Anecdotal evidence, surely, but I spent a lot of time in England the last year. Recall seeing few, if any, hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles there. And I paid close attention to what people were driving. With gas (and diesel) prices I am estimating at $7 to $8 per gallon equivalent, I wonder just how high those prices have to be to make a difference.

OJ, when I recall all your comments regarding science, I cannot help but chuckle at your using economists of all people to buttress your argument.

Not only a tax on the poor, who drive older cars, but even a tax settled on the working poor, who use those cars to get to their jobs.

The long-term solution isn't found in punishing gas users [poor, rich or otherwise] for consuming the stuff. The solution is in REWARDING exploration and innovation of viable alternatives. And please, OJ, spare me the usual "if taxes are high enough, then using less is its own reward . . . " nonsense.

The point is to punish consumption. We don't want exploration.

Rick:

The higher we can drive it before changing behavior the better.

Lou, JR:

Certainly, coupling it with an offsetting increase in the standard deduction would be appropriate. But no scheme will solve the problem as efficient as these higher prices - which may have to be high indeed; we're a rich people and value our large powerful cars highly, as the European experience shows.

Want to reward those with gas alternatives? Guarentee them a high price, by taxing gas. Any other scheme assures perverse results at just as high a cost.

If the Federal government was funded through consumption taxes in general then it would make sense. Income taxes only have the effect of taxing the taxes. Very tough on low, middle income folks particularly in the high tax states. The additional tax is still 'income' after all.

The idea that taxes taken at the gas pump will somehow get reimbursed back to the States, Counties, Cities and the people under the guise of alternative energy in the near future, is laughable. Out here in Cali, we still don't get our fair share of tax redistribution and it's been like that, oh for about 100 years.

Tom took the post right out of my keyboard.

Mike: a correlative offset indeed. Who's actually proposing that though?

I realize this is one of those "principal" arguments that generally gets no traction here, but the idea of a huge gas tax increase almost sounds like there'd be EVEN MORE MONEY [and thus power] concentrated in Washington D.C.

I know, I know . . . . this is totally different than other taxes because a) it's for our own good b) Bureaucrats will magically obtain market-like efficiency with THESE tax $'s and c) you know you're just going to pay the higher price and keep driving your gas-guzzling F150 anyway so quit whining!

JR:

Everyone. One point of consumption taxes is that they'll replace income taxes.

KRS:

It won't. Why would it? California can raise gas taxes itself if it wants.