$1 Gas Tax? One Auto Dealer Says, ‘Yes, Please’

[2VWatatime]

Do you not agree that we will run out of fuel?

No. Not even an issue, thus the balance of the "discussion" is a rather pointless exercise in futility.
"We" can no more "run out of fuel" than "we" did in the days of kerosene, wheat & oats, or whale oil. By the time petro products run low in supply, other forms of energy delivery will become more cost effective, rendering any such efforts moot. That's reality.

[Chris Stack]

Why is it that we can't have cheap gas and small engines?

seriously brah?

[pknopp]

seriously brah?

Seriously. I see you made no arguement as to why we can't.

[Chris Stack]

Seriously. I see you made no arguement as to why we can't.

It's not that we can't, it's that only a few whackos would pick a small wheezy engine over a big powerful one if gas is cheap. See: "what people chose to drive in the late 1990s."

[pknopp]

It's not that we can't, it's that only a few whackos would pick a small wheezy engine over a big powerful one if gas is cheap. See: "what people chose to drive in the late 1990s."

O.K. so we agree that we could but I covered your other point. It's why we keep the 52 mpg CAFE rating or whatever it is. (It's set to go somewhere around this number).

Manufacturers then can't build huge gas guzzling vehicles and still hit this number. Small engines are no longer wheezy tractor engines either. My TDI JSW is quicker than an Olds Vista Cruiser with a V8 and I average 40 mpg as opposed to 13.

[socaliron883]

So yeah. I'm all for higher gas prices. Especially if the taxes go to public transportation, or the direct construction of a new infrastructure that doesn't revolve around personal automotive transport.[/QUOTE]

first off why the hell are you on a car enthusiast forum. im sure we are hippy tree lovers needs more members maybe you should start there. second im sure oil will run out but with scientific predictions being so accurate kind of like the world will come to a end in 2012 and the computer era was supposed to end in 2000. im all for more fuel efficent cars but you should think about the forum i which you post on before you suggest ending personnal auto transportation.


Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

[Chris Stack]

O.K. so we agree that we could but I covered your other point. It's why we keep the 52 mpg CAFE rating or whatever it is. (It's set to go somewhere around this number).

Manufacturers then can't build huge gas guzzling vehicles and still hit this number. Small engines are no longer wheezy tractor engines either. My TDI JSW is quicker than an Olds Vista Cruiser with a V8 and I average 40 mpg as opposed to 13.

Your TDI JSW sucks. Sorry, but someone has to say it.

Here's the problem with your little theory: CAFE and gas guzzler taxes only try to control the potential for fuel usage, they don't actually control fuel usage. Under CAFE, you punish the dude who lives a mile from work and buys a 6.2L Challenger or H2 Hummer or whatever and goes through a tank of gas every three weeks, but it rewards the dork who buys a Prius or some ****ty "sport"wagon and then commutes 50miles round trip to work. That make any sense at all?

[pknopp]

Your TDI JSW sucks. Sorry, but someone has to say it.

Here's the problem with your little theory: CAFE and gas guzzler taxes only try to control the potential for fuel usage, they don't actually control fuel usage. Under CAFE, you punish the dude who lives a mile from work and buys a 6.2L Challenger or H2 Hummer or whatever and goes through a tank of gas every three weeks, but it rewards the dork who buys a Prius or some ****ty "sport"wagon and then commutes 50miles round trip to work. That make any sense at all?

As noted, we are on an enthusiasts website. I have no problem with someone buying a fuel efficient whatever and modifying it to suit his needs. In the big picture it's small beans.

And why is the guy who must travel to work a dork for buying the most efficient vehicle he can find?

I travel 25 miles one way. 50 miles round trip. Move closer to work? My wife works 3 blocks from home and much of the time just walks to work. We gain nothing by moving.

Even though the guy with the Challenger only goes through a tank every three weeks (about the same as me) I'm sure he would prefer paying $40 as opposed to $80 and keeping the difference.

Even in the high CAFE era there will still be a niche market for high performance cars.

[stascom]

California will once again have the best schools in the country, and university will be free to illegal immigrants.

FTFY

[B3sat16v]

If we get roads like this in return, I'd gladly pay TWO bucks more a gallon:



Instead we've got roads like this, which seems a little unsafe:

I have driven quite a bit around the USA and a lot of our highways look just like that picture at the top. I guess you have that, "the grass is greaner" mentality going on.

[leaftye]

Eff that. Create a commuting tax to punish all those fools that have 45+ minute commutes.

[20aeman]

I wouldn't mind a war of gasoline attrition. Where everyone is taxed to **** on their fuel purchase, and only the truly rich can drive what they want. The plebeians would be relegated to tin cans, and we would finally bury the SUV.

[stascom]

I wouldn't mind a war of gasoline attrition. Where everyone is taxed to **** on their fuel purchase, and only the truly rich can drive what they want. The plebeians would be relegated to tin cans, and we would finally bury the SUV.

We should also consider massive property taxes on suburban neighborhoods, so the not-so-rich are encouraged to move into the city. That way they don't pollute the environment for the rich that want to enjoy their fresh air, parks, and light traffic. Also, increase airline and bus fair, so the mortals don't get out of their hole. Excellent. What else? Hmm, actually, the movie "In Time" is a great reference. So many wonderful ideas...

[Air and water do mix]

You say this as if it's the only option. Yes, the majority of the country lives in low density areas. I would argue that that's simply unsustainable, and bound to change, whether you and the soccer moms like it or not. Yes, I currently live in NYC, which makes it "easier" to get along without a car, but even when I leave the city, I'm not going back to my 60 mile commute like I had in Vermont. I'd like to live within 10 miles of my job, so I can just ride. My bicycle.

I think we should start breaking suburbia down, and moving into small town models of local communities. Take the "old" European model as an example. You leave a town in France on foot, and 20 minutes later you're in farmland. No suburbia.

Smaller. More local. Less need for cars. And it's more beautiful. Our bored suburban families travel the world searching for that 'old city vibe', and quaint local customs and food. We could have developed that on our own, but we F'd it all in the A by choosing strip malls and suburbia. Our once-vibrant and important small towns are now abandoned and useless.

I live in a small town with zero strip malls . I work in a mid-size city downtown. My commute? 14.5 miles one way. I could get by with an electric for a commute (though I'd need a second car for weekend trips and whatnot). No, I can't bike to work as the only ways to get there is either the freeway or extremely dangerous roads (think twisty winding narrow roads and blind corners all over the place and absolutely no place for bikes to ride safely.) I don't think we're actually that far apart on this issue.

[2VWatatime]

I wouldn't mind a war of gasoline attrition. Where everyone is taxed to **** on their fuel purchase, and only the truly rich can drive what they want. The plebeians would be relegated to tin cans, and we would finally bury the SUV.

Your SUV. I'll keep mine - after all, I can drive what I want.

[TREGinginCO]

Ths guy is an idiot! He must already have all the money that he wants because he's basically asking the government to put him out of business.

[nemo1ner]

So Hoffman is one of a growing number of car dealers who advocate the same solution to the problem: raise the gasoline tax, enough to create a consistent, predictable demand for fuel-efficient cars and to force automakers to build gas-sippers that people want and can afford. .

So increase price of gas so people are forced to want a car that saves them money? How is that wanting on my own terms?

That's like increasing property taxes even more so that I can move into a smaller house in the ghetto that I want and can afford.

I don't want a large farva. I want a goddamn liter of cola.

[Fritz27]

I wouldn't mind a war of gasoline attrition. Where everyone is taxed to **** on their fuel purchase, and only the truly rich can drive what they want. The plebeians would be relegated to tin cans, and we would finally bury the SUV.

I hope this post is dripping with sarcasm.

[dmorrow]

I completely agree with a higher gas tax. Right now the CAFE standards will change what companies build but won't change what people prefer to buy. Add the tax, reduce the Federal Income tax to the average amount it adds to yearly budget and the tax will work. With CAFE and cheap gas there is no incentive to change our habits and how much fuel we waste.

Higher fuel changes how far we drive to shop, live from work, public transportation people are willing to take, etc. With cheap gas no one cares.

Currently with cheap fuel, a lot of the hybrids are being sold because they are "green" but the financial incentive isn't there to bother. If I save $500 per year on gas over the similar car but it costs $5000 more to buy, why would I? Gas prices change to make it $1000 a year and suddenly I am interested and car companies will spend more to develop it with the increased market.

[VW_MK_III]

I didnt read the whole thread but i think the whole idea of this "forcing us to use less" is non sense. The people that this affects the most are low/middle income barely getting by as it is, and if they are fortunate enough to even own their own vehicle do not have the means to justify wasting fuel to begin with. Drive a scooter? what if you have a family? take public transportation? Not only is this not very cost effective (2.50 per ride here on Long Island, NY), but here the busses run every hour or so if your lucky, so its also not very time effective. Basic living expenses cost enough as it is, you cant just keep inflating the prices on every little thing, and expect the average lower/middle class family to continue to be able to afford it without a substantial pay increase. Capitalism and corporate greed are destroying this country, while the public just stands by and watches. My car gets about 30mpg, for a 22 year old car i think that is pretty efficient, and the price of gas is something have to factor into everything i do.

[MrMook]

I didnt read the whole thread but i think the whole idea of this "forcing us to use less" is non sense. The people that this affects the most are low/middle income barely getting by as it is, and if they are fortunate enough to even own their own vehicle do not have the means to justify wasting fuel to begin with. Drive a scooter? what if you have a family? take public transportation? Not only is this not very cost effective (2.50 per ride here on Long Island, NY), but here the busses run every hour or so if your lucky, so its also not very time effective. Basic living expenses cost enough as it is, you cant just keep inflating the prices on every little thing, and expect the average lower/middle class family to continue to be able to afford it without a substantial pay increase. Capitalism and corporate greed are destroying this country, while the public just stands by and watches.

Your argument against a proposed tax is "blame capitalism"? This is getting weird!

And yes, the public will sit by and watch. Nothing will happen until it's too late. And when the poop hits the fan, the poor will STILL be hit hardest at the pump.

But wait...we can avoid this, if we re-arrange our transportation policies and focus on mass transit, alternative transportation (that does NOT mean electric cars) and zoning laws (to increase mixed-use, mid-to-high density development instead of promoting single-use low density suburbia).

Perhaps a gas tax isn't the most fair way to accomplish this. It may help that guy sell small cars, but it probably won't cause the type of culture shift this country will need in order to survive the impending decline in oil production.

[2VWatatime]

Y, but it probably won't cause the type of culture shift this country will need in order to survive the impending decline in oil production.

[Chris Stack]

And yes, the public will sit by and watch. Nothing will happen until it's too late. And when the poop hits the fan, the poor will STILL be hit hardest at the pump.

This is just the dumbest argument against a gas tax. I swear that it must make liberals' heads explode that they can't stop global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by only screwing over rich Republican dudes in Range Rovers and pickups.

Seriously, you need to pick one. Either you want to help the poor, or you want to save the world from global warming. Pick one, not both. Because if you make gas more expensive, yeah, it's going to hit the poor, but it's because the use a lot of gas. Sure, the rich use more per person, but there aren't that many rich.

[Vision33r]

So increase price of gas so people are forced to want a car that saves them money? How is that wanting on my own terms?

That's like increasing property taxes even more so that I can move into a smaller house in the ghetto that I want and can afford.

I don't want a large farva. I want a goddamn liter of cola.

It's a democratic tax, you can choose not to drive a gas guzzler or find a job within 25mi or take mass transit.

It's a consumption tax not a property tax.

[pknopp]

Currently with cheap fuel, a lot of the hybrids are being sold because they are "green" but the financial incentive isn't there to bother. If I save $500 per year on gas over the similar car but it costs $5000 more to buy, why would I? Gas prices change to make it $1000 a year and suddenly I am interested and car companies will spend more to develop it with the increased market.

I'm roughing this. If you drive 12,000 miles a year and one car gets 30mpg and the other 45 mpg you would have to raise the price of gas to somewhere near $25 a gallon to make up your difference.

[2VWatatime]

It's a democratic tax, you can choose not to drive a gas guzzler or find a job within 25mi or take mass transit..

True, true...

[TM87]

People on here are soooo stupid. Think about how higher gas prices will eliminate the middle class and force us into poverty.
What's next higher property tax so we live in smaller houses, travel tax so we don't spend money somewhere else, food tax so we don't dine out???
Please think next time before you write stupidity.

[TM87]

It's a democratic tax, you can choose not to drive a gas guzzler or find a job within 25mi or take mass transit.

It's a consumption tax not a property tax.

Not sure where you live but mass transit or closer work is not away and option.
I'm not sure why I even discuss this. You pay higher taxes, and let the rest of us enjoy our lives w out restrictions and taxes.

[MrMook]

This is just the dumbest argument against a gas tax. I swear that it must make liberals' heads explode that they can't stop global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by only screwing over rich Republican dudes in Range Rovers and pickups.

If the argument against a gas tax is "it will hurt the poor", I'm saying they (along with you, me, and "rich Republican dudes in Range Rovers") are going to be hurt anyway. I don't want to hurt anyone, obviously, but unless we change MAJOR parts of our infrastructure, everyone will be just as hurt when the free market naturally raises the price of gas instead of the Gov artificially raising it. The price will only go up. Tax or not.

There will be incentive to drive less, whether we do anything about it now, or just wait and see. The main point is, we're not making things any easier for the next generation if we don't make major policy changes now.

For starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

[nemo1ner]

It's a democratic tax, you can choose not to drive a gas guzzler or find a job within 25mi or take mass transit.

It's a consumption tax not a property tax.

So why not just add a larger one time gas guzzler tax to a vehicle instead of applying a permanent tax on fuel? Taxes tend to become permanent. If you get tired of getting taxed for driving larger vehicles, you can stop purchasing those vehicles and stop being taxed. If you increase the tax on fuel, it doesn't matter if you drive a 100mpg unicorn tear/gasoline hybrid. You will continue to be taxed every time you fill it up.

And if you haven't noticed, the people that usually commute the longer distances to their jobs, are people that are often not able to afford the housing near their place of employment due to property taxes and cost of living. I just searched for houses under $350,000 in my area and found 0 listings. But I just found 215 listings for houses under $200,000, 40 miles away. So your argument of choosing to live closer to your place of employment is invalid. People would choose a shorter commute if they could. The problem is that many cannot afford it.

[20aeman]

This is just the dumbest argument against a gas tax. I swear that it must make liberals' heads explode that they can't stop global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by only screwing over rich Republican dudes in Range Rovers and pickups.

Seriously, you need to pick one. Either you want to help the poor, or you want to save the world from global warming. Pick one, not both. Because if you make gas more expensive, yeah, it's going to hit the poor, but it's because the use a lot of gas. Sure, the rich use more per person, but there aren't that many rich.

I wouldn't mind a progressive gas tax. One that hits you in the wallet as hard as it does the guy working at Mcdonalds. Then we'll see who's preaching what.

My "human's are all pieces of selfish ****" sense is telling me that you're a proponent of a 1.00 dollar tax because you can afford it. Let's make it 5 dollars for you.

[Chris Stack]

I wouldn't mind a progressive gas tax. One that hits you in the wallet as hard as it does the guy working at Mcdonalds. Then we'll see who's preaching what.

My "human's are all pieces of selfish ****" sense is telling me that you're a proponent of a 1.00 dollar tax because you can afford it. Let's make it 5 dollars for you.

You going to start pricing all commodities inline with ability to pay, comrade?

[20aeman]

You going to start pricing all commodities inline with ability to pay, comrade?

Why the **** not? After all, you're preaching for a tax that doesn't affect your habits. So you want everyone else's habits to change (or more accurately, people who can't afford an extra buck per gallon), but you should be free to keep on keeping on? Get real brah.

Pricing commodities outside a certain demographic's ability to pay though is truly Murrican.

[pknopp]

If the argument against a gas tax is "it will hurt the poor", I'm saying they (along with you, me, and "rich Republican dudes in Range Rovers") are going to be hurt anyway. I don't want to hurt anyone, obviously, but unless we change MAJOR parts of our infrastructure, everyone will be just as hurt when the free market naturally raises the price of gas instead of the Gov artificially raising it. The price will only go up. Tax or not.

I covered this once. The markets do not care about the tax. The markets claim they only follow supply and demand but that is bull. I would listen to a tax if we removed oil as an investment vehicle and returned it to a strict commodity. Those who are going to use it, bid on it. Don't use it, you can't bid on it.

Consumption is down quite a bit but yet gas prices are pretty much right where they left off 4 years ago before the crash. Add a $1 tax and the markets are still going to run the price up.

There will be incentive to drive less, whether we do anything about it now, or just wait and see. The main point is, we're not making things any easier for the next generation if we don't make major policy changes now.

The best thing we could do for the next generation is move towards the idea of not having to use oil for transportation. To say that if we use it all up the future generations are in trouble would be equal to saying 100 years ago that the next generation will be living in the dark if we don't quit killing all the whales.

[leaftye]

Higher fuel changes how far we drive to shop, live from work, public transportation people are willing to take, etc. With cheap gas no one cares.

Except it doesn't really. 2008 proved that. What 2008 proved is that RISING gas prices change how people use gas. That's why in the past I've said that if there is a gas tax, it needs to constantly increase. People need to know that it will always be more, never stop rising, and never ever go down.

I believe fluctuating gas prices gives people hope that gas will be more affordable some day. There shouldn't be that hope. Fluctuating fuel prices is also what has killed alternative energy many times over the past few decades. Those projects spring up and are supported by investors and government grants and tax breaks, but fuel becomes affordable again, or even just attractive to government and investors, all that money dries up and the projects die.