vtsnowedin wrote:You guys are being taken to the cleaners.
It would be worth also looking at average vehicle efficiency and miles driven. Our fuel may be expensive (which means we can afford things like a decent heath care system) but I expect our vehicles are lot more efficient. Seems little point in having cheap fuel, if it then gets bunt in a 20mpg car!
An anecdote, I drove 232 miles yesterday and averaged 68 mpg (130bhp diesel hatchback) which cost £1.35 /L. The total trip therefore cost £20.91.
vtsnowedin wrote:You guys are being taken to the cleaners.
It would be worth also looking at average vehicle efficiency and miles driven. Our fuel may be expensive (which means we can afford things like a decent heath care system) but I expect our vehicles are lot more efficient. Seems little point in having cheap fuel, if it then gets bunt in a 20mpg car!
An anecdote, I drove 232 miles yesterday and averaged 68 mpg (130bhp diesel hatchback) which cost £1.35 /L. The total trip therefore cost £20.91.
Not bad. I was puzzled by your numbers until I realized you were using imperial gallons. Having a car that gets that kind of mileage is the logical result of your fuel prices but hard to duplicate if you have heavy cargo to move or a bus load of children to deliver.
And to be fair the tax burden might not be considered high if other taxes were reduced or eliminated when the fuel tax was raised to levels beyond what was needed to maintain the transportation infrastructure.
It is in the end the total of taxes raised and the value you receive from the spending of that tax money that determines if your taxes are high or reasonable. Here in the US the total of the taxes is quite high and the money is being misspent so little value is returned plus they are overspending their budgets and accumulating debt that will have to be paid back plus interest. This will really bite when there is no continuing value to be derived from the misspent past.
vtsnowedin wrote:
It is in the end the total of taxes raised and the value you receive from the spending of that tax money that determines if your taxes are high or reasonable.
Those of us who understand the potential impact of global warming notice that the environmental costs of transport are externalised rather than being included in the price. We therefore call for high taxation of these fuels, irrespective of how the revenue raised is spent.
vtsnowedin wrote:Here in the US the total of the taxes is quite high and the money is being misspent...
That's an interesting statement. How many Americans would describe the total of the taxes as quite high? The US the the pin-up low tax economy! Tax revenue as percentage of GDP is around 27% in the US. That is a ludicrously low rate, far too low to provide social security and health care for the population.
vtsnowedin wrote:
It is in the end the total of taxes raised and the value you receive from the spending of that tax money that determines if your taxes are high or reasonable.
Those of us who understand the potential impact of global warming notice that the environmental costs of transport are externalised rather than being included in the price. We therefore call for high taxation of these fuels, irrespective of how the revenue raised is spent.
But if you don't monitor how the money is spent it might go to something that undoes the good obtained by decreasing the demand for fuel. And even if its final use does not harm the environment, waste is waste and other taxes will have to be raised to accomplish what might have been done with the first round of tax.
vtsnowedin wrote:Here in the US the total of the taxes is quite high and the money is being misspent...
That's an interesting statement. How many Americans would describe the total of the taxes as quite high? The US the the pin-up low tax economy! Tax revenue as percentage of GDP is around 27% in the US. That is a ludicrously low rate, far too low to provide social security and health care for the population.
At first glance the USA’s are bad but yours are worse. I suspect the methodology is a bit weak. Oil exporting countries show very low so they must not be counting oil revenues as taxes. Perhaps the USA numbers don't include state and local taxes.
If they balanced the budget with tax increases the numbers would rise, perhaps to the 30 % that seems to be average for developed countries. I would also question what percentage of the population was paying what share of the taxes. Some 46% of Americans don't pay income, social security or Medicare taxes so the rest of us get wacked double.
Topping it off we have the wonderful "Affordable "care act coming on line which stands a good chance of vaulting us ahead of the UK on the taxed enough table.
vtsnowedin wrote:
It is in the end the total of taxes raised and the value you receive from the spending of that tax money that determines if your taxes are high or reasonable.
Those of us who understand the potential impact of global warming notice that the environmental costs of transport are externalised rather than being included in the price. We therefore call for high taxation of these fuels, irrespective of how the revenue raised is spent.
But if you don't monitor how the money is spent it might go to something that undoes the good obtained by decreasing the demand for fuel. And even if its final use does not harm the environment, waste is waste and other taxes will have to be raised to accomplish what might have been done with the first round of tax.
No, if the tax stops you burning fossil fuel then there's a climate win, no matter what the money then get's 'wasted' on. All the tax money might be given to me and I would, of course, spend it on chocolate. But that would help chocolate growers who would spend it elsewhere in the economy... Money is only wasted when it allows bad stuff to happen and burning fossil fuel is the worst of the bad stuff.
vtsnowedin wrote: Topping it off we have the wonderful "Affordable "care act coming on line which stands a good chance of vaulting us ahead of the UK on the taxed enough table.
Not a chance, not even close. US is not about to come anywhere close to the taxation/public service levels of the UK. I'm a bit surprised an educated American could see the US as anything other than an incredibly low tax, low public service economy. It's one of the defining features of the US.
biffvernon wrote:No, if the tax stops you burning fossil fuel then there's a climate win, no matter what the money then get's 'wasted' on. All the tax money might be given to me and I would, of course, spend it on chocolate. But that would help chocolate growers who would spend it elsewhere in the economy... Money is only wasted when it allows bad stuff to happen and burning fossil fuel is the worst of the bad stuff.
But you are assuming that none of the possible wastes of tax money involve the use of fossil fuels where in fact the majority of them do. For example a story in the local paper revealed that CO2 captured from "clean coal" plants and marked for sequestration had been instead sold to oil drilling companies to pump down oil wells for pressurization of those fields to increase recovery rates. Not a clear win there now is it? All done with government permission and totally above board of course!.
The same was going to happen in the north sea, but even with government subsidies on offer, the oil companies backed out. Not enough oil to be worth their time.
vtsnowedin wrote: Topping it off we have the wonderful "Affordable "care act coming on line which stands a good chance of vaulting us ahead of the UK on the taxed enough table.
Not a chance, not even close. US is not about to come anywhere close to the taxation/public service levels of the UK. I'm a bit surprised an educated American could see the US as anything other than an incredibly low tax, low public service economy. It's one of the defining features of the US.
It is hard to argue this without comparing tax returns which I'm not about to do but in general We (the Mrs. and I) pay at the 25% rate on income from three jobs and a retirement payout And the state of Vermont wants 28% of the amount we pay the IRS plus we pay 2% of the value of my home and land each year in property taxes plus 6% on all retail sales other then food plus gas tax on transport fuel. On top of that our health insurance comes from my retirement payout and would amount to some $13,000 a year if paid to me pre tax. And there is 13% social security taxes plus Medicare tax. Then there is the beer tax to consider.
I don't smoke so don't have to pay the tobacco tax and I seldom play the lottery so my stupidity tax is quite low. I'm sure I’ve forgotten a few smaller fees such as hunting licenses and duck stamps.
Add it all up and I believe I'm "Taxed Enough Already"
If you’re happily paying more God help you.
vtsnowedin wrote:But you are assuming that none of the possible wastes of tax money involve the use of fossil fuels where in fact the majority of them do. For example a story in the local paper revealed that CO2 captured from "clean coal" plants and marked for sequestration had been instead sold to oil drilling companies to pump down oil wells for pressurization of those fields to increase recovery rates. Not a clear win there now is it? All done with government permission and totally above board of course!.
You won't have found me saying that CCS would work.
The only answer is to leave fossil carbon underground and unburnt. Taxing fuel is a step in the right direction.
vtsnowedin wrote:
We are already beyond that point in the discussion Biff. We are on to how much tax and how it should be spent to not be counter productive.
Sorry. I do try to keep up. But then I think I had earlier said that the tax needs to reflect the fact that environmental costs are externalised from the market price, so taxation has to make up the difference. Those who appreciate the consequences of burning fossil carbon will quickly realise that the taxation has to approach infinity. Where we spend the tax revenue is comparatively unimportant, especially since there won't be any tax revenue when it it so great that no carbon is burnt. (It may may take the slower-witted a few seconds to work out why.)
vtsnowedin wrote:
We are already beyond that point in the discussion Biff. We are on to how much tax and how it should be spent to not be counter productive.
Sorry. I do try to keep up. But then I think I had earlier said that the tax needs to reflect the fact that environmental costs are externalised from the market price, so taxation has to make up the difference. Those who appreciate the consequences of burning fossil carbon will quickly realise that the taxation has to approach infinity. Where we spend the tax revenue is comparatively unimportant, especially since there won't be any tax revenue when it it so great that no carbon is burnt. (It may may take the slower-witted a few seconds to work out why.)
We have to stop burning the black stuff.
Why of course I'll have to think about that for a minute or two. So we stop burning the black stuff and six billion give or take a billion or two starve to death. Can't see why that won't solve the problem nicely. Bummer if you or I are include in the six billion.
