From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:05:22 GMT
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec21.041755.4485@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>     The answer is staring us in the face: take it from the rich,
>who have far too much already. 

You act like they stole it or something. What makes you think 
that the poor will get richer if the rich stop trying to create
wealth for themselves? Or do you want the rich to keep working
at that so that you'll have something to "take"?

That'll really fix our country. Advance the notion that everyone
else owes you a free ride.

>It is obvious that much that is
>wrong with our country is due to the unconscionable gap between the
>rich and poor. 

To you. Not to me. How about the "unconscionable gap" being due to
what's wrong with this country?

>But the key is How do we identify the "rich" and
>               ________________________________________________
>their "excess" wealth, in an equitable (nonarbitrary) way?
>_________________________________________________________ 

I feel some arbitration coming on...

>     The answer is simple. We already know that the automobile and
>its relatives and accoutrements (e.g. roads, CFC-containing air
>conditioners, used tires, etc.) constitute the world's greatest
>threat to our environment and quality of life. 

Replace "We already know" with "I think".

>We also know that
>the rich own and operate motor vehicles more than the poor. 

Which doesn't mean in any way that the poor don't operate cars
in substantial numbers.

>The
>                                                            ___
>answer is to apply appropriate taxes to the ownership, fuelling,
>________________________________________________________________
>and operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles,
>______________________________________________________
>approximately in proportion to the damage they do.
>_________________________________________________ 
>
>     This would have numerous beneficial effects: it would humanely
>                                                  _________________
>reduce the use of motor vehicles, conserving our natural resources
>________________________________                                  
>for more essential, environmentally sound uses (e.g. making
>toothbrushes). It would not force anyone to stop driving; they
>                            _____                             
>could continue to do so, if they simply pay a fair charge to do it:
>it preserves our individual rights and freedoms. At the same time,
>it provides much-needed funds to shift emphasis from a wasteful,
>destructive habit to more essential uses (reducing the national
>debt, education, health and environmental research, habitat
>preservation, pollution reduction, public transit. etc.).

This won't work. We need to create incentives to curtail auto use, 
yes, but you are going at it from the wrong end. Instead of
creating a bad reason to drive, create a good reason not to drive.
More people would use the bus, for example, if it were a better
way to travel than their car. I wouldn't own a car at all (well,
maybe one, for special circumstances) if the public transit system
served my needs. As it stands, it doesn't go where I need it to go.
Now if you step in and make it impossible (your comment about not
forcing anyone is a joke) for me to drive, you've made it about
99% impossible for me to get to work. It is very difficult for a
country to be productive when most of its workers cannot get to
work. On the other hand, if one day the bus actually started
coming near my house and going near my job (withOUT it taking 
2 hours one-way) I would start riding it, since it is
cheaper to do so. It's not as convenient or fast, but hey, I can
live with that. Then it can be truly said that you have not forced
me to stop driving. Plus, the transit system would be more 
effective in the end, that way. Hey, cars would become more
efficient just trying to compete with public transportation.
A bonus!

>     If too much money is provided (above that needed to repair the
>destruction caused by motor vehicles), some of it can be used to
>reduce the use of more regressive taxes, such as sales taxes and
>income taxes, which cause the rich/poor gap to widen, while
>providing little compensating benefit.

Now you're admitting that it's plain stealing. You took more than
you deemed 'necessary', which would normally mean a refund is due.
Yet you want to keep it.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7 
Newsgroups: sci.environment