Gas Prices - the REAL way to reduce them!

[6thGen]

So, so much to comment on here, so little time to do it. First, I don't appreciate other aholes taxing something without considering the consequences. I don't appreciate them taxing something because they don't like it. Also, on that incredibly boneheaded bill that scooterbug brought up - the WSJ had a good comment on it this weekend.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010067

 

[jimmyp5]

You're exactly right, TNJed, a lot of our driving dependency (and enjoyment, no question) comes from the sheer size of our country, and the spread-out nature of it. But I do believe drastic changes will come long before all the oil is gone.

6thgen, I assume I'm one of the "aholes" you're referring to, but I have considered the consequences of a gas tax, and there will be many, and many of them won't be positive. But I do believe in supply&demand economics, and a tax is one classic way to manipulate price to decrease demand.

Wouldn't you rather have the extra $2 a gallon going to fund alternative energy research, road improvements (to decrease congestion, increase efficiency & safety), education, etc., etc. instead of the same $2 going toward more record profits for the oil companies, and to people who hate us?

Because I do think that the price is going up, one way or another -- in the not-too-distant future we'll be looking fondly back on the days of $3 gas. Think about it -- if you're unwilling to pay $5 a gallon, there's going to be someone richer, in this country or China, who will.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I think it'll take gas prices going higher -- much higher -- than they are, to make people change our behavior. Imposing a $1/gallon tax as soon as possible would be an excellent start, and bumping it to $2/gallon in another year. Yes, I'm serious.

I don't think it will take the Tax Man to get gas prices up to $5/ gallon. It is coming soon enough.

 

[scooterbug44]

Good point, I forgot about China! They are resource hungry - that's why concrete and plywood costs went up. Won't we be in trouble when we have to start sharing instead of hogging!

If we have to have a gas tax, instead of gas tax money going to fund alternative energy research (I think private research would be more effective) I'd love to see it spent on some of the social programs we can never find $ for. I wouldn't mind someone driving a gas guzzler if I knew it meant grandma got some medicine

I brought up that "incredibly boneheaded" bill as an example of how ineffective of a solution legislation was.

 

[Smiling JOe]

you first said that we have to decrease our use .... if not by a tax, how should we do it?

Jimmyp5, I think that as you said, it will unfortunately take gas prices to reach $5 per gallon before we begin to pushing automakers into producing medium - high effeciency engines and vehicles. However, I don't think the gov't needs to start collecting even more taxes to do this. That just leads to larger gov't, which I don't like. Even if those tax dollars get thrown to fuel/engine research, it will be wasted, given to only the politricktions friends.

If instead, the gov't would pay a large incentive to the person or company who comes up with, and begins producing high efficiency(70mpg for gasoline vehicles), safe vehicles (the free market has the ability to work outside of the beurocracy of Washington), we will change virtually overnight. Richard Branson has been leading the way with this idea, with his recently announced incentives for just that, but $1 million isn't much incentive to the Big Four.

One other way we could immediately change people's habit's of the autos which they are purchasing, is for the gov't to illiminate the huge tax incentives given to people purchasing vehicles weighing over 6,000lbs. I do think we still need some help for the farmers, but right now, the law is open to anyone owning their own business. In addition to taking away the tax incentive given to the heavy vehicles (which also cause more wear and tear on the roads), increase the tax incentive, given to all people purchasing vehicles which get more than 40 mpg. That incentive should at least equate to the lowest tax incentive currently given to the people purchasing the 6,000lb + vehicles which equates a $25,000 deduction from your income. It can be much more depending on the type of vehicle which you purchase.

Changing the incentives alone, would be enough cause for people to change their purchase habits to buying more effecient vehicles. Add to that, the giving of substantial reward incentive by the gov't, for the person or company bringing to the market, high effeciency vehicles, and I think we can do wonders to change our purchasing habits, without getting the gov't more tied into the red tape with Big Auto and Big Oil, and it can be done in the private sector, rather than creating more gov't.

 

[6thGen]

First, jimmyp5, I think Joe addressed your point on taxes, and I agree with most of what he said, enough to leave it at that and avoid arguing about the nuances. Second, you can?t believe in ?supply & demand economics? and government regulation of consumer choice at the same time.

As for a tax on gas to fund alternative energy, there is enough economic incentive in energy for companies to come up with alternatives without government funding. If there isn?t, there isn?t a viable alternative to begin with.

On this comment - ?Think about it -- if you're unwilling to pay $5 a gallon, there's going to be someone richer, in this country or China, who will? ? um, didn?t you just say you believe in ?supply & demand economics?? Do you have any idea what that means?

 

[bebee]

Did a tax on cigarettes help reduce smoking,or just make more money for the government?

 

[jimmyp5]

First, jimmyp5, I think Joe addressed your point on taxes, and I agree with most of what he said, enough to leave it at that and avoid arguing about the nuances. Second, you can?t believe in ?supply & demand economics? and government regulation of consumer choice at the same time.

As for a tax on gas to fund alternative energy, there is enough economic incentive in energy for companies to come up with alternatives without government funding. If there isn?t, there isn?t a viable alternative to begin with.

On this comment - ?Think about it -- if you're unwilling to pay $5 a gallon, there's going to be someone richer, in this country or China, who will? ? um, didn?t you just say you believe in ?supply & demand economics?? Do you have any idea what that means?

As you said above, so much to address here, so many facets to this issue. At least you didn't to use "aholes" this time to make your points, which are made well.

I don't see price manipulation through taxation as the same as "govt. regulation of choice." In fact, the government forcing automakers to raise average mpg performance will take away choices. SJ's idea for tax incentives may be a good middle ground, making it attractive to buy a Prius or a 4-cyl. truck, but still letting me have my V12 Mercedes if I choose to.

And my last comment, maybe I was hitting too many facets in one post, but my point was to address those people talking about gas prices dropping after summer break, or those who believe we'll get back to $2 gas if we can just drill in ANWR, or if the oil companies just wouldn't be so greedy ... with the demand levels of China in India within only 3-5 years, we'll be lucky if gas is only $5 here.

I'm not simply a fan of taxation, but I do believe it's one solution here, certainly not the only one. And i agree that research isn't the only way to spend it; I'd welcome back some of the social & education programs that're so lacking here.

My main goal in this is to free us from our dangerous dependency on middle eastern oil supplies.

 

[jimmyp5]

Introducing better-mpg vehicles will help, but not fast enough:

The U.S. has a fleet of about 210 million automobiles and
light trucks (vans, pick-ups, and SUVs). The average age of U.S. automobiles is nine years. Under normal conditions, replacement of only half the automobile fleet will require 10-15 years.

The average age of light trucks is seven years. Under normal conditions, replacement of one-half of the stock of light trucks will require 9-14 years.

While significant improvements in fuel efficiency are possible in automobiles and light trucks, any affordable approach to upgrading will be inherently time-consuming, requiring more than a decade to achieve significant overall fuel efficiency improvement.

--U.S. Dept of Energy, February 2005

 

[6thGen]

My ahole comment wasn?t really about you, more on the ones who write, vote and sign off on tax increases. Any tax increases.

Taxation is government regulation of choice. See the dictionary definition ? ?2. A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.? or the reliable, never wrong Wikipedia ? ?A regulation is a legal restriction promulgated by government administrative agencies through rulemaking supported by a threat of sanction or a fine? and ?ommon examples of regulation include attempts to control market entries, prices, wages, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods and services.?

As for the dangerous dependence on Middle Eastern oil, I don?t really buy the veracity behind that argument. It is something that is on my radar, but I think it?s blown out of proportion and used as an end around by the climate control, anti-development crowd. It?s only marginally more credible than the arguments being thrown around by the closed border immigration types.