This has my vote in 08'

mammasan

NCfan wrote:

This isn't about giving the government money. Sure, that will be a good thing if they put it to good use. But that is a side issue. The point is to alter the oil addiction of Americans. I think this is a imensly important issue becuase it effects so many parts of out life - the economy, environment, stagnating Middle Eastern economies, which produce illegitamate and equally stagnate governments.

I can't think of a better way to get Americans to quit buying so much oil than to raise the price of it to a point where they can't afford to buy it. No, I'm not big on a tax, but people aren't going to change unless they are forced to.

Raising the price of gas is not going to ween us off oil simply because there is no viable alternative that is massed produced to replace oil. It is going to take a lot of time to get the other alternatives into place to replace oil so untill they are in place raising the price of gas with a high tax will only mean that people will be paying more for gas and other products that would be directly or indirectly affected by the tax.

farfromglorified

NCfan wrote:

Again, I don't see where the theory conflicts. The point is not to raise money, the point is to ween the American people off of foriegn oil and to clean up the enviornment.

But that's not what your article says:

"The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms."

Of couse we should do something positive with the profits from the tax, but the point is to change behavior, not create revenue - do you understand that? It's not flawed.

Again, that's not what your article says. It claims both: changed behavior and created revenue. Furthermore, your article forgot that the behavior it seeks to eliminate doesn't necessarily equate to the behaviors it purports as being encouraged.

You live in Chapel Hill, so I presume you must understand the meaning of the word "value". Yes, you CAN raise the value of other sources of energy by increasing the price of gasoline. You say, "they simply become more attactive from a price standpoint". I can't think of a better example of value than this. Are you trying to argue just for the sake of argument?

No. You cannot make ethanol something different than ethanol by simply taxing gasolene. You cannot make it less flawed just by encouraging people to buy it. Similarly you cannot make someone invent a nuclear or wind powered car by taxing gas.

Nobody is suggesting that a gas tax alone with change the Middle East. It's just a bold policy that will undoubtedly help. And you can't argue with that.

It isn't a "bold policy". It's a tax. There's nothing bold about a tax.

Yeah, I live in North Carolina too. I understand high gas taxes, and that despite what we pay at the pump - the Middle East isn't changing.

Ok.

Evidently I need to explain to you why that is, and how this policy will change that - since you offered this moot point.

It's quite easy to explain this: US taxation and Middle East reform have no relation to one another. Do you think if the US stops buying gas that the Middle East will suddenly become democratic or something?

Americans spending behaviour on fuel hasn't changed, despite the high fuel costs and that is why the Middle East is not only changing. It is becoming harder to change daily, because leaders are reaping windfall profits.

But American spending has changed. People are buying more gas than ever, despite your taxes because gas demand is linked to travel demand, not just price.

The whole point of the gas tax is to get people to change their habits. Ex. by more fuel-efficient cars, and force auto-makers to follow market demand and quit producing so many gas-guzzling vehicles.

The whole point of pretty much any tax these days is to get people to change their habits. People like you have turned the IRS into Ann Landers.

If you want people to stop buying gas, give them something else to buy that meets the same needs in a better way. Ethanol does not do this. Hydrogen does. Not only is hydrogen "cleaner" (something not too many Americans care about), but it can also be cheaper and more efficient.

Once America quits importing so much oil, the price will fall. Thus, the profits of oil-producing nations will fall, forcing them to diversify their economies.

Or to simply loot what's left and impose an even more autocratic regime.

NCfan

farfromglorified wrote:

But that's not what your article says:

"The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms."



Again, that's not what your article says. It claims both: changed behavior and created revenue. Furthermore, your article forgot that the behavior it seeks to eliminate doesn't necessarily equate to the behaviors it purports as being encouraged.



No. You cannot make ethanol something different than ethanol by simply taxing gasolene. You cannot make it less flawed just by encouraging people to buy it. Similarly you cannot make someone invent a nuclear or wind powered car by taxing gas.



It isn't a "bold policy". It's a tax. There's nothing bold about a tax.



Ok.



It's quite easy to explain this: US taxation and Middle East reform have no relation to one another. Do you think if the US stops buying gas that the Middle East will suddenly become democratic or something?



But American spending has changed. People are buying more gas than ever, despite your taxes because gas demand is linked to travel demand, not just price.



The whole point of pretty much any tax these days is to get people to change their habits. People like you have turned the IRS into Ann Landers.

If you want people to stop buying gas, give them something else to buy that meets the same needs in a better way. Ethanol does not do this. Hydrogen does. Not only is hydrogen "cleaner" (something not too many Americans care about), but it can also be cheaper and more efficient.



Or to simply loot what's left and impose an even more autocratic regime.

I think you're completly wrong, and there is no way to convince you otherwise. You have taken the author completely out of context. Sure, he says that a tax will create revenue and then goes on to explain good uses of that tax.

But you are missing the entire point of the article. I have read many, many articles and books by Friedman. I can tell you for sure, despite what you think the article claims and means - that he is calling for a policy that will change American spending habits on oil, not to create extra tax revenue. The tax revinue is a by-product.

I have no idea what you are talking about trying to make ethanol something that it's not. Nobody is trying to do that. It is widely understood that ethanol is a better source of energy than gasoline. Even if it was a close call, the benefits received by economically undermining unfriendly governments would still make the case in favor of ethanol. You have people like Richard Branson investing tens of millions in ethanol production and even Bill Gates stepping down from MS and investing 25 million in an ethanol company too, yet you think it's all flawed? Have you seen the miracle that has taken place in Brazil over sugar-based ethanol?

"There's nothing bold about a tax" - get out of here dude, what kind of arguement is that?

Regardless what gasoline demand is linked to, nothing will surmount price. Simply put, if it's too expensive, people won't but as much. End of story....

Grouping me in with the Ann Landers comment? I'm sorry you're so closed-minded!

farfromglorified

NCfan wrote:

I think you're completly wrong, and there is no way to convince you otherwise. You have taken the author completely out of context. Sure, he says that a tax will create revenue and then goes on to explain good uses of that tax.

But the costs of his "good uses" greatly exceed the revenue created. Furthermore, his "benefits" ensure ever decreasing revenues.

But you are missing the entire point of the article. I have read many, many articles and books by Friedman. I can tell you for sure, despite what you think the article claims and means - that he is calling for a policy that will change American spending habits on oil, not to create extra tax revenue. The tax revinue is a by-product.

Ok. I have no doubt that Friedman is more interested in changing behavior than he is in creating revenue.

I have no idea what you are talking about trying to make ethanol something that it's not. Nobody is trying to do that. It is widely understood that ethanol is a better source of energy than gasoline.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

Both positive and negative, but here's my favorite part:

"United States would have to place roughly 750 million acres of corn into production to fully meet this demand. For comparison, this is nearly double the total area currently used for all crops in the US (430 million acres) and about one third of the total land area of the United States (2.3 billion acres). [2] There are currently about 80 million acres of corn planted in the United States."

Even if it was a close call, the benefits received by economically undermining unfriendly governments would still make the case in favor of ethanol. You have people like Richard Branson investing tens of millions in ethanol production and even Bill Gates stepping down from MS and investing 25 million in an ethanol company too, yet you think it's all flawed? Have you seen the miracle that has taken place in Brazil over sugar-based ethanol?

I'd hardly call it a "miracle". It has had both positive and negative affects.

"There's nothing bold about a tax" - get out of here dude, what kind of arguement is that?

You act as if taxes are new or something groundbreaking. They are not. Why don't you just propose a gasolene prohibition?

Regardless what gasoline demand is linked to, nothing will surmount price. Simply put, if it's too expensive, people won't but as much. End of story....

Certainly if gas is "too expensive", people won't buy as much. And, judging from your approach here, that is the end of the story for you. But you just assume they'll buy ethanol. You just assume somehow that means and end to foreign dependence. You just assume that a $1 tax makes gas "too expensive", which it would not.

Again, why don't you just make gasolene use illegal?

Grouping me in with the Ann Landers comment? I'm sorry you're so closed-minded!

Do you or do you not feel that the IRS should be in the business of "changing habits"?

know1

NCfan wrote:

But you are missing the entire point of the article. I have read many, many articles and books by Friedman. I can tell you for sure, despite what you think the article claims and means - that he is calling for a policy that will change American spending habits on oil, not to create extra tax revenue. The tax revinue is a by-product.

But why? Why do they need to create that by-product at the expense of the American public? I'm just highly suspicious of anything that takes more money away from individuals and gives it to the government.