I think it's time to think about raising the gas tax 1$/gal

[taught_me_patience]

The average price of gas is now $1.50 and if it stays this low for much longer, it will really damage the development of fuel efficient cars and alternative fuels. Failing to bite the bullet and make a transition to more fuel efficiency now will make the next oil crunch much worse. Secondly, it will make it easier to pay for the 800B-1T public works program that Obama has been proposing.

Should oil rise again, I wouldn't mind seeing the government scale back the tax to keep the price of gas "fixed" at about $2.50/g

[liberal N proud]

1. If you really don't need that extra dollar a gallon

Send it to me.

[gravity]

2. It is a regressive tax

and political suicide

[taught_me_patience]

5. How is this tax regressive?

Richer people tend to drive bigger, more luxurious cars, that consume more gas.

[Selatius]

9. Lots of low and middle income people drive trucks and SUVs as well.

You are proposing a regressive tax. Consumption taxes, such as sales taxes, by nature, are regressive, simply because the poorest still have to drive to work in the absence of adequate mass transit.

[gravity]

11. They don't drive in proportion to income

And lots of working class drive trucks which have poor fuel economy too.

[PeaceNikki]

16. Seriously? You don't get it?

It's a fucking regressive tax and a shitty idea.

[taught_me_patience]

31. Heavy cars do more damage to the road

and the environment. People who drive these vehicles should pay more in taxes to compensate for the damage they cause.

[PeaceNikki]

35. RE. GRESS. IVE.

Look it up if you don't get it.

[Hangingon]

38. Many poorer people drive older, less efficient cars.

Fuel is a larger portion of thrier budget too.

[rucky]

70. Older cars. n/t

[varelse]

75. it will impact the price of anything that needs to be transported

including food, medicine, raw materials, finished goods made in and outside of the US. Regressive, because the people who will be hit hardest will be the poorest.

[Retired AF Dem]

90. It drives up the cost of all products

that are driven to thier markets. Not only do we pay more for gas we pay more for food and services. No thankyou. You keep thinking Butch, it is what you are good at. :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

52. Tobacco taxes and liquor taxes are regressive, too .... but many seem to love 'em.

I guess it's only "political suicide" when it's about *SOME* stuff. :shrug:

[gollygee]

3. OK. This is post #3 about this.

It was a bad idea with #1, it was a bad idea with #2, and it's a bad idea now.

A gas tax is a regressive tax. It hurts poor people more than anyone else. Poor people in rural areas don't have the choice to not drive, nor do they have the choice to just go out and buy a Prius. They generally get a hand-me-down car or drive the cheapest thing they can find, regardless of fuel efficiency, because that's what they can afford.

[bobbolink]

8. Thank you for understanding, and having the spine to say it!

Your words are much appreciated by those of us who are HIT HARDEST by this ignorance, and who have lost HOPE because it is so prevalent!

:hi: :yourock: :hi:

[DainBramaged]

21. Thanks, I was thinking of ading some bleeps and blanks in my reply

to this brilliant idea. :hi:

[TahitiNut]

51. Tobacco taxes and liquor taxes are regressive, too .... but DU seems to love 'em.

Go figure. :shrug:

[Evoman]

73. Is it automatically regressive? What if every dime collected went to solving poverty issues.

If it went into housing poor people? If it went to welfare and other social programs?

The problem with taxes that are considered regressive is that they are regressive because the money is not going where it should be going. In my province in Canada, we have a pretty high sales tax. Many on DU would consider it regressive...but you know what? If you make under a certain amount of income, you get a nice check every 4 months as a payback. To be honest, depending on how much you spend, you actually get more money back then you spent on the tax in the first place.

[Abq_Sarah]

83. Of course it's regressive

It will increase the price of all goods and services. It's a pyramiding tax that hits every stop along the supply line for products made in the USA.

[-..__...]

4. Uhmm... No!

As an alternative I'd suggest eliminating the gas tax altogether.

[taught_me_patience]

7. Then how do we pay for roads?

Where would be the incentive to buy fuel efficient cars? What about the next gas crises that we have $5 years from now that we will be completely unprepared for?

[bobbolink]

10. Are you familiar with the concept of INCOME TAXES????

Are you tooo young to remember when PROGRESSIVE taxes were PREVALENT?

Are you familiar with the concept of RATIONING precious commodities?

Are you familiar with ALL research showing that sales taxes do NOTHING for conservation??????

[taught_me_patience]

12. Totally wrong

gas consumption did drop as prices rose (due to market forces). A gas tax would drive oil consumption down. Take a look at europe for example.

[bobbolink]

14. Before you dismiss me out of hand, take a look at the RESEARCH!

You have already made it clear you don't give a shit about poor folk like me, so I don't find myself with a lot of patience for ignorance.

[taught_me_patience]

19. here is some research

http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo

"Motor gasoline consumption is projected to decline by 320,000 bbl/d, or 3.4 percent"

[-..__...]

15. People shouldn't be forced into a situation...

to purchase fuel efficient cars via raising the costs of gasoline.

If you want to offer incentives... do it via a tax break or credit for people whom do purchase fuel efficient cars.

[Donnachaidh]

22. Let's start taxing the wealthy at the same levels FDR did

I'll bet that 90% income tax would bring enough bucks to make some bitching alternate energy vehicles AND some wonderful green businesses.

Let's take the tax BURDEN off those who can LEAST afford it, and put it back where it belongs - on the wealthiest individuals who will feel it the LEAST.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Yeah, baby!

[pampango]

23. I like the idea of providing more help to low and moderate income people, but eliminating

the gas tax is the wrong way to do it.

Our environment and foreign relations will be better with less oil consumption, while eliminating the gas tax would increase our gas usage. If the gas tax were to be increased it would have to be tied to other measures, tax cut, increase EITC, more mass transit subsidies, alternative energy funding, etc., that would more than balance out the increased gas cost burden on low and moderate income people.

[bobbolink]

6. Excellent idea.... then all POOR FOLK can die.

I'm sooo very proud of "progressives" who insist on touting the RW regressive taxes.

And not giving a DAMN about the people they harm.

Sooo very glad that Reaganomics is alive and well in the Democratic party.

If you *REALLY* want to learn "patience", try being very poor and dealing with this kind of ignorance.

[taught_me_patience]

13. This is the opposite of regonomics, actually

because it would be the concept of the government "intervening" and creating a "price floor", which would encourage the developement of more fuel efficient vehicles and more alternative fuels. If we let the market forces go, you'll see manufacturers stop the development of fuel efficient vehicles. We've already seen GM halt the development of a factory that was going to be used to build the Chevy Volt.

[bobbolink]

17. I'm going to respond to you like you did to me -- TOTALLY WRONG

You talk about rich people and their big cars-- THEY DON'T STOP DRIVING WITH MORE TAXES, THEY JUST LAUGH AND DRIVE MORE.

IT'S BEEN PROVEN, IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO THINK AND READ AND UNDERSTAND THE RESEARCH.

YOU ONLY HURT POOR FOLK... IT'S BEEN SAID TO YOU MANY TIMES IN THIS THREAD, BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT.

THAT IS REAGANOMICS!

[pampango]

18. $1 at the beginning is too much. I do like the idea of higher taxes on the addictions we want to

break. Cigarettes and booze are highly taxed as they should be, due to the high personal and social cost that is associated with their usage.

I would grant that our use of gas and oil doesn't cause a high personal cost (quite to the contrary, we are wedded to freedom of our "drive anywhere at any time" culture" - it's a hard habit to break), but it does entail a large environmental and political costs. That makes it an even harder addiction to break than are smoking and booze since the latter two involve much personal cost, at least in the long run.

[DainBramaged]

20. Raise the gas tax, raise the beer tax, raise the cigarette tax

all the taxes that affect the poorest among us. They never raise the tax on wine or whiskey, caviar or truffles, cars over x horsepower, no, only the consumption taxes that affect the poor and middle class.

Jack that gas up, you bet, people don't deserve a little break, jack it up, take away the money they just got back when the artificial pricing of gas went up and bled them dry. Teach those losers not to drive their inefficient vehicles and force them to buy green.

[catnhatnh]

24. Know what???

This is a semi-free country and each person on this board who thinks this is a good idea is totally welcome to send one or two or three or even more dollars per gallon to the government should they choose...perhaps you can start a movement.

But to the degree to which you suggest a tax increase on members of the board whom like my self are retired and dependent on SS, you can go and fuck yourself. Call me funny, but if I ain't gonna be able to eat, then I'm not willing to sing Kumbaya with morons who think taking an equal number of ramen noodles packets from me and Bill Gates is not regressive.

Now if you proposed a tax on all private jets and limos and mansions, I'm perfectly willing to pay the same rate as Bill...

[taught_me_patience]

26. Don't bitch then

When the next oil crisis hits and gas is $5/gal and Detroit is still making gas hogs and there is absolutely no mass transit infrastructure.

[derby378]

27. What do you have against poor people?

If you have a workable mass transit program for rural areas that doesn't hurt the environment, lay it on us.

[taught_me_patience]

30. I have nothing against poor people

I believe all of society shares the burden of keeping transit viable in this country.

[mentalsolstice]

74. Wow you're really humane

I bet you kick the dog after having a bad day at work. I can't believe the total disregard from some on this board towards the poor, elderly, disabled, or anyone else that doesn't live in a small personally-defined universe.

How about raising sales taxes on NEW personal vehicles that don't get over a certain MPG. That wouldn't be so regressive. After all, build them and the wealthy would still buy them.

[catnhatnh]

28. Yeah Einstein...That'll all be MY fault....

...and in case you haven't noticed, not only are the poor seldom charged with policy decisions, neither do they listen when we bitch...

But why not an actual workable solution....how about if everyone was given a weekly allowance of 10 gallons per week UNTAXED, 10 more at the current rate and then an additional .50 increase on each 10 gallons more...then those using the most fuel are the ones with the most reason to conserve...we call that a "progressive tax".

[bobbolink]

42. Yes, indeed--RATIONING would be the only RATIONAL solution,

But these libertarians don't want what's RATIONAL--they want to watch us suffer more, and have a goooood laugh.

I'm now willing to bet that this person drives a HUMMEr and is enjoying the hell out of this uproar s/he caused!

[taught_me_patience]

44. I drive a Honda Accord

30mpg. I'd much rather be driving a big v8 and if gas stays down, I just might get one.

[bobbolink]

60. And you've blown your cover.

[mentalsolstice]

78. Ahhh, so you have the luxury of going out...

and buying the newest and bestest. I'm glad you're trying to be green, but not everyone has the luxury of buying green and economical, they get what is given to them, or what they can afford. Some of us can't go out and plunk down $30,000 for the newest and greenest.

edited for typo

[bobbolink]

41. And don't YOU "BITCH" when you are homeless, and nobody gives a fuck.

What goes around comes around,dearie, and you're creating a LOT of bad ju-ju.

[bobbolink]

40. Thank you for putting it like it is. BUt, clearly, this is NOT a person who can hear.

Either that, or just enjoying creating an uproar!

[RoyGBiv]

61. Brilliant!

Excellent commentary. :thumbsup:

[Deja Q]

67. Well said.

[guitar man]

25. hell no

I'm still reeling from the beating we took a $4 a gallon and the current prices are allowing my family to catch up a bit.A sudden increase of $1 a gallon would knock us right back out of catch up mode and into financial regression again, especially since I'm taking another increase in health insurance premiums at work and probably will not see a raise this year due to economic conditions.

It just isn't time for that kind of an ass kicking for the working class if we can help it. Wanna raise revenue? Hit up the uber wealthy, they have thrived in Bu$h's Amerika while the rest of us have taken a nose dive. :(

[NNN0LHI]

29. Make it illegal to pump our own gas like it used to be and that will kill two birds with one stone

It will bring the price of gas up and create jobs.

Sounds like a win win situation to me.

Don

[MazeRat7]

32. No, I vote to eliminate all consumption taxes, lets base our system on "income". n/t

[bobbolink]

43. EXCELLENT!

:applause:

[Norwood]

34. Hahahaha! Ya NO!!!

I have to drive my car a lot for my job, doubling my gas bill does not make me enthusiastic about the idea.

[jmg257]

36. Again?? Still a silly idea. Give government still more money? No thanks.

Taxes are going up quite enough on just about everything else, so screw giving them even more of our money.

[deaniac21]

37. taught_me_silly

[dkofos]

39. Bad idea

[blue_onyx]

45. I believe a gas tax is the best way

to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and to push people to buy fuel efficient vehicles. High gas prices were really the only thing that effected the consumption of oil/gas guzzlers. Everyone wants higher fuel efficiency but they also want low gas prices and big SUVs (at a reasonable price). Nobody, however, wants to pay any of the costs. As far as being regressive, we could give tax credits or some other assistance to the poor to offset the higher gas tax.

[taught_me_patience]

48. Careful

Be prepared to have people call you anything from a conservative reganite to a poor people hater...

[Ghost in the Machine]

46. Ok, this post is the running for the "Most Idiotic Post of the Year" award...

:eyes:

[Tesha]

56. No, but many of the responses in tis thread are in the running.

Everyone knows oil will run short, and quite soon now.

But very few people are willing to do anything to help society
transition to a post-oil operating mode. Ahh well, maybe the
poor will survive the oil riots soon to come, ehh?

Tesha

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. How many of those poor people that you're so worried about can afford to buy a new vehicle?

Why stop at the poor? What about the working poor and even some middle class people who are already stretched to their max, or who can't get a loan because of bad credit or something?

Please go explain to those people exactly *how* they're going to pay for that $20,000 - $30,000 vehicle that they'll need to drive to their $8 - $9/hr jobs. Go tell it to the people that buy a $1200 used car because it's cheaper than the $2100 they need to fix their car that just broke down.

What we need to do is to get hemp legalized again and devote an industry to that. Look at the petrol vs. hemp chart here: http://www.hempcar.org/petvshemp.shtml

:hi:

[Tesha]

63. Yeah, hemp, That's the answer.

Go back to smoking your weed.

Sheesh!

Tesha

[Ghost in the Machine]

64. Be careful.... before you fall off your high horse there, princess....

No comment on all the poor people you were worried about surviving the "oil riots that are soon to come"?

Here's a *really* simple question for you:

If we're at/near peak oil, *why* would research & development for alternative fuels taper down just because oil prices have fallen, as was suggested in this thread? Does it make any sense to stop?


Maybe 10 years from now some of those poor people can afford a used hybrid or other alternative fuel vehicle.

Oh, and btw, you *do* know the difference between hemp and weed, right?

:hi:

[Tesha]

66. I've talked to too many of you hemp nuts on DU to believe that the bulk of you...

...are more than a bunch of people who simply like the ganj.

Hemp, technically, is already pretty well-understood and if it
represented the miracles you all claim, there's no doubt that
it would be being commercially exploited; our government is
very good at changing laws to facilitate the corporations doing
exactly what they want.

If you want to promote the legalization of marijuana, then more
power to you -- I'm all for the government being forcibly removed
from this aspect of the industrial incarceration business. But don't
try to cloak your desire for legal weed within the foolish fig leaf of
hemp legalization and promotion; just come out and directly support
the legalization of weed!

Tesha

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. I've talked to too many brainless, hyperbolic nuts that spout off about things they know nothing

about, too... of course, these brainless, hyperbolic nuts *never* research anything, they just clear their blowholes, spouting off what they *think* they *know* when they clearly don't have a clue.

"Hemp, technically, is already pretty well-understood and if it
represented the miracles you all claim, there's no doubt that
it would be being commercially exploited; our government is
very good at changing laws to facilitate the corporations doing
exactly what they want."

ROTFLMAO!! :rofl:

"America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law "ordering" all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other "must grow" laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp -- try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements - rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp "plantations" (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton."
http://www.congressunderfire.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=61&mesg_id=61&page=

"Well, with US alcohol prohibition repeal in 1933, most stills were abandoned or seized by the
“dry squads”. Oil was super-cheap and everywhere, so oil engines grew more popular and alcohol engines less so. And with US hemp prohibition in 1937, the best raw material for making veggie plastic feedstock was removed from the economy. It was (Rockefeller's) Standard Oil, (Mellon's) Gulf Oil and DuPont who had the most to do with hemp prohibition, and the most to gain from it.

Hemp prohibition and big oil

Prior to 1931, Harry Anslinger was Assistant U.S. Commissioner for Prohibition. In 1931, Anslinger, was hand-picked to head the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) by his uncle-in-law, Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under President Herbert Hoover, designer of the FBN, and head of Gulf Oil. Andrew Mellon was also the owner and largest stockholder of the sixth largest bank (in 1937) in the United States, the Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, one of only two bankers for DuPont from 1928 to the present. DuPont owned General Motors. (64)

In 1937, the marijuana tax act put hemp farmers out of business. It was a prohibition pretending to be a tax, similar to the machine-gun tax act created two weeks earlier. Anslinger testified at the poorly attended committee hearing, calling for a total ban on “marihuana”. He stated under oath that “Opium has all the good of Dr. Jekyll and all the evil of Mr. Hyde. This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effects of which cannot be measured". This statement contradicted what he wrote in a confidential memorandum to the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury that "the drug trade still has a small medical need for marihuana, but has agreed to eliminate it entirely." (65)

Bureaucrats planned the hearings to avoid the discussion of the full House and presented the measure in the guise of a tax revenue bill brought to the six member House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Du Pont ally Robert Doughton of North Carolina. This bypassed the House without further hearings and passed it over to the Senate Finance Committee, controlled by another DuPont ally, Prentiss Brown of Michigan, where it was rubber stamped into law. (66) Another prominent member of one Congressional subcommittee who voted in favor of this bill was Joseph Guffey of Pennsylvania, an oil tycoon and former business partner of Andrew Mellon in the Spindletop oil fields in Texas. (67)

An important clue to who was behind this prohibition-pretending-to-be-a-tax can be found in the DuPont 1937 Annual Report: "The revenue raising power of government may be converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization". (68) With hemp rope gone, DuPont's new invention Nylon would be one of the synthetic “sudden new ideas” accepted by North American citizens."
http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/2008/01/part-two-history-of-hemp-fuels.html


Now, as for marijuana itself, did you even know that the first laws prohibiting it was because of the Mormon Church?

"For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It's not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600's, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900's.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies."

In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy."
http://www.congressunderfire.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=2&mesg_id=2&page=

Now, princess, why don't you try coming back with a well thought out, *researched* & intelligent response instead of the blowhole clearing that you've been engaged in?

Thanks,

Ghost

[Tesha]

71. See, that's the point.

Hemp is no longer essential for anything. All of its uses are now
supplanted by other, better materials.

It's no longer used for rope because it rots.

Other oil seeds provide more and/or better oils.

If you want hemp clothes, well, feel free. I prefer cotton.

And, as I predicted, you seem to be more concerned about the
intoxicating aspects of the product than its industrial uses.

Like I said, go back to smokin' your weed and leave energy
debates to people who aren't spending all their time surrounded
by a blue haze.

Tesha

[Ghost in the Machine]

82. Wow, you couldn't even beat your own strawman down huh? Your nuisance/distraction skills aren't very

good, you need to work on them some more.

You see, *YOU* are the one who mentioned *marijuana*, not me. Please point out, exactly, where I "seem to be more concerned about the
intoxicating aspects of the product than its industrial uses".

You can do that, right?

Now, please try to keep up, follow along and stay on topic.


"FARMERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO GROW an energy crop capable of producing 10 tons per acre in 90-120 days. This crop must be woody in nature and high in lignocellulose. It must be able to grow in all climactic zones in America.

And it should not compete with food crops for the most productive land, but be grown in rotation with food crops or on marginal land where food crop production isn't profitable.

When farmers can make a profit growing energy, it will not take long to get 6% of continental American land mass into cultivation of biomass fuel--enough to replace our economy's dependence on fossil fuels. We will no longer be increasing the C02 burden in the atmosphere. The threat of global greenhouse warming and adverse climactic change will diminish. To keep costs down, pyrolysis reactors need to be located within a 50 mile radius of the energy farms. This necessity will bring life back to our small towns by providing jobs locally.

HEMP IS THE NUMBER ONE biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months. It is a woody plant containing 77% cellulose. Wood produces 60% cellulose. This energy crop can be harvested with equipment readily available. It can be "cubed" by modifying hay cubing equipment. This method condenses the bulk, reducing trucking costs from the field to the pyrolysis reactor. And the biomass cubes are ready for conversion with no further treatment.

Hemp is drought resistant, making it an ideal crop in the dry western regions of the country. Hemp is the only biomass resource capable of making America energy independent. And our government outlawed it in 1938." (Much more at the link)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/hempfuel.htm

[Tesha]

91. As I said, I've had this conversation often enough to know what was on your mind.

And your earlier reply, full of marijuana facts, proved it.

Tesha

[Ghost in the Machine]

95. You obviously have no clue as to what's on my mind...

You still haven't shown where I "seem to be more concerned about the
intoxicating aspects of the product than its industrial uses", have you? I didn't think you could....


As for my "earlier reply, full of marijuana facts", I guess you failed to notice that it was after 3 responses about HEMP, but you wanted to continue babbling about MARIJUANA, didn't you?

You're too transparent... try your nusiance/distraction bullshit on someone that's buying it because it's not selling here. I also notice that while you're so vocal against hemp, you provide no alternative. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Why is that?

If you have nothing intelligent or productive to add to the conversation, might I be so bold as to suggest that maybe you should just move on and get out of the way of the people who *are* looking for long term, sustainable solutions? In other words, either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way....

[mentalsolstice]

79. It has good competition here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4685088.

[madinmaryland]

47. Only, and only if, those taxes are used for public transportation.

Without providing people an incentive (and alternate) to get out of their cars, would that make any sense. I think there is going to have been large spending up front building such an infrastructure followed by future gas tax increases. For areas that public transportation is impractical, then there must be breaks for them to move into alternate fuel sources.

[taught_me_patience]

49. Yep... that's what it should be for

We need to develop alternatives now! We also need car manufacturers to get serious about producing electric autos that are affordable to the general public.

[Sanctified]

50. Must be nice to have so much money that you can throw it away like that.

Seriously why not just propose a car tax of $15,000 on all car purchases, because it's pretty much what you are proposing with your gas tax. This system would destroy the poor and middle class while the rich would barely feel a pinch.

If a poor person has to spend an extra $45 a week on gas, that is $45 they are not spending on productive shit like feeding their kids or making sure they have healthcare or warm clothing in the wintertime. I know for some people $45 is just a lunch but for the people like me $45 is groceries for the week for myself, my wife and my two kids. And since I am self employed if I don't drive I don't get paid, so I would pay the tax and just feed my family bread and beans.

[ThomWV]

53. Got any other pet sin taxes you want to impose on people who don't live like you do?

[Tesha]

54. Face it: Americans will *NEVER* change their ways until the last drop of oil is gone.

As you can see from all the replies above, soon we'll all be living in a
Mad Max world and people will be wondering how we got to that point.

Tesha

[joe_sixpack]

55. I agree, I know it's not inherently popular, but it makes sense.

There's no way our population will ever embrace energy conservation unless there's a cost benefit. If we use the extra tax to fund better public transportation or fuel efficiency, it will pay off in the long run, even though it might smart a bit in the short term. Europe is a good example.

[taught_me_patience]

57. Agreed

And it takes a very long time to develop alternative fuels and mass transportation systems that are viable. That's why I suggest we need to start moving on it now. Maybe we, sadly, can catch up to Europe in 10-15 years.

[SammyWinstonJack]

59. I guess you can afford it so SCREW everyone else who can not?

:eyes:

[pitohui]

86. astroturfers who push this crap don't care about the poor or the middle class

they've got theirs, so fuck the rest of us

it's sad that a person can have no heart and no soul even at such a christmas where so many are facing a future without any ability to retire or to pay for health care or to even keep their own house over the head...but somebody still wants to pick the last bit of lint out of their pocket

the high price of fuel and food is truly crushing, and to those who think the price of gas is too low to suit them, they should stfu and consider that a great many people today are not only without a job but without any conceivable future where they could ever again have a "decent" job that would allow them to keep their homes

my question is, do you suppose astroturfers are actually ever paid or do they simply absorb this bullshit and spread the manure around for free, because they are truly so blinded by their own ignorance?

no environment anywhere in the world, at any time in human history, was ever protected by making working people poorer

[RoyGBiv]

62. I think you're wrong n/t

[Individualist]

65. I think it's past time some people developed compassion

for the poor and those on fixed incomes.

[Oilwellian]

69. There are other ways to achieve your goals...

without placing the majority of the burden on the poor and middle class. I'm also stunned to see your lack of address to the many comments on this thread
that give you examples of the pain and suffering a $1 increase would cause most families. Something stinks.

[taught_me_patience]

72. Many comments are not worthy of discussion

"I nominate this of the stupidest thread of the year" type comments don't deserve to be answered. I've laid out my thougts on the issue clearly in the thread. I'm not happy with the attitude of many who cry "we need alternative energy" or "we need to build a mass transit system"... but "the rich should have to pay for it." I believe we all need to share in the expense of building a viable transportation system. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[varelse]

80. Transportation costs affect the cost of *everything*

most of the replies on the thread refer to the cost of commuting, but when you add a dollar to the cost of a gallon of fuel, you'll almost immediately raise the price of food and other "commodities" as well. That impacts the poor more than it does anyone else.

I agree that we all need to share the burden of transition equally, which is *why* I disagree so vehemently with your proposal to add a dollar to the gas tax. It is not a solution which spreads the burden equally among us.

I hope that our President Elect has better ideas that are more equitable in how the burdens and the ultimate benefits of the transition to a less oil-dependent transportation system are shared equally among all our citizens.

[Dappleganger]

76. This type of tax hurts the poor and middle class the most.

[Evoman]

77. I think its a good idea..with some restriction.

First of all, there are plenty of progressive countries with high sales taxes and high gas taxes. If the money collected goes to social programs, its not really regressive, is it? You could also have a system where the government sends a percentage of the money back to people who make under a certain amount of income.

What happens when you have this sort of tax can have a two-fold affect....people limit their consumption, and people (and government) encourage industry to come up with better fuel standards.

The problem with the United States, if I may be so bold, is that you guys never seem willing to pay up for what you want or what you need. You want to put it all on the rich people. That's fine...but you know what? EVERYONE needs to make sacrifices if they want a progressive country. And that includes things like higher taxes.

[varelse]

81. progressive countries with high sales taxes and high gas taxes (apples to oranges)

"If the money collected goes to social programs, its not really regressive, is it? You could also have a system where the government sends a percentage of the money back to people who make under a certain amount of income."

That's not what the OP has proposed. If it were, and if we had the same quality of public transportation, the same trade protections for our domestic producers (many of these "progressive" countries are also very protective in their trade policies and much more union-friendly than we are), and the same social services as those countries (including universal single-payer health care) then the burden would not be disproportionately on the POOR and I would have no objection to a higher gas tax or higher sales taxes.

[Skittles]

84. fuck that - raise taxes on the rich bastards

[sundog]

85. almost as good as the $10 tax for trips under 2 miles idea

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4685088&mesg_id=4685088

[Celeborn Skywalker]

87. That would never fly with the public.

I just think we need to get to work building an efficient public transportation system that includes hi-speed trains and buses and reduces the need for as many vehicles. Then, maybe, we can talk about a gas tax.

[Odin2005]

88. Rasing taxes in a recession is a VERY BAD IDEA.

That's exactly the thing (raising taxes on the poor and middle class) Keynes warned people not to do in the early 30s and he was ignored, making the Depression worse.

[Hannah Bell]

89. It's time to think about raising taxes on oil corp profits.

[IDemo]

92. It took 89 posts before someone in this thread got the right answer

:thumbsup:

[Statistical]

93. If you taxed oil companies at $1 per gallon of gasoline wouldn't they just raise the price of gasoli

If you taxed oil companies at $1 per gallon of gasoline wouldn't they just raise the price of gasoline by $1 to cover their costs?

Yes Corp do count taxes as a cost when figuring how to price a product. Does anyone think they are going to "sneak one by the oil companies".
Like they won't notice losing twenty of thrity billion a year. Wouldn't someone figure it out and to protect shareholders simply raise the cost of a gallon of gas.

Altria makes MORE per pack of cigerettes NOW than when taxes were lower. The higher taxes makes it easier to hide profit.
It is hard to pump price $0.25 a pack if cigs are $1.00 a pack. Now that they are $4.00 a pack hiding an extra $0.25 a pack in profit is incredibly easy.

The idea that you could tax the oil companies an extra $1 a gallon and they couldn't figure out how to pass the cost on to the consumer doesn't make much sense.

So
currently: $1.00 gas + $0.50 taxes = $1.50 gallon

Tax corps: $2.00 gas + 50.50 taxes = $2.50 gallon

Tax consumer: $1.00 gas + $1.50 taxes = $2.50 gallon

$2.50 is $2.50 doesn't really matter how you pump it.
(current average of state & federal excise taxes is $0.50 I think)

Taxes on goods (gas tax, phone tax, sales tax, property tax, real estate tax) are regressive because it is very difficult to make brackets.

Income tax is already progressive. Why not use income tax.

Or at a minimum tax vehicles on a combination of price & mpg.
High MPG + low price = lowest tax
Low MPG + high price = highest tax.

[Hannah Bell]

96. not in a context of falling demand, no. unless they want to lose more business.

it's not true that a tax hike on the ownership class always equals price rises.

that's right-wing propaganda.

had enough of it.

[lib2DaBone]

94. People don't need to commute to work..Just slash their jobs!