Yeah, but that's because the U.S. doesn't use a Value Added Tax.

Yeah, but that's because the U.S. doesn't use a Value Added Tax.

Vat barely makes a dent. VAT is a tiny, pitiful amount compared to the fuel duty.

We're heading to $5.00 gas, this is just going to get us there faster.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Pricing carbon into the model, reducing demand via market pricing, reducing fossil fuel demand in general. All of these are good things.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Pricing carbon into the model, reducing demand via market pricing, reducing fossil fuel demand in general. All of these are good things.

Except the politicians who just raised the tax aren't looking it in this manner, they just see, "Oh, revenues down because of the increased cost of gas, raise the tax rate."

There is no thinking beyond this, getting the 'right' answer doesn't mean #### with terrible cognitive skills being displayed here.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Pricing carbon into the model, reducing demand via market pricing, reducing fossil fuel demand in general. All of these are good things.

Except the politicians who just raised the tax aren't looking it in this manner, they just see, "Oh, revenues down because of the increased cost of gas, raise the tax rate."

There is no thinking beyond this, getting the 'right' answer doesn't mean #### with terrible cognitive skills being displayed here.

Except the politicians who just raised the tax aren't looking it in this manner, they just see, "Oh, revenues down because of the increased cost of gas, raise the tax rate."

Please support with evidence.

Please support with evidence.

Californians could end up paying the highest gasoline taxes in the nation when a 3.5-cents-per-gallon increase kicks in this summer.

The state Board of Equalization voted Thursday to increase the excise tax from 36 cents to 39.5 cents per gallon on non-diesel fuel beginning with the new fiscal year July 1, partly to offset tax losses because Californians are using less gas.

The change is expected to provide more than $500 million in revenue for the fiscal year, based on consumption figures. The diesel fuel tax will remain unchanged at 10 cents per gallon.

The excise tax is the largest of the state taxes on gasoline. It was increased in 2010 under a change in gasoline tax laws to help close a nearly $20 billion state budget deficit.

Um, that's not evidence that "the politicians who just raised the tax aren't looking it in this manner, they just see, 'Oh, revenues down because of the increased cost of gas, raise the tax rate.'"

By reducing the sales tax on gas from 8.25 percent to 2.25 percent and roughly doubling the excise tax, the state was able to provide more money to balance its budget without raising the overall gas tax rate.

Each year, the equalization board must reset the excise tax by March 1 to ensure that the state will receive the same amount of gas tax revenue as it would have received under the old system.

"The Legislature mandated that we equalize the sales and excise taxes to avoid a net increase in taxes," equalization board Chairman Jerome E. Horton said in a board statement on Friday. "We could protest the legislation and not make the rate adjustment, however we would be violating law and arguably exposing taxpayers to even higher taxes in the future."

Remaining unconvinced how this:

"The Legislature mandated that we equalize the sales and excise taxes to avoid a net increase in taxes," equalization board Chairman Jerome E. Horton said in a board statement on Friday. "We could protest the legislation and not make the rate adjustment, however we would be violating law and arguably exposing taxpayers to even higher taxes in the future."

equates:

"the politicians who just raised the tax aren't looking it in this manner, they just see, 'Oh, revenues down because of the increased cost of gas, raise the tax rate.'"

It's easy for people who can afford to live walking distance from their jobs to say that gas should cost more.

Most people in the United States have to drive a lot. They do not have a choice in the matter.

Steve, I think we just have to disagree then.

Fair enough.

Neutrality to what? Adjustment to what? California have driven less miles and is consuming less gas than they have in half a decade, so the natural response is to raise the gas tax?

Just to be clear, I was making a joke of what the board's response was to people calling this a tax increase. Calling this anything but a tax increase is evidence of insanity.

Any consensus on how much the information explosion particularly through the internet has helped limit the GOP and the right, nationally?

Facts have not been their friend, and the 'net does help spread the truth (along with a whole lot of horseshite).

Any consensus on how much the information explosion particularly through the internet has helped limit the GOP and the right, nationally?

Facts have not been their friend, and the 'net does help spread the truth (along with a whole lot of horseshite).

I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but I don't think it has mattered much. People can still live in their private echo chamber on the web, if they want to. Arguably easier than before. The GOP's problem, is that their core message is just incredibly unpopular outside of their base, especially regarding social issues. On top of that, the last time they were in power, they led the country into an unnecessary clusterfuck of a war, and drove the economy into a ditch. And with no major Dem screw-ups, I don't see how they fare any better under an old media model.

You can make an interesting case for the internet being responsible for the shift in social values. But as a truth tool, I am just not really seeing the importance.

#66: Agreed, but it would seem that the demographics of social media/internet usage work against the GOP/right going forward. Their base is on the wrong side of the aging curve, and as the internet/social media assumes an ever-greater role in general communication, it would follow that the GOP/right message amplification becomes increasingly marginalized.

Or maybe not. One of the lessons of the internet/new media era so far is that it's complicated. But it is the case that the Democratic party owns Silicon Valley. Just owns it. And allowing virtually an entire generation of techies to play for the other team simply cannot be good for political party.

People can still live in their private echo chamber on the web, if they want to

Absolutely, but teh kidz hang out at Fark and Reddit and the like which seem to be pretty solidly liberal places, for the most part. While this certainly doesn't preclude young people from becoming or staying conservative, they certainly get exposed to liberal thought a lot more than conservative. What kid wants to hang out at Free Republic?

Eh, I think its more that younger conservatives viewpoints hedge more fiscal libertarians than social conservatives.

It's easy for people who can afford to live walking distance from their jobs to say that gas should cost more.

Most people in the United States have to drive a lot. They do not have a choice in the matter.

Poor people are the ones who will pay the biggest costs for climate change. If we really wanted to help them, we'd raise gas taxes a LOT and use the money to develop subsidized public transportation. That would relive the poor of the not-insignificant burden of owning two cars (and maybe even one).

If we really wanted to help them, we'd raise gas taxes a LOT and use the money to develop subsidized public transportation.

Now that's just commie talk.

Poor people are the ones who will pay the biggest costs for climate change. If we really wanted to help them, we'd raise gas taxes a LOT and use the money to develop subsidized public transportation. That would relive the poor of the not-insignificant burden of owning two cars (and maybe even one).

Who wants to help poor people? After all, they are poor because they choose to be poor. Why should we consider anything to the benefit of people who choose to be lazy. You need to follow the capitalist way, and only consider options that will help improve those who are well off, after all if they get extra benefits, their happiness, profits and comfort will trickle down to the rest.

The satire is appreciated, but public transit is not being built to a nearly sufficient extent, and more importantly to the issue at hand, isn't going to be, no matter how expensive gasoline is. It's been built in the places where there's support for it, and there isn't support for it anywhere else. And even in places that have comparatively extensive systems, there are gaps that make huge numbers of people have to drive. Look at the D.C. area. If you want to go from, say, Beltsville to Wheaton, which are you going to do? Ride around for well over an hour in a U-shape through the city and back up the other side--and do the same thing on the way back--or make a 40-minute drive there and back? The cost difference would have to be enormous for most people to decide to do the former. And if you've got more than one person going, the cost difference is already prohibitive. Not everyone is single, and the metro is not cheap. It cost me over $8 yesterday to go from New Carrolton to Capitol South and back. The reason I did it instead of driving was that there's no way to park down there, not because of the cost. That's a separate issue. I was with my girlfriend, so it cost her $8, too. We'd have been crazy not to drive if we could have parked at our destination. And at suburban destinations, you can, so with more than one person on the trip, it's always cheaper to drive. If gas prices increased to equal or exceed public transit prices, poor families wouldn't be able to travel together at all. They wouldn't start taking the metro instead of driving.

I live in the largest city in the US with no public transit at all (Arlington TX) and the population keeps rising with no public transit planned for any time in the future. Part of this is just intransigence and anti-communitarian sentiment, but partly it's because the city, never having had public transit, has grown in ways that make it difficult to install any. The typical home here is on a half-acre surrounded by a quarter-section of similar homes – or alternatively, in a vast apartment complex surrounded by parking lots. I live in the center of the city and could walk a mjile to the nearest supermarket; much of the walk would be across the parking lot of that supermarket, which is pretty much the only thing at that intersection, aside from a restaurant-supply superstore and a megachurch. A mile from there is another intersection with a couple of other megathings, and a mile from there … you get the picture. Bus lines (let alone rail) make sense only when there are concentrations of things that people want to get to. Without a revitalized city center (which has been happening very slowly for decades, and hasn't achieved much density of anything to speak of), there's nowhere for transit lines to serve effectively. This is a big problem in lots of ways; cities like this are designed to be unlivable without cars.

And speaking of cars, I recently had an experience that would almost have turned me libertarian. Someone who shall be nameless borrowed my car and rolled through a right-turn-on-red, getting an automated red-light-camera ticket. $75 fine. At first I freaked out, assuming that it would also be points on my license, higher insurance rates, trouble renewing my license … but come to find that the camera-issued tickets are civil proceedings, not criminal moving violations. IOW, it doesn't matter who drove; it's exceedingly hard to fight (you'd have to invite the city to take you to court, and they'd only have to show preponderance of evidence), and since it's "only" money, there's no point in doing that; you'd pay more to fight it than to pay it.

Almost have turned me libertarian, except that the ticket isn't really written by the city. It's issued by a private company in Tempe AZ, with a fulfillment center in Cincinnati, Ohio that handles the checks people write. IOW some bright young entrepreneur gets the idea to start a company that will issue traffic tickets that are basically like printing money, and flies the city fathers to Key Biscayne or somewhere for a weekend of PowerPoints and piña coladas where they learn that every other city is getting them, and they buy in. Red-light cameras are now illegal in Texas, but existing contracts with these companies will be honored till they expire – in our case, 30 years from now. If there was ever an example of something that looks like getting screwed by Big Government but is actually the result of the free market bending people over the hoods of their vehicles, this is it.

About those tickets, the simple fact of the matter is that your car did violate the "law" and there is nothing wrong with making you pay for it, your friend should reimburse you of course, but from the point of view of the city, that doesn't matter.

I was very adamantly against these type of tactics until I learned that it wasn't points on your license, after that I just oppose them out of principle, but can't really argue against them. Personally I think the bigger crime is how easy it is to remove points off of your license by just paying a bigger fine and having it changed to a non-moving violation. If there is anything that needs to be fixed, it's that. I know way too many people who drive recklessly and just don't give a ####, because it's only money and it's worth the 100 times of driving dangerous, for that one time they get caught.

But it's reasonable to take a position that (a) acknowledges the economic fact that the sequester itself is a highly inefficacious tool with which to address the deficit (as, for instance, Ben Bernanke says), (b) understands the difference between long-term and short-term issues, effects, and priorities, and (c) asserts that the best program of deficit reduction incorporates tax increases as well as spending cuts. Can't one take such a position and still be a deficit hawk?

I agree. Isn't it also somewhat reasonable for conservatives to take a similar position that the sequester is an inefficacious tool to address the deficit?

Eh, I swing the other way. (pun not intended.) I got a ticket for a moving violation that I couldn't take traffic school for. (Crossing guard was on the other side of a long street, and I forgot to check if she hit the sidewalk yet.) And its $300 ticket, a point on your license and you can't take traffic school for it.

What is the point of traffic school if you're prohibited from taking it for some traffic offenses? Shouldn't the state encourage its citizens to take it if they actually believe traffic school helps its citizens become better and more cautious drivers? (And yes, I understand the reality of traffic school is that most people use it to just rid of the points, and don't bother paying attention to the actual information.) Maybe its just the cynic in me that questions why the law is written in such a way.

public transit is not being built to a nearly sufficient extent, and more importantly to the issue at hand, isn't going to be, no matter how expensive gasoline is.

This is an unlikely argument. First of all, the price of gasoline is going to go up; that's not in doubt. As it goes up, alternatives will have to be found. If cities like Arlington, TX make life unlivable for people, then people won't live there. Second, encouraging the continued use of fossil fuels is suicidal. Price increases are the simplest way to adapt.

Second, encouraging the continued use of fossil fuels is suicidal

Bullsh1t. North America alone has enough coal and shale oil for 500 years. It can be burned cleanly and safely. Lets get to work.
People need jobs.

Igoring our energy resources is what's suicidal.

Did anyone else read the headline as "Marge Schott wants money for spring training teams" and do quite the double-take?

raises hand

I read it and assumed Luke Scott. Those birther pamphlets don't pay for themselves, after all.

IOW some bright young entrepreneur gets the idea to start a company that will issue traffic tickets that are basically like printing money, and flies the city fathers to Key Biscayne or somewhere for a weekend of PowerPoints and piña coladas where they learn that every other city is getting them, and they buy in. Red-light cameras are now illegal in Texas, but existing contracts with these companies will be honored till they expire – in our case, 30 years from now. If there was ever an example of something that looks like getting screwed by Big Government but is actually the result of the free market bending people over the hoods of their vehicles, this is it.

These companies typically get a percentage of the ticket revenue, so they have every incentive to gin up as many tickets as possible. A number of jurisdictions have shortened the yellow light times to garner more revenue, even though there are more accidents. However, this is hardly a free market situation - just a private company partnering on government over-regulation.

gas taxes are too low, have been for some time, and it's been getting worse (rates are generally per gallon, not as a percentage of the cost of gas, nor is are they indexed to general inflation). low gas taxes have been (aiui) insufficient to cover the costs of externalities and (what they're really used for) maintain infrastructure - the latter will get worse as mpgs rise and increasing gas taxes stays politically unpopular. we've been subsidizing spread out, inefficient cities (and non-city areas) for too long.

gas taxes are too low, have been for some time, and it's been getting worse (rates are generally per gallon, not as a percentage of the cost of gas, nor is are they indexed to general inflation). low gas taxes have been (aiui) insufficient to cover the costs of externalities and (what they're really used for) maintain infrastructure - the latter will get worse as mpgs rise and increasing gas taxes stays politically unpopular. we've been subsidizing spread out, inefficient cities (and non-city areas) for too long.

You know, as a liberal, I'm all for more taxes, but I think that before we consider any gas tax, we should start with a tax on all stock trades, and get the "sugar" tax for Soda's that they have been talking about for years. Luxury taxes are so much better than taxing necessary things, gas taxes can have a trickle affect on everything else. Not sure it's the best way to generate any type of revenue.

These companies typically get a percentage of the ticket revenue, so they have every incentive to gin up as many tickets as possible. A number of jurisdictions have shortened the yellow light times to garner more revenue, even though there are more accidents. However, this is hardly a free market situation - just a private company partnering on government over-regulation.

The bolded part is what bothers me. I know it's happened a few places in St Louis, and it's ridiculous. Yes I'm for getting people to actually treat a yellow light properly, but at the same time, there is no reason to intentionally screw over people.

North America alone has enough coal and shale oil for 500 years. It can be burned cleanly and safely. Lets get to work.
People need jobs.

first off the bolded part is a joke, I hope. And second off, right now we should be encouraging the manufacture of more refinery's, as the increase in gas prices right now, is mostly the fault of lack of refinery's.

I think that before we consider any gas tax, we should start with a tax on all stock trades, and get the "sugar" tax for Soda's that they have been talking about for years.

Raising gas taxes isn't so much a revenue matter as it is trying to price gasoline correctly to account for externalities. I'd have no problem lowering income taxes for the bottom 90% in order to make a gas tax hike revenue neutral.

#66: Agreed, but it would seem that the demographics of social media/internet usage work against the GOP/right going forward.

I'd venture that we started to see the effect of that in this last election. I also think that the GOP, being the party currently doing more of the deceiving, suffers most from the truthtelling capacity of the 'net. While as someone mentioned the net does make it easier to stay in ones bubble, what with their being more affirming voices of ones position, I think it also makes it easier to persuade swing voters of the truth, which over the last few years has benefited Dems more than Republicans.

Still, the number of people who believe crazy shite is dismaying. Wonder what the percentage of computer ownership/internet access is by party?

Not every increase in taxes is a tax increase.

I will prefer to call the next increase in top marginal rates to be called "tax restoration", something that puts us on the road to more historically sensible top rates.

You know, as a liberal, I'm all for more taxes, but I think that before we consider any gas tax, we should start with a tax on all stock trades, and get the "sugar" tax for Soda's that they have been talking about for years. Luxury taxes are so much better than taxing necessary things, gas taxes can have a trickle affect on everything else. Not sure it's the best way to generate any type of revenue.

Makes sense. Tax discretionary stuff, especially stuff that ends up costing the rest of us before you start taxing things that poor people have to buy.

Re 85, so many of the poor don't pay income taxes that reducing their income tax rates won't help them.

The Internet has made it much more difficult to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate sources of facts, which is how you find TPers on Facebook in December 2012, mixing and matching excerpts from the Constitution, 'proving' that the presidential election still could end up in the House of Representatives.

For comparison, you'll still find people on baseball message boards claiming BABIP is all defense, even though it should've been obvious from Voros's first study over ten years ago that that didn't make any sense. Or alternatively somebody will post that you can't trade a guy on the disabled list, and don't get me started on the predictive power of historical platoon splits for RH batters...

Re 85, so many of the poor don't pay income taxes that reducing their income tax rates won't help them.

Then we can increase the EITC. Besides, people who are really poor already ride the bus. Improving bus (and other) service will improve their lives a lot.

The Internet has made it much more difficult to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate sources of facts, which is how you find TPers on Facebook in December 2012, mixing and matching excerpts from the Constitution, 'proving' that the presidential election still could end up in the House of Representatives.

I don't doubt TPers can make up and believe any damned fool thing they want to. Dumb people have always been able to believe anything at all in the face of credible evidence. I'm thinking more of those in the middle, who can be swayed by facts. I'm also not claiming that this is going to usher in some informational golden age. People in general aren't bright enough to make significant and immediate use of facts. Rather, I think we may be seeing a slow push towards enlightenment, along the lines of how the production of the first books nudged us in that direction.

Besides, people who are really poor already ride the bus.

I commend you, then, to the millions of poor who don't live in the few cities with good public transportation and who drive beaters of necessity.

Bullsh1t. North America alone has enough coal and shale oil for 500 years. It can be burned cleanly and safely.

Untrue. While carbon sequestration technology has some promise, it very obviously won't work if the fossil fuels being burned are distributed across hundreds of millions of vehicles. Also, rates of fatalities for coal and oil, including extraction, are far higher than for competing technologies, so I have absolutely no idea where you get the 'safer' part.

Deaths per TWh of electricity produced for different fuel sources. The headlines: Coal: 161. Oil: 36. Gas: 4. Nuclear: 0.04. See this link from 2011.

Admittedly, many of those deaths aren't from North America, but I like to think they still count just the same. Data from World Health Organization and the european study Externe.

Shale gas is the most promising 'conventional' fuel, not only because it's far safer, but because burning natural gas for electricity is cleaner than coal by a large distance in terms of emissions. (Unless, of course, one is still ignoring scientific evidence about this problem, but I doubt there can be many serious people left who do this.) But it's only ever a stop-gap, just a very fortuitous one. And, as mentioned above, distributing the fossil fuel burning across hundreds of millions of combustion engines is the exact worst way to make it clean.

The future, as has been evident for a while now, is almost certainly massive solar investment in unpopulated areas, couple with ultra-high-voltage connections to the populated ones. Doable, too.

85 - I agree in theory, but not in practice. This will grow as a policy issue in the near to mid future.
I am also more than okay with tweaking tax policy in other areas to lessen the impact of this hike on the poor.

You know, as a liberal, I'm all for more taxes, but I think that before we consider any gas tax, we should start with a tax on all stock trades, and get the "sugar" tax for Soda's


first off the bolded part is a joke, I hope. And second off, right now we should be encouraging the manufacture of more refinery's, as the increase in gas prices right now, is mostly the fault of lack of refinery's.

Can we at least agree to eliminate the growing trend today to use apostrophes in plurals? I've long ago given up the fight against the misuse of words like disinterested and orientate, but surely we can't allow this latest trend to become the norm.

Can we at least agree to eliminate the growing trend today to use apostrophes in plurals? I've long ago given up the fight against the misuse of words like disinterested and orientate, but surely we can't allow this latest trend to become the norm.

What's the standard for possessive when the word ends with an S? Charles' or Charles's?

I've always done the former, but I've now been told to scour my thesis for them to throw on the double S. And don't even get me started on these zany things the British call "inverted commas". Whatever happened to trusty old quotation marks?

I commend you, then, to the millions of poor who don't live in the few cities with good public transportation and who drive beaters of necessity.

Ignoring the lame snark, I doubt you'd find many people more supportive than I am of soaking the rich with taxes and using them to improve life for everyone else. Your snark confuses to separate and distinct issues: (1) what we should tax; and (2) the overall distribution of taxes. I support various forms of carbon taxes because those are essential to limit climate change. I also support ways to ameliorate the impact of those taxes on the poor and middle class.

I support various forms of carbon taxes because those are essential to limit climate change.

yeah, but it's worth noting that the error bars on those estimates are HUGE.

@94: your strangely located hostility and the assumption of snark baffles me.

But, increasing the gas tax with no realistic way of quickly (and "immediately" would be far better than "quickly" for people who live literally from paycheck to paycheck) mitigating its painful effects on the poor, who do indeed drive, still makes no sense to me.

jack, this is a rare case of a tax policy change which is supported by wonks on both sides of the aisle. even here, i've heard support from both kinds of libs in past discussions.
there are many, many ways of offering relief to the poor - why use such an inefficient one?

But, increasing the gas tax with no realistic way of quickly (and "immediately" would be far better than "quickly" for people who live literally from paycheck to paycheck) mitigating its painful effects on the poor, who do indeed drive, still makes no sense to me.

I've already said that I favor methods which would be revenue neutral for the poor. They'd be no worse off, by definition.

Can we at least agree to eliminate the growing trend today to use apostrophes in plurals? I've long ago given up the fight against the misuse of words like disinterested and orientate, but surely we can't allow this latest trend to become the norm.

It's simply code for "I'm quasi-illiterate; pay no attention to what I'm typing," so in that sense its use should be encouraged; it comes in pretty handy in cutting through the chaff.

What's the standard for possessive when the word ends with an S? Charles' or Charles's?

Depends of the style you're following. AP (which I've used professionally for going on three decades now) says no "s." I'm sure MLA & Chicago (neither of which I've had reason to follow since the '80s) dictate otherwise. AP, of course, is predicated on saving space wherever possible. Whether that'll change as more & more coverage shifts from print to online, I have no idea.

What's the standard for possessive when the word ends with an S? Charles' or Charles's?

I've always done the former...

Sorry, it's the latter. Singular plural, you add apostrophe S. I don't think there are any exceptions. I've heard people throw around the "Jesus exception" which is specifically in the case of Jesus where you do "Jesus'". I have no idea why that would be a special case.