Over 80% Oppose Raising Gas Tax

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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

I wonder why it is, then, that in the 40 years or so that I've been driving, the US auto industry has managed to build exactly ONE car (the Pontiac Fiero) that I might possibly have been willing to buy.

Then we can get into "best product" - US automakers haven't been doing so well there; "lowest price" - nor there. So that leaves one out of three, no?

[Bicycle Bob]

Henry was going bankrupt until the banks put their managers in, and then WW II offered lucrative contracts.

[wdb]

Haven't read the whole thread but gasoline taxes are one of the most regressive taxes out there. It might sound like a nice idea but it only ends up hurting poor folks.

[theunchosen]

The Us autos are doomed you are right. Its because they got locked in on making cars they wanted(no ecoboxes, no basic boxes, no reliable boxes) and because they made friends with the wrong people(unions). Those two factors doomed them.

Since then Ford has managed to slightly get away from that. The Ford Fiesta overseas is relatively cheap, relatively good product, but I know nothing of what they pay workers there so I won't say.

I'm not a fan of US major autos. I'm a Honda guy. Reliable, inexpensive and pay reasonable wages at domestic plants. US domestic HQs meet really none of those on the same level. They aren't as inexpensive they aren't as reliable but they pay far too much to their employees.

My point in bringing up the industrialism quote. . .you name a government run organization that meets even one of those qualities(productively, overpaying your underqualified lazy workers is a negative, just like I compared it on the auto industry).

There simply aren't any. There are plenty of private sector jobs that do all three. FedEx supplies inexpensive shipping, they don't break packages that often and they pay their employees reasonably. A local fast food restaurant Pal's won the most efficient business of the year in I believe 98, and its the only food service company to ever even be considered. They supply cheap food, it tastes good, and its a good bit more healthy than McD's, BK and Yum corp, while they pay their employees very well considering its an entry level job.

Not all private sector entities are shining examples of Free Industrialism. . .but no government run entities are shining examples of efficiency, satisfaction or usefulness. If I ever have to chose I always chose free industry because eventually if pollution gets to lethal levels then there will be a market for manufacturing ways to get rid of it. If people will honestly buy incredible light high FE econoboxes then someone will start selling them. Welcome to Free Industry, if there is money to be had someone will be selling to get at it.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by wdb

Haven't read the whole thread but gasoline taxes are one of the most regressive taxes out there. It might sound like a nice idea but it only ends up hurting poor folks.

I'm calling this out again.

It in and of itself might be theoretically regressive in a situation in which someone makes money and never spends it. But everyone who spends a dollar on gas pays the exact same tax.

If everyone has to give 40 cents thats pretty fair. IF we both spend our entire income we both pay the same percentage of tax on it.

The only difference is the aforementioned poor folks aren't also paying in already a 30% income tax. So they pay at worst a 7% sales tax on goods and a 25% sales tax on gas. I pay still 7% sales tax on the money I spend(more) and I pay 25% sals tax on the gas(I drive more so more), then I pay income tax on top of that.

Regressive my foot. I'll trade their combined sales tax value of 12% ish for my 12%ish and my additional 30%.

Still wanna trade?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by wdb

Haven't read the whole thread but gasoline taxes are one of the most regressive taxes out there. It might sound like a nice idea but it only ends up hurting poor folks.

Not so much, really.

See, there's a trailer park at the end of my street. It's a given that the folks in there are generally poorer than the rest of us.

I have never seen a bunch of mofos collectively do more stupid sport driving than them. Oh, and they almost all have big old 4x4 muddin' trucks or cadillacs.

I had many renters like that too. If they had two nickels to rub together, they'd go blow them on something stupid, instead of the necessities of life... like... say... RENT.

So in the sense of "regressive" meaning additional burden- I don't think so.

[Bicycle Bob]

Originally Posted by wdb

Haven't read the whole thread but gasoline taxes are one of the most regressive taxes out there. It might sound like a nice idea but it only ends up hurting poor folks.

As a tax, yes, it is not progressive, however, in a world where billions of people have never used a telephone, I consider all gas burners rich. In North America, one has to shop carefully for a combination of job, home, etc. that does not require a car, but it can be done. I just think gas taxes should cover gas expenses and liabilities, somewhere around $15 per gallon. The make-up taxes are not very progressive, either. Of course, the money should go to replacing the oil economy, as well as remediating it, so there should probably be a surcharge on that, too.

[theunchosen]

I'll say this again since no one read it. In the last few years the "gas companies" and "big oil" spent more money on alternative fuels for cars, alternative energy for the grid, and alternative infrastructures that would allow alternative fuels than the US government did on any of those projects.

Not only that. They did it on less money per gallon than congress got.

I'll ask it clear and simple.

Do you want the people who completely wasted 30 cents a gallon to have more money or would you rather the people who very responsibly used their 4 cents per gallon to have more money.

IQ test.

Frank I think he means regressive in the sense that its a heavier burden on low income individuals rather than on high(progressive taxes heavily burden the rich, regressive is the opposite(the opposite of income tax structure)).

But Frank I totally agree with you otherwise lol. The projects around here are loaded down with massive cadillacs and 4x4s when I know for a fact there are cheaper Hondas and Toyotas out there.

[wdb]

^^^What he said. Let's not even get into Al Gore's preferred means of transportation.

As for the tax being regressive: who are you -- who am I for that matter -- to tell people how to spend their money. The guy next door to me just bought one of those 'cigarette' boats, talk about a gas hog.

But let's not kid ourselves about who drives what and who burns the most gas in the process. Rich or poor, we all have to get to work, the store, school, and other essential destinations.

Once upon a time I lived pretty close to the bone. I lucked into a half decent job with Exxon, and they gave me a credit card which allowed me to receive a discount on gas purchased from Exxon stations. (The catch was that I had to pay it off in full each month.) There was a low priced Exxon station on my commute, so I used the card for pretty much all of my gas purchases. I was shocked when the first month's bill came in, and it was more than I was paying for rent. This is with me driving a VW Beetle (60's style) and having a 30 minute commute to/from work.

Gas taxes hit poor people far, far, more than they hit rich people. They just do.

[UfoTofU]

Originally Posted by wdb

Gas taxes hit poor people far, far, more than they hit rich people.

As with all "essentials," I also believe this. However, I think theunchosen has a point that there's an income tax burden poor people don't have. I think a flat rate is good too.

When I was an intern for the government, I knew they were overpaid and underworked, like myself