GREAT Idea to Control US Gas Use/ Promote Fuel Efficient Cars...Thoughts?

A sliding price scale.

All vehicles manufatured would have a sensor that is read by the gas pump when you fill up.

Those vehicles that get good milage would pay much less for gas

Those that get bad milage would pay more.


It would encourgae people to by the most fuel efficient cars.


Something like:

Class A- 50 mpg+ ....00.50 cents / gallon

Class B- 40-49 mpg .... 00.75 cents/ gallon

Class C- 30-39 mpg ... $1.00 /gallon

Class D- 20-29 mpg ... $2.50/ gallon

Class F- less than 20mpg ...$4.00/ gallon

that over time become less fuel efficent? Do the owners still get the good gas prices?

This seems to punish the poor. Do you have hatred for the poor to tax them highr because they cannot afford to buy a new car? This sounds like an idea a Freeper would promote.

Perhaps the class of vehicle would only be defined once....that is to say once a class A vehicle always a class A vehicle for the life of the car.

How would it punish the poor?

It wouldn't be retroactive so if your car is "pre-sensor" you pay the going rate.

Besides many of the most expensive new cars are the very onces that get terrible millage (think Hummer)

who choose to buy a low fuel efficancy car.

...would be to tax new vehicle sales on a similar progressive scale.

Then the anti-poor bias would be little-to-none, and the tax could then factor in the environmental impact of manfacturing the vehicle based on the energy consumed, wastes, and even vehicle longevity.

Pay more sales tax if the fuel efficiency is lower.

Auto lobby would never allow such a plan. Look they had tighter CAFE standards squashed (by Clinton/Gore no less).

It'd be a long time until cars had these sensors built in. Probably be a nice black market for sensors programmed for fuel-efficiency.

But I think it's a good idea anyway.

but you gotta start some where.

As for sensor tampering....just make the pump not work if it senses tampering...or a car not pass inspection if tampered with (like Odometers, safety features, etc)

Better gas mileage, great idea, good for everyone except government. Where does the loss of gas tax revenue get made up from? It is 41 cents per gallon in Kansas. Increase overall fuel effeciency will result in a decrease in revenue to the state. End result, cars get better mileage, gas prices go up.

By their very nature gas prices are higher for vehicles that are less efficient. They have to buy more to go the same distance a smaller vehicle would. The larger issue that people just don't care. Also, this proposal would be hurting small struggling businesses, especially those in construction and lawn care who use large pick-up trucks and are some of the very few "legit" users of utility vehicles. The best way to attack this problem is through technology, either the incrementally more effecient vehicles being sold and/or secondary technology such as the so-called ZEV vehicles, (which are really NIMBY EV vehicles).

For those of you that don't know, the major automakers have bought up a variety of patents for more efficient engines etc. but keep them on the shelf for a variety of reasons. They need to let some of those patents see the clear light of day.

since you have to fill up more often. And for those who can't afford the best cars, who have to rely on older transportation (with worse mileage) will be doubly hit by this.

The best way to encourage more fuel-efficient vehicles is to (1) get Detroit, by law if necessary, to start building them, and (2) get consumers to realize that fuel-efficient cars save them money.

Why would the government do anything to cut thier tax flow? How much money from gas tax, that is suppose to go to roads ends up in other budgets. Detroit will build and market cars that the consumer wants. Why would they build cars that will sit in inventory because people want big cars and trucks. Remember when there were gas lines in 79? All of a sudden, people wanted small fuel effecient cars, detroit was slow to produce them, Japan had a ready supply, IMPORTS. Fuel effeciency increased as the demand from the consumer drove the market.

If the car makers can make F-150 style PU that get 30 mpg or better, people will buy them. I just traded mine in, part of the reason was the gas mileage, but there are time that I sure do wish I had it back. I have not figured out how I am going to fit a cord of wood in the trunk of may car for winter, or how I get my tractor to the shop.
I guess that I wait for that Hybred toyota full size PU to become reasonable in price.

to use increased taxes to drive consumers to buy fuel-efficient cars. Use those taxes to shift demand. More fuel efficient cars can be built, Detroit just doesn't want to make the investment to do it. Actually, that's true of most industry in the U.S.; don't re-invest money, siphon it to profits instead.

"If the car makers can make F-150 style PU that get 30 mpg or better, people will buy them."

Didn't you just make my point?

Is that you cannot or should I say should not force me to buy a truck or car that if as fuel efficient as you want. If I am willing to shell out the money for a H2 and pay 50 bucks every 5 days to fill it up, so be it. Do not tell me that I cannot buy one.

And who do you think will be affected more with the increased taxes? The people that are scrapping by with a 10 year old car and making 10 bucks an hour or the people that get a new car every year?

My point to you is that government should (and eventually will) step in to affect purchasing decisions when our environment and foreign policy hang in the balance.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, added tax is best used on new vehicle purchases with a progressive scale based on a vehicle's fuel efficiency and other factors.

One last point: Driving is a privilege and you do not have the right to put anything you want on the road just because your particular eccentricity tends to lean toward excess as a display of wealth. Nor do corporations have the right to meet demand for any arbitrarily high level of consumption. No one but Exxon et al. cares how much you want to pay; It's the physical realities associated with large and inefficient vehicles that must be addressed and no amount hot air about needing an outlet for your money is going to change that.

10-year-old cars wouldn't be affected by the taxes I propose, only new ones. So that argument is pointless. And who exactly is telling you that you "can't" buy one car or another. Sure you can, you just have to shell out some extra money.

I do agree that the thread originator's plan would hit poor people the hardest, but, in this case how many poor people do you know are buying new cars? And if there is enough demand, don't you think that car makers will start making large, fuel efficient vehicles for those who need them? Isn't that how the free market economy works?

Yes, there could be exceptions for farmers, or people in construction, who absolutely must have large vehicles now. I don't have a problem with that.

The pollution from cars and trucks affects everyone, and it is in the government's best interest to control it. It will reduce health care costs, reduce the cost of keeping cities clean, and so on. Why do you have such a problem with this? Why are you so unwilling to see technology go forward and clean up the air?

Problem, what's to stop some guy with his A class car selling his gas to all his F class buddies? We have fuel for tractors with red pigment in it because it's only $0.50 and you're not supposed to drive around with it. I supposed you can color the gas six ways. I don't know if it'd work though.

I don't think it hurts the poor too much. There are cheap efficient cars or motorcycles. Personally I say raise the Gas price slowly to about $4.00, like in Europe. It would be nice if the government would make a variable tax such that the price stays solid, but the tax draws variable income. That might stablise the economic effect of oil prices some.

Another idea for gas taxes would be to say that all funding for roads should come from a fuel tax. People that drive should pay for what they use. This would give public transportation a fighting chance in some areas.

If you really wanted to fight carbon emissions, you could use some of the money to subsidise bio fuels. I think a certain percentage of gas in the US is corn alcohol. In France 20% of diesel is bio-diesel generated from plant oils. Generating and burning such fuels has a zero sum effect on CO2. :hippie:

The alternative fuel debate is a very tricky one here in the US. It tends to break down along geographic rather than political lines moreso than almost any other debate I have seen in recent years. Those in the South of the US (Texas and Louisana in particular, and home to our ahem, esteemed President) tend not to support alternative fuels, becuase they are so very invested in gasoline production (from exploration to consumer delivery). The central US, i.e. the bread basket of the nation, tends to be much more in favor of using, and SUBSIDIZING the way we do petroleum, alcohol dervived fuels.

Anyone who has lived in Iowa for any length of time knows that you can buy mid-grade (89 octane) gas with alcohol, for about the same price or less than the lower grade (87 octane) gas that does not contain alcohol. The state of Iowa in order to increase demand for corn, its largest product, has mandated all of its vehicles be "flexible fuel vechicles" (FFVs) which can accept fuel with any quantity of alcohol in it.

As I mentioned before, this is a prime example of Detroit having the technology but sitting on it for no readily apparent reason.

This is turning into a great thread and I welcome additional comments.

As I mentioned before, this is a prime example of Detroit having the technology but sitting on it for no readily apparent reason.

Yeah, I have big issues with intelectual property rights. That part of the economy is really wasteful under capitalism. I think the government aught to deal with people that sit on patents. They could use "immenant domain" laws to buy up unused patents and put them in the public domain. Of coarse that's kind of an ugly process since you have no idea if those companies are getting too much or little.

What I'd really like to see is for a man to the moon type political commitment to building the world's new super car. Nobody is excited about NASA these days, maybe NASA could take on this kind of a project subcontracting out different technological chalenges to industry. Any technology from such a process would go into the public domain as it did for NASA (at least for US companies).

The end result should be that in Detroit doesn't do it someone else will. A bunch of open domain technologies should make that possible. Right now the companies each have some stuff that would be really cool, but they have little competetive reason to use them. So everyone just kicks back and does buisness as usual until the patents run out. It's kind of a "Tech Cartel".

That's what makes them patents - you get exclusive rights to make something for 20 years in exchange for making it open to the public.

I do, however, agree with a Kennedyesque challenge to build a car that gets, say 100 MPG.

Yes, after 20 years or so depending on your company's ablity to change legislation by then, that patent becomes public domain. Before that time though your idea is not in the public domain. In fact I think you're allowed to even keep its existence secret from the public.

A) If I write code and copywrite it, I can make sure nobody can use it or the concepts within for anything useful for 20 years. This offers maximum possible benifit to me. Theoretically, I can gain maximum financial rewards for my work.

B) If I put it in the public domain by giving it a GNU copywrite for example, nobody can ever patent it or its derivatives. This offers maximum posible benifit to society. However, I could only recoup my developement costs indirectly through positive externalities.

Those are the two routes for the free market captialism. When those break down or go too slow, you get the government involved. The goverment writes up the specs for some code, heat tiles, fuel cells, superconducter, or whatever is needed. Then you let companies bid on it. Once they develope something cool, it goes into the public domain. Nobody should have a patent on it.

It's the old communist line: Let the means of production belong to us all.

Only with intellectual property it can actually work.:linuxrules:

it is available for all to see, you just can't manufacture it until that period of time is up.

If you delete the patent structure (which is what it seems you want to do) then all you are going to do is make companies use trade secrets rather than patents, and then the knowledge is secret forever.

You keep talking about codes and copyrights, but these things aren't patents, they are very, fundamentally different. Copyrights exist basically forever, depending on whether a company owns it or an individual (or estate) owns it.

If I develop something, why shouldn't I have the right to make some money off of it? Why is this a bad thing?

Well look I'm not saying delete the patent system completely. Yes you are right if you want the private sector to do something there has to be an incentive. I understand why we have patents. Good point about trade secrets posibly being worse than patents.

What I am saying is there are problems with the patents system. First off, consider a chain of developements where each technology is required to develope the next.
A=>B, B=>C, C=>D
A company that wants to prevent D from being used. They could patent A, then right before 20 years is up develope and patent B, then in 20 years C, then in 20 years D. Then end result is that they dominate a branch of research for 80 years.

Ok, I'm not sure companies are truely that horrible. This is the more realistic problem:
Say there are four technologies {A,B,C,D} required to build the super car.
Honda has A.
Toyota has B.
Ford has C.
Daimler is thinking about geting D.
As it stands nobody can build the super car without licensing from Honda, Toyota and Ford. Now they could put their heads together to agree to develope D and then license the technology to each other. They'll only do this if all parties are going to profit from it. These kinds of deals are hard to set up, since any company can veto the whole. What's worse: it may be in the best intrests of all those companies to just do buisness as usual and not build super cars.

It's the complete oposite of free market competition. The cartel is there by default, instead of being hard to maintain as it would in say oil production, the companies have to agree to compete.

You keep talking about codes and copyrights, but these things aren't patents, they are very, fundamentally different. Copyrights exist basically forever, depending on whether a company owns it or an individual (or estate) owns it.

Sorry I'm a software engineer. Code can be copywrited, but algorithms (techniques) can be patented.
http://burnallgifs.org/
Here's a classic example. The GIF guys have been real pain about thier patent.

I thought Copyrights themselves go into the public domain. I think the founding fathers suggested 2 terms of 7 years. Disney seems to want to push it back forever, so Micky will stay thiers. I think only trademarks are forever.

Sorry about being so long winded. Bottom line:
Private sector research is a nessesary evil. Don't listen to the libertarian free market hippies; we need public sector research. We may need to rethink patents among other things.