people who cut down trees, sort of like a lumberjack) and he joined the Army, he's got a steady job there too, but he is a HARD WORKING American, regardless of opinion on war, he has been over to Iraq once or twice and his next tour is probably going to be Afghanistan. Again regardless of your opinion of the war, he does his job, with pride, and does a good job of it! He hates the fact that he needs to share his wealth with the next joe blow on the list right below him because joe blow can't work harder.

Now, of course, there are some joe blow's that truly can't work/disabled etc. Well, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the drug dealers and other scum of the earth that live off welfare and live in Gov't housing. It's total B.S. and there IS A LOT of that. If you get rid of those people I bet you wont have NEARLY as hard of a time fixing the deficit of the city fund.

BTW: I'm not trying to be offtopic here, but I'm trying to make a point on why the gas tax is so stupid. I hope you understand what I'm saying. Sorry if I don't reply right away, I'm leaving to go out of town tomorrow and might not make it online for a while.

I would like to see the hybrid cars or a MUCH BETTER alternative, Corn, bio, and a few other alternatives don't work at all we need something that's awesome and really works.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK Economies of scale. Once there is significant demand for this clean technology, it can be mass produced and it's design continuously improved until the price has dropped.

I think you'll get to see this soon. Electric cars, and cars with self-driving technology in them, are really the future of transportation.

quote>

True, but that's not guaranteed.  There's are newer, cleaner ways of producing energy that still aren't practical despite the laws of economies of scale.  Wind and solar power come to mind.  If the entire nation just up and changed to either of those, there's still no way that the stuff would be practical.  The technology to make it practical just doesn't exist yet.

[Danlikebooks 6]

I would like to see the hybrid cars or a MUCH BETTER alternative, Corn, bio, and a few other alternatives don't work at all we need something that's awesome and really works.quote>

Aye, corn biodesial takes five times the energy to produce than it creates.  Prairie Grass is the thing of the future, it creates five times as much energy than it takes to produce.

True, but that's not guaranteed.  There's are newer, cleaner ways of producing energy that still aren't practical despite the laws of economies of scale.  Wind and solar power come to mind.  If the entire nation just up and changed to either of those, there's still no way that the stuff would be practical.  The technology to make it practical just doesn't exist yet. quote>

But you've forgotten this old business motto:  "Where there's a profit, there's a way!"

If someone is motivated by profits to make the technology for clean energy, then by all means, he will do it.  The only thing holding them back, is the massive profits by the oil companies.  Reduce those, and then, things will start to happen.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

In another thread I noted this development, thermal depolymerization. (link)

It turns any organic matter into light sweet crude, from turkey offal (currently) to people (eventually IMHO). The crude can then be processed like any other petroleum oil. It's proven, decade-old technology that works.

[hamsterTK 93]

So they can make plastics from that right? That's awesome. I had read something about that before but forgot if it was really working or just a experiment.

to me that's my personal biggest fear related to oil running out. Plastics, pesticides, chemicals, etc

from turkey offal (currently) to people (eventually IMHO)quote>

Soylent Crude is people lolz.