An idea to reduce oil consumption and restructure the way we pay taxes.

MikeK · Apr 30, 2008

Okay, tell me how wrong I am. I was thinking...

Countries we import oil from (not including Canada) - Russia, middle eastern countries, Venezuela, etc., are among our principal potential military enemies. A sizeable amount of terrorist funds can be traced to oil profits. The more money we give to these countries for oil, the stronger a military we need to defend ourself from them. I propose a hefty federal gasoline tax. something that would start at an additional $.20 a gallon and increase by $.10/year for 10 years. It's $.184 per gallon today.

I think this is a plan everyone could get behind. Conservative hawks will like that we'll have a stronger military. Environmentalists will like the increased incentive to use less gasoline. Libertarians will like that it amounts to a "user fee" for the military - if you send money to far-off lands, you must pay for the military that defends us from the people you're funding.

Your thoughts?

Cosmic Charlie · Apr 30, 2008

MikeK said:
Okay, tell me how wrong I am. I was thinking...

Countries we import oil from (not including Canada) - Russia, middle eastern countries, Venezuela, etc., are among our principal potential military enemies. A sizeable amount of terrorist funds can be traced to oil profits. The more money we give to these countries for oil, the stronger a military we need to defend ourself from them. I propose a hefty federal gasoline tax. something that would start at an additional $.20 a gallon and increase by $.10/year for 10 years. It's $.184 per gallon today.

I think this is a plan everyone could get behind. Conservative hawks will like that we'll have a stronger military. Environmentalists will like the increased incentive to use less gasoline. Libertarians will like that it amounts to a "user fee" for the military - if you send money to far-off lands, you must pay for the military that defends us from the people you're funding.

Your thoughts?

Mikey are your decimal places in the right places ?

right now you want the tax to be 20 cents a gallon.

Also, it has been determined that if the true costs to the environment, health and the roads were in the price of gasoline it would cost between 10 and 12 dollars a gallon.

Maybe we should consider stopping subsidizing the costs of using gas and begin to pay its real costs at the pump.

Again, good for conservative, libs and neo-cons who want to have illicit sex and do drugs (what libertarians really are.))

MikeK · Apr 30, 2008

Well - we can play with the numbers. Mine were just unresearched examples that seem to me to be small enough not to cripple people right off the bat but big enough to matter.

Right now the tax is $.184/gal, I proposed making it $.384/gallon - increasing it by 115% right off the bat. After 10 years of what I proposed the tax would be $1.28/gallon, an increase of over 700%. That's not going to solve the world's problems, but it's not nothing.

Fantine · Apr 30, 2008

Taxes have always been used to encourage and discourage certain behaviors.

Discouraging taxes--on alcohol and cigarettes.

Encouraging tax breaks--on investments (capital gains rates) and giving to charity and buying a home.

If the proposal were revenue neutral--e.g. raise the gas tax and let people deduct ALL their medical expenses--not just everything over 7.5% of income--then I would be fine with it.

We have a flexible spending plan, so we do deduct all our medical expenses. But it's insane--and inequitable-- that people who work just as hard at companies that don't have flexible spending plans, or who are self-employed, have to reach this 7.5% threshold.

St_Joseph_Cupertino · Apr 30, 2008

Or just buy all your oil from Canada.

Of course, I'm biassed!

SecretOfFatima · Apr 30, 2008

hey mike you need one of this
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=BG3Bc2WOdG4

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=eKtpD3HnGsM

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=iC2Rnb_5RO8

and here Eliica vs Porshe
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=QS8jqmBh4M0

BillH · Apr 30, 2008

In principle, I agree. Actually, like Charlie, if anything, I think that it's not enough, though the $12 figure sounds high to me.

The big objection (and a reasonable one as far as it goes) is that
a higher gas tax hits the poor harder than the rich -- not just from using their cars, but because gas prices implicitly figure into the price of anything that has to be transported. My preferred solution would be to use the revenue generated by a higher gas tax and cut some combination of payroll and income taxes.

BAFRIEND · May 1, 2008

St_Joseph_Cupertino said:
Or just buy all your oil from Canada.

Of course, I'm biassed!

Or we could just take that oil from that nation we defeated a couple years ago.

You know in that country that is now the model of democracy and freedom.

Globalnomad · May 1, 2008

What BillH said. Tax the hell out of gas and use the money, not for the military (OK, give them SOME, just to appease the hawks) but to FINALLY get on with the huge investments that your country needs in public transport, suburban railways and long-distance railways... and to generate the electricity that is needed to run these (I vote for nuclear energy!)

P.S. and in the short term, of course, give decent tax breaks and even outright assistance to people whose livelihoods depend on road transport.

WordofGod · May 1, 2008

MikeK said:
Your thoughts?

I'm glad you brought this up MikeK. I don't believe there is an oil crisis at all, only a greed driven oil industry.

Since 1997, there has been a solution for our energy needs and our environmental needs. But General Motors and Exxon have buried the solutions.

There was a battery developed back than that would easily fit into a all electric vehicle which would out perform fossil fuel driven automobile engines, it was guaranteed for 10 years and it would hold a electrical charge for over 400 miles but Exxon owns the patent on it which they brought off the inventor and has not allowed it to be used for the above mentioned type electric vehicle.

General Motors had invented the EV-1, an electric car capability of out performing a fossil fueled car in many ways and was in very little need of long term maintainence but because General Motors didn't want such an economical car out on the road, they would only lease them and not sell them. When a California Law, that had prompted this invention was repealed, General Motors quickly pulled the vehicles off the market as soon as their leases ran out and refused to sell any of them to the public even though there had been outrage and demontrations by the people who where aware of the vehicles.

General Motors instead collected all the vehicles and disabled all of them so that they couldn't be used and as far as I know they have only one of them in memorail that has also been disabled.

You don't see any of our governmental leader promoting the recall on these inventions simply because big money, big influence and fear thinking that it would disrupt the world economy so much that it is better kept secret and ignored.

Do we really think they don't know? Not me.

BAFRIEND · May 1, 2008

Maybe it would have been nice if that 40 billion dollars in free money we gave the oil companys when they made record profits had been used to build some or even one of those refinerys the big shots told us the shortage of was the reason for the price inflation.

I have an idea: for every cent increase in the price of a gallon of gas (national average)- lets increase the tax a percentage on the industry CEOs paychecks and incentives because like Billh stated, a 20 cent tax to a low wage earner is huge hit compared to the guy who takes home 100s of millions of dollars.

The oil industry spends over 70 million dollars a year lobbying congress and gets tens of billions every year in our tax dollars while raising the price of gas on us. They have their hands in all our pockets.

What we need to do is create a national oil company run by a panel to compete with the big oil companys and let that company run at a loss and make the private oil companys subsidize it the way we have been subsidizing them.

BAFRIEND · May 1, 2008

If we can have a post office- why can't we have a gas office ?

ScottBot · May 1, 2008

St_Joseph_Cupertino said:
Or just buy all your oil from Canada.

Of course, I'm biassed!

Or we could just drill our own freakin oil. We have huge reserves of it everywhere, but the stinkin tree huggers won't let us touch it.

ScottBot · May 1, 2008

BAFRIEND said:
Maybe it would have been nice if that 40 billion dollars in free money we gave the oil companys when they made record profits had been used to build some or even one of those refinerys the big shots told us the shortage of was the reason for the price inflation.

I have an idea: for every cent increase in the price of a gallon of gas (national average)- lets increase the tax a percentage on the industry CEOs paychecks and incentives because like Billh stated, a 20 cent tax to a low wage earner is huge hit compared to the guy who takes home 100s of millions of dollars.

The oil industry spends over 70 million dollars a year lobbying congress and gets tens of billions every year in our tax dollars while raising the price of gas on us. They have their hands in all our pockets.

What we need to do is create a national oil company run by a panel to compete with the big oil companys and let that company run at a loss and make the private oil companys subsidize it the way we have been subsidizing them.

I actually like this idea. Let private industry AND the fed compete with each other, rather than work in cooperation to screw Johnny America.

MikeK · May 1, 2008

Globalnomad said:
What BillH said. Tax the hell out of gas and use the money, not for the military (OK, give them SOME, just to appease the hawks) but to FINALLY get on with the huge investments that your country needs in public transport, suburban railways and long-distance railways... and to generate the electricity that is needed to run these (I vote for nuclear energy!)

P.S. and in the short term, of course, give decent tax breaks and even outright assistance to people whose livelihoods depend on road transport.

You're missing my point. I agree that we should encourage public transportation, I agree that we should be building nuclear plants by the dozen instead of decommissioning them, and I agree that it might be necessary to throw a bone to those who are dependant on road transport - but the reason I propose funding the military on a scale that slides with the amount of gallons of gas purchased in this country is because the more gas we buy, the more money our enemies have, the more money we need to spend to defend ourselves. It stands to reason that the person who buys sends more money to our enemies should also have to spend more money to defend us from our enemies and potential enemies. Let's pay for the military in proportion to the way we fund our enemies. I'm in favor of a similar tax on goods imported from China. If you're going to pay to make them strong, fine. You must also pay to defend yourself from them. If you can't afford to defend yourself from a country, you can't afford to do business with that country.

I don't think the fed have any business funding or regulating public transportation. Let the states or municipalities create their own taxes for those. Funding of our military is a job for the feds.

ScottBot · May 1, 2008

MikeK said:
You're missing my point. I agree that we should encourage public transportation, I agree that we should be building nuclear plants by the dozen instead of decommissioning them, and I agree that it might be necessary to throw a bone to those who are dependant on road transport - but the reason I propose funding the military on a scale that slides with the amount of gallons of gas purchased in this country is because the more gas we buy, the more money our enemies have, the more money we need to spend to defend ourselves. It stands to reason that the person who buys sends more money to our enemies should also have to spend more money to defend us from our enemies and potential enemies. Let's pay for the military in proportion to the way we fund our enemies. I'm in favor of a similar tax on goods imported from China. If you're going to pay to make them strong, fine. You must also pay to defend yourself from them. If you can't afford to defend yourself from a country, you can't afford to do business with that country.

I don't think the fed have any business funding or regulating public transportation. Let the states or municipalities create their own taxes for those. Funding of our military is a job for the feds.

While we are at it, lets find a way to get our military off of petroleum products. What about a hybrid M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. It could even use the express lanes in the highway!

MikeK · May 1, 2008

ScottBot said:
While we are at it, lets find a way to get our military off of petroleum products. What about a hybrid M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. It could even use the express lanes in the highway!

I think our military should be domestically produced oil exclusively. If that means drilling in ANWAR, so be it.

Then again, I think we could cut our number of tanks in half, decimate the infantry, and practically eliminate the Air Force as we know it without losing much warfighting capability at all. I velieve that state of the art strategic weapons coupled with the best air and sea port and border security we can provide will offer better protection from attack than a large standing army. I don't want to ocupy other countries, I want to destroy their warfighting capabilities. We don't need the Army for that. The way we should have gone in Iraq was to stay the course. Keep wrecking every piece of military hardware that Sadam produced. Let him waste his money building weapons that will never enter service, see if we care. Ditto Iran. If they're building a nuclear/thermonuclear bomb or IRBM, let's wreck it and the plant that built it. Building nuclear weapons and/or balistic missiles isn't the sort of thing that is easy to hide.

LOL - I'm full of ideas. I have all the answers. You guys should totallyu ellect me to be your President.

...scratch that, make it Overlord.

BAFRIEND · May 1, 2008

MikeK said:
I think our military should be domestically produced oil exclusively. If that means drilling in ANWAR, so be it.

Then again, I think we could cut our number of tanks in half, decimate the infantry, and practically eliminate the Air Force as we know it without losing much warfighting capability at all. I velieve that state of the art strategic weapons coupled with the best air and sea port and border security we can provide will offer better protection from attack than a large standing army. I don't want to ocupy other countries, I want to destroy their warfighting capabilities. We don't need the Army for that. The way we should have gone in Iraq was to stay the course. Keep wrecking every piece of military hardware that Sadam produced. Let him waste his money building weapons that will never enter service, see if we care. Ditto Iran. If they're building a nuclear/thermonuclear bomb or IRBM, let's wreck it and the plant that built it. Building nuclear weapons and/or balistic missiles isn't the sort of thing that is easy to hide.

LOL - I'm full of ideas. I have all the answers. You guys should totallyu ellect me to be your President.

...scratch that, make it Overlord.

I don't believe your ideas on military defense are very practical.

Tactics rely on combined arms synergy. Armour cannot operate without infantry and air sumpremacy is the benchmark of US military strategy.

No enemy wants to go up against our power in mass and in Vietnam we lost 60,000 in 10 years while I think in 5 years in Iraq we have lost 4000. Do the math- we are doing something right. BTW- in the same 5 years we have lost 150,000 civilians in car accidents.

BAFRIEND · May 1, 2008

I think our military should be domestically produced oil exclusively. If that means drilling in ANWAR, so be it.

Since California alone already produces 75% of its energy needs domestically- it could already be argued that percentage wise the US military is already covered domestically.

ScottBot · May 1, 2008

BAFRIEND said:
I don't believe your ideas on military defense are very practical.

Tactics rely on combined arms synergy. Armour cannot operate without infantry and air sumpremacy is the benchmark of US military strategy.

No enemy wants to go up against our power in mass and in Vietnam we lost 60,000 in 10 years while I think in 5 years in Iraq we have lost 4000. Do the math- we are doing something right. BTW- in the same 5 years we have lost 150,000 civilians in car accidents.

Well then I think it is high time that America declares a War on Traffic!

I mean really, we have the War on Terrorism, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on War, War on Illiteracy, War on Dust Mites (not sure if that last one is real). Why not a War on Traffic.

Even better! What about a War on Death! Let us uniformly declare war against being dead!

An idea to reduce oil consumption and restructure the way we pay taxes.

Traditionalist Catholic

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Traditionalist Catholic

Dona Quixote

St_Joseph_Cupertino

Guest

Our Lady of Fatima: Song of Solomon 6:10 (NIV)

Be not afraid!

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

True LOVE never Fails and Casts out fear.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Revolutionary

Revolutionary

Traditionalist Catholic

Revolutionary

Traditionalist Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Revolutionary

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency