[Tyler_JC]

Remember crazy little Ross Perot, said we needed a $.50 a gallon gas tax, and we could use it to pay off the deficit. Little guy dosen't seem so crazy now does he.

He couldn't have been that crazy, otherwise my dad wouldn't have voted for him...twice.

If Perot had been elected in '92, we wouldn't be having these problems right now.

The national debt would be much lower (if not totally paid off).
NAFTA would have been gone.
American manufactoring would still be in America.
Illegal immigration would have been kept in check.
Gas would cost $4 a gallon but Americans would have much smaller cars to compensate.
We wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
Term Limits! We could have had Term Limits!
...
Rambles a little about the virtues of the Reform Party
...
Ends with the quote, "The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river."

[I_Ride_Bicycles]

I'm generally against taxes but say "Hell yes" in this scenario. A gas tax on private transportation targets that specific usage, while leaving farming, public transportation, business transportation, and winter heating costs alone.

One particular worry I have with the relatively cheap US gas prices is that people will still be driving their Hummer to the grocery store even after a week's worth of groceries costs $1000.

[gnm]

And the wealthy would keep driving thier hummer if gas was $5 a gallon. But you would get demand destruction since the poor would not be able to afford it (or heating for that matter) so if you are all for die off then increase the tax and wipe out all those pesky people on fixed incomes...

Sure, I'll support it. PROVIDING WE DO AWAY WITH THE INCOME TAX FIRST. That money back in our pockets would help make up for the difference and ensure that the government doesn't find itself with plenty of extra revenue for the resource wars..

-G

[MrBean]

Sure, I'll support it. PROVIDING WE DO AWAY WITH THE INCOME TAX FIRST.

Cheers, comrade! Nice to see a fellow socialist here, since only societies without income taxes (not counting parasitic tax paradises like Monaco) are socialist: paycheck comes from the collective so no need for taxes!

[WisJim]

I would like to see an additional dollar (or more) a gallon gas tax, put in place gradually over a year or so, and used as the only money to support our oil wars, such as the current one in Iraq. Or, use the money for public transportation.

I also would like to see the utility companies do away with the rate schedules that reduce the per kilowatt price of electricity when you purchace more--I think there should be a base amount (maybe 100kw-hrs/month) that would be at a cheap rate, and then it would gradually get more expensive, the more you used, instead of getting cheaper the more you use.

Jim

[BabyPeanut]

WHAT WE PAY FOR IN A GALLON OF REGULAR GASOLINE (link)
Jan-2000 32.1% tax

Aug-2005 17.7% tax.

I'm estimating that $2.48 gal, national average would be $3.09 if the 17% tax was 32.1%

[dukey]

how does the tax work anyway ?
in UK we have vat on petrol which is a % tax. But there is also a fixed rate rate as well which isn't a percentage. So when rude oil gets more expensive that part stays constant.

[aahala]

The US gasoline and diesel tax is by gallon - 18.4 and 24.4 cents per,
without regard to price.

State taxes vary but mostly in the 18-22 cent range. In a minority of
locales, there's additional taxes, some based upon a percentage of price.

[peaker_2005]

how does the tax work anyway ?
in UK we have vat on petrol which is a % tax. But there is also a fixed rate rate as well which isn't a percentage. So when rude oil gets more expensive that part stays constant.

That's how the tax works at the moment.

Howard WAS going to unfix the flat tax, but changed his mind. Somehow, I get the feeling it's only a temporary reprieve.

People want him to reduce the tax, but he's not budging.

While I don't agree with many of his policies these days, I am most definitely in agreeance with this one.

[rogerhb]

So why reduce the tax? Surely the market would respond to the price signals and produce more? Reducing the tax merely surpresses the signal! It's the governments fault the oil companies aren't exploring.

We are paying > NZ$1.50 per litre!

[Sys1]

They just try to ease oil prices artificially. Won't last for long. Actually, this choice will lead to a worse situation.

[Specop_007]

Finally we have come to the root of the problem ladies and gentlemen. It has everything to do with the dollar. Period.
Oil selling nations make money hand over fist selling....oil.
Governments of oil consuming nations make tax money hand over fist from using.....oil.

This will never change, until one of two things happen. We either have to be priced out of oil, or simply stop using oil. Rest assured, as long as nations stand to make money from oil there will be no push to change.

And isnt that just fucking sad? To Hell with the future, rising costs be damned. Its all about lining the coffers, and damn the subjects.

Article

Report suggests taxing hybrids, billing drivers by mile

WASHINGTON - Taxing hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars and billing drivers for miles driven are among the approaches being suggested to avert a shortfall in money to maintain the nation's highways.

Less than four months after President Bush signed a six-year, $286.4 billion highway and public transit act, a report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money and Congress needs to think about new revenue sources.

"Decisions are going to have to be made in the very near future," said Ed Mortimer, the business lobby's director of transportation infrastructure, acknowledging it could be a tall order. The next highway bill is years away and lawmakers may be loathe to return to a measure that was widely criticized for being padded with thousands of special-interest projects.

[The_Toecutter]

I've got a better idea. Why not tax the automaker for each vehicle they sell at the point of purchase instead, with the tax varying by the amount of roadwear the vehicle is expected to contribute over its lifetime? For that matter, why not do the same with pollution? Neither of these will touch the personal lives of any individual consumer, although the corporations will invariably get greedy and raise their prices to preserve profit margins; let them lose even more customers!

After all, everyone should pay their fare share. Those damaged by the pollution these vehicles put out should not have to pay for those damages, nor should people have to worry about big government sticking its nose in their vehicle either seeking to milk them of more tax revenue than they should and tracking how much they drive...


This entire tax idea and the fact that it is pegged to oil is just another reason that I'm building an electric car. When the G7 nations make more tax revenue from oil than does OPEC, we have a little conflict of interest between the people and the government(s). Likewise, when viable and CHEAPER alternatives to oil exist yet are supressed due to not being as profitable and not accounting for as much consumption as needed to maintain endless economic growth(the cornucopian ideal), that also shows the corporations and the people have a conflict of interest.

Thus it makes sense that big government and big business are in bed with each other, both seeking to part you with your money, and should henceforth both be abolished, by peaceful means or otherwise.

[pup55]

U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money

I thought the US chamber of commerce believes in cutting taxes, which in theory stimulates the economy and causes a net revenue increase. Under this reasoning, which has actually been applied to the rest of the economy (with spectacularly unsuccessful results), if they want to raise more money, they should cut taxes and encourage people to use more fuel.

Idiots. Why don't they stick to running their businesses and leave the social policy alone.

[Leanan]

This was Arnold Schwarzenegger's idea. California has high gas taxes and lots of liberals, which of course means lots of low-mileage cars. The Governator, being a Hummer driver himself, didn't like the idea of raising gas taxes further. So he came up with the idea of taxing cars per miles driven, because it's "fair."

Liberals were outraged, of course, seeing it as attempt to tax the poor for the benefit of the rich. I can kind of see Arnie's point, though. If you want demand destruction to happen, you have to discourage driving, period, not just discourage driving Hummers.

However, I think this is a bass ackwards way of going about it. Having to track the mileage of every vehicle on the road is just too much of a pain. IMO, it's not possible without some serious privacy implications. Not worth it.

This does demonstrate how difficult it will be to keep driving after TSHTF. It's gas taxes that build our roads and keep them maintained. If people actually cut back on driving, there's less money for the road system...and less willingness to pay for public roads. The government must raise taxes on the remaining drivers or let the roads deteriorate...either of which makes driving less appealing, further reducing support for the highways system. It's a death spiral.

[eastbay]

'Fairness' should have nothing to do with road use. The sole factor should be gas usage and that's where the taxation must occur. Implementing a costly system of monitoring and taxing miles driven is just a way to push the high cost of road maintenance away from the SUV crowd and other lousy mileage vehicles and onto higher mileage vehicles.

This disgusting idea will only serve to promote sales and use of poor mileage personal vehicles which is exactly where demand destruction should be hitting.

A better idea is to increase the national gas tax gradually to reach European levels for the sole purpose of discourageing personal vehicle use not to raise money for road maintenance and building.

[formandfile]

Better idea still: dump highway trust fund money into the FTA new starts account for mass transit. Want quick and dirty demand destruction? Let the highways deteriorate instead of repaving them every 2 years....

[Leanan]

That should work. Though the "demand destruction" could be quite literal...

[BabyPeanut]

FREE ROAD INCLUDED WITH THIS CAR!!!

Nope, sorry it doesn't work that way--you have to look at the big picture.