[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How do you figure that the poor use the most gas? Also, you don't seem to realize the reason the increase was put forward: because gas consumption (and so tax revenue) is down.

The poor do not necessarily use more gasoline, but they use a higher percentage of their income towards it. If the price of gasoline rises (which it will with a tax) then they have less money to spend on other necessary items such as food and *gasp* health care.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

The poor do not necessarily use more gasoline, but they use a higher percentage of their income towards it.

I'm not sure that's true. Certainly businesses (airlines, trucking companies) spend the largest percentage of their income on gas.

On the far end of the poor spectrum, I suspect many spend nothing on gas (or, more properly, are using the untaxed gas of public transport).

If the price of gasoline rises (which it will with a tax) then they have less money to spend on other necessary items such as food and *gasp* health care.

Or on lottery tickets, but I'm sure you chose that example completely randomly and not for the purposes of prejudicing your question.

Who says a higher gas tax will raise the cost of gas? I've watched gas go from $2 to $4 in months with no change in tax. It seems that tax is a minor player in overall price.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Also, you don't seem to realize the reason the increase was put forward: because gas consumption (and so tax revenue) is down. Collecting the same amount as before isn't an increase.

And if you raise the tax (and therefore, the price) of gas in order to collect the same amount of total tax revenue as before..... what do you think will happen to the consumption? My money is on it dropping further. Which would cause a drop in the tax revenue.... and around the circle we go again.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Who says a higher gas tax will raise the cost of gas? I've watched gas go from $2 to $4 in months with no change in tax. It seems that tax is a minor player in overall price.

Minor player, perhaps. But an increase in tax on an item always means an increase in overall price. Unless you're planning on mandating a cut in profit margins...

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not sure that's true. Certainly businesses (airlines, trucking companies) spend the largest percentage of their income on gas.

You're comparing apples and oranges when comparing a family income to a corporation. My opinion still holds valid when comparing the income of a family.

Even if you don't want to consider those below the poverty line because of using public transportation and possibly not spending anything on gas then you can't ignore the middle class.

President Obama claimed that no one making under 250k would see an increase in their taxes. While this is still holding true, people are just paying their taxes in other ways, such as a gasoline tax hike or even the new energy legislation. I'm not against cleaning up the earth and taking care of it. I just hate to see it come about this way when people are already desperate for money and passing the new legislation could raise energy costs 80-90%.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

And if you raise the tax (and therefore, the price) of gas in order to collect the same amount of total tax revenue as before..... what do you think will happen to the consumption?

There's no real causal relation for the numbers involved.

But "we were collecting X from you, and now we are collecting the same amount" is a hike how?

My money is on it dropping further. Which would cause a drop in the tax revenue.... and around the circle we go again.

Only if the drop is in equal proportion, which is unprecedented.

Minor player, perhaps. But an increase in tax on an item always means an increase in overall price. Unless you're planning on mandating a cut in profit margins...

1) An increase in tax does not necessitate an increase in price (as I've shown, price fluctuates naturally far more than is being discussed)

2) There's no need to mandate anything. That's what the market is for.

3) I'm curious whose profits you are worried about. The major cause of the bump in gas prices is speculative investors gambling.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

You're comparing apples and oranges when comparing a family income to a corporation. My opinion still holds valid when comparing the income of a family.

Do you have a statistic or are you just intuiting? I make about 50% more than my mom, but pay about twice what she does in Gas (she has a Prius, I have a BMW). So my example doesn't fit your mold. I have a friend who makes about three times what I do. He flies small aircraft for recreation. He buys (I think) more than three times the fuel I do (small aircraft get only a few miles to the gallon).

The president makes what, under half a million? Let's call it 10 times my income (which would be more than a half-million). What do you think the gas on a pair of 747s is?

Even if you don't want to consider those below the poverty line because of using public transportation and possibly not spending anything on gas then you can't ignore the middle class.

I, my mom, and likely even my friend are all middle class.

President Obama claimed that no one making under 250k would see an increase in their taxes. While this is still holding true, people are just paying their taxes in other ways, such as a gasoline tax hike or even the new energy legislation. I'm not against cleaning up the earth and taking care of it. I just hate to see it come about this way when people are already desperate for money and passing the new legislation could raise energy costs 80-90%.

Who is desperate for money exactly?

I'm not saying no one is. Lots of people are. I'm just trying to figure out who is desperate, and not of their own making, and gas prices are the proverbial straw. It seems the unemployed won't be saved by cheap gas.

Do you have a similar complaint about unregulated capitalism allowing speculators to double the cost of gas?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How do you figure that the poor use the most gas? Also, you don't seem to realize the reason the increase was put forward: because gas consumption (and so tax revenue) is down. Collecting the same amount as before isn't an increase.

I discussed this above. Essentially every plan also has a tax credit that means most people will not see a rise in costs... only those with very expensive policies.

Pelosi cannot pass a bill, it takes 51 senators and several hundred representatives.

Don't know anything about this and am not going to look it up this moment, but considering your batting 0-3...

Well if someonwe who is in the lower class of income has not dropped his consumption of fuel and the taxes go up-- he pays a tax increase-- we are talking indiviuals and not society as a whole. Those with less money, generally do less leisure driving- thus they are the least able to reduce discretionary driving.

Not according to the latest from MSNBC- Obama is discussing taxing all but union health benefits to pay for the federal plan he seeks to initiate. 177,000,000 Americans are covered under private health plans- and only about 30,000,000 are union benefits- that leaves 147,000,000 people covered under private plans that are subjec to taxation.

You know what was meant by my statemetn of Pelosi passing the bill. Under her guidance- cap and trade passed the house- if it passes the senate it will be the largest tax increase in US history--even Obama has admitted as much. It will increase energy costs for the average family by over $3,000/year according to the CBO.

VAT is on the table and that is the most pernicious tax increase. It taxes the value at every step of production so the consumer pays close to a 20% increase in the cost of goods that is taxes all along the manufacturing process. And as the lower ones income is the greater % of their income goes to buying needed goods- they receive the disproportionate share of this tax- once again betraying his promise to America to insure no one under $250,000/year sees one dime in increased taxes.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well if someonwe who is in the lower class of income has not dropped his consumption of fuel and the taxes go up-- he pays a tax increase-- we are talking indiviuals and not society as a whole. Those with less money, generally do less leisure driving- thus they are the least able to reduce discretionary driving.

I've given some of my examples. What's your source for this claim?

Not according to the latest from MSNBC- Obama is discussing taxing all but union health benefits to pay for the federal plan he seeks to initiate. 177,000,000 Americans are covered under private health plans- and only about 30,000,000 are union benefits- that leaves 147,000,000 people covered under private plans that are subjec to taxation.

You are ignoring what I said (tax break) and agreeing with me (taxing benefits) in a tone which implies you are disagreeing with me ("not according to").

But hey: you show me the bill he has proposed or signed and we'll go from there.

You know what was meant by my statemetn of Pelosi passing the bill. Under her guidance- cap and trade passed the house- if it passes the senate it will be the largest tax increase in US history--even Obama has admitted as much.

I can't imagine what you could mean except "a majority of congress voted for it". It's not like they were out calling their opposition unpatriotic and singing songs on the capital steps for the news cameras... that's so 2001.

But OK. Please cite Obama's quote.

It will increase energy costs for the average family by over $3,000/year according to the CBO.

$175.
U.S. climate fix to cost consumers $175 a year: CBO | Green Business | Reuters
washingtonpost.com
House Climate Bills's Annual Average Household Cost Is $175, CBO Says - NYTimes.com
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc...TradeCosts.pdf

On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.

So not only is you claim more than an order-of-magnitude wrong: but it conveniently skips over the part where the CBO also indicates that there would be (an unknown amount) of economic benefit from the plan; making $175 the upper-limit and the net effect possibly negative cost.

VAT is on the table and that is the most pernicious tax increase.

But not the biggest?

It taxes the value at every step of production so the consumer pays close to a 20% increase in the cost of goods that is taxes all along the manufacturing process. And as the lower ones income is the greater % of their income goes to buying needed goods- they receive the disproportionate share of this tax- once again betraying his promise to America to insure no one under $250,000/year sees one dime in increased taxes.

In short I don't believe you. Your information on the projects I'm familiar with has been reliably wrong (see above).

Oh heck: I looked it up. You seem to be inventing basically the entire thing.

Value-add taxes are designed to move the taxing scheme from end-sale-only to each sale in the chain. This says *nothing* about whether overall costs will go up or down: that would be decided by the rate of tax. Further: since the entire point of VAT is to prevent "cheating" (products getting to an end user without the sales tax being paid), it would lower the tax burden on honest buyers by shifting some of it to currently dishonest buyers (assuming that the overall tax income was to remain steady).

But hey: Show me the bill Obama has introduced or signed.

[Playn4God]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Do you have a statistic or are you just intuiting? I make about 50% more than my mom, but pay about twice what she does in Gas (she has a Prius, I have a BMW). So my example doesn't fit your mold. I have a friend who makes about three times what I do. He flies small aircraft for recreation. He buys (I think) more than three times the fuel I do (small aircraft get only a few miles to the gallon).

The president makes what, under half a million? Let's call it 10 times my income (which would be more than a half-million). What do you think the gas on a pair of 747s is?

I see what you are trying to say, but I don't know I agree with that entirely. Sure, those with recreational hobbies will be paying more in gas, but that's generally going to be a niche. Not all wealthier people fly airplanes and pilot large yachts. I will say that my family isn't extremely wealthy, but they are somewhat well-to-do. However my parents generally buy smaller luxury cars (not those with V8s) that have advanced 4 and 6 cylinder engines that are more fuel efficient than more engines out there.

I don't know how it is in your part of the country, but here in Alabama, our public transportation is a joke. You virtually HAVE to own a car. Those along the poverty line generally tend to own older American-make cars (as that is all they can afford) that have very fuel inefficient engines. Certainly much less efficient than the engines in the cars my family has and those owned by the average family in their income bracket. They will do just about the same amount of driving to work, running errands, and other forms of daily driving my parents do. I would qualify that as a regressive tax. Now, the government will get more tax revenue from my parents concerning their purchase of a more expensive car, but we are talking about gasoline tax revenue here.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Playn4God

I see what you are trying to say, but I don't know I agree with that entirely. Sure, those with recreational hobbies will be paying more in gas, but that's generally going to be a niche. Not all wealthier people fly airplanes and pilot large yachts. I will say that my family isn't extremely wealthy, but they are somewhat well-to-do. However my parents generally buy smaller luxury cars (not those with V8s) that have advanced 4 and 6 cylinder engines that are more fuel efficient than more engines out there.

It doesn't require a plane or a yacht. A boat, a big-engined vehicle.

I don't know how it is in your part of the country, but here in Alabama, our public transportation is a joke. You virtually HAVE to own a car.

It's a problem here too. A couple of my co-workers car-pool.

Those along the poverty line generally tend to own older American-make cars (as that is all they can afford) that have very fuel inefficient engines. Certainly much less efficient than the engines in the cars my family has and those owned by the average family in their income bracket. They will do just about the same amount of driving to work, running errands, and other forms of daily driving my parents do. I would qualify that as a regressive tax. Now, the government will get more tax revenue from my parents concerning their purchase of a more expensive car, but we are talking about gasoline tax revenue here.

I fall back on my two issues.

1) The gas tax has effectively decreased over time. A small hike would only level it back. You can call *all* gas taxes regressive, but let's not pick on a hypothetical increase for that.

2) Any realistic number is small in the scheme of gas prices. The effect on a non-commercial user should be minimal compared to the effect of the market.

[Playn4God]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It doesn't require a plane or a yacht. A boat, a big-engined vehicle.

That's my point. Just because it's a more expensive car doesn't mean it's less fuel efficient. How many less-fortunate people driving around in a 1980's/early 90's beat up American tank like a Ford LTD, Chevy Caprice, etc. They are less expensive to buy than most Honda Civics and certainly less expensive to repair, but get unfortunately get screwed over in gas. I don't know I'd qualify a weekend toy such as a boat as something that will dramatically increase a household's fuel consumption

1) The gas tax has effectively decreased over time. A small hike would only level it back. You can call *all* gas taxes regressive, but let's not pick on a hypothetical increase for that.

2) Any realistic number is small in the scheme of gas prices. The effect on a non-commercial user should be minimal compared to the effect of the market.

Fair enough. This was mainly what I was trying to argue that gas taxes in general are regressive. I agree that I'm not so sure this increase would have a huge impact on the average American household (especially if the tax increase does not have a direct relationship to the increase in price), I just was trying to make a different point. However, I can't necessarily say I am a huge fan of an increase in a regressive tax, especially if there are more fair ways to increase tax revenue.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Playn4God

That's my point. Just because it's a more expensive car doesn't mean it's less fuel efficient. How many less-fortunate people driving around in a 1980's/early 90's beat up American tank like a Ford LTD, Chevy Caprice, etc. They are less expensive to buy than most Honda Civics and certainly less expensive to repair, but get unfortunately get screwed over in gas. I don't know I'd qualify a weekend toy such as a boat as something that will dramatically increase a household's fuel consumption

Not that many that I run into. The cost-of-ownership would be lower on a (example) mid-90s Protoge' or mid 80s CRX, both of which are more reliable and get terrific mileage.

Fair enough. This was mainly what I was trying to argue that gas taxes in general are regressive. I agree that I'm not so sure this increase would have a huge impact on the average American household (especially if the tax increase does not have a direct relationship to the increase in price), I just was trying to make a different point. However, I can't necessarily say I am a huge fan of an increase in a regressive tax, especially if there are more fair ways to increase tax revenue.

I tend to agree. It seems that they are a left-over from a time gone-by, when it made sense that you tax the people that use the roads to pay for the roads. Whether that is still reasonable is debateable.

[Jfool]

If I may comment on the title of this thread.... "becoming"?

BECOMING?????

Those who seriously believed his campaign promises... let's hope this presidency teaches people the hard lessons. Alas, we seem to require refresher courses every 20 years or so.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Alas, we seem to require refresher courses every 20 years or so.

Heh. More like every 4 or 8...

[TunerSteve]

I'm reminded of George H.W. Bush.."Read my lips...no new taxes!" Then during his administration there were many raises in user fees for federal parks, etc.

Hence we get a populace that grows weary of politicians in general. Every once in awhile a young energetic candidate comes along like Obama, making promises and hope springs up that perhaps, just perhaps this one is different.

Crash.

Raising taxes on a gallon of gasoline, is raising taxes on anyone that buys gasoline. Perhaps he doesn't expect those making less than 250 grand a year to drive at all. Leave the highways to the elite and those making less than that to use mass transit.