<DrumBeat: May 25, 2009 The Oil Drum Book Review: Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller>

84 comments on An Idea: Repeal or Amend the US Gas Guzzler Tax

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Paranoid on May 25, 2009 - 7:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually, raising the cigarette tax (that was a comparison you made somewhat earlier in the thread) does impact smoking behavior (http://www.pnmj.org/03052005_cigarette_tex.asp).

The effect of a tax on gas guzzlers, and not SUVs is complicated, and different because cigarettes you have to buy frequently, and that is not true of cars, plus as a majority of people buy cars on credit, a small tax is hard to detect in the monthly payment.

Taxing gasoline, on the other hand, may share some of the characteristics of taxing cigarettes. I am no libertarian, and no authoritarian, but at this point in the ACC game, I say, do it all! Tax the cars, the drivers, the roads, the gasoline, the environmental destruction and the carbon emissions. (I must have left some out). Then mandate fuel efficiency and ration the fuel.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
majorian on May 25, 2009 - 8:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No doubt some people were priced out of the cigarette market by high taxes but I think it was mainly thru the really heavy social pressure and the defeat of the tobacco company deniers.

The UK smoking ban will cause an estimated 400000 people to quit smoking.

Jean King, its director of tobacco control, said: "The results show smoke-free laws have encouraged smokers to quit.

"These laws are saving lives and we mustn't forget that half of all smokers die from tobacco-related illness."

A separate survey, carried out by the British Lung Foundation, of more than 1,000 people with lung conditions, found that 56% said they have had fewer attacks of breathlessness from passive smoking in pubs and restaurants since the smoking ban was introduced.

Nearly two fifths (39%) said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7480856.stm

It actually is rather idiotic to think that people would be really motivated to quit by an increase in the tax on a highly addictive, poisonous product like tobacco.

Based on smokers I've known, the social pressure of smoking outside, medical information and now smoking being banned in bars is decisive.

But the idea of taxes as a way to regulate behavior is mainly a disguise for raising money for the government.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Morgan Downey on May 25, 2009 - 9:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Majorian, I think your peer pressure idea has merit. One idea relying on such pressure would be to require a large 4"x4" sticker with the EPA MPG of a vehicle on vehicle registration plates. That alone would cause some (not all of course) to stop and think of the impact of efficiency choices. I am not saying this should/shouldn't be done. Just throwing it out there as a suggestion to test its merits.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dwcal on May 25, 2009 - 9:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That would probably annoy 4x4 drivers more than making them think about their consumption. A better way may be to require expensive commercial registrations for all light trucks and maybe offset it with a tax credit for documented business use (cargo or multi-passenger use only). Even that would be pretty unwieldy in practice, but it would make people think about their choice of driving an off-road truck as a private passenger vehicle. Boaters and off-road enthusiasts would be screwed, but that's the price of a "lifestyle choice".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Morgan Downey on May 25, 2009 - 9:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

After I typed the previous comment I forgot to clarify I meant 4 inch by 4 inch sticker. I belatedly realised that many outside the US call SUVs 4x4s.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dwcal on May 25, 2009 - 10:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's funny. They were called 4x4s in the US too, but the marketers needed a new name that sounded less truckish and more appealing to soccer moms. I remember when they first started using sport utility vehicle in the early to mid 90's and it sounded very awkward.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jeppen on May 26, 2009 - 2:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It actually is rather idiotic to think that people would be really motivated to quit by an increase in the tax on a highly addictive, poisonous product like tobacco.

Yeah, the guys who think scientific studies have something to say about this are real idiots. Some excerpts:

Well over 100 published studies estimating the impact of price on cigarette smoking have been conducted by economists and other researchers.5, 9, 10 These studies apply econometric and other statistical methods to a variety of aggregated and individual level data from numerous countries, states, and other areas. These studies clearly demonstrate that changes in cigarette prices, resulting from changes in cigarette taxes, manufacturers' prices, and/or other factors, lead to changes in cigarette smoking.

most of the estimates from the USA and other high income countries tend to fall in the relatively narrow range from -0.25 to -0.50. This implies that if cigarette prices rise by 10%, overall cigarette smoking will fall by between 2.5 and 5%.

Moreover, a number of recent studies conclude that youth smoking is relatively more sensitive to price than adult smoking, with some estimates implying that teen smoking is up to three times more sensitive to price than adult smoking.

Estimates from econometric models that account for the addictiveness of smoking imply that the long run impact of price on smoking is about double the short run impact.

But the idea of taxes as a way to regulate behavior is mainly a disguise for raising money for the government.

And the reason I advocate such taxes in some cases is due to me wanting the government to have more money? No, you are simply wrong.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
lengould on May 27, 2009 - 2:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And BTW, what's wrong with the government having at least enough money to balance its budget? As long as you insist on electing governments who will pitch trillions of dollars at every problem going and start wars costing further trillions paid from "off-budget accounts", then you either need to raise taxes or declare bancrupcy very shortly. One or the other, no alternate choices!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geewiz on May 28, 2009 - 1:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"And the reason I advocate such taxes in some cases is due to me wanting the government to have more money? No, you are simply wrong."

Disagree! follow the money, its all about the money, the govt (state and fed) have computer models showing a tax increase will result in less consumption, thus resulting in less money received via tax. That money will be collected somewhere else, wether its a soda tax or a fast food tax, pet tax, mileage tax, hours spent watching TV tax, or even a TV tax, (like in the UK), water hose tax the list goes on about how stupid the taxes can get, but somehow and someway, the govt will find a way to tax us to pay for things the govt deems we need and don't need.
If everyone quit smoking, all money received would be ceased. Govt relies on money to exist. Partially true on changing behaviour, but its really all about the money. If the govt was concerned about your and mine health they would ban tobacco, ban alcohol, red meat consumption etc. Bottom line the govt could care less about our health, the govt just wants our money. Because they think they know better on how to spend it.

There is talk in Texas about installing flow meters on private owned water wells to charge a TAX on your usage from your own private water well.

I just saw the video from IOUSATHEMOVIE.COM and basically if the govt stopped all fraud and waste spending, quit spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan the federal debt would be reduced by less than 3%!

I don't have the answers, but a tobacco tax will not solve world problems, only make the world population continue to increase, which further exacerbate the worlds problems. As the people of the world will continue to propigate and use resources which are finite. which are the unintended concequences! more people in the world using more resources. just freaking lovely isn't it?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jeppen on May 28, 2009 - 12:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

the govt (state and fed) have computer models showing a tax increase will result in less consumption, thus resulting in less money received via tax.

I quoted research that said 10% increased tobacco price means 2.5-5% less consumption, so a tax hike would clearly increase revenue. We are not past the maximum of the Laffer curve.

Partially true on changing behaviour, but its really all about the money. If the govt was concerned about your and mine health they would ban tobacco, ban alcohol, red meat consumption etc.

False - they can't ban that stuff, since they would be voted out of office. But they might be able to increase the paternalism gradually with taxes. Actually, after tobacco smoking has been slowly decreased by taxing the stuff, a number of European governments have lately been able to ban smoking in restaurants, pubs and other public places.

Bottom line the govt could care less about our health, the govt just wants our money.

So, the politicians who advocate tobacco taxes does it to get money to spend, not out of health concerns. And you know they are lying how, exactly?

but a tobacco tax will not solve world problems, only make the world population continue to increase, which further exacerbate the worlds problems.

It gets a little scary when you doomsters say cancer should be embraced as a solution to resource problems you see in your crystal balls.

Less poverty, longer lives and more urbanisation means lower nativity rates. Growth, health, education and technology is the way forward.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geewiz on May 29, 2009 - 3:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

thank you for your reply, but i am not convinced the govt is here to help. reason being is: have you looked around at the people of this country? fat and/or obese is becoming the norm. I blame diet and exercise, but really i blame corn. high fructose corn syrup. "hfcs"
its in most any packaged food and soft drink we consume.

"kingcorn.net" shows a video on the stuff. sometimes on PBS. a little dry at first but once you get into it, it explains how corn has contributed to our weight problems.

nobody wants to die, but it will happen regardless. like the song says " everybody want wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants o go right now"

world population has more than doubled since 1960. where it was once 3 billion people, it's now at 6.7 billion people.
do the math, finite resources and increasing population. it's a no brainer.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

84 comments on An Idea: Repeal or Amend the US Gas Guzzler Tax

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version