What would it take to make small cars desirable?

[VetteOwner]

Originally Posted by SL8Brick

My automotive requirements are pretty strait forward:
1.The ability to transport 2 adults/2 children in relative comfort(ie:w/o having your knees up by your chin).
2.The ability to transport at least 40 cubic ft of cargo along with the above passengers.
3.Normally aspirated, SOHC 4cyl. engine w/automatic transmission - 2wd

Put it all together and you'll come up with the 2 vehicles in my garage.

lol boo automatic! 4 banger+auto tranny=boring as hell!

[rvanengen]

Originally Posted by brucepick

Snax made a good point:
"decide whether it is a 'sin' tax or 'consumption' tax."

It's easy to see increased gas taxes as an effort to influence consumer buying (of gas and cars/trucks).

But really you could make a strong case that it's actually a way of having the consumer pay the REAL cost of that fuel.

True that the oil companies, distributors and the stations can get it into your car for the current price posted on the pump. However the real price is much, much higher than what you see.

How about the cost of the U.S. military messing around in the Mideast, to keep oil flowing? Hundreds of billions of $$. How about existing tax breaks to big oil? How about the delayed improvements and maintenance to highways that are going to catch up to us one day?

It's not that different from the 14 year old willing to cut your grass for just $10 using his dad's lawnmower and gas. Dad doesn't mind for now, the kid's real upkeep and support come from elsewhere, so you can get it done for cheap. If someone points out all the other input that enables that kid to cut your grass and decides that the real cost of everything is $25, that changes everything. You might decide to cut it yourself!

Not that I'm a total supporter of massive pump taxes. Some people would suffer. But we're really getting a subsidized deal on fuel in this country, and we whine when there's talk of making us pay the real cost. It probably really does cost something like $6-8 per gallon to keep that fuel coming. So we shouldn't complain if the price rises to match the real cost.

We might not like it, but we'll never make the changes we need if we continue getting our fuel without paying fully for it.

Well...you could already say that the US taxpayer is ALREADY paying for it since the EPA, Pentagon, and other government spending is paid for by the taxpayers, ultimately. Also, can you absolutely promise that the extra costs that would be imposed at the pump are distributed without loss to the points of the cost being incurred?

By that logic, all consumers should pay the full cost for all products consumed. How much does a gallon of milk really cost? How much does the clean air that you breathe cost? Should we have an air tax that is assigned based upon lung capacity and amount of physical exertion??

How are costs assigned, and who pays if the consumer doesn't? If the cost isn't paid, then there is a debt, true??

I agree, the oil companies do not need or deserve tax breaks...but other than that, what true costs are you talking about, how do you quantify them, and who pays if the consumer/taxpayer doesn't already?

[rvanengen]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Short term trends are no indication of long term consumption Especially when someone can say "oh, it was [natural disaster] - it will get better soon."

That is an increase in the long term trend of gas consumption being relatively inelastic.

[rvanengen]

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

lol boo automatic! 4 banger+auto tranny=boring as hell!

Perhaps...but more likely to be driven safely by my wife! (remembering her in a manual...)

[rvanengen]

I guess my main complaint is that simply tacking a huge tax onto a gallon of gasoline will not solve anything. The money will not be spent to correct any of the problems that are caused by gasoline consumption, rather, in the true nature of Washington, will be spent on things totally unrelated. This leaves the people that are least able to absorb the increase in gas prices in a quandry.

Simply put, you cannot tax yourself outta the problems you are in...taxes are legalized theft...robin hood in reverse. All the "pointy head, liberal professor type" arguements aside...increasing taxes has never helped anyone but the people spending the tax money.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by rvanengen

That is an increase in the long term trend of gas consumption being relatively inelastic.

Link us up to that study That's the kind of stuff I read in my free time

I agree, the oil companies do not need or deserve tax breaks...but other than that, what true costs are you talking about, how do you quantify them, and who pays if the consumer/taxpayer doesn't already?

That's actually a pretty good question (and very hard to answer)... I did a quick google search and ended up with a rather old (2000) report: http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications...M_2000_152.pdf - it really doesn't take a direct measurement of conflict costs (at least it doesn't appear that way).

Key points:
Cost of oil dependency is ~7 trillion over the past 30 years ( in 1998 $'s)
Transfer of wealth to oil producing countries: 1.1 trillion (1998 $s)
Each 1 billion of trade deficit according to the DOE equates to a job loss = 27,000.

Simply put, you cannot tax yourself outta the problems you are in...taxes are legalized theft...robin hood in reverse. All the "pointy head, liberal professor type" arguments aside...increasing taxes has never helped anyone but the people spending the tax money.

No, but you can sure prevent problems from occurring EU is a perfect case study, as is the decline in revenue collected from our guzzler tax in the states.

I don't know about you, but I rather like having paved roads - roads fall apart quickly when not maintained. Even some of the crappiest roads I rode on this summer are better than what can be said in non "1st world" countries

As the proverb or what have you goes, The courtyard common to all is swept by no one.

It's just my .02 dollars - I take the POV that we need to self regulate before nature takes drastic measures. As of now, supply trends tell us nature isn't happy. It's almost to the point where "think of your children's children" et. al. is a moot point and should be replaced with "think of 50 years from now" :/

I guess my main complaint is that simply tacking a huge tax onto a gallon of gasoline will not solve anything.

Forgot to mention (in my already long post).... these sort of changes don't happen instantly - just as we can't expect people to change their habits instantly. Just as auto mfr's need time to optimize - people need the same

[rvanengen]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Link us up to that study That's the kind of stuff I read in my free time

That's actually a pretty good question (and very hard to answer)... I did a quick google search and ended up with a rather old (2000) report: http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications...M_2000_152.pdf - it really doesn't take a direct measurement of conflict costs (at least it doesn't appear that way).

Key points:
Cost of oil dependency is ~7 trillion over the past 30 years ( in 1998 $'s)
Transfer of wealth to oil producing countries: 1.1 trillion (1998 $s)
Each 1 billion of trade deficit according to the DOE equates to a job loss = 27,000.



No, but you can sure prevent problems from occurring EU is a perfect case study, as is the decline in revenue collected from our guzzler tax in the states.

I don't know about you, but I rather like having paved roads - roads fall apart quickly when not maintained. Even some of the crappiest roads I rode on this summer are better than what can be said in non "1st world" countries

As the proverb or what have you goes, The courtyard common to all is swept by no one.

It's just my .02 dollars - I take the POV that we need to self regulate before nature takes drastic measures. As of now, supply trends tell us nature isn't happy. It's almost to the point where "think of your children's children" et. al. is a moot point and should be replaced with "think of 50 years from now" :/



Forgot to mention (in my already long post).... these sort of changes don't happen instantly - just as we can't expect people to change their habits instantly. Just as auto mfr's need time to optimize - people need the same

Original quote had a link to the study...

The problem with taking money blindly is that the people taking it tend to spend it on things that do NOT help the general good. I am not willing to giveup more money right now, in the hopes that some future politicians will spend it for the better good then, as opposed to simply looking for more taxes in the future...and history shows this to be a proven constant.

As far as maintaining the roads we have, once you find a good way to keep the politicos feet to the fire and spend the money they already have, for the items they should already spend the money on, then I might start to believe that they will do good with more money. Scarcity of resources works VERY well in politics...give them less and they find a way to do more...give them more, and they find a way to do less.

I am not sure how the EU is a good comparison to the US, but the conclusion of the report doesn't advocate increased taxes, but rather, finding lower cost alternatives to dependance on OPEC supplied fuels...which I do support. I think if we found a way to divert a significant % of the amount being spent in Iraq to a direct subsidy to better battery technology for EV's, we would be lightyears ahead...let's not look for biofuel solutions, but better EV tech. We have the motors, the controllers, but the batteries are the continual weak link.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by rvanengen

Original quote had a link to the study...

???
That link gave what was necessary for long term change, but was talking about short term effects (even in the url )

Research suggests it takes years for higher gas prices to meaningfully damp consumption. Opinions differ, but many experts say that, in the short term, the "price elasticity" of U.S. gasoline use is as low as 0.1. That means gas prices have to rise 10% to produce an initial 1% drop in demand.

...

If gasoline prices stayed high for several years, researchers say, they would tend to meaningfully curb consumption. Over time, people would factor the higher prices into decisions that have big effects on their gasoline use. They might choose more-efficient models when it comes time to replace cars, as happened in the early 1980s. They might decide to switch jobs or move to shorten their commutes.

Originally Posted by rvanengen

The problem with taking money blindly is that the people taking it tend to spend it on things that do NOT help the general good. I am not willing to giveup more money right now, in the hopes that some future politicians will spend it for the better good then, as opposed to simply looking for more taxes in the future...and history shows this to be a proven constant.

Sure, there are scandals and grievances - but I would hardly call these a constant in how funds are spent. That is, the municipal services where I live are doing more good than bad... I mean, the police or fire department will show up when called - because such services exist and are funded

Originally Posted by rvanengen

As far as maintaining the roads we have, once you find a good way to keep the politicos feet to the fire and spend the money they already have, for the items they should already spend the money on, then I might start to believe that they will do good with more money. Scarcity of resources works VERY well in politics...give them less and they find a way to do more...give them more, and they find a way to do less.

Perhaps.... I mean, we could do what Walmart does with their suppliers. Cut throat competition... We can have the construction workers tighten their belts because we want to pay them less for a service most of us use every day...

Originally Posted by rvanengen

I am not sure how the EU is a good comparison to the US, but the conclusion of the report doesn't advocate increased taxes, but rather, finding lower cost alternatives to dependance on OPEC supplied fuels...which I do support. I think if we found a way to divert a significant % of the amount being spent in Iraq to a direct subsidy to better battery technology for EV's, we would be lightyears ahead...let's not look for biofuel solutions, but better EV tech. We have the motors, the controllers, but the batteries are the continual weak link.

Not a comparison to the US, a comparison to a method to find said alternatives. Make it an economically viable solution. The US average FE is something around ~24mpg -- down to 17mpg or 18mpg when you include SUV's and light trucks that pass through the ag. equipment loophole. The UK's average FE is ~38mpg.

In any case, that very same report in fact did mention taxes as a way to get this accomplished

Unlike the energy crises of the 1970s, which resulted from reduced supplies of Mideast oil, today's crunch is due largely to a swift rise in global oil demand. The surest way out of the problem, most experts agree, would be to curb consumption of vehicle fuel, particularly in the U.S. For years, economists have argued that the most effective way to moderate U.S. demand would be to hit Americans with significantly higher gasoline taxes.

What they're arguing is what is taught in econ 101 basics. If we were to completely remove the gas tax, the demand curve will shift up - increasing consumption and thus increases the market value. Increase, the demand curve shifts down - this decreases consumption and market value decreases. The same thing happens when you tweak the cost per unit supply curves (such as the 70's gas crunch - note the number of econo-boxes that came out of that era ).

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

...you put a lot of emphysis on the negative enviro impacts, where i focus more on people.

I don't love the earth for earths sake. She's just a glorified rock.

Really, I don't mean to be harsh, but I see the difference as I am going forward with my eyes wide open, still afraid of the reality of our situation but not willing to lay down and pretend it isn't there. And I don't distinguish between Americans and non-americans so much.

[Snax]

bowtieguy has me thinking about this one very important point:

The federal government of the US was 100% supported by tarrifs for a very long time. Only after tarrifs were removed did the government even need to tax it's citizens at all.