Poll: How do you prefer to pay more...Tax?
 

This poll is based on the assumptions of needs:

Need 1: A cleaner environment. Need for reduction of CO2 emissions.

Need 2: Tax revenue to maintain roads and other transportation services that are running out of funding because A) people buy less fuel and B) the gas tax is rarely raised to meet needed funding.


Option1: Pay more at the pump aka: $6 or more per gallon

I've heard several folks from different sides of the financial and political spectrum argue for higher gas prices to promote a reduction in driving, more efficient vehicles etc. With this I disagree. I find raising the gas tax (higher gasoline costs) is regressive and thus hurts the little guy who can't run out and buy a hybrid or a TDI. It also artificially jacks up the price in the used car market for anything that remotely gets good mileage, once again pricing efficient vehicles out of the market for lower income folks.

Option2: Tax levied based on vehicle emissions such as high annual "polluter tax" and/or VAT on high pollution vehicles.

I personally prefer the European approach, tax folks on tail pipe emissions. We already test emissions, implementation is easy. It's an 18 page document vs our CAFE standard which is over 1800 pages. Folks who want to modify their can either keep their emissions in check post-modification or pay a hefty polluter tax. The gasoline isn't the problem, the inefficient and excessive burning of it is. This still puts a burden on lower class folks but I think it's less than raising gas prices across the board.

Option3: Big Brother (on the State level)
Either way, a higher price at the pump or an emissions tax are BOTH BETTER than what many states are proposing to close their transportation funding problem which is; Put trackers in our cars and tax us on how many miles we drive. (See: Oregon)

Pay more at pump?
Pay more at emissions?
Have State Government GPS trackers in our cars and be taxed on how many miles you drive or worse "Driving behavior".

Where's yore poal?

You do the poll after you hit the submit thread button... thus the delay. :)

im not too keen on the government tracking anything im doing.

My preference is for a combination of 1 and 2. A tax on emissions makes sense because, as you say, getting a handle on CO2 emissions are critical for a cleaner environment. But a tax on gasoline is equally important since we have finite oil reserves. Most indications show the world being at peak oil production, meaning production will likely decline over the next century, with no viable alternative fuel at hand at the moment.

I also like the European approach. I bet all these people that drive SUVS just because they are big & "safe", wouldn't be driving them.

I need more options, like:

• make speeding tickets proportionate to income
• improve mass transit, including high speed rail
• regulate commodities traders

When I was a kid, you could fill up for $10-12. :(

CO2 isn't a toxic emission, and it's proportional to fuel consumption.

I'm okay with tax on fuel because emissions can't be tracked while fuel consumption shows at the pump, and it's in our best interest to reduce fuel consumption to decrease demand for oil. As of now, oil production is getting less and less efficient as we run out of easy to tap sources; shale oil has a horrible return on energy expended, and if you divert more resources towards biofuel production, well the energy return on that is anywhere from worse to maybe a tiny bit better.

Personally I noticed a difference when gas shot up to well over 4 bucks a gallon over here in Cali some number of years back, the number of SUVs decreased. At 5 bucks a gallon I think most people would stop taking their SUV out, and that's a great thing for road safety because those things block visibility. Since I only drive like 3000 miles a year it would only be like 50-100 bucks more for me, and I'd gladly pay 100 bucks to remove half the SUVs from the road.

The UK does a pretty damn good job of it. I think it's referred to as an "MOT" inspection. It's similar to tail pipe sniffing here. I don't know how they levy the fee though.

Yeah, it'd be nice if we could figure out bioethanol. Something that's vastly more efficient, preferably carbon neutral and doesn't completely rape the land and water tables with toxic chemicals.

Well some States/Cities would like to expand mass transit but the funding to do so in many places comes from the Gas Tax which is a declining revenue stream. It's also a self fulfilling death regarding the transit fund because the more mass transit = less number of gallons of gasoline sold = less transit revenue.

Some states look at then pulling money from the General Fund or raising property taxes. F' that! To me it's simple. We have a problem with CO2 emissions and need for transit funding. Tax the CO2 and get both a reduction in CO2 and funding for roads/transit.

I disagree with speeding tickets in relation to income as it would be a logistical nightmare and a political impossibility. Also, most speeding tickets are handed out as a result of a speed trap with a purpose of generating revenue as opposed to safety. I can see it now... Police Departments being sued left and right for targeting luxury cars because they know the tickets will be bigger, meanwhile the "sleeper-car" market makes a massive resurgence by middle class folks driving around in fake-clapped-out cars trying to "look" poor to keep from being targeted by cops for speeding!

Speeding tickets based on income would be funny when the drug dealers driving 100k cars get cited with no job.

Speeding ticket based on KBB/NADA value then!

Really, just raise the limits to something appropriate and raise the fines.

Couple things: Not everywhere tests for emissions. Public transit is totally doable, we just have to commit to quit acting like we can't afford it (when we spend way more on way less, etc etc).

Link us to the 18 page document, and the 1800 page document, so we can make an informed vote.