Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Op-Ed in Economist Calls for Progressively Increasing Gas Tax

Op-Ed in Economist Calls for Progressively Increasing Gas Tax
Thread Tools
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 03:57 PM
 
Linky.

Basically, the author isn't calling for an overall tax increase, the gas tax hikes could be matched by cuts elsewhere. What the author feels is that the administration should encourage alternate energy by making the alternative (sticking with oil) more expensive.

Thoughts?

BlackGriffen
     
petehammer
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Linky.

Basically, the author isn't calling for an overall tax increase, the gas tax hikes could be matched by cuts elsewhere. What the author feels is that the administration should encourage alternate energy by making the alternative (sticking with oil) more expensive.

Thoughts?

BlackGriffen
We subsidize gas SO MUCH, it makes sense that we stop subsidizing and pay the real cost. Until then, we can just tax it until it approaches that point.

Welcome to Europe, where people have learned about fuel economy, public transportation, and walking.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 04:07 PM
 
Originally posted by petehammer:
We subsidize gas SO MUCH, it makes sense that we stop subsidizing and pay the real cost. Until then, we can just tax it until it approaches that point.

Welcome to Europe, where people have learned about fuel economy, public transportation, and walking.
No kidding. Massive massive subsidies.

Just consider that gas is cheaper per gallon than milk from cows.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 04:08 PM
 
Punitive taxation, in other words.

Abomination.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
petehammer
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 04:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Punitive taxation, in other words.

Abomination.
Stop subsidizing oil. Pay the real price. Use previous subsidy money for other things, I'll use the old standby of "education" or somesuch.

That's the deal for me.

Abomination.
     
BlackGriffen  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 04:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Punitive taxation, in other words.

Abomination.
It isn't punitive. Taxes and government in general, according to economists, are supposed to cover so called 'externalities' that the market does not or can not address.

Smog (and the attendant health problems), global warming, oil slicks, America's 'strategic interest' in the Middle East, etc, are all externalities that come directly from an addiction to oil. It is the government's responsibility to make sure that the true cost is paid if the market doesn't reflect all of said costs.

This sounds to me like a good thing all around. Sure, people will whine and complain, but a gradualist approach like this both gives them the opportunity to switch to different technologies but also encourages them to do so.

BlackGriffen
     
petehammer
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 04:30 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It isn't punitive. Taxes and government in general, according to economists, are supposed to cover so called 'externalities' that the market does not or can not address.

Smog (and the attendant health problems), global warming, oil slicks, America's 'strategic interest' in the Middle East, etc, are all externalities that come directly from an addiction to oil. It is the government's responsibility to make sure that the true cost is paid if the market doesn't reflect all of said costs.

This sounds to me like a good thing all around. Sure, people will whine and complain, but a gradualist approach like this both gives them the opportunity to switch to different technologies but also encourages them to do so.

BlackGriffen
Completely agree, though getting people to pay for externalities is difficult, and the oil companies (if they had to pay for smog) would just pass on the cost to consumers. That being said, the system would be GREAT in economics terms if EVERYONE paid externalities, a lot less inefficiency would be generated by the market.

If we had to pay the true cost of computers... yeesh!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 04:52 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It isn't punitive.
Yes, it is. Use gas, pay a fine which you euphemistically call a "tax". That's punitive.

Stopping oil subsidies is a fine thing, and we should do this. The solution there is not to raise taxes, but to stop all government spending which goes to oil companies. If you want to spend the money saved by doing this on other things, then certainly this can be done. But squeezing even more money out of people is not the answer.
Smog (and the attendant health problems), global warming, oil slicks, America's 'strategic interest' in the Middle East, etc, are all externalities that come directly from an addiction to oil. It is the government's responsibility to make sure that the true cost is paid if the market doesn't reflect all of said costs.
'True costs' (i.e. things we don't like that come about only as indirect results) are irrelevant. Those will be paid regardless of whether or not they are included in the price of the oil. Therefore let them be paid for on a case by case basis as they actually come about, not based on fabricated hypotheticals. Anything else is tantamount to a protection racket.

The government must not be in the business of "behavior modification". That is, perhaps, the worst kind of assault on freedom.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
petehammer
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
'True costs' (i.e. things we don't like that come about only as indirect results) are irrelevant. Those will be paid regardless of whether or not they are included in the price of the oil. Therefore let them be paid for on a case by case basis as they actually come about, not based on fabricated hypotheticals. Anything else is tantamount to a protection racket.
What? Who pays for the "true costs" (known as negative externalities)? Not the oil companies. When there is pollution, we all pay for it indirectly over time, i.e. more people with asthma, children born with deformities, etc. Oil companies don't just hand money over to the government saying "Hey, I polluted a lot this year, this should cover the damage."

This is an economics argument. I'm saying that all externalities to the extent they can be measured should be paid for by the producers of those negative externalities. If you blast your car stereo at 3am and the noise ordinance prohibits that, then you should compensate your offended neighbors. If the oil company breaks pollution laws, then they should compensate those of us affected.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 05:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
The government must not be in the business of "behavior modification". That is, perhaps, the worst kind of assault on freedom.
This seems to be a rather radical reaction to the proposal. Is price competition an example of "behavior modification"?

That's what we're talking about. By restoring the cost of gas to more accurately reflect natural market prices, consumers will be free to choose behavior that suits them most--paying more to continue a gas-guzzler lifestyle or paying less to enjoy a more economical lifestyle.

2 options:

1) end all subsidies right now so the price of gas quintuples overnight
2) introduce a progressive tax scheme that simulates more closely the natural market prices of gas

The only thing dictating behavior will be natural market forces. In fact, people might even be free to not buy gas at all (like me).
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
BlackGriffen  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 05:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
The government must not be in the business of "behavior modification". That is, perhaps, the worst kind of assault on freedom.
I don't know if you've noticed, but that's precisely the business that governments have always and will always be in.

Murder is illegal because we seek to reduce murder rates.

Drugs are illegal because we seek to reduce drug usage rates (great job on that one ).

Import tariffs exist at least in part to encourage people to purchase locally made goods.

Prostitution is illegal to discourage people from visiting them.

Et cetera.

One of government's jobs is to discourage damaging behavior.

That aside, we could also call this a 'use tax.' Use of what? Why, the air, of course. We cannot reasonably measure the amount of oxygen used and pollutants put out directly, but the burning of fossil fuels entails certain minimums of pollutants will be released.

Of course, ending subsidies should happen before a tax is imposed. Taxing and subsidizing at the same time is plane stupid.

BlackGriffen
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 06:11 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


Of course, ending subsidies should happen before a tax is imposed. Taxing and subsidizing at the same time is plane stupid.

BlackGriffen
I would agree with that. But is that realistic? Has there ever been a case where subsidies have ended for an industry in a similar situation? I'm just asking. I'm not aware of any.
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 09:04 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
2 options:

1) end all subsidies right now so the price of gas quintuples overnight
2) introduce a progressive tax scheme that simulates more closely the natural market prices of gas
1 result:

1) An economic state that would put the Great Depression to shame.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 10:13 PM
 
I am favor of raising the gas tax $3 over time to give manufacturers time to make fuel effecient cars. Industry would be exempt from the tax, as well as utilities. Also exempt would be any form of public transportation and the airlines.

In the long run, this would encourage a whole new infastructure based on public transportation and would conserve oil at the same time.

Yes, a sudden raise in the tax would be devestating.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 10:18 PM
 
You'd crush the working class in America to further your albeit well-intended agenda. Working Americans rely heavily on the automobile to get to work, shuttle the kids around and conduct their lives in a manner they see fit.

I hate reliance on oil and I'd love to see it ended, but bulldozing hard-working Americans just isn't an option.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
einmakom
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: sh'hou rahok mi'dai
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 11:06 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I am favor of raising the gas tax $3 over time to give manufacturers time to make fuel effecient cars. Industry would be exempt from the tax, as well as utilities. Also exempt would be any form of public transportation and the airlines.

In the long run, this would encourage a whole new infastructure based on public transportation and would conserve oil at the same time.

Yes, a sudden raise in the tax would be devestating.
Does this mean that you favor a corporate tax loophole?
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 11:12 PM
 
Originally posted by einmakom:
Does this mean that you favor a corporate tax loophole?
Eh? Where did you get that from?
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 11:13 PM
 
Posted by Millenium:

The solution there is not to raise taxes, but to stop all government spending which goes to oil companies.
Are you really serious about this?

How about "all" the federally subsidized military expenditures to protect the middle east oil supply lines.


"The 1996 peacetime readiness cost of forces whose primary mission is intervention in the Persian Gulf has been estimated at $6�64 billion/year, with a mean of $34b/y and the two most authoritative budget-based estimates at $59b/y (Brookings) and $64b/y (Cato).24 If that intervention were related solely to oil and not to other interests, an oil-security related cost of (say) $60b/y would be equivalent to $66/bbl, equal to 2.5 times the 2000 landed price of Saudi crude or (if added to gasoline price with no markup) $1.58/gallon. Paying oil-related military costs through taxes, not at the pump, is thus a big distortion."
The above quote is from a Rocky Mountain Institute PDF you can download and read for yourself here, titled U.S. Energy Security Facts.

Here's another collaborating pdf (see page 5).

The facts of the matter are that we are already paying dearly for oil. It just doesn't show up at the pump, where it belongs, and instead shows up on your tax bill.

Some folks just don't ever get it.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
einmakom
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: sh'hou rahok mi'dai
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 11:14 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Eh? Where did you get that from?
You favor raising a tax. You favor exempting industry from that tax. That is a giant loophole that you're in favor of.

Course, when you tax industry, you know who pays don't you?

1) consumers in the form of higher prices.
2) employees in the form of lower wages.
3) stockholders in the form of lower returns.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 11:18 PM
 
If that intervention were related solely to oil and not to other interests...blah blah.

IF.

Nobody mentioned the fact that less than 1/4 of our oil imports are from the Middle East.
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2003, 11:51 PM
 
Posted by Spliffdaddy:

If that intervention were related solely to oil and not to other interests...blah blah.

IF.

Nobody mentioned the fact that less than 1/4 of our oil imports are from the Middle East.
Does $86 BILLION ring any bells in your roach of head?

There's no IFs, no BUTs, no ANDs about it, just plenty of blah blah smog coming out of your tail pipe.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:39 AM
 
You favor raising a tax. You favor exempting industry from that tax. That is a giant loophole that you're in favor of.
It would be economic suicide to tax theoil we use industry. With industry, I was thinking manfacturing.

The point here is to encourage the growth of a public transportation industry and incentives for people to live closer to their work.

To see what I am talking about, look at England.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 10:42 AM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
The point here is to encourage the growth of a public transportation industry and incentives for people to live closer to their work.

To see what I am talking about, look at England.
You would be forcing Americans into a more urban, centralised lifestyle (and the higher living costs that go with it) that many do not want. America is a very spread-out country, and hundreds of millions have the freedom to live where they want because of the low-cost transportation that an automobile provides.

What's best for working-class Americans and their families is to keep gasoline low, but rapidly develop and implement cheap alternative fuels.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
BlackGriffen  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 06:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
What's best for working-class Americans and their families is to keep gasoline low, but rapidly develop and implement cheap alternative fuels.
A higher gas tax at the pump would encourage precisely that.

BG
     
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 08:57 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
A higher gas tax at the pump would encourage precisely that.

BG
it might do that if it were politically viable, but it isn't. It would never be passed or would be repealed instantly, and the only result would be the impoverishment of hundreds of millions working-class Americans.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
it might do that if it was politically viable, but it isn't. It would never be passed or would be repealed instantly, and the only result would be the impoverishment of hundreds of millions working-class Americans.
Ya, like we're rolling in cash now
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:04 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Ya, like we're rolling in cash now
we're not. That's the point: anything that increases the cost of living for working-class Americans is reprehensible and cruel. The overall tax burden for them, including the punishing payroll taxes, should be decreasing at the federal, state, and local levels. My overall tax burden is ~35 %.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:22 PM
 
Posted by Uday's Carcass:

Working Americans rely heavily on the automobile to get to work, shuttle the kids around and conduct their lives in a manner they see fit.
You mean like this:




Also posted by Uday's Carcass:

What's best for working-class Americans and their families is to keep gasoline low, but rapidly develop and implement cheap alternative fuels.
That's all well & good, but this administration actually offers huge tax write offs for buying Hummers and other gas guzzling SUV's.

Hence, the American way is this way:


"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
The government must not be in the business of "behavior modification". That is, perhaps, the worst kind of assault on freedom.
Why not, if the behaviour has negative effects?
Why is your right to drive a SUV more important than my right to live in a smog-free environment? If more people agree with me than with you, we get a directive tax.*) That's democracy (as opposed to unrestricted freedom for everybody which is anarchy).

*)
If we'd live in the same country.
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
BlackGriffen  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
it might do that if it were politically viable, but it isn't. It would never be passed or would be repealed instantly, and the only result would be the impoverishment of hundreds of millions working-class Americans.
I agree that it would be disasterous if passed all at once, but gradually increasing it would give citizens time to adjust their behavior. Not only that, but the article suggests alleviating other tax burdens at the same time so that your net change in tax burden would be zero, but would give you the option of reducing your tax burden by getting an alternative energy source vehicle.

I think that you're being too hasty on this one. The car industry complains that there's no demand for alternative energy vehicles. This would create, or rather, uncap the artificially low demand for alternative energy vehicles.

What you want just won't happen without a market for it, and that is precisely what this proposal addresses.

BlackGriffen
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 10:09 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I think that you're being too hasty on this one. The car industry complains that there's no demand for alternative energy vehicles. This would create, or rather, uncap the artificially low demand for alternative energy vehicles.

What you want just won't happen without a market for it, and that is precisely what this proposal addresses.
When the big automakers (all of whom are developing alternative vehicles) are able to produce affordable, attractive, competitive automobiles that are desired by the marketplace - that is when alternatively-fueled vehicles will begin to make a big impact.

Making gasoline unaffordable would destroy our economy, and would create a need for alternative fuel cars NOT because they are desireable, but because they would the only automobiles people could afford to drive.

You might as well support legislation illegalizing the sale and ownership of gasoline-fueled automobiles, because (at its core) this achieves the same result as the proposals you support - eliminating consumer choices and preferences.
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 10:16 PM
 
Posted by Black Griffen:

The car industry complains that there's no demand for alternative energy vehicles.
That's typical American Auto Industry FUD. See here.

J.D. Power and Associates has estimated that the annual sales of hybrid autos in the United States will reach half a million by 2007. Of 16 million vehicles expected to be sold in the United States this year, 50,000 will be hybrids, according to a Wharton School study. Prius had 10,000 orders before the 2004 model hit showrooms...

The tax break disparity [between hybrids & gas guzzlingSUV's], and the reluctance of US manufacturers to seriously enter the hybrid market, amounts to neglect of not only promising technology and sales but also social and environmental responsibility...

If these cars are so efficient, why is our government cutting the tax breaks afforded their buyers even as they reward those who buy the gas-guzzling beasts of the road? "It just doesn't make sense for the US government to be underwriting the sales of vehicles that are promoting our foreign oil dependency," Friedman said.
All of this American good sense (pocket book & otherwise) could be accelerated if this administration actually cared about "working Americans" instead of the Corporate Fat Cats who pay their re-election bills.


"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 10:49 PM
 
Originally posted by mr. natural:
All of this American good sense (pocket book & otherwise) could be accelerated if this administration actually cared about "working Americans" instead of the Corporate Fat Cats who pay their re-election bills.
The tax writeoff for large trucks and SUVs is for businesses, and is meant to encourage them to upgrade their current trucks NOW instead of waiting (to provide economic stimulus).

Businesses who need to transport heavy loads would be out of luck with the available hybrids. They are way too small. A construction company is not going to be able to efficiently transport materials and equipment using a fleet of Priuses.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 11:00 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
A construction company is not going to be able to efficiently transport materials and equipment using a fleet of Priuses.
It'd be funny to watch them try though.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 11:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
it might do that if it were politically viable, but it isn't. It would never be passed or would be repealed instantly, and the only result would be the impoverishment of hundreds of millions working-class Americans.
Or they could spend less on luxuries like computers, home theater systems, second, third, and even fourth cars, and cars that are more expensive and/or less efficient. I seem to recall learning in school one time that human civilization existed, even in the farthest reaches of rural America, before the advent of the automobile and even *gasp* electricity.

On the other hand, if all subsidies to the oil industry stopped, the exact same money that used to go to the oil industry would be able to stay in the hands of the taxpayers instead, which would allow them to pay for the corresponding increase in gas. It's not like ending subsidies is going to cause the overall amount of money in the country to drop, it's not even going to change the fact that that money goes from the taxpayers to the oil companies, it's just going to eliminate the middle-man of the federal government and all the overhead that comes with it.
     
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 11:33 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I agree that it would be disasterous if passed all at once, but gradually increasing it would give citizens time to adjust their behavior.
the problem is that they shouldn't have to adjust their behaviour. Working moms and dads are busy with their jobs and taking care of their children. They shouldn't have to move closer to a crime-ridden, drug-infested, high-real estate, high cost-of-living city just to satisfy an agenda. When better cars and better fuels come along, then acceptance should be encourage with tax breaks and positive reinforcement, NOT punishing, burdensome taxes that will only break the backs of working families.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 11:36 PM
 
Originally posted by nonhuman:
On the other hand, if all subsidies to the oil industry stopped, the exact same money that used to go to the oil industry would be able to stay in the hands of the taxpayers instead, which would allow them to pay for the corresponding increase in gas. It's not like ending subsidies is going to cause the overall amount of money in the country to drop, it's not even going to change the fact that that money goes from the taxpayers to the oil companies, it's just going to eliminate the middle-man of the federal government and all the overhead that comes with it.
I get the feeling your math is wrong on this one. Allah must be sending some vibes down my crushed-tinfoil antenna. Oil company subsidies don't, afaik, add up to the cost of dollars spent on automobile gasoline. Raising gasoline even by 20 cents a gallon represents a huge spike to the consumer and an enormous cumulative increase in gasoline expenditures for the country as a whole. I simply don't think that oil company subsidies could come within light years of compensating.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
BlackGriffen  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 11:38 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
When the big automakers (all of whom are developing alternative vehicles) are able to produce affordable, attractive, competitive automobiles that are desired by the marketplace - that is when alternatively-fueled vehicles will begin to make a big impact.

Making gasoline unaffordable would destroy our economy, and would create a need for alternative fuel cars NOT because they are desireable, but because they would the only automobiles people could afford to drive.

You might as well support legislation illegalizing the sale and ownership of gasoline-fueled automobiles, because (at its core) this achieves the same result as the proposals you support - eliminating consumer choices and preferences.


Don't you get it? The auto makers don't produce such vehicles precisely because they claim there's no demand. There's no demand because there's no incentive. There's no incentive because we subsidize fuel to the point of unnatural cheapness and don't make those who use said fuel pay for the 'collateral damage.'

If we put a small increase in the at the pump gas tax, say 2 cents, and back it up with a schedule for increasing it further over time (we're talking several years here), they will demand fuel efficient vehicles. The supply will then follow that demand, it always does.

"If you build it, they will come," is the mantra of the dot com era business model. It always fails and always will. Supply follows demand, period. The only time demand follows supply is when something comes along unexpectedly as a better substitute for a prior demand. As long as gasoline is so cheap, alternative energy vehicles do not fit the bill better or cheaper, and will continue to be a non-starter in the market. "Necessity is the mother of invention," is just a statement of that principle.

Until the demand for alternative energy vehicles is boosted, permitting economics of scale to kick in, they will always be more expensive (thus at a disadvantage) to the established cars.

This is precisely the solution that is needed. Subsidizing development of alternative energy vehicles is good, but it's only attacking the symptom, not the problem. The problem is that there needs to be a market for alternative energy vehicles before anyone will build them in quantities sufficient to make them affordable. That market cannot spring up unless the old market is moved out of the way.

BlackGriffen
     
BlackGriffen  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 11:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
the problem is that they shouldn't have to adjust their behaviour. Working moms and dads are busy with their jobs and taking care of their children. They shouldn't have to move closer to a crime-ridden, drug-infested, high-real estate, high cost-of-living city just to satisfy an agenda. When better cars and better fuels come along, then acceptance should be encourage with tax breaks and positive reinforcement, NOT punishing, burdensome taxes that will only break the backs of working families.
The argument that you present is a disingenuous straw man. Purchasing a hybrid car, or a fuel cell car, or an electric car won't force anyone to 'move to the ghetto.'

Also, did it ever occur to you that the ghettos are the way they are because of the people living there? I know that it's hard to wrap your mind around, but good folks are good folks no matter how close together they have to live. In fact, before the suburban sprawl explosion in America, the cities were considered the premier places to live. There is nothing to prevent them from becoming so again. Just start pushing up the cost of living (by increasing demand for the real-estate), and the rich and the poor can 'trade' places.

Long & short of it: the ghettos are a bad place to live because they are a cheap place to live. Sorry, but violent criminals tend to come from the lower economic classes. So even though most of the poor are good folks, the fact that most of the violent folks are poor and the fact that people tend to self segregate by economic class means that ordinary poor people get a bum rap by association. A consequence of this is that if you make an area expensive to live in, most of the violent criminals will leave.

BlackGriffen
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 12:02 AM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
I get the feeling your math is wrong on this one. Allah must be sending some vibes down my crushed-tinfoil antenna. Oil company subsidies don't, afaik, add up to the cost of dollars spent on automobile gasoline. Raising gasoline even by 20 cents a gallon represents a huge spike to the consumer and an enormous cumulative increase in gasoline expenditures for the country as a whole. I simply don't think that oil company subsidies could come within light years of compensating.
Um, what are you talking about? If the government stopped providing subsidies to the oil companies, gas prices would rise to compensate for the loss of income. They would rise to the point that (assuming static gas sales) the income for the oil companies would remain the same. The money that used to go to the government would stay with the people, which could be used to pay for the now more expensive gas. As the exact same amount of money that was going to the oil companies by way of the government would now be in the hands of the people, and the gas prices rose to compensate for the fact that that exact same money was no longer coming from the government for free, it would be the exact amount necessary to accommodate the price increase (t would probably actually be more, because not all of the money that goes to the government for the oil subsidies actually goes to the oil companies, some of it goes to the process of routing that money to the oil companies). If the amount of the subsidies doesn't add up to a 20¢/gallon price increase, then the increase will be less than 20¢/gallon. The same amount of money ends up being exchanged, and the same amount of money goes from the people to the oil companies.
     
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 12:38 AM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Just start pushing up the cost of living (by increasing demand for the real-estate), and the rich and the poor can 'trade' places.

A consequence of this is that if you make an area expensive to live in, most of the violent criminals will leave.

BlackGriffen
so now you want to increase the cost of living for working-class Americans?! How the hell are they supposed to support this? They can't.

And rich neighbourhoods have low crime not because the folks are rich but because the police are very active in patrolling and enforcing. Additionally, the residents are far more cooperative, and aren't out calling them 'pigs', 'trash', or looking to sue them at every slight. The relationship between resident and police is just far better in wealthier neighbourhoods than in poor ones. Part of that is the fault of the police, but a larger share is the fault of the residents for not policing themselves, having the courage to fight the dealers and gangs, and dropping dimes on any gangster or dealer in the area.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
dgs212
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: time
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 12:45 AM
 
Personally, i think the middle-americans who will be hurt so much by a gas tax can go f*ck themselves. If your lifestyle is hazardous to other people and the environment upon which other people (and animals) depend (i.e. you need a car), you should expect to pay dearly to continue it.


It's criminally irresponsible to own and operate a car.
     
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 12:45 AM
 
Originally posted by nonhuman:
Um, what are you talking about? If the government stopped providing subsidies to the oil companies, gas prices would rise to compensate for the loss of income. They would rise to the point that (assuming static gas sales) the income for the oil companies would remain the same. The money that used to go to the government would stay with the people, which could be used to pay for the now more expensive gas. As the exact same amount of money that was going to the oil companies by way of the government would now be in the hands of the people, and the gas prices rose to compensate for the fact that that exact same money was no longer coming from the government for free, it would be the exact amount necessary to accommodate the price increase (t would probably actually be more, because not all of the money that goes to the government for the oil subsidies actually goes to the oil companies, some of it goes to the process of routing that money to the oil companies). If the amount of the subsidies doesn't add up to a 20¢/gallon price increase, then the increase will be less than 20¢/gallon. The same amount of money ends up being exchanged, and the same amount of money goes from the people to the oil companies.
you lost me waaaay back there.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
BlackGriffen  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 12:53 AM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
so now you want to increase the cost of living for working-class Americans?! How the hell are they supposed to support this? They can't.
Ok, it's official, you're stupid.

Look at the quote in the context you pulled it out of. What I was getting at was rich people moving in to cities would push the real-estate value/rents up. Thus, the cost of living would go up, thus the poor people would have to move elsewhere.

And rich neighbourhoods have low crime not because the folks are rich but because the police are very active in patrolling and enforcing. Additionally, the residents are far more cooperative, and aren't out calling them 'pigs', 'trash', or looking to sue them at every slight. The relationship between resident and police is just far better in wealthier neighbourhoods than in poor ones. Part of that is the fault of the police, but a larger share is the fault of the residents for not policing themselves, having the courage to fight the dealers and gangs, and dropping dimes on any gangster or dealer in the area.
The point stands, and is even reinforced by what you said, that the neighborhood crime rate is tied to who lives there, not where it is, or how densely populated it is.

BlackGriffen
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 12:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
you lost me waaaay back there.
Ok, I'll try and make this simple. Let's say that the government gives X dollars/year to the oil companies, and that the American people buy Y gallons of gas per year. That means that the subsidies amount to X/Y dollars per gallon. If, instead of giving that money to the oil companies, the government simply didn't collect it, the American people would, as a whole, have an extra X dollars lying around that they didn't have before. In order to maintain the same profit margins as before, the oil companies would raise the price of gas by X/Y dollars per gallon, so the price hike creates X dollars of revenue for the oil companies from sales that they weren't getting before. This extra X dollars from the raised gas prices perfectly balances out the X dollars that they used to get from the government, so the oil companies are able to maintain their margins. The American people, who are now paying an extra X/Y dollars per gallon for their gas, are not now worse off than they were before because they now have X dollars that they didn't have before to spend on Y gallons of gas. So the X/Y dollars per gallon more that the American people are now paying for gas is perfectly balanced out by the X dollars that are no longer being collected by the government to pay for the oil subsidies. So the American people end up with the same amount of money that they did before.
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 01:12 AM
 
Posted by spacefreak:

Businesses who need to transport heavy loads would be out of luck with the available hybrids. They are way too small. A construction company is not going to be able to efficiently transport materials and equipment using a fleet of Priuses.
By golly, spacefreak, you're right! What the hell was I thinking.

The butts of some poor business owners are just too damn big to fit into anything smaller than these work horses.













Thank goodness, somebody in Washington is concerned for their welfare!

Heck, I think I'll run right out and get me one of these suckers too! Yeah, that's the ticket, with a gas guzzling boat to hitch it up too even! I've always wanted to see this great land of ours! Yahoo!

I'll even make it a business trip by stopping in DC to thank them fellas down there for their compassion toward my plight. All this extra corporate welfare cash in my pockets is giving me hemorhoids!

Now, if I could reach around to my back pocket. Don't want to break a sweat here.


"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
petehammer
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 12:06 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
so now you want to increase the cost of living for working-class Americans?! How the hell are they supposed to support this? They can't.

And rich neighbourhoods have low crime not because the folks are rich but because the police are very active in patrolling and enforcing.
Ahh, so many errors, so little time.

First off, poorer citizens would be better off without oil subsidies. Many poor people do not have cars and are paying with taxes for something they'll never use. If we paid the true cost of gas, we would not be paying to subsidize the oil industry. I don't see how us getting more money in our pocketbook and a fair price on gas will drive us all to the poor house. Rather, we will be made better off due to inefficiencies in subsidizing oil. Also, if you're truly worried about poor people, we could give them money to cover the increase in gas cost (for heating say). After all, any economist will tell you this subsidy is far better than price controls.

Second, police discover about 5% or less of all crime (they respond to 95% of the rest of crime), meaning no, rich neighborhoods are not safer because police are out catching the bad guys on their own. There are many theories on crime, but this fact is incorrect (look up criminology statistics).

And I agree with Nonhuman except that most people would end up with more money due to the incredibly inefficiencies of trying to subsidize the oil industry.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 02:59 PM
 
Originally posted by petehammer:
And I agree with Nonhuman except that most people would end up with more money due to the incredibly inefficiencies of trying to subsidize the oil industry.
Do you mean you think the people would end up with more money or that that's the point where you disagree? I was saying they would, though I dropped it from the simplified version because I wanted to keep it simple.
     
petehammer
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2003, 03:05 PM
 
Originally posted by nonhuman:
Do you mean you think the people would end up with more money or that that's the point where you disagree? I was saying they would, though I dropped it from the simplified version because I wanted to keep it simple.
My point was that people would end up with more money, not "the same" amount, pretty much agreeing with your point.

I truly do not understand how some here (not you, nonhuman) believe subsidies are helping people out. YOU'RE PAYING FOR THAT GAS THROUGH TAXES! It doesn't pay for itself!

So, either you pay $4 for gas directly, or (hypothetically) $4.50 indirectly through subsidies.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:14 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,