Sold out by IFR

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

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

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

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
combination
of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.



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.

So, because people don't do what YOU want, you feel it's okay/imperative
to
FORCE them to abide by your whims?

There's a name for that.



You seem to miss the point. If you are taxed for something and given a
credit equal to the amount of the tax, nobody is *forced* to do anything.
Rather it is an opportunity to be better off by using less of the taxed
commodity.

So...if the credit is equal to the tax, it's then a "wash" and the only
increase will be in the bureaucracy that tracks both sides.

I'll bet you one thing; the tax will go in place, but the credit won't, or
it will sunset (but not the tax),

Remember that "prices are measures" . When you try to manipulate them, up or
down, you're interfering with a market...that is, people making free
choices.

I would think that with the track record that government and the bureaucracy
has garnered over the past 100+ years, that no one in their right mind would
concoct such manipulative schemes.

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

I highly recommend IFR magazine, and I'll keep reading it even if they
pass my name and address to Amex or TSA.

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

Unfortunately there will only be a few choices and Teddy Roosevelt is not
running this year. A major problem is that the candidates in the election
had to win the primaries. It is difficult to win the Democratic primary
without being a big government, tax and spend, bleeding heart. It is
difficult to win the Republican primary without being a big government,
borrow and spend, friend of big polluting business and the religious right.
Looks like, no matter who wins, we will have a big government with Santa
Claus at its head. Of course the real Santa Clause brought presents to
everybody and government Santa Clauses favor their constituencies.
Basically each generation is trying to steal from the next. The retired try
to steal from the working by demanding medical and retirement benefits
vastly greater than any taxes that they paid to fund them. The working in
turn try to steal from future generations by running a deficit in good times
and bad. The future generations have had nobody since TR to advance their
cause.

Mike
MU-2



The concept of future generations being penalized as a result of a
federal government deficit has always appeared a bit one-sided to me.

Future generations get the benefits of costs incurred by previous
generations - including tangible benefits in the form of roads built,
national parks, functional government institutions created to help
maintain a stable society, as well as considerable intangible benefits
such as freedom and the benefits of wars won in the past (whose costs
were undeniable and borne by previous generations). If future
generations get the benefits of the hard work of previous generations
(in the form of a better standard of living and more perfect society),
should they not absorb at least part of the cost?

It is beyond me how to equitably allocate the costs among generations
(i.e. - determine what level of deficit a future generation should be
required to assume), but it does seem fair that future generations
should pay at least some of the cost of instititions and assets built
for their benefit. John.

"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.

Less 25% for administrative costs.

Food stamps delive 22 cents on the dollar in benifits to the end user.

That's fine, but how do future generations benefit from the ever increasing
welfare handouts?

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls the
oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
denny


"John" wrote in message
om...
but it does seem fair that future generations
should pay at least some of the cost of instititions and assets built
for their benefit. John.

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
That's fine, but how do future generations benefit from the ever
increasing
welfare handouts?

Genocide of the old.

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
That's fine, but how do future generations benefit from the ever
increasing
welfare handouts?

(ie, wealth redistribution...class to class and generation to generation)

Quite so, considering that these "costs" are something like 60% of the US
budget and thus the major reason that deficits occur.

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

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls the
oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
denny



I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into
debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither
party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger
problems in the future. The key is moderation and balance - some
debt passed long to future generations is justified and representative
of investments made on theior behalf; selfishness in current spending
with the bills to be paid by others is wrong, though. The key is
balance, which I will up to economists and scholars far smarter than
me. John.