Is anyone opposed to raising the gas tax?

[AngryAmish]

I am not. The gas tax puts the onus on the users of the roads to pay for the roads. It will encourage smaller vehicles.

Plus it should reduce carbon by a small amount.

All in favor say aye. All opposed say nay.

[Township75]

1. AYE! And do it now without any "terrible burden in this economny" BS.

.

[SteppingRazor]

2. I don't necessarily mind it, but I think there are better ways to raise revenue.

I understand the gas tax as a way to moderate social activity, a sin tax like the taxes on booze and smokes. (I'm a little iffy on those too, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.)

The problem I have with the gas tax, like all sales taxes, is that it takes up a larger percentage of revenue for the poor than it does the rich. If we want a better way to raise revenue, we should not only let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but raise them a few points beyond that.

[slackmaster]

3. My state has the highest (or nearly highest) fuel taxes already

Yes, I'm opposed to raising it.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Taxes on rates of usage

are usually the fairest.

[Democrats_win]

5. Aye. But are Americans smart enough to figure out it's a good idea?

Just think if we had raised it in 2003. It would have meant less money for the oil and oil speculation industries. Further, it would have meant more money to build roads.

But no, we just can't have more taxes no matter what. Even if it is best for America. Those poor banksters on Wall Street need the money. It's your choice: give the money to the crooked and polluting irresponsible oil barons or give it to America.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

14. Don't forget about big-oil. They need more money too!

:sarcasm:

[dana_b]

6. Nay - as I feel it hurts the working class

the most. I am more in favor of getting rid of those tax cuts for the wealthy!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. NAY!!!

It is quite regressive
In CA some of the state fuel revenue is not being spent on road related services already
Hybrids, electrics, and other very high mileage vehicles are not paying their fair share
It is quite regressive (in case you missed it the first time)

[Cal Carpenter]

8. Nay

Not unless there is suitable public transportation available.

This sort of tax hurts the poorest people more than anyone else. If they have no alternative, and they can't afford gas, they are fucked.

TAX THE RICH.

edit typo

[Brickbat]

9. Nay, it's regressive.

[Enrique]

11. +1

any regressive tax should come with rebates for poor people. And maybe for cab drivers for the gas tax.

[PeaceNikki]

18. This ^

[woo me with science]

35. +1 nt

[MindandSoul]

10. I prefer for the tax to be raised than for the price of gas itself to be raised

I agree with your assessment. . .and the tax will be applied to everyone equally. . .except that those who insist in driving "big, powerful" cars will use more gas and therefore pay more tax! Seems like a good deal to me!

[AngryAmish]

13. If you agree with my assessment, then you must be very insightful

And damn good looking, too.

[MindandSoul]

57. You're funny! But how would you know what I look like!??? LOL!

[Cal Carpenter]

23. Those who insist...

like farmers who grow your food? Truck drivers who deliver your food and other goods?

I'm sure it seems like a good deal to you. For low-income people expensive gas (no matter the size of their car) can mean they can't afford food.

Reducing gas use and raising taxes is a good idea - but let's impose the taxes on the uber-profitable corporations and let's askt the US military, the world's largest consumer of oil, to stop using so much rather than punishing regular people who barely make ends meet.

Let's recognize that these problems are systemic and not a matter of 'comsumer choices' or some such garbage.

This divide and conquer crap has to end.

[MindandSoul]

55. price of gas is a problem. . .taxation of gas is a minute part of it!

The fact is that if the price of gas goes up (for any reason. . .but usually just because the oil producers are squeezing us!), it is a problem for all. . .but at least if the price goes up just a little because of taxation, and people use a little less gas. . that's when the oil producers actually tend to lower their prices because they don't like it when the consumption goes down!

So. . .increasing the taxation of gas just a little may actually have more than one positive consequence.

By the way, Europe is doing as bad (but not worse) than we are. . .and gas is about 2 to 3 times more expensive than here, and tax on gas is a much larger part of it!. . .But then again, the high price of gas in Europe had motivated them to develop EXCELLENT public transportation AND to value smaller, more gas efficient cars, although their highways are at least as good (usually better) than ours, AND they drive much faster!

[Silver Swan]

56. I could afford it

but my spouse's nephew who works hard at a low paying job, and who cannot afford to buy a newer, more fuel efficient vehicle, will have to pay an unfair portion of his income for gasoline.

And there are many others like him. Gasoline taxes are regressive, and I oppose the increase for that reason.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Raise it....I heard about that on the radio this AM..and thought it was a great idea.

[kctim]

15. NAY!

Taxing in order to "encourage" government approved behavior is wrong and as we are seeing, very dangerous.

[AngryAmish]

20. We give tax subsidies for green power

And to encourage home ownership. To prevent smoking and drinking. To support growing corn. To preserve historic buildings. To stimulate the economy. To give a low earner more money in their pocket through progressive tax rates.

The tax code is used to encourage many, many things.

[kctim]

65. Behavior should not be one of those many many things

[social_critic]

21. I don't think it's government approved behavior

Taxes can be applied to collect revenue and achieve certain goals. A higher tax on all fuels would help reduce consumption and at the same time help the country achieve a better balance of trade. In this case it's not really altering behavior as such - it's more of an approach which can be used to help us reduce imports as well as reduce our CO2 emissions, both of which are worthy goals. The increased revenue should of course be offset by reducing income tax in a graduated fashion - more reductions for those who earn say between $30,000 and $250,000 a year would be desirable.

[kctim]

67. Valid points

But using taxes to force people to comply, is controlling behavior in order to achieve certain goals.

[cleanhippie]

30. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels is NOT "government approved behavior"

It is Planet approved behavior. It is behavior that we HAVE to abide by, whether willingly or through coercion. One way or another, we WILL stop using fossil fuels, thats a fact.

To classify being pro-active in finding alternative energy and stop using fossil fuels as "government approved behavior" is disingenuous at best.

[ejpoeta]

16. i am torn about this. if the taxes were to go up on gas, then people would be forced to rethink

their driving habits. but the people who would be affected are ones who are already hurting as it is. i personally don't have to go many places. i am a stay at home mom who can make a full tank of gas last two weeks. i have had my car for almost four years and have 30000 miles on it. i want a fuel efficient vehicle. if gas cost more then people would be demanding fuel efficiency instead of more power. but again, who would be hurt the most by such a move....

[Individualist]

17. Hell Nay! People on fixed incomes are already struggling to make ends meet - and

sometimes not succeeding.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lasher]

19. I vote nay.

It's regressive. We're seeing progressive tax cuts and regressive tax increases. This trend needs to be reversed and a new regressive tax is not helpful in that respect.

Further, I don't feel good about building up the highway trust fund with money mostly from the middle class and poor. Rich people and their agents are doing their best right now to renege on the Social Security trust fund bonds and I believe they will be successful.

[social_critic]

27. I vote yes, but I see it as a long term goal

It is regressive, but there's no reason why the increased revenue can not be used to offset the income tax on the middle class. It would really help balance our trade account, and this in turn will give us the ability to sell bonds at a much lower interest rate. Sometimes regressive taxes are useful, and a fuel tax definitely is.

[Lasher]

36. The net result would still be regressive.

The poor don't pay any income taxes.

[Throd]

22. Nay

[drmeow]

24. Nay

I like the idea in principle but am against it for the reasons previously stated.

edit to add

I'm also against raising sales taxes or adding a federal sales tax.

[AnArmyVeteran]

26. How about a progressive tax on gasoline?

Have sensors built into every car so when you buy gas a gallon of gasoline it would be based on the value of the car. If it's a Lamboughini the cost per gallon would be $100. If the car is a junker a gallon of gas would cost fifty cents.

You'd see a race to the bottom with people trying to buy the worst cars they can find. But at least the poor (or middle class) would be able to afford to buy gas to get to work. Yeah I know, this idea would probably destroy the US auto industry unless they produced very inexpensive cars, like for $3,000 a car.

Let the attacks begin!

[AngryAmish]

28. An opposite of cash-for-clunkers!

[AnArmyVeteran]

31. The only problem is, as cars became cheaper they would become more valuable :). (a perfect solution)

[AngryAmish]

34. A well maintained older car would be very expensive.

I guess I'll hang on to my 98 Accord forever then.

[uncommon]

33. lol that would be awesome

[Ter]

38. Suppose I save up every dime I make for 20 years to buy a Lambo?

Also, suppose someone rich buys a 1990 car just to avoid high gas?

[AnArmyVeteran]

41. Their massive egos would force them into buying expensive cars.

I can't see a Donald Trump driving a clunker.

[Ter]

44. Then what about the other way around?

The middle class guy with the Lambo?

[AnArmyVeteran]

53. Well, if he could afford the Lambourghini he could afford the gas.

But if he was middle class and spent all of his money on a car that wouldn't be very financially responsible.

But I get your point. But all cars' values would be tied to Blue Book depreciated values so a middle class guy could get an old, beaten up Lambourghini 'clunker'. :) I see them everywhere!

Or he could get this Lambourghini for very cheap: http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=290507100405&index=11&nav=SEARCH&nid=58283581035

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. No, I oppose most regressive tax schemes

If the tax were only increased in areas which have abundant public transportation, then I could be persuaded, but an across-the-board tax increase will hurt the working poor in large swaths of the country where public transportation simply is not an option.

[uncommon]

32. Yes. The cost of gas is already prohibitive for many Americans -

they are already gouging us.

[PBS Poll-435]

37. Only on the state level. nt

[bobbolink]

39. Yeah, great... kill off poor people quicker. Some "progressivism".

How 'bout rationing, so those of you having fun driving huge honking SUVs can decide whether you want to drive it 3 days a week and park it the rest of the time, or drive a reasonable-sized car, without punishing us poor folk?

Naw... that would put too much stress on YOU, wouldn't it? Better to hurt poor folk.......

[Radical Activist]

40. Yes, I am.

It's unfair to those in rural areas and it's regressive. Coal is the bigger problem anyway. We need to shut down coal plants now.

[joe_sixpack]

42. Hasn't the current economic situation affected usage already?

I loudly say nay. Why tax a necessity right now, when there're other reasonable options available? Hasn't part of the stimulus gone to build or maintain roads? If you want to talk raising gas taxes after the recovery, as a matter to curtail fossil fuel usage, that's one thing. But don't hit middle class and lower workers any harder than they're getting wacked right now.

[bluetrain]

43. That's a horrible idea. Many people are barely bringing anything home already and have huge commutes

How about we tax the top income bracket and stop spending billions to kill people?

[Raine]

47. TOTALLY agree nt

[Kaleva]

51. Most of the poorest that I know are already driving illegally (without insurance)

[BanTheGOP]

45. I proposed something along those lines two years ago.

Looking at my post, I shake my head as to its relevancy to today's situation.

Basically, I advocated that gas prices be gradated according to the type of vehicle being driven. In addition, I even advocated that certain people can be exempt because they can't afford newer cars, but even then there are limits.

Here is the post: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BanTheGOP/49

By the way, jack all gas costs by 2 dollars. I way underestimated the gas situation back then. Even with the jacked up prices, we still come in way under Europe and Asia.

Bottom line: All costs for non-emission cars should be subsidized by gas taxes.

Energy companies should be nationalized so we have government boards mandating productive and frugal use of our limited and destructive gasoline sources, as well as ensure that profits are directed to clean energy and away from combustion engines.

More on this on the post.

[Motown_Johnny]

46. I would rather end subsidies to oil companies but I am not opposed to it

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

48. Aw Jeez, not this

[Shandris]

49. I'm somewhat in favor.

But if raising the gas tax affected the costs of shipping, then you've raised prices in a draconian regressive way because companies WILL pass that along to consumers. It's effectively a double-dipping tax - once for you, and once for each and every product you buy.

If you could find a way around that, I'd have no problems with it. A personal gas tax is fine by me.

As for 'promoting cheaper cars', it would...but it would take a while for it to make any real difference. The number of people driving cars from the 80's and early 90's still aren't doing because they like the look, you know.

[Kaleva]

50. It ought to be raised about .75 cents a gallon.

The National Highway Trust Fund is woefully underfunded by close to a 100 billion a year. In an earlier thread about this topic, it was discussed how much gasoline is sold each year, how much is tax collected and compared that to the amount needed most experts agreed would was required to maintain and improve what we have now. If people don't want to drive over bridges that may or may not collapse into the river or spend hours in traffic jams, the improvements must be paid for.

[joe_sixpack]

71. I thought some of the stimulus funds

were to go to infrastructure and similar areas. Did that not take place?

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Bad idea, and your stated primary argument is daft

The idea that only those who drive are 'users of the road' is nutz. What you suggest it hiking the prices of food and all the other basics, for everyone. It puts the onus on users of food. Roads are not like the boat basin, everybody benefits from them.
There are much better ways to cut carbon and encourage more efficient vehicles.

[GSLevel9]

54. lol, NOT!

first problem is.... whenever taxes are supposed to go to a certain thing like roads, political pigs raid the "roads" account for another reason and then they come asking for more $$ for roads again.

Most people drive because they MUST not because they WANT to.

[hayu_lol]

58. NO! All the states have a gas tax...the feds have a gas tax...

some cities have their own gas taxes and so it goes. Raise one and the rest will go up. Beyond the reach of the workers who really need to get to work.

It immediately would impact those who use their vehicles for work and of course, the short and long-haul trucking industry.

Maybe we should consider reducing the fuel taxes for the wealthy.

Most taxing powers, starved as they are for income, would be finding a way to tax the air we breathe.

[lynne]

59. NAY!

Now is not the time for a gas tax due to the economy. Jobs first - Tax later.

[snooper2]

60. I think gas tax threads are in the middle

right between circumcision and pit bull ownership :P

[Chisox08]

61. Nay

It hurts poor people more than anybody. Hell people can barely afford gas as it is now. For those who public transportation is not an option it would but a greater burden on them.

[NoPasaran]

62. Nay

[totodeinhere]

63. I am opposed to raising the gas tax. It would disproportionately harm the poor.

Rich people could afford it. Poor people driving to get to low wage jobs could not afford it.

[name not needed]

64. I'm all for it.

Take the money raised by said tax and put it towards developing a high-speed rail network.

[bigwillq]

66. Nay (nt)

[WinkyDink]

68. Nay. Just one more idea to hurt the poor (yes, public transit would increase fares).

[PVnRT]

69. Nay to regressive taxation

As far as users of the road go, how do you count electric cars? Granted, their miniscule now, but that should change in the next couple of years. How do those users pay for road upkeep?

It will encourage smaller vehicles...for those people who have enough money to get a new car. If you're poor and driving the less efficient 1987 Buick you've had for years, you probably can't afford to run out and get a new Fusion or Aveo.

[Michigan-Arizona]

70. Nay n/t

[RegieRocker]

72. Hell NO

I love taxes!!! Take it all what the hell.