From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:20:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson): 

>Where to begin?  Well, first lets look at one positive aspect of a
>gasoline tax - namely the more you consume (or polute) the more you pay.
>This seems to me to be an exceptionally fair.  In fact, I can't think of
>a more fair way to dissuade gasoline consumption (and this, after all,
>is the purpose of the CAFE standards).  
>
	It seems fair until the consequences are examined:

	1. Taxes will NOT materially reduce gas usage, that was demonstrated
when the oil crises of the late seventies threatened to push gas prices
through the roof. People STILL drove nearly as much. Thus the quantity of
pollution will remain roughly the same, while restrictions placed on auto
manufacturers as to the mph requirements on their vehicles WILL reduce
pollution.

	2. Taxes will do nothing to help the environment. Even if they are
"earmarked" for environmental issues, it will just mean that congress will
feel free to use the money that would otherwise have been used there for
another purpose.

	3. It is impossible to substantially raise gas taxes w/o also
increasing inflation. The money spent on those taxes must come from
somewhere!

>Now, is the tax regressive?  Well I believe that the wealthier one is
>the more gasoline one tends to consume so a gas tax will only be
>marginally regressive.  Still, it will be regressive.  The more
>important question is does this matter?  It depends on how you view
>private auto travel.  If you view it as a luxury then the fact that a
>gas tax is regressive is irrelevant.  If, however, you view private auto
>travel as a necessity then - well then we're screwed.  The reason I say
>this is two fold.  First, autos are probably the single largest source
>of polution in this country (remember, those refineries are poluting to
>make gasoline for your car).  Second, private auto travel is obviously
>not a necessity.  Anyone arguing that it is a necessity hasn't seriously
>looked at the alternatives.  Such a claim seems extreemly self serving
>to me and suggests a viewpoint that reducing energy consumption (and
>polution) is a nice goal just so long as I don't have my lifesytle
>adversely affected. 
>
	Several points:

	1. While the rich may consume more gas than the poor, it is not a
substantially higher amount - certainly not enough to justify terming the
tax other than regressive. Bear in mind that a gasoline tas will ALSO
increase the cost of public transit since the transit vehicles will cost
more to operate, a cost passed on almost exclusively to the poor. In
addition, while the rich can travel via air on trips, the poor often have
little choice economically than to drive.

	2. Private auto travel will become a luxury when the alternatives
become both accessible financially and widely available. Right now, in some
areas, mass transit IS accessible - in most areas it is either unavailable
or represents unreasonable danger to the passenger (i.e., many subway
systems). Under current conditions, therefore, private auto travel IS a
necessity.  You argue that it is not. I live 30 miles from the nearest city,
and NO public transit system exists to get there. My choices are to drive
(my car, btw, gets very high gas milage) or to move. Not only can I not
afford to move, were others in my area to follow the same guidelines, the
economy of the area would be destroyed. In the suburbs those who work in
cities face similar problems - and moving to the city is not only not an
option for many, it would represent a crises for the poor if they did, since
such a migration would displace millions of poor who could not compete with
the middle class with respect to rental rates. Thus auto travel IS a
necessity, and will remain so until substantial investments have been made
into expanding and improving mass transit. Again, increases in average MPG
levels will contribute more to a reduction in pollution than will taxation.

	3. Does it matter if the tax is regressive? That depends on whether
you find the recession to be beneficial. It also depends on whether the
needs of the poor are relevent. I believe that regressive taxes are
government's way of saying "screw you" to the poor!

>But even assuming that the gas tax is bad for whatever reason (if you're
>progressive because it is regressive, if you're conservative because it
>increases taxes) there is no law that says the extra revenue generated
>can't be compensated for in some other way.  I personally prefer that
>the standard deduction be raised but substitute the compensation of your
>own choice here.  The point is that any regressive nature of a gas tax
>can be counteracted by other changes in the tax code.
>
	What compensation do you suggest for the poor who are below poverty
level? Tax breaks may help the middle class and WILL help the rich, but they
do nothing for the poor. Thus the tax becomes even MORE regressive,
particularly when the increased cost of goods is taken into account.

	Why such strong opposition to forcing the auto manufacturers to
build more fuel efficient automobiles? If they can't do so while building
large cars (and if the tiered standard isn't acceptable), then perhaps it's
time to stop building large cars! Why make everyone suffer (and increase
pollution) to protect the auto industry from competition? THAT seems a lot
more unreasonable to me than the limitations would be! Increase the milage
requirements, spend money on mass transit, and put some money into alternate
energy research and you'll affect a LOT more improvements than any
regressive tax could acheive.

>In regards to inflationary pressures that might arise from a gasoline
>tax remember that only transportation costs might be adversely
>affected.  I say might because I think labor costs dominate the cost of
>transportation, not energy costs.  Further, transportation costs seldom
>make up a very large percentage of the cost of a product.  So
>inflationary pressures due to a gas tax will be minimal.
>
	Are you kidding? Look at the increases that followed the gas
shortage in the 70s!  Provide the firms an excuse to raise prices ("We have
no option, the fuel taxes make it imperitive that . . .") and you guarantee
their increase.


-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15859 talk.politics.misc:43397