Conservative commentator advocates for an increased gas tax

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Americans have a deep and understandable aversion to gasoline taxes.

...

America is a nation of continental expanses. Distances between population centers can be vast. The mass-transit mini-car culture of Europe just doesn't work in big sky country.

...

The virtues of a gas tax remain what they have always been. A tax that suppresses U.S. gas consumption can have a major effect on reducing world oil prices. And the benefits of low world oil prices are obvious: They put tremendous pressure on OPEC, as evidenced by its disarray during the current collapse; they deal serious economic damage to energy-exporting geopolitical adversaries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran; and they reduce the enormous U.S. imbalance of oil trade which last year alone diverted a quarter of $1 trillion abroad. Furthermore, a reduction in U.S. demand alters the balance of power between producer and consumer, making us less dependent on oil exporters. It begins weaning us off foreign oil, and, if combined with nuclear power and renewed U.S. oil and gas drilling, puts us on the road to energy independence.

...

These benefits are blindingly obvious. They always have been. But the only time you can possibly think of imposing a tax to achieve them is when oil prices are very low. We had such an opportunity when prices collapsed in the mid-1980s and again in the late 1990s. Both opportunities were squandered. Nothing was done.

Today we are experiencing a unique moment. Oil prices are in a historic free fall from a peak of $147 a barrel to $39 today ... Indeed, an immediate $1 tax would still leave the price more than one-third below its July peak.

...

What to do? Something radically new. A net-zero gas tax. Not a freestanding gas tax but a swap that couples the tax with an equal payroll tax reduction.

...

Here is how it works. The simultaneous enactment of two measures: A $1 increase in the federal gasoline tax--together with an immediate $14 a week reduction of the FICA tax.

...

The math is simple. The average American buys roughly 14 gallons of gasoline a week. The $1 gas tax takes $14 out of his pocket. The reduction in payroll tax puts it right back. The average driver comes out even, and the government makes nothing on the transaction.

...

No money is taken out of the economy. Washington doesn't get fatter. Nor does it get leaner. It is simply a transfer agent moving money from one activity (gasoline purchasing) to another (employment) with zero net revenue for the government.

...

Of course, as with any simple proposal, there are complications. Doesn't reimbursement-by-payroll-tax-cut just cancel out the incentive to drive less and shift to fuel-efficient cars? No. The $14 in cash can be spent on anything. You can blow it all on gas by driving your usual number of miles, or you can drive a bit less and actually have money in your pocket for something else.

Read the rest at http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/A...15/949rsrgi.asp. It is a very interesting read!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Read my lips, no new taxes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Read my lips, no new taxes.

Read the article, you'll be surprised.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

How wll the tax suppress consumption if it is given right back in your paycheck?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

It will never have the desired effect.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How wll the tax suppress consumption if it is given right back in your paycheck?

The author addresses that, it's in the part I excerpted.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

How wll the tax suppress consumption if it is given right back in your paycheck?

The author addresses that, it's in the part I excerpted.

Where? Why is this going to encourage people to drive less? What's the incentive?

It will never have the desired effect.

Because..?

Because we all know that these simple solutions never work.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's in the part I excerpted.

And if you're worried about demand being inelastic, that's in the original article.

Take the time to actually read it.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I did read it, I still don't see it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Then you didn't read it

[spookyturtle 9,466]

How wll the tax suppress consumption if it is given right back in your paycheck?

The author addresses that, it's in the part I excerpted.

Where? Why is this going to encourage people to drive less? What's the incentive?

It will never have the desired effect.

Because..?

Because we all know that these simple solutions never work.

LOL! "I haven't read the article, but it will never work." Welcome to off-topic my friend, here's your sign.

I read articles everyday. I read off topic everyday. The world is still a mess. Everyone has a brilliant idea how to fix everything. I'll believe it when I see it. Gas consumption finally went down in the US when it hit $4 gallon. $3 had no effect. And if the economy hadn't gone down the toilet, $4 wouldn't have had the effect that it did. If people still had jobs, they'd be buying gas guzzlers again with gas at $1.50.

Edited December 27, 2008 by spookyturtle

[Scott & Lai 12]

Read my lips, no new taxes.

Read the article, you'll be surprised.

It is a tax increase on those who use more than 14 gallons a week. But, hey, if you use 14 gallons or less per week, screw those other guys, right?

[Tahoma 2,298]

I think I finally understand this concept...

> Gut Social Security and Medicare so that we can afford to drive our gas guzzlers to the mall.

> We will magically produce money and donate it to Big Oil so that they can tap every last drop of oil in the US.

> We'll even have money left over to develop small nuclear reactors to power cars and trucks.

> Those actions will result in slowing the growth rate of our oil imports, so that in twenty years, instead of importing 70% of our oil, we will only have to import 69% of it.

> At that time, we will all agree to call that result "being on the road to energy independence".

> When the time comes, instead of sending you a Social Security check, the government will mail you a book of fairy tales every month. George Orwell novels will be optional.

Such a deal!

[NickD 203]

Actually found myself agreeing with what Al Gore stated in a Newsweek magazine dated 12/08/2008, since the first oil embargo in 1974, the oil business has been a roller coaster ride, drops a bit and we get vehicles the size of tanks, goes up, than a panic to make smaller vehicles or come out with unproven technology, the Caddy 4-6-8 was proof of that. Just a vicious circle for the last 34 years. But do not believe government is the answer, would be nice to have an EPA that offers solutions rather than fines. Perhaps tax incentives may work, what I really hate about American corporations is instant profits with zero long term thinking and corporations ran by businessmen rather than engineers.

You would think by this time the auto industry would have learned their sales are highly dependent on the type of fuels their vehicles consume, and without those fuels at reasonable prices, their vehicles are totally worthless.