Re: U.S. FUEL "ECONOMY" Is Way, Way In The Future! If Not Farther...

> On 6/29/09 12:00 PM, in article > snipped-for-privacy@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, "ben91932" > wrote: > > > > >> Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years. > >> > >> Until then, it'll be gas-guzzlin' all the way! > >> > >> A one-dollar federal tax on gasoline would help solve the problem ... > >> but it won't happen here in SUV-land. > > > > I'd be happy to pay an extra dollar or two for gas if the proceeds > > went to alt fuels research directly. > > Oil has been subsidized for decades and we have underpaid for decades. > > Ben > > Utopian-esque thinking. That extra dollar or two would go to this, that, or > the other politically correct welfare program instead, just like the gas tax > does.

Doesn't sound like you know much about how any of this really works. A increased gas tax (or tax direct on oil) would spur new research for other forms of transportation and research for alternate energy sources even if not one penny of the collected tax went to pay for that research. That is it could be used to pay nations current bills instead of shamelessly making future generations pay those bills and at the same time encourage research in alternate fuels.

Your information on where the gas tax is currently being spent is wrong also. The current tax on oil in the US is much lower than Europe or Japan and it is designed to facilitate one thing - use of oil. And right now every penny of the tax goes to subsidize oil powered transportation and nothing else. Currently the gas tax is way too low to even fully fund the maintenance of the nation's highway system as a result much of the money spent on highways is now coming out of general revenue funds.

-jim

Reply to
jim
Loading thread data ...

Currently the gas tax is way too low to

Tell you what. If gas taxes are too low, not only can you pay for the increased taxes that you feel that YOU need to pay, but you can also pay for the increased taxes you feel that I ought to pay. Get you checkbook out and write a $100,000 (or more) check to the IRS. Better yet, send them cash. Just send $100,000 in cash to the IRS with no return address on your envelope. We can blindly trust our government to efficiently put this money to good use, right? The government has always had excellent programs that help people and they always run their programs in the financial black.

Of course, I'm kidding. But people saying that we need more taxes is like Hollywood telling everybody that we need more taxes during an election year. Wesley Snipes, we need to raise taxes, don't we? If Hollywood truly wanted to pay for more taxes, why is California is such bad shape? Why don't they just open up their wallets and pay off the deficiet that California is strapped with? People, open your eyes.

Reply to
Kruse

I'm not going to pay your taxes, but you seem to have no problem with dumping your taxes on future generations.

That is right the US government did that for 200 years . Up until 28 years ago the federal government was not wildly spending beyond its means.

California will pay - their party is now over.

-jim

Reply to
jim

Kruse wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

So you think that California is in bad shape because they have too much money to spend on anything. Interesting that they're in deficit right now then isn't it? In fact Arnold had Gray Davis Kicked out for the very same problem *he* has right now - he's running on a deficit. without actually

*looking* at the budget for California (which you obviously haven't, but then neither have I, I have no reason to - I don't live there) you just can't say. Maybe Arnold's giving multi-million dollar kickbacks to all the men who's wifes he chatted up. Who knows? The fact is that you have cheaper gasoline in the US than we do here in Canada despite the fact that we have more oil production per year and the largest oil reserves in the world. There has been far to much sucking up to the oil companies since the 1970's. They haven't built *one* gas refinery since then. That's how they keep the price up there. Take a look at what gas costs in Saudi Arabia - $0.50 a gallon last I heard.
Reply to
fred

You had to reply without reading what I said. You are posting just to be heard. I am NOT in favor of dumping this on future generation. Like most state budgets, we need to balance our books. Our national government, (both parties) hasn't balanced a budget for quite a few years, and I don't think they ever will. Their attitude is to just print up more money. However, when somebody says that our taxes are too low, they are usually being a hypocrite. If they really believed that, why don't they just send their cash to the IRS? The government obviously will spend it wisely, correct? I mean, they've always done it in the past, correct? A few months ago, Hollywood wanted a president that would openly raise their taxes. How many of them now are opening up their checkbook to pay off the pathetic budget of California? Anybody who says that we need to raise our taxes is a hypocrite, pure and simple. If you disagree with me, how much have you freely given to the IRS? And when you get your tax rebate every year, please don't cash it. Just frame it and hang it on the wall. Yea, right.

Reply to
Kruse

I posted because a lot of people say that we need to raise our taxes, especially the hollywood elite. How many of them are opening up their checkbooks to help California now? None. Some people say we need to raise taxes on gasoline. Why not just send a check to the IRS (or favorite government of their choice) and write them a check? Oh, wait. They want somebody ELSE to pay for it. Fred, this seems to be the favorite choice of word for you, some I'm going to give it back to you. Idiot.

Reply to
Kruse

Take a look at what gas costs in Saudi

One more thing, Fred. When was the last time you actually gave advice on how to fix a car? It's all "last I heard" or you jump in when it gets political or when there are flames. Are you qualified to give technical advice, like the name of this group implies? Ask you mom and dad if you can go outside to check the air in the tires of their car. It will be a start. Maybe next week dad will let you open up the hood. Make sure you put on some sunblock. 16 hours a day on the computer gets you pretty pale.

Reply to
Kruse

I have looked at the budget for California, and the problem in California sad to say is that it's a case of direct democracy gone horribly wrong.

It is very, very easy to get a referendum on the ballot in California, and when you get a referendum on the ballot that looks like it will be of benefit to people, people will vote in favor of it.

California is now burdened with a huge number of expenses that were specifically approved by the taxpayers, and which have to be funded. These are programs that cannot be shut down or reduced without another referendum to get rid of them, and NOBODY will ever vote in favor of getting rid of a program.

It's absolutely crazy, and Arnold knew what he was inherited. He's got a lot of expenses that come out of his budget, but which he has absolutely no control over. It has absolutely nothing to do with the problem that the Federal government has, thank God. If the Federal government had to deal with this kind of uncontrollable expense, we would all be a lot worse off than we are now, even.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

If you are not in favor of paying the tax then you are in favor of making future generations pay taxes. Somebody will end up pay one way or the other.

Economists have been arguing for years that the increased national debt isn't a problem because the GDP was growing along with the debt. The GDP is no longer growing and it is now headed rapidly downward and the national debt is rising faster than ever. What are the economist saying now - they are too scared shitless to say much of anything. They are like everybody else they have their heads buried in the sand and are hoping that some miracle will happen.

The current economic downturn was triggered by rising oil prices. The last time that happened in the 70's it took 25 years for the economy to fully recover. This time the economic downturn is worse. Even if the supply and price of oil can be stabilized and the economy put back on track, this is all going to inevitably happen again some time in the future as long as the economy is based on cheap oil. Even if we pull our asses out of the fire this time at some point in the future this course is going to be fatal.

The only reasonable solution if you don't believe a miracle is coming is to apply a heavy tax on every barrel of oil that the oil companies process. That will not only balance the budget it will force the economy to find new ways to survive. New ways that are hopefully more sustainable because it should be obvious to everyone by now that the current economy based on cheap oil is not sustainable.

Remember we are asking future generations to pay our current debts and that future generation won't have the benefit of an economy run on cheap oil. If they have a prosperous economy at all ( you have to be an optimist to believe that) it will be because they have managed to do it some other way without cheap oil. If we expect they can do it why is it asking so much to expect we can do it?

-jim

There

Reply to
jim

Really it is the same problem the federl government has. The only difference is that California isn't allowed to by law to defer the problem as the federal government is allowed to. That simply means that California needs to deal with it here and now. The federal government can wait till it gets much bigger and much worse before it is forced to deal with it.

-jim

Reply to
jim

Nahh. In the Federal government, the folks in Congress can actually sit down and say "we aren't going to pay for these things." I know, it's hard to imagine them doing so, but it could happen.

In California, they can't do that. They have enormous expenses that the governor and the state legislature _cannot_ stop without changing the state constitution.

The Federal government has problems, but it's _nothing_ like what California has.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

I'm not interested in starting another flame war in the midst of this one, but ... You can't possibly be that naïve. If the money is not being fed directly into research projects, they simply are not going to happen. Surely we have enough history by now to prove that point.

Yeah, well, the gas tax is SUPPOSED to be used to build & maintain highways. Sort of makes my point, doesn't it.

Reply to
E. Meyer

The only thing that has been proved is you don't have a point.

Research is already being done. Making oil products more expensive will naturally increase the research into alternatives to oil. That much is pretty hard to argue against. The only question is what people want to happen how to make it happen is simple.

There is no need to put the tax into research. The research will happen if there is economic incentive to replace oil. If the tax is put into paying down the deficit that will mean future generations (who won't have the benefit of abundant oil) won't look back and wonder how they could have been so stupid and selfish that they just wastefully burned up a valuable commodity and at the same time didn't even pay their bills. The current behavior is what is known as a binge. And society has a stake in taking steps to prevent the bingeing because it is becoming more and more clear that it is destructive.

You have offered no explanation of why a tax on oil is supposed to be used to "build & maintain highways"? Did Moses come down from the mountain with a stone tablet saying this is how it should be?

Reply to
jim

So you believe that violence and coercion are the most desirable approach?

Reply to
Roger Blake

It never fails. As soon as a liberal starts getting frustrated, they resort to personal attacks.

Reply to
E. Meyer

That could well be true, but like just about everything else you have written it has nothing to do with anything that was previously said. How did liberals get dragged into this? The people who advocate a balanced budget are usually labeled as conservatives.

-jim

Reply to
jim

Anytime you see the "liberal" or "right-winger" label tossed around, it's time to stop "debating." All you'll get is the talking points they are parroting from their respective camp leaders. No thought. That kind of bullshit just gets tiring. Reminds me of barking dogs. Identical dogs, except for minor markings. But the barks are the same. Woof woof. Maybe it's the mailman, maybe a firecracker. Only thing that shuts them up is a swift kick in the ass.

--Vic

Reply to
Vic Smith

Not "infinite," but very, very large.

It is called "environmentalism" and is used to prevent oil companies from drilling in places where oil may be found.

Taxes are not paid by corporations, but by their customers. Put a huge tax on oil and all products based on oil or transported by oil go up, and would be a death blow to an already faltering economy. It is not a difficult concept to understand. (What will people do when the time comes to decide between feeding their families and feeding the government with more and more taxes?)

No, what I know is that there is sufficient oil to last centuries. We have not even begun to tap shale yet, but have known how to do so for decades. (I do have an unfair advantage, having worked years ago in the R&D lab of a major oil company.) You are the one chasing phantom "we're running out of oil" bogey men.

Reply to
Roger Blake

No, but I see plenty of red in the Congress and the White House.

Reply to
Roger Blake

There is a lot of oil in some shale deposits, but it is not cheap to extract it. That IS a fact.

Reply to
HLS

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.