Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas (1 Viewer)

[keepoursaints]

Wouldn't the correct measure be to target the auto industry and enforce stricter emission standards? In otherwords, wouldn't the "smart" thing to do would be to force auto manufacturers to produce vehicles with better gas mileage?

Any increase in taxes on gas is regressive. It disproportionately affects the poor and middle class (and therefore the economy). It's an inherently bad and stupid idea. That this is coming from Michigan, the home of the Auto Industry, and is targeted at consumers as opposed to the same Auto Industry they so desperately want back in their lives, also makes it inherently cynical and exploitive.

This is a bad, dumb, law.

Seriously I think I'm just going to pay you to write my posts.. you do a much better job than I do.

Great post.

 

[JimEverett]

I live less than 20 miles from my job and it still take almost 2 hours to get there because of traffic. What are they doing with the state taxes that already add up to a ton at the gas pumps? We have some of, if not the worst, roads in the country so what are they doing with the money now?

I thought it would take you all day to bike it? You can bike 20 miles in less than 2 hours.

 

[St. Reginald]

This is a bad, dumb, law.

Again, for the third time on this relatively short thread, if you actually read the link to the July 2007 article, he cleary brought up this idea to spur debate. You can have qualms about the fact that he is in public office and using that to his advantage...that's fine, I understand that point. But this is not a law. It hasn't even been introduced officially. It's just an idea. That's all. The congressman knows very well that this will not fly with the people.

 

[keepoursaints]

I thought it would take you all day to bike it? You can bike 20 miles in less than 2 hours.

Clearly you haven't seen me ride a bike. or my bike....

I could get a motorcycle, but my wife is deathly afraid of them because of friends and family who have died.

 

[LSSpam]

Again, for the third time on this relatively short thread, if you actually read the link to the July 2007 article, he cleary brought up this idea to spur debate.

Oh, I see. Because he brought it up just to spur debate, we shouldn't express our opinions on the subject.

Gotcha

 

[keepoursaints]

Again, for the third time on this relatively short thread, if you actually read the link to the July 2007 article, he cleary brought up this idea to spur debate. You can have qualms about the fact that he is in public office and using that to his advantage...that's fine, I understand that point. But this is not a law. It hasn't even been introduced officially. It's just an idea. That's all. The congressman knows very well that this will not fly with the people.

He wanted a debate.. he's getting a debate.

 

[St. Reginald]

Auto manufacturers, like any other major industry, will continue to produce what sells. Obviously, that's Economics 101. Someone out there is still buying up the under 20 MPG vehicles or they wouldn't be churning them out. As I see it, consumers have plenty of options when it comes to high MPG vehicles. Hell, my '92 Accord gets 30 MPG and I didn't break the bank on that one. Stop the *****ing about gas prices and get out there and do something about it yourself. Convert to bio-diesel fuel, find a moderately priced used vehicle that gets great MPG, etc. I did the latter, and if one of the laziest people on the face of the earth (me) can get motivated to do some research and find a good vehicle, anyone can.

 

[Hoyasaint]

COAL

That is all

 

[St. Reginald]

Oh, I see. Because he brought it up just to spur debate, we shouldn't express our opinions on the subject.

Gotcha

What's wrong with you people? I was cleary addressing the fact that you erronoiusly claimed this was a law. Take a look at the quote I pulled from you. When have I given the implication that this shouldn't be debated? Now, gang up on me some more, you two.

 

[LSSpam]

The original Fox story on this

Dingell says he hasn't rule out such a so-called "cap-and-trade" system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion:

—A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

—A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

—Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

He estimates that would affect 10 percent of homeowners. He says "it's only fair" to tax those who buy large suburban houses and create urban sprawl. Historic and farm houses would be exempted.

It is highly questionable that Fox would choose to run the story again. So far as I can tell, there's been no new "movement" on it to justify that.

 

[keepoursaints]

Auto manufacturers, like any other major industry, will continue to produce what sells. Obviously, that's Economics 101. Someone out there is still buying up the under 20 MPG vehicles or they wouldn't be churning them out. As I see it, consumers have plenty of options when it comes to high MPG vehicles. Hell, my '92 Accord gets 30 MPG and I didn't break the bank on that one. Stop the *****ing about gas prices and get out there and do something about it yourself. Convert to bio-diesel fuel, find a moderately priced used vehicle that gets great MPG, etc. I did the latter, and if one of the laziest people on the face of the earth (me) can get motivated to do some research and find a good vehicle, anyone can.

I don't even know of any place in BR to get Ethenol although I'm sure they exist they're far and few between.

So you think the government should punish the citizens because they buy what's available to them instead of pushing the industries to develop something better.. which I think is safe to assume they can do. 30mpg isn't even that great though. Sure it's better than in the 20s, but I fail to see that blowing the tops off of the research field.

Their solution "ethanol" costs more than gas does and is affecting the farming industry, which raises prices for us in the grocery store. GREAT IDEA

How many hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are available?

 

[JimEverett]

Clearly you haven't seen me ride a bike. or my bike....

I could get a motorcycle, but my wife is deathly afraid of them because of friends and family who have died.

I am not saying you should get a bike, or should do anything. But I would like to see something done that helps promote smarter development, planning, etc. These developments that are being built 30-40-50-60+ miles away from any city center are crazy. Not only is it aesthetically gross, its expensive as hell, and those people moving there are only paying a fraction of those costs. I think they should start paying more of their fair share - a .50 a gallon increase on gas is a decent place to start.

 

[keepoursaints]

What's wrong with you people? I was cleary addressing the fact that you erronoiusly claimed this was a law. Take a look at the quote I pulled from you. When have I given the implication that this shouldn't be debated? Now, gang up on me some more, you two.

Dude I'm not meaning to sound like I'm ganging up on you, but you clearly started your posts in this thread off as being "in the loop" on something that wasn't even posted in the article.

Read my first post and I made no mention of this being a "law"

 

[TDH]

Wouldn't the correct measure be to target the auto industry and enforce stricter emission standards? In otherwords, wouldn't the "smart" thing to do would be to force auto manufacturers to produce vehicles with better gas mileage?

Any increase in taxes on gas is regressive. It disproportionately affects the poor and middle class (and therefore the economy). It's an inherently bad and stupid idea. That this is coming from Michigan, the home of the Auto Industry, and is targeted at consumers as opposed to the same Auto Industry they so desperately want back in their lives, also makes it inherently cynical and exploitive.

This is a bad, dumb, law.

No, the correct measure would be for the people that use the resource to pay for it, not have it subsidized by others. The manufacturers don't buy the vehicles, they just make them. The consumers are the people that wanted it in the first place. Subsidization makes sense if it's in the welfare of the country but I don't think that's the case with roads anymore. People fled from the cities partly because gas was so cheap. Gas was cheap because of subsidization.

 

[philipkw]

It's an idea worthy of debate.

But maybe a $1.00/oz tax on beef would be a more creative idea since it would address multiple issues, the environment and fatsos.