Say Anything Blog

It was reported at the Traill County Tribune (or something along those lines) that Senator Dorgan was told that people (maybe farmers) were suffering from high gas prices.  Senator Dorgan had the gall to claim that his windfall profits tax would help them. 

His tax scheme would transfer money from high use people (like farmers) to the those that are already leeching off of the system.  Senator Dorgan has no shame.

I would have posted on this but it wasn’t available on the internet to source and I didn’t grab an issue of the dead tree version.

To: The Whistler

I hate to call you out on this man, but who exactly is “already leeching off of the system” when it comes to gas?

It seems to me that the “high use people (like farmers)” are already being subsidized. 

Gas taxes, and gas prices overall, affect the lowest income earners most.  If we are to be consistant and tell people they should work and not go on welfare, we should help them out at the pump since, afterall, everyone uses gas to get to work.

I could break it down and show you how high gas prices in general are contrary to supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics, but I’m not that bored right now. 

While I don’t agree with the liberals who want to basicly nationalize/socialize the energy industry, the links with between the GOP and the oil industry in NO way helps the consumers and taxpayers.

The gas tax is a poor tax and affects the guy driving a 15 year old Ford Escort that barely runs far more than the guy with the new Lexus (which is a sweet ride). 

For these reasons, a conservative agenda should include a revamping of the gas, and energy tax structure overall.

People who use more should pay more.  People who save should be rewarded.  The tax on a Geo Metro should be zero while a Hummer (H1, H2, H3, H!) should be much much higher.  This should be common sense. 

These are all problems dues to the complete lack of an energy policy, which is just as much the Republicans in Congress fault as it is the Democrats.  Simple as that.

Here is a radical idea. How about America builds more refineries and use the petroleum resources we know we have? Oh, yeah, and stop punishing those who succeed. You know, the ones who provide the financial backing to all the jobs people have? You know, the contractor operating 2 F-250s and a C-10 with 12ton trailer, and all their attendant costs? You know, the home medical services company, who’s employees run their own vehicles, plus the 2 or 3 medtrans rated vans necessary for the movement of clients to various appointments? You know, the local food delivery co-op? Do I need to continue? Thought not.

All taxes do is transfer money from the private sector to the public sector.  That weakens the ability of the private sector to generate prosperity.  The public sector does not contribute to overall prosperity.  The best it can do is to redistribute the income of those who have earned it to those that haven’t, in the interest of someone’s idea of “fairness”. Taxes only solve one problem:  How can we support the political class?

Equity and fairness can be served without tranfering of wealth by taxing those who over-use and rewarding those that conserve; you know, the root word to what we label ourselves.

Some may say that ‘taking from some and not others’ is the same as ‘taking from some to give to others.’ It may be symantics, I understand, but thats for you to figure out.

People who use more do pay more. People who save are rewarded. You just have to look at it by the mile.

I really hate my own arguments being thrown in my face.

They pay a flat rate for gas. 

Gas is the same price for everyone. 
Some people use more than others. 
Those who conserve either by choice or nessecity should be rewarded.

Since they pay the same price per unit, they do not save except they paid less for their car. 
So not only are they more efficient, they are more intelligent. 
Or more desperate.

Conservatives who want a ‘flat tax’ or The Fair Tax really aren’t doing the cause any favors from a public relations standpoint.

The Hummer causes more damage to the roads.
The Hummer uses more gas.
The Hummer makes us more reliant on foreign oil.

The Geo does none of these.

Should we force the Hummer owner to buy a Geo.

No way.  You can buy what you want.

But be ready to pay more based on relative impact on infrastructure, resources, and the enviroment.

What will happen is that the left will learn to sell their ideas with their language. 

Instead, we must sell our ideas with their language and a better result, first.

People who use more should pay more. People who save should be rewarded. The tax on a Geo Metro should be zero while a Hummer (H1, H2, H3, H!) should be much much higher. This should be common sense.

People who use more do pay more.  People who save are rewarded.  You just have to look at it by the mile.

But it’s not punitive enough for the socialists.

If I drive 100 miles in my Geo, I use less gas than if I drive 100 miles in my Hummer.  Therefore, I pay more taxes if I drive the Hummer than if I drive the Geo.  Jiggering the tax rates to favor one car over another is socialism.  If I am willing to pay more to drive my Hummer, I get to do so, in a free society.  In a totalitarian society, some bureaucrat like yourself tells me what I can drive.  That is the difference.  Whether it’s a direct order or a punitive tax, the outcome is the same: enforcement of an ideology on the population.  I think we have a better system.

But be ready to pay more based on relative impact on infrastructure, resources, and the enviroment.

... which is almost exactly what a per gallon tax accomplishes. 

Sure the tax is the same price per unit, but one is rewarded simply by using that unit efficiently.

Example:  Let’s say from point A to point B is X miles.  Our two drivers, to be introduced, each travel from point to point.  Joe Badass driving his H2 may get only 12 mpg while Jimmy Green gets 36 mpg in his Metro.  For the trip Jimmy pays 1/3 the tax.  He used 1/3 the fuel and probably emmited 1/3 the exhaust.  Due to the weight differences, Jimmy probably also caused about 1/3 the wear and tear on infrastructure. 

So Jimmy conserves, saves, and is rewarded by keeping 66% of the cost of the trip to himself. 

The current tax seems to do everything you want.

Well I’m certainly not a civil engineer.  But I have taken a few mechanical engineering classes and I absolutely refuse to believe that repeated loading causes “ZERO” damage. 

I also assume that we pay to replace our roads because no one wants to replace our roads for free. 

Although I’ve never been fortunate enough to drive the Autobahn, I understand that it is an impeccable driving surface.  It is also quite expensive.  In addition, if I understand correctly, the Autobahn has entire sections replaced upon evidence of cracking.  Now that is grounds for job security; add in a few defects and get called back for major repairs. 

from here on page 5.

Studies conducted by the federal
government and various state governments conclude that
heavy vehicles typically do not pay their share of the
cost, while lighter vehicles tend to be taxed for more
than their share.

So we should tax them more, right?  Well not necessarily.

Charging by number of axles or imposing fuel
taxes creates an incentive to use fewer axles to conserve
fuel by minimizing friction; by the same token, however,
it increases road damage by increasing the weight
per axle.

Unfortunately this isn’t a full out paper, nor are the specific findings listed.  I infer, though, that what basically matters is the pressure generated on the ground by each tire.  Higher efficiency vehicles tend to have smaller, stiffer tires and thus exert higher pressures on the road. 

__________________________________________

And obviously I’m not going to make any progress convincing you that a per gallon tax is a good idea.

I’ll end though by attacking a few more of your statements.

Its simple. Logical. And promotes conservation.

The current plan or yours?  Both can easily be described as such.

When you make laws based on easily understood math, you take the power out of the hands of the politicians.

The math of the current tax is far simpler and easy to understand than that of your plan. 

_____________________________

But yeah, Dorgan’s wrong.

… which is almost exactly what a per gallon tax accomplishes.

Well, maybe it needs to be a Price Per Gallon tax.

Joe Badass driving his H2 may get only 12 mpg while Jimmy Green gets 36 mpg in his Metro.

First off, if “Jimmy” is only gettin 36mph in his Metro, he’s roddin the thing pretty badly.

Secondly, a sub-2000 pound car does ZERO damage to the roads.  Ask a civil engineer. 

And if you do ask him/her why we constantly have to pay to replace our roads. (Hint: The road is only 11 inches thick here.  In Germany, the superhighways are 36 inches and last 4 times.  Split the difference.) Its a inferior product (the roads) because the contracting industy has a strangle hold on the politicians.  Job security.

--------------------
===========

Its not about punishing, its about rewarding.

Thats what capitalism is about. 

Being rewarded for decisions that are sound on moral, ethical, and legal levels.

What is punative is charging the guy trying to get to work the same tax rate per gallon as the guy wasting gas in his guzzler.

Lets use the Hummer-Geo example.

|||||||||| Weight ||||||||||| Gas Consumption
-------------------------------------------
Geo||||||| 2000 lbs|||||||| 40 mpg

Hummer||| 8000 lbs|||||||| 10 mpg

The Geo weighs 25% of the Hummer, and uses 25% of the gas that the Hummer uses.

So if the tax on the Hummer is $1.00, the Geo would be $.0625.

1.00 x .25 x .25 = .0625

So the tax that the owner of the Geo should pay is 6.25% of what the Hummer pays.

Its simple.  Logical.  And promotes conservation.

When you make laws based on easily understood math, you take the power out of the hands of the politicians.

Getting back to the topic at hand.

Dorgan’s wrong.

That is exactly what you propose to do.

No, I’m not.

To nobrainer:

Well, lets just keep telling eachother the other is an idiot that will win the battle against people who actually do want to force socialism down our throats.  And if they would have their way we would be driving Yugos.

I absolutely refuse to believe that repeated loading causes “ZERO” damage.

Maybe its not ZERO.  But its no more than 25% that of the 8000 pound car with 2 axles and the same PSI.

I also assume that we pay to replace our roads because no one wants to replace our roads for free.

Well, do some research on how often the same sections of road here in North Dakota are replaces.  Logic dictates that a thicker foundation and base on a road equates to longer life.  But this does not make work for the out of state road contractors that make millions and give us roads that crumble in under 4 years.

Charging by number of axles or imposing fuel
taxes creates an incentive to use fewer axles to conserve
fuel by minimizing friction; by the same token, however,
it increases road damage by increasing the weight
per axle.

This quote has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  I didnt bring up commercial vehicles at all.  Only passenger vehicles.  This was a non-sequitor on your part.

The math of the current tax is far simpler and easy to understand than that of your plan.

Maybe.  Of course that wasn’t the point of my statement.

-------

I understand you are fine with the current system.  Likely because you would not benifit by a change.  I understand that.

Refineries, drilling rigs, and imports won’t solve our problems. 

Focusing only on the oil supply is like burning cocoa plants in Columbia without addressing the demand here in the states.

If conserving gas is not a good enough reason to offer incentives; how about saving money?

Oh wait. 

Republicans don’t believe in that anymore, I forgot.

Spend spend spend use use use borrow borrow borrow.

Theres not enough conservation in the conservative movement and there aren’t enough conservatives in the Republican Party.

I guess incentives aren’t limited just to gas.

Plus, ALL taxation is social engineering as part of its function.

So why not use it to promote our ideas rather than the lefts?

FreeRepublicans.com: You have very little understanding of capitalism. You are proposing to do social engineering via taxation, which is socialism.

I’m not proposing sweeping changes “to make the world fair.”

I’m just stating that the current system, based on straight consumption is faulty, in my view.  Hence, I am putting for an idea.

I have no say in the matter.  I am just putting it out there.

I believe in a free marketplace of ideas; I would rather people tweek my numbers, critique my concept, and acknowledge that there is a problem.

Instead, all people do is blow it up and say I am some sort of socialist.  Thats not debate.  Thats how the other side talks when they call us Nazis.

You falling into their trap and you don’t even know it.

Our ideas are what makes us different from the lefties.  The idea that our economic system is composed of free people making free choices with a minimum of govt interference is what differentiates us from the lefties.  It turns out that people, given the choice, buy the biggest car they can afford to buy and operate, differentiates us from the lefties, who would use the tax system to force people to make buying decisions that they would not otherwise do is what differentiates us from the lefties.  The idea that taxes should be minimized, and should reflect minimum cost of minimal govt is what differentiates us from the lefties. What you propose is to penalize people for making choices they want to make, for the purpose of socially engineering people to drive smaller cars.  You think profits cause people to skimp on building roads, which is the exact opposite of the truth.  Profits arise from increased sales, not decreased costs.  It’s a common socialist myth, which you have repeated.

One more thing:  Lefties use taxes to promote their ideas.  Republicans and conservatives use freedom from taxes to promote our ideas.  Basic difference.

Its not like its a tax increase, its revenue neutral, but tilted toward those who CHOOSE to drive big trucks.

It would be revenue neutral until you add in the costs of implementation and collection.  Then you either have to lose revenue or raise taxes.  Or you end up with some expensive non-tax via regulations.

And your argument that your system necessarily helps the poor isn’t necessarily great either.  Poor are probably more likely to own an older, more inefficient car or truck that didn’t cost much money up-front. 

But if you can’t afford to drive a land yacht, or choose not to, you shouldn’t be paying the same per unit operating cost to the government.

You’re still working in the wrong units.  When considering the cost of owning/operating a vehicle it is based per mile.  Ever been reimbursed for mileage?  Yeah, or incentive is to cover those miles as cheaply as possible so that you can pocket some extra cash. 

A question:  Is there any other mainstream product that sells for different prices based only on how you use it?

Actually, I’ll answer my own question with an example.  In Ohio, sales tax is charged on food eaten in restaurants.  It is not charged on food ordered to-go.  As such nearly everyone with half a clue goes to McDonalds and orders their food to-go even when they dine-in.  This goes back to goes back to the extra cost of implementation/argument.  How do you actually determine which gasoline goes to which car?

Let’s take your ill-fated idea a few steps further.  Let’s suppose the government does start charging higher taxes for inefficient cars.  Should they not futher help contribute to conservation by taxing people according not to how much electricity they use, but by how they use it.  TVs?  Well a small one might be deemed “necessary”.  Anything bigger than say 13” and with a color screen should be charged an extra tax for using energy unnecessarily or inefficiently.  Expand that to stereos, cordless phones, blow driers, dish washers, old furnaces, home aquariums or just about anything that isn’t vital.

Our ideas are what makes us different from the lefties.

Absolutely right.

The idea that our economic system is composed of free people making free choices with a minimum of govt interference is what differentiates us from the lefties.

Nothing changes that with this concept of tweeking it in favor of conservation.

It turns out that people, given the choice, buy the biggest car they can afford to buy and operate, differentiates us from the lefties, who would use the tax system to force people to make buying decisions that they would not otherwise do is what differentiates us from the lefties.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.  If you can afford to be irresponsible, more power to ya. 

But if you can’t afford to drive a land yacht, or choose not to, you shouldn’t be paying the same per unit operating cost to the government.

Its not like its a tax increase, its revenue neutral, but tilted toward those who CHOOSE to drive big trucks.

The idea that taxes should be minimized, and should reflect minimum cost of minimal govt is what differentiates us from the lefties.

True.  Did I suggest some outragous increase?  No.

Currently the gas tax is about 40 cents with State and Fed combined.  All I am saying is small cars shouldn’t pay the same as guzzlers.  Sorry thats so controversial.

Yeah, I know as a conservative I shouldn’t be suggesting TAX CUTS FOR THE POOR but I’m a crazy conservative like that. 

What you propose is to penalize people for making choices they want to make, for the purpose of socially engineering people to drive smaller cars.

By the logic that we use in every other argument, those who can afford bigger vehicles would still buy them.  Its not a punishment to pay the fair share for the amount of impact your property has on the enviroment.

You think profits cause people to skimp on building roads, which is the exact opposite of the truth.

Actually, what I said was that they skimp on quality so they will have more work later on. 

Lefties use taxes to promote their ideas. Republicans and conservatives use freedom from taxes to promote our ideas. Basic difference.

This is true.  Sorry I am promoting conserative concepts such as conservation.

As far as implimentation, just put a big “E” (for exempt) on the license plate.

So now you want exempt and non-exempt? 

What about your graduated pricing scheme?

Personally I wouldn’t want to deal with the hassle of having someone at the station verifying whether or not I would be charged tax on my purchse. 

And if I owned two cars, one exempt and one not, you can be damn sure I’d only buy gas for the exempt car and find a way to put it the non-exempt car.

Interesting. 

Generally socialist economic theory includes some redistrobution scheme. 

The definition must be evolving quickly.

Question:  Why is it that some people pay income tax and others don’t?

Answer: Cause the ones that don’t, dont because they don’t MAKE enough.  They make so little that taxing them would create such small revenue amounts that the administrative costs are not worth it.

Why not expand that to consumption and not just income?

As far as implimentation, just put a big “E” (for exempt) on the license plate.

Ok. Whatever.  I’m done.

I never claimed it was an end all solution.

The concept that I was trying to put forward was one of proportion.

Its amazing how such a simple concept can blow up into a slippery slope argument so quickly.

Fine, do nothing.  Stick to the same ways.  See where it leads us.

Free-- I agree that we should promote conservation, but not make it mandatory or subsidize it.

Robert-- Yes, the left likes to take money from people who worked for it and give it to those who refuse to work for a living.

Sen. Dorgan is way off base.  He, and other Social Democrats, in trying to make up something called a “Windfall Profit’s Tax”, are attempting to repeal the classical law of economics.  They might as well try to repeal the law of gravity.  People do not have to buy something (gas, or anything else).  That is called demand.  Gas “companies” do not have to sell somthing they do not have (supply) at a certain price.

The Truth:  I was around in 1973 when the US government tried to “ration” gasoline.  I almost ran dry and was conserving--riding my bicycle to work on a couple of days at a distance of over five miles.  Amazing!! On the first day of each month (when the ‘cap’ on gas prices were allowed to increase 5-10 cents), the stations had plenty of gas.  Some of us noticed that no deliveries occurred over night!  No kidding!  You can not make a person sell something for a loss.
A little math also will show that gasoline costs less today than in 1970 in relationship to wages.  If anyone would like, I will be glad to discuss this with you, but with facts, not emotions.

FR.com: What makes you a junior socialist, whether you realize it or not, is that you set yourself up as the one who determines what is the “fair share” for others to pay, and the one who decides what is a “responsible” choice in what to drive.  Conservatives let the market decide.  You also continue to fail to realize that owners of larger vehicles already pay more taxes because they buy more gasoline.  You want to add a penalty on top of that for what you decide is “irresponsible” car ownership.  That is socialism, plain and simple.  The only question in social and economic matters is:  Who decides?  If it’s the individual, then we have a free enterprise system.  If it’s some govt bureaucracy or agency, then it’s socialism. I know you think your good intentions entitle you to make these decisions for others, but that is the socialist road.  Clear?

Robert,
Right on target.  You might want to see a short piece complete with facts on my blog.

Free: The reason “poor” people don’t pay income tax is not what you say; it is to buy their votes for the Dems, who support “progressive” income tax.  More socialism.

Hummer social engineering for you.

January 17, 2003 It’s not just a Hummer, it’s a tax break
If you use the big SUV for business, you could deduct nearly $38,000

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml

The Hummer loophole gets hammered

Anybody who wants to buy a big SUV and write off as much as $100,000 had better hurry. Here are the new rules.

For the last few years, a business owner who drove a luxury SUV as his or her company car got a lot of help in buying the vehicle. No, it wasn’t from zero-percent financing, instant cash rebates and free round-trip airfares. The help came via federal tax incentives.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P97282.asp

Woof:  You are right, in that govt subsidies are wrong, no matter who they benefit.  Without realizing it, you have demonstrated the fundamental unfairness of govt interference in what should be a matter of personal preference.  Giving Hummer owners a tax break is just as wrong as giving small car owners a tax break, and for the same reasons. In a free society, the market determines the winners and losers, not some govt elite group.

Its “you’re” not “your.”

I make the same mistake all the time.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Hey Rob! I like the new grav, why is it not showing in comment threads? But does in the current comments column?

2H9, try hitting the refresh button in your browser when you’re in in a thread.  That should make it pop up.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Irony is much more fun Rob.

I think the tax for different types of vehicle is a novel idea. First off because it helps society and secondly because it helps the environment.

Society in its needs systems will benefit by this for a multitude of reasons. First, it might get some of those tanks like the Hummer off of our roads. Seeing these things in their bright yellow paint job doing their best school bus imitation pisses me off. I know that a higher tax will not stop people from buying them, cause you damn near have to be loaded to afford it in the first place, but it will do good to the others in society. The funds from those new tax dollars could go to pad down some of the state fuel taxes for road repairs (which is necessary to our economy, just ask anyone that works those jobs), which will in effect make our gas cheaper. Less tax on it, less charged at the pump. Make a new more fair tax and eliminate one that punishes the lower class, due to most of the lower class either having to drive further to find work or have jobs that you have to drive to do. I don’t know many pizza boys making 100k.

Next, it will help the environment because the mid-level or middle class driver will see the different taxes set up and could choose different types of more economically and taxation friendly cars and input that into the cost of them. More people looking at hybrids or small cars instead of F150’s and Suburbans. I know, I’m going back to Nixon’s logic on the environment. Make it more attractive to be nice to it, than having penalties that will have to be caught for being mean to it.

But really you guys are looking at this wrong. We have a problem with the oil companies, who weren’t sworn in to testify on their skyrocketing profits this year. Its a shame that we let the richest americans use us as their prison bitches. We need to start setting maximums for their profit margins, due to the universal need of fuel. This is a different sect of business and should not be totally relied on supply and demand, because there will always be demand for it. Now that is a socialist plan and a very good one.

I’m out.

"Your All Wrong all the time” is the socialist.

He’s looking for social justice instead of proportional taxation.

Free:  “proportional taxation” by tax rate is socialism.  Proportional taxation by use, applying the same rate to all consumers and letting their choice of consumption to determine the amount of taxes they pay is free enterprise.  You just don’t seem to understand that, and I don’t know why.

CCOOOLL!! Never thought of that, techchallenged, you know.

Free: “proportional taxation” by tax rate is socialism. Proportional taxation by use, applying the same rate to all consumers and letting their choice of consumption to determine the amount of taxes they pay is free enterprise. You just don’t seem to understand that, and I don’t know why.

I understand completely.

Being a Libertarian, there was a time when I thought that concept should be across the board.  Then I grew up a bit.

Where is the free enterprise when every gas station is the same price?  In ND your lucky to have a variation of 4 cents in a city.

Go anywhere else, and there are variations of up to 30 cents, often on the same stretch of road in the same city.  I’m not talking about NYC or DC, this is Nebraska that they have actual competition.

How do we bust the gas cartel in Bismarck?

Tell me how, I, as a consumer, have a choice in what I pay when everyone charges the same.  Half the stations are owned by the same group. 

----

This could go on forever.

Heres the conclusion: 
Some people want everyone to pay the same rate no matter what; and some people would like to things more flexible to promote conservation.

End of Story.

Out. (for realz)

How do we bust the gas cartel in Bismarck?

Tell me how, I, as a consumer, have a choice in what I pay when everyone charges the same. Half the stations are owned by the same group.

If there were a true cartel, and no competition, you would be paying well over the national average. 

Ask yourself why your local stations aren’t charging you more.

Where is the free enterprise when every gas station is the same price? In ND your lucky to have a variation of 4 cents in a city.

Quit your whining and open up your own gas station.  Then you can rake in the profits yourself.

If there were a true cartel, and no competition, you would be paying well over the national average.

Ask yourself why your local stations aren’t charging you more.

You realize that you have now joined the conspiricy.  Instructions to follow.

Manipulating tax rates to “promote” a social goal is socialism.  You just don’t seem to get that.  I don’t know what the answer is to your question about ND gas prices, since I don’t live in ND.  Since it doesn’t seem to apply elsewhere, I would conclude it has something to do with ND politics, so perhaps you should look there, if that is your real concern.  BTW, I consider that a libertarian is a dishonest leftie.  That’s just me.

[...] I found myself in a discussion about gasoline taxes. I jumped in when someone mentioned the current tax being unfair because it doesn’t penalize those who use their gas inefficiently. Since those people in SUVs and whatnot don’t get great mileage, they are paying more per mile under the current system. And that seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are penalized for using too much gas and emitting too many fumes. [...]