08 Apr 11
Originally posted by FMFI think it is a mixed bag. Surely burning petrol is less harmful than burning wood? No? Do you suppose that the fabrics synthesized from Petrol, leave more land to be cultivated for food?
You don't think that the use of petrol is damaging to the environment? Seriously?
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh76If there is harm in excess of the benefits, then ban the use of that substance. Otherwise you get into the mess of sin taxes which are supposed to discourage use, but raise so much money that the government can't live without promoting the sin.
Regressive or not, it makes sense to tax the people who consume a good to pay to offset the harm caused by said consumption.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI consider US taxes on gasoline higher than justified or necessary.
The burden shouldn't be on the poor but on car users.
A petrol tax is more efficient than a government mandate because it allows the markets to seek to most efficient solution to the problem of fuel efficiency. Also, those who value e.g. fast cars a lot may still purchase them, but will be expected to pay more to offset the damage caused.
The "poo ...[text shortened]... one, partially because there are subsidies for public transport and you can do a lot by bike.
European taxation of gasoline has nothing to do with "externalities" or damage to the environment. They are a method of funding socialist programs by making someone else pay for things like public transport, government health care, all the while telling the users of these services that they are free.
It is fraudulent cost shifting, charging non users for the benefits received by users.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere isn't a single public transit system on the planet that is paid for out of the fares of users. Even in the high density population centers like Japan, public transit must be subsidized, usually by taxes on those who pay for their own transport by buying cars and gasoline.
That's how the automobile industries like it. That's why they took apart the Red Car public transit system that people in spread out LA used to get around back in the day. ðŸ˜
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThose are fine suggestions, which many persons including me use in planning their affairs, while still enjoying the freedom to travel in our own cars or trucks.
And that is because you don't have a fuel tax.
I moved house this year to be close to the school I wanted my son to go to. I can do this because I rent. That is largely because I am a foreigner and getting a mortgage is not easy. However, encouraging house ownership tends to encourage sprawl as well as less flexibility - and thus longer commutes.
I th ...[text shortened]... n Africa where fuel is expensive, too many people live far from their place of work or schools.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by whodeyHorse emissions are both smelly and messy.
I often joke that those on the left who are opposed to drilling for oil and natty gas and building nuclear reactors, ect, should just go buy a horse and buggy. But then I think what wouid the state do without all of the taxes they take out in gas prices if everyone stopped buying gas?
As much as I hate to admit it, I think that the horse and buggy is the ...[text shortened]... the horse is a carbon producing animal, so they may be subject to carbon taxes.
Curses!! ðŸ˜
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by FMFWith the use of any natural resource there are positives and negatives. Assets and liabilities. No? Overall has the use of petroleum been an asset to mankind or a liabilty?
Yes, damage from the use of petrol. Your argument would be like saying chlorofluorocarbon doesn't deplete the ozone because it is used for refrigerants.
08 Apr 11
The problem isn't "let capitalism do its job". The market forces of supply and demand will make adjustments.
The point that I'm trying to bring up is that the idea that fuel should be made as expensive as possible (higher taxation, decreasing domestic production, destabalizing oil producing nations) punishes the poor more than anyone else.
Democrats who are supposed to be looking out for the little guy, but at the same time have enviormental concerns can't serve both masters. Obama has chosen to support enviormental concerns over the little guy.
Any Republican can make huge gains if this becomes a central rallying cry in the next election.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by EladarPetrol tax is regressive, but like I said, this is irrelevant. If your goal is to make the taxation system more progressive, you can always do this through income taxes (which you can also make negative if desired). So any effect of petrol taxes can be offset through income taxes, although those using cars frequently could still pay more.
The problem isn't "let capitalism do its job". The market forces of supply and demand will make adjustments.
The point that I'm trying to bring up is that the idea that fuel should be made as expensive as possible (higher taxation, decreasing domestic production, destabalizing oil producing nations) punishes the poor more than anyone else.
Democrats ...[text shortened]... Republican can make huge gains if this becomes a central rallying cry in the next election.