12 cent federal gas tax increase coming?

[Joggernot]

Originally Posted by The Other Andy

Improving the ability for the mass majority of people to get around without needing to hop in a car will only lower demand for gas, making it less expensive for everyone, including the ~20 percent in rural areas.

We of the other 20% don't have any control over voting. We also would hope that the gas price would drop. The last town I lived in was 75 miles from the nearest "city" in NM. Now I'm only 40 miles from a "city" in Texas. Needless to say, it's cheaper to buy local than to spend the time and gas to go to the city to buy things. The Internet gets a big workout from me and my friends. Our local "taxi" charges from the time we call him to the time he drops us off. No public transportation around here, but they did pass a law that allows us to drive modified golf carts on the local roads, not highways, and that has made a big difference in how much gas I use each month. I have an electric golf cart that gets me all around town, except for a few places that are only accessible by highway.

[rmay635703]

I rather see a 12 cent increase than see OBDII distance monitoring crap that charges everyone a flat rate per mile

[redneck]

rmay635703

I rather see a 12 cent increase than see OBDII distance monitoring crap that charges everyone a flat rate per mile .

This is what the TPTB will have to say about that.

"You will get both, and you will like it..."



>

[bhtooefr]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Lucky for us we have not been paying for imagined environmental damage. And it doesn't look we will ever have to.
What did you actually think they would use that money to fix the environment? Ha.

We've been paying for it, that's for sure - look at the BP oil spill, for starters. Or, some of the healthcare costs that get paid for by fuel taxes in other countries. Or the air quality in some major cities in the US.

(Even if the money isn't being directly used to internalize those externalities (and in some cases it can't), it discourages fuel consumption, which reduces the pollution anyway.)

[user removed]

I'll just use the american express card so the wife gets 10 cents out of the 12. She has an abnormal attraction to pennies ,

regards
Mech

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

She has an abnormal attraction to pennies ,

You must have had a few of them; after-all, she is Mrs. Old Mechanic.

[Superfuelgero]

Raise it. The higher the gas prices, the less of a nut I look like.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by xntrx

Raise it. The higher the gas prices, the less of a nut I look like.

Not likely!

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

We've been paying for it, that's for sure - look at the BP oil spill, for starters. the healthcare costs that get paid for by fuel taxes in other countries. Or the air quality in some major cities in the US.

(Even if the money isn't being directly used to internalize those externalities (and in some cases it can't), it discourages fuel consumption, which reduces the pollution anyway.)

Say there is a large oil spill what, ever 20 years or so. What gets done with the money in the mean time?
If they can't leave social security alone and use the money for its intended purpose then I guarantee they wont save the environmental slush fund for the environment.
Plus if the government sets aside money to clean up oil spills that will just further encourage unsafe practices by the oil companies. If the oil companies know they are on the hook for environmental damage they cause and they will be fined by the government every day until the problem is fixed they will think very carefully befor they try something risky.

So I should have to pay for someone else's poor air quality.
How about no.

The U.S. uses more fuel than ever and the air has been getting cleaner and cleaner over the last 30 years. Reducing fuel consumption by some infinitesimal small amout will have the same effect on air quality.

So the answer is, to some people, increase taxes, fuel government waste, increase fuel prices and have virtually 0 effect on the environment aside from encouraging the oil companies to take more risks wagering the environment.

Excuse me if I don't sign up right away.

[redpoint5]

What determines the consumption of a good? Price. What determines price? Supply and demand.

Making fuel more expensive in the U.S. does reduce fuel consumption- in the U.S. However, reducing demand by reducing consumption increases the supply. Saving 1 million barrels of oil here makes that 1 million available elsewhere, and that extra supply drives the cost down. Since raising prices in the U.S. had the effect of reducing consumption, lowering the global price has the effect of raising consumption.

The free market seeks a balance, so no discernible difference in global fuel consumption will be realized by reducing local fuel consumption.

The only thing that raising local fuel prices does is make everything in that region cost more, and depress that economy.

Healthy economies are the ones that innovate. Surplus funds and surplus time is the mother of invention.

Is there any disagreement here?

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If they can't leave social security alone and use the money for its intended purpose then I guarantee they wont save the environmental slush fund for the environment.

Going off your tangent, the federal gov't has no business keeping a slush fund until they pay off the $17,500,000,000,000 they are already in the hole for.

I might be willing to get behind the extra tax if the gooberment could manage the ethical fortitude to set spending at no higher than revenues, and apply the extra funds to paying down the debt.

Until then, get out of my pockets, thugs.