Jello wrote:

Now Verleger favors what he calls a "prospective gasoline tax," which would allow the country four years to get ready to do the right thing. Congress would enact a stiff tax of $2 per gallon, to take effect in January 2009, with further increases of another dollar in each of the following three years. To cushion the blow, the Treasury would borrow against the expected tax revenue to buy back the public's gas guzzlers (defined as vehicles getting fewer than 25 miles a gallon) at their 2004 value.

Verleger estimates that this program could reduce U.S. oil consumption by almost 2 million barrels per day in the program's first year and as much as 10 million barrels per day by 2020. At a stroke, that would reduce the power of the OPEC cartel and America's vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East. As a bonus, it would also reduce emissions that contribute to global warming and increase employment in the auto industry as all those gas guzzlers are replaced.

There's one big problem with Verleger's idea. It's too sane. America likes roaring down Thunder Road, playing chicken with the oil cartel.

I still think it would be better to tax owners of SUV's and other high gas using cars based on mileage once a year. This would encourage people not to drive these types of things if they don't need to, and put the pressure on where the demand REALLY is. Offering a tax cut for owners of hybrid cars would create yet another incentive to use them.

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

Now Verleger favors what he calls a "prospective gasoline tax," which would allow the country four years to get ready to do the right thing. Congress would enact a stiff tax of $2 per gallon, to take effect in January 2009, with further increases of another dollar in each of the following three years. To cushion the blow, the Treasury would borrow against the expected tax revenue to buy back the public's gas guzzlers (defined as vehicles getting fewer than 25 miles a gallon) at their 2004 value.

Verleger estimates that this program could reduce U.S. oil consumption by almost 2 million barrels per day in the program's first year and as much as 10 million barrels per day by 2020. At a stroke, that would reduce the power of the OPEC cartel and America's vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East. As a bonus, it would also reduce emissions that contribute to global warming and increase employment in the auto industry as all those gas guzzlers are replaced.

There's one big problem with Verleger's idea. It's too sane. America likes roaring down Thunder Road, playing chicken with the oil cartel.

I still think it would be better to tax owners of SUV's and other high gas using cars based on mileage once a year. This would encourage people not to drive these types of things if they don't need to, and put the pressure on where the demand REALLY is. Offering a tax cut for owners of hybrid cars would create yet another incentive to use them.

Whats the benefit over taxing at the pump?

Jello wrote:

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

Now Verleger favors what he calls a "prospective gasoline tax," which would allow the country four years to get ready to do the right thing. Congress would enact a stiff tax of $2 per gallon, to take effect in January 2009, with further increases of another dollar in each of the following three years. To cushion the blow, the Treasury would borrow against the expected tax revenue to buy back the public's gas guzzlers (defined as vehicles getting fewer than 25 miles a gallon) at their 2004 value.

Verleger estimates that this program could reduce U.S. oil consumption by almost 2 million barrels per day in the program's first year and as much as 10 million barrels per day by 2020. At a stroke, that would reduce the power of the OPEC cartel and America's vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East. As a bonus, it would also reduce emissions that contribute to global warming and increase employment in the auto industry as all those gas guzzlers are replaced.

There's one big problem with Verleger's idea. It's too sane. America likes roaring down Thunder Road, playing chicken with the oil cartel.

I still think it would be better to tax owners of SUV's and other high gas using cars based on mileage once a year. This would encourage people not to drive these types of things if they don't need to, and put the pressure on where the demand REALLY is. Offering a tax cut for owners of hybrid cars would create yet another incentive to use them.

Whats the benefit over taxing at the pump?

There's no way to single out vehicle type easily at the pump. But if the mileage is recorded at inspection, than it's possible to put the tax where it should belong.

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

Now Verleger favors what he calls a "prospective gasoline tax," which would allow the country four years to get ready to do the right thing. Congress would enact a stiff tax of $2 per gallon, to take effect in January 2009, with further increases of another dollar in each of the following three years. To cushion the blow, the Treasury would borrow against the expected tax revenue to buy back the public's gas guzzlers (defined as vehicles getting fewer than 25 miles a gallon) at their 2004 value.

Verleger estimates that this program could reduce U.S. oil consumption by almost 2 million barrels per day in the program's first year and as much as 10 million barrels per day by 2020. At a stroke, that would reduce the power of the OPEC cartel and America's vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East. As a bonus, it would also reduce emissions that contribute to global warming and increase employment in the auto industry as all those gas guzzlers are replaced.

There's one big problem with Verleger's idea. It's too sane. America likes roaring down Thunder Road, playing chicken with the oil cartel.

I still think it would be better to tax owners of SUV's and other high gas using cars based on mileage once a year. This would encourage people not to drive these types of things if they don't need to, and put the pressure on where the demand REALLY is. Offering a tax cut for owners of hybrid cars would create yet another incentive to use them.

Whats the benefit over taxing at the pump?

There's no way to single out vehicle type easily at the pump. But if the mileage is recorded at inspection, than it's possible to put the tax where it should belong.

There is a single way to single out vehicle type at the pump, since the only relevant statistic is the miles per gallon the engine gets... if your engine burns more gas because it has a large SUV engine, then you pay alot more tax because you burn alot more gas.

Jello wrote:

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

Now Verleger favors what he calls a "prospective gasoline tax," which would allow the country four years to get ready to do the right thing. Congress would enact a stiff tax of $2 per gallon, to take effect in January 2009, with further increases of another dollar in each of the following three years. To cushion the blow, the Treasury would borrow against the expected tax revenue to buy back the public's gas guzzlers (defined as vehicles getting fewer than 25 miles a gallon) at their 2004 value.

Verleger estimates that this program could reduce U.S. oil consumption by almost 2 million barrels per day in the program's first year and as much as 10 million barrels per day by 2020. At a stroke, that would reduce the power of the OPEC cartel and America's vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East. As a bonus, it would also reduce emissions that contribute to global warming and increase employment in the auto industry as all those gas guzzlers are replaced.

There's one big problem with Verleger's idea. It's too sane. America likes roaring down Thunder Road, playing chicken with the oil cartel.

I still think it would be better to tax owners of SUV's and other high gas using cars based on mileage once a year. This would encourage people not to drive these types of things if they don't need to, and put the pressure on where the demand REALLY is. Offering a tax cut for owners of hybrid cars would create yet another incentive to use them.

Whats the benefit over taxing at the pump?

There's no way to single out vehicle type easily at the pump. But if the mileage is recorded at inspection, than it's possible to put the tax where it should belong.

There is a single way to single out vehicle type at the pump, since the only relevant statistic is the miles per gallon the engine gets... if your engine burns more gas because it has a large SUV engine, then you pay alot more tax because you burn alot more gas.

How would the pump know this? And how easy would it be to fake it out?

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

Now Verleger favors what he calls a "prospective gasoline tax," which would allow the country four years to get ready to do the right thing. Congress would enact a stiff tax of $2 per gallon, to take effect in January 2009, with further increases of another dollar in each of the following three years. To cushion the blow, the Treasury would borrow against the expected tax revenue to buy back the public's gas guzzlers (defined as vehicles getting fewer than 25 miles a gallon) at their 2004 value.

Verleger estimates that this program could reduce U.S. oil consumption by almost 2 million barrels per day in the program's first year and as much as 10 million barrels per day by 2020. At a stroke, that would reduce the power of the OPEC cartel and America's vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East. As a bonus, it would also reduce emissions that contribute to global warming and increase employment in the auto industry as all those gas guzzlers are replaced.

There's one big problem with Verleger's idea. It's too sane. America likes roaring down Thunder Road, playing chicken with the oil cartel.

I still think it would be better to tax owners of SUV's and other high gas using cars based on mileage once a year. This would encourage people not to drive these types of things if they don't need to, and put the pressure on where the demand REALLY is. Offering a tax cut for owners of hybrid cars would create yet another incentive to use them.

Whats the benefit over taxing at the pump?

There's no way to single out vehicle type easily at the pump. But if the mileage is recorded at inspection, than it's possible to put the tax where it should belong.

There is a single way to single out vehicle type at the pump, since the only relevant statistic is the miles per gallon the engine gets... if your engine burns more gas because it has a large SUV engine, then you pay alot more tax because you burn alot more gas.

How would the pump know this? And how easy would it be to fake it out?

The pump doesn't know anything... it doesn't have to. Big cars with large unefficient engines will have to stop more often and fill larger tanks. Small cars with hybrid engines and small gas tanks will fill up less often with less gass.

Jello wrote:

The pump doesn't know anything... it doesn't have to. Big cars with large unefficient engines will have to stop more often and fill larger tanks. Small cars with hybrid engines and small gas tanks will fill up less often with less gass.

Why should the more efficient cars be forced to pay this tax at all? If there's no differential, there's not much more incentive than there is now. Taxing everyone will only stifle traveling. I know people who can barely afford to get to work and back as it is, why should they pay a tax if they're using as little as humanly possible? Taxing excess makes more sense to me. Most people I know with SUV's do no off roading, and generally don't carry much load. They just like big cars. When you drive a Hummer around everywhere you need to go, just perhaps this is wasteful. If you can afford to create an unnecessary demand on the value of oil, you should be willing to pay that price. If you are living efficiently, you should be encouraged to continue.

terratogen wrote:

Jello wrote:

The pump doesn't know anything... it doesn't have to. Big cars with large unefficient engines will have to stop more often and fill larger tanks. Small cars with hybrid engines and small gas tanks will fill up less often with less gass.

Why should the more efficient cars be forced to pay this tax at all? If there's no differential, there's not much more incentive than there is now. Taxing everyone will only stifle traveling. I know people who can barely afford to get to work and back as it is, why should they pay a tax if they're using as little as humanly possible? Taxing excess makes more sense to me. Most people I know with SUV's do no off roading, and generally don't carry much load. They just like big cars. When you drive a Hummer around everywhere you need to go, just perhaps this is wasteful. If you can afford to create an unnecessary demand on the value of oil, you should be willing to pay that price. If you are living efficiently, you should be encouraged to continue.

Except that you jack the gas tax, but you reduce the portion of the income tax that is spent on oil infrastructure and defense by the government. So everyone gets a tax cut, and then only those who use petroleum pay the taxes associated with it, in equal proportion to how much they use. It doesn't get any fairer than that. And the higher prices lead people to purchase increasingly efficient cars, and the demand for oil decreses, etc.

Jello wrote:

Except that you jack the gas tax, but you reduce the portion of the income tax that is spent on oil infrastructure and defense by the government. So everyone gets a tax cut, and then only those who use petroleum pay the taxes associated with it, in equal proportion to how much they use. It doesn't get any fairer than that. And the higher prices lead people to purchase increasingly efficient cars, and the demand for oil decreses, etc.

I disagree that it's fair. The people who this would effect most are the people who can barely afford to drive as it is... It could very well knock them right off the road and onto welfare. There are some areas that will be economically fucked by this. If you only tax the guzzlers, only those who can afford to be hurt will be hurt.

Jello wrote:

The pump doesn't know anything... it doesn't have to. Big cars with large unefficient engines will have to stop more often and fill larger tanks. Small cars with hybrid engines and small gas tanks will fill up less often with less gass.

You are making an incorrect assumption...small = fuel efficient. What about sports cars? The Ford Mustang averages 20 mpg while the Explorer averages just 3 less. Some of the more exotic sports cars average just 14 mpg.

A program to tax gasoline based on miles driven is underway in Oregon as a way to pay for road use. It's set at the rate of current taxes to make the technology transition less noticeable, but they hope to bring it into full swing in a few years.

-janelane, energy champ

janelane wrote:

Jello wrote:

The pump doesn't know anything... it doesn't have to. Big cars with large unefficient engines will have to stop more often and fill larger tanks. Small cars with hybrid engines and small gas tanks will fill up less often with less gass.

You are making an incorrect assumption...small = fuel efficient. What about sports cars? The Ford Mustang averages 20 mpg while the Explorer averages just 3 less. Some of the more exotic sports cars average just 14 mpg.

A program to tax gasoline based on miles driven is underway in Oregon as a way to pay for road use. It's set at the rate of current taxes to make the technology transition less noticeable, but they hope to bring it into full swing in a few years.

-janelane, energy champ

Actually I'm not making an incorrect assumption: small displacement engines designed for maximum efficiency, in small cars, are the most efficent cars on the road. We're not talking 20mpg, we're talking more like 35+. Mustangs and Explorers are both gas whores.