fuel taxes

[Sisyphus]

Here in the U.S., we have very cheap gasoline (that's petrol, guys) compared to Europe, in large part because of much lower fuel taxes. My question is, why shouldn't we raise them to similar levels? Bear in mind that this wouldn't mean an overall tax increase - higher revenues from fuel taxes means other taxes can be lower. The incentive for raising them is high. The biggest problem for the United States overall is energy dependence, and higher fuel taxes would encourage conservation and more fuel-efficient vehicles (and energy-efficient homes and businesses, for that matter). So why not do it? Is it just the political difficulty of explaining to the public that yes, you're paying more at the pump, but you're also paying less to the IRS? Or is there an actually good reason?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The entire concept of raising some sort of tax - even if you compensate for it - would be controversial.

 

Also, some people who drive more than others would be "punished" by the tax, while others would get a bonus because they hardly drive but then get a break on other taxes.

[Sisyphus]

Also' date=' some people who drive more than others would be "punished" by the tax, while others would get a bonus because they hardly drive but then get a break on other taxes.[/quote']

 

But that's the whole point!

[CPL.Luke]

yes but some people have to drive to get to their job, they don't have a choice in the matter as they can't afford to live closer, do you think the janitor's of silicon valley live in those nice suburban developments? So in effect your giving a bonus to the rich people who are able to afford housing close to where they work, and punishing those who can't.

 

Also the economy runs on energy more than anything else, if you increase the cost of energy than every factory in the united states has to increase its prices to compensate. (keep in mind that energy is traded on a national market, so if all the oil fired power plants increase their prices it effects everyone)

[Glider]

yes but some people have to drive to get to their job, they don't have a choice in the matter as they can't afford to live closer, do you think the janitor's of silicon valley live in those nice suburban developments? So in effect your giving a bonus to the rich people who are able to afford housing close to where they work, and punishing those who can't.)

By George, they've got it! You're starting to see how we've felt in the UK for years. Can we do house prices next?

[gcol]

I think the very principle of rationing through taxation is wrong. It is, however, the easiest, cheapest and most bureaucratic profitable way. This is why it is the time-honoured kneejerk establishment response.

 

During times of wartime emergency shortages, the even handed and democratic solution was through rationing, though this did impose a heavy administrative burden.

 

Rationing through taxation imposes an inequitable burden on those least able to pay, while, regarding energy consumption in particular, giving the rich and profligate carte blanche to continue to burn up planetary resources at criminal speed.

 

When I see legislation by the most energy consuming and wasteful countries that for example restricts "by choice" air travel and low mpg road transport, I will know that the problem is being taken seriously, but until then the political spin that keeps big business money flowing has my utter contempt.

[ParanoiA]

Behavior modification through taxation....definitely a democrat idea.

 

Great post Gcol. Couldn't possibly say it any better...

 

I know this is Sisyphus's idea, but this is a common theme with the left I've noticed. Tunnel vision. So caught up with bringing down the great giant they don't see the innocent being smashed in the process. Isn't that the same criticism leveled against the administration and the Iraq conflict? Taking down the innocent during the prosecution?

 

Perhaps the left minded and the current administration aren't so different after all...

[Royston]

Rather than taxing fuel and reducing tax in other areas, fuel companies should be forced (or at least persuaded) into offsetting carbon emissions. I know some companies are adopting this, but I think something more solid should be put in place.

 

This would obviously mean a rise in fuel prices, but at least the money would be spent wisely. AFAIK, in the UK they're thinking of increasing the number of road tolls, this seems reasonable for people who have no choice but to travel great distances to work, it doesn't discriminate on the amount of fuel used. Also, as long as there's a good strategy on the location of road tolls, it could discourage people driving in the city, if they already live in or near the city.

 

I'm not entirely sure where this extra road tax would be going...but it should go into offsetting carbon emissions or some other similar initiative, rather than leaking into some other unrelated government scheme.

[Sisyphus]

This wasn't so much a serious proposal as a "tell me why this is wrong" kind of thing, but I'm going to play devil's advocate, anyway.

 

Yes but some people have to drive to get to their job, they don't have a choice in the matter as they can't afford to live closer, do you think the janitor's of silicon valley live in those nice suburban developments? So in effect your giving a bonus to the rich people who are able to afford housing close to where they work, and punishing those who can't.

 

That's a really good point, and why I suppose it's not a good idea. The only thing I can say is that, in the long term, it still seems like it would have an overall benefit by creating a much greater demand for efficient mass transit, and encourage more localized economies overall. But I realize that kind of thing doesn't happen overnight, and in the meantime that janitor is screwed.

 

Also the economy runs on energy more than anything else, if you increase the cost of energy than every factory in the united states has to increase its prices to compensate. (keep in mind that energy is traded on a national market, so if all the oil fired power plants increase their prices it effects everyone)

 

This, again, is the point. Everyone pays more for energy. But less in other taxes. For the mean consumer, this means nothing at all - they pay the same amount.

 

Rationing through taxation imposes an inequitable burden on those least able to pay, while, regarding energy consumption in particular, giving the rich and profligate carte blanche to continue to burn up planetary resources at criminal speed.

 

I'm not sure about that. The thing about the rich is that they tend to use a whole lot more energy, and would therefore be affected a whole lot more. And if they do keep using up resources energy, then that's still translated into a tax break for the rest of us.

 

Not that there isn't a potential problem along those lines. I saw something like what you describe over the summer, during those really high gas prices, watching recreational boaters. When the high gas prices hit, you see an interesting pattern. The little skiffs and whatnot are barely affected. They grumble a little, but they don't use much gas, anyway, certainly not enough to spoil their fun. The big yachts aren't affected either, since the owners are rich enough to afford the extra expense, and aren't about to let these big yachts sit in the marina. What's affected are the gas guzzling cigarette boats and the smaller yachts, the former since fuel was already a large portion of the operating costs, the latter because they still use a whole lot of fuel, but don't have enough money that they don't notice the bill. It should be noted, however, that sailboats of all shapes and sizes were completely unaffected by fuel prices, and actually increased usage, because the harbors weren't so clogged with stupid powerboats. Sailboat sales also went up (har har), which goes to show you that making the harmful thing more expensive does successfully encourage alternatives, whatever other effects it may have.

 

Behavior modification through taxation....definitely a democrat idea.

 

Weren't you the one complaining about losing government subsidies earlier?

 

This would obviously mean a rise in fuel prices' date=' but at least the money would be spent wisely. AFAIK, in the UK they're thinking of increasing the number of road tolls, this seems reasonable for people who have no choice but to travel great distances to work, it doesn't discriminate on the amount of fuel used. Also, as long as there's a good strategy on the location of road tolls, it could discourage people driving in the city, if they already live in or near the city.[/quote']

 

That's definitely an inferior solution, right? It discourages people from driving long distances, yes, but it also requires expensive new infrastructure, and punishes fuel efficient vehicles just as much as gas guzzlers.

[ParanoiA]

Weren't you the one complaining about losing government subsidies earlier?

 

Yes..as in tax cuts that democrats like to call subsidies. This is what I mean. You're tax happy. Cut 'em here, add 'em there - trying to control the behavior of american business.

 

I'm not sure about that. The thing about the rich is that they tend to use a whole lot more energy, and would therefore be affected a whole lot more. And if they do keep using up resources energy, then that's still translated into a tax break for the rest of us.

 

Oh...and jobs. Forget that one? Rich people are out there burning up energy for no reason? These rich people you're talking about are businesses and industry that provide jobs for the freaking country. The energy they're burning up is manufacturing things, producing things - like your computer and your car. Why do you insist on using the term 'rich people'? Rich people don't burn that kind of energy. Their businesses do. The business is part of the economy. When you say rich people do it, that's disingenuous and suggests it has nothing to do with the economy, or your paycheck, or the precious revenue ( other people's money ) you're after.

 

Everyone pays more for energy. But less in other taxes. For the mean consumer, this means nothing at all - they pay the same amount.

 

Is this anything like how my employer "reimburses" my college tuition? On paper it means nothing lost, but in real life I was out several hundred dollars until the reimbursement check came in? ( a very precious several hundred dollars for some - the ones you're not thinking about )

 

I'm not actually attending college, but that's an example of how it may sound really cool on paper and the equations all work out all neato and stuff, yet people get screwed in real life. The logistics don't work out to mean nothing to the average consumer - they mean a whole freaking lot to average consumers - they just don't mean much to you.

 

It's so easy to spend other people's money isn't it? Seems so logical to dream up taxes when it's not yours - or very, very little of yours.

[Phi for All]

So why not do it? Is it just the political difficulty of explaining to the public that yes, you're paying more at the pump, but you're also paying less to the IRS? Or is there an actually good reason?

Raising the taxes to the level the Europeans pay is a bit extreme (I'm still smiling about paying $1.93/gallon at Costco on Monday). Personally a bump at the pump won't affect me that much as I work from home and my business driving is reimbursed by the company but if we go to $6+ a gallon (even over a five year period) the ripple effects would be terrible. How much more am I going to pay for goods and services that use gasoline and will it be totally offset by the few thousand dollars I save in income tax? I think the UKers will tell you that Inland Revenue cuts them no slack.

 

The problem with promising less income taxes if we pay higher sales taxes (on anything) is that the income taxes may just creep up again anyway. I've seen this happen with local government. Lottery funds that go to the parks system sound great, but then the parks system budget is adjusted and the surplus is used elsewhere - zero savings to the taxpayer. In the corporate sector an announced decrease in cereal prices is offset by a higher price for bread, and within a few years the cereal prices are right back to where they used to be - and now bread costs twice as much.

[swansont]

Other objections have already been noted, but there is also the fraction of the population that seem to think that they have the right to have low gas prices.

[Pangloss]

Well if they're going to do this the time is now. Gas prices continue to fall and will likely be below $2/gallon (national avg) soon, although I'm sure they'll climb a bit higher for the summer driving season.

[Sisyphus]

Yes..as in tax cuts that democrats like to call subsidies. This is what I mean. You're tax happy. Cut 'em here, add 'em there - trying to control the behavior of american business.

 

Selective tax cuts are no different from tax hikes on everyone else. That was my point: don't be a hypocrite.

 

Oh...and jobs. Forget that one? Rich people are out there burning up energy for no reason? These rich people you're talking about are businesses and industry that provide jobs for the freaking country. The energy they're burning up is manufacturing things, producing things - like your computer and your car. Why do you insist on using the term 'rich people'? Rich people don't burn that kind of energy. Their businesses do. The business is part of the economy. When you say rich people do it, that's disingenuous and suggests it has nothing to do with the economy, or your paycheck, or the precious revenue ( other people's money ) you're after.

 

Well, first of all, you should pay attention, because we were talking about private consumption. Currently fuel tax status is different for private and business consumption, and this might well continue. I'm open to different options. But let's be honest. We NEED to do everything we can to lower consumption of fossil fuels. I don't think I need to explain the many reasons why. Continuuing as present is NOT an option. The sooner we act, the less we're going to be hurt by this in the long term. But it IS going to hurt, no matter what. It's called damage control. So yes, people in the energy industry will lose jobs. People in energy-intensive industries will lose jobs. Businesses that adapt more quickly to become more efficient will profit enormously as their competition flounders. All told, it seems like there are a lot worse ways things could go down.

 

Is this anything like how my employer "reimburses" my college tuition? On paper it means nothing lost, but in real life I was out several hundred dollars until the reimbursement check came in? ( a very precious several hundred dollars for some - the ones you're not thinking about )

 

I'm not actually attending college, but that's an example of how it may sound really cool on paper and the equations all work out all neato and stuff, yet people get screwed in real life. The logistics don't work out to mean nothing to the average consumer - they mean a whole freaking lot to average consumers - they just don't mean much to you.

 

Well, seeing as how it's not even paper just yet, I really don't know what you're talking about. Obviously this is something that would warrant a great deal of study before it was debated in a serious way. What I'm looking for is obvious flaws.

 

It's so easy to spend other people's money isn't it? Seems so logical to dream up taxes when it's not yours - or very, very little of yours.

 

No, of course it's not easy. It's not going to BE easy.

 

Incidentally, since when does merely asking about the feasibility of something warrant the kind of abuse you've been trying to pile on me during this thread?

[ParanoiA]

Incidentally, since when does merely asking about the feasibility of something warrant the kind of abuse you've been trying to pile on me during this thread?

 

I apologize, you're right. I'm really pissed at this taxation ideology perpetuated by so many. I don't mean to take it out on you, but it blows my mind how people can just talk about other people's money and how they can get it through legislation. The rich made their money in the free market. The government just takes it like a thug. The rich do things for society and the economy - they give back, even in the peak of their greed.

 

Government is a liability. It doesn't make us any money at all - it costs us money. Government doesn't create revenue - it takes it from others who did. Yet people will scorn the rich and thank their government. That's sick, to me. Just as sick as people who think they have a "right" to a job, or are entitled to a particular lifestyle. I believe this mentallity is to blame for a tax happy public.

 

Selective tax cuts are no different from tax hikes on everyone else. That was my point: don't be a hypocrite.

 

Actually I'm not. There shouldn't be either one. That was my point. Taxes should be for bringing in revenue for the government to operate on. Taxes should only be used and decided on for those purposes. I don't agree with using taxes to manipulate the behavior of the free market.

 

Well, first of all, you should pay attention, because we were talking about private consumption.

 

Well then how does a rich man use sooooo much more energy than me? Because he has a big ole house to heat up?

 

But let's be honest. We NEED to do everything we can to lower consumption of fossil fuels. I don't think I need to explain the many reasons why. Continuuing as present is NOT an option. The sooner we act, the less we're going to be hurt by this in the long term. But it IS going to hurt, no matter what.

 

So what's stopping you? The free market has responded. But you're not buying their cars. You're not buying solar panels either are you? What exactly are you doing?

 

I'm going to assume you'll answer yes to at least one of those, but my point is, why is always up to someone else? Yes it's going to hurt, so get out there and start getting used to the pain. Instead it's all about manipulating taxes here and there, forcing the employers of the nation to risk their money, their business, your neighbor's job. I don't get that.

 

Anyway, that's the flaws I see in a tax hike on fuels. Punishing the private sector for the lack of consumer interest in alternative fuels.

[john5746]

I apologize, you're right. I'm really pissed at this taxation ideology perpetuated by so many. I don't mean to take it out on you, but it blows my mind how people can just talk about other people's money and how they can get it through legislation. The rich made their money in the free market. The government just takes it like a thug. The rich do things for society and the economy - they give back, even in the peak of their greed.

 

Government is a liability. It doesn't make us any money at all - it costs us money. Government doesn't create revenue - it takes it from others who did. Yet people will scorn the rich and thank their government. That's sick, to me. Just as sick as people who think they have a "right" to a job, or are entitled to a particular lifestyle. I believe this mentallity is to blame for a tax happy public.

 

Very true, but government makes it possible for the rich to become rich without "taking it like a thug" Bill Gates has received far more benifit from the American government than I have. He can and should pay a higher percentage of his wealth towards government expenses. An equal percentage tax is not "fair".

 

 

Actually I'm not. There shouldn't be either one. That was my point. Taxes should be for bringing in revenue for the government to operate on. Taxes should only be used and decided on for those purposes. I don't agree with using taxes to manipulate the behavior of the free market.

 

You suggested it is only a democrat idea...

 

 

 

So what's stopping you? The free market has responded. But you're not buying their cars. You're not buying solar panels either are you? What exactly are you doing?

 

I'm going to assume you'll answer yes to at least one of those, but my point is, why is always up to someone else? Yes it's going to hurt, so get out there and start getting used to the pain. Instead it's all about manipulating taxes here and there, forcing the employers of the nation to risk their money, their business, your neighbor's job. I don't get that.

 

Anyway, that's the flaws I see in a tax hike on fuels. Punishing the private sector for the lack of consumer interest in alternative fuels.

 

The free market doesn't take into account costs to the environment, costs in terms of wars, etc. Taxes would help to reflect some of the real costs. A small tax hike on the fuel, with tax incentives on fuel efficient systems, alternative fuels, etc. can help reduce consumption, which in turn reduce these other costs.

[tomgwyther]

Hight tax on fuel is the most stupid idea ever conceived.

I have to pay 89 pence per litre here in the U.K, (That's about $10 per gallon.)

Our governments way to stop the amount of traffic on the roads is to stop poor people from using cars.

If I have alot of money, I can burn as much fuel as I want, and clog the road with my SUV.

Unfortunaly I don't and I have to use a car to run my business, the tax on fuel is bleeding me dry, I spend about 100 pounds ($200) per week on fuel and can't afford to eat somtimes.

I wouldn't mind if their was an alternative (Public transport) but the 1200 pounds ($2400) council tax I pay wont provide a bus service.

 

If fuel were cheaper, neither myself nor anyone else would use their car anymore than usual,

But we would have more money to spend in the high street shops.

If fuel were cheaper, our consumer goods would cost less, as everything has to be tranported to the shop via truck.

I could afford to charge people less for my services as I wouldn't have to add fuel costs to my bill.

the general cost of living would fall,

 

true, Tony Blair would have less money in his pocket to spend on all the wars he get involved in for no reason.

 

Hi fuel taxes are killing industry and the economy in England, the working man who fuels economic growth is being squeezed dry.

1 in 10 English citizens now live abroad, because they're fed up with the cost of living,

If fuel is cheaper, everything becomes cheaper. including public trnsport.

It makes economic and enviromental sense to abolish the duty tax on fuel.

[swansont]

Our governments way to stop the amount of traffic on the roads is to stop poor people from using cars.

 

...

If fuel were cheaper, neither myself nor anyone else would use their car anymore than usual,

 

These two statements would seem to be contradictory.

[swansont]

Government is a liability. It doesn't make us any money at all - it costs us money. Government doesn't create revenue - it takes it from others who did. Yet people will scorn the rich and thank their government. That's sick, to me. Just as sick as people who think they have a "right" to a job, or are entitled to a particular lifestyle. I believe this mentallity is to blame for a tax happy public.

 

So the economy would perk right along if there were no roads? Only a minimally educated populace suitible for manual labor? No fire or police service? No military to protect us? Yeah, I can see how government is a complete liability.

[ParanoiA]

Very true, but government makes it possible for the rich to become rich without "taking it like a thug" Bill Gates has received far more benifit from the American government than I have. He can and should pay a higher percentage of his wealth towards government expenses. An equal percentage tax is not "fair".

 

The government establishes law and order, arguably a civilized society for business and consumers to operate in. In that way, the government serves all of us - not just the rich dude that owns the business. What benefit are you speaking of that he has received from our government, that I have not received as well? I believe the laws effect all of us. You're free to put a second mortgage on your home and risk all of your assets like so many other successful rich people did before they got rich. There's nothing stopping you...but you.

 

I don't agree with this idea of weighted benefit. Joe Blow enjoys more success than me, so he is "benefiting" from the government more than me. No, no..you're leaving a step out...Joe blow risked and did what I'm not willing to do to enjoy more success than me. He earned it. I didn't. I chose security - an 8 to 5 job, guaranteed paycheck. He didn't. He took a chance and gave up security.

 

You suggested it is only a democrat idea...

 

Yes, the tax and spend concept is a democrat idea.

 

The free market doesn't take into account costs to the environment, costs in terms of wars, etc. Taxes would help to reflect some of the real costs. A small tax hike on the fuel, with tax incentives on fuel efficient systems, alternative fuels, etc. can help reduce consumption, which in turn reduce these other costs.

 

Taxes are a punishment. Economics is a domino effect. When you play around with hiking taxes here and there you always end up treading over the innocent. I personally find it incredibly offensive and downright weird that democrats - renowned for their support of the little guy - don't care about that. Democrats have become anti-rich, not pro-working class. There's a huge difference.

 

Hopefully you've read tomgwyther's post by now. Nothing speaks like experience...

[ParanoiA]

So the economy would perk right along if there were no roads? Only a minimally educated populace suitible for manual labor? No fire or police service? No military to protect us? Yeah, I can see how government is a complete liability.

 

I didn't say government wasn't necessary. I was trying to make the point that the government doesn't make money, it costs money. The following point to that being how ridiculous it is to thank the government and scorn the rich.

[Mokele]

It doesn't?

 

Not really. Sure, there's a bit more economic impact of the environment these days, but only the bits that are pretty. Swamps aren't exactly the prettiest places to most people, but are probably one of the most important. Yet we drain them without a second thought to make room for houses.

 

Yes, there is some free market effect, but nowhere *near* enough to properly safeguard the environment.

 

Mokele

[Royston]

That's definitely an inferior solution, right? It discourages people from driving long distances, yes, but it also requires expensive new infrastructure, and punishes fuel efficient vehicles just as much as gas guzzlers.

 

If it was the only solution, then yes it would certainly be inferior. The tolls should be 'in' the City, not on main roads...that was my point, so it wouldn't affect long haul journeys, but would encourage people to use public transport rather than their car if they live just a few miles from work. I wouldn't know how expensive such a scheme would be, but the benefits once implemented, and the revenue gained (providing it goes into energy saving schemes) could be a plus, even if it's not a huge plus.

 

As stated earlier, transport of food for example, shouldn't be effected as it would clearly have a knock on effect on the cost of living et.c It's the general public that need to be conscious of their energy use as well as large companies, and large companies have the means to influence the general public into good habits.

 

An example would be subsidizing public transport through the company you work for, and maximizing the number of passengers in a vehicle if you do have to drive to work, university et.c They may seem small measures to take, but it certainly helps.

 

I'm not sure how much profit oil companies make, but I guess it's a hell of a lot...correct me if I'm wrong. This may be ignorant on my part, but couldn't a restriction on profit margins on energy, and putting this money into energy saving schemes be another solution. It's probably a ridiculous idea, not sure.

 

I wasn't able to access SFN yestarday, so I just wanted to reply to the above...sorry if these points have been covered.

[JohnB]

It's interesting to see how the rest of the world lives. Petrol here is around A$1.15/litre. The price varies from state to state as there is an 8 cents/litre state tax in most states. (Oh yes, and it depends what day you buy it too. The price starts high on Wednesday and drops during the week until it hits a low on Tuesday, when it then goes up around 12 c/l.)

 

A few things to consider.

 

1. Taxes are like heroin to a government. They love them and they love increasing them. Once they've got them, they can't give them up. Personal taxation was introduced in Oz in 1915 as "a temporary measure to pay for wartime expenditure." Sales tax came in in around 1942 as a, you guessed it, "temporary measure to pay for wartime expenditure." We still have them both.

 

In the case of fuel taxes, they are worth A14.6 billion, roughly 7% of the total tax take of the Australian gov and is the third largest source of revenue. This dependency on fuel money actively discourages a government from seeking the development of alternative supplies. Think about it, if someone made a car that ran on water, it would cripple the Australian budget for a time.

 

2. Public transport is only an answer when the majority of people work in a localised area. As a city becomes decentralised, it becomes impossible for public transport to be a viable alternative as there are too many people going to too many different places. In my case, I live in the western suburbs of Brisbane and work in an eastern suburb. To start work at 7.30 I would have to get up around 4 AM, catch the bus at 5 AM to the city, get another bus out to work and walk the last mile, reversing for the trip home. That's around 5 hours out of the day just getting to and from work. Or I can get up at 6.30, have breakfast and drive for 40 minutes. (I suppose I could move, I've always wanted to live near an airport and cement factory. )

 

3. The idea of car pooling is a furphy. A silly concept invented by people who always have and always will work in a city centre. For it to work certain conditions must be met;

a/ The people must know each other.

b/ They must live near each other.

c/ They must work near each other.

d/ They must start work at roughly the same time

e/ They must finish at roughly the same time.

f/ Their working hours must be reasonably constant.

Unless these six conditions are met, then car pooling can't work. With the decentralisation of cities, it becomes almost impossible for these conditions to be met so car pooling is not a viable option for the vast majority of the population.

 

4. Beware of any possible solution that will benefit the "average" person. We may say (for example) that "The average American drives 200 klms per week" but what percentage actually drive that distance? Everybody is either under or over that figure and will therefore be disadvantaged by the measure.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Royston]

Just my 2 cents.

 

...and all valid points. I guess I didn't stress enough that these are just small measures that could make a difference, so when it 'is' viable for car pooling, subsidizing of public transport et.c then it should be put into effect, and such things would be within the discretion of the company i.e if you have special circumstances, then fine.

 

The company I work for insist on car pooling (if you don't adhere, you have to find somewhere else to park), and sell subsidized public transport tickets. It's been very effective...and those who can, have taken advantage.

 

I think one sweeping solution, i.e raising tax on fuel, and putting the money into whatever enviromentally friendly scheme will clearly effect other areas too much...just as shifting any current revenue made from fuel tax into offsetting carbon emissions et.c

 

It's more 'everybody should get in on the act' (that is large companies and individuals) rather than, we're going to make a decision that will affect this group of people, and not this group whether you like it or not...there'd be too much outcry. If there's an attractive alternative, or the company you work for offers you a good alternative, then it should be taken. There should be at least some policy that ensures companies are taking measures to ensure fuel is not squandered on laziness et.c