From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:03:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvrGpy.30x
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <1992Oct6.214619.2543@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>In article <Bvpus3.I0o@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.163816.12733@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>>>
>>>I do not think you understood which people I meant by 'impacted the most
>>>regressively'. I was not talking about the $40K/year engineer who drives
>>>100 miles a day; I was talking about the $10K/year technically working
>>>poor driving a beater that has to choose between Mr. Perot's tax or
>>>clothes for their backs.
>>
>>Say, perhaps you can help your case by citing what happens to the
>>"working poor" of Europe. After all, they pay $5/gallon for gas in many
>>countries, the vast majority of which is tax.
>
>Sure. Let us not forget that I've lived in one such country for 22 years,
>never had a car there despite being relatively well off, etc. I've also
>visited other countries in Europe and have had contacts with many many
>people who live there, discussing these subjects.
>
>For starters, the 'working poor' of Europe use buses or mass transit which,
>while not cheap, is not as overpriced as mass transit in the US (due to
>mass subsidies and heavy utilisation).

I think you have found the answer to this whole problem.

Raise the gas tax, and channel the money not to defecit reduction but to
building of the infrastructure. That includes roads and public
transportation. As the tax is gradually phased in over a period of
years, ridership on public transit will gradually increase, and the gas
tax itself will subsidize mass transit, allowing for more busses and
trains. The mass transit system will grow as the ridership grows. More
routes will be established, more MT vehicles will be added along those
and other routes, enough to accomodate everybody who needs it. Meanwhile,
the rich who can afford the gas tax commute in their cars as they always have.

Where's the problem with this?

>Second, nobody drives the phenomenal distances we drive here. I commute
>30 miles a day, one way, and am not the only one...

As has alredy been pointed out, the only people who have to commute
these phenominal distances are those rich enough to afford to live in
nice suburbs. The working poor can't afford to live in a nice house like
yours; they have to live in a somewhat less desirable area, which also
happens to be much closer to where they work. No 30 mile commutes for
them. In fact, they probably live right on the bus route.

>Also people drive MUCH more fuel efficient cars there in general. Over
>there a Honda Civic is a medium sized car. With cars over, say, 1600 cc
>(1.6l) being penalized to death in taxes, there's little incentive.

The same would quickly become true here. What's wrong with that? If that
were to come to pass, what makes you think it would adversely affect the
working poor? Please don't forget to include mass transit in your
answer. ;-)

>>Then again, reporting what happens to those people might just weaken
>>your case, too...
>
>Yea, right...

Yeah, right! NOTHING you have said about the working poor in Europe has
made their situation seem worse than the situation for the WP here. In
fact, you've admitted that the WP over there have it BETTER in many
ways, despite the higher gas taxes. If anything, you've argued very
eloquently IN FAVOR of a hike in the gas tax.

>(Formerly working poor in Europe)

...And now working middle class in the US who really doesn't know how the
working poor in the US actually live.