Research Tax

[Astronouth7303]

In our newspaper this weekend, one of the editors made a suggestion. Place a 50 cent tax on every gallon of gas. The money from this tax would go to a 'Manhatan' project for alternate energy sources. What do you think?

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

In our newspaper this weekend, one of the editors made a suggestion. Place a 50 cent tax on every gallon of gas. The money from this tax would go to a 'Manhatan' project for alternate energy sources. What do you think?

50 cent tax as in details? How exactuly would it work? Would there be tax deductions? What about donations and stuff? It may be helpful to post the article...it's an interesting idea though.

[Elgin Clock]

I personally think that there is enouh tax on gas as it is, and some of that money is already being wasted on other stuff - re: filling the pockets of government officials.

But anyways: As for this idea, while I do like what the end result would bring us, I doubt it will ever happen cause when in the world have you seen a tax put on a product for the use of making that said product obsolete, or less used other than from cigarette products?

The gas companies are not going to benefit from this tax, so I doubt they would implement a tax that they were not going to see any money from.

It all comes down to the mighty dollar.

If it were the governmet that issued the tax, I would like it set up as a non-profit organization or something similar where their financial records would be available on demand by the public. If this were to be implemented, I want to see exactly where my 50 cents a gallon was used to research/test.


Now think about this:

In comparison: Since I do not smoke, and know a lot of people who have had long term health effect from smoking, I say tax the heck out of those products and use that money for research and anti-smoking campaigns.

I do not smoke, so I do not have a problem seeing ciggarette products taxed and am obviously in favor of it.
I use gas and petrol product daily so obviously I have a big problem with the tax.

As you can see, my decisions on these two very similar plans are swayed by whether or not I use the product.

Do you use gas products? If yes, then what is your opinion on the tax?
It would be a little different opinion you had than if you used a hybrid car, or a fuel cell car or walked (or used a Segway ) now wouldn't it?

[mtrawls]

The government will use whatever tax dollars it gets ... and want even more. No matter how high the taxes are. As for removing our dependence on foreign oil ... the problem lies largely with environmentalist groups, which are a large barrier to change. These people say we need to be free of foreign oil -- but raise hell if anyone suggests drilling in a very tiny portion of Alaska. They bemoan the build-up of greenhouse gasses, but dread the thought of nuclear power plants (which are very clean, and only produce a small amount of waste, which is largely a political issue rather than a health issue). Instead of proposing a 50 cents research tax, how about we just ask the government to get things right, and use what they have in a wise fashion?

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I can see where you are coming from on that, and I agree that a tax would not benefit the cause now that I've looked at your and elgin's discussions. However, I would like to present an idea on the Alaska issue: I think that this wouldn't benefit the "better gas" issue that the starter of this thread is heading for. It would merely be a temporary fix: when the oil in Alaska dries up, prices will go up again as per necessity of foreign oil, and we'll no longer have Alaska to depend on. We'll also spend time building plants and transporting equipment while gas prices rise. I think it comes down to the simplest idea: public support of research. People didn't support civil rights movements until civil rights movements put a dent in public image. It takes that sort of action to spur public to action, and if we want any kind of "gas price" solution, I think the country has to think of something besides a day of no gas purchase.

[mtrawls]

Sure, looking for oil in Alaska is a "short term solution" -- it will only last for so long (I'm not expert, but our lifetimes at least). And research is a long term solution -- alone, one will put you in a bigger problem in the future and the other will keep you in a growing problem for a whlie, but together they seem to work reseanably well. But, you might be suprised, a heck of a lot of research is being put in alternative energy sources. And a heck of a lot of dollars. But it's a tough problem, there's no easy answer, and it's likely a ways off yet. E.g., nuclear fusion presents an ideal solution, since there is no waste product, excpet maybe too much energy ... but it presents a physically interesting confinement problem (hard too understand, let alone solve!). Other sources of energy that have been developed recently run into the problem of being more costly in energy in terms of their creation that the energy they will ever produce. Windmills and solar cells work great at a given time and for a given geographic region, although we are a long ways off from being really efficient. My major qualm with the idea of the "50 cents gas tax" is it presents the idea that a solution will be found shortly (really, 50 cents is quite a bit! and I drive over 80 miles a day for school, so I feel the pain at the pump, believe me), and it presents the idea that throwing money at the problem will fix it. There are many other issues to be considered, many political, besides money -- afterall, there's a lot of money in it already. And, of course, throwing money at a bloated government with holes in its wallet doesn't seem to be the best solution, from a tax-payer standpoint anyway.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

So to continue discussion, what other possibilities do we have?

Is it a good first step to make an effort at working on making the majority of cars hybrid or otherwise more efficient as a long term goal?

What can the individual do to encourage this effort?

[Astronouth7303]

My econ class came up with better reasons. I thought you guys were smart!

Think about this:

1. The price of gas goes up
2. This would encourage consumers to by higher efiecency cars
3. This causes corporations to spend more money on R&D. First with better mpg, then to different technology all together
4. So even more money is spent on the same (similar) thing that the new tax goes to.
5. Technologies researched (Hydrogen, electric, solar, etc.) reaches market faster.

Also, generally big SUVs and Minivans have low mpg, so people will start buying more compacts, sub-compacts, etc. This reduces the average car size and reduces congestion. AND such research can have applications elsewhere. Longer and more powerful rechargable batteries, H₂ powered electronics, HY-WIRE from GM (aka The Skateboard), for example.

Think about this a little, and not just how your wallet is loosing weight.

[mtrawls]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

My econ class came up with better reasons. I thought you guys were smart!
...

Tisk, tisk. Energy and politics isn't so easy ... think of side effects and consequences and the mid term. E.g.,

The price of gas goes up

Everything becomes more expensive, economy slows down. A lot is dependent on gas ... how do goods move across country to your grocery store? Think about the effect on the airplane industry.

This would encourage consumers to by higher efiecency cars

If such options are available. It was recently reported (don't have link now), that the mileage for a hybrid car was way overstated than what it actually got. Hybrids aren't so great. Further, they have a limited niche, they aren't for the family that needs to transport 4 kids across town multiple times per day. (And surely they aren't for shipping good cross country!)

This causes corporations to spend more money on R&D. First with better mpg, then to different technology all together
So even more money is spent on the same (similar) thing that the new tax goes to.
Technologies researched (Hydrogen, electric, solar, etc.) reaches market faster.

Well, you could look at it like that. Or you could look at it like this: since price of gas went up and economy slowed down, less people are buying new cars, especially big beasts like hummers and SUVs. Also, in general, the businesses are hurting. So they don't have so much to spend on R&D. The question -- can they research something and take it to implementation before their funds go kaput? Well, you seem to be vastly oversimplifying the whole issue, implying that more money means a quick solution -- *but* if you've studied the issue, it is very complex, and even with more money, a "solution" (which word I use tongue-in-cheek), is far off indeed. And even given research proves fruitful in ten years, it would take 5 or more years to get it implemented and a couple more years for noticeable penetration. So technologies never reach market, industry fails, we plumet into a dark age.

Moral of the story -- there are multiple sides to an issue, and actions have consequences ... if the future were so easily predicted and so easily controlled, the present would be a lot better, you can bet on that!

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I think that there is one major defense against the economy class claim: when gas prices went up recently, the national community instated a pointless "day of no gas purchase" instead of selling their gas guzzlers for a better mpg car. The public likes to complain not take action. I think you have a nice outline, but it just needs to be a tad tad less idealistic, because all of those events are based on public opinion.

[Astronouth7303]

Yes. but a price spike goes away (albeit temporaliy) in a few days. A tax is generally here to stay. They can't go w/o gas forever. Besides, we need crude oil for things like PLASTIC.

[Lisa Perez]

Hola all,

Today the national news announced that OPEC leaders have been meeting within the past few weeks. Today, such leaders came to a common conclusion that they would increase the amount of oil that would be available at a given time. With this increased production (in addition to America's constant demand for the oil), prices will gradually go down.

To relate this to the thread, I believe the taxes would work because, as mentioned above, Americans would be "forced" to purchase more efficient cars. It, however, is better for the economy if only one of the solutions (1. increased production, and 2. increased taxes) is actually enacted. Stability is crucial.

[Adam Y.]

If such options are available. It was recently reported (don't have link now), that the mileage for a hybrid car was way overstated than what it actually got. Hybrids aren't so great. Further, they have a limited niche, they aren't for the family that needs to transport 4 kids across town multiple times per day. (And surely they aren't for shipping good cross country!)

Heheheh..... You don't much about hybrids do you. Most of the army's Humvee's are actually hybrids.(Of course they also admitted the fact that the hybrid feature was really only used as a electric generator) There are also a few suv hybrids coming out also.

5. Technologies researched (Hydrogen, electric, solar, etc.) reaches market faster.

Ehhhh.... Too fast can be disasterous. Japan had to recall their hybrid cars due to the fact that they leaked hyrdogen. I researched the amount of technologies needed to create a suitable fuel cell vehicle. Its amazing. Not to mention the fact that hydrogen cars right at this moment needs platinum to work. We would be moving our dependence on oil to a metal.

[Astronouth7303]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Ehhhh.... Too fast can be disasterous. Japan had to recall their hybrid cars due to the fact that they leaked hyrdogen.

Yeah, your right. But we now know to look for such things. And even at an accelerated rate, we'd still (unfortunately) have to wait 5-10 years.

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

I researched the amount of technologies needed to create a suitable fuel cell vehicle. Its amazing. Not to mention the fact that hydrogen cars right at this moment needs platinum to work. We would be moving our dependence on oil to a metal.

Which is why such a project is important. To find alternate means to store H₂. To find better ways to produce it and distribute it. To find the best method of dispensing.

[mtrawls]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

Yes. but a price spike goes away (albeit temporaliy) in a few days. A tax is generally here to stay. They can't go w/o gas forever. Besides, we need crude oil for things like PLASTIC.

Yes, but the economy is based on the principle of supply and demand. Just because you need something doesn't mean you can incurr the added costs forever without increased revenue. If you increase taxes (or price) enough, then the economy will slow down, and eventually a breaking point will be reached. And, for sure, the American people won't stand to bear the brunt of it while oil companies are lining their pockets, even if they use it for research.

Heheheh..... You don't much about hybrids do you. Most of the army's Humvee's are actually hybrids.(Of course they also admitted the fact that the hybrid feature was really only used as a electric generator) There are also a few suv hybrids coming out also.

Admittedly, no Just relaying what I hear ... but, as you mention, what a hybrid is isn't a fixed concept, and your mileage can vary (no pun intended! well, I suppose it was). But it certainly isn't a fix all solution to the problem, even a temporary one at that. My point is that it isn't easy ... and paying more money won't necessarily equate to getting research "done" faster ... it takes time and patience and more time and more time still. And then you've got all sorts of political and economic issues. And it's a mess. And a 50 cents gas tax goes a long way to enraging the public and increasing the government's coffers, but isn't likely to do much good.