"Car Talk" Guy Ray Magliozzi Favors 50-Cent National Gas Tax

This week on the Bottom Line podcast: Ray Magliozzi, on why he supports a 50-cent national gas tax: "We would want to discourage people," Ray says, "who had no good reason to drive a pick-up truck that got 11 miles per gallon just because they wanted to commute back and forth from Home Depot just to buy plants."

A little bit of "Car Talk" tax talk with Ray Magliozzi. Plus, WBUR's Meghna Chakrabarti explains the pros and cons of increasing the gas tax in Massachusetts by 23 cents.

Plus, President-elect Barack Obama proposes a stimulus package as big as $800 billion. We get analysis of Obama's first speech since the election with columnist Robert J. Samuelson of Newsweek and the Washington Post.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Nomadius]

Ok let me laugh at this one. Every time someone comes up with this brainless idea they use a chart showing how little taxed is the gasoline in the US comparing to how highly taxed it is in Europe. What they forget to mention is

1) In Europe the citizens enjoy efficient public transportation networks at very affordable prices which is a way to ensure that every citizen is able to reach its work place and home even if the gasoline soars to an unsustainable price, while here, during the $4 dollar a gallon period, we had no choice.

2) I would not mind to pay the 50 cents tax or even a $1.00 tax if not only I had a public transportation option but also a public health-care system like the ones thay enjoy in Europe.

The problem I see is, we will likely endup stuck with high price gasoline plus a tax, but no public transportation and definitely no public health care. The other problem I see is, the media open their chanels to this fools using benchmark charts, comparing the gasoline taxes between the US and Europe, which at the end it is like comparing apples with watermelons, with the benefit of having their foolish theories boradcasted all over the country.

[jerrypl]

Hey Click and Clack----I love your show but your idea of a 50 cent gas tax is a regressive tax and would most hurt the incomes and budgets of lower and struggling income earners who need their cars to get to work. The higher income earners would be less affected by such a gas tax. A better idea might be to tack on a luxury car and gas guzzler sales tax which could be funneled into subsidies for riding public transit systems.

Another idea might be to give lower and struggling workers substantial tax subsidies to go out and buy more fuel efficient cars--new or used, and then they would need to trash their fuel inefficient vehicles in the scrap yards.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[Decipherer]

"Jerrypl," meet "Randyjackass," below.

So what if a motor fuel tax is "regressive?" Isn't that what sales and other forms of taxation are? Just because it is regressive doesn't mean it can't be fair and reasonably equitable, provided it changes attitudes and behaviors for the greater good of all of us.

I agree that a tax plan ought to ALSO include stiff gas guzzler taxation (not the joke that is in place now) for rich folks and their single digit mpg road toys, and using the revenue for mass transit makes a ton of sense.

You're on target also with incentivizing folks in low income brackets to buy U.S.-only new or used higher-mpg transportation by subsidizing the cost, interest, payment plans, combining that with extra payments to them to trade in their high mileage, poor efficiency, unsafe, and high-polluting bangers that would be scrapped (recycled!!!) under the law.

A package of this sort of taxation combined with incentives -- BOTH of which would change behavior -- would make a ton of sense. The key, however, is keeping the retail price of petroleum fuels just high enough to get folks to consider other options.

As the last 6 - 8 months have shown, that approach works!

[MarvBitesBack]

You might just as well quote Vinny from the corner diner. What do these glorified mechanics know about fuel tax policy?

[bluerednot]

Vinnie from the corner diner? not quite --While they do a fairly well known light hearted NPR radio show & they do operate a auto repair business, they both have degrees from MIT (Raymond F. Magliozzi, class of 1972 Humanities and Thomas L. Magliozzi, class of '58 in Chemical Engineering and Economics). Tom also has an MBA and a PhD in Management and has worked in long-range planning for Foxboro Company, as an international consultant, college professor.

They, like a great many others, have been speaking about our energy / fuel situation for some time. for example - see the link to a 2003 interview of Tom in the MIT alumni magazine -
http://alumweb.mit.edu/opendoor/200301/magliozzi.shtml

[MarvBitesBack]

That conversation in the link is pretty much corner diner variety, thank you. Is that the best an MIT degree can get you?

[randyjet]

He does work for Foxboro? THAT explains why their stuff is so good. I loved Foxboro instruments for controls. They are the best in the world.

[mamacat]

Most countries of the world have huge taxes on gasoline to discourage its use, but to be applied fairly here in this country, it should have been done before the national highway system was built, and the country became dependent on cars instead of light-rail mass transit for transportation.

Any increase in gas taxes will definitely have an effect, but that effect will be disproportionately and unfairly burdensome upon the working poor.

Eventually internal combustion cars may become too costly to drive anyway, but to make them prohibitively expensive to use artificially and prematurely, before there is a mass transit system and/or decent alternatives to today's gas hogs, will have a hugely negative effect. Any politician associated with such a move would be committing career suicide.

[ohiomark]

Democrats always claim that they are for the "little guy"and when it comes to raising taxes they say "soak the rich".

Then we get this "raise the gas tax" rhetoric.

Remember when gas was $4.00 a gallon and diesel was $5.00 a gallon and the price of everything else that must be shipped to stores also went up in price? Well. guess who gets "soaked" then? That's right, the "little guy".

If you Libs want to actually raise MORE revenue, then lower taxes. It works every time it's tried.

[Decipherer]

Actually, lowering taxes does NOT raise revenue, unless you believe in the tooth fairy and the false economic theories of "Saint Ronald" Reagan and his accolytes.

Saint Ronald and his most determined apostle, George W. Bush opened the tax floodgates for the wealthy and sold the "little guy" the trickle down myth, which people like you bought hook, line, and sinker.

Don't look now, but that trickle down thing is nothing more than a golden shower! And sadly, you are on the receiving end of it.

[SangZe]

Considering the obvious benefits of such a tax, it should be given priority. What do these guys think about taxing cars by the cylinder, the more cylinders in your car, the higher your tax on it. Can something be added to address the obscene profits being taken by the oil companies? Can something be done to alleviate the problem such a tax might create for the poor? And don't worry about the Republicans. They'll make a lot of noise, of course, just as right now they're begging the government to put more money into big corporations so it will trickle down to the rest of us someday. That's because they lack any feelings for their fellow human beings.

[pokemon]

Please I will complain too. I have an SUV, only driven 5K a year, so taxing me like I drive it as a commuter is unfair. Gas is the fairer tax.

[BMissy]

Please help with the economic and global problems created by oil company greed and the resulting pollution caused by the use of this resource. A far better solution than an electric Hybrid is available.

There is a car that is getting ready for mass production. It runs on AIR. That's correct, AIR! This car needs to be brought to America. It is manufactured by MDI in France. It is referred to as the Air Car.

http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=46

No more gas tax or profiteering rip offs by the oil companies.
ENOUGH!

[1st2vote]

I would buy 2

[indypete]

I'm not knocking this concept and I'm sure it's better than the traditional internal-combustion engine but bear in mind the energy has to come from somewhere. Nil prandium gratis.... there is no free lunch. If the power to run the compressor comes from a coal-fired generator, then you get coal pollution, if from a nuke plant, radioactive waste. Calling it pollution-free is a bit misleading, it's "pollution-deferred". The profiteering will not end.... just like with electric cars, you'll simply be sending the money to the same corporations through a different route. The big difference is made when cars are made smaller and more efficient. We need to drive vehicles which are big enough for our needs, not our egos.

[LisaMarieC]

Wow! That would be the perfect vehicle for me. I live close enough to work to bike during fair weather (as long as I keep my job, that is), but rainy days, dead winter, and grocery days are a problem. I'm excited about all the possibilities that are coming to light now. I'm sick of the argument that people need to drive tanks to "be in control" of the road, or to have some kind of advantage. If we *all* drove vehicles of this size, we would all be on the same level.

[billthinx]

Tax policy is the fastest and most efficient way to reduce harmful behaviors and induce new behaviors. Markets are slow and only focus on immediate gratification. Over-reliance on foreign oil is killing the environment, subsidizing terrorism and sending our national wealth to other countries. Coal is deadly too. We must move very rapidly to healthful and economically viable alternatives. That means we must make it more expensive to keep doing the same things (driving gas guzzlers, for example) and push with incentives to get manufacturers to build better vehicles and consumers to buy them. We don't have time to diddle along another 20 years and wait for markets to suddenly display national leadership instead of the usual market pursuit of immediate dollars. Only government can get the big picture changes underway and only tax changes and investment spending are going to get the job done.

[MarvBitesBack]

Gotta love all the oil and coal haters here. Those two resources helped create the most robust economy in the history of man.

[Decipherer]

That was then. "MarvBites," this is now.

And whose "robust economy" are you talking about? Would you include a country like Nigeria, which is little more than a petroleum kleptocracy?

How would you like to live in oil-rich Venezuela, led by a monomaniacal despot? Bet your wife would just love to live in Saudi Arabia, and be forced to wear a black burqa in public with daytime temperatures of over 120F.

Fact of the matter is, we need to get "beyond petroleum" and all fossil fuels. For many reasons, it is time to move on.

[Durango]

That is a no brainer.

When gas was $4.50/gallon what difference would another 50cents/gallon make?

I would rather have my money going to build infrastructure and mass transit than to the greedheads in Houston.

To all you fools out there that still think that run up in gas prices was "market driven."

Like the Who didn't say: "You will be fooled again."

[nomoredead]

I'm with you and would make it a dollar.

[nomoredead]

ADM hired Patricia Woertz as CEO in 2006 after a twenty something year career in Big Oil.

[MarvBitesBack]

Isn't that great? We pay taxes to subsidize these maroons so that they can endorse tax increases over the air waves. What a country.

[shockmagog]

For the services it offers, NPR is cheap, hardly costs anybody anything. We should all worry about the big things. Not the tiny, minuscule, inconsequential things.

[Durango]

Do the words "Free Speech" mean anything to you?

[Decipherer]

Not to "MarvBites," I guess. Must work for False News or Murdoch.

[MarvBitesBack]

LOL. If they were doing it for free, i.e., without tax payer $$, I'd have no prob.

[randyjet]

Such an idea is great for place like MA and the east coast where distance are short, mass transit is available, but if you live west of the Mississippi, it will NOT work and it is stupid. Making a one size fits all kind of solution is as dumb as the idea of making the max speed limit 55mph. The same thing is true there. It adds HOURS to any drive between cities. For example, going from Houston to El Paso in the same state takes about 12hrs at 65mph. You can see the kinds of hours and distances we are talking about. Plus the FACT that all the cities and industries have been designed around the speeds and cheapness of fuel. I and many others commute to work with NO mass transit. My distance that I travel is about 35 miles each way. Mandating better fuel efficiency is the ONLY fair way to have a one size fits all solution.

[KillTheMessenger]

Why anybody would drive 12 hours from El Paso to Houston is beyond me. Why not take the 300mph high speed train and be there in two hours?

Oh... I see... you don't have a 300mph high speed train.

:-)

[jake106]

Dammit, you made me spray coffee on my computer!

[quiviran]

But we could use the extra gas tax to build one. Maybe even put drive aboard train cars in the lineup to transport your personal vehicle so you could use it at your destination, kind of like a ferry boat, except no water.

[bannorhill]

Why not take a 600 MPH jet and be there in an hour.

[shockmagog]

So you see what the gas tax is designed to do:

We don't want to spend anymore than we absolutely have to on gas, then we get a gas tax, gas goes up, then we feel compelled to replace our 20 mpg car for a 40 mpg car, and so on.

On top of that, the revenue generated from the gas tax can help support some of our crumbling roads and bridges infrastructure (assuming that's where it would be directed).

[randyjet]

Only one BIG problem with that idea is that the wealthy will STILL drive inefficient cars and trucks since they will be able to afford any price gas. Such a gas tax discriminates only against the ordinary American, but mandating fuel efficiency in cars and trucks will hit EVERYBODY.

[shockmagog]

This is a good idea. It's way past time for us to start putting more of a tax on what we, as Americans, use more than any other country on earth. It's time we started paying a tax on what we have come to take for granted as a given, and what has turned out to be a prime driver of most of our failed foreign policy.

[jake106]

Uhm...China uses more than we do. That is a recent development, true, but it is also the truth.

[shockmagog]

I thought you were correct at first, but unless things have changed very drastically since last summer, China is running 3rd behind California and then the United States:

'But, at least with transportation fuel, you'd be wrong. California alone uses more gasoline than any country in the world (except the US as a whole, of course). That means California's 20 billion gallon gasoline and diesel habit is greater than China's! (Or Russia's. Or India's. Or Brazil's. Or Germany's.)'
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/amazing-stat-ca.html

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
From Staff and News Services
Published on: 07/20/08

'You likely have noted all the reports explaining that demand in China and India is driving up the cost of oil. But the 37 million people of California use more gasoline and diesel than do the 1.2 billion people of China, according to the State Alternative Fuels Plan of the California Energy Commission. Alexis Madrigal, writing on wired.com's science blog, notes that California uses more transportation fuel than any country (save for the U.S.). "One more choice statistic," writes Madrigal: "Gasoline usage in California has increased 50 percent —- that's 6.7 billion gallons —- since 1988." She notes, by the way, that China's oil consumption is expected to pass California's soon.'
http://www.ajc.com/travel/content/opinion/stories/2008/07/20/clicks.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

[pokemon]

Make it a dollar, 50 cents directly to cover paying down the debt, 10 cents to cover the cost of the war, 10 cents to cover unemployment costs, 10 cents to new energy, 10 cents to subsidize small farmers, and the last 10 cents used to cover any infrastructure costs.

[nomoredead]

Brilliant. Thank You.

[LeonBNJ]

WIth Gasoline at less than $1.70/gal in all but a few parts of the country, I think we should consider a higher Federal Gasoline tax of 50 cents a gallon, phased in over a 5 month period at 10 cents a month. Some states (like my New Jersey) should also be pushed into rasising their gasoline tax. We will need to pay for all these 'infrastructure' improvements, much of them for roads and bridges as well as be an incentive to reduce fuel use and make better choices in vehicles.
Please note I don't recommend it as to diesel, as it is used by commercial users and due to various regulations and market issues already has a price much above gasoline.

[Decipherer]

It should apply to all on-highway transportation fuels. Big rigs, 18-wheelers, and so forth do far more damage to the roads and highways than light-duty passenger cars and thus should be required to pay their fair share.

[pokemon]

They also are the prime reason your food cost is high, will you like to see the subsequent increase in your food bill? If anything any company transporting basic goods should be exempt from this tax, only those transporting luxury goods like vehicles, furniture, etc, should be paying this.

[shockmagog]

I agree, they do cause far more damage to roads and freeways. On the other hand, taxing diesel may be a moot point--both due to fewer trucks on the road, and the unprecedented stress truckers are going through in this recession.

'A total of 785 trucking companies with a combined fleet of about 39,000 trucks went out of business in the third quarter, bringing the number of company trucks idled in the first nine months of 2008 to more than 127,000, or 6.5% of the industry, reported Donald Broughton, trucking analyst and managing director of Avondale Partners.'
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nutruckers7-2009jan07,0,5231456.story

[Emily623]

Damn straight!! Not only do they put more wear and tear on roads and bridges, the pollution from those big diesel engines coughing out big clouds of smoke is much, much worse than a car. All 18-wheelers as well as dump trucks, box trucks, cement trucks, and all other construction vehicles contribute way more to pollution and global warming than the same amount of cars. There needs to be a complete overhaul of all those vehicles. Maybe they should be taxed extra until they change.

[jeg]

Gas is going back up. Expect it to be over $2.00 a gallon by the end of next month. It's been artificially low, after having been artificially high. It'll probably stabilize around $2.75 or so by summer.

Personally, I'm opposed to any tax that burdens the entire economy when the economy is in a near-collapse state like it is now. Let's get consumers spending, and businesses manufacturing first.

[quiviran]

A tax only burdens the economy if you ship the money out of the economy, like send it to Iraq to fund a war. If you turn it back into the economy, like to build roads, it only shapes the spending profile (less junk from China, more work at home). The free market does not produce public goods, like roads and schools. The money has to come from somewhere.

[LITNUP]

This is despicable to the poor and middle class ......

[pokemon]

No the lack of good public transportation is. This is simply a luxury tax.

[jeg]

I live in an area (rural) where public transportation isn't feasible. A lot of people do, and a lot of them live below the poverty line.

I'm guessing you live in a fairly metropolitan area where that wouldn't be a problem, but there are people who *can't* go shopping, or to work, without Ye Olde Single Passenger vehicle. And if they have families, then they probably have a multiple passenger vehicle that they use because they certainly can't afford to have a vehicle for each occasion.

[Decipherer]

True -- and the revenue from a 50 cent/gallon added federal tax would generate something like $90 billion, a sizeable portion of which would fund new and badly needed mass transit.