- Vote 'NO!' to Government Regulation of Privacy at The Economist
- FCC Stalls on Internet Regulation; Asks for More Comments
- Why was the Volcker Commission Constrained by Obama’s Tax Pledge, but not the Simpson-Bowles?
- Daily Media Spotlight September 2, 2010
- Harry Reid Looks to Resurrect RES During Lame-Duck
- Calculating the Cost of Government (CFA Site »)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight September 1, 2010
-
Obama Tax Commission Report:
Baby Step Toward IRS Tax Preparation - Dina Titus Launches False Attack Ad on Joe Heck and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- Indiana LaunchesTransparency Website (CFA Site »)
- Rally for Jobs Kicks Off Today in Texas
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 31, 2010
- Let us All Join in on the NOT so “Green Cause”
- California Bag Ban Bill Up for Vote Today
- Norquist to Gov. Pat Quinn: Pick a Flawed Income Tax Hike and Stick With It
- Phil Moffett Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Kentucky Gubernatorial Race
- New Mexico Sets Trends in Transparency Websites (CFA Site »)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
- Robert Gibbs’s Fuzzy Tax Hike Math
- Daily Media Spotlight August 30, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
- 2011 Could Be Ugly for Nevada Taxpayers
- Lame Duck Governor Ed Rendell Not Going Gently Into That Good Night – New Call for Higher Taxes
- Happy Cost of Government Day, California
- Bay Staters Spent 239 Days Paying for Government Burdens in 2010 (CFA Site »)
- Washington Welcomes Cost of Government Day (CFA Site »)
Friday, August 27, 2010
- Spill Commission Should Lift Moratorium Which Has Cost Gulf Residents 12,000 Jobs and $2.1 Billion
- Daily Media Spotlight August 26, 2010
- Why is Dan Onorato Knowingly Misleading Pennsylvania Voters?
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle
- Utah Tobacco Sellers Feeling the Impact of Tax Hikes
Thursday, August 26, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 25, 2010
- WI Democrats Launch “Blatantly False” Attack on Sean Duffy
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle (AWF Site »)
- Philly's New Blog Tax May Foreshadow Other eTaxes
- BNA: For 14 States, Existing Tax Code Leaves Room for Etax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Philly's $300 Blogger Tax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Cost of Government Day Arrives in the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Finally Celebrates Cost of Government Day
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
- California Budget Proposal Advocates eTax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Daily Media Spotlight August 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 23, 2010
- Government Workers' Pensions are Underfunded by $3 Trillion
Monday, August 23, 2010
- Fourteen Ways to Reduce Government Spending
- FCC Report on Broadband Performance: A Scare Tactic
- Sen. Al Franken Doesn’t Understand Wireless Networks...or the First Amendment
Friday, August 20, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Auto Execs’ R&D Proposal:
Lobby For Higher Taxes
From Benjamin Pacini on Thursday, November 5, 2009 4:52 PM
Auto executives in Detroit are suggesting that the best way to get more Americans to buy fuel-efficient vehicles is to gradually raise federal gasoline taxes.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Americans are suggesting that the best way to get Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles is to invent one that is worth purchasing. They are sending their suggestions to the car companies here.
One more well-intentioned tax hike is the last thing that Americans, who are struggling with an unstable economy, need; and the Government’s track record on effectively addressing climate change is less than stellar anyway. Indeed, they have so far proven utterly incompetent at curbing emissions through programs such as cash for clunkers (which did little for the environment, and may have made it worse). As with clunkers, many are afraid that an increased gas tax would be more payoff for GM’s executives than protection for America’s environment.
These executives suggest raising the tax slowly, so that people can adjust. If the purpose is to force people into buying a more fuel-efficient car, why not implement the entire tax all at once? Isn’t adjusting just what we don’t want?
The reason why executives would prefer to do such a thing gradually, of course, is because a huge tax hike kills jobs and makes people very angry. Just think of the last time that gas prices went up to $4. People got really mad. And they kept buying gas.
Which brings up a second question—how high would we have to put gas prices in order to force people to stop buying? In Europe they are often four times higher than here. Will it get that high? If done gradually, will Congress promise not to ‘doc-fix’ this one?
There are many well-intentioned voices who advocate a pigovian tax of this sort—a tax meant to distort incentives, based on the notion that there is a negative externality on using gas. Increased size of government is a negative externality too.
As car companies are supporting tax hikes, they are inherently encouraging expanded government. As we have previously written, most ‘sin taxes’ are designed to pay for bigger government and use social welfare for cover. In other words, car companies lobby for higher gas prices (under the guise of helping the environment) with the end result of a job-killing tax on every American.
The only way that such a tax would be acceptable would be if it happened along with a reduction in other taxes by an equal amount. To those who would seek such a tax swap, we offer a warning: the tax expenditure lobby is uncannily adroit at bait-and-switch. Don’t be surprised if your pro-business, pro-environment revenue-neutral “cut corporate and hike carbon” tax plan turns into a “hike carbon, and use it to save America’s rivers” plan.
In sum, we have a suggestion for auto makers:
Stop advocating for higher taxes. Go make a fuel-efficient car that is worth buying. We’ll be happy to buy them once you do.














Add a Comment