Joss Whedon (would probably) oppose(s) a Gas Guzzler's Tax
The Green Eyed Monster
i blame hip hopRegistered User regular
i blame hip hopRegistered User regular
So I'm having a bad day anyway, when I decide to read USA Today (I know -- what was I thinking). In their article about the resiliency of RV'ing in the face of rising gas prices, I come across this:
I know they already pay ridiculous fees at the pump (the article makes mention of one couple filling up for $800), but that's not good enough for me. These people are using an inordinate amount of fuel for just two people and forcing all American consumers to pay more at the pump as a result of it. I don't care if they have the means to pay for it, it's ridiculous that they burn gas like that.
Is it getting to the point where we talk about fossil fuel conservation? I definitely think it is.
And that's where a gas guzzler's tax comes in. There are plenty of lifestyles one can lead, still wrapped in all kinds of opulence and luxury, which don't also require burning through the amount of fuel that some households might use over the course of a few years. These people are overusing a scarce resource and they should be required to pay. On the water pump, no one questions hiking fees for overusage, why should the fuel pump be any different?
Not to say that I advocate taxing at the pump, as the regulatory body would probably never be able to pay for itself. Instead I propose a tax levied at the time of new vehicle purchase and vehicle registration to create a disincentive for overusing fuel.
And obviously I'm not just talking about RVs. I want SUVs which had more time spent on engineering chassis length than fuel economy. I want sports and luxury cars that only think about providing horsepower no driver realistically ever needs on the road. I want registration taxes on every vehicle made more than 25 years ago, not just for the fuel economy but for the emissions as well.
Americans will be free to own whatever vehicles they like, but people who aren't disproportionately burning through the world's fuel supply won't pay the same annual price for their gas. Alternative fuels nothing -- we need some conservation and disincentives for wasting resources now.
USA Today wrote:They're people like Ken and Monna Bram of Chester, NY, who are ensconced inside their 45-foot Newmar Essex motor home over in Lot 5, Row 112, Space 30. She hates hotels (the germs). He hates airports (the hassles). They both love road tripping. So the 6.5 milers per gallon they get when towing their 6,500-pound Hummer on the open road isn't an issue.
I know they already pay ridiculous fees at the pump (the article makes mention of one couple filling up for $800), but that's not good enough for me. These people are using an inordinate amount of fuel for just two people and forcing all American consumers to pay more at the pump as a result of it. I don't care if they have the means to pay for it, it's ridiculous that they burn gas like that.
Is it getting to the point where we talk about fossil fuel conservation? I definitely think it is.
And that's where a gas guzzler's tax comes in. There are plenty of lifestyles one can lead, still wrapped in all kinds of opulence and luxury, which don't also require burning through the amount of fuel that some households might use over the course of a few years. These people are overusing a scarce resource and they should be required to pay. On the water pump, no one questions hiking fees for overusage, why should the fuel pump be any different?
Not to say that I advocate taxing at the pump, as the regulatory body would probably never be able to pay for itself. Instead I propose a tax levied at the time of new vehicle purchase and vehicle registration to create a disincentive for overusing fuel.
And obviously I'm not just talking about RVs. I want SUVs which had more time spent on engineering chassis length than fuel economy. I want sports and luxury cars that only think about providing horsepower no driver realistically ever needs on the road. I want registration taxes on every vehicle made more than 25 years ago, not just for the fuel economy but for the emissions as well.
Americans will be free to own whatever vehicles they like, but people who aren't disproportionately burning through the world's fuel supply won't pay the same annual price for their gas. Alternative fuels nothing -- we need some conservation and disincentives for wasting resources now.
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Posts
Restructuring regulations is different than simply taxing cars which overconsume gas. I don't care what gas mileage new Hummers get, as long as they face a pretty stiff tax at the point of sale which deters a consumer from buying it in the first place. For the gas hogs who are just desperate to drive a knock-off of the car that Arnold drove, they still can, they just have to pay for it. For consumers making responsible decisions, they receive the benefit of seeing other tax burdens reduced by the influx of cash going into the system by people who make poor choices. As much as it is rationing, it should also be a "sin tax" along the lines of alcohol and tobacco. Overconsumption of gas harms all consumers.
Not all cars are created equal. Some are more civic minded than others. While I won't deny a person their right to drive something like a ridiculous opulent mobile home with a Hummer being towed behind it, I will make them pay dearly for it, because quite frankly they are having a much more negative effect on the overall health of our economy and long-term health of our public infrastructure than I am riding my bike to work every day.
13.0 - 13.9 - $1,000
14.0 - 14.9 - $2,000
15.0 - 15.9 - $3,000
16.0 or more - $4,000
(in liters per 100km)
EDIT: US comparison . . .
$1,000 - ~18.1 miles per gallon
$2,000 - ~16.8 miles per gallon
$3,000 - ~15.7 miles per gallon
$4,000 - ~14.7 miles per gallon (or lower)
(Google's conversion tool is awesome, I had no idea I could just put in "16 liters per 100km in miles per gallon" and get the answer)
As to why we don't have a system to punish overconsumers, it's because $wildlife < $Exxon as far as lawmakers are concerned.
All this, you've done nothing to show any support for. I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but it seems whenever there is a discussion about oil, the idea that theres not enough (relatively speaking) doesn't often come up. I think we need to start thinking more in terms of a fair system other than "gosh I want to punish these a-holes in their super inefficient off-road vehicle!"
I agree re:contracters, but do we want to be subsidizing reproduction at this point?
Than is necessary for what? What is the baseline to be judged against? Also, it depends on what that fuel is. Electric fuel derived by photovoltaics or geothermal energy can be wasted as easily as the day is long and with no ill effect as the sun will, effectively, always shine and the earth's core will, effectively, always be warm. (Cost benefit comparisons between using a BIPV array that could make your home carbon neutral in order to power a snow machine in July aside.) Burning baby seal oil for a lamp instead of using a CFL or LED bulb is more ecologically damaging even though it is conserving the amount of petrol/coal being consumed at a power plant.
Not to argue against conservation, but ecological concerns are issues that you need to view holistically.
Some will always be necessary/unavoidable, but if we can accomplish, say, 40 miles per gallon, you better have a very good reason for opting for something that gets only 14 miles per gallon. Even if the supply of oil were endless (as sunlight and geothermal energy are) the pollution is enough to curtail its use.
When 50% of cars sold qualify for special exemptions then you know you're doing something wrong.
This.
Did the recent bill passed requiring manufacturers to raise the fuel efficiency of new vehicles exempt SUV's? Because I remember that being something that really bothered me that they were exluded from normal fuel efficiency standards.
I sure hope they got ride of that loophole.
But, again, it depends on how you approach the standard. Expecting everyone to get to work on a moped is, admittedly, silly but less extremes get pretty damn fuzzy. Is a V6 justifiable given the higher efficiencies of a 4 banger with a lighter chasis? Is steel even an acceptable material given the superiority of aluminium? Which is why things always get bogged down. Especially when you're ascribing a negative cost to something, as noone wants to pay out because they just missed the cutoff.
Personally I'm more in favour of carrots than sticks. Making gas or electric rates have a visceral feeling, but the penalty gets rationalized all to easily. Meanwhile, getting a check in the mail because you turned off your lights earlier makes you wonder how best to increase next month's potential. It just sucks that the cost in stamps and paper would negatively effect that awesome feeling which a discount on your bill just cannot recreate.
I think a flat tax on gas makes the most sense. I mean, what is the point of an increased tax other than punishment to the owner of the car? A government shouldn't increase taxes for the fuck of it, they should do it only when the extra money is needed. "Enforcing conservation" by taxing is kind of retarded, because it won't work. The people that fill up those vehicles will continue to fill up those vehicles.
XBL: QuazarX
Exactly. These people are driving luxury vehicles. While they aren't all celebrities and multimillionaires, the idea of gas going up twenty cents to a buck for themselves probably is going to put them off using their toys.
And still, I dont buy the claim that its this segment of society that is so rampant in their consumption of fuel, that they are producing a noticeable effect on the environment. The "idea" works - use more than is neccessary, pump more into the environment than it has corrected for - but a lot of ideas work in theory.
Sin taxes are nothing new.
Of course, that could be part of the argument for it. The only people paying the tax would be people who can already afford it easily, so why not make them pay it so the government gets a little more cash?
Now, the rich don't care. Either they can buy a new, more efficient car, or they can pay for the gas and not give a shit. The poor can't afford a new car, and have to devote more money to gas. Any economics class will teach you that people face trade-offs, and when a person living paycheck to paycheck has to pay more for their gas, suddenly they can't pay for other things.
What I'm trying to say is, think carefully before you propose more taxes on anything. You may think yourself a righteous person, campaigning for the environment or whatever, but you'd end up hurting people who are doing nothing more than trying to survive.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
I only drive to work and back with it (Which is a two way trip of 8.7 miles total) everyday just due to high gas prices and the fact that I don't want to eat all the oil in the world.
Why do I drive an SUV?
My parents sold it to me for cheap, due to my father buying a new car and I'm barely making enough to get by day to day, so it was the only thing available to me.
If you told me I had to pay more money due to the fact it was a V6, while not taking in consideration of the amount of gas I actually use (Honestly, 15$ gets me through a full week), I would be pretty pissed off.
And alot poorer.
On the other hand, food transport is one of the hugest wastes of fossil fuels in the US because, at the moment, gasoline is cheap while land near population centers is not.
There should be incentive for people to start smaller, local farms or a way that those farms can compete against the large-scale corporate farms hundreds of miles away. Ultimately we're not going to be able to solve either the peak oil or the greenhouse effect problems without growing more of our food closer to where people actually live.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So yes -- if you wanted to continue enjoying the luxury of driving an inefficient car to work every day, you would have to pay for it.
Other solutions include public transit and carpooling. Do you work alone? Is there absolutely no other feasible way to get to work? In that distance, you could even walk it in 45 minutes, which would be a short commute for many Americans.
To be frank, you're exactly the type of fuel consumer I would hope any gas guzzler tax would target.
Make it an additional tax on the sale of a new vehicle.
Add it to vehicle registration fees, which scale based on the age of the vehicle.
Exempt vehicles over five years old.
Exempt people under a certain income.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
i guess we could try and shrink the market even more.
but if we do, i'd probably be more worried about our economy than the environment.
And I disagree with older vehicle exemptions. If it's inefficient, find another solution. They're out there, American culture just teaches us to not even look for them when they're available.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed the larger economic news, but every sector in America is feeling a pinch right now, and no small part of that is the fuel charges that can't be avoided no matter what business you're in. By reducing waste and overconsumption among the general public, it would help business in general, which genuinely needs it, and give relief to consumers no matter what goods they're purchasing.
Alright, do away with the exemptions. Now, what are you going to do with all the vehicles currently out there? Where are you going to put all that metal? What are you going to do with all the damn batteries? The fluids in the engines? And how are the people who need their vehicles to survive going to... er... survive?
For many of us, there is no other solution. I drive 15 miles each way to work, and 5 miles each way to school, and because I live in rural Vermont, I have little choice. There is no public transportation. There really is no carpooling.
And what would you require people to drive to avoid those taxes? Hybrids and electric cars have their own problems, and while I'm a huge fan of hydrogen, there's simply no infrastructure available yet. Edit: and don't get me started on the complete uselessness of biofuels...
So really. Tell us. What is your solution?
You can't just say "find another solution hur hur hur." You have to give examples of the solution, aside from "bike to work."
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
I'm not talking about outlawing or banning gas guzzlers or anything like that, I'm simply talking about levying a tax against the people who overconsume gas. It would have to a be progressive tax based on the year of the car, and it wouldn't be designed to make it entirely unfeasible to drive things like SUVs or minivans or trucks or whatever for those people who truly have a need for it. Instead, it will act as a disincentive to those people who don't need those vehicles to find a more practical solution that more suitably fits their needs.
It should be designed to function like a rationing program, not a punitive program. I legitimately think, if not today, then sometime well within our lifetimes, we will have absolutely no choice but to begin rather stern rations on fossil fuels. Knowing this now, why not begin making changes? Ounce of prevention, etc.
My wife and I are in need of a new car but we can't afford the $200/month (ish) payments for a new economical car at the moment. This is ignoring the insurance going up for a new car.
So we're stuck driving an old beater that could have much better mileage. The rebates we have in Canada are nice but it could be more to allow lower income families/people to get these new vehicles.
tldr: make efficient cars cheaper through rebates and govt incentives. Don't just tax the shit out of SUV owners. Carrot > stick.
And how do you determine need? Say a family of 5 buys a minivan, or a wagon - is that considered "need?" What about when the kids in the family move on to college? Do the parents suddenly get nailed with a tax on the van they bought years earlier?
If I know that over the next several years I will be doing a lot of work on my house, does the government have the right to say I don't have a "need" for a pickup truck?
I don't believe the rationing of fossil fuels will come, simply because I think people are looking too much at the situation now, and trying to move to the next generation of power sources. At the least, we'll move away from oil, and towards hydrogen in the next 10-20ish years, which will solve the "gas guzzler" problem itself. I am going to assume we'll finally move away from coal and into nuclear for electrical power, as well (though the supply of coal available to us is pretty huge, and won't run out soon - more the change for environmental reasons).
All that said, you still haven't mentioned anything for the people who already own these vehicles, aside from "buy a new car." That's not an acceptable answer for those of us who can't afford a new car. ;-)
For the record: I own a 2002 Ford Taurus (around 25-28mpg), and a 2007 Ford Focus (around 37ish mpg). Your tax wouldn't effect me in the slightest, but would effect several of my friends and co-workers, as well as many people in the small town I live in.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
This sounds like a terribly regressive tax, and one that starts with good intentions but goes astray.