Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Fuel Tax Del Vecchio

One proposed method of reducing carbon footprint is the implementation of a tax on fuel. In the status quo, the US has a relatively small fuel tax, with the total rate varying by state but the federal rate being only $0.184 per gallon. Those in favor of a fuel tax argue that it effectively lowers people's carbon output. In addition, the tax is actually fairly progressive. According to the United Nations Development Program, if implemented correctly across the board, because the rich generally use more fuel than those in the middle class, and considerably more than the poor and those in inner cities, the tax most harshly effects the wealthy.

However, other arguments against the implementation of a fuel tax come from the fact that prices of fuel vary wildly from time to time. According to Ellen Wald of Forbes in 2018, The fluctuation of gas prices makes any long term study of the effects of a fuel tax incredibly difficult, meaning that the long term economic effects are unpredictable. In addition, if the price of gas rose rapidly, such as in a natural disaster or economic crisis, a fuel tax could become extremely punishing for those already reeling from a crisis. This is compounded by the fact that a slow moving congress would be ill equipped to respond to rapid changes in the price of gas. This is true if crisis is driving up the price of gas quickly or if simple market forces are making the price slowly climb. A sluggish congress would be unwilling or simply unable to create as quickly as the markets.

All in all, I believe that the government is simply too slow and unwieldy to properly respond to a good as volatile as gas. While a reasonable tax on gas while the price is low might seem benign, if the price rises the tax can quickly become extremely punishing. Furthermore, while most versions of this tax claim to be a way of raising revenue for infrastructure spending, a guaranteed harm backed only by the government vowing to spend more on a sector it has neglected for decades is not a deal I am willing to take.

Friday, April 27, 2018

Noah Hassig

The gas pollution tax is currently .184/ gallon plus iowa state .305/gallon, but some people think that that is not high enough. Some people think they need to raise the gas pollution tax because how much pollution gas gives off. Studies show that it could potentially help the nation benefit off of it. ¨In fact, the authors estimate that the health benefits of a gasoline tax would increase by 90 percent once the variation in responsiveness of vehicle emissions is taken into account. This result is not driven by a vintage effect, whereby older vehicles are more responsive to changes in gasoline prices and at the same time have higher emissions.¨ (nber.org)

Although there are benefits to raising the gas tax, there are downfalls. ¨Raising the gas tax could start a tax evasion, and people would pollute in secret¨ (economicshelp). Meaning there could be a black market for gas or other forms of fluid. People could stop buying gas and companies can close down.

I think gas prices are already high enough and should not be raised. People are already starting to no buy gas because of the price of gas. Whether they raise the price or not itd not gonna change much because people in America will not change their lives.


Citation

Pollution Tax

Our government should definitely increase the pollution tax in order to encourage people to switch over to more efficient and environmentally friendly options. By increasing the price of gas we can discourage the use of gas and lower the amount of gas that is being used. We need to put more research into more energy efficient vehicles and sources.

On the contrary we could have no pollution tax and stimulate the market for the better. More people would purchase more gas causing the market to grow larger and bring more money into the economy.  Although this would cause more pollution to be emitted into the environment we would have to hope that companies would find new ways to innovate.

I truly believe that with increased taxes on gas we could encourage people to put more money into the more fuel efficient and cleaner vehicles. I think more companies would have a drive to innovate towards clean energy and innovative technologies. 
If the government increased the pollution tax on gas then it would give more people the incentive to get an electric car so they don't have to pay the extra pollution tax. More people might also take up other transportations like biking or skateboarding or walking. Then not only are they helping the environment by not burning as much gas and polluting the air with it, but they will also be keeping themselves healthy and keeping people active.
A counterclaim to this however, is that everybody needs gas and if you make it more expensive than not everyone who needs it can have access to it. Also the amount of pollution that we produce currently is miniscule compares to other countries. Even if you dropped the price of gas tremendously, the amount of pollution we produce wouldn’t grow much or even put a dent in the total amount of pollution of every country in the world.

I however, agree with the counterclaim. I’m probably going to buy gas regardless, and I don’t really mind giving the government extra money because i'm polluting the air by using gasoline. Then again, I’m not a picky person or really care about stuff I don't need to be thinking about.
The government should tax pollution. Pollution is something that damages the worlds potential economy. This damage manifests is the form of dead plant life, lower life expectancies for all of us, and extinction of animals. (Washington Post). The tax would discourage people from polluting, even more, helping us all.


Although pollution is bad it is a necessary evil. Our entire global economy depends on fossil fuels currently. Taxing pollution would put just harm the economy stopping it from being able to invest in alternative means.(foxnews). This would lead to even more pollution in the long term.

Will Increasing Pollution Taxes be Beneficial

The government should raise pollution taxes if it means that it will promote energy conservation and benefit the environment. It is said that it would be more beneficial if we had higher taxes and be far more cost-effective than the fuel-efficiency regulations that we have currently (Treehugger.com, November 19,2017). A higher tax will help decrease the world price on the oil for use for gas. This would also be a better way, so people buy gas less. Raising pollution taxes will also help raise the funds for roads and highways, so that our transportation is better than it is now. I think that raising pollution taxes would be very beneficial to our environment.

Will raising the pollution taxes really do anything good for us? Well, the idea behind it is that it will help raise the money we need to good for our environment by making gas harder to buy and help the air all around us. Except in all reality, increasing taxes will only frustrate people because they are going to keep buying gas because we go places everyday and most are not walking distance. So, having gas is very necessary to us. Making it harder for an individual to buy gas will only make people riot and mad (Brookings.edu,  July 5. 2005). Currently the government does not even use the money they tax us for what actually needs to fixed. So, is us taxing more even beneficial? No, because the Federal rules provide enormous tax preferences for oil, mining, timber and sport utility vehicles, among others. These subsidies create incentives for overproduction of these goods and they stifle incentives for development of better or cleaner technologies (Brookings.edu,  July 5. 2005)So even raising taxes will not change the amount of people that still drive around daily or the amount of money that is not even being used for what we are already taxed. 

It is said that increasing taxes on pollution will decrease the amount of people use vehicles and public transportation to get around, but in all honesty people will still drive around and buy gas. So, would raising taxes even change how people are and what they choose to do? No, it will not even be beneficial to the government or even the environment. All raising the taxes will do is raise the price of gas and it will just make it harder for people to fill their tanks, which will make them mad. Taxes should not be raised on the things people truly need, but things that could harm us like alcohol or guns because clearly the taxes we pay today are only harming how we look at the government and our judgement towards how things should be. I do believe that gas is harming our environment and helping decrease the buying of gas would be beneficial, but I do not think it will change how people choose to live.

Economics Pollution Taxes Durkin

In favor of pollution tax on gasoline is that it would be more effective and and more fair to the poor than making regulations on cars fuel efficiency. The idea being that automakers raise the price of their cars due to the regulations and their fuel efficiency. Basically putting a large tax on cars in order to develop more fuel efficient cars. "the U.S. have required each car maker to meet an average miles-per-gallon target across all cars sold. That lowers the amount of gas needed to drive a typical new car, but raises its sticker price by around $1,000." (Arik Levinson, foxews.com, 2017) Another $1,000 for a poor person is a lot. So this is basically a regressive tax on automotive indirectly put on by the government. This affects low income families ability to pay for another car instead of just the gas that they use. The gas they use, they can control and won't have to pay as much short term which helps their ability to pay. Think of it as allowing people more time to pay a large tax in small increments. 

Pollution tax isn't the best option to decrease pollution. At least to the effectiveness of helping the environment. It we think about this from benefits received it would be much better for the environment if we switch to cap and trade regulations. Companies would have to pay for permits to pollute, kinda like a tax but not on gasoline, just the actual pollution. It also won't affect the economy as much because individuals won't have to pay for permits. Not only would this encourage greener technology but also create another market for the economy. In existing cap and trade systems companies are allowed to trade their extra permits. Like its own currency, only allowing so much pollution into the environment. " A cap-and-trade system sets a maximum level of pollution, a cap, and distributes emissions permits among firms that produce emissions. Companies must have a permit to cover each unit of pollution they produce." (Granthom Research Institute, theguardian.com, 2013) Thus being more effective than a pollution tax on gasoline where people can pollute all they want and just pay a little extra. 

I believe we shouldn't have a pollution tax on gasoline. Thinking about this from a benefits received standpoint taxing gasoline isn't fair. The reason being is that you literally receive nothing from that tax, it simply increases the price of it. Makes you buy just a little bit less gas because you probably can't afford it or if you can then your just paying more money then you have to. A fair system that replaces the pollution tax is cap and trade. Where the government sets a maximum capacity for pollution and sells permits for a certain level of pollution to companies who can then trade their unused permits to each other. Which helps in benefits received terms because only so much pollution emissions from companies would be allowed. It would help the environment recover over time from pollution and hold companies who are polluting, responsible for it.  The government would limit the max amount of pollution and lower it slightly every year, helping the environment. While with a gasoline tax its making a necessity for your car more expensive. Therefore meaning that cap and trade is a better and more just system then just taxing something that is bad for the environment. 



      In a Forbes article they are pro gas tax, because it will generate over 840 billion dollars. "Through 2050 a 0.25$ gas tax would generate, 840 billion in revenue for the federal government"(Forbes 2018). This article believes that by taxing gas we can slowly but surely break down our financial debt. Now imagine if we could do a .50c Gas tax, we would already be adding a trillion dollars a year. however this tax is a good one, because people are already buying gas and its a necessity for many.

   One con of having a gas tax is that no one will buy gas, and it could potentially cause an up roar."But a federal gas tax hike would contradict the goal of the Trump infrastructure plan, which is to rely more heavily on states, localities and private investment to pay for modernizing our roads and bridges."(CNN 2018). The author of this article believes that a gas tax will not help, because we will just spend the money on roads that are supposed to be fixed by states, and private investment. This is a problem, because we should keep the money and use it towards debt rather than fixing roads that are not supposed to be funded by taxes.
In my opinion we should have a gas tax in america, but we should use it towards a good cause. I think that people will accept it more if the tax cuts into our national debt, so we can spend money on our own country rather than pay other countries. One counter claim is , how will the government know when to stop taxing, and how much to tax. Well that simple, because the people know what they are and are not willing to pay, and ultimately the money is going back to them


   

Pollution Tax

The benifits of a gas tax would be that people start driving less and that people would drive less and the government would have more income. People driving less would help slow down environmental change. The extra income would help our government fund its program to help its people.

Having this tax would hurt the poor by making it hard to get the gat to go to work. People would have to find other means of transportation. This would increase a regressive tax to be more harsh on the poor. People driving less would also hurt car sales.

I feel that the tax should be raised to a reasonable percent. I'd say about 50 cents a gallon extra. This wouldn't hurt people at the pump too much but would provide an extra reasonable source of income to the government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-higher-gasoline-tax.html
for

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/03/06/gas-tax-hikes-are-not-the-answer/#5b627bc0260c
against

What is a good way to get people to stop using as much of a harmful product while also making tons of money? Why, of course! Tax it!

This is precisely what governments in Europe have done for years, and it has drastically cut back on gasoline consumption in those countries. Not only that, but experts say that it has significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions in Europe in recent decades, and has stimulated energy efficiency innovation in the European automobile industry. The US has attempted to replicate these results using a different method: Raising fuel efficiency standards. However, as the New York Times has pointed out, "the new fuel-efficiency standards are far less efficient than raising gasoline prices [by an ecological impact standpoint]" (Karplus, New York Times, 2/13/2013). This tells us that, if we want to give off less emissions, we need to tax gasoline more.

There is also a major argument against a tax hike. In 2015, a poll showed that an astounding 80% of Americans are against such a tax. The author talks about the reason for such a tax would most likely be used to improve infrastructure, however this would actually be worse for the use infrastructure situation since people would simply use public transit more. The author also claims that Not only is increasing the gas tax an ineffective way to address the nation’s transportation infrastructure needs, it would further increase the burden of government on families and business—and would disproportionately hurt lower income Americans already hurt by trying times in our economy" (Hansen, Forbes, 3/6/2015). 

I do not think that a higher gasoline tax is a good thing. It will hurt not only the economy and the entire transportation industry, it would also harm all energy industries AND hurt every consumer in the country. It is not a smart, simple, or fair solution, especially for the impoverished, because they potentially will no longer be able to afford to transport themselves to where they need to go.
There are some negative things about raising the fuel tax, but there are way more positive things. “Since [1993], its purchasing power has lost 4o percent,” said Ed Mortimer, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It’s not that the user fee isn’t sustainable, it’s that we haven’t adjusted it” for inflation. (The Washington Post, 2018) Currently the tax has lost a lot of its purchasing power, and due to the larger influx of fuel efficiency, less people are purchasing the fuel at the same quantity and timeframe, causing a much lower percent income than 1993.

There are some bad qualities that need to be discussed however. “It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities. ” (ATR.org, Boone, 2015) This would result in less money being spent on other sources of spending. It could cause larger damage to the economy and be much harder to repair.

Raising the tax is a must. Without it we are taxing a minimal amount, for a tax that’s fair to pay, because it keeps people thinking about being efficient and pro planetary safety. Most Americans that drive have the ability to pay 3 extra dollars when they purchase gas, and that would really help our economy, if the government cuts a lot of the welfare with addition to increasing its income it would allow for a more stable economy.

Fuel tax

1. There are many people that agree and disagree with raising our gas taxes. Trump is a supporter of raising the taxes in order to fund the government more. " If we raise the gas tax we can get money to repair our streets and highways" ( David Blackmon, Forbes.com, February 18,2018). This is a very good argument because the people you are getting the gas are obviously the people who are driving on the roads that need repaired so they could help pay for it.

2. Some people say we shouldn't raise gas taxes. There are many arguments as to why she should not. " Raising the gas tax will encourage more non-highway related spending" ( Emma Boone, ATR.Org, May 29,2015). This is a very good argument because we can't control what the government spends money on and most of the money from the increased tax on gas probably won't actually go to roads.

3. I feel like there is less pros than cons on raising gas taxes. The benefits recieved in this situation isn't really enough to justify paying more per gallon especially when it could possibly not benefit us at all. My argument would be how would these people with low income or middle class jobs be able to handle the new gas tax. Wouldn't that make the middle class people possibly lower class people all just because they wanna tax gas more.

Economics of Pollution Taxes

The pollution tax on gas is a great way to protect our country in becoming over polluted.
In spending more money on taxes for the pollution problem, we can do a much better job
at protecting our country. "If gasoline taxes are set based only on their effects on gasoline
use, then the best governmental policy would be to set the gas tax equal to marginal
damage: the value of all of the negative externalities that result from using a gallon of
gasoline, including pollution, accidents, noise, and traffic congestion."
( Les Picker, http://www.nber.org, Thursday, April 26, 2018). Setting a higher tax or equal
to the amount of damage gasoline does is used in a smart way to deal with the issue of
pollution.


Taxing more for pollution on gasoline is a very bad idea. Americans love to drive, our society as a whole is surrounded by driving, its how we get around. Many Americans struggle with paying for gas as it is, raising the taxes to help the pollution problem would just make it that much harder for some people to be able to afford to drive their vehicles. "At the same time, wages are not growing fast enough to keep up with the cost of living; even some who are employed still struggle to make ends meet. A higher gas tax would strip away some of the relief Americans are experiencing as a result of the currently low prices." (Travis H. Brown, http://www.howmoneywalks.com, November 4, 2015). Increasing the taxes on gas would make for a huge problem as a country as some people wouldn't be able to afford to keep a vehicle due to the high prices, in return they wouldn't be able to get around as easily and keep a job.


Increasing the taxes on gasoline to help pollution is a great idea. It's very little as it is and if we raise it a little more that is affordable for everyone in all classes, it will help out the problem of pollution exponentially. It can only bring benefits to the people and our environment. With a little extra money the government will be able to keep the environment stable by matching taking out how much pollution the gasoline puts into our environment, and even clean up more from other polluters. This benefits us as people by having less pollution and a cleaner environment for all to enjoy, rather than killing our world.








Potential Impact of An Increase of Pollution Tax on Gasoline

Raising the federal gas tax would be the most cost-effective way to reduce air pollution, and obscene traffic as well as promotes energy conservation. Dan Akerson, chief executive at General Motors, believes that the way to “reduce debt on our children and grandchildren” is to raise gas taxes, even though they are regressive, and refund them over a period of time. (The Washington Post, 2011) With crude oil being such a popular market, a rise in gas prices due to over taxation would cause a decline in demand and would eliminate any doubt as to whether our tax is being paid to the Middle East or otherwise.

In today's society where gas prices are at a historic low in modern history and where the minimum wage is simply not enough to provide for the average person, a gas tax hike would prove to be a "negative stimulus" on American citizens. (Abby Attia, The Heritage Foundation, 2018) The lower gas prices have made a large impact on the daily spending of the average household. Current gas prices are allowing families to save up to $100 a month and use that money elsewhere. Lawmakers are poised to make the move to raise gas prices for the sake of bettering the economy. However, this has been said to be a bad idea that will have a negative impact not only on those families but the future of those lawmakers as well. (Christine Harbin Hanson, Forbes, 2018)

Placing a severe tax on the pollution created by gasoline is obscene. While I understand Akerson's stance on the topic, taxing gasoline is extreme. The automotive industry is developing ways in which we, the consumers, can pollute less. Taxes would assist in improving air quality and furthering the efficiency of vehicles being manufactured, as well as furthering infrastructure. However, I feel as though the money could easily be gained elsewhere. Depending on the time of the year this tax hike takes place, it could potentially hurt the vacation industry and dampen the economy.


Pollution Tax Blog Post

The raising of the gasoline pollution tax would greatly improve the economy and lifestyle of the citizens of Iowa. It would help to reduce pollution because people would be incentivized not to drive as often which would, in theory, reduce the amount of CO2 that is released by vehicles into the atmosphere. It has already worked in Denmark. "In Denmark, which has had a carbon tax since 1992, emissions per person went down 15 percent between 1990 and 2005, according a report from the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab, while Sweden’s government estimates that its emissions by 2000 would have been higher by at least 20 percent had it not implemented a tax in 1991"(Nunez, nationalgeographic.com, 2018). This evidence shows that raising the gasoline/pollution tax will greatly reduce the emissions and will help keep not just Iowa, but also the U.S in a healthier state.

Increasing the gasoline pollution would also have major repercussions.  One of the biggest problems with a gas tax hike is that it will increase prices of goods. The reason this would happen is simple. Cars and trucks require fuel and we require trucks to bring our goods to us. "The transportation of goods is primarily done via highways. Cars drive on highways and gas fuels cars. It’s a no-brainer that raising the gas tax will cost drivers more to fuel their way to deliver goods" (Boone, atr.org, 2015). Even if this change isn't guaranteed it still poses a big enough threat to our economy. It is something that we can't risk.

I Think that the taxes should not be raised to a level higher than is mathematically necessary. It should be raised to a slightly higher level though. This raise would assist in reducing the pollution of the city because people would be less inclined to drive when it is not necessary. The reason that the tax should only be raised slightly is that not everyone has the same ability to pay. The reason this is important is that it will greatly impact the middle and lower classes because if the gas prices rise 200% they will have a harder time paying for gas for their cars if they are able to at all. This will cause the sales of vehicles to greatly decrease because of many people realizing that the overall cost of a car, gas, and insurance is too much for them to pay.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Pollution tax on gasoline

In increasing pollution tax on gasoline, the country will face better roads, bridges, public transportations, and can even boost the economy by creating more jobs. "The tumbling price of crude oil is helping many Americans save money. It also presents a good opportunity for state governments to raise their gasoline taxes to help pay for road repairs and other needed transportation investments." (Board, www.nytimes.com, 2016) With the increase in gas tax, states will receive more money which can be used for improving infrastructures such as roads and bridges. Not only will there be better infrastructures for civilians but also there'll be less pollution. The daily usage of cars is slowly destroying our environment and communities, so rising gas tax could greatly benefit our country. 

An increase in pollution tax on gasoline can hurt many Americans and the economy. "By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too." (Boone, www.atr.org, 2015)  Many people can barely make ends meet and raising taxes on gas wouldn't help the situation. Raising taxes on gas can hurt the economy because it can leave many citizens who can't afford to pay this tax jobless.  Also, with an increase in gas tax, goods would be more expensive due to the cost of fuel being more expensive. The government should find another way to fix their roads and bridges, besides taking money from hard-working Americans. 

In my opinion, the government shouldn't increase pollution tax on gasoline due to the negative outcomes of it, such as increasing the price of consumer goods, hurting the middle-income Americans, and hurting the economy. Most families struggle fueling up their tanks and with this gas tax increase, they would lose their job due to the lack of transportation. Why would the government increase gas tax when the cost of gas is already high, and most hard-working Americans can't afford to pay for this tax. It would ruin the concept of simplicity, one of the four criteria for tax fairness, making this tax unfair to most Americans.   

Gas tax

Pro:
One argument for increasing taxes on gas is the push to choose a more environmental mode of transportation. Simply stated in an article from Economics Help, “A higher price of carbon emissions will encourage firms and consumers to develop more efficient engines or alternatives to consuming carbon emissions” (Tejvan Pettinger, Economicshelp.org, 2017). These trees could help the environment by encouraging people to ride their bikes more. Also, by burning less fuel, less carbon is emitted into the air. It could help with weight problem, giving people more of an incentive to walk places. Now some people might say that carbon production doesn’t affect our planet as much in the US as it does in other countries. However, if less people use carbon emitting vehicles, new sources of transportation could be developed.



Con:
An argument against increasing taxes is the restrain the extra tax will have on people. In the current days people are having a hard time making ends meat in some cases. A described in the article “A higher gas tax would strip away some of the relief Americans are experiencing as a result of the currently low prices” (Travis H. Brown, Howmoneywalks.com, 2015). Fear is very driving to people, and in the economy people fear taxes. The government taxes money that people worked hard to earn and with taxes being as high as they are, people need to be able to have some non-highly taxes goods. Some people speculate that Americans only pay a small percent for gas tax and that increasing it won’t cost much more. However, if taxes are raised on gas, prices will go up as well and gas companies will want to make a marginal profit so they will raise the gas prices even higher than normal.



I personally think that raising gas taxes is a bad idea. The negatives outweigh the positives. People do need cars to get from place to place, but if the tax is so high, cars will probably be driven less. Pollution isn’t as big of a deal as it used to be. In this day in age we don’t need as many regulations. The benefits received from the tax, like better environmental health would hardly be seen. Cars that emit carbon don’t alone kill the environment and people need them to get around so increasing the tax rate on gas wouldn’t provide the new revenue like the government thinks.









Pollution tax on gas

Raising the pollution tax on gas would be very beneficial for the environment and help with our roads. A higher tax on gas would exert a downward pressure on the world price for crude oil. Also compared to the regulations set by the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, it is a much more efficient way to keep people from buying gas (6/8/11, Washingtonpost.com). Raising the tax would also help raise funds for our roads and would benefit public transportation on a great way (8/15/10, Washingtonpost). Overall raising the pollution tax on gas would have many great benefits.

If we raise the pollution tax on gas nothing good will really come from it. The whole idea behind raising the tax of gas is to help with the air around us and to keep people from using gas. In reality academic research has found that raising the tax on gas does not significantly impact the number of individuals that drive everywhere (3/18/14, heritage.org). Due to the fact that raising the taxes on gas makes no difference on the amount of people who still drive all the time, there is no point in raising the tax on gas.

It is thought that a benefit to raising the tax on gas would somehow lower that amount of people that drive. While this has been found to not be true at all I see no point in raising the pollution tax on gas. Although it is said that raising the tax can also help with roads and different types of transportation I feel like different taxes could go towards that. If anything taxes should be raised more on things like cigarettes and alcohol because that can harm people. While yes, gas can hurt the enviroment people are still going to buy it no matter what and rising the prices will really have no benefit. 

Should the government increase the pollution tax on gasoline

The government should raise the pollution tax on gasoline. "As a means of promoting energy conservation, Mr. Akerson told Detroit News, a higher tax would be far more cost-effective than the byzantine fuel-efficiency regulations we have now" (Editorial, Washington Post, 2011).  He's right. If you raise the pollution tax, raising the price of gas, more people are going to find a different way of transportation, or start carpooling. Therefore there would be less energy used and less pollution made from vehicle emissions, and the people that do pay the higher tax give the business more money obviously.

The government should not raise the pollution tax on gasoline. "There is no solution in the "raise gas taxes" method" (Emma Boone, atr.org, 2015). In the article it says the real problem won't be fixed by raising gasoline tax because the HTF spends more money than they bring in. In all reality the people aren't going to be happy about this. People in bigger cities are likely to just take public transit. People in smaller cities are just going to walk or bike around. So really raising the tax on gasoline is just going to hurt the government.

I do not think that the pollution tax on gasoline should be raised. It isn't going to benefit the government at all. Raising the price will affect the people being able to pay because it already costs $20 to fill up your tank and that's a lot for some people already. So if you raise the tax making gas more expensive to be like $25 or $30 to fill up a tank they won't be able to afford it. In a city like New York you can get an unlimited 7 day MetroCard for $30, which is very beneficial especially if you have a busy life. I know people who spend $40 to $50 a week on gas because they have a lot of running around to do. So no I don't think the tax should be raised.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Assignment: Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? (due Fri, April 27 at 11:10 am)



The Economics of Pollution Taxes:

The current federal sales tax specifically on gas is $0.184/gallon.  Additionally, purchasers of gas in Iowa pay a state sales tax of $0.305/gallon.  For comparison, the sales tax on gas in England is $3.44/gallon (Source: taxfoundation.org, 2018).  Should the various levels of American government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline?  Analyze this issue using the following format:

1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

2)  In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

3) In paragraph three, justify your position on the US government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline.  Be sure to reflect on one of the four criteria for tax fairness (ability to pay; efficiency; simplicity; benefits received) in your explanation.

This assignment is due by 11:10 am on Friday, April 27.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Noah Hassig, cheating

In high school and college there is a problem with educational terrorism, cheating. Cheating in high school does not have enough punishments because people still try to do it. Anne-Birgitte Rasmussen, the head of the high school governing agency organisation, said that more and more parents are helping students with written assignments and that she is in favour of an oral exam (cphpost). Oral exams would be the best way to assure students are testing with their own knowledge, not others. She also said students should be given greater punishments when caught cheating to assure they don't do it again, like suspension or worse.

Although cheating has negatives and many are against it, there are people who argue for cheating in high school. ¨The main arguments against cheating in school are that it is unethical, promotes bad habits, and impacts self-esteem through the attainment of an unearned reward. None of these concerns are even remotely valid because none consider the environment. Children are routinely rounded up and forcibly placed in an institution where they are subjected to a hierarchy that places them at the bottom. Like the hostage, they are held captive even if they are not physically bound. They are deprived of any power over their own lives, including the ability to pursue their interests, and are subjected to a barrage of tests that have consequences for each wrong answer¨ (Thewired.com). People say testing students is not fair because everyone learns different, and they are likely to forget all the knowledge they learned and studied for the test shortly after the test.

I think students should not have to cheat on tests, I believe all tests should be open note, thus testing more on the effort they took in class to be able to take notes. In the real world you are able to use resources around you to succeed in life. Students should not be tested on their memory, but tested on the effort they do in class to succeed in life.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Cheating in school Economics

          Although cheating isn’t morally right, some students still take the easy way out. While some kids cheat more than others, it’s a matter of how punishment should be conducted for different types of offenders. Some say re-peat offenders should be punished more severely. According to (www.debate.org), academic cheating is not only dishonest, but indigenous. They also say expulsion should definitely happen with repeat offenders.
          On the other side of cheating, some people think we should give kids a break and just let them learn their lesson on cheating. Another article from (www.debate.org) explains that kids need to be aware that it’s not fair to take credit for others work. So maybe kids don’t need to be punished harder they just maybe need to be taught more educate. Kids should be aware that morally you should always do the right thing and cheating is not right.
          My opinion is that although cheating is bad I don’t think there isabel whole lot more you can do to be stricter with cheating punishments without getting out of line. I think a suspension is a little over done in terms of punishment for cheating. In my opinion the correct punishment for cheating should be a zero on what you were cheating on, no more no less. In conclusion cheating is an issue that needs to be dealt with and in my opinion it should just result in a loss of a grade.

Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher?

Cheating is schools is a common thing that happens every day by kids of all sorts. Some people say that we need to have harsher punishments for students who are caught cheating. A lot of the time the punishment for cheating is simply a zero grade on the assignment/test. Most schools follow this suit with harsher punishments the more you are caught cheating. According to www.washingtonpost.com many private schools simply don't tolerate cheating at all and a student may be punished by expulsion or another form of harsh punishment. Representatives from schools that have these harsher punishments claim that the amount of cheating is very minimized due to the risk that comes with cheating.

On the other hand other sources say that using a more rehabilitative approach to cheating has been more successful in stopping cheaters from cheating again. Sometimes people take advantage of the slap on the wrist punishments and decide to cheat whenever they can. From the same source as above some people think that the rehabilitating process is more efficient than simply increasing the risk of cheating. They believe that when a student is caught cheating the shame of the zero and being caught is enough to prevent cheating in the future.

I personally believe that we should keep a light punishment for the start but as soon as a pattern of cheating occurs the types of punishments should be severely heightened. For example maybe the first time simply giving a zero, having a meeting with the parents of the student, and new guidelines to stop that student from cheating again would be a good way to deal with a first time offender. Second time offenders could receive a zero and possible in school suspension and another meeting with parents.

1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of harsher punishments for cheating in school.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

2)  In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against harsher punishments for cheating in school.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

3) In paragraph three, justify your position on harsher punishments for cheating in school.

Cheating in school

Harsher punishments will stop students because they are afraid of the faculty of the school. The faculty could be firm in their rule of expulsion after multiple attempts of cheating. It would significantly cut down the cheating in school.
I think school asks for a lot of their student given some student’s situations. Some students have a job that requires a lot of hours and some students have to help take care of their families. Harsher punishments would not help. It would just put more stress on students and make things worse.

I think the problem lies is the ignorance the teachers have of their student’s lives. If the teachers are aware of a students homelife, they can work with the student to help them be successful all around.

Cheating




Students cheat because they feel the need to get good grades. The problem is that the amount of cheating is rising(ABCNEWS). Students feel the need to cheat as they don't feel confident in their abilities. This will lead to students cheating in real life. In order to stop these students need to be punished.

Cheating should be a learning opportunity. Students should not be punished as that makes them want to cheat more in order to get a perfect grade. The cheating is a sign the student does not understand the material.(ABCNEWS) Students who do not understand the material need to help so that they can succeed in the classroom.



In most cases for cheating, I think we should have a 3 strike system. For the first case scenario with a normal grading problem, I think people should get a warning. If someone cheats again they get a 0 and suspended if they cheat a third time. However, if you cheated on a grading system were your grade affects other students such as a bell curve you should get an automatic 0 and suspension. It is important to keep students honest in their work.

Cheating

Should we has a softer punishment for cheating? Some believe that we should. "some students complained that the code was enforced too strictly and cases that fell into a grey area were suspended"(Adam Clark). Students of Princeton University want a softer punishment. If you were caught cheating you could get a one year suspension. Even if your case fell into an area you were most likely suspended. Some people don't believe that. Some think that cheating is taking something that isn't theirs. Some may say that cheating isn't that important so we should have a softer punishment.

While some believe that we need softer punishment others believe that we don't. "But I do know that the number of suspensions in a typical year is very small, a single-digit figure,"(Adam Clark). Some believe that if we change the punishment there could be an increase of cheating. But if we keep the punishment the same or make it more harsher it will decrease. With the quote we can see that if they keep the same punishment they will still be able to have a small amount of suspensions. Some may say that the reason that we only have a small amount of suspensions is because nobody is getting caught. But some believe that that's not true. It's small because people just don't want to risk getting in trouble. 

I believe that we don't need to to have a harsher punishment if its just cheating on like homework. But if there cheating on homework they should get a more severe punishment then just cheating on homework. I believe you should get a more severe punishment for cheating on a test because some test is based on your knowledge. Plus some teachers will let you retake the test. Homework isn't as important because sometimes it's not even worth points like in math class. But you should still get a punishment just because if you think you can get away with cheating on just homework then you might think you can get away with cheating on a test. 
Harsher punishments for cheating. A lot of people today get laid off when they are caught cheating. This raises the question, should we have harsher punishments for cheaters? "At the University of Maryland-College Park, for example, students caught cheating must attend a seven-week ethics seminar. "We're not trying to mar someone's life, but we are saying, 'You're going to have to think about this behavior and what danger it poses to you and the larger society,'" says Gary Pavela, director of judicial programs and--a recent addendum--student ethical development. " ( Carolyn Kleiner and Mary Lord, sks.sirs.com ). Cheating is wrong. You are stealing someone else's work. Most of schools around the country have punishments like getting an automatic F or suspension from school. These punishments do work but they are not effective. With technology getting better, it is becoming easier for students to cheat.  

"Crib sheets and copying answers are nothing new, of course.........Academic fraud has never been easier. Students can tamper electronically with grade records, transmit quiz answers via pager or cell phone, and lift term papers from hundreds of Web sites. At the same time, an overload of homework combined with intense pressure to excel in school, from hard-driving peers and parents, makes cheating easy to justify--and hard to resist. "(  Carolyn Kleiner and Mary Lord, sks.sirs.com)

I believe that cheating is over rated in high school and college. We should not have punishments for cheaters. It is wrong to copy someone else work but when someone does, it does not really benefit them in the end.  The cheater will probably get a good grade but he/she will not learn anything. The knowledge your are supposed to learn is way more important than a grade. In today's society, that's really not the case. 

https://sks.sirs.com/webapp/article?artno=0000109505&type=ART

Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher?

Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher? Punishments in school could be harsher due to the amount of kids that do do it. According to Stanford University "between 75 to 90 percent of college students admitted to cheating in high school". This shows that more students cheat in high school. This needs to lead to a increase in harsher punishment. Although some may argue that they need to teach class better, kids have a choice to get taught or not.

Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher? Punishments in school should not be harsher because of the amount of pressure that we already face. According to New York University "nearly 49% of all students reported feeling a great deal of stress daily" This shows that students feel a lot of stress because of stuff that actually go on in their lives. Although some may argue that if they really want to succeed they will push through, they need to consider the amount of stress they actually go through.

I believe that kids punishment for cheating should not be harsher due to the fact that kids already are stressed enough as it is. Kids are doing good in school let alone college. According to New York Times "65.9 percent of students go on to college". This shows that kids are doing as good as they can.

Should cheating in School be punished more?

There are many reasons and people that support harsher punishments for children who cheat. " Teachers need to be able to set boundaries" (chicagonews.com, Tracy Stanciel, 1/29/13). I agree with this source. Teachers who catch kids cheating should be able to punish the kid and get to choose the punishment that applies based on how important the cheating was.

Some people, but fewer see a reason to not punish kids for cheating. " Use the time of cheating as a teachable moment" ( verywellfamily.com, Amy Morin, 2/6/18). This is also a very good way to look at it. Yes cheating is not right but at the same time everyone has to learn their lesson at some point. If it becomes a habit they would probably agree it needs a harsher punishment.

I agree with both sides of this topic. I like the way they thought about using it as a teachable moment. Cheating is something everyone does at some point whether you think you did or not. I also think that if the kid does it a lot they do need harsher punishments that would make them stop. I think teachers should get to choose the punishment just like the 1st paragraph said.

Should punishments for cheating in schools be harsher?

Cheating in schools is a phenomenon that's on the rise. The amount of students cheating in schools has skyrocketed the last 10 years. Creating a larger punishment would help decrease the amount done. "The Josephson Institute Center for Youth Ethics surveyed 43,000 high school students in public and private schools and found that 59% of high school students admitted cheating on a test during the last year. 34% self-reported doing it more than two times." (Plagiarism.org, Plagurism.org, 2017). This is a huge amount of a population to be cheating, and so punishments would help decrease it. 

       On the other hand stricter punishments for victimless crimes is absurd. A lot of high school cheating comes from assignments that are busy work, or work just assigned to say you have work. "homework overload is compromising our parenting choices, jeopardizing our children's health, and robbing us of precious family time" (Washington post, Kohn, 2006). The amount destroyed personal time as a kid, and can hinder development, and since schools keep giving more and more homework, mostly busy work, cheating was a quicker and is a quicker way to get the swamp of assignments cleared.

I believe punishments for cheating IN SCHOOL should remain the same, resulting in a 0 on the assignment/test. If not then you should release the amount of work load.

Harsher punishment for cheating

Those who agree that punishment for cheating in school should be harsher didn’t always have an idea of how to make it harsher. What people know is, is that the amounts of students that cheat today is a staggering number, and the protocol for cheating obviously is not working and something needs to be done. One way to do this would be to instill corporal punishment when students are caught cheating. By doing this it will not only correct the wrong doing, but also deter the mistake from happening again (N/A, 7/28/15, nyln.org). While some may say that corporal punishment is unnecessary, obviously what schools are doing now is not working, so implementing this may fix the problem.

Those who disagree believe that the only person that is getting hurt from the cheating is the person who is doing it, so there is no need for corporal punishment. Also students are going to cheat no matter what, so if corporal punishment is allowed nothing good will come from it only harm. Cheating is getting worse each year and students are getting more and more creative on how to do it (Sizemore,2/29/16,centraldigest). In the end it comes down to the student. For some, no punishment will stop them from finding a way to cheat because the want to get good grades the easy way. Some may say if you implement corporal punishment it will make the situation better, but at the end of the day kids are still going to cheat and they are only hurting themselves.

I believe that punishment should be harsher in schools, but I don’t believe that corporal punishment is the way to go. I think that first off more teachers should walk around while kids are taking test, because too many times teachers just sit at their desk making it very easy for students to cheat. I then think if students are caught cheating it should be placed on their high school transcript, labeling them as a cheater. Also depending on how many times the student has been caught cheating a punishment could be a day or two of in school suspension. I know that some people say that the only person who gets hurt when they cheat is the person themselves; however, it is very irritating to some students who study really hard for a test, yet get a lower score than the person that put no work into studying. Cheating is also just morally incorrect and so letting students get away with it sets a bad example.

Should punishments in school be harsh?

                       
                     
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/harvard-forces-students-get-jobs-punishment-cheating/318765/

            Students across America cheat for alot of different reason, and it is ultimately up to the school board, and their parents if they are under 18 to determine if they will be punished. Who gets to say what kind of punishment is fair is the ultimate question in this situation. At Harvard they made their students who cheated on the test obtain and hold a job for 6 months, and made them sit out a whole semester."A forced break that can be absolved after the ousted undergrads hold" A full time, paid, non academic job in a non family situation for at least half a year".( TheAtlantic.com 2018)



          Some of the cheaters, and parents believe that some of the punishments may be a little to harsh. In an article some say the consequences should be as simple as a parent teacher conference." The student Should be required to talk to her teacher about what she did".(Noodle.com 2015).



                In my opinion the level of cheating should be equal to the level of punishment. a student who cheats on a small test should not be expelled from school especially if it is their first offense. But as the student gets older towards their college years they should have to deal with that , but not young children.

Monday, April 16, 2018

Economics of Cheating Del Vecchio

Cheating remains a prevailing problem in classrooms across the country. However, the public remains divided on how best to address this pressing issue. One argument is that students must be punished harder when caught cheating. This argument is supported by Jay Matthews of the Washington Post who writes in 2001 that when a student council president at Walt Whitman High School was caught cheating on his final exam, he was only given a zero on the test, remained in the class, and remained president of student council. This slap on the wrist for confirmed cheating on a final exam outraged the community and led to other students asking why they bothered studying if the worst that could happen to them is a zero on the test. Light punishments set a precedent, and discourage hard work when the consequences of cheating are minimal. If the punishment is too light, students making the choice between studying hard for an upcoming test or risk getting caught cheating would be more incentivized to cheat.
However, opponents of harsher punishments argue that the harms of cheating are mostly intrinsic and harm no one but the student who is doing the cheating. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer writes in 2018 that the effects of cheating in college can stretch beyond the test or even the course itself. The article reports that if students are caught cheating in college, the stain can follow them for the rest of their academic career and beyond. A permanent mark on your academic reputation can have major consequences for students looking to get into graduate school, do research with professors, or get work in academia. This raises the question, if the punishment for cheating is already so high, why do students continue to do it? In the end, the problem is not that students are not scared of the punishment for cheating, but that students simply do not believe that they will be caught. If a student does not believe that they will be caught cheating, then it does not matter what the punishment is. If I have driven down a clear stretch of road my entire life and never seen a cop car anywhere near it, then even if the fine for speeding is $1000, I am still going to speed down that road because I do not believe I will be caught.
In the end, I think that the best way to address the problem of cheating is to increase the visibility of students caught cheating. For instance, if a student is caught cheating on a final exam, that student should be labeled a cheater on their academic transcript, or in some other way have that label be made visible to prospective colleges and employers. Firstly, this emphasizes that the issue is not the act of cheating itself, but the mindset of being someone willing to cheat. Furthermore, this would primary be targeted at high achieving students, as the possibility of having this stain the rest of their academic career would be a major deterrent. Obviously, this would have to be used sparingly and only instances of cheating on import tests, like finals. In addition, there should always be a way for students who have been caught cheating in the past to prove that they deserve to have the label removed.

Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher?

People should be punished harshly for cheating in school. "It's not only dishonest and disingenuous, it's also not fair to the other students who have worked hard and did not cheat" (Debate.org, 2018). People should be harshly punished especially if they are repeat offenders. If they continue to cheat they should face expulsion.

The students that cheat shouldn't be punished heavily. Even in most schools k-12 the punishment doesn't really get that bad. "In general consequences may include, being sent to the principal or detention, a written reprimand on your record, a failing grade or a zero on the assignment or test, a failing grade in the entire course, loss of privileges like participation in school sports, and suspension" (E.A Gjelten, Lawyers .com, 2018).  Some say that those punishments are harsh enough, and others say there should be harsher. But if students still cheat when they face suspension and a mark on their permanent record, or failing the class and they still cheat, what's going to stop them from cheating facing the possibility of expulsion?

I believe that there shouldn't be any harsher punishment for cheating. For a lot of people the risk of failing is enough to make them not cheat. For those who do cheat, they deserve a zero the first time. If it continues they should get a zero and have detention. But I don't think that they should have to face suspension or expulsion. What is that going to do other than take away from their learning by making them miss a few days for suspension, or make it hard for that student to get a second chance to pursue their education by expulsion. That is why I think the punishment we have now for cheating is good enough.

Cheating punishments


An advantage of using corporal punishment for cheating is understanding the consequences of cheating when your younger. As expressed in this article, “a person who is ill-behaved and ill-disciplined is not accepted by society very well which also bears the pain for suffers so why not deal with some amount of pain to avoid pain in the future” (TargetStudy.com, 2013). When kids develop a bad habit like cheating it can carry on with them all the way to the workforce. If people are caught cheating in the workforce then consequences can be much harsher than just getting paddled. You could lose your job and become untrusted in society. Now, some people say that it’s a teen’s choice if they want to cheat and not be able to succeed outside of the workplace, but it’s also the school’s job to help kids. They shouldn’t go out into the world with bad habits that went unchecked when teens were developing.

One disadvantage to corporal punishment being used for cheating is that it may put fear into kids instead of discipline. According to this article, “If you beat a child up, he can only fear you, not respect you” (TargetStudy.com, 2013). To earn respect from people, it is crucial that you give respect as well. You wouldn’t want to sit in a classroom with someone that had physically hurt you if you still bear the marks of pain. Now some people say that capital punishment isn’t beating a child up, jest some light spanking. But, whatever kind of hitting that is done to a child is still painful, and pain can be a motivator to turn on teachers more than to listen to them.

I, personally, believe that we shouldn’t have harsher punishments for cheating, such as corporal punishment. There have been rules established by school systems that have worked before, but if children are still cheating, then maybe teachers aren't doing enough themselves. The negatives of harsher punishments, like leaving mental scars from the people they trust beating them, far outweigh the positives that would come from them. If teens want to not follow rules, then they are only hurting themselves by not preparing for the future. Teachers can only do so much to break bad habits, but if kids aren't applying themselves to be better, then its their own fault. Beating kids into submission isn’t the proper way to do things.