Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dale_laroy who wrote (138581)	4/15/2001 5:57:34 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 769667

Dale Re..Yes, this is why I have argued for some time that the tax on gasoline should be high enough to issue a $300 per year automobile insurance voucher to drivers funded from these additional taxes. <<<<<< I absolutley agree that gas taxes should be higher; if that money can be used to reduce our income taxes, or SS taxes. Higher prices will help alternate fuels and force conservation. That is why it is odd Amer. S. is against higher prices.

To: dale_laroy who wrote (138581)	4/16/2001 2:06:08 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Dale, Yes, this is why I have argued for some time that the tax on gasoline should be high enough to issue a $300 per year automobile insurance voucher to drivers funded from these additional taxes. I have no idea about the reason you connect gas taxes with insurance subsidy. What is it about the insurance industry that you think deserves subsidy? And why would you want some poor soul driving inefficient old gas guzzler (who is a commuter) subsidize insurance of a weekend Ferarri driver. I think the taxes should be neutral, all consumption (whether it is diabetic injecting insulin, or a drug addict injecting heroin, porn or bible, mountain spring water, booze) should all be the same. I just don't want politicians deciding which consumption should be subsidized and which punished. Regarding energy conservation. I agree with Harry that only higher prices will make it happen, I don't think it is a good idea to artificially increase the prices with taxes. The higher prices will come, sooner or later, when oil became scarce. So if the goal is higher prices and more conservation, just wait. I don't think it is a good idea for the nation to collectively decide to shoot ourselves in the foot, just to get used to the feeling of walking on one foot, just to be able to face a possibility that in the old age, one of your legs may become unusable. Suppose something unfortunate happens and you lose the only remaining foot, and you we are now crawling, rather than limping. Anyway, why kill the economy with high oil prices (even more than it has already been hurt), rather than take advantage of cheap oil to fuel it, move it forward, to make it more resilient. The time when oil becomes scarce will come, and we better be strong than weak. But if there are indeed higher taxes on oil introduced, I think the proceeds should be dedicated to research into replacement for oil (or other fossil fuels). Joe