|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,725
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,725 |
gas is subsidised and then taxed. it is a completely backwards system to hold gas prices artificially low in this country. we SHOULD and we WILL pay more for gas. i think a stable price of $2.25 by the end of the summer would a fair increase compared to what other countries pay. if you don't like it, get a more fuel efficient car or work a second job to keep that SUV. and if you use a truck don't complain because those expenses are tax deductible.
For Sale:
- Sony PSP with a Baseball 2k6 and the movie Crash. $100
- 1973 Karmann Ghia Convertible w/ Auto-Stick. Needs Restoration. $1200 OBO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166 |
Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:
WOULD YOU PLEASE PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUM AND REALIZE THAT FIGURE IS DRASTICALLY HIGHER FOR OTHER CITIZENS!
And how do you figure that? If we're speaking strictly in terms of autos, then his figure is DEAD ON!
Do the MATH!!!
Lets say on average that a tax increases gas prices by .15/gallon
Lets also say you drive 25,000 miles a year (Far Above the National Average).
Lets be conservative and say your car gets 20 mpg, if your car is getting less than that, that's your fault for buying a V8 or SUV!
So, 25,000 miles / 20 MPG = 1250 gallons/yr
1250 * .015 = $187.5 per year. That's $15.625 per month!
How do you figure its "DRASTICALLY HIGHER"
Now who needs to
Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUM AND REALIZE THAT FIGURE ...
IS DAMN CLOSE TO ACCURATE!
- Zack
WANTED: T-Red HEATED Side Mirrors
FOR SALE: 4 14" Alum Alloys and Nearly New Avid H4s Tires w/ Center Caps
2000 T-Red SVT
1995 LX V6 MTX (RIP)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
I am dumbfounded that you can sit there and repeatedly throw out that $15 figure as a burden applying equally to all citizens.
When did I ever say that it would be the same for everyone. I said that I would pay $15 more. I never said you would. So pull your head out of your own ass.
Of course it would be different for everyone else; but I would say that I drive at or above the average -- pumping ~60 gallons a month. At an average of 25 MPG that's 1,500 miles per month -- dead on the average mileage -- would yeild an increase of $15/month.
After going through all the math, which I apparently have to do to satisfy you, I will concede that I actually pump closer to 75 gallons per month, so @ a 25 cent tax increase, I would pay a whole $18.75 a month in taxes.
Quote:
WOULD YOU PLEASE PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUM AND REALIZE THAT FIGURE IS DRASTICALLY HIGHER FOR OTHER CITIZENS!
Drastically higher?
I want to see your math on this.
Even if you drove a whopping 3,000 miles per month at an average of 25MPG you would still only pay $30/month for a 25/c tax increase.
Yeah, that's sooooo drastic. A whole $15 more.
For a very small minority of people, 50 cents a day could mean a lot. I concede that. But those are the exact same people that would be first to take advantage of alternative modes of transportation if they were made available to them. Otherwise they're really going to be screwed when the gas prices climb high on their own, they can no longer afford to drive, and there's no alternatives for them because no one thought to invest in it years before.
EDIT: And yes, every state is different. My figures are for my state. I never advocated "doubling" specifically across the board, only to a specific 25 cent increase -- that just so happens to be about double what we pay in Texas, which is why I said "double" in the specific quote that you posted.
Doubling in CA would be way too much of an increase, as their taxes are already very appropriate, which is why they have a great highway system and a rapidly developing alternative transportation infrastructure.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 101
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 101 |
Here's food for thought for anybody concerned about rising gas prices. I filled the tank in my Mondeo 2 nights ago and it cost me £44. At current exchange rates that's $78.37 !  That was filling the tank with a few liters still left, the warning light hadn't yet illuminated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
I am dumbfounded that you can sit there and repeatedly throw out that $15 figure as a burden applying equally to all citizens.
When did I ever say that it would be the same for everyone. I said that I would pay $15 more. I never said you would. So pull your head out of your own ass.
Your repitition of this figure infers that you think it applies equally; perhaps that's my fault in gauging your opinion of the situation.
Originally posted by sigma:
Drastically higher?
I want to see your math on this.
Even if you drove a whopping 3,000 miles per month at an average of 25MPG you would still only pay $30/month for a 25/c tax increase.
Yeah, that's sooooo drastic. A whole $15 more.
$15--now $30 IS a drastic increase for a person living on the margins. A fixed amount tax like cents/gallon always penalizes lower income people the most, the very people with the least amount of disposable income to absorb such an increase. Tax them to the point that they can't afford to drive to work all for the sake of better highways; sorry, not in agreement on that one.
Originally posted by sigma:
EDIT: And yes, every state is different. My figures are for my state. I never advocated "doubling" specifically across the board, only to a specific 25 cent increase -- that just so happens to be about double what we pay in Texas, which is why I said "double" in the specific quote that you posted.
And in my state they already tax food, prescription drugs, and income as low as ~$5k, which is why I am so sensitive to yet another disproportionate tax. I don't consider myself a liberal but enough is enough for these folks.
Originally posted by sigma:
Doubling in CA would be way too much of an increase, as their taxes are already very appropriate, which is why they have a great highway system and a rapidly developing alternative transportation infrastructure.
IMO you cannot tax life critical consumable like gasoline solely for the purposes of developing an alternative transportation system when a majority of the taxpayers will receive no benefit.
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
IMO you cannot tax life critical consumable like gasoline solely for the purposes of developing an alternative transportation system when a majority of the taxpayers will receive no benefit.
I agree with your point that you shouldn't tax those who receiveno benefit, but not that a majority of the people won't receive a benefit.
Right now, you are correct, the majority of people in areas with mass-transit solutions still don't use them. But that's because, right now, driving your own automobile is still an option.
Fact of the matter is, mass-transit solutions are 1> extremely expensive, and 2> take upwards of 25 years to fully construct.
You can't wait until something becomes a real problem to look into a solution, you have to plan ahead for it. At some point in time we will all be using these alternatives; there will be no other choice, and the only way we'll ever even see them is if we pay for them now.
Much the same as why I pay a School tax on my Property, while I have no children in school. It's expected that, at some point in time, you will use the public schools, so you should pay a tax on it so that they are there when you need them.
Whether you know it or not, if you live in a metropolitan area, you probably already pay some sort of mass-transit tax on your gasoline or property taxes on top of whatever fares you would pay to use the service.
Many areas charge these taxes even if they don't currently offer any mass-transit alternatives so that they money will be readily available when the feasibilty studies are complete (which take 3-7 years).
I agree that $15 can make a difference for some people. But, as I said (and you may have missed it, as it was an edit), these are the very people who will be the first to take advantage of alternative transportation when it's available. In the meantime, carpool if you can't afford to drive -- it's going to happen to all of us in the very near future. If two people who drove now share a car, the tax is nulled. They save money on gas, wear on a car, and keep one less car on the road.
Some places have taxed property for transit solutions -- but then you're really moving away from the source. You're taxes relatively wealthy individuals who will be the last to use mass-transit, and may not even drive anywhere as it is.
The only logical tax on anything transportation based is a gasoline tax. It's the only way you're receiving the tax money from people who are likely to use your service. Whether they do or not is their choice.
If you wanna see unfair gasoline taxes, come work for the railroads. My company pays hundreds of millions a year in diesel fuel taxes that are used 100% to subsidize highway construction -- meaning we pay a tax to subsidize our primary competitor and allow them use of a 100% free infrastructure, while we also pay for and maintain 100% of the cost of our own with absolutely no government assistance. Trucks don't pay the tax -- only water and rail transportation pays this particular highway tax.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,100
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,100 |
Originally posted by sigma:
When did I ever say that it would be the same for everyone. I said that I would pay $15 more. I never said you would. So pull your head out of your own ass.
Of course it would be different for everyone else; but I would say that I drive at or above the average -- pumping ~60 gallons a month. At an average of 25 MPG that's 1,500 miles per month -- dead on the average mileage -- would yeild an increase of $15/month.
Quote:
WOULD YOU PLEASE PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUM AND REALIZE THAT FIGURE IS DRASTICALLY HIGHER FOR OTHER CITIZENS!
Drastically higher?
I want to see your math on this.
Even if you drove a whopping 3,000 miles per month at an average of 25MPG you would still only pay $30/month for a 25/c tax increase.
Yeah, that's sooooo drastic. A whole $15 more.
For a very small minority of people, 50 cents a day could mean a lot. I concede that. But those are the exact same people that would be first to take advantage of alternative modes of transportation if they were made available to them. Otherwise they're really going to be screwed when the gas prices climb high on their own, they can no longer afford to drive, and there's no alternatives for them because no one thought to invest in it years before.
I am one of those people with the drasticly higher gas bills than you. Last month I used about 130 gallons of gas in my tour so at your $.25 tax per gallon I would be paying an extra $32.50 a month (based on last months bill) But if this was going to (noticeably) improve roads and public transportation I would be happy to pay it.
Where I live and work public transportation is not an option at this current time because of my working hours. My dad has taken public transportation for most of the last 20+ years into work. He has to drive 15 mins to get to the train station and then has about a 2 hour trip into the office from there.
Over the last 3.5 years I would have paid $1345.45 if I was taxed at an extra $.25 a gallon.
Right now I dont like the way prices are rising but the only way I see to get them to drop is if everybody would drive less and use less gas. To do this we need to have some sort of good alturinatives to car use. With current gas prices we can drive most places cheaper than we could get there any other way.
Yes an additioal gas tax would hit the shipping industry (USPS, Fexex, UPS, other shippers) and they will pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices (as will stores) so I think this would lead to people buying things from closer to home instead of getting things that have been shipped from across the contry so I am not sure if this would be good or bad.
Beaten - 2003 MazdaSpeed Protege 29K <- broken hearted
Daily/Weekend Beater - 1990 miata 138K - AutoX every weekend = Adult driven on weekends
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 337
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 337 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
IMO you cannot tax life critical consumable like gasoline solely for the purposes of developing an alternative transportation system when a majority of the taxpayers will receive no benefit.
I agree with your point, but not that a majority of the people won't receive a benefit.
Right now, you are correct, the majority of people in areas with mass-transit solutions still don't use them.
That's not to say that non-users of mass transit don't benefit. This morning, as I rode Metrorail to work, I was not on the road with my car, so the traffic on I-66 could move at 20 mph instead of the 5 or 10 mph it would have had my car, and those of my fellow riders, been in the mix. Instead, I whistled by the traffic at 60 mph on the train.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
But if this was going to (noticeably) improve roads and public transportation I would be happy to pay it.
I totally agree. I would never advocate a tax increase unless I readily saw an improvement in my roads. Yes, it will take a lot of time, but I want to see some action.
Quote:
Yes an additioal gas tax would hit the shipping industry (USPS, Fexex, UPS, other shippers) and they will pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices (as will stores) so I think this would lead to people buying things from closer to home instead of getting things that have been shipped from across the contry so I am not sure if this would be good or bad.
Well, those companies are exempt from many of the same taxes that you and I pay -- for example my company pays ~0.69021 per gallon, obviously much cheaper than you find diesel for on the street because the taxes are lower (and yes, we negotiate rates down to that fraction). But while these companies are expempt from many of the same taxes, they are still hit hard when gas prices rise.
For companies like my own, ever 1 cent increase in gas price is $17 million straight off the bottom line.
Gas prices will rise as demand rises. Demand will continue to rise unless you provide people will alternatives. If you don't slow demand, gas prices will rise causing (as you said) the price of everything we buy to rise right along with them. For small, cheap items transportation cost can be the majority of what you're paying for.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
All this talk of rail transit is great, but so little of America is an urban center like Europe. In our spralling cities, even if mass transit was available from the burbs (system #1) you still have the problem of serving all the corporate parks (#2) which aren't even walkable themselves (#3)! So at minimum a three tier system which only serves the main industrial/commercial centers and would make for an insane commute! Geographically speaking, most of America isn't ready for this. If we're just solving a fuel issue, there are better solutions.
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
