Gas Tax Holiday?

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

 Wadaya all think about the proposed Gas Tax Holiday?



Personally I think it's a bribe for votes and has some pretty significant unintended consequences: It tends to curtail conservation and increases the deficit. And think of the moral implications: who gets the greatest benefit? Those who guzzle the most gas! Too bad for you, Prius owners! (I knew I should have bought a Hummer!)

I understand the desire to put more money in the pockets of the average American to help boost the economy out of a recession, but if you're going to borrow to money at the federal level to jump start the economy, cash is always better.

On the other hand, if I think of the taxi drivers and pizza delivery guys, this does benefit those who are hurt the most by the shock of steeply higher fuel prices. So, maybe this is a great surgical solution to an economic externality. I just can't decide.

Comments

[latenightapathy.livejournal.com]

I'm personally pretty against it, even though high gas prices will have a very negative impact on my summer job. But that's a fantastic cartoon, nonetheless, if only for the humor (since I don't know much about the gas tax or its consequences).

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

It's a bad idea. Period. A cheap pander.

Every economist-- liberal, conservative, and in between-- agrees on that. In fact, when asked to name even one economist who believes this will actually help anyone, the Clinton staff said they couldn't name one, but it didn't matter, because being President sometimes means doing something reckless even when all the experts say no.

Basically, it's not just McCain that echoes Bush's approach to governance, Hillary now wants to do the same. A shame to see a smart woman act so, so dumb just to win some primaries (and she will win Indiana tomorrow because of this, because people are sheep).

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

"I understand the desire to put more money in the pockets of the average American to help boost the economy..."

It's not putting money in our pockets. It's keeping OUR money, the government not TAKING it. One of our local DJ's calculated that if the Fed, State and Local taxes were removed we would be paying $2.15/ gal. instead of $3.51. Think that isn't significant?

Another way of phrasing "curtailing conservation" is inhibiting freedom of travel. And removing the tax won't increase the deficit, RECKLESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING does that and I don't see any work against that. People are being brainwashed with those phrases into believing it's right to be taxed. We pay federal income tax and it's plenty to cover roads and infrastructure. Why should we curtail travel when they won't curtail spending? As long as they can add more tax to you, you enable them.

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

Yep, I totally agree that spending needs to be addressed. But, if you assume spending is not going to change (safe assumption) you need to get the money from somewhere - through taxes or borrowing. Now, I've heard of the whole "starve the beast" strategy (cut taxes to the point where spending requires drastic cuts) but it's too easy for the beast to borrow "food" from the neighbors. So I personally think that over time that strategy will simply leave us in a very, very deep hole.

Now, my understanding is that the taxes on fuel are designed to pay for transportation expenses. It makes infinite sense since it ends up being the users that pay for what they use. And at some point our government agreed that the tax on fuel is the right amount for that. So, in a way, a tax holiday is putting money back in our pockets.

And as far as curtailing conservation goes, my point is that one silver lining of higher fuel costs is that it creates an economic incentive to reduce a "bad" thing. Burning fossil fuels is a bad thing in many ways - global warming, air polution, dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world, etc. So, this gas tax holiday works against the benefits of that "silver lining."

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

Driving isn't a bad thing.
Your car doesn't affect global warming.
Autos are evermore efficient against pollution.
We depend on foriegn oil because the Democrats spent decades as a party from meeting our own needs. The prices are higher because they won't allow refineries built to process it faster and cheaper to meet needs. Ask someone who buys diesel gas how THEY feel?

"Silver lining"? So maybe if people can't afford to buy food to eat... they'll become healthier? Perhaps as we make more biofuels out of food, there will be less poor people in the world?. Because they will die of starvation.

While the tax was designed to pay for maintaining roads it goes into the general fund and gets reallocated like all other taxes. Then states, county and cities add on a tax so they all use it as a cash cow. Regardless of if you think it's fair, it impacts the poorist people most. From gas to public transportation to food and other services.

Making assumptions is how we've gotten the government that owns us right now. We have 145 House Representitives RIGHT NOW who we pay for their car leasing, their gas and their insurance. Why should your government be allowed to spend and act in ways that you would get punished doing?

Settle down - we're all friends here

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

True, driving is not a bad thing. But driving around in a car that gets 12 miles/gallon is bad compared to a car that gets 30+ miles/gallon.

Ask the people in L.A. and Pittsburg and Santiago, Chile if they think pollution from cars is a problem.

As far as global warming goes, I tend to believe the vast majority of scientists who have concluded that cabon emissions from human activity have a significant impact on our climate. I'm not a climatologist myself, so I can't defend this personally. I have to depend on the scientific community and its checks and balances to arrive at the truth since I'm not going to do it myself. But it sounds like you are of the belief that humans are not responsible for climate change. So, unless you are a climatologist with a few thousand peers backing you up, you are not going to change my mind and I certainly won't change yours. So let's not even get into this.

Dependence on foreign oil is a bad thing. If you can stop pointing your finger for a second, I think you'll agree. More refineries would help, I agree. Alternative fuels would also help and I think would be a better long-term solution. And since high fuel prices makes alternative fuels more attractive and more worth the investment, it may end up pushing to do what we should do. Thus, the silver lining.

About your food comment...I think you may be on to something...if we tax transfats, high-fructose corn syrup, and refined sugar that would make the prices of these things more in line with their true costs (i.e. the cost of a Coke does not take into account the health care costs associated with increased incidence of obesity, diabetes, heart-disease, etc. to which the consumption of this item contributes). Thus people would consume less and the social costs of these foods would go down!

Re: Settle down - we're all friends here

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

Excellent! In an post about possibly removing a tax upon people... you devise MORE taxes to punish people for exercizing freedom of choice! Maybe you should pay a tax for typing this, risking carpal tunnel? Chile doesn't have our emission standards for vehicles or factories. I've been to the US places you mention: they are far better than 30 years ago because we have cleaner running cars and smokestacks.

While there are many scientists who believe there is "Climate Change" there is no evidence so far in "Man-made Global Warming". And since the entire past century's global temp. increase was wiped out in the one year of 2007, it's a better argument of a coming Ice Age. Regardless this topic was about the tax; you introduced it here-
"Burning fossil fuels is a bad thing in many ways - global warming, air polution, dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world, etc"

So I was obligated to refute it.

Your assertion that alternate fuels will help is baseless. Ethanol costs more, wastes more energy and food, delivers less of an energy ratio and taxes refinery production even more. The reason why we've had oil for the last century is because it's the best product for the least cost and effort. It's a natural product produced be the planet, replenishes itself ("Fossil fuel" is a myth) and supplies an economic export product for countries that have nothing else to sell. Our price problem comes from a faction in government not allowing our participation in the market over a period of decades.

As for a Climatologist with peers, give me a bit and I'll comment them for you in your journal. I just keep this community for the toons, not debates.

[latenightapathy.livejournal.com]

Re: "Autos are evermore efficient against pollution."
Please see this link: http://www.wanttoknow.info/050711carmileageaveragempg

The average major American car company has not increased it's MPG ratings significantly for the majority of the companies' existence. Japanese cars, on the other hand, you have a point for.

I agree with ltmurdoch's immediate reply re: driving isn't bad, but... You think pollution and oil consumption are only problems in the US? Screw the cities he mentioned, look at Beijing. Yeah, they don't have the same controls, but it's still a problem. Massive numbers of cars =/= good thing, though driving itself is not bad.

I'm not getting into the global warming debate, so I respectfully disagree with that point.

And as per softside's comment below, if the Democrats were holding us back so bad, why did Bush & Co. dick around for those six years? I mean, I know they were busy violating international law, ripping the constitution apart, and alienating us from the entire world, but surely with all their oil connections they could have fit that little issue into the private, oil-company-run energy policy meeting Cheney had?

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

No, you haven't answered my questions and you can't stay on the topic of the gas tax. You're arguing the MPG ratings? And you can't stick to our cities? And there's certainly no question of the Democratic party preventing these efforts.

[latenightapathy.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, and since when is it up to the US to build refineries in the places that need them, like Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iraq (oops, that one actually is our fault, but it happened under a Republican president and Congress). Aside from a couple sources (like the Bakken that I mentioned below), the US has little need for more refineries, as I see it. Processing plants, perhaps, for these grading things you keep mentioning (which I know nothing about, so I'll keep my mouth shut), but refineries for crude would be kind of pointless, given (as softside said) that our production has been falling for decades.

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

I never said we should build them elsewhere... I said here in the US. Last one built here was in 76. Our production of oil here has gone down because we can't drill offshore or expand inland. But we are importing MORE oil to refine here. All the refineries are running at their top capacity so any breakdowns, upgrades or interruptions directly affect supply and prices.
Blending petrol is done AT the refineries when they make the petrol. More refineries would mean newer facilities, more variation in available grades of gasoline, more production of diesel (which is why it's much higher right now)and greater security in supplying gas to distributors.

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

There seems to be a little misunderstanding here. I'm not an expert on this, so I have no idea why I'm trying to clarify this point, but I just can't stop my fingers from typing...

Refineries, as I understand it, take crude oil and split it into gasoline and a bunch of other shit that they use to make engine oil, polyester leisure suits, milk jugs, etc. We tend to like to put refineries closer to where the product is consumed rather than where it's taken from the ground. So, we need refineries here in the US no matter how much oil we pump from our territory.

Also, I agree with lordremo, my understanding is that gasoline prices are greatly affected by our refinery capacity. It is the bottleneck of the entire supply chain. And, as I understand it, we have not built new refineries because they are ugly and smelly and nobody wants them in their back yard (that goes for Republicans as well as Democrats). The only exception is lordremo. It sounds like he's open to having a refinery in his back yard. I'll send an IM to my buddy over at the DoE and I'm sure he'll get right on it.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

That's total BS. No one cared about the gas tax until McCain and his friend Hillary decided to make it an issue for the sake of a few votes. Again, all the economists-- liberal, conservative, and everywhere in between-- have crunched the numbers... this won't make any difference to drivers at all, and is a huge scam.

And "inhibiting freedom of travel"? Gee, I must've missed the part of the constitution that mentions our inalienable right to drive around wherever we want in big cars for artificially low oil prices with no regard for the environmental impact.

Americans are so selfish and entitled.

I know it's politically unpopular to point out, but gas prices in the U.S.-- compared to elsewhere in the world-- have traditionally been very low (and because of shortsighted government policies to keep it that way to appease the masses). It's right now catching up to where it should be. As a guy who earns less than $30,000 I feel the pain of those who dislike having higher expenses, but hey that's the choice people make. People can get smaller cars or drive less, if they're really feeling the pinch.

The job of a leader is to tell us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear. It's obvious McCain and Clinton don't get that. We need a leader who understands that sometimes short-term sacrifices are needed for long-term progress.

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

Stop using this "All the economists" consensus crap. Since you seem to support Obama you have no place arguing against thoughts of "Entitlements", do you? If it wouldn't make any difference AT ALL, then do away with the tax all together. It's THAT hard to give up a tax, isn't it?
Can you afford to buy a smaller car today? Tomorrow? We must have a right to drive everywhere... why else would we need those roads we're paying for? If you aren't paying enough for gas right now, don't worry. Thinking like yours will ensure we hit your threshold soon enough.

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

pfft. You're a welfare recipient who mistakes your entitlements for rights. nice trolling.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Stop using this "All the economists" consensus crap

Hillary? McCain? Is that you???

Since you seem to support Obama

I support the candidate who doesn't troll for votes by appealing to voter stupidity. This year, yes, that's Obama.

If it wouldn't make any difference AT ALL, then do away with the tax all together.

Ummm, getting rid of the tax wouldn't make a difference to consumers, as oil companies would jack up the prices by probably about the same change people would "save" under this scheme. The tax itself is a very beneficial tax would pays for necessary infrastructure upkeep and improvement.

We must have a right to drive everywhere... why else would we need those roads we're paying for?

It's funny that conservatives believe they have some inalienable god-given basic right to drive around in big cars with no thought to the consequences, but don't view things like health-care (etc) as rights.

I'd also add that I would think conservatives would want policies to promote CONSERVation, but apparently not.

If you aren't paying enough for gas right now, don't worry. Thinking like yours will ensure we hit your threshold soon enough.

Ahhh, yes, in the fevered minds of conservatives, liberals are always scheming to rob people somehow.

Thanks for ignoring most of my response, by the way. As I said, gas prices in the U.S.-- compared to elsewhere in the world-- have traditionally been very low (and because of shortsighted government policies to keep it that way to appease the masses). It's right now catching up to where it should be. We need a leader who understands that sometimes short-term sacrifices are needed for long-term progress.

We can't keep acting like oil will be around and plentiful forever because we want it to be.

[tridus.livejournal.com]

Hate to break it to you, but the government is already spending several hundred billion more a year then it brings in with taxes. You're under-taxed. If you want to stop being under-taxed, decide what the government pays for right now that you don't want it to. I recommend the Navy personally, thats not very important.

Or do you really think that continuing to borrow money every year is actually sound policy?

An Aircraft Carrier pulling into your Straits can be quite intimidating.

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

We aren't undertaxed; our government is spend-crazy and we let them. I prefer they stop rather than use me as an ATM. I don't take that from a girlfriend... or elected officials. If you do... you can never satisfy either.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

just a quick point, but taxing petrol isnt inhibbiting freedom of travel nearly as baddly as you seem to think. besides the car, there is:

the train
the bus
the bicycal
the tram
the foot

and thats just off the top of my head. thats not to mention stuff like car pooling and such. cars are not the be all and end all of transport.

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

While public transportation exists in myrad forms they aren't equal and universal as the car is. They are viable choices but not satisfactory if it's what you HAVE to rely on. If I have gas and a car, I can go anywhere there is a road. I can only use PT where others decide I can go.

* Only metropolis's have L, subway, trams or trains.
* I can't own a bus and they run fixed routes, but times become unreliable. We have a whole section of town where the city decided it will take 3 years before they will expand there.
* Bicycles, as horses have limited use and ranges for feasibility.
* Here in Vegas you don't walk ANYWHERE 8 months of the year.

The automobile gives the best independant mobility with options for more than one person, protection, shopping, entertainment use and personal investment. It spurs the economy both locally and nationally. Ever wonder why countries are so 3rd world until automobile ownership becomes commonplace to it's population?

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

well, some of these are the goverments fault, and some are (Sort off) your fault. the bus is a vibal alterntive if it was invested in. bicycles have more versetitly and range then you give them credit for. and whoever thougt putting a city in the middle of the desert was a bit of an idiot, and chooseing the live there comes with the fact that its hot. people who live in san fransico might as well complain that thay live on an earthquake fault.

none of these entitle you to cheep petrol. there are alterntives. you choose to not take them. and thats fine. but the choice entails a price, as have your other choices (the car stuff mentioned abouve). your choices do not a right to cheep fuel make.

[latenightapathy.livejournal.com]

Ever wonder why countries are so 3rd world until automobile ownership becomes commonplace to it's population?

Because correlation always implies causation. I think you've got this backwards: car ownership becomes commonplace when a country is no longer considered "Third World" because cars are expensive, signs of status (especially in newly developed states), and, as you implied, convenient. Cars do not bring industrialization, though they might help the economy. Personal auto ownership, however, does not equal industrialization.

The rest of that is a decent point, but I would take that to mean simply that we need to invest more in other sources of transportation. Or pull an Asia and start up things like minibuses, which have less-set routes, are more flexible, and can be operated on a large scale, providing dozens or hundreds of local routes in both large and small cities.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's a bad idea to live in the middle of a desert then.

[edgar-suit.livejournal.com]

Of course, the beswt way to take care of a child who is spoiled rotten....

...is to give them what they want!

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

i dump them down wells...

sorry, i should stop being so flippant and makeing useless comments like this. ahhh...