Green Taxes

[TheMercenary]

A few European countries have or will be implementing a tax per vehicle based on the number of miles driven. It is called an eco-tax or green-tax. The distance will be measured electronically through a GPS device in the car. The plan suggests that such tax will reduce traffic congestion and will encourage people to either take public transportation or do carpooling. The Netherlands adopted it and are trying it out. The UK and Belgium have similar proposals ready. What do you all think about this new idea of "Green Taxes"?

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What do you all think about this new idea of "Green Taxes"?

Ignoring the facts that taxes are inefficient and are not good at influencing behavior? In the case of a driving tax, I'm for it. I hate to drive and am thankful for any plausible excuses I can find that would allow me to sell my car and move to a pedestrian/cycle friendly city.

Sadly, driving is a fact of life in Montana.

[SamIam]

The tax would have to be fairly high to put a dent into America's love of the automobile.

A high "green tax" would be hard on the working poor and people living in the Rocky Mountain west. Out here there is no public transportation to speak of. You have to drive your car or else stay at home.

I would not be in favor of this tax. And I'm a liberal (gasp ).

[TheMercenary]

I would guess that given the public transport in Europe is really better than what we have here in the states, as far as availability anyway, maybe it is more feasible. But even when I used public transport in the UK they were packed to capacity during peak hours. They would have to add trains or more frequent stops to make it work.

We do have some serious driving distances for normal work in the US.

[Undertoad]

We have it already and so do the Europeans in spades, it's called gas tax. If the Europeans are still driving, at three times the price of gas we have, this will further incent them to not actually be productive -- and the Japanese will be the last ones standing with an automotive industry.

[TheMercenary]

Seems this tax is in addition to the gas tax based on milage the car is driven. Yea, that is what we need, government installed gps in all our cars.

[ZenGum]

Given that there already is a whopping tax on petrol (what is this "gas" that your cars run on? is it environmentally friendly?), installing tracking devices to tax per kilometer seems massively inefficient and intrusive. Just jacking up the fuel tax would more directly hit those who are least green (which is the supposed objective) without wasting heaps of money on GPS gizmos which, I feel sure, someone is already hacking.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

A few European countries have or will be implementing a tax per vehicle based on the number of miles driven. It is called an eco-tax or green-tax. The distance will be measured electronically through a GPS device in the car. The plan suggests that such tax will reduce traffic congestion and will encourage people to either take public transportation or do carpooling. The Netherlands adopted it and are trying it out. The UK and Belgium have similar proposals ready. What do you all think about this new idea of "Green Taxes"?

Comparing driving solutions in Europe and the US is comparing apples to oranges and most "European solutions" will fail miserably in the United States. It is technically possible to live without a car in big US cities but it is extremely difficult and hindering. It would be a complete impossibility for anyone living in the suburbs or rural areas.

If this tax was used in unison with many other initiatives to reduce driving, I might be more supportive but I am extremely skeptical of any single solution that will help against the number of miles people have to drive. Honestly, to really lower the amount of driving miles in the US, the complete re setup of our city and suburban infrastructure will probably be needed. People need to work, school, and shop close to where they live to really lower the amount of driving. This solution is obviously idealistic, but anything else will just fail and hurt millions of rural, suburban, and other Americans in the process.

The more I think about it, the more fuel efficient cars need to be rationally pushed. Driving miles can be reduced, but not by much. Fuel efficiency can be changed though.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The more I think about it, the more fuel efficient cars need to be rationally pushed. Driving miles can be reduced, but not by much. Fuel efficiency can be changed though.

And our mass transport system could be significantly upgraded. But given that it was among the many promises of the current administration I don't think they can pull it off. So many of the capital improvement projects have a significant history of cost over runs and years of delay.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The more I think about it, the more fuel efficient cars need to be rationally pushed.

They dropped the ball on that when they wasted all that cash for clunkers money on nominally better cars.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And our mass transport system could be significantly upgraded. But given that it was among the many promises of the current administration I don't think they can pull it off. So many of the capital improvement projects have a significant history of cost over runs and years of delay.

Yes, mass transit needs to be improved alongside fuel efficiency but mass transit will still only have limited benefits.

In Minneapolis we have a good light rail system that can take people from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America. It is extremely efficient if you want to get to either of those two areas and you live close to the rail line. But, if you do not want to go to either of those two places or you do not live close to the rail line, it is useless. Obviously setting up more of these light rail systems will have a positive impact on the city, they are planning on building more, but they are still limited and will continue to be until our city demographic infrastructure is changed.

Originally Posted by Griff

They dropped the ball on that when they wasted all that cash for clunkers money on nominally better cars.

I don't much about Cash for Clunkers but I'm assuming it was just a stupid idea to begin with. A quick "fix" that made it look like the Obama administration was doing something. I could be wrong though. Long term strategies need to be developed, which unfortunately, is extremely difficult for politicians running four to six years a term.

A bit of history (just for the hell of it).

It was Reagan who more than doubled that federal gax tax (from $.04 to $.09) in the 80s:

On this day in 1983, President Ronald Reagan gave the green light to one of his pet proposals, a gas tax hike designed to raise funds for the nation's roads and bridges...

...paving the way for the Federal gas tax to be increased by a nickel. The heftier tax rate in turn promised to raise $5.5 billion a year for highway repairs and general transportation maintenance. And, though the president was not one for using public funds to stimulate employment, some legislators estimated that the tax increase would help create roughly 320,000 jobs.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...rticle&id=5658

GHW Bush then raised it another 50% to $.14...then Clinton added a few more pennies.

It hasnt been raised since 1993 and IMO, it wouldnt hurt to raise it again and to focus the additional funds on developing and supporting energy efficient technologies (w/ most of the funds still going to infrastructure improvement as initially envisioned).

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

It was Reagan who more than doubled that federal gax tax (from $.04 to $.09) in the 80s:

GHW Bush then raised it another 50% to $.14...then Clinton added a few more pennies.

Who cares whom raised them or how much. We are talking about today and now not about an economy from 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who cares whom raised them or how much....

whom raised them?

We are talking about today and now not about an economy from 20 years ago.

Historical perspective, dude.

And, more to the point, I'll repeat:

It hasnt been raised since 1993 and IMO, it wouldnt hurt to raise it again and to focus the additional funds on developing and supporting energy efficient technologies (w/ most of the funds still going to infrastructure improvement as initially envisioned).

Try to focus.

[TheMercenary]

I never mentioned anything about party affiliation in this discussion.

I would love to see Obama triple them! It would be great for his reputation for protecting the little guy who drives a truck for a living. Not.