General Motors CEO - We should have a dollar per gallon gas tax
xmacro
Posts: 3,402 ✭
Anyone remember GM? The company who took all that tax payer money and owes his entire company to the Gov't? Their CEO is clamoring to raise taxes.
What's not often said is that Congress' fuel standards, CAFE, are hurting the Big 3. CAFE essentially says that the avg. fleet of vehicles needs to have an average fuel efficiency of X (whatever it is now).
Now since it's the average of the car fleet, that means the car makers can build and sell all the SUV's they want, but they also need to build enough small compacts to get above that "avg. fuel efficiency". So if the average required is 30 mpg, and they build 10 SUV's with fuel efficiency of 15 mpg, they need to build 10 compacts with a fuel efficiency of 45 mpg to get to that 30 mpg average - but there's a problem.
Problem is, SUV's and the like - cars Americans like to buy - don't meet these standards, but they have high profit margins and they sell very nicely. The smaller cars like hybrids and compacts - cars Americans don't like to buy - are expensive to make, and the profit margin is much slimmer; not to mention the sales are very weak unless gas gets above $4.50, then they begin to sell. So while the car maker who makes 10 SUV's can sell those 10, they need to make 10 compacts to meet the CAFE standards, regardless if they can sell them or not - if they don't sell, they still need to make them.
So what's a car maker to do - they're hemorrhaging money, building cars that don't sell, because Congress won't get off their backs, so maybe they could ask Congress to get off? Hell no!! They just ask Congress to raise taxes and FORCE everyone to buy the compacts that no one wants to buy!!
What's not often said is that Congress' fuel standards, CAFE, are hurting the Big 3. CAFE essentially says that the avg. fleet of vehicles needs to have an average fuel efficiency of X (whatever it is now).
Now since it's the average of the car fleet, that means the car makers can build and sell all the SUV's they want, but they also need to build enough small compacts to get above that "avg. fuel efficiency". So if the average required is 30 mpg, and they build 10 SUV's with fuel efficiency of 15 mpg, they need to build 10 compacts with a fuel efficiency of 45 mpg to get to that 30 mpg average - but there's a problem.
Problem is, SUV's and the like - cars Americans like to buy - don't meet these standards, but they have high profit margins and they sell very nicely. The smaller cars like hybrids and compacts - cars Americans don't like to buy - are expensive to make, and the profit margin is much slimmer; not to mention the sales are very weak unless gas gets above $4.50, then they begin to sell. So while the car maker who makes 10 SUV's can sell those 10, they need to make 10 compacts to meet the CAFE standards, regardless if they can sell them or not - if they don't sell, they still need to make them.
So what's a car maker to do - they're hemorrhaging money, building cars that don't sell, because Congress won't get off their backs, so maybe they could ask Congress to get off? Hell no!! They just ask Congress to raise taxes and FORCE everyone to buy the compacts that no one wants to buy!!
Dan Akerson, chief executive officer of General Motors, said the U.S. government should slap a hefty surcharge on gasoline.
The reason, Akerson said, was that it would be good for the environment and good for the auto industry, which is seeking a larger audience for smaller, fuel efficient cars.
"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," he said in an interview, The Detroit News reported Tuesday.
"People will start buying more Cruzes and they will start buying less Suburbans," Akerson said.
Two other high-ranking auto executives have weighed in on the topic. Ford Motor Co. Chairman Bill Ford Jr. has come out in favor of a gasoline tax and former GM CEO Rick Wagoner said the idea was "worthy of consideration."
Industry analyst Rebecca Lindland at IHS Global Insight said the idea had merit -- she said it worked in Europe -- but raising taxes on gasoline was also "career suicide for a politician."
0
Comments
Neither of them have anything to offer.