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: JDN who wrote (726202)	2/16/2006 4:35:52 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

ALL taxes gig somebody. NONE are 'perfect' by any definition i'm aware of. Still, a slowly phased-in increase in the tax on oil will promote substitutions, development of alternative technologies, and increased efficiencies all across the transportation industry (just as it did in the 'seventies). If addiction to Middle Eastern sources of oil is regarded as a major SECURITY WEAKNESS and THREAT to America --- as I believe it should be --- then reasonable, effective policies to decrease the impact of oil on our economy are important for STRATEGIC reasons, and for national defense. (We are ALREADY paying $4 to $5 a gallon for gasoline, when you add in all the costs we expend to militarily protect the oil export routes out of the Persian Gulf, anyway a recent study showed. We are already paying about the same as Europe or Japan... because THEY don't bear the same financial burden of military defense.) So, considering THAT, an increase in the consumption tax on oil --- that is 100% rebated to the American taxpayer on income tax, for example --- would actually be BETTER THEN REVENUE NEUTRAL, and result in a POSITIVE SAVING for the US economy... as the extra Billions to defend someone else's oil could be saved.