Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Thomas, one more time:
Option A. Impose reasonable CAFE standards in lieu of a higher gas tax.
If the standards are reasonable by definition, then you have no problem to solve. You just defined the problem away by fiat.
I have not seen any CAFE standards that I considered to be unreasonable. If the government did impose unreasonable standards, we are still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the backlash at those who imposed them would be considerable. Such things usually pretty well take care of themselves here.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:CAFE standards requiring fuel economy for the purpose of reducing harmful emissions and/or conserve a finite fuel supply is no different than requiring catalytic converters to reduce harmful emissions or [requiring certain kinds of tires and weight limits to protect road surfaces.
The difference is that a Carbon monoxide tax to replace the catalytic converter requirement would be impractical to collect, as would a road erosion tax to replace for regulations about tire. (I would have no problem permitting erosive tires, or cars without catalytic converters, and taxing them.) A Carbon dioxide tax -- implemented by a gasoline tax, is eminently practical to collect in comparison.
Nonsense. It would be quite simple to impose a much higher registration cost on autos without a catalytic converter just as people driving heavier cars pay more to register them than do people driving lighter weight cars. The government can also give a break for people driving hybrids to encourage more of that.
But if you don't want carbon monoxide in the air, you require measures to prevent it just as you require factories to scrub their emissions and recondition any water they return to the ground or river. I have to provide proof that my car passes an emissions test before I can register it at all. I do not resent that in any way EXCEPT that it is imposed only on Albuquerque drivers and not on the tens of thousands of others who drive into the city to work, shop, and play, thus I see it as an unfair/unreasonable tax. I would approve if applied uniformly or if a tax break was given to those who voluntarily provided proof of a satisfactory emissions test, however.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote: The standards probably do add to the cost of an automobile, but they are paid only once there and are more than offset by savings in fuel costs over the life of the automobile.
As Thomas Sowell, one of your favorite sources, likes to point out, the price of something is what you give up to get it. Because of CAFE regulations, car manufacturers are limited in building the cars consumers want, meaning consumers end up with different cars than their favorite ones. While production cost is a one-off expense, consumers drive cars different from the ones they want permanently. This part of the cost -- in the relevant, economic sense of cost -- is significant. And it permanent, no different in principle than a tax.
It is a trade off the American people seem quite willing to make to be able to better afford the fuel that goes into their cars and also to protect the recreation and tourist industries which are a large part of our economy and to be able to have the freedom to afford to choose to go when and where we wish while avoiding the higher cost in goods and services produced by a high fuel tax.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:Option B. Require no built in fuel economy but impose a higher gas tax to force fuel economy while lowering payroll taxes to offset the gas tax. The gas tax however presumably
I love your usage of "however presumably".
As an adherent to the supply-side economics the Republican party claims to believe in, you presumably oppose hikes in the top marginal income tax. The argument Republican politicians make against this, and for the Bush tax cuts, is that people respond very strongly to tax incentives, so higher tax rates at the top lead to CEOs working a lot less, being a lot less productive, to the detriment of all. But now that we're talking about a gasoline tax, you suddenly find it uncertain that the same people who respond so promptly to income tax changes also respond to gasoline tax changes. However convenient this assumption may be for you to make your point, it is logically incoherent. People either respond to tax incentives by reducing the activity being taxed -- or they don't. And they do, both in the income/payroll tax case an in the gasoline tax case.
I absolutely do not think people should be punished for success, and I absolutely do think higher taxes on income at any level is detrimental to everybody. Without going into the nitty gritty of that which would derail this thread, I will refer you to the analogy I used on that very subject on the Bush supporters thread either yesterday or the day before.
LOOK HERE
The bottom line here is that higher fuel taxes don't just affect drivers but impose higher costs on everybody and everything they do or use. And even above the higher costs they are detrimental to many industries while being revenue neutral for the government.
As I illustrated, CAFE standards are also revenue neutral for the government, do not harm any industries, are not inflationary, and produce the desired economy of fuel use.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote: forces people to travel less
Travel less, or buy a more fuel efficient car, as they would under CAFE. The tax deprives them of no option they would have under CAFE.
You seem to imply that Americans don't buy more fuel efficient cars now. I haven't heard a single person ever complain that his/her vehicle gets too many miles to the gallon. Nevertheless, you still see a Rolls Royce or stretch limo now and then and the dealership where I bought my Subaru Impreza also sells Hummers. The big pickups the guys use as tools as well as transportation don't get great gas mileage either, but they are certainly more fuel efficient with the CAFE standards than they were without them. And nobody seems to mind that at all.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:creating reduced income for the recreation and tourist industries The increased pressure on cost of goods forces inflation upward offsetting much or all of the savings realized through lower payroll taxes. The people are restricted in their ability to live their lifestyle, the recreation and tourist industries are hurt and everybody pays more for goods and services.
No. Since we assume that the gasoline tax hike is compensated by corresponding cuts of the payroll- and income tax, the net impact on the rest of the economy would be zero. There might be shifts within the rest of the economy -- for example, people might spend less money on trips to Disneyland and more on movie tickets. But in the aggregate, what they spend less on one thing they would spend more on something else. An income-neutral shift form income- to gasoline taxes causes no change in total consumer spending.
But why should I have to go to a bad movie because I can't afford Disneyland due to the high cost of gasoline? And why should Disneyland have to lay off employees and close down services because fewer people can afford to go there? I've already shown how CAFE standards are not inflationary but high gas taxes are. So income-neutral is not the same thing as cost neutral.
If the goal is to conserve fuel and reduce harmful emissions, CAFE standards accomplish that without any of the negative consequences created by higher taxes on anything.
