Quote of the Day: New York Times on Why We Need A Gas Tax

This can work, but it starts with not calling it a 'gas tax'. The concept should be to essentially set the price of petrol, and the extra revenue created should be set aside in a general fund. Those funds should be divided evenly among all Americans annually.

Obviously, this would not be a tax, and instead would be a way of sheltering the rapidly changing gas prices. It would create a large pot of money that would be a rebate to all Americans. This would create a huge incentive to people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles since they would ultimately get more money back than they paid into the system. Those that take public transportation or ride a bike might not pay anything (directly) into the pot.

Those that drive gas guzzlers and/or driving long distances will be paying more than their fair share, but that continues to be their own decision.

*sigh* It will never happen. As long as there are short sited-constantly election minded majorities in congress this will never happen. Even though it makes perfect sense right now. It will never happen. You might as well forget about it.

At the price of being cynical. The American public that voted the current government is the same that votes with their wallet in buying big cars.

I think we need to ask ourselves if it's really Washington's job to save us from ourselves.

"keep gas prices up after the economy recovers from recession."

Wow, ignorance abounds.

I seem to recall something about how OPEC cut production in anticipation of reduced demand due to the recession, which caused oil prices to tumble.

So you see, it's reduced demand that caused the price of gas to fall - imagine that! - and when the economy recovers, we can therefore expect demand to go back up. And thus drive the price of gas right back up. Except the next time that happens, the run-up will be so much faster since the problem was a lack of ability to produce enough to meet demand.

This recession is happening at a horrible time.

I grew up driving small fuel efficient cars. Remember the Datsun B210? My first car. Fiat Strada? My second car. Volkswagen hatchback? Chevy Nova?Amazing fuel economy. As a young woman, I believed in my own invincibility, and could not conceive that I would ever get hit, say, by an 18 wheeler on interstate 80 at 75 miles an hour. Or, as a friend of mine did, was hit head on by a truck who pulled out of his lane. He was in a BMW, and lived. The cop told him 3 cars would have allowed him to live; the Jaguar, the BMW, or the Volvo. I imagine you could now add the Lexus to that list. Those cars are all out of my financial league. However, in looking for a car, since I live in the west, and travel the interstate to go to the next town, I share the road with LARGE vehicles, I looked for a 4 star safety rating. I have seen those smart cars on the freeway, being blown from one lane to another. You might was well go 80 mph in a shopping cart. People in Boston and New York, who may never venture outside of the city, can well afford to drive these death traps, which are probably safer at 30 mph. I bought a Honda Odyssey not for a pack of children, because I don't have any, but because it has a 4 star safety rating. It may not do as well against an 18 wheeler as a Volvo, but it was all I could afford. My brother bought a massive SUV because he wanted his teenager to live in the inevitable teenaged accident. Gas guzzling is a byproduct of safety. I will always by a 4 star car. If it gets less gas mileage, so be it. Build me a heavy car that will stand up to a head on collision that gets 50 mph and I will be first in line. Otherwise, please understand that SUVs were bought for SAFETY.

I guess the Times overlooked that the drop in fuel proces had a positive effect - moreso than a multi-billion dollar, earmark loaded, corruptionfest of yet another 'bail-out'.

Please tell them to stop, every time the FedGov 'helps' I get hurt....as do my children and grandchildren who will end up paying for all of this 'help'.

Leaving aside for a moment the comical idea of accepting economic advice from the editorial board of newspaper that is on the verge of bankruptcy ...

Monty wrote:
"This can work, but it starts with not calling it a 'gas tax'."

What would you suggest we call it, Monty? How about "the magical faery mystery reverse-gift"? Simply calling it something else, doesn't change the fact that it is a tax.

"The concept should be to essentially set the price of petrol,"

Ah-hah. So, in other words what you have in mind is the government seizing private industries and nationalising them, and having a centrally-planned economy, where the government sets prices of commodities.

That's working out real well in Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

"and the extra revenue created should be set aside in a general fund. Those funds should be divided evenly among all Americans annually."

Lovely. A centrally-planned economy built on the "Robin Hood" theme. Yes, I'm sure the government will generously redistribute the wealth it seized from taxpayers among "all Americans". Because that's what governemtns do! Right after they redistribute it to their political cronies. Great plan -- give the government more money.

"Obviously, this would not be a tax, and instead would be a way of sheltering the rapidly changing gas prices."

If you accept the premise that gas prices rapidly change, then you'll have to accept the possibility that oil prices will at some point rise above the "official" government price. What happens then? Instant oil shortages. Why would any supplier sell oil to the government of the US at a below market price, when they can get a better price elsewhere?

You seem to forget that the US is a net oil importer. Under your socialized system of commodity distribution, that leaves only one possibility -- increase domestic production. In your case, that will mean increased drilling in the arctic and off-shore.

"It would create a large pot of money that would be a rebate to all Americans."

I'm guessing that "large pot of money" will be increasingly worthless like Soviet rubles, when you can't use it to buy the stuff you need, since the stuff you need is all controlled by the government, and is strictly rationed, or no longer available.

"Those that drive gas guzzlers and/or driving long distances will be paying more than their fair share, but that continues to be their own decision."

Right. The same way handing your wallet to a knife-weilding mugger is "your own decision". First your tax that you claim shouldn't be called a tax, and now getting mugged is your own decision. You seem to be very averse to calling things what they really are.

I find it jaw-dropping that so many people actually think like that. Is it any wonder gun sales in the US skyrocketed after Obama's election? Who can blame them?

Hey Monty,
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), data, pickups and SUVs are proportionally more likely than cars to be in fatal single-vehicle accidents, especially rollovers.

The only time that an SUV or pickup seems to be any safer than a compact car is when you have multi car pileups..

As for a collision with an 18 wheeler, I have seen it... No one walked, crawled or limped away from the GMC Tahoe that it hit.

Detroit just started making fuel efficient cars, if I'm reading my resources correctly. I'm talking vehicles that can get well over 30 MPG highway. Japan and Europe already have and the new US models with such fuel efficiency still pale in comparison a bit. I looked at www.fueleconomy.gov and compared the 2009 Ford Focus with the 2008 Toyota Yaris and the 2009 smart fortwo coupe. The foreign cars are still getting better combined mileage.

My point is I don't think low fuel costs aren't the big worry here. I'm of the opinion that it's the innovations that foreign auto makers seem to get to first. It's been an issue with the American auto makers for years; Asia and Europe keep one step ahead of the US in innovation and vehicular improvements. Ford, GM, and other domestic manufacturers are always playing catch up.

I don't think a gas tax won't solve the problem. I see it only irritating people, especially those living in highly populated cities who don't drive on their commute. Why should they pay a blanket tax for something they don't use?

What will solve the problem? The way I see it, US auto manufacturers need to dump some money into R&D and come out with ways to do something useful besides adding cosmetic extras, like a European-looking body or DVD players. How about making engines even more fuel efficient? How about different frame designs that could absorb more impact force and distribute that energy so there's less body damage and makes the car a little bit safer? Why not improve hybrid technology to manage gasoline and power consumptions even better while doing it on a batter that isn't going to cost five grand to replace after two and a half years of use? Maybe develop engines for a truck, SUV, or the like with better then 20 MPG highway; perhaps bringing that to at least 30 MPG, and find a way not to sacrifice power? If there was more focus on practical development, it's possible that more Americans will buy American because then they'll truly have something everyone wants.

We should do it, and we should call it a gas tax. Taxes are inevitable, they're one of the downsides of the prosperity and freedom we enjoy. If you love life in America, you should be prepared to pay for it.

I manage to "squeeze' my family into our "tiny" Pontiac Vibe and Scion xA. We drove 40 miles from our home to my parents with our dog, all our luggage and all our gifts in one car.

Even with the second child on the way we won't need a bigger car since it's only ever the four of us. Five if you count the dog. And even then we'll just use our roof rack for luggage.

It's not a squeeze, and our cars are fine, even for long trips. Thankfully, we also live an an area that's eminently walkable, so we're rarely in our cars anyway.

Why not improve hybrid technology to manage gasoline and power consumptions even better while doing it on a batter that isn't going to cost five grand to replace after two and a half years of use?

My parents own a 2001 Prius that's still going strong on the original battery pack after 8 years. I don't know where you're getting that two and a half year figure, but it's very inaccurate.

Anonymous (the Second):

Government seizure of private sectors has already occured in the US, under President Bush. Our banks are effectively nationalized entities in all but name, and more is coming for other industries. Pro or con, I don't think comparing the US to Zimbabwe is very effective rhetoric.

When will environmentalist groups stop tring to control what we eat, drink and drive. Wasn't it this past spring that Dem Nancy pelosi said in a press interview that she felt all of Americas Pain at the pump. we were paying 3+ dollars a gallon and she blamed the Bush administraion for it. Now Dems want to increase the gas tax by keeping it at 4 to 5 dollars a gallon, to force people into buying hybrids. Talk about insultingly stupid actions.

Eric - government by the people. A real pain, ain't it.