The USA speaks on raising taxes

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
850
Media
29
Likes
4,042
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Many people live farther out of town because they already cant afford the places closer to town.

They most certainly can afford to live closer to town. They feel that they "can't" because they feel a 4,000 sq ft house on half an acre of land with two SUVs and a sports car in the garage is the "bare minimum" for a family of husband, wife, two kids.
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
850
Media
29
Likes
4,042
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
But it doesnt sound as if the current budget is very much!

Quite true, but even that amount would bring the system back to being as usable as it once was. Today, even though I prefer to take the bus to work, I still end up driving about 50% of the time because the schedule is either inconvenient or the bus got "lost" somewhere on it's route in the morning... e.i. broke down, caught on fire, hit a utility pole, hit a pedestrian, hit a wall, can't get up a hill in ice, couldn't find a driver, etc. *

When I first moved to this house 8 years ago, I had 4 bus routes from my house in either direction every 15 minutes. It was actually possible to do basic grocery shopping via bus. As the budget continued to get cut over the years, I am now down to one bus each way, once an hour, only during rush hours. Outside of rush hour, the route is cut in half, dropping me at another bus stop where I can connect for an extra fee.



*all actual examples of why I've been stranded in the past.
 

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
Well I guess that 30 years ago the US decided the rise in oil price was just an aberration and they could go back to cheap oil. Are you saying the US now accepts this is not going to happen and that it must come to terms with fuel at european prices?
30 years ago that was an aberration. Also, the UK didnt start to really tax fuel until 1993, and it was based upon roads and pollution, not on the availability/price of fuel.
Fuel Price Escalator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your country did not see into the future, prior to 1993 you had the cheapest gas in europe. Stop thinking you/your country is the end all be all.

Most people rely upon cars just as in the US. Somehow they manage. What do you reckon is a typical annual mileage? My mother, a pensioner, is pushing 10,000 a year and affords it well enough on a basic state pension living in a town of 50,000. She has a small car, but if it had really been an issue she could have chosen one with a better mileage. I suspect the US is just shocked that something they believed was cheap turns out not to be. Theyll adjust.
In the east its about 12k/year, much like the UK. However, in the west the average is generally closer to 20k+/year.
What is the average mileage per car per year? - Yahoo! Answers

Why? seems to work. The price is not so high as to be prohibitive but is enough to make people realise they are paying for a luxury. Its their choice if thats how they want to spend their money. Annual road tax license fee to use a vehicle on the road is graded going up the more fuel they use and free at the bottom.
If you tax because of the rich you end up cutting out the poor. Every percent you raise the tax, cuts out a fraction of a percent for using cars at all, even if they were the most fuel efficient vehicles they can afford.

But seriously, do you?
Yes, we do.

Are they?
I dont know, you made the suggestion why dont you find out?

Again, what is a typical anuual mileage, therefore typical number of gallons, therefore actual amount we are talking about?
See above.

So your going to hope it lasts out your lifetime rather than try to change things?
Where did I even suggest this? All I am saying is that your idea of "lets tax the shit out of people so they CANT drive and screw people that dont have the option of public transit" is not a good idea. If you want to tax to reduce consumption of something necessary to live, you need to have an alternative for people to use first. You cant start at the finish line.

Because I have already posted miles and didnt want to get started on the new Edinburgh tram system which probably has a similar cost. Currently arguing about cancelling it because it is so vastly over estimate. But, on balance, it is going ahead. There was a similar scheme for a new tramway in London which is probably still being discussed. I looked at the blurb about that and came to the conclusion it was damn stupid. Far better if they bought more buses. Their own figures showed buses were much cheaper per passenger mile and much more flexible if you want to change the route. Since they were planning to dedicate big parts of existing roads to the trams they might just as well turn them into bus lanes.
Alright, I dont see where you "posted miles" and what this has to do in relation to what I was talking about. Though I think that it is hilarious that you are thinking buses would be a better option. Much of the midwest has 2-5 people per square kilometer (which you would know if you looked at the image in the prior post)... in order to have a reliable and frequent enough bus schedule you would need a lot of buses... but is a bus really a good use of fuel if you only have 5 people on it in every trip?

Why is this different to the UK? Are houses on bigger plots so the town is bigger? Cant people just in-fill and double the number of closer houses? That is what has happened in the Uk, though I suppose you are correct that London is significantlydesigned as a pre-motor car city. I guess no US cities were built before the car came into common use?
In order to "in-fill" you need people. In order to have more people you need more jobs. It isnt a matter of houses being on large tracts of land, its a matter of there being so much land that we dont have enough people/jobs to move closer. Just look at the east coast in the picture before, its pretty well filled in and even with most of our population being over there we still have only a few states with the density of the UK.

In regards to how cities are built, lets just look at from 1910 to 2010, the era of the cars.

The US went from 92 million to 310 million people. So 218 million people were born/moved here in the era of cheap affordable cars and it has been designed around that.
The UK went from 42 million to 59 million people. So 17 million people were born/moved to the UK in that same era.

I do not know exactly what the us gas price is now, but Uk tax is around 1/2 to 2/3 the pump price. So whatever your price is excluding any tax, we pay 2-3x that. What is typical tax now?
Fuel tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
30 years ago that was an aberration.
No, it was the start of a trend.

the UK didnt start to really tax fuel until 1993, and it was based upon roads and pollution, not on the availability/price of fuel.
Fuel Price Escalator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fuel escalator was a silly idea that tax would go up automatically irrespective of world conditions. There was a lot of fuss and the escalator was switched off. Fuel tax continued to rise just as it had before the escalor, by as much each year as the government reckoned it could get away with. I found a figure which says at the start of the escalator tax was 70% of pump price, so figure out how much that was compared to US prices. Sounds like pretty much the same proportion it is now. The start of the escalator was no more than a normal annual tax hike. UK fuel at that time may indeed have been the cheapest in europe, but not I think the cheapest in the US. There was a lot of fuss about pump price at that time, but it was a lot less than it is now. I found a figure which says it was £2.10 per gallon in 1993 and might be about £6-7 now (uk fuel is sold in litres). Petrol Prices

In the east its about 12k/year, much like the UK. However, in the west the average is generally closer to 20k+/year.
So in the east you are arguing about a non-issue. Uk people do the same mileage and manage well enough at 250% tax. In the west they are still only doing twice the mileage.

If you tax because of the rich you end up cutting out the poor. Every percent you raise the tax, cuts out a fraction of a percent for using cars at all, even if they were the most fuel efficient vehicles they can afford.
well true, but the system is graded so that big gas guzzlers are paying more tax. Get a small car. If you want to subsidise the poor, you dont do it by cutting taxes on the rich.

In the UK property taxes are typically £1000 upwards. I would think giving someone a discount this size would more than compensate for a rise in gas tax. Your reply says you have no idea whether this is a workable way to get subsidy into the hands of the rural poor to compensate for gas prices, so you can hardly say it is impossible to rearrange taxes to discourage use of gas. A rearrangement like this would even benefit the rural poor, because if they then find a way to economise on gas too, they would be better off.

wiki seems to be saying US gas tax is about $0.50 per gallon. I still dont know what average miles per gallon is in the uk, but i do know it ranges by a factor of x3 depending on your choice of car.


All I am saying is that your idea of "lets tax the shit out of people so they CANT drive and screw people that dont have the option of public transit" is not a good idea.
In the course of this discussion we have established that a big chunk of the US drives the same mileage as does the UK. Yet the UK pays maybe $6 per gallon tax compared to $0.50 in the US and gets by. If you charge people more per mile then they will think twice about driving unnecessary miles or about driving gas guzzling vehicles. We know this works, because in the UK the kinds of car people drive has changed and is way more efficient than it used to be or those in the US. It may be that even with the tax, Uk people on the same mileage are paying little more for fuel in a year than those in the US. We have also establishe that even in the outback, average mileage is no more than twice that in the UK. If this is really causing a problem, particularly considering the people affected may be poor, then I am sure the US government could think up some scheme to help people like that. Never mind raising $5 per gallon, apparently just an extra $.50 per gallon seems likely to vastly improve public transport and I dare say another $.50 could be put into the scheme to especially help those hardest hit.

If you want to tax to reduce consumption of something necessary to live, you need to have an alternative for people to use first. You cant start at the finish line.
well yes, but I dont see any plan at all? Its not the Uk which is in trouble but the US, so where is the US plane to solve the problem of high fuel dependency?

but is a bus really a good use of fuel if you only have 5 people on it in every trip?
In the uk we use minibuses! even in London some routes now run with small buses, maybe about 30 seats. But I agree in this situation you might want to use a different kind of subsidy for the rural poor.


In order to "in-fill" you need people.
No i dont. I already have someone living one side of town who works on the other. So he builds a new house in between two next to where he wants to work.

It isnt a matter of houses being on large tracts of land, its a matter of there being so much land that we dont have enough people/jobs to move closer.
?I think that was why our ancesters invented the village? And maybe why the US invented national parks where no one lives?

In regards to how cities are built, lets just look at from 1910 to 2010, the era of the cars.
Dont understand what those pioneers were thinking of setting off into empty territory without a 4x4 pickup to get about. How did that 92 million citizens manage before cars?
 

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
So in the east you are arguing about a non-issue. Uk people do the same mileage and manage well enough at 250% tax. In the west they are still only doing twice the mileage.
It is still an issue... just not as big of an issue. People in the east generally have more public transit as well. The bigger the city, the more is available. NYC, san francisco and seattle all have pretty good public transportation set up. The problem is you have to actually live in those cities to use most of it... which can be expensive.

well true, but the system is graded so that big gas guzzlers are paying more tax. Get a small car. If you want to subsidise the poor, you dont do it by cutting taxes on the rich.
You dont do it by raising taxes on everybody either. A gas tax is not a tax on the rich, its a tax on everybody.

In the UK property taxes are typically £1000 upwards. I would think giving someone a discount this size would more than compensate for a rise in gas tax. Your reply says you have no idea whether this is a workable way to get subsidy into the hands of the rural poor to compensate for gas prices, so you can hardly say it is impossible to rearrange taxes to discourage use of gas. A rearrangement like this would even benefit the rural poor, because if they then find a way to economise on gas too, they would be better off.
I have no idea about property taxes in general.

wiki seems to be saying US gas tax is about $0.50 per gallon. I still dont know what average miles per gallon is in the uk, but i do know it ranges by a factor of x3 depending on your choice of car.
The tax you are talking about, based upon your choice of car, would not be a fuel tax. The fuel tax is just on fuel, and the fuel efficiency of your car determines the impact that it has on you. There should be no range and I dont get how average miles per gallon factors in at all...

maybe this is what you are looking for though?
Number of the Day: 38 MPG : TreeHugger
All that article does though is further illustrate how horrible tripling our gas prices would be.


In the course of this discussion we have established that a big chunk of the US drives the same mileage as does the UK. Yet the UK pays maybe $6 per gallon tax compared to $0.50 in the US and gets by. If you charge people more per mile then they will think twice about driving unnecessary miles or about driving gas guzzling vehicles. We know this works, because in the UK the kinds of car people drive has changed and is way more efficient than it used to be or those in the US. It may be that even with the tax, Uk people on the same mileage are paying little more for fuel in a year than those in the US. We have also establishe that even in the outback, average mileage is no more than twice that in the UK. If this is really causing a problem, particularly considering the people affected may be poor, then I am sure the US government could think up some scheme to help people like that. Never mind raising $5 per gallon, apparently just an extra $.50 per gallon seems likely to vastly improve public transport and I dare say another $.50 could be put into the scheme to especially help those hardest hit.
See article above.

well yes, but I dont see any plan at all? Its not the Uk which is in trouble but the US, so where is the US plane to solve the problem of high fuel dependency?
Its called capitalism, you leave it to the market to solve problems. Gas prices will naturally rise without a tax, which will further push people away from using gas, which creates alternative demand, which creates products, which people buy. It would accomplish the same thing as taxes in the end, except it would be natural instead of forced.

No i dont. I already have someone living one side of town who works on the other. So he builds a new house in between two next to where he wants to work.
So you want the average american who can barely afford what hes living in right now to just build a new house?

?I think that was why our ancesters invented the village? And maybe why the US invented national parks where no one lives?
National parks are to preserve nature, not to create a living habitat for people. Thanks for illustrating why you are frustrating to argue with, with this negative attitude towards americans.

Dont understand what those pioneers were thinking of setting off into empty territory without a 4x4 pickup to get about. How did that 92 million citizens manage before cars?
American Old West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A drastically increased price on gas may work on the east coast where its more clustered, but then you still have about 2.5 million of the 3.8 million square miles of land and people to worry about. Regardless of the potential of it working on the east coast, YOU STILL NEED TO START SOME PLACE OTHER THAN INSANE TAXES.

If your proposal is the final step on a long plan, then that is fine. But you are arguing for using it as a starting point to get the ball rolling, which is plain ridiculous.

I just cant fathom how your final stance is: "Oh, just buy a new car, move to a new house, get a new job, and just change everything about your life and millions of other americans lives... its simple!"
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
850
Media
29
Likes
4,042
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Bigloads -you still have to come back to the fact that even with today's gas tax, we are undertaxed based on the amount of cost it takes just to maintain the roads, bridges etc. The tax itself must go up about 150% just to close this deficit. That means adding an additional 75 cents to every gallon sold.
 

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
Bigloads -you still have to come back to the fact that even with today's gas tax, we are undertaxed based on the amount of cost it takes just to maintain the roads, bridges etc. The tax itself must go up about 150% just to close this deficit. That means adding an additional 75 cents to every gallon sold.
Eh.... not quite. We have spent 600 billion in excess of what any gas taxes have earned over the last 64 years
Do Roads Pay For Themselves? Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding - U.S. PIRG
This means that we probably spend about $10 billion extra each year than what is currently taken in through taxes.

Americans use 9.3 million barrels a day, of those 42 gallon barrels you can make 19 gallons of it into gasoline (from what I read). So, we use about 176,700,000 gallons of gas every day, or 64,495,500,000 gallons per year.

So, we have to make $10 billion from our nearly 65 billion gallons, which means you only need to charge about 15.5 cents more per gallon and the roads are now paid for.

If you charge you know.... 20 cents more per gallon, then you suddenly have several billion to put towards better public transportation.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
maybe this is what you are looking for though?
Number of the Day: 38 MPG : TreeHugger
yes. It says average mpg in the uk is 38 and in the us 22. So by changing your cars to the average in the UK you could save 16/38= 40% of current fuel used. Or put it another way, if 10 years ago the US had adopted the mix of cars now used in the Uk and simultaneously imposed about a 60% tax so the total bill was the same as before, the fuel cost to us citizens would have been exactly the same, same number of miles driven, but the government would have benefitted by 40% of the total amount spent on gas in those ten years. The bureau of transportation suggests motor vehicles use 170 bilion gallons fuel each year. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_09.html So the tax would have raised about 70 billionx price of a galon of fuel. About 1 trillion dollars over the ten years? And not costing US citizens a penny?

Of course, couldnt be done instantly. But if you had started 10 years ago the government would now be getting an extra $100 billion per year for free. That is why europe has high fuel taxes.

Its called capitalism, you leave it to the market to solve problems. Gas prices will naturally rise without a tax, which will further push people away from using gas, which creates alternative demand, which creates products, which people buy. It would accomplish the same thing as taxes in the end, except it would be natural instead of forced.
And the US has forgone the 100 billion free tax take, has more road pollution, greater balance of payments deficit, slipped further behind in vehicle engine technology. Capitalism is blind and does not choose the best route.

So you want the average american who can barely afford what hes living in right now to just build a new house?
Cars are typically replaced every 10 years, so if this had been started 10 years ago you would have an efficient stock by now. Houses are built less often, but had the US started changing after the arab oil shocks then there would be a significant difference by now. UK planning law has for a long time taken into account minimising necessary journeys. The point is I dont see the US accepting a need to change even now. The other point is to show why just leaving things to the market instead of planning is plain folly.

National parks are to preserve nature, not to create a living habitat for people. Thanks for illustrating why you are frustrating to argue with, with this negative attitude towards americans.
I meant, a living habitat without people. Ie no one who needs to commute to a town regularly should be living so far away from one. The US has been remarkably successful, but is sometimes also very blinkered. I think the US has believed in its superiority and financial superiority and not cared if it drives gas guzzlers.

If your proposal is the final step on a long plan, then that is fine. But you are arguing for using it as a starting point to get the ball rolling, which is plain ridiculous.
worked in the UK. Granted, needs to be phased in over years but that means ratcheting up tax each year despite kicking and screaming motorists. Because, in the end, they and the country will be better off.
 
Last edited:

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
I dont know how else I can present my argument towards dandelion, and I am basically repeating what I am saying, so I am just going to leave it at what I said in my last post.

My final statement is the following:
The two countries are different. What is being asked is not so simple as you present it to be. I have presented numerous obstacles as to why it is not feasible for the US to mimic the UK, and your primary counter to what I say is, essentially, "the UK did it, why cant you?"
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
I dont know how else I can present my argument towards dandelion, and I am basically repeating what I am saying, so I am just going to leave it at what I said in my last post.

My final statement is the following:
The two countries are different. What is being asked is not so simple as you present it to be. I have presented numerous obstacles as to why it is not feasible for the US to mimic the UK, and your primary counter to what I say is, essentially, "the UK did it, why cant you?"


I think my point boils down to fundamentally the same thing; if you can't look at the two countries and note their obvious differences, progress in the discussion is virtually impossible.

I will add that I agree something must be done. I think no one is more aware of that than Americans who, 10 years ago, were paying fractions what they are now for a gallon of gas. Something has to be done but just inflating prices isn't going to fix anything and actually has a greater potential of making things worse.



JSZ
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
if you can't look at the two countries and note their obvious differences, progress in the discussion is virtually impossible.
What obvious differences? What it boils down to is not how big the US is but what mileage people drive and how they do it. Statistically this seems to be 10,000 odd on the east coast and 20,000 on the west. National average of 22 mpg means 500 gallons per year in the east and 1000 in the west. Multiply by the price rise.

Admittedly this is just statistics and those numbers are an average. Some people are doing 5,000 miles at 50 mpg and some 50,000 at 10mpg. Fuel taxes should have been imposed decades ago, but the US refused to do this. Why?

I think it is generally accepted that raising prices just after a sudden price hike is not sensible. This was what happened to the UK fuel escalator, people rebelled. However the concept of pushing up fuel prices above market levels so as to get ahead of the game is correct. The fuel escalator was abolished in name, but fuel taxes still go up every year. The US should have the legislative framework and policy in place so that if the oil price goes down again it can raise taxes and keep the pump price high. Longer term to further push up prices in a steady way. It is essential for the US economy that people use less oil and they will only do this if it is expensive. Taxes have to be raised on something, and using them to encourage efficiency is one of the very best ways to do it.

I will add that I agree something must be done. I think no one is more aware of that than Americans who, 10 years ago, were paying fractions what they are now for a gallon of gas.
Do you or the others agree it was a mistake not to put higher taxes on fuel 10 years ago?

What will you say in a further 10 years time when prices have doubled again, about what should have been done now?

Something has to be done but just inflating prices isn't going to fix anything and actually has a greater potential of making things worse.
Well, what do you suggest? In the UK and europe the policy of pushing up gas prices ahead of the market price has succeeded in making everyone drive more and more efficient cars so they use less and less fuel. As a policy, it works.

You are making special pleading for a small portion of the US population who need to drive further and cannot afford it. The right course of action is to impose the main policy but arrange some mechanism to give money back to those who are badly affected. A cash subsidy for them? No different to subsidising GM to make massive gas guzzling cars which have caused this problem. Maybe a new car trade in subsidy just for those living in rural districts with proven high mileage? Alternatively you have to accept that the day of the gas guzzler is over and no subsidies will be paid to anyone to keep it going.

If the US truly has a way of life dependant on cheap fuel, then that way of life has to change. I do not believe the way of life cannot change. Most people in the US are no different to those in the UK. People in the wild west managed before the invention of the car and could manage again without it or. Or if they cannot then I am surprised that the free market US would choose to give them permanent subsidies to continue an unsustainable lifestyle.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
What obvious differences?

I appreciate the honesty. You're laboring under the impression that, because human beings live in both places, they are fundamentally the same and that what worked for one should work for both. I suppose that's not a completely unreasonable thing to think though it is very simplistic and it discounts a whole host of factors (most of which have already been detailed by other posters when speaking about the US and UK comparatively.) What you're imagining this boils down to isn't all it boils down to in the end.

It isn't strictly a matter of longer distances for commuters and it isn't strictly about people living on the coasts. You're statistics discount a great deal of considerations that have to be taken into account and they eliminate the center of the country from the discussion.

I appreciate that you honestly don't understand the difference between the United States and the United Kingdom. Having not lived here you can't really be expected to understand that the two are very different. I can only assure you that they are regardless of how... crazy that for some reason seems to sound to you.


The US should have the legislative framework and policy in place so that if the oil price goes down again it can raise taxes and keep the pump price high.

It does. The thing you're leaving out, however, is that drivers aren't the only consumers of gasoline. Literally every we produce in this country requires gasoline. We're the worlds bread basket. Growing that food requires gasoline (combines that till the soil, the electricity that powers the sprinklers that irrigate the fields etc), shipping that food to a processing plant requires gasoline, and exporting that food to wherever it's going requires gasoline. That's to say nothing of the other things we manufacture in the US and move about the country or about the world en mass.

The UK doesn't have this sort of concern. It just doesn't. Untold millions count on the US being able to (reasonably cheaply) grow and export food. What happens when the farmers at the beginning of the chain are hit with a sudden 300% gas tax? And that's just one example. There are literally dozens of others.

Do you or the others agree it was a mistake not to put higher taxes on fuel 10 years ago?

What will you say in a further 10 years time when prices have doubled again, about what should have been done now?

In the last ten years gas prices in the US have tripled. We even went to war to secure the supply and bring stability to the part of the world we get it from and still the prices went up. But if the price of gasoline doubled tomorrow, the US still wouldn't be paying as much per gallon as the UK. Think about that.

If the US truly has a way of life dependant on cheap fuel, then that way of life has to change.

And gradually, it has, and will continue to do so. Most people here understand that it isn't 1950 and driving a smaller car, less often, saves money and makes life easier. But you are talking about changing a way of life that has permeated the last sixty years and generations of Americans. You've suggested it as though it was something that could be done over night and should be regardless of consequence.

The last thing I'm going to mention is that you're under the impression we're all pulling on the same ore regarding this issue... and we aren't. There is still a portion of the population in the United States (a portion large enough to roadblock legislation to address this problem more expeditiously) that think global warming is a myth, that peak oil production and the bell curve related to it are only theories at best, and that alternative energies are a ploy Al Gore came up with to legalize gay marriage (or whatever it is they think.) We're fighting against willful ignorance in this country at the same time we're trying to come up with a solution, yet another thing you've left out of your proposition.

It boils down to more than you're imagining that it does and that, ultimately, is what the conversation boils down to at this point. It can't move forward if you can't appreciate that the US and UK are two different places.




JSZ
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You're laboring under the impression that, because human beings live in both places, they are fundamentally the same and that what worked for one should work for both. I suppose that's not a completely unreasonable thing to think though it is very simplistic and it discounts a whole host of factors
OK Just Some Zombie, I gather living beings in the US are different from the Uk. :biggrin1:

With regard to simplification, capitalism is generally described pretty simply. Make something expensive and people use less.

The thing you're leaving out, however, is that drivers aren't the only consumers of gasoline.
The discussion so far has been mostly about private individuals, yes. But I think the case is weaker with regard to goods. The price of transporting goods is automatically passed on to whoever buys them, and indeed we are seeing rises in lots of commodity prices. Someone getting their groceries cannot pass on the cost to anyone.

As mentioned, farmers already get subsidies, sometimes so much that insane things happen. Farming may use more subsidised fuel or fertiliser to grow a crop than the crop is actually worth. You are arguing that to make US goods more competitive fuel prices should be kept down. I am arguing that taxes will be placed on the manufacture of goods in the US to raise money to run the country. Republicans notwithstanding, this will happen. It is just a question where you choose to place the tax. I say better to tax the fuel than to tax the driver. What you want is for the company to economise on fuel it uses, not to economise on the number of lorry drivers it employs. In the UK diesel fuel for off road use (eg farm tractors) is taxed much lower than that used by road vehicles.

The UK doesn't have this sort of concern. It just doesn't. Untold millions count on the US being able to (reasonably cheaply) grow and export food.
Now you are talking about the cost of bulk transport around the world. This is not like commuting, which is pretty aimless constant travelling. Each item being delivered somewhere only makes the journey once so the cost is still relatively small.

What happens when the farmers at the beginning of the chain are hit with a sudden 300% gas tax?
As I said, farmers (at least in the UK) generally have machinery which runs on diesel and they get it largely tax free. But I am not suggesting a sudden 300% gas tax. I am suggesting a steady increase year on year allowing time to adjust.

In the last ten years gas prices in the US have tripled. We even went to war to secure the supply and bring stability to the part of the world we get it from.
Fat lot of good that did. To date it has only reduced net supplies. At least Sadam was smuggling out oil. The figures on Petrol Prices for the Uk curiously say that the real inflation adjusted cost of petrol in 2001 was exactly the same as in 1983 (their earliest figure). in 2011 it had risen by 25%.but in 2009 it was actually below the 1983 price again. So apart from the last couple of years, on average the real price including tax has been pretty constant. I am left wondering if the real cost of gas in the US over this same period, with less added tax, might actually have fallen?

But if the price of gasoline doubled tomorrow, the US still wouldn't be paying as much per gallon as the UK. Think about that.
I did. That is why I believe the US is able to adjust to much higher prices so long as it is encouraged to get on with it. I say to you that european economies are doing better BECAUSE they have high gas taxes.

And gradually, it has, and will continue to do so. Most people here understand that it isn't 1950 and driving a smaller car, less often, saves money and makes life easier
Yet total number of cars has maybe doubled since 1950? So the main difference between then and now is that a lot more people are driving, probably much longer distances?

you are talking about changing a way of life that has permeated the last sixty years and generations of Americans. You've suggested it as though it was something that could be done over night and should be regardless of consequence.
I am suggesting it is not a question of 'should'. It is a question of 'must'. What choice have you got?

you're under the impression we're all pulling on the same ore regarding this issue... and we aren't.
No, I wasnt. That is exactly my point. The US collectively does not understand that it must change.

There is still a portion of the population in the United States (a portion large enough to roadblock legislation to address this problem more expeditiously) that think global warming is a myth, that peak oil production and the bell curve related to it are only theories at best, and that alternative energies are a ploy Al Gore came up with to legalize gay marriage
Ah yes, solar power is the way to get married. Well ok. I admit the US does have a choice. It can choose to go down the route of subsidisng fuel, driving gas guzzlers and using energy generally like there is no tomorrow. However the result of this can only be an accelerating collapse of US competitiveness compared to the rest of the world. I know the US car industry has problems with workplace practices and unions, but the reason the US car companies are bust is they have too long built cars for the US market which have been inefficient and unfit for the rest of the world where fuel economy has been taken seriously for decades.

We're fighting against willful ignorance in this country at the same time we're trying to come up with a solution, yet another thing you've left out of your proposition.
Again I admit I have learnt from these debates with americans some of the disadvantages of the style of government in the US. It was designed to prevent dictators, and it works.

It can't move forward if you can't appreciate that the US and UK are two different places.
The wealth and power of the US has been based on unlimited resources. A fair share of brilliance too, but it was resources which swung it. These are fast running out. Time was, the world ran on coal exported from Britain. Now we import coal. Caused a lot of disruption changing over. The UK too would be in a lot worse position if it had not discovered oil in the north sea.