Head of largest US dealer chain makes another call for increased gas tax
One would not expect someone with a vested interest in selling cars to suggest a proposal that would cause people to drive less, but that's exactly what Mike Jackson is doing - again. This time around, the Autonation CEO wants to see an additional dollar tacked onto the price of each gallon of gasoline, as a means to shift consumer behavior and force a move towards vehicles with better fuel economy.
In an interesting twist, Jackson proposes that the amount collected from each consumer be returned on a yearly basis in the form of a rebate. In this way, the regressive effect of such a tax is said to be mitigated, but consumer behavior would still be altered. Upon first glance at the proposal, it would seem that giving an interest-free loan to a government entity would still cause more than a bit of pain for those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, especially considering that those consumers are often the least able to change their driving habits. Maybe we're missing something, though.
[Source: CNN/Money]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Alex 3:04PM (6/21/2006)
This guy sucks
Reply
DriftPunch 3:12PM (6/21/2006)
Hmm, the CEO of a dealership chain supporting a plan that would cause an artifical rush to dispose of 'gas guzzlers' in lieu of sippers? Say it ain't so! His profit is made during the transfer...
Besides there is no way in hell FEDGOV would ever give it back. Hell, it would probably cost every bit of that dollar per gallon to create the structures, bureaucracies, and logistical networks to track a return of the 'tax'.
Reply
Woody 3:14PM (6/21/2006)
It's all about the money.
Reply
Sgt. Hulka 3:19PM (6/21/2006)
He gave up this great idea on CNN, who I'm sure was most agreeable to his "plan".
Reply
DJA 3:21PM (6/21/2006)
We'd never see the money. It would end up being used for "highway improvement", which in PA means repeatedly overpaying construction firms to do lousy work.
Just another rich guy who's lost touch with reality. I'm sure he's driving a small economy car.
Reply
Lucas 3:27PM (6/21/2006)
People aren't buying your new gas guzzlers anymore because of higher gas prices, but they aren't flocking to your economy cars because they just can't fathom driving something more efficient and appropriate for their needs. They're just waiting for the prices to come back down. So let's give them a little push, shall we? Doesn't matter that it will also punish those of us that already drive more efficient cars...
Reply
jordan 3:31PM (6/21/2006)
IF a plan like this would even correctly give us our money back (how is this kept track of if you pay for gas in cash?), this is a horrible attempt to use consumer dollars for government use. If they get this money, it gives them free money to invest so they can make a profit while holding your money until the end of the year. The only person that benefits is the government, not the consumer. Let us invest this dollar as we desire, or let us spend it somewhere else. (sounds like Social Security, doesn't it?)
Reply
Asher 3:46PM (6/21/2006)
Sounds kind of like the BTU tax that Al Gore pushed for in the 1990's. I guess it's ok if gas prices are high, as long as the federal goverment gets the loot. These days it's 'criminal' if the producers of the product actually make 9 cents off a gallon when the prices aren't under a buck.
Reply
JT 3:49PM (6/21/2006)
LETS ALL BUY HUMMER'S AND RUN THIS ASSWHOLE OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
JZeke 4:09PM (6/21/2006)
Huh.
While he might be a "brilliant" and "has great leadership abilities" (http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2004-02-22-jackson_x.htm) I doubt his credibility as an economist. Consumer changes can not be effectively forced in an open economy. Those changes are invariably socialist and while beneficial on paper have a nasty effect of demoralizing the populace. Forcing people into a different sort of vehicle, while tempting to Greenpeace types is still a discriminatory practice.
Can you imagine how much MORE of a status symbol a guzzler luxury vehicle becomes when it becomes even more expensive to run it? Its very ownership creates an even greater dichotomy of class, something America was founded on striving against.
Reply
Aki 4:51PM (6/21/2006)
What idiocy. The last thing we need is more money burned to the federal government, who repaves roads and make em even worse. Nor do "rebates" sound particularly appealing in a bureaucratic infrastructure that can't get anything done right.
So who would mail out the rebates? Another bunch of public employees getting paid $50k a year plus benefits, thus sucking more money down the drain for no good reason.
Reply
gcz 4:54PM (6/21/2006)
Yet another millionaire with a plan that costs the average guy more money. Get a life Mikey.
Reply
RacetrackOwner 4:56PM (6/21/2006)
Just another sad example of using the tax system as a means of behavior modification through punishment -- a blatant abuse of power which is unfortunately so commonplace that people have almost lost the ability to recognize it as such.
Reply
iQuack 5:05PM (6/21/2006)
If gasoline price rises enough, there will be a move toward alternative fuels.
But oil from obnoxious, Arab countries is still the least expensive fuel our cars can burn and Arab oil will continue to be cheap relative to ethanol or grease from Wendy's hamburgers, etc.
Yes, higher gasoline taxes would reduce some demand, but unlikely to result in enough price increase to cause any meaningful shift to a gasoline substitute.
Any extra turnover in car sales (from SUVs to economy cars, for example) would help Autonation, so makes sense for its CEO to engage in Earth-saving sound bytes that might help business.
Main problem with higher taxes is that once the government gets your money, it'll be spent on projects that will go on forever because WE HAVE SO MANY NEEDS (emphasis meant to be sarcastic).
Best to resist any call for higher taxes because taxes are high enough when you consider all the layers of taxes most of us pay already.
Reply
AlrightMister 5:22PM (6/21/2006)
This man is an idiot.
Reply
Bob_Ericson 5:36PM (6/21/2006)
Here's this AssHat's list of dealers. If you want to advance this guy, then by all means, shop at one of these stores. If not, then scratch these dealers off your list:
http://www.autonation.com/Corporate/StateDealers.asp
Another Limosine Liberal trying to stick it to the average Joe.
Reply
Zo 5:40PM (6/21/2006)
The economic rule is "The cure for high prices are higher prices" There is a point where it hurts enough that people change. The question is, what would people eliminate or substitute. Tobacco prices are up to $6 or more a pack and that has not stopped the smokers -- when asked many smokers have sacraficed food money to buy cigarettes. What would people sacrifice to for gas? In UK most drivers would not stop driving unless the gas was upto about $20/gal.
Taxes can change habits, and that is the role of government which is to sometimes force people to do things they would not normally do for the benefit of the society.
That said, Tax the cars themselves. At the federal level, charge a 10% Tax at the point of sale of any car that gets less than 35mpg new or used. At the state level charge a yearly $500 for the same for households with incomes of $80,000 or more. Add $50 tax on tires and $1/gallon tax on motor oil and $5 disposal charge for old oil, tires and oil filters -- the more you drive the more tires and motor oil you need.
Make motorcycles, mopeds and bicycles tax free to purchase, own and operate and give a $100 credit to people who drive them to work at least 3 days a week subject to audit by companies who get energy tax credits for each person who shows up to work on a motorcycle, moped or bicycle.
The higher prices will force people to purchase more fuel efficient cars and create a market for auto makers to make more efficient cars. The yearly sting will get the straglers but the market forces will handle the gas prices.
There is no such thing as 100% so there will always be a class of people who will be happy to pay all the taxes -- either for principle or because they can.
All the collected money should go to Universities for engineering research on better fuel/power efficient technologies.
Money can change behavior but you need to make sure the incentives/decentives are inline with what you are trying to accomplish.
Reply
naggs 5:59PM (6/21/2006)
"..it would seem that giving an interest-free loan to a government entity would still cause more than a bit of pain for those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, especially considering that those consumers are often the least able to change their driving habits. Maybe we're missing something, though. "
if they could find a better way to get the money back to the people than a tax deduction, a check in the mail once a month maybe, that would help alot to encourage people of all economic backrounds to conserve gas.if you gradually phased it in over a couple years it would cusion the blow. this is a great idea, if you use less gas than the average person, you make money. those of you attacking this idea saying that its a dirty lib plot to outlaw trucks need to actually read. all the money goes back to the people so there is absolutly no argument that can be made about it being a tax that would hurt the economy assuming of course they put in an exception for small business. it is simple an incentive system that moves money from people who use alot of gas to people who use less. every time you drive your car to work you are basically paying people who are riding their bike or carpooling. it is an incentive system that is designed to reduce our consumption of oil with a minimum impact on the economy as a whole. if you think that it is not in the nations best interest to reduce our consumption of oil then i can see how you would be opposed to this. if you have a better idea of how to do it in the short term the write your congressmen but please dont just say a meaningless term that you hear on fox "news"
what exactally is an activist judge anyways? as far as i can tell its a judge that you dont agree with.
Reply
skaz 7:19PM (6/21/2006)
Is this a "slap-on-the-hand" tax? Who dictates when it's time for me to switch to a more fuel efficient car?
Don't get me wrong -- up until a few months ago I was driving a 45+ MPG Geo Metro, and I've upgraded it to a Ford Focus. But I've also got a 1975 El Camino and a 1973 Comet that I absolutely adore and drive whenever I don't need the A/C. I don't drive like a maniac and I earn the money I dump into those tanks. I don't need some douchebag telling me that I need to pay a dollar more per gallon.
Honestly, I don't mind gas prices as long as they stay under $5 per gallon, but I don't want to have to pay that price because me & everyone else deserves to be punished.
Reply
jc_atl 7:36PM (6/21/2006)
The government should mandate that manufacturers by 2010 must include a sensor that allows the fuel pump to detect the relative economy of the vehicle you're driving. If you drive a hybrid your fuel is dirt cheap. If you drive an H2 you pay through the nose for every gallon. Commercial vehicles that are penalized would continue to be allowed the business tax writeoffs they currently receive and that might have to be adjusted a bit. This rewards those willing to drive efficient vehicles and makes those who **choose** to drive extreme gas guzzlers finance downsides of petroleum use in the U.S.
Reply