Gas Tax

President Camacho · Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: Gas Tax

With almost 70% of every dollar spent on gasoline being funneled out of America and sent over-seas, it seems that increasing the gasoline tax would have benefits for the American economy. Wouldn't you agree?

1. Gas has a very high elasticity of demand as proof by how our fellow Americans keep on lining up to pump their vehicles full of hydrocarbons despite raising fuel prices. Americans skimp on buying other goods that are produced here, are sold by American companies, and employ Americans.

2. Raising the gasoline tax would force the gas of price down by weakening our economy and raising inflation. Because oil is traded in dollars, this is something that OPEC does not want. Inflation hurts their bottom line and devalues oil.

3. The long term effects of increased gasoline prices, that is a change in what energy we use to propel our vehicles, will be brought about faster. If the cost of gas was more expensive than investing in battery operated vehicles... people would switch.

4. The money from the tax could be immediately made available for research into strengthening battery performance, education, switching all public use vehicles to electric vehicles, or anything. I admit this is shady but the money needs to go somewhere. Not quite sure yet.

5. We would end our oil enslavement and start sucking juice from the sun... like we should!

6. Oil makes all kinds of things including this computer I'm typing on right now. Plastic, rubber, and many other products depend on oil to be made. It's not very intelligent to waste such a valuable resource by "burning" it away.

7. There would be more oil available to make gas for things that we can't get to run on batteries right now. These include aircraft and pleasure vehicles like boats.

8. Oil represents a huge drain to the economy by funneling out millions of dollars from circulation in America everyday. This money goes to countries THAT DON'T LIKE US. Most of them are jam packed with radical Muslims. Why don't we stop financing these guys??? Good idea, right?

These are just my thoughts after reading several articles and books about the matter. The idea is very practical. A dollar increase in gas tax would not kill our economy. It would be an extremely regressive form of taxation, one that would have a hurtful impact on the poor but one necessary to get the people angry enough to bring about change.

We need to hit rock bottom faster. The faster we hit bottom, the faster we will do something about it. Lets put ourselves out of our misery and seek solar/wind - sun powered energy. We can bring about a self induced "bottom" that, if need be, can be repealed/re-worked.

What do you think?
Remember: this is about economics and politics more than the environment.

Ophelia · Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:26 am Post subject:

President Camacho · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: 8 year pimp

Americans currently get taxed about 20 cents per gallon depending on how their particular state taxes them. Federal taxes amount to about 18.3 cents. I don't assume you know (but most likely do) that 100 cents = 1 dollar.

That may be a problem for the federal government. If I'm getting my electricity to power my car through solar power the government can't tax me for gas or for electricity!!! hahaha so so so sad. lol. Laughing

You know, I don't mind paying taxes but it seems like we need to improve transportation somehow and decrease the amount of people in the world. There is less and less area to move around in and I'm getting claustrophobic.

I don't want to see the United States turn into Japan. Have you ever been to Tokyo? That place is a nightmare and the people seem crammed, ass to nose, wherever you go.

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject:

I find it hard to follow you; to me it seems you are sometimes arguing one way, and then going in a diffferent direction next on this issue.

President Camacho · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: :)

I was just making a point that our taxes for fuel in America are very low. When I said that 100 cents = 1 dollar I was just trying to let you know how our money system worked... like 100 copecks = 1 rouble. - That sort of thing.

When I talk about transportation, I talk about it with American ideals in mind, namely freedom. A train does not represent freedom, it represents economy. Battery powered cars are the best of both worlds.

France can do as she pleases with regards to population control and that goes the same for every country on earth. Smile

I just think there needs to be population control in America in order for America to continue to survive.

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject:

DWill · Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Tax

President Commancho,
About your bold proposal, a few points, going from bottom to top.

1. The impetus for the change you advocate will have to come from the environmental side, largely. I don't think there is any chance that we will make the change for economic/political reasons unless and until the scarcity situation gets much worse.

2. You don't mention coal and nuclear. You should, because if solar or wind were ever to provide all of our power generation, it wouldn't be for decades. And unless you are talking about very steep drops in what we call our living standard, solar, wind, and other alternate sources will never suffice.( Pleasure boats might be out of the question!)

3. You wouldn't give the poorer citizens relief from your gas tax?

4. We currently get 25% of our oil from OPEC. This is a big enough chunk, but it's not as though we're held hostage by sheikdoms, etc.

5. Of course, plug-in cars rely on a remote power source, most likely fueled by coal.

6. The idea of a federal tax of this size has some merit, theoretically, but it assumes that the government could competently direct the big dollar amounts to the right places, in essence doing what the private economy has always been better at doing. I'm not anti-government, just not enthusiastic about more bureaucracies.

Oh boy, is the devil always in the details.

DWill

Ophelia · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:54 am Post subject:

D Will wrote:

President Camacho · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: :)

Dwill,

In response to your list:

The change will have to come from economic/political reasons because environmentalists are under-funded, overpowered, and under-respected. The US has a bad habit of ignoring academia and especially those passionate about it like environmentalists. They mock and belittle them. Very little change will come from their efforts.

The reason for the tax is national economic stability, not to save the environment. It is meant to replicate or counterfeit an event that the market forces are going to do anyway. You hit on this when you mentioned scarcity. Think what will happen when gas does become quite scarce. Oil companies will want to sell every drop, so they will keep the price low, which will keep other forms of energy more expensive in comparison. Thus, change will be held back until there is practically no oil left to be had and no wiggle room left. It will take time to change and there will be a rather large depression, some widespread panic and general economic instability. It won’t be the end of the world, just a bad trip. The gas tax is meant to test the waters and to give alternate means of power a chance to gain a foothold into the market, thereby making the transition from gas to electric less painful and to lengthen the amount of time that we have access to gasoline (a bad side effect for the environment but one necessary for economic stability).

The poor will have a lot harder time when the actual market manifests itself. This counterfeit market will cushion the blow on our poor and working class citizens. That’s the “impetus” for the tax. Public transportation or yearly percentage increase like Ophelia suggests is genius. These people would get much worse treatment from actual market forces. They should welcome this idea immediately. At least they will have a say, and we will be able to help them out through adjustments. When the real market comes and everyone is hurting, their cries will largely go unanswered for obvious reasons.

I like number 2. This one is my favorite because it mentions nuclear power. This is a brilliant idea and one that I want to pursue. Coal is out of the question unless they can find some way of making it economically friendly. Now I know I sound like a hypocrite but it is THE dirtiest fuel. Remember the London fog that killed so many people in England? It was because of coal. I even think they outlawed its use for a long time. It’s just dirty enough for me (a non-environmentalist) to say no. Besides DWill, lets get away from non-renewables, right? We don’t need another gasoline. It will be gasoline part II when coal starts to becoming scarce. Been there, done that… next! So nuclear power is a viable solution along with electric cars. Electricity is far cheaper than gasoline.

There are a number of problems with nuclear. The first is that we have it, and we won’t allow other countries to have it. That will be a big problem for our national security.

I’m sorry dude – over 50% of all crude imports come from OPEC.

“US imports of OPEC crude oil jumped 12.8% between 2006 and 2007 to an average of 5.394 million barrels per day (mbd), representing 53.8% of all crude oil imports (10.017 mbd), according to figures from the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. Total US imports of crude declined slightly in 2007, down 1% from 2006.”
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/us-imports-of-o.html

It’s not about being taken hostage by sheikdoms but it is funding them, quite well!!! I probably mentioned this before but they make enough money in 6-8 days to buy GM lock stock and barrel. That’s money and power!

I like number 6 too. I like anyone that is fearful of government. You definitely have a friend here. I like Ophelia’s answer that the money can be used for public transportation or to pay off our national debt (which I hear is going to run close to 9 trillion. 9 TRILLION!!! WOW!!! ). It can be used for anything really. Most likely it will be used where it is needed to stabilize the economy, not to help people buy gas. Then, it would be pointless.

Ophelia · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:02 am Post subject:

President Carmacho wrote:

President Camacho · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:14 am Post subject:

Yeah, environmentally friendly coal really seems like pure propaganda. I'd sooner see bigfoot than clean-coal. It seems just a ploy.

France is one of the most forward thinking countries with respect to energy. I wouldn't want to deny France the right to nuclear power.It's difficult to deny the citizens of any particular country access to such a cheap and environmentally friendly source of power.

Why do we need it in the short term? Not everyone in America will be able to run solar power. It will also take several years for those that are able to use solar/wind to install the necessary gadgetry. Nuclear may be the most realistic short term solution the US has. It is SAFE, clean, and cheap energy. Smile

DWill · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: :)

President C, you don't acknowledge that non-environmentalists have caught on to to the need to put the brake on greenhouse gases? Candidate McCain says he's on board; GWB says we need to have no net growth in greenhouse emissions by 2025. Some of the most active participants in cutting CO2 are the corporations themselves. My point is only that this isssue has had a break-out. We have an enormous way still to go.

You may have misunderstood my reference to coal. I'm not for it or for any particular energy source. It is dirty, destructive, and has caused more deaths--from accidents-- than nuclear power may ever do. My point there was that I think you are greatly overestimating how much energy needs can be supplied by renewables, especially in the short-term (next 50 years). If we deliberately moved away from oil this suddenly, we'd need increased reliance on coal-fired power plants. You do admit that we would have to start building nuclear plants again (maybe hundreds of them). No one really wants to see this happen, but what is the choice?

Another forced choice is doing a lot more oil exploration and drillling domestically. No one except oil companies wants to see this happen. But I wonder if it is really responsible to be against it.

My bad on the OPEC figure.

We need to pay down the national debt--you're so right about that. We need actual structural changes made, not just new taxes, so that we'd have a chance of keeping the debt down. That is why it is so important to fix Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

We haven't said anything about conservation. How many millions of barrels of oil has it been calculated would be saved if we brought back the short-lived 55-mph speed limit? (Just out of curiosity, I wonder how it compares to your $1.00 tax). We hate mandating anything in the U.S. if it will cause us some inconvenience. We like to free to do what the hell we please.

President Camacho · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: responsiness

I've had a couple beers and now feel ready to answer these most respectable and intelligent disputes!

Dwill,

Any politician that says I will do something "tomorrow" is pleasing both sides of the table and should NEVER be taken seriously except by the side that is benefiting. 2012 was the first date set by Bush for fuel efficiency standards that are achievable today without any significant economic loss to the car manufacturers and now we see 2025..... riiiiiigggghhhtttt. Break out? Break out is let us get something accomplished today... not 10 or 15 years from now. 2025 is as good as saying kiss my ass. Remember, this is the president that said no to the very humble Kyoto protocols.

The gas tax in my hypothetical situation is what the market is going to do in the future, regardless! Whatever happens as a result of this is inevitable anyway! At least now we have a way of cushioning the blow.

More drilling and more exploration means to me that you want to burn the oil. I've already said that oil is used to make numerous goods. It's used to make plastic and rubber and you know how many goods are composed of those two materials alone? You are suggesting that we drill so that we can burn it in our engines? That is quite out of the question.

Nothing about social security and medicare/aid are going to pay down the national debt. Relying on these two issues is a huge gamble as i have enumerated elsewhere. I think that you need to seek less government expenditures or MORE TAXES. These two solutions are the only way of paying back the national debt.

Conservation, again, is delaying the inevitable. This is the reason for the gasoline tax. Cheaper gas means leaving the solution for tomorrow. That is irresponsible, that is what republicans want to do, and I am not for it.

DWill · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: Re: responsiness

President C.,
The beer didn't seem to hurt you. Maybe I will try that....I had a feeling you might jump on my assertion that gloabal w


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT