Over 80% Oppose Raising Gas Tax
 

"Just 10% of adults think the federal government should increase the tax on gasoline by a large amount as a way of encouraging people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Eighty-one percent (81%) oppose a large tax hike for that purpose, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.

These sentiments remain largely unchanged from nearly two years when 86% said they opposed the idea of raising gas taxes by 50 cents a gallon as a result of congressional legislation that would encourage the development of more fuel-efficient cars." - Rasmussen Reports ; Monday, May 11, 2009
(Read the entire article here)

How do you guys feel about this subject? The poll questions are:

1. "I completely oppose a gas tax hike, that will not deter the auto makers from making inefficient cars, it will only hurt consumers wallets."
2. "I completely agree that raising the gas tax will make people buy more efficient vehicles, and the revenues can be used to offset other shortcomings."
3. "It is not going to effect the way I drive or buy a car, I build my own electric transportation from old gas vehicles and charge them with off-the-grid solar/wind power."

4. I think it will make people buy more efficient vehicles. I know two people who did. However, the people who are opposed are the people who probably don't know they can own a more efficient vehicle since all anybody hears about are pricey Priuses - the below-average-income people. Instead of raising any sales taxes, which are all regressive, the federal government could legislate that cars produced in the future must be more efficient

I would be for it ONLY if there was a guarantee that the proceeds would get our roads and bridges up to good quality. Like the gas tax is supposed to be used for.

I am for the freedom of choices that we all have in this country. In my opinion, you cannot tell me what to do if I am not hurting anyone else. If you want to buy a gas guzzling hog of a vehicle, Great. I would not buy such a car, I have my Lemon and I am very happy with it, and wouldn't trade it for any other car right now. But to penalize everyone because you want everyone to buy an efficient vehicle is imposing your opinion and your choice on others. If you want to make a difference, like Kitaimdao said, mandate changes at the automotive manufacturing level. Kinda like catalytic converters, people complain for a while, then it quiets down. It just takes time to adjust to the change, and usually, like the catalytic converter, it's for the best.

Funny -

(I like all the posts I have read)

I voted #2. We see efficient vehicles in Europe and other countries, and their fuel taxes are through the roof. We also see tax breaks for small cars in Japan, like the Kei Cars. In the current economic climate, I don't know if I would institute them right now. I have always imagined introducing a gradual gas-tax increase, i.e. a "penny-a-month" for at least 4 years (one presidential term). This would in theory allow time for auto manufacturers to respond. The idea is that you know what's coming with a guaranteed timetable. Once in place, the tax increase could also serve as a price buffer. If fuel prices increase, the tax could lower to "absorb" the increase, at least to a degree. This would keep the price artificially(?) high but stable, thereby incentivising people to choose higher-MPG cars.

CarloSW2

I also voted #2. It will cause more people to drive more FE cars which isn't a bad thing. However, I completely agree with Funny's post #4. We should educate people (kids & adults) better, not strong arm them into making decisions they don't want to (as much as I'd like to sometimes!)

So what if gas is artifically cheap already? Some folks estimate it at $15 a gallon once all is said and done, which would mean we are all paying a lot more for gasoline than the pump price (no choice) even if you choose not to use gasoline.

I just want gas to be $4+ again. I hate when it's cheap. :mad:

So far it looks like forum members represent a different view than those surveyed

I like my gas prices high, it's the only path to innovation.

I oppose raising Taxes. ANY taxes. It just encourages the idiots to waste more of our money!

Gas will get pricey again without higher taxes, it always has before. I am for higher gas prices-it makes people consider things a bit-but i'm not for giving more of it to a wasteful, inefficient and corrupt government which then spends its time on figuring out better ways of abolishing our rights and finishing our transition from fully-realized human beings into mindless consumer units that shamble cradle-to-grave in Serf's manacles...

Abolish Income Tax, and abolish the IRS. A man who does not own his labor is not free.
Abolish Land Tax. When land is bought, it is paid for ONCE.
Restore Tariffs-the US is just about the only country that has largely discontinued them.
Cut Federal Government to the bone. Eliminate unnecessary spending and Pork Barrel. The ATF was created solely to employ all those poor, unemployed Prohibition agents-the agency is obsolete. The CIA breaks its own mandates daily(operating inside the US itself is a no-no)-fire the lot of them, change the NSA's mandate from Domestic to Foreign Ops and watch them like hawks to prevent them from turning into another CIA! Homeland Security becomes a co-ordinating agency with no enforcement powers-their job will be strictly liason between Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies...this leaves the Secret Service to protect the President, Law Enforcement from Local to Federal levels intact and gets rid of 'domestic Security' Brownshirts.

Cut Military spending by 65%. We don't need military bases in every foreign nation unless we're an Empire, so let's get rid of the expense. We have Nukes, nobody's going to invade in force. Terrorism will be dealt with by Law Enforcement from within , NSA/MI in open waters and by other Governments on their own soil, with UN help if needed.

Cut Foreign Aid. Stop giving money to countries who don't need it or are more successful than we are(Israel, France, Germany etc). Save it for the Third world as it was intended and for Disaster Relief efforts.

Now that we've leaned out the Federal FE, raise Sales Tax just a bit (no more than 10% total) raise Luxury Tax a LOT (the Wealthy no longer pay Income Tax so they still come out way, way ahead) increase Fees across the board ( Registration, Surveying, Inspections of cars/buildings, permits) another 10-12% . Now the States have plenty of operating capital (pre-collected so no Tax Season or forms). Have at least half of these operations work at the County level, with the resulting moneys distributed to the States on a fixed ratio. The less centralized we can keep our Governments, the less likely we are to have the corruption and scandals that have plagued our Nation for the past centur-

Oh.
Um.
These Soapboxes just spring up under my feet when i'm standing still don't they? Sorry, back to Gas Tax, i'll just carry these home for firewood....:o

I agree with you, although Ben pointed out on AIM that fluctuating prices are devastating to the people and economy

This statement we agree upon, it stands to reason that if given the opportunity to spend ones own money on something, you will find the best deal or at least get what you want. When someone else spends your money for you, there isn't that worry or sensitivity. They spend it so easily because "well, it's not my money..."

First, losing your temper is not going to solve the problems. Second, again I agree with most of this, however to say that you are for higher gas prices means you are not for a free and open market, which requires the gasoline and other products to set their own prices, via supply and demand. If the gas prices are low today and high tomorrow, so be it. Do not artificially inflate something to screw up supply and demand.

Here is where we begin to disagree. Unfortunately, there are two things in life that are definite, death and taxes. I agree that a tremendous amount of wasteful spending must be cut, and the majority of government (federal) can be let go and most of us would never miss them, nor know that they were even gone. But when you begin to believe in conspiracy theories, people are going to question your sanity. I won't, I am one of the many people that believe that we still are sitting on technology like the Pogue carburetor and doinging nothing with it because "It would disrupt the system."
At least tone down the government conspiracy a little, just as a precaution ;).

Again, I must rein you in here, military is what keeps the enemies that want what we have away. You cut the spending, I say make better use of that spending. If there were a flat tax in place, about 3% of income (yes I did say 3%) on everyone, including the poor and impoverished, as well as the super wealthy and super rich (there is a difference between wealthy and rich) with NO DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED (and no capital gains taxes to boot) the government would have more than enough capital to fund a Very strong military. This would deter terrorists and other enemies of the US more so than nuclear weapons. You can't fight guerrilla tactics with nuclear arms, it doesn't work.

You mean stop babysitting? Sure I'm for that. But to assist our allies, I want to do that too "oh Britain, you need to borrow lunch money? sure, just catch me on payday and get it back to me." You can't just turn away friends, but they cannot become leaches either.

Alright pal, why attack the wealthy? They are those that create wealth. Without wealthy people (not rich), there is no capital to create jobs and continue functioning as an effective entity on this planet. Rich people (here's the difference) inherited or won their money, they never earned it.
Those that earned the money and gave it to an heir, and the heir doesn't use that money to make more money? That is a rich person.
Those that earned the money and gave it to an heir, and the heir uses that money to make huge piles of cash and employs a ton of people? That is a wealthy person.
I agree that there are a lot of reforms and changes that must be made, but you think that wealthy and rich people are the problem? How about the 50% of Americans that don't pay a cent of income tax? Those people that make up the bottom 50% of our totem pole. When you have a system that rewards the lazy and punishes the productive, that system is broken.

Likewise, I must relinquish my soapbox to the next person. Next?

But you don't get to decide if your actions do, or have the potential to, "hurt" anyone else or not. i.e. You may think you should be able to smoke in the maternity ward, but that doesn't make it so.

re: potential, Just because you have the money and resources to develop anthrax in your garage doesn't mean you should not be lynched if you choose to do so.

So "hurt" is a matter of degree. There is no action you can take that does not have an effect. Obviously there are extremely innocuous actions (I'm flapping my arms right now) with nearly 1/infinity chance of doing anyone an injustice, but you get my meaning. We are all in this together, like it or not, that much you don't get to choose.

I want to meet the guy who wants to, because he would get beaten to a pulp. That is interrupting someone else's freedom. If that same guy wants to smoke in his car on the freeway with his windows down, more power to him.

Who would want to develop anthrax in their garage unless it was for malicious purposes, why would they make it for giggles?

Your flapping is offensive, I am calling my lawyer right now. Kidding, but actions that effect other people are plain, not innocuous. The fact that gas guzzling SUVs are still sold means that consumption by that individual is effecting the quantity of gasoline available to the rest of us. They are paying for that privilege at the pump. Air quality controls are in place on engines and most states test emissions on vehicles. I really have no closer on this evaluation of your opinion, but you are of an independent mindset, and I laud you for it. Next naysayer please!

gas tax
 

I would create a permanent record and archive of all stockholders and proxies of U.S.-based multinational oil companies who import foreign oil or finished products into the U.S..Secondly,I would tally up the cost,now born by the general taxpayer, of protection,to guarantee the safe passage of these foreign products into the U.S. currently provided by the State Dept.,DEPT. of DEFENSE,FBI,CIA,NSA,NRO,Military Intel.,NAVY,ARMY,AIR FORCE,U.S.Special Forces,COAST GUARD,etc.,and divide the cost,then invoice each shareholder for their share of the expense.---- Then fuel would finally reflect its actual cost at the pump.At around $4.75-gallon ( today's cost),no doubt,motorists would look into more efficient travel.-------- Or you could repeal the maritime laws which prevent merchant vessels from arming themselves.It would be like the British East India Company,guarding its opium shipments to China.Even with the cost of defense factored in,opium still sold at prices even the poorest could afford,and shareholders made a fortune.-- And since 80- mpg Supercars went on sale by the Big-Three in 2007,$4.75/gallon is cheap,when the higher mpg is factored in.At that point,we don't need no stinkin' taxes.

I apologise for bumping a week-old thread. However, there was a spike, although the recession will keep gas at a more affordable price

The Poll doesn't close until June 1st, so I appreciate you bumping it. But instead of a gas tax, they passed the New Hampshire stimulus package, AKA raising Mass sales tax by 25%. Oh, and they almost raised the income tax too. Good job, Beacon Hill. You are successful in driving business away from us like we have the plague.

P.S. They also passed a tax - tax. It's adding sales tax to alcohol and that tax is also charged on the booze tax that the liquor already had. Just makes more people buy their groceries and cigarettes and, well, pretty much everything from New Hampshire.

Peak Oil might take care of the price rise by itself soon.

I oppose all taxes. period.

Up until 1909 the Us government operated and did not create debt without a federal income tax.

And no sales taxes are not regressive. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Sales tax is fair for everyone. Rich people pay way more in sales taxes than the average buyers because alot of the items they buy have special sales taxes. Just because its a bigger percentage of the income for the lower class individuals(not by much) they still pay less in sales tax overall than the upper class and most of the time said individuals used for any study along those lines pay 0 income tax. When compared with income tax and sales taxes its not even close.

The Honda Insight came around when gas was reasonably cheap. Name a mass produced car that does better that was on that scale out there today? Gas is a dollar more than when it was designed and released. Gas is also a dollar more than when the HF and VX were released. . .

All high gas prices do is manipulate what cars have ridiculous price tags. Cars that get only 5-6 more mpg flew off lots when it would take more than the cars lifetime to pay for the new car.

Legislation will not solve the problem either.

The answer to the problem is to let Chrysler and GMC die. If that happens then a huge chunk of the US market opens up for competition and small versatile capable car companies can step in and start making niche markets. Eventually some of them will step up and become like Aptera and some of them will have fantastic FE gassers.

As long as Chrysler and GMC limp on producing cars at a loss that suck up market share for no valid reasons that innovation is impossible.

Government activity is always the death of innovation. If our government had been around during the Captains of Industry era no one would have believed a vertical monopoly would work because they would have shut it down before it succeeded. Consequently they would have kicked the steel industry straight overseas instead of allowing it to slowly be farmed out while they meddle with it.

Government has 0 provisions for interferring in the market, and Adam Smith would tell you you're always worse off when they do. The general welfare and the specific individuals they chose to interfere with.

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

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.

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

I think seat belts were legislated

$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.

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?!? :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

Related to efficiency:

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

I guess a hike would also redefine necessity

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.

^ 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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

. . .?

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.

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.

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.