Post #70,063
12/19/02 11:02:30 PM
|
Re: 2 problems
First issue. I don't. Taking money from corporations is just another sales tax. Net effect is a wash...and the consumer doesn't >recognize< the component of price.
Besides...I thought I was pretty clear when I said I don't expect them to >have< to pay for something that >we< do.
2nd point. I thought I was also relatively clear here. Mass transit is a government responsibility. Oil/auto is a convenient cop-out for what I consider to be one of our government's most amazing failures.
The demand for gas is almost entirely a consumer driven phenomenon...and while we all know its environmentally unsound..we fail to support initiatives that change the status quo. Quite simply..raising the tax on gasoline to those levels will achieve the desired outcome.
Again...you can blame the drug user or the supplier...which one creates the demand?
I pull the trigger...but its S&W's fault the guy is dead?
Chances are slim to none that we are going to agree if your premise is to blame Ford for the failures of mass transit.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #70,098
12/20/02 11:15:49 AM
|
Okay
First issue- We agree then that using tax revenues to pay for health problems caused by the taxed item does not equate to making the provider of the unhealthy, taxed item pay for them. Good. I agree BTW with taxing the hell out of gasoline. Get it up to 4 or 5 dollars a gallon.
Second- I still think you are being a little naive. Consumer demand for oil is not a simple "buyer" driven demand. [link|http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html|GM's] destruction of [link|http://www.verdant.net/natlcity.htm|trolley] lines is a case in point.
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #70,107
12/20/02 11:46:03 AM
|
There is no naivite involved.
I know the GM story.
It should have never been allowed.
Again...back to my premise...Mass Transit is a government reponsibility. GM can't form a consortium to buy the [link|http://www.screamingeagle.org/|101st Airborne], right?
My point is that they've failed at this just as miserably as they have failed in so many other areas.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #70,110
12/20/02 11:58:30 AM
|
Let me restate
My reference to mass transit being torpedoed by GM et al, was a illustration of a larger point. I am not trying to blame GM/Shell/Goodyear for the failures of mass transit. That is not the point I am pursuing. The consumer demand for oil has been manipulated by those who profit from that demand. The blame is shared. The dealer/user metaphor is not accurate. The consumer is not standing alone in this.
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #70,141
12/20/02 3:16:03 PM
|
And we (the people) are the ones that allowed it.
It was all legal. Granted it may have been "sneaky" or "underhanded"...but it was all legal.
And again...making >them< pay does absolutely nothing except extend the amount of time that it takes for us to pay.
Taxing corporations for something that they will immediately pass through on price is an irrelevance.
Fool me once, shame on you...fool me for >years<....shame on me.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #70,146
12/20/02 3:23:51 PM
|
Yeah. Right.
It was all legal. And you say you aren't naive.
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
|
Post #70,149
12/20/02 3:37:27 PM
|
Well...let me clarify...
...because risk/reward is involved.
They may have cracked a minor law or 2 in the process..but..even in 1930 standards...being levied a fine of $5000 makes the law irrelevent. Cheaper to pay the fine than to fix the problem.
None of this discussion really even makes sense in the context of my point. None of that should have been possible. The simple fact that is >was< possible verifies the failure that I've pointed out.
And..complicit or not...fining oil companies is no different than taxing us directly. >We< pay.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #70,152
12/20/02 3:44:59 PM
|
No, a specific *subset* of "we" pay
And..complicit or not...fining oil companies is no different than taxing us directly. >We< pay. But "we" would pay in proportion to how much we use it. If you want (or need) to drive something that gets 12 mpg, and I can get by on something that gets 36 mpg, doesn't it seem fair that you should pay a three-times-larger share of the costs? Three times as much for the roads, three times as much for the health costs, three times as much for every cost involved in over-the-road transportation. I would think you would be in favor of costs being borne, to the extent possible, by those responsible for them.
=== Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #70,153
12/20/02 3:50:29 PM
|
Whcih is why..
...I say just tax the gas.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #70,159
12/20/02 4:29:06 PM
|
I ... thought that was the original idea
But don't feel like re-reading the whole thread.
=== Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #70,160
12/20/02 4:48:41 PM
|
Neither do I ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|