From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 22:51:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep5.135849.1@mdcbbs.com> royce@mdcbbs.com (Royce D. Myers EDS/Unigraphics) writes:
>
>    What Les _said_ was that oil companies tend to control transportation
>    in the United States.  He did not take the leap in logic and claim that
>    the CEO's of oil companies were running the country.

Les said in so many words that the United States was _run_ by the oil
companies. This isn't just incorrect, it's a cheap shot.

>    IMHO, their vote tends to count a bit more than yours or mine when it
>    comes our government, though.
>
>> The whole point is this -- the world is just a bunch of people trying
>> to get by. The oil companies are major employers and they provide products
>> like gas, oil and fertilizer that benefit everyone. Politicians would
>> only be looking out for their constituencies if they didn't give
>> lots of latitude to these sorts of endevours.
>
>    (The last sentence seems even more muddled than the rest of the note.)

I really don't know how to answer this last -- you just said precisely
the same thing in the above. My point is plain -- yes, oil companies
and all other big employers have a louder voice in government. That is
because they are supporting a larger seqment of the population. What's
good for Arco is good for Arco employees as a general rule and this
only has to be balanced against whether or not it is also good
for the populace at large.
>
>    I don't recall this being brought into question.  The point being
>    debated is: should our tax system be restructured so that users of a
>    resource pay all associated costs of said use?  Insulting Jobst and Les
>    doesn't seem to answer the question.

I am not insulting either of them. I am pointing uot that they
are using double standards. What they do is OK and if _they_
make the occassional mistake it's just a mistake. But if someone
else makes a similar mistake it is with planned and vicious intent.
(Yeh, that's exaggerated -- for effect.)

>    We are shifting the burden from some general set of taxes to the
>    specific users.  Consumption of gas for the individual does not vary as
>    much as income does: the number of gallons a person buys per month
>    might range from zero (good biker :)) to 400 (bad commuter :)), while
>    the amount of income taxes paid in this population is likely to vary
>    much, much more.  Therefore, rich people will tend to pay less towards
>    taxes (since their gas use will not vary as far from the mean as their
>    income does), and poor people might get a slight benefit.  The losers
>    are those of us in the middle.

Yeh, in another message I pointed out that only 13% of United States
households are without an automobile. That 13% couldn't possibly
pay for the mass transit systems in this country so that means that
the rest of us are.

What I want to know is why do the social reconstructionists decide
that that 13% deserve even higher benefits and lower costs?

But the entire basis of my argument has always been that these
reconstructionists have presented this gas tax as a budget neutral
tax. History is quite clear in this matter. If given the chance to
increase a tax our honorable representatives will not shirk their
duty, nor will they reduce any other tax to compensate. An increase
in any tax is simply an increase in taxes as a whole. And I pay too
much already.
>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc