• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

So Much for the Recovery

#183
nutdog said:
I find different numbers in a search, but it seems we use around 150 billion gallons of gas/year here. If we tax it $2.00/gallon that would give $300 bdfillion/year toward the deficit. Our deficit this year is over $1 trillion. So, in a straightforward arithmetic way, it would help.

But there are a few assumptions:

If gas is $2 more expensive we will use the same amount.
All the gas is taxed. No one gets a break.
The $300 million that goes to the government will not affect any other revenue stream (income taxes, corporate profits, etc.)
Government will use all the revenue to reduce the deficit and will not spend it on anything else.

I'm probably missing a lot more.




Certainly this is true, but in this case the arithmetic is not straightforward. Taking money out of private hands and putting it in government hands affects the ability of private hands to generate taxable revenues. There are many straightforward economic variables to deal with, not to mention the effects of corruption and incompetence that may be impossible to calculate.

There is also another side to the deficit equation. Spending.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or controversial. I just don't see it as being straightforward.

In any event the current increase referenced in the OP is not going to the government.
Click to expand...
All fair enough, and of course I'm well aware of this. All I meant by "straightforward" is that taxation of fuel is a potentially huge source of revenue for most countries. But what gets done with the money is not, unfortunately, governed by only arithmetic.

By the way, my first post in this thread was not a direct response to the OP, but to a comment from another member who had raised the issue of fuel taxation. Re-reading my comment now, I might substitute "would help" to "could help".
 
#184
bassybill said:
All fair enough, and of course I'm well aware of this. All I meant by "straightforward" is that taxation of fuel is a potentially huge source of revenue for most countries. But what gets done with the money is not, unfortunately, governed by only arithmetic.

By the way, my first post in this thread was not a direct response to the OP, but to a comment from another member who had raised the issue of fuel taxation. Re-reading my comment now, I might substitute "would help" to "could help".
Click to expand...

I generally don't buy into the idea that problems are solved by taxation, either by cutting or raising.

You're alright for a godless "scientist".;)
 
#187
I'd say the way to solve many of problems is getting back to hard work for the welfare of own country. Nothing wrong with imports, especially when given country cannot produce given goods or commodities. Wrong is insane importing of everything because it is cheaper, at the cost of the welfare of own country.

Yes, I use German, Italian, Japanese and soon will use Chinese-made/American designed/owned gear. Because this kind of equipment made domestically here is either boutique gear that I am not interested with or good gear that doesn't meet my needs. Still shame it is so few things I could import from the homeland of rock'n'roll....

Think about it, before some of you buy the next Squier. I'd love help the American employees of Bob Gallien with my money, were he making MB amps in the U.S., unluckily, he chose helping the Chinese ;) Indeed, I do help Americans by selling U.S. software made in Houston, TX. Not in India.

P.S. I also do help the Polish industry by selling them excellent engineering software and teaching them how to improve the domestic production and make it competitive. Just to be clear.
 
#188
bassybill said:
I wouldn't argue with much of that at all - it's mostly factual (except the bit about being able to drive north 840 miles in Michigan, and also the misguided football comment :p). But I do think you and others here are still mixing up what you would like to happen with what is actually happening. Higher fuel prices are inevitable, either sooner or later, regardless of policy.

In other words, yes, I understand that fuel being unaffordable will make a huge difference to the lifestyle and working pattern of many people. And not only in the US, although the changes there may be more drastic than in other countries. But we're fast approaching the point (if we haven't already reached it) where the status quo will change unavoidably. I honestly think that the second half of the twentieth century and the early part of this one will be seen by posterity as the only time in history that significant numbers of people had their own personal motorised transport, and that in a few years (very probably within my lifetime, and yours) motoring will once again be the privilege of the rich or very rich, just like it was a few years ago and like private jets are today. I think that really sucks, by the way, same as you do. But unfortunately my view of this or yours will not change reality one iota.

I'll admit I'm wrong when you and I can buy fuel for half what it costs us now.

PS - I've driven thousands of miles in the USA, by the way, mainly in Nevada / Arizona / California, on multiple visits.

PPS - does the term "coarse fishing" mean anything over there? It's massively popular here amongst people who might not afford the sort of participation you describe and I used to do it as a kid. Just curious, sorry for the potential derail.
Click to expand...

No but you can drive 600 miles and the last half of it will be on two lane hwy at 55 mph. Detroit to Onotonogan MI. And I wouldn't have any problem with it if you called it by it's proper name, Soccer, instead of football. Football isn't a co-ed sport. :D

I do understand what your saying. My problem is not with the fact that the price of gas is going to increase. My problem is when elites cause the price to increase because of the goal of artificially accelerating reductions in consumption in the name of some agenda. We don't need a moratorium on all off shore drilling right now, it's not scientific and it certainly isn't in the best interests of the people who consume fuel.

I do believe their is a class/elitism component of this stuff as well. The urban wealthy are not near as effected by transportation cost as the rural or suburban middle class. When they go long distance they fly and increase in fuel cost doesn't effect their lifestyles as much. If you watched during the last big gas crunch here it effected the pleasure boat industry tremendously. But not the big boat business. I would not be at all if some elites prefer this. Less water skiers and bass boats bothering them on the Yacht for the weekend. :eyebrow:
 
#191
bassybill said:
You missed out the word "helped". ;)

Our deficit would be greater if taxes were lower in a fairly straightforward way. That's just arithmetic.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not claiming we've got all this right over here. In the section that you quoted, I was just pointing out the fairly obvious link between taxation and revenue rather than saying anything controversial.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Sometimes lowering taxes results in increased economic growth and thus tax receipts.

------------------------------------

Interesting link on electric cars:

Link Removed

Electric cars may be cheaper to run, but they're as guilty for CO2 emissions as the internal combustion engine.

So say consumer watchdog Which? researchers, who compared the energy consumed when charging electric cars to that of several efficient diesel vehicles and concluded there was minimal difference.

For example, the report says emissions of the Nissan Leaf - an electric car that costs £24k - works out to 81g/km.

In contrast, the Volkswagen Golf 1.6 TDi Bluemotion - a diesel car that costs £17k - emits 108g/kg.

Okay, so there is a clear difference, but when car manufacturers claim their electric vehicles have zero emissions, they are being economic with the truth.

To produce these figures, Which? looked towards the Carbon Trust's measurements that 544g of CO2 is emitted for each kilowatt hour of electricity used. This was then converted to a grams per kilometre CO2 rating.

However, it's important to remember the CO2 emissions EVs do produce happen at the power station, where they're easier to control and energy can be drawn from renewable sources. Diesel engines are particularly efficient too and EV technology is fast improving.

Which? accepts this though and says EVs are still much more environmentally friendly due to their elimination of localised emissions that degrade air quality. The significance of which is most notable in cities, although perhaps not so much around London's Elephant & Castle, the greyest place in Britain
Click to expand...


-------------------------


To more or less get back on topic, the recovery will be greatly harmed if the price of anything that requires oil to be produced and distributed increases. No one will argue that point I believe.
 
#192
bassrique said:
Link Removed
Click to expand...

I do not know what to say.
Yes, if we still do use the conventional power plants.
NO EMMISION if the power source is the nuclear power plant.

Say no to conventional power plants in the first place, and this is what greenies should be doing.
---
I forgot to say one important thing:
A conventional power plant gives you a unique chance for CO2 sequestration.
No such chance with millions of ICE cars.
 
#194
AntekStalich said:
I do not know what to say.
Yes, if we still do use the conventional power plants.
NO EMMISION if the power source is the nuclear power plant.

Say no to conventional power plants in the first place, and this is what greenies should be doing.
---
I forgot to say one important thing:
A conventional power plant gives you a unique chance for CO2 sequestration.
No such chance with millions of ICE cars.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on nuclear power plants. Too bad so many greens are looking for the perfect power source. I don't think there is one.
 
#195
Some countries fuel conventional power-plants with natural gas.
Some countries fire coal.
United States do have substantial reserves of coal. Oil is simply cheaper (when it is cheap!) and easier to process. AFAIK, the first major oil crisis had resulted in large American R&D work for alternative fuel from coal. The results still probably lay in archives.

I do not need to mention South Africa, once independent due to excellent chemical processing of their coal (Gas-To-Liquids technology) and Sasolburg industry. WWII Nazi Germany produced a lot of synthetic fuels due to lack of sufficient access to oilfields.

Brazil still makes a lot of fuel-grade ethanol.

It is absolutely possible to use fuels different from these oil-derived. Only the oil prices need to break some level.
 
#196
burk48237 said:
I do believe their is a class/elitism component of this stuff as well. The urban wealthy are not near as effected (sic) by transportation cost as the rural or suburban middle class. When they go long distance they fly and increase in fuel cost doesn't effect their lifestyles as much. If you watched during the last big gas crunch here it effected (sic) the pleasure boat industry tremendously. But not the big boat business. I would not be at all if some elites prefer this. Less water skiers and bass boats bothering them on the Yacht for the weekend. :eyebrow:
Click to expand...

They might well be reaping some healthy profits on the higher fuel prices as well.

Good of you to break ranks with them!
 
#198
AntekStalich said:
I do not know what to say.
Yes, if we still do use the conventional power plants.
NO EMMISION if the power source is the nuclear power plant.

Say no to conventional power plants in the first place, and this is what greenies should be doing.
---
I forgot to say one important thing:
A conventional power plant gives you a unique chance for CO2 sequestration.
No such chance with millions of ICE cars.
Click to expand...

Thank you for saying what I was going to say.

lowsound
 
#199
bassrique said:
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Sometimes lowering taxes results in increased economic growth and thus tax receipts.
Click to expand...

I know that's the theory and it's certainly possible. I can't think of any specific examples where increased revenue has been specifically attributable to a lowering of tax rates, though. If anyone has such an example it would make interesting reading and be very pertinent to the topic of discussion here.
 
#200
Oh, Bassybill, come on. It was when the American workers already drove their Ford T's, and we European could at best buy a bicycle ;) Why to look for more fancy example?

I even do not want to remind what nation invented the VAT ;) ;) Do you know, Bill, what nation it was? That the VAT was "a temporary solution to help recovering from war damages"?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back