1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

50 Cent Fuel Tax

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by KeepOurFreedoms, Oct 1, 2007.

  1. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Climate change bill calls for 50-cent fuel tax

    September 28, 2007



    By Tom Doggett

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. drivers would pay a 50-cent tax on each gallon of gasoline they pump to encourage less fuel use and cut greenhouse gas emissions, under draft legislation to fight global warming released on Thursday.
    "In order or reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the planet safe and healthy for future generations it will take a significant investment from all of us," said Rep. John Dingell, the powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
    "A fee on carbon emissions requires a tithe from all citizens and industries, but no one entity will be unfairly leveled with a devastating burden," Dingell said about his climate change proposal.
    The fuel tax, which would also be tacked onto a gallon of jet fuel, would be phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation.
    Diesel fuel, which produces 20 percent fewer emissions than gasoline, would be exempt from the tax, as would biofuels that do not contain petroleum.
    Before introducing a formal bill, Dingell said he is seeking feedback from the public and other interested parties on his current proposal.
    There would also be a $50 tax on each ton of carbon produced from coal, petroleum and natural gas. This would also be phased in over 5 years and adjusted for inflation.
    The money from the gasoline tax would go into the federal highway trust fund to pay for roads and mass transit. The jet fuel tax would be used to improve airports.
    Dingell's proposal would also phase out the mortgage interest deduction from taxable income on loans for large houses over 3,000 square feet and eliminate the tax benefit for homes over 4,200 square feet.
    Dingell said while new bigger homes are more energy efficient than smaller ones built years ago, the so-called "McMansions" are usually located in the suburbs, requiring longer commutes that lead to dramatically more energy use.
    To help lower-income families offset the higher tax on fuels, the federal earned income tax credit would be expanded to allow people to make more money before they are no longer eligible for the benefit.
    Dingell's proposal was released as the Bush administration opened a two-day conference that brought together representatives from the world's biggest emitters to discuss ways to fight global warming.
     
  2. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    You know, I think this is a bad idea. There is no doubt we need to reduce our CO2 emissions. But to tack on this extra cost is not fair. The federal government should not be putting additional pressure on the end users when they havent had the forsight to plan for the needed changes in infastructure to mature into a newer source of energy. I am in no way a Bush backer. But I am glad to know if this bill arrives on his desk he will likely veto it.
    This bill here would raise gasoline costs in my hometown to nearly $6 a gallon in today's money. I live in Alaska for Christs sake, where oil comes from. There are other ways to do this better. In principle by the sounds of it, it is a bad bill.
     
  3. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    I guess I missed where it said Bush would veto it.

    To get something accomplished you must start locally.
     
  4. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    It didnt say where it was. That was presumption and I think accurate presumption on my part.
     
  5. Hard Driver

    Hard Driver New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't agree with this approach.

    You regulate external costs, not tax them. If there is a factory that produces hazardous waste, you don't tax the product 50 cents and use it for something else to increase the price of the product. You regulate the emmisions to force the factory to treat their waste. This extra cost of treating the waste is then passed onto the consumer.

    As far as vehicle emmisions, raising gas prices with a tax that goes to building roads is not the way to cut emmisions. The way to cut emmisions is to regulate the source of the emmisions by regulating the amount vehicles can produce. This may increase the cost of vehicles, but that is reflective of the cost needed to solve the problem.

    Gasoline use in inelastic. Raise the price and people still need to commute to work, school, etc. Some things are easily substituted. Raise the price of soda, and people will start to drink juice instead, because there is a "next best alternative" that is cheaper. Gas does not have much of an alternative. Sure you can raise the price so much that car pooling is more attractive, people find jobs closer to home, they are more efficient in their errands, and even trade in their cars for Toyota pruis's. But rather than push this through painful taxes, the way to do it is through regulation.

    Mandate fuel milage standards. Mandate power plant emmisions. Subsidize construction of Nuclear power. Give tax breaks for solar panels and so forth is the way to cut emmisions and reduce oil dependency. Not a 50 cent gas tax.
     
Loading...

Share This Page