3 ms·

When I look at the rhetoric supporting increases to gas prices in California or Washington through creative means like fuel standards or selectively applied car

When I look at the rhetoric supporting increases to gas prices in California or Washington through creative means like fuel standards or selectively applied carbon taxes, I can’t help but think about how ideologically driven all of it is. The language used by proponents is often so hostile and absolutist, like discussion is possible, like they know better. It reeks of elitism, because spending on gas is not an option for most people. It’s simply how many people get around every single day. Sure if you are a young, single, urban worker you may get by on public transit. But others have different needs that are better served by cars - if you have a family or hobbies that take you away from transit lines or simply short on time, a car is better in most parts of the country. Imposing a tax on how people live is not just a regressive tax but it will also cause those people to despise you.

jonstewart 2y ago
If people smoke a lot, are you okay paying a lot of taxes for their healthcare when they get lung cancer?
- gosub100 2y ago
  If smoking is a requirement for them to not become homeless, yes.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It’s a good question but I don’t have a good answer. I’d be curious how you reason about it though, if you have a good framework on this topic. I think I already pay for smokers indirectly to some extent since insurance pools risk. And the ACA (Obamacare) outlawed denial of coverage for pre existing conditions except for older plans. So we’re already in this situation. Am I OK with it? Not really. But I think we need to figure out what the general principled way of thinking about this is. People make all sorts of choices that are good and bad for their health. We could ask the same question about those who are overweight due to overeating, or those who want cosmetic surgery relating to a gender transition, or those who get injured due to an extreme sport, or whatever. Should we pick and choose who to subsidize?
r14c 2y ago
The fact that people live like that was a policy choice too. Entire neighborhoods were disrupted to make way for this way of life. It was easy back then because we chose marginalized and poor people to displace. Seems only fair to "do it right" this time and subsidize relocation costs for everyone so our society can be organized based on efficiency and access to amenities. Edge cases will probably still require cars, but we can optimize access to common activities.
tzs 2y ago
Washington just voted on an initiative to repeal the state's cap and trade law on CO2 and it was soundly rejected by voters 61.7% to 38.3%. The proponents of the initiative heavily focused on saying repeal would lower the price of gas. The opponents focused on how much money cap and trade raised and what it was being used for (transportation infrastructure, clean air and water projects, wildfire prevention, for example). I think voters recognized that the things the money is being used for are things that have to be addressed and they would rather the money come from something that at least somewhat correlates with those issues than from some more general revenue source like property taxes or sales taxes. We really need more affordable electric cars in Washington. We've got high gas prices (and still would have high gas prices even if the initiative had passed [1]), and low electricity prices. Yes, I know many people need more range, or do not have a good place to charge cheaply or conveniently. But there are a lot of people who are fine with the range, or who have multiple cars and could make one be an EV to cover all the shorter range driving, and who do have a cheap convenient way to charge. In my area (western Washington but not in Seattle) the electric utility (PSE) is doing a trial of time of usage (TOU) rates. They are trying out three plans, one specifically for EV owners. It is a two year trial just entering the second year. From what I've read it seems likely they will continue after the trial--the trial is more to work out kinks rather than to decided if they want to offer TOU. Normal marginal rates here are about $0.12/kWh. On the TOU rate I'm on they are $0.08/kWh off-peak and $0.19/kWh summer peak and $0.33/kWh winter peak. Summer is Apr-Sep and peak isc 5-8 pm M-F. Winter is Oct-Mar and peak is 5-8 pm M-F and 7-10 am M-F. On the TOU plan for EV households, off-peak is around $.09/kWh, summer peak around $0.17/kWh, and winter peak around $0.31/kWh, but they also add "super off-peak" which is 11 pm to 7 am every day and is around $0.05/kWh. If you could get gas for the current national average price of a little over $3/gallon you would need to use it in an ICE car that gets over 240 mpg for it to be cheaper than the cost to charge an EV on the EV TOU plan if you do all your charging during super off-peak. (For people not on any TOU plan they save with an EV if their ICE doesn't get over 100 mpg). I've read that there is supposed to be a big increase in the availability of used EVs around 2026, due to a big increase in EV leases in 2023. Most leases are 3 year leases, and many of those will be available as used EVs when the leases are up. [1] Gas prices vary a lot from state to state even between states that have the same taxes and fees. A big part of that is different transportation costs. How far you are from refineries and from pipelines and ports makes a big difference.

jonstewart 2y ago

If people smoke a lot, are you okay paying a lot of taxes for their healthcare when they get lung cancer?

gosub100 2y ago
If smoking is a requirement for them to not become homeless, yes.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It’s a good question but I don’t have a good answer. I’d be curious how you reason about it though, if you have a good framework on this topic. I think I already pay for smokers indirectly to some extent since insurance pools risk. And the ACA (Obamacare) outlawed denial of coverage for pre existing conditions except for older plans. So we’re already in this situation. Am I OK with it? Not really. But I think we need to figure out what the general principled way of thinking about this is. People make all sorts of choices that are good and bad for their health. We could ask the same question about those who are overweight due to overeating, or those who want cosmetic surgery relating to a gender transition, or those who get injured due to an extreme sport, or whatever. Should we pick and choose who to subsidize?

r14c 2y ago

The fact that people live like that was a policy choice too. Entire neighborhoods were disrupted to make way for this way of life. It was easy back then because we chose marginalized and poor people to displace. Seems only fair to "do it right" this time and subsidize relocation costs for everyone so our society can be organized based on efficiency and access to amenities. Edge cases will probably still require cars, but we can optimize access to common activities.

tzs 2y ago

Washington just voted on an initiative to repeal the state's cap and trade law on CO2 and it was soundly rejected by voters 61.7% to 38.3%. The proponents of the initiative heavily focused on saying repeal would lower the price of gas. The opponents focused on how much money cap and trade raised and what it was being used for (transportation infrastructure, clean air and water projects, wildfire prevention, for example). I think voters recognized that the things the money is being used for are things that have to be addressed and they would rather the money come from something that at least somewhat correlates with those issues than from some more general revenue source like property taxes or sales taxes. We really need more affordable electric cars in Washington. We've got high gas prices (and still would have high gas prices even if the initiative had passed [1]), and low electricity prices. Yes, I know many people need more range, or do not have a good place to charge cheaply or conveniently. But there are a lot of people who are fine with the range, or who have multiple cars and could make one be an EV to cover all the shorter range driving, and who do have a cheap convenient way to charge. In my area (western Washington but not in Seattle) the electric utility (PSE) is doing a trial of time of usage (TOU) rates. They are trying out three plans, one specifically for EV owners. It is a two year trial just entering the second year. From what I've read it seems likely they will continue after the trial--the trial is more to work out kinks rather than to decided if they want to offer TOU. Normal marginal rates here are about $0.12/kWh. On the TOU rate I'm on they are $0.08/kWh off-peak and $0.19/kWh summer peak and $0.33/kWh winter peak. Summer is Apr-Sep and peak isc 5-8 pm M-F. Winter is Oct-Mar and peak is 5-8 pm M-F and 7-10 am M-F. On the TOU plan for EV households, off-peak is around $.09/kWh, summer peak around $0.17/kWh, and winter peak around $0.31/kWh, but they also add "super off-peak" which is 11 pm to 7 am every day and is around $0.05/kWh. If you could get gas for the current national average price of a little over $3/gallon you would need to use it in an ICE car that gets over 240 mpg for it to be cheaper than the cost to charge an EV on the EV TOU plan if you do all your charging during super off-peak. (For people not on any TOU plan they save with an EV if their ICE doesn't get over 100 mpg). I've read that there is supposed to be a big increase in the availability of used EVs around 2026, due to a big increase in EV leases in 2023. Most leases are 3 year leases, and many of those will be available as used EVs when the leases are up. [1] Gas prices vary a lot from state to state even between states that have the same taxes and fees. A big part of that is different transportation costs. How far you are from refineries and from pipelines and ports makes a big difference.