Sold out by IFR

"John" wrote in message
om...
My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
to
get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
living
great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
would
see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
better
trip planning.

The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
tax
credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
is
about it.

Mike
MU-2



Mike - I don't agree with your statement that there are no economic
costs. The government bureacracy to administer a $4 dollar fuel tax
and process a $4 income tax credit would be enormous.

Also, I presume you would be in favor of refunding your $4 fuel tax to
lower income people who don't pay income tax or pay it at low marginal
rates? If not, then you are really looking at an additional tax on
middle/lower income people at $4 per gallon. If you are interested
in refunding the tax irrespective of taxable income, then you haven't
really caused anyone to change their driving habits - you've just
created a new government department to collect money and refund it to
the same people.

I like a lot of your ideas on this newsgroup. This one, though,
doesn't seem to be as practical as many of your other ones. John

The topic started out as a way to end our dependence on imported oil. The
whole gas tax idea is simply a way to provide an incentive to conserve. My
only point is that it would be relatively easy to end our dependence on
imported oil if we really wanted to do it. Collecting such a tax would be
fairly easy since there is already a federal tax on gasoline, only the
amount would be changed. I agree that the refunding portion would be
problematic.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I like a lot of your ideas on this newsgroup. This one, though,
doesn't seem to be as practical as many of your other ones. John

The topic started out as a way to end our dependence on imported oil. The
whole gas tax idea is simply a way to provide an incentive to conserve.
My
only point is that it would be relatively easy to end our dependence on
imported oil if we really wanted to do it. Collecting such a tax would be
fairly easy since there is already a federal tax on gasoline, only the
amount would be changed. I agree that the refunding portion would be
problematic.

What you suggest was tried in '93, but North Easterners are not about to
have their fuel oil taxed. The economic impact is basicly a cash transfer
from everone else into New England.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net...
The topic started out as a way to end our dependence on imported oil. The
whole gas tax idea is simply a way to provide an incentive to conserve.

A better and much more efficient way would be to encourge PRODUCTION. What's
more, encouragement to conserve has many pitfalls when under a bureaucratic
blanket.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

My
only point is that it would be relatively easy to end our dependence on
imported oil if we really wanted to do it.

It would be if the MARKET made that determination, rather than bureaucrats
and politicians and their cronies.

Collecting such a tax would be
fairly easy since there is already a federal tax on gasoline, only the
amount would be changed. I agree that the refunding portion would be
problematic.

That's the problem: Collection is easy, the subsequent portions ALWAYS bogs
down. A good example is the state lotteries -- after a year or two the funds
mainly go into the general fund where the looting commences.