Gasoline tax

At this point road use from EVs is lost in the noise. Eventually, if they prove popular, the road tax system will need to be revised, but that point is still quite a way off.

Tom

 

Smaller gov't. Less taxes. Find and kill waste and the wasters. Quit trying to buy votes with the peoples money.

Don't get bogged down in the minutia of tax landscapes, just quit taking my money to give it to the protected classes of whichever party. I never seem to be in any of the protected classes and I'm sick of giving my money up only to see it go for projects and programs I heartily disagree with.

 

Change the paradigm and we no longer have the problem.

The entire issue can be resolved by no longer listening to the "Oil is Evil" crowd.

Drill for the oil and gas in the US. Build modern refineries. Build pipelines. Decrease the number of gasoline blends required. Increase the supply.

The problems of the oil supply in the middle east will lose their relevance. The price of oil will fall. Disruptions will lessen.

Manufacturing will increase. Jobs will appear. Tax revenues will increase.

Vote out spenders. Overcome the legislators that buy votes with dubious projects and programs.

It's easy, we just need to get back to a market based reality and stop pursuing a liberal utopia with taxpayer money. If their ideas are so wonderful, let them fund them by themselves.

IMHO. ($.02)

 

Oil is a finite resource and we've already burned the cheap (easy to extract) oil. As demand rises and supply is consumed, price will go up.

It WILL become too expensive for the middle class to drive, simply due to supply and demand. The question is: Do we keep it artificially low by allowing unfettered dumping of carbon into the atmosphere and by all sorts of tax breaks to the oil companies and spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to secure supplies from abroad, until there's none left at all and we have nothing to fall back on, or do we impose a tax on ourselves now to fund sustainable energy so that our kids have something other than a Mad Max world to live in?

As far as the cost of a Tesla Roadster, sure it's a toy for the rich. But the Leaf costs about the same as a Prius. And the Tesla Bluestar, planned for 2 or 3 years from now, and probably coming in 4 or 5, will be in the same price class.

The people demanding smaller government always want to shrink those portions of government that do not serve them, while demanding loudly that the government continue to provide the services they use.

And the people demanding less tax, keep demanding all the services they are presently receiving.

I hate paying taxes. But I pay them and I vote for them because I don't want to live in a country like Guatemala.

 

I have to ask, because I've read some really un-bright things before, but how do you propose to force the oil companies to do that? The problem with people like you, is pure ignorance, you have no idea that the oil companies want the price high, that you have no control of the oil, and that you can't force the oil companies to do what YOU want. Now if you propose to nationalize the oil companies and take control of the US oil supply, then that is a different story.

 

At least until 2025, increasing the tax on petroleum is the best way. This not only encourages the s3itch to EVs but to more efficient ICE vehicles as well. People that have studied it say taxing oil as well as imported distillates is the best way to reduce, as it provides incentives to swap off of other industrial and heating uses of oil.

Paying for highways or other things such as the payroll tax with the revenue does not stress the economy, but shifts the tax burden. The only way it would stress the economy is if new programs were added for the increased revenue. The current deficits require new taxes and reductions of government spending.

If EVs become so numerous that they are needed to pay their fair share, the additional amount could be collected in registration fees. This time is far down the line.

I do reject using an oil tax to pay for military spending. Military spending as a percentage of the budget has dropped a great deal since the 80s and the cold war ended. Troops have left Iraq and will soon leave Afghanistan. I hope one day they will leave Germany and Korea. None of this should have anything to do with oil, but poor politics started in the cold war have gotten the US in foreign entanglements.

 

Let's start with reality, and then we'll work on a free market.

And if oil is so wonderful, maybe it could get by without all that government funding.

 

Sounds god so far.

There is more oil and gas drilling in the US. I agree we need more natural gas and oil pipelines.

New refineries are very expensive to build and can't compete well with old refineries that are often grandfathered in to environmental regulations. Luckily the reduced use of petroleum in the US has finally brought us in range of enough refining capacity. More would be better, and an oil tax could help subsidize expanded refining capacity that complied with today's environmental regulations. The BP bay city refinery is an environmental disaster and people have died there because of unsafe operating conditions. Lack of refining has give this very bad refinery a pass.

Decreasing the number of blends would also be a good thing, this however requires federal government regulation, and over riding state regulators like CARB.

Oil is getting more scarce not more plentiful and is sold on a world market. Price is going up, but good government policy will reduce the cost of OPEC blackmail and disruptions from unstable OPEC countries.

Tax revenue would definitely increase with a higher oil tax I don't know how to vote out spenders. Tweedle dumb is running against tweedle dumber and both parties seem to spend our money as if it were theirs.

Oil is getting more scarce, which means market based solutions do require some government regulation. It seems that most of it has been to encourage oil use. The government has spent our money to get us into this mess.

Oil is wonderful, so wonderful that we should do policies to insure we have it in the future. It would be used and explored for without government funding Nuclear and coal on the other hand might die on the vine if the government didn't fund them and ignore their pollution.

 

Still trying to figure out how we are going to force the oil companies to drill more and build refineries. How is it going to lower the cost of the oil given to the oil companies by the American public, and in return, lower the cost of gasoline, where is their incentive to do any of that?

 

This is a lie, and a dangerous one. The democrats and republicans are the ones that loudly proclaim that we can not make cuts. Most of the people in the country would gladly cut out many of the government programs for a smaller more efficient government, they just don't have a real voice in either party.

Again, these are the old folks and politicians. Many people would be happy to pay less taxes and cut major services. How many would vote to keep military bases in germany if they had to pay for it? How many would fund solyndra? How many would fund a huge ethanol program? How many would pay oil companies to drill in the gulf? These are special interests, not the people.

That is not a choice, its a lie. Shrink government and we don't become poorer, we get richer.
http://www.billshrink.com/blog/5626/government-wastes/

 

Not really, that is a lie. Shrink government, to the extent you think, and you get capitalism run more amok then it is now, the rich would control everything, and steal even more from the poor and Middle Class. You need regulations and you need services for a responsible government, otherwise you get bigotry, pollution, corruption and unbridled theft.

 

The oil companies are drilling more because of technology and the price of crude. They don't need to be forced. There is profit motive.

The only way they will build more refining capacity is government subsidies, otherwise they don't make financial sense. Most new refining capacity is added to existing refineries. An oil tax could pay for these subsidies. In order to make a direct tax on oil fair and encourage refineries, imported distillates like gasoline need to be taxed also. This won't set up a trade war, no one but opec will get upset if we do this. The oil refineries can use the excess capacity for export, but being short of capacity has hurt the ability to enforce environmental regulations and exacerbated price spike. This is goverment regulation, but seems less harmful than the current government regulation that discourages refining capacity. The laws could be writen in a much more straightforward way than they are today.

A straight oil tax also means that we don't need to punish oil companies by targeting depreciation deduction only on them and not other companies. This is much better than say a windfall profits tax that simply shifted oil refiners to buy more foreign oil, or a gas tax that doesn't reduce other oil consumption as well.

I disagree with Mr. Incredible that this will decrease the cost of oil over a long period of time. It will reduce the impacts of short term oil shocks.

 

Hi Hidyho--

Well, that's just the problem: our government isn't responsible, it can't be trusted, and by looking at how it cozies up to large organizations, there's plenty of bigotry, pollution, corruption, and unbridled theft going on anyway.

Under the current administration, look at GE, GM, and Solyndra. None of them paid any taxes - in fact they got billions upon billions worth of tax credits or bailouts. Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, just happened to be on Obama's advisory economic board and somehow got $4-5 billion in tax credits. It's no coincidence that the UAW, an AFL-CIO affiliate (and major Democratic donor) holds a significant stake in the new GM and Chrysler. And Solyndra? That worked really well.

Under the prior administration... ha, just look at Halliburton. It's no coincidence that Dick Cheney was high up in that company before becoming vice president.

Fact of the matter, we are dangerously sliding towards fascism. Not Hitler's Germany-fascism, but original Italian-style fascism like what was seen in the 1920's. Economic stagnation, depressed wages, government cozying up to large corporations and unions were all hallmarks of Mussolini's regime. And it's not like Obamney gives us much of a choice in the fall, either: Romney, if he wins, would bring his Bain Capital buddies in and raid the working man for a few more billion.



(I've bowed out of trying to sink some reason into ProximalSuns: normally I don't often call people out in public, but he's only picking and choosing his fights and repearedly returning to his spiel of "We need to raise taxes now because of DoD/Oil Warz/Halliburton" without addressing anyone else's arguments).

 

I did not say no government but a smaller one, that does less interference. Tell me how the ethanol mandate coupled with sugar tarrif and alcohol tarrif helps the middle class. It helps the farm lobby and the ethanol lobby and mainly a few large corporations like ADM and conagra.

It must be remembered that Duke Energy gets huge subsidies to pollute with coal. Less regulation but good regulation can do what you want. We don't need a huge government for that. Look at Mitt Romney who got a special tax break for venture capitalists when he was at bain. Do you think that helps the little guy? Big government has gotten us MMS that subsidized BP drilling in the gulf and gave them permission to ignore safety rules. No one can read the mountains of leagaleze that congress passes to give favors to the rich. Al gore who is quite rich probably personally used influence to get DOE money for fisker, which he invested in, so he could have an expensive phev. Let me know when any of this starts sinking in. Both parties are parties of special favors for the rich. Didn't congress allow private corporations to have private armies in iraq, above the law and paid for by tax dollars?

 

And if green energy is so wonderfull, maybe it could get by without governmemt funding as well. But starting a company, getting a few hundred million in government aid, running the company into the ground and keeping the money sure is fun. Then you get to throw millions of dollars in materials in the dumpster too.

 

Let's separate green energy from green jobs. Solyndra was not about green energy. It was about getting green jobs in California, just as some other bills have removed environmental regulation to get more brown coal jobs in the coal belt. The idea seems to be government can buy these jobs, and the program was started under bush, but first funded with solyndra. Just like the coal jobs this is a bad idea. The government took on the risky role of venture capitalist, but without skilled people to understand how to evaluate risk. The loans were also made at very low rates, which means any risk makes them look bad. The capital markets were and are screwed up ta the time, but doesn't that mean congress should fix the capital markets, instead of the DOE trying to act like a venture capitalist. At the time of the loan, it was known that good solar technology was coming out of china, which means it was not about solar energy but California jobs.

Green technolgy would move foward without US government help. There are great solar and wind turbine products on the market today.

From a green energy point of view though, the government needs to play a role. The government passed laws that mandated coal power, ignoring the costs of their pollution. In the 1990s these were recinded or replaced, but coal still does not fully pay for the price of its pollution. Many believe these pollution costs include ghg. This gives coal a public cost, but users are not paying for it. To put the invisible hand to properly allocate resources coal needs to comply with certain regulations and pay for its pollution. As a cynical gesture, instead of doing this, the coal lobby has gotten subsidies continued. Instead of making fossil fuels pay their cost, it seems the government wants to subsidize renewable. This all could use a major reform. When congress tried a cap and trade bill on ghg, there were huge giveaways to coal companies, making even those in favor of such a bill realize it was more of the same congressional politics.

 

Never would disagree that both parties are responsible for a lot of bad, as well as good, well Republicans used to propose some good, that isn't found these days.

The problem with BP and the gulf wasn't too big government, it was lax regulation due to graft and corruption of the department that was responsible for the regulations. Even the financial collapse wasn't because of too big government, it was because government decided that Wall Street didn't need regulations.

Good series of investigative journalism if anyone is interested in learning something on the financial Wall Street:
Money, Power and Wall Street | FRONTLINE | PBS

The biggest problem this country has, is a too big and massive military complex, created by the need to police the world for corporate control of world assets, especially oil.

 

In the overall scheme of things, Solyndra was pretty small potatoes. Compared to fossil fuel's many decades of favourable tax treatment, government grants, and unfunded environmental damage, it's nothing. Even then, it was a business failure, not a technology failure.

Please, eliminate government incentives for energy. All of them, for all forms. Count all the costs, for everyone, over the long term, and we'll see which technologies come out ahead. That would be the free market solution you're asking for.

 

It all depends on whose ox gets gored. Everyone is in favor of reducing and simplifying government, right up until their favorite programs get cut.

People with mortgages want the mortgage tax deduction. People with kids want deductions. People with cars want roads. People with airplanes want airports.

There is no one best size for government. It all comes down to thousands upon thousands of compromises. Sometimes the compromising works pretty well, other times in creates Frankenstein.

Tom