price of gas : when higher is better
In the last few years gas tripled in price. However, the price paid at the pump is not the only cost. Cost of gas is directly proportional to how far one has to drive, and how much time is spent idling in traffic jams. There is also the cost of potentially getting into an accident, or simply getting caught in the road rage.
Well, I want gas to be more expensive, not less.
High gas prices encourage people to drive less, live closer to work, and to negotiate flexible hours so that not everybody is driving to work at 8:45am. It also leads to more public transport, more scooters and bikes, more walkways. Less driving means less pollution, clearer air and water, less road rage and fewer accidents, and more police per driver to catch those driving erratically.
Paying more for gas will make driving a luxury, an activity a lot nicer than it is today.
What about all those who can't afford to pay more for gas, and can't afford to drive less either? Well, people are not stupid. If something gets more expensive they either don't mind paying more, or find ways to get by with less of it.
But wait, there is an even simpler way to make it fair. If retail price of gas includes a significant tax, this tax can be redistributed back to the people in the form of a tax credit. Then it is each family's choice whether they want to spend the money on driving, or allocate it toward something else, something more valuable to them.
If the American society decides to transfer driving from "cheap and available" to "luxury" good, a lot of people will choose to do it less, and everybody will benefit. And if those who truly can not afford the increased cost are reimbursed for the price increase, it will not make anybody worse off.
- Jane Prusakova's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Sorry, I disagree.
Sorry, I disagree. Expensive gasoline inhibits growth. It adds cost to normal goods. I makes it harder for people to do business outside of their immediate area. It adds cost to air travel. Shall I go one? Redistribution of cost via tax credits won't work either.
If you're looking for less traffic, then drive the farm and country roads to get to wherever you're going.
The argument that "expensive
The argument that "expensive gasoline inhibits growth" has been thoroughly covered in the 70s, at the time of the first energy crisis. It is simply not true.
Historically, US has learned the hard way that development does not have to be on par with energy consumption. Americans adopted smaller cars and tighter fuel economy, and continued to enjoy the good life and fast economic growth in the last 30+ years.
Sorry, I disagree. I don't
Sorry, I disagree. I don't believe that adding cost to shipment of goods for example is pro-growth. We need to unfetter ourselves from ME energy; we need alternative energy to substitute for petro-fuel wherever possible (wind is a good idea, but ocean current power is an even better one); we need to drill now for later years.
PS: I haven't researched it, but I'd love to see a study/report or two that shows that expensive gasoline doesn't inhibit growth.
The biggest growth
The biggest growth opportunity is not in the goods to be shipped, but in services and information flow. Expensive gas gives the industries that deal in services and data the competitive advantage compared to industries that make and deliver stuff, thus stimulating the overall growth.
Consider that gas prices are highest on the north-east of the US and in California, and the economies in these states are doing as well or better as the mid-west and south. Europe traditionally has gas prices at 4 times the US level, and economically it is doing well - maybe not as well as US, but not even close to being 4 times worse.
Links:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/09/energy_theory_o.html
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/documents/dp/0813.pdf
http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/proceedingsabstractdoc.aspx?id=1239
Legislating morality,
Legislating morality, regardless of what it is, is wrong.
As for some plan where taxes on one thing would be redistributed to people on any sort of equitable basis... its pretty laughable to think that kind of thing would ever happen -- I for one don't trust the government to get it right. If a high tax was imposed on fuel, it would hurt the working poor and lower middle class the hardest. Those people are the least likely to be able to afford to live closer to work, or move when they change jobs. They are also the most likely to have older, less efficient cars. And what would undoubtedly happen is the government would just spend the tax money on something stupid and as usual, the average Joe would be SOL. Make driving a luxury, and as usual, only the upper class will benefit.
Legislating morality? While
Legislating morality?
While I don't "get" that part of your response, I agree with all of the rest. High fuel costs are inhibiting travel. It inhibits flow of transport. It reduces mobility of people who can't afford it.
Taxes is the last thing that we need. We already have too many taxes. And you're absolutely right about who gets the short end of the stick with higher fuel prices.
A lot of socialists look at
A lot of socialists look at private ownership of conveyances as a moral issue, and they want to legislate them out of existence and make everyone dependent on the government for transportation.
OK, now I get it. But I
OK, now I get it. But I don't know any socialists. And we'd all be alot better off with the gov't more out than in our lives.
Unfortunately Austin is full
Unfortunately Austin is full of socialists, they basically run and dominate Austin city and Travis county politics. I agree with less government being better.
Poor people are most likely
Poor people are most likely to take the bus and benefit from the cleaner air in the inner city if there is less driving overall. It is the middle class and up that chooses the suburbs, the poor are actually more likely to live closer to where they work. They are also less likely to own their housing and thus better able to move when work location changes.
I understand the sentiment that government hardly ever gets things done right, though.
Those are pretty broad
Those are pretty broad generalizations. There are people here in San Antonio who cannot get to good paying jobs at the local hospitals because there is no bus service to the area. If you don't have a car or can't get a ride, you can't work there. Sorry, your's is a very "interesting" view of the world and socio-economics.
If interesting = idealistic
If interesting = idealistic and utopian. Unfortunately this is the real world.
Anyway, I posted a while back about how little use public transit is to me for commuting. Even Cap Metro's route calculator basically gives up.
The nearest bus stop to my house is about 2 1/2 to 3 miles away at Howard and I35... And there is no safe bike or walking route there, and even if there was, its hot as bejeezus 10 months of the year here, and rainy or cold most of the other two. So realistically, I still have to drive there and park.
So from there I'd have to go downtown, and find some way to transfer to the bus that goes out to 3M on 2222, which is about a mile across that heavily traveled 60MPH highway from my office. Oh, and probably have to wait outdoors for the transfer.
So I figure instead of my usual 1/2 hour commute from my door to the covered parking ramp at work, I'd probably spend at least an hour and a half to 2 hours. Sure, it would be cheaper, but my time and convenience is more valuable to me than the gas.
"Interesting" is a euphemism
"Interesting" is a euphemism for something I won't write. The idea that only middle and upper class people have a "right" to drive is "interesting."
I get tired of speaking in
I get tired of speaking in euphemisms. If something is brown and stinky, I'm going to call... manure. O.K. Well, I will try to keep a reasonable decorum.
Any more, the working poor
Any more, the working poor are likely to live in the slums and be forced to commute out to jobs outside the inner city. And you almost make it sound like you think not owning housing is a good thing. Unfortunately lack of stability in housing doesn't usually benefit the poor because usually they will not be able to afford to rent near where quality employers are located.
You are making stuff up as
You are making stuff up as you go along. I did not propose to legislate anything out of existence. I don't think not owning housing is a good thing. I did not say anything about limiting "the right to drive".
And because you chose to live and work so that using public transportation does not work for your commute does not mean that it's not a workable solution at all.
I'm not making anything up,
I'm not making anything up, I'm responding to your points as you make them. You did in fact propose legislating private autos out of existence, just not directly -- but taxing them to the point where nobody can afford them is just about as bad as banning them. I have to live where I can reasonably afford, unlike rich liberals I don't have a lot of money. I don't really much choice in where I work, the job market just isn't like that any more -- I have to take what job I can find. Houses near where I work are not affordable and while there are employers closer to where I live, they either aren't hiring, don't have anything that is a fit for me or pay so much less its worth driving. You seem to think people have a lot more choices than they really do or that those choices are easier than they are -- and you want the government to coerce people's choices by creating an artificial strong arm via repressive taxation. That I do not like.
Actually, you are talking
Actually, you are talking about taxing and banning private autos, not me. You are talking about government strong arm and coercion, not me.
But in any case, let me express my condolences for your sad situation - American-born, English-speaking, highly educated in a well-demanded profession, fully employed with above-average compensation, and medical and other benefits, home-owner in one of the America's Best Performing cities.
So you now say you aren't in
So you now say you aren't in favor of increasing fuel taxes? That is exactly the opposite of your first post. And if you think that oppressive taxes aren't coercive strong arming that is just as bad as a ban, then I'm not sure what world you live in.
And as for your assessment of my situation, you don't know me, and you greatly exaggerate. Sure, I'm employed, but at least according to the salary sites, not exactly above averagely compensated. And it is highly likely that my current job will be off-shored to India within the next year. And while I might be considered a "home owner", because of declining values I owe more on it than I could sell it for. And "well-demanded profession"? Hah! Only if you are Indian born and Hindi or Telgu speaking. And you really just make me angry when you talk about education -- I bet you got yours for free (if you want to make wild guesses about other people). I grew up poor, not advantaged, and I worked full time to go to college and never finished my degree because tuition increased so much while I was in school I couldn't afford it any more. I started out working low-end crappy developer/sysadmin jobs and clawed up from there the hard way.
High fuel prices and taxing
High fuel prices and taxing private automobiles out of existence are not exactly the same thing. I talked about the first, you insist on the second.
And you are right, I don't know you very well, but you appear to be an angry person (and that's not a wild guess).
peace!
Your first post in this
Your first post in this thread includes language like "If retail price of gas includes a significant tax" and turning transportation to a "luxury" -- so you were the one who was talking about it, I don't see how you can deny it now.
And when people talk in favor of increasing taxes it does make me very angry, and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way.
What we need is a cheap, domestically produced alternative fuel, that would make me very happy.
This is a real "he said, she
This is a real "he said, she said." I vote with the "he said." As far as I can tell, the OP did say "if retail price of gas includes a significant tax" and discussed the making of driving into a "luxury."
No one is making stuff up.
No one is making stuff up. The topic itself was what brought on the extended statements.
"I'm leaving on a jet plane..."