Mullaly: Gas Tax Worth Exploring

[Meelaan]

I keep reading the issue about "people who need vehicles with low fuel efficiency for work would suffer" didn't read the part of my initial post about exceptions.

 

The tax would be for non-commercial vehicles... those owned privately. Airline, trucking, and municipal vehicles would be exempt from the tax. Those vehicles are necessary for operation of our national infrastructure.

 

SIDEBAR...

And my comment about poor access to New Orleans residences was not influenced by any carbon monoxide leak. Insurance companies are no longer writing policies for mortgages in the area. You can't buy a house without homeowner's insurance. Therefore you can't buy a house. Rental property rates have skyrocketed. Apartments that were priced at $500 before the hurricane are $1800/month now. That's due to higher insurance rates for the property owners. I bought my 3 bed 2 bath house in Covington (northshore) in 2002 for under $80k... that's impossible in New Orleans or Jefferson right now. Unless you want a house with no walls in New Orleans East.

[Rob052067]

Another tax is not the answer. The market will demand more fuel efficient vehicles on it's own. It's already happening.

It's a fact: The market is demanding more efficient vehicles because gas prices have gone up. However, aren't the higher gas prices the same as a tax increase? But, instead of the extra money paid for gas going to the government to spend on infrastructure repairs/improvements and for technology research, etc., that extra money is going directly to the oil companies and to the foriegn oil producing countries - most of which don't much like us.

 

Wouldn't it be better for higher gas prices to be the result of higher taxes where that money stays in the U.S. and is used to fund projects that the country needs for a better and safer future? Higher taxes on gas will eventually reduce demand, and as a result the prices of oil and gasoline will decline, which will in turn offset part or all of the increase in the overall price per gallon paid at the pump.

 

One way or the other, higher gas prices will change driving habits; encourage demand for greater fuel efficiency in new vehicles and for more alternative fuels. If I'm going to pay more for gas, I for one would rather be paying more to Uncle Sam than be paying more to Middle Eastern nations and Big Oil companies.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Rob052067

[Harley Lover]

I'd possibly MAYBE support the hike if the federal government mandated that every cent it collected would be used for repurchasing of treasury bonds from the Chinese.

 

Amen, brother. Best idea in this thread.

[BlackHorse]

It's a fact: The market is demanding more efficient vehicles because gas prices have gone up. However, aren't the higher gas prices the same as a tax increase? But, instead of the extra money paid for gas going to the government to spend on infrastructure repairs/improvements and for technology research, etc., that extra money is going directly to the oil companies and to the foriegn oil producing countries - most of which don't much like us.

 

Wouldn't it be better for higher gas prices to be the result of higher taxes where that money stays in the U.S. and is used to fund projects that the country needs for a better and safer future? Higher taxes on gas will eventually reduce demand, and as a result the prices of oil and gasoline will decline, which will in turn offset part or all of the increase in the overall price per gallon paid at the pump.

 

One way or the other, higher gas prices will change driving habits; encourage demand for greater fuel efficiency in new vehicles and for more alternative fuels. If I'm going to pay more for gas, I for one would rather be paying more to Uncle Sam than be paying more to Middle Eastern nations and Big Oil companies.

 

You're a damn fool Rob, that's all I can figure.

But, instead of the extra money paid for gas going to the government to spend on infrastructure repairs/improvements and for technology research, etc.,

 

Let me get this right. My money should fund the development of technology that in turn will benefit companies like Ford who will implement it in their product line an then turn around and charge me for it? Go f*** yourself. How about Ford and GM and the boys develop their own technology arising out the revenue they garner from their sales? Sounds like free market to me.

 

I'm all for more fuel efficient vehicles but adamantly against the government taxing me into a behavior they deem to be appropriate.

[Edstock]

You're a damn fool Rob, that's all I can figure.

Let me get this right. My money should fund the development of technology that in turn will benefit companies like Ford who will implement it in their product line an then turn around and charge me for it? Go f*** yourself.

 

You already are, from DARPA to Sandia to, well, the list has hundreds of entries.

 

How about Ford and GM and the boys develop their own technology arising out the revenue they garner from their sales? Sounds like free market to me.

 

How about that? Wait — it's called R&D!

 

I'm all for more fuel efficient vehicles but adamantly against the government taxing me into a behavior they deem to be appropriate.

 

The problem is that providing an ultra-high mileage vehicle that you can afford and tolerate if not enjoy is currently impossible.

It requires new materials and material processes — and they don't exist right now, and they may not come from Ford or GM or BMW or Toyota's R&D, because no one company can cover all the bases of research required.

 

Anyway, it may require some more of your tax dollars.

 

Solutions may come from other areas of the market, like fuel suppliers. A case in point:

 

Cooking Up More Uses for the Leftovers of Biofuel Production

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/business...&ei=5087%0A

[BlackHorse]

All of you that think the answer here is to raise taxes listen carefully. You are stupid sheep and you need to wake up. The federal government is awash in so much money they don't know what to do with it all. I don't give a damn what Rob says, 15 billion dollars in one year for pork barrel spending could probably rebuild most of the bridges in this country from scratch. Right now there is a debate in congress as to whether or not they should spend 8 million dollars to have the congressional gym refurbished because some congressman from Hawaii doesn't like the way it smells. Now it seems to me if we were so strapped for cash in this country the congress could find a much better use for 8 million dollars don't you think? Personally I think for the kind of money we are paying those asswipes they could afford a gym membership or buy a home gym and not spend 8 million dollars of your money and my money on their precious private gym. This is just one of literally thousands of such examples of how our government just throws billions of dollars a year away and then you fools are going to go to bat for them and tell me they need more of our money. Get bent. They already take to much and I will never consent to some moronic notion that the key here is to pay ever higher taxes.

 

If the government wants to conduct R&D, that's fine, let them, but I don't want to hear how they need billions more dollars to do it. If they do then don't conduct R&D it's that simple. I'm not on board for being taxed into the poor house so Ford and GM can have the government develop new products at no cost to them. Also Pioneer makes a good point and while I am not openly opposed to the war on terror you have to wonder how much money would their be in our budget if we weren't paying for that. Where did that money magically come from over the last 5 years because they didn't raise taxes to pay for it. Gee I guess it was money that was there all along ay? So once we end up bringing our forces home and aren't spending 4.5 billion dollars a month to fund that war, where will that money go? Will it magically disappear behind some politician who will then tell us all we aren't paying enough taxes? Damn your tax increases. We already pay far too much and personally I think Americans should stand up and demand further tax reductions.

[Sizzler]

SIDEBAR...

And my comment about poor access to New Orleans residences was not influenced by any carbon monoxide leak. Insurance companies are no longer writing policies for mortgages in the area. You can't buy a house without homeowner's insurance. Therefore you can't buy a house. Rental property rates have skyrocketed. Apartments that were priced at $500 before the hurricane are $1800/month now. That's due to higher insurance rates for the property owners. I bought my 3 bed 2 bath house in Covington (northshore) in 2002 for under $80k... that's impossible in New Orleans or Jefferson right now. Unless you want a house with no walls in New Orleans East.

 

Another reason there's no money in the federal budget to fix our bridges. Wasting money trying to fight Mother Nature in New Orleans. The city is doomed. Throwing another penny at it is just more weight in the anchor that'll drag it into the gulf. Let it rot. Let it sink. Pull back to someplace where there's some actual land above sealevel.

 

Sinking money into New Orleans is just bad precedent for when the waves start lapping up Wall Street. The ice caps are melting, and coastal cities all around the US are going to see the effects.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Sizzler

[Sizzler]

All of you that think the answer here is to raise taxes listen carefully. You are stupid sheep and you need to wake up. The federal government is awash in so much money they don't know what to do with it all. I don't give a damn what Rob says, 15 billion dollars in one year for pork barrel spending could probably rebuild most of the bridges in this country from scratch. Right now there is a debate in congress as to whether or not they should spend 8 million dollars to have the congressional gym refurbished because some congressman from Hawaii doesn't like the way it smells. Now it seems to me if we were so strapped for cash in this country the congress could find a much better use for 8 million dollars don't you think? Personally I think for the kind of money we are paying those asswipes they could afford a gym membership or buy a home gym and not spend 8 million dollars of your money and my money on their precious private gym. This is just one of literally thousands of such examples of how our government just throws billions of dollars a year away and then you fools are going to go to bat for them and tell me they need more of our money. Get bent. They already take to much and I will never consent to some moronic notion that the key here is to pay ever higher taxes.

 

If the government wants to conduct R&D, that's fine, let them, but I don't want to hear how they need billions more dollars to do it. If they do then don't conduct R&D it's that simple. I'm not on board for being taxed into the poor house so Ford and GM can have the government develop new products at no cost to them. Also Pioneer makes a good point and while I am not openly opposed to the war on terror you have to wonder how much money would their be in our budget if we weren't paying for that. Where did that money magically come from over the last 5 years because they didn't raise taxes to pay for it. Gee I guess it was money that was there all along ay? So once we end up bringing our forces home and aren't spending 4.5 billion dollars a month to fund that war, where will that money go? Will it magically disappear behind some politician who will then tell us all we aren't paying enough taxes? Damn your tax increases. We already pay far too much and personally I think Americans should stand up and demand further tax reductions.

 

+1

 

Wasn't the war in Iraq supposed to MAKE us money. I'm still waiting for the first dollar of return on that investment.

 

More taxes = More money for the government to waste.

 

Waste not, need not. We seem to need a lot, must mean there's someone wasting a heck of a lot.

[Edstock]

Where did that money magically come from over the last 5 years because they didn't raise taxes to pay for it. Gee I guess it was money that was there all along ay?

 

Gee, you guess wrong. DEFICIT FINANCING. Where have you been? Anyway, you'll get to pay for it, or your children will.

[BlackHorse]

Gee, you guess wrong. DEFICIT FINANCING. Where have you been? Anyway, you'll get to pay for it, or your children will.

 

 

We already pay Edstock, that's the point. We pay way too much.

[ANTAUS]

Or grandchildren at the rate we are going...

[630land]

Reason for CAFE is there are still alot of people who think 'Detroit is hiding 100MPG engines in their warehosues, we have to force them to be built'.

 

Also, even if all cars were traded in for Priuses, the world's problems would continue....

Edited August 9, 2007 by 630land

[Biker16]

Another tax is not the answer. The market will demand more fuel efficient vehicles on it's own. It's already happening.

CAFE will allow people to use more gas. by driving further .

 

there are two ways to waste gas.

 

Drive more or drive a inefficient vehicle.

 

CAFE only affect the latter and encourages people to drive further and faster.

 

what you say is only true because gas prices has risen, you don't think people out of the blue began to demand More efficient cars out of the blue?

 

 

CAFE force the industry to make cars people don't want, and lose money on them.

 

A gas tax will encourage people to buy more efficient cars, because it saves them money. creating demand for the products we sell.

 

As to the effects on the poor and the middle class. income Tax credits to soften the blow.

[macattak1]

LINK-Detroit News

 

How dumb is he? I know he knows that there is a Fed and State tax on fuel, but it almost rings like he forgot that because he does not have to pay his own milk bill each month. Not that he knows what a gallon of milk costs. None of them do. I wonder if he knows what the average US personal income is? NBA stars think it is about $100k per year.

 

Yes, lets introduce an old world tax system. Then, lets introduce a corporate patent system like Europe has. Next, lets encourage entrepreneurship like Europe does. Next, we can push for European style personal rights.

 

OK. Movie stars, CEOs, CFOs, and anyone that is worth over lets just say ~$2 million should just keep their myopic views to themselves. The chances of them living in the real world is slim to none. how about we put a special tax on CEOs. Or how bout we go for Frances 35 hour work week? Or how about Japan's employment for life policy?

 

Geez, sometimes these guys really need to shut up. He does not need to get a resounding applause from a bunch of CEOs. Pissing off the common man is 1000 times more significant than getting a tip of the hat from your 100 top industry buddies.

 

You really lost me on this one Mulally! Did you run this by your PR firm first? Does not appear that you did.

 

You know. California made a huge push for residential upgrades for Heat/AC via utility rebates. Then what happened? Ca's next move after everyone had upgraded was for us to just stop using our Heat/AC, and brown outs, black outs, and then penalties for going over a certain amount.

 

The fact is a growing nation uses more energy. We can become more efficient. But you never want to push a general reduction. It is just simple economics that the less one moves about the less one spends. Period. And the less you move about the fewer cars we need. Talk about shooting his own industry in the foot.

Edited August 9, 2007 by macattak1

[macattak1]

Gas taxes and Diesel Fuel taxes are different and don't have to be at the same rate. Since Diesel powered vehicles get better mileage and their production is being encouraged, I doubt that the tax on Diesel, or on E85 for that matter, would be as high as on gasoline (nor should it be).

 

I fully agree that the US needs much higher gas taxes to encourage higher demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel powered vehicles and to lower demand for foriegn oil. I've long advocated a phased-in increase in gas taxes by an additional $2/gallon over 5 years or even $4/gallon over 10 years (that's only a 10-cent increase every 3 months for 5-10 years). The additional revenue can be used to repair and improve the country's infrastructure and to pay for research and development of new technologies. And, to ease the burden but still gain the benefits of lower gasoline demand, some of the increase can be be offset for low and middle income people by offering modest income tax credits.

 

Ever played Sim City? Try it some time. See how your plane works on a game first.

 

Do you:

make the median US income or less each year?

have a mortgage?

have kids?

have retirement?

have health care?

how much do you give to Charity?

how much do you give to local causes?

how many times a week do you eat out?

 

Do you know what a gallon/liter of fuel costs in Europe? Do you know why? Do you know much about their economies? How much they are growing? How much they are in debt? Why they cant afford an army let alone a navy or air force? Do you know what made this country, unlike the old world, strong and an economic power house? Do you know what will kill it? Do you know what it takes to keep it successful? Do you know what will happen to us and the rest of the world every time the US goes into a recession let alone worse?

 

Basically, the easiest answer is this country can mimic General Electric and keep growing or AMC and go from the biggest to nothing in little time flat. The US economy is a huge blessing. Hope you graduated before your tax ideas are implemented. Not sure you could afford school after it.

 

/rant

 

Peace and Blessings

[jasonj80]

I'm sorry jasonj80 but you just flat out don't know what you're talking about. The problem is not that we need more taxes for infrastructure. The problem is that our government wastefully and foolishly spends the literally billions of dollars in tax revenue they already have. As you so cleverly pointed out, 15 billion dollars in pork projects last year alone is a heck of a lot of infrastructure that could be updated. The truth is they have been negligent in not funding our infrastructure because so long as bridges were not falling and the roads were mostly serviceable nobody is complaining and it's easy to redirect that funding into some other project. Giving them more taxes is not going to change that, it's only going to give them billions more for more wasteful spending.

 

I know more than I would ever care to know about tax issues. What is Wasteful spending to you? The Grade Separation on Newburgh Rd in Westland MI built a few years ago was listed a "Pork Project" as is the 10 million dollars on in Plymouth and the Future one in Woodhaven, they all are under "Pork Projects" so there you have 30+million dollars in what 99.9% of America would call pork but ask those people in those community's what they think and they would tell you there were needed.

 

Why do I care that Blue Diamond Rd out side Las Vegas is made into a 8 lane highway and a bridge built under the rail road tracks for almost 100 million dollars -- to me that is pork, but ask someone in Vegas what they think and they might have a different answer with the accidents that used to take place along the road when it was 2 lanes. What about a 1.5 million Walk path in Denver -- Pork?. A 400k nature center in Florida -- Pork?

 

The Government has the same issues with Pensions and Health liability that Ford does. Do they need to build new schools and universities? Where do you propose we cut spending, education, military(you could cut here), health, transportation? It is such a complex issue because on top of it you have someone that has to make their constituency happy or they lose their job, and what is best for the constituency, or best for the greater good of all, may not be popular (gas tax, cutting a service) but it is the decision that needs to be made. It is sometimes a very difficult pill to swallow and some people because they don't like it, just refuse to believe it.

 

The issues with diesel and exempting it from a tax as some have said -- you only get so much diesel for a Barrel of Oil, so diesel gets more expensive from just the supply and demand aspect. Diesel has become more expensive in Europe as more and more people are using it though it is taxed at a less rate than gas; diesel also comes from the part of the barrel that also makes heating oil so that gets more expensive as well.

[igor]

CAFE will allow people to use more gas. by driving further .

 

there are two ways to waste gas.

 

Drive more or drive a inefficient vehicle.

 

CAFE only affect the latter and encourages people to drive further and faster.

 

what you say is only true because gas prices has risen, you don't think people out of the blue began to demand More efficient cars out of the blue?

CAFE force the industry to make cars people don't want, and lose money on them.

 

A gas tax will encourage people to buy more efficient cars, because it saves them money. creating demand for the products we sell.

 

As to the effects on the poor and the middle class. income Tax credits to soften the blow.

CORRECT ..

 

and for those calling Mulally dumb ..let's just recap what HE ACTUALLY SAID - "Gas tax worth exploring"

- did he say - "bring on the $8 gas!!!"? NO

- did he say - "gas tax solves all our issues!!!"? NO!

 

He said it might be a good alternative to CAFE which seems to be proven more and more inefficient..the Feds shjould pay more attention to it and evaluate it.

 

it seems in the world of GWB anyone who does not pee alongside you is perceived as pissing on your shoes ..

 

Igor

Edited August 9, 2007 by igor

[macattak1]

I couldn't disagree more. The so-called 'wasteful pork barrel' spending by Congress is really such a miniscule blip on the radar of the Budget of the U.S. that it could be likened to a rounding error. First, most of those 'pork' projects are useful and necessary, and bringing money back to their home states and districts is part of what Congressmen are elected to do (and, sadly, some of that pork is often needed to gain votes on crucial bills - that's just politics). Second, the actual amount of wasted money on unnecessary projects is in the blown out of proportion by the media and amounts to a couple of billion dollars a year at the most.

 

Repairing America's aging infrastructure will cost over a Trillion dollars over 10 years (ie: over $1,000 Billion!), and there's no way to pay for it without raising revenues (taxes). There's only a very small percentage of the US Budget that doesn't go toward Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest Payments.

 

The Federal Debt is nearly $9 Trillion dollars, and we sure don't need to pile on more debt to pay for infrastructure repairs. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion on Interest Payments on the National Debt. Compare that to spending for NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. Just think what that $406 billion dollars could have been better spent on had Congress not mortgaged the future with annual deficit spending.

 

For decades, Republicans have pushed tax cuts on top of tax cuts while wrongly claiming that economic growth will increase revenues and eliminate deficits. That hasn't happened. There's been revenue increases, but that's to be expected with population increases. Unfortunately, spending has also increased as the demands on Defense, Social Security, and Medicare increased, and the ever growing national debt required larger and larger interest payments. Basically, the Republicans have been 'Borrow and Spenders'.

 

At the same time, Democrats have been shamed and belittled as 'Tax and Spenders' for so long that they've been wary to push for needed tax increases to eliminate deficits, to pay down the debt, and to pay for much needed infrastructure repairs and improvements.

 

There's been no real leadership in government on either side to get the job done for the good of the country in the long run. Everything is done for the here and now: to please supporters, so more campaign funds can be raised, so they can get re-elected... wash, rinse, repeat, ad-infinitum...

 

:titanic:

 

Question. What states since 2000 have had the largest reserves AND surpluses? Answer: States with No income tax or no property tax. Neither NY or CA were in that group. They were at the opposite end. And guess what? They have the highest Fuel tax. Who has the surplus? States with the lowest fuel tax. So, higher taxes mean Nothing with regard to fiscal spending/responsibility.

 

There are 500k bridges on the Feds Infrastructure list. 70k of them need rebuilds/upgrades/etc. 70k times what? An average of say $25 million as some just need upgrades but others tear downs and replaces. That is about $2 trillion. The Feds actually have a $300 billion budget for the next 5 years for roads.

 

You acknowledge that most of our budget goes for nothing but interest, military, and social security, but you want to entrust a huge amount more to the Feds???

 

We are more like $50 to $60 Trillion in debt as a whole country. The Federal Reserve gave us that.

 

How is it that taxes need not only go up $ wise but as a percentage? At what percentage of tax, which by the way is our money, do the Feds and States need? Does it just increase by 1% for you every year so that in a short time we are at 40%, 41%, 42%...70%, 71%? When does it end?

 

So lets change the common practice which is to keep raising taxes to solve our problems. And yes, our taxes have gone up overall probably every decade since 1776.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

It's a fact: The market is demanding more efficient vehicles because gas prices have gone up. However, aren't the higher gas prices the same as a tax increase? But, instead of the extra money paid for gas going to the government to spend on infrastructure repairs/improvements and for technology research, etc., that extra money is going directly to the oil companies and to the foriegn oil producing countries - most of which don't much like us.

 

Wouldn't it be better for higher gas prices to be the result of higher taxes where that money stays in the U.S. and is used to fund projects that the country needs for a better and safer future? Higher taxes on gas will eventually reduce demand, and as a result the prices of oil and gasoline will decline, which will in turn offset part or all of the increase in the overall price per gallon paid at the pump.

 

One way or the other, higher gas prices will change driving habits; encourage demand for greater fuel efficiency in new vehicles and for more alternative fuels. If I'm going to pay more for gas, I for one would rather be paying more to Uncle Sam than be paying more to Middle Eastern nations and Big Oil companies.

 

Sorry, not trying to make you a target, but your posts are so fun.

 

What is wrong with money going to Oil Co's. as long as they are US oil cos? Walmart makes more than all of them put together. Do you want us to do something about Walmart? Seriously. What should we do to Walmart?

 

So, the more taxes the more money stays in the US? So, if I buy something on sale for 25% off, I should by 4 of them because the 5th is free? How many do I have to buy before I actually start making money?

 

Remember, there are more people in this world then just a few of us here in the US. There is about 2 billion in just the Chinese and the Indians that Are using more and more fuel. Your idea just does not work out side of a very small area.

 

Peace and Blessings

[igor]

Question. What states since 2000 have had the largest reserves AND surpluses? Answer: States with No income tax or no property tax. Neither NY or CA were in that group. They were at the opposite end. And guess what? They have the highest Fuel tax. Who has the surplus? States with the lowest fuel tax. So, higher taxes mean Nothing with regard to fiscal spending/responsibility.

 

I think you are comparing the number of pirates with the temperature of the earth in there .. (comparing a spurious correlation of two things that did decrease/increase together, but not because they weer actually related - as a researcher and statistician, I fear that the states with "surpluses" are completely incomparable to the heavily populated and otherwise unique states of New York and California.

 

that said .. I agree that the taxation is high and wasted ... but in the era of Reaganism (if you like it or not, Reagan's philosophies are STILL shaping today's political-economic discussions) the questions of EFFICIENCY - never gets asked .. you also never ask about the USE of the taxes .. all you can ask for and about it the percentage and amount of taxes collected ... so GWB gets to cut taxes and and proclaim victory and no one asked whether the system is more efficient, or uses the taxes better ... (not picking on Bush, Clinton did exactly the same (if not worse) .. and so did Bush Sr, and the origin of all this - Reagan - they all just follow in the Big R's footsteps) ..

 

I have hope that whoever wins in 08 will be powerful enough to move away from many of the Reaganisms and define a new era of discussion .. and hopefully this one will be better (I can hope, can't it?)

 

Igor

Edited August 9, 2007 by igor

[macattak1]

All of you that think the answer here is to raise taxes listen carefully. You are stupid sheep and you need to wake up. The federal government is awash in so much money they don't know what to do with it all. I don't give a damn what Rob says, 15 billion dollars in one year for pork barrel spending could probably rebuild most of the bridges in this country from scratch. Right now there is a debate in congress as to whether or not they should spend 8 million dollars to have the congressional gym refurbished because some congressman from Hawaii doesn't like the way it smells. Now it seems to me if we were so strapped for cash in this country the congress could find a much better use for 8 million dollars don't you think? Personally I think for the kind of money we are paying those asswipes they could afford a gym membership or buy a home gym and not spend 8 million dollars of your money and my money on their precious private gym. This is just one of literally thousands of such examples of how our government just throws billions of dollars a year away and then you fools are going to go to bat for them and tell me they need more of our money. Get bent. They already take to much and I will never consent to some moronic notion that the key here is to pay ever higher taxes.

 

If the government wants to conduct R&D, that's fine, let them, but I don't want to hear how they need billions more dollars to do it. If they do then don't conduct R&D it's that simple. I'm not on board for being taxed into the poor house so Ford and GM can have the government develop new products at no cost to them. Also Pioneer makes a good point and while I am not openly opposed to the war on terror you have to wonder how much money would their be in our budget if we weren't paying for that. Where did that money magically come from over the last 5 years because they didn't raise taxes to pay for it. Gee I guess it was money that was there all along ay? So once we end up bringing our forces home and aren't spending 4.5 billion dollars a month to fund that war, where will that money go? Will it magically disappear behind some politician who will then tell us all we aren't paying enough taxes? Damn your tax increases. We already pay far too much and personally I think Americans should stand up and demand further tax reductions.

 

Too funny man. Sorry. Got to laugh. You are blowing off my steam!

 

The govt. does do R&D. They give 100's of millions of $ every year of our money to companies and universities, etc. in the form of GRANTS.

 

To War or not War with any country. We never have money for that. It comes out of the treasury from the Fed Reserve system's shell game. If we did not go to war we would not have any more money. We would just owe less. Going to war should never be an economic question. Not how much it costs or how much we can make.

 

I would have no problem pulling our military out of Every country but England. I don't care what anyone says about England. They are the ONLY country after 911 that said Any Time Any Place and they would be there. Pull out of the countries except for those that Back us and there are not too many. We could save 100s of billions of $s there alone.

 

Peace and Blessings

[SVT_MAN]

Reason for CAFE is there are still alot of people who think 'Detroit is hiding 100MPG engines in their warehosues, we have to force them to be built'.

 

Also, even if all cars were traded in for Priuses, the world's problems would continue....

 

There was a manager at my old job who claimed that this guy he knew had a 59 Cadillac that got around 100 mpg with some experimental carb that GM supposedly made. He claimed GM got wind of the car, and they offered him free Caddys for the rest of his life if he relinquished it. Supposedly, it was a test platform that accidentally got leaked out to public hands. I didn't believe a word of what the guy said, but there are a number of urban legends out there like this. People love a good conspiracy theory.

[macattak1]

CORRECT ..

 

and for those calling Mulally dumb ..let's just recap what HE ACTUALLY SAID - "Gas tax worth exploring"

- did he say - "bring on the $8 gas!!!"? NO

- did he say - "gas tax solves all our issues!!!"? NO!

 

He said it might be a good alternative to CAFE which seems to be proven more and more inefficient..the Feds shjould pay more attention to it and evaluate it.

 

it seems in the world of GWB anyone who does not pee alongside you is perceived as pissing on your shoes ..

 

Igor

 

Sure. Lets also explore the CEO tax, the $10 millionaire tax, the $100 millionaire tax,... We should make a constitutional amendment that politicians can not be worth more than $500k total. I bet we would have 1/100 of our issues.

 

A 'Use' tax is appropriate on None Necessity items. Lobster, $100k cars, $50k stereo speakers, etc. A high use tax is inapropriate on staples. That is unfair. There are many families where the combined earnings are only $10 an hour. These people can not afford New expensive efficient cars nor can they afford $10/gallon fuel.

 

You guys have to stop looking at it from your own point of view and look at it from the common man's perspective.

 

Peace and Blessings

[igor]

Sure. Lets also explore the CEO tax, the $10 millionaire tax, the $100 millionaire tax,... We should make a constitutional amendment that politicians can not be worth more than $500k total. I bet we would have 1/100 of our issues.

 

A 'Use' tax is appropriate on None Necessity items. Lobster, $100k cars, $50k stereo speakers, etc. A high use tax is inapropriate on staples. That is unfair. There are many families where the combined earnings are only $10 an hour. These people can not afford New expensive efficient cars nor can they afford $10/gallon fuel.

 

You guys have to stop looking at it from your own point of view and look at it from the common man's perspective.

 

Peace and Blessings

as someone coming from europe - I would disagree - but then - the EU economies and US economies are so different, aligning only their tax systems would make no sense ..

 

however Europe is ALL about low income tax and HIGH use tax .. and slowly moving to eliminate "exceptions" for necessities as they get abused and played with for political reasons (/tangent) ...

 

regardless, low income tax, high use tax model seems to be very well fit for the EU conditions .. and in the case of Gas tax, I believe it would be very well fit for US as well - but I am not an economist - I had only one 100-level College course .. so it is good I am not in charge of Fed ... but Gas tax just makes too much sense to be ignored, just because in the Reaganism era, taxation is a four letter word ...

 

CAFE is dumb and completely inefficient .. gas tax might not be the solution for the US, but solutions OUTSIDE of CAFE need to be seriously weighted and possibly approved if found superior. And that is where I feel Mulally was completely right.

 

PS: about the people who cannot afford it - we have food stamps, housing subsidies, medicaid and medicare, and baby formula program - I see not reason why part of the gas tax revenues could not be used to help the low- income groups move to the more fuel efficient cars (or adjust their lifestyles, or cope)

 

Igor

Edited August 9, 2007 by igor

[macattak1]

I think you are comparing the number of pirates with the temperature of the earth in there .. (comparing a spurious correlation of two things that did decrease/increase together, but not because they weer actually related - as a researcher and statistician, I fear that the states with "surpluses" are completely incomparable to the heavily populated and otherwise unique states of New York and California.

 

that said .. I agree that the taxation is high and wasted ... but in the era of Reaganism (if you like it or not, Reagan's philosophies are STILL shaping today's political-economic discussions) the questions of EFFICIENCY - never gets asked .. you also never ask about the USE of the taxes .. all you can ask for and about it the percentage and amount of taxes collected ... so GWB gets to cut taxes and and proclaim victory and no one asked whether the system is more efficient, or uses the taxes better ... (not picking on Bush, Clinton did exactly the same (if not worse) .. and so did Bush Sr, and the origin of all this - Reagan - they all just follow in the Big R's footsteps) ..

 

I have hope that whoever wins in 08 will be powerful enough to move away from many of the Reaganisms and define a new era of discussion .. and hopefully this one will be better (I can hope, can't it?)

 

Igor

 

My point was not to do that. If you look at the Idea that I was refuting you might see better what I was up to. No specific correlation or relationship. However, if the most taxed states were the most fiscally sound I would expect someone to point that out...

 

Reagan's advisors economic policy was the best I have ever seen from a president. But, as president, he had more than just the economy to jump start. He had to deal politics, Russia, etc. He was not perfect by any means. One could say he was more liberal than Clinton and Clinton more conservative than Reagan. If you look at spend and tax and tax and spend those two presidents, for example only, blur together more then apart in many economists eyes.

 

GWB is an idiot. I voted for him both times and would again over Gore and others. He has stuck to his guns on somethings. But he is no Regan. Clinton just kept going the economics that Bush Sr. followed and put into place. Bush Sr. just failed to get the results he needed before the election. His results came back the next 1/4. Sooner and he would have likely won.

 

I don't see this country changing anytime soon. We are raising 'Me' kids so how can it get better? Not for a generation or two. The world will likely be over by then.

 

Peace and Blessings