# Real Men Tax Gas



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Thomas Friedman oped says its time for America to follow Europe's example and start placing heavy taxes on gasoline; we'll be better for it, he writes.

More...


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Thomas Friedman needs to move to Europe and take Micheal Moore with him.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Fuel is already heavily taxed in canada and the states. We simply don't call it a climate tax but the result is the same.

Actually, I live in a place were they charge a carbon tax on fuel. Nothing progressive about it. Simply a tax grab, nothing more.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

The difference between Denmark and us is that their politicians aren't corrupt to the core and the money they appropriated in the carbon tax went to a meaninful cause-not pork or another way to pad their own pockets or serve their own self-interests.

According to Wikipedia: 

"The degree of transparency and accountability is reflected in the public’s high level of satisfaction with the political institutions, while Denmark is also regularly considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world by international organizations[1]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Denmark


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Any superpower has to grapple with political corruption. Seems to be a pattern going back centuries. The more powerful they are, the less accountable they become.

Denmark might be doing some things right and while I don't like putting down other countries, their high tax rates make it hard for me to take any of their accomplishments seriously.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

So our government raises the tax on gas. What happens? People drive less, so less tax is collected. What happens? The government raises taxes because the amount of taxes needed isn't being collected. Back to the start of this paragraph.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

paker said:


> So our government raises the tax on gas. What happens? People drive less, so less tax is collected.


To some degree yes, as was experienced last year when gas peaked around $4. The real problem is with the poor and working classes. They have to buy gas to get to/from work. That takes money from other things like eating out, disposable income, and economic growth. The high gas prices contributed to the recession and consumer spending.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The geniuses here in BC thought of that. Which is why "low income" people get a $100 check in the mail courtesy of the gas tax. According to the claims, it is revenue neutral, but I don't believe that for a second.

Essentially it is a wealth redistribution program that aims to bribe the poor with some of their own money and some of other people's money.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

tj4fa said:


> The difference between Denmark and us is that their politicians aren't corrupt to the core and the money they appropriated in the carbon tax went to a meaninful cause-not pork or another way to pad their own pockets or serve their own self-interests.


Depends upon what you mean by "corrupt." 

You can have slavery without anyone being dishonest about it. Historically, some slaves are actually happy with their lot in life.

They (Europe) have about reached that point, and we are close behind.


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

The surest way to guaranty heavy gas usage is to tax it. The gov't gets addicted to gas, and it becomes a conflict of interest to endanger that revenue stream.


----------



## munchausendrive (Sep 22, 2009)

If all of Europe can have a significant gas tax and survive, there's no reason why we can't. The federal tax in the US on fuel is only $0.18 per gallon. Which if gas is $3 per gallon is a % tax of only 0.3%, in other words insignificant. I know everyone is scared to death of taxes, but at least when the money goes to the government there's the chance the public will see the benefit of improved or new sevices from that government. when money goes to a corporation it profits only emplyees/owners/shareholders of that corporation and nothing goes to the public at large.


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

$0.18 of tax per $3/gallon is 6%. Add in state government taxes, then gas taxes are about 16% of the price.


munchausendrive said:


> If all of Europe can have a significant gas tax and survive, there's no reason why we can't. The federal tax in the US on fuel is only $0.18 per gallon. Which if gas is $3 per gallon is a % tax of only 0.3%, in other words insignificant. I know everyone is scared to death of taxes, but at least when the money goes to the government there's the chance the public will see the benefit of improved or new sevices from that government. when money goes to a corporation it profits only emplyees/owners/shareholders of that corporation and nothing goes to the public at large.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

munchausendrive said:


> If all of Europe can have a significant gas tax and survive, there's no reason why we can't. The federal tax in the US on fuel is only $0.18 per gallon. Which if gas is $3 per gallon is a % tax of only 0.3%, in other words insignificant. I know everyone is scared to death of taxes, but at least when the money goes to the government there's the chance the public will see the benefit of improved or new sevices from that government. when money goes to a corporation it profits only emplyees/owners/shareholders of that corporation and nothing goes to the public at large.


 
Federal is not the only gas tax imposed on fuel in your country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax
Also keep in mind that taxes on fuel at the pump do NOT reflect the total amount of taxes and royalties imposed on fossil fuel from oil well to wheels on the road.

Canada charged even higher taxes on fuels and we are no better off in maintaining our roads and bridges.

Second of all, bigger government does not mean better services.

Now I agree some taxes are a necissary evil, at least for now. However, higher taxes are not the answer considering how high they are and how much upward pressure there is for even higher taxes. Where does it end? Greater efficiency in government and maybe eliminating redundancy would be a better way to get the best of both worlds. Being able to simply increase taxes eliminates any motivation for government to spend wisely. Deficit spending should be illegal but it is the norm now.

I also take issue with you idea that some one earning money in the private sector is some how not entitled to make a high wage be they blue collar or white collar or board executive.

If a private firm can't balance the books they go under, if government can't balance the books they raise taxes. I don't think more money to government makes them more accountable.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

munchausendrive said:


> If all of Europe can have a significant gas tax and survive, there's no reason why we can't. The federal tax in the US on fuel is only $0.18 per gallon. Which if gas is $3 per gallon is a % tax of only 0.3%, in other words insignificant. I know everyone is scared to death of taxes, but at least when the money goes to the government there's the chance the public will see the benefit of improved or new sevices from that government. when money goes to a corporation it profits only emplyees/owners/shareholders of that corporation and nothing goes to the public at large.


I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is one of the sillier things I've heard this week.

Our economy is in shambles globally because of over-large government and irresponsible deficit spending and corrupt legislation. Suggesting that we should give more money to the politicians under any excuse is like saying we can cure alcoholism with "just one more drink." Sorry buddy, government is the PROBLEM, not the solution. Stop making excuses for them.

So, you people are staggering under incredible gas taxes and, because you are "surviving" we should emulate it? Next you'll all be poking sticks in your left eye and telling us we should do the same...


----------



## esoneson (Sep 1, 2008)

munchausendrive said:


> I know everyone is scared to death of taxes, but at least when the money goes to the government there's the chance the public will see the benefit of improved or new sevices from that government. when money goes to a corporation it profits only emplyees/owners/shareholders of that corporation and nothing goes to the public at large.


The employees/owners/shareholders are the ones that took *ALL* the risk, did *ALL* the work, came up with* ALL* the ideas for the corporation. The government and the public at large took *NONE* of the risk, did *NONE* of the work, came up with *NO* ideas for the corporation. In other words the government and the public at large contributed *NOTHING* to the corporation. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says that the government or the public at large has a *RIGHT* to *ANY* portion of the profits of the corporation. No one has the *RIGHT* to say that corporation X or person Y makes too much money or has the *RIGHT* to determine how much money is too much money. It simply is *NONE* of their business.

Redistribution of wealth is simply *UNCONSTITUTIONAL!* The *RIGHT* to keep what you earned and to keep what you have is what built America and made it the prosperous nation that it is. Take away that *RIGHT* and you will have Russia. 

I've had it up to* HERE* with all the socialism, communism, Obamaism bullshisism of late. Take back Washington! I went to a town hall meeting in Orange, Ca on Saturday. Everybody there made it clear to our representative that we are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. 

No one has the *RIGHT* to tell me that I have too much money or own too much stuff. 

Eric


----------



## BradQuick (May 10, 2008)

I'm actually in favor of a large gas tax.

Now, before you get all excited, I'm about as libertarian as they come.

I'd like to see a gas tax INSTEAD of income tax. There are costs to our society associated with burning gas. Pollution affects everyone. We are using up a finite resource and making it less available to future generations. It makes our society more dependent on the companies who supply the oil.

Since it's use affects all of us, we should control it with laws and taxes. If we raise the price of gas, the private sector will automatically begin looking for alternatives. This will work much better than taxing people's income and then having the government decide who should get money to develop new energy sources.

- Brad


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I've heard that one too. The canadian liberal party ran their last election campaign on the idea of shifting taxes from income over to carbon fuels. Essentially it was a carbon tax, but was pitched as a "tax shift". This was the centerpiece of their platform and they called it the "green shift". The result (thankfully) was the worst return of seats in parliament in roughly a century. The ruling conservative party tightened they control on power and might live to see a majority some day.

Brad, I respect your argument, but the problem with your reasoning is that it doesn't apply to the real world. Here's why:

1; If you tax fuel, the cost has to be made up somewhere else and that means consuming bottom feeders like you and me. Corporations will simply pass the cost to us. By making everything more expensive, there will be less capital to spend on alternative energy and possibly, food depending on how far they want to take it.

2; Income taxes will never be repealed. Once a tax comes into law it is never reversed again. All this will do is complicate the tax code and allow government to take more money out of your pocket.

3; there is only on government, and only one tax payer. It makes no difference what you call that tax. The money comes from the same place, and goes to the same place. You might as well think of your next tax filing as a carbon tax.

4; If we are to believe that no extra net revenue is to be extracted from the population, then why bother adding a new form of taxation? Its the same amount of money either way and if you look around, alternative energy is catching on without the need to punish anyone.


----------



## BradQuick (May 10, 2008)

I realize that it's a pipe dream to think that the government would shift taxes and not just add new ones, but I'm thinking idealistically here.

Yes, the taxes would be passed down to the consumers. That's the whole idea.

Yes, all of the taxes end up coming from the people in some shape or form. I'm suggesting that we tailor the taxes to shift behavior away from things that harm all of us.

Remember when gas was $4 a gallon? Remember all of the talk of the need for smaller cars and alternative fuels? Remember how quickly the general public went back to buying SUV's when the price went back down?

- Brad


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

BradQuick said:


> I'm actually in favor of a large gas tax.
> 
> Now, before you get all excited, I'm about as libertarian as they come.
> 
> ...


Why not just support the FairTax? It's already designed to be revenue-neutral, and takes the power of deciding how much tax individuals away from Government and puts it back in the hands of the people (e.g. save all you want, tax free).

I believe the FairTax amounts to a higher tax on gas than the current Federal and State fuel taxes, but you pay for it with pre-tax dollars so it still comes out cheaper to the consumer.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Brad, I respect your argument, but the problem with your reasoning is that it doesn't apply to the real world. Here's why:
> 
> 1; If you tax fuel, the cost has to be made up somewhere else and that means consuming bottom feeders like you and me. Corporations will simply pass the cost to us. By making everything more expensive, there will be less capital to spend on alternative energy and possibly, food depending on how far they want to take it.


Unless, of course, you replace ALL taxes with a single consumption tax such as the FairTax.



> 2; Income taxes will never be repealed.


...and the British will never be defeated. Sorry, your argument is defeatist - get up off your computer chair and get involved!

Spoke with Congressman Linder the other day at a FairTax rally. His view (paraphrased by me) is that the current government-induced crisis should not be wasted - to steal the Libs' tactics. The Tea Parties are gathering steam, and the FairTax provides a partial solution (doesn't address spending directly) to their currently unfocused dissatisfaction.

Change only happens if we demand it. Don't sit by and simply "accept that it is!!!"



EDIT: By the way, I also learned at that meeting that one European country stopped waiting to see the "Capitalistic Americans" adopt the FairTax (Armenia? Begins with an "A"). It has been so successful that they have LOWERED the tax rate from 23% inclusive / 30% exclusive to 18% inclusive / 22% exclusive, and their economy is booming. So, no one can say any more that the "idea won't work..."


----------



## munchausendrive (Sep 22, 2009)

I made some serious math errors in my first post but...

For all the arguments against taxing gas many of you seem to ignore the fact that most governments in Europe impose heavy taxes on Fuel. Their societies and economies have not collapsed, and they continue to use Gasoline and Diesel transportation. If this idea is to spur innovation and try and move people away from fossil fuels taxing is one way to do it. To claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

Another unrelated example of taxing consumption is tobacco and alcohol products. These are luxuries, no one actually needs them, they are heavily regulated and taxed. They have been taxed since the first colonies were started here in the new world and people have never stopped using them. To claim that taxing fuel, even taxing fuel heavily, will mean fuel will stop being used is simply silly.

I think most of the anti-tax dogma is misguided greed and selfishness.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

PhantomPholly said:


> Unless, of course, you replace ALL taxes with a single consumption tax such as the FairTax.
> 
> ...and the British will never be defeated. Sorry, your argument is defeatist - get up off your computer chair and get involved!
> 
> ...


Replacing the other taxes would imply repealing them. Not having income taxes would certainly sound like a great way to simplify everything and allow more personal wealth. Not sure if big economies really have the political will to pull it off though. Americans took up arms to expell the british. Are you sure that kind of will still exists today? (canada never had to fight for independance)
I'd be interested in learning more about that european country though.....



> I think most of the anti-tax dogma is misguided greed and selfishness.


Demanding freedom and the ability to keep one's own wealth is indeed selfish. I will never apologize for wanting to keep what is rightfully mine.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Replacing the other taxes would imply repealing them.


That is precisely correct. The FairTax bill is only 120 pages long (compared to over 60,000 of the IRS Tax Code) - and most of the document concerns the discontinuance of other taxes.

The Bill includes a sunset clause should either of the following conditions occur: 
- The reinstatement of those other taxes IN ADDITION TO the FairTax
- The failure to ratify Repeal of the 16th Amendment



> Not having income taxes would certainly sound like a great way to simplify everything and allow more personal wealth. Not sure if big economies really have the political will to pull it off though.


The Congress has proven responsive to the concerted will of the people. It is entirely up to us to stand up and demand our freedom back, and it absolutely will NOT happen if people sit on their couches stuffing Doritos in their mouths chanting, "It will never happen..."



> Americans took up arms to expell the british. Are you sure that kind of will still exists today? (canada never had to fight for independance)
> I'd be interested in learning more about that european country though.....


One thing I learned beyond any questionable doubt from both my history classes and my military years: If the will truly exists, armed action is rarely or never necessary. I sincerely hope we do not let our country get so out of control that it comes to violence in our streets - for I have been in such countries at such times and it sucks.



> Demanding freedom and the ability to keep one's own wealth is indeed selfish. I will never apologize for wanting to keep what is rightfully mine.


Here, here!


----------



## BradQuick (May 10, 2008)

I'm all for a flat tax or consumption tax, just as I'm for abolishing many laws.

We do need some laws, however, to keep people from infringing on other people's rights. It should be illegal, for example, to burn down a forest because it's destruction impacts all of us.

Similarly, we need to control the consumption of limited resources. We do that with taxes.

- Brad


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

BradQuick said:


> I'm all for a flat tax or consumption tax, just as I'm for abolishing many laws.
> 
> We do need some laws, however, to keep people from infringing on other people's rights. It should be illegal, for example, to burn down a forest because it's destruction impacts all of us.
> 
> ...


Well, it should be pointed out that there are more forested acres of land in the United States than when the Pilgrims landed. So, it isn't about how MUCH we consume, but rather how well we practice SUSTAINABLE consumption and recycling.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Are any forests being intentionally burned down anywhere in north america?

Forestry management has never been as good as it is right now. Indeed you probably won't find a more adamant forest guardian than a logger these days because they know full well that their livelihood and that of their children depend on how well they manage the resource.


----------

