In '78, OPEC put America's balls in a vise. Responding to the Oil Crisis, Washington enacted a “gas guzzler tax.” The law levied a federal surcharge on the price of any new automobile that burned fuel at the rate of 21.5 mpg (combined), but less than 22.5 mpg (combined). The worse the car’s EPA mpgs, the higher the tax its buyer had to pay. The effectiveness of the federal gas guzzler tax is beyond debate. Literally. No one claims the purchase tax did anything whatsoever to reduce America’s oil consumption. And yet it’s still with us. What’s more, it’s about to make a comeback.
In case you were wondering, the federal gas guzzler tax rate hasn't changed since 1988. The surcharge still starts at $1k; rising to a maximum of $7,700 for vehicles that get less than 12.5 mpg combined. Did I mention that SUVs and pickup trucks are exempt?
Yes, there is that. When the gas guzzler tax was born, SUV and light truck sales accounted for less than 25 percent of total new car sales. According to Automotive News, the genres now account for 52.5 percent of all American automobile sales.
So if the federal gas guzzler tax was such a great idea back when oil supplies were tighter than a figure skater’s leotard, why not close the loophole now, what with global warming threatening to exterminate billions of humans? Surely that’s a better plan than concocting a cockamamie scheme to force automakers to change their vehicle mix to satisfy an arbitrary average fuel consumption figure? Why not penalize buyers of gas guzzlers and, by doing so, incentivize fuel misers?
Obviously, the domestic manufacturers of said gas guzzlers– automakers who continue to depend on the four-wheeled big ‘uns for their survival– oppose any move to close the SUV/CUV loophole and reinvigorate an otherwise moribund measure. But Detroit’s political power ain’t what it used to be– as witnessed by their failure to win the “debate” over raising federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. So if "the people" are serious about forcing the country's motorists to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles…
They’re not. The vast majority of American motorists aren’t even up for higher gas taxes– never mind an “SUV tax” down on the showroom floor. Hence CAFE. CAFE maintains the illusion of free choice while “doing something” about the “problem” of low mileage vehicles. It hides the gas guzzler surcharge by passing it on to manufacturers in the form of fines and/or technological costs, which the carmakers then pass on to the consumer. The feds get their money, the carmakers get theirs, and everyone feels virtuous.
There is, of course, a fly in the ointment: California.
The Golden State is truly, madly, deeply committed to taking gas guzzlers off the road. After unsuccessfully attempting to do so by hijacking federal tailpipe regulations, they’ve now decided to think outside the witness box. They’re introducing their own, additional tax on gas guzzlers.
Once again, CA legislators will vote on a plan that would levy one-time registration fees of up to $2500 on low-mileage vehicles. Some “cleaner” SUVs, pickups and minivans would be exempt. Buyers below twice the federal poverty level and businesses with less than 25 employees would be exempt. And buyers of fuel-efficient cars (e.g. the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic) would get hefty “rebates.” Everyone else has to pay for the privilege of paying more at the pump.
No matter how they tweak it, AB493 is a greater a threat to Detroit than California’s ongoing attempt to supercede federal CAFE regs by classifying CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant. That effort was an arcane, back door maneuver destined to fail. This is a full-on assault that challenges environmentally sensitive consumers to put their money where their mouth is.
And it’s going down. A previous version of the bill was only narrowly defeated in June, when auto industry lobbyists convinced seven LA Democrats to abstain from the vote. (Note: abstain, not oppose.) While you can easily argue that the feds should reserve the right to set air quality standards (which they only “lent” to CA anyway), a state sales tax is, clearly, their own business.
So will it work? Will people stop buying gas guzzlers if they cost an additional $2500? Thanks to the SUV loophole, the federal gas guzzler tax has nothing to teach on this matter. We certainly know that onerous automobile taxes in various New England states have created hundreds of thousands illegal, out-of-state registrations. But the simple answer is no. As car salesman will say, $2500 is only $1.37 per day over five years.
Which probably means California is, like the planet, just getting warmed-up. Gas guzzler tax supporters fully embrace the European model, whereby any and all taxes aimed at motorists are a good thing, and those aimed at low-mpg models are great. But the plain truth is that no matter how they’re applied, punitive motoring taxes create an automotive underclass, and enlarge governmental powers. Two fundamentally un-American concepts.
$2500 on the what amounts to be the most expensive vehicles to buy probably won’t make a huge difference. To really make a difference, the penalty needs to be at least 15-20% of the purchase price.
Under the proposal, can the $2500 fee be rolled into the purchase financing? $2500 over 60 months means even less.
The people have spoken, and what the people want is the government putting its hands in their pockets.
What I don’t understand is a quote like what I saw here.
“Forty percent of California’s greenhouse gases are from transportation,” said Carl Guardino, the [Silicon Valley Leadership] group’s CEO. “This is a market-driven approach to drive the production and purchase of cleaner cars.”
But then, the IPCC has transportation listed at contributing only 15%. So is somebody’s information incorrect, or are the numbers being fudged?
Trying new approaches to combating global warming is good, but when you’re spending all of this energy on demonizing cars while looking the other way at your other sources of greenhouse emissions, it just all seems disproportionate.
My new SUV, rated at 15/21, was subject to a NJ state surcharge for low economy vehicles — not a heck of a lot (~$150 for a $40k car) – its .4% of sales price, if the vehicle has an average mileage of less than 19 (city rating + highway rating /2).
Of course in a lease you pay this upfront, which the dealer never mentioned.
I would imagine the NJ politicos will raise this soon (!)
/p
(Pure history-based speculation follows.)
Wait until the second stage where California applies this to used and/or moving-into-CA vehicle registrations as well as to new cars sold.
The third stage will be graduated annual registration fees based on fuel economy.
(end speculation)
Yet another reason to flee the PRC.
We already have a form of graduated licensing fees for gas mileage. 4cyl cars cost less to register in New York that 8 cyl vehicles. So we are already at stage 3. Perhaps not to the extent you meant, but it is there. and the difference will likely increase.
So that’s why California wants to set it’s own air quality standards. So they can exploit new revenue streams.
Is this $2500 tax levied against the purchase of only new vehicles or on used one’s as well? If just the former then this is nothing more than a revenue grab. Very few people willing to drop $35 or more on such vehicle are going to be concerned with this tax. If it applies to used vehicles as well, then I see legions of inexpensive used SUV’s and pickups getting exported out of California, where no one wants them because the tax is too great of a percentage of the purchase price.
Licensing by cylinder count was common overseas 30 years ago.
—
If CA has a mild climate, gets a lot of electricity from nukes, wind and hydro and drives more, per capita, than other states, then 40% is certainly within the realm of possibility.
It would be nice if a politician (outgoing, perhaps?) would grow a pair, and simply raise the tax on gas. It’s so much easier…. I just can’t understand why driving a 6000lb SUV 10miles / day is so much worse then commuting a 3000lb compact (if you could call 3000lbs compact) for a 120mile commute.
Further, if we keep the price of gas low, won’t we simply end up with more vehicles, rather then forcing chunks of the population into public transit? I’d vote for anyone who would raise gas taxes and redirect them into public transit infrastructure (assuming I could actually vote in the US! ;) )…
“But then, the IPCC has transportation listed at contributing only 15%. So is somebody’s information incorrect, or are the numbers being fudged?”
Neither, actually. The 15% figure is the global figure – and includes places like Laos and Angola. The 40% figure is accurate for California alone.
“Trying new approaches to combating global warming is good, but when you’re spending all of this energy on demonizing cars while looking the other way at your other sources of greenhouse emissions, it just all seems disproportionate.”
As a guy who’s both a car nerd and an ecologist studying global change, I agree wholeheartedly. Cars have their place in the grand scheme of things, no doubt. They have an impact. But commodities transport, power generation, and industrial agriculture represent bigger and more important impacts – and those impacts are properly and easily addressed by changes to policy and law. It strikes me as a fool’s errand to try to spend too much time legislating people’s consumer choices – whether or not you agree with them, most folks listen only to the bottom line, and will change their spending habits only when it hits them hard in the wallet.
You can pry my truck keys from my cold dead hands. Bitch all you want about climate change and congestion, that’s my feeling on the matter and the feeling of the majority (or at least 52.5%) of Americans.
Besides, if the doom and gloomers complaining about manmade greenhouse gases actually are right, Mother Earth will respond by rendering the Earth inhospitable for human life, solving the problem.
“So will it work?”
NO. It will have the opposite effect.
Older SUV’s will now hold their value more, and people will buy less of them.
People who want one or need one will continue to drive the older ones for longer and longer. While newer technology models, which pollute less, will sit on lots waiting to be used.
California already has this problem because the taxes on a new car are just stupid.
The gasoline is still so cheap that the higher resale value and durability of the vehicles will make them cost less to own and operate even with this tax.
If you want to reduce emmissions by discouraging the use of fuel, you should ENCOURAGE people to buy NEW vehicles. Also, you should encourage people to own MULTIPLE vehicles. At the same time TAX THE GAS. In this way, you increase the probability that the larger vehicle will sit when not needed.
Depreciation, taxes, and insurance presently eat up any savings someone would get from buying a second car, and rental costs and hassles eat up savings of only renting a larger vehicle when needed.
Please do not make an argument about how many people only need the truck X times a year unless you actually do the frigging math! Include ALL the costs, and you will see how it WON’T work. I worked it out here before, and I don’t want to have to do it again.
Since most luxury SUVs such as the Cayenne, H2, RAM SRT-10, Escalade and X5 are primarily recreational vehicles, they should not be subject to the same exemptions that commercial vehicles are. They should be treated no differently to sports cars – which means either get rid of the gas guzzler tax on cars or apply it to all non-commercial vehicles.
As far as California’s efforts are concerned – it is a State’s right to impose any sales tax they want. Maybe that will solve their population problem and less people will want to live there.
has nothing to do with saving the (californian)earth but opening up another stream of revenue to redistribute to the governments “Stakeholders”
quasimondo :
But then, the IPCC has transportation listed at contributing only 15%. So is somebody’s information incorrect, or are the numbers being fudged?
Yes and yes.
This is a huge threat to Detroit as many if not most states will follow suit simply to raise more revenue.
If CA has a mild climate, gets a lot of electricity from nukes, wind and hydro and drives more, per capita, than other states, then 40% is certainly within the realm of possibility.
We seem to import a lot of our energy. We do have a significant number of multi-purpose hydro projects: producing electricity, moving water from the northern half to the southern half of the state, and reducing spring-time flooding. the thing is these damns are being decommissioned in the name of rehabilitating fish spawning. the chances of any new dam construction is less than the proverbial snowball in hell. The remaining bulk of energy is produced by gas fired power plants with some co-gen plants, nuclear, wind, geothermal, and solar energy production.
It’s very stupid to tax base on EPA mileage numbers. The numbers only resemble carefully controlled experimental data of brand new cars.
An EPA 20mpg car could be more efficient than an EPA 22mpg car in real life. The fuel economy of an EPA 20mpg car could drop to 15mpg after 3 years. You get the idea.
To really encourage saving on fuels, the easiest and fool-proof way is to tax the fuel itself and allow the car makers to produce whatever cars they want.
morbo:
Besides, if the doom and gloomers complaining about manmade greenhouse gases actually are right, Mother Earth will respond by rendering the Earth inhospitable for human life, solving the problem.
Nothing that’s happened before a half a dozen times – massive planetary extinctions are par for the course every couple hundred million years.
However, my genes are selfish. Very, very selfish. I want them to go on, and on…
Gotta wonder at what price per gallon would people either stop driving so much or buy smaller cars?
$6/gallon?
I would kindly ask that those people in support of a gas tax hike demonstrate your bristling support for such a tax by contributing before it’s required.
It would take quite a rise in gas prices to make me want to buy a new car. My current car is just over three years old; no where near the end of the line. The price of gas would have to more than double before the purchase price of a new car would make economic sense. Then factor in the corresponding decrease in the value of a car that averages 21 mpg (my current gas mileage over the life of the car) and the price has to go even higherand so on. What rising gas prices would do is make me more aware of the gas mileage of a particular vehicle I was already considering. Given my taste in cars, the price of gas would have to get pretty darn high before I would buy a Prius.
If CA has a mild climate, gets a lot of electricity from nukes, wind and hydro and drives more, per capita, than other states, then 40% is certainly within the realm of possibility.
Unfortunately for genuine understanding, this figure is bloated by folks who neglect to account for the CO2 emitted by California’s power generation demand that is fulfilled by out-of-state generators, often coal in Utah and elsewhere. Similarly missing is a full accounting of the CO2 emitted by shipping traffic into and out of our ports, as well as along our coast. And the 40% figure is claimed for “transportation,” of which private automotive use is only a portion. Not that I think climate change is human-induced in the first place, but just sayin’.
I’ll point out (again) that the IPCC claims that we need a 14,000 million metric tons annual reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to manage climate change to a standstill. That’s over half of 2005 estimated emissions. Understand the number: it’s over 30,000,000,000,000 or 30 trillion pounds. A mere 337 million metric tons of greenhouse gas reduction would be achieved by replacing the entire US passenger car fleet with Toyota Prius or efficieny equivalent. Scant. Meanwhile 2,142 million metric tons of greenhouse emissions could be slashed by converting US coal power generation to a mix of alternative energy sources.
A whopping 7,274 million metric tons can be slashed by doing the same in US, India and China combined. Clearly, the car is not the place to start. IF you believe climate change is anthropogenic, then everyone who is spearheading their actions by targeting the automobile is simply not serious about the problem. That includes the entire polity of California. I live here, so I can say it.
Again, if you want to change carbon emissions quickly, funnel resources into carbon sequestering at fixed-location power generation sites, and slash red tape holding back nuclear, wind and solar alternatives. Subsidize mass adoption of solar by homeowners and businesses. These are achievable impacts within a decade or less. The automobile is already on the mend. Let it continue while preserving mobility as a primary wealth driver in modern life, both for those of us who have achieved it and those who are looking for traction on the economic ladder around the globe.
Phil
@jkross22:
After gas was $1.00-$1.50 throughout the late 90s/early 2000s, we heard so much about how everything would change radically once it hit $3.00/gallon. It has changed somewhat. We aren’t buying body-on-frame SUVs as much, but the crossovers and minivans we’ve replaced them with aren’t that much more efficient. Hybrid sales haven’t taken off the way we thought. Who knows if the launches of the F-150 and Ram trucks will be able to stop some of the bleeding? Of the top four selling trucks, the oldest is the Silverado at two years. Maybe fresh product will help. Maybe Americans just like bigger cars enough to make their continued existance worthwhile. I don’t see how a tax would fix that.
Brendon from Canada :
It would be nice if a politician (outgoing, perhaps?) would grow a pair, and simply raise the tax on gas. It’s so much easier…. I just can’t understand why driving a 6000lb SUV 10miles / day is so much worse then commuting a 3000lb compact (if you could call 3000lbs compact) for a 120mile commute.
The commuter may not have a choice about the commute. But most owners of 6000 lb SUVs could make do with something lighter and more efficient.
quasimondo makes an excellent point in the second post on this editorial. Although I love the idea of socking it to the SUV gas guzzler owners, the real solution is a carbon tax. That will give people a choice of how they want to reduce their carbon emissions, and it will probably be far more effective than a gas guzzler tax in reducing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, according to an article I read in New Scientist, most Americans don’t like the idea of a carbon tax. We have to make them get used to it.
In fact, I could see a carbon tax replacing the income tax.
$2500 is about the extra cost of a hybrid. So if we tax all non-hybrids $2500 and then give a rebate of $2500 to hybrid buyers, California will switch even faster to hybrids than it’s already doing.
Sounds great to me.
Now, if we take a look at Europe to contrast, you understand that America is really an automotive paradise. In Europe it’s quite normal to have sales taxes that are progressive with weight (in the order of 20% on top of a VAT sales tax of another 20% or so) AND ADDITIONALLY high yearly license fees that are also progressive with the weight of the vehicle. There, take that.
jkross,
Nice try, but no cigar. None of us that I know of are advocating a gas tax to increase government revenue. I say government has too much money, and the gas tax should be offset by other taxes.
Your logic is best applied to those who propose tax increases for the purposes of increasing the size and power of government. The analagous activity would be for us to buy up and store the gasoline so that it is not used and/or buy oil reserves and refuse to drill them.
David,
The commuter does have a choice, and he/she would make that choice if the cost increased to the point that moving homes or jobs was cheaper. I have said before that government should first reduce friction in the buying and selling of homes by streamlining the process, removing fees, and ceasing to protect vested interests in the industry. Personally, I think the choice is simple because my hours on earth are limited and would rather not take a job that had a long commute at all. I would love to see pollution and consumption taxes replace income taxes, and this would also reduce commutes while adding economic opportunities for lower wage earners.
El San Fran,
See my earlier post. The results of those weight taxes is likely increased use of heavy vehicles. Once you pay, you might as well get your monies worth.
“It would be nice if a politician (outgoing, perhaps?) would grow a pair, and simply raise the tax on gas.”
The problem with that is the regressiveness. Even the poorest working person needs to buy gas to get around in most of California.
jthorner,
Why would the wages of people on the bottom NOT react to the gas tax and rise to pay for it? Would they not quit working if the tax made it unprofitable to work?
Also, what is the purpose of mass transit if not to provide transit for the poorest among us? Wouldn’t this be a good thing to have more people using the mass transit. Would it not then grow with more users and be an even better resource? Do you somehow think people with better options will magically start using mass transit so that services will expand to their suburban enclave? PCH101 says these people are a road hazard because they don’t maintain their cars now. Don’t we WANT them off the road?
In the Houston area, mass transit has much more comprehensive service in poor areas and places that hire lots of low paid workers. How do you justify making me subsidize their bus, AND keeping the tax on fuel low so they can drive?
What else will work? Seriously. What else has a snowball’s chance in hell to work? We have pages and pages of how CAFE failed. The gas guzzler tax did squat. How many times does a policy have to fail before we can agree it is not a matter of tweaking it?
increasing taxes does increase government. The Us should deal with the real co2 disaster- coal burning powerstations. they should be replaced by nuclear ones, or by the new nuclear-fusion ones under construction in europe. The size of government should be decreased. US is offshoring manufacturing industry- the one with higly paid workers. Those jobs are replaced by low-paid service jobs. people lose savings, and they can`t afford to buy things using savings. They go for credits. Credits increase inflation. inflation devaluates dollar. In order to keep crediting going, Us Central Bank lowers interest rates by printing more money. Government taxes in less than it spends, the missing difference is printed out of thin air. The country faces recession. Oh, God this is so simple! how come you can`t understand it???? Fight the cause, not the consequence!
Buy used, avoid the tax. People always find a way. Government fails when they try to change market forces.
As someone who works in state government (not the California state government), and has watched how it “justifies” the need for extra money, I’m very nervous regarding this proposal. Here’s why:
As proposed, the tax gives rebates to buyers of fuel efficient cars (we’ll use the Honda Civic as an example), while charging $2,500 to buyers of gas guzzlers (here we’ll use the Cadillac Escalade as an example). Presumably the buyers of Ford Tauruses and Toyota Avalons would neither receive a rebate nor pay the gas guzzler fee.
BUT – five years from now, the state will have a budget “crisis” brought on by overspending for, say, Medicare or schools or whatever. The solution? Revise the gas guzzler rebate scheme!
Now, the Honda Civic buyer gets nothing, the Ford Taurus buyer pays $1,000 and the Escalade buyer pays $3,500.
Problem solved, right? Well, until the NEXT budget crisis brought on by overspending – say, because the state-run pension fund for state workers needs more money, and no one is seriously going to cut benefits or pension checks, so…
Now, the Honda Civic buyer PAYS $1,000, the Ford Taurus buyer pays $2,500 and the Escalade buyer pays $4,500.
And, then when the “gas guzzler” has reached the point where it really does what its backers say it will do (i.e., depress sales of gas guzzlers), this will further depress revenue, which the state is now addicted to, which will necessitate further increases in fees for Honda Civics and Ford Tauruses, no matter how efficient they are…
While I lean towards the no new taxes side, I have to point out that if you can’t have any control over your legislature, then it won’t matter one way or the other.
The problem is not changes in the taxes, it’s lack of the voter’s will to fire the bastards.
One can agree or disagree on the desirability and effectiveness of a proposed tax while still saying they will not support the new tax because no other taxes are being reduced or eliminated.
You cannot simply avoid a tax on new cars by buying used. The value of the used car will reflect the tax. Even if the tax wasn’t paid on that car when it was new.
geeber:
I believe you are off topic here.
What we are discussing here is how the taxes shall be collected to reflect an environmental awareness, assuming that the total amount of tax is not changed. If the fuel is taxed, then the personal income tax should be reduced by the same amount.
What you are talking is how to control government greed. It’s real, but it’s a separate issue. The government will want to collect more tax no matter what. To deal with that, we should disregard the specifics about cars and focus on the political implications instead. The first move, IMO, is to get a new president.
(No, GWB didn’t reduce tax. The tax rate for the average guy actually increased. And everyone was taxed in the form of inflation due to over spending on Iraq war.)
I totally agree with Landcrusher. People got to have control over their legislature. I mean, this nation is supposed to be a democracy, right? The current problem is either:
1) The government policies no long reflect the true will of the people, OR
2) The people are so stupid that they ask for the wrong policy
I would worry about this problem before I worry about global warming. IMO, most people are right most of the times. So, essentially this is a problem with the elected public servants, and Americans should act when they are displeased.
wsn: What we are discussing here is how the taxes shall be collected to reflect an environmental awareness, assuming that the total amount of tax is not changed.
I was referring to the original proposal in the article, which deals with California’s plan to institute a “fee” for gas guzzlers, while simultaneously instituting a rebate for gas sippers.
The smokescreen reason for the proposal may be to “reflect environmental awareness,” but the real reason is to tap another source of revenue while demonizing someone else (in this case, people who buy gas guzzlers).
The simple fact is that once the proposal is implemented, and the California state government becomes addicted to that revenue stream, pressure will build to increase it, especially if it really works (i.e, by reducing sales of gas guzzlers, which generate the revenue). California will still want the revenue even if every last gas guzzler is either in the scrap yard or the antique auto museum.
Mark my word, if this is implemented in California, within 15 years, Civic and Taurus buyers will be paying this fee, too.
Incidentally, look at what happened to the Tobacco Settlement money, which states were supposed to use for either health-related or smoking cessation programs. A large number used it for general fund spending.
wsn: If the fuel is taxed, then the personal income tax should be reduced by the same amount.
I would agree…if it worked out that way in practice. If the income tax is merely reduced, there is nothing to stop government from raising it in the future, while keeping the gas guzzler registration fees (or higher gas taxes) in place.
wsn: The first move, IMO, is to get a new president.
And replace him with whom…? One of the Democrats?
They want to spend just as much as Bush (actually, more, from what I’ve seen), but they labor under the fiction that raising taxes on “the rich” will solve the problem. First, there aren’t enough rich people to pay for their programs, and, second, their definition of who actually is “rich” doesn’t quite square with reality (not to mention the cost of living in some areas).
If you are talking about Ron Paul, okay. That is different. Of course, he has no chance of winning, so…
wsn: (No, GWB didn’t reduce tax. The tax rate for the average guy actually increased. And everyone was taxed in the form of inflation due to over spending on Iraq war.)
The real root of our overspending is the growth in entitlement expenditures – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Anyone not willing to tackle these head-on (and without raising taxes) is not serious about over-spending. The costs of the Iraq War are a sideshow compared to the amount that goes out the door for these programs. The coming retirement of the Baby Boomers will only make it worse.
wsn: 1) The government policies no long reflect the true will of the people, OR
2) The people are so stupid that they ask for the wrong policy.
Government policies DO reflect the will of a fair number of people. Namely, they want government to “do something” about various issues, but they don’t want to pay the cost, forgetting that nothing comes for free.
Or, they rely on the notion that “the rich” can pay for these programs. Only problem is that their defintion of who is rich focuses on Donald Trump and Paris Hilton, and guess, what, if we taxed the Hiltons and Trumps of America at 99 percent of their income, it still wouldn’t be enough to pay for these programs for very long.
Sure, we can tax those defined as upper-middle class (by their income), but, there again, most of those people live in the expensive coastal areas (New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.). So while their incomes may look impressive on paper, they aren’t so hot once you start subtracting for state and local taxes, the cost of housing, the higher cost of living in those areas…
Landcrusher,
You are basically admitting that there is a lot of friction in home-buying and selling. Furthermore, some people have long commutes because spouses work far apart. Finally, som epeople can’t afford to live near their jobs. Nonetheless, I think we’re basically mostly in agreement on the relevant policy matters.
The commuter does have a choice, and he/she would make that choice if the cost increased to the point that moving homes or jobs was cheaper. I have said before that government should first reduce friction in the buying and selling of homes by streamlining the process, removing fees, and ceasing to protect vested interests in the industry. Personally, I think the choice is simple because my hours on earth are limited and would rather not take a job that had a long commute at all. I would love to see pollution and consumption taxes replace income taxes, and this would also reduce commutes while adding economic opportunities for lower wage earners.
Jurisb
The Us should deal with the real co2 disaster- coal burning powerstations. they should be replaced by nuclear ones, or by the new nuclear-fusion ones under construction in europe. The size of government should be decreased.
There are no nuclear fusion plants generating electricity anywhere in the world. There are some experimental plants, but fusion is more primitive than automobiles were when the first ox carts were built probably about 5,000 years ago. I’m not sure what you were thinking of.
Why mandate that coal plants should be replaced by nuclear? There are plenty of less capital intensive sources of electricity which can be brought on line far faster than nukes, which lack the associated problems. Texas will soon have the equivalent of 23 full-sized nuclear plants’ worth of wind generation. The US only has a total of about 100 nukes.
Nuclear sounds good–masculine, strong–but that doesn’t mean it can do the job any better than anything else. Saying coal should be replaced by nuclear is like saying we should have hybrids, period, to reduce automotive energy consumption.
@David Holzman : The commuter has as much choice about the commute as they do about the vehicle that they commute in, do they not? Seems Landcrusher also addressed this…
@Landcrusher : You and I seem to be on the same page here! I would argue (and have in the past) that a good portion of taxes on gas be used to fund alternative transportion and/or lifestyle issues aimed at decreasing consumption – ie, better public transportation.
@jthorner : Again Landcrusher beat me to it, but the only “need” for vehicles is due to a lack in available mass transit. I’d go one step further and say that even owning multiple vehicles doesn’t stop me from using mass transit when it’s more convenient to do so (ie to avoid traffic).
I could perhaps go fruther and argue against providing an abundence of low cost fuel efficient vehicles (or low cost fuel) – this doesn’t sound like a great way to reduce the amount of resources required. People would continue to be able to afford to travel frequently and we’d wind up with more vehicles on the road then we have today… I say (only somewhat tongue-in-cheek) keep the big SUVs going! Force the price of gas up! Reduce affordable consumption!
Geeber, the problem with income tax is not that we don’t tax Paris Hilton enough. The entire tax structure is flawed. Rich business people pay far less income tax than the average guy.
Warren Buffet once said that his own tax rate is only half of that of his lowest paid employee. And that’s a problem. I am not saying we should tax the rich people more. But a flat rate wouldn’t be too much, right?
There is no way to collect income tax fairly. Those who would take risks or those with power can always evade taxes. The right way, IMO, is not to collect income tax at all. Instead, collect sales tax as suggested by Huckbee. In addition, the government is already collecting taxes in other forms such as printing money (i.e. Iraq war).
Brendon from Canada :
@David Holzman : The commuter has as much choice about the commute as they do about the vehicle that they commute in, do they not? Seems Landcrusher also addressed this…
No. Absolutely not. Supposing your office is 100 miles from your wife’s. Or 50 miles from your wife’s. Your family is pretty well stuck with that much commuting. Or, supposing you are well settled into a good neighborhood, with good schools for your kids, within walking distance of your office. Now, supposing you get fired, and get a new job that’s 30 miles away, with no good schools nearby for your kids? Or supposing your job is in Manhattan, it pays less than $100,000/year, and you have 3 kids? You’re probably going to have to live somewhere in New Jersey, far from your office. ETc.
Moreover, even if you have fewer constraints, you may not want to move every time you get a new job.
@ Jurisb
There is no such thing as commercial nuclear fusion, and there may never be. Despite >50 years of research, nuclear fusion is not yet even at the stage of development the automobile was at when the first ox-carts were built more than 5,000 years ago.
Moreover, why do people like you insist on nuclear? Is there something masculinely comforting about the sound of a technology that is also used in weapons of mass destruction? How do you know that renewables can’t do the job less expensively? Texas will soon have 23 nuclear plant’s worth of wind power. The entire US only has about 100 nuclear plants. Specifying that the power should be nuclear is like specifying that in order to save energy, all future cars should be hybrids.
wsn,
There has been tremendous resistance to the flat tax from the left…and judging by Governor Huckabee’s showing in the primaries, his ideas don’t appear to be gaining much traction with the Republicans.
I’m not saying that these ideas don’t have merit or aren’t worthwhile further discussion.
It’s just that it isn’t only the current occupant of the White House who is wedded to the current system…and the changing of the guard probably won’t have much effect.
The tax bill of 1986, pushed by President Ronald Reagan and New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley (D), attempted to simplify the tax code (and make it cheaper for people to simply pay the tax instead of hiring accountants to find loopholes) by flattening rates and eliminating deductions.
Both parties have been busily dismantling that effort for the past two decades.
David: No. Absolutely not. Supposing your office is 100 miles from your wife’s. Or 50 miles from your wife’s. … [snipped for brevity – original post 1 page back]
@David: I certainly understand your predicament and can sympathize with those in the same proverbial boat… however I stand by my statement that these are personal choices – some may be more difficult then others, but nobody’s hand has been forced. In your case, I certainly believe that you are doing the best for your family – which I applaud.
From a more personal angle, I had the opportunity a few years back to make a significantly larger wage, however I would have been required to either commute about 60 miles into the local metropolitain area (2.5hrs time from my house in rush hour, no mass transit available within 30 miles) or pick up my family and move closer. I chose to not accept the work.
I suspect this is a point on which we simply won’t agree – part of why I enjoy TTAC!
100 miles? I would say that someone REALLY needs to reconsider something in their lives.
I suppose it’s possible, but it is definitely unlikely, that there are not better options of where to live or work. People get blinded by the issues in their lives and often don’t sit back and look at things objectively enough.
First thing that needs to be done is put SOME value on the cost of that commute over and above the cost per mile of transportation. Unless you really enjoy the commute (I know a guy who mostly flies a small airplane to work) put a dollar value on it. It doesn’t have to be accurate, you can change it later.
Once you do that, you can likely figure out a better solution or come up with an exit strategy. There are two jobs and a home. One of them can change.
David Holzman said:
Supposing your office is 100 miles from your wife’s.
How do you suppose most people in Tokyo commute? I will give you some hints:
1) They are rich and can afford cars.
2) They cannot afford to wait in traffic jams.
3) They cannot afford parking in downtown Tokyo.
4) They take public transit (i.e. bullet trains).
5) A couple won’t work 100 miles apart.
I mean, if the both of you indeed work 100 miles apart, one of you can always find another job that makes the commute easier. Do not get married, if you are not ready to make compromises.
Try to think out of this “American urban sprawl” box. There is no solution to you, if you don’t change your mindset.
Re: California regulating CO2, you say “That effort was an arcane, back door maneuver destined to fail.”
According to everyone involved, including the advisors to the EPA paid-off-local-bottom-feeder who denied California their waiver, this will be overturned by the courts and allow California to go ahead and do what the Federal Government is unwilling to do.
Now that is actual progress. Of course there is nothing wrong with charging these fools a fee to drive their guzzlers. In Canada it’s a $4000 tax on some of the worst offenders.
WSN: Tokyo already has a pretty damn good transit system, but what they do there is not very relevant to what people do in the US. As for “one can always find a job that makes the commute easier,” that’s pretty glib. I have some friends, he got a job as a cosmologist at Brown University in Providence RI, she was a classicist at Yale, a couple of hours further west. They went on like that for something like six years. They both eventually got jobs in their fields at the U of Wisconsin, but for some people in some professions, you can’t just wave your hand and make something work. Academic partners are damn lucky to get jobs at the same university. There are plenty of other circumstances that make it hard to avoid long commutes. A friend who is a single mother has a nice house in a nice neighborhood in a good far flung suburb of Boston which she and her husband bought long before house prices doubled, and which she got–at some extra cost–when they divorced. Her commute was about 25 miles to the east. Her pay was lousy. She subsequently got a job a roughly equal distance in the opposite direction. She has a friend who works from home who frequently watches her child in return for various favors. It’s a great arrangement which makes her life much easier. The school system is decent, unlike in Worcester, where her new job is. Are you going to ask her to move to Worcester anyway, when she can’t possibly afford private school, and child care wouidl be a stretch?
Brendan from Canada,
Sure these are personal choices, but as you can see from the above people operate under a lot of different constraints which you and I cannot necessarily imagine.
(As for me, I actually work out of my house, and my only commute is about 12 miles round trip to get excellent espresso in the AM.)
jmhm2003,
1 outta 2 ain’t bad.
I would not bet against the state in the courts on this one.
On the other hand, see my post on why this tax is ill advised. It’s more about getting votes and money than helping the environment. There so much IS something wrong with it. It will hurt a lot of people, and likely HARM the environment.
Landcrusher,
Interesting argument (in your much earlier post on the downside of the guzzler tax). My gut tries to insist that the guzzler tax is good, but my head says by far the simplest thing woudl be a carbon tax, and barring that, better a gas tax than a guzzler tax. My one question to you is, do you really think all these owners of old SUVs would hang onto them because of the tax? I actually think a lot of them–the many who don’t really need trucks–might go for cars instead. But for reducing greenhouse emissions, the carbon tax is by far the most elegant measure.
” case you were wondering, the federal gas guzzler tax rate hasn’t changed since 1988. The surcharge still starts at $1k; rising to a maximum of $7,700 for vehicles that get less than 12.5 mpg combined. Did I mention that SUVs and pickup trucks are exempt?
Yes, there is that. When the gas guzzler tax was born, SUV and light truck sales accounted for less than 25 percent of total new car sales. According to Automotive News, the genres now account for 52.5 percent of all American automobile sales.
So if the federal gas guzzler tax was such a great idea back when oil supplies were tighter than a figure skater’s leotard, why not close the loophole now, what with global warming threatening to exterminate billions of humans? Surely that’s a better plan than concocting a cockamamie scheme to force automakers to change their vehicle mix to satisfy an arbitrary average fuel consumption figure? Why not penalize buyers of gas guzzlers and, by doing so, incentivize fuel misers?”
Perfect. 52.5% of 16 million makes for over 8 million “trucks” Majority get poor fuel economy that would qualify for the gas guzzler tax. The amount of cars sold with the gas guzzler tax is a few thousand. I am not sure how effective it would be, but it makes a lot more sense to apply it to all eligable vehicles. The EPA should stop pretending that it cares about the environment with the current plan.
I don’t understand why California is trying make up it’s own rules and regualtions. Sometime I wonder if California wants it’s own indepedence by trying to set it’s own standards overwriting the rules that is set by the country. I give the EPA a pad on the back for not allowing California to regulate it’s own emissions when it’s a national/global issue. By the way I was born and raise in California lived here all my life, but sometimes things are just to ridiculas to comprehen.
California’s trying to make up its own rules because it’s big enough (about 12% of the US population) that it can, and the feds are just too damn slow.
California has had the ability to set its own air quality standards since the Clean Air Act was originally passed. Its attempt to regulate carbon dioxide emissions is based on this precedent. California is attempting to expand a power it already has, not claim a new one.
As for commutes – it is useless to compare most of the U.S. to places like Tokyo (or London, or Paris). Most people here do not live in large cities, and they have no desire to do so.
America (and Canada) have more space than other countries, so people will naturally take advantage of this when choosing where to live, because living in a lower density area (to a point) is more pleasant for most people.
Of course, as others have noted, rising population could ruin this, but that involves the implementation of measures much more far-reaching than gas guzzler taxes, although such measures would be more helpful in the long run.
Chewy said: “So if the federal gas guzzler tax was such a great idea back when oil supplies were tighter than a figure skater’s leotard, why not close the loophole now, what with global warming threatening to exterminate billions of humans?”
Because it was NOT a good idea back then. If you want to reduce emissions, you need to tax fuel, not the vehicles. I agree, close the loophole, get rid of the tax for cars.
Let’s say you need a vehicle to carry a large family (or any other reason). So you buy one and pay a tax of $4,000. Will you now drive the vehicle LESS because you paid the tax? NO!! You will drive it more. Get your money’s worth. It would be better to let you use that money to buy a second, more efficient vehicle for when you don’t need the capacity of the big one. Encourage the purchase of the second vehicle by moving the tax to THE FUEL.
I have read NOTHING on this thread to contradict my argument. What I keep seeing is a bunch of people arguing to make SOMEONE ELSE pay the tax. Just because you don’t want or truck. Well let me tell you something folks. They will come to get taxes on things you want next. Playing that game with the government is like playing cards with the casino. You may win a little today, but they will always win in the long run.
If you care about emissions, then you are for a fuel tax rather than a car tax. If you are a socialist, you are for taxing things other people want (usually people wealthier than you). That’s all there is to it.