Over 80% Oppose Raising Gas Tax

[UfoTofU]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

And no sales taxes are not regressive.

I was wrong. Not all sales taxes are regressive. However, gas is an essential so in this case it is.

At least we both oppose taxes. I also don't agree with the way income tax is set up.

However, legislation do solve problems, as much as I don't like big brother since regulating is busy business. Legislation made certain safety features a requirement. As for letting failing companies fail, I don't have a problem with that

[theunchosen]

Congress is enormously myopic.

They are worried about the job losses caused by those companies going under. Of course no one wants to see people lose jobs if we can help it, but on the same note If those two went under Ford could step in and pick up the functioning pieces and become a better company for it.

Also if 2 of the 7-8 major car manufacturers disappears off lots there is alot more room for poeple like Aptera to succeed.

Sales tax is only kind of regressive, even on neccessary goods. If you spend more you get taxed more. Lower income families probably spend all of their income so they get taxed on it. However, its at worst 12% of their income goes into taxes. TN has a 7% sales tax and I do save some money so I don't pay sales tax on all of my income. . .but I also pay 30% in income tax. So roughly about 35% of my income goes straight to taxes, which is way more than their 12%.

I'm in favor of flats and eliminating the IRS to save money ^_^.

back on topic, If we look around the government mandates haven't really improved fuel economy. They have done it several times in the past and it really didn't get us anywhere. High prices and taxes also didn't really get us anywhere considering not one car manufacturer did the obvious, make an enormously cheap, lightweight, basic ICE from a 500cc engine that has basic protection(body paneling) and sells for less than 10K. No one did it. The windfall profits that could have been had from a car like that would have been astounding.

They didn't because people are also myopic. Selling your SUV that gets 15 mpg that you already completely paid for, for 4,000 dollars and buying a 18K+ car that gets twice its gas mileage. . .will still take 5 years to pay for at exorbitant gas prices. The MSM didn't even cover the idea of buying old metros, crxs, vxs, tercels, paseos, civics, del sols, or any other car that we manage to squeeze better FE than those hybrids. So most people didn't think it was possible and that they HAD to have a hybrid to get good gas mileage.

I hate to be a pessimist but the US populace are largely sheep. MSM says something they believe it and don't think twice. Its cheaper to buy a wrecked any of the cars above and have it rebuilt than buy a new car, and all of those cars can get better mileage. All raising prices or making mandates will do is hurt consumers. It will bump either gas prices up or bump small cars prices up because manufacturers know (with CAFE) that no one can afford to sell anything not a small gasser otherwise they will get fined for not meating the AFE(Average Fuel Economy).

Also If you look at states and countries that have domestic manufacturers and no safety regulations to speak of, they have alot of the safety equipment we do. JDM cars have enough equipment to keep fatalities down, but they don't add an extra 1000 lbs to every car to make sure that a glass vase would survive getting hit by a dump truck.

Regulations rarely if ever accomplish anything good.

[dcb]

Who left the soap box on? Doesn't that waste energy?

[UfoTofU]

I think seat belts were legislated

[metroschultz]

$8.oo a gallon gas, here I come.
Yes a spike in price will be detrimental at first, but people have a way of adjusting.
When gas was $4.oo a gal. I noticed my parking lot at work emptied of
Stupid
Useless
Vehicles and filled with small sedans and coupes.
After the culture shock, all will re-align.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

back on topic, If we look around the government mandates haven't really improved fuel economy. They have done it several times in the past and it really didn't get us anywhere. High prices and taxes also didn't really get us anywhere considering not one car manufacturer did the obvious, make an enormously cheap, lightweight, basic ICE from a 500cc engine that has basic protection(body paneling) and sells for less than 10K. No one did it. The windfall profits that could have been had from a car like that would have been astounding.

Also If you look at states and countries that have domestic manufacturers and no safety regulations to speak of, they have alot of the safety equipment we do. JDM cars have enough equipment to keep fatalities down, but they don't add an extra 1000 lbs to every car to make sure that a glass vase would survive getting hit by a dump truck.

Regulations rarely if ever accomplish anything good.

unchosen's soapbox is all good.

Re: govt efficiency mandates: I noticed that they've had a similar failure amongst the electric utilities. For decades they've been preaching conservation, handing out rebates for "energy star" appliances and the like, and what has that gotten us? Double the household electricity use of 20 years ago?!?

The bottom line is people will be slobs until they can't afford it, and by can't afford I mean they don't have access to credit or a govt lifeline either.

Re: excessive safety equipment: totally agree. Today's motorist expects the car to do it all for him/her- no onus on them for safety as they careen along the highway at 80 mph with phones stuck to their heads in thier overloaded SUVs with half-flat tires.

Related to efficiency:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/...rgy_forecast_1

WASHINGTON (AP — The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide seeping into the atmosphere will increase by nearly 40 percent worldwide by 2030 if ways are not found to require mandatory emission reductions, a government report said Wednesday.

The Energy Information Administration said world energy consumption is expected to grow by 44 percent over the next two decades as the global economy recovers and continues to expand. The biggest increases in energy use will come from economically developing countries such as China and India.

Substantial growth is expected in the use of renewable energy sources such as hydropower, wind and solar, the report said. But it also said overall growth in demand will require continued reliance on fossil fuels, especially oil and coal.

As a result, the analysis predicted a steady increase in emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that scientists say threatens a serious warming of the Earth later this century. Between now and 2030, Wednesday's report said, global carbon dioxide pollution is expected to increase by 39 percent. That translates to 33 billion metric tons in 2015 and 40 billion metric tons by 2030, compared to 29 billion metric tons in 2006, the report said.

The EIA report emphasized that its analysis is based on current regulatory and legal requirements and does not assume enactment of laws or international treaties requiring reductions in greenhouse gases. Any such action would force shifts away from fossil fuels and less carbon pollution being released.

Congress is considering legislation that would reduce greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century. President Barack Obama has called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. An international conference is scheduled for December to try to work out a treaty requiring such emission reductions.

But the EIA analysis provides an indication of how difficult such reductions might be to achieve given the expected increase in future energy growth and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels without some international, mandatory action to address climate change.

The EIA report said that "much of the increases in carbon dioxide emissions is projected to occur among the developing nations" including China and India.

It said 94 percent of the world's expected increase in industrial energy use between now and 2030 is expected in the economically developing countries, with Brazil, Russia, India and China expected to account for two-thirds of that growth.

The EIA report projected continued growth in demand for oil, although unconventional resources such as biofuels, oil sands and liquid coal are expected to increase as well and account for nearly half of the projected increase in overall liquid fuel demand.

The report declined to project future oil prices, noting that "recent experience demonstrates that world oil prices can be extremely volatile." Instead it provided a broad range of possible future oil prices, depending on future production and demand of oil and other liquid fuels.

Crude oil prices could range from $50 a barrel in 2030 or as much as $200 a barrel in 2007 dollars, the report said, depending on available supplies of oil, biofuels and other liquid fuels.

Crude oil prices increased to about $63 a barrel on Wednesday, the highest since last November. Oil prices reached a peak of $147 a barrel last summer.

[UfoTofU]

I guess a hike would also redefine necessity

[theunchosen]

Kit,

Japan has almost no safety regulation compared to the US but they have a bunch of safety equipment anyway. They don't do anywhere near the impact testing that the US government mandates to sell a car in the US. They develop some of the equipment and ignore having column air bags, curtain air bags, rear air bags on top of frontal air bags. Not to mention they don't have those idiotic alarms that go off the instant someone unbuckles their seat belt. That is so obnoxious when a passenger needs to get something and unbuckles to reach it and it chimes like an air horn the whole time. . .

Mark,

We've had ridiculous gas prices before. Plenty of times. Even Topgear took note of the fact that while the rest of the world converted to much smaller cars after the last several gas spikes(60-90s) while immediately after those spikes US cars sales for tanks when back up.

I promise you what will happen is states that have strict emissions and specialty registrations will see a sizeable exodus to states that have no such policies in which if I drop a new motor in a suburban I can classify it as whatever the motor is and then sell it to someone else.

IF people are honest-to-god worried about pollution and global warming. . .go plant a bunch of trees in your yard. Its less mowing and it solves your pollution problem. Seriously, legislation and taxes are always the dumbest of all available options.

To put this in perspective for you, I live in East Tennessee with a lot of retired people. Most of them have to visit the doctor and all of them carry private insurance and are not on government aid. They are on fixed income from their retirement packages that they made during the second world war.

They have no extra money a month and no discretionary income to speak of. I know because when I visit and bring a special groceries they aren't used to they light up. I also help several of them run small businesses that sell flowers and I work for them at the cost of gas to get me there and back. All of them also have to drive at least an hour a week to town for doctors appointments. When gas hit 4 a gallon I drove them because they couldn't afford it. I can only be in so many places at one time. . .think about it.

[joey]

^ This suggests we (i.e., our governments) need to do more to properly provide for our aging population, not that we shouldn't have a gas tax. We can't save everyone by our individual actions; that's why countries (excepting the US, of course) have dedicated social safety nets. If we weren't so in love with our individualism, we wouldn't leave the not-as-well-off in as bad shape as we do.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Do we need a government?

If so, then how would the government function if there were no taxes?

How do the people in Europe survive, paying as much fuel taxes as they do?

Why is it that the average fuel mileage so much higher on cars sold in places where the fuel costs are higher (than the USA)?