Fuel Efficiency Standards vs Gasoline Taxes

[Turdacious]

AEN is basically right. You don't have to worry about global warming to think we should reduce gasoline consumption. And using higher gas taxes to fund an EITC expansion would deal with the hit taken by the working poor. On the other hand, driving up car prices with poorly thought out regulations provides no government revenue to do anything.

Much like student loans-- previously reducing the cost of college tuition or some student loan forgiveness would have had no cost to the government; now to do either kills the golden goose.

[Pinky]

AEN is basically right. You don't have to worry about global warming to think we should reduce gasoline consumption. And using higher gas taxes to fund an EITC expansion would deal with the hit taken by the working poor. On the other hand, driving up car prices with poorly thought out regulations provides no government revenue to do anything.

IMO- All economists must live under their suggested regulations first for 10 years before their half baked ideas are finally foisted upon the regular citizenry. At least that way we know you fucked harder or at least you got fucked first.

After you recover from the aneurism you just had, re-read the thread. You'll notice that no economist in this case is endorsing any regulation. Economists are arguing against regulation, as they frequently do.

It's none of your business or the governments business what or how much I drive, who I fuck, what I eat, who I pray to or don't pray to, what I watch on TV, or what I read.

Nothing I've said, and nothing mentioned in the article, suggests that you shouldn't be free drive, fuck, eat, worship, watch or read whatever the fuck you want. Feel free to haul a gang of obese, tranny, Buddhist concubines around in a Hummer if you want to. I don't care.

(pile of crazy)...stop using the tax code as social control tool.

I'm not suggesting using the tax code as a "social control tool", and neither are the economists referred to in the article. Do what want. Leave your Hummer idling while a hooker buys you meth, but realize that your Hummer imposes costs in the form of wear on the roads and pollution that are not paid for in the transactions between you and the oil company of your choice. Regulation, telling people what they can and can't drive, is a shitty way to deal with those costs. Taxation is better.

This is nothing more than a Sin tax for the Gia worshippers.

If there's one thing the economics department at the University of Chicago (famous for work on externalities) is known for, it's Gia worship.

[Batboy2/75]

AEN is basically right. You don't have to worry about global warming to think we should reduce gasoline consumption. And using higher gas taxes to fund an EITC expansion would deal with the hit taken by the working poor. On the other hand, driving up car prices with poorly thought out regulations provides no government revenue to do anything.

IMO- All economists must live under their suggested regulations first for 10 years before their half baked ideas are finally foisted upon the regular citizenry. At least that way we know you fucked harder or at least you got fucked first.

After you recover from the aneurism you just had, re-read the thread. You'll notice that no economist in this case is endorsing any regulation. Economists are arguing against regulation, as they frequently do.

It's none of your business or the governments business what or how much I drive, who I fuck, what I eat, who I pray to or don't pray to, what I watch on TV, or what I read.

Nothing I've said, and nothing mentioned in the article, suggests that you shouldn't be free drive, fuck, eat, worship, watch or read whatever the fuck you want. Feel free to haul a gang of obese, tranny, Buddhist concubines around in a Hummer if you want to. I don't care.

(pile of crazy)...stop using the tax code as social control tool.

I'm not suggesting using the tax code as a "social control tool", and neither are the economists referred to in the article. Do what want. Leave your Hummer idling while a hooker buys you meth, but realize that your Hummer imposes costs in the form of wear on the roads and pollution that are not paid for in the transactions between you and the oil company of your choice. Regulation, telling people what they can and can't drive, is a shitty way to deal with those costs. Taxation is better.

This is nothing more than a Sin tax for the Gia worshippers.

If there's one thing the economics department at the University of Chicago (famous for work on externalities) is known for, it's Gia worship.

Every time I fuel up, I am greeted by a sign that details the various federal and state Excise taxes on gasoline and diesel. Then there is state sales taxes. So, I'm already paying my share for roads, infrastructure, etc. Plus, every time I idle my Hummer in West Seattle while on a Hooker and Hobo Safari, I'm doing even more than my fair share, as the car isn't moving.

You do care what I do. Otherwise, none of this talk of taxes would be accompanied by talk of about these taxes forcing people to choose one type of car over another. What you can not do, via reason and discorse, you want to achieve through the force of government taxes. This has nothing to do with infrastructure or even revenue (the true purpose of taxes) and everything thing to do whith smug assholes supporting tyrany.

[Turdacious]

If there's one thing the economics department at the University of Chicago (famous for work on externalities) is known for, it's Gia worship.

Externalities are an established fact, both negative and positive. The externalities of air pollution are not, they can be measured in many different ways.

Consider your average entry level Japanese car-- 20-30 years ago they had higher fuel efficiency. Efficiency has gone down because of the pollution control standards that have been imposed on car manufacturers. The fact is if we stopped discriminating against diesel nationwide, we'd have more diesel vehicles, and less pollution.

It also depends on how you measure the pollution caused by automobiles-- the pollution created by electric cars needs to consider the pollution caused by turning the inputs into electric power.

[Pinky]

Every time I fuel up, I am greeted by a sign that details the various federal and state Excise taxes on gasoline and diesel. Then there is state sales taxes. So, I'm already paying my share for roads, infrastructure, etc. Plus, every time I idle my Hummer in West Seattle while on a Hooker and Hobo Safari, I'm doing even more than my fair share, as the car isn't moving.

You might live in a high tax state, but those taxes you see at the pump do not cover the cost of highway and road maintenance in most of the country. The Federal tax doesn't cover their costs of maintaining highways. Not raising the tax on gasoline, or adding a tax on miles driven (which would be more difficult to administer), means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads.

You do care what I do. Otherwise, none of this talk of taxes would be accompanied by talk of about these taxes forcing people to choose one type of car over another.

It's not a matter of forcing people to choose one car over another. It's a matter of having them pay the full price of their choice and then letting them do what they want. The alternative amounts to subsidizing the use of fossil fuel.

[Pinky]

If there's one thing the economics department at the University of Chicago (famous for work on externalities) is known for, it's Gia worship.

Externalities are an established fact, both negative and positive. The externalities of air pollution are not, they can be measured in many different ways.

So look at the lower bound estimates of pollution externalities. Then add in costs of congestion and highway maintenance. The result will still suggest an increase in fuel taxes.

It also depends on how you measure the pollution caused by automobiles-- the pollution created by electric cars needs to consider the pollution caused by turning the inputs into electric power.

I agree that electric cars pose other problems. They require electricity, often produced by burning coal, to be priced in a way that includes its externalities. A gasoline tax is also not going to cover the costs they impose on the roads and other motorists, which is a problem.

[Turdacious]

If there's one thing the economics department at the University of Chicago (famous for work on externalities) is known for, it's Gia worship.

Externalities are an established fact, both negative and positive. The externalities of air pollution are not, they can be measured in many different ways.

So look at the lower bound estimates of pollution externalities. Then add in costs of congestion and highway maintenance. The result will still suggest an increase in fuel taxes.

A nice little trick-- adding in the costs of congestion. What is the cost of living in poorly run cities with large concentrations of urban poverty? If you worked in Baltimore-- would you rather live there or in one of it's suburbs?

[Pinky]

A nice little trick-- adding in the costs of congestion.

Do you doubt those costs exist?

If you worked in Baltimore-- would you rather live there or in one of it's suburbs?

I would happily pay not to live in Baltimore.

[Turdacious]

A nice little trick-- adding in the costs of congestion.

Do you doubt those costs exist?

If you worked in Baltimore-- would you rather live there or in one of it's suburbs?

I would happily pay not to live in Baltimore.

My point exactly. The congestion cost is an externality of living in an area that is or is perceived to be nicer. It's also a cost of having regional economic mobility-- not one of fuel efficiency. Case in point-- DC is surrounded by seven of the ten richest counties in the US, yet it's still DC.

If I'm looking at it right, it's more of a case of an externality in the context of rivalrous public goods (into which congestion, school quality, crime rates, tax rates, housing values, and the perception of all of them have to be considered) than that of a mere externality.

[Batboy2/75]

Every time I fuel up, I am greeted by a sign that details the various federal and state Excise taxes on gasoline and diesel. Then there is state sales taxes. So, I'm already paying my share for roads, infrastructure, etc. Plus, every time I idle my Hummer in West Seattle while on a Hooker and Hobo Safari, I'm doing even more than my fair share, as the car isn't moving.

You might live in a high tax state, but those taxes you see at the pump do not cover the cost of highway and road maintenance in most of the country. The Federal tax doesn't cover their costs of maintaining highways. Not raising the tax on gasoline, or adding a tax on miles driven (which would be more difficult to administer), means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads.

You do care what I do. Otherwise, none of this talk of taxes would be accompanied by talk of about these taxes forcing people to choose one type of car over another.

It's not a matter of forcing people to choose one car over another. It's a matter of having them pay the full price of their choice and then letting them do what they want. The alternative amounts to subsidizing the use of fossil fuel.

Completely different argument. If fuel taxes are not high enough to fund current infrastructure, then make that argument.

If this is your arument, then maybe also make the argument that those funds shouldn't be deposited into the general fund, like many states and the Feds treat their fuel taxes. Because, without this important Step, any new revenue will go down the usual rat holes pols usually waste our money on. Plenty of new taxes and spending for the state and we get no new roads or bridges. Thank you very much for your concern, but I'd rather keep my money if the end results are the same.

The original post and your follow up posts were about using taxes to force people to choose a particular car over another, not about funding our streets and highway system. With plenty of mentions of the working poor, global warming and the usual claptrap that accompanies the arguments for increasing government intrusions into my life.

[Turdacious]

Every time I fuel up, I am greeted by a sign that details the various federal and state Excise taxes on gasoline and diesel. Then there is state sales taxes. So, I'm already paying my share for roads, infrastructure, etc. Plus, every time I idle my Hummer in West Seattle while on a Hooker and Hobo Safari, I'm doing even more than my fair share, as the car isn't moving.

You might live in a high tax state, but those taxes you see at the pump do not cover the cost of highway and road maintenance in most of the country. The Federal tax doesn't cover their costs of maintaining highways. Not raising the tax on gasoline, or adding a tax on miles driven (which would be more difficult to administer), means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads.

You do care what I do. Otherwise, none of this talk of taxes would be accompanied by talk of about these taxes forcing people to choose one type of car over another.

It's not a matter of forcing people to choose one car over another. It's a matter of having them pay the full price of their choice and then letting them do what they want. The alternative amounts to subsidizing the use of fossil fuel.

Completely different argument. If fuel taxes are not high enough to fund current infrastructure, then make that argument.

If this is your arument, then maybe also make the argument that those funds shouldn't be deposited into the general fund, like many states and the Feds treat their fuel taxes. Because, without this important Step, any new revenue will go down the usual rat holes pols usually waste our money on. Plenty of new taxes and spending for the state and we get no new roads or bridges. Thank you very much for your concern, but I'd rather keep my money if the end results are the same.

The original post and your follow up posts were about using taxes to force people to choose a particular car over another, not about funding our streets and highway system. With plenty of mentions of the working poor, global warming and the usual claptrap that accompanies the arguments for increasing government intrusions into my life.

Arguments like this are why Bats is not invited to faculty cocktail parties.

[Pinky]

Completely different argument. If fuel taxes are not high enough to fund current infrastructure, then make that argument.

That's always been part of the argument. The argument is about imposing taxes to make drivers internalize external costs. Maintaining infrastructure is one of those costs. Congestion is a cost. Pollution, even ignoring potential global warming, is a cost.

The original post and your follow up posts were about using taxes to force people to choose a particular car over another, not about funding our streets and highway system.

Nothing's been about forcing anyone to choose anything. In fact, the original post and the article was arguing that forcing people to do things (fuel-economy regulations) are expensive and ineffective. Presenting people with the costs of their choices and then leaving them free to choose results in a better outcome.

[Lewis Medlock]

[/quote], means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads[/quote]

What is wrong with taking from income tax to pay for roads? What should our income taxes be going to?

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

, means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads

What is wrong with taking from income tax to pay for roads? What should our income taxes be going to?

Do you also favor socialized medical care? Because I think it's funny when someone will bitch and moan about socialism whenever anyone mentions having public funded healthcare and then not see any problem with the government funding their transportation in the same manner.

I rarely drive my car. I've set my life up in a way that lets me ride my bike nearly everywhere I want to go. Should I have to fund your car travel and its impact on the environment?

I do agree with Bats that any fuel taxes should not go into the general fund, but should be put into a separate fund to pay for transportation improvements (both road construction/maintenance and alternatives) and environmental remediation.

[Lewis Medlock]

, means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads

What is wrong with taking from income tax to pay for roads? What should our income taxes be going to?

Do you also favor socialized medical care? Because I think it's funny when someone will bitch and moan about socialism whenever anyone mentions having public funded healthcare and then not see any problem with the government funding their transportation in the same manner.

I rarely drive my car. I've set my life up in a way that lets me ride my bike nearly everywhere I want to go. Should I have to fund your car travel and its impact on the environment?

I do agree with Bats that any fuel taxes should not go into the general fund, but should be put into a separate fund to pay for transportation improvements (both road construction/maintenance and alternatives) and environmental remediation.

What should our income taxes be used for? Do you ride your bike on the road? How do they get the food you eat to the store? How did they get your bike to the store where you bought it from? Roads are one of the few things the government should be doing with the cash they take from me.

[Turdacious]

, means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads

What is wrong with taking from income tax to pay for roads? What should our income taxes be going to?

Do you also favor socialized medical care? Because I think it's funny when someone will bitch and moan about socialism whenever anyone mentions having public funded healthcare and then not see any problem with the government funding their transportation in the same manner.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Personal and commercial transportation is neither publicly provided nor publicly funded (the exceptions are inefficiently run public transportation, a few subsidies for energy efficient vehicles, and protection from competition for a larger transportation firms provided because of their campaign contributions to influential members of Congress). Public roads are largely funded by a dedicated excise tax on gasoline.

Socialized medicine is something different entirely.

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

, means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads

What is wrong with taking from income tax to pay for roads? What should our income taxes be going to?

Do you also favor socialized medical care? Because I think it's funny when someone will bitch and moan about socialism whenever anyone mentions having public funded healthcare and then not see any problem with the government funding their transportation in the same manner.

I rarely drive my car. I've set my life up in a way that lets me ride my bike nearly everywhere I want to go. Should I have to fund your car travel and its impact on the environment?

I do agree with Bats that any fuel taxes should not go into the general fund, but should be put into a separate fund to pay for transportation improvements (both road construction/maintenance and alternatives) and environmental remediation.

What should our income taxes be used for? Do you ride your bike on the road? How do they get the food you eat to the store? How did they get your bike to the store where you bought it from? Roads are one of the few things the government should be doing with the cash they take from me.

The impact of my purchase of food and goods would be paid for by the fuel tax on shipping them. Simple enough.

The impact of my bike on the road is completely negligible. Absolutely zero road construction or maintenance is needed due to wear my bike puts on the system. In fact, every trip I take removes stress on the system by removing one car's worth of impact. Any impact I have on the system would be paid for when I buy gas for the car, when I use it.

And you still didn't say whether you support socialized healthcare or only socialization of the things you like to be socialized. Just as transportation infrastructure is beyond the individual's ability to fund, healthcare costs are rapidly rising beyond the average individual's ability to afford coverage. Should the government also make sure I have universal healthcare?

[Lewis Medlock]

, means transferring money taken from income taxes to pay for the roads

What is wrong with taking from income tax to pay for roads? What should our income taxes be going to?

Do you also favor socialized medical care? Because I think it's funny when someone will bitch and moan about socialism whenever anyone mentions having public funded healthcare and then not see any problem with the government funding their transportation in the same manner.

I rarely drive my car. I've set my life up in a way that lets me ride my bike nearly everywhere I want to go. Should I have to fund your car travel and its impact on the environment?

I do agree with Bats that any fuel taxes should not go into the general fund, but should be put into a separate fund to pay for transportation improvements (both road construction/maintenance and alternatives) and environmental remediation.

What should our income taxes be used for? Do you ride your bike on the road? How do they get the food you eat to the store? How did they get your bike to the store where you bought it from? Roads are one of the few things the government should be doing with the cash they take from me.

The impact of my purchase of food and goods would be paid for by the fuel tax on shipping them. Simple enough.

The impact of my bike on the road is completely negligible. Absolutely zero road construction or maintenance is needed due to wear my bike puts on the system. In fact, every trip I take removes stress on the system by removing one car's worth of impact. Any impact I have on the system would be paid for when I buy gas for the car, when I use it.

And you still didn't say whether you support socialized healthcare or only socialization of the things you like to be socialized. Just as transportation infrastructure is beyond the individual's ability to fund, healthcare costs are rapidly rising beyond the average individual's ability to afford coverage. Should the government also make sure I have universal healthcare?

No, their are very few things our taxes should be going to and socialized heathcare is not one of them.

[Grandpa's Spells]

No, their are very few things our taxes should be going to and socialized heathcare is not one of them.

Why is that? It's quite standard outside of 3rd world countries.

[Lewis Medlock]

No, their are very few things our taxes should be going to and socialized heathcare is not one of them.

Why is that? It's quite standard outside of 3rd world countries.

Are you talking about the countreis being crushed by their entitlements?

[Grandpa's Spells]

No, their are very few things our taxes should be going to and socialized heathcare is not one of them.

Why is that? It's quite standard outside of 3rd world countries.

Are you talking about the countreis being crushed by their entitlements?

No. Some countries with universal health care are indeed being crushed by deficits, but others are not.

[Lewis Medlock]

No, their are very few things our taxes should be going to and socialized heathcare is not one of them.

Why is that? It's quite standard outside of 3rd world countries.

Are you talking about the countreis being crushed by their entitlements?

No. Some countries with universal health care are indeed being crushed by deficits, but others are not.

With our track record, what column would we be in?

[Pinky]

Universal health care and socialized medicine are not the same thing.

[Grandpa's Spells]

No, their are very few things our taxes should be going to and socialized heathcare is not one of them.

Why is that? It's quite standard outside of 3rd world countries.

Are you talking about the countreis being crushed by their entitlements?

No. Some countries with universal health care are indeed being crushed by deficits, but others are not.

With our track record, what column would we be in?

The answer-question-with-question is reminiscent of Doughboy.

[Lewis Medlock]

No, their are very few things our taxes should be going to and socialized heathcare is not one of them.

Why is that? It's quite standard outside of 3rd world countries.

Are you talking about the countreis being crushed by their entitlements?

No. Some countries with universal health care are indeed being crushed by deficits, but others are not.

With our track record, what column would we be in?

The answer-question-with-question is reminiscent of Doughboy.

As of today 16,060,394,292,489.96, no more entitlements, no more military adventurism, no more taking loans from china to give to other countries.