If the U.S. economy wasn't in shambles, renewing the federal excise tax on gasoline would be routine. But, as Congress intensely debated the national debt recently, the gas tax got moved to the back burner. This is a potential problem. With most of the 18.4-cent per gallon gasoline tax set to expire at the end of September, renewing it could spark political uproar and further divide Congress.
According to Politico, the level of "partisan vitriol and anti-spending sentiment" has hit an all-time high. This, is some sort of twisted political way, means that the gas tax – the primary source of the nation's road funds – could fall victim to budget cuts. Doug Heye, former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, told Politico:
The White House is going to make a move to renew it. We'll see – but there will be Republicans who will be resistant to that.
Heye says gas prices are "really affecting families" and that Republicans may vote against renewing any tax that furthers the pain felt at the pump. One thing is certain, with the gas tax set to expire in less than two months, Congress had better get crackin', or else minor procedural delays could cause the tax to lapse. Infrastructure is already ailing in the U.S., and we don't need political shenanigans to make it worse.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 79 Comments
      Spec
      • 3 Years Ago
      The government is already going bankrupt . . . . so lets cut a tax that is already much lower than virtually every western industrialized country. Brilliant.
        Woody Becker
        • 1 Month Ago
        @Spec
        Hey SPEC what do you do at the end of the month when you have no more money? Borrow more or quit spending? There is a lot of crap that could be cut from the federal government, the trouble is politicians of all stripes have been buying peoples votes for years...that has to stop! By the way since when is it my responsibility to pay for illegals children, medicare, food stamps, etc? Cut that junk out first and then we can talk about taxes!
          Sean Francis-Lyon
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Woody Becker
          Cut military spending until we no longer spend more than the entire rest of the world combined, then we can talk about taxes.
      Smurf
      • 1 Month Ago
      Is it a coincidence that the majority of road use tax supporters drive gas guzzlers? I think not. I am not for any tax program that provides incentives NOT to drive more efficient vehicles. A road use tax would do exactly that.
      Ryan
      • 1 Month Ago
      They should be debating whether we should increase this tax or add carbon taxes to gasoline to help pay for ending our addiction to oil.
        Woody Becker
        • 1 Month Ago
        @Ryan
        Hey Ryan, I am all for fuel efficiency, however, giving the government more of my money to squander on unrelated crap makes no sense. Instead lets push for more efficient vehicles made by US companies in the US! By the way, I just came back from Norway and for all of the Green they supposedly push, they have no problem drilling and selling oil!
          EZEE
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Woody Becker
          @ Ernie I believe Norway exports oil. I live in Orlando - and on the Norway EPCOT ride, they really push their oil rigs (go figure).
          Ernie Dunbar
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Woody Becker
          And buying it from other countries. You don't really believe that Norway supplies all its own oil, do you?
      • 1 Month Ago
      Everybody hates to pay taxes, even me. Whatever the tax may be, there will always be somebody opposing it. I will not take part in the discussion as to which tax is best and which not, but I would like you to remind you these facts: In countries around the world where people pay the most taxes, people are richer, healthier, better educated, there are less poor and homeless people, there is less crime and the percentage of the population that belongs to the middle class is much higher.
        mylexicon
        • 1 Month Ago
        Correlation = causation. The future looks bright.
        Marco Polo
        • 1 Month Ago
        I see,... so you would describe Switzerland, as a impoverished, crime ridden, disease ridden, nation?
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          The economy of Switzerland is greatly based on the fact that it is a tax haven. Because a lot of companies move to Switzerland because they have low taxes, they get more income. Something only a few and/or small countries can do. For citizens it is a different story. The maximum income tax in Switzerland is 45% which is 10% higher than in the US and their gas tax is a lot (5 times?) higher. As a result, a Swiss citizen pays a bigger percentage of his income as taxes compared to somebody from the US.
          lne937s
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Marco- No misinformation here. And you don't have to make any contorted argument by interpreting complex tax systems to figure out if taxes are higher overall. Just look at total tax revenues the government takes in and divide by GDP. People concentrate on headline tax rates and miss the big picture about how much in taxes are actually paid... And yes, they do get better government services, as should be expected from higher taxes.
          lne937s
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          People need to look at the taxes actually paid. If you look at headline rates, it is misleading because few people or corprorations actually pay those rates due to loopholes/exemptions/deductions/credits. Taxes on Corporate Income as a percentage of GDP: Switzerland: 3.3% US: 1.8% http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/ Total Taxes as a total percentage of GDP (Remember VAT, which we don't pay): Switzerland: 29.1% US: 26.1% http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/health-care-costs-and-the-tax-burden/ Although Switzerland tends to have lower taxes than many other countries, it is not lower than the US. Norway tends to have one of the highest standards of living and the highest GDP per cap-- they tax at 42.6% of GDP. Export countries that rely on actually making things for their GDP like Germany are at 37%.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          A lot of misinformation. Switzerland has a fairly complex tax system. (at least to foreigners) How much income tax a Swiss citizens pays, depends on his Canton. In most Cantons the income tax contribution is relatively light. The Swiss government provides a huge array of highly efficient services which the US does not. Gas tax is very high. Switzerland imports all it's oil.
        EZEE
        • 1 Month Ago
        What would be the best rate to pay? Just curious. And, in Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal, they are all going backrupt. Where their taxes not high enough? Do you feel that the government can spend your money more wisely than you can? If we taxed all of the 'rich' at 100%, woudl that be too much? What would you define as rich? If everything is better in all of those countries, why do you hate to pay taxes? We spend upwards of 3 times more per year on education per student, yet admittedly, our education system ranks very low. Does spending money necessarily equate with a good education? No wrong answers to any of these questions, but curious as to your responses.
          lne937s
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          In specific relation to Ireland, their headline tax rates being too low are exactly why they are in trouble now. Corporations decided to send their profits overseas to Ireland and take the lower rate, leading to much of their economic growth, rather than actual productivity. Ireland was held up as the shining example of how low taxes would lead to economic growth. When the global economy went south, the Irish economy tanked. Most of the other countries you mention are below the EOCD average in taxes as a percentage of GDP-- low taxes are not why they are where they are, but high taxes didn't put them there either.. The government can hire full-time Nobel prize winners, research labs, nuclear scientists, crash test facilities, etc. to base its decisions on. I personally am not an expert in everything, do not have the financial means to pay top experts in every field to help me, and do not have the time to analyze every factor that possibly effects me. I may do some research, but much of my decisions, like most people, are based on marketing. For some things, like environmental regulations, energy standards, etc., the government can spend their money more wisely than I can. That doesn't mean I want them picking out the movie I watch, news I read, colors I wear, etc. I would define moderately rich as $250k+, rich $500k+, very rich $1MM+. 100% tax is too much. In terms of percentage of GDP, we are 36th in primary public education spending, 51st in secondary. Now some of that is due to countries with low GDP, but we are not spending 3 times+ more. While we do spend more than some countries that outperform us, there are major differences in our systems. In other countries, like Germany, governnment incentives have more parents at home when their kids get out of school, so schools are not trying to act like babysitters. But the major performance difference is that most countries outperforming us have centralized control of public schools, employing expert-developed curriculum to support national priorities like math and science. Here, policy goes from federal to state to municipality to school board to school district to school to teacher. That is not an efficient way to run things. Having thousands of curriculums across the country set by local board members, who may not have graduated high school but belong to the right church to win the school board election, is not as efficient as having national experts set the curriculum. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_pri_lev-spending-per-student-primary-level http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_sec_lev-spending-per-student-secondary-level
          lne937s
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          EZEE- Yes, we don't get as much for our money in the US in Education compared to many other countries... or health care for that matter. But, realizing that, a rational person would look at what other countries are doing differently and try to emulate their success. In most of the countries outperforming us, they have centralized control of education, while we have national and state priorities enacted through locally controlled schools. The big difference isn't teacher pay; it is the inherant inefficiency of every school district trying to reinvent the wheel (often with people trying to violate the constitution along the way). So what is the answer our politicians try to put forth? More local control (the exact opposite). Our healthcare is also the most expensive in the world, with our employers and individuals paying more than any other country, while our government is also paying more than every major country other than Norway. And we trail in almost every major health indicator. What are the countries with more efficient healthcare doing? Single payer healthcare. We have government-subsidized private healthcare. So what's our answer: more privatization (the exact opposite). http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_per_cap_gov_exp_on_hea_in_int_dol-capita-government-expenditure-international-dollars Money doesn't define success. We have to be smarter, look at how other countries are getting their efficiencies, and not make inefficient policy decisions based on ideological dogma (especially with healthcare, where that dogma is supported by profit motive).
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          I like your curiosity. Some good questions btw! For the record I live in Europe... The best rate to pay. No idea. But I feel that it is best that the people that earn more pay a bigger percentage. This is a system which most countries have including the US. Taxing the rich at 100% is joke right? Communism failed (miserably) because all people had the same wages (and the over bureaucratic government was too expensive and non democratic and ...). So it is best to encourage people to work harder or to educate themselves with money. As long as there is still enough motivation you have found a good tax-rate. I personally believe it is also best to tax 'bad' things in society such as pollution and what not as opposed to for example working hard. But that is a different matter. Although some countries in Europe have problems paying their bills doesn't mean that poverty or crime has gone up in stellar amounts. Compared to the US they are still doing quite well. Also the reason why they have problems has to my knowledge nothing to do with their tax system. The government will spend my money for things I wouldn't normally pay for such as social security, health care, education... For the society this is more wisely than how I would spend it. People are by nature selfish if it comes to sharing with people they don't know. This is also the reason why people (like me) don't like to pay taxes. Spending more money wisely on education makes it better, not just spending money. For that a democracy can help. Don't forget that kids from poor families are on average harder to educate. This might also be the reason why US education ranks quite low. On the other hand private schools (in the form they can be found in the US) are almost non-existing in Europe where every school gets almost the same funding. In order to get that funding students and teachers are evaluated each couple of years in terms of the students' knowledge of the matter and not just whether they pass to the next grade.
          lne937s
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          BTW, in terms of total public education spending (removing by type or per student), as a percentage of GDP, we are 45th. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pub_spe_on_edu_tot_of_gdp-education-public-spending-total-gdp
          lne937s
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          EZEE yeah, we have strayed a bit... but one more point on health care. Taking that UK example into consideration, even if it is true and not conservative imagination, it is important to remember that in the UK, they spend 8% of GDP on healthcare for universal public healthcare, and we pay 16%. Federal Income tax in the US accounts for 8% of GDP. In other words, if we moved to the efficiencies of UK health care, it would be the economic equivalent of eliminating federal income tax.... And you can also still get a hip replacement if you are willing to pay for it out of pocket. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/health-care-costs-and-the-tax-burden/ Here in NYC, with twice the population of the state of Wisconsin, we have made massive improvements both in outcomes and reducing costs... we fired the school boards and the mayor took over. When it comes down to it, there are certain things that can be done more efficiently by a public organization working for the common good than can be done by a private organization working to maximize profit. Health care, creating an educated workforce and society (as opposed to educating a few wealthy individuals), defense, courts, police, roads and highways (paid in part through gas taxes.. to work that back in) are some of those things. Basically, ask yourself how much you would be willing to pay for something. How much would you be willing to pay for your life, the lives of your family, freedom, justice, etc.? If the answer is as much as it takes, then a corporation serves the purpose to maximize profits and will take you for all you are capable of paying if left unchecked.
          EZEE
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          @Ine937 You may, or may not be right. I looked up statistics and everyone says something different. One study: Education spending per capita provides another lens to view worldwide education spending. Norway leads the group again with an estimated $2,850 per capita spent on education. The United States ranks second at approximately $1,780. Note - per capita is not per student, but per each person in the country. Per student, we spend $10,700 per year. On Library spending: A look at library spending as a percent of country GDP again provides a different view. South Korea led the field at 0.31 percent of GDP, followed by the United Kingdom (0.21 percent), Australia (0.20 percent) and Canada (0.20 percent). The United States ranked eighth at 0.12 percent. I am not doing the "i'm right, you're wrong" on your statistic, but there seems to be a wide range of figures. The one you listed seems to be 'worst case' - but no idea if right or not. I can list my sources if needed. I guess my overall point is, money does not necesssarily define success in education - when looking at rich versus poor, even that is not correct, as there are cultural issues. We all hear of the asian student that comes to the USA not able to speak english, and then graduates at the top of his/her class. They actually worked for it...
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          The cost of education in the US is very high per capita because of private education, but the government spending is really low... That should explain the confusion... btw in Belgium for example students of low income families pay about 75$ a year for (the best) university and they can even get a subsidy (not a loan) of 2000$ a year to cover other costs (they have to pass every year though). Even though this is unrelated to their grades in secondary school it helped to bring many highly educated people to our job markets.
          EZEE
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          @Ine937 Maybe our liberals are just dumber than other countries liberals (not criticizing all liberals, but, ours do not seem to like to emulate...). In other countries, as mentioned, the money follows the child. Hence, if the parents pull the kid out of the public school and send to private (they can do that), every last cent goes to the private school - the public school HAS to be able to compete. Their teachers do not rail against any type of measurements, nor any type of performance systems. On healthcare - we can have rationing by income (USA), or rationing by government decree (other countries). In Britain, for example, one state (province?) said that no obese people would get knee or hip replacements. Ever. Their fault, why make the tax payer pay, they said. Here, you COULD get one, but it would cost you. I am offering no judgement, but, you can pick your poison. As far as the different districts, that may be part of the problem, but as we saw in Wisconsin, the 'system' is part of the problem. Once the state put the union's healthcare benefits up for bid (it had been a requirement to buy the healthcare from the union's healthcare insurance company) - bids came in - including from the union! That one change caused many districts to go from the red, into the black - and, no tax increases, no descrease in education or teachers, no decrease in teacher pay! One simple reform. Does this have anything to do with a gas tax? I think we have drifted considerably.
      Ford Future
      • 1 Month Ago
      Here's the irony. You cancel the Gas Tax, you Kill Road Repair, causing an increase in gas usage, meaning you pay higher gas prices, and you LOSE MORE JOBS. Thank the Cancer Economics of the Tea Party.
        EZEE
        • 1 Month Ago
        @Ford Future
        Yes - they are such bastards. With a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit in a SINGLE YEAR, it is all the Tea Party's fault. I mean, after they won the presidency and took control of congress, passed all those spending bills... The sad part is, if we keep up with the deficit, all of the money we take in will go to service the debt, and there will be nothing left over for social programs, and road repair. And before you say, "Tax the Rich" - you could tax every person making $100,000 a year or more, at 100% of their income, and we would still have a deficit. It is truly that bad right now. Also, while the top 50% of the wage earners pay 97% of the income taxes, the bottom 50% pay 3%. Who is not paying their fair share? But let's blame the Tea Party...it's their fault for wanting to reduce spending...
          Mark Schaffer
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          EZEE is exhibit one for the failure of education in the U.S. This poster has zero understanding of what Republican/Bush policies caused over the last ten years and proudly displays that lack of understanding. The 400 wealthiest individuals in the U.S. hold more total wealth than more than 155,000,000 U.S. citizens at the bottom. Take at a careful look at how much of the deficit is the fault of the Bush tax cuts that mainly went to the wealthy: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036 EZEE's facts are nothing more than propaganda as they neglect the fact that most of the wealth held by the wealthy is not in income while those lucky ducky's at the bottom have to choose between food and rent and clothing and gas, but only one at a time. What EZEE doesn't understand as well is that fordinsight was complaining about the ignorance of tea party rally attendees as so well illustrated by EZEE.
          EJ
          • 1 Month Ago
          @EZEE
          Anybody need to be reminded that we were running a surplus when Clinton left the White House?
      mylexicon
      • 1 Month Ago
      Federally enumerated powers were not created so that the government could pass public expenses to the people who are responsible. Poor people aren't forced to pay for welfare, and the elderly are not forced to pay for FICA. If allocating usage costs is fundamentally important to a Federal program, it should probably be handled by the private sector. Tollroads have obvious drawbacks, hence, the governments created the current system of interstates, state roads, and local roads. People in the South are subsidizing road repair in the snowy North to maintain economic activity. People in the cities pay taxes to subsidize rural roadways and rural interstates so urban food and consumer goods can be delivered. Southerners pay higher taxes to subsidize sickly people in cold climates. Northerners pay FICA taxes to subsidize snowbird retirees. And so on and so forth. These socialistic paradigms were not meant to be untangled unless economic studies suggest that the costs outweigh the universal benefit. Perhaps gasoline excise isn't a terribly good arrangement to fund roads, but it has little to do with the socialistic structure, and everything to do with the government ignoring a Constitutional mandate. Roads are enumerated responsibilities of the Federal government which means they should be paid for out of the general fund. Excise taxes are used to defray the cost of regulatory programs. If excise tax is maintained on gasoline, it should go to pay for EPA regulations on refineries and exhaust pipes. Use taxes are fine at the state level b/c they may not have a Constitutional obligation to provide them for the citizenry.
      HVH20
      • 1 Month Ago
      Your right, miles driven is not a function of income. But its is a function of how much wear and tear you put on the roads. Estimated tax deductions would be no different than how many exemptions you claim on your paycheck, at the end of the year you either get a refund or pay the balance due. Why should someone who works their ass off to make more money pay more for the roads that get used just as much as the person who didn't work very hard and is just skating by? And yes the roads are a responsibility of the Government and our national defense, that is why they are in charge of maintaining them. But they need the funds from somewhere.
      mylexicon
      • 1 Month Ago
      I understand what you are trying to say, but you've missed the mark. We are discussing how to fund various Federal roadways. Access is a different issue. If you believe that an enumerated Federal service should be put behind a pay wall in order to ration its usage, that's your prerogative, but it has little to do with funding Federal roadways and infrastructure projects. We are moving away from gasoline. It is only a problem for the US Federal government b/c they were too obstinate to follow basic Constitutional imperatives.
      EZEE
      • 1 Month Ago
      Republican/Libertarian Here - although taxes are annoying, we are $1.6 trillion in debt - for a single year. I mean, WOW! I may not be big on raising taxes, but wow - can we cut/get rid of this one, and not expect ourselves to go bankrupt like, yesterday? Maybe we don't tack on the $1 a gallon that some people in congress have suggested, but we can't add more to the debt, or else, liberal, conservative - won't matter - it will all come crashing down.
        Woody Becker
        • 1 Month Ago
        @EZEE
        How about the government quit increasing spending every year for a start?
          EZEE
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Woody Becker
          Fine with me - but, at $1.6 trillion, we have to look at all angles. My point was, 'Holy Sh*t - How high will it go if we get rid of the gas tax???' Again - Libertarian/Republican here...but...$1.6 trillion! Just keep saying that with any argument... $1.6 trillion...
          Lam
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Woody Becker
          Decent suggestion, a lot of people like relating e federal budget to their own lives, so tell me; when you have a personal financial problem, how do you decrease your budget? Then, you find out your parents aren't doing well financially or physically, because of their health they have to stay with you. They already lived paycheck to paycheck, so they have very little savings. OH, then you find out your wife is having another child. Also, that child has special-needs that require monthly visits to a medical specialist and de coal care at home. Can you still stop yourself from increasing your spending? These things happen to the government every year on a much grander scale. The government can't get another job either, it's only income comes from taxes.
        mylexicon
        • 1 Month Ago
        @EZEE
        Gasoline tax is unimportant in the grand scheme, and it has a very weak Constitutional foundation. It is merely part of the status quo, and as ABG have signaled, it is going to become a pawn for the lords and the political malcontents to war over. Our tax and entitlement problems are really quite simple, and they have everything to do with SS/MED and FICA taxes. FICA taxation is regressive, and it reduces labor efficiency in the middle class which leads to higher long-term unemployment. SS/MED are not needs based, and if you work in the tax industry, you'll see how many Americans claim SS by streamlining their retirement income at the behest of their financial advisers who do not want them to withdraw from their retirement fund (reduces assets under management). MED also has many non-necessary services which means it functions like a demand subsidy. Demand subsidies drive up prices, Medicare and Medicaid are 25% of the healthcare industry. Ouch. If FICA tax rates need to be cut substantially, and they need to be uncapped. The income threshold for SS must be reduced. Medicare services must be reduced. Obviously, it will never happen b/c Dems will never cut FICA tax, Republicans will never eliminate the FICA cap. Neither of them will reform Medicare spending, and neither of them will reduce the income threshold for SS or phase out SS benefits instead of taxing them. The gasoline excise is only a problem b/c our politicians were stupid enough to create it in the first place. Now that they have it, they are too afraid to follow the Constitution or to create a new program that might not increase revenues.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 1 Month Ago
        @EZEE
        I mean, what about 25 or 50 cents? that's not too bad. We have to cover our spending somehow. And we need to discourage people from using oil; a product that leaches billions of our dollars over to foreign countries per year ..
      JP
      • 3 Years Ago
      Crank up the tax so people start to see more of the true cost of gas at the pumps instead of the subsidized fantasy they currently complain about.
        Marco Polo
        • 1 Month Ago
        @JP
        Do you also want to see a rise in unemployment? Escalation in the price of basic food items? Inflation, labour unrest etc ? For the government, it's 'catch 22'. Oil subsidies, as such, barely exist any longer. If the government removes the tax deductibility of 'cost of business' items in the oil industry, the industry simply moves off-shore, or arranges tax matters differently. This leaves governments taxing only Oil's retail operations. The companies quickly reorganise their affairs to regain the same tax deductible benefits, but now pass any increase costs directly to the consumer. Then the cycle begins again. Trying to avoid adverse uneconomic flow-on by providing business users, farmers, transport, etc gasoline tax exceptions, becomes a burdensome and unworkable bureaucratic nightmare. In the end, only the poorest citizens and organisations in the economy bear the brunt of well meant, but ill-conceived taxes. Oil companies are no different than any other enterprise, the only tax that can be imposed is on the revenue stream. Overheads are always passed onto the consumer. Trying to solve economic problem by taxation alone, is like trying to legislate against bad weather! Pointless, in the short term makes the government popular by seeming to be doing something. In the long term, some one has to pick up the costs of a depressed economy! The UK tried to increase the profit tax on BP. This didn't hurt BP, who just rearranged it's affairs out of the jurisdiction of the British tax-man, but penalised all those superannuation and retiree funds, who rely upon oil corporation profits to fund retirement incomes. These (4.2 million) retirees then became increasingly dependent for services from the UK government, creating a further burden on the government budget........ 'Catch 22' .!
          GoodCheer
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          I don't see that it matters at all WHERE in the value chain the taxes are levied. The result will be an increase in the cost of doing business, which will be passed on to consumers. As you say yourself "Overheads are always passed onto the consumer." And that is one of the points of this exercise: 1) The oil industry as a whole is not taxed at the same rate that most other businesses are taxed, so the industry as a whole is overexpressed in the economy. 2) The infrastructure that such taxes ostensibly support is falling apart and will need increased spending to continue to function. 3) The environmental externalities (other than roads), are not accounted for at all in the tax structure, so to be truly economically efficient, taxes on the oil industry should be HIGHER than on other industries. There needs to be a period of adjustment, as any fast change will hurt a lot of people, but we are operating at an economically inefficient point.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          @fordinsight. Bit hard to have a Real Energy policy, without energy! Oh, and btw, oil companies only move employment and tax liabilities offshore, not the product!
          EJ
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          "Oil subsidies, as such, barely exist any longer." As long as we ignore the $12B in direct and indirect non tax based US subsidies, and the $63B the US military spends every year protecting oil transport routes. Or perhaps I'm just mis-interpreting what you call 'barely'.
          SealtestDark
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Fordinsight - you might drive them to reorganize and move some profit centers away, but it would do nothing to break dependence on the fuel they sell, and it would reduce tax revenue. The US won't develop a real energy policy until the partisan bickering is quelled and a politician with the vision, charisma and drive to actually leads steps forward and risks their career. At best it will be like herding cats. However right now several of them appear to be rabid... Personally I would like to see a slow but steady rise in gas taxes at the retail level. Hopefully there is a way to do it that is modest enough to let people adjust without causing sudden damage along the way. I have a number of American co-workers whose personal identity seems to be tied up with muscle cars they rebuild themselves and with big pickup trucks. They are already trying to fight any change. I don't have much hope for the US in solving this problem.
          Ford Future
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          We could only be so lucky for the oil industry to move out of the country. Then we could stop the Oil Wars, and get a REAL Energy Policy.
        mylexicon
        • 1 Month Ago
        @JP
        Do you want to impoverish the elderly who are on fixed income? Do you want to make granny beg for a COLAS adjustment. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't fantasize about raising taxes.
          EVSUPERHERO
          • 1 Month Ago
          @mylexicon
          Granny can pay it now to the US government or pay it to OPEC and the oil corps when they both are making huge profits off spiraling demand over supply, contrived by speculators or reality of oil supplies. I would rather see granny support the US government in a controlled way to get off oil than pay OPEC and the oil corps in a helter skelter free for all as seen in the summer of 2008. In 2008 what choice did granny have? She paid the oil corps and OPEC exorbitant prices only to get more of the same in 2011.
      • 1 Month Ago
      @Joel If the total amount of revenue keeps going down, then raise the tax correspondingly so it balances out! Your suggestion would punish fuel-saving technology and would imply a hellish bureaucratic system to keep track of how many miles one have clocked.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Well it certainly won't happen tomorrow, but people are converting to electric, so if gas prices are always a problem maybe people need to start converting sooner. Renault is already investing on how electric cars will affect a circular economy through some internships. Check more of their efforts here: http://ecomobility.tv/2011/07/21/project-redesign-renault-internship-future-mobility/
    • Load More Comments