Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Is a Higher Gasoline Tax Good Or Bad For America?
849 messages, Last post on Nov 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 27, 2009 5:59 am) If you live two blocks from a bus station that delivers you within a half mile to your job site and you still drive, when you have no other errands to run other than going to work, then that's wasteful can be considered mildly sinful. No reason to pollute more than necessary. Anything guvmint can mandate or people can willingly do to reduce fossil fuel usage and reduce pollution and is within reasonable cost is good for all of us. If a higher gas tax makes a few more of the people who could commute to work in other ways than "one person one car" do so, then it's a good thing.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jan 25, 2009 4:49 am) My thought would be to institute $0.05-$0.10 tax to help fund these projects to help offset the proposed stimulus package. Here are a few simple calculations (Please help if the numbers I have are not correct). The best number I could find is that we use roughly 178 million gallons per day of gasoline. 178,000,000 x $0.05 = $8,900,000 dollars a day $8,900,000 per day x 365 days = $3,248,500,000 each year. Of course if you have a $0.10 tax, it's roughly $6.5B. I know it doesn't begin to make a dent in the proposed stimulus package but it does go a long way to help fund much needed projects and secures some jobs for the construction segment. And we aren't passing the debt onto to our children and grand-children. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Jan 27, 2009 10:24 am) Just what makes you think they would use it for infrastructure? They are working on the stimulus package right now. They have included money for abortions. Pelosi says that will help the economy. Only if they abort all future politicians. I don't think that bunch of losers need any suggestions on ways to screw the American tax payer out of more money. I would only suggest that I will vote against any spending of any taxes for anything they were not proposed for. And anyone that votes to spend money we have not got will not get my vote. Dirty Harry wants to use stimulus money to build a Mobster Museum in LV. That ought to help with failing bridges.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 27, 2009 2:06 pm) Maybe I wasn't going to post that vebatum but I was thinking the same thing. We are hearing a lot of, If they do this and If they do that with the money. Just were are we living that we can't see what they are doing with the money they already have? 800 billion, looks more like 1 trillion, was passed as a bailout before the election. Why? To help support the infrastructure of the banking industry and wall street. Now one of the bailed out banks is buying a French Jet with some of the money we the taxpayers forked out. Does that make me part owner on a French Jet? Piffle and I can't see that as infrastructure either. So don't for a minute give us what they could use the tax money for because they "aren't" using the tax on fuel for infrastructure right now. They are using that money for other programs that we never voted to fund in the first place, like the bailout. Now the election is over and the new president is offering up another 850 Billion stimulus, infrastructure bailout. Do any of you realize that the gas tax would be like spitting in the ocean to pay the interest on almost two trillion dollars? Wake up and smell the corruption. Your fuel taxes are not going anywhere near getting people to buy the car you want them to buy. Companies are not getting loans on building magic cars getting 100 MPG with your fuel tax money and they will not get any, I say any of your proposed increased fuel taxes. How do we know? Because they are so deep in debt they would have to use the money to cover part of the taxes we have already committed in the pre election and the post election bail outs. If you raise fuel taxes on the working class we can be like the countries mentioned earlier and reduce our average yearly income to what theirs are. There is a reason that boat loads of Americans aren't moving to Israel and Europe. We don't want to live like they do. If you use their methods to control the working class you will have their problems. Take off our rose colored glasses and see what happened when gas hit $4.00 a gallon. Think about how high food prices got. Think about how high transportation costs got. Higher fuel taxes will simply be another nail in our economy's coffin and anyone buying groceries, or building supplies "knows" it. Those that suggest they could give trucking a break know that is not going to happen. Those that say it could be made to be a neutral tax know it isn't possible in practice unless you got the money back as fast as you spent it. Those that say we just need to tighten our belts need to understand that such suggestions sound a lot like Marie Antonette, People can't afford bread, let them eat cake. People can't afford the new gas tax, let them ride the bus. Once again we see what happened when gas hit $4.00 do we need more "proof" that a fuel tax would be bad? |
|
|
|
|
Was the Rev. Thomas Malthus right, after all? As you probably know, Malthus (1766-1834) warned about the impact of overpopulation on living standards. A United Nations study estimates the world population will continue exploding, from 6.6 billion to 9.3 billion by 2050. By 2050 America's population is expected to be 400 million, give or take one or two. That's an increase of ~30% from today's level. That means we'll be vastly outnumbered by 8.9 billion others across the planet, all competing with us. Some experts warn that it won't be long before "The Age of Oil" is over. Soon the marginal cost of extracting a barrel will equal the sale price. We are on the downside of the bell curve. No? Check out LifeAftertheOilCrash.com: "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This isn't the proclamation of a wacko. It's the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely respected geologists, physicists, bankers and investors in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global 'peak oil.'" The solution? Stabilize the population. The problem is that this is so much easier to prescribe than to implement. Should we factor a rapidly growing population into our energy consumption plans, or should we continue on our present course and just hope that the Rev. continues to be wrong? Hopefully, new technologies will continue to bail us out, but maybe not. I don't know the answer to that one, but I sure think about it. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 27, 2009 2:06 pm) I'll work on my proposal and get back to you. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 27, 2009 7:30 am) |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 27, 2009 5:48 am) 150,000 SD and FO bridges is only part of what is needed. Last I saw the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. infrastructure a grade of 'D' for the entire system, not just bridges. Nothing wrong with subways and as someone who has lived and worked in the D.C. area I can attest that they can be economically justifiable. If you doubt me just look at the change in property values adjacent to subway stations. I used "sin" is quotes b/c it is subjective. Unless you can prove man-made climate change does not exist I would say that there is a chance for sin on a massive scale. Yes the creator in addition to fossil fuels has also made available renewables that humans have been using for much longer than we have gasoline. To not use these renewables that don't pollute - see a picture of modern day Vietnam and everyone wearing masks as an example - is a sin b/c other people's lungs will suffer as a result. I also do distinguish between 'use' and 'overuse' when it comes to prescription medications for our bodies as well as natural resources for our transportation. |
|
|
Replying to: gsolman6 (Jan 27, 2009 8:41 pm) The UAE is more likely to build roads with the money than MN. They want roads for US to drive on and use their oil. MN is infiltrated with some of the goofiest politicians in the nation. They cannot even keep their bridges from collapsing. Why would you trust them with more money... I know MN, as I am a property owner in the state. Unless you can prove man-made climate change does not exist The weight is on YOU to prove it exists, not us to prove it does not exist. We do have a thread for that if you would like to join in on the debate. Man made GW/CC is a grand scam pure and simple. Just another way to extort money from the masses. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Is a Higher Gasoline Tax Good Or Bad For America?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
