Why make such a car if there's no benefit to? I mean, gas guzzling car sales have gone down since the guzzler tax was implemented. This type of action on th mfr's part didn't happen in Europe until fuel was heavily taxed.

CA has some of the highest gas taxes in the US. 5% of the vehicle sales just so happened to be the Prius (higher than any other state) even though that car made up just 1% of the US sales market.

-----
I would completely agree if it were just as simple as making cars use less... Unfortunately, the majority of new car buyers need to want it first. We're almost to that point given a supply and the weak dollar - it's just kinda late. If you buy your car used - unfortunately, your influence in this regard is much lower :/

That's why I said -- give notice to the mfr's that this tax is coming (even if it's just a revised guzzler tax). Then tax new car sales. It worked in other countries - even the one's apparently bogged down with other huge taxes :p

thank you and well said. obviously my hypothetical taxation will not happen, but it looks like my sarcasm(point) was understood.

it HAS to be evident to ALL that the wealthy wouldn't change their driving habits until gas prices got to be ungodly high. and obviously THAT is relative--meaning there would be different levels of tolerance before desired "compliance" was met.

and along the way,said individuals(those least able to absorb the increase) would be penalized. YES: wrong,wrong,wrong!

clencher,

you could NOT kick my butt if you made it your life's ambition for two reasons:

1) you're OLD!

2) i run with world class speed when i'm skeered!

LOL! A damned fine arguement that is too!

Oh wait a minute, I sold my 400HP 7mpg gettin' 2 seater fun car for family life. Seems to me that my overall consumption actually decreased. :rolleyes:

I think one distinction that should be made with any attempt at taxation adjustment is to decide whether it is a 'sin' tax or 'consumption' tax. I think based upon that, fuel taxation slides in more comfortably as a consumption tax which is generally harmful to lower incomes. Many NEED to drive, vs. sin taxes which tax items that people could arguably do 100% without.

wow! something else we agree on.

was reading some of the archives about commute lengths. the only thing close to my employer is a high crime area, and just further out, very high priced homes $500k and up.

also, left a job 1-2 miles from my house to drive 18 miles(one way) to a job that doubled my income. aside from $ increase, quality of life went WAY up due to less laboring(more driving) and enabled me to quit my part-time job.

i'll continue to hypermile and hope for the best(gas prices) until that full size car w/ I-4 comes out that gets 30mpg city/40 hwy. maybe get 40/50 hypermiling w/ it.

Please just try and be open to doing more. Telco thought he was all that and was close minded to doing anything else that didn't directly benefit him and his, and had a long list of excuses for not caring too.

bowtieguy, if we didn't have cars, the job market would be remarkably different. In time I can see a lot more of the workforce working / adding value to an organization from a room in their home than an office.

New car sales are already taxed, and if you raise the tax much, people tend to keep their older (more polluting) cars longer. NC already has a 3% sales tax on new car sales, a road use tax, a sales tax on fuel purchases, and a county property tax on the vehicles. When is enough, actually enough??

Reminds me of the quote: "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -- Winston Churchill

If people are offered decent, FE vehicles, they will select them. They just need to see that they are not crappy little econo boxes, but good and safe cars.

A recent study (post-Katrina) and found that the elasticity of demand for gasoline is about .1 (meaning prices have to increase 10% to see a 1% decline in demand)...so if we double gas prices, we only cut consumption by 10%...not very encouraging. (https://www.env-econ.net/2006/05/inelastic_short.html)

If someone has a limited budget, they cannot usually just decide to drive less to work...so they must save $ somewhere else in their expenses...and it sometimes winds up being vehicle maintenance...potentially costing more in fuel costs. This is life...and unfortunately, many people do not know how to do their own auto maintenance, or own the necessary tools.

I stand by my feeling that the solution rests with pressuring manufacturers, and giving SIGNIFICANT financial incentives for them to produce, MARKET and sell the FE vehicles. A line from Field of Dreams comes to mind... "build it and they will come..."
;)

It's sad to say, but in order for the majority of us sheep to want to do that, the marketers first have to reshape our thinking.

I'm not talking about a flat sales tax - increasing that will just modify overall vehicle sales. I'm talking about updating an existing law - the gas guzzler tax. Right now, the minimum FE to avoid the tax is 22.5 AND the largest market share vehicles don't even apply.

Short term trends are no indication of long term consumption ;) Especially when someone can say "oh, it was [natural disaster] - it will get better soon."

No, if we are offered decent, FE vehicles, we will select them. But we're a minority and I'm not so sure how many of us bought our cars new (I know I didn't :p).

In any case, such cars are offered, have been offered - but they don't take a big bite of the market share (the Prius, for example, only had 1% last year despite it's awesome sales) :/

Snax made a good point:
"decide whether it is a 'sin' tax or 'consumption' tax."

It's easy to see increased gas taxes as an effort to influence consumer buying (of gas and cars/trucks).

But really you could make a strong case that it's actually a way of having the consumer pay the REAL cost of that fuel.

True that the oil companies, distributors and the stations can get it into your car for the current price posted on the pump. However the real price is much, much higher than what you see.

How about the cost of the U.S. military messing around in the Mideast, to keep oil flowing? Hundreds of billions of $$. How about existing tax breaks to big oil? How about the delayed improvements and maintenance to highways that are going to catch up to us one day?

It's not that different from the 14 year old willing to cut your grass for just $10 using his dad's lawnmower and gas. Dad doesn't mind for now, the kid's real upkeep and support come from elsewhere, so you can get it done for cheap. If someone points out all the other input that enables that kid to cut your grass and decides that the real cost of everything is $25, that changes everything. You might decide to cut it yourself!

Not that I'm a total supporter of massive pump taxes. Some people would suffer. But we're really getting a subsidized deal on fuel in this country, and we whine when there's talk of making us pay the real cost. It probably really does cost something like $6-8 per gallon to keep that fuel coming. So we shouldn't complain if the price rises to match the real cost.

We might not like it, but we'll never make the changes we need if we continue getting our fuel without paying fully for it.

i believe Telco, like myself, IS trying to find a balance between supporting the environment and his family. i must admit, saving gas for self gain, is a strong motivation. and, of course i care about the future of the quality of life on our planet.

unfortunately, fuel efficient buying is not cheap. having said that, smarter purchases are being made in my family as $ allows.

afterall, if i went out and bought a hybrid car,electric lawnmower,eff. fridge, solar panels, etc., and could't pay the mortgage or buy groceries, what's the point? superficially, that sounds selfish, but, is it? at least we're doing something positive.

i do not think GS is worthless tho. and it might suprise you Skewbie, that i am fond of you because it seems you DO care about mother earth and some of her imperfect residents. one great difference between you and i(besides the GW view) is you put a lot of emphysis on the negative enviro impacts, where i focus more on people.

Randall,

you can't go around quoting Churchill or the founding fathers of the U.S.! in our time, these types would be considered war mongers,bigots, and in violaters of civil liberties.

thank God for the ACLJ(American center for law and justice), who battles the ACLU.

In a nationwide survey this Summer, the average price that gasoline would have to reach in order for people to consider changing their primary mode of transportation was $5.45 per gallon.

So at $5.45 per gallon, over 50% of people surveyed would THINK about changing. I think the actual price of gas for that to happen would be significantly higher, especially if there is a gradual increase to that amount. If there is a gradual change, people will gradually increase their "breaking-point" price. I think we in the conservation-minded community tend to underestimate the attachment that people have to their suburban, single-occupant-vehicle-oriented lifestyle.

-Andrew

small cars will never be popular unless 1 thing happens, the price of gas skyrockets.

other than that, you can do anything you want to small cars and people still wont buy them. look at the really popular cool small cars. forget about metros and such. look at the mini cooper, vw beetle etc. not too many of these are sold. why? americans_just_dont_like_small_cars. you cant get around that fact. small cars are viewed as cheap and made for people who cant afford bigger. in america you are jusged by the size of the car you drive. its easier to pick up chicks in a big cadillac than a metro.

you can never make small cars popular in america unless gas price goes up. it doesnt matter how cool you make the car, or what neat options it has, or how good of economy it gets. people just dont like the fact that its small.

I have to chime in again...Capital Letters Added
 

I have to say something again...

A few years ago, "What would it take for you to drive a small, fuel efficient car?"

SUV Owners: "Oh, $3-4/gallon, definitely".

Where are we? Yeah, it's roughly above the 3-buck figure again. I don't see a lot of change. America forgets.

Furthermore, Americans are getting physically bigger, bigger is considered an "upgrade" in vehicles, and it's going to take a few things to change that.

Time.

People will choose to afford (or rack up debt) to support this FREEDOM -- to choose to guzzle gas to sit high and broad above the lowly compacts or hatchbacks is essential for self-esteem in this gotta-have need-to-BE market. A paradigm shift in younger generations is ESSENTIAL. Grassroots support of small cars, one at a time, to make it "cool" beyond one's 20's to drive efficiently needs to happen NOW -- shorten that span.

Responsibility.

When America owes up to the fact that we're using more energy per capita than anyone, and it impacts our health MORE or wrecks the environment MORE or the economy or our job-security MORE, then maybe -- just maybe we'll fess up.

Discussion/Education.

What we're doing here. GS is a good example.

/soapbox

RH77

this just affirms my point about prices having to go WAY while along the way pre-$5.45 prices WOULD cripple lower income earners. and yes, the REAL change in the majority might require much higher prices, further hurting the poor.

thank you, good one.

excellent point! also, we MUST be given(manufacture) better FE choices in mid to full size cars. it can be done, but WE must prove they will sell.

My automotive requirements are pretty strait forward:
1.The ability to transport 2 adults/2 children in relative comfort(ie:w/o having your knees up by your chin).
2.The ability to transport at least 40 cubic ft of cargo along with the above passengers.
3.Normally aspirated, SOHC 4cyl. engine w/automatic transmission - 2wd

Put it all together and you'll come up with the 2 vehicles in my garage.

Additionally, if we (as a race) don't regulate ourselves - nature will take the liberty of doing it for us.

------
I watched the movie Soylent Green for the second time a few days ago.... Yep, we overpopulated eventually leading to the death of the oceans... And that is why It's made of people!!. Hey, 2022 isn't that far away :p

lol boo automatic!:D 4 banger+auto tranny=boring as hell!

Well...you could already say that the US taxpayer is ALREADY paying for it since the EPA, Pentagon, and other government spending is paid for by the taxpayers, ultimately. Also, can you absolutely promise that the extra costs that would be imposed at the pump are distributed without loss to the points of the cost being incurred?

By that logic, all consumers should pay the full cost for all products consumed. How much does a gallon of milk really cost? How much does the clean air that you breathe cost? Should we have an air tax that is assigned based upon lung capacity and amount of physical exertion??

How are costs assigned, and who pays if the consumer doesn't? If the cost isn't paid, then there is a debt, true??

I agree, the oil companies do not need or deserve tax breaks...but other than that, what true costs are you talking about, how do you quantify them, and who pays if the consumer/taxpayer doesn't already?

That is an increase in the long term trend of gas consumption being relatively inelastic.;)

Perhaps...but more likely to be driven safely by my wife! (remembering her in a manual...):eek: :rolleyes: :p

I guess my main complaint is that simply tacking a huge tax onto a gallon of gasoline will not solve anything. The money will not be spent to correct any of the problems that are caused by gasoline consumption, rather, in the true nature of Washington, will be spent on things totally unrelated. This leaves the people that are least able to absorb the increase in gas prices in a quandry.

Simply put, you cannot tax yourself outta the problems you are in...taxes are legalized theft...robin hood in reverse. All the "pointy head, liberal professor type" arguements aside...increasing taxes has never helped anyone but the people spending the tax money.

Link us up to that study :thumbup: That's the kind of stuff I read in my free time :p

That's actually a pretty good question (and very hard to answer)... I did a quick google search and ended up with a rather old (2000) report: https://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications...M_2000_152.pdf - it really doesn't take a direct measurement of conflict costs (at least it doesn't appear that way).

Key points:
Cost of oil dependency is ~7 trillion over the past 30 years ( in 1998 $'s)
Transfer of wealth to oil producing countries: 1.1 trillion (1998 $s)
Each 1 billion of trade deficit according to the DOE equates to a job loss = 27,000.

No, but you can sure prevent problems from occurring :thumbup: EU is a perfect case study, as is the decline in revenue collected from our guzzler tax in the states.

I don't know about you, but I rather like having paved roads - roads fall apart quickly when not maintained. Even some of the crappiest roads I rode on this summer are better than what can be said in non "1st world" countries :thumbdown:

As the proverb or what have you goes, The courtyard common to all is swept by no one.

It's just my .02 dollars - I take the POV that we need to self regulate before nature takes drastic measures. As of now, supply trends tell us nature isn't happy. It's almost to the point where "think of your children's children" et. al. is a moot point and should be replaced with "think of 50 years from now" :/

Forgot to mention (in my already long post).... these sort of changes don't happen instantly - just as we can't expect people to change their habits instantly. Just as auto mfr's need time to optimize - people need the same :)

Original quote had a link to the study...

The problem with taking money blindly is that the people taking it tend to spend it on things that do NOT help the general good. I am not willing to giveup more money right now, in the hopes that some future politicians will spend it for the better good then, as opposed to simply looking for more taxes in the future...and history shows this to be a proven constant.

As far as maintaining the roads we have, once you find a good way to keep the politicos feet to the fire and spend the money they already have, for the items they should already spend the money on, then I might start to believe that they will do good with more money. Scarcity of resources works VERY well in politics...give them less and they find a way to do more...give them more, and they find a way to do less. :)

I am not sure how the EU is a good comparison to the US, but the conclusion of the report doesn't advocate increased taxes, but rather, finding lower cost alternatives to dependance on OPEC supplied fuels...which I do support. I think if we found a way to divert a significant % of the amount being spent in Iraq to a direct subsidy to better battery technology for EV's, we would be lightyears ahead...let's not look for biofuel solutions, but better EV tech. We have the motors, the controllers, but the batteries are the continual weak link.

???
That link gave what was necessary for long term change, but was talking about short term effects (even in the url :p)
Sure, there are scandals and grievances - but I would hardly call these a constant in how funds are spent. That is, the municipal services where I live are doing more good than bad... I mean, the police or fire department will show up when called - because such services exist and are funded :p

Perhaps.... I mean, we could do what Walmart does with their suppliers. Cut throat competition... We can have the construction workers tighten their belts because we want to pay them less for a service most of us use every day...

Not a comparison to the US, a comparison to a method to find said alternatives. Make it an economically viable solution. The US average FE is something around ~24mpg -- down to 17mpg or 18mpg when you include SUV's and light trucks that pass through the ag. equipment loophole. The UK's average FE is ~38mpg.

In any case, that very same report in fact did mention taxes as a way to get this accomplished
What they're arguing is what is taught in econ 101 basics. If we were to completely remove the gas tax, the demand curve will shift up - increasing consumption and thus increases the market value. Increase, the demand curve shifts down - this decreases consumption and market value decreases. The same thing happens when you tweak the cost per unit supply curves (such as the 70's gas crunch - note the number of econo-boxes that came out of that era :p).

I don't love the earth for earths sake. She's just a glorified rock.

Really, I don't mean to be harsh, but I see the difference as I am going forward with my eyes wide open, still afraid of the reality of our situation but not willing to lay down and pretend it isn't there. And I don't distinguish between Americans and non-americans so much.

bowtieguy has me thinking about this one very important point:

The federal government of the US was 100% supported by tarrifs for a very long time. Only after tarrifs were removed did the government even need to tax it's citizens at all.

Actually, what is taught in econ 101 and higher courses is that for a given market item, if the demand is elastic, that increases in prices tend to cause a decrease in demand. What has been found, however, is that gasoline as a commodity is relatively inelastic in its demand--meaning that despite increases in price, the demand does not decrease in a direct relationship to the increase in price. :thumbup: They have found in the study that I cited in an earlier post, that gasoline is slightly more elastic than inelastic as previously thought.

What we did not see in the 1970's was a massive decrease in the amount of driving (unless you could not find gasoline due to rationing) was that people were suddenly interested in cars that got better FE. Which means that if the cars are available, and if the marketing is done to make them more attractive when compared to the SUVs (which did not effectively exist prior to the 1990's in the general public consciousness), there will likely be more of the FE cars purchased.

Generally speaking, I would agree with you, that as government services are provided on a local level, they tend to be provided fairly efficiently. What I object to strongly, is a broad increase in taxation on INDIVIDUALS as they tend to have the least control or voice in the decision process, especially as the processes move away from the local level (ie. taxation and the spending of the ill-gotten gains). ;)

I do believe in forcing the auto manufacturers by government mandate, to produce (and market) better and more FE cars -- notice, I am NOT saying smaller cars. ;) This is for a simple reason...these are corporations that exist as artificial "persons" by government declaration/license. Natural "persons" such as ourselves, exist and give the government existence.

Go after the manufacturers FIRST...and that is what the EU (actually, the individual countries) did first, but also decided to grab extra $$ from fuel taxes to fund other spending, not decrease the amount of fuel used...hence apples/oranges comparison between the US/EU.

DING DING DING!!! Give the man a cigar! :D :D :thumbup: :thumbup:

I am sorry, but I just cannot even pretend to support a system where you are forced to give up part of your earnings under the threat of imprisonment or death versus a system where you can cut your "taxes" by not buying items that are taxed. The government (just about any you care to name) are entities that cannot and should not be trusted. Sorry...they are run by people. :p

Problem is that tarrifs are a protectionist mechanism. They are a economic "wall" that un-levels the international playing field.

We used to have inter state tarrifs, where goods passing through states were subject to wildly unregulated fees. It was still a lot of money going into government coffers. It still will be with national tarrifs.

So the question is, if joe shmoe who lives on one spot on the planet wants to send goods to another spot, where is the justification for arbitrarily charging joe extra?

Basically, the right of one nation to govern the import/export of goods across its borders...slightly, but not a lot better than the justification for taking Joe's income at the end of a gun barrel. ;)

This is very true... but today, we import in incredible amount of goods - and exports are low to none....

Bigger Bloat = more
Toy Exports
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...mallpng/57.png
Toy Imports
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...mallpng/58.png

Wood/Paper Export
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...argepng/73.png
Wood/Paper Import
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...argepng/73.png

Crude Petroleum Export
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...argepng/75.png
Crude Import
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...argepng/76.png

Electronics Export
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...mallpng/89.png
Electronics Import
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...mallpng/90.png

We're also the largest importer of cars on the planet... But our largest export is electrical and electric production machinery (you know, things consumers like us don't buy...)

For those interested here's what tariffs are in place (despite our high import numbers :p) Here's the entire duty schedule.. In any case though, applied tariffs generally lead to higher product costs - in order for each middle person to make their same cut from markup, they have to charge more... That is unless domestic production goes up, but the price goes up compared to before the tariff (the whole reason it's there is to allow the domestic price to be competitive)...

And just for fun, because I didn't know China was the largest consumer of meat (US isn't even on the top 10)....
https://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/wor...allpng/126.png

The justification? It let domestic Don's higher priced goods become competitive - assuming that everyone is willing/can afford to pay the higher more competitive price :p

By effect, it's the same as an excise tax :p

trebuchet03 -

Doesn't the rest of the world apply forms of trade tariffs anyway? From my POV, the USA is just practicing economic cannibalism on itself for the sake of transnational corporations. They make the money, we lose the jobs, and our quality of life slowly goes down the tubes.

CarloSW2

was going to argue the American and non-American point, but let me give you a real world situation instead...

i would GLADLY give a needy person the coat off my back(and have done similar deeds), BUT not if my child needed one as well. hope you understand the parable.

i see both sides of the equation. we(Americans) have done things to make the world justly hate us, BUT we have also done MANY things to help other nations. obviously this is not news, but the good deeds go less noticed especially by our own media.

love my country, but fear my government.

There's a lot of Free trade agreements today - compared to say, 30 years ago. For example, the 2002 steel tariff excluded Mexico and Canada as there would otherwise have been rather large fines due to free trade agreements... In any case, that tariff turned out to be a nightmare (we almost got into a major trade war with the EU on false steel price dumping pretenses).

free trade a good idea???
 

free trade: commerce conducted unhindered by the governments of any involved trading country.

Does this really sound like a good idea? :eek: