62 mpg for new cars? It's the US target for 2025

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, the statement was not abount maintaining the current revenue. It was about creating more income by raising taxes to the levels of European taxes on gasoline. If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline.

If so, then the quoted statements would have said that. They DIDN't.

They stated the need to generate the SAME revenue with lower gas sales.

Either you are stupid or you are paranoid. Come to think of it, there is no reason that you cannot be both..

I can read wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you the only person who can't understand your own posts?
Try reading what you posted before and what you just posted there, they are utterly different.

Previous posts

"Paul Volcker stated, we will have to raise taxes on gasoline to look like Europe to make up for the increased fuel efficiency.

Volcker is not talking about creating the same revenue we have now. Our current revenue is down and cannot support the highway system. To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe, therefore the price of gasoline would be much more expensive than it is today.

Once again, the statement was not abount maintaining the current revenue. It was about creating more income by raising taxes to the levels of European taxes on gasoline. If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline. "

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Previous posts
"Paul Volcker stated, we will have to raise taxes on gasoline .. to make up for the increased fuel efficiency.

As I stated. Whether that makes us 'look like Europe' is a bit of a judgement call and not relevant to the issue.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe..

"More like" just meaning higher as I specified when I calculated the necessary adjustment for 'equivalent funds'.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline. "

You really are a bit dim. Paul Volker wants a carbon tax which is a separate issue from the 'road taxes'. Actually it shouldn't be called a tax as it is intended to put a "price on carbon' to reduce energy consumption but the funds would ( must really ) be rebated to prevent economic strain or must replace other taxes such as payroll or income (thus being a tax but being 'revenue neutral in terms of the overall tax load).

Personally, I favor that idea as it would put the markets to work at reducing emissions while not seriously impacting the economy. I seriously doubt if the tax would be large enough to put US pump prices in line with Europes, especially if the 'price on carbon' is universally applied to not only gasoline but diesel, fuel oil, coal, etc.

http://tinyurl.com/39nglbu

A price of about $50 per metric ton of CO2 would mean a 'carbon surcharge' of about (8.87 kg * 5 cents = 44.35 cents)

This is hardly doom and gloom or even a move towards EU pricing ( at $3.00 more per gallon).

Get it through your head that the reason for the high price of gasoline today is NOT taxes but the fact that we can only PRODUCE about 85% of the DEMAND. Therefore improved gasoline mileage and switching out old gas guzzlers will probably REDUCE the overall cost at the pump as the cost of a barrel lowers. The US will then be spending more on auto production and research and less on pampering Saudi Princes.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Previous posts
"Paul Volcker stated, we will have to raise taxes on gasoline to look like Europe to make up for the increased fuel efficiency.
Volcker is not talking about creating the same revenue we have now. Our current revenue is down and cannot support the highway system. To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe, therefore the price of gasoline would be much more expensive than it is today.
Once again, the statement was not abount maintaining the current revenue. It was about creating more income by raising taxes to the levels of European taxes on gasoline. If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline. "

Ok once again for the hard of thinking..........

Did you or did you not post this:

'What are you talking about? Volcker's statement was that gasoline taxes would have to be raised so that the same amount of income could be generated for the highway funds.'

Is that the same as what you said in the post I just quoted?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

As I stated. Whether that makes us 'look like Europe'

When was Toronto ceded to the USA?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Whether expressed in liters per 100 km, or miles per US gallon, or farthings per Imperial gallon it is just a different unit for the idiom of "mileage".

Actually, it will be a bit easier to figure taxes (or fuel consumption), using litres/100KM than the MPG method, whether in U.S. or English gallons. The following will clarify the math problem using the MPG method:

Take 3 vehicles, averaging 10, 20, & 40 MPG. Lots of people might think that driving the 40MPG vehicle should save as much fuel compared to the 20MPG vehicle, as the 20MPG vehicle would save compared to the 10MPG vehicle. But, that doesn't happen. The 10MPG vehicle uses 4 gallons over a 40 mile distance, the 20MPG uses 2 gallons over the 40 mile distance & the 40 MPG vehicle uses 1 gallon over the 40 mile distance. Whereas, the 20 MPG vehicle saves 2 gallons over the 10 MPG, the 40 MPG vehicle only saves 1 gallon versus the 20 MPG vehicle.

Strangely, the decreasing advantage of ever increasing MPG is more easily seen using litres/100KM. A 14.125 litre/100KM vehicle will save 14.125 litres/100KM over a 28.25litre/100KM vehicle. It is easily seen for any vehicle to save another 14,125 litres/100KM over the 14.125 litre/100KM vehicle, the mythical vehicle would have to use no fuel per 100KM!

Or, use this website:

http://www.eforecourt.com/l_100km_mpg_convert...

I can read wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok once again for the hard of thinking..........
Did you or did you not post this:
'What are you talking about? Volcker's statement was that gasoline taxes would have to be raised so that the same amount of income could be generated for the highway funds.'
Is that the same as what you said in the post I just quoted?

The full text/post

"What are you talking about? Volcker's statement was that gasoline taxes would have to be raised so that the same amount of income could be generated for the highway funds. Currently highway funds from gasoline taxes have gone down. Fuel efficiency and limited travel due to economic conditions have reduced the revenues. Volcker said that the cost of gasoline would look like Europe's, which is much more costly than the US."

You can make what I said look different if you pull something out of context. Context is not only the singular paragraph in this post it is the entirety of the comments made.

Is this the way you evaluate global warming issues as well? Just take the little bit you can find to support your contention and leave the rest behind?

Sweet Jesus you're a retard.

I'm not going to try and teach you English, it isn't worth my time.

Please go back to scholl and get your equivalency certificate though, you'll go much farther in life if you can read.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

That is LITERS per 100 kilometers, dimwit.

Not in Canadian English, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, it would be litres and kilometres.

It's high time LessFact/Nobody admitted he's about as thick as two short planks nailed together with screws at low tide on midsummer day in late afternoon December moonlight.

I can read wrote:

Sweet Jesus[,] you're a retard.
I'm not going to try and teach you English, it isn't worth my time.
Please go back to scholl [sic] and get your equivalency certificate though, you'll go much farther in life if you can read.

ROFLMAO at that.