Don't be dense guys, this idea has been proposed by the letter that opened this thread!

It has been repeated many times by many people as a way to force consumers to choose small fuel efficient cars.

The future is what I'm talking about here, not the history of the gas tax!

What is being proposed now is what I'm objecting to as manipulative and social engineering!

Sheesh!

Don't be dense guys, this idea has been proposed by the letter that opened this thread!

It has been repeated many times by many people as a way to force consumers to choose small fuel efficient cars.

The future is what I'm talking about here, not the history of the gas tax!

What is being proposed now is what I'm objecting to as manipulative and social engineering!

Sheesh!

Again though, the reality would be the more you consume, the more you pay. That's fair... if drivers choose to move to more efficient cars, that's a side effect.

Edited November 8, 200816 yr by moltar

Again though, the reality would be the more you consume, the more you pay. That's fair... if drivers choose to move to more efficient cars, that's a side effect.

Not when the tax is raised with that intent, that's premeditated, artificial, and punitive.

Not when the tax is raised with that intent, that's premeditated, artificial, and punitive.

You are reading too much into things. The gas tax hasn't been raised since a while back, IIRC.

You are reading too much into things. The gas tax hasn't been raised since a while back, IIRC.

No, I'm not. The author of the letter intends just what I say, others advocate raising the tax for the same punitive effect. What I am talking about has nothing to do with the funding base for roads and bridges! It is this attitude that the tax should be raised to keep the price of fuel artificially high so that mass numbers move toward small cars and drive less. Those that advocate this come right out and say it, so I come right out and oppose it.

No, I'm not. The author of the letter intends just what I say, others advocate raising the tax for the same punitive effect. What I am talking about has nothing to do with the funding base for roads and bridges! It is this attitude that the tax should be raised to keep the price of fuel artificially high so that mass numbers move toward small cars and drive less. Those that advocate this come right out and say it, so I come right out and oppose it.

Well you can go ahead and believe all the conspiracy theories you want. You're not in the industry. I'm telling you, as someone IN the industry, that funding infrastructure, not "social manipulation" is the reason behind raising the gas tax. Ignore the pundits--they are the dense ones, even if they have an open-letter-writing column.

And moltar you are correct, the gas tax has not been raised in a looong time (early 90s) and therefore has not kept up with inflation at all.

I give up!

You miss the point entirely.

I already pay over 50 cents on a gllon of gas tax. I dont need more. I am with Camino,Sixty-8, and the rest opposed to this. Once again the poor would be affected more than the rich. Another way for the govt to tell me what I can drive or not. Once I turn my Equinox in next March I will have just the 1981 and 1985. I may not be able to afford to purchase for a while. I should be penalized just because I cant afford a new fuel efficient car? I dont think so. Tax the ones making the big money.