Tax option question

[CSVol]

I've not been readig this site long so sorry if this has been discussed. After keeping up with the unrest in the Mid-East and its impact on oil prices (Egypt's will be minimal), I'm reminded of Perot's proposal of adding an additional dedicated gas tax for debt reduction. As most know, the primary cost at the pump is tax, which I'm not sure what it is all used for(highway maintenece?). This is why petrol in Europe is comparatively much higher than here. How would you feel about an additional .50-.60 tax on gas dedicated to budget reduction coupled with a slight decrese in personal and business tax levels? I understand the sting in the short term based on increases passed to the consumer for transportation/production costs. But with the incentive long term for job growth(based on presumptions of development due to lower bus. tax) and consumer spending(due to higher net income), would it be worth the intial pain? Through the economic disincentive for petroleum based systems we may also finally be forced to seriously begin looking at alternative energy sources. Thoughts?

 

[sjt18]

The gov't gets plenty of our money now. Rising fuel prices have a uniformly negative effect on economic activity... so No.

The alternative energy plan that is smacking us right square in the face is nuclear power. IMO, nuclear waste is more controllable and has less of a widespread effect than the pollution we pour into our atmosphere daily. This is one thing I would be more than willing to see nationalized and paid for with tax dollars.

We should build enough nuke plants that we begin to export energy. Electricity should cost people and industry next to nothing. There are few things the gov't could do to help the near and long term economy than this.

 

[CSVol]

I completely agree on nuclear power. We have been lulled into a state of terror by big oil to the idea of modern nuclear technology.

As to negative economic ramifications, I acknowledge an initial negative adjustment period. Do you not think the economy and the consumer would adjust over time and that taxbreaks would help ease the pain? I'm in no way advocating feeding the gov't beast. But could there not be a way to explicitly dedicate this new revenue to debt reduction as Perot originally proposed?

 

[sjt18]

I completely agree on nuclear power. We have been lulled into a state of terror by big oil to the idea of modern nuclear technology.

Kidding, right? I grew up through the anti-nuke era. Though I am sure oil and coal execs were smiling at the useful fools, the protests and demagogury that prevented nuclear power were initiated by liberals in academia, politics, and the media.

As to negative economic ramifications, I acknowledge an initial negative adjustment period. Do you not think the economy and the consumer would adjust over time and that taxbreaks would help ease the pain?

If your concern is the common working person that drives to work every day... then no, this would be pretty much a permanent, largely middle class, tax increase that would not be easily transferred. It comes directly out of the family budget and cannot be replaced until wages somehow caught up... if they ever did.

I'm in no way advocating feeding the gov't beast. But could there not be a way to explicitly dedicate this new revenue to debt reduction as Perot originally proposed?

Read up on the Fair Tax. That's your best option.

Make you a deal though... if the left would give in to "Drill here, drill now" and the building of 10-20 new US refineries... I would give in to higher fuel taxes.

 

[volinbham]

Two big arguments against gas tax increases:

1) It's a highly regressive tax
2) It will be a pass through for businesses and in turn be more regressive still via the impact on goods/services prices

 

[droski]

we need to discourage consumption unquestionably. personally i'd be in favor of it. we'll get a lot of "working americans are getting screwed" complaints though.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I've not been readig this site long so sorry if this has been discussed. After keeping up with the unrest in the Mid-East and its impact on oil prices (Egypt's will be minimal), I'm reminded of Perot's proposal of adding an additional dedicated gas tax for debt reduction. As most know, the primary cost at the pump is tax, which I'm not sure what it is all used for(highway maintenece?). This is why petrol in Europe is comparatively much higher than here. How would you feel about an additional .50-.60 tax on gas dedicated to budget reduction coupled with a slight decrese in personal and business tax levels? I understand the sting in the short term based on increases passed to the consumer for transportation/production costs. But with the incentive long term for job growth(based on presumptions of development due to lower bus. tax) and consumer spending(due to higher net income), would it be worth the intial pain? Through the economic disincentive for petroleum based systems we may also finally be forced to seriously begin looking at alternative energy sources. Thoughts?

I would be cool with it if and only if Natural Gas was untaxed and filling stations were located around major metro areas and highways

 

[CSVol]

sjt, we're closer on the nuclear issue than you think. I'm old enough to remeber Three Mile Island and agree that the hyperbole concerning the enviromental impact of this energy source was fostered and perpetuated by liberals for years. Now, though, liberals see the neg. impact (true or not) of petroleum pollution and smart ones, including academia, now see the benefit.

As for refineries, I couldn't agree more. For this, and alternative energy, I do blame big oil. To find the root of any problem, follow the dollar and see where it ends. Everyone knows who really runs the country: big oil. And who runs big oil? Satan.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

We dont use oil to make electricity, we use Coal, and lots of it.

You wanna use Nukes, thats fine. So do I. But dont be saying its Big Oils fault because we dont have more nukes. Its the Coal Industry and Unions why we dont have any more Nukes.

We dont need any more refineries, we are currently only running at 80% capacity

 

[CSVol]

Though I am sure oil and coal execs were smiling at the useful fools, the protests and demagogury that prevented nuclear power were initiated by liberals in academia, politics, and the media.

As a counterpoint, Neo-con shrills have counted on the "must protect oil shipments" idea to convince the public that our presence and influence in the mid-east are essential to our economic survival. The most recent statistics I could find, 2009, show the U.S. as the 3rd largest procucer/extractor of crude oil in the world following only Russia and Saudi arabia.

 

[CSVol]

We dont use oil to make electricity, we use Coal, and lots of it.

You wanna use Nukes, thats fine. So do I. But dont be saying its Big Oils fault because we dont have more nukes. Its the Coal Industry and Unions why we dont have any more Nukes.

We dont need any more refineries, we are currently only running at 80% capacity

Then why are many people in the north still using oil for heating their home and offices? If coal lobbyists had more influence than big oil, ways to use clean coal would have been pushed for development and oil consumption could have dropped.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Though I am sure oil and coal execs were smiling at the useful fools, the protests and demagogury that prevented nuclear power were initiated by liberals in academia, politics, and the media.

As a counterpoint, Neo-con shrills have counted on the "must protect oil shipments" idea to convince the public that our presence and influence in the mid-east are essential to our economic survival. The most recent statistics I could find, 2009, show the U.S. as the 3rd largest procucer/extractor of crude oil in the world following only Russia and Saudi arabia.

we dont get much oil from the Saudis, their oil goes to China/India. We get most of our oil from Canada

China uses about 10 Million Barrels per day. We use 18 million Bpd

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Then why are many people in the north still using oil for heating their home and offices? If coal lobbyists had more influence than big oil, ways to use clean coal would have been pushed for development and oil consumption could have dropped.

because the homes are older and thats the infrastructure that is set up for the area

There is no such thing as Clean Coal. Total myth and you cant drive a car with coal

 

[CSVol]

because the homes are older and thats the infrastructure that is set up for the area

There is no such thing as Clean Coal. Total myth and you cant drive a car with coal

I get that. But if the supposed 100 years suppy of coal in the U.S. is useless as a clean source of energy, why would coal co.s object more than big oil to nuclear energy? My original point was that oil companies are seen to oppose alternative energy, including the electric car.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Consumers are the ones against the electric car because it can only go 100 miles without having to charge it overnight. People like to drive more than 100 miles at a time. Also we like our SUVs, we want to be able to pack in a bunch of kids, all their gear and tow a boat at the same time. You cant do that in an electric car

Nuclear power plants dont run on Coal. Coal Mining Companies and their Unions want to stay in business, so they lobby to congress to use coal as a source of electricity instead of nukes

 

[sjt18]

we need to discourage consumption unquestionably. personally i'd be in favor of it. we'll get a lot of "working americans are getting screwed" complaints though.

It won't discourage consumption enough to make up for the pain because people cannot adjust immediately or completely. You can't move because gas went up. You can't always trade cars. You can't avoid going to the grocery store.

I don't think it would change behavior very much.

 

[droski]

It won't discourage consumption enough to make up for the pain because people cannot adjust immediately or completely. You can't move because gas went up. You can't always trade cars. You can't avoid going to the grocery store.

I don't think it would change behavior very much.

last time we saw the gas price double we did see a change in behavior and our usage dropped and people started buying more economic cars. i agree most will probably pay it no matter what. but as you point out it will take time for people to really adjust.

 

[sjt18]

As a counterpoint, Neo-con shrills have counted on the "must protect oil shipments" idea to convince the public that our presence and influence in the mid-east are essential to our economic survival. The most recent statistics I could find, 2009, show the U.S. as the 3rd largest procucer/extractor of crude oil in the world following only Russia and Saudi arabia.

If you allow their fallacy of limited alternatives then they're right. If we do not pump and refine more of our fuel from domestic and friendly sources then we have to be involved in the ME. It isn't just what they sell us. It is the fact that they have the ability to destabilize the world market. You solve that problem by finding other sources for petroleum based fuels while expanding energy sources that they do not control as quickly as possible... like nuclear.

 

[CSVol]

Consumers are the ones against the electric car because it can only go 100 miles without having to charge it overnight. People like to drive more than 100 miles at a time. Also we like our SUVs, we want to be able to pack in a bunch of kids, all their gear and tow a boat at the same time. You cant do that in an electric car

Nuclear power plants dont run on Coal. Coal Mining Companies and their Unions want to stay in business, so they lobby to congress to use coal as a source of electricity instead of nukes

You're spot on with our obsession with SUV's and big cars (I include myself) and was wondering how to ween ourselves off this path, using higher fuel prices as an idea. If they become impractical then ideally consumer demand would drive commercial investment in newer/better technolgies. I only asked about the coal/nuclear relationship because you implied coal was more opposed to it than big oil.

 

[sjt18]

I am probably as conservative/libertarian as anyone who posts here... I have always driven a "gas mileage" car for work. I could afford a bigger car. I could afford the gas. I just think it is a place where conservation works for me without being a huge inconvenience.

 

[MG1968]

I don't see any reason why we should be forced to give the government even more of our money. A 50 to 60 cent increase in the gas tax is a ridiculous idea. Sure it may change behavior and force people into shorter commutes, smaller, more efficient cars, etc. However, what do you think happens if the government projects 50 billion in revenue from increasing the gas tax and it only takes in 30 billion? It certainly isn't bound by household budgeting guidelines, it will simply raise taxes somewhere else to make up for the shortfall.

 

[sjt18]

Consumers are the ones against the electric car because it can only go 100 miles without having to charge it overnight.

I do not think that electric cars using the current family of technologies will ever be viable. Other technologies would require tremendous infrastructure investments.

IMO, that money would be better spent on rail that would accommodate electrically powered engines. This would eliminate much of the longhaul trucking and make roads safer. Maybe we could have a system for long hauls where passenger cars pulled up on a rail car?

One of the things apart from gov't inefficiency that sinks Amtrac is that our rail system is out of date by about 100 years. To get to Kansas City from ATL... you have to go through Washington.

Hydrogen cars are an interesting possibility. Bio-fuel cars are based on a renewable and relatively clean source.

I just don't think electric cars will make an impact.

Also we like our SUVs, we want to be able to pack in a bunch of kids, all their gear and tow a boat at the same time. You cant do that in an electric car

The future is with Hydrogen or something like it.

Nuclear power plants dont run on Coal. Coal Mining Companies and their Unions want to stay in business, so they lobby to congress to use coal as a source of electricity instead of nukes

This is a huge problem and the unions are a bigger factor than the energy companies. Energy companies have been diversifying for years to hedge against the changes that have to come. More than likely, they would end up running the new plants.

The rank and file would be fine taking those new energy related jobs. Their lives and safety could improve dramatically... but that isn't the message they'll get from liberals or union bosses.

Related story: Several years ago while living in Illinois, a story came out about the asphalt being used for state highways. Contractors had offered asphalt with shredded tires in it. The mixture would last 2-4 times longer. It would save the state literally billions of dollars. It would keep used tires out of rivers and landfills... so everyone was happy, right? Well, no. Illinois is a pro-union state where contractors were required to use union labor. The unions bullied the politicians into using the weaker asphalt.

If you have ever driven in Illinois on anything but toll roads... you know the effect.

 

[droski]

I don't see any reason why we should be forced to give the government even more of our money. A 50 to 60 cent increase in the gas tax is a ridiculous idea. Sure it may change behavior and force people into shorter commutes, smaller, more efficient cars, etc. However, what do you think happens if the government projects 50 billion in revenue from increasing the gas tax and it only takes in 30 billion? It certainly isn't bound by household budgeting guidelines, it will simply raise taxes somewhere else to make up for the shortfall.

we'll have to bite the bullet eventually. the price and lack of supply is going to require rationing at some point. i agree about more taxes, but the sooner we get people to change the better.

 

[MG1968]

we'll have to bite the bullet eventually. the price and lack of supply is going to require rationing at some point. i agree about more taxes, but the sooner we get people to change the better.

there is only a lack of supply because of a lack of will to acquire the supply.

All things being equal, I'd much rather pay higher prices because the oil companies are using more expensive methods of extraction. Those prices will always go down as new technology replaces the old. The government has no such incentive to reduce cost to the end-user.

 

[droski]

there is only a lack of supply because of a lack of will to acquire the supply.

All things being equal, I'd much rather pay higher prices because the oil companies are using more expensive methods of extraction. Those prices will always go down as new technology replaces the old. The government has no such incentive to reduce cost to the end-user.

yes but we enter in a BP oil spill problem. the more we push to get out that last drop the more expensive both in cost and the environment. i'm generally on your side, but fuel economy standards (as an example) do serve a purpose. hell LA is far less poluted than it was 40 years ago depite the number of cars tripling. don't get me wrong i'm all for drill drill drill, but we have to also encourage people (and businesses) to conserve.