Obama and higher oil prices

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Petrol 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.

Yes, any increase in petrol prices and be offset through income tax credits. The thing is, Obama isn't doing that. He enacts policies that drive up the cost of fuel, but doesn't compensate the little guy.

All Obama has done is punish the little guy. It is as if the little guy doesn't exist. All he sees are relatively rich people who have gas guzzling luxury vehicles. He tells people to get more fuel efficient cars!

The poor drive the car they can afford. They put gas in it when they've got the cash to do it with. He is totally blind to what he's doing to the little guy.

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes, any increase in petrol prices and be offset through income tax credits. The thing is, Obama isn't doing that. He enacts policies that drive up the cost of fuel, but doesn't compensate the little guy.

All Obama has done is punish the little guy. It is as if the little guy doesn't exist. All he sees are relatively rich people who have gas guzzling l ...[text shortened]... y've got the cash to do it with. He is totally blind to what he's doing to the little guy.

Well, the Dems haven't been too concerned with the "little man" for a couple of decades now.

Originally posted by Barts
Why is it that the people who are yelling we should let capitalism do it's job, are also the one with the smallest knowledge of actual economics ?

Perhaps the brilliant ones who advocate control economies might examine history and try to find one which was prosperous.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps you ought to read the article.

Perhaps, but pasting URLs is time consuming, and if the poster doesn't give me a reason to think the effort is worthwhile, I'm not doing it.

A pull quote or something to entice me would be nice.

Originally posted by normbenign
Perhaps, but pasting URLs is time consuming, and if the poster doesn't give me a reason to think the effort is worthwhile, I'm not doing it.

A pull quote or something to entice me would be nice.

In economics, an externality (or transaction spillover) is a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices,[1] incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit. A benefit in this case is called a positive externality or external benefit, while a cost is called a negative externality or external cost.
In these cases in a competitive market, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits of producing or consuming a product or service, producers and consumers may either not bear all of the costs or not reap all of the benefits of the economic activity, and too much or too little of the good will be produced or consumed in terms of overall costs and benefits to society. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on the whole society, while fire-proofing a home improves the fire safety of neighbors. If there exist external costs such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits, such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others. Here, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the economic benefits and costs for all parties involved.[2][3]

See the article for more explanation and examples.

Originally posted by normbenign
Perhaps the brilliant ones who advocate control economies might examine history and try to find one which was prosperous.

No one in this thread is advocating control economies.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Petrol 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.

Gasoline taxes in the USA historically were "user fees" specifically aimed at road building and repair. Our roads now suffer, because a lot of money is siphoned off to other priorities such as public transport. I like the user fees model, as it taxes the user for a service he receives. For those who like public transport let them pay for it with thier fares.

When the government can move money about, it is almost always going to play shell games on the public, attempting to portray some programs as "free" when they have just shifted the cost to someone else.

Originally posted by normbenign
Gasoline taxes in the USA historically were "user fees" specifically aimed at road building and repair. Our roads now suffer, because a lot of money is siphoned off to other priorities such as public transport. I like the user fees model, as it taxes the user for a service he receives. For those who like public transport let them pay for it with thier ...[text shortened]... ing to portray some programs as "free" when they have just shifted the cost to someone else.

There are positive externalities associated with public transport (e.g. less pollution, less congestion, more mobility, less road maintenance costs) so it makes sense to at least subsidize it to some extent.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra

In economics, an externality (or transaction spillover) is a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices,[1] incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit. A benefit in this case is called a positive externality or external benefit, while a cost is called a negative externality or external cost.
In these cas ...[text shortened]... ts for all parties involved.[2][3]

See the article for more explanation and examples.

I have been attempting to show that the "externalities" of the use of petroleum based products and services far outweigh any negatives.

The taxes paid at the pump by drivers are but a small fraction of the taxes and fees paid in the life cycle of the petroleum business.

The benefits of petroleum as a motor fuel, home heating fuel, and miriads of other uses fully justifies its use, and its externalities are very much positive.

Originally posted by normbenign
I have been attempting to show that the "externalities" of the use of petroleum based products and services far outweigh any negatives.

The taxes paid at the pump by drivers are but a small fraction of the taxes and fees paid in the life cycle of the petroleum business.

The benefits of petroleum as a motor fuel, home heating fuel, and miriads of other uses fully justifies its use, and its externalities are very much positive.

You'll have to explain that. Pollution, congestion and diminished road safety aren't negative? Or they are outweighed by what... just mobility?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There are positive externalities associated with public transport (e.g. less pollution, less congestion, more mobility, less road maintenance costs) so it makes sense to at least subsidize it to some extent.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Ever get stuck behind a city bus? I don't ride public transit because I dislike the smell of vomit and urine tainted by alchohol. The auto is the ultimate in mobility, other than congested areas where cycles, motor and peddal powered work.

Road maintenance or track maintenance? Let the gas tax pay for the roads, and the fares pay for public transport.

What it boils down to is people don't want to pay for the real costs of public transport, but are happy to take money out of my pocket for it.

Originally posted by normbenign
Sorry, but I don't agree. Ever get stuck behind a city bus? I don't ride public transit because I dislike the smell of vomit and urine tainted by alchohol. The auto is the ultimate in mobility, other than congested areas where cycles, motor and peddal powered work.

Road maintenance or track maintenance? Let the gas tax pay for the roads, and the fa ...[text shortened]... for the real costs of public transport, but are happy to take money out of my pocket for it.

What don't you agree with? Public transport does not reduce pollution and congestion, does not improve the mobility of motorized transport and does not reduce the maintenance of roads?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You'll have to explain that. Pollution, congestion and diminished road safety aren't negative? Or they are outweighed by what... just mobility?

Public transport doesn't eliminate polution. It doesn't eliminate accidents. It is less efficient in the use of motor fuels, because most of the time the conveyance be it bus, train or trolley runs way below optimum capacity.
Congestion is often an intentional creation of the bureaucrats in favor of public transport. Lots of US cities are designed to discourage the use of autos, and to herd people onto public transport, often without success.

Bottom line.......I don't use public transport, so why should I pay for it? Finance it with fares or not at all.

I'll gladly pay higher gas taxes, if they are related to my use of the roads, or to externalities related to my road use.

Originally posted by normbenign
Public transport doesn't eliminate polution. It doesn't eliminate accidents. It is less efficient in the use of motor fuels, because most of the time the conveyance be it bus, train or trolley runs way below optimum capacity.
Congestion is often an intentional creation of the bureaucrats in favor of public transport. Lots of US cities are designed to ...[text shortened]... xes, if they are related to my use of the roads, or to externalities related to my road use.

No one is saying public transport will eliminate pollution or accidents, nor would that be required for an externality to be present.

Public transport is, in general, more fuel efficient than cars even if they are running significantly below full capacity.

I don't believe in a grand conspiracy to create congestion, although in many cases congestion is partially the result of poor long-term planning from governments.

I don't use public transport, so why should I pay for it?

You should contribute because you benefit from others using it, compared to them using cars instead.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What don't you agree with? Public transport does not reduce pollution and congestion, does not improve the mobility of motorized transport and does not reduce the maintenance of roads?

No it doesn't. They smell. They are heavy vehicles which do more damage to city streets, or require dedicated tracks which are very expensive right of ways and also require extensive maintenance.

They make people less mobile, and less free.

Early '90s I rode public transport in Cleveland, OH. when I was accumulating funds to get my car fixed. My 15 minute drive became an hour and 15 minute bus ride, so when it wasn't raining or snowing I rode a bicycle on the same route as the bus, and saved 25 minutes. Add to the extra time, the indignities of the smell and company, and I'll be certain to not be forced to do that again. And riding the bus wasn't cheap, even with the subsidies.