The more we tax energy here, the more demand slows and prices fall. This enables the rest of the world to get cheaper energy while our productivity is limited. The money goes to the government which is not an efficient deployer of capital. Great rationale to sign up for Kyoto for many countries as we have to curtail demand and they do nothing but enjoy their lower energy prices.
Let me make it even more simple for you. We're discussing a gas or an oil tax here across the board. In fact so are you. You made that explicitly clear. Are you aware that gasoline taxes apply just as much to gasoline refined from oil drilled in Kazakhstan as it does to oil drilled in Alaska? Are you aware of this? Because it appears you are not. Uh, why would a demand decrease in the US not affect suppliers abroad, who supply the US with 2/3 of all oil consumed yet only affect suppliers here? ARe you aware that oil is a commodity? Yes or no?
Taxing oil now is the only mechanism that can overcome the economic status quo. Using it as social engineering will allow gradual, ordered change that can be accommodated without economic crisis. Using short term 'bad economy' excuses just shifts the same inevitable end game into an unpredictable future. ie. Israel flys over Saudi Arabia and bombs the Qom nuclear facility. Iran unleashes a barrage of silkworm missiles into the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf and vows to choke the West. Everybody now has a 4000 pound paperweight in their driveway
Samfish, Do you agree that raising taxes on oil and gas here beyond current levels will increase or decrease employment in the future? Does additional taxes that go to the government create a more efficient usage of capital than individual determination? Very fundamental here.
It would would eventually produce less dangerous jobs, more sustainable jobs, less polluting jobs, domestic jobs. If you get a paycheck killing the Gulf is that worth preserving?
Are you conceding that your earlier statement was wrong about "subsidizing the rest of the world"? Because not only was it wrong, it was apparently so ****ing incredibly laughable you are now pretending not to have made it, after you got internet de-pantsified in dreadful fashion. Anyhow...it may increase it, it may decrease it, it may have no effect - there are many, many, many variables in this equation. I don't know of any effect which charts the relationship between gas taxes and NAIRU. Can you lead me to this "fundamental" idea? I didn't learn it. I know in your loopy version of pretendonmics there must be some sort of gas tax/employment dual-axis curve - show it to me. Thx. It's pretty fundamental that a regulated market that effectively filters out negative externalities is way better and more efficient than an unregulated market in which improper incentives lead to inefficient outcomes. This is basic econ 101 stuff.
Does anyone realize the amount of goods and common personal and household items are manufactured from petroleum and its byproducts? Taxing oil would be like setting off a neutron bomb in the economy....you think its hard to get a job now? Just wait until the costs of EVERYTHING goes up due to an oil tax. I say lets go back to the days of whale hunting and use the blubber for lamp oil....
Except that it wasn't an accident that I live where I live. I made a conscious decision to live close to a central city. I happen to work mostly out of my house too, another conscious decision, but at the same time if I had to work somewhere else I would see that I lived closer to their or telecommuted. We aren't helpless in regard to our energy usage.
If gas taxes are so lethal to an economy how have the European countries managed to keep on going with much higher gas taxes than anythign proposed here? Singapore not only has high gas taxes but also charges a very high registration tax on cars yet their economy isn't collapsing.
You seem to suggest that the people themselves will have wind and solar equipment on their own property. That's an expensive upfront investment, which can't be done by everyone out of their own pocket. It would take a lot of solar to completely run an entire house. Regardless, if everyone DID utilize enough solar and wind, individually, to accomodate themselves, just think of the PERMITS the govt would burden everyone with to get their cut. Hell, there's even been talk around here that the govt wants to charge land owners for pumping their own water out of the ground, from their own wells, and I have one myself. It's always something, the govt is not going to let things be done without getting something out of you.
One solar panel on a home will provide all of the energy needs and still leave enough leftover. I know people who have done this for decades. Wind of course would not be designed for individual residences but rather for municipalities. There are local cities here in NM investing in wind farms to provide energy for schools. Bond issues for example, plenty of bond money to pay for a stadium how about a city issue bonds to build a wind farm to provide energy? Now I wouldn't mind a small tax increase if my electric bills were cut in half or lower. It's being done, just not on a national scale.
This administration's policies are very much in favor of subsidizing the rest of the world. Cap and trade, and forcing higher costs on our consumers to SUBSIDIZE alternative energies are both examples of subsidizing the world. Will raising energy prices in the US, not decrease demand? If demand is lower for energy will not energy prices fall? Will then the world not enjoy lower energy prices? Its a pretty simple trail if you follow the bread crumbs Hansel.
Yeah buddy. Government should continue to regulate and manage commerce as their municipalities are sooo efficient and government is run sooo well. cough..cough..fannie...err hud....freddie. Only an idiot would think the government is a more efficient deployer of capital than individuals making their own decisions. If you truly believe the government creates more efficiency than we have fundamental differences and I refer you to the breadlines in the USSR and Bulgaria for your utopia!
I don't follow your reasoning here. Under cap and trade though the US could also benefit by developing alternate technologies and also the US has some pretty major carbon sinks they can use. It will raise costs but at the sametime its not like the US can't compete. Under this reasoning though aren't European countries and other countries with high gas taxes subsidizing the US as is?
This is complete crap. Anybody that has even a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that governments often go into deficit spending during a recession in order to lessen the hardship on business and the citizenry until things turn around.
I understand what you are saying, and do not necessarily disagree as a general point. What I can say is this...when oil was $100 a barrel, our economy was clearly on the decline. Unemployment was rising, LIBOR was going through the roof and the foreclosure morass was unfolding rapidly. Again, the economy was fragile. Once the economy recovers and has some stability, a tax on oil that amounts to 10 to 15 cents per gallon at the pump would likely make more sense to me. I still wouldn't be in love with the idea, but it would not be a stupid idea either. Just a thought...perhaps our politicians could put the money where their mouth is and take any funds obtained from an oil tax and use it to fund research toward a true alternative energy source.
1. Europe is far more dense population wise. You don't need to travel as great of a distance to get to the next town or to do your shopping. In fact, you can walk most of the time. It's like one big NYC. They don't have urban sprawl to the degree we have. 2. They have an excellent rail system which can exist because of the population density. Again, it's akin to New York or SF - where you can get by easily without a car. 3. Europe does pay a price for it's higher taxes - it has a lower productivity and standard of living than the u.s. The average American enjoys far more buying power. I am against a gas tax here for the purposes of controlling consumption. If you want to control consumption, enforce higher fuel standards, lower speed limits, and encourage car pooling / mass transit. But a tax isn't going to solve things because it's small dent in a burgeoning issue. If you want to add an alternative energy tax of a penny a gallon - fine, do it to help fund research into alternative energy - but not to generate revenue for the feds. I think it's a bit cruel to tax commodities and energy that people do need. Yes, people have a choice about gas, but they often made those choices before gas went to 2-3 a gallon and in this economy people are hurting enough. Would a $2 gas tax change my driving habits? No...because I can afford to absorb that - it would just annoy me. But it would hit a lot of people who depend on their cars a lot more than me much much harder.
