Various Topics on Mustang

..Option.. ..l.c..

Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't
really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to
lower other taxes or to fund quality programs.


---
At nearly $3 a gallon, gasoline prices have become a nightmare for many
Michigan consumers in recent days.

But not everyone is ready to start boycotting gas stations. In fact,
some residents are far less concerned about the current levels than
people who experienced problems such as gas rationing that arose
following the oil shocks of the 1970s.

"Higher gas prices don't affect me in terms of what I do or where I
go," said Curtis Foreman, owner of Foreman Construction LLC in Oak
Park.

The 34-year-old Foreman, who spends several hours a day on the road for
work, has a Ford F-150 and a Ford F-250 Turbo Diesel he uses for work
that he fills up regularly. But gas isn't something he worries about
too much. And he's not alone.

Experts agree that the U.S. economy is far less susceptible to energy
shocks, particularly sharp increases in crude oil prices, than it was
two decades ago. The advent of fuel economy standards that promote more
efficient vehicles that get better gas mileage has helped to temper
energy consumption.

Even though retail gasoline prices give a lot of people sticker shock,
the impact of higher fuel costs is less than it was for a growing
number of households and businesses.

"I don't even know what gas costs now," Foreman said Friday. "I just
paid $75 to fill up one of my trucks, but I don't remember what it cost
a gallon. For me, it's the cost of doing business."

For the record, regular gasoline is averaging $2.72 a gallon, while
diesel fuel costs $2.65 a gallon throughout the state, AAA Michigan
reports.

The new reality has some economists questioning some old ***umptions
about the nation's economy.

"The basic theme is that the U.S. economy is less sensitive to energy
costs than 20 or 30 years ago. We're not independent of energy. We're
just less sensitive," said John Silvia, chief economist of Wachovia
Securities in Charlotte, N.C. "Why hasn't consumption fallen off? When
the price of energy goes up, it does cut into household budgets, but
it's less of a cut than 20 years ago, given that incomes have almost
tripled since the 1982."

For example, American consumers spent a total of about $95 billion for
gasoline and other petroleum products in 1984. Last year, that figure
jumped to $230.4 billion, or 142% higher. But workers saw their income
shoot up 196% from $2.26 trillion to $6.69 trillion last year, the
Bureau of Economic Analysis reports.

"Looking over the last 20 years it's clear that incomes have grown
faster than the price of energy," said Jay Wortley, senior economist
with Michigan's Senate Fiscal Agency in Lansing. "But that's not to say
that this recent run-up isn't painful."

To be sure, many Michigan workers and consumers whose incomes have not
kept up with rising energy prices are feeling the pain.

The Michigan manufacturing sector, particularly autos, has caught the
brunt of higher petroleum prices. The state's unemployment rate of 7%
is one of the highest in the country.

Higher petroleum costs also have helped push some auto suppliers into
bankruptcy and limited hiring in some delivery businesses. And with
global uncertainty pumping fear into the markets, price volatility
remains a key part of Michigan's energy equation.

In fact, crude oil jumped $2.08 to settle at $65.35 per 42-gallon
barrel Friday after a week of declines, following a refinery fire in
Venezuela and an oil protest in Ecuador.

Nevertheless, some Michiganders, while expressing some frustration
about pump prices, don't seem as outraged as one might expect if there
were a shortage of oil and gasoline.

Michelle Marrs, who recently pumped in $61 of premium gasoline at $2.98
a gallon to fill up her 2003 Land Rover at a Meijer station at 8 Mile
and Haggerty in Novi, seemed pragmatic about rising fuel prices.

The Ann Arbor attorney is on the road constantly. But given that she's
part of a successful law firm, gas prices aren't as high on her list of
priorities as they might be for others.

"I travel a lot for work, so it almost doesn't matter for me," she
said. "Now, I'd be happier if it was $2.20 or something, but what are
you going to do?"
---

Patrick
'93 Cobra

..e.. ..

In article <1124764726.463798.177840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups .com>, NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't
> really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to
> lower other taxes or to fund quality programs.

It's because of the way politics works in the USA and the motivations of
people.

Environmentalism in the USA ceased to be about the environment a long
time ago. It's like any other faction in US politics. It's about forcing
everyone else to live the way a particular faction says so.

If the government just taxed the **** out of fuel and lowered the income
tax, then big cars, performance cars, etc would still be avialable
limitlessly from the automakers. Groups would complain that taxing
consumption was unfair to the poor as well.

With CAFE, the traditional large american p***enger car was nearly
eliminated. They wanted to control what people could buy. It backfired
when people started buying inclosed trucks now known as SUVs.

CAFE controls what is available for people to buy. So If you could
afford to fuel a land barge with $6/gal fuel because of taxes, then you'd
get one. Under CAFE, even with $2/gal fuel you couldn't buy one because
the automakers couldn't take the penalities for building it.

(yes, yes I know a few vehicles where the buyer just pays the gas guzzler
tax, but this is only for very expensive cars with low volume production,
not say a full size station wagon or something)

..cha.. ..hnso.. ..

Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government
one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do
it than we can count right now. They need to REDUCE the taxes they
currently have on gas. Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford
it the most. The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need
more money, they need to make do with less.

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't
> really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to
> lower other taxes or to fund quality programs.
>
>
> ---
> At nearly $3 a gallon, gasoline prices have become a nightmare for many
> Michigan consumers in recent days.
>
> But not everyone is ready to start boycotting gas stations. In fact,
> some residents are far less concerned about the current levels than
> people who experienced problems such as gas rationing that arose
> following the oil shocks of the 1970s.
>
> "Higher gas prices don't affect me in terms of what I do or where I
> go," said Curtis Foreman, owner of Foreman Construction LLC in Oak
> Park.
>
> The 34-year-old Foreman, who spends several hours a day on the road for
> work, has a Ford F-150 and a Ford F-250 Turbo Diesel he uses for work
> that he fills up regularly. But gas isn't something he worries about
> too much. And he's not alone.
>
> Experts agree that the U.S. economy is far less susceptible to energy
> shocks, particularly sharp increases in crude oil prices, than it was
> two decades ago. The advent of fuel economy standards that promote more
> efficient vehicles that get better gas mileage has helped to temper
> energy consumption.
>
> Even though retail gasoline prices give a lot of people sticker shock,
> the impact of higher fuel costs is less than it was for a growing
> number of households and businesses.
>
> "I don't even know what gas costs now," Foreman said Friday. "I just
> paid $75 to fill up one of my trucks, but I don't remember what it cost
> a gallon. For me, it's the cost of doing business."
>
> For the record, regular gasoline is averaging $2.72 a gallon, while
> diesel fuel costs $2.65 a gallon throughout the state, AAA Michigan
> reports.
>
> The new reality has some economists questioning some old ***umptions
> about the nation's economy.
>
> "The basic theme is that the U.S. economy is less sensitive to energy
> costs than 20 or 30 years ago. We're not independent of energy. We're
> just less sensitive," said John Silvia, chief economist of Wachovia
> Securities in Charlotte, N.C. "Why hasn't consumption fallen off? When
> the price of energy goes up, it does cut into household budgets, but
> it's less of a cut than 20 years ago, given that incomes have almost
> tripled since the 1982."
>
> For example, American consumers spent a total of about $95 billion for
> gasoline and other petroleum products in 1984. Last year, that figure
> jumped to $230.4 billion, or 142% higher. But workers saw their income
> shoot up 196% from $2.26 trillion to $6.69 trillion last year, the
> Bureau of Economic Analysis reports.
>
> "Looking over the last 20 years it's clear that incomes have grown
> faster than the price of energy," said Jay Wortley, senior economist
> with Michigan's Senate Fiscal Agency in Lansing. "But that's not to say
> that this recent run-up isn't painful."
>
> To be sure, many Michigan workers and consumers whose incomes have not
> kept up with rising energy prices are feeling the pain.
>
> The Michigan manufacturing sector, particularly autos, has caught the
> brunt of higher petroleum prices. The state's unemployment rate of 7%
> is one of the highest in the country.
>
> Higher petroleum costs also have helped push some auto suppliers into
> bankruptcy and limited hiring in some delivery businesses. And with
> global uncertainty pumping fear into the markets, price volatility
> remains a key part of Michigan's energy equation.
>
> In fact, crude oil jumped $2.08 to settle at $65.35 per 42-gallon
> barrel Friday after a week of declines, following a refinery fire in
> Venezuela and an oil protest in Ecuador.
>
> Nevertheless, some Michiganders, while expressing some frustration
> about pump prices, don't seem as outraged as one might expect if there
> were a shortage of oil and gasoline.
>
> Michelle Marrs, who recently pumped in $61 of premium gasoline at $2.98
> a gallon to fill up her 2003 Land Rover at a Meijer station at 8 Mile
> and Haggerty in Novi, seemed pragmatic about rising fuel prices.
>
> The Ann Arbor attorney is on the road constantly. But given that she's
> part of a successful law firm, gas prices aren't as high on her list of
> priorities as they might be for others.
>
> "I travel a lot for work, so it almost doesn't matter for me," she
> said. "Now, I'd be happier if it was $2.20 or something, but what are
> you going to do?"
> ---
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

..mbyWo..

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:14:48 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
<cds@erols.com> wrote:

>Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government
>one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do
>it than we can count right now. They need to REDUCE the taxes they
>currently have on gas. Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford
>it the most. The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need
>more money, they need to make do with less.
>
This is a yes & no proposition. While it does in fact hurt those who
can least afford it (minimum wage burger flippers in an area of no
m*** transit). Those whom it doesn't affect would go freakin hog
crazy and stick their noses so far into the damn trough there would be
nothing left.

Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do
not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in
our economy. Of course the Military which sucks up a tremendous
amount of fuel and the US Postal Service (Number one consumer of fuel)
already don't pay taxes either.

Even though the prices of crude do have an impact there is also the
issue of the capacity to turn raw crude into fuels. There hasn't been
a new refinery built in the US in about 30 years while the demand
curve has steadily increased.

Certain taxes on fuel are supposed to go to pay for the infrastructure
to support the use of vehicles, i.e. roads & bridges. Unfortunately
in many states these taxes go directly into the states general funds
and never do get spent on improving the roads if the roads in my area
are any indicator.

Yes driving a high-performance vehicle to & from work is a royal
blast. However, it simply isn't required. The major problem is no
viable m*** transit alternative for the majority of the country to get
anywhere. I can drive the 18 miles to work in 30/40 minutes. If I
was to take the bus it would be more like 2.5 hours in each direction
and I still have to get to the bus stop.

The answer is out there somewhere, but I doubt that anyone in the US
government is going to come up with it.

>NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
>> Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't
>> really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to
>> lower other taxes or to fund quality programs.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> At nearly $3 a gallon, gasoline prices have become a nightmare for many
>> Michigan consumers in recent days.
>>
>> But not everyone is ready to start boycotting gas stations. In fact,
>> some residents are far less concerned about the current levels than
>> people who experienced problems such as gas rationing that arose
>> following the oil shocks of the 1970s.
>>
>> "Higher gas prices don't affect me in terms of what I do or where I
>> go," said Curtis Foreman, owner of Foreman Construction LLC in Oak
>> Park.
>>
>> The 34-year-old Foreman, who spends several hours a day on the road for
>> work, has a Ford F-150 and a Ford F-250 Turbo Diesel he uses for work
>> that he fills up regularly. But gas isn't something he worries about
>> too much. And he's not alone.
>>
>> Experts agree that the U.S. economy is far less susceptible to energy
>> shocks, particularly sharp increases in crude oil prices, than it was
>> two decades ago. The advent of fuel economy standards that promote more
>> efficient vehicles that get better gas mileage has helped to temper
>> energy consumption.
>>
>> Even though retail gasoline prices give a lot of people sticker shock,
>> the impact of higher fuel costs is less than it was for a growing
>> number of households and businesses.
>>
>> "I don't even know what gas costs now," Foreman said Friday. "I just
>> paid $75 to fill up one of my trucks, but I don't remember what it cost
>> a gallon. For me, it's the cost of doing business."
>>
>> For the record, regular gasoline is averaging $2.72 a gallon, while
>> diesel fuel costs $2.65 a gallon throughout the state, AAA Michigan
>> reports.
>>
>> The new reality has some economists questioning some old ***umptions
>> about the nation's economy.
>>
>> "The basic theme is that the U.S. economy is less sensitive to energy
>> costs than 20 or 30 years ago. We're not independent of energy. We're
>> just less sensitive," said John Silvia, chief economist of Wachovia
>> Securities in Charlotte, N.C. "Why hasn't consumption fallen off? When
>> the price of energy goes up, it does cut into household budgets, but
>> it's less of a cut than 20 years ago, given that incomes have almost
>> tripled since the 1982."
>>
>> For example, American consumers spent a total of about $95 billion for
>> gasoline and other petroleum products in 1984. Last year, that figure
>> jumped to $230.4 billion, or 142% higher. But workers saw their income
>> shoot up 196% from $2.26 trillion to $6.69 trillion last year, the
>> Bureau of Economic Analysis reports.
>>
>> "Looking over the last 20 years it's clear that incomes have grown
>> faster than the price of energy," said Jay Wortley, senior economist
>> with Michigan's Senate Fiscal Agency in Lansing. "But that's not to say
>> that this recent run-up isn't painful."
>>
>> To be sure, many Michigan workers and consumers whose incomes have not
>> kept up with rising energy prices are feeling the pain.
>>
>> The Michigan manufacturing sector, particularly autos, has caught the
>> brunt of higher petroleum prices. The state's unemployment rate of 7%
>> is one of the highest in the country.
>>
>> Higher petroleum costs also have helped push some auto suppliers into
>> bankruptcy and limited hiring in some delivery businesses. And with
>> global uncertainty pumping fear into the markets, price volatility
>> remains a key part of Michigan's energy equation.
>>
>> In fact, crude oil jumped $2.08 to settle at $65.35 per 42-gallon
>> barrel Friday after a week of declines, following a refinery fire in
>> Venezuela and an oil protest in Ecuador.
>>
>> Nevertheless, some Michiganders, while expressing some frustration
>> about pump prices, don't seem as outraged as one might expect if there
>> were a shortage of oil and gasoline.
>>
>> Michelle Marrs, who recently pumped in $61 of premium gasoline at $2.98
>> a gallon to fill up her 2003 Land Rover at a Meijer station at 8 Mile
>> and Haggerty in Novi, seemed pragmatic about rising fuel prices.
>>
>> The Ann Arbor attorney is on the road constantly. But given that she's
>> part of a successful law firm, gas prices aren't as high on her list of
>> priorities as they might be for others.
>>
>> "I travel a lot for work, so it almost doesn't matter for me," she
>> said. "Now, I'd be happier if it was $2.20 or something, but what are
>> you going to do?"
>> ---
>>
>> Patrick
>> '93 Cobra
>>

--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)

..cha.. ..hnso.. ..

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:14:48 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government
>>one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do
>>it than we can count right now. They need to REDUCE the taxes they
>>currently have on gas. Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford
>>it the most. The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need
>>more money, they need to make do with less.
>>
>
> This is a yes & no proposition. While it does in fact hurt those who
> can least afford it (minimum wage burger flippers in an area of no
> m*** transit). Those whom it doesn't affect would go freakin hog
> crazy and stick their noses so far into the damn trough there would be
> nothing left.
>
> Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do
> not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in
> our economy. Of course the Military which sucks up a tremendous
> amount of fuel and the US Postal Service (Number one consumer of fuel)
> already don't pay taxes either.
>
> Even though the prices of crude do have an impact there is also the
> issue of the capacity to turn raw crude into fuels. There hasn't been
> a new refinery built in the US in about 30 years while the demand
> curve has steadily increased.
>
> Certain taxes on fuel are supposed to go to pay for the infrastructure
> to support the use of vehicles, i.e. roads & bridges. Unfortunately
> in many states these taxes go directly into the states general funds
> and never do get spent on improving the roads if the roads in my area
> are any indicator.
>
> Yes driving a high-performance vehicle to & from work is a royal
> blast. However, it simply isn't required. The major problem is no
> viable m*** transit alternative for the majority of the country to get
> anywhere. I can drive the 18 miles to work in 30/40 minutes. If I
> was to take the bus it would be more like 2.5 hours in each direction
> and I still have to get to the bus stop.
>
> The answer is out there somewhere, but I doubt that anyone in the US
> government is going to come up with it.

Here's a link that gives current gasoline tax rates:
http://tinyurl.com/exjpg New York is probably the worst case as they
charge over 50 cents a gallon in total state and federal taxes. For
EVERY 18 gallon fill-up the driver in New York pays about nine dollars
in taxes. At $2.50/gallon that equates to a tax rate of 20%. When gas
was $1.75/gallon the tax rate was near 29%. How long do you think it
will take the states and the federal governments to get the tax rate, as
a percentage, back up to what they were before this last price spike
happened? My guess is it won't be long.

If the government wants to reduce our consumption of fuel then they
should just ration gasoline and be done with it. That way we won't have
them digging in our wallets so deep. Personally, I think fuel should be
taxed just like any other commodity. Just apply the state's sales tax
rate. Fuel tax is just another way government has found to increase
revenue covertly. I don't believe these amounts per gallon tax rates
are shown on the pumps. Why do you think that is so? Also, why are
they included in the advertised price? If the tax was added on to the
purchase like sales tax the public would be forced to know they are
getting raped on gas taxes and probably wouldn't stand for it.

The reason I am so p***ionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping
them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the
local, state and federal taxes are combined. Individually they don't
seem so bad but add them up and most of us would be shocked. The thing
is that many of these taxes are not based on income so the poor are hit
disproportionately hard. Hell, state governments even pray on people
through lotteries. Many of the people I see buying those tickets
haven't got the income to justify such an extravagant purchase. Do you
think the government cares that they are praying on the poor by offering
lottery tickets? Granted, no one is forced to by a lottery ticket but I
expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money from
people that can't afford it.

One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
and more often than not the Presidency? The biggest reason is they are
the only party that is willing to cut taxes. Even they aren't doing it
enough to suit most people. It is happening here where I live at the
local level. People can't understand why there property taxes are sky
rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of the local government
aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their local taxes. The average
person is starting to see what is being done to them from a tax
standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I believe there
will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how they are taxed.

Well, I feel better after that rant.

..Option.. ..l.c..

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> >>Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government
> >>one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do
> >>it than we can count right now.

> >>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas.

Right, then the American consumer is so darn happy with the cheap gas
he responds by doing what? Well, of course, he consumes more gas which
in turn drives the price, and the profits of oil-rich countries (many
of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or
trying to control.), back up.

Plus, cheap gas keeps anyone from investing in alternative fuel
sources. It's a nice little cycle. And that's the main reason the
oil-rich countries walk a tight-rope on prices -- high enough to make
good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives.

> >>Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most.

Only if the government doesn't "redistribute" those dollars in the
forms of compensation -- reduction of other taxes.

> >> The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need more money, they > >> need to make do with less.

Agreed.

> > Even though the prices of crude do have an impact there is also the
> > issue of the capacity to turn raw crude into fuels. There hasn't been
> > a new refinery built in the US in about 30 years while the demand
> > curve has steadily increased.

That's an issue, but the bottom line is demand is growing faster than
they can pump it out of the ground.

> > Certain taxes on fuel are supposed to go to pay for the infrastructure
> > to support the use of vehicles, i.e. roads & bridges. Unfortunately
> > in many states these taxes go directly into the states general funds
> > and never do get spent on improving the roads if the roads in my area
> > are any indicator.

The problem is we have more roads/bridges than we can take care of. A
road that was a single lane ten years ago, is now probably two lanes,
at least. And a two-lane road is twice as expensive to resurface.

> > Yes driving a high-performance vehicle to & from work is a royal
> > blast. However, it simply isn't required. The major problem is no
> > viable m*** transit alternative for the majority of the country to get
> > anywhere. I can drive the 18 miles to work in 30/40 minutes. If I
> > was to take the bus it would be more like 2.5 hours in each direction
> > and I still have to get to the bus stop.

There is no fix to that one. Human nature is we all want our space.
And space now often means living 10+ miles from work.

> > The answer is out there somewhere, but I doubt that anyone in the US
> > government is going to come up with it.

It's higher fuel prices by way of higher gas taxes. Think about this.
If you had to pay say... an extra $1K per year for fuel, but received
other tax cuts to make up the difference what would your response be?
Of course, you'd find ways to cut your gas consumption, and a brainy
neighbor or company would search for cheaper alternatives to oil.

> If the government wants to reduce our consumption of fuel then they
> should just ration gasoline and be done with it. That way we won't have
> them digging in our wallets so deep. Personally, I think fuel should be
> taxed just like any other commodity. Just apply the state's sales tax
> rate.

Drop gas prices that far and you'd breed fleets of Hummer-sized
vehicles.

> Fuel tax is just another way government has found to increase
> revenue covertly. I don't believe these amounts per gallon tax rates
> are shown on the pumps. Why do you think that is so? Also, why are
> they included in the advertised price? If the tax was added on to the
> purchase like sales tax the public would be forced to know they are
> getting raped on gas taxes and probably wouldn't stand for it.

Exactly, and then the consumer would respond to the new lower prices by
doing the above.

> The reason I am so p***ionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping
> them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the
> local, state and federal taxes are combined. Individually they don't
> seem so bad but add them up and most of us would be shocked. The thing
> is that many of these taxes are not based on income so the poor are hit
> disproportionately hard. Hell, state governments even pray on people
> through lotteries. Many of the people I see buying those tickets
> haven't got the income to justify such an extravagant purchase. Do you
> think the government cares that they are praying on the poor by offering
> lottery tickets? Granted, no one is forced to by a lottery ticket but I
> expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money from
> people that can't afford it.

Aren't they required to print the odds of winning on every ticket? If
folks can't do simple math, or use simple logic, they deserve their
money to be ****ed away. But let's face the facts, most want a
"simple" way to fortune.

> One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
> held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
> now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
> and more often than not the Presidency?

They have big business and the religous right in their back pocket?
Money + religion is tough to beat/defeat. Just ask Bin Laden.

> The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes.

They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a
little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check
they don't have the funds for.

> Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here
> where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there property
> taxes are sky rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of the local
> government aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their local taxes. The
> average person is starting to see what is being done to them from a tax
> standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I believe there
> will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how they are taxed.

Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be
paid.

> Well, I feel better after that rant.

Me too.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

....

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
> held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
> now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
> and more often than not the Presidency? The biggest reason is they are
> the only party that is willing to cut taxes.

The problem is that they cut taxes disproportionately in
favor of corporations and the wealthiest few, which is exactly
the wrong thing to do. Not only do we have a record deficit,
but our local taxes are skyrocketing to make up for the federal
cuts in state aid. Bottom line is that corporations and the wealthiest
few are taxed less and the middle cl*** is taxed more.

> People can't understand why there property taxes are sky
> rocketing when inflation isn't.

The bu$h regime is cutting federal aid to states to help
fund obscene tax cuts for the elite and it's war profiteering
in Iraq. The tax cuts and corporate welfare handouts have to be
covered by increases local taxes. Meanwhile jobs are leaving,
wages are stagnant, and health care costs are skyrocketing...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0416-08.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0407-01.htm
http://responsiblewealth.org/



-

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.


"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

..u.. ..

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't
> really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to
> lower other taxes or to fund quality programs.

Man, you sure picked a prickly topic here!

Here is my two cents.

I believe in the school of economics that says the basic problem with
any government, with soft budget constraints, is that it's fundamentally
incapable of the necessary self-regulation and efficiency the free
market can provide. Socializing health care can give you good stories,
but on the whole, it costs everyone more. And as for the gross
shortcomings of the free market, cite Enron, cite WorldCom, fine; I
agree that it's all flawed. But nothing is more flawed than an
enterprise that can never actually go bankrupt. Nothing can borrow from
Peter to pay Paul with more impugnity than a wealthy democratic government.

Futhermore, attempting to place too many artificial controls on the free
markets in the form of excessive taxes, price supports, price ceilings
and other mechanisms such as subsidies does more damage in the long term
than good, and creates more inequity than it ever solves. These things
creates perverse incentives, and dysfunctional reactions that are
counterproductive to the causes in general - and I'm not talking in
terms of years, I'm talking in terms of seconds, once the news breaks.

Gasoline is a very price-inelastic commodity, like tobacco and illicit
drugs. As such, raising its price by 1% will always result in an
increase in revenue and profits that is more than 1%.
All the government is going to do by taxing the hell out of fuel and
energy is to raise more money to fund its inefficiencies, causing more
inefficiencies of bloated bureacracy to oversee the inefficiencies it
caused, hence costing the consumer again a disproportionately large sum
of money for a paternalistic policy, and the original intentions of the
legislation are forever lost and twisted by those who come along and
figure out how to make money off of it.

We most definitely do need an energy policy. It just cannot be solely
based on taxing fuel. It sounds good until you dig deeper.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

..cha.. ..hnso.. ..

Hank wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>
>>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
>>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
>>now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
>>and more often than not the Presidency? The biggest reason is they are
>>the only party that is willing to cut taxes.
>
>
> The problem is that they cut taxes disproportionately in
> favor of corporations and the wealthiest few, which is exactly
> the wrong thing to do. Not only do we have a record deficit,
> but our local taxes are skyrocketing to make up for the federal
> cuts in state aid. Bottom line is that corporations and the wealthiest
> few are taxed less and the middle cl*** is taxed more.

Hank, did you (or anyone) ever get a paycheck from a poor person? I
didn't think so. Do you think all rich people are evil, dishonest,
lazy, uncaring, cheating bastards? If you do you're a loon. Do you
think the government (at all levels) wastes a huge amount of our tax
dollars? If you don't think so then get a clue. Do you think the
solution to every problem is to throw money at it by taxing the living
**** out of the wealthy and everyone making a decent living. If you do
then please feel free to donate 80% of YOUR income to the IRS and don't
presume you should control my income.

The State/municipal governments are using the reduction in federal
funding to dishonestly justify increased state taxes. Want to know what
happened in my state of Virginia? Let me tell you anyway. They
screamed the sky was falling two years ago and our newly elected
DEMOCRATIC governor got a substantial tax hike enacted. Now they have a
BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS that they are just itching to spend. Turns out
there was no pending economic disaster after all. Now why that is?
Turns out the federal tax cuts improved the State's economy much faster
than our governor expected, or wanted. Now the debate is whether they
should return the excess funds back to the tax payer. You can probably
guess what I think they should do.

Want to know why the low income people can't get anymore income tax
reductions? It's because they don't pay any income tax! You know how
the government gets their pound of flesh from them anyway? It's through
personal property/property tax increases, gasoline taxes,
cigarette/alcohol taxes and lottery tickets to name just a few ways.

Over taxing the wealthy will screw our economy in ways you can't
imagine. They are the engine that makes capitalism work. If you are
for high tax rates on on any one group then all you want for this
country is socialism. If there is one thing we have learned without
question through our experiences of the 20th century it is that
socialist governments don't work. IMO, removing incentives goes against
nature and what drives us humans to succeed and advance. If you really
want to help the poor get the government off their backs and quit making
them dependent on government handouts. Liberals know that keeping the
poor dependent and ignorant is their only hope of retaining them as a
voting block. I know it is hard for you to read these things but
sometimes the truth stings like a MF.

>>People can't understand why there property taxes are sky
>>rocketing when inflation isn't.
>
>
> The bu$h regime is cutting federal aid to states to help
> fund obscene tax cuts for the elite and it's war profiteering
> in Iraq. The tax cuts and corporate welfare handouts have to be
> covered by increases local taxes. Meanwhile jobs are leaving,
> wages are stagnant, and health care costs are skyrocketing...

You need to get up with current events and educate yourself on the
economic conditions of many of the states. They are reaping the rewards
from the bu$h regime's tax cuts. They are no where near economic
meltdown. You need to get a new mantra because this "jobs are leaving,
wages are stagnant" droning just doesn't bite anymore. Fact is the
unemployment rate is better than at ANYTIME during the Clinton
administration. The economy is booming in case you haven't heard. The
wages in my industry (land development, engineering consulting,
construction etc.) are up almost 100% in the last 5-7 years. This has
happened in many other industries.

I'm going to give you a little history lesson in economics. Back in the
late 1970s and early 1980s the U.S. transcended to a service based
economy. You need to read up on what that means. Basically, the
majority of jobs in the country provide services and not manufacturing.
It is a natural progression of a growing economy and an improving
standard of living. Basically, we can no longer afford our own labor
cost. Now people like you think this is a bad thing or that no matter
what the cost to the consumer we need to keep mundane manufacturing jobs
inside the USA. There are plenty of high paying jobs available to the
people (and it really isn't that many people) who had their job
transfered to a country with less labor costs. You know what they have
to do though? Get off their rear ends and get training to be qualified
to fill those positions. In the end they will have a better income with
much better job security. The rest of the country's consumers can't,
and shouldn't, be required to pay outrageous prices for underwear, blue
jeans, computer components, knick knacks, automobiles etc. just so these
people can retain their overpaying jobs. If you want to see what job
protection causes just look at the stagnant economic growth in Europe
and France and Germany, in particular.

You need to accept that liberalism is hitting a dead end in this
country. Your ideas are basically a sugar coated minor variation of
socialism and communism. You and your cronies biggest problem is that
you can't tell us what you really stand for because is would finish your
group as a political entity. The days when liberals controlled the
avenues of information to the m***es are over. Now that nearly every
person can hear both sides (liberal and conservative) and make their own
choices your side has been trying to find ways to keep your real agenda
secret. Liberals can't stand that the m***es just don't swallow all
your propaganda without question like in the past. You and your cronies
have no clue how rabid your side looks by having Ted Kennedy, Cindy
Sheehan, Micheal Moore, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, among others,
making complete ***es of themselves. All this completely ignorant,
illogical and impossible babble you rant over in this newsgroup just
makes your side look totally incapable of governing this country. As
far as I'm concerned I want you and your buddies to keep doing exactly
what you have been doing. It is the best way I know to keep you wacked
out, far left liberals out of elected government.

>
><snipped a huge amount of worthless HS>

..cha.. ..hnso.. ..

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>
>>>>Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government
>>>>one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do
>>>>it than we can count right now.
>
>
>>>>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas.
>
>
> Right, then the American consumer is so darn happy with the cheap gas
> he responds by doing what? Well, of course, he consumes more gas which
> in turn drives the price, and the profits of oil-rich countries (many
> of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or
> trying to control.), back up.

I want the market to set the price of gas, not the government. If that
means it is $3.00/gallon or $1.00/gallon then so be it. Capitalism
works best when the laws of supply and demand are applied. If the
government want to get us away from oil then they could develop new
technologies for alternative energy sources and give it away to
companies willing to bring it to market. Don't inflate gasoline prices
to the point I have to ride a moped to get around. I'm not even going
to get into how unfair it would be to lower income people.

> Plus, cheap gas keeps anyone from investing in alternative fuel
> sources. It's a nice little cycle. And that's the main reason the
> oil-rich countries walk a tight-rope on prices -- high enough to make
> good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives.

I guess the free market system is working if they know they can't
totally rape us on oil prices. IMO, we will stop using oil only when
the clear majority of the people in the country want to use alternative
energy sources. Whether that results from economic, political and/or
environmental reasons is anyone's guess.

>>>>Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most.
>
>
> Only if the government doesn't "redistribute" those dollars in the
> forms of compensation -- reduction of other taxes.

Income redistribution doesn't really solve anything. People on the
lower end of the economic ladder need to be given opportunities, not
endless handouts that make them dependent, IMHO, of course. Plus, I
don't trust the government to "redistribute" anything, whether it be
money or cheese.

>>>>The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need more money, they > >> need to make do with less.
>
>
> Agreed.

I knew there had to be something we agreed on.

>>>Even though the prices of crude do have an impact there is also the
>>>issue of the capacity to turn raw crude into fuels. There hasn't been
>>>a new refinery built in the US in about 30 years while the demand
>>>curve has steadily increased.
>
>
> That's an issue, but the bottom line is demand is growing faster than
> they can pump it out of the ground.
>
>
>>>Certain taxes on fuel are supposed to go to pay for the infrastructure
>>>to support the use of vehicles, i.e. roads & bridges. Unfortunately
>>>in many states these taxes go directly into the states general funds
>>>and never do get spent on improving the roads if the roads in my area
>>>are any indicator.
>
>
> The problem is we have more roads/bridges than we can take care of. A
> road that was a single lane ten years ago, is now probably two lanes,
> at least. And a two-lane road is twice as expensive to resurface.
>
>
>>>Yes driving a high-performance vehicle to & from work is a royal
>>>blast. However, it simply isn't required. The major problem is no
>>>viable m*** transit alternative for the majority of the country to get
>>>anywhere. I can drive the 18 miles to work in 30/40 minutes. If I
>>>was to take the bus it would be more like 2.5 hours in each direction
>>>and I still have to get to the bus stop.
>
>
> There is no fix to that one. Human nature is we all want our space.
> And space now often means living 10+ miles from work.
>
>
>>>The answer is out there somewhere, but I doubt that anyone in the US
>>>government is going to come up with it.
>
>
> It's higher fuel prices by way of higher gas taxes. Think about this.
> If you had to pay say... an extra $1K per year for fuel, but received
> other tax cuts to make up the difference what would your response be?
> Of course, you'd find ways to cut your gas consumption, and a brainy
> neighbor or company would search for cheaper alternatives to oil.
>
>
>>If the government wants to reduce our consumption of fuel then they
>>should just ration gasoline and be done with it. That way we won't have
>>them digging in our wallets so deep. Personally, I think fuel should be
>>taxed just like any other commodity. Just apply the state's sales tax
>>rate.
>
>
> Drop gas prices that far and you'd breed fleets of Hummer-sized
> vehicles.
>
>
>>Fuel tax is just another way government has found to increase
>>revenue covertly. I don't believe these amounts per gallon tax rates
>>are shown on the pumps. Why do you think that is so? Also, why are
>>they included in the advertised price? If the tax was added on to the
>>purchase like sales tax the public would be forced to know they are
>>getting raped on gas taxes and probably wouldn't stand for it.
>
>
> Exactly, and then the consumer would respond to the new lower prices by
> doing the above.
>
>
>>The reason I am so p***ionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping
>>them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the
>>local, state and federal taxes are combined. Individually they don't
>>seem so bad but add them up and most of us would be shocked. The thing
>>is that many of these taxes are not based on income so the poor are hit
>>disproportionately hard. Hell, state governments even pray on people
>>through lotteries. Many of the people I see buying those tickets
>>haven't got the income to justify such an extravagant purchase. Do you
>>think the government cares that they are praying on the poor by offering
>>lottery tickets? Granted, no one is forced to by a lottery ticket but I
>>expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money from
>>people that can't afford it.
>
>
> Aren't they required to print the odds of winning on every ticket? If
> folks can't do simple math, or use simple logic, they deserve their
> money to be ****ed away. But let's face the facts, most want a
> "simple" way to fortune.

If they do print the odds on the tickets I would wager the print is so
small you need a microscope to read it. It is true that many people are
just looking for the easy fortune. This is why we will always have a
segment of the population that is poor. They just don't want to work,
period. This is why I have a problem with just handing out government
***istance without requiring results. There are a small group of people
that will make a career from playing the system. It isn't fair to the
taxpayer, or the people that truly need ***istance, to let these people
be leaches. This is why, IMO, things like income redistribution doesn't
work. It entices people to become dependent instead of self sufficient.
Let's face it there are many, many people who would be happy to take a
government handout over gainful employment. As the old saying goes,
"Whatever you subsidize your create more of it".

>>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
>>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
>>now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
>>and more often than not the Presidency?
>
>
> They have big business and the religous right in their back pocket?
> Money + religion is tough to beat/defeat. Just ask Bin Laden.

Respectfully, this is where you are dead wrong. I vote Republican and
in no way fit the stereotype you just stated. I am self employed and
haven't been to church in years. The reason I vote Republican is
because for me there is no better alternative that stands a snowball's
chance in hell of winning an election. I don't care about any of the
religious issues. I do care greatly about conservative economic issues.
I am actually more Libertarian that anything. I just know that voting
Libertarian in today's world is a waste of my vote. One other thing I
know is that should liberals get their agenda enacted they will run this
country off a cliff economically and from a national security standpoint.

Bush didn't get 60+ million votes because all the church's got the vote
out and all the corporate CEO's voted. He got them because a vast
majority of people are tired of having issues like gay marriage, gun
control, tax increases, etc. rammed down their throats. The majority of
the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes
to taxes, gay marriage, gun control, government intrusion in everyday
lives to name a few. Bush's votes were not from a legion of red-state
rednecks. They were from a broad cross section of the country. He made
percentage gains in all ethnic and gender groups from the 2000 election.
No political talking head gave him a chance if Kerry got more than 54
million votes. The point being is that what many think is a traditional
Republican vote just doesn't fit anymore. After the 2004 election it
should be clear that Republicans positions are more mainstream than
anyone thought possible.

>>The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes.
>
>
> They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a
> little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check
> they don't have the funds for.

IMO, we basically have two choices. First is to lower taxes and run a
higher debt (BTW, our debt relative to GDP is better than any other
developed country) and the second is to have us taxed excessively and
still run up the deficit. Of these two, I'll take the first. If you
expect Congress to control their spending then you're delusional. At
least lower taxes will fuel economic growth which in turn increases tax
revenues. All excessive taxing will do is stagnate economic grow and
reduce tax revenue which will result in a perpetual downward spiral.

>>Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here
>>where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there property
>>taxes are sky rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of the local
>>government aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their local taxes. The
>>average person is starting to see what is being done to them from a tax
>>standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I believe there
>>will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how they are taxed.
>
>
> Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be
> paid.

Not really. It will need to be "serviced". It will never be paid off.

>>Well, I feel better after that rant.
>
>
> Me too.

Feels good, huh?

>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>