• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Fuel tax protesters, riot police clash in Paris

 
 
 
The gas price in France has little to do with the price of oil. Most of the price is taxes to fund their generous government social programs.

ETA:
What we are now seeing in France is a good illustration that people like to be the beneficiaries of government programs but get pissed when they have to pay for them through their taxes. California has come close to a tax revolt because they are now paying close to $4/gallon for gasoline to fund California's state government programs.
 
Last edited:
cheap gas = instant gratification, long-term detriment

skepticalbip said:
The gas price in France has little to do with the price of oil. Most of the price is taxes to fund their generous government social programs.

ETA:
What we are now seeing in France is a good illustration that people like to be the beneficiaries of government programs but get pissed when they have to pay for them through their taxes. California has come close to a tax revolt because they are now paying close to $4/gallon for gasoline to fund California's state government programs.
Click to expand...

The California tax is only 30 cents per gallon. The recent ballot measure would have repealed the increase from .18 to .30. Voters chose to keep the 12 cents increase. Actually the tax should be higher, as an incentive for change away from gasoline to alternative energy sources.

The gas tax should be made higher, while the taxes to be reduced are income and sales taxes, which tax production and work and commerce, none of which need to be discouraged.

Also most property taxes should be higher. Property tax and gas tax are much cleaner forms of taxation, where cheating is more difficult.

Property tax does not tax (penalize) production and work, like sales tax and income tax do.

Gas tax does penalize business and production (of gas), but it's necessary as a means to promote the change away from fossil fuels. California's 30 cents/gallon is way short of what is needed.

It's surprising the French are paying so little. I thought it was only Americans who are cheap-gas crybabies.
 
Lumpenproletariat said:
The California tax is only 30 cents per gallon. The recent ballot measure would have repealed the increase from .18 to .30. Voters chose to keep the 12 cents increase. Actually the tax should be higher, as an incentive for change away from gasoline to alternative energy sources.
.
Click to expand...
You are apparently looking at only one of the two California excise taxes on gasoline and ignoring that California is one of only a few states that charges sales tax on gas

Also while Californians are paying better than $3.70/gallon I just filled my vehicle for $2.40/gallon and my state is far from having the cheapest gas in the country. .

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-california-gastax-20170413-story.html

How much you'll REALLY pay in gasoline tax in California (Hint: It's probably more than you think)
Click to expand...

And I am all for people who want to personally pay more taxes themselves (although I haven't run into any). They are always free to write the government a check as large as they want in addition to the taxes that are required of them. But all I run into is people who want the government to force others than themselves to pay more taxes.
 
Last edited:
skepticalbip said:
You are apparently looking at only one of the two California excise taxes on gasoline and ignoring that California is one of only a few states that charges sales tax on gas.
Click to expand...

There really should not be any sales tax at all, on anything.

But as long as there is, it should apply to gasoline as much as to anything else. And then the extra tax should be added on gas, as a penalty to compensate for the pollution and excess carbon emissions.
 
Lumpenproletariat said:
Actually the tax should be higher, as an incentive for change away from gasoline to alternative energy sources.

The gas tax should be made higher, while the taxes to be reduced are income and sales taxes, which tax production and work and commerce, none of which need to be discouraged.

Also most property taxes should be higher. Property tax and gas tax are much cleaner forms of taxation, where cheating is more difficult.

Property tax does not tax (penalize) production and work, like sales tax and income tax do.
Click to expand...
How do you figure property tax doesn't penalize production and work like sales tax and income tax do? What, if I spend a dollar on something and you make me pay one cent to be allowed to buy it, that's a penalty, but if you make me pay one cent (year after year, every year, till the end of time!) to be allowed to own it, that's not a penalty?!?

Exacting property tax invariably means one of two things happens: either (a) a person is paying half what his neighbor pays for being allowed to own equivalent property, because he bought when the price was low and his neighbor bought when the price was high, or (b) property rights are flushed down the toilet and a person who bought prudently but has little cash income is getting kicked out of his house by the government for no better reason than because some richer people want his house enough to bid up the market price. How is either of those outcomes even remotely fair?

Granted, all taxes are unfair to somebody and since taxation is a necessity we're just going to have to pick our poison; but what argument is there for thinking property tax is either fairer or less economically distorting than income tax? When what we tax is income (well, more precisely, profit), the same production and work decisions that maximize your before-tax bottom line will generally maximize your after-tax bottom line.
 
skepticalbip said:
The gas price in France has little to do with the price of oil.
Click to expand...

Well, as a simple check one barrel of oil = about $50, divided by 42 gallons per barrel = ~$1.20 per gallon.

You don't actually get 1 gallon of gas/diesel from one barrel of oil but you do get some other stuff that's worth a bit less so you may want to add 10 or 20 cents to that.

Add another 40-50 cents for refining and marketing and 40 cents or so of federal taxes and you get to the ~$2.20 per gallon you see these days in low price states. That may be off a bit since I haven't checked refining/marketing margins and taxes in a long time, but should be close enough compared to most anything else on this board.

In places where you have $3.00 gas it's generally going to be 1) state level taxes; 2) state level obstacles to building and operating refining and marketing assets, 3) geography, 4) local real estate prices.
 
Macron backs down, for now;

French President Emmanuel Macron has today caved in and suspended hated fuel tax hikes in a victory for the Yellow Vest protesters. In a humiliating U-turn, the government said it was planning to freeze upcoming increases on regulated electricity and gas prices following emergency talks at the Elysee Palace. Prime Minister Edouard Philippe told MPs that stricter vehicle emission controls set to kick in in January 2019 will also be suspended - one of the demands of the movement which erupted last month. Government sources say the planned six-month suspension will cost 2 billion euros (£1.78 billion) with the hole in public finances funded entirely by corresponding spending cuts. But activists who have reduced Paris and other cities and towns to war zones over the past two weekends said their demonstrations will continue as they campaign for more tax reductions.
Click to expand...

DailyMail
 
skepticalbip said:
And I am all for people who want to personally pay more taxes themselves (although I haven't run into any). They are always free to write the government a check as large as they want in addition to the taxes that are required of them. But all I run into is people who want the government to force others than themselves to pay more taxes.
Click to expand...

Tax that pays for non-excludable benefits can never be voluntary. Free rider problem. Most open infrastructure falls under that category. Environmental regs fall into that category. Negative externalities will always get dumped on the commons without some mandatory authority stopping it. There just aren't going to be enough do-gooders to carry all the freeloaders when something that benefits all is voluntary. Overfishing of public fish stocks is an example and on and on.
 
scombrid said:
skepticalbip said:
And I am all for people who want to personally pay more taxes themselves (although I haven't run into any). They are always free to write the government a check as large as they want in addition to the taxes that are required of them. But all I run into is people who want the government to force others than themselves to pay more taxes.
Click to expand...

Tax that pays for non-excludable benefits can never be voluntary. Free rider problem. Most open infrastructure falls under that category. Environmental regs fall into that category. Negative externalities will always get dumped on the commons without some mandatory authority stopping it. There just aren't going to be enough do-gooders to carry all the freeloaders when something that benefits all is voluntary. Overfishing of public fish stocks is an example and on and on.
Click to expand...

That response is a non sequitur. The post you are supposedly responding to does not advocate no taxes. It instead points out that those who most often advocate higher taxes are advocating for higher taxes on someone other than themselves. They want to enjoy the commons but want to force others to pay for supporting and maintaining those commons - the free rider problem you pointed out.

The advantage of having those advocating some government activity share equally in paying for it is that if it is their money they will demand it be used efficiently and purposefully. If it is someone else paying for it then they aren't as concerned with how needed, effective, and efficient the policy is. Just advocating it be done 'makes them feel like a better person' and with no cost to themselves.
 
High tax on gas rather than elsewhere makes a lot of sense. I'd rather see a tax like this on gas than on many other products or as income or general sales tax.

1. It funds social programs that we need.

2. It doesn't apply to those too poor to have cars (though they will pay more for goods brought by truck)

3. It discourages people from driving more often than necessary, thus reducing pollution.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
High tax on gas rather than elsewhere makes a lot of sense. I'd rather see a tax like this on gas than on many other products or as income or general sales tax.

1. It funds social programs that we need.

2. It doesn't apply to those too poor to have cars (though they will pay more for goods brought by truck)

3. It discourages people from driving more often than necessary, thus reducing pollution.
Click to expand...

So, from your point of view, it is good to force those who have to drive a lot in their work or those who live in rural areas that have to drive tens of miles just to buy groceries should be forced to finance the social programs that you endorse rather than yourself? I take it that you live in a city rather than a rural area so you don't have to drive much so having those fucking rural folks pay for programs you favor rather than your sharing in the cost is a good thing.
 
I drive about 40 km each way to get to work and back daily on weekdays. That's not super fucking far, but it is a good distance. When it came time for me to choose a vehicle, I got one that gets the best gas mileage. Price of gas encouraged me to be better to the environment.

I do get your point about not wanting to pay an uneven share for programs you may not even use.

But then I'm also for high taxes on tobacco and alcohol products, and now that its legal, on marijuana too, for somewhat similar reasons, rather than having those taxes build into general tax or apply to groceries, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom