You're right, money talks...makes people think twice. Having studied petrochimical processing as a chemist, i was always amazed at how little a gallon of fuel costs when considering the amount of processing involved from the well to the pump not to mention all the fuel required to transport the fuel. And, like you said, we're not even talking about the total costs on enviro/health etc...
hi, i enjoyed your response regarding the issue of oil independence. I would like to recommend checking out "richard clough's" book about high fuel prices and alternative solutions. People who actively propose new solutions should brainstorm and network, and perhaps something will be done in the future. Keep up the good fight.
Jamie, I would guess that you are familiar with Greg Mankiw's blog and the Pigou Club. If not, you should check it out. (I won't give you links, but Google can find some appropriate links in a second or two.)
no offence that is a bad idea a sin tax doesn't lessen a problem it stays and the only difference we have ten dollars to add to our price. a good idea to help support alternative fuel is to get rid of company support for a politician so they can be more open to new fuels rather then being paid by the currrent oil companys and maybe we can get rid of haliburton too.
If you want to add more tax gas. So be it I will follow you, but you have to be confident about your decision. By saying "This is why your not a politician," you are backing down on your own arguement which causes your audience to loose confidence in you.
I posted a video response... what do you think of my idea?
As far as your idea goes, the increased tax would hurt the average commuter in middle america, and not necessarily stop consumption. 6 years ago gas was $1.50... now it is $3.50, but consumption continues... we just pay the extra $2. It would hurt business and middle america, and not solve the consumption issue, based on trends.
Jamie, we can't ask our government to over-tax our necessities. I remember Al Gore wanted a $25 tax on gasoline for the same thing. It's not acceptable.
We already pay too much for fuel, we already conserve the gas in our tanks and it isn't fair to tax people for things we must have.
Check out my video; The answers are pretty simple.
Exactly! The income, location and other factors involved with individuals would count for a lot in such a situation! If this was implemented, it would have to take into account the crippling effects on some people in some places.
I'd like to separate the point about rich vs. poor from the point about rural vs. urban. The tax will impose costs on rural people because they are already imposing disproportionate costs on the rest of us. To the extent that it's more efficient, people will be encouraged to move to the cities. That's a feature, not a bug. The rich vs. poor issue is one where economics reaches its limit. At least it could be partly redressed by making the existing tax system more progressive.
Jamie I have to respectfully disagree with you. To add a dollar tax on top of an already high price for gas will lead to wide spread unemployment and further outsourcing of american jobs. In this case necessity is NOT the mother of invention. Investment in mass transit and research and development incentives offer a better balance overall.
That is definitely a solution & it would solve many problems, but there is the fact that the extra $1 would drive up the cost of food & other goods, make things a lot more difficult for those of us in rural areas than for those in cities, plus above all, rich people wouldn't be effected but middle class families would feel it & the working poor would be crippled by it. Of course, there really aren't any painless solutions out there, so hard choices will be needed!
Don't you mean remove the substitutes and the taxes from the gasoline, let the free market take over? I don't think it should be taxed more, but I do think the market should reflect the price and not the government. It would also encourage better/different technology.
No because there is market failure. The market's price is lower than the actual price of gasoline because no one absorbs the costs. The market only works on its own when all the costs are absorbed by the buyer. In many cases of external costs (environmental costs is a great example) this doesn't happen.
You're right, money talks...makes people think twice. Having studied petrochimical processing as a chemist, i was always amazed at how little a gallon of fuel costs when considering the amount of processing involved from the well to the pump not to mention all the fuel required to transport the fuel. And, like you said, we're not even talking about the total costs on enviro/health etc...
drzhava73 4 years ago
hi, i enjoyed your response regarding the issue of oil independence. I would like to recommend checking out "richard clough's" book about high fuel prices and alternative solutions. People who actively propose new solutions should brainstorm and network, and perhaps something will be done in the future. Keep up the good fight.
SuperHoodlum 4 years ago
Jamie, I would guess that you are familiar with Greg Mankiw's blog and the Pigou Club. If not, you should check it out. (I won't give you links, but Google can find some appropriate links in a second or two.)
DClaudeKatz 4 years ago
totally awesome!
nathannis 4 years ago
no offence that is a bad idea a sin tax doesn't lessen a problem it stays and the only difference we have ten dollars to add to our price. a good idea to help support alternative fuel is to get rid of company support for a politician so they can be more open to new fuels rather then being paid by the currrent oil companys and maybe we can get rid of haliburton too.
nathannis 4 years ago
More taxes and more taxes that is the Democrat way. And then after the election the Democrats ask? Why did we lose yet another election?
MikeJames6 4 years ago
I think you are cute... but you shouldn't encourage the politicians to tax us more.
Because they will anyway.
penxv 4 years ago
If you want to add more tax gas. So be it I will follow you, but you have to be confident about your decision. By saying "This is why your not a politician," you are backing down on your own arguement which causes your audience to loose confidence in you.
LingusUSN 4 years ago
I posted a video response... what do you think of my idea?
As far as your idea goes, the increased tax would hurt the average commuter in middle america, and not necessarily stop consumption. 6 years ago gas was $1.50... now it is $3.50, but consumption continues... we just pay the extra $2. It would hurt business and middle america, and not solve the consumption issue, based on trends.
Eisenmond 4 years ago
Jamie, we can't ask our government to over-tax our necessities. I remember Al Gore wanted a $25 tax on gasoline for the same thing. It's not acceptable.
We already pay too much for fuel, we already conserve the gas in our tanks and it isn't fair to tax people for things we must have.
Check out my video; The answers are pretty simple.
j0eg0d 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VOTE RON PAUL 2008!! Search for Ron Paul and you'll see a great video on him :) Spread the word!
Libertarians4RonPaul 4 years ago
Exactly! The income, location and other factors involved with individuals would count for a lot in such a situation! If this was implemented, it would have to take into account the crippling effects on some people in some places.
RogCBrand 4 years ago
I'd like to separate the point about rich vs. poor from the point about rural vs. urban. The tax will impose costs on rural people because they are already imposing disproportionate costs on the rest of us. To the extent that it's more efficient, people will be encouraged to move to the cities. That's a feature, not a bug. The rich vs. poor issue is one where economics reaches its limit. At least it could be partly redressed by making the existing tax system more progressive.
DClaudeKatz 4 years ago
Jamie I have to respectfully disagree with you. To add a dollar tax on top of an already high price for gas will lead to wide spread unemployment and further outsourcing of american jobs. In this case necessity is NOT the mother of invention. Investment in mass transit and research and development incentives offer a better balance overall.
vidmakr 4 years ago
That is definitely a solution & it would solve many problems, but there is the fact that the extra $1 would drive up the cost of food & other goods, make things a lot more difficult for those of us in rural areas than for those in cities, plus above all, rich people wouldn't be effected but middle class families would feel it & the working poor would be crippled by it. Of course, there really aren't any painless solutions out there, so hard choices will be needed!
RogCBrand 4 years ago
Don't you mean remove the substitutes and the taxes from the gasoline, let the free market take over? I don't think it should be taxed more, but I do think the market should reflect the price and not the government. It would also encourage better/different technology.
balbu01 4 years ago
That supposed to say subsidies, not substitutes. Spellcheck (and me) f'd up.
balbu01 4 years ago
No because there is market failure. The market's price is lower than the actual price of gasoline because no one absorbs the costs. The market only works on its own when all the costs are absorbed by the buyer. In many cases of external costs (environmental costs is a great example) this doesn't happen.
Razela 4 years ago