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 : The Citizens Manifesto -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (89)	6/14/2005 11:53:58 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 492

OK Tim, maybe "100% agreement" was an overstatement on my part. But I'm all for balancing the budget and adopting an energy policy that encourages more conservation or at least spurs incentives toward alternatives. Tenchusatsu

To: TimF who wrote (89)	6/15/2005 9:20:58 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 492

re: I wouldn't make reducing gasoline and oil use the priority that this thread seems to make it, but if it was I would instead favor a big increase in gasoline or oil taxes. Tax what you want to reduce (gasoline and/or oil use) directly, not an imperfect proxy for it. The problem with a higher tax on gasoline is that it disproportionally effects those that can least afford it. Even the current rise in gasoline prices are straining the "working poor" that are living hand to mouth, and the middle class family of four. And for those with higher incomes that are probably the folks buying most of the inefficient vehicles, an increase in gasoline taxes may not provide a significant enough penalty to change their behaviour. A gasoline tax punishes everyone; people can't stop commuting to work. And I don't thnk we want to discourage discretionary driving. It's sort of the "All American Freedom" to roam. A tax / credit system on auto purchases punishes bad behaviour but also rewards good behaviour. Many people that couldn't afford a new car would be able to replace a less efficient vehicle with an efficient vehicle. The auto companies would certainly notice and compete for this suddenly larger market by making more efficient vehicles. They would strain to get their vehicle under the next lowest comsumption tax/credit threshold. Most important, it would work, and work pretty quickly. My WAG is a 20% reduction in per mile gas usage in 5 years. 35% plus in 10 years. No need to build additional refining capacity. Lower gas prices, lower current account deficit, less dependance on ME regimes, more discretionary dollars in the pockets of consumers (instead of oil producing countries' governments) to spend or save. John