PDA

View Full Version : Gas Tax Poll



Shek
14 Dec 06,, 01:37
Would you support a $1 per gallon gas tax, phased in over 10 years, with the increase being 10 cents per year. The purpose of the tax is to relieve demand on oil, thereby reducing oil profits for Middle Eastern regimes (who will pay a good portion of the tax), helping us towards our goal of reducing our dependence on oil.

Parihaka
14 Dec 06,, 01:45
Yes. Skewing the market in favour of markets other than the middle east should be a government priority.

Shek
14 Dec 06,, 01:54
We'll call it the War on Terror Tax!

Parihaka
14 Dec 06,, 01:59
We'll call it the War on Terror Tax!
Victory Bonds mate, Victory Bonds.

Julie
14 Dec 06,, 02:01
I ante the $1.00 and raise ya $1.00. ;)

dalem
14 Dec 06,, 02:33
I voted yes before I read the part about reducing demand. I don't think it would do that. If the money went to Defense or R&D for reasonable laternatives then I'd stick with my Yes. If it's just to make driving more expensive then no way.

-dale

GVChamp
14 Dec 06,, 03:13
Depends on how the money is used.

cato
14 Dec 06,, 05:08
No freakin' way.
How would I fill up my hummerburban?
Cato

highsea
14 Dec 06,, 05:40
I'll support a one megaton penalty instead.

bonehead
14 Dec 06,, 15:23
HELL NO! to the new tax. Bleed the middle eastern bastards dry first then live off of our reserves. besides, What we don't buy on the international market China will snap up at a lower price and I am not willingly going to pay more to bolster China's economy so they can put even more of our people out of work. We do need to redouble our efforts for sustainable energy, and stretching current resources but there are other ways of paying for it.

gunnut
14 Dec 06,, 18:36
HELL NO! to the new tax. Bleed the middle eastern bastards dry first then live off of our reserves. besides, What we don't buy on the international market China will snap up at a lower price and I am not willingly going to pay more to bolster China's economy so they can put even more of our people out of work. We do need to redouble our efforts for sustainable energy, and stretching current resources but there are other ways of paying for it.

I couldn't have said it better.

We should reduce gas tax so we use more oil before anyone else uses them.

ZFBoxcar
14 Dec 06,, 18:58
If the tax is used to get off of oil altogether by funding alternatives (as Dalem suggested, and assuming it would work), who cares if the Chinese get it?

omon
14 Dec 06,, 20:05
i'm paying 3.45 a gallon now. somehow i don't think that extra 1$ will be used for reserch of alt. sources of energy, this has always been supressed, and until there is no more oil at all, i don't think it'll be taken anymore seriously than now.too much money is in the oil.

gunnut
14 Dec 06,, 20:23
What does our government do with new tax revenue? They'll spend it on welfare. Even if you write it into law that states this money can only be used for research, they'll find a way to "borrow" it with a promise to pay it back later. This is what California does with our Lotto revenue. It was sold to the public as money for education. But the state "borrows" that money every year to pay for some other programs.

dalem
14 Dec 06,, 21:01
Yep. No new tax unless it is rigidly specific down to the quantum level.

-dale

glyn
14 Dec 06,, 21:33
i'm paying 3.45 a gallon now. somehow i don't think that extra 1$ will be used for reserch of alt. sources of energy, this has always been supressed, and until there is no more oil at all, i don't think it'll be taken anymore seriously than now.too much money is in the oil.

Three dollars and fortyfive cents for a gallon of fuel? You are seriously lucky! Try paying UK prices where due to the Chancellor of the Exchequers tax burden we are paying nearer $8 per gallon. I know the Imperial gallon is slightly bigger but the difference can be ignored in this instance.

bonehead
15 Dec 06,, 00:07
So Glyn, How would you feel about chipping in an extra dollar to the goverment's coffers, er, reduce demand for forein oil by finding alternatives?

I firmly believe that after all the tax money is pilfered by the govt and corporations to do studies and research the following conclusion would be made: 1) The more you tax fuel the demand will drop accordingly. If taxed enough no one will use it and the demand will go to zero. Problem solved. Hurray! I do not need to overpay my govorment for this information.
I think we would be better off in the U.S. if congress had the balls to strong arm auto manufacturers to build vehicles with better gas milage and to tax the crap out of any vehicle that gets below the standards for its class. Lately some states are RAISING the taxes on energy efficient hybrids because the owners are not paying their fair shair of the fuel taxes. Hello! This is insane! You may as well go back to the gas guzzlers. Energy efficiant home appliances should be the norm and not some extra that cost more. Public transportation needs a major overhaul so it can be truly viable alternative to "driving it alone".

pdf27
15 Dec 06,, 09:53
High fuel prices do seem to work to drive down demand for fuel - I'm in the UK where petrol/diesel prices are around the $8/gallon mark, and my last car averaged 50 mpg while actually being really rather quick (if not anywhere close to Snipe's Porsche ;) ). That's largely a result of the market encouraging low fuel consumption.
You do want to make sure that any increase in fuel tax is revenue-neutral however, or else road fuel will forever more be used as a cash-cow by the government as has happened in the UK. Shifting the money elsewhere, for instance by increasing the threshold below which you do not pay income tax sounds like the best use of the money to me.

glyn
15 Dec 06,, 10:42
I think we would be better off in the U.S. if congress had the balls to strong arm auto manufacturers to build vehicles with better gas milage and to tax the crap out of any vehicle that gets below the standards for its class. Lately some states are RAISING the taxes on energy efficient hybrids because the owners are not paying their fair shair of the fuel taxes. Hello! This is insane! You may as well go back to the gas guzzlers. Energy efficiant home appliances should be the norm and not some extra that cost more. Public transportation needs a major overhaul so it can be truly viable alternative to "driving it alone".

Ah, but when did our governments value Reason, Logic and Common sense? This world is increasingly surreal. For myself, I drive an A class Mercedes (don't be impressed it is only small) diesel. Local driving gets me about 50 mpg but on long runs it gives better than 60. I look for efficiency ratings on domestic appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines. Frugal is the watchword!

omon
15 Dec 06,, 18:11
i drive honda accord 2006 4cyl. i can't say that it much more economical than my previos car olds 88 1996, 3.8 liter 6 cyl. the gas tanks almost the same 17gal. for honda 18 for olds.in the city honda's tank lasts for about 240 miles olds used to go 220-230miles per tank.on the highway olds did about 500 miles so does the honda,( i don't rely on gpm window sticker, i go by tank per miles in real world) but for power honda doesnt come close to olds, at the kickdown it pushed me into the seat,
i miss my olds, i never thought i'd say that but i would love to get my old 88 back. for 12 years i owned oldsmobiles only all the same model, 88.i should have never switch.(my wife insisted) 3800 is one of the best gm engines, low rpm, high tourge.(may be i'll get one after my lease with honda is up).

gunnut
15 Dec 06,, 21:16
The best way is not tax. Tax dollars will be misused by the government. We should increase the amount and the number of incentives for the public to buy fuel efficient cars.

Right now every car manufacturer is alotted 60000 hybrid cars for full tax credit. Any more the customers will get less than full amount of tax credit. Toyota has already sold out their share of 60000 Priuses and new buyers will deduct less.

This is a stupid policy. The number of fuel efficient cars and full tax credit should be unlimited to encourage more people to buy the fuel efficient cars they want. The market can support 100000 Priuses at full tax credit, but only 50000 at reduced amount. Those who want one probably has one already. Those fence sitters aren't likely to be the ones who would want one at reduced tax credit. The government just turned away thousands of likely buyers of Priuses. Absolutely amazing!

omon
15 Dec 06,, 21:30
The government just turned away thousands of likely buyers of Priuses. Absolutely amazing!

at the same time MTA, DOT, EPA, in ny all use hybrids: civics, priuses, ford escapes. trully amazing, some things defy logic. on the other hand there is noting logical about politics

gunnut
15 Dec 06,, 23:06
at the same time MTA, DOT, EPA, in ny all use hybrids: civics, priuses, ford escapes. trully amazing, some things defy logic. on the other hand there is noting logical about politics

What's your point? Government buys whatever it buys. The employees drive whatever the government gives them. Why not get even more people to drive fuel efficient cars? Or are you saying it's up to the govnerment to save gas and that's enough?

omon
15 Dec 06,, 23:53
What's your point? Government buys whatever it buys. The employees drive whatever the government gives them. Why not get even more people to drive fuel efficient cars? Or are you saying it's up to the govnerment to save gas and that's enough?

if i was i'd say "it's up to the govnerment to save gas and that's enough" but i didn't.
i meant that governemet just turned away thousands of likely buyers of Priuses. while itself buying priuses.
i find it odd.(don't think i didn't belive you)

gunnut
16 Dec 06,, 02:07
I apologize. I misunderstood the meaning of your post.

The government didn't actively turn away hybrid customers. It did a half-assed job on promoting fuel efficient vehicles. Who came up with the magic 60000 car per manufacturer number?

If the government purchase is included in this number, then yeah, it's completely idiotic on the government's part, as you said. And would amount to actively discouraging the public.

Then again, it's the government we're talking about. The stupidity and inefficiency of it are simply unfathomable by mere mortals like us.

GVChamp
16 Dec 06,, 02:14
I blame the magic eight ball.

Bluesman
18 Dec 06,, 04:37
If the tax is used to get off of oil altogether by funding alternatives (as Dalem suggested, and assuming it would work), who cares if the Chinese get it?

I care. Deeply.

Bluesman
18 Dec 06,, 04:55
Another 'No' vote. I'm sick to friggin' DEATH of using the tax code for social engineering, or any purpose other than raising revenue. Also, and some of you will question my conservative credentials when I write this, but a gas tax is one of the greatest regressive taxes that government could possibly come up with.

In my new-found prosperity this year, I was able to buy a new Honda Civic II Hybrid. Last year, I was sometimes struggling to make my payments on my two 'legacy' vehicles. If I were still in last year's circumstances, more expensive gas would not have encouraged me to do anything that would've resulted in conserving fuel - it would've just added to the extent that Caring, Humanitarian, Helpful Government picked my pocket FAR more than Bad Ole Greedy Big Oil ever did. (One of the most unbelievable examples of political grandstanding and hypocrisy I've ever seen was when the Big Oil execs were hauled before Congress to explain their 'obscene' profits. Apparently, these captains of industry were too cowed to point out to the People's Advocates and Friends-of-the-Workin'-Man that the $.12 profit from each gallon of gas sold was dwarfed by the average $.80 the government takes, and if these bastards were all THAT concerned with the skyrocketing price of gas on us shlubs they could fix it with a single vote.)

If I had confidence that any new taxes on gas would go into a new 'Manhattan Project' to get us off the oil tit for good...I'd violate my own principles and vote 'Yes'. But I know how these things work, and I simply believe the government would either 1) use the new money for pork, or 2) they'd use the general fund money that SHOULD have gone to the Energy Independence work for something useless, or 3) they'd do BOTH 1) AND 2), and we'd be even worse off than we are now, with a shoddy, half-assed, poorly-managed program that is as likely to produce a workable solution as the Big Dig is to alleviate Boston's traffic jams, and a tax that is never going to go away. Ever.

Refer to PJ O'Rourke's famous maxim:
'Giving money and power to gevernment is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.'

gunnut
18 Dec 06,, 07:48
Bluesman, don't ever come to Kalifornia. That's for your own health. You will spontaneously combust when you see the extent of social engineering, regressive tax (gasoline, general sales tax, and cig tax), and hostility toward christianity (other religions fine) in the golden state.

I think I lost a lot of hair in the past few years reading newspaper and listening to talk radio about the various crimes committed in the name of the people by the government. :mad:

GVChamp
18 Dec 06,, 14:40
Or you can come to Chicago, where guns are illegal, tasers are discouraged, foie gras is banned, gas prices are the highest in the nation (except for San Francisco, which I don't count as America, really), trans fat is the enemy, and Wal-Mart was almost ran out of town!
God I love this city.

Bluesman
18 Dec 06,, 16:31
I wish y'all could look into my eyes while I said this out loud, in order to know that in my heart I really, truly mean this:

'We're almost to the point at which a New American Revolution - not in the metaphorical sense, either - is inevitable, and desirable.'

GVChamp
18 Dec 06,, 21:40
Another one? Jeez, the Reagan Revolution was just 30 years ago. :cool:

Bluesman
19 Dec 06,, 00:26
Another one? Jeez, the Reagan Revolution was just 30 years ago. :cool:

Not comprehensive enough. Some Democrats still have their heads on their shoulders.:mad:

Bluesman
19 Dec 06,, 00:27
Kiddin'.

Bluesman
19 Dec 06,, 00:27
Mostly.

GVChamp
19 Dec 06,, 04:47
Mostly.

:biggrin: Can't we just settle for kicking them out of our schools so we can actually EDUCATE the next generation? I think that'll go to solving 50% of our problem.

gunnut
19 Dec 06,, 18:19
In addition to the "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution (not really, but it's often refered to as), there should be a "seperation of school and politics" clause.

dalem
28 Dec 06,, 20:49
If I had kids there is no way I'd be sending them to public school. No way.

-dale

gunnut
28 Dec 06,, 21:53
If I had kids there is no way I'd be sending them to public school. No way.

-dale

Funny thing is that's what most of the public school teachers here say.

Taurkon
03 Jan 07,, 19:10
Long term, I have never seen a government implement a tax program, and then continue to use the proceeds for the initial defined purpose. Governments are already irresponsible with the money we give them, the less they have of my cash, the better.

If they want to promote clean alternatives, run a contest like the commercial manned space flight one, and make sure the prize is fit for a king!