Hypothetical: Dems Propose a Temporary Consumption Tax on Gas

[BurtWorm]

The idea is to quickly lower demand and raise funds to support development of energy alternatives. The proposal outlines a time frame during which the pain caused by the tax is ameliorated by specific steps to replace petroleum-based gas with renewable alternatives and to strengthen the public transportation infrastructure.

Is this a good idea or a bad one?

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

[Caution]

2. Would alienate every SUV owner in America

and MANY of these are independents and Democrats. Bad idea in an election year.

[BurtWorm]

4. Suppose the price of gas continues to go up. (It will.)

Do you think a tax on the sale of nonrenewable petroleum-based gas in the US (the largest consumer of it in the world) would have a depressing effect on the price of oil? At the same time, wouldn't it have a depressing effect on demand and, therefore, on consumption? Is there any downside to such a tax from the perspective of the commons? I know there's a downside from the perspective of individuals in the commons, who would necessarily feel considerable pain.

But can't they be made to understand that they're going to feel pain no matter what?

[Beelzebud]

7. It would piss off EVERYONE that drives to work to earn a living.

Which is the entire middle class.

Some people around here need to THINK OUTSIDE THE CITY.

[BurtWorm]

8. What's the alternative? The price is going to keep going up anyway.

Eventually someone is going to have to pay. Preferably it will be the oil companies, but how can you squeeze it out of them and be sure they won't pass it on to consumers anyway?

One way is to radically reduce demand for their product. So people will need gas to get to and from work and to and from stores--that's a given. In times of crisis, they have to give up luxuries, like driving SUVs.

Let me ask you personally: what are you willing to give up to get out of the mess we're in?

[Beelzebud]

9. Shouldn't it be the oil companies that give up some of their obscene

profits?

Why point the finger at the little guy, when Exxon is making Billions per quarter while charging us the highest price possbile without rioting?

Why should the middle class "give up" their lives so the oil companies can continue to profit?

You solution is just to tax the middle class to the breaking point. That would be political suicide for the Democrats.

I say go after the oil companies for making record profits, while charging record prices.

[BurtWorm]

10. It's not pointing the finger. It's unfortunate that that's how it's seen.

I do agree that the oil companies have to pay. I think they would if you taxed their product to force the demand for and the price of oil down and simultaneously rewarded consumers for choosing alternatives and supported industries that developed alternatives.

It's a difficult sell, I admit. But it's really going to have to happen. The only alternative to a commons-based solution is to continue as we're going.

Unless you have another idea. Talking about taxing the oil companies might be very politically popular. Or it could look like pandering.

[woo me with science]

43. Not just SUV owners.

Anybody who owns a car and is already struggling to make ends meet.

[GodlessBiker]

3. Regressive. Would work as planned. Bad idea.

Even if you wanted to do something like this, I think there should be a 1-2 year waiting period before it goes into effect, so people have time to plan and change their behaviors by learning new ways to save energy.

[BurtWorm]

5. Would it be a good idea or a bad idea for Democrats to be talking about it

now? Should they just let the situation go completely to hell in the Republicans' hands, or should they make an effort to push as hard as possible for a solution to the problem?

[jsamuel]

12. solution to the problem, but this idea is not a solution

see my post below

[BurtWorm]

14. I'll say to you what I said to Beelzebud (but in another way)

The price of gas is only going to keep going up, so poor people are only going to get poorer--and get nothing for their money but fumes.

A tax would put a brake on the increasing cost AND provide the means toward alternatives to expensive oil.

[jsamuel]

16. I understand what you are saying, but it won't work.

Please see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1109874&mesg_id=1110519

[BurtWorm]

19. I did see there. It doesn't answer my point that gas will only continue

to carve more and more out of your budget unless a solution is found to hold the price steady or lower it. The tax should be used to pay for rural public transportation, and for fuels that cost less than petrol but don't need a new kind of engine to run on.

The stock market today is going through the roof, but we really have a depression style economic crisis going on. It's going to require solutions, not more of the same typical timid Republico-Democratism.

[jsamuel]

20. use income, not a gas tax

"pay for rural public transportation, and for fuels that cost less than petrol but don't need a new kind of engine to run on"

Use income, not gas tax, that way it can be completed BEFORE the tax and that way you won't hurt the poor.

But some people who don't drive a car DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO HAVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. Maybe not you, but some have said so.

[BurtWorm]

21. I do. Public transportation is in everyone's interest.

There should definitely be some mechanism to spread the pain more equally. Maybe there could be something like "gas stamps" that would entitle persons who pay x% of their income on transportation to y amount of tax free fuel.

[jsamuel]

26. see, that is way too complicated, there is already a mechanism for that

income tax

[BurtWorm]

28. How is income tax going to solve your problem?

How is it going to make transportation a smaller percentage of your weekly outlays? Unless the price of oil is tamed somehow, the cost of transportation to Americans is only going to get steeper, with or without a change in the income tax structure.

[jsamuel]

44. by

"pay(ing) for rural public transportation, and for fuels that cost less than petrol but don't need a new kind of engine to run on"

Then once that is done... THEN you can have your gas tax to discourage people from continuing to use their gas cars.

[BurtWorm]

6. Not a good idea?

[jsamuel]

11. See here if you want to know my opinion

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/21/12118/3605
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/27/192759/205
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/28/13130/5787

[ComerPerro]

13. There is a consumption-based tax on gas already

consumers are taxed per gallon of gas they purchase.

[BurtWorm]

15. I'm talking about raising it,

[ComerPerro]

17. Yeah, great idea. Maybe we can get it to happen around July or August

when prices really go through the roof, and only a few months before the election.

"Ok, everyone. I know prices are high. Well, we want to raise the tax on gas even higher, so you have to pay more at the pump."

[BurtWorm]

18. Obviously you have to roll it out after Labor Day

When every new product gets rolled out. ;)

Seriously, I think this would have greater appeal than any product the Bushists are planning to roll out after Labor Day.

[ComerPerro]

23. Taxes never have great appeal

[BurtWorm]

25. They have to be raised eventually.

Better sooner rather than later.

[Mr_Spock]

22. That might be the stupidest idea I've ever heard!!

:rofl:

[BurtWorm]

24. Stupider than war with Iran?

:wow:

[Mr_Spock]

30. No, but they certainly aren't related

...unless we're ratcheting up the fake rhetoric for a gasoline tax!!

[BurtWorm]

31. I wouldn't be too sure that they're not related.

:think:

[Mr_Spock]

32. The republicans are proposing a gasoline tax?

I'm confused here - how is DU voting on a poll to add even more to the already driving poor people to the gutter high gas prices related to Bush and his next holy war? I know Iraq was about oil, but we are not looking to occupy Iran as we do not have the army for that, so I don't see how we'd gain anything by poking a stick into Iran's eye!

[BurtWorm]

34. Republicans and Democrats are proposing cutting the gas tax.

Talk about a stupid idea! That won't decrease consumption. It won't help fund alternative energy projects. Now that's dumb!

[Mr_Spock]

36. I'm glad you're not my representative.

We need all the Dems we can get - you'd be voted out of office in 10 minutes with your ideas on raising taxes on a commodity that just increased in price dramatically. I am for the government funding alternate energy sources, doing it as a regressive tax on the poor that would completely destroy our economy to boot, is the worst possible idea proposed to date.

[BurtWorm]

37. This is the only actual idea I've encountered for the problem

that makes any sense. I haven't heard any workable ideas from anyone else. Have you? You're not offering any. Maybe you like the idea of getting $100 from Bill Frist to buy a couple extra tanks of gas?

[Mr_Spock]

38. What part of funding for alternate energy research didn't you understand?

I'm for removing the federal tax for now - it's not worth the possible damage to our economy - people need jobs first before they buy gasoline. We could have easily had an alternative energy system set up for the $200+ billion we've already wasted in Iraq. There is no question that we should have set up alternatives before now. OTOH, oil is still cheaper than the alternatives - until we get the alternatives up and flowing, we will have "spikes" that cause these silly calls for immediate action - though the last time was 30 years ago - so we seem slow to learn. I knew this was coming and bought a good mileage vehicle 3 years ago - I see the Hummers and I can't comprehend the lizard brain mentality that would buy a vehicle like that. OTOH, raising gas prices won't punish the folks who can afford those behemoth vehicles, it will only hurt the poorest people who have to drive the farthest to get to a decent job from an area that is affordable to live in. How can we push for a raise in the minimum wage at the same time we would steal those gains with a gasoline tax? It just doesn't make sense to me - we'd be punishing the wrong people just to force action where we are more than capable of fixing this issue using the taxes the government already collects. If we just stopped all this nation building in Iraq...

[BurtWorm]

39. Where are you getting the money from? How much are you going to spend on i

How do you get the money from the government into the hands of researchers?

While it's very easy to say, "We'll cut defense spending and oil industry subsidies and spend it all on alternative fuel production," how exactly are you going to do that? You're going to coordinate this with the various committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate that work on appropriations? How are you going to sell this to the American people?

[Mr_Spock]

40. I'd rather readjust priorities than destroy people's lives.

All of a sudden alternate fuels is so difficult to do, but just raising taxes is such an eloquent solution huh? Obfuscation at it's finest.

[BurtWorm]

41. Not doing anything may destroy them faster.

The tax I'm referring to is earmarked for producing alternative fuels. It's fine to talk about producing them, but you need to tell me how you're going to do it without using revenue.

[Mr_Spock]

42. What are the tax cuts for the oil companies & wealthy for it they don't

put the money back into the economy - as in alternative energy sources?

If trickle down doesn't work (which we all know it's an idiotic notion), they I say reinstitute higher taxes on the upper brackets (200k+), bring back estate taxes on the multi-multi-millionaires, make sure multi-million airs pay capital gains tax & get rid of the tax breaks for the God-damned oil companies if they won't work on alternative energy sources or at least absorb spikes in crude oil prices. Don't punish poor people who have to drive the longest and for whom gasoline is a much higher burden!

[BurtWorm]

45. Do you think Democrats should run (and could win) on a platform featuring

the restoration of progressive taxation as the centerpiece of their program?

[Inland]

27. Bad idea: any temporary tax will do little about demand.

What we needed was a permanent tax twenty years to ten years ago.

[BurtWorm]

33. It's obviously too late for a tax twenty to ten years ago.

I disagree that it won't have an effect on demand rather immediately. By temporary, I mean lasting several months up to a couple of years.

[Inland]

46. If it's temporary, it won't change the behavior that really drives demand.

You understand why it doesn't have an effect immediately: people are locked into current consumption patterns by decisions made when prices were different.

People have to make buying decisions about cars (two to five year projections of costs to operate) to where they live (five to thirty years projections about costs) to where they work (?), and how to zone their communities (fifty years).

If you announce the gas tax is temporary, they won't make their decisions based on the higher price, and you don't get the decrease in demand...you just get people sticking out the higher price and paying the tax.

As far as demand goes, the biggest effect will be the feeling at present that the current prices are never going to go away. It's not a temporary spike. It's not going to be cured by invading another country. Thats' what is going to lead to rearranging our lives.

[DireStrike]

29. OTHER: We need a tax and spend plan. Tax the rich, spend to fix stuff.

Gas taxes would hit the poor and middle class much harder than the rich, which is where much needed funds should come from.

And were coming from, until * tax cuts.

[BurtWorm]

35. What is needed is a source that can be earmarked for fixing the problem

If you can tell me how anything but a consumption tax can do that, I really want to hear it. I assume you (and others here) are suggesting raising a direct sort of windfall profit tax? Do you think that could pass? Maybe it could.