jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (31 posts)

Does a federal gas tax increase scare you more than Obamacare tax?

  1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago

    Suppose Congress raised the federal gas tax 10 ten cents in order to repair the U.S. highways. That would rake in ten times the money compared to the Obamacare tax mandate ($95 the first year on 1% of the taxpayers). But all we hear is fear mongers worried that scofflaws with take advantage of the law and use the ER rooms without paying.

    What if the government plans to raise the gas tax? Why is there no discussion on this? Can it be done by executive order after the election?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      At least a tax on gas is a tax that is only laid on people who use gas. The Obamacare taxes are more like taxing only cyclists because they aren't paying taxes on gas(which they aren't using).

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        roll

        1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So, the size of the tax is irrelevant (tax and spend), it's the principle (in this case providing healthcare to evveryone = socialism) that matters.

    2. JSChams profile image61
      JSChamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure. Which one do you think we should be most frightened of?

    3. alancaster149 profile image83
      alancaster149posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We've got Road Tax AND Fuel Surcharges here in the UK. Cheapest Diesel Price per Litre I know about in this part of London is £1.33 (*$2.06), although some further out price theirs at about £1.43 (*$2.22). Road Tax for my 2.5 litre Diesel Land Rover Discovery is £220 p.a (*$341.57). We're paying for Gordon Brown's profligacy. [Conversion to $$*according to today's exch. rates]

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Alancaaster149, that $341.57 road tax reminds me of the license tax that the individual states charge in the U.S. It's considered as a percentage of the worth of the vehiche in some states and in others just a $25 yearly charge, or some such thing. So it can go  form $25 to $600 or so.

        Right now a person can buy 3.75 liters of gas for about $3.75 in California. And we all complain! The federal tax must be spent on roads, so I'm for it. Right now, it's about 18 cents a gallon. States add on about 30 cents a gallon.

        The point I was making is that if you argue about increasing the federal gas tax, people say you're a liberal. If you say you favor making 1% of the population pay a $95 fine for not buying health insurance, you're called a socialist. If you want both, like me, you're a Nazi! But I only get death threats when I talking about Iran.

    4. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It would be wise to curb our use of gasoline and give the market incentive to speed up research into alternative energy.

      But, if one hase no care for the morrow, and sees no moral conundrums in pillaging the resources of the earth because God said we could, then I'll venture to say that person probably would rather there be no gas tax at all, and instead a complete demolition of the environment would be asserted on the grounds that it is our "human right."

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sooner28, alternatively, I think there's just too many people. But then, there seems to be unlimited greed by wealthy individuals who would desecrate what is left of this beautiful land.

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We will develop alternatives naturally. Crippling the economy wont help. We aren't going to magically be able to drive electric cars, where will the electricity come from? We won't be able to magically drive Hydrogen cars, where will we get the hydrogen?

        We need to research alternatives for the future. Luckily we can keep using gas for the next couple hundred years, if we're willing to pull out the oil we have.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Couple hundred years? lol.  Please cite a reliable source.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We have over 2 trillion barrels in shale alone, which is enough for 100-200+ years.

            Proven oil reserves aren't very much, but estimated recoverable oil reserves in the US range from 150-250 billion. That's another 20-30 years worth.

            Really, we're not at risk of running out.

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Okay I'll assume the 20-30 year's worth is true.  That would still only give us 30 years to transition everything away from petroleum.

              Do you have any sources for the trillion barrels of shale that exist?

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                1.5 trillion in the Green River formation
                http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5041/

                1.3 trillion in the Uinta Basin
                http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-bb/

                That's two sites of shale oil.

                1. profile image0
                  Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay.  This seems legit, and I will admit it when I am wrong.

                  However, I'm also not in favor of continued drilling and destruction of the environment.  The solution is not to drill until every last drop is gone.

                  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also is thought to have oil.  I'm not in favor of drilling there either.  Oil companies have shown they cannot be trusted to follow rules (Exxon, BP). 

                  But I will concede your point that there is more available than I previously thought.  It would just come at the cost of further deterioration of our planet.

        2. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          roll This is one of the most absurd statements ever uttered on HubPages. Don't worry, I didn't say it was THE most absurd statement ever, because it's not. It's just one of many. hmm

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No problem Cagsil, I'm well used to you criticizing what I say without ever actually providing facts.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really? And I'm used to you being short sighted as per usual. roll

        3. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          DUMB statement We will not develop them naturally. To say so, defies the fact that politicians actually have NO POWER to do so because their puppet masters won't let them.
          If it was done before the Economy was depressed or recessed, then your statement is yet again dumb because they had the chance to develop them when the Economy was good.
          Really? Yet another dumb statement. It's a matter of producing enough electricity at a lower cost which matters. Not the actual car.
          Only an idiot would build a hydrogen based car. It's beyond foolish to think it would even be a smart idea.
          This is and has already been done, but when you have an Economy that isn't built on Equality and Equal rights, it makes no difference because those who control the Economy don't want to let go of their reign, so alternatives will be oppressed as much as possible.
          We will use gas regardless, which shows that you're not quite understanding the future you claim to be talking about.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What, free markets don't innovate on their own? Where did all our innovation come from then?

            What do you mean 'done before'? It's an ongoing process. People have been working on alternatives for a long time. Right now, it's a simple fact that there isn't a viable alternative. We're getting closer, but we're nowhere near there yet. Maybe in 20 years we will have a really viable alternative.

            Right. And how are we going to produce that electricity? Definitely not solar or wind. If every American started driving electric cars tomorrow, we would have widespread brownouts and blackouts.
            Hydrogen is actually pretty cool. Only water for emissions.

            Wait, this is being done and has always been done? Didn't you just say

            "We will not develop them naturally."

            Yeah, you did.

            I'm sure we don't have alternatives because people want to control us, as opposed to there not being any viable alternatives at this point...


            Right.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The fact that you continue to think that the "markets" are a "free market" is part of the problem. There's NO "free markets" without equality.
              If the products were brought to a real "free market" then the process would already be established if it was done sooner.
              No shit sherlock. The problem is the marketplace and WHO controls it.
              It's NOT from a lack of trying to bring the products to market. It's a problem with the so-called "free markets" and those who have the power and control to prevent the alternatives from becoming established.

              The rest is irrelevant.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, the markets aren't free, we have too much government intervention. But they are still fairly-free smile

                What products would be brought to the market sooner? What alternatives are there that you seem to think would be viable? It's not about who controls the market, it's about technology. We can't put everyone on electric, at least not without building a dozen new nuclear reactors. What alternatives do you want to use?

                What alternatives are being 'prevented' from being used?

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Really? And you think the government intervenes because of WHY exactly? Because they are TOLD to by others who are powerful and wealthy and have the ability to manipulate others who have the power to remove elected officials from office.
                  roll
                  Solar power should be more widely used and the energy it creates should have been providing power to other resources. Why isn't it? Power and Wealth!
                  Wind power could also be another.
                  Oh please. The technology? If the technology exists to see from space to the little grass lawns(seeing individual strands of grass), then you better believe the technology already exists to do massive changes to the way we live, yet the status quo(corporations protection from government) continues to plague society. Why? Because there's NO equality or equal rights.
                  I'm not interested in driving a nuclear powered car if that's what you're asking. However, our power grid(infrastructure) in the U.S. should have already been on Nuclear power and then electricity could be used for other reasons.
                  Rational, sane and beneficial ones which are not controlled by power and wealth.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    Gas tax, no. Cigarette tax, paradigmsearch trembles in fear.

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    The corporate oligarchy is moving to creating the ability for themselves to tax the citizens as well as governments. The Obamacare tax goes mostly to the corporate health industry.
    Trans-Pacific Partnership:
    "Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) "free trade" agreement, foreign firms would gain an array of privileges:
    Rights to acquire land, natural resources, factories without government review
    Risks and costs of offshoring to low wage countries eliminated
    Special guaranteed “minimum standard of treatment” for relocating firms
    Compensation for loss of “expected future profits” from health, labor environmental, laws (indirect or “regulatory” takings compensation)
    Right to move capital without limits
    New rights cover vast definition of investment: intellectual property, permits, derivatives
    Ban performance requirements, domestic content rules. Absolute ban, not only when applied to investors from signatory countries"
    "European Stability Mechanism:
    The ESM is now a permanent bailout fund for private banks, a sort of permanent “welfare for the rich.”  There is no ceiling set on the obligations to be underwritten by the taxpayers, no room to negotiate, and no recourse in court."

  4. Nouveau Skeptic profile image73
    Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago

    Neither bothers me.

    1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nouveau Skeptic, right. I'm kinda falling asleep on this debate about the Affordable Care Act being socialism. And a gas tax, by law, has to be used to fix the highways.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's because the Affordable Health Care Act isn't socialism by any stretch of the imagination.
        Really? Are you sure it's actually used for that? If that was the case, then States wouldn't have a problem paying for the roads to be fixed, yet many all across the country don't have money to fix their roads. They barely have money to operate.

        The biggest ignorance is that ALL taxes applied to any company/corporation is passed on to the consumer within the pricing structure of the product.

        So, the government screws you and the corporations screw you. So, who is actually looking out for the citizens? hmm

  5. JSChams profile image61
    JSChamsposted 5 years ago

    “USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified. Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.”

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The only defense is 'It will kill the planet'. Unfortunately that argument won't hold up for much longer. At the rate NASA's charts are going, people will begin to wonder why NASA says we're 3 degrees C warmer than normal when their own thermometer looks pretty normal.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Heck, 2010 there was a 0.5 degree discrepancy between NASA's temperature data and satellite readings, and it keeps getting bigger.

        Oh well. I'm sure future generations will be making global cooling into a huge political issue.

 
working