This
would be a good time to raise the gas tax. Seriously.
In fact, it should be raised using a ratcheting mechanism.
Whenever the nationwide price of gas goes up, that should
become the new price. If the wholesale price goes down, the
difference would be replaced by a tax increase. That way the
price at the pump would never go down.
Oh, and oil companies should never get subsidies. Never.
If more exploration is needed and they think they can't
afford it, they can ask for a federal loan. But repayment
would be expected. Chief corporate officers would be
personally liable for repayment.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The House is considering
legislation that would do two things: force oil companies to
give up unused leases, and ban the export of oil from Alaska.
It's brilliant because it highlights the absurd
fallacy: that opening up more land for drilling would lower gas prices.
The fact is, oil companies…
There's quite an argument going on in the comments after my post yesterday about government crop quotas. Here's what I think those who disagree with me are missing: the government is doing what would be illegal if corporations did it. If oil companies got together and decided to all limit their…
Earlier this month, the DC City Council passed the Healthy Schools Act, which will raise nutritional standards for school meals, increase the amount of physical and health education students receive, create school gardens, and do all kinds of other commendable things. The difficult part is that it'…
Dan Froomkin has a great article about the role that financial speculation plays in driving up gasoline prices*. Keep in mind that even Goldman Sachs, the largest oil trader, admits that speculation drives up oil prices. But what really disgusting is how this speculation-based rise in prices…
I don't think the United States of Exxon-Mobil would go for what you're proposing.
On an unrelated topic: are you (or anyone else out there) aware of a correlation between borderline PD and double-jointedness?
You make a bold statement without a why? So, why? Because of the faulty conclusion that high prices will reduce consumption? It hasn't and it won't. We don't need more taxes,we need people in government to figure out how to become more efficient with what they already pilfer.
So it is OK for corporations to pilfer money for private gain, but not for government to use it for public good?
Gas is a lot like health care: Everybody needs it, at some point in time, and the price just keeps increasing. So, why not do for energy what has worked so well (in the private sector) for medical bills? Why not introduce HMO's to the petroleum industry? They would serve as "managed-fuel organizations", and have names such as "PeopleFuel", and "CareGas". Service station attendants would have to submit prior authorization requests for gas; in order to save shareholders' money, the MFO's would deny payment for the gas, while saying such things as, "We're not telling you that you can't give the consumer any gas; we're just saying that we won't pay for it." I could go on and on, but there's no need. My main point is that I can't think of a more effective way to limit the use of gasoline in this country than to "manage" its consumption.
How does a business pilfer your money? You have a choice whether to buy a product! Doesn't work with fuel you say because how are you to get to work? Move and walk or bike! You live 30 miles from the city? Your choice of living arrangements becomes the problem of another? I have a choice when it comes to what I buy and in most cases the competition keeps the price down; if the market will not bear a cost, the cost will go down because the producers will become more efficient.
Most of the taxes I pay are without choice. Notice that I said "what they already pilfer." Those taxes that are involuntary are pilfered. I ALWAYS have the choice to choose what I buy. The government has little reason to focus on efficiency except for the occasional election time rhetoric. Much of what you pay in taxes is for the bureaucracy behind the program that you deem "for the public good" (whatever that actually is? How do you measure the cost/benefit to determine if the net gain offsets the cost?
If your question is whether this is six of one half dozen of the other, my answer is NO, it is not.
At least you would get to choose whether to take the gas to your car in a paper bag, or plastic. If you signed up with CareGas Preferred.
OK, you're a doctor, right? Can you tell me the medical term for "full bladder"?
See this opinion piece in that liberal rag, Business Week:
From Peak Oil To Dark Age?
BTW the medical term for "full bladder" is "full bladder."
I've resolved to the old "let's agree to disagree." It is my impression that perhaps you don't see competition as a good thing and would prefer to have the bloated, inefficient bureaucracy known as BIG GOVERNMENT mucking things up.
By the way, I should note that I agree completely with your second paragraph regarding subsidy.
We have not tried high fuel prices. Gas - and pretty much other fuels too - costs about the same as it did when I was in high school (adjusted for inflation). We drove gas-guzzlers then, and moved out to the suburbs then, and still do. In other countries, gas costs much more both in real dollars and relative to income, and people try to live close to their work, and when they buy a car usually they buy one that doesn't waste gas.
High prices most certainly will spur conservation, if we can ever muster the political will to try it.
I think Tony needs to read some Greg Mankiw.