Summit- How to boost fuel efficiency? Raise taxes say execs

Reuters ^ | 11/04/09 | Scott Malone

[Egg]

Those taxes already exist and their adequacy is, at worst, arguably sufficient and by no measure insignificant. But if a certain state should need more highway funding, let them levy additional taxes as respectively needed.

There is no need for people to buy (and die in) 1-ton "smart" cars, so here come the grand market manipulators to artificially create a need where none exists so as to benefit a particular public/private partnership.

[goat granny]

What an idiot. With trucking costs going up because of high gas prices, we will all be paying for it plus our own gas......doesn’t anyone know how to think?....yikes what a stupid stunt..

[Egg]

Never by a gm anything.

My new motto-- Chrysler included.

These deadbeat union-infested companies were destined to fail, but that didn't stop the thieves in Washington from picking our pockets in a staged attempt at bailing them out. "It was just a loan," we were told. Then came the cash for clunkers auto bailout (that didn't go quite as planned).

I would say I've spent my last dime on a GM product, but how can anyone say that when we're continually stolen from to give the union workers token jobs?

[BobL]

“Then the States add a $1 per gallon tax and keep it for themselves for roads and bridges.”

I’m with you on that, but man do I get the name-calling when I bring it up here. It seems like people here would rather pay 25 cents a mile to drive on foreign-run toll roads with transponders in their cars, rather than see the gas tax go up by one penny.

Go figure.

[wolf78]

Raising taxes on Gas would drive people to be more efficient and consume less. But it would also kill the economy and reduce our lifestyles.

Not really. First of all it would mean smaller engines and more diesels for trucks. Which doesn't necessarily mean slower or weaker. E.g. the Lincoln Town car uses a 4.6 liter V8 to get 240 hp / 240 lb-ft. Mercedes gets the same kind of power from a four-cylinder diesel (220 hp / 370 torques) in an S-Class. That's 40 mpg and absolute luxury - without even hybridization.

If you raise gas taxes (i.e. taxes on mostly imports from countries we don't like) AND lower all other taxes, especially on American companies, products and labor, it will definitely not kill the economy, quite the other way round.

The problem with Washington is that they never really want to cut taxes and instead keep the additional tax revenue.

[wolf78]

And upon what basis do you flippantly recommend significant nationwide taxes upon one of the most vital commodities in the nation?

People actually working is vital to the economy - yet still the 16th amendment flippantly says it's ok to tax hard-working US citizens into submission. What's the diff?

[wolf78]

I oppose such taxes, but agree they make more sense than the current regulatory regime (CAFE).

What I don't get: Why should these taxes be worse? All taxes are equally bad!

[B Knotts]

I think they are just noticed more than other taxes. But, what frustrates me is that while conservatives have grasped the destructive nature of taxation, many still seem to fail to grasp the destructive nature of regulation.

We must not only cut taxes, but repeal regulation, if we want America to prosper. The current level of regulation is excessive, unnecessary and unacceptable.

[Egg]

I hope you’re not expecting an argument from me on that point!

[Aroostook25]

People who use roads and bridges should pay for that use.

People who rely on our military to keep fuel coming for them to use should pay for that defense.

Is a fee to use the county swimming pool or golf course or ski slope a “tax” or a “user fee”.

Why should those who don’t use a government provided service as much as others do (or at all) pay extra taxes to subsidize those who do use that service?

The alternative methods for a “user fee” for roads and bridges are
1) tolls (but toll booths are not feasible for every side street and road).
2) methods to measure miles driven such as transponders — yikes!
3) a tax on the fuel used to drive on roads is the best user fee so far.
But gotta figure another way to get users of electrics and bicycles to pay their share.

For centuries nations have gone to war over resources. Eventually, if the USA does not become sufficiently energy independent, we will go to war over energy supplies. And just being able to buy foreign supplies is not a solution since sending so much money overseas comes back to bite us.

If an extra $1 or $2 in taxes goes to improving our infrastructure and to developing alternative fuel or energy sources (nuclear, fusion, whatever) and to defending America — it is relatively small tax to pay compared to the alternative of having deteriorating roads and bridges and being in hock to foreign enemies and likely having to go to war over energy supplies.

Users must pay for what they use — and that includes users of defense and public infrastructure — roads, bridges (and government owned swimming pools, ski slopes, and golf courses — though all those should be privatized).

[Aroostook25]

The US 2010 defense budget is projected to be $664 billion.

Americans use about 150 billion gallons of motor fuel per year.

$1 per gallon should go to fund one quarter of the defense budget.

[Waco]

Don’t worry the fed/guv will make sure it costs you just as much to own/operate one of these wunnerful electric/hybrid cars as it does your old gas guzzler.

[Egg]

People who use roads and bridges should pay for that use.

They already do.

Instead of baselessy drumming on about a supposed "need" for a gas tax increase for roads, why don't you factually demonstrate why every state in the country must have an additional $1 per gallon of gas from the pockets of the working class?

People who rely on our military to keep fuel coming for them to use should pay for that defense.

Since we're both advocating policy, how about this: drill here, and pull our troops out of Saudia Arabia, Qatar, etc. and let Exxon, BP, etc provide their own protection services for their employees instead of using our troops for the job. We'll save money and be less dependent on the decisions of muslim sheiks.

[Egg]

That’s the sad truth, isn’t it? It’s not a matter of what is needed, for when it comes to our money, the government has no end of need. In today’s America, it’s merely a matter of who gets a cut of the stolen goods.

[Aroostook25]

Since we're both advocating policy, how about this: drill here, and pull our troops out of Saudia Arabia, Qatar, etc. and let Exxon, BP, etc provide their own protection services for their employees instead of using our troops for the job. We'll save money and be less dependent on the decisions of muslim sheiks.

Good suggestion to make those corporations pay for their own defense! But that would also result in such corporations invading, for instance, Nigeria or Mexico, taking it over and running it as a company country. Hmmm... shades of British empire for British corporations. Can we trust those corporations having their own armies, air forces, and navies -- or they contract with the US military?

[Egg]

Shades of the British Empire? What do you call our current arrangement?

If they can pull off a takeover of an entire country for the purpose of producing oil for consumer nations, more power to them (so long as none of our own have to die in the attempt). I care not which thugs run thugocracies, so long as they don't mess with us.

But all of this becomes irrelevant when we're producing and refining our own oil here.

[AlmaKing]

Yep. I’m stuck in the Northeast with union locked contracts om these pensions and payrolls. No one has the policital motivation to break up these self-perpetuating schemes.
I’d prefer going even further and busting gov’t employee unions.

At lunch last week, I had the chance to ask a local rep about the expense breakout for his township. He told us that snow removal for last winter ate into the road budget to the point that roads can’t be maintained properly. He said tax increases were necessary to cover the gap for road maintenance. I asked, ‘why not spending cuts in other areas?’ He said simply, no one was going to cut the gov’t employees pensions or payroll, which happened to be the biggest expense in their budget.