From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:09:00 GMT

In article <v1jnbgr.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes...
>Thus spake mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd): 

>>	CAFE has never really been very effective, and at times has
>>	been counterproductive. Several times in the early 1980's,
>>	the Deteroit automakers were faced with building a fleet that
>>	exceeded CAFE standards. What did they do? They built tens of
>>	thousands of extra economy cars to get the fleet average gas
>>	milage under the CAFE limit. Of course, these extra cars didn't
>>	sell, but it was cheaper to lose the money in the excess production
>>	than to pay the gas guzzler tax. This excess production is,
>>	of course, wasteful both economically and environmentally.

>	Sounds simple enough to solve. Modify the law to apply to units SOLD
>rather than units MANUFACTURED. Or follow Clinton's suggestion of setting
>two standards, one for large vehicles (which could carry a luxery tax which
>would contribute to the environmental clean up effort), and one for small
>vehicles. It would allow Detroit to remain competitive with the imports, and
>would still contribute to improving the environment.


	Too easily screwed up my market variables. If the buyers prefer
	big cars to small ones, a CAFE tax isn't going to matter much.
	The problem lies with consumers, rather than the corporations,
	who are only trying to supply a demand. If you want a fleet
	of more fuel efficient cars, you need to create a demand for
	them. By far the simplest and most workable way to do this
	would be to raise fuel taxes.		


>>	Further, CAFE policy does little to confront the real problem
>>	with cars --that they are used at all. The best policy would
>>	be to encourage the average Joe to use public transportation
>>	or walk or ride a bike to wherever he wants to go. It's
>>	environmentally wasteful to drive a car three miles, when
>>	a trip on a bike will do quite nicely.

>	True. Try legislating THAT.

	Legislating "victimless" behavior, like legislating morality,
	is generally a bad idea. However, wise use of tax policy can be
	prudent. It's simple competition economics: if you make using the 
	car more expensive, other alternatives (walking, mass
	transit, bicycles) become more attractive by comparison,
	and more people will use alternatives to cars, as well
	as such fuel efficiency measures as carpooling.


>	Instead, how about putting research money into alternative energy
>	sources and into mass transit rather than into weapons?

	Actually, it might be a better idea to sell the military 
	on their need for alternative energy sources. Jesse
	Helms and his band of repugnant toadies would probably
	stop complaining about how much money we spend on "the
	hare-brained schemes of granola-eating airheads," about
	face, and start demanding more money for alternative
	energy, because "it's vital to America's defense!" ;->

	Come to think of it, it just might work...	


>>	The best way to reduce CO2, NOx, and other auto emissions
>>	is to use tax policy to increase the price of gasoline.
>>	As gasoline prices increase, so will the demand for high
>>	fuel economy. As gas prices increase, people will drive
>>	their cars less. Also, as prices increase, people will be
>>	more willing to use alternate means of transportation,
>>	like bicycles, trains, walking, etc. 

>	No, the POOR will be forced to do so, but the rest of the people
>will simply continue to drive instead. Regressive taxes are seldom the
>answer to any question other than "Now how can we screw the poor?"

	The poor are *already* forced to do so. At least they have
	the advantage of tending to live in older areas of the
	cities, areas that were planned before the proliferation of
	two-car families, areas that are relatively walkable and
	bikable. De-Bimmer'd suburban Yuppies are going to have
	a less pleasant time.

	Now, if raising gas taxes is not going to effect auto
	usage among the middle class and wealthy, is the Clinton/Gore
	plan going to do anything? No. 



	I doubt that gas taxes are as regressive as you seem to think,
	given workable alternatives to using automobiles. Sales/Excise/Value
	added taxes are regressive only if the commodity being taxed 
	is an irreplacable necessity.

	Say you have a family making $10,000 and one making $100,000.
	Now, if it takes a minimum of $2000 to feed each family, and
	there is a 10% sales tax on food, each family will be forced
	to spend at least $200 on food taxes. For the wealthy family,
	this amounts to .2% of family income, but for the poor family,
	the tax is a burdensome 2% of income. Quite unfair, is it not?

	Now, take the same two families. Both families' automobiles 
	need a minimum of $2000 of to run their cars hither and yon,
	and the sales tax on gasoline is also 10%. Again the poor 
	family pays a higher amount of income on taxes that the rich
	family. However, what if the poor family relies on alternative
	transport for its needs? Then the poor family will buy
 	no gasoline, and pay no taxes on it. With the alternative,
	the inequity of the gas tax fades away.

	You can also look at it another way. Suppose you are at a party
	with Ross Perot. Both of you get really, really shit faced-drunk
	and spew chunder in opposite corners of the living room. The
	next morning, your host, understandably upset that his carpet
	is ruined, asks for you and Ross to buy him a new carpet. Now,
	is it right for you to expect Perot to pay for the whole
	carpet, just because he's richer than you? 

	I guess it would depend on priorities. Which is more important,
	trying to guarantee that each and every person in the country
	the right to run a car cheaply, or prevent global warming.
	I prefer the latter.


>	In addition to the regressive nature of the taxes, increases in
>gasoline prices will simply result in more increases in other areas to
>compensate, thus the major contribution will be to inflation - something
>Bush has been quite good at contributing to without any MORE help!

	For most products other than cars, the inflationary pressures
	created by increasing gas taxes will be far smaller than
	you seem to think. Transportation is but a  small percentage of
	the total cost of goods, and fuel bills are not the entire
	cost of transportation, either. Also, the inflation caused 
	by a tax increase is a one time thing, and will be quickly
	forgotten as the economy moves on.


>	Do you attack Harel's posts out of general principles, or do you
>actually think your responses are well thought out? 

	I attacked the post because the each piece of the argument
	is either juvenile or senile. As for being "Harel's" post,
	I don't know if I would really call it his --the stuff he posts
	seems to originate from folks other than him, hence the "autoposter
	Harel" monniker.

	As for whether or not I think my reponses out before I post, I am not
	the person thowing out the usual knee jerking responses 
	"regressive tax!" or "inflation! inflation!" (oddly enough, the
	sort of things one often hears from republican candidates).


>	If it's the former, please stop making a fool of yourself, some of
>us admit publicly that we participate on Usenet, and it degrades other's
>opinions of us when they read such tripe.
>	If it's the latter, otoh, PLEASE take the time to learn a bit about
>a subject before you sprout off about it in public.

	The only fool here is from netcom.com. If I know nothing about CAFE
	and related issues, then how come I know about the CAFE-caused
	overproduction, etc? At least I know why sales taxes are generally
	considered to be regressive, and the exceptions to the rule. 


>	Incidently, if you tried responding to Harel's posts with reasoned
>argumentation rather than with insults and derogatory statements, you MIGHT
>find many of us (myself included) willing to intelligently debate an issue
>rather than flame you.

	Flame me, sir? I only see budget quality rhetoric punctuated by
	a salvo of jerking knees. I see some snotty putz playing leftcop
	on usenet. I see no flameage here, sir.


                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth,talk.politics.misc