Or you could look at like Dr. Obnxs did in his post - if all of the contractors are hit the same way by your tax, they could all just pass the extra costs onto the customer and keep doing things the way they've been doing them.

 

How is taking people to the airport of eco-benefit? They are just going to get on jets that have a huge carbon profile.

Seriously though, you think that there should be subsidies for people providing more benefit with their use of carbon, rather than letting the market sort that out? The market forces would pressure those three people to opt for the shuttle because taking their individual cars would cost more.

There may not be exemptions programmed into a gas pump, but eco-beneficial companies could receive tax incentives on their corporate income tax. This is why tax laws are so complex. Everyone believes they deserve an exemption.

As I said in an earlier thread, when you have more people using less total fuel to get somewhere, the impact of a carbon tax would be smaller per person.

Do you have a better method for transferring the actual cost of using carbon to the users?

 

I see a solution for this... the "Double Decker Mini"!

 

And the ones who found ways to do it less expensively would be more competitive. Contractors don't collectively set their prices. It is done individually. The guy who can do as good a job for less money will end up getting the business, on average.

 

No, I don't think there should be subsidies, but I also don't think there should be arbitrary penalties. If you want to add a fixed tax to *every* gallon of gasoline sold in order to incentivize research into better fuel economy and alternative energy, as well as more-accurately representing the true cost of using gasoline, I could get behind that.

What I can't get behind is Krieg's plan that slaps an additional penalty on *only those vehicles* that don't meet a certain EPA rating, regardless of how those vehicles are used. Such a plan doesn't account for big vehicles that aren't used unless they're full of people, or vehicles that may get a good EPA rating, but are used in a horribly-inefficient manner (like delivery cars left idling all day, taxicabs, or a 25-MPG car that never has more than one person in it.)

 

Hey, I'm with you - anything to get more people into fewer cars is great by me. Even public transportation, with its 5-MPG buses, starts to look pretty sweet when they're carrying 50 people in each bus.

 

OK, I got confused and thought we were talking about a tax on fuel. That is what my comments have been about. I understand your point.

 

Well, if the contractors are interested in cutting their costs so that they can underbid the other guy and get the business, and if there were already vehicles out there that would let them get the job done for less gas, I would think that the rising price of gasoline is enough of an incentive for them to do just that. I don't think we need an additional gas tax targeted specifically at the types of vehicles they use.

And I really don't see how such a tax will incentivize the automakers any better than simply fixing the CAFE program would. Just tell the automakers "If you can't bring your fleet average up to 30 MPG, including your SUVs and trucks between 8500# and 10,000# GVWR that are currently exempt, then stand by for major fines."

This would encourage them to both make the big vehicles more fuel-efficient (or make less of them), and make more fuel-efficient, cheaper cars to offset their low-MPG offerings.

 

I think what we have right now works just fine--flat tax rate across the board. I mean it's simple, the more gas you use, the more tax you pay. Think about it, a truck that's rarely driven uses 20 gal/year, vs me in a MINI driving around WOT just for fun that burns up 10 gal in a day, which one is doing more harm to the environment?
Would any of you guys stop driving thru the twisties with no particular destination so you could do less harm to the environment? You gotta pay to play.

 

There are always exceptions to the rule. There's no reason why commuter vehicles couldn't have a credit back at the end of the year or something.

 

Sounds good, except that at the end of the year, the government already has your money, and now it's up to you to prove that your SUV always had 4+ people in it in order to get the money back.

A car's EPA rating simply isn't a good-enough indication of how effectively/efficiently/responsibly the vehicle is used for it to be the basis for a targeted tax.

 

A gas tax just increases the pressure to where it should be if the carbon consequences are figured in. They are not currently part of the cost of gas. They are left to the future and will require others to pay.

I have nothing against fixing CAFE. This is just putting the pressure on a different part of the marketplace. Putting pressure on users would push them to buy more fuel efficient cars, in theory pressuring the car makers to make more efficient cars. IIRC, CAFE was created because Detroit wasn't providing fuel efficient alternatives. IMO, it is best to put pressure in both places. Give both parties incentives to go for more efficient use of fuel and you get better results faster. Just pressure automakers and they make cars no one buys. Just pressure drivers and automakers may be slow to provide the right vehicles.

 

I was thinking more for vans and buses, I see no reason why 4 people need to be in an SUV. I'd much rather have 4 people in my car getting 30 MPG than 4 people in an SUV getting 14 MPG.

If it's that big of a deal then have the station attendant responsible for overriding the tax. There are numerous ways around the "My car had more than 1 person in it therefore I shouldn't have to pay" bs.

 

We have an "Alternative Transportation" Sign Up Sheet at work, as long as you use alternative transportation, Hubby and I Carpool, at least six times in one month your name is put in a drawing for a $50 MC Debit Card,
I've won twice!!
And I'm on my 1st Tank of Fuel...Dealer Purchased, yesterday!!

 

Yes, four people in a car is better than four people in an SUV, but four people in an SUV is better than four people in individual cars, no matter how fuel-efficient they are. Under Krieg's plan, the SUV would be hit with the targeted tax, but the four cars wouldn't.

And as soon as you allow the gas station attendants to override the tax, you'll have SUV/truck owners "tipping" the attendant to do so. Better to just slap a flat tax on *every* gallon of gas sold if you want to incentivize people and better-represent to true cost of using gasoline.

 

So you advocate the opposite effect? Rather than punishing the people who can't figure out how to do something WITHOUT an SUV (I can't think of many professions that you HAVE to have an SUV, Truck, or Van for. Those that do, probably wouldn't be affected anyway because they'd classify under the commercial vehicle category), just punish everyone (Including those who purchased a fuel efficient car for the express purpose of lowering carbon emissions and increasing fuel economy). There is no simple solution to the problem, but with technology, and enough thinking, anything is possible.

I for one think it's a fair compromise for the minority of truck and SUV owners (Under 10% I'd be willing to bet) that actually use their trucks for legitimate purposes to help subsidize the cost of fuel for the rest of us that are actually trying to use less gas.

 

I wish more employment establishments thought this way, unfortunately it's all about money in the US!

 

Krieg's plan mentioned nothing about commerical exemptions - in fact, he specifically said that commercial vehicles would be subject to his pump penalty. I believe his rationale was "tough noogies".

There may be a workable solution, but Krieg's plan isn't it. First, unless you make the RFID tag a mandatory retrofit into existing cars, SUV owners are just going to hold onto their old non-RFID vehicles to avoid the tax. If you approach it from the other direction (the penalty is automatically applied unless you have an RFID tag that says you're *over* the required minimum EPA rating), then everyone currently driving fuel-efficient cars will have to have their cars retro-fitted with the tags to avoid the penalty.

Neither method will prevent fraud. As already mentioned in this thread, people with fuel-efficient cars will just fill up cans of gas to sell to the "guzzlers", or "guzzlers" will just fill up their more-efficient cars and then transfer the gas to their SUVs/trucks.

"You can't save the Earth without making other people sacrifice", huh? Didn't know you were a Dogbert fan.

 

Gotta love NJ Gas prices of about 3.33 for premium :-D

 

Not for long.

They say the national "Average" will hit $4 a gallon by summer. That should mean you guys are at about $3.90 and us Californian's will be at around $4.70.

I predict $5 a gallon being the norm in at least one US state within the next 12 months.

 

Like I said, there aren't perfect solutions. Hopefully someone far wiser than I will think some master plan up to save our asses. Otherwise we're going to have major problems in the next 30-40 years (We being the generation that actually has to deal with the mess the previous generation refuses to deal with).

 

If you had seen "60 minutes" and Glenn Beck coverage of the "Oil Companies getting Rich" - you would probably have a different opinion.

As it turn out, the Oil companies are not getting "richer" as you state, but the stock holders are doing quite well. If you are holding stock of Exxon-Mobil, you would not be complaining on the $$$ per share quarterly dividends. Exxon employs over 80,000 people.

No, I am not an employee associated with the energy arena...

My .02

 

At 1/2 tank...I like to fill it with 105 racing gas

Kidding...I heard its better to fill the tank at 1/2 full to avoid vapors in the Summer...Meaning you get a fuller tank than by filling it when the gauge is on Egypt.

 

I heard on the clark howard show it takes like
3-4 years for consumers to change their behaviors
in regards to mpgs. I didn't get to hear the whole thing.

But that seems about right if you owe 3 or 4 years on it
and have decided to get out because of gas prices.

I have actually noticed a high percentage of new-new, brand
new cars are small. Only a year ago it was always the new-new
monster truck.

I'm not sure if I said that well. Cliff notes:
I am actually noticing many more compact cars that are new new
than monster trucks that are new new.

Has anyone else noticed this?

 

It is a huge misconception that gas companies are pocketing profits.

Anyone with any kind of 401k, retirement plan, or who works for a major company with a retirement plan owns a fairly significant amount of stock in gas companies. Why, because the retirement plans buy and sell mutual funds for you, which in turn buy and sell stock in gas companies... because... they are profitable! So, alot of the profit goes right back into the pockets of workers, just not in a way that they can actually see.

Want a good stock tip... buy Exxon, or Shell, they have done very well over the last fifty years, and why not, we, as Americans, have been buying bigger and bigger vehicles that use more and more gas, and we drive farther than most people in most other countries. So, we use alot more fuel, and our fuel usage has been increasing faster than production can keep up. Heck, here in the DC area, it is not uncommon to put 25,000 or more miles a year on a car if you live in the suburbs and work in DC, or like I used to, live in Alexandria and work in Sterling, Herndon and Tysons... 20 - 35 mile each way commutes. Few if any of my friends ever ride a bus, take a train or heaven forbid... walk.

Supply and demand, we have a demand, the supply is fixed, so the cost increases. Now, what the news folks won't tell you. Yes, the gas companies are investing billions from their profits in alternative fuel technology like hydrogen, they are looking at ways to provide electric cars with power, and continuously working on methods to improve refining fuels and helping car manufacturers to design cleaner burning, more efficient engines. Take a look at MINI... our cars are among an elite group with almost 200 hp per liter yet we get close to 40mpg, all whilst emitting lower CO levels. These are numbers that engineers couldn't dream of in the sixties because the fuel wasn't refined enough and at the time there didn't seem to be a need to worry about it.

Now, in spite of all this, some folks are going to be p*sed off at gas companies... maybe they drive SUVs, maybe they feel like someone is profiting unfairly, whatever, want to make a statement? Don't drive one day a week. In my case, I can often go five days without driving! Why? Because it is good for my health, good for the environment, I use less fuel, and when I do take the MINI out, it's in off-peak hours, so I can actually have FUN driving, which is what MINIs are all about.

As to prices... yeah, they are getting up there. My MINI costs $45 a tank. But I relish the fact that some portion of that money is going towards the developement of new technology that may reduce my transportation costs in the future. Even MINI has rumours of a One Hybrid, and of course the Deisel is one of the most efficient small cars on the road.

My two cents. Don't whine about the cost of fuel, enjoy your MINI, walk a bit more often, maybe even try public transportation. Buses work well, because you can chat on your phone, browse the internet, read or sleep... all things you should not do while driving!