Taxed by the Mile?

[Eagledad]

>>You're right, I don't want to give those up. Like all old-school conservatives, I believe there's a role for government in creating and enforcing laws so that unscrupulous people don't cut corners or try to shift costs of doin' business onto others. Law enforcement is the proper role of government in society. I don't believe it should be left to individual families to try to sue oil producers for damage incurred, any more than it should be left to private citizens to investigate and prosecute grand theft auto. We believe in a system of common laws, eh?

[packsaddle]

Whew, I feel better now.

Beavah is right about the oil. The Saudis have played it really well and we have stupidly followed their script. I can imagine that when Sarah says, "Drill, Baby, Drill", the Saudis merely smile and nod, thinking...."oh please, oh please".

 

This is because the quicker we exhaust our domestic supplies, the quicker they will be sitting on the last of a fabulously-expensive resource. And they know it. The only thing I would add to Beavah's description is that we ARE going to change our behaviors. This is inevitable. The only question is whether we are going to do it as the result of a well-reasoned strategy or as a result of circumstances beyond our control. Recent history is no cause for optimism.

[Beavah]

Gee what a surprise, a lawyer who thinks we should litigate our way to prosperity, very conservative.

 

If yeh read more carefully, you'd have noticed that I was not arguing in favor of litigation. Quite the opposite, I was saying that relying on litigation was exactly da wrong way to go. The proper way is through regulation and law enforcement. Bankers who commit fraud shouldn't face civil lawsuits. They should face 30 years of hard time. Same with oil drillers who skimp on safety to turn a quick buck.

 

Yep, da civil litigators love giving to the democrats, just like da corporate lawyers love giving to the Republicans, eh? Not sure what that says. Probably just that lawyers are a self-interested lot like everybody else .

 

I haven't a clue what you think a Neocon is, but Neocons are generally liberals turned republican

 

Yep. The old southern socially conservative, pro-military democrats who defected from the Democratic party during the LBJ Great Society/civil rights years, and all the folks who adhere to that intellectual tradition. Since yeh have been with us for a couple generations now, you've gotten to thinking that you're "true" Republicans and conservatives. It's a bit funny, actually.

 

>>Easiest and best thing to do would be a hefty gas tax....That is not a conservative position my friend.

 

Yah, actually, it is. It addresses the problem without creating a regulatory mechanism, the way a convoluted liberal cap-and-trade system would, nor does it follow the liberal path of telling manufacturers what to make or consumers what to buy. It also doesn't just stick our head in the sand as long as we can make a quick buck now (someone will bail us out later), rely on drill-baby-drill corporate welfare or think about how we can invade oil producers the way a neocon would.

 

Instead, it provides just da sort of thing all of the businesses like our manufacturing and drilling industry need to make intelligent capital investment decisions with reduced risk, and it's a properly directed "fair tax" on consumption rather than on income or investment. So it uses da strength of the private sector to generate solutions, not the government, and it pays our bills rather than continuing borrow-and-spend. In fact, yeh can even use it as a step toward the fair tax, eh?

 

Of course, I'd sequester the revenue for debt reduction and infrastructure investment (and funding our military action in da Mideast and the long-term veterans services that will require).

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

I'll add to that. In one of my courses I cover a topic whose history is within my grasp but not the students'. I bring a series of drink bottles to class. Coke and others. I note that when I was younger (boy scout, actually) I made a decent amount of money picking these things up off the roads and shorelines and returning them for the deposit. Those bottles were collected, returned to the bottler, washed, and reused. For all practical purposes, that has ended.

 

I show them the coke bottles with the town names embossed in the base so they know the bottling plant that originated them. I also note that very few of those names have bottling plants anymore. Nearly ALL of the tiny beverage companies who could compete locally but not with the centralized giants have gone away - along with them the jobs.

 

I show them the progression from those heavy glass bottles to the steel cans to the aluminum cans to the thin glass bottles to the plastic bottles. You get the idea. At each step of the way more things were happening. Coca Cola and competitors like PepsiCo were centralizing their operations to achieve economies of scale in order to maximize profit. At the same time, different materials were being used and the shift led to greatly increased solid waste disposal because there was no longer reuse of the beverage containers. Moreover, the jobs at those smaller bottling plants were being lost, tax base diminished, etc.

 

The key to all this was the ability to transport a product that was mostly water (fairly high density material) over long distances in order to become more centralized and to achieve those greater profits. And this could not be done unless the containers only went in one direction and were much lighter weight, thus keeping the energy costs of transportation and distribution down.

 

The key piece of all this was (and is) the cost of the energy, not only in the fuel for transport but also in the non-reusable containers and supporting infrastructure such as increased landfills, etc.

In the early 1970's there was growing interest in what are termed, 'bottle bills', or legislation that places a minimum deposit on those non-returnable containers. A few states actually adopted these and you can see their abbreviations on many containers. But an energy tax would provide the incentive to perhaps return to a more local (and less-centralized) production base for many things. Not only in the example above but also for many foods, things like tires (does anyone have a re-capped tire on their car anymore?) and many other examples.

 

So, let's see...yes, increased costs. But also conserved fuel, materials, less waste, increased employment, local suppliers. Saves the environment, saves energy, saves us from pollution, saves the earth..it all sounds good to me.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Eagledad]

>>Yep. The old southern socially conservative, pro-military democrats who defected from the Democratic party during the LBJ Great Society/civil rights years, and all the folks who adhere to that intellectual tradition. Since yeh have been with us for a couple generations now, you've gotten to thinking that you're "true" Republicans and conservatives. It's a bit funny, actually.

[scoutingagain]

As Beavah point out the gas tax is a perfect example of the kind of consumption tax advocated by conservatives. It directly taxes users. The current system we have in place is the socialist approach. Subsidizing the highway trust fund with general revenues. This means everyone that pays income taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other federal taxes subsidizes users of our highways.

 

The original article was one proposed approach to correcting this. As noted it was not intially proposed by the Obama administration, the concept has been around for a while. Another approach that has been discussed in some policy circles has been to actually sell off the interstate highway system to the states of even private enterprise and subject them or portions there of to tolls. There are many new technologies that would allow toll collection without putting tracking devices on vehicles but could charge users as the enter/exit the highways.

 

Selling off the highways to private investors would actually be the most capitalistic/free enterprise approach.

 

SA

[OldGreyEagle]

Just a crazy thought here, so it is not the governments job to take away a mans' property and deprive him of the right to make a living. Taxing how far he drives, where he goes, what he owns, that is beyond the governments purview

[sherminator505]

I don't get why you are presenting this as some new idea that Obama just dreamed up as part of his continuing socialist plot. I work in the transportation sector, and I can tell you that this idea has been floating around for at least a decade. It doesn't seem to make sense in a time when most cars are still burning gasoline, but as more electric cars hit the road it'll make a lot more sense.

[Basementdweller]

Got a couple of fellows I work with commute 120 miles round trip a day to work, gee they are singing the blues now.

 

As OGE pointed out. We the people make our choices. If I was commuting that distance, I would either find work closer to home or move closer to work. I own a truck but ride a motorcycle most of the year.

 

I wonder what the return on the investment for the oil companies is???? I hear everyone complaining about record earning or profit......but what was the initial investment and what is the percentage return on that investment????????

 

Not defending them just asking questions.

 

You understand that We the people DO NOT HAVE TO BUY GAS. just that simple. Americans just can't seem to figure that out.

 

Vote with your wallet stupid.

[Beavah]

Oh, I finally understand, so you think anyone who is socially conservative is a neocon.

 

Nope, I'm socially conservative and I'm not a neocon.

 

As you say, the neocons came out of the southern Democratic party. Yep, they were and are socially conservative, but that's not all that defines them. But I'm glad yeh now recognize that you are a neo-con.

 

The conservative approach is let supply and demand to control peoples habits and domestic oil to give our county more security, more jobs and more money in our pockets. I dont want you using my hard earned dollars to leverage everyone to live your dream.

 

Yah, so which is it, eh?

 

Do yeh want supply and demand to control people's habits or do you want domestic oil to give our country more security?

 

If yeh want supply and demand to control people's habits, then da Russians, Venezuela, Mexican cartels and the middle eastern folks have the supply. Are those the folks you want controlling the habits and destiny of Americans?

 

Or do yeh want some sort of government corporate welfare subsidy to encourage domestic oil? Because right now, it doesn't pay based on supply and demand.

 

The neo-con response is the one that you give, eh? Hands off my pocketbook. Less government. Less taxes. Cut taxes goin' into a war even. I want to consume as I see fit. If my choices cost the nation, someone else should pay those costs (aka bail me out) for the real cost of my personal choices.

 

Da conservative response is that of true individual fiscal responsibility. My use of oil costs my country something, so it's my duty to pay that cost. And the best way of doin' that is not to tax my income, nor is it to borrow from the Chinese and make my granddaughter pay, nor is it to limit my vehicle choices through MPG requirements and regulations, nor is it to ridicule people who drive trucks. It's to tax my consumption for the real cost to the nation of my personal choices, and then to let me make those choices as I see fit.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[acco40]

Beavah and Eagledad - why do you fell it necessary to label something as liberal or conservative?

 

It easier to make pejorative comments, I guess.

[acco40]

Beavah, I agree that taxing gasoline would help pay for the "real cost" but the problem is there is no guarantee or even lukewarm assurances that the revenues raised would be used to help alleviate those "costs." Reminds me of how the lottery was sold.

 

Nevertheless, I propose the following (based on WWII rationing). Give single adults who pay taxes, a gasoline debit card which entitles them to buy up to 5 gal per week of gasoline at a limited or no tax rate. Give married adults slightly more (not double). Increase the federal taxes on gasoline tremendously to help pay alleviate our impending infrastructure collapse. This would influence behavior, raise revenue for a good cause and create jobs by creating an underground illegal market of debit card selling/fraud!

 

In the early 1970's there was growing interest in what are termed, 'bottle bills', or legislation that places a minimum deposit on those non-returnable containers. A few states actually adopted these and you can see their abbreviations on many containers. - Packsaddle

 

Not only states! When I was in school, the city of Columbia (home to the University of Missouri) enacted a bottle bill. The state did not have one. I think it was 5 a bottle/can. So you can see cheap college students driving a little farther to save 30 for a six pack with gasoline around 80/gal.

 

Right now, Michigan has a 10 per bottle/can on carbonated drinks (beer/soda pop) but none for water, tea, sports drinks, etc. That will probably change soon.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[scoutingagain]

The Massachusetts "bottle bill" has been described as the bill that takes litter off the streets and puts it in your garage/basement, wherevever until you load up enough to take to a redemption center.

 

Never the less bottle/can drives are a local fund raising option.

 

SA

[Beavah]

Yah, that liberal/conservative thing is Eagledad's schtick, eh? I just speak to each in the language he seems to be familiar with.

 

I agree that taxing gasoline would help pay for the "real cost" but the problem is there is no guarantee or even lukewarm assurances that the revenues raised would be used to help alleviate those "costs."

 

Yah, I agree, but when are there any guarantees in life? Up to us to hold our elected representatives accountable.

 

Just for fun I pulled da numbers. The cost for da Navy to protect the oil shipping lanes and da armed forces to rescue and defend the Arab oil suppliers, plus the cost of fighting terrorism caused by da folks upset about having infidels defend the Arab oil suppliers, has totaled about $1.3 trillion over the last ten years. Add the costs for cleaning up spills and the associated economic loss for environmental degradation, call it $1.5 trillion, probably more just because it didn't include capital costs for Navy vessels. That works out to a gas tax of an average of just a bit over $1 per gallon over the past ten years.

 

Anybody not willing to pay a buck a gallon the past ten years to actually pay for the wars and the troops instead of borrowing? That's less than the increase in da cost of a gallon of gas over the last year. For most of the time even with such a tax gas would have been substantially less than it costs now, eh? And the downward pressure on demand would have meant that the base cost of gas would be less than what it is now.

 

Of course I'd have done a more steady penny-a-month increase in da gas tax to avoid any shocks, especially right after 9/11. That means by now we'd only have paid half our costs (instead of none), but we'd be catching up over the next few years. The net cost of gas would probably be the same as it is now, eh? But the money would be goin' to reducing our debt instead of funding dictators and enemies and speculators.

 

As we caught up with the war expenses, we'd be able to use the revenues to pay for da infrastructure needs that acco mentions, as well as the longer-term care and support of the veterans of the above campaigns. That would in turn reduce our need for other infrastructure, repair, and veteran's support taxes in the long run, and those taxes could be cut.

 

End result after 20 years? Gas would be at $6 a gallon (which it will be anyways), but we'd have about $3 trillion less debt, a better investment in infrastructure, slight reductions in other taxes, etc. Most of all, da private sector would have had 20 years to make rational investments in alternatives or efficiencies without any government regulation or mandates.

 

Beavah

 

[BS-87]

The consumption tax part of this equation is not the problem.

 

The problem is installing tracking devices in all vehicles. We're fast approaching a world where it's impossible to completely drop off the radar...

 

Bringing that back to Scouting, isn't that half the fun of camping?

 

I'm not insinuating tracking devices in cars is going to kill Scouting. What I am saying is that there's an allure to being able to disappear and decompress.

 

It may just be my predilection towards liberty when confronted with anything with the possibility of being used for control/tracking.

 

When our robot overlords take over the world, we'll wish we didn't give them every tool they'd ever need to enslave us.