Over 80% Oppose Raising Gas Tax

[JacobAziza]

I'm somewhat looking at it as likely as a small business owner.

Laws which help corporations and the wealthy hurt small business owners.

The moment someone says they want 60% of my income I'm working to profit you not me and I'm going Galt to get under your tax bracket and I won't make a dime more.

Tax rates apply to a bracket of income. a 60% tax bracket does not mean they take 60% of your income. It means they take 60% of what you make over a certain amount.
It a bit like people saying its not worth in to win a lottery because the government takes 2/3rds. That means you keep 1/3. Thats better than not having 1/3.
If you don't want to work anymore because you feel its too high a rate, fine. Why is that a problem?

Our military is very streamlined as far as how it manages cost effectiveness.

I won't dispute that, because I know nothing about it. I am saying its total size is unnecessary, regardless of how efficient it is. It is also the largest single expense, and so where we could save the most.

And honestly do you want them cutting money from the system that protects you

What are they protecting me from? The "terrorists" want to steal my old 1983 truck? They want to force me, personally, to become Muslim? We have only had one foreign terrorist attack here - ever. The last time a country attacked us was at Pearl Harbor.
Our military budget is 5 times larger than the 2nd highest country in the world. We have nukes. We have unsurpassed technology. We are capable of doing more with a dollar of spending on military than any 2nd or 3rd world country (read China and the Middle East). I can see no justification for spending as much as the entire rest of the world combined unless we plan to literally invade every country in the world at the same time.
The military budget is about imperialism, diplomacy via unspoken threat, predatory free trade, and protecting corporate interests abroad. To tie this back to the original thread, the taxes you pay is what keeps our gas prices so low (again, US troops protecting pipelines in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

or from the system that allows people to sit around and do nothing?

I already addressed this. 1) AFDC makes up about 1% of the budget (vs over 33% for the military). Cutting it won't make a dent in government spending. 2) welfare recipients can not sit around doing nothing. Finding work is MANDATORY. If you aren't actively looking, you get cut off. There is no exemption for students. I know this because my mother was cut off when she, a single mother, was working towards a masters degree from UC Berkeley and refused to cut classes to attend their job training seminars. No matter what happens, they cut you off after 2 years.

If a private sector had to make a road its like a nuclear power plant, its very expensive up front and it takes a good bit of time to pay for it, but after that its dirt cheap.

The ancient Roman and German roads you mentioned were all built by government.
No nuclear plant has ever been built that was not heavily government subsidized. Private industry will not go into something with such a high initial investment which takes such a long time to show any return. Why would they, when there are so many other more profitable opportunities? A corporation is not concerned with what happens in 400 years. It is concerned with the quarterly report and shareholder dividends.

Social security is a ponzi scheme. Its not an investment. I have several relatives now drawing social and they are going to draw far more than they ever put in even with inflation and whatever else.

An investment means you can draw more than you put in. Its called interest. In addition, baby boomers not-withstanding, it is generally a valid assumption that there will be more workers each year than the one before, so the pool should consistently grow.

If you fired all the bureacrats, didn't pay all the politicians

I posted a link to federal spending. You can check exactly how much is spent on various things, and therefor how much could be saved by cutting any particular thing.

and just made the tax code simple(and fired all IRS agents)

see example above of what happens with a flat tax.

you would be taking one huge leap towards reducing deficits. If you then took another leap and cut any form of social safety net systems

Good way to create a whole lot of desperate people who will do anything to survive. You can either spend a little on education, job training, unemployment, and healthcare, or spend a bunch more on police and prisons. This has nothing to do with morality or personal responsibility, it is just a straight forward realistic cost/benefit analysis.

Places with more of a social safety net have lower crime.

the private sector could do everything else more cheaply.

I am not totally anti-private sector. From what I have read education would be greatly improved and the costs reduced by privatization. However with healthcare, every other 1st world nation has universal healthcare, and most have both higher quality care and more simplicity, yet the US spends more per person. There are some things the private sector is good for, and some it isn't.

can make a profit much easier and are able to sell their products for less.

why would anyone sell their products for less?

Some things in effect will cost the same whether its a tax or a toll, but I would bank on the service always being superior(go to a DMV).

haha, granted!

In some cases though(maybe in alot of cases) the toll would be less than the tax and the service would still be superior.

I would agree with "some".
But I don't think money is the only issue.
The real reason government is necessary is the phenomenon called the "tragedy of the commons"
The classic example is a lake open to the public. It has 1000 fish. If everyone just takes 1 every once in a while, no problem. They breed and replenish. But how long is "once in a while?" How many people are there? What if I take 2, one for me and one for my family? No one person is responsible for taking an unreasonable amount, but sooner or later, there are no more fish.
The free market can not responsibly allocate a finite amount of resources in the long term w/ no external regulation. The free market leads to massive environmental degradation, massive wealth inequalities, and a disregard of the value of anything other than money.
Consider the formula from "fight club", for decideing whether to do a recall for a fatal design flaw:
"Take the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X...If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
This is a real job. There is actually a specific dollar value attached to a human life (if I remember correctly, it is generally around 2 million)

I don't mean to say I support everything about the current US political system - not by a long shot.
I just think total deregulation and total trust in a market economy will make things worse than they already are.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Now how do you expect me to read anything after that? LOL

Sorry Frank I should have said relatively(in comparison to other gov't projects lol)

[theunchosen]

Ah, you've hung yourself now lol.

You said why would anyone sell their goods for less(I'm not quoting because the quotes are getting long lol and I don't want to snip).

The reason is because I am greedy. I see you have a business that makes 40% on its product(you used to make 10% and now with lower taxes you make an extra whatever percent), but I have a crappy job. I take out a loan get some investors and start a business model doing exactly what you do, but I sell mine for 75% of what you do so I make only 30% profit per item. All of your customer switch suppliers because I am cheaper. You undercut me and this continues until someone like walmart shows up and sells the product for .01% profit but sells trillions of items. Thats Free market.

And it is beautiful. If there is enough money to be had the single greatest force in human innovation and production comes to play. Greed. Beyond a shadow of a doubt its the most powerful force on the planet. Its predictable and powerful.

If there is enough room to make a profit better than what I am doing now I will do it. So if that means undercutting my competitors because my business just became cheaper to do and driving all their customers into my queue well then thats what I am going to do.

It is natural selection at work. The leanest most efficient wolf will be the one to survive. The bloated fat pig will be the first one eaten, because its too slow, inefficient and has too much excess weight to rapidly restructure its survival patterns.

If you believe in evolution you have to believe in a free market. Yes there will be "robber barons"(I prefer Captains of Industry) but there will always be some clever little fellow(Aptera vs GMC) who can outmaneuver you because he's not carrying baggage and your profit margins got wide enough for him to squeeze in between you and the customers. It might not be a big profit compared to your business. . .but what matters is, is it more profit than he had working for someone else or running a competition with some other industry.

Every other country in the world has universal health care. Ask someone who lived in a Foreign country if they like it. I have family(in-laws) that lived and grew up in Italy. He moved here married into my family and loves Healthcare in the US depsite the fact it comes out of his paycheck. Thats my anecdotal evidence, and I've seen a few interviews with Canadians that much prefer US healthcare. I'm sure people will speak out about it, but all I can say is I have been to a French Hospital(friend got hit by a car while in Paris) and it wasn't impressive by any means. It was far less technical than a visit to MSHA(Mountain States Health Alliance, Johnson City's Hospital) or my own personal experiences with surgery here in the US.

Looking at the fight club example. . .there is always a cost of human life. Free Market systems just tell it like it is. They don't try and hide it behind systems to make everyone feel comfortable with it. Free Market is about market value. I know you will agree with me that each person has a value. If you don't think everyone puts a value on anyone else think about it this way. You have a sniper and terrorists plan to kill some hostages. Your sniper has to chose which terrorist to kill first, the terrorist with his gun pointed at 10 civilians or the one pointed at 1 civilian. After the first shot there are no guarantees the other can be killed before he fires on his targets. Obviously you shoot the terrorist guarding the 10 people because 10 people are more important than one. If you have one person in the hospital and it will cost 10 mil to make them completely healthy and live to die of old age and you have 10 people that only need 1 million each. . .what do you do? Free Market dictates you spend 10 mil and save 10 people. Universal healthcare by definition(provide the aide people need) you spend money on whoever gets there first. So 10 mil boy gets there and the other 10 people die while waiting for the funds to do their transplants.

Market Value is true blue transparence. We don't like to admit that we would just assign a value to someone's life because that seems shallow. . .but we do. A doctor who is capable of saving lives through medicine or a painter? You have to chose. Market value and Free economy dictates you save the doctor because directly he can save more lives than the painter(assuming he's not a superhero). In anything less than a Free market there is no justification to rescue someone who is dying already rather than a teenager or some young doctor.

In all honesty there are more valuable people than others. Bill Gates has done more for the human race than I have. Bill Gates simply put if I had to chose between which of us existed. . .I would have to chose him. I won't revolutionize the world. You can play "if" history all you like and say that Bill Gates didn't do anything but we don't know, we do know that since he did what he did we arrived here today, whether its his fault we can't say. Free Markets require comfort with perfect honesty, what is something worth to you, what are you willing to do for it?

I prefer completely deregulated Free market because it allows true honesty in market value rather than fixing a price because you feel that some moral induced idea that that product is bad(sin taxes on cigarettes and gas). The product is worth what people will pay for it no more no less, whereas in regulated systems. . .its what you say its worth and who dictates who choses values? what if I get to pick? What if I say you're favorite brand of soda is an unneccesary good because its harmful and got bad flavor(Gas is harmful and not the most efficient mode of transport).

[theunchosen]

I would crank overtime on one or the other and get paid alot more, but I'm not sure which is the more viable option.

Owning the garage and getting paid the profit for each repair would be fantastic(I would be happy dropping labor rates just slightly to bring in new business and help some people out(mostly bring in new business ^_^)). It might take a very long time and it might not go to me. There are other grand kids in the family and I don't carry the same last name. It puts me a good bit further down on the ladder despite my best efforts lol.

Frank I entirely know how you feel. I actually quit trying to make bonus. I've been really hammering it lately with the downward economy to make it happen but getting the check and seeing most of it leave before I even touch it. . .its just not worth that effort. I mean out of a 650 bonus I walk away with 300 bucks. I'm still planning on dumping the effort needed for performance rank 1's but I can do alot less than bonus and get 1's.(why I am chatting on here lately, I'm on the phone ^_^ with a pissed off customer. Normally I would be working queue accounts to dig up errors or something but since I'm on the phone it doesn't hurt my productivity at all, and money per hour doesn't matter if I'm not aiming for bonus).

[JacobAziza]

Evolution has nothing to do with the free market. We are all the same specie. Nature has no end of examples of individuals within one specie working cooperatively instead of competitively. If you really want to live in survival of the fittest mode, it does not imply the free market. It implies me shoving up at your door with a shot gun and a bullet proof vest, and whichever of us has the most training gets to keep all your stuff.

The WalMart model is beautiful - unless you are one of the local business run under, or one of their employees who now has to take a minimum wage WalMart job, or one of the people who used to supply the local business who is undercut by outsourcing, or the worker in a 3rd world country making 1/2 a cent per hour. What you save as a consumer you lose through repressed wages.
The only people its really beautiful for are the WalMart shareholders.

Your examples of choosing 10 peoples lives over 1 has nothing to do with my example of choosing profit over people's lives.

I disagree that it is ok to knowingly cause the death of anyone because you can make money from it - any amount of money.
Thats not about honesty. Its just a basic level of morality.

You did read my comments about Gates, right? I wasn't making that stuff up. Look it up. You still think he is more valuable than you?

It isn't just an arbitrary application of morality, but a question of democracy. If the market decides everything, than the more money you have (and as someone - I think it was you - pointed out earlier, the very richest often got their money from inheritance) the more influence you have over society.
That is already too true as it is.
Basically, the real result would be a return to serfdom, with the working class (ie you and me) being reduced to peasants.

I said an awful lot you didn't address to claim that I "hung myself" with an argument.
Explain how the market can resolve the tragedy of the commons.

[theunchosen]

The Free market is evolution in action. Its not physical evolution its economic evolution.

And don't show up at my doorstep armed thats a horrible mistake lol. I live in TN where its very easy to get a form for.

The most effective company is the company that eventually will win out if there are no outside influences. Obviously its true. If your business model is terrible and your competitor is better than you eventually they will run you out of business. Thats the definition of natural selection applied on a business.

The rule of commons is irrelevant to free market. If everyone uses a supply of something and it goes away, well the business for saving you the effort of getting the fish goes away. All of a sudden the business of making bread and cattle booms and people rush into it because of huge profit margins and eventually only the most efficient farms survive after the initial price hike. Then that industry has a much more efficient production than it could have had without that "cleansing" of the market of less effective producers.

I'm assuming you want to apply the law of commons to pollution and health issues or things that are intangible? Thats fine. When pollution gets bad enough someone out there will find a way to fix it and sell it for a fortune, until someone else comes in and undercuts him and back and forth and until walmart shows up again and sells whatever it takes to live life either with pollution or get rid of it.

Like I said if people want something bad enough they will pay for it and there will be someone there to sell it to them, and likely someone else to sell it to them for slightly less. Thats how free market works. If there is a market people will do it. If there is no money in it. . .well people obviously don't believe it if they won't put money behind it.

And no I didn't say wealth came from inheritance. My parents are upper-middles and haven't paid for anything since I was 15 other than insurance thats carried through their work regardless. I'm not one of the pampered helicopter kids emerging. Like I have already said I ate rice only for a long time to pay my bills(no cable, no internet, heat set to 55 and windows blocked up).

Chosing profit over someone's life is a problem. The contrapositive is an equally large problem. Ignoring cost for one persons life. I hate to be cold and heartless but at a certain point the money spent to save one person is much better spent somewhere else.

Insurance companies are out to make a profit, but they provide a neccessary service. Deciding when to cut funding. Whats the difference between insurance cutting funding and the government saying we aren't going to spend anymore? I would think the difference is more painful. One is arguing something that is obvious, their objective is to make money not save people, while the other has to make an argument that is much more painful. The government has the ability to levy taxes and create capital should it need to save someone, but if we are honest how much do we want to pay for .001% of the populace who require enormously expensive healthcare to survive? Do we really want to donate our entire standard of living to provide the billions needed to save several thousand patients so they can live a few more months?

I know I am being cold and heartless, but expecting a whole nation to give up everything in order to save a few thousand for a few months. . . Its asking quite alot. Its asking the entire nation to forego medical treatments to save money because their conditions are not urgent enough and these others are going to die in the next few months.

Thats what insurance does. Insurance decides when the cut off mark is that its no longer useful for their clients as a whole to support medical funding for a very few. When I get old and start requiring substantial medical treatment yearly I'm sure I'll want it, but if you give me the option of forcing the insurance to deny expensive claims for younger people who have alot more time before it becomes a problem and alot more time overall to lose I'll chose them.

And yes Jacob I would still swap out with Bill Gates. I've been overseas to alot of countries and very few of them have the tech available everyday on every corner in every house that we do. If he even assisted in it .01% thats a worthy exchange. And yes I am very familiar with what he did. Nature favors the clever predator not the dim-witted ones that can't imagine a future. I've also read Tim Berners-lee's book and I am familiar with what he has done. Of the two I think Gates even if all he had was the foresight to know what to buy and what to push is more important.

It all comes back to survival of the fittest business. Gates saw the future, saw that anyone could make hardware but the ability to control what could run on the hardware as more important. Do you want to hammer the scientists who just accidently discovered inventions because all they did was screw up another experiment? Painters don't mix and create the paint they use and I would gamble most of them have absolutely no clue whats in it(I use them because I argue with a fellow that paints that comes in all the time). Do we need to slight them because they just know how to work the brush and have no clue that the bonding agents in the paint lightly bond to each other while forming a very planar structure with each other that gives them the glossy finish whereas compounds that have a more jagged alignment look matte? No we employ them for their ability to do their job.

Obviously as an imaginative business men there are few in league with Gates. Should we slight US Steel because they had the foresight to realize competing in the steel business was too difficult to subdue so they chased down the ore industry and ran their competitors suppliers out of business and then directly ran their competitors out of business? They managed to create a steel industry that lasted much longer in the US because of their vertical monopoly than the conglomeration of small weak steel manufacturers would have in the face of the orient.

No we don't slight them. Alot of the rest of the world does, but we don't. We understand that providing goods to your customer at the lowest possible price creates the largest possible market which in turn allows you to reinvest and grow the business and pay your workers(in a foreign country) more than you could have without free market systems.

[JacobAziza]

Ok
I am officially exiting this debate.

I would have to get into stuff about genes and the theory of natural selection; repeat things I have already said which were ignored the first time; and even if I did, I think this is one of those situations where minds have been made up in advance and evidence and reason become irrelevant.

I think you take free-market economics as an axiom, as do a great many people today. I can no more hope to persuade you than someone of religious conviction.

And it has nothing at all to do with gas taxes.

If you want to read the blogs I posted earlier, and comment on them there, you are more than welcome to. I am sure you will find much to disagree with

*While I was sleeping my brain came up with an analogy that I wanted to share.

the single greatest force in human innovation and production comes to play. Greed.

Here is another incredibly powerful force: the nuclear attraction between protons and neutrons. That force can be harnessed to power aircraft carriers and entire cities. But if it is not very carefully managed and regulated, that same force gets out of control and produces Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. In some cases its destruction is deliberate, and you have Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the greed model, you and I are the citizens of Hiroshima, and the top 1% of society is the bomber plane. The Great Depression, CA electricity market after deregulation (prices soared, service became terrible), Enron, the recent bank bail out - these are all examples of what happens when you give up government control in favor of totally free markets. Everybody ends up losing.

[wdb]

I can't find the last post that talked about gas tax. Unsub...

[Funny]

Originally Posted by JacobAziza

Another hypothetical example:
lower class guy: 10k
middle class guy: 75k
upper class guy: 250k

Progressive tax:
10k * 10%: 1k
75k * 30%: 22k
250k * 60%: 150k
total income: 173k

flat tax:
10k * 20%= 2k
75k * 20%= 15k
250k * 20%=50k
total: 67k

You know this thread has totally blown up and has nothing to do with gas tax now. However, you obviously did not read the entire first 4 pages of the thread carefully enough to notice the statement that with the implementation of a flat tax, there would be no deductions, at all. Your $173K of "revenue" would actually be closer to $35K. Poor argument.

Looks like our own poll has concluded. Thanks to all who participated.

[aerohead]

There has been up to a 1,600% percent tax on fuel since the the 1970s from an extra-governmental agency called Saudi Arabia.