Comments on What He Said

Oh, sure, let's throw more money down that hole. Maybe the state will hold a referendum to fund the convening of a blue ribbon commission to study the possibility of drawing up a meeting plan by, say, 3410 or so.

I wish I could be more onboard with him, but I'm sick of all this corporate welfare "alternative energy technologies" crap. Why should taxpayers have to give millions of dollars to the same corporations who put us in this mess instead of just forcing Detroit to make some substantial improvements in the fuel efficiency of their cars?

Secondly, why is it that when environmental issues come up, all of a sudden everyone and their brother who claims to be a liberal urban Seattlite jumps on board with a horribly regressive tax? High gas taxes disproportionately impact lower wage earners. And I know, I know--poor people are supposed to work in closer proximity to their home, mitigating the impact. That's true to a degree, but that doesn't mean they don't have to drive and this unfairly impacts them. Why is that people never scream for ending a double-standard favoring the so-called "light truck" class that allows SUV drivers to escape the same fuel-efficiency standards as other drivers, and in some cases avoid offsetting taxes for driving less fuel-efficient automobiles?

All that I'm onboard with here is public transportation--damn straight we need trains. But alternative energy research is nothing but corporate welfare, biodiesel is a pipe dream that's sold to Americans on the promise they can have their cake and eat it too, and if as a smoker I have to pay a premium tax on the luxury good of smoking a cigarette, then damn it, SUV drivers can pay out the ass, too. Stop shifting the blame and the burden to the poor.

I could get behind an extra global warming gas tax if it could only be used to build HOV and transit lanes, and to purchase transit.

Otherwise, I'd rather have higher MPG on all cars, trucks, SUVs, and tractors. The reality is that Americans are sheep.

Baa!

How is it a "hole" Peter? At some point in the not-too-distant future, retail gas prices are going to escalate to a level that pretty much forces many people to seek alternative forms of transportation. It certainly makes more sense in my mind to have the infrastructure in place for that contingency, rather than to wait for things to get worse (which they will inevitably) BEFORE taking corrective steps.

Pay now or pay later, that's the scenario, but paying for mass transit NOW is going to be a lot cheaper in the long run than waiting several years.

Go ahead and tax gas in Seattle, but tax gas in a state like Ohio or Indiana where there's shit-none mass transit (and no need for it thanks to highway systems that actually work), and you'll just piss people off and needlessly put a crush on the lower class.

There are ways of making gasoline taxes less regressive.

A portion of the taxes can be returned as a rebate that is the same for everyone, regardless of whether or how much they drive. Then anyone who drives less pays less in tax but still gets the rebate.

Another option is to raise gas prices but lower another regressive tax. Currently, the state sales tax is high and even with food exemptions hits lower-income people harder. So a revenue neutral trade-off between gas and sales taxes would be no less regressive but would put the cost where it belongs.

There's also the carrot of using this revenue to improve transit so that everyone, particularly the poor, has better options and fewer people feel forced to drive just to make ends meet.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that poor people would benefit the most from mass transit, especially since many of them can't even afford a car, let alone skyrocketing gas prices.

How about car tax rebates for high-MPG models? Not just on sales, because you're not trying to get everyone to buy a new car.

It was HILARIOUS reading the comments of some of the boobs in the P-I about their adorable little one-day boycott. As if it makes any difference; they're not going to DRIVE less, or pump less gas; they're just going to wait a day to do it. Net change in the amount of gas pumped: Zero. Net effect on the oil companies: Zero. Collective IQ of the boycott planners: Low.

One of the boobs was explaining how this boycott was really going to stick it to the man while she was filling up her SUV. $60 every two days. I wish it was possible to get it through her thick skull that she could easily cut the price of gas in HALF! Instantly! All by herself! Just by driving a smaller car!

Next week, maybe they can protest the outrageous price of strawberry wine. or shoelaces.

Seriously, action on alternatives will never come as long as most people in this country are as dumb as these people.

Given the networks are focusing on and going out of their way to air complaints from motorists on the high gas prices, I'ms sure imposing this would be, to say the least, a politically disastrous move... whether or not it's a good idea on paper.

Granted, probably the main reasons I drive is that mass transit is inadequate. If I lived back in Boston, where I was a block from a subway station into town, I'd hardly ever drive, at least not into town. Which I didn't. (I know, you Seattlites hate hearing us implants talk about good mass transit.) But, I also lived a block from a supermarket, which I don't now that I live in Seattle's lofted burbs. And no matter how you slice it, lugging groceries back on a bus is not feasible.

A big piece of the driving problem is that commuting ain't the only reason people drive, yet this area's current mass transit thinking is solely commuter oriented.

Gee. If gas prices rise, and we add taxes to pour into mass transit, won't that money just go to offset the increased cost of gas for the buses? Net improvement to transit: nil, or worse, as it becomes overcrowded.

Also, Fnarf et al, if you want to make your blood boil at this region's ignorance, just listen to KOMO radio every morning and wait for them to do a story on the high gas prices. I bet you'll want to wring the whole world's neck at once.

As a car messenger, the gas tax would hurt me a lot. I like Cascasian's idea to remove the sales tax from clothing and put it on gas, that would be nice.

I'm not even opposed to higher gas taxes per se, but we already pay a lot more than most other parts of the country, so aren't we in WA already doing our share?

And subsidising alternative energy sources needs to include way more than biofuel, since that isn't all that great except financially to the big midwestern corn farmers, but it is a good idea, especially if we take away the tax benefits big coal gets. Just give those incentives to new greener technology.

@4:

It's a "hole" because people around these parts have been talking up rapid transit since I got here in 1991 and I can't help but notice that there's no rapid transit system solution. Money keeps getting thrown at this problem and less than nothing ever actually happens. If anything, the area may have made negative progress on the issue. I've come to the conclusion that Olympia, Seattle and King County are incapable of actually doing anything about this problem, ever ever ever. Ever.

The last thing we need to do is enable their inaction with another slush fund to build stadia with.

K@11, the fuel costs for buses are less per rider than for cars, so a gas tax for funding transit would actually generate money for buses and not be a simple account transfer. (It's also possible to waive gas taxes for buses, though I think that's a bad idea.) It would make more sense to focus on rail transit, where the impact of higher gas prices is low to non-existent.

"As if it makes any difference"

I hear ya, Fnarf. Just got back from LA and as you know, there's TONS of cars there. My sweet friend with a BMW (gotta fit in with the go crowd) GPS'd us through that metro villa. I prefered our $3 turkey and tuna wraps in Topanga canyon to the star-studded autograph wall where he opted for the "American" 5 bacon slice hotdog. I got the "Millenium" (both $5.50 each). But yeah, "as if it makes any difference."

K@11, the fuel costs for buses are less per rider than for cars

So much less. Metro buses get 5 miles per gallon, so even if they only have a few riders, they are already competing with cars for fuel efficiency, and an articulated bus at max capicity is getting about 480 person-miles-per-gallon.

I can't imagine a more passionate supporter of gas taxes than I am, but I don't quite like the way Goldy is framing the issue.

For one thing, I know he doesn't mean we should raise gas taxes, like, now, but I kinda feel like, "Hey, one political crisis at the time." I hate to see us spending a lot of energy and political capital on an issue that's less urgent than others. We've already had one crisis this year with the viaduct, and ST2+RTID is going to take some heavy lifting. Nonetheless, I realize we need to be laying the groundwork for this idea to be taken seriously so that it eventually can gain political traction. (Yes, I'm contradicting myself.)

My bigger issue, though, is the impression Goldy gives: "Wow, a tax increase. Awesome. Let's raise taxes and only then find a way to spend the money." And this is one point where I think the national debate can help frame the state debate.

When Al Gore has talked about a substantial increase in the federal gas tax, he has talked about offsetting that with an equivalent decrease in payroll taxes. The ultimate effect would be revenue-neutral, but not only would the coupling discourage something bad (burning fossil fuels), it would encourage something good (labor).

This is where something like Cascadian's suggestion @6 comes in. If you're going to increase gas taxes for the sake of reducing demand, then offset that tax increase with an equal cut in the sales tax. Why not encourage people to spend, and why not take an opportunity to reduce what is actually a more regressive tax than the gas tax?

Anyway, this whole discussion feels a bit academic now, and I can only hope it won't feel that way for long.

How about car tax rebates for high-MPG models? Not just on sales, because you're not trying to get everyone to buy a new car.

Tax rebates for cars = bad idea. How about a registration fee that is based on how many mpg you get? call it "gas guzzler tax". That's one reason you see so few huge suvs in California compared to here. Taxing cars more is the right idea, subsidizing cars is a bad idea.

Another pro-environment post that gives a pass to the abuses of corporate power.

Isn't it pretty obvious that the high price of gas right now is a product of war profiteering? This isn't some $2 a gallon tax going to alternatives. It's corporate price gouging that we shouldn't be cheering.

hey K... I had no idea that I was defying all reason by transporting groceries by bus. Or cab. Or bicycle. Or one of several grocery delivery services. Point taken though, seattle isn't well set up for not having a car, but it is doable and people do do it.

Um, no, it's an example of companies charging what the customer is willing to pay. Just like every other company, including The Stranger and its ad rates.

Yes and Enron's customers were willing to pay much higher energy rates than those of other energy companies.

Fnarf: It was HILARIOUS reading the comments of some of the boobs in the P-I about their adorable little one-day boycott.

So agreed. What's almost as moronic as their little boycott is these folks' blaming the greedy oil companies for high gas prices. You might as well blame the gas station owner for high gas prices, or blame the oil companies for the weather. High gas prices are a simple result of supply and demand: increased demand from places like the United States and China, constricted supply thanks to the physical realities of extracting and refining oil and the fact oil is a finite resource.

And even if high oil prices were attributable to oil companies' "greed," so what? When it comes to every other segment of the economy, many of these folks are economic conservatives; they're rugged individualists who don't mind ruthless, free-wheeling capitalism. But when it comes to gasoline, they feel entitled to big-government market manipulation and price controls. Because you know, every American has a right to life, liberty, and cheap gas.

It's these same morons that faux leaders like Maria Cantwell feel obligated to pander to when they call for their high-profile hearings into oil company price gouging. But you know what, I feel like we're getting to the point in this whole energy debate where people in polite society are starting to accept that cheap gas is not a birthright and that it has its hidden costs. We're getting to the point in the debate where the shameless, patronizing panderers like Maria Cantwell are starting to look just as foolish as these fools. (Well, I guess Maria is not so foolish after all. I mean she just got another six years in D.C.)

Did they teach you guys anything about monopolies and cartels in your economics classes?

More public transit money for Cathlamet, say I.

I am for this proposal.

The price of gas does effect what kind of vehicle people choose to drive. I personally know several people who bought gas guzzling vehicles back around 2000 or so when gas was around $1 a gallon. Why? Because at the time nobody was talking about global warming, and at a $1 per gallon, gas was so cheap that gas mileage was almost an irrelevant consideration. Add to that Iman's stupid $30 car tabs, and there was no real reason not to buy an SUV. Many of these people are now talking about dumping their gas guzzlers and buying Prius's. Mostly because gas is now well over $3 a gallon.

One of the best things we can do for the environment is to push gas to $6 a gallon. Then Detroit will start building fuel efficient cars. Not because of government regulation, but because the public will be howling for cars that get 40+ MPG. (Although I'm all for the government mandating higher fuel efficiency).

Think the gas tax is too regressive? How about charging car tabs on a sliding scale, with gas guzzlers paying significantly higher car tabs than fuel efficient vehicles. There are several countries in Europe that tax vehicles based on gross curb weight, with lighter cars paying way less than heavier cars. Start at $30 p/yr for a Prius (or any other 40+ mpg car), and boost it to $1000 p/yr for a Hummer.

I am biking to work everyday this week.... partly beacuse of the weather, but mostly because I just can't afford the gas anymore. An increased in the gas tax would make me take another look at completely giving up my car and if I were in the market for a new a car I would buy the most fuel efficient vehicle possible.

That said, I don't think a gas tax hike is politically feasible - yet.

Also, bio-fuels and hydrogen fuel are the biggest wastes of money ever. None of our tax dollars should go to subsidize those scams.

Wow, David Horsey of the P-I has perfect timing. Check out his latest political cartoon:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1592