A realistic way to significantly reduce oil consumption

[jeffex]

dam , I'm all for a good conspiracy theory!!!! Heck , I don't believe the president actually is anything more than a front man. But I do believe the masses have some say by voting their pocketbooks and demanding cars like in the 70s like the datsun b210. The more Hybryds are demanded the more will be sold. I just believe they should be tax deductabel ! I'll buy one then. Yes my redneck a$$ will become "green" by saving some greenbacks. Actually my wife will drive it but you get my point I hope. Incentive vs disincentive. Hybryds are not themagic bullet though because of the batteries and that future enviro nightmare as they need replacing but you have to start somewhere. Moving forward is my game.

 

[M14 Shooter]

where would the collected tax go towards and the tax credit come from?

The collected tax goes to pay for the credits.
Any surplus in collected tax goes to me, because I need to buy more guns.

Wouldn't this escalate a war over mileage standards?

Not any more than it does now.

I have an idea to toss back atcha if you are interested in hearing another one.

Sure!

 

[M14 Shooter]

lets see a show of hands of people who's actual mileage is anything like the window stickers #s.

Mine is close; depends on the weather. When its cold, your mileage always goes down.

Too much room for trickey numbers IMO.

The EPA sets the mileage estimates you see on the window sticker.

what about a tax reduction for automakers whose cars show better than average mileage (CAFE).

The idea is to get the consumer to use less gas. Thus, the tax credit needs to be directed at the consumer -- and in any case, any idea that involves lowering corporate taxes brings whnes of 'corporate welfare'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's been little incentive for use of more efficient autos or alternative energy because the oil companies helped formulate our energy policy.

So, what do you think of the idea I presented?

 

[midcan5]

The heart of the problem is getting there from here not mileage. Build public transportation systems that work. Consolidate work areas so transportation could be effectively created. Ride a bicycle - create space where they feel safe. I rode a bike for over 25 years. Build Metro systems as they have in Washington and Paris. Do what they do in Spain, put practical bicycles in city areas so they can be used instead of a car for short trips. Consolidate shopping areas.

Taxing gas guzzlers just extends the problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The heart of the problem is getting there from here not mileage. Build public transportation systems that work.

The US is far too large and Americans are far too used to going where they want when they want for public transportation to work on a meaningful scale -- never mind that any such undertaking will cost taxpayers an incalculable amount of money.

Taxing gas guzzlers just extends the problem.

Taxing an activity tends to curtail an activity
Tax breaks for an activity tend to promote that activity.
Taxing gas guzzlers will curtail the purchase of same, while tax breaks for efficient cars will promote their sale.

 

[maineman]

I don't know why your idea could not be incorporated with a periodic incremental increase in CAFE.... I have no problem with the general idea at all.

 

[jeffex]

today in the USA today is an article about 2 electric cars . The chevy volt due out in 2010 and another one , Mesa (or something like that) that costs $98,000 and can do 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds with a range of 200 + miles per charge. the battery technology is the key to making these vehicles fit into the American mindset. go any where any time you want. Public transportation doesn't sit well with Americans. the fast one uses something like 6,000 + cumputer batteries and can be charge in 3.5 hours. i read a story about a entrepenure tyring to put charging centers throughout the country. The only thing they need is a good sound system to mimic the sound of a good throughty v8 to fullfill the total sport car sensation. Lets hope it takes off . And the price comes down a wee bit!

 

[midcan5]

The majority of people live near work, or near large industrial metropolitan areas where the work is, so public transportation is both a saving long term, and means less roads and less road work, less polluting vehicles, people could still drive in remote areas and also use an Easy-Pass type system in any area with good public transportation and make the drivers pay for the roads.

Taxes tend to fall on those who can't afford them. And taxing gas guzzlers hasn't worked and won't work. Those who can afford the large SUV can afford the tax and many large vehicles are used for work or work related activities so that is a lose situation. You would have to raise the tax so much it would have a negative effect.

Under 15 miles ride a bike every day, over 15 do twice a week.

 

[Shogun]

Americans don't want public transportation and they sure as hell aren't going to start riding mountain bike en mass.

 

[midcan5]

Americans don't want public transportation and they sure as hell aren't going to start riding mountain bike en mass.

Huh! Have you ever visited Washington DC? NY? Philadelphia? Public transportation is the one solution that works. Visit Paris sometime.

 

[Shogun]

Paris is not an American city. and would you care to guess if more people in the cities you mentioned have personal vehicles or ride in public transit? Whats more, do you REALLY think that a major metro area like NYC is at all reflective of the 99/8% of the rest of America? sure, having ac ar might be a liability in the big apple... But St. Louis has it's metrolink and, so far, I don't see anyone having a eureka moment.


and, again, mountain bikes are not a viable solution either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Huh! Have you ever visited Washington DC? NY? Philadelphia? Public transportation is the one solution that works.

These are relatively small urban areas.
The large majority of the country is not a small urban area.

Visit Paris sometime.

I've been there. London, too.
Neither Paris nor London are in any way representative of the US as a whole.
Visit NW Ohio or upstate NY or eastern PA or southern IL or any part of WI sometime.

Explain to me how Public Transportation, as you envision it, is going to service the people that live there better than their own personal transportation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The majority of people live near work, or near large industrial metropolitan areas where the work is,

The majority of the people in the US do live in urban/suburdan areas.
However, there is also a huge number of people living across a huge area that do not -- and these people, out of necessity, do most of the driving.

And, as I said:
Any such public transportation system would cost a incalcuably huge sum of money. I understand that you naturally see government spending as the solution to most any problem, but its not necessary here.

Taxes tend to fall on those who can't afford them.

Explain to me how that applies here.

And taxing gas guzzlers hasn't worked and won't work. Those who can afford the large SUV can afford the tax and many large vehicles are used for work or work related activities so that is a lose situation.

No its not. It allows the creation of the incentive for people to buy the smaller, more efficient cars, and a reason for people to not buy the larger cars.
Thats a -win- situation, if the idea is to reduce our fuel consumption.

You would have to raise the tax so much it would have a negative effect.

A negative effect on whom?

Under 15 miles ride a bike every day, over 15 do twice a week.

I drive 90 miles each of 4 days, and 135 each of two.
Riding bikes isnt a viable solution for the people of the US.

 

[Shogun]

besides.. Americans value their individualistic natures and I don't fault em for that. I envision another 1950s route 66 culture based on electric cars that may not get to 70 mph as quick as a gas guzzler but WILL get you to your destination with a fraction of the fuel cost.