"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

[ObjectiveRealist]

If the Bush administration had been serious about fighting al Qaida they would have imposed at least a $0.50 tax, admit the facts of global warming research instead of suppressing and denying them, and supported the most efficient sources of bioethanol (switch grass and jatropha) and every other alternative motive force, to stem the flow of money to Saudi Arabia. It has all been smokescreen, to protect Archer Daniels Midland, Exxon, and the Saud Royal Family from market forces, and exposure of their ties to al Qaida, respectively.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646&printsafe=1
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/27/business/27proto.php
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/01/ethanol23

[cayuse]

I disagree with an Israel Forign Policy of Energy Independence. If we can ship jobs for he Global Economy we surely can buy gas for the cheapest price.

What have we done to the Arabs, but create caos and they have fuel our life style.

Create cheap green energy without transferring FREE wind and solar to Rich Oil so we pay more for less. 0 Sum Gain. Rich stay rich and poor build, buy and subsidize GREEN. And turning open green fields windmills and solar panels

These problems need to be solve for a better world not perpetuating Fuedelism.

Bush should have sent the FBI and the Taliban after Bin Laden that was his MISTAKE and FOLLY

[Decipherer]

You're dead on, and I appreciate it, but to lump ADM in with ExxonMobil and the House of Saud is a gross exaggeration and somewhat unfair.

A bit of history: In the late 1970s during the 2nd or 3rd (I forget which) energy crisis, President Carter proposed and Congress passed our nation's first energy policy legislation, including incentives for ethanol, wind, solar, georthermal, and other renewable energy sources, including commercialization and basic R&D which at the time was fairly primitive and uneconomic.

ADM, one of the largest agri-processors in the world, was persuaded to make the first large-scale investment in ethanol production from corn STARCH (not food, by the way, folks). For the ensuing 20 years, they were the largest U.S. producer, and used their political stroke to maintain the incentives for biofuels long after Reagan trashed the incentives for the other renewables.

The result? Today, ADM is NOT the largest U.S. producer, and the industry has evolved to be highly competitive and efficient and produces enough ethanol to displace almost 10% of our total gasoline pool.

Is this enough? No, of course. We need to get beyond corn & grains as ethanol feedstocks and we are, and we need new demand for all biofuels if we are going to achieve the mandated goals of tripling production and use of biofuels by 2022.

Don't blame ADM -- blame those who seek to lose when fossil fuel demand is reduced. Who do you think that may be?

[quiviran]

What part of the corn plant does the starch come from? I know about stalks, and leaves and ears and kernels. Just where is this starch thingy connected in?

OBTW, looks like ethanol takes more energy to produce that it provides. I know when I use gasoline adulterated with ethanol my mpg goes down, which means I buy more gas and spend more money on transportation fuel to go the same distance. Exactly where does that extra money go? Since the new element is the process is ethanol, already subsidized by tax money and competing for energy to support its production process,my guess it is the destination for the extra money I have to spend to go the same distance I used to go. Ethanol is a SCAM.

[publicmenace]

This idea is flawed in that it hits all gasoline consumers the same way whether they drive responsible compact cars (as I do) or giant guzzle-monsters like an H3. I would support a 25% (or higher) federal excise tax on vehicles that over-consume so that the purchase of these problematic vehicles would be driven downward. Exceptions could easily be made for businesses that require these types of vehicles for their trade.

In other words, more rural denizens need to be driven away from using F350s or SUVs to commute to-and-from work, soccer practice or the grocery store and toward Priuses.

[Decipherer]

We've had a "gas-guzzler" tax on vehicles with low mpg ratings. People still bought massive SUVs with single-digit mpgs.

Worked real well, didn't it?

[ccpostman]

huh?

Do the math!
If they are driving your "responsible compact cars" they won't have to buy as much taxed gas as someone in a Hummer or Suburban.

How would you have us double tax a car at the pump???

The only way would be higher vehicle registration. In my state of California vehicle registration will never go up as long as Arnold is in Office. He had Davis recalled and won the election on vehicle registration.

[pokemon]

The whole point is that it effects the way you drive regardless of the make or model.

[quiviran]

With a 50 cent per gallon tax,
if you drive a 25 mpg car, your tax is 2 cents per mile
while the 10 mpg Hummer driver pays 5 cents per mile.
How are you being affected in the same way as the Hummer driver? This is exactly the effect the tax seeks to have.

If you want to pay less, get a 150 mpg car, then your tax will be 1/3 of a cent per mile. Is that too much to help American stop sending money to countries whose citizens use the money to attack us?

[Floralgirl]

When the governemnt stops p i s s i n g away all the tax money they aleady collect, maybe I'll support this idea. Personally, I have cut my driving way back since gas prices started to rise. Why should we have to pay more taxes cause some people have not?

[Decipherer]

Whatever the inequity involved, it will be limited, short-lived, and far less painful than if we continue business as usual.

Remember, we are all in this together.

[niko73]

Great job Car Talk guys! This idea needs some serious traction. However, I would have a harder time supporting a gas tax without some kind of relief for poor families. Would it also be possible to subsidize public transportation that runs on petroleum? The price of driving should go up, but we should create incentives to use public transportation. (Of course, developing a public transportation network that depends less on fossil fuels is the best option).

[jeffrey678]

That's how the Republicans started hammering President Clinton. A Gas tax would be a Republican talking point with an advertisement at every gas station. Read old newspaper articles from the 90s. This is how they plan on hammering President Obama . Taxes need to be collected at the border.

[MrBluebird]

Dear Cluck and Crock,
Stick to fixing cars and not economies. Increased gas taxes hurt the poor who can not afford it. No fuel tax increase without consideration to income!

[lauram]

I'd rather that 50 cents go to building roads than to the sheiks in Saudi, which is exactly where it will go when they raise oil prices again, which they will.

[Decipherer]

Excuse me, "Bluebirdofhappiness," but I don't think "C&C" put it in either/or terms as you did.

They call that a strawman argument, by the way.

We can raise the excise tax on gasoline and diesel by a modest 50 cents per gallon while (please note) AT THE SAME TIME give folks with less income a modest income tax credit for some of it, low interest loans to buy new or used high MPG vehicles, and so forth to offset the modest added fuel tax cost they might have to pay each year.

One poster (below) estimated that for a driver racking up 12,000 miles per year, that might go as high as $200 above his current fuel expense. Small price to pay for most people, but the poorest could be protected by other measures.

The point is we need to reduce overall petroleum fuel consumption, increase alternatives, and bring clean and green energy home, made in the USA.

[InsideBrooklyn]

It's patriotic to pay taxes. The whole Reaganistic notion about taxes is as bankrupt as . . . ahem . . . the banks, wall street and the Republican party. Take your "tax and spend liberal" nostrum you crybabies and stuff it in a sack. I drive and I pay the price but my price is a third of what you gas guzzling thieves with your 11 miles to the gallon get. . . The click and clack brothers are right. In fact raise the tax a dollar. No, 2 dollars. . .

[badtimes]

I remember my father talking about this when I was a kid, more than 40 yrs ago. He thought the proceeds should be put into alternative energy research (and he was and is not 'liberal' or 'green'- far from it). I wonder what the world would look like now if that had been done?
I'm not holding my breath on this however- most people are extremely short-sighted and selfish.

[Decipherer]

It has been done already to a limited extent with respect to biofuels in that they receive an incentive that is derived from the excise taxation on gasoline and diesel fuel used on-highway. The system is limited and not altogether satisfactory, but we've gotten almost to the point where 10% of our transportation fuels are non-petroleum based as a result.

Could we do better? Yes, we could -- and must -- do much, much better. Click & Clack's proposal is one of a number of ideas that would help reduce consumption of petroleum, make alternatives more competitive, and give the government a substantial war chest to fund new R&D and expand production, creating new jobs and needed economic activitiy.

Now for the math: The U.S. consumes roughly 180 billion gallons of taxed on-highway gasoline and diesel annually. Multiply that number by the "C&C" proposal of 50 cents per gallon, and you wind up with a $90 billion per year fund to kick-start action on these fronts.

Sounds like a good start to me. Keep it up, Tom & Ray!

[AmericanSon]

We can use the $90 billion per year to convert existing automobiles to run on hydrogen, and to build hydrogen fueling stations across the country. Then, charge no taxes whatsoever to fill your tank with hydrogen, creating additional incentives for people to use hydrogen rather than gasoline.
With all the new wind turbines that Obama is going to install, we will be able to use renewable electricy to create the hydrogen without using any fossil fuels.
Click and Clack should start a chain of garages to convert automobiles to run on hydrogen. Each conversion could be paid for by the new gasoline tax.
Problem solved.

[sparkey]

And just WHAT was in my post at 6:42 A.M. that got the dreaded 'comment pending'?

[sparkey]

And when the price of gas goes back up to $4.00 a gallon, will the tax be taken away? Anybody, anybody?

[badtimes]

One of the proposals I've heard is to put a 'floor' on the price of gas- as the price of gas rises, the amount of tax declines, so the price at the pump remains the same.
Don't worry sparkey- the chances of this happening are pretty low.

[frantaylor]

The floor is a pretty stupid idea because then the oil companies can charge more and more yet the consumer does not pay more, and the government gets less taxes. Very stupid idea.

[frantaylor]

If $4.00 a gallon gas scares you, then a lot of things in the future are going to scare you even more.

[scottarino]

..and your not scared?

[piggybackmom]

Guilty...of driving my truck that get 11 miles per gallon to Home Depot for plants (hanging onto the dang vehicle until the kids are through college)....time to adapt.

Instead of a gas tax of 50 cents, I say go for $1.00.

[Decipherer]

You hit on an excellent point which bears discussion, repeated as required, and that is that -- every single one of us -- must make the decision to go green, go efficient, and think before we drive, run water, turn up the thermostat, and the myriad things we all do as Americans to consume/waste (?) 25% of the world's energy even though we're less than 5% of the population of Planet Earth.

These are important economic, moral, and environmental decisions. If tough economic times get us in that frame of mind, so be it.

We'll all be much better off for the exercise.

[JScott]

I thought that was John Lovitz on the readers right--'yeah Morgan Fairchild's my wife, that's the ticket'.

[Wilburrr]

Oh my god.... tax and spend liberals.... next thing they will want to do is spend the money repairing bridges and freeways.

[eus]

What about jet fuel? Fuel for farm vehicles, shipping and postage.... This should be thought out carefully. Think dominoes.

[Citizen54]

Tom and Ray (Click and Clack) are two of the smartest guys on radio, if not the country. And two of the funniest. Obama should appoint one to head up the Transportation Dept. and the other (the one who doesn't drive a car) to be the "car czar."

[Decipherer]

It is interesting, isn't it, that a little humor like what these guys deliver with such joy can make a challenging message be heard by folks that need to hear it?

If Obama can make Dr. Sanjay Gupta Surgeon General, just think what he could do with these ambassadors of "clean & green" transportation?

Send 'em out there on a national tour -- we don't need them as DOT secretary (that'll be Ray LaHood's job) and we don't need no stinkin' car czar, either. Just these two guys doing their thing, coast-to-coast.