Taxing Fuel Efficiency

[Nbadan]

Report suggests taxing hybrid cars
US highway fund said running low


By Jim Abrams, Associated Press | November 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Taxing hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars and billing drivers for miles driven are among the approaches being suggested to avert a shortfall in money to maintain the nation's highways.

Less than four months after President Bush signed a six-year, $286.4 billion highway and public transit act, a report commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce said that the federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money and that Congress needs to think about new revenue sources.

<SNIP>

Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/26/report_suggests_taxing_hybrid_cars)

I guess taxing big company trucks and buses that cause a majority of the road and highway damage wouldn't be politically expidient? One semi truck (loaded) does as much damage to the roads as 10,000 cars. Most states already do have a system of adjusting registration fees for semi-trucks but the fees are in no way proportional to the damage done to the roads by the trucks. Unless of course we want to subsidize the trucking industry in return for cheaper prices on consumer goods that are delivered by truck. It really is a policy question but I say apportion the costs according to the cause.

[spurster]

Oh my, we wouldn't want to raise the tax on gasoline to compensate for higher fuel efficiency, would we? That would mark BushCo as a traitor to do something that even revenue neutral.

[gtownspur]

Only morons with Progress for America talking points door tags would believe local commerce and oil executives were the same.

[Nbadan]

Oh my, we wouldn't want to raise the tax on gasoline to compensate for higher fuel efficiency, would we? That would mark BushCo as a traitor to do something that even revenue neutral.

I have an idea, how about taxing fuel inefficiency? or even better, the High-way Department living within it's set budget from revenue from road tax and gasoline tax? Didn't we learn anything from recent high gas prices?

[scott]

How about we count up how much the Government has made off fuel taxes since 1975 and count up the profits US oil companies have made in the same period and see which number is bigger...

[gtownspur]

^WTF? What do the oil companies have to do with local chamber of commerces taxing fuel efficiency. Even at that, it probably would be equal since govt doesn't have to use it's profits to supply or refine oil.

[exstatic]

gtown, you fuckwit: profits are JUST THAT: profits. Any costs for refining are taken out and deducted LONG before the quarterly reports. OH, and BTW, governments don't make profits, either.

[gtownspur]

You missed the point you tart! THis is one reason why you should to stick to the NBa forums.

Oil companies have to invest to make a (profit) revenue. Even when they make a profit, they have to use the same profit to grow their business. Govt just has to sit on their ass and let the taxes do the job. There were virtually no production cost in generating that revenue. That revenue came by law. And government does make profit, they just call it a "surplus". THe only difference is that their people cannot benefit from the profit surplus.

[gtownspur]

Besides, why are you acting like a bitch that's been served. What do the oil companies have to do with the Fuel Tax. Atleast awnser that question before you get into your bumper sticker rhetoric.

[exstatic]

You didn't miss the point, you missed the bus...the short one.


Even when they make a profit, they have to use the same profit to grow their business.
You obviously have no idea of the difference between revenues and profits. Revenues are all of the dollars that come in to your business. You take some of that and invest in exploration, infrastructure, capital improvements, etc. Then you service any debt. Then you pay everyone their salaries. Anything left over is profit.

Take a basic business class, or go back to the kiddie table, and let the adults discuss the economy.

[gtownspur]

You obviously didnt read my post. Yes, Government doesn't profit from revenue, nevertheless they made money out of taxes and they have surpluses which in the case of govt is a form of profit since it doesn't just go for the use of enforcing said taxes . They didnt partake in the refining process, and they didnt have to invest in exploration or infastructure of oil sourcing. It's all money you dingnbat. Whether the money went to a fat ceo or to a bond issue, it's money made. YOur still a dumb bitch because after all your piping you still haven't provided an example of how the fuel tax is to blame because of oil execs.

You obviously have reading comprehension problems. I suggest you start practicing by reading Clifford the Big red DOg and provide a summary by tommorow.

[gtownspur]

I bet your fruit ass is gonna dodge the question of how this whole thread has any relation to the blame on oil companies.

[exstatic]

They didnt partake in the refining process, and they didnt have to invest in exploration or infastructure of oil sourcing.

Your contention was that the oil companies did, and out of profits. You were proven wrong.

[exstatic]

I bet your fruit ass is gonna dodge the question of how this whole thread has any relation to the blame on oil companies.

I never said it did. Damn, they raise them stupid in Williamson Co. :lol Go find the other poster that befuddled you by saying that.

[gtownspur]

Your contention was that the oil companies did, and out of profits. You were proven wrong.

THey do invest with their profits. How else would they grow. You haven't proven anyone wrong. I posted that surpluses, not revenues, are the same as profits in government. GOvt do run surpluses, that may be a foreign concept to you, but that's the whole reason behind the fuel tax. THe people who will profit from the fuel tax will be the ones who will benefit from the surplus of money directed to their programs.

Yeah i know you never made a link between oil execs and chamber of commerce, i merely just asked you to prove it. You dodged the fucking question leaving one to think you either agree with the assumption or have no proof to discredit it or both. Just face it Exstatic, your posting on this thread for no reason other than to prove what i said about surpluses was false. You haven't done so, so what the fuck are you doing wasting your time posting trivial semantic dung if you have better things to do like posing nude for OH Gee!! on your webcam. :rolleyes

[gtownspur]

How about we count up how much the Government has made off fuel taxes since 1975 and count up the profits US oil companies have made in the same period and see which number is bigger...
^ You see this moron. That's scott equating Government tax revenues with Oil profits. iF you think i'm a moron, take it up with him. Otherwise go back to being a little bitch.

[exstatic]

I bet your fruit ass is gonna dodge the question of how this whole thread has any relation to the blame on oil companies.


^ You see this moron. That's scott equating Government tax revenues with Oil profits. iF you think i'm a moron, take it up with him. Otherwise go back to being a little bitch.

Then take it up with scott, fuckwit. It's not my position. Don't expect me to defend it.

Are you sure you're not Downs?

[101A]

By definition, investing in your business is a cost of doing business for that year - would not be profit.

However, businesses do, in fact, make one year's profit, next year's investments.

You are both right.

As for the thread:

I would like to know who suggested taxing hybrids at a higher rate. Never heard such a thing. In fact, I have heard suggested numerous times tax incentives for purchasing hybrids, and other fuel efficient cars.

As for taxing non-fuel efficient vehicles....

We already do.

[scott]

That's scott equating Government tax revenues with Oil profits. iF you think i'm a moron, take it up with him. Otherwise go back to being a little bitch.

I didn't equate Government tax revenue with anything... In fact, I implied an inequality. gtownspur, you obviously haven't been paying attention and don't know which side of this argument I'm on...

[Oh, Gee!!]

another thread hijacked

[gtownspur]

I didn't equate Government tax revenue with anything... In fact, I implied an inequality. gtownspur, you obviously haven't been paying attention and don't know which side of this argument I'm on...

Talk about non sequitor. If you didn't equate both, you at the very least was guilty of comparing apples to oranges.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I guess taxing big company trucks

I guess it would be dumb mentioning the fact that said "big company trucks", aka semis, are the backbone of our economy, whether twits like NBADunce understand that or not...

[gtownspur]

Then take it up with scott, fuckwit. It's not my position. Don't expect me to defend it.

Are you sure you're not Downs?

I asked you a simple question. I didnt imply wether what was said was your position. I asked you wether you agree with the majority postion on this thread of the link between Big oil and the fuel tax. Seeing how keeping silent on the issue would benefit your ideology on capitalism, you proved to be a dishonest defensive partisan hack. You dodge the question and to this day you still think i'm assigning the status qou oppinion to you. Step up and grow a pair. Awnser the damn question.

But no :rolleyes .. Fuck disproving a shoddy idea even if it benefits your side, you'll just levy ad hominem attacks on me and dodge the real issue of this whole thread. Seeing how you have your priorities screwed up, your worthless to debate with and have a big pole up your ass, seeing how your too partisan to address a strawman argument from your idealogical type.

[Marcus Bryant]

Talk about non sequitor. If you didn't equate both, you at the very least was guilty of comparing apples to oranges.

His point was that the feds and state governments have taken in more $ off gasoline sales than the firms who actually produce and sell the stuff. I don't see a problem with that observation. IIRC, the average tax per gallon is something like 40 cents while the average amount of profit is far less (<5 cents per).

Of course taxation is different than the profits generated by those sales. It's also irrelevant to the observation.

[101A]

His point was that the feds and state governments have taken in more $ off gasoline sales than the firms who actually produce and sell the stuff. I don't see a problem with that observation. IIRC, the average tax per gallon is something like 40 cents while the average amount of profit is far less (<5 cents per).

Of course taxation is different than the profits generated by those sales. It's also irrelevant to the observation.


The last word.

[T Park]

I guess it would be dumb mentioning the fact that said "big company trucks", aka semis, are the backbone of our economy, whether twits like NBADunce understand that or not...



Don't you know by now, that guys like NBADan and other liberal socialists, hate business, PERIOD?

[T Park]

burr burr?

[RandomGuy]

I guess it would be dumb mentioning the fact that said "big company trucks", aka semis, are the backbone of our economy, whether twits like NBADunce understand that or not...


I would simply point out that shipping something by rail is three times more energy efficient than semi's.

Cheap energy is the back bone of our economy.

[Nbadan]

I would simply point out that shipping something by rail is three times more energy efficient than semi's.

Cheap energy is the back bone of our economy.

That's exactly why Republicans are perfectly content letting our nations railways go to shit and high-speed rail in TX? Forget it. Let's build toll-roads instead.

Fucken ridiculous.

[RandomGuy]

That's exactly why Republicans are perfectly content letting our nations railways go to shit and high-speed rail in TX? Forget it. Let's build toll-roads instead.

Fucken ridiculous.


Did you see where Bush fired the head of Amtrack because he was doing a good job?

In-f***ing-credible.

[RandomGuy]

Some of my first retirement money is going to go into something having to do with rail and solar power.

Both of them stand to gain a LOT from the future price of oil (being really high).

Once again, short-changing rail is simply short-term "feel good" republicanism that ignores long term problems.

[Nbadan]

Did you see where Bush fired the head of Amtrack because he was doing a good job?

In-f***ing-credible.

:drunk

I'm not against Business, in fact, I'm very pro-business. However, I would attempt to help spread the wealth businesses have been making recently to lower echelon workers who really drive the economy, and, god forbid, lead to a rise in real wages for the first year since the Supreme Court appointed W as President.

After all, how many Tahoe’s can one person drive?

[Nbadan]

Some of my first retirement money is going to go into something having to do with rail and solar power.

Both of them stand to gain a LOT from the future price of oil (being really high).

Once again, short-changing rail is simply short-term "feel good" republicanism that ignores long term problems.


Four letters: G O L D