Auto Execs Urge Gas Tax Hike

[Sindawe]

DETROIT — Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation Inc., the country's largest auto retailer, this week called for a 10-cents-a-year hike in the current federal gas tax of 18 cents per gallon to decrease dependence on foreign oil.

Last week, General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said a gradual increase in the gas tax would push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. Auto manufacturers have expressed support for higher U.S. gas taxes as an alternative to government mandates to raise fleet average fuel economy. AutoNation's Jackson said an increase in the gas tax, which has not changed for a decade, would prompt a "fundamental change in outlook."

CNW Marketing Research Inc. said Tuesday it recently surveyed 5,193 consumers and found "modest support for such a notion if the money were guaranteed to go to that end, but no support if the money were to be used for general fund or non-oil-related purposes." CNW said opposition to a gas tax increase declined to 31 percent in 2005 from 57 percent in 2003.

What this means to you: Mr. Jackson's remarks may not sound inviting, but raising the price of gas is the only guaranteed way to get people to buy more fuel efficient cars and trucks.

Source: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=107496
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I already drove a vehicle that got equivalent gas mileage as the majority of NEW cars, and it was 15 years old! (35.6 mpg on the last tank), and I'm replacing it with one the most fuel efficient non-hybrids in my price range. What the else does this fool want? :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Master Blaster]

Last week, General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said a gradual increase in the gas tax would push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. Auto manufacturers have expressed support for higher U.S. gas taxes as an alternative to government mandates to raise fleet average fuel economy.

I think this says it all.

They want somone else to bear the cost and the blame.

 

[Azrael256]

What the else does this fool want?

For you to buy another car. At first, I thought it was insane. The logic goes that higher fuel prices kill car sales. It is generally true, BUT, if your next generation of cars is going to be super efficient (or at least look that way) while all your previous customers are trying to get rid of the gas-guzzling SUV you sold them in 2001...

It's really a pretty good strategy. Evil as they come, but smart.

 

[Nazirite]

Can you say boycott.

 

[50 Freak]

I think it should be the other way around. The government should raise the mininum MPG from 20 (I think) to 30 MPG per new car.

We should make the car manufactors start making more feul efficient cars. I know it's going to hurt in the wallet as they pass on to us higher car prices. But I really do believe that fact we are so reliant on foreign oil is making this great nation weak.

I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV. Those things were designed for the country and hauling wood. Not transport some snot nosed kids to baseball practice.

We as a nation need to move away from gas guzzler cars.

It'll be a truely happy day, when we can tell those OPEC to take their oil and shove it.

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

And this type of thing is why I'm still a Democrat.

Sometimes, you have to whop Business up side the head in order to get the best result.

Either way you want to handle this (and there's a number of ways), there's going to be some pain involved. The questions are: How long to you want to wait for "market forces" to balance out? And, who takes the most of the pain?

Personally, I think they should raise standards somewhat agressively to put a slightly greater amount of pressure on the manufacturers, to give them incentive to innovate.

 

[kahr40]

I think we need a fundamental change in outlook from Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation Inc and his tribe.

 

[dasmi]

When I finish paying off my F-150, I'm going to get rid of it, and get an old diesel mercedes. Probably a 300SD Turbo. 25-30 MPG, big, safe, reliable car. Oh, and bio-diesel friendly.

www.greasecar.com

 

[HankB]

"modest support for such a notion if the money were guaranteed to go to that end, but no support if the money were to be used for general fund or non-oil-related purposes."

Support if the money goes to "that end?" WHAT END WOULD THAT BE? The .gov would be getting more money, so what the <self censored, Art's grammaw rule> do these <again> think the <and again> government is going to DO with the money?

Why do these <expletives> always, always, ALWAYS want to stick their <expletive> hands in my pocket with some sort of tax increase, NO MATTER WHAT THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM?

We're OVERSPENT, not UNDERTAXED. :banghead:

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Yes, grease is the future of transportation. The reality: oil might be $80/barrel or even $100/barrel within 12 to 24 months. Everyone can see that this is a realistic possibility.

But the price of grease (vegetable oil and waste grease) has nothing to do with the price of oil. It has more to do with labor costs, currency exchange with the Mayalsia Ringit, and other independent factors.

Right now you can buy food-grade vegetable oil at discount grocery stores for about the price of a gallon of gas. That's food-grade, sold in a container. How much cheaper would non-food-grade be, solid in bulk? And remember it's a commodity that we can produce right here, and is not controled by religious fanatics half way around the world.

 

[billwiese]

idiotic idea...

More stupidity all around.

US car co's want this because they might, on the off chance, get some extra customers for their smaller cars, making them profitable. (For all sorts of structural reasons, US small car product lines often run at a loss.) Likely will have the unintended effect of reduced economic growth, causing people to keep their old cars longer.

It's my money, I'll spend it how I friggin' want. If I really have to crunch $$, I just drive a bit less on the discretionary side.

This is the same idiot thinking as the car execs (esp foreign!) who want to build so called enviro-friendly cars that decompose in landfills better. Their cars decompose rapidly enough sitting on the street, work on fixing that.

I watch the way I drive - I don't do jackrabbit starts or accelerate to get in line for a red light. And I change my O2 sensor every 50K miles.

And while I think the average soccer mom is not a good driver - esp w/4 screaming kids and talking on a cellphone while putting on makeup - I do understand her (and her husband) wanting to protect her kids in a tank-like full-size SUV. Typical American SUVs (Explorer, Tahoe, 'Burban, Expedition, etc.) are much safer if you subtract out the rollover factor - which is simply caused by idiots taking curves too fast or thinking that 4WD = any road, any time, any speed.

I drive a new Ford F150. I am not comfortable in a smaller vehicle as I am 6'5", almost 250lb. I enjoy having a nice structure around me. I like pickups because they are simple, reliable and easy to fix. I can keep one running for a long time should I choose to retain it, so my total cost of ownership is low.
And even given fuel prices, it's cheaper to have a $17K F150 than a $24K Honda Accord.

So they will take my truck from my cold, dead hands.

My only other real option was a Ford Crown Victoria, since I will not buy a front-wheel drive car and since the Chevy Caprice is no longer in production.
And I didn't wanna pay $10K extra for the extra sheet metal in an SUV.

Conceivably I could drive a V6 but do I like my vehicle to get out of its own way. When I had my GMC Sierra w/Vortec V6 and 2 people were in it, I usu shifted outta OD temporarily to merge onto a freeway to get enough 'oomph'.

All these folks saying they can make cars more efficient are forgetting that there's only a fixed amount of horsepower you can extract from a given parcel of fuel. Plus, the fuel already has additives in it (esp in CA) that make it 5+% less efficient anyway (which makes moot the environmental argument for 'clean fuel' - since you're burning more so-called clean fuel to go same distance as regular fuel, it's a wash emissions-wise).

Sure, technologies like regenerative braking can recapture some otherwise- lost power. And some drivetrain losses could be reduced too. But it takes a certain given HP to move a car of a given weight at a given acceleration. So you end up having to make a lighter, smaller, and thus less safe car.

BTW I saw a statistic where 20% of folks will have some moderate to major effect in their life from a car accident. So I look on the cost of gas to drive a heavier vehicle around as, in effect, a bit of alternate health insurance.

The oil is in funky areas of the world. These societies have no other product in their economy. They HAVE to sell oil to us. We just need to maintain more control of the little wookies.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[mr_dove]

I totally support the idea as long as the funds are used to fund things like alternative transportation and alternative fuel research.

increasing gas prices has the following benefits.

• encourages the use of alternative transporation (busses, trains, bikes, walking, etc)
• more people walking and biking to work will reduce our nations huge obesity problem somewhat.
• reduce traffic congestion
• reduce sprawl by encouraging some people to move closer to their jobs.

and the biggies is that it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

 

[AZ Jeff]

Given that fuel costs are such a small portion of the overall cost of owning and operating a vehicle, raising gas taxes will NOT have a significant effect on the TOTAL cost of ownership.

None the less, some less-than-critical thinkers will now say "gosh, gas just went up 20 cents per gallon, I better buy a new $20,000 car that gets better fuel economy".

Those of us who understand the TOTAL cost of ownership will just be more circumspect about when and where we drive.

 

[Standing Wolf]

We should make the car manufactors start making more feul efficient cars. I know it's going to hurt in the wallet as they pass on to us higher car prices.

We should make the gun manufacturers start making safer guns. I know it's going to hurt in the wallet as they pass on to us higher gun prices.

Realistically speaking, government turns problems into crises, crises into disasters. We need less of it, not more.

 

[R.H. Lee]

General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said a gradual increase in the gas tax would push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.

HAHAHA! This joker is stuck with tons of Suburbans, Tahoes and Avalanches he can't sell and wants Uncle Sugar come bail him out.

Here's my fuel efficient vehicle. A solid 40+mpg

 

[50 Freak]

Gentlemen,

I disagree. I know some of you love your big hunking SUV's. And I know you guys are getting hit in the wallet worse than us with the small 40mpg cars.

But I hate to tell you, but it's you guys that are causing us to be in a gas crunch. Your cars get something like 16-20 mpg. Making you use more gas than you need to in order to get to one place or another. Hence causing you to spend more money to buy more gas.

Increased demand = lower supply.
Lower supplies = higher prices.
Higher prices = More money for OPEC (and we all know, money = power)
Powerful OPEC = Weak USA

This is a simplist analysis, but it's the freaking truth. Let China who is the second biggest user of oil take the higher oil prices. I think the US should invest heavily in Nuclear power, solar power, hell little turbines powered by running mice. Anything is better than bowing down to OPEC's demands.

 

[Daniel T]

Gas is already almost $3 a gallon. What does any of that have to do with an extra $.10 per gallon tax?

Editted to add:

I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV.

I really despair any time I see a phase like this used on a GUN RIGHTS message board. Do you think any anti's think you "need" any firearms at all?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV.

Would you like to guess how many fuel efficient passenger sedans out there can accomodate three infant or child safety seats? Come on think hard...

If Soccer Mom Jane has more than 2 kids, you will quickly learn why she needs an SUV, or mini van.

As far as the tax idea is concerned, I don't think it goes far enough. I would be in favor considerably more tax than that, so long as all the tax went towards developing alternative fuel. I also think that all money spent on corporate research of alternative fuel should be tax free.

 

[billwiese]

Mr Dove wrote:
I totally support the idea as long as the funds are used to fund things like alternative transportation and alternative fuel research.

You're high, dude.

Another gov't money-pit morass. A portion will get spent on things like midnight basketball and how climate change affects the fuzzy lousewort.

Iincreasing gas prices has the following benefits.
encourages the use of alternative transporation (busses, trains, bikes, walking, etc)

No it won't. I won't take public transportation to work - a bus, a trolley train and another bus? 52 minutes for a 23 minute trip?

In metro areas, buses are dangerous. When you look at folks on public transportation (excl ultra metro areas during commute hrs like central NYC and SF) there's usually a reason those folks can't drive (legal, mental, etc.)

People drive because they like the isolation and (perceived) security of their cars and time flexibility. And that they don't have to sit next to a smelly and/or unstable homeless guy.

Lotsa transit systems' schedules get sparse outside commute hours and are primarily designed for 9-5 employees. Here in Silicon Valley I don't know anyone that does 9-5. Of course, that mindset is still characteristic of the socialist life planners that populate gov't agencies who can't conceive of anyone staying after 5PM at work because they've never seen that.

Plus, in many places, public transit goes nowhere useful.

And due to crazy union contracts, labor costs and high overhead make public transit in many areas cost about the same as driving to work. Ask people in SF Bay Area - when BART raised parking fees, many BART commuters switched back to driving.

more people walking and biking to work will reduce our nations huge obesity problem somewhat.

What the HELL is it anyone else's business how fat I am? Plus if I die early, I take less Soc Security. Gov't should actually encourage double-cut steaks and smoking to balance the budget. (half-serious, half in jest)

reduce traffic congestion

It doesn't cost that much extra to build roads of the right capacity in the first place. Much more expensive to build a road, then widen it later.

* reduce sprawl by encouraging some people to move closer to their jobs.

Another socialist urban planner mindwarpage.

People live where they want to live for various reasons - home size, crime rates, school system quality, central location due to separate commutes of husband & wife, etc.

And when you change jobs every 2-3 years you don't know exactly where your next one will be - so planning for it is moot, other than it's in overall general region.

You will just increase many folks' cost by attempts to force this - people, in general, try to live in approximately the best area (by their definition they can afford to live.

Don't define what's right for other folks.

and the biggies is that it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

We need to drill more oil and also go massively nuclear for power grid.

I have far far less grief w/money going outside US for raw materials than us buying stuff from China.

The oil-bearing world has only one product to sell. They HAVE to cooperate, and they are easier to keep in line.

A relatively few crazy Arabs can cause us problems (WTC, etc.) But China is the real enemy.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[Bigjake]

exactly , lonegunman.

Also, y'all show me a pickup that can pull 30 mpg (or even 20) and i'll show you and underpowered POS incapable of pulling (no pun intended) 90 % of most farm or construction workloads.

Let the market work its way out, i can't belive fellow gunnys would advocate the .gov medling in anything else, given their track record.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Also, y'all show me a pickup that can pull 30 mpg (or even 20) and i'll show you and underpowered POS incapable of pulling (no pun intended) 90 % of most farm or construction workloads.

I don't think you could call my '04 4x4 F150 Supercrew an underpowered POS, and I regularly get 22-25 on the highway. It has the smaller (4.6-L) V-8 and no "off-road" or "towing" package, and when I go on long trips I pump the tires up to 40 psi. My truck would be a poor choice for towing heavy loads, but since I don't tow heavy loads, I prefer good gas mileage over the low-geared rear end that is the primary component of the off-road or towing packages. My truck will haul six adult men, their rifles, and four whitetail deer through the swamps of northwest Minnesota with no problem, and that's all I need it to do.

People should honestly assess their needs. If you get a bigger engine and a package that has a lower-geared rear differential, you are going to burn more fuel. If you have to haul a utility trailer every day, or if you have to tow a boat or a camper across country, then you might need that. If you just drive off road for hunting and such, which I do on a regular basis, you sure as hell don't need a low-geared rear end. I often wonder at these idiots I see running around town with pickups with "Z-71" or "FX-41" or whatever the hell Ford calls its off road package plastered on the sides of their trucks. These fools never leave the city or tow anything, yet every day they pay a price in lower fuel mileage. I figure most of them are so mechanically illiterate they don't understand the relationship between final-drive gearing and fuel mileage.

Or else they have really small weiners.

 

[Gannet]

Amazing how all the "freedom lovers" want the government to tell everyone else what kind of vehicle they have to drive.

CAFE standards are nothing but socialism. It's the exact same thing as every other wacked socialist plan and, guess what, like every other wacked socialist plan it doesn't work. "We know what's good for you, trust us, let us pass a bunch of laws and regulations, and things will be better, we promise!"

Haven't you guys learned anything? Sheesh.

If you want to reduce demand for oil, tax it or otherwise restrict supply until prices rise. Demand will then fall. Any other solution is stupid and doomed to failure.

It's called a market.

 

[Deavis]

But I hate to tell you, but it's you guys that are causing us to be in a gas crunch. Your cars get something like 16-20 mpg. Making you use more gas than you need to in order to get to one place or another. Hence causing you to spend more money to buy more gas.

What does driving bigger cars have to do with there being a gas crunch? IF you switched to a country of smaller cars, you would see the same consumption or very near to it. Why? People would move farther out and drive more often. Just like building an extra lane on the freeway, people will immediately take advantage in a way that you can't fathom= with the "central" planning mindset.

More importantly, you are acting as if you have a right to purchase gasoline. Gasoline, like everything else is a resource. There is always competition for resources and if you can't afford that resource, well tough luck. It is no different with food, land, or, hell, women. Do you complain when that 40 year old guy is walking out with a hot 23 year old model, wearing a Armani suit, driving a Viper, and wearing a boat anchor on his wrist? That guy is driving up the "cost" to obtain women, it isn't fair!

I bet you also get mad when people run their house AC at 69° because it "raises" your bill. The problem is, you aren't willing to compete for that resource and they are. If I don't like the price of a resource, I either don't use it or go earn more money so I can afford it. Life is a competition and the market reflects that.

Increased demand = lower supply.
Lower supplies = higher prices.
Higher prices = More money for OPEC (and we all know, money = power)
Powerful OPEC = Weak USA

You logic only works in a zero sum game. Increased dmeand can lead to greater production to satisfy that demand. There is a higher demand for gasoline today in the US but compared to the 70's (with inflation) we were paying less for gasoline (I thought I read we were no longer less). Demand went up, supply went up, and price went down? How is that possible? It just can't happen!

The human race and the economy cannot be modeled as a zero sum game. When things get scarce, unlike other animals, we come up with new ways to get things done. That is why we have opposable thumbs and a brain... That way we can do more than just twiddle them when stuff goes wrong.

I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV. Those things were designed for the country and hauling wood. Not transport some snot nosed kids to baseball practice.

From a guy who's screen name is "50 freak"? Unless you are 50 and a bit freaky, go Viagra, then the "You don't need that xxx..." argument should be the last thing you ever utter in a post! Is that not the ultimate in irony?

 

[AZ Jeff]

Didn't we just have this discussion on free market economics and the price of gasoline about 4 weeks ago, right after hurricane Katrina caused gas to spike to $3 a gallon?

Didn't anyone LEARN anything about supply, demand, and price in that discussion?

I will agree to letting some of you posters tell me what kind of car a can drive (and what gas mileage it must get), just as long as I can tell YOU what kind and how many FIREARMS YOU CAN OWN!!!

Geeesh................

 

[50 Freak]

Deavis,

Calm down buddy. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

I never said that there is no need for large SUVs and such. I said there is no need for soccer moms to be transporting their snot nosed little kids around in a huge Tahoe or something that sized. I live in the Silicon Valley and the closest we come to going offroading or hauling wood is watching the Redneck games. Besides you can fit more kids and stuff in a more fuel economical Mini Van or station wagon than a gas guzzling Hummer.

So there is no need for these soccer moms to have a huge car like that. It's a statis symbol and unfortunately everyone here pays for that vanity.

But this is America and it is their choice to buy whatever they chose. Just know that your choice will have an effect on others around you. So don't bitch when your paying $50 bucks a gallon. Those of us that only have to fill up every two weeks aren't going to be hurt as bad as you.

As for other countries, typically they have smaller more efficent cars and their gas prices are by far more than what we pay. But the difference is they don't use cars as frequently as we do. How many here knows a family that doesn't have at least one car? Typically here we have 2-3 cars per family. More cars, more gas consumption. Higher prices.

You logic only works in a zero sum game. Increased dmeand can lead to greater production to satisfy that demand. There is a higher demand for gasoline today in the US but compared to the 70's (with inflation) we were paying less for gasoline (I thought I read we were no longer less). Demand went up, supply went up, and price went down? How is that possible? It just can't happen!

I guess that would be true if not for the fact we are maxed out at our production and processing limit. And OPEC says their maxed out at pumping out the oil. Unless you can magically bring oil out of the ground, refine it and fill up every gas station in the US on a continual basis, you're going to see gas prices continue to rise.

And you know what, I agree, my example is a oversimplified and doesn't take in account other factors. Maybe you have the time to sit there and factor in every freaking possibility that may arise on a global economic scale, but frankly I don't. Hence you will noticed I stated I was giving an "simplistic analysis" of the problem we face.

But I agree with Bill. The reason we are seeing such a high rise in gas prices is we (the world) has only a finite limit on the oil we pull out of the ground. But with the recent introduction of China and India as major buyers of oil in the world, the US is having to pay extra for oil. More buyers, the price of a limited commodity goes up. It's not like we can all say to OPEC, your prices are too much, we'll go to your competitors. There aren't very many countries that have the oil producing ability that OPEC has.

That is why I keep saying the US needs to ween itself off of foreign oil and let China and India pay the high prices. In the current situation the only winner is OPEC.

And how do you know my name "50 Freak" doesn't mean I like 50 year old women? Or maybe 50 women at a time? Or I do it 50 times? Don't attack someone when you don't know squat about them.