What Do You Think? A Tax On Fuel OR A Tax On Mileage?

How about a tax on the f*cking oil companies who are and have been manipulating fuel pricing to their advantage for years now. First it was $2 a gallon gas. Then they raised it to $3 -- people complained. Then the oil companies lowered it to $2.50 a gallon and everyone was happy. Even though it was 50¢ more expensive than the initial price increase. Then it was the $4 a gallon. When it was lowered to $3 per gallon -- everyone cheered! What idiots we are to let those douche-bag oil companies get away with that. And now we are supposed to choose between fuel tax or mileage tax? Go f*ck yourself!

— grysko (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:22:22 PM | | Votes: 6   

The high gas prices were caused by the douchebags on wall street over speculating it to it's breaking point.

— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:24:48 PM | | Votes: 4   

How about the idiot Democratic leftist tree huggers in Washington and elsewhere realize that drilling in Alaska and Canada will have a minimal, if any, impact on nature/wildlife, and which will allow us to at least start to free ourselves from the Arab stronghold on the oil industry. There's plenty of oil in them thar hills.

— BSBB (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:28:31 PM | | Votes: -3   

Soldier of the Republican lie machine I see.... The Arabs aren't the leading producer of oil in the world, we are. The Arabs aren't the leading source of oil consumed in the US... But we are, next Canada then Africa. How about we don't spend 15 years to build an oil platform in ANWAR that necessitates the continued addiction to oil in order to pay for the project and look towards other forms of energy? Wouldnt that be a novel idea? "Drill Baby, Drill" is like using a bigger hammer to drive a screw. With a big enough hammer, you'll get the job done but you're really using the wrong tool.

— Threepoint1415926 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 4:38:06 PM | | Votes: 2   

Threepoint1415926,

very well said. drilling in anwar, or anywhere else doesn't solve anything. the problem isn't supply, its consumption.

lets suppose for a minute that global warming is indeed a homosexual-communist-abortionist lie....well so what?

the threat that nobody can deny is that oil is a finite resource.

the means by which mankind prevents an impending global oil war happen to be the means by which mankind solves the "alleged" global warming crisis.

ultimately, helping spread the global warming "lie" will prevent world war 3 being caused by oil shortages. instead folks will have to result to fighting a holy war, or something. but hey, i'd rather have world war 3 started by lunatics that didn't know any better than sane people that lacked a little foresight.

so we can waste our time arguing about what causes global warming, or we can put our brains to better use by producing solutions to the impending energy crisis.

and to answer the question, i say tax gas directly. folks were able to shift their budgets when gas rose to over $4/gallon in the summer of '08. these tax revenues must go directly towards sustainable energy production to relieve costs.

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 10:47:21 PM | | Votes: 1   

There is no energy crisis, if we do somehow manage to dry up all the readily available oil wells within the next 20 years. The price of oil will rise high enough to use the oil sands to become feasible, at which point we have enough energy to last at least another century.

— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 10/3/2009 6:45:49 PM | | Votes: 1   

What energy independence? You do know most of our "energy" comes from overseas, right?

— BSBB (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:24:10 PM | | Votes: 1   

Duh, that's why we need to use less gas. Hello. We ought to build enough ultra safe next gen nuclear power plants until we can cut our off our wealth transfer to the middle east completely. In the meantime, reducing our use of "the Black Blood of Allah" is in every free person's best interest.

— camrydriver (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:46:43 PM | | Votes: 7   

And I though you would suggest we look into developing nuclear-powered cars. Actually....that sounds like a plan. I'll get right on that.

— BSBB (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:52:13 PM | | Votes: 1   

Engine capacity will probably end up being taken as a displacement, and then horribly inefficient cars such as the evo with tiny fuel guzzling engines will get an unfair advantage over more fuel efficient engines with triple the displacement. I agree with Invisible below. A tax created solely to limit the amount of spending is stupid no matter how you measure it.

— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:23:07 PM | | Votes: 3   

— Willis:

> Tax engine capacity and be done with it.

This is nonsense.

Someone may have a huge old V8 and drive it for just a few miles annually for fun, covering any other distance on a bicycle or using public transport. Another one may have a very efficient hybrid car and drive it for 100.000 miles every year. Who makes more damage?

Tax the fuel. The more you consume it, the more you're charged. As simple as that.

— downtoearth (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:32:48 PM | | Votes: 7   

downtoearth, this describes me exactly. I have a V8 powered car for fun. I ride a bicycle to work everyday, even during winter, so long as it is above -15°f.

— Shredmo (View Profile)

Posted on 10/5/2009 12:51:23 PM | | Votes: 2   

Invisible ,,, I agree

— bfghemicuda (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 4:21:12 PM | | Votes: 4   

invisible, i agree, that was exactly what i was going to say. Too many taxes already.

— lexusrox123 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 5:26:26 PM | | Votes: 2   

if only it were about want rather than need. a man may want a pornstar, but likely needs a wife.

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 10:57:46 PM | | Votes: 1   

You must live somewhere warm. Up where it freezes roads have a lifespan that is independent of road use, and is purely based on the number of seasons experienced.

— Joe_Limon (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:45:53 PM | | Votes: 2   

Where do you live that you see a lot of electric vehicles?

— Invisible (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 4:06:56 PM | | Votes: 1   

I live in Michigan...try working at a DOT or talking to any civil engineer in transportation and you'll see that taxing mileage is the way to go. Cement concrete and asphalt concrete can be made to withstand cold...it's just more expensive...and when the Highway Trust has no money we get stuck with quick fixes that don't last. It's not really the weather...it's because people get cheap with infrastructure.

— Westside7th (View Profile)

Posted on 10/4/2009 10:49:11 PM | | Votes: 1   

So, create a public transportation system in Southern California and make it very costly to drive on public roads, so that basically the public transportation system will become overloaded very quickly (because California doesn't know the meaning of 'planning for the future') and you will have a situation like in India or Tokyo. I have seen both of those up close and personal, and thank God I do not have to take their public transportation on a regular basis.

— BSBB (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 2:56:28 PM | | Votes: 1   

--> "and you will have a situation like in India or Tokyo."

Wrong! You'll have a system like San Fransisco bay, the 13th largest metro area in the country. California already knows how to do it, they just don't have any money.

— Threepoint1415926 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 4:45:06 PM | | Votes: 2   

Glenn Beck is a psycho! Glenn Beck is the last person that I would quote.

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 10/3/2009 2:52:50 PM | | Votes: -2   

going to the gym hurts me today, but makes me stronger tomorrow. i think todays youth could use a little lesson in austerity. most of these young adults might have to choose a corolla instead of a maxima, but they will win in the long run.

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 10/2/2009 10:55:20 PM | | Votes: 2