From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicyc
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:39:50 GMT

In article <7wdntwa.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> In article <51170@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> >
> >Why do we go to all this trouble?  There are ways of getting around these
> >tolls (the easiest is to just add to congestion on nearby non-toll roads).
> >Just do a nice, hefty gas tax.  Then you don't need the bucks to put in
> >some sort of expensive toll-collection system.  Gas is already lightly
> >taxed, so the entire system for that exists and is paid for.
> 
> Why don't we just tax everyone 100% of their income and then
> there won'[t be any of these stupid arguments.
> 
> The facts are that taxation is already way too high. Companies
> and jobs are fleeing the United States and the gap between the
> haves and have-nots is widening. But, hell, I don'[t suppose any
> of that is half as important as punishing people who use cars.

<Sigh>  Seems some people on the net can't conduct a simple discussion, they
can only try to flame.

First, a gas tax is not an income tax.  Second, I never said we should
should try to take all the money people have.  Third, this is not a stupid
argument (at least not until you entered it).

We can have a gas tax without a net tax increase.  I would readily support
that.  Also, in my first post, I suggested controls on the government
spending of gas tax revenue - it should only be spent directly on
transportation, energy and environmental issues.  Seeing as how these are
the types of services all citizens really expect from their government,
and that they make up only a few percent of government spending, I don't
see government going on a spending spree as long as proper controls are in place

By what evidence are taxes too high?  Are our roads too nice with too few
potholes or something?  If you are arguing that we are spending too much
on transportation, energy and the environment, on what do you base that?
Don't bring in any other aspect of government spending - my first post
said that gas tax revenue should only be spent on these issues and that is
my opinion.  You say companies are fleeing the US due to high taxes, but
corporate taxes amount to only about one-fourth as much as individuals
pay in this country.  Most western nations have higher taxes than the US,
and have large gas taxes as well.

What does the gap between rich and poor have to do with this argument at all?

As for punishing people who use cars - damn straight!  They do not pay for
the damage they are causing.  They're out there driving foul-smelling,
mega-polluting, gas-guzzling old heaps and are directly responsible for
traffic congestion, greenhouse effect, smog, ozone depletion (a leaking
car airconditioner doesn't need to be fixed since the extra gas it uses
for the same cooling doesn't cost as much as fixing it), oil spills in the
ocean, groundwater contamination, cancer, lead poisoning, loss of animal
habitat, the invasion of Kuwait and our response, the loss of a valuable
resource, etc, etc.  They aren't paying their fair share and I'm for
fairness.  So if they want to play with their 1 ton metal despoilers of
the earth, fine, let them pay for it.  I'm not saying they can't drive.
Heck, I'm even against legislating fuel efficiency or highway speeds.
But, be prepared to pay for the damage you do.  A gas tax is the obvious
way.

A gas tax discourages abuse of a valuable resource, discourages pollution,
discourages frivolous driving trips, discourages high-speed driving,
discourages dependence on foreign oil.  It encourages fuel efficiency,
proper car maintainance, good driving, exercise (walking or cycling
for short trips), mass transit, alternative energy.  These are all
good things agreed on by the vast majority of people.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov