<p>If done correctly, raising the tax on gasoline might in fact lower the overall price at the pump. Right now, part of the higher costs comes from the lack of flexibility in the market and the bottlenecks in refining. If the higher taxes are helping people purchasing vehicles that reduce our demand, the changes in the demand and supply might result in a lower cost for the product itself. </p>
<p>Unless some changes are made in our consumption patterns, we will continue to pay more. How long ago was it that people would have cringed at the thought and sight of a $2.00 per gallon? Soon you’ll see $4.00 … and that is a bargain for the $7.50 to $8.00 paid by Europeans. </p>
That’s certainly not the case in Europe where their tax is more than the cost of the fuel itself and overall is more than double what we pay. </p>
<p>
You must have loved the days of the nationwide 55mph speed limit. I lived in Arizona at the time and it was downright painful trying to drive 55mph on the freeway between Phoenix and Tucson or Yuma. Whatever speed you pick, there’ll always be a lower speed at which fuel consumption is lower. </p>
<p>
I understand your perspective but the latest CAFE proposals, or worse, those mentioned by some posters here wanting ridiculously higher numbers, WILL result in a higher cost for every automobile. Even the Japanese are charging more for the technology because in fact, it costs them significantly more. There’s a bit of a difference between adding a hundred dollars worth of seat belts or a few hundred dollars for air bags versus many thousands of dollars for the technology needed today to improve the CAFE number to a significantly higher value.</p>
<p>It sounds like a lot of posters on this thread are perfectly happy spending many thousands of extra dollars for their vehicle purchase or operating costs for dubious gains. I’m not one of them.</p>
<p>By the way, did you know that the energy bill also calls for the incandescent bulb to be gone by 2012? I believe Australia and the EU have them phased out earlier than that.</p>
<p>Don’t you believe in the technological prowess of your fellow human beings? We’re talking 13 years, aren’t we?</p>
<p>Chevy is going to have a battery run car 10 years before that for less than $30,000. Toyota is going to have a plug-in hybrid for less than $30,000. </p>
Yes I do and almost included a statement to that effect but didn’t for brevity. It’s also why I included the word ‘today’ in my statement. It’s also why I don’t see a need to for panic based proposals.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that technology has the potential to solve our current issues. But part of technological advancements include not just the base technology but also the economic practicality of that technology. Trying to jump ahead of the curve generally has a real cost whether it’s in using battery technology for vehicles or the latest cutting edge for microprocessors or solar cells. At some point the cost comes down to a reasonable and practical level which I think will happen for a number of technologies. I don’t know if some of it’ll be in 13 years or 5 or 18 but when it does they’ll have a marketplace. Some people already think hybrids are a good deal and that’s helping to accelerate the technology. Great strides are being made in 100% electric vehicles but we’re still somewhat ahead of the curve today for most people’s use.</p>
<p>I’m actually quite optimistic, more so than many of the posters on this thread, which is why I’m in less of a panic mode. I’m also taking a realistic and practical view. Maybe it’s the engineer in me.</p>
<p>
This isn’t true if taken to the extreme since there’s the law of physics to deal with in wind resistance. If there was a mandated 30mph top speed then vehicles would be geared to be optimized for that range. Most of us wouldn’t be happy with that.</p>
<p>UUDad, you lopped off the first part of my sentence. I wrote “If done correctly, raising the tax on gasoline might in fact lower the overall price at the pump.” and that is quite different from the sentence without the qualifier. </p>
<p>In my earlier posts in this thread, I mentioned the taxation in Europe as an example of not doing … right. Europe has grown addicted to their fuel taxes because it pays for social services. The United States does have the opportunity to do things differently, at least before it isn’t too late. Our opportunity is to apply a mild level of taxes and use the proceeds to offer market inducements for the adoption of new technologies. </p>
<p>There is a great difference between what we pay in the US, and the 7.50/8.00 in Europe. Federal taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon. Rounding that up to a quarter could generate billions.</p>
<p>I guess I have little faith that it would be done ‘correctly’. Tax money in the hands of politicians usually results in more spending and more lobbying for more taxes for even more spending. I really doubt the theory that raising taxes on fuel would result in lower direct costs per gallon although the opposite is true. I was in Venezuela about 20 years ago and was surprised to see gas at the pump for about 25 cents per gallon - something I hadn’t seen since HS days. Apparently they not only didn’t have taxes on the gas but actually subsidized it for the gas buyers.</p>
<p>UUDad, I think you and I, at least, agree more than you might think. I’m a recovering car nut (if you couldn’t tell), who thinks that driving is more than just a chore (except for the 520 going past Microsoft – those people are insane).</p>
<p>The WashDad tax plan incorporates several components.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Repeal the CAFE laws completely. Tomorrow.</p></li>
<li><p>Recognizing the need to provide incentives for consumers to choose more economical fuel alternatives, there will be increasing gas taxes, starting with a 20 cent per gallon increase the day after the CAFE laws are repealed. </p></li>
<li><p>Every year for 10 years, on January 1, motor fuel taxes will be raised by 20 cents. Based on today’s prices, the target price for gasoline will be about $5.00.</p></li>
<li><p>Fuel taxes will be indexed for inflation, at the same rate as Social Security.</p></li>
<li><p>There will be an income tax credit of, say, $400 per licensed driver in a household. This will cover the “poor people get hammered” argument.</p></li>
<li><p>Cars that can accelerate to 60MPH in less than 6.5 seconds, or corner at more than .9G, or can stop from 60MPH in less than 120 feet, and still get at least 20MPG are exempt. This is the “car nut” exemption. (joke…)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t think things have to be grim for folks like us, UUDad. Wouldn’t it be kind of cool to drive something like an MX5 with a power-retractable hardtop powered by a 1.5-liter turbocharged direct-injection diesel? Or think of the torque in an electric-powered Cayman with four electric hub motors, and a Stirling-cycle recharging engine?</p>
<p>The worst thing about the CAFE law (besides its cynical stupidity) is that it eliminates choice for consumers in a crude, heavy-handed manner. I would like to see us stop sending our wealth to the Arabs, but I don’t see what’s so bad about making vehicles available to people who aren’t futurenyustudent, who have a need to carry five people at a time, or who want to go camping with their families. They will pay more for gas, but that’s a choice they make, and if $2 per gallon of that price is going to develop non-petroleum fuels, they are contributing even more to the ultimate solution than people who buy tiny 1,200 pound 2-passenger cars powered by 3-cylinder diesels.</p>
<p>Given the trend in fuel prices, the interest in providing lower-fuel cost alternatives, and my faith in the capitalist system, I don’t think we need additional taxes to push innovation along. I think the zeal to capture the auto-buying public’s dollar will drive innovation that will provide us with those alternatives. It’s already happened with hybrids, which are bound to improve, and is on the brink for electric vehicles and other alternatives are getting closer.</p>
<p>btw - I rented and put a lot of miles on an Audi A5 diesel in Europe this past summer. I didn’t check the actual mileage but it sure seemed like I drove a lot of miles between refills. It had a lot of pep too and no black smoke as well. We’re about to see a lot of the new generation of diesels over here that’ll give current hybrids a cost-effective run for their money but this is the good kind of competition.</p>
<p>FYI - John McCain doesn’t support Ethanol subsides.</p>
<p>BUT he gives credence to the Global Warming argument. I like his logic: (to paraphrase) “If Global Warming is a fact and we work to counteract it, then we’ve done something good; and if it isn’t a fact, we’ve still done something good & left a better planet for future generations”. </p>
Yes, it is easy to argue with that logic. It stems from the assumption that to reduce emissions that there would be no downsides. This is common for any politician - portray only the good side of a proposal and ignore the downsides … hardly consistent with what he likes to portray as “straight talk”. </p>
<p>In this case he ignores what some project to be HUGE economic costs to reduce the emissions. He also ignores the fact that unless China and India also sign on to these initiatives (fat chance), to paraphrase another former presidential aspirant, “the sucking sound that you hear will be that of more American jobs being outsourced to Asia”.</p>
<p>Friends of mine who study China and visit constantly say that the air is so bad in China, there was a period of 200 days in which the sun didn’t shine in many major cities.</p>
<p>We will not outsource more jobs if we get energy independence. We will be innovative, and ahead of those countries, who will be trying to follow our lead. We have always been at the forefront of innovation. Now, due to greed of our politicians and corporate leaders, we are going to be behind most of the world.</p>
<p>Really sad, what has happened to our country in the last 10 years.</p>
<p>“Really sad, what has happened to our country in the last 10 years.”</p>
<p>Only in the past 10 years? Only because of the greed of politicians and corporate leaders? </p>
<p>Aren’t politicians responding to the pressure of whomever elects them and jelps them get elected? Aren’t corportae leaders responding to their boards, their investors, and the journalists who expect quarterly results? </p>
<p>Ultimately, WE are are all responsible, and one of our responsibility is stop looking at the United States as a paradise for our consumption excessess. WE want evrything and want it cheap, so we can buy a lot of it. WE look at the cars the rest of the world drives with disdain. WE laugh at what Europeans pay at the pump. WE want our big cars and want to drive them without much thought about pollution. All it matters to US is to get the gas cheap at Costco. If Chavez would sell gasoline through 7-11 at $1.50, we would create lines all the way to Caracas, even if it supported a political threat to our country. If we could find a cheaper but highly pollutant fuel, we’d endorse it without hesitation. </p>
<p>It all starts with US. We are the greatest country on earth in separating what we DO from what we should do. We can talk about it but would not do anything that hampers our life style. Of course, the path to our hypocrisy is well paved by our “heroes”. You know, the Nobel prize winner who converts his house ONLY after being exposed for his energy gluttony. </p>
<p>Sadly enough WE will continue to spend too much, consume too much, and ignore the long term consequences all the way to the day of reckoning. And not a day before!</p>