Darn. I guess I have to agree. And if they won’t go willingly we should drag them in chains!
And why shouldn’t “those with more money” do the same? A tax on overuse would drive this point home to “those.”
“I would point out that the car companys created this mess in the 1920’s and 30’s when General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillip petroleum conspired to buy up and destroy all light rail systems in the nation.”
Not only did you get the urban legend wrong (it was in the 1950’s), but it’s an urban legend. The old “National City Lines conspiracy” drivel is a nice conspiracy theory with lots of popular support and promoters (among them the movie “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”), but the scholarly research by those who actually track transportation and corporate history on an academic basis shows that, at best, all the cohesion between those various entities did was hasten only slightly the inevitable demise of streetcars in cities where it would have perished on its own anyway, and give GM, Firestone, et al a firm market for its products. As partial proof, consider that trolleys also disappeared in most cities and towns without any help from NCL.
Regrettably, though, just as with any other juicy story or urban legend online, it’s become all but impossible to debunk this legend, in part because one can’t “prove a negative,” in part because there’s just enough truth to the reality to lend too much credence to the distorted version, and because everyone loves a good conspiracy theory to the potential exclusion of even common sense (see also Roswell, UFOs in general, the Bermuda Triangle, a myriad of theories about 9/11/2001 and the terrorist attacks, etc.).
We already have a gas tax. How would raising an existing tax make things more complicated? Answer: it wouldn’t.
Here’s a variation on the gas tax proposal…or maybe an ‘add-on’ proposal:
Flip the tax levels between diesel fuel and refined gasoline! Here’s why…
Diesel typically costs more than gasoline…not because it is more expensive to produce than gas (it is actually far less refined) but because the taxes on it are higher. This increases the cost of products that are shipped by diesel powered trucks, trains, and boats. Manufacturers and distributors simply pass the costs of transportation up the line to the consumer. So…a reduced tax on diesel would keep the costs of products from rising…thus encouraging the consuming public to buy more widgets (not to mention groceries)…which thusly stimulates the economy. Conversely raising the tax on refined gasoline would encourage less driving, and more reliance on mass transit (which would also keep their costs down since many current mass transit vehicles run on diesel).
Yes, I know that diesels polute. I’ll let the M.I.T.'ers do the math to see if there is a green enough offset by having fewer miles driven/gallons burned by gasoline powered vehicles.
Yes, I also realize that all the Jetta dieselers out there would have the advantage. I, myself, await Subaru’s diesel.
This Is About Tax Increases And More Government Involvement. One Guy Just Said …
“And in response to the below guy who has to rant about government mis-spending - there’s an easy solution which is called legislation - the gas tax bill needs to have conditions attached to it which would give the taxpayer standing to sue the government if they fail to enforce those conditions. Or, if that’s too risky from the government’s perspective, simply make the conditions enforceable by the attorney general and allow taxpayers to file on-line complaints with the attorney general if they find out something that gives them concern about where the gas tax money is going. The on-line filing can be analogous to the HIPAA filing process and in the same manner as with HIPAA there can be a provision in the gas tax bill that states that there are no private causes of action permissable under the bill. BUT unlike HIPAA, the bill should have a little more teeth so that if the attorney general investigates a complaint and determines that the filer was correct and that the gas tax bill has been violated, the wrong-doer can be heavily fined and the money can to the place it was supposed to go to in the first place.”
Simple as rocket science!
Ray, I could not agree more with your idea and applaud you for bringing this up. The 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax has not been increased in about 15 years and has not kept pace with inflation. A key addition to this idea is changing the way that funding for transportation projects is done. Instead of earmarks and no strings attached grants to states, we need a comprehensive strategy for funding transportation and infrastructure that factor in need, planning, long term maintenance, etc.
Hi Tom and Ray,
I think Prresident-elect Barack Obama needs to name Ray to his transition team. This is a fantastic idea! We need to tax the technologies that harm us, and that we want to move away from, and invest that capital in a new system that:
- Makes us energy independent… and
- Does not kill our planet… and
- Gives future generations (and all life in general) a chance to prosper.
Go Ray! You have my vote!
Morris Wills
Oxnard, CA
Kudos for Ray for bringing up an obviously sensitive topic. Of course there should be very tight strings attached to a tax such as this. However, our national deficit spending will continue to occur for the foreseeable future, increasing our massive national debt, and we need to balance this someday. Cutting spending and increasing taxes are the only ways to do this, but most Americans want to do neither. Either China and other nations will gobble up our national debt (giving them economic leverage against us, which these days is equally effective as military leverage), or we can buckle down, stop whining and start saving our way out of this mess. A gas tax is a good start, and it accomplishes the objectives that Ray mentioned (conservatism, energy independence, etc.). Just my two cents…
Oh yeah, and my wife wants to add that, instead of giving Detriot an undeserved flier by just blindly giving them train contracts, it might be a better idea to have competitive contracts for the design and planning but require all manufacturing/production to be done in the USA. This ensures we don’t get crappy product (which Detroit seems to excel in) but increase our country’s manufacturing base.
Oh, please. Does everything that does not reward excess and greed now get classified as “socialism”?
Ray, you’re on the right track. The way to “force” our nation into a sense of energy efficiency is, sadly, to abandon our “cheap energy” policy of the past generations.
But to get there, I propose a modification to your proposal. It begins with smidgen of sympathy for (of all people) our Big Three. Bear with me on this one…
Imagine you’re a new product design executive for one of these moribund organizations. And you’re making some new product design decisions for 2010+. You know how to design what Americans want - muscle cars, Hummers, and ironclads. You also know from recent experience what happens to your gas guzzling product line when gas hits $4.00+ a gallon. So what kind of product line should you start creating for 2010+? Hmmmm.
As far as an executive in the so-called “American Auto Industry” is concerned, wouldn’t you like to quit “betting your farm” on yo-yo-ing gas prices? Wouldn’t it be simply wonderful to know gas in 2010 is gonna be pretty much pegged at $3.00/gallon (or pick any number more than today’s $1.60/gal bargain.
Now how could we peg the retail price of gas? Answer: Ray’s solution. A tax - but a VARIABLE tax. Today (at $1.60/gal) the tax would be an additional $1.40. Tomorrow, with the projected equivalent retail price of $2.00/gal, the tax would be $1.00.
Sure, the oil companies will salivate at this. Why should they sell gas for anything less than $3.00/gal? And that’s where we hit 'em with something they clearly need (perhaps worse than we consumers need dearer gas) - an excess profits tax! Or another way: “important” energy companies are called public utilities - and their rates are set by the same sovereign that gives them the right to do business in their borders. Does anyone see a killer-problem to bringing to “oil” companies the same kind of “control” to their pricing schemes as we routinely bring to, say, your local electric company? (PS At this point, I need to disclose I own some Exxon stock - and would love to sell it before this happens…)
But Ray’s idea and mine is similar - except than mine uses the proposed gas tax to stabilize the price of petroleum-based automotive energy so that we encourage reasonable design decisions by those whose unfortunate job it is to “satisfy the American Consumer.” International auto manufacturers have historically had a higher efficiency-target to hit with their products (because from their Day One, most of their oil has been imported). I think our manufacturers should raise their efficiency standards, too - without the wild and counter-productive price swings we’ve seen of late.
Thanks for the forum. And, oh yes. Thanks for the program, too.
You guys are funny. The sad truth is that only tax cuts actually sunset, tax hikes and ?new? taxes are forever. (I?m pretty certain we?re still paying for the Spanish-American war).
Why do people look to the government for answers when their incompetence is proven time after time after time? When will you guys finally figure out that the only things government does well are things that are in their self interests. Off the top of my head I can think of two things the Feds do well and that would be the military and revenue collection. Medicare? Nope. Emergency response? Katrina anyone? Financial market oversight? Right. Aids research? I?m pretty certain private industry did the heavy lifting on that. Education? Hardly. War on Poverty? Ha.
Please, and I?m serious here, give me some examples of a government program that has actually done what it said it would do? I can?t think of one.
Give 'em hell Ray! You are absolutely correct. We talk about Energy Independence but are not willing to do the short term hard work for long term gain. Taking a fair amount of control of the cost of oil from OPEC is a good idea. They work us like a yo-yo. The price will go up anyway, let’s put it to some constructive uses.
I?m serious here, give me some examples of a government program that has actually done what it said it would do?
OK, Interstate Highway System. or the Weather Bureau. or the Library of Congress. There are more.
And if you’ll settle for a standard in which incredible jobs inarguably got done - but with less-than-perfect finish on each-and-every “issue”, the list would be quite long. I’d start that one with the US Military (to which I have never belonged and have often criticized - but it’s usually done what it’s supposed to do [albeit at a hell of a cost]).
The incompetence of the government is a recurring theme around the world (I know. I’ve been around it a few times). However, I’ve found a pathological hatred of the taxes that support a government is pretty unique to this land. So, paradoxically, is the remarkable “honesty” on this same subject our citizenship displays (on the average) every April 15. We’re an odd land.
It’s wonderful to be free enough to rant about the US - so let’s go through the usual ritual of ventilating our rage at our current management’s incompetence (and throw a few shoes, just to make the point), and then get on with doing what ultimately we do best - finding and pursuing a practical solution.
Raising the price of gas has reduced consumption in the rest of the world. Why wouldn’t it work here?
Thank You. This Country Is Becoming More Socialistic By The day!
It sounds like you are not a big fan of capitalism, the very economic system this country has used to make this the greatest country on earth.
A flat tax is regressive and punishes those with less money.
It does not “punish” People with less money are more sensitive to any price change, but a price change does not mean punishment.
Providing a base level of fuel would in effect eliminate any economic incentive to reduce consumption. In reality it would only result in a black market.
You Say " Cutting spending and increasing taxes are the only ways to do this, but most Americans want to do neither."
“Cutting spending and increasing taxes are the only ways to do this, …” This is your idea not that of most Americans. BINGO! There is your problem. You even go on to say, " … but most Americans want to do neither.
So, by your own admission, you are proposing that we do take part in something unAmerican.
This is the smartest idea I have heard in a long time. I loved the twist about having GM build trains. I just posted a note on change.gov to the incoming Obama administration to listen to the show, and give the idea some serious consideration.
Your idea is fantastic. Please send a memo to Obama.
You are on the right track…but better to address to root cause and here’s why. to get both mass transit, conservation, alternative energy solutions you need higher OIL prices, not GAS prices. Addressing the root cause gets the US the ability to truly be sustainable in 20 yrs by insuring we have stable oil prices to continue the new drilling technologies and keeps gas high enough to foster alt energy solutions and the tariff on oil will generate all kinds of $ for mass transit…which we should use to give out free month passes on a rotating baiss to get peopole used ot the idea. It works…so does car sharing - see Avego.com