<DrumBeat: June 25, 2007 The Oil Drum The Coal Question and Climate Change>

83 comments on The House Energy Bill -- What You Can Do to Help Change Federal Energy Policy for the Better

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Engineer-Poet on June 27, 2007 - 1:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Who gets the money? All you hurt is the poor.

You know something?  I have been seeing that same excuse for literally fifteen years.  It was bogus then, and it's bogus now.  You have to move the new-vehicle fleet away from guzzlers sometime, and the poor are going to have to wait for them to come onto the used market anyway.  Delaying the pain has only prolonged it.

Who takes the hit depends on where the tax money goes.  If it goes into a deductible on employment taxes, the poor come out ahead.

As I've said before there are plenty of weekend warriors hauling every kinda "pleasurecraft" imaginable who zip down the highway at 85mph+. Do you think a few bucks more is gonna stop him?

It's already stopping the casual excursions of rich powerboaters, it'll hit the "weekend warrior" lifestyle too.  I bet it already is.  Five bucks a gallon will pare it back even further.  Using the bully pulpit to paint it as unpatriotic... that could go far.

There are real fuel savings(thats what this is all about, right?) in lowering the speed limit on the Interstates.

Only if people obey them.  I remember the hated "double nickel".  People went to extreme lengths to evade it.

There are also real fuel savings in changing people's other choices:

  • More careful driving (coasting to lights, etc).
  • Combining and reducing trips.
  • More economical vehicles.

This actually produced a decline in US gasoline consumption from the late 70's through about 1985.  The biggest effect was people's reaction to the price spike.  Another price spike would do it again, especially if it was accepted as a patriotic measure.  After all, what's better:  an F350 driving 55, or a Honda Insight cruising at 75?

figure out who is the fuel hog here and target him

Is there any way other than gallons used to measure this?  Is there any better place to hit them than at the pump?

indiscriminate taxation is something we once went to War about.

Recycling, economizing and rationing are measures we've used to help win wars.

Disclaimer:  I have done work for all of the Big 3, either directly or through subcontract firms.  I know whereof I speak.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on June 27, 2007 - 10:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You know something? I have been seeing that same excuse for literally fifteen years. It was bogus then, and it's bogus now.

Increased taxes were a bad idea 15 years ago and they will always be a bad idea. Can you name examples where an increase in taxes actually had the desired effect? Other than increasing revenue which is what taxation is all about. Try Googling "sin tax".

You have to move the new-vehicle fleet away from guzzlers sometime, and the poor are going to have to wait for them to come onto the used market anyway. Delaying the pain has only prolonged it.

I couldn't agree with you more on this as I have argued the same for the 20+years(and hurt my career) I've been in this industry.
I actually had a job pumping gas when it was $0.29, when the embargo hit it jumped to $0.43 but nobody stopped buying. We only stopped when we literally ran out of gas to sell. That experience has stayed with me.

Who takes the hit depends on where the tax money goes. If it goes into a deductible on employment taxes, the poor come out ahead.

Now you're hoping. Direct evidence is to the contrary. Most pro taxers on this forum believe some good will come from an energy tax, I argue show me. What is our government doing now with our tax dollars? If you're OK with that then I can't argue with you.

It's already stopping the casual excursions of rich powerboaters, it'll hit the "weekend warrior" lifestyle too. I bet it already is.

I'd like to see some numbers on this because I think the analogy of the "boiling frog" comes into play. People(at least those who can afford it) will adjust to higher prices, tax induced or not.

Only if people obey them. I remember the hated "double nickel". People went to extreme lengths to evade it.

Thats when you lay the whammy on them. If they hate the 55mph speed limit, they'll hate the $300, $400, $? fine even more. BTW try 60mph its much less hateful. :-)

This actually produced a decline in US gasoline consumption from the late 70's through about 1985.

Oddly enough wasn't the speed limit mostly 55 during that time?

Another price spike would do it again, especially if it was accepted as a patriotic measure. After all, what's better: an F350 driving 55, or a Honda Insight cruising at 75?

What is patriotic about driving a Jap car?

Is there any way other than gallons used to measure this? Is there any better place to hit them than at the pump?

Good point. The amount of gallons purchased is how I'd put it. Sounds more like rationing to me.

Thanks EP for responding, you've given me plenty to think about. The fixation many on this site have with higher fuel taxes really perplexes me.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on June 28, 2007 - 12:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Can you name examples where an increase in taxes actually had the desired effect?

Are you really that ignorant?

  • Motor fuel taxes in Britain have been key to holding consumption flat over a period when US consumption rose steeply.
  • Tax penalty of gasoline over diesel fuel has driven European vehicles to be 50% diesels.
  • Tax preference of trucking over railroads (freeways pay no property taxes, railroads do) has helped drive most US freight to trucks and pushed the cannibalization of rail infrastructure (removal of rails to cut taxes).

One of the key principles of economics is that taxes discourage activity.  If you want to cut the amount of fuel used, tax it more.

Increased taxes were a bad idea 15 years ago and they will always be a bad idea.

Yeah, they would have done us a pile of harm:

  • They could have made hybids and plug-in hybrids attractive fifteen years sooner.
  • They could have prevented the SUV craze.
  • They could have continued, rather than stalled, the push towards better economy which started in the 70's.

And they certainly would have done a better job of pushing the US towards energy independence than the CAFE fiasco.

Direct evidence is to the contrary. Most pro taxers on this forum believe some good will come from an energy tax, I argue show me. What is our government doing now with our tax dollars?

Our government is using income tax dollars to pay for the cost of defending the oil supply.  This is a subsidy of oil worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year — the better part of a trillion dollars so far.  If this had been charged to the consumers of the oil instead, the problem might have solved itself as people substituted efficiency and engineering for oil.  Instead, the consumers didn't get a choice.

wasn't the speed limit mostly 55 during that time?

The speed limit was constant, but US gasoline consumption slid from 1978 to 1982.  It didn't reach 1978 levels again until 1993, despite a considerable economic expansion over that period.

What is patriotic about driving a Jap car?

When the money you save isn't going to a Marxist or terrorist.

The amount of gallons purchased is how I'd put it. Sounds more like rationing to me.

The word "rationing" came from you, not me.  All I suggested is making each gallon hurt more, not telling people how many they can have.  Thriftier cars are like CF bulbs, reduced driving is like turning lights off when you leave the room.  The more it pays to do it, the more people will get serious about it.

The fixation many on this site have with higher fuel taxes really perplexes me.

Your dogmatic unwillingness to understand mystifies me.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on June 28, 2007 - 11:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Are you really that ignorant?

Be nice, I gave blood today, what did you do for your fellow man?
Lets tackle these one at a time and compare our levels of ignorance.

"Motor fuel taxes in Britain have been key to holding consumption flat over a period when US consumption rose steeply."
They've also spurred a panic and near shutdown of the British economy.

"Tax penalty of gasoline over diesel fuel has driven European vehicles to be 50% diesels."
So substituting one fossil fuel for another is some kind of improvement of the condition? I guess you'd like to see lots of particulate emitting diesels on our roads?

"Tax preference of trucking over railroads (freeways pay no property taxes, railroads do) has helped drive most US freight to trucks and pushed the cannibalization of rail infrastructure (removal of rails to cut taxes)."
So the tax burden was shifted to the common man, very progressive!

"One of the key principles of economics is that taxes discourage activity"
So by your reasoning the government of Germany, in announcing a 19% sales tax is trying to discourage undesirable behavior like ... commerce! Anyone who believes taxation is a tool for other than revenue is fooling themselves.

"They could have made hybids and plug-in hybrids attractive fifteen years sooner."
Sorry, the technology for hybrids, series or parallel, was not available then. Rather than tax consumption why not reward alternatives with reinstating the tax incentives that Reagan summarily dismissed?

They could have prevented the SUV craze.
My company's vice president spent an afternoon at a Home Depot watching people load their various vehicles with stuff for their homes. This was after the SUV "craze" was well underway. But when clinical trials of new vehicles were held, respondents said they felt unsafe in smaller vehicles (see my post below) partly because of your tax subsidized trucking.

They could have continued, rather than stalled, the push towards better economy which started in the 70's.
Well, I didn't vote for Reagan, did you?

Our government is using income tax dollars to pay for the cost of defending the oil supply.
Do you really believe there is a lock box that War funds are appropriated from? Grow up! The tax you favor will only add to the pile.

Your dogmatic unwillingness to understand mystifies me.
As much as I'd like to go on, I have to work in the morning and the job I have demands it all from me (let me hear ONE comment about the "lazy American auto worker" grrrrrrrrrr).
When discussing dogma, lets stretch out our minds a bit and consider ALL human activity.
Life teaches us that there are three types of practical activity; one can build up, one can destroy or one can steal. What category do you think accurately describes the tax collector?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on June 30, 2007 - 1:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

They've also spurred a panic and near shutdown of the British economy.

Non sequitur.  The shutdown was caused by deliberate actions to block activity, not the economic impact of fuel prices.  British fuel prices are over twice US levels and the country still runs; they even have the phenomenon of "Chelsea tractors" on the roads.

So substituting one fossil fuel for another is some kind of improvement of the condition?

You asked, and I quote, "Can you name examples where an increase in taxes actually had the desired effect?"  Europe increased taxes on gasoline to drive demand for diesels, which are more efficient.  This had the desired effect.

I guess you'd like to see lots of particulate emitting diesels on our roads?

Non sequitur.  You asked for an example.  Europe got the desired effect, whether it was a good idea or not.

So the tax burden was shifted to the common man, very progressive!

Quite the opposite, but this was an entirely foreseeable effect of the tax policy.

So by your reasoning the government of Germany, in announcing a 19% sales tax is trying to discourage undesirable behavior like ... commerce!

Desirable or not, it is a foreseeable effect.

"They could have made hybids and plug-in hybrids attractive fifteen years sooner."

Sorry, the technology for hybrids, series or parallel, was not available then.

"Mother Earth News" published an article on a home-built series hybrid in 1978.  The technology has been around since the 1930's.

why not reward alternatives

Because that only rewards particular favored options (including some with low or even negative benefits, like ethanol from corn), while a fuel tax rewards all real alternatives including efficiency measures.  If the real cost of oil (all costs and externalities included) is anything close to the $480/barrel calculated by some, even a $3/gallon gasoline tax is only 1/3 of the way to parity.

respondents said they felt unsafe in smaller vehicles (see my post below) partly because of your tax subsidized trucking.

It isn't mine.  I have long opposed fuel tax breaks for trucking, and that was before I knew about the property-tax issue.

Your dishonesty in ascribing support to me is noted.

I didn't vote for Reagan, did you?

I voted for Anderson.

I have to work in the morning and the job I have demands it all from me

My heart bleeds for you.  I have been working evenings to get work done.  I will be at work tonight, tomorrow, and through the holiday weekend.  I would be at work now if I wasn't recovering from a virus which has sapped my energy.

lets stretch out our minds a bit and consider ALL human activity.

We have established that taxes discourage the activities which incur taxes.  Let's consider the merits of taxing BADS, not GOODS.  Imported oil and carbon emissions are BADS.

So's dishonesty.  You have become a liability to TOD.  I suggest you clean up your act.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

83 comments on The House Energy Bill -- What You Can Do to Help Change Federal Energy Policy for the Better

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version