Raising gas taxes by 50 cents?

historian · Senior Member

Raising gas taxes by 50 cents?

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

As much as I don't like everyone paying for the selfishness of some, I'm willing to look at this. We could carpool more, it's just not convenient. And we (as a society) don't generally need vehicles as large as we drive. I went to Costco to fill up on gas Friday. There were 6 or 8 long lines of people waiting to fill up, presumably for Spring break trips. The majority of these vehicles were trucks, SUV's, Hummers. . .

So far the gas prices haven't dissuaded people from overconsumption. What will?

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

We may not need vehicles this large but since there is plenty of oil in the world we shouldn't be having these problems. The prices are based on speculation and our own stupidity. The supplies are there so it isn't supply vs demand.

As a side note. The ethenol plants in our area are on the verge of going broke. They can't afford to make ethenol with the price of corn today. The banks are refusing to finance the grain warehouses at today's commodity prices and some may be on the verge of bankruptcy. What a mess!

arbilad · Head Chef

Raising the gas tax is a Very Bad Idea. The problem is not our consumption of gasoline, but the fact that we depend on other countries for the production of it. Most people I know have already cut way back on their gas usage. There is a point where it becomes very hard to cut back. For instance, I need gas to get to work. I'm not going to stop going to church just because gas is expensive.
I could cut back more. I could carpool more (although not a lot more). We could not take our son to art lessons or take in the occasional movie. But we're not profligate in our use of gas by any means.
Increased gas prices could literally be ruinous to our economy. Independent truckers are already looking at bankruptcy with diesel prices where they are. Can you imagine adding another 50 cents to their burden?

Dyany · Senior Member

I think the problem will not be fixed by gas taxes. While we as a society could drive more efficient cars, carpool more, do more things in fewer trips, etc., I don't think it would decrease our gasoline consumption all that much. I think if ANYONE needs to be punished, it's the corporations, real estate investors and city planners for developing towns and cities (esp. out West) that are so inefficient that they REQUIRE people to drive exorbitant amounts to get done what they need to get done. Maybe a tax on gas guzzlers and tax breaks for suburban development would be more helpful.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

The net effect of a huge gas tax like that would be to screw the economy good. Real shocker that there is a D after the idiot's name. Taxes, the problem and solution to all of life's problems. And of course, the .gov would responsibly use all the additional revenue, if it got any in a wise and judicious manner.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I agree with val. Use of gas in our personal vehicles is just one small part of the puzzle. Prices for food, retail stuff, everything will go way up because it has to be transported around... Everyone and everything would be affected by this.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Duke of Mirth wrote:
As a side note. The ethenol plants in our area are on the verge of going broke. They can't afford to make ethenol with the price of corn today.

I'm actually glad to hear this. Ethanol is the biggest scam the ag lobby has given us yet. Did you know that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it contains? The price of corn and beef is sky-high, and we're getting less energy out of the ethanol deal than we're putting in. Horrible economics.

I hope the whole ethanol system collapses. Maybe then food prices will stabilize a bit.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

What about that raising algae stuff? That pond scum that we can raise in the desert and turn into fuel?

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Dyany wrote:

if ANYONE needs to be punished, it's the corporations, real estate investors and city planners for developing towns and cities (esp. out West) that are so inefficient that they REQUIRE people to drive exorbitant amounts to get done what they need to get done.

Like Kuna? ;)

Dyany · Senior Member

Well, yeah!

;)

Seriously, though, look at California. People often a) have to live hours from work just to be able to afford housing, and b) have to commute for hours to jobs that pay well enough to support their families because the industries all congregate in the bigger cities where most people can't afford to live.

The same thing is happening to Boise, where people are moving to towns like Nampa, Kuna, Caldwell, etc., MILES from work in Boise, because the living is cheaper. The city planners, rather than trying to develop self-sustainable communities, instead rubber stamp all sorts of low-density housing without enough commerce or industry to sustain it. So people HAVE to travel a great deal to shop and work.

Cities like Chicago and New York, for instance, were developed back when transportation wasn't so taken for granted, so they HAD to develop jobs, shopping, and housing within close proximities to each other. This is not only better for fuel usage (esp. with the ability for high-density housing to make mass transportation like subways and buses economically feasible), but it is generally better on health because people can and do walk to local needs. Doesn't eliminate the need for cars, but it greatly reduces the individual need.

I was talking just yesterday of developing a housing community with communal cars. E.g., for 50 houses have something like 2-3 trucks, 5-10 minivans, and 15-20 sedans. Everyone who lives there shares the resources, so they are more likely to combine trips with friends and to take the most fuel-efficient vehicle for their needs. After all, most people don't need a gas-guzzling truck every day, but because of the occasional need, many people have to drive them daily. Can Americans discipline and 'deprive' themselves enough for such a United-Order type vehicle solution? I doubt it. But I like the idea.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

Why should we have to discipline ourselves. I don't think progress is measured by having to give up the things we want. I would rather develop real market solutions than share a vehicle or live in a city like New York or Chicago.

arbilad · Head Chef

I'm with Jason. Why give up on things when the sacrifice isn't necessary in the first place? We have plenty of oil in our own borders that we could be using. And besides that, there are several technologies that will reduce or eliminate our dependence on oil. For instance, the technology exists today to make hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The snag is that most people wouldn't want to buy them yet because they can't get hydrogen at their local gas station. But that can be overcome.
My family already shares driving resources where it makes sense. My wife drives some other home school kids to art lessons once a week. I carpool when it works with my schedule and the schedule of the person I carpool with. But to force that would be wrong, in my opinion. If, in Dyany's example, there was only one vehicle still available for use, and my wife needed to take the kids to art class at the same time that another family needed to take kids to soccer practice, then one of the families are just SOL (sorry out of luck). And that kind of conflict would happen.
We're told to make wise use of our resources. We can do that. But I disagree with measures that attempt to force people to do good (such as this tax). It's too reminiscent of Lucifer's plan.
So lobby your lawmakers to remove restrictions on drilling in Alaska, and then lobby the carmakers to come out with production model alternative fuel cars, instead of just coming up with concept cars.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

The problem with taxation to fix things is that the state becomes dependent upon the revenue. What used to be consumption becomes obligatory because of all the new programs that were created by the short-term tax surplus that dissipates as soon as people stop using it.

This has happened in our state a number of times now. We also have the highest tax on gas of any state. When I was in Hawaii (a state that pays more for gas because it's more expensive to get to the state) the gas price was the same as in Washington state.

--Ray

Organist · Senior Member

Shhh....it's an election year. Don't mention the "T" word.

-- Edited by Organist at 12:29, 2008-03-25

glumirk · Senior Member

yeah...Washington gas was like $0.50 more than it is here!

Honestly, I don't think people need to look toward taxing gas at all. What makes me really mad is that the past two quarters have held record profits for the gas companies. That doesn't mean they are making more money because it looks like more money but they are paying more per barrel, that means that they are making more money than ever even though the barrel prices are shooting up. Basically it's a lot selfish because they are sucking all of the other earnings dry because almost all other earnings depend on gas. If the gas companies went back to "normal" profits (which really isn't very business-like, so I doubt it will happen), the food prices wouldn't be as high and it would travel down the road so that the economy wouldn't be quite as scary.

That's just my theory. I really know nothing about the economy.