Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
63 Miles Per Gallon?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 808186" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Interesting idea with the noble intent of trying to reflect the true cost of oil but oil already gets a ton of privilege and subsidization from many other areas of the budget such as from the military budget, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Commerce and even Dept. of State and these costs are not seen or as easily seen as those paid at the pump. My question is, in implementing this $3 which we already pay anyway in truth, will you use a transparency model and show how all those costs are now shifted to being paid for away from general treasury revenue sources to now the new tax at the pump model? </p><p> </p><p>If you do, at the very least it is a true(r) reflection of the actual cost of a gallon of gas and the effects of the tax burden are more clearly seen and then economic questions of comparing true costs of different energy forms would shift towards at least a bit more honest debate. However, if all things stay as they are and you just add on the $3 tax, the profit model for the oil companies doesn't change (not sure it does in the previous example either but it's an act of transparency) they still keep all manner of privilege and subsidization and in effect, the added $3 tax just puts more money into the hands of the Corp. State for them to exploit, we pay the tab, nothing changes and the taxpayer once again is just $3 a gallon poorer than he/she was.</p><p> </p><p>I like your intent but the underlying specifics need to be ironed out so that the average folk aren't the one's getting hosed as typically does happen when talk of fair and honest taxation take place!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p>In a true free market when the gov't doesn't intervene at all, I don't believe oil can compete one on one with other energy options and I also don't believe in a true free market that there would be a one size fits all. Some areas might use electricity, other areas use some form of biodiesel, others may still use petro and others may use something else not even thought of yet. If you went to the grocery store and all they ever had was the same loaf of bread for sale and that was all you could ever buy, in time would you starve to death? Probably so think of the energy market in the same way as a grocery store stocked with all kinds of different foods and meats and then it comes down to you based on price or desire as to what you want to buy!</p><p> </p><p>jmo</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 808186, member: 2189"] Interesting idea with the noble intent of trying to reflect the true cost of oil but oil already gets a ton of privilege and subsidization from many other areas of the budget such as from the military budget, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Commerce and even Dept. of State and these costs are not seen or as easily seen as those paid at the pump. My question is, in implementing this $3 which we already pay anyway in truth, will you use a transparency model and show how all those costs are now shifted to being paid for away from general treasury revenue sources to now the new tax at the pump model? If you do, at the very least it is a true(r) reflection of the actual cost of a gallon of gas and the effects of the tax burden are more clearly seen and then economic questions of comparing true costs of different energy forms would shift towards at least a bit more honest debate. However, if all things stay as they are and you just add on the $3 tax, the profit model for the oil companies doesn't change (not sure it does in the previous example either but it's an act of transparency) they still keep all manner of privilege and subsidization and in effect, the added $3 tax just puts more money into the hands of the Corp. State for them to exploit, we pay the tab, nothing changes and the taxpayer once again is just $3 a gallon poorer than he/she was. I like your intent but the underlying specifics need to be ironed out so that the average folk aren't the one's getting hosed as typically does happen when talk of fair and honest taxation take place! :wink2: In a true free market when the gov't doesn't intervene at all, I don't believe oil can compete one on one with other energy options and I also don't believe in a true free market that there would be a one size fits all. Some areas might use electricity, other areas use some form of biodiesel, others may still use petro and others may use something else not even thought of yet. If you went to the grocery store and all they ever had was the same loaf of bread for sale and that was all you could ever buy, in time would you starve to death? Probably so think of the energy market in the same way as a grocery store stocked with all kinds of different foods and meats and then it comes down to you based on price or desire as to what you want to buy! jmo [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
63 Miles Per Gallon?
Top