 |
|
yavoon
|
|
the curve doesn't work out that perfectly for u duncan. there is a certain amt of oil thats needed to maintain the std of living.
tax the crap out of it and the demand will go down very begrugingly. until a pt where ur just screwing ur own economy w/ taxes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
This sounds like a much better solution.
quote:
Indiana considers linking gas tax to inflation
By Dan McFeely
Indianapolis Star
A proposal to change the way Indiana figures its gasoline tax would help state and local highway budgets keep up with inflation, but its system of automatic increases would effectively remove public debate from the process.
Here's how it works now: Legislators get a bill to raise the gas tax rate and boost highway spending. They debate, they listen to lobbyists and they hear from the public. And then they decide.
From 1988 to 2002, the decision was to keep the rate at 15 cents per gallon. This year, it was raised to 18 cents.
Good starting point, said Bill Haan, executive director of the Indiana Association of County Commissioners, but not nearly enough.
"We cannot wait another 14 years for more road dollars," he said. "We (need this) to enable us to more adequately support our transportation infrastructure to the level that our citizens demand."
Here's how the process would work under House Bill 1762: The gas tax would automatically rise each year along with the rate of inflation, and be safeguarded against fewer fill-ups due to cars that get better gas mileage.
"It is no different than how we determine sales and income taxes," said the bill's author, Rep. Jeffrey K. Espich, R-Uniondale. "We all pay more, but we typically earn more, too."
Espich says the legislature's failure to act for so long has cost the state more than $630 million in potential highway funding. He says his bill would fix that problem and could be key to future economic development.
"I am a believer that infrastructure, like our roads, is an important part of the economy," said Espich. "I think most legislators believe that."
One more detail: A clause in the bill would never allow the tax to be lowered below the previous year's amount, even if inflation slowed and fuel efficiency got worse.
"(Espich) just wants to make it so the state doesn't have to come and ask for more money," said an angry Jim Phend, who heads the Carmel Motorists Association.
"I don't think we should be paying a little more every year. The state keeps wanting more and more. I'm not sure they're delivering what they should."
Highway lobbyists are pushing hard to get this bill a hearing.
So far, House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Crawford, D-Indianapolis, has not scheduled one. He did not respond to messages from The Indianapolis Star.
But the idea has drawn interest from Crawford's counterpart in the Senate.
"I'm willing to consider it if the House passes the bill," said Sen. Lawrence Borst, R-Greenwood, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "But that's a big if.
"Senator Espich has been talking about this for a few years now. I didn't understand the formula then, and I'm not sure I do now. But we will consider the philosophical reasons behind it."
Money raised through gas taxes goes directly to state and local highway budgets for projects as small as filling potholes, and as big as the ongoing relocation of I-70 at Indianapolis International Airport. The money also helps pay State Police salaries.
But those budgets are facing a crisis due to next year's expiration of Gov. Frank O'Bannon's Crossroads 2000 funding program, which has provided $200 million to highway projects in Indiana. Also looming is the potential loss next year of more than $165 million in federal highway funds because of the budget crunch in Washington.
A second gas tax bill filed in Indiana, House Bill 1687, has the same formula changes proposed by Espich. But the bill introduced by Rep. Ronald D. Liggett, D-Redkey, also seeks a flat, 4-cent hike over the next two years, restoring the amount lost during last year's special session.
Variable gas tax rates are rare in the United States.
Only seven other states have variable gas tax formulas in place, and only two -- Florida and Wisconsin -- tie them to the Consumer Price Index, as Espich proposes doing.
Using the CPI as an indicator of rising inflation to adjust the rate helps cover the rising costs of construction, engineering and other expenses of road projects.
Annual increases would be measured in fractions of a penny, according to the state Legislative Services Agency. It predicts Espich's formula will lead to a four-tenths of a cent increase in 2004, followed by a seven-tenths of a cent increase in 2005 -- raising the rate to 19.1 cents.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
ok sure I believe u. u can have a perfectly fine competitive economy based on the idea of not using oil. which is of course a very efficient and effective source of power.
the only way ppl wont use oil is if u give up efficiency in ur economy for it. and I know that america would never vote for that(considering how often "the economy" is on top of voters opinion polls).
sides it sounds like ur trying to play mad witch doctor w/ the economy which I"ve already said in this thread I dont like.
I'd also like to point out I can't diasagree w/ ur other stimulus measures, seeing as u haven't named them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
a little digression.
u know if we had a gov't with any capability at all we wouldn't need to ear tag money. I mean all money collected is just as liquid. and in REALITY gas tax is flat tax. sure the very poor don't pay it cuz they don't own cars. but almost anyone here would pay it.
so if the liberals had any sense they would eliminate gas tax and try to lump it onto income tax which is of course scaled.
its like about 10 years ago my state wanted to dip into the highways fund to pay for their deficit. which of course all the democrats seemed exaulted about. the measure passed easily. since the democrats wanted to spend more money and the republicans knew that gas was a flat tax so the more of it was spent the lower the % upper income ppl would have to pay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
I'd prefer to take measures to stop the terorrism. then to try and starve them out by buying less oil.
I mean omg. haha.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cia
|
|
Far away from here
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
The US at least could restrict the flow of external oil to certain foriegn markets and start pumping our own oil, legislating the wacko environmentalists out of the picture. VOILA, no money for terrorists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DuncanK
|
 |
Evil Empire
Dec 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
The whole justification for capitalism is based on the theory that trade is fair. |
No, the justificiation is that trade is voluntary, and voluntary trade improves the economy. If people don't agree with the burden being placed on them by a voluntary deal, then they can sue to prevent that burden from being placed on them (and plenty of people have sued because of excessive pollution, and recovered). Then the costs are increased upon those inducing the burdens. This view is backed by free marketers (they always backed people being able to assert their property rights in court). |
That is only part of it, although its bullshit. In order for a trade to be justified (according to neo-classical economics) the cost of the trade to society or to other individuals who do not agree to the trade must be equal to the benefit that society or the individuals who pays the costs recieves.
edit: change the last word to recieves
Last edited by DuncanK on 16-03-2003 at 12:20
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-03-2003 09:28
|