McCain: Make Gas Cheaper - Page 3 - PhillyBlog

Scoats · #21 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 09:48 AM

Cutting $4/gallon gas by $0.18 isn't going to make a big impact one way or the other. It comes 4.5% cut in gas cost.

Pathetic pandering by a candidate who obviously has no grasp of the economic problems facing the USA.

robot · #22 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zur

The price of gas is tied directly to producion of food amongst other things.

Higher gas.

Now means + $2 for a case of beer and + $2 for a pizza.

True. Although much of the recent food price increases are more related to farmers switching to corn production for ethanol.

eldondre · #23 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoats

Pathetic pandering by a candidate who obviously has no grasp of the economic problems facing the USA.

so are rebates and I've yet to see a candidate witha solid grasp of the economic problems facing the US. That said, I'll take my rebate and bank it. I wouldn't benefit from a gas tax suspension at all since I don't drive much.
.18 doesn't sound like much (esp when the state's take is 26 cents) but the cost of transportation figures into the price of everything from beer to cereal so yes, it does make a difference...even though it's not really at the heart of our problems. That said, it might be smarter to end ethanol subsidies instead. And rather than spend gas money on new highways as we've done for two generations, it might be smart to start using it for maintenance.

zur · #24 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot

True. Although much of the recent food price increases are more related to farmers switching to corn production for ethanol.

and they are switching because...

robot · #25 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zur

and they are switching because...

Subsidies from the US government for ethanol production.

Voodoo · #26 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zur

The price of gas is tied directly to producion of food amongst other things.

Higher gas.

Now means + $2 for a case of beer and + $2 for a pizza.

If McCain wanted to help the trucking industry he would have offered tax breaks for commercial drivers. But his proposal, instead, is squarely aimed at the average driver.

Simon Wolf · #27 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raider.adam

Federal government drops the tax 18 cents a gallon. Why would all of them raise their price 18 cents a gallon without discussing it? If Sunoco raised it 18 cents a gallon, all the others could raise it 10 cents and take their business.

That means Sunoco would have to go down to their range, which means they can go down to 5 cents a gallon more, etc.

It is called economics.

You're so right, because that's how gas pricing always works! That's why we all buy our gas at ExxonMobil, as they're always $0.15 cheaper than everyone else! I don't know why anyone bothers to compete with them.

Seriously, haven't you ever noticed that the price per gallon rarely varies by more than $0.05/a gallon in any given area? The reality is that if one gas station raises their prices, all the rest do, too, as you can't not buy gas. They can charge whatever they want and don't have to worry about undercutting the competition because they're selling a commodity that people literally cannot live without.

It's called, but the way, economics.

rickdogood · #28 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 12:30 PM

He can make all the political promises he wants. He doesn't have the authority to back them up. Think about it people it would take a Congressional Act & then signed by the President. Can you see any Congress acting swiftly enough to drop taxes by summer. LOL Are you so blind you can't see the emperor has no clothes.

tbdiscovery · #29 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyRunner

Now I generally hate taxation as much as the next conservative; but my primary problem with the state and federal governments laying pigovian taxes on the consumption of gasoline is the obnoxious know-nothings who blame oil companies and politicians for high gas prices, but fail to recognize that the state and federal governments take larger slices of each gasoline dollar (and don't generate one-tenth of the productivity that gasoline producers and consumers do).

I generally support high gas taxes much more so than other taxes. I point you to Greg Mankiw's blog for further discussion of why pigovian taxes are appropriate. Of course, he doesn't have tags on his site to find his posts on pigovian taxes, but if you google "greg mankiw" and "pigou," you'll probably get a lot of results. [Boy, that's great. I don't even have to explain how they work. I can just point to Mankiw and say, "ta da!"]

Excellent on all levels.

Quote:

Raise the Gas Tax
By N. Gregory Mankiw

With the midterm election around the corner, here's a wacky idea you won't often hear from our elected leaders: We should raise the tax on gasoline. Not quickly, but substantially. I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade. Campaign consultants aren't fond of this kind of proposal, but policy wonks keep pushing for it. Here's why:

The environment. The burning of gasoline emits several pollutants. These include carbon dioxide, a cause of global warming. Higher gasoline taxes, perhaps as part of a broader carbon tax, would be the most direct and least invasive policy to address environmental concerns.

Road congestion. Every time I am stuck in traffic, I wish my fellow motorists would drive less, perhaps by living closer to where they work or by taking public transport. A higher gas tax would give all of us the incentive to do just that, reducing congestion on streets and highways.

Regulatory relief. Congress has tried to reduce energy dependence with corporate average fuel economy standards. These CAFE rules are heavy-handed government regulations replete with unintended consequences: They are partly responsible for the growth of SUVs, because light trucks have laxer standards than cars. In addition, by making the car fleet more fuel-efficient, the regulations encourage people to drive more, offsetting some of the conservation benefits and exacerbating road congestion. A higher gas tax would accomplish everything CAFE standards do, but without the adverse side effects.

The budget. Everyone who has studied the numbers knows that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. When baby-boomers retire and become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, either benefits for the elderly will have to be cut or taxes raised. The most likely political compromise will include some of each. A $1 per gallon hike in gas tax would bring in $100 billion a year in government revenue and make a dent in the looming fiscal gap.

Tax incidence. A basic principle of tax analysis -- taught in most freshman economics courses -- is that the burden of a tax is shared by consumer and producer. In this case, as a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Economic growth. Public finance experts have long preached that consumption taxes are better than income taxes for long-run economic growth, because income taxes discourage saving and investment. Gas is a component of consumption. An increased reliance on gas taxes over income taxes would make the tax code more favorable to growth. It would also encourage firms to devote more R&D spending to the search for gasoline substitutes.

National security. Alan Greenspan called for higher gas taxes recently. "It's a national security issue," he said. It is hard to judge how much high oil consumption drives U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern politics. But Mr. Greenspan may well be right that the gas tax is an economic policy with positive spillovers to foreign affairs.

Is it conceivable that the policy wonks will ever win the battle with the campaign consultants? I think it is. Even after a $1 hike, the U.S. gas tax would still be less than half the level in, say, Great Britain, which last I checked is still a democracy. But don't expect those vying for office to come around until the American people recognize that while higher gas taxes are unattractive, the alternatives are even worse.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/...manifesto.html

markedixon · #30 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eldondre

I'd have to disagree. and the other side to the "gass guzzler" argument is that gas taxes represent a disproportionately large portion of lower and average income people. It also hurts truckers, delivery drivers, etc.

Similarly, globalization hurts U.S. factory workers. But that hasn't stopped globalization, has it? The counter-argument -- that globalization helps more Americans than it hurts -- has carried the day so far.

There are ways to help people at the bottom end cope with higher gas prices. But higher, much higher gas prices are what will eventually loosen the stranglehold of petroleum.

(Truckers are entitled to earn a decent living, so they should pass through all their costs -- including fuel costs. Their solution is to refuse to haul loads that don't pay enough.)