Ford CEO says higher fuel tax better than higher mileage

How can they say its not possible when many cars outside the U.S. Achieve such numbers..cars produced by Ford, GM, and Chysler for other countries! I would be for more fuel efficient cars, slightly raised gas tax, and a flat tax for gas guzzling SUV's (say $2,000-$4,000 at purchase depending on the its fuel consumption)

is Mullaly scared that his lineup won't be able to achieve the standard??? they should do both IMO...tax the hell out the gas-guzzlers and still be able to have 35mpg averages. anything under 20mpg...$4000 minimum tax!

What dweeb, I guess Ford would accept anything as long as they are not being affected by this bill. So he doesn't care about their customers as long as they will buy Ford.

No, wonder the big is dying, and the Japanes, Korea is taking over the American auto industry. If you reading Mually I will Never buy a Ford..you can keep you junk to yourself.

Lexus, you are throwing rice on the fire and spoiled rice at that. I used to drive Ford products so I can tell you why they are on the verge of going down the toilet. It's because Ford never truly backed up the product. Motorists used to say "on a really quite night you can hear a Ford rust".

Ford thought they had the rust problem licked when the 1992 Grand Marquis arrived in the spring of 1991 with a fully galvanized body. Well, that was a crock because I bought one and kept it to see how long it would last. Two weeks before the warranty expired, the oil pan rusted out from the outside in. It took 7 hours of labor to install a new oil pan because the engine had to be lifted up 4 inches to remove it and install a new one. The same thing happened to the guy with the Ford truck that used to clear the snow off my driveway in the winter. Shortly after that, Ford changed the rust warranty provisions to cover body panels only and they reduced the relevant warranty period by one year as well.

All the clear coat on the roof of my dark blue Grand Marquis turned white and Ford refursed to do anything about this major paint problem. I got slightly less than 9 years out of this vehicle which I dumped because the subframe rusted clean through and there was rust perforation at the top of each well also.

This is why Ford is in the toilet. Even the CEO does not have a clue. What an idiot. I can not believe how out of touch Ford is with America.

The only bad advice he has listened to so far is the one that led to renaming the Ford 500 as the Taurus. The Taurus was a cheap piece of junk and that advice obviously came from people who have not had enough failures yet. I agree with him fully about the gas tax proposal as that is the fairest way to motivate people to accept more fuel-efficient cars and keep pump prices in check at the same time. With bridges collapsing and roads getting pot-holed, all of the proposed gas tax needs to go toward funding infrastucture projects that directly benefit motorists. After all, they are the ones that would be paying this tax.

Ahhhh...someone is a fiscal conservitive, right EnnNorak.

Not that it's a bad thing, however this is a somewhat simplistic way to look and income class spanning issue. Anytime someone tells me they are going to motivate people to do things I have to take a step back and ask why and how.

A price increase to those similar to the european's ($6.00 a gallon) would be a huge chunk out of the average americans wallet. Not to mention those americans who make minimum wage and have to drive.

Nowadays you have to take into account the cost of a commute when factoring in taking a job. The cost of doubling the average gallon of gas as this article states would mean (avg 15000 miles per year/ 25 mpg fuel economy/ total gal consumed per year = 600 gal) you would be paying an extra ($3.00per/gal vs $6.00per gal) $1800.00 per year after taxes.

Federal Minimum wage is $5.85 per hour...totaling $12,168.00 GROSS not even NET. So saying an increase of $1800.00 "after taxes" on a person who only makes $12,168 (an extra 15% of their salary on top of the 15% they are currently paying for gas...and that's being kind with the percentages) is reasonable and will motivate them, just dosen't make sense. All that would mean is that they would have to determine wether they should drive too work or buy medicine for their kids.

I'd rather the lazy and greedy auto industry meet todays reasonable fuel and emissions standards rather than force the american public to make up for their lack of ingenuity and business ethics.

Or else you'll have all these really nice bridges and highways that noone except the rich could afford to drive on.