You know what would be way cool? A sliding scale for gas prices.

[PeaceNikki]

I know it'd never happen and be impossibly difficult or unrealistic to manage, but it's be cool if people with less fuel efficient cars paid more per gallon than those of us with compact/economy cars.

I just watched a Hummer drive by my house with a boat in tow. I couldn't help but think about the fuel comsumption. I wasn't feeling bad that they have to pay a lot for gas, I shook my head at the AMOUNT of fuel they consume compared to me. They can obviously afford to pay a lot for gas. I know I pay less in net because I use less, but some kind of break for those of us that try to consume less. It might encourage people to make more efficient decisions.

Pipe dreams...

[BlooInBloo]

1. They *already* pay more - that's what "lower mpg" *means*....

EDIT: It just seems like it's a "hate the rich" thing to me. Maybe "we" should make "them" pay A BILLION dollars/gallon! Yeah! How much is enough?

[PeaceNikki]

2. I get that. I *said* that. But they pay the same per gallon that I do.

I am saying it'd be nice if they paid more per gallon than I do.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Damn - you replied before I added on - lol!

[customerserviceguy]

6. So a fill-up

costs them more gallons. Look around at a gas station, a fill-up costs them way more than it does for people who have efficient cars!

[PeaceNikki]

7. No, not "hate the rich" at all. Make the people who consume more pay more per gallon.

And offer further incentive to make more efficient decisions.

[BlooInBloo]

11. I'm not down with charging different people different prices for the same product.

EDIT: Which is really what I should have said in the first place. My bad.

[PeaceNikki]

13. I get that, and agree to some degree.

I also know that it will never ever happen for a multitude of reasons.

I was just thinking outloud. :)

[BlooInBloo]

15. :) Attack the problem on the *other* end, though, and you can satisfy *both*...

the "fairness criterion" I stated, and *also* provide the incentive you're after: just increase the tax on gas guzzlers.

Everything's the same price for everyone, and also people are strongly incentivized towards gas-misers.

[PeaceNikki]

16. Indeed. Your answer is better.

Luxury tax on gas guzzlers and tax credits on efficient/hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles.

[BlooInBloo]

22. It's good to work through the reasoning, though - I agree.

[Thothmes]

92. Who gets to decide what a "gas guzzler" is

First we establish a completely new federal and state bureaucracy to set rules for what constitutes fuel efficient, then we establish a nation wide testing program for all autos that determines if autos are meeting their "efficiency standards" Then a schedule of decals and other documents to provide the drivers of those autos with proof that they rate the lower rate for fuel.

[customerserviceguy]

23. Different pricing for the same product happens all the time

Try to buy life or auto insurance. Try to buy homeowner's insurance in Florida! See that shiny airplane up in the sky overhead? If there are three hundred seats, there are probably one hundred different ticket prices, depending on when and where they were bought.

Computerized point of purchase devices have made it completely possible to charge differential prices if there is a compelling political reason to do so.

[PeaceNikki]

25. Hmm. Interesting.

Maybe I'm not crazy afterall. :)

[customerserviceguy]

30. Hey, I only majored in psychology

I didn't graduate with a degree in it, so I'm not qualified to comment on your sanity! :)

Just kidding, of course. You really did come up with a good idea, it just needs to be bounced around by enough brains to come up with a semblance of fairness. That's the only way it will become politically feasible. I think that's the main thing standing in the way of national health care right now, people need to see that there's an inherent fairness to a system before committing to it.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Heh - I had guessed that someone would bring up wholesale/retail pricing first, actually...

Wrong again! :rofl:

The general response is the same: examples such as the ones you mention aren't actually cases of "the same product", in the relevant sense.

It's not, as it were, *health insurance* you're buying, but rather health-insurance-covering-this-and-that-for-a-46-year-old-woman-with-this-and-that-history-in-such-and-such-economic-environment-yadayadayada.

For THAT product, fully specfied, the prices should be the same.

If they're not, then there needs to be a no-other-way-to-achieve-a-desired-goal rationale for it. In the case of the OP, there IS another way to achieve the desired goal (fuel conservation).


EDIT: And while i started my responses from a moral-ish standpoint, that was just for convenience, and not required. Introducing unnecessary arbitrage opportunities into the market is a bad idea on financial reasoning grounds.

[customerserviceguy]

39. Fuel conservation

works, but only very slowly. If we mandate higher fuel standards for vehicles, you still have a problem getting the newer vehicles into the hands of drivers quickly enough. A registration-based rationing system accomplishes that much more quickly.

And who's to say that fuel efficiency standards don't involve arbitrage? If a company has to sell a large number of efficient vehicles in order to sell some guzzlers, they just make the price of the guzzler reflect the savings they have to offer on the efficient vehicles. I've seen it working that way ever since CAFE standards were adopted. The rich just pay $75,000 for their Hummer instead of $60,000, and suck down all the gas they want at the same pump price we all pay.

This discussion is to examine the feasibility of charging them MORE for a scarce resource, as a way for their wastefulness to subsidize their more thrifty neighbors. Think of it as the same sort of exchange provided by selling carbon offsets.

[BlooInBloo]

41. Where I said "conservation", perhaps "preservation" would have been clearer....

And I don't recall saying that fuel efficiency standards didn't involve arbitrage, so I guess the answer to that question is "not me".

In any case, spreading the costs of a few onto a field of many isn't arbitrage.

[customerserviceguy]

43. Well, then

perhaps my comprehension of your original point about preservation needs some clarification. This topic is about the idea of charging differential prices for gasoline based on what kind of vehicle it's going to be used in, with the idea that the person using the more efficient/less polluting vehicle be allowed an additional incentive of lower price.

Perhaps you can explain to me the reasons that some other thing would be better done instead of this. I'm not against the notion of combining your idea with a plan that would incentivize drivers in the means we have been discussing them. Maybe you can explain why (other than possible practical reasons) that incentivization is a bad idea.

[BlooInBloo]

44. #15.

[customerserviceguy]

48. Ok

I saw the edit, perhaps I didn't have that in mind when I was answering you. Essentially, you want to see all people pay the same price for the same goods, and I can understand that. Generally, I feel that way myself, but there are circumstances where some differential pricing is justified. I think it's possible that conservation/pollution-control might be seen as one of those situations.

Taxing the guzzlers does nothing to deal with the guzzlers that are already out there, and it takes a long time to be effectual in the marketplace. An electronic system of discounts and surcharges can take a more immediate effect, and can be tweaked to provide greater efficiencies as data on it is gathered (one of the other benefits of such a system). Sometimes, measuring the effect of a change is as important as putting that change in place.

[BlooInBloo]

50. (a) It takes exactly 1 model year to be effectual...

They already know how to make gas efficient vehicles *just fine*. They merely choose not to. For an example, see "Who killed the electric car?".

(b1) Blood already spilled is orders of magnitude less important than spilling MORE blood.

(b2) But worrying about the blood already spilled could also be accommodated (if thought important enough), by including commercial resale of gas guzzlers in the tax. (That's far from peanuts, when one considers car rental agencies, besides just used car lots.)

[customerserviceguy]

63. So you're telling me

that in one year, everybody trashes their old cars, and buys one of the new efficient models? I don't think you're saying that, so it must be: When we put in more fuel efficient standards (even if it takes years to require them) that the savings from just one year's worth are car sales are enough to be considered "effectual"? Perhaps there is an effect, but it would be tiny compared to the effect you'd get from materially altering the gas prices to reflect what that gas is potentially being used in.

When the original poster proposed this idea, I thought it naive, then I thought it unworkable, then I started to see ways it might work. Progress depends on the concept of not just shooting down somebody else's idea, but by finding ways of modifying the original concept towards the direction of making it work. That's why I like Democratic Underground, it's very much like a large brainstorming session, the kind of place where new ideas are hashed out. Perhaps President Obama will read this someday soon, when he's looking for some new ideas to wean us off foreign oil.

[PeaceNikki]

65. Ooooo... President Obama might read *MY* thread.

:swoon:

I agree with everything you said. I also initially dismissed the idea as an unrealistic pipedream. However, I do think that it could be worked out somehow. I also threw the idea out there for that exact reason; a brainstorming session of sorts.

Thank you for your imput on the matter. I thought it an interesting concept and even more so after the discussion has grown.

[BlooInBloo]

68. No, I quite obviously didn't say that.

[customerserviceguy]

70. Then explain

what you mean by one model year being enough to be "effectual".

[BlooInBloo]

72. It's all good. We've about exhausted the possibilities for this discussion.

[customerserviceguy]

3. Don't we already have that?

I mean, don't people with more fuel-efficient cars get more travel out of a gallon of gas than people who insist on driving gas guzzlers? Now, a sliding scale depending on income might be nice, but again, well-off folks think they can afford a Hummer, while I get by nicely with my Hyundai.

[PeaceNikki]

5. I am saying it'd be nice if I paid $2.00 per gallon to get 35 mpg and they pay

$6.00 per gallon to get 10 mpg.

I guess I didn't make that clear.

[customerserviceguy]

10. One thing you did make clear

is that it would be impossibly difficult to manage and effectuate, but in this case, the market's taking care of that for us.

Free markets aren't always the answer to everything, but in this case, they seem to be working. The only alternative is modified rationing, which would entitle a person to buy X numbers of gasoline at a certain price, anything above that is full price, to be subsidized by a higher price on gasoline. That might come close to what you were talking about.

[rustydad]

60. No, not at all difficult

When a crucial commodity is in short supply driving the price to unaffordable levels for some there can be rationing, subsidies to the less wealthy, or what we have now. As has been mentioned differential pricing happens all the time. Doing so with gasoline is easy. On each pump nozzle a scanner would read the bar code imprinted on the car next to the gas tank fill tube. Some would pay X and others would pay Y depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. As the wealthy in this country get even more wealthy the unregulated free markets cannot work for the best interests of all society. I know many people who are afraid to drive small fuel efficient cars because of the monster cars and trucks that can crush them in a collusion. Something has to change. Bob

[customerserviceguy]

64. Check my other posts on this topic

you'll see that I've evolved my thinking a bit since posting the item you were responding to.

The bar code idea is interesting, but let's not put it on the nozzle! Also, it would lend itself to cheating, as some would be tempted to put a Prius barcode on a Hummer, and the average person passing by would not be able to notice that. That's why I favor the electronically read card idea.

[pitohui]

54. you missed her point, she wants to really stick it to truckers, farmers, and anyone who feeds her

because of her resentment of her neighbor who can afford a boat, she'd also like to cut off anyone who uses a truck off at the knees -- her plumber, the guy who mows her lawn, the guy who fixes her roof, the driver who delivers groceries, the truck farmer

what the hell is wrong with people?

sure, it's fun to hate, but let's not pretend it's about anything other than what it is

she already gets a price break because she has a small vehicle and doesn't have to haul anything or deliver anything or do anything much useful with her vehicle so she wants to stick it to those of you who have working vehicles

:eyes:

and i bet she's like everybody else with a "fuel efficient" vehicle, every time she has to move, she wants my husband to help her out for nothing or for a six pack of beer, guess what, honey, ain't gonna happen

[PeaceNikki]

56. No. That wasn't my "point". As always, you're such a ray of sunshine.

[customerserviceguy]

66. I didn't see that

All I saw was the use of gasoline for recreational (in other words, optional) uses. I would imagine any plan that would charge a differential price for fuel would have legitimate business needs in mind, acknowledging the fact that just about everything we have was brought by a truck. I'd truly love to drive diesel prices down for that reason alone.

[dkf]

8. The point is to get people off of gas.

and into electric cars.

Then we can use solar and wind power instead of oil. Works for me.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Agreed.

I am just suggesting further incentive to make more efficient decisions.

[dkf]

12. Pricing models are too difficult to implement.

You'd have to upgrade every gas pump in America. That would drive gas station owners nuts.

[PeaceNikki]

14. I know. It can't and won't happen.

Like I said, pipedreams. I was just thinking outloud. :)

[dkf]

18. Well I wish someone would come out and say the most patriotic thing we can do is to reduce our oil

usage.

I would ask anyone who was reasonably wealthy to install solar panels and wind generators.

That would make things more affordable for people who do not have the funds to convert.

Solar and wind are still very pricey, but as it becomes more popular it should get cheaper.

[PeaceNikki]

20. *I'll* say it.

The most patriotic thing we can do is to reduce our oil usage. :)

[dkf]

24. Yup, and convert our appliances to energy star rated stuff.

Rich people can do a lot to make this country better, and it would hardly make a dent in their assets.

[customerserviceguy]

21. Perhaps not

At my local Costco, you have to insert your membership card into the magnetic slot on the pump, then you can pay with a debit card, Costco gift card, or Amex card. The infrastructure is in place, it's all a matter of software after that.

Imagine issuing cards to registered owners of vehicles on a differential scale by classifying their cars. The Prius driver gets to pay less, the Hummer driver has to pay more. You don't get to buy gasoline without the card, just as you don't get to drive without a valid license. We set the card for only a particular amount of gas per week/month at a particular price, anything above that, and you pay at the Hummer rate. Yes, the Hummer guy might use the card from his kid's Prius to buy for the guzzler, but he can only get so many gallons, which might only get the Hummer fifty or sixty miles per week. You allow a limited amount of rollover, so even the Prius guy can save a few credits towards taking a vacation with his car.

How would imbalances be rectified, say in the case where a certain filling station gets way more Prius drivers than Hummer drivers? We alter the amount of tax that gets remitted to the state and Federal governments, whichever governmental entity used such a program. It's all a matter of electronic accounting, which is cheap to administer.

You've made me think about it, it would not be impossible to do it physically, but the real impediment would be political. It would take an enormous amounts of guts for the existing political structure to do it, and it would smack of the threat of gas rationing that was part of what brought Jimmy Carter down in 1980. Things would have to get a lot worse before it would be palatable. I doubt you'd even be able to talk about it publicly until we approached ten bucks a gallon.

[dkf]

26. Who's to say you are driving the hummer that day?

Maybe you're driving your kid's Prius.

[PeaceNikki]

27. Chip the key.

:shrug:

[dkf]

32. See how it gets more complicated though?

Its a nice thought, but difficult to execute.

[customerserviceguy]

36. Not necessarily

Each registered owner gets a "ration" of gasoline they can buy at either a certain price, or better yet, a certain fixed discount off of the 'regular' price which is posted at the station. The cards get assigned so that the high mileage car gets to buy more gasoline at this discount, and the low mileage car gets to buy less (or no) gallons at this discount. You limit the number of vehicles owned by an individual, and you come up with a separate scheme for businesses (perhaps this is a way of rebating carbon credits, etc.)

Yes, there's the possibility that I might buy a used Prius to keep garaged up, and use the gas on my Hummer, but it's not going to take me that far down the road. Really, I'm way better off using that gas in my Prius, since I now own one. Maybe it takes me a few tankfulls before I realize that, but eventually I see the light, and decide that it's not that much worse to take the little car to work.

Forget the chipped key, although we've been moving in that direction. Perhaps if there are widespread abuses coming to light, we can build that into the system in ten years or so.

[dkf]

38. We can't even figure out how to count votes in this country.

Now we want to track every car out there? lol.

[customerserviceguy]

40. I understand that votes are indeed counted badly

but every day in this country, millions of economic activities are calculated correctly to the penny with electronic commerce. Make money the center of what's being counted, and sharp eyes will be watching to make sure things are accurate.

If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have even entertained this discussion. But I've seen how cheap computing power has saved costs for us all, and allowed extremely great efficiencies in the way we handle currency in modern times.

[customerserviceguy]

33. And what's wrong with the Hummer guy

taking the kid's Prius to work, and leaving the beast in the garage? Nothing, as far as I can see. It's accomplishing the goal of using less of a precious resource.

[dkf]

37. No problem, but these potential card keys aren't the car itself.

So I can see you borrowing your friends card to get a better deal. It would look like everyone had the cars with the little sippy tanks.

[customerserviceguy]

42. Yes, you might have that happening

But then your friend's car is off the road, not burning gasoline. And you might just have to pay your friend something for the use of that card, remember he only gets X gallons of gas per week to buy at the lowered price.

There was talk back in the late 1970's of people buying junk cars just to get registrations to get more gas rationing coupons, but that was before we had laws that mandated showing proof of insurance, and of safety/emissions inspections before getting to register a car. It might be possible for a really rich person to buy old cars for his friends, and get them to give up the cards after paying to inspect, insure, and register them, but then it's gonna cost him a fat bundle to drive that Hummer, not to mention the complexity. He'll simply opt to pay the much higher price per gallon for the guzzler, and skip the nonsense. That's more money to subsidize lower gas prices for the folks with the sippers.

If you are going to design such a system, you have to allow for the fact that there will be economic consequences that affect people on a personal scale. It might just be that a wife uses the card from her minivan to buy gas for the subcompact her husband takes to work. There's nothing wrong with that, maybe she makes a little more effort to get the groceries in the back of the Fiesta than she was willing to do with the Freestar.

Nothing wrong with that, as I see it.

[Schema Thing]

17. One dollar is not one dollar. It is varying amounts growing less

and less intrinsically valuable as an individual gets richer.

There are people for whom, fiscally speaking, wiping their ass with a dollar bill is no different than you or me using toilet paper.


Of course, then answer to this basic mountain-where-there-ought-to-be-a-playing-field problem is not to sell toilet paper on a sliding scale, or even gas on a sliding scale, but rather to have an effective progressive tax system.

[customerserviceguy]

28. A progressive tax system

is fine for paying for the things that everyone in this country needs, whether it's an educational system that keeps us competitive with the world, a national defense that keeps us protected from enemies, and a justice system that protects the freedom of rich and poor alike.

But some things are better viewed from a "fee" perspective. If I want to visit a nearby national park, I must pay a fee to get in, and I'll pay a different fee if I ride a bike in, rather than take a car in. I think the point of the original poster was to go beyond the free market, and adopt a mechanism for applying the "user fee" approach to consumption of gasoline.

In posts above, I've tried to expand on that idea, and discuss the ways that it could be efficiently administered. I was ready to dismiss the idea at first, but the original post and responses have challenged me to think about the problem.

[PeaceNikki]

29. And your replies have caused me to reconsider the reality of implementing such a system

[Schema Thing]

58. I'm sure there are are schemes that could be productive

inflation is horribly regressive.


I just think a truly progressive tax system could do the job best and with the least bureaucracy; and it helps with all the needs, gas, defense, toilet paper.

[customerserviceguy]

67. I guess I think of this idea

as "progressive" taxation of a scarce resource. You buy a Hummer, you're going to pay more, you buy a Prius, you're going to pay less. I'm not advocating throwing out the progressive income tax system, but I'm wondering if progressive user fees for gasoline are workable and/or desirable.

[pitohui]

55. thank you, achtungtoddler

this is a note of sanity in this thread:

the answer to this basic mountain-where-there-ought-to-be-a-playing-field problem is not to sell toilet paper on a sliding scale, or even gas on a sliding scale, but rather to have an effective progressive tax system.

[Warpy]

19. Consider the average gas hog driver

S/he got lulled into complacency by lower gas prices in the last 3-5 years and bought that dream car using the old car/SUV trade in plus the "rebate" from the car company as the down payment. The loan period is 5 years.

Now they're stuck in an upside down position on that car loan, with the SUV being hard to sell or trade in at any price and worth far less than they owe on the last 2-3 years of the loan. Get it? They are STUCK.

This is deja vu for those of us who were grownups back in the 70s.

The monstrosity might have been in the paper for weeks, listed at what they owe the credit company first, then 10% less, and now 15% less and that's all they can afford to eat plus buy a smaller used car.

I don't want to stick these folks with higher prices than they're already struggling to pay. Undoubtedly, they'll unload the hunk o junk as soon as they can manage to get something to replace it, selling for pennies on the dollar and struggling to make the last few car payments. However, they've got trouble enough already, and I think they're learning a very valuable lesson in finances while they try to survive it.

The only sliding scale I'd institute is a rebate for commercial drivers like truckers, delivery companies, and cabbies. Those are the people who are suffering the most from the suddenly higher prices.

[ThoughtCriminal]

31. Add a $2 per gallon tax on any vehicle that has

a Bush/Cheney sticker.
:p

[PeaceNikki]

34. I'm down with that.

;)

[wvbygod]

45. That is a very good use of a hummer

Towing a boat with a hybrid or bicycle would be a bit odd if the boat had any size and weight.
A hummer may be an excess but that does not rule out its practicality for some applications.

[siligut]

46. Great Idea!

The truth is, the poor are the ones who exist on a sliding scale Read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-America/dp/0805063897/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212345069&sr=8-1
The economy plays to the wealthy. I love the idea of charging people for their footprint! Great post PeaceNikki!

[RedCappedBandit]

47. What kind of car do you drive?

[1]

49. but fuel efficiency is just an indicator of potential fuel consumption...

you could drive a prius and actually consume more gas than the person in that hummer, depending on the number of miles each of you drive.

if you want to implement a proper sliding scale, it would be based on "actual" fuel consumption. $2 for the first xx gallons, $3 for the next xx, etc.

[customerserviceguy]

69. Certainly you could

But if that were the case, then the Hummer would be driven for a LOT less miles than the Prius, that's easy to see. In that case, either the Hummer is being used for recreational purposes only, and the Prius is being driven back and forth to work. What's the problem there?

I could see the idea of actual fuel consumption being part of the calculation of how much to pay, but you'd also need to have some sort of exemption system for people with long commutes, or those who need a car for business purposes (besides commuting), and it gets a bit cumbersome at that point. Registration data is already on file for every licensed vehicle, and we already know the EPA figures for each type of car. Leaving it at that accomplishes most of the goal, while retaining some simplicity.

[1]

79. wrong thinking. the problem is the consumption of fuel, not what we think of the vehicle...

if you want a sliding price system for fuel then it must be based on fuel consumption. the more gas you consume, the more damage you cause, the more you pay.

if the hummer burns 50 gallons of fuel per week and the prius 100 gallons, who is causing the most damage based on their consumption? the prius.

no exemptions. no calculations.

i don't know why the prius is using 100 or the hummer 50 (either do you, so the recreational/work argument is invalid) and i don't care, but to charge the hummer more money for using less gas is ridiculous.

since the purpose of this sliding scale should be to encourage less consumption (or punish high consumption), the prius should have to pay more in the above scenario. the fuel charge should not be based on imaginary potential consumption. only true actual consumption.

simplicity.

use more, pay more. this would encourage people to use less. regardless of the vehicle that is using it.

[customerserviceguy]

86. Can we safely assume

that the Prius burning 100 gallons of gas (at 35 MPG city, that's 3500 miles, more than most anybody would drive in a week! Or maybe a month!) is getting a LOT more useful miles than the Hummer is at 50 gallons? If we choose to value all of those miles equally, and there's no essential reason that we should other than simplicity, then there is a lot more of an economic good generated by the Prius than the Hummer. Is it ludicrous to say that the Prius provides a greater social benefit than the Hummer? If you reject that argument, then we indeed have nothing to talk about. I would expect such logic to prevail on Free Republic.

If we agree that more efficient use of resources should be economically encouraged, then providing differential prices for scarce resources by their use in efficient means of utilizing those resources adds to the economic calculation that people must make when deciding whether to take the fuel-efficient vehicle or the gas guzzler when it comes time to pick up groceries.

[1]

91. i like the sliding scale idea, but it should be based on actual consumption...

use less, pay less. use more, pay more. on everything. gasoline, electricity, water...

if you install high-efficiency compact fluorescent light bulbs throughout your house, but leave them on 24x7 and use more electricity than someone with incandescent light bulbs, should you be rewarded with a lower electric rate for the efficiency of the consuming bulb?

slide the scale based on actual usage of anything and you will encourage people to use less. the replacement of the consuming vehicles/devices with more efficient ones will naturally come into play as a result...

[Rosemary2205]

51. Gee thanks asshole

I am on the edge of poverty. My husband is fully disabled and will never work again. I need a lift van to function outside my own house because I am confined to a power chair. I finally saved up enough to buy an old piece of shit one that gets a fabulous 10 MPG on a good day.

And you think I'm not being punished enough.

Nice.


And yes I already know "you didn't mean me" but only meant "those" people.

Well guess what.

[PeaceNikki]

53. Asshole?

[pitohui]

57. your OP felt uncaring and heartless to many of us

i don't agree w. rosemary's way of expressing her anger but i understand the anger

your proposal seemed like a under-handed bit of attack at the blue collar by pretending it hurts the guy with the big boat who can afford to pay anything anyway -- some of these boats cost six figures now, even more, you know, you can't price the gas to h urt THEM only to hurt US

no, it hurts the guy with the working step van, the guy with the pick-up truck, the person who is doing the real dirty hard work of the world

and as rosemary points out, it also hurts the disabled, altho i would hope that disabled license plates would get a break at least

[PeaceNikki]

59. Well, considering I have not written legislation on the topic yet, I imagine concessions for

commercial vehicles and the disabled and seniors and so forth could be written in.

I wasn't trying to "stick it to" anyone. I was just thinking outloud about trying to offer further incentives people to go efficient when the choice is there.

[customerserviceguy]

74. Any system

has exemptions of various kinds. Certainly, those who have special needs due to power chairs would be among those listed.

Those of you on this topic who loudly trumpet your horns over progressive taxation are surely aware that the income tax code is shot full of holes, some necessary, some in there just for political reasons.

Could political exceptions become part of a price-control system? Possibly. Is that an excuse not to explore them? I say probably not.

[Rosemary2205]

77. Yes, asshole

even expecting someone to justify their automotive purchase is assholish. You have no right to decide who's worthy and who isn't. One of my neighbor's teenagers owns a Hummer - all blinged out too. It's the most disgusting thing I ever saw. The kid loves to take that Gawdawful thing to charity events and car shows. Listen, in my neighborhood, a teenage boy with a job saving half for college and the other half for fun that does not include drugs is a great thing. WHY do you think you have any right to tell him he HAS to be punished for not having a dinky little butt ugly, union busting prius?

Answer me this, who belches more crap into the air and sucks more energy out of the planet? A prius owner in a 2000 sq foot house with wall to wall brand spankin new chinese manufactured (high pollution) goods up the ying yang - or some kid bouncing around in a freekin Hummer who lives in a 900 sq ft house and just about everything his family owns is recycled via thrift store, yard sale or craigslist?

My point is you can't possibly know anyone else's circumstances. Deciding who deserves what based on little to know info is just assholish.

[PeaceNikki]

78. You feel justified in calling me an "asshole" for bringing up discussion of the topic?

Wow. Look in the fucking mirror.

[Rosemary2205]

80. No

A discussion of how we all can reduce energy consumption is a whole other thing than your post. Your post is just another statement on how you hate SUVs/big ass vehicles and want to punish everyone who has one.

Oh, and yes, I am an asshole. I already know that. No illusion what so ever about that.

[PeaceNikki]

81. "another statement on how I hate SUVs/big ass vehicles and want to punish everyone who has one"?

Ha... show me one post where I've said that. Or implied that. Not even my OP. You read it that way. It was about encouraging people to CONSUME less WHEN THEY HAVE A CHOICE. It wasn't directed at you personally. Narcissistic much?

[1]

82. i don't think you're an ass, peacenikki...

but your plan does not encourage people to consume less. it only rewards/punishes people based on the vehicle they drive, not how much they actually consume.

if you want to encourage people to consume less, charge more to those that actually consume more.

[PeaceNikki]

83. Good point.

There are a lot of good points in this thread. I had a thought and posted about it. It's proven to be an interesting discussion IMHO.

[1]

84. that why we love you. you get us thinking. :) n/t.

[customerserviceguy]

87. I appreciate

the provoking of intelligent thought, but I'm much less enamored by the name calling going on. Peacenikki, I think the true impediment to your idea is NOT the practicality of it, but the political strength needed to get it passed. If you can be called an "asshole" here at DU just for sparking an intelligent discussion, imagine what the right wing and the mushy middle would think of it.

[Rosemary2205]

85. Show me

one of your posts bitching about how Americans choose more square footage, more clothing, more everything than is of human necessity and I'll eat my words. You don't seem to grasp the concept that just because someone is, in your opinion, "consuming more" because they own the dreaded Hummer means they actually are "consuming more" than the Prius owner. The idea in your post is in no way designed to reduce overall consumption in America (nearly all of which is a choice). It's designed to punish people who own a vehicle you find offensive and that is all. You aren't talking about a penalty toward homes over so many square feet per person - or over so many kilowatts per person - or a huge tax on those imports made in those Chinese pollution belching factories. You need the lesson that judging someone's overall consumption based on what they drive is at best a waste of time and at worst assinine.



And I already said I know you didn't mean me so WTF is that?

[enki23]

52. eg. call it a luxury tax for people who treat it like it's a luxury

.

[galledgoblin]

61. great idea!

I'd also like a pony!

[PeaceNikki]

62. OK, but the pony will be replacing your fuel-consuming vehicle.

;)

[galledgoblin]

71. fair enough!

but what if I donate the "fertilizer" to a community garden?

[PeaceNikki]

73. Then you get discounted asparagus, tomatoes and beets.

See? The circle of life.

[galledgoblin]

75. sustainability! (n/t)

[customerserviceguy]

88. Mmm, I love asparagus!

And tomatoes, some of them are sacrificing themselves right now in my cooking pot to make spaghetti sauce! Not so big on beets, but I can put up with them, and my lady loves them!

[Crabby Appleton]

76. What you are more likely to get is the opposite

states don't like high mpg vehicles cheating them out of tax revenue and are looking at tax-per-mile taxation schemes.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1267/69/

[ContraBass Black]

89. Suppose that Hummer and boat are rarely moved, and thus consume significantly less fuel over time

Than your economy car in your regular usage of it. Would it then be fair to charge that owner more for having larger vehicles?

[Miss Carly]

90. yeah, but what about the sliding scale for useage vs. mpg

I have an Xterra, and I drive 30 miles per week, why should I have to pay more vs. someone who drives a fuel efficient car, and ends up driving over 200 miles a week? Is there a difference?

Carly

[taterguy]

93. 30 miles a week = barely more than 4 miles day

Ever hear of a bicycle?

[1]

94. not everyone drives every day...

i drive 50 miles a week.

50 miles a week = a little over 7 miles a day. but i don't do it that way.

once a week into town, 25 miles each way, for supplies for the week.

[Miss Carly]

98. in MN winter it gets -20.....and there is usually 3 ft snow on the ground

a bicycle for nearly half the year is not feasible, not to mention in the summer it's hard carrying groceries, kids, dogs etc on the back of a bike, and in the summer if I am just going to work and back home and it's nice out, I walk.

Would I have bought a hybrid SUV instead of my Xterra? Yes, probably, had I been able to afford it, the cheapest SUV hybrid we looked at in stock was 5,000 dollars more than my Xterra. I don't drive enough to see the savings in the long run.

If I lived in So Cal or NYC or a metro area, I wouldn't have a vehicle, or would have a prius for driving if I needed to, I would ride the transit otherwise. I live where a Prius wouldn't last, ice chunks in the road, ice falling off the backs of 18-wheelers, -20 degrees, vehicles sliding into other vehicles on the ice...most people around here drive 4wd's, it unfortunately is pretty much a necessity.

[Ikonoklast]

95. Then let McDonalds charge fat people more for cheeseburgers

After all, they are carrying around excess calories in the form of fat, so they don't really *need* that cheeseburger. They could stand to miss a few meals here and there, and if they can't afford cheeseburgers because the price they have to pay is too high, that's their own fault.

That way there would be more cheeseburgers for the rest of us. Yay!



I love moral outrage at selected targets. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but boils down to one basic truth: You own something of which I don't approve, and for that you must be punished.

It won't change a damn thing, but I'll sure feel all smug about it.

[PeaceNikki]

96. ??

I don't see outrage or smugness or disapproval in my OP. I opened a discussion about possibilities of encouraging less consumption is all.

But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to project that upon me, cool.

[Ikonoklast]

97. Then use "Corvette" or "Mustang GT" or any other high-performance

Low fuel-mileage vehicle as an example.

A Vette only seats two people at best, and gets crappy mileage. At least a Hummer can haul a few people, all their stuff, and tow a boat or a camper.

Never see that here. Always a Hummer, like Satan has a factory in Hell manufacturing them.

It gets old. Let people spend the money they earned any way that they see fit. If it happens to be on a gas-guzzler, they must enjoy an income sufficient to fuel it. People that own one don't worry about any question of the morality of driving something that gets lousy mileage.



I hate to say it, but that's America. You got the dough, you can own it, whatever it is, and no one can tell you otherwise, no matter how vulgar, wasteful, or obscene the expense.

And those that own a vehicle that gets poor fuel mileage, they are paying a higher share of fuel taxes for the simple reason that they use more fuel. They are already being penalized.

[Miss Carly]

99. a few years ago I looked at a Dodge Charger, and it had 1,000 gas guzzler tax on it on the sticker

but.......on the expedition we also walked past, there was no gas guzzler tax on the sticker, wondering if this tax is still being implemented, this was about 4 years ago.