Nic, like most socialists who believe the answer to every perceived ill is a tax, you have missed the point here completely. Your analysis is woefully lacking, and the fact that you think more money poured into government coffers is a “happy side effect” of anything is indicative of where you’re coming from here.
First: alcohol *consumption* imposes no more cost on society than Twinkie® consumption. The social phenomenon you’re really reaching for here is alcohol *abuse* which, like any other drug abuse, absolutely imposes a social cost. But as we see with the lengths to which *abusers* will go to get their drugs (or alcohol), high cost (or taxes) on the substance in question – and even risk of imprisonment – don’t prevent a negative outcome. The net result is little-or-no discernible reduction in the undesirable social behavior and economic exploitation of the rest of us by the government in the form of another tax.
Second: as Fred Beloit accurately points out, you seem to think gasoline *consumption* is really analogous to alcohol abuse. Furthermore, you seem to believe that the consumption of gasoline is somehow optional, like drinking, for everyone and that the normal market economics apply. This is a case of False Analogy further corrupted by an utter lack of connection with reality: the two are NOT equivalent, and people who commute to work must purchase gasoline to get there. There is no short-term option to simply stay home, which your “analysis” – and your erroneous comparison to drinking – implies. Long-term options like improvements in public transportation or other alternatives are the domain of public institutions, not individuals deciding whether to buy gas at Shell or BJ’s.
The other far more important aspect of this issue that you (and socialists like Hillary!) are completely ignoring is the incredible windfall the state and federal governments ALREADY receive as a result of these onerous taxes. For every $10B in profit a company like Exxon/Mobil *earns* – by finding, drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, marketing, distributing and finally selling their product, all at a ridiculously low margin – the state and federal government(s) collectively receive approximately $50B in the form of gas taxes and corporate income taxes – all for doing exactly squat.
We have Hillary! boasting that she wants to *take* oil companies’ profits. We see Congressional hearings demanding accountability from the oil companies for the profits they legally earn (due to OUR consumption). But do we see ANY hearings whatsoever aimed at holding government accountable for what it does with the trillions of dollars it receives? Do we see hearings aimed at determining why we aren’t using the natural resources we have at our disposal? No.
If you have a beef with dependence on foreign oil, or if you’ve been duped by Al Gore’s lies and you think humanity’s “carbon emissions” have an effect on climate that can’t be more rationally explained by millenia of temperature fluctuations, start by demanding accountability of the government for the hundreds of billion$ it rakes in every year due to *our* gasoline consumption. Where is the research into alternative energy sources these taxes were originally earmarked to fund? Where is the federal subsidy for companies like Tesla Motors, which has finally put an electric automobile into production? Answer those questions first.
Realize that the states and feds have no motivation whatsoever to reduce our dependence on oil simply because it would reduce their collective income substantially. That income means power, and power is something government is never inclined to give up.
