Re: Clueless Media Strikes Again

From: Alan Browne (alan.browne_at_FreeLunchVideotron.ca)
Date: 11/17/04 

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:45:15 -0500

Karl Pollak wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As to taxes relating to automobile use, I could see, esp. in the US and Canada a
>>tax related to the efficiency of continued fuel use. For example, yes indeed,
>>have the car report its mileage to the pump for the last umpteen litres v.
>>umpteen km driven... the less efficient the vehicle, the higher the tax
>>proportion.
>
>
> That's utter nonsense. It's nobody's business what kind of rate of
> consumption I get from my car. If I use more fuel to travel the same
> distance as you, I will already pay more in taxes because I will have tobuy
> more fuel. In Canda, taxes are already well over 50% of the price of
> gasoline at the pump.

It is nonesense from the point of view of prolific consumers. It is entirely
sensible to those who are extremely concerned with the facts of the situation:

     -oil is harder than ever to get
     -consumption is rising faster than new supply
     -pollution is increasing, not decreasing
     -there are serious security issues regarding oil
     -rising fuel consumption and costs are an unneeded buden on the economy.

>
> How would you set up such a system fairly? Retrofit it into older cars?
> They are usually the ones that have considerably higher fuel consumption.
> What if I refuse to have the governemtn to install their fuel snoop? I
> would be sent into a re-education camp fro my own good?

I pointed out the problems with retrofit and I don't believe that there are
simple nor perfectly equitable solutions. That does not mean that it is an
excuse to do nothing.

And as for your "re-education camp" 'defense', just drop it. Typical knee-jerk
reaction from people who put their freedom to act stupidly above the greater good.

The point that people should focus on before resorting to 'liberties' defenses,
are the points above. What we are deeding to our children from POV's of health
and a potentially bleak economic future and that concern should be high up above
your petty concerns about convenience and rights to do as you please regardless
of long term consequences.

>
> I mean, please guys, do try to think beyond the technical capacity to build
> some snooping device. Try to consider its practical implementation, use and
> alleged benefit if any.

Again, I pointed out the tip-of-the-iceberg problems. The real problem is
social acceptance that there is a problem far more important than the petty
details of change or your your right to behave stupidly in the face of the facts
above.

>
>
>>For businesses, this tax would be rebatable.
>
>
> WHY? The worst air pollution comes from commercial vehicles, not private
> cars. Why would you want to exempt them from paying? It's not as if they
> would be paying it anyway, they woudl pass the costs on to the consumers.
> And the net result of all thisn taxing orgy would be that the air would not
> get any cleaner at all. You would keep off the road the lower income
> people, essentially taxing them off the road, and make driving a luxury for
> those who can afford it and therefore do not have to give a rat's ass how
> much they pollute.

Properly maintained vehicles pollute far less than poorly maintained ones. But
in retrospect, you are right, commercial operators need a similar incentive to
be reasonably efficient.

For the economic benefit given, commercial vehicles are far more efficient than
private automobile owners driving a large SUV to their downtown job than one
driving a Camery sized vehicle.

As to the 'taxing them off the road', the tax can flow towards anyone with a
more efficient vhicle. (eg: @ 30 mpg, the tax is 10 cents, at 40mpg the tax is
0; @ 20 mpg the tax is 40 cents... etc.). Incentive not to waste; incentive to
be efficient.

The real point, regardless of what the actual 'best fit' is, is to reduce
consumption and pollution. Something that Americans have failed at miserably,
and Canadians are only a footstep behind.

Oddly enough, due to the plunging US$, the price of gas here in Canada is a
little too reasonable given the market price of oil. And all that despite the
high taxes we pay on gasoline... which is nothing compared to the UK, France,
Germany, etc.

Cheers,
Alan. 

-- 
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--             [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
--                   e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obamas Remarks on Retirement Security
    ... taxes in the first place, ... is that people who have already saved money have already ... were eliminated and consumption taxes initiated. ... I definitely would want to file something to get the tax money ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Obamas Remarks on Retirement Security
    ... taxes in the first place, ... is that people who have already saved money have already ... were eliminated and consumption taxes initiated. ... I definitely would want to file something to get the tax money ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Tax Cuts & Redistribution of Wealth
    ... how about this for a deduction: make them pay income tax but allow ... Consumption taxes are highly regressive. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Best Economy in 5 Years? Baloney!
    ... plan will now be forced to pay additional federal consumption taxes, ... A replacement federal bureacracy for IRS (income tax) to ... collected from a consumption tax. ... "Tax subsidies often go to person X to help person Y ... ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Euro diesel reaches the US
    ... best way is to tax heavy use. ... That promotes the building of more efficient vehicles and less ... drivers cannot afford to fuel their vehicles. ... I regard most taxes as abusive. ...
    (rec.motorcycles.tech)