Originally posted by EladarThe burden shouldn't be on the poor but on car users.
Why have the high petrol tax at all? Why put the burden on the poor?
If you want fuel efficient cars, then have government mandates. All cars of certain types must have certain minumum fuel efficiency. You don't need to force the poor out of owning cars and operating cars.
All you are doing is lowering your standard of living. I do not see why people would put up with this.
A petrol tax is more efficient than a government mandate because it allows the markets to seek to most efficient solution to the problem of fuel efficiency. Also, those who value e.g. fast cars a lot may still purchase them, but will be expected to pay more to offset the damage caused.
The "poor" can afford a car here. Many however choose not to buy one, partially because there are subsidies for public transport and you can do a lot by bike.
Originally posted by EladarThat's how the automobile industries like it. That's why they took apart the Red Car public transit system that people in spread out LA used to get around back in the day. ðŸ˜
In Europe populations live in small areas. In the US we are much more spread out. If you live in my neck of the tumble weeds, you have to have a car to get around.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut the burden of a gas tax would fall disproportionately on the poor and far less on the wealthy; it would be very regressive. Households in the bottom quintile who own cars (and that's 65% of them) were paying over 10% of their income on gasoline in 2005 (when prices were about 60% of what they are now) while upper income households were paying under 2%. http://www.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/file/energy/CFA_REPORT_The_Impact_of_Rising_Prices_on_Household%20Gasoline_Expenditures.pdf
The burden shouldn't be on the poor but on car users.
A petrol tax is more efficient than a government mandate because it allows the markets to seek to most efficient solution to the problem of fuel efficiency. Also, those who value e.g. fast cars a lot may still purchase them, but will be expected to pay more to offset the damage caused.
The "poo ...[text shortened]... one, partially because there are subsidies for public transport and you can do a lot by bike.
Insisting on a market based solution when the problem is an externality is odd logic. I prefer a government mandate since it does not have the sharply regressive effect that a gas tax would.
Originally posted by EladarAnd that is because you don't have a fuel tax.
In Europe populations live in small areas. In the US we are much more spread out. If you live in my neck of the tumble weeds, you have to have a car to get around.
I moved house this year to be close to the school I wanted my son to go to. I can do this because I rent. That is largely because I am a foreigner and getting a mortgage is not easy. However, encouraging house ownership tends to encourage sprawl as well as less flexibility - and thus longer commutes.
I think rental accommodation should be encouraged more, and so should living near to schools and work. Even here in Africa where fuel is expensive, too many people live far from their place of work or schools.
Originally posted by EladarI often joke that those on the left who are opposed to drilling for oil and natty gas and building nuclear reactors, ect, should just go buy a horse and buggy. But then I think what wouid the state do without all of the taxes they take out in gas prices if everyone stopped buying gas?
In Europe populations live in small areas. In the US we are much more spread out. If you live in my neck of the tumble weeds, you have to have a car to get around.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think that the horse and buggy is the way to go. There has got to be a way to make the buggy plush enough to be palatable to modern society. Then again, the horse is a carbon producing animal, so they may be subject to carbon taxes.
Curses!! ðŸ˜
Originally posted by no1marauderThrow in the resulting inflation on things like food and you are really putting the screws to the working poor.
But the burden of a gas tax would fall disproportionately on the poor and far less on the wealthy; it would be very regressive. Households in the bottom quintile who own cars (and that's 65% of them) were paying over 10% of their income on gasoline in 2005 (when prices were about 60% of what they are now) while upper income households were paying under 2 ...[text shortened]... a government mandate since it does not have the sharply regressive effect that a gas tax would.
James Woolsey and Anne Korin had a good article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal arguing for measures by the federal government to mandate that new cars must be capable of running on fuels besides gasoline. They persuasively argued why increased domestic drilling and enhanced conservation measures won't reduce gasoline prices or eliminate the economic vulnerabilities that exist because of our dependence on oil:
For starters, the president wrongly defined our oil problem. Like every president who has addressed the issue since Richard Nixon, Mr. Obama focused on the source and level of our oil imports. But these are not the keys to overcoming the security and economic vulnerabilities that oil causes.
Oil is a fungible commodity with a global price. Even if the U.S. did not import a drop of oil—or if all, instead of just most, of our imports came from Canada and Mexico—we'd still be vulnerable to the vagaries of the oil market and price manipulation by OPEC. In 2008, when the world price of oil rose to $147 a barrel, truckers in Britain struck against the huge resulting diesel price. The price skyrocketed even though the United Kingdom was then producing virtually all its own oil.
The Obama administration's fixation on our imports helps drive conservatives to a drill-baby-drill strategy and liberals to a conserve-baby-conserve one. Both approaches would reduce our trade deficit. Conservation would reduce emissions and stretch a limited resource. But that is about all these strategies would accomplish.
The cartel that dominates the global oil market sits on 78% of the world's conventional oil reserves. The reason it accounts for only about a third of world oil production is because it is a conspiracy in restraint of trade. When non-OPEC countries drill more, OPEC simply drills less and drives prices back up. If demand is reduced through a one-time improvement in efficiency, OPEC again drills less and prices zip back up.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576243010385191274.html
Originally posted by yashinAs I understand it a huge portion of the pump price in most European countries is taxation to pay for socialized medicine and other government programs, not necessarily related to the market prices of crude oil.
I'll tell you how I think about this: I know in the USA Gas prices have always been low compared to Europe, but I think you are complaining a bit too much here.
You are saying you are paying $3.70 dollar for a Gallon which is less than a dollar per liter.
In the Netherlands the prices are over 1,70 Euro's / liter.
This is $9.22 per gallon (we pay 150% MORE ...[text shortened]... Europe has shown you WILL eventually pay triple the price you are paying now if you have to.
It would not surprise me a bit if that doesn't explain Obama's seeming indifference to rising prices. Socialists in America will need to find funding for government run health care which isn't free, and on the side they get to limit the mobility of the American middle class, getting them on buses and trains instead of autos. Higher oil prices are a wet dream come true for Statists in America.
Originally posted by FMFDamage from the use of petrol?? I believe if you examine carefully all of the products that are produced from petrol (crude oil) including medicines, fuel oil, synthetic fibers, plastics, tires, and the list goes on and on, you'ld find more damage to society and the planet from petrol shortages than from its use.
Are US users of petrol paying fully for the damage done by the petrol they use?
The industrial revolution, and most of modern society is absolutely dependent on energy, including petrol. Did you know that at the end of th 19th century, gasoline was a useless byproduct of refining, and was discarded.
Originally posted by no1marauderInteresting that charges that BP shortcut safety have been dropped, and your precious regulations probably slowed the eventual containment of that well.
Good plan; the party against virtually any government regulation of business can run on the idea that increased regulation of drilling in the Gulf was unnecessary in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Originally posted by normbenignYes, damage from the use of petrol. Your argument would be like saying chlorofluorocarbon doesn't deplete the ozone because it is used for refrigerants.
Damage from the use of petrol?? I believe if you examine carefully all of the products that are produced from petrol (crude oil) including medicines, fuel oil, synthetic fibers, plastics, tires, and the list goes on and on, you'ld find more damage to society and the planet from petrol shortages than from its use.
Originally posted by EladarThere was already inflation in food, they just reduce the package size/weight and keep the price the same. Havn't you noticed?
Throw in the resulting inflation on things like food and you are really putting the screws to the working poor.
Quantitative Easing is causing the inflation. Higher oil/fuel prices will make a good scapegoat for the primary cause of inflation.