From: paul@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Paul Fidler)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 21:46:30 GMT

In article <26101@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In rec.autos.driving, c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>>In article <26053@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>
>>Let me put it in simple terms; a tax on a necessity item (be it gasoline,
>>food, or medicines) is a regressive tax because low end incomes tend to
>
>Gasoline is not a necessity item for most poor people. Look at where
>they live. Look at where they work. They are generally quite close to
>each other. Why? Because when their vehicle breaks down, they still
>need to be able to get to work, and this happens wuite frequently in
>the old cars they tend to drive.

Ron, I've been following your arguements for awhile, and there's one thing 
I'm sure of: You are absolutely unqualified to speak for the 'poor'. You
are also mistaken in assuming that the demographics of the densely populated
Northeast apply to the 75% of the country that is rural/semi-rural/small-
to-medium-sized-townish.

It is apparent that you don't count amoung your friends, for example, a
single mother who lives in a mobile home with 4 children, and drives the
cheapest car she can possibly afford to a clerical job 20 miles from her
home.  These people live where they HAVE to, for reasons you would never
dream of: No credit or bad credit; Easy-going landlord vs. hard-nosed; 
Someone in family owns the land; Well water vs. "city" water, etc., etc.

It is NOT because they still need to get to work when the car breaks down.
Your assumptions that underpriviliged people have the efficacy to apply 
that type of logic to their lives shows a tremendous level of naivete, IMHO. 

People in this category cannot just move to the place that makes the most
sense, nor can they go out tommorrow and upgrade their car, just because
it would be more practical.


>>costs $100 a month. Let's say we hike the gas tax so they both pay $150
>>a month. Who's paying more? The MD or the mall employe?
>
>They're paying the same? (relative to income, it can't be computed,
>because it was never relative in the first place.)

?????   Did you REALLY miss THAT point?!  Would you have said what you
said (whatever it meant) if he had used the words, "who feels it more"?


>>mall employe to buy a new car so that she'll spend the money on car
>>payments and full insurance instead of gas... I.e. spend $400 a month to
>>save $50 a month... Great economics there.
>
>Who said anything about a "new" car? I mentioned new as in something
>they do not now own. So instead of paying the $400-$1000 for the new
>transmission they need, they could apply that to a new used car that
>gets better gas mileage and is more reliable.
>

I won't respond to this, in hopes that you saw the post that detailed why
old clunkers are affordable and therefore available to these people, while
newer, more reliable/more efficient cars are not.  If you didn't, take a
long look at the used cars availiable in your area. Pretend your budget is
$250, *maybe* $400 if you can borrow some money from ex-spouse, etc.  What
do you come up with?  I will be very suprised if there's anything more
fuel-efficient/reliable than an early '70's BIG American car.....
(Gee, I guess I *did* respond to it.)  


>
>>PS: read an article on the same thread to see why I oppose the tax. I came
>>from a $5/gallon country...
>
>I did. I've also been there for a month, last year. The people seem
 
You would do alot better to see the majority of your own country. Your model
of "poor" people seems based only on what you've seen in large urban areas.


SUMMARY:
          * Upgrading to fuel-efficient cars is cost-prohibitive for a large
            segment of the "working poor".

          * Moving closer to one's work to save a few cents on gas is, for
            various reasons, not an option for the working poor.

          * An extra 10, 20, 30 bucks a month in gasoline cost is very sub-
            stantial for people in this category,

       Therefore, I have a real problem with your need to deny that this would
       be a regressive tax. Is it a question of degree? 


>The irony is priceless.

Indeed.
                                                   Paul Fidler
                                                 paul@clodii.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:6019 sci.physics:16252