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

1. 80

   Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 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?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin 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).

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
   2. 61

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
   3. 77

      alancaster149posted 12 years agoin 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]

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
   4. 0

      Sooner28posted 12 years agoin 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."

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin 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?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Sooner28posted 12 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
         2. 71

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
         3. 71

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Cagsilposted 12 years agoin 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.
                        
                        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.

                        replyreport
2. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

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

   replyreport
3. 59

   knolyourselfposted 12 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."

   replyreport
4. 64

   Nouveau Skepticposted 12 years ago

   Neither bothers me.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin 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?

         replyreport
5. 61

   JSChamsposted 12 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.”

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin 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.

         replyreport