I know, I’m not a democrat, non-democrats shouldn’t have any rights according to you. Why don’t you just shoot us “invalid” “disabled” folks and end our miserable lives. Yeah, you’re beating me down. You can all slap eac other on your asses.
Please share widely!
but I did work on crafting the actual bill filed by Rep Smizik about 1.5 years ago and again last month implementing a feebate. In Smizik’s bill, the language specifically requires that at least one vehicle of every class have neither fee nor rebate. That means at least one SUV, at least one van, at least one pickup truck, etc.
<
p>I’d also point out that instead of throwing around a bunch of crap in your post, you might try something positive and persuasive. Something like:
My handicap requires my use of a conversion van. The number of handicapped which require special vehicles is extremely low. Perhaps the requirement should provide an exemption to all MA drivers with (a) a handicap placard, and (b) specific details from a doctor indicating the physical need for a specific type of vehicle.
You’d get far more traction my friend.
…stormv’s recommendation for how the diary could have been worded. I also believe such an exemption has merit.
but sometimes it feels like we are dismissed not because of our ideas but due to the label on our campaign button. We are not all evil, cold hearted, greedy, capitalists. Not everyone is like me.
Since the part people are complaining about is Bill’s penchant for blaming Democrats for the world’s ills. Rhetoric like that is over the top, no matter where it comes from.
… the editor’s decision to try and turn this into a productive discussion is laudable. The rhetoric in question, however, leads me to conclude such was not the intent of the poster, which seems to complain and produce this kind of rhetoric.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, there is a place in the world for complainers. I, however, will choose to be reality based and not read into the post any intent for a productive conversation. If the original 4 I got was literally for ‘needs work’ then I stand by my further expounding as ‘further work’.
There are a few conservatives on this board who actually answer questions, discuss the points at hand, use slanderous language sparingly, and whatnot. They are great contributors here. I don’t agree with a lot of what JoeTS or PP say, but I do believe they want to improve things in this state, not just score cheap point.
<
p>There are others who see any event or discussion for its entry points into an attack on Democrats, the yearn-for-failure types. They don’t really care about the issue, they just like to attack, and that BMG mini-community is growing in voice and number. This frontpage promotion is the equivalent of Obama’s attempts at bipartisanship — trying desperately to make a silk purse out of something that evinces interest in nothing other than being a sow’s ear.
Look at how well that silk purse turned out for Obama. đŸ˜‰
… in ‘traction’. The post is perfectly adequate for what he does seem interested in – complaining.
What does that mean? Is it that if you buy, say, a Ford Explorer you don’t pay a fee, but if you buy a Chevy Suburban, you do?
there will be at least one choice which has neither fee nor rebate. The classes themselves are determined by the appropriate regulatory agency.
<
p>But, for the sake of argument, if a class were SUV, than there’d be at least one SUV with neither fee nor rebate. There would be zero or more with fees (in this case, more) and there would be zero or more with rebates (in this case, more).
<
p>If every vehicle in a class was in line for a fee, the least-gas-guzzling would be fee-free. However, that didn’t exist as reality in 2008 when we were working on the bill. In Smizik’s bill, there’s a middle area of vehicles (20-25% of all vehicles) which face neither rebate nor fee. Each class had vehicles which were landing in that region — even SUVs and pickups. Still, because we couldn’t know the future of vehicle choices and wanted to ensure that there were fee-less choices in each class, that explicit language was added to the bill.
<
p>The explanation (though not the bill) can be found here (pdf)
… but admittedly orthogonal to the issue in the post I think. The question is one of hardship owing to a fee’s deincentivising effect on another goal,… transportation for the disabled. This conflict is one of function, not mileage.
I still don’t quite get it. Are you saying that “the appropriate regulatory agency” (RMV? DEP? someone else) would specify the make and model of the approved SUV that has no feebate associated with it? So, again hypothetically, the state would approve (for example) a Ford Explorer but no other SUV?
<
p>If that’s right, it strikes me as fraught with peril. Will there be a “Buy American” requirement, i.e., the agency must select an American-made make/model as the fee-free option? Is it really appropriate for the state to be favoring one manufacturer over others, especially if (as seems likely) there will not be one clear winner when it comes to which make/model is least gas-guzzly?
The criteria in Smizik’s bill is carbon emission based, but MPG is actually very tightly correlated so for the sake of convenience we’ll use MPG.
<
p>1. Rank all vehicles on their MPG, regardless of class.
2. Take the middle 20-25%. Those have neither fee nor rebate.
3. Take the highest MPG vehicle. That has 10% rebate.
4. Take all vehicles between midrange and super-MPG. They get a rebate between 0 and 10% based on where they are between the median 20-25% and the super-MPG. It’s a linear function, but that’s irrelevant to the concept.
5. Take the lowest MPG vehicle. That has a 10% fee.
6. Take all vehicles between midrange and worst-MPG. They get a fee between 0 and 10% based on where they are between the median 20-25% and the worst-MPG. It’s a linear function, but that’s irrelevant to the concept.
7. Adjust the midrange slightly to
– ensure revenue neutrality
– ensure that at least one vehicle in each class has zero fee.
<
p>It’s number 7 that you’re poking at. The criteria is carbon emissions (MPG for short). That’s it. There’s no room for playing favorites on other criteria.
<
p>As it turns out, the 2008 mix of autos for sale in the USA allowed for at least one pickup, SUV, and minivan in the midrange band without doing number 7 at all. It just worked out that way. The provision in the bill ensures that if the mix changes so that a vehicle class falls out of the midrange entirely, (7) adjusts to include it.
<
p>1-7 are redone every year, to ensure that the rewards and penalties continue to exert influence as the fuel efficiency mix changes over time.
<
p>Again, this is Smizik’s bill, not DP’s. The Program would be administered by the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs (EOEEA).
fake.
not. They’ve never been fake. The method to calculate them was changed recently to more accurately reflect modern driving conditions (higher speed limits, running the AC, heavier acceleration, etc).
<
p>More to the point, MPG is a convenient proxy in the discussion for CO_2-equivalent emissions. They’re very tightly correlated and it’s just easier to use MPG in a discussion because it’s a format everybody understands and has used in other discussions.
<
p>
<
p>It is true that one could create different algorithms for measuring the CO_2 emissions and get slightly different data. No question. It’s also true that individuals will drive their vehicles differently, resulting in different emissions from identical vehicles. But, as a public policy, this has a net positive impact on all kinds of vehicles, and it fosters direct competition amongst manufacturers to continue to improve so that their vehicles get lower fees or larger discounts. There’s also decades old prior art to some extent on the federal level: there is a gas guzzler tax on the books: it’s included in the price of the vehicle, but does not apply to SUVs or pickups because at the time those vehicles were used almost exclusively by small or large businesses.
<
p>Essentially, the feebate bill takes the gas guzzler tax, applies it to all personal vehicles (not just “cars”), and then gives a rebate to buyers who buy vehicles use less gas than average.
Why not the DMV? I still will push for the gas tax. Once installed it is a simple calculation and a simple collection process as it is already in place. Why complicate things?
is because the bill is a climate change bill, and the EOEEA is in the best position to accurately analyze the carbon emissions. They’re a bunch of scientists, unlike the DMV.
<
p>It’s not exactly a simple calculation, because (a) it’s got to be recalculated every year, and (b) because of the required zero-band which must include vehicles from every segment. I don’t think that EOEEA vs. DMV particularly complicates things given the connection to carbon emissions. I think it specifically makes them less complex: the EOEEA does the math because they have staff on hand who know how to do the math, so to speak.
I agree it is not a simple calculation. Let’s keep it simple and increase the gas tax. Then we do not need to have the staff at EOEEA!
and our government has plenty of employees capable of performing complex calculations precisely in agencies like the EOEEA.
<
p>You ever seen the complete internal revenue code?
only a lawyer on the public dole would love. Once again, it puts the “regulators” in power to grant certain rights and privileges to one enterprise and not another. No, there won’t be any payments or kickbacks or anything—everything will be on the level this time, right?
We have not seen how the proposal would effect certain classes of vehicles. Exemption should be granted for handicapped vans etc., but what about the self-employed plumbers, electricians that have to have a large truck or van to do business?
<
p>I still think the gas tax is the way to go. You pay based upon your usage, eliminate the tolls, and hold the line on registry fees.
Let’s make Massachusetts’ gas prices the highest in the nation, because the middle class Massachusetts taxpayer has money to burn. Let’s really sock it to those people who have to commute to work.
In case you have not noticed our roads and bridges are in deplorable state. If you think we should fix them, how do you expect to pay for the repairs?
At everything that receives one single red cent of MA taxpayer money. Based on that, rank each and every single item based on priority. Priority gets back to the fundamental relationship, and contract, between the government (them) and the governed (us). Higher priority items are those that government MUST provide (cops, firefighters, infrastructure, etc.) and lower priority items are those that it would be nice if the government provided, but not essential to the life of each and every MA taxpayer.
<
p>Those items at the top of the list—those things with the highest priority—get funded. Those things at the bottom of the list—the nice-to-haves—do not, until all the things with higher priorities are funded. Road and bridge maintenance should be fairly high on the Commonwealth’s priority list, should it not? If the government is funding anything of a lesser priority than road and bridge maintenance, they shouldn’t be—shame on them.
<
p>This isn’t rocket science: it’s merely a take on the agile development methodology used by most small- to mid-sized software companies. Apparently, the public sector could stand to learn a few things from the private sector. The notion that Billy Bulger is taking three something large out of the public coffers every year while bridges are falling down should infuriate each and every one of us.
What does the state pay for which, in your opinion, fall into the nice-to-have category?
It’s impossible for me to say, but that’s not to say it’s not impossible for government to do—not by any stretch of the imagination. Generally speaking, the things at the top of the priority list should be those things that do the most measurable good for the most citizens. Let’s get back to true political theory here, Locke, the social contract, and all that. You know, the kind of theory on which this Commonwealth, and this nation, was founded. It all boils down to the essential relationship between the government and the governed.
<
p>Let’s not forget metrics, either. The ability to measure the impact of dollars spent has to be a part of the equation as well.
Every time you ask, “What would you cut?” to a tax complainer, they don’t want to do actually the work. Even on a hypothetical or generalist basis.
<
p>Well guess what? Then you got no argument.
Ah, we kind of “pay” our elected officials to do that kind of grunt work for us, don’t we? No matter. Provide me a comprehensive list of every single Commonwealth of Massachusetts expenditure, pay my salary for however long it takes, and I am positive I could provide you with a prioritized list. I have no problem doing the solons’ work for them—well one, actually: I have to work for a living.
<
p>Nice try, though.
<
p>
Which is why I can’t stand ballot questions calling for tax cuts.
Is the reason you don’t care for ballot questions regarding tax cuts? Care to explain?
We pay our legislators to do the job the rest of us do not have the resources for, because as you point out we have our own jobs. We pay them to take the lead in establishing our priorities and explaining why some things should take priority over others. They are the ones that should know whether we can take a tax cut or not. Few things frustrate me more in politics than people who demand a tax cut by popular vote, but when asked what spending they would cut all of a sudden THAT becomes the job of the legislature to figure out. I say put up or shut up – either back up your tax cut demands with offseting spending cut proposals, or let the legislature do its job on BOTH sides of that equation.
for you reply. I’d raise the following, not as an argument against your statement or your opinion, but for further discussion:
<
p>(1) Priorities. Nominally, we elect and pay legislators to act as we (royal “we”) would if we were to sit in the General Court ourselves, but I wonder to what degree these legislators act according to our priorities (i.e., constituent priorities), or the leadership’s priorities. In other words, should the leadership’s agenda take precedence over the electorate’s agenda? And who is setting the electorate’s agenda, anyway? The media?
<
p>(2) Trust. I’m not exactly convinced that legislators know whether or not we can “afford” a tax cut. My rationale: every legislator has his or her own pet project he or she can tout as an example of his or her ability to bring home the bacon come election time. Nobody wants their ox gored, but everyone’s happy to gore other oxen. So if legislators have their own self-preservation in mind, how can we really trust them when their self-preservation depends largely on their access to the public checkbook?
<
p>(3) Fundamentals. At its root, taxation is nothing more than the forcible confiscation of private property (money) for the public good. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the public demanding that their confiscated property be put to work properly—for the most public good—and if the only way this can happen is through public referendum, then so be it. At the very least, it sends a message to the courtiers that the public—the financiers of government–are concerned about their forced investments. Of course one couldn’t perform the tax cut or budgeting process itself through the democratic process; that would be beyond cumbersome, and it would lead to all sorts of abuse . . . Alexis de Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority,” if you will. And, quite frankly, those of us of a non-liberal bent (I, myself, am an evil libertarian) here in MA feel like we’re living under a tyranny of the majority right now.
There are PLENTY of watchdog groups, some of them very good (and not necessarily liberal) who are producing digestible reports on spending and taxes.
<
p>If you are even too lazy to take a look at some of the great work others are doing, in chasing down your canard, straw man, whatever, then why the heck should I take what you say seriously? Because you have some sort of feeling in your gut that some huge percentage of the budget is waste? Sorry, that doesn’t cut it, in the reality-based world.
But everything to do with working a full-time job this very moment, and therefore being unable to come up with, in an instant, a comprehensive priorities list for Commonwealth spending. You talk about a reality-based world: are you sure you live in one yourself? Do you, yourself, have the spare time to do such a thing at this very moment?
<
p>Your argument against me is based on an entirely laughable premise: because I lack the time to do what amounts to a ton of grunt work now, my idea is somehow invalid? In other words, because I can’t run out and build a house right now, at this very moment, that means a house can’t be built?
<
p>The count on you is now 0-2. I’m not even going to give you a nice try on that one.
the same answer from every anti-government type on here and elsewhere – “There’s lots of waste! Cut it!” but NO productive conversation as to what they think is actually wasteful.
<
p>And when I do see “this is what’s wasted” lists, they are unsupported ones, like the people complaining that Lowell schools have too many administrative positions. With no citations, no real data, just a “gut feeling.”
<
p>Your idea isn’t invalid, if there’s real proof. So far, I’ve seen none, not from you, nor any of your like minded fellow commenters. So again, I say, what do you think, and you can keep it sincerely general if you like, needs cutting?
<
p>Come on, you can’t even come up with a general answer? Like, let’s cut the (tiny) funding for the arts? Or maybe schools? Roads? Regulating bodies? Help us out here.
<
p>Seems to me, the so called tax and spend liberals are the ones fixing whatever can be found that is wasted…like Governor Patrick and the pension/department reform he wants to enact, to gain efficacies in the state government. Concrete solutions, not bitching sessions with nothing to back them up.
<
p>And hi, I have a job too. I also can read.
that it was evident, based on my hypothetical, what sorts of government spending would be prioritized low or phased out: that which doesn’t deliverable the most measurable return for the greatest number of Massachusetts taxpayers. Analytics, metrics, measurement, refinement, iteration, innovation: it works in the software industry via agile development; there’s no reason whatsoever a similar system couldn’t be adapted in the public sector.
<
p>You want to talk specific examples? How about the three large Billy Bulger gets for his pension? How about those ridiculous union laws that allow firefighters, say, to collect at a certain higher rate after serving one “honorary” day in a higher position? How about Massport? How about the Turnpike Authority? How about requiring state police to work details? How about the scores of no-show jobs that allow people on the state payroll to go golfing during work hours? Honestly, read the Herald . . . read the Globe . . . read the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune. And that’s just skimming the surface.
<
p>Seems to me, too, that Romney tried to come into the corner office as a reformer, but was soundly rebuked in his efforts by a solidly Dem General Court. And it just goes to show how much undue power the General Court wields if a governor who’s a member of the same party can’t push across a reform agenda, either. I’ve seen nothing from Patrick except for weak platitudes and disastrous trial balloons.
Cuts have been made across the board. With one major exception! The elderly budgets have gone untouched. While we’re paying for their trips to the CT casinos and annual office renovations, not to mention unattended shitty lunch programs. Is their voting demographic THAT crucial to re-election? I anxiously await your response.
Yes, police, fire, and infrastructure do need to be at the top of the priority list and reform is needed. Before ANY tax increase we should also see a mechanism for reform. Reform of the transportation hierarchy, pension reform (see my previous post on former Sen Brennan), ethics reform.
<
p>In my mind public education also need to be high on the priority list as well including higher education.
he should bring money and jobs here to the Bay State to fix the crumbling infrastructure here, create new jobs and save jobs that’re presently here, by giving money to the Bay State’s governor to pay for it.
with their large trucks and vans would be affected by a gas tax?
I agree, as an advocate for PWD’s, I agree we no longer should be whining and be part of the solution. Pick up the phone and call your Congressman, or your State Sen. and/or Rep. and tell them that they still need to keep their eyes and minds open for those of us that have a little more of a difficult time and to put themselves in that position and what would they do or fight for? Many still need a reality reminder.
Barb in Worc.
I don’t care if it has a good point or not. The hyperbole kills it.
Short n sweet.
As nothing has actually been written we do not know specifics, meaning that neither do you. That being said, it does raise an interesting point.
<
p>As your argument so far is made up of nothing, let’s say for example that there are exemptions. My question to you is if you think this proposal in general has merit?
That’s more like it. đŸ™‚
Yes, Bill’s post could have been tempered a bit, and maybe it would generate more “traction” that way. But I am the one who chose to front-page it and call more attention to it than it otherwise would have received. I thought — and still think — that it raises an important issue regarding the proposal to place a surcharge on “gas guzzlers.”
<
p>The post is not “crap,” nor it is only focused on “complaining.” And I would remind those of you who seem to be all offended about the tone of the post that there’s been no shortage on this site of rather intense political invective at least equal to Bill’s post on any number of issues.
<
p>It’s a blog, not the Emily Post society, as I’ve said before. Come on folks — thicken up your hides a bit.
And I agree that there are worthy things to be discussed with regard to the topic. I never advocated any kind of ‘censorship’ policy on Bill. Nonetheless, I stand by my characterization of Bill’s tendency to be ‘complainist’ in his commentary. He wasn’t bringing up a policy question or suggestion, he was bringing up a policy complaint, and not just about the policy but about liberalism and liberals in general. I doubt very seriously that he ever intended the ‘serious’ discussion that you want to have happen on the issue by your promoting it. I don’t need to ‘take offense’ at his commentary in order to disapprove of it.
Complainist means ranting and spewing cynicism, the way the diarist did. I’ve deviated from the orthodoxy on this site, but try to explain my reasoning relevant to the particular issue.
Again, I think this is an overstatement. “Cynicism” – sure, though Bill’s hardly the only one guilty of that around here. But “ranting” and “spewing”? Not in the above-the-fold portion of the post, at least. If you don’t like the rest, ignore it.
<
p>Also, it’s hard to see how there’s “orthodoxy” on this site, given that the three editors routinely disagree with each other. People are free to disagree with us, and with each other — that’s a big part of what the site is for. From the Rules:
<
p>
<
p>Now, I will grant that Bill’s “observation” that, according to us, non-Democrats shouldn’t have any rights is perhaps less than “constructive.” Fine. The rest of his post raises a valid point that is worthy of discussion, and the post does not personally attack anyone.
…turned out to not be exactly true. In fact, he was using his disability to justify his anti-gay statements. He kept calling BMGers “Social Darwinists” in that conversation as well. Fool me once…
<
p>That said, my mother was very active in ADA enforcement as well as the Minneapolis Society for the Blind and the Interact Center, so I’m very sympathetic to the underlying point.
… productive conversations over our disagreements.
For understanding.
I find this point, somewhat buried in the article, to be interesting:
<
p>
<
p>I know people who might like to buy a smaller, more efficient vehicle, but the question of safety comes up, because when there are so many SUVs on the road, if you’re in an accident, the chances are good that the other car will be a lot bigger than your tiny gas-sipper.
<
p>How much of the “supersizing” is due to all the other SUVs on the road?
<
p>I don’t think it has much to do with crashes. Everybody wants to be taller because it feels more powerful and attractive. Seems to go triple on the roads.
I imagine a lot of small-time contractors and what not end up with less-than-optimal vehicles, from an environmental standpoint. Perhaps, however, these people are able to “deduct” a lot of expenses related to usage of vehicles for commercial purposes (thus perhaps offsetting the fee?). I’m not sure how all that works.
Although you really didn’t need the last sentence. I do get why you’re angry though. I’m a life-long Democrat and I am looking at our dandy Governor and his record on human services and I’m thinking there isn’t a whole of difference between him and the previous occupant of the corner office.
<
p>I think there are a couple of issues regarding regulation that steers consumers toward “one model” per class, due to unintended consequences.
<
p>1. Disabled people need to have the option of choosing the best vehicle for their individual needs. Retrofitting a vehicle is expensive enough. Different disabilities require different assistive and adaptive equipment and the choice in vehicle can’t rest with the government. I can see an ADA issue cropping up with this if disabled people aren’t exempt. The burden of retrofitting a less than ideal vehicle in order to escape an additional tax could be considered an unreasonable additional burden on the disabled.
<
p>2. The “one vehicle” per class is a sure fire recipe for giving those who “qualify” a competitive advantage over those who don’t…and it would be naive to suggest that politics (lobbyists, campaign contributors, etc.) won’t rule the day. The lawsuits would be flying.
<
p>
and again, this is Rep Smizik’s bill I’m commenting on, not Gov Patrick’s…
<
p>except that the determination of exempt (ie in the middle band) is purely a function of measured CO_2 output, which is done by the EPA.
purely by CO2 output shouldn’t be considered. Like they don’t have enough challenges.
If Obama’s federal bureaucracy wants to slam people for owning big cars/trucks, let them do it when they are bought. Other than that, the excessive fuel consumption from bigger vehicles will cost the owner more money with every gallon they buy.
<
p>Or do you want to put a “mileage” limit on cars to? I mean if someone owns a car which gets 35MPG but they drive 50,000 miles a year, how much are they polluting the air compared to a Hummer driving 10,000 miles?
<
p>I don’t think we need more “punishment” taxes for the rich.
… about comparing ‘how much are they polluting’. Presumably your bringing it up as a counter-intuitive example about the way relative mileage should be treated. However, it only serves as a counter-intuitive example if you do care about pollution.
<
p>As such, the relative ways in which someone wants to put ‘fees’ on car ownership depends entirely on what you care about and by extensions what your policy goals are.
<
p>To note that we shouldn’t have any fees is to note that there is nothing we can care about nor any goals we could aspire to that would justify a fee. That would include pollution. Thus, you’re bringing up of your ‘counter-intuitive’ example actually undermines your original point.
My taxes pay for the wars to get the oil for American’s cars. My brother in law has served in Iraq. Our balance of trade deficit is massive in a large part because of gasoline consumption. My lungs suffer from the air pollution. Our climate is likely to undergo substantial changes, in a large part because of gasoline consumption in America.
<
p>Reducing gasoline consumption is good policy. It’s good foreign policy (wars), it’s good economic policy (balance of trade), it’s good health policy (air pollution), and it’s good environmental policy (climate change). A feebate is a revenue neutral tool to encourage everyone to make slightly different choices so that we’re all better off. It won’t convert a Hummer owner to become a Prius owner, but it might encourage a potential Hummer driver to buy a more efficient SUV, and it might convince the buyer of a “moderate” MPG SUV to buy a Ford Escape hybrid. No matter what kind of car people are looking to buy, it will help convince them to choose a slightly more efficient model.
<
p>Of course, as more states implement feebate policies, it will provide a stronger and stronger incentive for auto manufacturers to design, build, and market more fuel efficient vehicles everywhere.
<
p>
<
p>There are many tools to influence aggregate gas consumption. Gas guzzler tax, federal gas tax, state gas tax, public transit subsidies, spending on highways, CAFE standards, subsidies on oil and gas exploration and drilling, federal funding on petrochemical research, wars, diplomacy, and more. A feebate is just one more tool available.
… just be ‘tools for influence’. For these purposes it could be said that they operate as a means of ‘capturing’ costs of what would otherwise be an externality.
but in fact a feebate doesn’t do that. The reality is a Prius still has a detrimental externality, just less of one than an Explorer. If the bill were designed to capture the externalities, it would be just fees — higher fees for the bigger polluters and lower fees for the smaller polluters.
<
p>This isn’t that. This is a revenue neutral tool to encourage those who are going to buy cars to buy less detrimental autos.
… makes it so that this can’t really function as a redress to an externality unless the aggregate cost of the externality were also somehow (serendipitously) effectively 0 over the entire fleet, but under represented in the cost of low MPG cars and over represented in the cost of high MPG cars in such a way that redress would be revenue neutral.
<
p>My point was only in response to the notion of using taxes to influence consumer behavior. I just wanted to point out that there are other ways to functionally use taxes and fees with regard to the problem. One is to try and influence behavior, another is to try and capture hidden costs. I fully understand that the feebate is an example of the former and not the latter.
I agree lower gas consumption and cleaner air are desirable goals, but there is the possibility of having too many complicated “tools” to try to get this outcome.
<
p>Gas tax is simple, it is based on use. Mandate, at the Federal Level, fuel consumption and emission standars that ALL domestic and foreign manufacturers must comply to sell in US. NO exceptions.
is that gas tax is a small part of the price of a gallon of gasoline, the price of gasoline moves wildly, and it turns out that auto purchasers only consider the price of gas now when they make their purchase. This means that when the price of gas dips [like now], people go back to buying the cars they were eschewing just months earlier.
<
p>In an economic sense, automobile buyers don’t behave rationally with respect to the price of gasoline. They respond to sticker price. The feebate influences the sticker price, and therefore has an influence on purchasing decisions that gasoline tax doesn’t.
You have to be kidding.
<
p>In New York state, taxes account for nearly $0.63/gallon (the highest in the nation). Under Patrick’s proposal, the MA tax share per gallon of gas alone would shoot to around $0.51—factor in the federal tax of $0.184, and you’re talking nearly $0.70 in state and federal taxes per gallon of gas.
<
p>At today’s price of around $1.87, state & federal tax would account for 37% of the price of a gallon of gas. At today’s rate, it’s about 22.5%. In what world is that a “small part of the price of a gallon of gasoline?” Government makes a better margin on gasoline than Big Oil does.
<
p>http://www.commonsensejunction…
is a floor.
<
p>The price of gas is extraordinarily low. We’re at the lowest point in the 12 month year for gas prices, and we’re in the middle of a harsh recession. Feb 2008 gas prices were $3.04 a gallon nationally (slightly higher in MA, with the current MA tax of $23.5. If the state tax them were $.51, the price of a gallon would have been $3.32, and the tax portion of $.69 would have been 21% of the price.
<
p>I would call that a small part of the price of gasoline.
<
p>Now, the question is: what will the price of gasoline do in the future? I expect it will slowly crawl upward for a year or two, then shoot up again.
Over a fifth a “small part” of the whole? Honestly?
<
p>Let’s examine what makes up the price of a gallon of gas. We’ll use NPR as a source—that should be an acceptable source around here:
<
p>http://www.npr.org/templates/s…
<
p>Executive summary:
<
p>The cost of crude: 55%
The cost of refining: 22%
Distribution and marketing: 4%
Taxes: 19%
<
p>What will gas prices do in the future? Let’s take a look at the market: crude oil costs a fraction of what it used to cost just over a year ago. Why? The economic downturn has stifled demand, allowing supply to increase.
<
p>From the AP, today: Oil prices fell below $38 a barrel Friday as tumbling stocks and weak economic data reminded investors that crude demand is likely to soften further.
<
p>More here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…
<
p>Look for oil, then, to continue trading low during the recession. And remember, crude oil accounts for 55% of the price of a gallon of gas.
<
p>
<
p>Yes. More precisely, I would call under a fourth a “small part” of the whole. Honestly.
<
p>As for the rest, you run into trouble when writing about the price of gasoline in terms of percentages precisely because the single biggest input (oil) has such price variability. That price variability is exactly why consumers aren’t as sensitive to high gas prices as is economically efficient — they expect them to fall again.
<
p>Once we buy a car, we’re stuck with it by and large for about 7 years. Our decisions on how many miles to drive is pretty sticky… we can save maybe 20% of our fuel consumption by maintaining the vehicle, not speeding, and combining errands, but that’s about it. Any more savings than that require substantial changes in behavior, changes which some people may do but not many, at least not in the short term. However, we have a tremendous influence over how much we’ll save over the entire next 7 years at the time of purchase. It’s good public policy to encourage the purchase of high MPG vehicles and discourage the purchase of low MPG vehicles. The gas tax isn’t a particularly effective way to do this because purchasers aren’t weighing the future price of gasoline heavily enough (in an economic theory sense) when they purchase their automobile. The feebate program serves to further encourage more efficient purchases, and can be set up to be revenue neutral which means that, unlike the gas tax, it’s not implicitly regressive.
For at least three reasons:
<
p>1) To consider 1/5th of something a “small part of the whole” is ludicrous, at least in my opinion, when the profit margin on that whole, for the producer of it, is in the single digits. The government’s take on a gallon of gas is bigger than Big Oil’s take.
<
p>2) Consumers aren’t sensitive to high gas prices? I must be reading that wrong, because I know for a fact that you couldn’t buy a Toyota Prius a few years ago if you wanted to. The factories couldn’t churn them out fast enough. And let’s face it: style-wise, the Prius is about as sexy as a box of oatmeal, so nobody was buying it for aesthetic reasons.
<
p>3) Consumers are certainly weighing the future price of gasoline enough when they purchase their automobiles. These days, they have to, especially here in MA, where our detached-from-all-reality-whatsoever governor wants to hike the gas tax even more. Read the news, too: GM is killing Hummer. Dodge is killing Durango. Because consumers aren’t buying these vehicles any longer.
<
p>The consumer will make more efficient purchases because it’s in his or her best interest to make more efficient purchases. It’s our cash on the table—period—“feebate” or no feebate. You don’t need good public policy to convince anyone smarter than a chunk of granite that it’s better to have car X over car Y if the cost of gasoline is an issue.
stomv, do you really think people are going back to buy Hummers and large SUVs? Be interesting to see what is selling now.
since GM has suggested that it may be discontinued soon.
<
p>The idea behind the feebate isn’t really to get people to choose a different class of vehicle (like a sedan instead of an SUV). The idea is to encourage buyers within a class to choose a different vehicle within that class, motivated by a differential in the fee/rebate. Sometimes folks will switch classes altogether, but I think generally it will be specifically within a class.
<
p>As far as the large SUVs — there was such a glut of new large SUVs on the market right when gas prices shot up that prices were slashed to get sales. Naturally, sales went up as prices hit the floor. Now that some of that inventory has moved and gas prices have fallen, the sticker prices have come up some. Bottom line: the last 8 months of data is difficult to read because the average price for a new vehicle of any given make and model has itself moved all over the place — and the number of vehicles sold overall is about 30% off of a year ago for each of the past few months.
<
p>Without good data, do I think people are back to buying large SUVs now that gas prices are under $2.00 a gallon? Yes. That is to say, if the price went up to $2.75 a gallon tomorrow, the percent of all new vehicle sales which are large SUVs in the past week would be higher than in the next week.
<
p>I read a great economics journal article a few years ago which showed that consumers only include the next year of gasoline costs in their purchasing decisions. That is, they effectively compared the gas cost differential for the next year, and then assumed the differential was zero thereafter when comparing two vehicles. This means that while increased gas prices will result in consumers shifting their purchases to more fuel efficient vehicles, it doesn’t result in as much shift as would be rational — consumers underprice the cost of gasoline over the life of the vehicle and therefore aren’t as sensitive to gasoline prices at the time of purchase as a total cost of ownership calculation would dictate.
<
p>This irrational behavior is what motivates the feebate — it essentially compensates for the consumer’s lack of sufficient weight to the price of gas. Yes, I know all consumers are different and that they will respond differently to prices, fees, and rebates. This is true of any skewing of the market due to any tax, fee, subsidy, rebate, regulation, or asymmetric information.
Lots of vitriol, with some ad hominen to round it out, no actual information, no context. This really doesn’t belong on the front page.
The reasoning is that people who have a gas guzzler should have to pay more money because their car consumes more and is presumably worse for the environment.
<
p>Well, if an SUV uses more gas, aren’t they inherently paying more in gas taxes already? Also, they typically are more expensive than say, a Honda Accord, so they are also paying more on the excise tax.
<
p>When push comes to shove, this surcharge is meaningless, because you’ll have no way of knowing if Person A with a Ford F150 is going to drive 1,000 miles while Person B with a Civic drives 20,000 in a given year. Which person has the larger carbon footprint then? I don’t like this idea.
NO I DON’T! Disabled people have been shat on enough! So I bring things to light that you prefer to be hidden behind a locked door. My method of phrasing may not always be tasteful, but I hope it is effective. How mant of you know what it’s like to be bedridden for weeks because repair services take theuir sweet time to maximize profits. What can you do? One word. NOTHING! The disabled population doesn’t even get enough respect to be disrespected. Ignored is more the term. Lose the blue tinted glasses folks, there’s a world that is not doing so well.
fascists really gets you respect. Oooookay…
Is name calling relevant. Please read my post above yours here and comment on each part. It is ok to just say you ndon’t know. I can explain each point. Please note that I am not calling names since my first post. It was an attention getter. Of course it ain’t libel if it is true.
You need to keep up with the news, buddy. You’re singing a pre-2009 song with that line.
You lost me when you professed to be able to read my mind.