 |
Didn't Obama promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans? His party is looking at a gasoline tax. Where will Obama go with this? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/op...=2&ref=opinion
"[G]overnment's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Ronaldus Maximus, remarks to the White House Conference on Small Business, August 15, 1986
Exactly what I figured. The gung ho liberals that want and can afford the fuel efficient cars will be in line to buy them but the average American most likely will not buy one until they HAVE to.
I know Texas and some other places were offering something like a $1,000. Rebate for exchanging your old vehicle for a alternative fuel car.
If the oil companies raise gas prices, it's a bad thing. If the government does it, it's a good thing.
Actually the libs are not alone . Charles Krauthammer this week wrote a lenghty justification for a major gas tax increase in Weekly Standard . The difference is that with his plan there would be a concurrent decrease in income taxes ;as he says ,a Net-zero gas tax .
The Net-Zero Gas TaxQuote:
Here is how it works. The simultaneous enactment of two measures: A $1 increase in the federal gasoline tax--together with an immediate $14 a week reduction of the FICA tax. Indeed, that reduction in payroll tax should go into effect the preceding week, so that the upside of the swap (the cash from the payroll tax rebate) is in hand even before the downside (the tax) kicks in.
The math is simple. The average American buys roughly 14 gallons of gasoline a week. The $1 gas tax takes $14 out of his pocket. The reduction in payroll tax puts it right back. The average driver comes out even, and the government makes nothing on the transaction. (There are, of course, more drivers than workers--203 million vs. 163 million. The 10 million unemployed would receive the extra $14 in their unemployment insurance checks. And the elderly who drive--there are 30 million licensed drivers over 65--would receive it with their Social Security payments.)
Revenue neutrality is essential. No money is taken out of the economy. Washington doesn't get fatter. Nor does it get leaner. It is simply a transfer agent moving money from one activity (gasoline purchasing) to another (employment) with zero net revenue for the government.
In theory I support the transfer of taxes from income to consumption. But I think that the flaw in his theory, as he identifies early in the essay, is that this is a European solution and a European solution won't work here.
I applaud the attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Drill... drill... drill!!Quote:
But it's not just love of the car. America is a nation of continental expanses. Distances between population centers can be vast. The mass-transit mini-car culture of Europe just doesn't work in big sky country.
Residents of major cities ride subways and buses and use their cars a lot less.The increases in gas prices naturally effect them far less than they effect rural residents and suburbanites.
Krauthammer's proposal amounts to little more than yet another transfer from the suburbs to the cities. Besides ,almost all of the goods that are available in stores and supermarkets are delivered by tractor-trailers, vans, refrigerated meat and produce trucks, etc. Prices for all those goods would inevitably go up in order to compensate for increased shipping costs.
Hello George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
NY Times report this morning:
"WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama plans to include about $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses in his economic recovery program, advisers said Sunday, as his team seeks to win over Congressional skeptics worried that he was too focused on government spending."
But, I wonder how, as a conservative, you think the government is going to come up with all this money it's about to spend?? Borrow it?? That's not very conservative. Print it? That's not very conservative.
So, what does a United Statesian conservative say??
excon
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski wants his state to switch from a gas tax to a system that taxes people for how many miles they actually drive. To accomplish this he would have autos installed with a GPS transponder that the gvt. Monitors.
Well that should help kill the tourism industry, increase housing prices closer to major city centers or drive businesses out of cities into the suburbs or surrounding countrysides.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Normally I identify myself as a Democrat, but I am not a fan of sin taxes; often they have unintended or intended consequences which hurt more than they help. Furthermore, taxes like these don't affect the wealthy or much of the middle class, but they are devastating to those who live from pay check to pay check and will affect their quality of life.
If the intent is to get people to drive less (which will kill so many industries you can't imagine) why not just be honest and say: "we want you to stay at home, be entertained at home; be immobile, stay in your cave".
This will affect a great many American's lifestyle, and it's this lifestyle that we've come to expect which fuels the economy.
I would expect a conservative to say, if you don't have it, then don't spend it. Republicans (under Bush) have compromised themselves on this issue; liberals (Democrats) are simply wrong on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Other conservatives are saying, "There's a precedent to be set here -- the admission by a governing body not exactly composed of Reaganite supply-siders that, yes, indeedy, tax cuts can work for the general good. Upon that admission renewed respect for common sense in taxation can be engineered. At the same time economic recovery gets a boost. No bad bargain, this." Bill Murchison : Democratic Tax-Cutters On The Loose - Townhall.com
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:19 PM. |