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
|
Hello all. Not sure if this question applies to Americans too, but any feedback would be great. I emailed Transport Canada about this question, but they didn't reply(go figure). Can anyone help? "I am enquiring to know how the minimum age of non-American vehicles is set at 15 years and even why there even is a regulation now. I was/am interested in importing a minivan from Japan until I noticed the minimum age(15yrs) requirement. I am also perplexed, since new imports from any country can be readily bought in Japan(they don't have any age rule). I understand how Canada would want to protect some of it's industry from foreign competition, but I grew up in the West(Calgary) where the auto manufacturing industry is insignificant if almost non-existent. So, from my perspective this rule should be re-examined. Another point is that Canada does have a textile industry that does employ a large number of people, but I don't/don't know about any restrictions on cheap imported clothing from China, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc. If you could give me a logical answer to my question it would greatly be appreciated! |
|
|
Replying to: gsolman6 (Jan 28, 2009 9:46 pm) What I do see problems with are artificially high increases, used to motivate people to do something. I don't necessarily agree with the many deductions, credits, fines, fees, and taxes that our bureaucracy creates simply to force the likes-and-desires of the majority on all. The bureaucracy makes things needlessly complicated such that even the current Treasurer of the U.S. could not do his taxes properly for several years! Before you say what does this have to do with the topic; it is in reference to those who would someone come up with a set of rules to somehow refund this money back to low and moderate income groups. |
|
|
|
|
A gas tax increase won't solve the problems we currently have, but it's all about small steps, correct? We didn't like our scare with $4.00/gal gasoline and it really shook people up. Now gas is cheap again and no one cares. Honestly, how bad does it hurt if gas goes up $.20 a gallon? For me, another another $.20 comes out to an extra $2.40 per tank. If paying that much more will help make a dent in the aging infrastructure we have, then I'm for it. I'm not wealthy by any means and I am actually unemployed,thanks to the current economy. But still, another $2.40 per tank won't kill me financially. There should be stipulations attached to a gas tax, that I agree with. No one likes paying taxes, but taxes are a fact of life. Taxes are what pays for things. Taxes aren't always fair. But we can't just keep piling on more debt, then selling it to other nations. A a small but steady increase in the gas tax up to $.50 a gallon could help with that. Think of how postage increases. No one really complains when stamps go up a penny or two. A couple pennies increase in the gas tax annually could help our sagging bottom line and our sagging bridges and roads. |
|
|
|
|
What I do see problems with are artificially high increases, used to motivate people to do something. I don't necessarily agree with the many deductions, credits, fines, fees, and taxes that our bureaucracy creates simply to force the likes-and-desires of the majority on all. The bureaucracy makes things needlessly complicated such that even the current Treasurer of the U.S. could not do his taxes properly for several years!" As I've indicated on more than one occasions. I strongly agree with you on this matter, kernick. In fact, I agree with many of the things you say. I disagree with you, though, on the desirability of reducing our dependency on foreign oil, and what to do about it. I feel this dependency hurts our economy, compromises our flexibility, and weakens our foreign policy options. Maybe we should forget about tax refunds to those who don't pay income taxes, and accept the suffering of the hypothetical working poor guy who drives his '88 Buick to work, that someone cited a while back, as a reasonable tradeoff to keep the our taxes from becoming even more complicated.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jan 29, 2009 7:31 am) You're not really disagreeing with me on this intent of reducing dependency, or the effects. Where we disagree is what should should be done about it. If we can replace the energy we get from oil in some other fashion - great. I want us to still get the same amount of energy and at pretty much the same cost. I am not for increasing a tax on oil, to force people to change their consumption without giving them a replacement - that's my position. I do not want to see people forced from using 50 gal/month to 40gal/month at the same cost, without somehow providing people with the equivalent of 10 gal/month of some sort of other energy. The effort to reduce oil dependency should not come down to forcing people to use less and pay more/unit. The effort needs to consist of replacing the energy at the same time, at near the same cost. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 28, 2009 8:11 pm) Boaz old chum, I don't like to hear you so distraught, so I thought I would let you know that the "loophole" you mentioned for manufacturers selling less than 60,000 vehicles a year is only for the first 3 years. Beginning in year 4, the exemption only applies to manufacturers selling less than 4000 vehicles per year. Maybach will probably still be exempt, but in California the exemption may not even include such tiny niche brands as RR and Bentley, we will see. And Hummer? It will be gone by then. 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jan 28, 2009 10:19 pm) I am sure the other states will follow suit but I wonder if they see what some of this has done to our California economy? The tax till you drop people seem to believe that taxes have no effect on families. We see here in our state that working class families with children take a bigger hit the Arnold and his friends do percentage wise. It is simply heartless to suggest higher taxes at a time when unemployment is going up and more people will be out looking for a job. The value of people's houses has fallen. And it should be clear that a higher gas tax isn't going to get people into the show room to buy a new car in thins economy. Just stop and look what happened when gas was $4.00 a gallon? People simply stopped supporting their local businesses and places that were heavily involved in Tourism suffered. Don't think so? California Touring companies used the book tours to Mesquite Arizona's CasaBlanca Hotel. That hotel is closing and it is a big part of the economy of that town. The tour companies had to raise prices to get to Mesquite, fuel costs being a major cause, and so the hotel had to drop rates to get people to come. Then visitors fell off and now the Hotel is closing. That tax base for the city is now gone. So what do the tax till you drop people suggest? Now that there is some relief fro $4.00 gas we should tax it back up to make things better? Stop and look around at what is happening in this country. Then stop and see what is happening to the rest of the world. Read the news and you will see that a higher tax on fuel right now would be like a attack directed right at the heart of our businesses and consumers. Shoot, last night the news said Sony reported a 95 percent decrease in profit. We are in a depression no matter what some want to call it. You don't raise taxes in a depression. For the first time in years both political parties agree it is not the time to consider raising taxes, the new President keeps saying it. The Republicans agree. That in itself is a rare event. And yet someone that is not an elected official says we need higher taxes? Do such people cut themselves in private for entertainment? I like the suggestion someone made earlier in this forum. If you don't believe you pay enough in taxes increase what you send to the government. But you know the problem with that? I was looking at a study on one of the networks the other night and they listed how much different groups gave to charity. Liberals, the biggest supporters of higher taxes gave far less than Conservatives. The highest listing our new Vice President had on giving was .3 or .5 percent. That was Point Three or Point five percent. The average conservitive gave more like five to six percent. (WARNING, CYNICAL MUSING.)  If you want to see food prices increase, raise fuel taxes. If you want to see tourism decrease, raise fuel taxes. If you want people to choose between driving to work or taking their children to the doctor, raise fuel taxes. If you don't think the American consumer has suffered enough in this falling economy, raise fuel taxes. If you hate your fellow American that much couldn't you consider moving to another country and maybe you will like your fellow citizen a bit better?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 29, 2009 8:49 am) We have a new treasury director who doesn't pay his taxes till he is nominated to take over the IRS. We were promised that our changed government would listen to the people and we would restrict access of Lobiest and that same director was a Lobbyist. His first hire as an assistant is another Lobbyist and I should believe for a nano second they should be allowed to raise my fuel tax for the "good" of the state? Should I try looking for a white Rabbit and the Mad Hatter? The very Idea of raising taxes now is closing the barn door after the horse is out. |
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 29, 2009 9:12 am) |
|
|
|
|
"If we can replace the energy we get from oil in some other fashion - great. I want us to still get the same amount of energy and at pretty much the same cost." T'aint gonna happen. At least, not any time soon, because the energy produced from each barrel of oil relative to the cost of producing it beat every other source of energy by a wide, wide margin. Nuclear is efficient for certain applications, so we should follow France's lead on nuclear power generation but, for now, oil trumps all others.
|
|
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
