GM wants more gas tax??? - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 7th, 2011, 09:26 AM   #1
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,288
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default GM wants more gas tax???

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...gher-gas-taxes

I like that guy's analogy.

Quote:
He is grateful for the government's rescue of GM "I have nothing but good things to say about them" but Akerson said the time for that relationship to end is coming because it's wearing on GM.

"It's kind of like your in-laws: It was a nice long weekend. We didn't say a week," Akerson said with a laugh.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110607/...#ixzz1Ob0Atics
No...its not like your in-laws. Well unless those inlaws came to live with you and paid your mortgage because you were about to go into foreclosure.
mschaffer66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old June 7th, 2011, 09:29 AM   #2
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,985
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

If I interprested most of his points correctly, I no longer support General Motors at all. I was a HUGE GM supporter for years, both in buying their vehicles and supporting those people I know who work there, and supporting their products through out discussions, but I do not support the arbage coming out of this retards mouth at all.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 09:50 AM   #3
s.hembree
Senior Member
 
s.hembree's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-16-07
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

s.hembree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 10:13 AM   #4
Bones
skillicous
 
Bones's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Dearborn Heights, MI
Posts: 11,570
iTrader: (37)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Bones
Default

Quote:
"You know what I'd rather have them do — this will make my Republican friends puke — as gas is going to go down here now, we ought to just slap a 50-cent or a dollar tax on a gallon of gas," Akerson said.
I like Akerson, he helps sell Ford's pretty well.
__________________
Inviscid Motorsports

Special Thanks and Recommendations to;
Motorcity Machines
Ironman Offroad
Branik Motorsports
Maxxis Tires

Raceline Wheels
PAC Racing Springs
Joint Clutch and Gear
Bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 10:16 AM   #5
junk90xj
ALLPRO AUTO
 
junk90xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: lansing
Posts: 4,558
iTrader: (47)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

one more reason I wont buy gm products
__________________
http://www.apalansing.com/
junk90xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 10:16 AM   #6
dreezy
Haggard Fab
 
dreezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-28-08
Location: Holland Mi
Posts: 10,346
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to dreezy Send a message via MSN to dreezy
Default

There goes my idea of buying a Tahoe. Fuck GM and their ceo.
__________________
"you think you're precious, I think you're shit."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Ryan, if I wanted any shit from you, I'd go looking for Leah's strap-on.
dreezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 10:28 AM   #7
WSU JK
Senior Member
 
WSU JK's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Lowering the Per-Capita Income of Bloomfield Hills since 2009!
Posts: 2,650
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Regarding the gas tax increase... It makes sense to me and I agree with him. Instead of the government telling the car companies what kind of cars they should be building or what kind of fuel mileage they need to be obtaining, increase the price of gasoline and let the changes in consumer demand tell the automakers what kind of cars they should build.

In the end, I think that would be a better catalyst to help increase fuel efficiency than the government picking out some arbitrary and often changing CAFE Standards number that must be achieved by some arbitrary date.
WSU JK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 10:53 AM   #8
s.hembree
Senior Member
 
s.hembree's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-16-07
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
Regarding the gas tax increase... It makes sense to me and I agree with him. Instead of the government telling the car companies what kind of cars they should be building or what kind of fuel mileage they need to be obtaining, increase the price of gasoline and let the changes in consumer demand tell the automakers what kind of cars they should build.

In the end, I think that would be a better catalyst to help increase fuel efficiency than the government picking out some arbitrary and often changing CAFE Standards number that must be achieved by some arbitrary date.
Just curious, but how is the government telling the car companies what to do really any different then the government increasing the tax by a substantial amount knowing it will have the same result?
s.hembree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 11:07 AM   #9
Bones
skillicous
 
Bones's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Dearborn Heights, MI
Posts: 11,570
iTrader: (37)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Bones
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
Regarding the gas tax increase... It makes sense to me and I agree with him. Instead of the government telling the car companies what kind of cars they should be building or what kind of fuel mileage they need to be obtaining, increase the price of gasoline and let the changes in consumer demand tell the automakers what kind of cars they should build.
your logic is seriously flawed. You say "consumer demand" like it is natural, uninfluenced change in demand. It wouldn't be. It would be a false change in demand due to the governement implentation.

I'm not saying CAFE is correct either, but atleast with CAFE there isn't an immediate hit to consumers pocketbooks, and consumers can always choose to buy older, cheaper vehicles to reduce their travel costs. With the price of fuel, everyone pays, no matter if their vehicle is 5 years old and 100% paid for.
__________________
Inviscid Motorsports

Special Thanks and Recommendations to;
Motorcity Machines
Ironman Offroad
Branik Motorsports
Maxxis Tires

Raceline Wheels
PAC Racing Springs
Joint Clutch and Gear
Bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 11:16 AM   #10
FORD FLARESIDE
Hockey, it is what it is!
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,319
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Default

................I see my Ford stock going up in the near future.
FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 11:31 AM   #11
WSU JK
Senior Member
 
WSU JK's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Lowering the Per-Capita Income of Bloomfield Hills since 2009!
Posts: 2,650
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I don't assume consumer demand is uninfluenced by government policies. I just assume, based on empirical research and past performance that it is generally easier to achieve a particular outcome using policies that affect consumer demand rather than policies that affect the supply. The only assumption that I do make is that the government is going to have a hand in the game, regardless of if it's on the supply side or the demand side (whether or not we want the government involved is a different matter entirely).

If the government's desired goals are to have less miles traveled per capita and/or greater fuel efficiency by all vehicles on the road then raising the fuel taxes would definitely be a pretty efficient manner of working towards those goals more efficiently and effectively than forcing the automakers to build cars that people are not demanding.

If you run GM (or Ford or Chrysler or Kia or Yugo...) and you want to sell as many cars as possible and the government is going to have some say in the manner anyway, if the public tells you to, "build Car A with fuel efficiency at point B now!" you are going to work pretty hard to build that product (or as close as you can) because you know that the demand already exists. If the government tells you, "build Car X with fuel efficiency at point Y by time Z" you do not know that you will actually be able to sell Car X at time Z because it doesn't take into account consumer preference. And then once time Z rolls around, your industry complains enough to the government and you are given until time Z+i to achieve it anyway...

Unless my graduate degrees in economics and planning (with a concentration in transportation planning), many classes specializing in econometrics, and years spent working in forecasting and data and statistical modeling have lied to me, I'm pretty well convinced that fuel taxes are a much more efficient way of getting better mileage standards than by making the automakers conform to a specific standard.

Again, I am not saying that the government should have any role in the matter but if they are going to, fuel taxes seem like a more logical choice than fuel standards.

Last edited by WSU JK; June 7th, 2011 at 11:37 AM.
WSU JK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 12:10 PM   #12
dreezy
Haggard Fab
 
dreezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-28-08
Location: Holland Mi
Posts: 10,346
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to dreezy Send a message via MSN to dreezy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
I don't assume consumer demand is uninfluenced by government policies. I just assume, based on empirical research and past performance that it is generally easier to achieve a particular outcome using policies that affect consumer demand rather than policies that affect the supply. The only assumption that I do make is that the government is going to have a hand in the game, regardless of if it's on the supply side or the demand side (whether or not we want the government involved is a different matter entirely).

If the government's desired goals are to have less miles traveled per capita and/or greater fuel efficiency by all vehicles on the road then raising the fuel taxes would definitely be a pretty efficient manner of working towards those goals more efficiently and effectively than forcing the automakers to build cars that people are not demanding.

If you run GM (or Ford or Chrysler or Kia or Yugo...) and you want to sell as many cars as possible and the government is going to have some say in the manner anyway, if the public tells you to, "build Car A with fuel efficiency at point B now!" you are going to work pretty hard to build that product (or as close as you can) because you know that the demand already exists. If the government tells you, "build Car X with fuel efficiency at point Y by time Z" you do not know that you will actually be able to sell Car X at time Z because it doesn't take into account consumer preference. And then once time Z rolls around, your industry complains enough to the government and you are given until time Z+i to achieve it anyway...

Unless my graduate degrees in economics and planning (with a concentration in transportation planning), many classes specializing in econometrics, and years spent working in forecasting and data and statistical modeling have lied to me, I'm pretty well convinced that fuel taxes are a much more efficient way of getting better mileage standards than by making the automakers conform to a specific standard.

Again, I am not saying that the government should have any role in the matter but if they are going to, fuel taxes seem like a more logical choice than fuel standards.
OR dont fukc with the system and only tax the people for the amount it takes to run the goverment. Let the public decide the rest.
__________________
"you think you're precious, I think you're shit."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Ryan, if I wanted any shit from you, I'd go looking for Leah's strap-on.
dreezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 12:22 PM   #13
feva4u
LCG
 
feva4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-01-07
Location: Petoskey, MI
Posts: 10,498
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
I don't assume consumer demand is uninfluenced by government policies. I just assume, based on empirical research and past performance that it is generally easier to achieve a particular outcome using policies that affect consumer demand rather than policies that affect the supply. The only assumption that I do make is that the government is going to have a hand in the game, regardless of if it's on the supply side or the demand side (whether or not we want the government involved is a different matter entirely).

If the government's desired goals are to have less miles traveled per capita and/or greater fuel efficiency by all vehicles on the road then raising the fuel taxes would definitely be a pretty efficient manner of working towards those goals more efficiently and effectively than forcing the automakers to build cars that people are not demanding.

If you run GM (or Ford or Chrysler or Kia or Yugo...) and you want to sell as many cars as possible and the government is going to have some say in the manner anyway, if the public tells you to, "build Car A with fuel efficiency at point B now!" you are going to work pretty hard to build that product (or as close as you can) because you know that the demand already exists. If the government tells you, "build Car X with fuel efficiency at point Y by time Z" you do not know that you will actually be able to sell Car X at time Z because it doesn't take into account consumer preference. And then once time Z rolls around, your industry complains enough to the government and you are given until time Z+i to achieve it anyway...

Unless my graduate degrees in economics and planning (with a concentration in transportation planning), many classes specializing in econometrics, and years spent working in forecasting and data and statistical modeling have lied to me, I'm pretty well convinced that fuel taxes are a much more efficient way of getting better mileage standards than by making the automakers conform to a specific standard.Again, I am not saying that the government should have any role in the matter but if they are going to, fuel taxes seem like a more logical choice than fuel standards.
Man, just go in the bathroom, look in the mirror and say "I'm awesome" next time.
__________________
My Jeep
feva4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 12:23 PM   #14
Bones
skillicous
 
Bones's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Dearborn Heights, MI
Posts: 11,570
iTrader: (37)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Bones
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post

If you run GM (or Ford or Chrysler or Kia or Yugo...) and you want to sell as many cars as possible and the government is going to have some say in the manner anyway, if the public tells you to, Scenario 1 "build Car A with fuel efficiency at point B now!" you are going to work pretty hard to build that product (or as close as you can) because you know that the demand already exists. If the government tells you, Scenario 2 "build Car X with fuel efficiency at point Y by time Z" you do not know that you will actually be able to sell Car X at time Z because it doesn't take into account consumer preference. And then once time Z rolls around, your industry complains enough to the government and you are given until time Z+i to achieve it anyway...
.
I'm curious now...
On the way you word the above situation, do you think the immediate change in scenario 1 is better for the economy (both immediate and 5 years), or the delayed and anticipated change of scenario 2 is better?

Which do you think results in a better long term vehicle in terms of advanced technology? How long do you think it takes to develope, test and manufacture this technology?

Which one do you think is least invasive to the free market?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
I'm pretty well convinced that fuel taxes are a much more efficient way of getting better mileage standards than by making the automakers conform to a specific standard.
Also, you make a comment like the one above. You do realize that a large part of "specific standard" is testing the vehicle emmisions and not MPGs right? Do you think automakers should not have to conform to that standard?
__________________
Inviscid Motorsports

Special Thanks and Recommendations to;
Motorcity Machines
Ironman Offroad
Branik Motorsports
Maxxis Tires

Raceline Wheels
PAC Racing Springs
Joint Clutch and Gear

Last edited by Bones; June 7th, 2011 at 12:27 PM.
Bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 12:50 PM   #15
WSU JK
Senior Member
 
WSU JK's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Lowering the Per-Capita Income of Bloomfield Hills since 2009!
Posts: 2,650
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feva4u View Post
Man, just go in the bathroom, look in the mirror and say "I'm awesome" next time.
How do you think I start my day each morning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
I'm curious now...
On the way you word the above situation, do you think the immediate change in scenario 1 is better for the economy (both immediate and 5 years), or the delayed and anticipated change of scenario 2 is better?
I think the short term changes in scenario 1 would probably be pretty dire for a lot of folks. But the long term benefits of less sprawl, better mass transit systems, vehicles designed to meet consumer preferences and not government mandates, conservation of resources, etc. would IMO outweigh the short term negatives. In the end though, I don't think there is any political will in this country (from either side of the aisle) to actually push through a 50 or $1 increase to the gasoline tax so this is all just a moot point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
Which do you think results in a better long term vehicle in terms of advanced technology? How long do you think it takes to develope, test and manufacture this technology?
I'm no engineer and don't actually know the first thing about design, or aerodynamics and advanced technology. However, I am aware that it takes years and sometimes decades to develop and test new products and then finally bring them to the market. Because of the time frames involved, if there was going to be any sort of large increase to the fuel tax, the smart move would be to introduce it gradually - maybe an increase of 2 a year for the next 25 or 50 years and then pump that revenue back into R&D or infrastructure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
Which one do you think is least invasive to the free market?
That's a tough call. They are both pretty invasive so it really boils down to picking your poison. I like the increased tax option because in the long run, consumers have the option of not buying as much fuel and it doesn't mandate that automakers MUST do something or MUST not do something.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
Also, you make a comment like the one above. You do realize that a large part of "specific standard" is testing the vehicle emmisions and not MPGs right? Do you think automakers should not have to conform to that standard?
I do indeed realize that emissions also play a part in the equation, but again, my lack of engineering skills shine on this front. But it just seems logical to me that if the vehicles are using less fuel, there will be less emissions. The government could always remove fuel efficiency standards from the regulations and just write policies that try to control emissions. But, again, if you use less fuel, it would just follow that there is less material being burned and emitted into the atmosphere.
WSU JK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 12:51 PM   #16
howell_jeep
Last Free Man
 
howell_jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-09-06
Location: Howell Twp, MI 48836
Posts: 10,848
iTrader: (69)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
I don't assume consumer demand is uninfluenced by government policies. I just assume, based on empirical research and past performance that it is generally easier to achieve a particular outcome using policies that affect consumer demand rather than policies that affect the supply. The only assumption that I do make is that the government is going to have a hand in the game, regardless of if it's on the supply side or the demand side (whether or not we want the government involved is a different matter entirely).

If the government's desired goals are to have less miles traveled per capita and/or greater fuel efficiency by all vehicles on the road then raising the fuel taxes would definitely be a pretty efficient manner of working towards those goals more efficiently and effectively than forcing the automakers to build cars that people are not demanding.

If you run GM (or Ford or Chrysler or Kia or Yugo...) and you want to sell as many cars as possible and the government is going to have some say in the manner anyway, if the public tells you to, "build Car A with fuel efficiency at point B now!" you are going to work pretty hard to build that product (or as close as you can) because you know that the demand already exists. If the government tells you, "build Car X with fuel efficiency at point Y by time Z" you do not know that you will actually be able to sell Car X at time Z because it doesn't take into account consumer preference. And then once time Z rolls around, your industry complains enough to the government and you are given until time Z+i to achieve it anyway...

Unless my graduate degrees in economics and planning (with a concentration in transportation planning), many classes specializing in econometrics, and years spent working in forecasting and data and statistical modeling have lied to me, I'm pretty well convinced that fuel taxes are a much more efficient way of getting better mileage standards than by making the automakers conform to a specific standard.

Again, I am not saying that the government should have any role in the matter but if they are going to, fuel taxes seem like a more logical choice than fuel standards.
Word.

However, the externalities of raising gas tax might produce some unwanted consequences on the general economy. Inflation is one concern as demand for fuel is pretty inelastic and would affect the entire transportation system with increase in price of goods and/or decreasing corporate profits.
howell_jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 01:42 PM   #17
JohnnyJ
Low Range Drifter
 
JohnnyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Hartland, MI
Posts: 6,377
iTrader: (38)
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
I do indeed realize that emissions also play a part in the equation, but again, my lack of engineering skills shine on this front. But it just seems logical to me that if the vehicles are using less fuel, there will be less emissions. The government could always remove fuel efficiency standards from the regulations and just write policies that try to control emissions. But, again, if you use less fuel, it would just follow that there is less material being burned and emitted into the atmosphere.
Not necessarily.

In the 80s, many cars would "lean burn" running down the highway to improve fuel efficiency. Gasoline Direct Inject engines can also gain huge fuel efficiencies by running lean down the highway as well. But, running lean causes higher NOx, which is known to cause smog.

Also look at Diesels. They get great fuel economy, but without after treatment they produce lots of soot and NOx.

Just a couple of quick examples.
__________________
Neither Skinny Nor Pretty DEAK Racing 4517 Ultra 4 Mod Class Rig
Surviving Project Car Hell - We have all been there
JohnnyJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 01:56 PM   #18
Bones
skillicous
 
Bones's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Dearborn Heights, MI
Posts: 11,570
iTrader: (37)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Bones
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
But it just seems logical to me that if the vehicles are using less fuel, there will be less emissions.
suprisingly enough, thats wrong. It makes more fuel to clean burn.
__________________
Inviscid Motorsports

Special Thanks and Recommendations to;
Motorcity Machines
Ironman Offroad
Branik Motorsports
Maxxis Tires

Raceline Wheels
PAC Racing Springs
Joint Clutch and Gear
Bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 02:01 PM   #19
howell_jeep
Last Free Man
 
howell_jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-09-06
Location: Howell Twp, MI 48836
Posts: 10,848
iTrader: (69)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Can I set my car to "lean burn" on the highway? Sounds like a fantastic way to save $$.
howell_jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2011, 03:05 PM   #20
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,288
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
Regarding the gas tax increase... It makes sense to me and I agree with him. Instead of the government telling the car companies what kind of cars they should be building or what kind of fuel mileage they need to be obtaining, increase the price of gasoline and let the changes in consumer demand tell the automakers what kind of cars they should build.

In the end, I think that would be a better catalyst to help increase fuel efficiency than the government picking out some arbitrary and often changing CAFE Standards number that must be achieved by some arbitrary date.
I found a new avatar for ya...

mschaffer66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.41439 seconds with 82 queries