Gas Tax vs. Luxury Tax, Are Either Reasonable?

[Heather]

My fiance and I were recently discussing the gas tax proposed by Gov. Doyle in our home state, Wisconsin. You can read the article here:

Doyle's gas tax proposal

In our conversation, he proposed that rather than having this gas tax that Doyle has proposed, he thinks perhaps a luxury tax would be a more suitable option. Placing higher taxes on luxuries such as SUV purchases, cigarettes, alcohol, (he then pointed at our TV and added) 50" screen televisions, citing these as examples. These are all unnecessary to the average citizen, yet for some, important enough they would pay the extra dues.

What do you think? I myself am undecided as of yet either way. I personally hate the world "tax" and have a tendency to be adverse to taxes in general, however, understand it's need in some cases and am interested in the ideas and opinions of others on this subject.

If it was your home state that was proposing this gas tax, would you be for it? Would you be against it? And if so why? What other solutions would you propose, if given the opportunity, other than gas tax?

[Autolykos]

What's the problem that needs another tax as a solution?

- Rob

[Heather]

Doyle is proposing this to use the money to fund construction/maintenance of highways/freeways, etc. I would suppose, in addition, whatever else taxes pay for, such as public schools, welfare, etc.

[Autolykos]

Why isn't there enough money already to do all of those things?

- Rob

[Heather]

Quote by: Autolykos Why isn't there enough money already to do all of those things? - Rob

Good lord, highways.. freeways... just for an example, always need fixing. So does education, welfare, etc... but that's not the point.

If taxes are going to be imposed to better the state, how best should those taxes be imposed upon us? I'm looking for ideas and thoughts in that arena.

[Autolykos]

Aren't there already taxes allocated to those things? Why must more money be taken from everyone?

My point is that it's a mantra of government on all levels that, if the current level of funding doesn't work, more funding is asked for. It's hardly ever mentioned that maybe the problem lies in how the current funds are being used.

- Rob

[Heather]

Quote by: Autolykos Aren't there already taxes allocated to those things? Why must more money be taken from everyone? My point is that it's a mantra of government on all levels that, if the current level of funding doesn't work, more funding is asked for. It's hardly ever mentioned that maybe the problem lies in how the current funds are being used. - Rob

I agree. As I said, I myself am against taxes in many respects as they currently play out.

So Auto, let's put that aside however, and assume that this additional tax money is needed, how would you propose that tax money be attained best?

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't support taxation, without representation.

I am against it.

[Chris]

I think the gas tax is necessary, and it probably needs to be increased. At the same time the American standards for MPG and gas mileage standards need to be increased. We need to move forward, and dumb-assed vehicles like the Dodge Charger or the Chevy Suburban, need to be phased out - or new engines need to be in place. Make them Diesels - and enable them to use bio-diesel.

Luxury taxes are also a good idea. I am not really concerned with 50" TV's cause they are really coming down in price. Its more high-end things that probably need luxury tax. Big assed SUVs definately need increased tax. Luxury vehicles (i.e. Bentleys, Rols Royce that get 3mpg as well as dumb assed Hummers) need to be taxed into the ground.

[Alive]

Gas taxes should be increased, not to raise revenue, but to take into account the real environmental cost. Until that is done, every gallon of gasoline is essentially subsidized by society as a whole, to the world's detriment. Luxury tax, no.

[Zeebadee]

I agree with most of the people in this country. Everyone that buys or uses things that I don't should be taxed more. People that have habits that I don't should be taxed more. People that support leisure activities that I don't should be taxed more. People that have more money than me should be taxed more.

If we'd simply follow these suggestions, I think we could get all the money we need for whatever the hell it is that the politicians want to fund to get themselves reelected.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chris I think the gas tax is necessary, and it probably needs to be increased. At the same time the American standards for MPG and gas mileage standards need to be increased.

Interestingly enough, these two statements could contradict each other. Observe: The gas tax is paid on a per-gallon basis. If gas mileage standards are increased, cars will be going longer distances on the same amount of gas, leading to people needing to fill 'er up less often. Of course, this could well translate to less money taken in from the gas tax, despite it being increased.

We need to move forward, and dumb-assed vehicles like the Dodge Charger or the Chevy Suburban, need to be phased out - or new engines need to be in place. Make them Diesels - and enable them to use bio-diesel.

"Move forward" tells me nothing. Why do you take it as a given that "moving forward" means getting rid of "dumb-assed vehicles" like the Dodge Charger and the Chevy Suburban?

Luxury taxes are also a good idea. I am not really concerned with 50" TV's cause they are really coming down in price. Its more high-end things that probably need luxury tax. Big assed SUVs definately need increased tax. Luxury vehicles (i.e. Bentleys, Rols Royce that get 3mpg as well as dumb assed Hummers) need to be taxed into the ground.

I think you miss the point of new taxes. Their one and only purpose is to raise revenue. Government doesn't really care where the money comes from, as long as they get it. Any sort of social engineering is quite secondary.

"Taxing into the ground" never works because of the point I make above. Placing a tax on something will make the government dependent on it for income. The last thing the government wants is for a source of its income to be eradicated, so they'll make sure that doesn't happen.

Finally, calling anything "dumb assed" does not a logical argument make. You're simply appealing to emotion, there.

- Rob

[Chris]

Interestingly enough, these two statements could contradict each other. Observe: The gas tax is paid on a per-gallon basis. If gas mileage standards are increased, cars will be going longer distances on the same amount of gas, leading to people needing to fill 'er up less often. Of course, this could well translate to less money taken in from the gas tax, despite it being increased.

Yes thats the point, The point is to get revenue from stubborn asses who dont care about the environment and how much oil (petrol) they use.

"Move forward" tells me nothing. Why do you take it as a given that "moving forward" means getting rid of "dumb-assed vehicles" like the Dodge Charger and the Chevy Suburban?

Because they are burning fossil fuels at rate many times more than they have to.

I think you miss the point of new taxes. Their one and only purpose is to raise revenue. Government doesn't really care where the money comes from, as long as they get it. Any sort of social engineering is quite secondary. "Taxing into the ground" never works because of the point I make above. Placing a tax on something will make the government dependent on it for income. The last thing the government wants is for a source of its income to be eradicated, so they'll make sure that doesn't happen. Finally, calling anything "dumb assed" does not a logical argument make. You're simply appealing to emotion, there.

OK well, its my personal opinion. It should be up to the govt - to look out for the best interests of the people. Protecting the environment is a top priority. Using tax to get rid of these vehicles, and/or make them better and more efficient is the main goal, and the added revenue is a side benefit. Or it should be a lower priority. (Just my opinion) I know the govt might see it differently, especially when they see green dollars.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chris Yes thats the point, The point is to get revenue from stubborn asses who dont care about the environment and how much oil (petrol) they use.

To what end?

In other words, what do you want that revenue to be spent on?

And again, if they wisen up (according to you) and stop using so much oil/petrol, that revenue won't exist anymore. What then?

Because they are burning fossil fuels at rate many times more than they have to.

Then again, no one has to burn fossil fuels at any rate, do they?

My point is that, without establishing criteria for judging rates of fossil-fuel consumption, your argument is meaningless.

OK well, its my personal opinion. It should be up to the govt - to look out for the best interests of the people.

That begs the question -- just what are the best interests of the people? Who says what they are and what they aren't? I know I've brought this up before, but I feel it needs repeating, because people seem too used to flaunting their personal opinions as "the bests interests of the people".

Protecting the environment is a top priority.

Again, this begs some questions: Is protecting the environment a top priority? For whom? If so, why is it a top priority? And should it be?

Using tax to get rid of these vehicles, and/or make them better and more efficient is the main goal, and the added revenue is a side benefit. Or it should be a lower priority. (Just my opinion) I know the govt might see it differently, especially when they see green dollars.

While there are certainly some Dudley Do-Rights in government, the temptation of "free money" from taxes seems practically irresistable. Case in point: To finance the Spanish-American War, a tax was placed on telephone usage. Now, the Spanish-American War didn't last all that long -- not even a year, IIRC. But the telephone tax lasted for over 100 years. It was finally repealed just this past year. Clearly this is an example of the temptation of "free money" at work.

My point here is, why bet on the Dudley Do-Rights winning out in the halls of government? If history has shown us anything, it's that they always lose. So I think it's pointless to rely on government to effect social change. They have more important things to do, like taking more of your money.

- Rob

[brien]

What other solutions would you propose, if given the opportunity, other than gas tax?

We don't have a tax problem, we have spending problems. Instead of increasing, or establishing new taxes, government should reduce spending immediately.

Here in Connecticut, there is a ONE BILLION dollar surplus and the legislature still wants to increase the income tax. Greedy bastards. There was a proposal to suspend the gas tax for the summer, and the legislature couldn't stomach that, so it also going to turn it down.

Government is drunk on spending and it needs to cease before it cleans out those who have the ability to pay, or drives those with that ability, to places where there are very little taxes like the Bahamas. Governments need to stop excess spending now.

All you people who want to tax the "rich" to subsidize state wasteful spending don't understand once you tax the "rich" to a certain point, they will go elsewhere to live. Then who will you tax?

It is like that example of the dinner analogy for tax cuts:

"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh would pay $7; the eighth pays $12; the ninth would pay $18; and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59. "That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut). "'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. "The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six--the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' "The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay: as before, the first four men paid nothing; now the fifth man also paid nothing; the sixth man now paid $2; the seventh paid $5; the eighth man paid $9; the ninth man paid $12; leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. "But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 reduction,' declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'. 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man, 'I only saved a dollar too; it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!' '"That's true,' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!. 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' "The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now Fifty-Two Dollars short of paying the bill. Imagine that!

The point being here, those who advocate in the continuation to "tax the rich", the "rich" will go away leaving you to pay the higher taxes. So you better get ready for increased taxes on yourselves.

[brien]

Zee wrote:

People that have more money than me should be taxed more. If we'd simply follow these suggestions, I think we could get all the money we need for whatever the hell it is that the politicians want to fund to get themselves reelected

.

This is what everyone wants, tax the other guy. In Connecticut they continue to raise the income tax even though there is a one billion dollar surlplus. This type of behaviour will only result in driving tax payers away and thus increasing the taxes upon those who are left behind. Brilliant strategey there, isn't it?

Tax the rich until they get fed up and leave. Brilliant. We need to cut spending not raise taxes.

[Chris]

Quote by: Autolykos To what end? In other words, what do you want that revenue to be spent on? And again, if they wisen up (according to you) and stop using so much oil/petrol, that revenue won't exist anymore. What then?

The revenue should be spent on moving forward with renewable energy. And a better solution than digging up black fossil fuels. Once they do the revenue doesnt exist anymore, they can get it from the road tax, and the need to fund renewables will be less.

Then again, no one has to burn fossil fuels at any rate, do they? My point is that, without establishing criteria for judging rates of fossil-fuel consumption, your argument is meaningless.

There already are criteria for fossil fuel consumption. Its called MPG standards. Also CO2 emissions through coal burning power plants.

That begs the question -- just what are the best interests of the people? Who says what they are and what they aren't? I know I've brought this up before, but I feel it needs repeating, because people seem too used to flaunting their personal opinions as "the bests interests of the people".

The best interests are not damaging the only habitable planet (for now) for at least 4-5 parsecs. Wouldnt it be in our best interest to give the environmentalists the benefit of the doubt? Whats a few more dollars here and there? You can't take it with you when you die.

Again, this begs some questions: Is protecting the environment a top priority? For whom? If so, why is it a top priority? And should it be?

Cause if the planet is dead - or at least uninhabitable to humans - than the future of the human race is doomed. I would place that well high on the priority list.

While there are certainly some Dudley Do-Rights in government, the temptation of "free money" from taxes seems practically irresistable. Case in point: To finance the Spanish-American War, a tax was placed on telephone usage. Now, the Spanish-American War didn't last all that long -- not even a year, IIRC. But the telephone tax lasted for over 100 years. It was finally repealed just this past year. Clearly this is an example of the temptation of "free money" at work. My point here is, why bet on the Dudley Do-Rights winning out in the halls of government? If history has shown us anything, it's that they always lose. So I think it's pointless to rely on government to effect social change. They have more important things to do, like taking more of your money. - Rob

Ahh you do make good points, but to me, its more important to stop climate change than a few more measly dollars taken out of my wallet. I dont drive a hummer, or a bentley, or a vehicle with a "HEMI". So I am not too worried about it.