Ignorance for Oil
Best-selling author and op-ed contributor Thomas Friedman never ceases to amaze me with his cogent and sensible columns in the New York Times. His latest “Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda” is of particular interest. He asserts that a $1 gasoline tax imposed after 9/11 would have would have done wonders for our economy and solvency. Now although this would be technically a tax increase, such a measure would offset payroll taxes, this permitting the American taxpayer to take more home every paycheck. In addition, Friedman posits that the gasoline tax would also “pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security,” as well as making the United States less susceptible to OPEC dominance.
Why didn’t this happen? Proposing taxes on something so cherished as our precious gasoline is political suicide. Never mind that this is really just a reallocation of taxes (you pay at the pump rather than paycheck) and that doesn’t constitute a genuine increase in what one pays. It is sad to say that this reasonable proposal will never hit the debates. I don’t know who to blame more, the disingenuous politicians or the morons that elect them.
November 15, 2007 at 7:11 pm
First of all, I don’t care if he’s a bartender. He’s the dell kid, and he sucks.
hahaha, about who to blame more, I blame retards that vote for them. I find it incredibly difficult to support any candidate these days, and I’m not a person willing to pick “the lesser of two evils”, because usually I don’t think there is a lesser, rather two equally evil people. Only difference is what exactly it is that makes them evil.
November 16, 2007 at 2:24 am
This is a very valid point. I am a regular reader of Dr. Mankiw’s blog, and this type of tax is what is referred to as a ‘Pigovian tax’ (a tax on a negative externality — in this case, pollution). While he’s right that producers would assume some of the cost, and, in effect, drive down profits of oil producers, I think there are a couple of issues missed here.
! — This isn’t going to merely be free as Mr. Friedman seems to suggest. Redistributing this tax will have large administrative costs. Also, this essentially becomes a regressive tax as $1 is much more valuable to a poor person than a rich person (even though they buy similar amounts of gas)
2 — It is nice to think that this is just a problem of design. Wouldn’t it be great if we could just magically design cars that could run on electricity or biodiesel or some wonder energy? The truth is that many of these technologies exist, but they’re not yet cost effective — the whole key of the matter. If one wants to makes these changes sooner than they are naturally occurring, be ready to pay the price and I don’t think most people are ready to.
Those are my two cents. I think the tax is an interesting proposition but seems to have problems. If I thought there was a cost-effective alternative to fuel that was close on the horizon, I would be willing to absorb the growing pains in the pocketbook and make that leap. However, I don’t think we’re going to beat the efficiency of fossil fuels very soon and it’s a sad reality.
November 16, 2007 at 7:25 am
Yeah I totally agree. I don’t think there is a perfect plan, one that won’t have problems crop up in the future. I think my issue is that there are all these alternative ideas that are rarely spoken on the national scene. Canidates tend to stick to a small range of issues. I wouldn’t mind a couple of “radical” plans in the mix, such as Friedman’s. At least give me a choice. Two parties with practically identical plantforms is not this.