Over 80% Oppose Raising Gas Tax

[metroschultz]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

(1)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.

(2)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.

1) Damn skippy they won't. That is why I would vote for a gas tax.

2) That's why there are so many stupid people out driving with us. Wasn't it Darwin who said "survival of the fittest"? One corollary being: early mortality to the unobservant.

Remember all the hoopla over Fords SUVs and tire failures?
I worked for a local dealer here and as soon as that crap began we had a mandate from on high to check the air in all the tires that came through the shop. Big or little. Taillight repair to engine swap. Oil change or brakes.
Fords research showed that those individuals were driving on flat tires. Not the Escorts and Taurus and Crown Vic, just the SUVs. (yes there were exceptions, this is a generalization)
Ever hear of the multi jillion dollar payout to one of those involved in an accident?
No!
The lawyers argued that if 3 tires were at 12 psi then it stands to reason the failed tire was at 12 psi. And NO tire that under inflated is going to last long at highway speed.
Yes some lawsuits were settled. But the biggest thing that happened was making us technicians change all those tires for free, and that was just a publicity stunt to save face. All those tires we pulled off went to used tire shops to be resold.
We also had to change the tire decals to show the new psi recommendations. They went from 28 psi to 35 psi. The few customers I talked to said they kept the tires low because, "If I pump them all the way up it rides like a truck"
As my grandson would say;
"DUH Grampa"


I've been no saint when it comes to driving. I am better now than in years past.
----------BUT----------
Now I pay attention to all the other idiots on the road with me to save my own neck and not necessarily to save theirs.

[Bicycle Bob]

Yes, gas taxes don't begin to pay the cost of gasoline use on the community at large. Cheap gas is forcing us to buy other stuff to keep the economy inefficient but profitable for a few.

[Funny]

Originally Posted by metroschultz

Wasn't it Darwin who said "survival of the fittest"? One corollary being: early mortality to the unobservant.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. A govenment that rewards the lazy (welfare for fat slobs with no intention of getting a job, and pumping out children they are teaching that lifestyle is okay) and punishing the producers (you and I who use ingenuity to save money, go to work and make something of ourselves, and hopefully teaching our kids the same in the process) is backwards and cannot survive. Dump welfare and social programs that are similar to it. Do like they do in most other countries, and the families would take care of the aging and ill. You are more likely to go out and get a job if your mom is *****ing at you than if a government official is sending you letters in your welfare check every month telling you where there are job openings.

Back on the subject, I am happy with the turnout so far with the poll, and only a few days left.
The fact of the matter is, when you raise the taxes, as they have in Massachusetts over the past few decades, the quality of the services doesn't increase, nor does the happiness of the residents. We have an out of control legislature that believes that when you raise taxes on goods and services, people will pay it and revenue will increase. Wrong. The people in Mass are just going to buy their products elsewhere where it's cheaper. The cost of a pack of smokes went up 63 cents, gas taxes are a proposed to go up 19-25 cents. What? They think we can't drive to New Hampshire and get the same thing for less? Raising the toll costs on roads whose toll was supposed to just pay for the road when the roads they were built on have been paid for three times over now? Where the hell is the logic there? Get a clue guys, listen to the people who elected you or get out.

[theunchosen]

What two countries in the world have the largest fastest growing economies.

Japan and China.

Which two countries that are not 3rd world coutnries have the fewest safety net social programs of non third world countries.

Japan and China.

It honestly is an intelligence check. If you look up economic growth compared to the percent dependence on the government by the individual you see an indirect relationship. Most countries with more government run programs than the US have smaller economic growth factors. Those countries that have fewer social nanny programs have higher economic growth.

If I am wrong I will donate every dollar I ever make to charity, but the average citizen in the most powerful(economically) state is better off than one in a lesser economic state.

The single most blindingly obvious method to radically increase the quality of life is to increase the countries economy. nothing else even comes close to achieving the same effect. Taxes and government programs limit economic growth and therefor the quality of living of the average person.

Up until 1909 the government survived on sales taxes and not taking unfathomable amounts of money for congressmen and senators(Junkits, working when they want, appropriating funds for transport for "delegation" that accomplishes nothing, aid to terrorist states that accomplishes nothing, contributions to useless systems like The UN, impossibl tax codes, enormous systems to make sure people follow the impossible tax codes, lawyers who defend clients who made simple mistakes about the impossible tax codes. . .on and on.)

Make congressional jobs no pay no frills no benefits for starters, flat tax at either the sales end or the income end that all individuals pay, and the elimination of the IRS would be my vote to reduce government spending enormously.

If it really is a public service position to be in a position of authority. . .it should look like all the public service jobs I've ever had and pay nothing and usually cost me supplies to do the job. . .

"The bureacracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy."

Do you really want to live in a world where so many are perched so precariously on the efforts of so few? Do you really want to live in a world in which if 5% of the people get fed up everyone gets sent packing to 3rd world status?

The economy is like nature. If you have an overflow of mice your few cats multiply incredibly fast to take advantage of the huge mouse population. In turn if the mice continue to sruvive and the cats become a huge population then something comes along to eat the cats. If the mice all vanish, the cats vanish and whatever was eating them vanishes.

If there is someone willing to pay for it it will happen in a true free market(which we don't have by any means). Obviously this is apparent because Aptera came into fruition before massive gas prices. They saw an enormous boom in business during that time. . .but they were successful before. I'll say this again, from my soapbox, If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to die when they ran out of money, Aptera would have had the opportunity to slice off some chunk of 20-30% market volume of all vehicles sold in the US. How many cars do they sell right now? Not that many, the market is saturated and its a specialty product. If they even were able to acquire 1% of the total market volume that had become available you would see Aptera explode and start producing cars for the entire West coast and surrounding states. In the current economy they could easily have grabbed up 2-3% and sell 3-4% of all the cars sold in the US. Then a true EV Aptera for sale would be a possibility or it would be possible to buy them here on the east coast.

"Bureacracy is the process of converting human effort and ingenuity into solid waste."

P.S. The reason foreign cars have much better fuel economy. . .is the fuel. US gasoline is vastly different from Euro or Asian blends. Their blends pollute far more than ours, but you get 10-20% more FE and HP out of it depending on where the engien was designed to be used. This is why cars dyno tested in Europe will always post higher numbers than cars dynoed in the US(even if you straight up imported it, before even accounting for new EPA crap that will lower its FE and HP).

The reason Euro states survive with higher gas prices is because they have mass transit. To be honest we don't. If you took my car away, I'm screwed. There is no bus, no train, no subway, no mass transit of any form that runs from my house to my job or even town in general. If you've been to europe you know that every major city has an underground, most of europe has a rail system, most have extensive bus routes and most things are very close together to start with(europe is much smaller and cities are more dense making bicycling a very viable option for transit. Biking would take me more than an hour to get to work(20 minute drive)).

Nothing is ever simple. Nothing is ever looking at two basic objects. There are always unintended consequences, there is always friction, there is always corruption, there are always failures.

If your water hose leaks very badly but you need to water your plants what are you going to do crank more water(money) through the hose and have it go everywhere and be wasted while a tiny fraction makes it to the desired target or do away with the hose and get a bucket. The real analogy would be collecting the rain before its gets to the plants and then dispersing it through the hose and losing most of it instead of just letting the rain fall on the plants.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you want to pay someone 4x what it costs me to do it for them be my guest, but if you tax me to pay him. . .I will be furious. I am willing to do it at cost. I guarantee some social worker and the other systems that they would be fed into if I stopped would cost 2-3x more than what it costs for me to do it. The difference between private sector and public sector. Why USPS is dying and FedEx and UPS are still doing fine, packages are delivered on time without being broken, opposed to a few days late not on the weekends and usually beat to pieces(I had textbooks shipped to me while I was in college and had to use usps. . .at least 4 out of 20 books over my college career were completely destroyed. I worked for Fedex and shipped things through them on a daily basis and never once had a problem).

I'll say this again, government taxes and legislation are always the dumbest of all available options. I'm fine with helping my elderly folks that live nearby, but if you mandate that I have to go to some community service center to check in and clock that I am doing that and get forms for them to sign when I show up. . . I will burn those forms and go to jail and you can find someone else to do it.

[tasdrouille]

The people in Mass are just going to buy their products elsewhere where it's cheaper.

The vast majority will buy where it is more convenient.

What two countries in the world have the largest fastest growing economies.

Japan and China.

I'll give you China, but Japan is sinking faster than you guys, a 4% contraction last year.

Anyway, I live where the taxes are highest in North America, and I'm glad I am.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

The vast majority will buy where it is more convenient.



I'll give you China, but Japan is sinking faster than you guys, a 4% contraction last year.

Anyway, I live where the taxes are highest in North America, and I'm glad I am.

lol thanks Tas,

Japan is no longer the economic power house it was poised to become. I think that is because it took the route of social programs instead of letting its free market system run wild.

To more properly and accurately depict my example. . .China and India. ..

In systems where there is no state to look after you(financially) people don't spend as much and people complain this creates a problem with domestic business, but I would argue that in "solving" the problem by using safety nets they create a bigger problem of state dependents. Individuals who can vote, recieve financial assistance from the government, don't pay taxes and are able to further implement systems in which everyone else is taxed more heavily than they are the system is doomed.

I cannot exactly replicate the quote but it was something to the effect , "When the people realize they can elect favors from the treasury into their own pockets, democracy will never succeed." I'm embarrassed to say I can't recall the quote. The

oops here it is

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
~ Alexander Fraser Tyler - Cycle of Democracy (1770)

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by Silveredwings

If we can't stop subsidizing the oil giants with $billions, then we should just raise the stinking tax on their products to make up for it. Further, if we continue to provide military security for their international ventures, then we should charge the costs back to them.

Nawwww! What was I thinking? We have the best government money can buy.

. . .?

If its an industry in the US its subsidized. Ethanol and biofuels are heavily subsidized to make them somewhat close to viable market products.

The problem is not just with one group or another being subsidized. . .the idea of subsidizing any of them is ignorant. Why would you do it?

"I am going to pay you because you can't make money."

Which means, because your process and your techniques are so terrible, I will give you money to make it possible for you to stay crappy and survive.

Opposed to. . .letting the crappy ones die off and the survivors are much much more effective companies with a cheaper product thats superior.

Henry Ford said that Industrialism was "to produce the best product, for the lowest price and to pay the highest wages possible."

None of those things will ever happen on a subsidy. "Bureacracy is hauling the status quo when the status has lost its quo."

If farmers weren't subsidized. . .then the US would produce enough food to feed the entire world. True farmers would make alot less per acre, but instead of only exporting a small amount of product no one in any country could compete with our low prices and superior goods. Whats also lost there is that food stuffs wouldn't cost virtually anything to the domestic populace.

People need to stop whining about big oil being subsidized. The "big oil" companies make 2% profit on a gallon of gas. so 4 cents a gallon right now. The government taxes the gas for at least 30 cents for most of us. So "Big oil" makes less than 1/6 what government makes per gallon of gas right now. At the peak of summer oil prices government still made 3x what "Big oil" did on gas. So if you have a complaint about the cost of fuel and that big oil ought to have to pay for it. . .the government decided you should and taxes you. Also "Big oil" spent more in 2007 and 2008 on solar panel research, GTL, and natural gas ice harvesting than the government did when they only profited 8 cents a gallon and the us government profited 30-40 cents per gallon.

I'll say this again as many times as it needs to be said, taxes and government legislation(and subsidies and grants and. . .anything government provided) is always the worst possible option.

[Frank Lee]

It may be the worst but when private citizens and entities utterly fail, it becomes necessary.

One good example: emissions regulations. Are you old enough to remember the howling, whining, and stamping of feet when they had to do away with draft tubes and put PCV valves in? There was a rocky learning curve but now we can plainly see that engines are superior in almost every way because of those regs, and I highly doubt market forces alone would have brought us to this point.

metroschultz: that is exactly what I had in mind when I made my comment. I had a feeling all along there was nothing wrong with the tires. I had them- or ones very similar- as OEM equipment on my F150 and I LOVED them. Wish I would have went to a used tire store and stocked up. I've gone through a couple sets of tires since and none of the aftermarket tires have been as good.

I'm the sort that notices all this little stuff when out on the road- things like, a tire is low, they forgot their gas cap, your tanker is dripping, your brake light is out, etc. I used to get people's attention and point those things out. But, now I've been left stranded one too many times, so fellow motorists that could use a hint or a hand can now go **** themselves.

[metroschultz]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

One good example: emissions regulations. Are you old enough to remember the howling, whining, and stamping of feet when they had to do away with draft tubes and put PCV valves in? There was a rocky learning curve but now we can plainly see that engines are superior in almost every way because of those regs, and I highly doubt market forces alone would have brought us to this point.

Yes I am,
I remember when PCV was mandated. The original idea was to keep engine blowby in the engine and the oil off the pavement.
We still have draft tubes on the big Ds. They, of all the vehicles out there, could use a PCV system.
I see gallons of oil draining from my trucks at work every month. Gallons of oil vapor straight into the atmosphere and onto the roadway. If PCV was mandated on them I assure you the manufacturers would clean the engines up in a short period.

I remember when AIR pumps were introduced also.
The single biggest wool over the eyes moment I can think of for Gov't regulation.
Put clean air into the exhaust stream so the tailpipe emissions come down.
Premises;
The fresh air promotes burning of the hydrocarbons in the muffler, and elsewhere there is heat buildup, so the total emissions are less.
Actuality;
I pour 10 ounces of clear water into 2 ounces of milk, now the milk looks clear.
I have personally tested vehicle for unburned hydrocarbons with the AIR system intact and disconnected. The result is intangibly small.
But We HAD to have them.
When they put catalytic converters on cars, using the AIR system to inject fresh air into the cat was a good thing, but before then it was just dilution.