Tax option question

#26
#26
MG1968 said:
I don't see any reason why we should be forced to give the government even more of our money. A 50 to 60 cent increase in the gas tax is a ridiculous idea. Sure it may change behavior and force people into shorter commutes, smaller, more efficient cars, etc. However, what do you think happens if the government projects 50 billion in revenue from increasing the gas tax and it only takes in 30 billion? It certainly isn't bound by household budgeting guidelines, it will simply raise taxes somewhere else to make up for the shortfall.
Click to expand...

In my OP I was referring to Perot's idea of a tax on fuel dedicated to budget reduction, not adding to general revenue. It could be implemented with restrictions such as an expiration date, like tax breaks are now, or a top out point. Is there room for abuse? Of Course. I'm not sure I trust the gov't to give up a cash stream easily once thay become used to it but it's an idea to be considered. Not ridiculous at all.
 
#27
#27
CSVol said:
In my OP I was referring to Perot's idea of a tax on fuel dedicated to budget reduction, not adding to general revenue.
Click to expand...
Another thing to remember is that when Perot ran gasoline was at one of the lowest inflation adjusted prices in US history.
Of Course. I'm not sure I trust the gov't to give up a cash stream easily once thay become used to it but it's an idea to be considered. Not ridiculous at all.
Click to expand...

You will not make it happen in a consumption driven, democratic society. Too many people would be hurt by it.
 
#28
#28
CSVol said:
In my OP I was referring to Perot's idea of a tax on fuel dedicated to budget reduction, not adding to general revenue. It could be implemented with restrictions such as an expiration date, like tax breaks are now, or a top out point. Is there room for abuse? Of Course. I'm not sure I trust the gov't to give up a cash stream easily once thay become used to it but it's an idea to be considered. Not ridiculous at all.
Click to expand...

Perot's idea came at a time when oil was $20/barrel and gas was less than $1/gallon and the entire US budget was a fraction of what it is today.

the part in bold is the reason why such legislation is ridiculous. I don't care who is in control in Washington, they will not give up easy revenue.
 
#29
#29
I'm not a fan of nuclear energy, but it really is the best option we have right now.
 
#30
#30
where is gibbs to lecture us all on how the Chinese are leading the world in green energy production? That is, in addition to all the coal fired plants they're building and other potential environmental disasters like the Three Rivers Gorge Dam project.

Perhaps he and gsvol are having a beer summit...
 
#31
#31
Curious why IPO?

Nuclear power does produce a waste... but it is almost completely captured and can be managed as opposed to what we currently release into the atmosphere.

I am not a believer that man can have a big effect on climate change. However I do believe we can have a dramatic effect on the environment and health in a more local sense.
 
#32
#32
CSVol said:
Then why are many people in the north still using oil for heating their home and offices? If coal lobbyists had more influence than big oil, ways to use clean coal would have been pushed for development and oil consumption could have dropped.
Click to expand...

Cost of retrofit is the main issue. Cheap gas has also kept alternatives at bay.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#34
#34
sjt18 said:
Another thing to remember is that when Perot ran gasoline was at one of the lowest inflation adjusted prices in US history.

You will not make it happen in a consumption driven, democratic society. Too many people would be hurt by it.
Click to expand...

Not a dig but it seems you are splitting the original proposal. I suggested the new tax coupled with breaks for individuals and businesses. Let's say the changes allow for a net savings of $2500/household/year (I'm not smart enough to know what bracket changes would allow for this) for the sake of argument and easy math. That would equate to just under $50/week. At $5/gal and a vehicle avg. 20 mpg that's 200 miles driving/week without adding to the household budget. Businesses will naturally pass the new expense on to consumers but some companies would adjust their models to gain a competitve advantage, especially in a consumption driven economy.

Good point as to the price of gas. I admittedly did not take this into consideration.
 
#35
#35
CSVol said:
Not a dig but it seems you are splitting the original proposal. I suggested the new tax coupled with breaks for individuals and businesses. Let's say the changes allow for a net savings of $2500/household/year (I'm not smart enough to know what bracket changes would allow for this) for the sake of argument and easy math. That would equate to just under $50/week. At $5/gal and a vehicle avg. 20 mpg that's 200 miles driving/week without adding to the household budget. Businesses will naturally pass the new expense on to consumers but some companies would adjust their models to gain a competitve advantage, especially in a consumption driven economy.

Good point as to the price of gas. I admittedly did not take this into consideration.
Click to expand...

Who exactly would be paying in the model you propose? Raise taxes then give breaks to families and businesses?

FWIW, I live about 15 miles from work which is a pretty short commute compared to urban workers. That's 150 miles per week and 180 if I work Saturday... before my wife cranks her car or one of my kids drives to school.
 
#36
#36
what's the purpose of creating a revenue creating tax when you're going to exempt half of all taxpayers from any liability? That's the problem with the current tax code now, 47% of taxpayers, after things like the EITC, have zero tax liability to the federal government.
 
#37
#37
Creating an additional gas tax for debt reduction is interesting, but I honestly don't believe it would be used for it. The govt would see all this new income and decide they will use it for something else instead.

I think we're killing our country with these restrictions on what we can use. I'm all for developing alterative energy, but in the mean time I say use what we have. American drilled oil, natural gas, nuclear, or anthing else. People want to get off foriegn oil, but they want to limit what we can do to windmills and batteries? That cannot support this country. We have the capability to become self reliant, or at least much more so, but we won't let ourselves.

We're only holding ourselves back. We have the capability to provide energy to this citizens of this country. I wish we would. It would be a massive boost to our economy if we did drill and develop nuclear and natural gas.
 
#38
#38
sjt18 said:
Who exactly would be paying in the model you propose? Raise taxes then give breaks to families and businesses?

FWIW, I live about 15 miles from work which is a pretty short commute compared to urban workers. That's 150 miles per week and 180 if I work Saturday... before my wife cranks her car or one of my kids drives to school.
Click to expand...

The tax would be on the purchasers at the pump. Most large cities (with corresponding longer commutes) I've visited already have some type of park and ride system in place to cut down on congestion/emissions.
I never claimed this would be painless. Rather our system will have to change in some capacity if our budget issues are to be resolved. Cutting gov't expenses is obviously the preferred method but people will be affected no matter what we do. This idea (not mine originally) seemed to have additional postives in the long term.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top