GM vice charman Lutz wants a higher gas tax

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

CONVERJ...I dunno why I keep confusing it with the Provoq.
Meh...if this is coming from the same people as the Z28 information...

Honestly, the Cadillac I want to see most is the Cien. Can we have this, too?

[O2BQIK]

Originally Posted by DangerouSS

What a jerk......maybe he can afford it and wants to drive an econobox or a Volt, but higher gas prices would hurt Camaro sales. We pay enough in taxes already and our economy is struggling.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news...stax/index.htm

Well from a consumer point of view, sure, I agree with you. From the point of view of GM, it's a different story. They are being forced by the government to invest a fortune to make fuel-efficient cars that the public largely is not interested in buying. This has changed a little since the gas spike a few years ago but still, lots of people buying huge crossover SUVs these days. Instead of the government forcing them to build cars nobody wants to buy, the government could give the public an incentive to buy the cars first. Rather than create a supply of cars for which there is no demand, you can create demand for the cars.

Not that I desperately want to pay more for gas, but I agree with Lutz. Americans would buy more fuel-efficient cars if gas cost more, and I think that is a much better situation for GM than what they're facing now with current government CAFE regulations.

[Milk 1027]

Originally Posted by chevydude26

Dude there was no politics in what that guy said he simply stated what happens when you raise taxes he didn't mention any politicians political parties or ideologies

I edited the post he quoted

Originally Posted by chevydude26

Can the mods lift the rules on discussing politics so we can actually discuss this issue with our foots in our mouth ... No point in this thread if we can't discuss economic theories

and let's be honest this is a musclecar site most of us are more NRA than the sierra club

not going to happen

[nova]

Originally Posted by O2BQIK

Well from a consumer point of view, sure, I agree with you. From the point of view of GM, it's a different story. They are being forced by the government to invest a fortune to make fuel-efficient cars that the public largely is not interested in buying.

Then the answer is to get that screwed up requirement removed. Maybe move to simple minimum fuel economy requirements for different vehicle classes instead of the godawful mess that is CAFE if you want fuel economy standards.

The answer is not to add more bad ideas to fix the first set of bad ideas though. If someone is kicking you in the ass so hard you can't stand it, the solution is not to get someone else to kick you in the balls to take your mind off the ass kicking. The solution is to stop the guy from kicking you in the ass....

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by rodimus prime

So the govt shafts the manufactures with bs cafe standards, the automotive companies cant figure out how to build products people want with the standards the govt sets (which they shouldnt be allowed to do, to an extent) and the only thing they can think of is pass the shaft to the consumer?

Heres a stupid thought, some people dont give a flying phunk about gas prices. Do they suck, yes. But some people like driving/have more money than gas prices hurt/ stop them.

A a business you cant figure you way out of a problem.....go out of business. See how the govt would like it if GM Ford and Chrysler said F'it, Im closing shop. Have fun country. Were off to china.

If I was in charge of GM I would of never taken any of the bs congress tried to thow at me...with flying on private jets ect ect. I say "hey you can either lend us the money, loosen up your policies, remove the uaw, force the uaw on the foreign car companies or Im closing up shop and going home. Either way I go home a millionair and I dont really give a shit. Its your choice.

Im sure China would love to own GM.

Moving to China (or anywhere else) would make absolutely no difference. Anyone who sells cars in America has to deal with CAFE. Regardless of what you think should happen, reality is that 35 mpg CAFE is happening and as it sits now, gas will still be cheaper in America than it is in Europe and Japan.

Essentially it is impossible to build the vehicles that the majority of the public wants while meeting the fuel economy targets set with gas prices as cheap as they are. Currently, few people buy expensive, efficient cars to save money on gas, because the payoff period is too long. Mostly those who do buy such cars do it to be 'green'. At the moment, thats fine. But these people represent a very small segment of the US market. The other ~99% of buyers have different things in mind when buying a car. They care about size, power, comfort, features and all the other things. These cars will also have to become more efficient or the automakers will have to raise the cost of them so much that few people will consider buying them (reducing their CAFE impact) a buyer will then take an Aveo instead. Customers are unhappy because they can't get the car they want. GM is unhappy because it can't make money selling Aveos.

A higher gas tax shifts the break even point to a more attractive position. Consumers will want to buy the more efficient (and slightly more expensive) car because its cheaper to operate over the next 5 years and it still has all the features they want in a car. GM (and all the other automakers) are happy because they make a lot more money on a $30k car than on a $15k one. And the Government is happy because it can now stop buying oil from ... Venezuela. Never forget that CAFE isn't about reducing CO2, its about reducing oil imports from unfriendly or unstable countries.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by nova

Then the answer is to get that screwed up requirement removed. Maybe move to simple minimum fuel economy requirements for different vehicle classes instead of the godawful mess that is CAFE if you want fuel economy standards.

The answer is not to add more bad ideas to fix the first set of bad ideas though. If someone is kicking you in the ass so hard you can't stand it, the solution is not to get someone else to kick you in the balls to take your mind off the ass kicking. The solution is to stop the guy from kicking you in the ass....

CAFE does have different targets for different vehicle classes and sizes

[Easy Go]

Driving is pay to play. It's a privelege - not a basic human right. I am NOT a fan of taxes by any means, but vehicles use up public infrastructure and infrastructure ain't free. Gasoline taxes ($ per mile) and vehicle registrations ($ per pound) would seem like reasonable taxes. If I don't want to pay those taxes, I can choose to drive less or drive a lighter vehicle - both actions reducing my usage of the infrastructure and therefore reducing the amount I should have to pay for it.

Granted, my willingness to pay these taxes is based on the assumption that the revenues generated are spent strictly on infrastructure...

The U.S. needs to revamp it's energy policy instead of continually trying to polish the CAFE turd.

[nova]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

CAFE does have different targets for different vehicle classes and sizes

Yeah, but as far as I understand CAFE, its a production weighted harmonic mean. Production weighting is what leads to over production of vehicles that just sit when gas prices are low because if you don't produce enough high mileage vehicles, then your CAFE suffers. Its amounts to supply stimulation effort but supply has never been the issue, its been demand.

Just forget all the fleet average garbage and say "Trucks of W size must have X fuel economy, cars of Y size must have Z fuel economy" and so on and so forth.

Raise value W high enough and the cost of a truck (or whatever) is going to go up which will push people into smaller more fuel efficient vehicles ie a demand stimulation.

On the flip side, those who still choose to purchase a truck will have a higher MPG vehicle instead of the situation now where their low MPG vehicle is "offset" by higher MPG vehicles.

The sum total cost to the consumer is probably negligable in the long run because of the increased fuel savings, you just force them to front in initial cost what they would have spent on gas prior...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by nova

Yeah, but as far as I understand CAFE, its a production weighted harmonic mean. Production weighting is what leads to over production of vehicles that just sit when gas prices are low because if you don't produce enough high mileage vehicles, then your CAFE suffers. Its amounts to supply stimulation effort but supply has never been the issue, its been demand.

Just forget all the fleet average garbage and say "Trucks of W size must have X fuel economy, cars of Y size must have Z fuel economy" and so on and so forth.

Raise value W high enough and the cost of a truck (or whatever) is going to go up which will push people into smaller more fuel efficient vehicles ie a demand stimulation.

On the flip side, those who still choose to purchase a truck will have a higher MPG vehicle instead of the situation now where their low MPG vehicle is "offset" by higher MPG vehicles.

The sum total cost to the consumer is probably negligable in the long run because of the increased fuel savings, you just force them to front in initial cost what they would have spent on gas prior...

CAFE is very complicated, but essentially there is a standard for cars and one for trucks. As I understand it there is also a scaling factor involved, so that large vehicles don't have to be as efficient and ultra small are expected to be more efficient. So a large car that may only average 20 mpg, its CAFE score would be say 26 while an ultra small one may average 40 mpg yet its CAFE score is lowered to possibly 37. There's other stuff involved too, like 1970's era EPA fuel economy testing (not current window sticker numbers) and E85 bonuses.

Anyway, having absolute limits doesn't sound like too good of an idea Would the M3 and Camry be subject to the same minimum limit? They're about the same size. Unless you have dozens of different classes otherwise it would either force manufacturers to stop selling any performance cars or be 100% completely worthless since the minimum would be so low that it doesn't matter.

[FenwickHockey65]

The loophole to CAFE is that it uses a very old rating system. As in vehicles are rated much higher under CAFE than under the EPA.

[Waco]

Raise taxes for the sake of social engineering? What is the requirement for this new .25/gal tax? Without a requirement this is simply an exercise in social engineering and is ridiculous. The resultant tax surplus would be readily grabbed by our legislative/executive leadership and new programs created to make use of this surplus. And good luck ever getting those new, unnecessary programs to die once they've outlived their usefullness (if they ever had any). One more reason govt should stay out of private industry and car makers should not try to make tax policy.

(FYI, the above post is not "politics"...because I said so, and I mention no political party AND I said "car makers")

[Easy Go]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

The government is not evil. They are representations of the people selected from the people by the people.

Amen to that. When it comes to election time, stupid is as stupid does...

[coolman]

I've learned one thing from this thread. We as americans are doomed if the majority of people have the same kind of thinking that I see here. I could give many reasons as to why I see it this way ,but it would be seen as political. Which I don't really know why this thread was allowed to stay open this long anyhow because the entire thing is political no matter how some of you try to word things. Someone tell me how to rebut this idea that more taxes are a good thing without making it political. Just talking about taxes is talking politics.

[nova]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Anyway, having absolute limits doesn't sound like too good of an idea Would the M3 and Camry be subject to the same minimum limit? They're about the same size. Unless you have dozens of different classes otherwise it would either force manufacturers to stop selling any performance cars or be 100% completely worthless since the minimum would be so low that it doesn't matter.

I don't see the problem with having many classes. Maybe based on GVWT and engine displacement, with more strict requirements for bigger vehicles with larger engines or something similar. I think that would give manufacturers plenty of options for maintaining performance.

You've just gotta keep your eye on the end goal though. The goal is to stimulate demand for more fuel efficient cars and increase fuel economy across the board. A gas tax does the first but not the second. In addition, increased fuel costs drive up the price of absolutely everything that we use which is not a good result.