17 Apr 08
McCain has recently suggested that the US should forgo the government tax on gas to help stimulate the economy this summer. He rightly points out that the government takes a far greater cut per gallon of gas than the oil companies who provide us with the gas. Depending on which state you live in this could decrease your gas bill anywhere from 30 cents to a dollar per gallon of gas.
First of all, what incentive does the government have to find alternate forms of fuel when it is taking in such massive amounts of money from the oil industry? Secondly, why does the government always pick the oil companies as the villian regarding high fuel prices when they appear to be the biggest villian of all? Thirdly, I would think that as fuel prices go up the economy in general declines proportionatly. Therefore, at what point does the government begin to loose income as they continue to insist on raping everyone at the fuel pumps as the economy slowly tanks? I would think that a healthy economy takes in far greater revenue in comparison to the gas tax than a economy in shambles.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyWhen gas was around $2.20 in Texas, a state legislator suggested that the state cease and desist from collecting state tax on gasoline for 90 days to give Texans a bit of a break. I'll give you three guesses which political party strongly (like foaming at the mouth strongly) opposed the idea and so it was not carried out.
McCain has recently suggested that the US should forgo the government tax on gas to help stimulate the economy this summer. He rightly points out that the government takes a far greater cut per gallon of gas than the oil companies who provide us with the gas. Depending on which state you live in this could decrease your gas bill anywhere from 30 cents to a ...[text shortened]... hy economy takes in far greater revenue in comparison to the gas tax than a economy in shambles.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyYou have to stop thinking of the gas tax as a revenue generating tax. That is NOT it's purpose. It's purpose is to discourage the use of gasoline. The tax is supposed to encourage people to find more environmentally friendly ways to get around town.
McCain has recently suggested that the US should forgo the government tax on gas to help stimulate the economy this summer. He rightly points out that the government takes a far greater cut per gallon of gas than the oil companies who provide us with the gas. Depending on which state you live in this could decrease your gas bill anywhere from 30 cents to a ...[text shortened]... hy economy takes in far greater revenue in comparison to the gas tax than a economy in shambles.
If you remove this tax you remove the incentitve for people to walk/bike/take public transit.
If we used our cars less, the air would be cleaner, health costs would decrease, roads would last longer needing few taxpayer funded repairs, not as many NEW roads would need to built at taxpayer expense etc.
Any decrease in revenue from the gas tax would be made up for by a reduction in expeditures relating to people using their cars.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716I notice you didn't quote the reasoning behind keeping the gas tax in place. Maybe you should read my post above.
When gas was around $2.20 in Texas, a state legislator suggested that the state cease and desist from collecting state tax on gasoline for 90 days to give Texans a bit of a break. I'll give you three guesses which political party strongly (like foaming at the mouth strongly) opposed the idea and so it was not carried out.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by uzlessWrong: Federal gas taxes were designed to pay for roads, bridges and the federal Interstate highway system. Although left-leaning politicians and their ass-kissing sycophants would love to use the tax system to control people's behavior, it should stay out of that arena and exist strictly as a revenue-generating device for the federal government.
You have to stop thinking of the gas tax as a revenue generating tax. That is NOT it's purpose. It's purpose is to discourage the use of gasoline. The tax is supposed to encourage people to find more environmentally friendly ways to get around town.
If you remove this tax you remove the incentitve for people to walk/bike/take public transit.
If we us ...[text shortened]... as tax would be made up for by a reduction in expeditures relating to people using their cars.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSeriously.
Wrong: Federal gas taxes were designed to pay for roads, bridges and the federal Interstate highway system. Although left-leaning politicians and their ass-kissing sycophants would love to use the tax system to control people's behavior, it should stay out of that arena and exist strictly as a revenue-generating device for the federal government.
This is not the government providing an incentive this is simply the government coercing the average Joe to fork over more of their money to an all ready bloated multi-trillion dollar per year federal beauracracy.
It never ceases to amaze me that the same people that rant and whine about various government abuses and overreach such as the Patriot Act and war in Iraq are the same people who don't give a second thought that one of the true forms and sources of oppression that we face today is overtaxation. If the freakin' goverment did not have access to all this revenue in the first place it wouldn't have the power that it has now. It wouldn't have the power to implement a Patriot Act or the power to spend billions of dollars on an invasion of a sovereign country.
When are people going to wake up!?
17 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter"were designed" versus "are designed"
Wrong: Federal gas taxes were designed to pay for roads, bridges and the federal Interstate highway system. Although left-leaning politicians and their ass-kissing sycophants would love to use the tax system to control people's behavior, it should stay out of that arena and exist strictly as a revenue-generating device for the federal government.
Past versus present.
I suppose you think Cigarette taxes are designed to pay for the stop-smoking signs on tv and print media?
NO, they are designed as a disincentive to smoking. That's why the taxes go up on cigarettes. It's not simply a revenue generator and neither are gasoline taxes.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by UllrHey, say hi to Terry Nichols for me would ya?
Seriously.
This is not the government providing an incentive this is simply the government coercing the average Joe to fork over more of their money to an all ready bloated multi-trillion dollar per year federal beauracracy.
It never ceases to amaze me that the same people that rant and whine about various government abuses and overreach such as the Patri ...[text shortened]... ions of dollars on an invasion of a sovereign country.
When are people going to wake up!?
17 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessThis thought had crossed my mind, however, if this were true why then is the tax money made off of gasoline used soley for the purpose of finding alternative fuels?
You have to stop thinking of the gas tax as a revenue generating tax. That is NOT it's purpose. It's purpose is to discourage the use of gasoline. The tax is supposed to encourage people to find more environmentally friendly ways to get around town.
If you remove this tax you remove the incentitve for people to walk/bike/take public transit.
If we us ...[text shortened]... as tax would be made up for by a reduction in expeditures relating to people using their cars.
With this type of thinking perhaps the income tax is designed to detour people from making a legal income? You know what, that is true as well. The higher income taxes go the less legal routes people will take in making a decent living. Perhaps it is the master plan of the left so as to undermine the legitmate economy of the US like what was done with the former USSR.
One thing McCain said in his reasonings behind his proposal was that the poor suffer far more than the rich with this tax. For example, if you are rich you have a tendency to be able to afford to live in areas that are closer to your work place on average.
BTW: I have no alternate modes of transpertation to even get to work from where I live and walking or riding a bike is not an alternative because it is too far away. I suppose I could live closer to work but I really can't afford it. What do you suggest I do?
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
17 Apr 08
3 edits
Originally posted by uzlessI'm sorry but that's just unnecessary and below the belt.
Hey, say hi to Terry Nichols for me would ya?
I know this is just a debate message board and all and one shouldn't get too wound up over things said ...
But I really don't appreciate you trying to put me in the company of a traitor like Terry Nichols simply because you disagree with my opinion.
I may disagree with some of the things my country does like overtaxation, war in Iraq, etc. But one thing I am not and that is a traitor.
Being in favor of lower taxation for whatever reason does not put one in the company of Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh whom murdered hundreds of innocent people and committed an act of treason against their country.
Here's a thought. How about not trying to portray people with conservative opinions as a variation of Nichols, McVeigh, Hitler, etc., etc. and stick to the discussion.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by UllrNo worries mate. Ironically it is why the US was formed in the first place that began with a little known event called the Boston Tea party.
I may disagree with some of the things my country does like overtaxation, war in Iraq, etc. But one thing I am not and that is a traitor.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by uzlessMaybe your ideas are correct for canada , son, but in the US gas taxes are for other things... or maybe you were stating what you wished gas taxes were intended for. Read Ritter's post...
I notice you didn't quote the reasoning behind keeping the gas tax in place. Maybe you should read my post above.
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by uzlessWrong again: State governments can't live without the quick fix of cigerette taxes, that's why they continually raise them because they know that for smokers, there is no cheaper substitute.
"were designed" versus "are designed"
Past versus present.
I suppose you think Cigarette taxes are designed to pay for the stop-smoking signs on tv and print media?
NO, they are designed as a disincentive to smoking. That's why the taxes go up on cigarettes. It's not simply a revenue generator and neither are gasoline taxes.
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyOur tax system is very progressive. You'd be surprised by how few people pay any federal income taxes and even more surprised by how many get a rebate from the government.
This thought had crossed my mind, however, if this were true why then is the tax money made off of gasoline used soley for the purpose of finding alternative fuels?
With this type of thinking perhaps the income tax is designed to detour people from making a legal income? You know what, that is true as well. The higher income taxes go the less legal rou ...[text shortened]... I suppose I could live closer to work but I really can't afford it. What do you suggest I do?
