gotta love California -> Gasoline tax hits .48 cents per Gal

[NomadPatriot]

California Gas Tax Increase Taking Effect July 1 Raises Fuel Prices Over 5 Cents Per Gallon

tax on a gallon of gas goes up from 41.6c per gallon to 47.6c per gallon..
that's $9.52 tax on a 20 gallon fill-up

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/06/19/california-gas-tax/

[jonesthecurl]

Try living in the UK.

[DoomYoshi]

In Canada, gas taxes are 30 cents to 51 cents per liter... that's about 3x the tax of California. It is difficult to determine exactly the cost because you pay several per-liter taxes and then a percentage based sales tax on top of that.

[Dukasaur]

It's still not enough.

People are not going to get out of their filthy fucking cars and start walking until gas hits $10 a litre.

[Evil Semp]

It's still not enough.

People are not going to get out of their filthy fucking cars and start walking until gas hits $10 a litre.

Not going to happen. I remember my mom and grandparents saying they would quit smoking when cigarettes get to a $1 a pack. I bet you can guess the outcome of that pledge.

[Bernie Sanders]

California Gas Tax Increase Taking Effect July 1 Raises Fuel Prices Over 5 Cents Per Gallon

tax on a gallon of gas goes up from 41.6c per gallon to 47.6c per gallon..
that's $9.52 tax on a 20 gallon fill-up

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/06/19/california-gas-tax/

Someone got to pay for roads, bridges and infrastructure....another stupid thread created

[mookiemcgee]

It's still not enough.

People are not going to get out of their filthy fucking cars and start walking until gas hits $10 a litre.

That's never going to happen in the states... cus we aren't ever going metric

[NomadPatriot]

Someone got to pay for roads, bridges and infrastructure....another stupid thread created

the only thing Bernie Sanders DOESN'T want to tax is his wife ass..

[Dukasaur]

It's still not enough.

People are not going to get out of their filthy fucking cars and start walking until gas hits $10 a litre.

That's never going to happen in the states... cus we aren't ever going metric

All kinds of cute things I could say, but I won't because I don't want this to degenerate into another American-bashing thread. Fact is, this is a problem worldwide. Some countries have gone a little further that the U.S. in fighting climate change, but only a little further. Nobody, anywhere, is going far enough.

Two weeks ago the CBC released a fairly significant poll of Canadian attitudes. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514

One question asked if people considered global warming a real and existential threat. 38% rated it as a survival-level threat, 25% as high-priority, 20% as medium priority, 11% as low priority and only 6% denied the existence of global warming. Sounds pretty good so far, eh? Hang on to your hats and coats; now we get to another question. Asked how much in extra taxes they would be willing to pay to help fight global warming, 32% said nothing, nada, zippo, not a penny. 17% said $100/year or less, 16% said something between $100 and $500, 7% said something between $500 and $1000, while only 3% said something more than $1000.

Just to put that in perspective, most people spend more than $1000/year on coffee and snacks at work.

There's just a total and absolute disconnect between people who think something is a serious high-priority problem but don't want to spend more than $100/year fixing it. That's Canada, where people slap themselves on the back every day and congratulate each other for being more enlightened than Americans. Bullshit, they're living in denial -- only a nanolux more enlightened, if at all. I suspect a similar poll in Europe would come up with a less extreme disconnect, but still a disconnect. Nowhere on earth, I suspect, will you find a population that fully understands how bad things already are, how much worse they might become, and what drastic actions and huge sacrifices will be needed to fix it.

[DoomYoshi]

Step one: make single family homes illegal.
Step two: stop all immigration, so less people want more houses.

Gas taxes don't make any sense. Even if it was a million dollars per liter, I still need to drive to work every day and Timmies 3 times a day. Oil is one of those products that does not have a cost-demand relationship. In theory people could move closer etc. However, it's cheaper to buy a mansion and drive a Ferrari into Toronto than it is to live in Toronto.

[NomadPatriot]

Someone got to pay for roads, bridges and infrastructure....

Bernie likes the idea of taxing Corporate America .. because he is 'For the Working Man.. .

but when it comes to a Gas Tax... something the Working Man uses everyday.. well, well, well,.. he is all for taxing that working man's pocketbook..

but hey someone needs to pay for that High Speed Railway..

[Dukasaur]

Step one: make single family homes illegal.
Step two: stop all immigration, so less people want more houses.

Gas taxes don't make any sense. Even if it was a million dollars per liter, I still need to drive to work every day and Timmies 3 times a day. Oil is one of those products that does not have a cost-demand relationship. In theory people could move closer etc. However, it's cheaper to buy a mansion and drive a Ferrari into Toronto than it is to live in Toronto.

Oil certainly does have a cost-demand relationship. Not just in driving: before the Arab Oil Embargo of '72, most people kept their home thermostats at 75 or 73. Then most people went to 70, and the common recommended thermostat setting was 68. Eventually 68 became common, and then 64 and even 60.

If gas was a million dollars per litre, you would certainly ride a bicycle to work. Or walk, or take a bus, or find a closer job even if it meant working for less money.

But what individuals can do is just the tip of the iceberg. Companies could also take initiatives. There used to be tax breaks for companies that organized car pools and many companies did. Then the tax breaks went away and they stopped. If gas had a serious price tag attached, good car pool programs would become a selling point for companies when seeking employees and they'd again have an incentive to organize them.

But it's more than that. You at least do a job for which you have to be physically present, but many people don't. There's no reason whatsoever for clerks, accountants, programmers, writers, and a whole host of other job descriptions to physically travel at all. We've had the technology for 30 years or more for most office jobs to be done remotely (and paperlessly, too!) but companies keep demanding that these people be physically present in the office, just because they're a little easier to supervise that way. If driving to work became a serious expense, there would again be a lot more pressure on companies to create opportunities for remote work. The revolution that's been delayed by 30 years could finally get underway.

Hell, even if all you did was push a bunch of urban cowboy wannabes out of their Silverados and into Corollas, you'd be saving about 20% of the fuel they're burning now.

In summary, at least a third of the North American workforce shouldn't be traveling to work at all, but working remotely. Of the rest, the lion's share could take transit, carpool, walk, or ride bikes. Of the very few left who live so far from anything that none of those is an option, they could at least drive something smaller than they do now.

But people driving to work is far from the whole story. Companies used to buy things in bulk, ship them by the most efficient means possible -- ship, train, or truck only as a last resort -- and store them. But then somebody came up with the idea of Just-In-Time inventory control. Companies could order only what they needed for the week and save themselves the warehousing cost. Then a week became a day, then a day became a shift, then a shift became a half-shift. Quite literally. Many factories now order only enough supplies for four hours and expect one truck waiting at the dock at the start of the shift and another one waiting there after lunch.

That incredible swarm of trucks moving down the 401 every day are mostly rushing goods to Just-in-Time customers. The loss in efficiency is incredible. For starters, trucks use 10 times more fuel per tonne mile than trains do. (US figures here) (Ships are even more efficient, but not everyone is lucky enough to have a canal in their back yard, so we'll just compare trucks to trains.) But the extra fuel burned is only part of the problem. The never-ending expansion of the highway system burns incredible amounts of crude oil in the form of asphalt and the energy needed to maintain it. The bulldozing of forests to make room for the highways is a further environmental disaster. The companies that adopted Just-In-Time inventory practice weren't really saving money. They were just downloading their costs onto the taxpayers. Because railroads are built by private investors but highways are built by the taxpayers, the Just-In-Time revolution wasn't just an environmental disaster, but a fiscal disaster too.

I would roll back the Just-In-Time revolution with a flat tax per tonne-mile of cargo, with rebates for being efficient. Order only full truckloads, get 20% back. Ship your stuff by train instead, get 60% back. Ship your stuff by ship only, get 95% back. Send it on a sailing vessel, get complete remission of the tax.

But ultimately even that's not enough. Ultimately we need to make less shit. There's no reason for every house to have four different wide-screen TVs. People were happier when the whole family gathered around a 14" black-and-white. There's no reason for people to have a complete wardrobe change every three months. If the stuff isn't full of holes you don't need to replace it. (And those who assuage their guilt by donating their old shit should know that 84% goes to the landfill anyway.) There's no good reason for people to have "living" rooms full of furniture that nobody uses. There's no reason for paved driveways; gravel driveways work just fine and in fact reduce stress on the environment by sending water into the ground instead of into the sewers. There's no reason for frozen sausage to come in three layers of packaging -- one is plenty, two is a luxury, three is just idiotic.

Our entire system -- governments, NGOs, academia, business, religion, social clubs -- have to stop obsessing about Growth and think that maybe we're big enough already. Or maybe it would be nice to get a bit smaller....

[jusplay4fun]

As usual, Duk makes good arguments and many good points.

I want to ask him a follow-up question, on his last point:

Our entire system -- governments, NGOs, academia, business, religion, social clubs -- have to stop obsessing about Growth and think that maybe we're big enough already. Or maybe it would be nice to get a bit smaller....

How does our economy help reduce poverty and help even the least educated have a decent job that pays good and fair wages (above the current minimum wage level) without imposing massive controls of prices or production? (I was made to consider this point when I was in a discussion/debate in real life while visiting an institution of higher learning.) The basic economic concept that I will quote is that a rising tide lifts all boats; can boats rise while the water level of the sea stays rather constant.

Our free market economy, in contrast to more social controls by differing economic/governmental systems, allows inefficiencies of economic means to be eventually replaced by new technologies and new methods. The role of disruptive technologies should also be considered.

As I said elsewhere, there are no easy and quick answers for complex questions, and I would consider this a very complex question.

JP

[Dukasaur]

As usual, Duk makes good arguments and many good points.

I want to ask him a follow-up question, on his last point:

Our entire system -- governments, NGOs, academia, business, religion, social clubs -- have to stop obsessing about Growth and think that maybe we're big enough already. Or maybe it would be nice to get a bit smaller....

How does our economy help reduce poverty and help even the least educated have a decent job that pays good and fair wages (above the current minimum wage level) without imposing massive controls of prices or production? (I was made to consider this point when I was in a discussion/debate in real life while visiting an institution of higher learning.) The basic economic concept that I will quote is that a rising tide lifts all boats; can boats rise while the water level of the sea stays rather constant.

Our free market economy, in contrast to more social controls by differing economic/governmental systems, allows inefficiencies of economic means to be eventually replaced by new technologies and new methods. The role of disruptive technologies should also be considered.

As I said elsewhere, there are no easy and quick answers for complex questions, and I would consider this a very complex question.

I think this takes us pretty far off the topic, but I don't like to ignore questions, so I'll answer it.

The "rising tide lifts all boats" theory, a.k.a. trickle-down economics, is a lovely piece of propaganda to read to console people while they are getting stretched on a rack. The most successful economy in the history of mankind (the U.S., in case I need to spell it out) still has people literally starving to death in towns where the local grocery stores throw truckloads of expired food into the dumpster rather than give it away. It has people dying from treatable diseases because they can't afford the medicines for those diseases. The productivity of the U.S. economy has doubled in the last 30 years, but the average working man has not seen any real (after inflation) increase in his pay in that time. The industrial revolution did see real gains in standard of living during its first 150 or 170 years, but the last 50 they have settled down. I think during that first century and a half, the ruling classes were always pissed off that they had to share some of the largesse with the workers, but only in the last little while have they finally gotten a handle on it and fine-tuned the system to the point that they get to keep all the new cookies in the jar, even if the workers get to keep some of the staler ones.

There are economies like the Scandinavian ones that manage to keep most of their people healthy, happy, and well-fed, even while having a much smaller GDP than the U.S. So if you're asking, do we need a little more socialism, yeah maybe we do. Like I said, though, I don't want this to degenerate into another American-bashing thread, so there's a limit to how far down this road I want to go. In all the world's industrialized countries, there's enough GDP to keep everybody healthy, happy, and well-fed, even with significant shrinkage. We've long ago passed the point where we produce more than we need and are producing shit just for the sake of Growth.

[jusplay4fun]

I will offer this quick response, that agrees with some of Duk's key points.

A philanthropist, perhaps Andrew Carnegie, spent much of his life making millions (probably billions, in today's economy) as one of the industrialist in the USA in the late 1800s. He then spent that last part of his life giving away most of his millions. When asked why he gave so much money away, he told this "parable" that went something like this.

Money is like manure; if you put a lot in one big pile, it stinks and stinks A LOT. But if you spread it around in small amounts in lots of places (think of gardening and growing plants) then it will do a LOT of GOOD in the world.

The USA (and Canada, too) is a very generous nation, full of many people willing to share their time, talent, and treasure with those in need. That spirit of generosity and altruism has allowed the development and growth of many social programs to help those less fortunate. A few examples are Social Security, Medicaid, public housing, EBT, unemployment assistance, and many more programs.

JP

[2dimes]

It's still not enough.

People are not going to get out of their filthy fucking cars and start walking until gas hits $10 a litre.

That's never going to happen in the states... cus we aren't ever going metric

That's pretty funny. Where's Saxi?

No metrics!

[Bernie Sanders]

I will offer this quick response, that agrees with some of Duk's key points.

A philanthropist, perhaps Andrew Carnegie, spent much of his life making millions (probably billions, in today's economy) as one of the industrialist in the USA in the late 1800s. He then spent that last part of his life giving away most of his millions. When asked why he gave so much money away, he told this "parable" that went something like this.

Money is like manure; if you put a lot in one big pile, it stinks and stinks A LOT. But if you spread it around in small amounts in lots of places (think of gardening and growing plants) then it will do a LOT of GOOD in the world.

The USA (and Canada, too) is a very generous nation, full of many people willing to share their time, talent, and treasure with those in need. That spirit of generosity and altruism has allowed the development and growth of many social programs to help those less fortunate. A few examples are Social Security, Medicaid, public housing, EBT, unemployment assistance, and many more programs.

JP

My son The Socialist!

[jusplay4fun]

try these:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/venture-capitalist-steve-case-spreading-funding-to-middle-america-with-rise-of-the-rest-60-minutes-2019-07-07/

Grand Rapids First church pays off almost $2M in Michigan medical debt

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/grand-rapids-first-church-pays-off-almost-242m-in-michigan-medical-debt/ar-AADHz4f


JP

[riskllama]

i am currently paying around $1.75CDN for a litre of diesel and have been cycling and/or car pooling to work for the past year and a half. works great... .

[Dukasaur]

i am currently paying around $1.75CDN for a litre of diesel and have been cycling and/or car pooling to work for the past year and a half. works great... .