Ray,
Let’s have that .50 cent gas tax not only to make our roads safer ( I live in Louisiana and most of our roads are crap) and to create cleaner and fuels for our cars.
Ray, all your reasons are valid! Based on logic, it’s hard (or impossible) to disagree with your 50-cent gasoline tax proposal. For me, however, there is only one problem… I’m a senior citizen with a more-or-less fixed income, and every 10-cent increase in the price of petrol hurts me. I feel that gasoline at $4.00 a gallon, or $4.50 with your tax, as it will be again this coming summer, hurts me a lot. I actually went back to work last summer, to try to help make ends meet. Transporation costs were at least a 20% penalty on the little wages I made, and I lived for the entire week on the job, going home (160-mile round trip) only once weekly. Transportation is so important, and so costly… the whole thing is confounding. But, yes, go ahead with your 50-cent tax, and we’ll “… get on our knees and pray, it WILL be more like yesterday…”
We already have a gas tax. The federal part is 18 cents, and it varies state by state but averages out to 28 cents/gallon. By comparison, England and Germany have a tax over $3/gallon, Holland is $3.60/gallon. In those countries, people use small fuel efficient cars, and the trains run well and on-time. If they can do it, we can do it.
The gas tax is a good idea, but just a start. Talk to David Blume, author of “Alcohol Can Be A Gas.” This was the original model for cars, and now Brazil, the 5th largest country, uses alcohol for cars, importing NO OIL!! Host a panel discussion with him, Thom Friedman, maybe Michael Pollan, and others for a holistic approach to sustainable energy and reviving our economy from the ground up.
Thanks! Keep up the good work.
You are absolutely correct about the need for a gas tax to modify our behavior. I see that Tom Friedman stole your idea in today’s New York Times!
Keep pounding on this until perhaps some of our worthless politicians will understand that they sometimes have to sacrifice short term popularity for the long term good. But I’m not holding my breath!
Jeff Hendy
It was the right thing to do when President Ford first proposed it in 1974 and it is still the right thing to do.
During the first energy crisis Brazil, which had litle oil at the time, decided to diversify their energy supply. They started the alcohol from sugarcane program, started serious oil exploration, and the result is that now 40% of their motor fuel is from renewable sugar cane, the rest domestically producxed from on-shore and OFFSHORE fields. Brazil even exports some oil!
On a recent trip there it was impressive to see the choice of fuels, alcohol, several grades of gasoline, diesel, PROPANE, and compressed natural gas. All domestically produced. Fuel prices are kept high enough (THROUGH GAS TAXES) to discourage large, wasteful vehicles.
Friedman is saying nothing new by proposing gas taxes, every SANE government around the world does it. Especially countries that have little or no oil, or countries that are very congested, or those have no car industry. Denmark fits all those categories; they also already generate 22% of thir electricity with wind, going to 35% in the near future.
The main reasons for the US to have a revenue neutral gas tax are:
-
The country is going broke importing oil, indirectly financed by the Chinese and Middle East countries. A gas tax will slow down the imports
-
Global warming and climate change dictate lower levels of gasoline consumption and switching to more public transporation with a switch to more renewable and less carbon-intensive fuels.
-
Every year the world oil production capacity is reduced by 9% without significant new finds. Consumption on the other hand is still increasing due to developing economies such as China and India. Without any cutbacks oil will go to $200/barrel within 5 years. When the prices rise agin, US drivers should be focussing on small cars with electric vehicles such as plug in hybrids readily available. Curent gas prices still encourage sales of large vehicles.
-
The republicans were too dumb to realize that large oil imports from many unstable and unfriendly countries, and indiectly finced by foreingers, would have the country “over a barrel”, no pun intended! A famous line from the song “Sixteen Tons” goes; " Saint Peter don’t you call me for I can’t go’; I owe my soul to the Company Store". American world prestige and clout is severly curtalied by owing its soul to the Chinese and Arabs!! So, driving a large gas guzzler is decidedly UN-AMERICAN, since you are weaking your country.
This needs to happen. Read Tom Friedman’s NYT article for a similar proposal. I particularly like the idea of offsetting an increased gas tax with reduced payroll taxes. That way, we are encouraging people to work hard and use less gasoline at the same time. I also like the idea of a floor on gas prices that can be raised periodically, but disappears if/when crude prices go through the roof again.
Are you supporting Ray’s proposal to be taxed into doing the right thing? If so, I rest my case. Liberals only know how to penalize. They don’t know how to reward.
I heard Ray’s rant and I was cheering for him the whole time. I think it took courage to say all that he said, and I think he is right. Americans are so spoiled in spite of thinking we are taxed too much! We expect the government to do waaay too much with waaay too little. We see the result of this thinking in our schools and the infrastructure. His ideas about the trains are a stroke of BRILLIANCE.
I wish there were some way your small rant could find its way to someone who could actually do something about it! Thanks for speaking out!
I would like to start by saying that I support the idea of a gas tax. I think .50 is too low, though - it should be higher, like $2-3/gal.
That being said, I’m skeptical if it will ever come to pass. The insanely low CAFE standards don’t help, and politicians are too wimpy. Look where listening to the Michigan delegation got us with GM!
There is a subtle secondary effect of a tax. While it might raise money to fund alternative energy projects or mass transit, when have you ever heard of any government project being efficient and going away when its purpose was achieved? This tax would become something like the cigarette taxes - the states have become ‘hooked’ on that money so they can’t really regulate cigarettes out of existance anymore. 
So one of two things would happen - the gas tax would become watered down (but still non-zero) over time, or a corresponding one would take effect on alternative energy.
Indeed it was a rant. Did Ray consider any other ways of achieving the desired objectives? For example, what about a tax on oil imports from members of OPEC to set a floor price for oil, say $60/barrel increasing to $70 in 2011. This would achieve many of the same objectives and the some: a) it would encourage development of alternative energy by giving companies confidence to invest (I am still a believer in private over government enterprise), b) non-OPEC countries would be encouraged to drill and explore for oil (they would get a higher price for their oil), c) domestic production would be encouraged, d) continued support for additional production could help avoid some of the historical boom-bust conditions, e) it would support global free enterprise while reducing the power of the OPEC cartel, f) car companies would be find increased demand for more fuel efficient cars and g) yes, it would give the US government more money to waste!
Have you submitted this great idea to the Obama-Biden Transition Team at change.gov?I think they would be interested. I live in the Detroit area and I think the United States cannot afford to lose this manufacturing base no matter what the southern Republicans say.
I used to think a gas tax was a good idea but it is too limiting. The tax must be on imported energy (oil, gas, alcohol, coal, uranium). Pick a set point for the cost of imported energy and tax the difference between the cost and the set point. This will provide a level and certain playing field for all forms of energy to compete in the domestic market as well as remove much of the volatility of the market from the economy. Consider how well car companies or home builders could plan if both consumers and industry could count on the cost of energy not jumping around on the whims of some authoritarian ruler or a result of some war in a far away land. The tax must be variable but it would be easy to calculate, the tanker comes in to port with oil valued at the market price. Slap the variable tax on it and then off load the oil. On the other hand, domestic energy, be it solar or oil can be profitably sold at any price below the imported price which will encourage domestic alternative energy, efficiency and sustainable economic growth. As recently as 6 months ago we paid nearly $150 per barrel of oil, so some price between $40 and $150 should be acceptable for IMPORTED energy. The only rub - I was told that the USA agreed to never tax imported crude oil, this per a friend in the business.
At first it sounds like a good idea, but if you think it through:
- The tax will be implemented, probably at 50 cents per dollar rather than 50 cents per gallon
- The funds from it will not be used for the purposes originally stated (possible examples: the coming bailout of L.L. Bean; funding the Museum of Used Oil Filters owned by Dewey Cheatham and Howe, etc.) After all, the people to pass this tax are the same ones who so wisely decided to give $700 Billion of OUR money away with no oversight or regulation. You still trust these people?
- As always, those who can least afford it will be hardest hit, as with any general tax (almost any tax, in fact, since business expenses are always passed on to consumers). The ability to save money decreases as expenses rise; would you really do that to people on purpose?
- More important, why can’t we just DECIDE to develop greener technology because it makes sense, rather than being compelled to by some Pavlovian social engineering? Looking ahead a few years shows that developing alternatives to oil is very sensible. If we don’t need to use fossil fuels as much, those that we still use will last longer and be more justifiable, since they would be for tasks that don’t (yet) have a better alternative. Looking ahead a few years (past the next election or fundraiser) is what those in charge don’t seem to be capable of doing.
- All such suggestions, including my number 4 above, assume that thoughtful actions will prevail over stupid or selfish ones. For you and me, or for Click and Clack, maybe. From politicians and those who buy them? It’s not very promising…
P.S. Just heard Ray’s story of his blizzard adventure on Cape Cod. I’m now even more pessimistic about thoughtfulness winning out over stupidity.
I agree entirely. Bill from Alaska
It is always interesting how people who have money like Ray, think a little increase will be ok for everyone. Ray, I would like you to live in the shoes of most people in the United States for the next year. Take the amount of people that live in your household and give yourself 10,000.00 for each person. So if you have three people in the house then you have 30,000.00 to spend for the year on everything (bills, gas, food, gifts, emergency’s, ext). All the rest of the items you need to buy use the credit card. When the year is over see how well you did. Then do it again the next year, and the year after that. We have to many people in the United States who are low income and have lost their house, cars, jobs, and now need assistance from the government. How can these people pay more money for gas when they can’t pay their other bills. It is time people like you who have money should think about the people who do not have money. Why not figure out how to help the poor people in this country instead of how to get more money out of them. The gas price today is still to high for a number of people to pay. As a country we will be paying for the debt this government got us into for along time. I for one do not want to keep paying for others mistakes or greed. Keep the gas prices going down and hopefully the food prices will start going down too.
"This new tax would generate between 50 and 100 billion dollars every year for the treasury. That money could be used to help rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges, and develop new technologies for more fuel-efficient cars… further decreasing demand for oil. This is a way for us to get on the wagon, and stop sending money to countries that don’t like us. We could become energy independent.
“The other thing that the gas tax revenue could fund is high-speed-train infrastructure between major cities. And who would build all of the new high-tech, high-speed trains we’d need? GM and Ford! We’d help them start a mass-transit division, convert some of those factories from building inefficient gas hogs to building high-speed trains.”
What do you think? Is Ray on to a genius idea that will point our country towards a sustainable transportation future? Or does he have his headlight firmly implanted in his tailpipe? Is it even a political possibility?
Says our humble co-host, “I’m sick of people whining about a lousy 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline! I think its time has come, and I call on all non-wussy politicians to stand with me, because our country needs us.”
While Tom and Ray might think there is a lot of negative reaction to their fifty cent tax proposal, I don’t think it goes far enough. I have been advocating for years a far more outrageous plan: whatever the market price a gas station might post, DOUBLE IT! Those funds would go into public transportation. Make commuter bus and rail/subway free with more routes and more frequent schedules. In addition, reduce fares and increase frequency of long distance rail and bus. I could fill a page with benefits and justifications (I spent the late '60s and early '70s working on degrees in Civil Engineering/Transportation Systems–I even worked on electric cars), but I know most people are too emotional about their private cars to really accept the rationale–I’ll be surprised if any readers of this would agree.
I like the gas tax idea. Our national debt currently exceeds $10,500,000,000,000 ($10.5 trillion) and annually we pay about $412 billion just in INTEREST on that debt. Recently, our deficit spending rose to over $400 billion (i.e., annual revenues from taxes are about $2.5 trillion and expenditures are about $2.9 trillion) so our debt will go up by over $400B this year and maybe more in years to come. Imagine if an individual had the equivalent situation: you earn $25K per year but spend $29K, putting the extra $4K on your credit card, which already has $105,000 on it already! That doesn’t make sense, you say? Correctamundo! On this basis alone, there is a good reason for additional taxation.
The choice of a gas tax makes sense as the right place for it since (1) the price of gasoline doesn’t include costs to society of all the negative impacts from the CO2, and (2) because our dependence on foreigners for both oil and money (the debt comes largely from foreigners such as the Chinese) is a very risky national strategy.
The main problem with a gas tax is that it is regressive, hitting the poor more than non-poor because so much of a poor person’s income goes to things like gasoline or heating oil. But there are ways to help mitigate that problem, especially if much of the tax revenue goes to reducing the need for oil products.
Ray, thank you for your rant! Keep it up!