i love the political discussions (gets the bag of popcorn)
i can see where they want to go with it
my friend is looking into buying a car (albeit used but...same principle) and has decided against a mustang gt or mustang with a v8 in it, just because gas prices are rising
he decided to get a ford svt contour, still fast, and more friendly on gas
i personally think this will help some, hurt some, about 40/40/20
40% will probably buy more fuel efficient vehicles (you wuoldnt believe how many ads i've seen on various websites (fbody.com, etc.) that say they're selling theyre v8 for a more fuel efficient car)
then about 40% will suck it up and pay it, just because they want what they want to drive (us with musclecars, some with suv's, etc.)
then the other 20% will of course b**** about it and try to do something about it
i dont think it's necessary good, but i agree with guionm, i'd rather a fuel tax than a total cafe uproar which could end the high performance era we're seeing emerge (or seeing evolve continually since it's already here)

o well, i don't claim to be an economist or do think i'll ever be one so...i'll leave it up to the "guys up there" to ponder
just throwing my .02 into the bucket

 

Why wouldn't raising CAFE standards on light/medium/heavy trucks work?

Its done wonders for cars...

 

I'd like to see less trucks/ minivans on the road if for no other reason than they are in my way. You can't see around or over them, they get horrid mileage, and most of the soccer moms almost stop to go around corners. Other than that they should only allow ppl to buy trucks/ suvs if they own a boat, race car or other such item not possible with a car, or plan on doing serious off roading.

I think thats everything....

Oh yea, seems like its the loudmouthed minority who are trying to get everyone into 50mpg cars. Seems pleanty of ppl are voting with their wallets instead of just talking about what everyone else should do.

 

if i want an suv i'm going to drive an suv. When someone makes a 36 mpg suv then we'll talk but until then i am going to purcase vehicles that suit my needs.

 

IMO- the High performance era you are refering to...is an era where the Hi Po cars STILL get ~30mpg...easily made up for through the CAFE system.

If the Manufacturer's really wanted to do something...they'd quit building the huge SUVs...but there is too much money/ profit margin in them for them to really want to do that.

AL already has 43 cents a gallon added to our gas in taxes. I think anymore is just gonna pad the big wig politicians pockets...we would never see any benefit from the extra revenue.

I totally disagree with jacking up my fuel prices...but if they do...I'll just cut out my 401 K and drive anyway...I am the 40% that was refered to above.:lol I do however agree that our gasoline is VERY cheap here...and it is funny that a gallon of milk is more expensive. But the Gov't Taxing anything- just for the sake of taxing it- is not right.

BTW- we are only oil dependant because we can buy it from them cheaper than we can produce it. We have reserves just sitting. When I got in the oil and gas industry 10 years ago- they were saying we only had about 50 years left in the Gulf of Mexico, not counting anywhere else....now(10 years later) they are saying 60-70. By then- fossil fuel won't be needed. Just look at how far technology has come in the last 50 years.

 

And that's the great thing about a gas tax instead of CAFE standards. Your choices aren't limited, you can still buy an SUV as long as the manufacturers choose to make them. CAFE, on the other hand, can force the manufacturers to stop making them altogether, thereby depriving you of any choice in the matter.

Another thing: gas taxes promote conservation on all vehicles no matter how old they are. CAFE works only on new vehicles being sold. So to have any real effect, CAFE takes about 10 years (the time it takes the nation's fleet of automobiles to be replaced).

 

Gas tax only helps conserve by taking fuel away from poor Americans who can't afford it. The well off Americans will still drive.

I have to drive 250 miles a week between going to work and vistiting my parents once a week. I have to drive 250 miles a week if gas is $1 a gallon or $5 a gallon. How is that extra tax going to save fuel? it not! If they raise CAFE then the next new car/truck I buy will be more fuel effient.

If they offered a tax break on high mpg Diesel and Hybrid Chevy Colorado’s to help them be as affordable as the Gas version then I would buy one of those. The problem is GM (or anyone else) doesn't make a Diesel and Hybrid compact pickup. So why should I be penalized with tax because no one is willing to make a more fuel efficient pickup that I would buy if I had the option.

 

Some of you guys are just too thick headed. Tax BREAKS are the way. Z28x is right yet again, increased gas taxes only hurt the people who can least afford it.

Oh gee, so lets construct all of these complex exemptions and breaks for the working poor blaa blaa blaa....I can hear it now. Some folks just can't bear to cut taxes on people....its their own money in the first place.

WHy don't we encourage conservation through tax breaks for appropriate behaviors, rather than discouraging consumption by increasing taxes? Any increase in gas taxes hurts companies, who lay off people, and poor people who can't any longer afford the gas to get to work. Congrats, you just created an economic depression and put a bunch of people out of work due to your misguided attempts to save the planet.

Tax BREAKS people....tax BREAKS. Besides, the feds don't need even one more DIME to spend IMO.

 

It affects everyone equally. You apparently have a problem with everyone paying an equal share of taxes. And you can be sure the "rich" won't like paying the additional tax anymore than the poor and will find ways to conserve.

It will save fuel because you suddenly have a financial incentive to use less of it. Maybe you'll buy a smaller car, or drive slower, or move closer to where you need to be.

BTW, why will raising CAFE magically make your next purchase more fuel efficient? You can already buy 50 mpg Jettas. Maybe you haven't bought one because you've had no reason to do it. Raising gas taxes will give you a reason.

So it should be up to the rest of the nation to subsidize your purchase of a fuel efficient vehicle so that you can save money on your commute? Do you want everyone in the country to mail you some dollar bills, or would you rather have the government do this little redistribution on your behalf?

This gets to the heart of the matter. Why does no one make a more fuel efficient truck? Because the public isn't demanding it, pure and simple. If fuel economy was more of a concern to Joe consumer they would demand that GM start making more 4-cyl Colorados, or maybe even convince GM to develop a Diesel or hybrid. But if gas is cheap, everyone's going to demand the biggest truck and biggest engine they can get and so there is no financial incentive for GM to invest the R&D dollars.

Like I said above, you have to work the demand side of the equation, not the supply side. If gas taxes go up (remember I said to phase them in so there's no huge one-time hit), then consumers will start demanding more fuel efficient cars, and the automakers will start trying to make them. Hybrids might even become viable in their own right without having to put a welfare check on their hoods to get them to sell.

It's worked before. The gas crises of the 70s spurred huge demand for smaller, more efficient cars and GM gave us T cars, X cars, J cars, A cars, and N cars. Then when fuel prices eased and customers no longer cared, the automakers again responded to customer demand and started making powerful cars and big trucks again.

 

Here's the problem with this discussion. We're already becoming a nation of more and more have's and have nots. A higher fuel tax for someone like Z28x and most working class Americans is only going to further that. I have to drive about 15 miles to work, and that doesn't change with higher/lower gas prices. And people saying... "well just buy a more fuel efficient car" don't get it at all. If I had the money for a more fuel efficient car, I wouldn't be complaining about the gas prices. Here's a news flash for the more tunnel-visioned people on this site:

Not everyone owns a Geo Metro as a beater... some of us actually have just ONE daily driver.

Not only that, a lot of us just can't up and buy a new car because gas prices just went up. If anything, that will hinder me buying a new car. And even "new" is a relative term. It would most likely be some kind of late-model used car, not a "new" one. However, this is a topic for another discussion.

So, those of you touting higher gas prices as the answer, please find a different argument to convince me...

What I got from the article is Ford and GM just want us to buy a newer car, and this is just another "reason" to buy one. People like me driving around in 1994 model Camaros are the automotive industry's worst nightmare. They know all to well I could have my entire car professionally restored for less than what a new one costs... oops there I go again... better not say that too loud around here.... flame suit on...

 

Actually R377 such a tax does not treat everyone equally, it is regressive.

Lets say I make $100K a year and I spend $100 on gas to get to my job. If my gas costs increase to $150 a month, that extra $600 a year is only .6% of my income.

If I only make $20,000 a year and drive the same distance to work, even if I have car that gets better mileage, lets say I only spend $90 on gas per month, the tax increases that $45 a month to $135. That's an extra $540 a year which equals 2.7% of my income. That $540 is a helluva lot more important to a low wage person than a rich person.

Now think of the working poor...maybe they can't afford an effficient vehicle, maybe they drive old, used cars because that's all they can afford. YOu're going to price some folks right out of the job market that way. They will no longer be able afford to get to work. Where's your compassion now? THere are millions of people who are in this situation, transportation is the #1 concern of the working poor, how can they afford to get to work? Many of them find jobs but they can't take them because they can't get to them.

From what I see, such a tax penalizes ANYONE who won't buy a new car...which is stupid.

This thread is like the 4.6 vs LS1 thread....obviously tax breaks are a much better idea but some folks can't or won't see that.

 

I'm against a gas tax.

First reason is personal greed.. I want my gasoline cheap now.

2nd, I don't like the idea of giving our government more money to waste.


The only way I would even consider a gas tax if you can guarantee and track to the dollar where the tax money DIRECTLY goes into... I'd like it to goto some Education program/fund or what not. and I want to every $$ tracked an accounted..


In other words, I don't want the money to disappear into the government's wasted money pile that nobody knows where it exactly goes.


I'll tell you what though.. If gas suddenly blooms to $5 a gallon, thats going to be alot less cash I'll be spending on goods and entertainment. If I try to sell my current vehicles, I'll probably be taking a huge hit, since nobody probably wants gas guzzlers. And unless domestics make leaps and bounds with hybrids and diseils, I will be getting proven import hybrids and disiels cars.


I'd hate to see how much plane tickets would cost.. and the general price of goods skyrocketing, since it suddenly would cost 2-3x times more to transport goods around.

And you know what? With the bar raised for gas prices, guess how much our next source of energy would cost us total to operate our vehicles? At least the same amount, if not more.

 

I disagree that this is a regressive tax. You're treating it like an income tax, in which case, yes, I suppose it could be called regressive. However a gas tax is "usage" tax, similar to a sales tax. Everyone who consumes a service (in this case, let's pretend all the money from gas taxes goes to build and maintain roads) pays for that service they receive. Since the "poor" use just as much of the roads as the "rich", they pay a fair portion.

Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that I'm suggesting the tax be phased in, 10¢ a year. It's probably fair to say that most people will be buying a new car within that time period. If they're aware that this tax is coming, they can be sure to find something more fuel-efficient next time around.

As to the poor getting to work, I'm no big advocate of public transit, but that is always an option. No one ever said it's a constitutional right to own a car.

 

Let me attempt to address some points one by one.

1. The tax is regressive & hurts the poor more than the rich.

Well, I haven't heard anyone complaining when those who earned over $100,000 per year got a far massive tax break than those of us earning half of that got very little & those earning half that got virtually none. This type of tax makes Hummers and Land Rovers that get 12 mpg still available to those that can afford them. Those today that depend on their car for work get a small efficient 30-40 mpg car, and still will. Besides, last I checked, you still get mileage on your income tax, if not the company you work for.

2. The Gas Tax is a Liberal, "treehugger" conspiracy.

Put away the crack pipe and start keeping track of what's going on in the world & your government. Last I checked, both houses and the executive branch were republican. Guess what? They are still talking fuel economy. It's true we get less than half our oil from the middle east, but it's still enough to make alot of conservatives not want to deal with the region any more. Bush himself is pushing for alternate fuels as National Security. So let's loose the kneejerk "blame Liberals for everything" reaction. Michagan is chock full of pro-automobile "Liberals".

3. I have a problem with giving the government my money.

Do you have a problem driving on government funded free roads? Sending your kids to free schools? Taking that no intrest student loan or grant? Have a problem with your parents getting government subsidized health care? Problem with having troops in Iraq? Or airline controlers making sure you don't go down in a flaming crash? How about making sure criminals are behind bars when they are caught? People tend to want, want, want, but think money comes from thin air. When it's time to cut, it's always someone else that should loose.

I guess it's OK to hand your money hand over fist to oil companies that aren't going to do a thing for you but raise prices even higher because the can.


4. We should have tax breaks instead.

Why??
Why should someone pay you to do something you should be doing anyway? In case no one has noticed yet, we are about one uptick away from higher intrest rates brought on by phenominally high deficits. Higher intrest rates mean fewer purchases of anything that is brought on credit. That means (in addition to virtually all consumer goods) CARS. If you want to start a recession, having the government give additional cash away when in the middle of a budget crisis is the perfect way to do it.

5. They should raise CAFE instead.

Has any one of you here stopped and asked yourselves why are the big 3 automakers, people we know here that actually work in the auto industry, and even the auto unions to a large degree favor a gas tax instead of increased CAFE? CAFE means money going into R&D for better efficiency in cars, NOT performance & NOT into improved quality and variety of vehicles. CAFE will kill the move to even more performance cars surer than sh*t! Look at the '70s for chrissake! The auto industry doesn't want that again. The union doesn't want that again. And you can bet your farm the industry supplies don't want that, especially now!

Again, CAFE is forcing the industry to do something that people are too stupid to do on their own.

6. Why don't manufacturers simply stop making SUV's?

Because, once again, people buy them. Why are cigarette companies still in business? Because people buy them. Also, incase you haven't figured this out yet, they finance cars like the next Camaro, that don't have massive profit margins or sell in enough quanity to generate large enough amounts of cash to offset small profit margins.

7. CAFE wasn't bad.

CAFE gave us the 2nd death of performance cars. In the late '70s, performance was staging a serious comeback. 1978 saw higher performance T/A 6.6 Trans Ams, quicker L82 Vettes, Volare Road Runners & Aspen R/Ts with 4 barrel cars that could smoke tire are just a few. By 1980, there wasn't a honestly quick car in the US, and 1981 & 82 (the Mustang GT was a mid-year) was even worse. That's because money that was going into a performance rebirth was diverted towards front wheel drive, 4 cylinder engines, GM J-cars, Ford Topazes, and very nearly got us a FWD F-body and a FWD Mustang in the late 90s.

You know where you can stick CAFE!


I really don't think alot of people don't get it yet. People here talk bad about auto industry regulations, yet want to propose more by wanting CAFE so they can save enough each week to pay for HBO & Showtime by not having a higher fuel tax.

Something is going to be done next year, regardless as to who wins the White House. Whether it's done under the banner of "National Security" or "Conservation", the result is going to be the same.

Like everyone else I'd prefer the status quo. But folks, somethings going to change next year & new CAFE standards or a bigger fuel tax is going to happen. The only questions are how big, which President is going to sign it, and how long it's going to take to phase it in.

When the auto industry's congressional blocker gives out some very loud warnings, fuel economy issues are inched back till after the election, and all 3 car company heads get together and put up a united front behind a counter proposal, you better brace yourself and get ready to pick the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm backing the auto industry on this one.

 

A person making minimum wage in the US will make $10,920 BEFORE TAX if they work 5 days a week 52 wk/yr. If they drive 12,000 in there $2000 car that gets 25mpg (which is damn good for an old car) and gas is $2 per gallon they will spend $960 a year on gas, after income tax that is about 10% of their income. For someone making $150,000 a year after tax that is 0.6% of their income. The working poor can't afford to pay more in tax. Infact since it cost so much for them to get to work they would probably be better off staying at home and collecting welfare.

A smaller car is not practical, if I drive slower I have to use a lower gear which hurts my mpg. That is why city mpg is lower than hwy mpg. Like most citys, the closer you live the more expensive it is, Most can't afford to just move. Go do some house shopping in the NYC area and see what I mean.

Yes, If CAFE is rased I'll be able to buy the same size car and it will get better milage. If I was in the market for a Jetta I would by that, but Jetta doesn't fit my needs.

A better idea than CAFE & Gas tax is a gas guzzler tax. For exaple: every mpg under set amount (35mpg say) a new car gets a $100 tax is added. H2 gets $2200, Corvette $500, Aveo $0.

Tax breaks would not make the rest of the nation subsidize my purchase. You do not know how a tax break works. They would give me a break on the amount of MY money they collect from me. If I make $35K a year and get a $2000 tax break, I'm only taxed on $33K of the money I make. They Gov't doesn't give me $2000 if that is what you think.

We don't need smaller car/trucks/SUVs, we need more fuel efficent ones. A Hybrid Ford Escape gets 37mpg, so it can be done, the auto makers just need to do it. Where is the Diesel H2? and the Hybrid Tahoes?

Not everyone in America lives in NYC or Boston were public transportation works good and is avalible. There is almost no public transit in rural areas near me.