Let me restate it this way.. I have a problem with giving the government MORE of my money. I'm not conviced they are effectively using the money we give them now. Both local and federal.

 

Distance traveled to get to work doesn't increase with income...poor folks may have to drive just as far or farther to get to their job than a rich guy...so how is this NOT going to hurt poor folks. They may use less gas, but that does not mean such a tax still will not hurt them. Regardless of your rationale, I promise there are millions of folks BARELY able to afford to get to work right now, and increased transportation costs would only drive them from the workplace and back onto the public dole. Good job dude

My point is that since they DO use the road just as much, it will impace them to a far greater degree in their wallets. That's not fair on the poor guys.

The greater quetion for all the pro-taxers here is why a tax? What do you propose to do with all the revenue? Why does the government need it? If you want people to buy more efficient vehciles then it seems to me a tax credit is the way to go. Encourage behavior, don't punish the opposite behavior. Basic Pavlovian psychology there.

 

Pure fallacy. Reducing tax rates increases overall economic activity, growing GDP, thereby increasing the sum of all taxable money and activity flowing through the system. How else you you think Reagan enacted the massive tax cut in the early 80s but yet federal revenue doubled in the 8 years he was in office? In fact, Reagan submitted balance budgets EVERY year he was in office, it was the Dem controlled congress that ran up the deficit by tacking on pork (kinda like the GOP has been doing to the bush budgets)

Why give breaks for something we should do anyway? Well we give breaks for having kids, maybe we should take all those away? We get breaks for charitible donations, lets get rid of those too. In fact you sound like ultra-conservative Alan Keyes, he advocated the same thing in the 2000 primary.

The notion that the federal budget is a zero sum game and that letting us keep more of OUR money is an "expense" or givaway is a joke. Your brain is in the wrong mode on this one. Its OUR MONEY.

Enact a big new gas tax and watch all performance cars and big V8s go bye bye. I can't believe the anti-SUV bias around here and how all you guys don't seem to think that gaz guzzling cars would not be the next targets. Not like the sierra club is going to kill off the SUV then just pack up and go home....these "Advocacy groups" find new issues to hang their hats on.

Conservation? Fine, but lets do it the right way. Lets offer tax breaks. Worried about the deficit? We will grow our way out of it in less than a decade if current growth rates continue. Besides, the deficit is the highest ever in terms of pure dollars right now but interest rates have NEVER been lower. That is a sky is falling argument IMO.

 

See Z28x, that exemplifies the thinking a lot of folks have about taxes. No doubt this guy votes Democrat. They like to talk about how much tax cuts "cost"...as if its an actual expense item somebody has to write a check for, rather than simply reduced revenue which should be compensated for by reduced spending. They don't look at tax money as your money or my money, its everybody's money in a collective sense. Personally I find it absurd.

The economy is DYNAMIC folks...not a closed system. New wealth is created every day in America, that's why its not a zero-sum game, and that's why when one guy strikes it rich, that doesn't mean he screwed poor people to do it.

 

I guess my biggest beef with a tax is that any tax large enough to actually affect consumer purchasing behavior is going to do at least 2 things that we DON'T want to have happen:

1. Punish lower income workers unfairly, driving many out of the workforce due to inability to afford transportation.
2. Drive up transportation costs for businesses, hampering economic growth and possibly putting even more people out of work.

I could go along with modest increases, like a dime, but its just not enough to alter behaviors. That's why I think its gotta be a tax break, its the only way to significantly effect buying behavior while not hurting the economy.

People said safety wouldn't sell cars in the 50s...they were wrong. People said efficiency wouldn't sell cars in the 70s, they were wrong...they are saying it again today and they are still wrong. I think a lot of this amounts to the auto industry wants to get off the hook in terms of the rock & hard place they are in vis a vis fuel economy, foreign oil dependence, and consumer desire and choice and the fact they are getting fat and happy off of glutonous SUVs.

 

Unless you are driving on nothing but city streets, that is not true. I can't think of any car built today that cannot travel a highway at 50-55 mph in its top gear. Even an M6 LS1 can drive in 6th at 45 mph. So you shouldn't have to use a lower gear.

There are two reasons it takes energy to keep a car in motion at a constant speed in a straight line: friction and wind resistance. Both are lower at lower speeds, and in the case of wind resistance, it increases with the square of the velocity, so lower speeds require far less energy and fuel consumption. The reason city mileage is worse is because of all the energy wasted in braking to a stop and then re-accelerating. Here's a real-life example: the Toyota Prius recaptures most of that energy through regenerative braking and guess what: it gets better mileage in the city cycle than the highway cycle. Why? Because you will always get better fuel economy at lower speeds where friction and wind resistance are lower.

I'm well aware of how tax breaks work. The flaw in your logic is that the money that you are now not paying in taxes, has to be made up elsewhere and by other people. It's simple: the government needs X amount of money to operate, and if you're suddenly not contributing your share, everyone else's share goes up proportionately to cover you. In effect, it's not that much different than if the government actually did write you a cheque.

I'd love to see those vehicles too. But I happen to think the best way to get them on the market is to give the automakers a financial incentive to make them. That's the whole reason any company is in business: to make money. If gas taxes are raised, it will increase demand for fuel efficient vehicles, and the automakers will see an opportunity to make money. They will start to invest more in hybrids and Diesels because they know people want them, will pay for them, and therefore the automaker can make money at them. Without that demand, there's no money to be made. And with no money to made, why would any sane company invest their limited resources in their development?

Conversely, CAFE doesn't work nearly as well. Any smart company is going to figure out the easiest and cheapest way to comply with CAFE. Sometimes that might be improving fuel economy, like developing DOD. More often, however, it results in creativity in sidestepping the rules. Examples:

- Ford used to (maybe still does?) count the Panther cars as imports by ensuring they bought more offshore parts for the assembly plants than they normally would. Why? So their Crown Vickies would get averaged with the Festivas and therefore easily meet CAFE
- The PT Cruiser is considered a truck because of its flat cargo floor. Why? So it could be averaged with their pickups and SUVs and therefore meet CAFE.
- GM's H2 is not subject to CAFE because GM made sure its GVWR exceeded the level where it was required to be reported.

Did fuel economy increase one mpg in any of the above cases? No it did not. But that's what happens when you try to regulate things from the supply side. It's simply not an efficient means to the end.

 

I certainly do not fit the defintion of a "democrat"; generally speaking I would be considered the opposite, but I don't toe any one party's line. I call each issue as I see it.

The little part you slipped in here was which should be compensated for by reduced spending. I don't recall any of the above conversations talking about reduced spending. So given that government spending is staying constant, a reduction in revenue from one source (Z28x's tax bill, in this case) has to be made up elsewhere. If that wasn't the case, then hey, let's cut everyone's taxes by $2000 and everything will be fine. I think even the most die-hard Reagan supporters will realize that that is not a viable long-term solution. The reduction in government revenue is not compensated for by the supposed growth the economy will enjoy from everyone spending their extra $2000.

 

At 45mph in 6th I'm at 900RPM, that is too low. I use more gas when I'm in the wrong b/c the engine is bogged. Not good for my car, not good for mpg.

First of all that isn't the Gov'ts money it is mine, what if I decide to work part time, then they won't get half of the money from me they did the year before. By me paying a very little less in tax, I now have more money to spend, when I spend that money they will not only charge me sales tax they will also chage the vendor i bought from income tax. The Gov't will get the money one way or another, don't worry about them. If the US gov't has enough for $500 toilet seat, they have enough for tax rebate for high mpg car buyers.

All those problems are look holes in CAFE, just close the loop holes. Make it against the rules to build a SUV/Car/Truck that gets less than XX mpg for person use. If the EPA says by 2012 non-commercial SUVs need to get 20mpg, then guess what, all SUVs will get 20mpg. The technology is their to build them now between modern Diesels and hybrid. The manufactorurs just have to build them, tax breaks are a good way to get expensive projects off the ground. Higher fuel taxes will just keep us in recession longer.

 

The gov't doesn't take in a set amount of tax money every year. Every year there is a new budget. Clinton passed a $1000 higher education tax break in 2000, that effect a lot more people and guess what, the Gov't is still in business. If they offered a $2000 tax rebate for every 45mpg car and 35mpg truck purchased in the next 5 years it would effect the budget by about 0.0000000125% assuming 100,000 cars a year were sold.

 

But you are forgetting the economy is dynamic. 1. If we really had to match spending to revenue, we would not have any deficit today. but more importantly, 2. Reducing taxation spurs growth, which increases the tax base, increasing revenue. It does not happen overnight, but it works.

 

As long as your engine is running smoothly, i.e. not bucking and stumbling, it does not harm it whatsoever to drive at 900 rpm. In fact, that's when a gasoline engine is most efficient: at high load, low rpm conditions where the throttle blade is opened as much as possible. Granted, you may need to occasionally downshift if you need to accelerate or climb a steep hill, but you will still get better mileage than under those exact same circumstances at a higher speed in a higher gear.

We could sit here and debate semantics all night long, but the fact remains the government requires X amount of money to operate, and everyone needs to contribute their share. Whether you think it's yours or theirs is immaterial because you have to give it to them to spend anyhow.

As I said in my response to Chris, that is not a viable long-term strategy, as well proven by Reagan. At some point, reducing tax rates will cause a decrease in overall revenue because the decrease in the tax rate is not made up for by the increased in economic activity.

Misuse of funds in one area of the government is certainly no justification for misuse in other areas.

Right, but that's easier said than done. But my point is still valid anyhow: corporations will do whatever is easiest to comply with a given law. There will always be ways to get around the system.

Oh, I just thought of another one: the dreaded 1-4 skip shift. It probably causes the average consumer to use more gas than normal since they'll tend to accelerate a bit harder to avoid invoking the skip shift. But it improved CAFE numbers.

Yes, the technology is mostly there right now. Why is no one buying them? Because it does not make sense economically. If you have to pay, say, $4000 extra for a vehicle that saves only $500/year in gas, there's not going to be many takers. But if gas prices are increased and now it saves $750/year in gas, there'll be a lot more demand because now it takes only 5.3 years to recoup your investment instead of 8 years. True, a subsidy can help tilt that equation, but then you're back to using my money to pay for your car. And it still hasn't addressed the fundamental issue of low demand for the products.

The other point is that CAFE and tax breaks work only on new car sales, which account for barely more than 5% of the vehicles on the road in any given year. So even if every new car out there got double the mileage starting tomorrow, it would take about 10 years before the nation's fleet of cars is substantially replaced. On the other hand, raising gas taxes now will encourage every car out there to use less fuel in addition to driving demand for more efficient new cars. This puts the responsibility to conserve on everyone, not just new car owners.

 

I'm aware a deficit is being run. But sooner or later we have to pay the piper. If no one covers Z28x's tax break this year then it gets added to the deficit and it has to get paid, plus interest, down the line. There is no free lunch!

So let's reduce all taxes to 1% and watch the economy take off while the deficit shrinks to nothing!

At some point, reducing tax rates will cause a decrease in overall tax revenue because the decrease in the tax rate is not made up for by the increase in economic activity.

 

No one is buying the tech because it isn't in any of the vehicles people want (yet). The Hybrid Escape, Silverado, Vue, Toyota SUVs and Diesel Liberty should help change that. The technologly isn't a good value now because it isn't mass produced enough yet, but that will change as more cars are built.

Change doesn't happen over night. Like you said only new car buyers will have these better cars. But over time they will trickle down to those that can't afford new. Rasing the price of gas to $4 a gallon tomorrow isn't the solution either. Sure it will stop a lot of people from driving, but it will also throw the economy into a resession. Resession = less money for the Gov't, which brings us back around to your point of "How will the Gov't pay for things if there is less money coming in". Go play SimCity and try to tax your citizens the max amount possible and see how you do, you will be in debt in no time.


Like I said earlier, my drive to work doesn't get any shorter just because gas prices are higher. And I can't afford to just go out and buy a new car the day after gas prices go up.


Your Money never gets touched, if you think it does then you don't know how tax credits work.

Here is a good article on hybrid tax credits: http://www.detnews.com/2003/business...c01-328385.htm

 

Hybrids will never be as cheap as a regular car for one simple reason: they have two drivetrains in one car. Yes, their cost should come down a bit with mass production, but they can never approach a plain old gasoline-powered vehicle because in addition to having to have a gas engine, the hybrid also needs batteries, electric motors, powertrain controllers, etc. In an age where car companies are fighting tooth and nail for every dime they can squeeze out of the production cost of a vehicle, the $1000-$2000 cost of the hybrid hardware cannot simply be absorbed. There will always be a premium.

Let me state this one more time: I'm not saying to raise the price of gas to $4.00 tomorrow. I said to raise it in increments, e.g. 10¢ per year over 5 years. That gives people and companies time to adjust.

I fully understand tax credits, as well as micro- and macro-economics (having slept through a number of those courses in University). You seem to think the government has an endless supply of money, and that if they don't get your share from you (i.e. they give you a tax credit), then no great loss, life goes on. It doesn't work that way. The $2000 they gave you (or in your parlance, 'didn't take from you') means that the deficit will be $2000 bigger this year. Every taxpayer owns the deficit, so now every taxpayer owns a portion of that tax credit the government gave you. That's why I say "we" are subsidizing your car.

 

10¢ a year be enough to change driving habits? it has already gone up 25¢ this year and people are still driving as much SUV as selling just as good.

Since it does take over 10 years to change over the nations fleet of car there is really no short term solution. Perhaps a small gas tax 5¢ would = $8.15 Billion a year, that could be used to help develop hydrogen fuel cells quicker and other tech. But the tax should not be so high that is hurts the consumer or economy.

Here is a good site of US fuel consumption over the years. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html

As you can see the nations fleet is more fuel efficent now than it has ever been, although it did take a big hit back in 1995 with the SUV boom, but it has since recovered.

There are a few other factors that effect driving habits too. September 11th scared a lot of people away from flying which lead to more driving in the Summer of 2002. I'm not not sure if flying vs. driving is back to pre 9/11 levels. This manned mission to Mars should have a positive impact on the auto industry. A lot of battery, fuel storage, and alt fuel tech will be developed.