<DrumBeat: September 18, 2006 The Oil Drum UK Agriculture, Organic Farming and Relocalisation>

297 comments on Let's Talk Gas Tax (Poll)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

karlof1 on September 18, 2006 - 12:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A lot of Californians already do drive into Oregon for gas, mostly along 101 from Crescent City to Brookings; otherwise, the distances are too far and negate any savings. [Local taxes in Humboldt and Del Norte counties create quite a price disparity, which at times I've seen at 50-60 cents/gal.] When I was in Tahoe about 18 months ago, the same dynamic was in place as CA tax is lower than NV tax.

If you provide credits to offset the tax, then you severly decrease the revenues for your project. IMO, monies for PO and AGW must come from the general fund because the monies needed to do anything serious is far greater than the amount raised by a gas tax net of credits alone. I offered a national solution for this quite awhile ago at TOD.v1--The dismantling of the global US Empire and its support structures would free up over a trillion dollars per YEAR to use toward mitigating AGW and PO, with no new taxes needed other than the repealing of Cheney's tax cuts. And just think of the drastic reductions in carbon emissions and petroleum use rolling-back the Empire would make possible. IMO, Powerdown starts with Imperial rollback.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on September 18, 2006 - 1:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If you provide credits to offset the tax, then you severly decrease the revenues for your project.

The objective is not to generate (net) revenue. I agree that going that route would kill any chance of success. The objective is merely to raise the price of gas, raising the incentive for conservation and alternatives - without punishing consumers. It has to be more or less a "free lunch" in order to sell.

We could even sell it as a "punish Big Oil". Because conservation will cause less gasoline to be sold, it will have a negative impact on revenues. So, I might have to fight Big Oil on this one.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on September 18, 2006 - 1:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If it has the effect you hope, it will have to increase it each year if it's to remain revenue-neutral.  

Personally, a gas tax refunded via a cut in payroll taxes would be a great deal for me.  I don't drive much, since I live walking distance from my office.  

But if everyone does what I'm doing, the government will be losing money, unless the gas tax increases or the rebate decreases.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on September 18, 2006 - 3:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You probably would need to pay attention to careful matching of revenues to credits.

Interesting, there are two potential stimuli to the economy: revenue would decline, increasing the deficit, and so would the transfer to oil states: the "oil tax" effect.  

In theory you'd need to reduce the credit faster than revenues declined, to keep the economy on an even keel.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jim burke on September 18, 2006 - 4:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
RR: I think it is a grand idea, but as I said to WesTexas some time ago, I think it a political dead end.

There are enormous constituencies for low gas prices, and very few for raising gas prices. Any politician who voted to raise the prices of gas would be voted out post haste.

I don't believe that our present Congress would pass such a bill, and I'm positive Bush would never sign it into law. In addition, I find it hard to believe that ANY future Congress would vote to raise these taxes. And what future president would sign it into law?

Better to let progressive shortages do the price lifting for us. Even if the price is coming down now, nothing short of a major recession will protect prices from going up next year. And the year afterwards, etc.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on September 19, 2006 - 11:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>The objective is merely to raise the price of gas, raising the incentive for conservation and alternatives - without punishing consumers.

Another words, you want a solution where everyone can continue to chow down two large pizzas and a large cake without gaining a single ounce. Do you remember the phrase "No Pain, No Gain"?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on September 22, 2006 - 7:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What makes you think the program would have no pain?  Every gallon would come with another dose of financial pain; the fact that the average person would get more money back than their extra fuel taxes wouldn't change that.  Bulk purchasing power and marginal cost are two different things, and incentives are set at the margin.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on September 22, 2006 - 12:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>What makes you think the program would have no pain?  Every gallon would come with another dose of financial pain

Because Roberts plan is to refund tax money back. Therefore consumers aren't truely burdened by the tax.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on September 22, 2006 - 6:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You just moved the goal posts; you changed "incentive" to "burden".  (You also fail to note that the effect on profligate users probably would be a burden.)

Most people aren't burdened by the cost of home lighting, but they still have a strong incentive to buy CF lamps and capture the savings.  Same thing with a gas tax and per-earner (i.e. not influenced by gas consumption) refund.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tom deplume on September 18, 2006 - 1:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
When traveling between Michigan and Iowa I always top off the tank before crossing into Illinois. Last trip the difference between Iowa and Illinois was 33 cents. We already have a race to the bottom between the states over other forms of taxation.
A fossil carbon tax needs to be effectively global to prevent even more flight of manufacturing to the 3rd world. A tarriff on goods based on embodied fossil energy could bring this close to reality.
I still think Carter's oil import quota concept would be more effective than a simple tax.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on September 22, 2006 - 7:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't think that import quotas would be productive.  All they would do is (if there was enough oil in the world) make it cheaper for overseas consumers than those in the USA.  It would also tend to divert oil-intensive activities to the rest of the world, which might be less productive overall.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

297 comments on Let's Talk Gas Tax (Poll)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.