🚀 go-pugleaf

"Brian W." <bwilborn@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> > > The answer is to increase the taxes on gas by A LOT.
>> > > Vince
>> >
>> > No! That is most definately *NOT* the answer. Each gallon of gas I buy
>> > in CA is taxed at apporximately 45 cents to the gallon. Considering that
>> > gas is now as high as $1.50 for 87 Octane in some places, I find that
>> > this is a key example of OVERTAXATION. What needs to happen is Public
>> > transportation needs to be
>> >
>>
>Ah but you see people pick the car best suited to their interests. I
>drive a 79' Honda Civic that gets upwards of 40 MPG and I still despise
>the fact that I have to pay a buck and a half a gallon. 
>
>A small difference in the gas pricing for here vs. England is that the
>US has it's own native supply of crude oil, whereas England has no such
>resouces availiable to them (far as I know) which should counter-balance
>the price of petroleum-based gas significantly.

I guess you are trying to make a national security argument, charge higher 
taxes for things you can't make.  UK exports oil last I checked, so it 
does not apply there, but it might apply to EU as a whole.  But I believe 
that they have the higher gas tax because they have better mass transit, 
and thus, the gas tax is actually closer to being a "progressive tax" 
whereas here it is a regressive tax.

>
>Still only costs me $15 for about 350 miles, but when I see the cost of
>gas raise by as much as 30% in a month's time, something is wrong. Gas
>doesn't get that much more expensive to produce in a month.


To quote a conservative economist, there is no free lunch.  Anyone who 
wants to lower one tax should state which tax they want to raise.  (No 
arguments about spending cuts please--they are unrelated.  If you want a 
spending cut you probably want it whether or not we cut the gas tax, so 
you can't really say that if the gas tax is cut you would cut spending.)

My view is that the gas tax should cover all motor-vehicle related costs. 
If roads decrease taxeable real estate, then the gas tax should cover the 
lost property tax revenue.  If pollution has health effects, the gas tax 
should cover those effects.  If mass transit enables us to avoid building 
new roads that are only needed during rush hour, then the gas tax should 
cover the road building costs that are avoided (not the total cost of mass 
transit--just the part of the cost that mass transit saves the driving 
public).  

Several studies cited by DC.Biking during March suggested that the 
external  cost of driving is over ten cents PER MILE.  So a gas tax of a 
dollar or so is probably economically justified.  Mind you, I drive alot, 
and I welcome the continued subsidy of those who do not.  I also would 
like to thank you for paying for the sand that protects my beach house.