TAX the profits of big oil companies...

These days I'm generally for anything that taxes the profits of oil companies....... However, supply-side solutions just don't work.

The only way to reduce oil costs--or at slow down the increase--is to reduce demand for oil. And the only way to do that is to get more and more high-mileage vehicles on the roads.

I would be a big fan of making consumers take responsibility for their life style. For example, if you want to drive a Hummer, fine, but since you have consicously chosen to: 1) make us dependent on oil 2) reduce our national security, 3) cause people to get asthma and related diseases, and thus increase health care costs for the nation, and, 4) increase global warming, which will increase our insurance costs, you should pay a Health-care tax, a DoD tax, a national security tax, and a global warming tax on your vehicle. This "fee" (which I would propose to be around $40,000/Hummer and scaled from there) could then be rebated in the form of tax breaks to those of us who choose to buy a vehicle which minimizes the above costs. Let people buy whichever vehicle they want--or pretend to "need"--but they should take responsibility for their actions.

I would still like to tax wind-fall profits, since the companies' profit margins are going up at an increasing rate, which means there is some gouging going on. But I would want that money earmarked for more research in increasing fuel economy even more, and probably in increasing fuel efficiency of large trucks--which still deliver most of the goods in our country.

Supply-side solutions distort the free market and hide the actual benefits/problems of the solution. At least demand-side solutions give taxpayer money directly to taxpayers, which helps preservc a free-market.

It is cheaper to save energy than to buy it!

Tax engine displacement/fuel consumption rating to entice people into smaller, more efficient cars. Tax fuel to entice people into public transit (where available) or to change driver habits (driving at the speed limit, carpools, combining trips).

I respectfully suggest though, that using the tax to pay for health care, etc, misses the point of the tax, which is to get people off oil dependency. I respectfully suggest that these taxes should be ploughed back into public transit infrastructure development, as that will have a synergistic effect by giving people a real alternative to driving.

We visit Europe frequently. Last time we did a house exchange that included exchanging our vehicles. We were amazed at how little we drove (in Holland, in a rural area). We had bikes and great bike paths for short trips, and efficient rail transport for longer jaunts. We did drive as well, but much less than we would here in Canada.

On the other hand the family in our home had no choice but to drive everywhere; our house is roughly the same distance as theirs from a mid-sized town. Their mid-sized town had a rail station, ours does not. Their road to town had bike paths or lanes, ours road to town is suicide for cyclists. Their mid-sized town had hourly rail service during the day and half-hourly in rush hour, putting you in the city (Utrecht) in 1/2 hour, and the station offered free park and ride, so if the weather was really foul, you could drive about 5 km instead of biking, park, and take the train. We have two busses a day to Montreal, at inconvenient hours, and the journey takes 2 hours by bus instead of 1 hour by car.

Unless we invest in real choices and real infrastructure, we will remaine married to oil, regardless of whether our cars are hybrid, diesel, or the current gas guzzlers.

Taxes should be used for the purpose they're intended, getting us off oil.

Personally I'd like to keep my money in my own pocket rather than a politician's.
Cost per barrel is rising, and I think the market will continue to "drive" people into more efficient vehicles, it's already happening.

In our area the developers keep building those 500 unit 1.4 acre homes on shaved clear-cut earth but do nothing with the roads which cause huge traffic jams.
Just plain-ol bad (or no) planning.

We have a few biking paths but aren't used for transportation, but weekend recreation.
Many roads have that extra 3 foor wide pavement marked off for bicycles but can't remember it ever being used.

From the city to the suburbs they have MARTA (Metro Atlanta Transit Authority) electric rail system which is plaged by crime and violence.

Atlanta suburbs are now 50-80 miles out of the city (Where I live) and bicycling isn't an option.
Politicians won't win on raising taxes to feed MARTA.

Perhaps in my case MARTA's monopoly bus system could be boken up and made available for small business.
As it is today the regulations are so bad it is impossible for the free, open market to open its own transportation system.
I'd bet free market competition would solve the transportation problem into/out of our cities without imposing more new taxes.
Cleaner, more efficient, more secure and more people would ride them to work.

I for one would be against any extra tax on any type of vehicle, People should be allowed to purchase what ever suits there needs, Not have to pay some tax because thier needs may be different form the smug people on this board.

Hybirds don't create smog but they sure do create smug owners

Well said Wayne. Finally, some common sense on this board

I think giving tax breaks to people to purchase fuel efficient vehicles is already happening, I look at this as a "Hand out" of tax payer dollars to Honda and Toyota to sell products that would not otherwise sell on thier own merit. VW does not get tax breaks to sell the TDI, I guess it pays to lobby congress huh?

Tax breaks for big oil are no different than the ones given to the transplant auto companies like Honda and Toyota who have plants built for them at tax payer expense money for training employee's ect...

I hate to be the one to tell you, But, if everybody drove a hybird we would still be dependant on forign oil. Most of our oil does not come from the middle east, I believe Canada and Mexico are our largest suppliers with about 15% comming from the middle east.

If national security is such a concern for you, Why not purchase cars from an American company? This will keep our tax base strong for schools, roads ect.. Not to mention keep Americans employed in good paying jobs.

Tax breaks on hybrid cars push the price up. Tax breaks are only a good idea when meant to encourage behavior that the market would not already encourage, like producing medicines that will only help a very small population. Hybrid cars are already popular, Prius's only stay on the lot for an average of 8 days before being sold.

Plug-in Hybrids powered by nuclear power is the solution. Hopefully in 20 years this will be accomplished. If you're interested in electric vehicles, build more power plants and improve the various regional electric grids to handle an increased load.

So being dependant on oil is a bad thing huh? So, why don't you enlighten us on how we can stop using evil oil? Don't you think if there was a better solution it would already be on the market?

I think giving tax breaks to oil is a good thing, it promotes new discoverys of oil not yet found, More resources for drilling and many other benefits since at the present time it is our most dependable and affordable source for energy

I may be wrong but you seem to think all of our oil is from the middle east and this is the reason for war? Fact is most of our oil comes from Mexico and Canada and we have never had a war over oil with either country. So this war thing you talk about is just not true.

Tax breaks for the transplant auto companies are a big thing, Honda just said they would build a new plant in either Indiana or Ohio, I forget. One community in my state was trying to get them to build here, Offering tax free business, Free land, Would build them the plant and pay to train the workforce. This is a little more than just a tax break on hybirds.

GM, Ford and Chrysler do build cars in other countries, Whats different than Honda and Toyota doing this? The big three still build more than 80% of all cars made in the US.
Know anything about ww2? who was it that supplied tanks aircraft and many other things to the effort? The US auto companies, By not buying American, plants are idled, tax base is lost, reaserch and developement is not done or delayed, Its an ugly cycle.
You also seem to think that American cars are less fuel efficient than the imports? excluding hybirds its not true, a VW jetta with a 4 cyl gas engine was rated at 29mpg highway, So is a Buick Lesabre, Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler LHS. a new Chevrolet Impala with a 300 hp v8 also gets 29mpg highway all these cars are bigger, weigh more and are safer than a Jetta yet still get the same mileage.
What is a Honda Accord with a v6 rated at 28-29?

Just for the record I own an 04 Jetta TDI and an 05 Mercury Sable, The Mercury has been far more reliable than the Jetta

Vince- I would argue that MOST take breaks encourage waste. Look how overburdened the tax code is with 'pet project' tax breaks. They're for the most part a waste of time. People already want hybrid cars, so adding tax incentives to purchasing them will only increase their price through increased demand. The car dealers stand to benefit from tax breaks more than anyone else. You don't need tax breaks to encourage behavior that is already taking place. Any arguments concerning using tax incentives to encourage foreign investment in auto plants I would direct towards the need for a complete overhaul of the tax code. Being a libertarian above all else (which makes me a Republican by default), I just take issue with the government using tax incentives to encourage behavior it deems beneficial, with the exception of the medicines argument I presented above.

My views on nuclear power and plug-in hybrids are just opinions. I work in tax policy and take a great interest in energy, and the consensus among the people I speak with is that nuclear power is ONE of the directions we're heading in. I think you're way off base saying it's 'lost' though. Nuclear power is by far the best idea we've ever come up with to generate ordered power. Wind power has certainly made great advances in the last 20 years, and is in some cases cost effective. I know wind farms are springing up all over the country right now. However nuclear power plants are also being sighted and approved for the first time in more than a decade. I hate to say it, but look at the French. They generate almost all their electricity through clean nuclear power. There are zero emissions (aside from heat) and through the use of recycled fuels their total nuclear waste is stored in a facility not much larger than a high school gymnasium. Nuclear power has been put on hold due to domestic politics. However an interesting coalition has been forming the last few years among enviromentalists, economists, and the utilities. Just an opinion though.

Being a libertarian, I can't support government mandated conservation, as long as I'm paying for my energy consumption and it's produced in a responsible (see nuclear power) manner. I also don't think it's politically feasible. Additionally, most data I've seen suggests that any efficiency gains are always more than compensated by increased demand.

I apologize for the length, and once again, these are just my opinions. I don't profess to be an expert on anything. I look forward to your response.

Alex: I would agree that most tax breaks encourage waste. However, most tax breaks that I know of are on the supply-side, not the demand side, and supply-side is worse because they are hidden. UNfortunately, we're not going to be able to stop congressman from giving handouts, I'm just suggesting that those handouts go to people, where we can "see" them, rather to corporations where they are hidden from the taxpayer. I also think that tax breaks can be structured such that they help the country, not hurt it, regardless of whether they cause prices to rise. The dealer where I got my Prius did not raise prices at all....so that argument is not always true, and frequently wrong. The economic reasoning may seem sound, but the data do not show it. And as more people want these cars, and as more companies are encouraged to build them, no matter how many tax breaks there are, competition will keep prices low.

Whereever you find nuclear power, you will find many government handouts---even in France. If all energy handouts were eliminated, conservation and energy efficiency would be winners by far--both economically and engineering-wise.

In the same way that tax breaks CAN encourage waste, building nuclear power plants will do the same thing by providing "cheap" power--a thing which they have NEVER been able to do! At one time nuclear power was touted as producing electricity that will be "too cheap to meter." That has never been true. Maybe we can agree that congress should get rid off all energy subsidies.....? I'd be all for that!

Spending money on reducing people's need for energy in the first place will do a lot more good for the country long term by reducing energy bills, and reducing health care costs and global-warming costs.

Being a libertarian is nice to say, but governments have responsibilities for the health and welfare of their citizens. Encouraging energy efficiency is one of those responsibilities. The major problem is global warming costs will escalate rapidly in the coming decades, and governments around the world need to encourage lower CO2 emissions now. Nuclear power actually hinders this because of the long lead times needed for designing, building, etc. Only conservation and efficiency are able to reduce CO2 emissions rapidly. If I turn off a light bulb, I instantly reduced my CO2 emissions--in the same way, large-scale conservation and efficiency can work.

You might be paying for your energy yourself...but there are many soldiers dying for it. There are many civilians dying for it. There are many children getting asthma because of it. There are many senior citizens getting bronchitis because of it. There are many companies losing money because of lost-time at work. Epidemiologists have studied pollution and its affects on health. These costs are difficult to estimate, but they are nonetheless real, and quantifiable on large scales. When one's "freedom" causes others to have higher costs and more problems, one needs to take responsbility for one's actions. And if one abdicates that responsibility, then the government should take action. The whole world is much more connected now than ever before.

Length is not a problem....intelligent discussion is always a good thing.

There are many economists who would argue that tax breaks to actual people (as opposed to corporations) can and do help. The problem is not with tax breaks in general, it is with tax breaks that have been hijacked by corporate interests, that do not necessarily serve the country's interest. If you take care of your citizens, the corporations can easily follow. After all, they're supposedly run by smart people.

GE and Westinghouse are of course going to advertise how wonderful their 'new' nukes will be. They want taxpayer money to build them (through the utility companies, that is). What I am saying is don't be fooled, they will have the same cost overruns, UNinsurability, and terrorist risks as usual. Stop the tax breaks for nukes and you will see them all shut down.

Last I read, natural gas-fired powerplants will cost about $0.05/Kw-hr to build, coal about $0.06/Kw-hr, nuclear about $0.15/Kw-hr. And you still have all the external costs: CO2, gaseous pollutants, etc. Windpower is about $0.05 and solar is on par with nuclear--depending on the source you read. Nuclear power just doesn't add up. Again, the subsidies are going to be given away no matter what, it is better to give them to individuals rather than corporations.

As for the electric grid: lowering end-use demand (i.e., more efficient homes, appliances, etc.) will lower the stress on the grid, lower consumer's costs, lower pollution costs, lower CO2 emissions, and put more money into the economy. The grid will last longer as it is--costly upgrades can be postponed.

Great advances in society are NOT made through energy consumption....they're made from human beings thinking up new ideas. Major corporations (mentioned in previous posts) are reducing energy consumption and getting 2-4 year payback. That's a much better return than the stock market these days. Their keeping the same output with less energy. That's where smart designs and good engineering come into play.

The bottom line of my argument is: If I had $100 million to spend, I would be serving the country's (public's?) interest more by building more efficient buildings, homes, etc. than by building a new power plant. And it would also have a much higher ROI.

Alex, Vince, I think that the main issue of relevance here is efficiency in usage. It is correct that increased use of energy generally promotes higher standards of living. However, some countries do much better per unit of energy (let us cal it a KW/H) than others. The former Soviet Union and petrol producing arab countries are notoriously wasteful with energy, even though their living standards are quite below what we know in the West. The US is not great either, we get about half of the US$ output per KW/H used as Japan and most of the European countries. The living standards in these countries is roughly equal to ours, yet they achieve that with about 1/2 of the energy consummed per unit of GDP than we do. That would imply that we are not terribly efficient and that we could save a lot of energy without having to make any compromises on our quality of life. Of course the issue is, what do we call quality of life, is it the right to drive 300hp/5000lbs behemots to get our groceries fiv emiles down the road? In Europe you have that right as well, it will just cost you a heck of a lot more which, if we want to foster efficiency, it really should.

LETS MAKE NO MISTAKE OIL COMPANYS ARE LIKE CIGGERETTE COMPANYS THEY POLUTE THE AIR CAUSE CANCER ,CREATE AN ADDICTS OF PEOPLE {DENPENDENCY}KILL ,FRAME AND LIE TO STOP ANYONE FROM COMING UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER .THEY MANIPULATE POLITICS & PEOPLE FOR THERE OWN PERSONAL GAIN & SENSE PLEASURE AGAINST THE FREEWILL OF OTHERS.SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE FOR GAINING CONTROL OF OIL RESOURCES THAT KILL OTHERS, THOSE AT THE TOP ARE MOST LIKELY MURDERS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.THEY MAY HAVE NOT STARTED OUT THAT WAY BUT LOOK AT THE VISABLE EVIDENSE, tHEY HAE THE CHOICE TO RETIRE OR GO INTO OTHER BUSSINESSES ALTERNITVE FUELS,THE ONLY DIFFERANCE BETWEEN THEM AND A BLACK MAN COVICTED OF MURDER IS THEY THINK THEYHAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT BUT KARMA WILL HAVE ITS WAY WITH ALL.TAX THEM

Diesel-
You make good points concerning efficiency of usage. I support increases in efficiency because they save me money. I buy energy efficienct products, I turn off the lights and appliances when not using them, and I do my best when driving my Jeep to not wate gas by alternating between slamming on the gas and the slamming on the brakes. Efficency is great, and through science it is always improving. However I don't think it's the government place to mandate the purchase of certain products because they're efficient. People and businesses will buy them anyways because they can save money. Government mandates are inefficient since they pick winners and discourage private firms from competing to develop better products. The government mandated installation of flourescent lighting during the 70's and 80's was a waste of time since that would have happenned regardless.

Regarding the comparisons to foreign countries and standard of living, I would argue that Japan and the Europeans achieve more efficient usage of energy because they live closer to towns. Since many Europeans and Japanese live in high density areas more of them can rely on public transportation (rather than living in the suburbs). I would also argue that 'standard of living' is not an exact science. I've travelled in both Europe and Japan and I didn't find either to be as comfortable to me as America. This may make me sound like a lazy American but I like air conditioning. When I go into a restaurant and order a soda, I don't want a warm can of soda and a glass. I want a frosty glass with ice in it. The lack of ice machines in restaurants in Italy is bizzare. I love a lot of things about Europe, but I would personally argue that Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than either the Europeans or the Japanese. That includes my ability to buy a 'McMansion' in the suburbs and drive a massive SUV.

I don't disagree with your point that the public health costs of my doing these things should be better reflected in the cost. However I don't think that a further increase in the fuel tax is the best avenue for that. Crippling our economy in the name of better efficiency is not an option. We're stuck with these suburbs and interstates that allow people to live 60 miles from the office, so rather than penalizing citizens for this, I would like to see a solution that allows people to continue living the lifestyle they have chosen. This is why I think plug in hybrids and nuclear power are a good idea. Cheap, domestically produced, clean energy which could fuel economic growth and lower our emissions sounds great to me.

This is America, and people have the right to decide where they live, what they drive, and how they live. People are interested in saving money, so energy efficient products will sell on their merits. I work for Congress, and I can tell you in my opinion the further away the government stays from my decisions as a consumer the better. Educating people on how to be a responsible consumer on the other hand, is something I would support.