I think the amount going to taxes is already posted on every pump. Pretty sure it is in TX. And I know it is high. It pays for maintenance of the roads, and other things, in theory. But it's much higher in many other countries.
The difference in price we in the US pay for a gallon of gas ($3 or so now) and the price paid in many other countries ($6 or more) is MOSTLY due to extra government taxes on that gallon. This is done on purpose to curb auto usage, reduce pollution, encourage public transportation, etc.
I quite agree that the govt should show something for the extra tax raised. It's debatable exactly WHAT that should be, but I bet we could get a lot of ideas from what other countries "say" they're doing with all that gas-tax money.
I'm NOT one for raising taxes. And with the way oil-barrel prices are climbing, there may not be a need soon. But cheering as gas prices continue to rise hurts people (and our economy) in many ways. It's not just in driving our cars. Poorer people, with fewer choices, are hurt the most. Buying a fuel-efficient car did not change my outrageously high electric bills, nor will it make theirs any more affordable. Shipping costs (UPS, FedEx) are going up, raising the price of many items. Airfare is going up due to higher fuel costs. Trucking costs going up raise the price of many items. It goes on and on.
We ALL pay for higher fuel costs.
That's why I propose raising taxes on gas at the pump. Ths gets the Hummer where it hurts, without causing someone to die in TX heat because they can't afford the AC (or even fans) for their home. It happens every year now, and I'm afraid the frequency will rise as electric prices rise.

 

Sure it seems like you will pay off the premium for the car over the non-hybird quicker. But as gas prices increase you simply have less money available to pay for the car itself, as well as for everything else.
Deriving a satisfaction that as gas prices go up, that you are spending less that your counterparts is deceiving. Sure, they are paying more (with less FE to boot), but so are all of us hybrid owners. Its still less money in our pockets.

I would prefer gas prices to go down. The problem with that is then people become more wasteful, and the gas hogs will predominate. But as gas prices go up, those who are low income can't afford full-efficient vehicles. So they are much worse off, since the fuel cost is a bigger % of the pay. Assuming of course that they still have a job because the economy starts to tank since no one has disposable income to buy goods.

Not quite a classic catch-22 situation though.

Maybe Al Gore will finally convince people to shed their wasteful ways. (I think I may be seeing 'An Inconvenient Truth' after work today)!

Mike

 

Agreed.

To make it politically feasible, I'd proportionally reduce the income tax by whatever additional revenues a gas tax hike would bring. I'd give commercial operators a break on the gas tax as they are struggling.

This way, getting better fuel economy would be one of the biggest tax breaks.

 

Instead of "curious math", lets call it what it truly is: "Petro-Propaganda". They want you to believe that, thanks to them, the grass is greener, the air is cleaner, the enviroment is better, and everything is going to be O.K. - just remain calm. Just keep buying gas and we will all be happy little campers.

 

While there is a certain "warm fuzzy" I feel seeing by b---- neighbor spend $150 filling up her Hummer (every 7-8 days), I think a penalty tax would be better laid on the gas-guzzling vehicle, not the fuel it burns. My idea is that the cost of yearly registration renewal should be inversely proportional to the gas mileage of the vehicle. For instance, a Prius or Insight might cost $30/year, while a Dodge RAM might cost $300/year.

 

I have no problem with that, either, but...
Many people that CAN afford the poor FE of these vehicles would certainly not consider $300 vs $30 per year an issue at all, though. Oh, they'd complain about it, but it wouldn't change the car they drive.
The gaz guzzler tax does this maybe a little better, and that doesn't hinder those vehicles from being purchased either. How high would the "penalty" have to be to make a difference?
Consumption is a continuing thing.

 

I Blame none other than the bush adminstration for this, they are addicted to oil, not america.

and I Also blame the oil companies.

This is the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx6YfVqcDoo

Nancy really bash bush

and cindy sheehan took it even futher.

http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca2...foroil512K.wmv

 

These videos, while entertaining, are nothing more than political posturing. This always occurs when the opposition sees weakness and opportunity.

Do you really think the oil issues are entirely because of oilmen in the White House? Certainly there are conflicts of interest, but don't be fooled by the rhetoric. This is not a new issue. It dates back to the 1970s. Remember the Oil Embargo? Iran? Hostage Crisis?
We didn't learn then. We didn't vote passionately enough to voice concerns over Middle Eastern oil dependence then - or since. Now it's all Bush's fault?
Most folks STILL don't get it - Middle Eastern oil dependence funds terrorism. And now that the global demand is increasing (e.g., China, South Korea), OPEC has more power than ever to control the pricing. We're just lucky that at the moment gas is ONLY $2 or $3 a gallon. If OPEC could ever agree to fix prices or limit production again, we'll all be paying considerably more. This has little to do with Bush or Clinton (or Reagan or Ford or Carter), or whoever is in power. What matters is eliminating our dependence. Even if we were earnest in our efforts to do so, it would take many years to achieve energy independence. Currently, as a COUNTRY, we're not even trying. We can't even get most people to recycle, let alone conserve or make more fuel-efficient choices. Our government is barely trying either, and after all these years. Nearly EVERYONE is to blame.

This is a complex matter. For example, think of our armed forces, factories, and homes without fuel. Like it or not, our nation's security and economy depend on us having a foreign policy, especially concerning oil.
And to think that Bush and Cheney are even BRIGHT enough to have duped a nation on Big Oil's behalf, and at the sake of our country's national security, is ludicrous.

 

I remember since it was Ronald Reagan who systematicly reversed everyone of Carter's energy independence and saving programs. From shale-oil to the solar collectors on the White House, Reagan worked hard to shutdown the programs that could have led to energy independance. It is why seeing the hydrogen fuel-cell fraud being funded by killing the "high mileage vehicle" program fits in the same pattern and this has been GW's unimaginably great and wonderfully successful program.

After all, we're all going down to test drive the new fuel cell H3 Monday morning, NOT!

Bob Wilson

 

Yes, Reagan played a big role in reversing a nation in its infancy of thinking about conserving fuel and exploring alternative energy sources. This was definitely not good, and set us back in Energy Independence by at least 15 years. BTW, shale oil production was not economically profitable - at the time.
Reagan's belief was that big government and lack of free market in this country were strangling it. So he cut many, many government programs, outside of defense. Of course, one folly of this is that energy dependence is a MAJOR defense issue.
During Reagan's tenure, though, gas prices began to behave themselves (mostly), inflation moderated, and we all went our merry way - most of us quickly forgetting the 1973-1979 oil shortages and spiraling inflation that resulted. We saw ourselves "weak" as a country though, especially during and just after the Hostage Crisis, able to be taken for a nightmare ride at the whim of OPEC or Iran. After 4 years of Reaganomics, 4 more were granted with another landslide victory. The new "peace through strength" philosophy appeared to be working. We felt strong again as a nation, and we loved that aspect of his charismatic leadership more than the conservation/ecological aspirations of the Carter administration. When Reagan's 8 years were up, we sent his VP, Bush, Sr. in as the new President. The nation liked something about that team.

The poster above with the video-links blamed Bush for everything. I was merely pointing out that it's much older and a little more complex than that.

We've had 15 years since those times to pipe up about conservation and energy independence again. I've only heard a lot of noise again about it since 9/11, and mostly since Katrina (just last year). Why? Because we see gas prices spiraling to $3 a gallon. Now in near crisis-mode, maybe the American people will wake up again to the dangers of foreign-oil dependence. I sure hope so. I do hope that Bush will do more as well, but I'm not counting on it. This, and the "exporting of American jobs" are two of the most important issues facing this country today.
Hydrogen? It could happen. I'm skeptical too, but it's early on. We'll see where the research takes us in 5 years or so. I'd rather see MUCH more funded effort in the PHEV vehicles, though. And I think solar makes more economic sense now, so it's time to move forward there as well (extend and increase the tax credit). Windpower is already growing on its own. Maybe there is hope.