Nate Nagel said:Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax. The
latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would a) be
much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less impact on
the average road user.
nate
Nate Nagel said:Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax.
The latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would
a) be much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less
impact on the average road user.
nate
The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass transit
users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that they
use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for the
resources (road repair and building) that they use?
Sharx35 said:Commuting for hours is pure bullshit most of the time. Surely, you can
MOVE closer if the job has any permanence at all. I have NO sympathy for
those who commute for HOURS year, after year, after year. Live closer to
where you work, damnit.
John David Galt said:Make the urban-planning assholes allow enough homes to be built so I can
live there without having more money than God, and I'll do it.
Sharx35 said:Typical fucking LIEbrawl DEMONrats--their KIDS rule the house.
Jeff said:The problem for the state is that if the vehicle fleet becomes more
efficient and the CAFE (for lack of a better illustration) goes from
17.5 to 22.5, then there will be fewer taxes collected. (I pulled those
numbers out of my ass, what the numbers are and what they go to does not
really matter. All that matters is our cars are getting more efficient,
so fewer gas taxes are being collected.)
Jeff said:That is a valid question.
In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
what would happen if mass transit stopped?
From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
into and out of NYC) were still running.
Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
not enough roads in NYC without it.
So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
public transportation so that the system continues to work.
CharlesTheCurmudgeon said:It's not the urban planning assholes, it's the un-real estate agents.
They've been pumping the bubble with happy gas for over a decade now.
Unfortuntely, in order to keep pumping the bubble, they had to sell to
people that were basically unable to really pay their prices, and finally
the bubble burst. They forgot the law of retail gravity. Eventually what
goes up must come down.
John David Galt said:CharlesTheCurmudgeon said:It's not the urban planning assholes, it's the un-real estate agents.
They've been pumping the bubble with happy gas for over a decade now.
Unfortuntely, in order to keep pumping the bubble, they had to sell to
people that were basically unable to really pay their prices, and finally
the bubble burst. They forgot the law of retail gravity. Eventually
what
goes up must come down.
It's actually both groups, plus some developers, and especially the
green movement.
The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
and climbing higher forever. The movement's leaders are all rich, white
people who own nice big houses on huge areas of land, and by stopping
most development and new infrastructure they can: (1) create and maintain
a huge shortage of good homes by "protecting" other people's unbuilt land
from use; (2) in particular, make sure that any unbuilt land near THEM
stays empty, so they can keep using it as "viewshed" without paying for
it; and (3) prevent the riff-raff [you and me, and especially minorities]
from moving in next door where their kids might meet ours.
The Sierra Club, and the green movement which it leads and typifies,
exists in order to convince the gullible that the members of this cabal
are unselfish benefactors to the world, when the truth is that they are
"gimme-ist" bastards who have more than enough money already, and use
the unfair power of government to ensure that you and I can never share
in their cherished lifestyle. They are classists, racists, and elitists.
It astounds me that any real liberal (are there any left?) would venerate
such a bunch of hypocrites.
John David Galt said:The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
and climbing higher forever.
Scott in SoCal said:Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is
USENET I know I never will.
If you actually live in California, look around and see what the environuts
have already done to your state, WBMS
Nate said:Jeff wrote:
snip
Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax. The
latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would a)
be much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less impact
on the average road user.
nate
Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is USENET
I know I never will.
And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is chock
full of environmentalists.
The proof of it IMO is in the actions that they support that are counter
to environmentalism. I've heard and read of cases where through the
power of government (in different states) land was taken from its
rightful owners to preserve 'open space' and the like. Later on down the
road the land was sold by the government to insiders who then developed
it and built very expensive homes upon it. I didn't save the cites on it
but I have read/heard about it so it's not new to me.
Beyond that I think he is pointing out a subset of the "true purpose".
The true purpose is clearly that of a ruling class wishing to remain a
ruling class and have everything to themselves while the rest of us have
nothing.
It is my belief that if I were to develop a $10 zero point energy device
(I'm just using that as a 100% clean miricle energy source that would
preserve the environment and raise the standard of living world wide)
that could run a car or a home for 25 years that every attempt I made to
bring it to market would be blocked by government. I would also likely
be killed if that would prevent its release.
Undoubtedly why Fleischman and Ponds went public directly. Now nobody can
"duplicate the experiment." Yeah... right...