Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Head of General Motors want's gas tax raised $1

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby Cog » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 14:31:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'W')hy in the heck would they agree to that.


We live under a social contract that gives benefit in return for forfeiting some amount of freedom. It seems the loudest howlers of "What about MY freedoms" (read "money") are the ones who've gained the most from the system.


Wrong.

I don't know where you hang your hat but in the USA I live under a constitutional republic. I never signed away my freedom to you or anyone else. I'd much rather accept the risk that life entails, than to grant to you and others of your ilk the right to tell me how to live my life. So go try your experiment in sacrificing freedoms elsewhere.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby SpockLives » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 14:40:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'T')his thread is basically irrelevant since no major players in either party would dare to raise taxes during a recession.


"would not dare" is an assumption. Someday, we may get a politician who is actually a leader, and then maybe that particular assumption might not apply.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '
') Plus it would be stupid to do so when the middle class and poverty class are struggling right now to pay their bills. Funny how the left forgets about those people when they want to engage in social engineering. If you wanted to raise gas taxes, the time to do that was about 10 years ago, not now.


Not all the middle class are struggling to pay their bills. Some of them can afford nice houses and are CHOOSING to not pay their bills, and to walk away from a mortgage they can afford. And the poverty class is always struggling, so for them there is never a change. Neither is an excuse for America to not face its crippling liquid fuel situation head on.
User avatar
SpockLives
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun 15 May 2011, 00:18:31
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby SpockLives » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 14:45:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdTheNad', '
')This whole website is basically irrelevant since no major players in either party would dare to do anything about peak oil until it is too late.


It is already too late. Peak oil happened, and here we all are, years later, and we are now dealing with it. Some of us will walk, some telecommute, some move closer to work, some buy EVs, Americans appear to be trying out all sorts of solutions, each individual or family dealing with PO in the context of their income, employment and how they wish to design their lifestyle.
User avatar
SpockLives
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun 15 May 2011, 00:18:31
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby Pops » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 15:13:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'W')rong.

Sorry to break it to you but all functioning societies entail some sort of social contract, whether it's a monarchy, democracy, republic, whatever, in effect you did "sign" a contract by not moving off to someplace with no such contract when you came of age. If you think you are up to living in a "natural state" without a social contract, go try your hand somewhere where there is no functioning government, like Somalia or Afghanistan. Maybe you can post back to us how it works out for you to be truly "Free".


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively.

http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm


BTW, I'm gonna put you back on ignore now, no use us antagonizing each other.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby AgentR11 » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 15:17:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'W')hy in the heck would they agree to that.

Yeah, you and Cog are right, it is a moot point, this is not a generation prone to compromise and surely not sacrifice.


But did you note that you, yourself, don't think of the compromise possibilities first; you went straight to a lefty position supporting a lefty objective. (tax & rail). I as a right wing wingnut, am perfectly willing to support increasing gasoline taxes, but I want the proceeds of those taxes to go to support right wing instead of left wing policy objectives. That would be called, compromise. Getting a right wing person to support a fully left wing proposal is NOT seeking compromise.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven here at po.com, we bemoan the fact the US has self-organized around the car and sprawl and interstates and no one will argue that fact will be our kids biggest hurdle - but still, when it comes to talking about actually doing something the same old arguments come out: "What about MY taxmoney!"


The interstates and sprawl are not really the problem. The notion that one needs to "GO TO work" as opposed to "DO WORK" is the fundamental flaw. Its a mindset that evolved at the beginning of industrialization, factories requiring huge workforces, centralized in a single building to make a product. That is no longer the case for almost all Americans; a large number of them could be doing their trade or profession close to home, or in fact, in their home, and only the legacy of that industrialization startup holds sway. That is the distorting influence; and the sooner it dies horribly, the better.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby Pops » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:07:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'W')hy in the heck would they agree to that.

Yeah, you and Cog are right, it is a moot point, this is not a generation prone to compromise and surely not sacrifice.


But did you note that you, yourself, don't think of the compromise possibilities first; you went straight to a lefty position supporting a lefty objective. (tax & rail).


Well, ye-aw! (can't spell in valley girl) You wouldn't expect me to knee jerk corporate welfare and drill baby would ja? :o


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') as a right wing wingnut, am perfectly willing to support increasing gasoline taxes, but I want the proceeds of those taxes to go to support right wing instead of left wing policy objectives.
That would be called, compromise. Getting a right wing person to support a fully left wing proposal is NOT seeking compromise.


That's pretty funny, I know you're joshin' me now, you don't really think at the same time you are going to increase the unemployment rate by a couple hundred thousand government employees and threaten to not pay however many contractors by freezing the debt ceiling that your taxed already mob are going to be happy when I tell them you went to the mat for infrastructure improvements in Iraq but not in Hackensack?

OK, but I'm with you, so I'd counter that if you help me out on my lefty proposal to tax the shmucks on fuel and spend the revenue on trains I'll vote with you to reduce a like amount of wasteful spending somewhere else, like eliminating the Hummer deduction for example or those ethanol subsidies maybe.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby Pops » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:23:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'T')he notion that one needs to "GO TO work" as opposed to "DO WORK" is the fundamental flaw...
That is the distorting influence; and the sooner it dies horribly, the better.

You parties sugar daddies aren't going to like this kind of rabble rousing at all, in fact, you should be careful saying such things, if it got out that you were secretly against the industrial status quo, via, I don't know, an iPhone like the one in my pocket, you'd be washed up.

Anyway about those trains...
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby Cog » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:29:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'W')rong.


BTW, I'm gonna put you back on ignore now, no use us antagonizing each other.


Good, it will save me the mental effort of trying to educate you.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby AgentR11 » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:38:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'A')nyway about those trains...


If you think any right winger would support increasing taxes on gasoline, AND using those funds to support a left wing wet dream like more light rail..

I got this bridge, real good deal, I swear, you'll make a fortune. I just need to get it off my books cause I need the cash elsewhere at the moment. Hate to let it go ya see, but thems the breaks, I gotta take my lumps sometimes..

Just sign here....
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby AgentR11 » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:50:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'T')he notion that one needs to "GO TO work" as opposed to "DO WORK" is the fundamental flaw...
That is the distorting influence; and the sooner it dies horribly, the better.

You parties sugar daddies aren't going to like this kind of rabble rousing at all, in fact, you should be careful saying such things, if it got out that you were secretly against the industrial status quo, via, I don't know, an iPhone like the one in my pocket, you'd be washed up..


I disagree, such a shift would fundamentally change the balance of forces in the right to work and assist in burying the abomination that is unionization forever. Besides, most of the "sugar daddies" are investment class, not industrialists. They can move their investments from SuperCorps Industrial Manufacturing Inc, to ZhengNa Heavy Metal Industries with a couple clicks of a mouse; if they felt the shift would put SuperCorps down for the count.

My honest opinion, SuperCorps doesn't need most of the few employees they have left anyway. Something that would cause high attrition would be a great boon. Bob doesn't show up at the factory cause he can't pay for gas and won't bicycle... order a new auto-welder. I'd also bet the ones that SuperCorps really needs, could work on commission and from home, using their own A/C and no gasoline
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby Pops » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 18:17:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '
')If you think any right winger would support increasing taxes on gasoline, AND using those funds to support a left wing wet dream like more light rail..

No, I know they won't, just amusing myself with your repartee.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby highlander » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 18:48:16

Ah yes, the proverbial social contract. I pay my taxes/SSI/whatever and the money is used what is was intended for. It wasn't the tea party that broke the contract. it was every single member of congress, well maybe one or two exceptions, but the whole political class has sold out the US middle class to whomever promises them the most votes or re-election cash. Gov't needs to be reduced to it's lowest common denominator (feds-interstate commerce, defense: state- education and local issues)
If we are lucky, we will get re-investment in rail. By the time it is finished, the engines will be coal fired steam locomotives.
Our state has bought up a few defunct railroads serving small rural towns. ten years from now, the citizens will think it was a brilliant move. Don't know where the money came from, but it was DOT, so likely our gas taxes at work.
On the other hand, they also raised auto registration fees so they could provide medical care for children of illegal immigrants.
This is where everybody puts profound words written by another...or not so profound words written by themselves
Highlander 2007
User avatar
highlander
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun 03 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby vtsnowedin » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 20:32:54

8) The political side of this discussion wearies me. Neither side of the political spectrum has a clue about what we face or about what needs to be done. One point though, the middle class has not had a raise in real spending power sense Carter, not Reagan.
I think we are greatly underestimating the intelligence of the average consumer. They are living in suburbia and driving long commutes because it made economic sense when they made the decision to buy. Living in the burbs was cheaper then renting or buying in the inner cities when everything including the cost of gas and vehicles was included. As those cost change consumers will rapidly adapt to the new reality.
The problem is that a sudden change in the gas tax will leave too many people hung out to dry. Better to raise the gas tax in progressive steps on a well advertised schedule so that consumers can see their future costs and buy accordingly when they normally trade cars rather then an all at once panic switch. This would also let auto factories tool up for the changed demand over a manageable period that would not throw the industry into chaos.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby SpockLives » Tue 14 Jun 2011, 23:07:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
') I think we are greatly underestimating the intelligence of the average consumer. They are living in suburbia and driving long commutes because it made economic sense when they made the decision to buy. Living in the burbs was cheaper then renting or buying in the inner cities when everything including the cost of gas and vehicles was included. As those cost change consumers will rapidly adapt to the new reality.


Why is this future tense? Consumers have been, and already have begun adapting to the new reality, which includes the movement of jobs right out to suburbia with the people, thereby alleviating the need for long commutes, which everyone seems to equate with suburbia. Maybe in some crazy extreme suburbia, but the fact that a vast majority of commutes in the US are less than 40 miles a day would seem to indicate that the "long" commutes are more than that, but only a minority of people currently do them. And to be honest, 20 miles one way to work isn't that big of a deal.

The more we see our post peak world unfold before us, the more obvious it will become that the answer is suburbia, and it will be the more rural dwellers who will have serious commuting and transportation issues. Rural areas will become more like Appalachia as lack of crude squeezes efficiency into all levels of the transportation economy and lifestyles. Which leaves more rural dwellers out in the cold.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
') The problem is that a sudden change in the gas tax will leave too many people hung out to dry. Better to raise the gas tax in progressive steps on a well advertised schedule so that consumers can see their future costs and buy accordingly when they normally trade cars rather then an all at once panic switch. This would also let auto factories tool up for the changed demand over a manageable period that would not throw the industry into chaos.


Quite reasonable suggestion. Say...$1/gal a year for 5 years?
User avatar
SpockLives
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun 15 May 2011, 00:18:31
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby vtsnowedin » Wed 15 Jun 2011, 03:04:42

It is future tense only because we have so far to go. This last years dollar per gallon has started some people in the right direction but many still expect gas prices to go back down and steady growth to resume. The fact that you think a twenty mile one way commute is reasonable shows that even you have yet to grasp the full implications of peak oil. Anything beyond a two mile walking distance will soon be out of the question except in level terrain ,warm climate areas, that are cyclable year round .
Considering that the politicians can't even see the need for any gas tax increase I expect that your dollar a year rate is impossible and would have negative impacts beyond it's worth. Better to start out with twenty five cents then add on another twenty five every six months until demand drops to our domestic supply. The important part is that the policy be set in signed law so people will stop expecting a return to cheap gas.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby AgentR11 » Wed 15 Jun 2011, 03:27:29

While I will admit to a slight interest in seeing Obama getting the label of, "He who made my gasoline cost $5" (:-D); I worry about a slow ramp up doing the frog boiling thing; people will try to stretch just a little further, each time it ticks up; but by the time they capitulate, the damage to their finances has already been done; whereas, if you smack it good and hard; the uptick introduces a shock that human nature can react to and find an appropriate solution.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby vtsnowedin » Wed 15 Jun 2011, 06:06:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'W')hile I will admit to a slight interest in seeing Obama getting the label of, "He who made my gasoline cost $5" (:-D); I worry about a slow ramp up doing the frog boiling thing; people will try to stretch just a little further, each time it ticks up; but by the time they capitulate, the damage to their finances has already been done; whereas, if you smack it good and hard; the uptick introduces a shock that human nature can react to and find an appropriate solution.

:P There are two problems with that approach. First there is the tendency to blame the messenger. The slapped side the head voters would promptly vote out whoever passed the tax increase and install a replacement pledged to repeal it. You need look no further then the Iowa caucus campaigns of the last several elections to see both sides bowing to the corn ethanol gods in complete disregard of the countries interest.
Second is the shock to personal finances that a sudden increase would place on people with a large car or SUV that they are still in the first half of the payment book on. A sudden dollar or more increase in the tax on top of rapidly rising crude prices would put millions of people under water on their auto loan and would flood the market with unwanted SUVs that would sell at fire sale prices. Add that on to the housing crisis and you have needlessly caused a depression. Better to do it more gradually over the normal ten year fleet turnover cycle. All we really need is for each new car buyer to see the writing on the wall and trade his car in for one that gets significantly better gas mileage then the one he is driving now. This also allows factories to tool up and actually make those 40+ mpg cars we need. You could also have window stickers that showed fuel cost both for the year of purchase and for five years out with the by then $2.50 tax increase.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby Pops » Wed 15 Jun 2011, 08:25:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '8')) The political side of this discussion wearies me.


The politics of peak oil is inescapable nonetheless. The Hirsch Report called for years of preparation by the government prior to the onset of PO and these little debates show just how hard it will be to agree on a plan - after a majority buy in to the problem.

We here all know how hard that buy-in is, there is an "oil constituency" that is joined at the hip economically with the existing "system", another that sees cheap energy as a birthright, another that claims dominion over the earth and believes in their right to use everything up before being raptured, and all those aside from the people who just won't be convinced PO is not a conspiracy, no matter what.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')etter to raise the gas tax in progressive steps on a well advertised schedule so that consumers can see their future costs and buy accordingly when they normally trade cars rather then an all at once panic switch.


I agree. The real problem is tying the tax to an overall policy and finding a group of politicians willing to stand up and lead on the subject. Just raising the price without stating implicitly that the government believes oil prices will rise and in the long run oil itself will be passé will fail.

Look at the reaction here on this board! I'd think building Park n Ride facilities, carpool lanes, rezoning and infrastructure to increase mixed use neighborhoods, Urban "renewal" (ACK! new brand please), mass transit, promote telecommuting and all the hundreds of things Haliburton does in Iraq would have support from the right here at home, but even at PO.com, among the disciples, ideology gets in the way. Of course the government can't do it all, but it can do some things the private sector can't.

Plus it can lead. A policy that says "Oil is getting more expensive, get used to it." would put a floor under the price people/companies use to make decisions and eliminate the droning "I've seen it all before... they'll think of something... it'll come down... "
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby Arthur75 » Thu 16 Jun 2011, 06:38:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '
')
You seem to ignore something that is utterly simple about this increase in gas taxes. Those people who are struggling right now to pay rent or their mortgage can't wait a year to get a refund on the increased fuel taxes that they are paying today.


These refunds could be made monthly, as proposed by James Hansen (letter to Obama), and maybe it should be called something else than a tax.
Would be much better than any form of tradable quotas that's for sure.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')2. Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100 percent dividend.”

A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency. A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels.

The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising. The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts.

No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases.

Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world. The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.

“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100 percent dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security.


http://www.grist.org/article/Dear-Barack-and-Michelle

Note : the rationale is there on CO2 and climate change, but it can be transfered without changing a single comma on "managing peak oil or peak fossile turn", or "accelerating necessary infrastructure and lifestyle changes without even having to define or agree on the target", and is clearly the policy making the most sense with these.
Last edited by Arthur75 on Thu 16 Jun 2011, 09:00:19, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arthur75
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun 29 Mar 2009, 05:10:51
Location: Paris, France
Top

Re: Head of GM want's gas tax raised $1

Postby astalavista_b » Thu 16 Jun 2011, 07:57:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('quadzillajim', 'L')OUISVILLE, KY. (WDRB) -- Think gas prices are too high? The head of GM thinks we should pay a dollar more a gallon.
Dan Akerson says raising the gas tax by a dollar a gallon would force Americans to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient cars which would be a boost to the auto industry.
Right now the federal gas tax is just above 18 cents a gallon.


I am paying $10 for a gallon of gasoline in which I guess 7-7.5 $ is made up of tax. When I read the discussion all about the new tax argument that increases the price of oil 1$ for a gallon, I thought that the US citizen is lucky than the ones living at Europe and Japan.
astalavista_b
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2011, 09:50:53
Location: world
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron