I Think Democrats Should Push All Out For This One.

WI Crippler said:

Oh your lungs are fine. If driving cars was hurting peoples lungs, we'd all be dead by now.

Click to expand...

I don't mean that it's going to kill everyone, but surely you don't deny that gasoline consumption has some environmental consequences that are borne by the public?

WI Crippler said:

Alternatives are fine, but they aren't economically feasible. Artifically replacing an energy source, with a less economical one is one of the dumbest things we could do. When alternatives become economical, people will buy them. There's no reason to rush into it, before it needs to happen though.

Click to expand...

There is reason to rush it. Every year that we wait is another year that terrorists receive funding from American consumers, another year that car exhausts pollute our atmosphere, and another year that the United States is dependent on petrocracies.

Kandahar said:

I don't mean that it's going to kill everyone, but surely you don't deny that gasoline consumption has some environmental consequences that are borne by the public?

Click to expand...

I agree, it does have an environmental impact. But until you are willing to have everything you use shipped to you via carrier pigeon or cart and horse, you in no way have a right to impose an obscenely high tax on those who drive.

There is reason to rush it. Every year that we wait is another year that terrorists receive funding from American consumers, another year that car exhausts pollute our atmosphere, and another year that the United States is dependent on petrocracies.

Click to expand...

Now this is a good reason to curb consumption with a tax.

Kandahar said:

What are you talking about? Do you deny that the American taxpayers - not just Hummer drivers - bear the cost for environmental cleanup and fighting terrorism?

Click to expand...

Dont care about any of that. The countries fiscal future is being tossed out the window by your congress and your president as we speak. The puppet congress and President just paid the bankers trillions in money with no oversight and the banks turned around and loaned it back to the US with interest. Our own money! Our leadership has no rapport with the American taxpayer as evidence by the train of tax evaders they appointed in office. They cannot effectively represent taxpayers if they do not pay taxes.
Just like McCains could not represent conservatives. He is not one.

We have larger issues to consider than your neighbors loud hummer right now.

Kandahar said:

Uhh when the **** did I ever suggest any such thing?

Click to expand...

Right here, post #12:
"The people who are most responsible for those externalities should most certainly have to pay for them, instead of passing the burden off to the American public as a whole."

Kandahar said:

That's the whole bloody point of a gas tax. There's really no point in my debating you if you aren't going to read my posts.

Click to expand...

I did read your posts.

Maybe if you read your posts, too, we'd have a mutual understanding of what your saying.

Kandahar said:

Because pollution, terrorism, and foreign policy are public problems that are funded by the government.

Click to expand...

Pollution is funded by the government? Terrorism is funded by the government? This isn't Iran, dude.

Kandahar said:

Sure they do. If the government earns $X from a fuel tax, then they cut payroll taxes by $X. Pretty simple.

Click to expand...

Pretty simple...so lets look at two workers who earn identical salaries and will thus get equal amounts of money back from a tax cut.

There's Joe, who lives two miles from work and buys five gallons of gas a week, will pay $10 a week in gas tax, and then there's Jane, who commutes sixty miles each way daily and buys fifty gallons of gas a week, paying $100 a week in gas tax in this example. They both get a $15 a week tax savings.

Joe's happy. Joe has no incentive to cut his gasoline consumption, heck he can afford a couple more gallons and not see any impact. He's planning a road trip to Las Vegas.

How do you think Jane's doing?

See how simple it was to show that your suggestion doesn't work?

akyron said:

Dont care about any of that. The countries fiscal future is being tossed out the window by your congress and your president as we speak. The puppet congress and President just paid the bankers trillions in money with no oversight and the banks turned around and loaned it back to the US with interest. Our own money! Our leadership has no rapport with the American taxpayer as evidence by the train of tax evaders they appointed in office. They cannot effectively represent taxpayers if they do not pay taxes.
Just like McCains could not represent conservatives. He is not one.

We have larger issues to consider than your neighbors loud hummer right now.

Click to expand...

Relevance fail.

jallman said:

I agree, it does have an environmental impact. But until you are willing to have everything you use shipped to you via carrier pigeon or cart and horse, you in no way have a right to impose an obscenely high tax on those who drive.

Click to expand...

Taxpayers are paying for environmental cleanup, fighting terrorism, and our weakening geopolitical position anyway. I'd rather the people who contribute the most to these problems be the ones who contribute the most to fixing them. Why don't you?

Kandahar said:

What are you talking about? Do you deny that the American taxpayers - not just Hummer drivers - bear the cost for environmental cleanup and fighting terrorism?

Click to expand...

Yes, because that is not how American society works.

Kandahar said:

Taxpayers are paying for environmental cleanup, fighting terrorism, and our weakening geopolitical position anyway. I'd rather the people who contribute the most to these problems be the ones who contribute the most to fixing them. Why don't you?

Click to expand...

Because me driving my mustang twice a week isn't contributing any more than you running your heat or AC full blast or soccer mom buying groceries that were shipped across the country. It's just a knee-jerk, emotional reaction to say..."Ooooh...gas...yeah...gas is bad. Let's tax that some more."

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Right here, post #12:
"The people who are most responsible for those externalities should most certainly have to pay for them, instead of passing the burden off to the American public as a whole."

Click to expand...

Every person in the United States does not consume gasoline at the same rate, which is why it makes sense to tax people for their use. If you really understood the free market principles which you claim to advocate, you would agree. How can you support a general tax instead of a user fee?

Here's an analogy, which I'm sure will go right over your head: If there are some kids in your neighborhood who are vandalizing people's homes at night, who should be responsible for the cleanup? The kids and their parents, or the entire community?

Here's another analogy: If I live in a town where the local chemical plant is dumping its waste products into the reservoir, thus rendering the water undrinkable, who should pay to clean it up? All the taxpayers of the town, or the local chemical plant?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Pollution is funded by the government? Terrorism is funded by the government? This isn't Iran, dude.

Click to expand...

You're funny. When you care to address the substance of what I wrote instead of being a pathetic grammar troll, be sure to let me know.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Pretty simple...so lets look at two workers who earn identical salaries and will thus get equal amounts of money back from a tax cut.

There's Joe, who lives two miles from work and buys five gallons of gas a week, will pay $10 a week in gas tax, and then there's Jane, who commutes sixty miles each way daily and buys fifty gallons of gas a week, paying $100 a week in gas tax in this example. They both get a $15 a week tax savings.

Joe's happy. Joe has no incentive to cut his gasoline consumption, heck he can afford a couple more gallons and not see any impact. He's planning a road trip to Las Vegas.

How do you think Jane's doing?

See how simple it was to show that your suggestion doesn't work?

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of the gas tax. If Jane feels the pinch, she'll be more likely to move closer to her job, buy a more fuel efficient automobile, and carpool or take public transit to work...thus reducing her gasoline consumption and reducing the amount of money the government needs to spend cleaning up the mess that she's created, in terms of pollution and foreign affairs.

jallman said:

Because me driving my mustang twice a week isn't contributing any more than you running your heat or AC full blast or soccer mom buying groceries that were shipped across the country.

Click to expand...

The soccer mom is paying the gas tax in the price of her groceries.

As for heat/AC, I would be inclined to support a similar tax on other oil-based products besides gasoline, so that this would affect me equally (assuming I consumed as much oil from my heat/AC as you did from your Mustang.)

jallman said:

It's just a knee-jerk, emotional reaction to say..."Ooooh...gas...yeah...gas is bad. Let's tax that some more."

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to tax things that we want less of, such as gasoline consumption. A higher price will ALWAYS reduce demand.

Kandahar said:

The soccer mom is paying the gas tax in the price of her groceries.

As for heat/AC, I would be inclined to support a similar tax on other oil-based products besides gasoline, so that this would affect me equally (assuming I consumed as much oil from my heat/AC as you did from your Mustang.)

Click to expand...

I highly doubt you don't. My mustang gets driven, on average, twice a week. And even then it's only about 4 miles to a grocery store which buys most produce locally (as in, from surrounding farmers).

My heat and AC consumption is minimal. Hell, the heat didn't even come on for the first time this year until mid January and last year it didn't come on until late November. I don't use AC at all because it's just retarded to not enjoy the warmth when you have it. I also understand that I am an anomaly in those regards and do not expect the same from others.

And no, the soccer mom is not being hit hard with her grocery bill on this tax. Vehicle owners are being hit specifically with this tax and they are already taxed enough for owning a car. I see nothing reasonable about localising the burden of treating a global problem onto gas consumers, commuters, farm workers, etc.

Kandahar said:

If there are some kids in your neighborhood who are vandalizing people's homes at night.

Click to expand...

Right there is the foundation for your entire argument. Comparing Vandals to businesses and people who drive to work to generate income and goods and services is inane. When you tax those businesses and people who need cars to commute and GENERATE goods and services you CUT the ability to generate those goods and services. Period. So what if you dont drive? Do you have electricity or water? Do you eat? Massive amounts of gasoline use is giving you use of many goods and services you would not otherwise have. You support not only cutting your own throat but others as well.

Kandahar said:

There is reason to rush it. Every year that we wait is another year that terrorists receive funding from American consumers, another year that car exhausts pollute our atmosphere, and another year that the United States is dependent on petrocracies.

Click to expand...

Way to play the fear card George W. Besides, we already had $4 a gallon gas, without the massive gas tax this fool proposed in the OP. Somehow the price of gas seems to be tied to the overall state of our economy. I'd rather see gas driven up to $4 a gallon, due to a booming economy and increase in demand, than an artificial inflation by the government that wouldn't help the economy in any forseeable way. If a $2+ gas tax gets added on "just because", then that $4 gas last summer would have been $6-7 a gallon, something alot of us normal folk cannot afford, hybrid or not. It was bad enough for me when I had to pay $4 a gallon. There's no way I could afford $4 a gallon and a car payment on a brand new hybrid car or a recently used one.

akyron said:

Right there is the foundation for your entire argument. Comparing Vandals to businesses and people who drive to work to generate income and goods and services is inane.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. Vandals destroy property for which the homeowner then has to pay. Gasoline consumers destroy the environment and national security for which the US government then has to pay.

akyron said:

When you tax those businesses and people who need cars to commute and GENERATE goods and services you CUT the ability to generate those goods and services. Period.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. If the local government sues or taxes or fines Acme Widgets for dumping toxic waste into the local reservoir, we might be cutting their ability to produce goods and services. But we do it anyway, because the ones who are responsible should have to pay for the cleanup, not society as a whole.

akyron said:

So what if you dont drive?

Click to expand...

I do.

akyron said:

Do you have electricity or water? Do you eat? Massive amounts of gasoline use is giving you use of many goods and services you would not otherwise have. You support not only cutting your own throat but others as well.

Click to expand...

I have no qualms about paying for my share of the public consequences that result from my personal gasoline use.

Frankly I'm bewildered why any conservatives would be against this, as a gas tax is a user fee, rather than a cost to the public. I'm quite surprised to see some of the same people who argue that all roads should be toll roads arguing that everyone should have to pay for everyone else's gasoline consumption.

Kandahar said:

No it isn't. .

Click to expand...

Explain to me what good comes out of vandalism. There is an obvious marketable value to the use of a tool like cars and trucks that use fuel.

The government has more than enough money to cure cancer and make flying cars that run on water. There is no incentive at the federal level due to interest groups involvement in the government and Puppet Presidents whose primary goal is to keep the focus off the bankers.

The only possible reason for a gas tax is to provide incentive to stagnate.

akyron said:

Explain to me what good comes out of vandalism. There is an obvious marketable value to the use of a tool like cars and trucks that use fuel.

Click to expand...

OK then, forget about vandalism and focus on the other example I provided, as it is more analogous to what you are describing:

If I live in a town where the local chemical plant is dumping its waste products into the reservoir, thus rendering the water undrinkable, who should pay to clean it up? All the taxpayers of the town, or the local chemical plant?

Click to expand...

Presumably the chemical plant is producing something of marketable value (or else it wouldn't be in business). That does not absolve them of their responsibility to not foist their expenses off onto the local taxpayers.

akyron said:

The only possible reason for a gas tax is to provide incentive to stagnate.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, a gas tax encourages innovation. If gas costs $4 per gallon instead of $2 per gallon, there is a much stronger demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. This lights a fire under the asses of the auto companies to supply the market with these fuel-efficient vehicles.

Kandahar said:

Frankly I'm bewildered why any conservatives would be against this, as a gas tax is a user fee, rather than a cost to the public. I'm quite surprised to see some of the same people who argue that all roads should be toll roads arguing that everyone should have to pay for everyone else's gasoline consumption.

Click to expand...

You aren't paying for my gasoline consumption now, as it is. I pay for my gasoline consumption.

What you are doing is saying, "I don't use gasoline so I think we should tax it because they are using it."

jallman said:

You aren't paying for my gasoline consumption now, as it is. I pay for my gasoline consumption.

Click to expand...

You are paying the individual costs of your gasoline consumption. The taxpayers are paying the public costs of your gasoline consumption.

jallman said:

What you are doing is saying, "I don't use gasoline so I think we should tax it because they are using it."

Click to expand...

Who said I don't use gasoline?

Kandahar said:

You are paying the individual costs of your gasoline consumption. The taxpayers are paying the public costs of your gasoline consumption.

Click to expand...

No, they are paying what is paid anyway. National security costs, environmental protection...all these things would still be necessities with or without gasoline consumption.

Who said I don't use gasoline?

Click to expand...

I got that impression when you started railing about how "YOUR car affects MY lungs" or some such nonsense.

jallman said:

No, they are paying what is paid anyway. National security costs, environmental protection...all these things would still be necessities with or without gasoline consumption.

Click to expand...

And cleaning up my local reservoir from time to time would be a necessity as well...but having the local chemical plant dump toxic waste into it certainly doesn't help. Therefore they should be taxed/fined for the cleanup costs if they do it.

jallman said:

I got that impression when you started railing about how "YOUR car affects MY lungs" or some such nonsense.

Click to expand...

The reverse is true as well. My car affects your lungs. But presumably not exactly the same amount, depending on how much we each drive, and hence we should each be taxed for our gasoline use.

Kandahar said:

Every person in the United States does not consume gasoline at the same rate, which is why it makes sense to tax people for their use. If you really understood the free market principles which you claim to advocate, you would agree. How can you support a general tax instead of a user fee?

Click to expand...

I'm not supporting either.

I'm saying the Democrats should jump all over this and put it into law as quickly as possible.

Why would anyone think that means I support it?

Taxing gasoline beyond the minimum required to maintain the roads the vehicles that use gasoline are driven on is wrong.

Kandahar said:

Here's an analogy, which I'm sure will go right over your head: If there are some kids in your neighborhood who are vandalizing people's homes at night, who should be responsible for the cleanup? The kids and their parents, or the entire community?

Click to expand...

So you're saying a bunch of kids should pay the gasoline tax? Or are you saying that people who drive cars are kids, or is your analogy metaphorically linking cars and houses and you're suggesting that if we all went RV'ing all the problems we're facing could be gone when we come back home?

Since the entire nation pays expenses related to transportation costs, the entire nation will pay the gasoline tax. Seriously, the Democrats have to rush this into law.

Kandahar said:

Here's another analogy: If I live in a town where the local chemical plant is dumping its waste products into the reservoir, thus rendering the water undrinkable, who should pay to clean it up? All the taxpayers of the town, or the local chemical plant?

Click to expand...

The people upstream who peeed in the water first. Maybe the fish, they pee in water all the time, ya know. I mean, you ever see a fish flush a urinal? I never have.

So, before we expend any more effort here, how about if you make it plain: do you support a major national gasoline tax solely to manipulate the fuel-buying public's vehicle purchases to save GM's sorry ass, or don't you?

That is the reason for the tax in this thread. The rest of us are aware of it. Now you are, too.

Kandahar said:

You're funny. When you care to address the substance of what I wrote instead of being a pathetic grammar troll, be sure to let me know.

Click to expand...

Nope, wasn't correcting grammatic content, was questioning semantic content.

Kandahar said:

That's the whole point of the gas tax. If Jane feels the pinch, she'll be more likely to move closer to her job, buy a more fuel efficient automobile, and carpool or take public transit to work...thus reducing her gasoline consumption and reducing the amount of money the government needs to spend cleaning up the mess that she's created, in terms of pollution and foreign affairs.

Click to expand...

Then why did you suggest that the tax could be offset by monkeying with payroll tax rates? You made that suggestion because I stated the fact that the huge gas tax would crash the economy.

Clearly random mixing and matching of your Payroll Offset with the random commuter would only randomly satisfy the aggreived taxpayer. Which would breed even more resentment, so I agree wholeheartedly the Democrats should incorporate this payroll tax offset to balance the gasoline tax idea fully.

Kandahar said:

The soccer mom is paying the gas tax in the price of her groceries.

As for heat/AC, I would be inclined to support a similar tax on other oil-based products besides gasoline, so that this would affect me equally (assuming I consumed as much oil from my heat/AC as you did from your Mustang.)



It makes perfect sense to tax things that we want less of, such as gasoline consumption. A higher price will ALWAYS reduce demand.

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to not buy things you don't want.

It makes little sense to tax things you don't want, it merely makes sense if you're taxing things you don't want other people to want.

Kandahar said:

Frankly I'm bewildered why any conservatives would be against this, as a gas tax is a user fee, rather than a cost to the public.

Click to expand...

A multi-level statement of ignorance.

The tax proposed is not a "user fee". A user fee is a tax on a product or service amortizing the cost of providing the goods or services across the expected number of clients. The tax proposed has no agenda other than artificially driving up the sale price of gasoline to encourage people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The tax revenues will be placed in the national general fund and used with no specificity whatsoever.

Another level of ignorance is shown by the claim that a tax, any tax, isn't a cost to the public. All taxes transfer money from the public to the government. The tax proposed will transfer money by the ton, at enormous cost to the public.

You got any clue why LAST year was the year the turds hit the rotating air displacement device? Because last year the people barely making the mortgages they couldn't afford were struck down en masse with a sudden catastrophic surge in gasoline prices that overtopped their ability to meet their other obligations.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

I'm not supporting either.

Click to expand...

Bull****. The government WILL pay for environmental cleanup, anti-terrorism operations, and the wear and tear of our roads. A gas tax is not suddenly creating a new list of things that the government has to pay for...it's simply acknowledging ones that already exist, and billing the appropriate people.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Taxing gasoline beyond the minimum required to maintain the roads the vehicles that use gasoline are driven on is wrong.

Click to expand...

So you don't believe the government should do anything at all about pollution? You don't believe the government should do anything at all about the fact that terrorists are financed by governments which are financed by American gasoline consumers? You don't believe the government should do anything at all about our dependence on Russia and Venezuela for our oil?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

So you're saying a bunch of kids should pay the gasoline tax? Or are you saying that people who drive cars are kids, or is your analogy metaphorically linking cars and houses and you're suggesting that if we all went RV'ing all the problems we're facing could be gone when we come back home?

Click to expand...

I told you it would go right over your head. Others understood the basic analogy and responded with relevant questions and counterarguments, but I realize I can't expect you to do the same. Just forget it. :roll:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Since the entire nation pays expenses related to transportation costs, the entire nation will pay the gasoline tax. Seriously, the Democrats have to rush this into law.

Click to expand...

Not every single person in the nation consumes gasoline at the same rate. This is essentially a user fee, not a general tax. By opposing this, you are supporting taxing all Americans for the mess that others created.

For someone who claims to be as gung-ho about the free market as you do, your revulsion at user fees is quite puzzling. Any intelligent free-market advocate - as opposed to someone who just spouts talking points about The Free Market they heard from Rush, without actually understanding them - would support a gasoline tax. Milton Friedman did, and Gregory Mankiw does.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

So, before we expend any more effort here, how about if you make it plain: do you support a major national gasoline tax solely to manipulate the fuel-buying public's vehicle purchases to save GM's sorry ass, or don't you?

Click to expand...

Nope, I support a major national gasoline tax to discourage gasoline consumption.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Then why did you suggest that the tax could be offset by monkeying with payroll tax rates? You made that suggestion because I stated the fact that the huge gas tax would crash the economy.

Click to expand...

Right. If it's just a matter of you thinking taxes would be too high if we added one more, then that problem can easily be solved by reducing payroll taxes by an appropriate amount, to make the gas tax revenue-neutral.

Kandahar said:

Bull****. The government WILL pay for environmental cleanup, anti-terrorism operations, and the wear and tear of our roads. A gas tax is not suddenly creating a new list of things that the government has to pay for...it's simply acknowledging ones that already exist, and billing the appropriate people.

Click to expand...

Is this your confession that you still do not have a clue what the purpose of the tax under discussion is about?

Kandahar said:

So you don't believe the government should do anything at all about pollution?

Click to expand...

Nope. The polluters made the mess, let them pay to fix it. No reason the taxpayers need to foot the bill.

Kandahar said:

You don't believe the government should do anything at all about the fact that terrorists are financed by governments which are financed by American gasoline consumers?

Click to expand...

Sure do. We should nuke countries whose national governments are sponsoring terrorism.

Kandahar said:

You don't believe the government should do anything at all about our dependence on Russia and Venezuela for our oil?

Click to expand...

Yes, it should get out of the way.

Kandahar said:

I told you it would go right over your head. Others understood the basic analogy and responded with relevant questions and counterarguments, but I realize I can't expect you to do the same. Just forget it. :roll:

Click to expand...

I just noted the irrelevancy of your analogy to the thread and took it from there.

Kandahar said:

Not every single person in the nation consumes gasoline at the same rate.

Click to expand...

You went to school to figure that one out, didn't you?

Kandahar said:

This is essentially a user fee, not a general tax.

Click to expand...

No, since everyone pays some part of it, it's an economy-buster of a general tax.

Kandahar said:

By opposing this, you are supporting taxing all Americans for the mess that others created.

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

I suspect other posters understand fully why I insist the Democrats push this idea forward immediately.

Kandahar said:

For someone who claims to be as gung-ho about the free market as you do, your revulsion at user fees is quite puzzling.

Click to expand...

I don't have a revulsion towards user fees.

The tax proposed isn't a user fee. Just because it's attached to a specific product doesn't mean it's a user fee. You need to work harder at fixing those definitions in your mind.

Kandahar said:

Any intelligent free-market advocate - as opposed to someone who just spouts talking points about The Free Market they heard from Rush, without actually understanding them - would support a gasoline tax. Milton Friedman did, and Gregory Mankiw does.

Click to expand...

Depends on the purpose of the tax, depends on what other taxes are relieved to offset the expense of the new tax. Neither of those conditions apply to the tax proposed by the CEO of GM.

Kandahar said:

Nope, I support a major national gasoline tax to discourage gasoline consumption.

Click to expand...

And....you've been granted the right to control how other people live their lives by which act of God that somehow didn't get in the news, again?

Kandahar said:

Right. If it's just a matter of you thinking taxes would be too high if we added one more, then that problem can easily be solved by reducing payroll taxes by an appropriate amount, to make the gas tax revenue-neutral.

Click to expand...

So...you think it's equitable to monkey randomly with the payroll tax in the random hopes that you can randomly ensnare some people who buy more gas than others, in the hopes that this won't engender specific resentment on all levels towards the people creating the tax intended to manipulate the public for no good reason at all?

Hey, if that's what it takes to get the Democrats to enact this tax, I'm with ya, buddy.