It was reported at the Traill County Tribune (or something along those lines) that Senator Dorgan was told that people (maybe farmers) were suffering from high gas prices. Senator Dorgan had the gall to claim that his windfall profits tax would help them.
His tax scheme would transfer money from high use people (like farmers) to the those that are already leeching off of the system. Senator Dorgan has no shame.
I would have posted on this but it wasn’t available on the internet to source and I didn’t grab an issue of the dead tree version.
The Whistler - 02:01pm on 01/12/2006
To: The Whistler
I hate to call you out on this man, but who exactly is “already leeching off of the system” when it comes to gas?
It seems to me that the “high use people (like farmers)” are already being subsidized.
Gas taxes, and gas prices overall, affect the lowest income earners most. If we are to be consistant and tell people they should work and not go on welfare, we should help them out at the pump since, afterall, everyone uses gas to get to work.
I could break it down and show you how high gas prices in general are contrary to supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics, but I’m not that bored right now.
While I don’t agree with the liberals who want to basicly nationalize/socialize the energy industry, the links with between the GOP and the oil industry in NO way helps the consumers and taxpayers.
The gas tax is a poor tax and affects the guy driving a 15 year old Ford Escort that barely runs far more than the guy with the new Lexus (which is a sweet ride).
For these reasons, a conservative agenda should include a revamping of the gas, and energy tax structure overall.
People who use more should pay more. People who save should be rewarded. The tax on a Geo Metro should be zero while a Hummer (H1, H2, H3, H!) should be much much higher. This should be common sense.
These are all problems dues to the complete lack of an energy policy, which is just as much the Republicans in Congress fault as it is the Democrats. Simple as that.
FreeRepublicans.com - 03:01pm on 01/12/2006
Here is a radical idea. How about America builds more refineries and use the petroleum resources we know we have? Oh, yeah, and stop punishing those who succeed. You know, the ones who provide the financial backing to all the jobs people have? You know, the contractor operating 2 F-250s and a C-10 with 12ton trailer, and all their attendant costs? You know, the home medical services company, who’s employees run their own vehicles, plus the 2 or 3 medtrans rated vans necessary for the movement of clients to various appointments? You know, the local food delivery co-op? Do I need to continue? Thought not.
2Hotel9 - 04:01pm on 01/12/2006
All taxes do is transfer money from the private sector to the public sector. That weakens the ability of the private sector to generate prosperity. The public sector does not contribute to overall prosperity. The best it can do is to redistribute the income of those who have earned it to those that haven’t, in the interest of someone’s idea of “fairness”. Taxes only solve one problem: How can we support the political class?
robert108 - 04:01pm on 01/12/2006
Equity and fairness can be served without tranfering of wealth by taxing those who over-use and rewarding those that conserve; you know, the root word to what we label ourselves.
Some may say that ‘taking from some and not others’ is the same as ‘taking from some to give to others.’ It may be symantics, I understand, but thats for you to figure out.
FreeRepublicans.com - 04:01pm on 01/12/2006
People who use more do pay more. People who save are rewarded. You just have to look at it by the mile.
I really hate my own arguments being thrown in my face.
They pay a flat rate for gas.
Gas is the same price for everyone.
Some people use more than others.
Those who conserve either by choice or nessecity should be rewarded.
Since they pay the same price per unit, they do not save except they paid less for their car.
So not only are they more efficient, they are more intelligent.
Or more desperate.
Conservatives who want a ‘flat tax’ or The Fair Tax really aren’t doing the cause any favors from a public relations standpoint.
The Hummer causes more damage to the roads.
The Hummer uses more gas.
The Hummer makes us more reliant on foreign oil.
The Geo does none of these.
Should we force the Hummer owner to buy a Geo.
No way. You can buy what you want.
But be ready to pay more based on relative impact on infrastructure, resources, and the enviroment.
What will happen is that the left will learn to sell their ideas with their language.
Instead, we must sell our ideas with their language and a better result, first.
FreeRepublicans.com - 05:01pm on 01/12/2006
People who use more should pay more. People who save should be rewarded. The tax on a Geo Metro should be zero while a Hummer (H1, H2, H3, H!) should be much much higher. This should be common sense.
People who use more do pay more. People who save are rewarded. You just have to look at it by the mile.
nobrainer - 05:01pm on 01/12/2006
But it’s not punitive enough for the socialists.
robert108 - 06:01pm on 01/12/2006
If I drive 100 miles in my Geo, I use less gas than if I drive 100 miles in my Hummer. Therefore, I pay more taxes if I drive the Hummer than if I drive the Geo. Jiggering the tax rates to favor one car over another is socialism. If I am willing to pay more to drive my Hummer, I get to do so, in a free society. In a totalitarian society, some bureaucrat like yourself tells me what I can drive. That is the difference. Whether it’s a direct order or a punitive tax, the outcome is the same: enforcement of an ideology on the population. I think we have a better system.
robert108 - 06:01pm on 01/12/2006
But be ready to pay more based on relative impact on infrastructure, resources, and the enviroment.
... which is almost exactly what a per gallon tax accomplishes.
Sure the tax is the same price per unit, but one is rewarded simply by using that unit efficiently.
Example: Let’s say from point A to point B is X miles. Our two drivers, to be introduced, each travel from point to point. Joe Badass driving his H2 may get only 12 mpg while Jimmy Green gets 36 mpg in his Metro. For the trip Jimmy pays 1/3 the tax. He used 1/3 the fuel and probably emmited 1/3 the exhaust. Due to the weight differences, Jimmy probably also caused about 1/3 the wear and tear on infrastructure.
So Jimmy conserves, saves, and is rewarded by keeping 66% of the cost of the trip to himself.
It was reported at the Traill County Tribune (or something along those lines) that Senator Dorgan was told that people (maybe farmers) were suffering from high gas prices. Senator Dorgan had the gall to claim that his windfall profits tax would help them.
His tax scheme would transfer money from high use people (like farmers) to the those that are already leeching off of the system. Senator Dorgan has no shame.
I would have posted on this but it wasn’t available on the internet to source and I didn’t grab an issue of the dead tree version.
To: The Whistler
I hate to call you out on this man, but who exactly is “already leeching off of the system” when it comes to gas?
It seems to me that the “high use people (like farmers)” are already being subsidized.
Gas taxes, and gas prices overall, affect the lowest income earners most. If we are to be consistant and tell people they should work and not go on welfare, we should help them out at the pump since, afterall, everyone uses gas to get to work.
I could break it down and show you how high gas prices in general are contrary to supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics, but I’m not that bored right now.
While I don’t agree with the liberals who want to basicly nationalize/socialize the energy industry, the links with between the GOP and the oil industry in NO way helps the consumers and taxpayers.
The gas tax is a poor tax and affects the guy driving a 15 year old Ford Escort that barely runs far more than the guy with the new Lexus (which is a sweet ride).
For these reasons, a conservative agenda should include a revamping of the gas, and energy tax structure overall.
People who use more should pay more. People who save should be rewarded. The tax on a Geo Metro should be zero while a Hummer (H1, H2, H3, H!) should be much much higher. This should be common sense.
These are all problems dues to the complete lack of an energy policy, which is just as much the Republicans in Congress fault as it is the Democrats. Simple as that.
Here is a radical idea. How about America builds more refineries and use the petroleum resources we know we have? Oh, yeah, and stop punishing those who succeed. You know, the ones who provide the financial backing to all the jobs people have? You know, the contractor operating 2 F-250s and a C-10 with 12ton trailer, and all their attendant costs? You know, the home medical services company, who’s employees run their own vehicles, plus the 2 or 3 medtrans rated vans necessary for the movement of clients to various appointments? You know, the local food delivery co-op? Do I need to continue? Thought not.
All taxes do is transfer money from the private sector to the public sector. That weakens the ability of the private sector to generate prosperity. The public sector does not contribute to overall prosperity. The best it can do is to redistribute the income of those who have earned it to those that haven’t, in the interest of someone’s idea of “fairness”. Taxes only solve one problem: How can we support the political class?
Equity and fairness can be served without tranfering of wealth by taxing those who over-use and rewarding those that conserve; you know, the root word to what we label ourselves.
Some may say that ‘taking from some and not others’ is the same as ‘taking from some to give to others.’ It may be symantics, I understand, but thats for you to figure out.
I really hate my own arguments being thrown in my face.
They pay a flat rate for gas.
Gas is the same price for everyone.
Some people use more than others.
Those who conserve either by choice or nessecity should be rewarded.
Since they pay the same price per unit, they do not save except they paid less for their car.
So not only are they more efficient, they are more intelligent.
Or more desperate.
Conservatives who want a ‘flat tax’ or The Fair Tax really aren’t doing the cause any favors from a public relations standpoint.
The Hummer causes more damage to the roads.
The Hummer uses more gas.
The Hummer makes us more reliant on foreign oil.
The Geo does none of these.
Should we force the Hummer owner to buy a Geo.
No way. You can buy what you want.
But be ready to pay more based on relative impact on infrastructure, resources, and the enviroment.
What will happen is that the left will learn to sell their ideas with their language.
Instead, we must sell our ideas with their language and a better result, first.
People who use more do pay more. People who save are rewarded. You just have to look at it by the mile.
But it’s not punitive enough for the socialists.
If I drive 100 miles in my Geo, I use less gas than if I drive 100 miles in my Hummer. Therefore, I pay more taxes if I drive the Hummer than if I drive the Geo. Jiggering the tax rates to favor one car over another is socialism. If I am willing to pay more to drive my Hummer, I get to do so, in a free society. In a totalitarian society, some bureaucrat like yourself tells me what I can drive. That is the difference. Whether it’s a direct order or a punitive tax, the outcome is the same: enforcement of an ideology on the population. I think we have a better system.
... which is almost exactly what a per gallon tax accomplishes.
Sure the tax is the same price per unit, but one is rewarded simply by using that unit efficiently.
Example: Let’s say from point A to point B is X miles. Our two drivers, to be introduced, each travel from point to point. Joe Badass driving his H2 may get only 12 mpg while Jimmy Green gets 36 mpg in his Metro. For the trip Jimmy pays 1/3 the tax. He used 1/3 the fuel and probably emmited 1/3 the exhaust. Due to the weight differences, Jimmy probably also caused about 1/3 the wear and tear on infrastructure.
So Jimmy conserves, saves, and is rewarded by keeping 66% of the cost of the trip to himself.
The current tax seems to do everything you want.