Originally posted by Bags:No way. The liberals would then bitch about the "rich" being the only ones able to afford gas. So then President (Hillary) Clinton would have to enact some sort of gasoline tax credit for the middle class, which would just negate the whole thing. Except it would have the politically advantageous effect of shifting the taxes to those evil, dastardly bastards who had the temerity to work hard and make money.
Originally posted by mankie:I'm in favor of that as well…our gasoline is way too cheap. May be the only way to get some conservation and "new" technology going.
If we taxed gas by $1 per gallon I can guarantee you they'd find a way to make SUV's more efficient. I'm in favor of that by the way, put a huge tax on it and watch the SUV's disappear.
Fun Facts
Originally posted by Bags:Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system.
Originally posted by mankie:I'm in favor of that as well…our gasoline is way too cheap. May be the only way to get some conservation and "new" technology going.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:If we taxed gas by $1 per gallon I can guarantee you they'd find a way to make SUV's more efficient. I'm in favor of that by the way, put a huge tax on it and watch the SUV's disappear.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by mankie:don't forget the unions. . they are as adamant against the cafe standards as the auto companies. . coincidentally enough, most unions also support drilling in anwr, at least nominally (guess who would get the jobs??).
Oil and auto companies are right up each others arseholes and we all know it.
Originally posted by chaz:i don't think that's true. . .taxes on gasoline are used (supposedly) to pay for highway maintenance. so, in your example, granny would be paying more simply because she is driving an inefficient automobile. although, the car tax is based on the value of the car, right? well, if granny is still driving her 1978 delta, i'm pretty sure her car tax isn't too much.
Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system.
It's funny that there are more conservatives on this rock and roll chatboard than there are the country chatboard I also occasionally post on.
So much for the notion that all rockers were liberals.
So much for the notion that all rockers were liberals.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:I was at least following your argument until the end.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:All of which is just a further abdication of personal and communal responsibility in favor of some glorious welfare state in which nobody has to do anything except sit on their fat ass and point fingers at those who have worked harder than them.
bah…….
Read "Nickel and Dimed." Don't know what you do, but unless you work two blue collar jobs, I'll bet you don't work harder than most people making $10,712 a year. You know, minimum wage. Over $20K if you work two full time jobs.
FYI, it's "worked harder than they ."
Originally posted by Bags:Its not my money if i never actually recieve it, or at least that makes me feel a little better about it :D
Well guiny, I didn't think you would experience your $7000 in one day, one week or even one year. That would happen over matter of years. But I'll bet you have lost twice your rebate by this time in fees, costs, etc.
Believe me or not, I don't care – it's your money. Hope you really enjoyed the $150.
Like i keep saying, i have a high school diploma, no college, a military background a good paying job so i'm happy, until someone takes that away from me i'm not gonna bitch and moan about everything. Even if they do take it away from me i'll move to a tropical island with my savings and start a beach hot dog vending business and get a tan while i'm at it.
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:Rockers are aging. Que Winston Churchill quote.
It's funny that there are more conservatives on this rock and roll chatboard than there are the country chatboard I also occasionally post on.
So much for the notion that all rockers were liberals.
…tax gas by $1 per gallonyeah, that's brilliant, so all the poor working class losers who have to live in far flung suburbs and probably DON'T work in offices downtown to which they can take public transportation will have to pay more just to get to work?
I say more stringent mpg rules (like markie). Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
Originally posted by keithstg:If youâ??re twenty years old and are not a liberalâ??you donâ??t have a heart. If youâ??re forty years old and are not a conservativeâ??you donâ??t have a brain.
Rockers are aging. Que Winston Churchill quote.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:You've missed my point here. The amount we pay for the roads should be based on how much we use them. Under the current system, Granny drives 20 mile a week to church and grocery. But since her Caddy is worth so much more than Mr.Commuter's (who drives 500 miles/week) Camry she puts more $$ into the highway fund, even though she does 1/20th the driving of Mr. Commuter.
Originally posted by chaz:i don't think that's true. . .taxes on gasoline are used (supposedly) to pay for highway maintenance. so, in your example, granny would be paying more simply because she is driving an inefficient automobile. although, the car tax is based on the value of the car, right? well, if granny is still driving her 1978 delta, i'm pretty sure her car tax isn't too much.
Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system.
Perhaps the gas-guzzling Caddy part confused the issue…I was just trying to use an expensive car as a part of the example but it raises an even better point mentioned earlier. Raising gas taxes will will encourage us wasteful Americans to drive cars that are more enviro-friendly, therefore encouraging auto makers to design and build more enviro-friendly cars etc….
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:Yes please. Let's make it so that corporations dictate what is best for us. :roll:
Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
Originally posted by chaz:not really…a 40K Caddy is a luxury item, that 500 mile/week corrolla driver is driving a reasonable vehicle, probably to WORK
[Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system. [/QB]
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:that's not them deciding what's best for us, that's just a small bit of government regulation in the right place…
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:Yes please. Let's make it so that corporations dictate what is best for us. :roll:
Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
Originally posted by Celeste:OK.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:that's not them deciding what's best for us, that's just a small bit of government regulation in the right place…
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:Yes please. Let's make it so that corporations dictate what is best for us. :roll:
Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
So let's make it so that the government dictates to the corporations what to dictate is best for us.
That's double-roll-eyes-worthy.
:roll: :roll:
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:Rasing the gas tax will trickle down and encourage auto makers to make more economical cars. Remember the late 70's/early 80's? If I'm 70 and drive 10 miles a week why should I pay the same amount as someone who drives 100 miles a week? Perhaps if some of that gas tax $$ was invested in transit those guys could take pub. transportattion to work. But most folks just think that building more roads is the answer to congestion.
…tax gas by $1 per gallonyeah, that's brilliant, so all the poor working class losers who have to live in far flung suburbs and probably DON'T work in offices downtown to which they can take public transportation will have to pay more just to get to work?
I say more stringent mpg rules (like markie). Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:Allright forget the caddy part….it was a bad example. But even if they both drive the same car why should granny pay the same amount for the roads when she does a fraction of the driving?
Originally posted by chaz:not really…a 40K Caddy is a luxury item, that 500 mile/week corrolla driver is driving a reasonable vehicle, probably to WORK [/QB]
[Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:nobody cares what's "best" for "us" anyway…aren't matters like this basically shaped by the lowest common denominator of what government regulations and industry can agree to a "deal" on?
let's make it so that the government dictates to the corporations what to dictate is best for us.
That's double-roll-eyes-worthy.
:roll: :roll:
State Fiscal Relief: Essential to Economic Stimulus Plans
The current state budget deficit crisis has been widely characterized as the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. Almost all states are required by state law to balance their budgets every year. The economic slow down which puts additional demands on state benefit programs and declining state revenues due to federal tax cuts contribute to mounting state budget deficits. Current (state FY 2003) deficits are estimated at $50 billion and are expected to increase to $60-80 billion in state FY 2004 (which starts on July 1 in most states).
The Natioanl League of Cities report:
Overview
A federal and state fiscal crisis that is the largest the nation has experienced in decades is trickling down
to city governments, making it increasingly difficult for city officials to balance their own budgets.1
Faced with $110 billion in state budget shortfalls in 2003 and 2004, state governments cut aid to cities for
the first time in more than a decade. 2 3 At the federal level, the budget deficit is fast approaching $500
billion dollars due to tax cuts and increased spending. Yet, the federal government passed a fiscal relief
package that failed to address the needs of cities and their residents, or provide funding for No Child Left
Behind and homeland security mandates.
Cuts in state revenues can take many forms, given the realities and complexities of 50 different systems in
50 states. These cuts came in a variety of forms: in revenue sharing programs where the state provides
general purpose aid to cities or shares a percentage of a state-collected revenue source with cities; in tax
reimbursement programs where the state backfills city revenues repealed, decreased or transferred by
other state actions; in funds for designated purposes such as highway maintenance and construction; and,
in funds to offset the costs of state-mandated programs.
In some instances, states have cut revenues for cities, but are also passing along the authority for local
governments to raise taxes. In North Carolina, the elimination of local tax reimbursements was coupled
with the authority for counties to levy a sales tax, with an additional provision that the distribution of the
sales tax revenue should hold cities harmless. Similarly, when the state of Minnesota recently cut state
aid to cities it authorized the cities to raise up to 60 percent of the lost revenues through local property tax
increases. While the extension of local tax authority is a positive development, it should also be
recognized that state officials are passing along the political difficulty of raising taxes at the local level,
often in lieu of raising taxes at the state level.
The current state budget deficit crisis has been widely characterized as the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. Almost all states are required by state law to balance their budgets every year. The economic slow down which puts additional demands on state benefit programs and declining state revenues due to federal tax cuts contribute to mounting state budget deficits. Current (state FY 2003) deficits are estimated at $50 billion and are expected to increase to $60-80 billion in state FY 2004 (which starts on July 1 in most states).
The Natioanl League of Cities report:
Overview
A federal and state fiscal crisis that is the largest the nation has experienced in decades is trickling down
to city governments, making it increasingly difficult for city officials to balance their own budgets.1
Faced with $110 billion in state budget shortfalls in 2003 and 2004, state governments cut aid to cities for
the first time in more than a decade. 2 3 At the federal level, the budget deficit is fast approaching $500
billion dollars due to tax cuts and increased spending. Yet, the federal government passed a fiscal relief
package that failed to address the needs of cities and their residents, or provide funding for No Child Left
Behind and homeland security mandates.
Cuts in state revenues can take many forms, given the realities and complexities of 50 different systems in
50 states. These cuts came in a variety of forms: in revenue sharing programs where the state provides
general purpose aid to cities or shares a percentage of a state-collected revenue source with cities; in tax
reimbursement programs where the state backfills city revenues repealed, decreased or transferred by
other state actions; in funds for designated purposes such as highway maintenance and construction; and,
in funds to offset the costs of state-mandated programs.
In some instances, states have cut revenues for cities, but are also passing along the authority for local
governments to raise taxes. In North Carolina, the elimination of local tax reimbursements was coupled
with the authority for counties to levy a sales tax, with an additional provision that the distribution of the
sales tax revenue should hold cities harmless. Similarly, when the state of Minnesota recently cut state
aid to cities it authorized the cities to raise up to 60 percent of the lost revenues through local property tax
increases. While the extension of local tax authority is a positive development, it should also be
recognized that state officials are passing along the political difficulty of raising taxes at the local level,
often in lieu of raising taxes at the state level.
Originally posted by Celeste:And you're in favor of that?
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:nobody cares what's "best" for "us" anyway…aren't matters like this basically shaped by the lowest common denominator of what government regulations and industry can agree to a "deal" on?
let's make it so that the government dictates to the corporations what to dictate is best for us.
That's double-roll-eyes-worthy.
:roll: :roll: