Your toilet, your light bulbs, and now ... your TV?
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
Altron
Well-Known Member
No, because the gas guzzler tax is completely independent of distance travelled. I could rack up 30,000 miles a year and burn 600-700 gallons of gas in a Prius, and get a huge tax break. Or, I could buy a Camaro to drive on weekends, do 3,000 miles a year, burning only 150 gallons of gas, but I'd have to pay a huge "gas guzzler" tax, even though I'm using significantly less fuel. In this scenario, the Camaro is making a lot less pollution than the Prius, so why does the Camaro driver have to pay more?
And there are many less extreme examples. My mom drives her car 7,000-8,000 miles a year. Should she pay the same amount of "pollution tax" as my dad, who drives 15,000-20,000 miles a year? I drive less than 5,000 miles a year, so where does that leave me, if I hadn't sold my 12mpg Oldsmobile?
Nitpick all you want, but what I'm saying is that a person or corporation should be able to consume as much of a resource as they want, as long as they are willing and able to pay the current market price for the resource
GrandCaravanSE
Active Member
Does not mean that it will even happen, or it will happen, just like the what happen to the EV1 and make a big mess.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
It's worth noting that the those taxes are the same number of dollars no matter who is paying them. That means the middle class have to pay a larger percentage of their income compared to the rich in order to cover the cost of the same tax.
Also, as an aside, it's worth noting that the government only collects the gas guzzler tax on cars, not trucks. The Chrysler 300 SRT-8 is estimated to get a combined 15 miles to the gallon, which, according to the gas guzzler tax law figures I found, would be a $4,500 gas guzzler tax. But the Chrysler Aspen 4WD with 4.7L V8 is rated for the same combined 15 mpg, and there is no gas guzzler tax charged on trucks, and SUVs are counted as trucks. Seems like if the government wanted to make a "fuckton" of money, either the Clinton or Bush admins should have extended the gas guzzler tax to cover SUVs as well. Heck, the 1999 Chevy Tahoe 2WD with 5.7 V8 got even worse mileage and in the late 1990s, GM was selling every Tahoe and Yukon it could build, with no gas guzzler tax.
Altron
Well-Known Member
Look up the term "Price Elasticity of Demand"
It's an economic principle that for certain items with no close substitutes, such as medicine, gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol, an increase in price will only have a very small effect on the demand for a product. If you double the price of cigarettes, that will encourage some people to quit, but most will just pay the higher price, because they're addicted to nicotine. They've done loads of studies and realized that for these products that have a very low price elasticity of demand, you can make a boatload of money by jacking up the prices. If you increase your price by 100%, you might only lose 10% of your sales, so your revenue has had a huge increase, but your sales have only had a minor decrease.
It's because of this that in the past 10 years, cigarettes have nearly doubled in price due to taxation. You can sell 1,000,000 packs at $3.50 a pack, or you can sell 800,000 packs at $7 a pack. If a pack costs $2 to produce, you've gone from 1.5 million in revenue to 4 million in revenue. And, you can lie to the American people and tell them "Well, it's for your own good, cigarettes are unhealthy"
Altron
Well-Known Member
The reason I say middle class is that they're the people who can afford to buy a 40"+ TV, or buy a muscle car with poor gas mileage. The lower class is mainly going to buy smaller televisions that use less energy, or cheaper cars with smaller motors. The middle class are the ones who can afford a $1,000+ TV, or a V8 car that gets 15mpg, because those are luxury goods, not essentials. So taxing the shit out of them are just going to hurt the middle class. The lower class isn't buying luxury items like that, and the upper class isn't as affected by a flat tax rate on a car. If you're making $80k a year, and your car is old and you want a new one, but you have to pay $4k gas guzzler tax, that's a huge amount of your income. If you're making $500k a year, that same $4k tax doesn't have nearly as much impact.
randomJACKASS
Banned
OK, I'll be nice, because you are a young man with much to learn (I have read a lot more on here than I have responded to, so I have some sense of who you are and where you are coming from).
I can't say for sure, because I've known quite a few folks, especially young men and some times women, who hold political beliefs contrary to their party affiliation or voting record, but it looks to me like you have the making of a conservative republican, and that you have little regard for the environment. In my opinion this just makes you part of the problem and not the solution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying at all that current regulations about product standards and "sin" taxes based on products and behaviors that are potentially more damaging to the environment are right, or couldn't use a lot of reform. I am saying though that regardless of whether global warming is a serious issue, (as I think it is) or a minor one, that caring for the environment and respecting the Earth and the land is important. Believing that you should be allowed to buy any polluting product and not at least pay something extra to defray the negative impact of the products, not to mention believing that there should be no debate about such a product(s) legality to be sold in this country at all, is a sign of selfishness and disregard, not only for the environment, but to every other human being on the planet (even the ones who don't care and believe as you do, even though they don't think so).
I know that you said that you think the government has no business telling you how you can use such products, providing you pay the associated costs, and that sentiment in simplistic terms is true. It's just the seeming disregard for the planet and the rest of us on it that disturbs me.
Altron
Well-Known Member
I'm opposed to a flat tax on all cars below a certain fuel efficiency standard. That's not reducing pollution - that's making money.
They have a percentage based tax on the price of gasoline. I don't have any issues with that. I don't mind tolls so much either, especially now that they have high-speed EZ-Pass, so the tolls don't create traffic jams any more.
I think the tax burden of paying for road construction and maintenance should be split based on how much you use the road. That's why I think that tolls and gas taxes are fair. The more you drive, the more you pay.
But to tax (or give a big tax break) for a specific type of car heavily based on its fuel consumption is beyond idiotic.
The reason is that total fuel consumption, not fuel consumption per mile is what determines the amount of pollution. If you're going to do a tax on pollution, put it on the price of a gallon of gas, or in the price of a toll on the highway. I think it's safe to assume that no matter what car burns 1 gallon of gas, as long as it meets 2009 federal emissions standards (which all of the "gas guzzler" cars do), it's making the same amount of pollution.
If I buy a Corvette (because I work 2 miles away from home), and I burn 500 gallons of gas in it every year, and my neighbor buys a Prius (because he has to drive 75 miles to work) and burns 500 gallons of gas in it every year, we're both making exactly the same amount of pollution. The only difference is that they take $4,000 out of my wallet for driving a "gas guzzler", and put it in his wallet for driving a "hybrid"
As a person who doesn't drive that much, I hate the idea that I could be taxed for simply owning an inefficient car, even if I don't use it that often.
They have a percentage based tax on the price of gasoline. I don't have any issues with that. I don't mind tolls so much either, especially now that they have high-speed EZ-Pass, so the tolls don't create traffic jams any more.
I think the tax burden of paying for road construction and maintenance should be split based on how much you use the road. That's why I think that tolls and gas taxes are fair. The more you drive, the more you pay.
But to tax (or give a big tax break) for a specific type of car heavily based on its fuel consumption is beyond idiotic.
The reason is that total fuel consumption, not fuel consumption per mile is what determines the amount of pollution. If you're going to do a tax on pollution, put it on the price of a gallon of gas, or in the price of a toll on the highway. I think it's safe to assume that no matter what car burns 1 gallon of gas, as long as it meets 2009 federal emissions standards (which all of the "gas guzzler" cars do), it's making the same amount of pollution.
If I buy a Corvette (because I work 2 miles away from home), and I burn 500 gallons of gas in it every year, and my neighbor buys a Prius (because he has to drive 75 miles to work) and burns 500 gallons of gas in it every year, we're both making exactly the same amount of pollution. The only difference is that they take $4,000 out of my wallet for driving a "gas guzzler", and put it in his wallet for driving a "hybrid"
As a person who doesn't drive that much, I hate the idea that I could be taxed for simply owning an inefficient car, even if I don't use it that often.
Altron
Well-Known Member
And, it's based on the EPA rated mileage, which is different from the actual.
Back to a real life example. I drive a '97 Maxima with a 3.0L V6. Because I keep my car in good mechanical shape (regular oil changes, preventative maintenance, proper tire pressure, and most importantly a light foot), I get 24mpg city and 30mpg highway.
My friend from high school has an '01 Maxima, also with the 3.0L V6. He gets 15mpg city and maybe 20mpg highway. He blasts the air conditioning, drives like he's Dale Earnhardt Junior, and doesn't take care of his car. Under a flat tax, him and I pay the same. He's making way more pollution, though. If the tax were per gallon of fuel we bought, he would pay more than I would, directly proportional to how much more fuel he consumes.
Back to a real life example. I drive a '97 Maxima with a 3.0L V6. Because I keep my car in good mechanical shape (regular oil changes, preventative maintenance, proper tire pressure, and most importantly a light foot), I get 24mpg city and 30mpg highway.
My friend from high school has an '01 Maxima, also with the 3.0L V6. He gets 15mpg city and maybe 20mpg highway. He blasts the air conditioning, drives like he's Dale Earnhardt Junior, and doesn't take care of his car. Under a flat tax, him and I pay the same. He's making way more pollution, though. If the tax were per gallon of fuel we bought, he would pay more than I would, directly proportional to how much more fuel he consumes.
2minkey
bootlicker
you just foghorn leghorned him. careful... you'll start to sound like some of the other old farts around here.
randomJACKASS
Banned
I say...I say..I say..WHUT?!?
spike
New Member
It's true that there is elasticity but I know a lot of people who quit cigarettes because of the price and they sure are selling a lot more gas efficient vehicles now.
So, it works.
Saying cigarettes are unhealthy is lying?
spike
New Member
Wrong, if a Prius and a Corvette travel the same amount of miles one of them pollutes more.
They already do that.
So you're taking an extreme example and trying to make a broad argument.
If your neighbor buys a Corvette and drives 75 miles to work in it it's a damn good thing there is a "gas guzzler" tax because it will discourage more people from doing that.
Well hey, things could change and maybe you'll get a higher paying job farther away. Then you'll be glad you don't have to make the trip in a gas guzzler.
There's been a study that may result in an end to the monetary incentive to buy an efficient car if it catches on...
http://www.ktvu.com/automotive/3925368/detail.html
a tax on miles driven rather than gallons of gas purchased.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
Altron
Well-Known Member
Ok. Because every single person in America who owns a car travels exactly the same amount of miles.
If you're going to charge for pollution, charge for the amount of pollution the car emits. It works like this: Take the emissions per mile, and multiply it by the number of miles you drive. Charge a tax based on that. It's not realistic to assume that everyone drives the same distance. If I buy a car that gets crappy gas mileage, I have to pay a "gas guzzler" tax, even if it's just sitting in my driveway. It's a load of bullshit.
Tax people based on how much gas they actually use. Is that difficult? No. Is that fair? Certainly. Is it better than a flat tax on a specific type of car? Yes.
You're saying that if I buy a Corvette, I am automatically emitting more pollution than my friend who buys a Prius. No matter how much further distance he travels, my Corvette will always use more gas. My Corvette uses more gas when it's sitting in my driveway, turned off, than his Prius does when he's driving it around.
Please, spike, let me know how many more explanations this is going to take. I don't see what's so radical about charging people a pollution tax based on how much gas they use, rather than the type of car they drive.
Obviously, all new cars must meet the federal emissions requirements for 2009. That means that 1 gallon of gas burnt in a V8 emits the same amount of pollution as 1 gallon of gas burnt in a hybrid motor. If person A burns X gallons of gas in his car, and person B burns X gallons of gas in his car, then they emit the exact same amount of pollution, regardless of distance traveled or efficiency of the car. If Person A gets 15mpg, and drives 150 miles, and person B gets 30mpg, and drives 300 miles, they're both using 10 gallons of gas. They're both emitting pollution equivalent to 10 gallons of gas. Why should Person A be taxed more?
There are plenty of solutions to getting around without using more gas. Let's say hypothetically that I live in NJ. I work in Manhattan, 15 miles away. Because of the traffic and tolls, I take a train to work every day, because I can read the newspaper and relax, instead of having to weave in and out of traffic. That train runs on electricity, coming from a nuclear power planet, and emits zero pollution. But I'm kinda a car guy, so I buy a sports car. It's a "gas guzzler", but since I'm not commuting in it, I only drive about 6,000 miles a year, just on weekends. I get 20mpg, so that's about 300 gallons of gas, so 300 units of pollution. But, for each one of those miles, I have to pay about 75 cents, because Uncle Sam decided that my car is a gas guzzler, and charges me $4500 in taxes.
Now, let's saw hypothetically that I live 50 miles out of San Francisco with my Life Partner, Riccardo. I drive a Lexus Hybrid SUV. Because I'm too snobby to take the train, I drive to my job at the law offices of Becker, Smith, Frivolous, and Goldstein. 100 miles round trip a day, plus romantic getaways on the weekends with Riccardo, that means I'm putting over 40,000 miles annually on my car. Good thing I have a hybrid that gets 40mpg, so I'm only using 1,000 gallons of gas, and making 1,000 units of pollution. I'm using over three times as much gas as NJ version of me, but I'm getting a $4,000 tax break for having a hybrid, so the government is paying me 10 cents per mile. All I have to do is drive 100 miles, and I'll have enough money to buy the new Jonas Brothers album!
spike
New Member
Who said that? I was just pointing out a major flaw in your statement-> "The reason is that total fuel consumption, not fuel consumption per mile is what determines the amount of pollution"
That was incorrect.
Sure that would be one solution. I thin your going to run into some resistance with people not wanting the government tracking how many miles they drive and with a sudden rash of odometer rollbacks. Good luck though.
There is tax on gas already.
I didn't say that. But if you drive a Corvette you are emitting more pollution than if you drive a Prius the same amount of miles.
How many more times do I need to explain things to you? There already is a tax on gas. There's also a tax for intentionally buying a vehicle that guzzles gas.
Because your intentionally buying a car that pollutes more than if you drove a fuel efficient car. Now if you can get people to agree to have their mileage tracked by the government and not alter their mileage than you may have a new system. Like I said....good luck.
Look these hypotheticals are nice and all. Maybe if you could show that the vast majority of people who own gas guzzlers hardly ever drive them you might be on to something. Without that and without getting people to let the government track their mileage your left with the current system.