Re: Peeved at the pump

From: Howard J. Van Till <hvantill@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat May 15 2004 - 09:39:34 EDT

On 5/14/04 9:55 PM, "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:

> As one who has seen this tax scam close up (in Britain) I find the argument
> to be perfectly appalling to the poor. In the UK, with the high petrol taxes,
> only the rich drive. The poor can be seen every winter walking to work in the
> 80 mph blizzards and snow. Sometimes they are seen trying to ride their
> bicycles on the slippery streets. [sarcastic mode on] It was all great fun
> watching these people not drive as I drove by in my warm automobile. They
> would slip and I would laugh as would all the other rich bastards who were
> driving. And the high taxes had another beneficial outcome. Companies
> couldn't afford to hire as many people, so the poor couldn't work and got
> poorer, which of course was the rich people's plan in the first place.
> [sarcastic mode off]
>
Glenn,

Thanks for turning the sarcastic mode off. I would suggest that the next
thing to turn off is ³all of Britainıs economic problems are the result of
the petrol tax² mode. Seriously, Glenn, I can appreciate that higher
gasoline taxes would have an impact on the cost of driving to work, and I
can see that this could have a greater impact on low income households. But
I cannot accept the assumption that underlies the above sarcastic paragraph.
Turning on my own sarcastic mode, I might suggest that were the US gasoline
taxes raised by two dollars a gallon, low income households might have to
give up a portion of the money spent on cigarettes, beer, fast food and $150
tennis shoes. To blame the plight of the poor in your tale of woe
(concerning 80 mph blizzards and bicyclists slipping on their ice-covered
roads) solely on the petrol tax is just too simplistic. I donıt buy it.
>
> Howard, seeing the poor suffer from the misguided enviro-wacko taxes was
> enough to make my blood boil. The poor in this country can get to jobs via an
> automobile, just like I can. Sure they don't drive as nice a car, but they can
> drive unlike in those countries with those oh so sensible taxes. They don't
> educate, they punish.
>
Glenn, I suggest that we need to take a long-term perspective here.
Protecting people from knowledge of the long-term value of oil may make it
easier for them to get to work today (and still have $ for their cigs, brew,
burgers, & Air-Jordans) but that does no more than shift the problem to
their grandchildren. Keeping the price of gasoline low today does not solve
the problem; it only postpones it a generation or two.
>
> As to using the money to produce alternative energies, most european countries
> use it to support there absolutely worthless health care systems in which it
> takes up to 2 years to get a heart bypass. If you have epilepsy, it will take
> you a year to see a doctor. Go to the dentist and all the government will pay
> for is to polish the fronts of your top four teeth.
>
Youıre putting words into my mouth here. I did not propose that the fuel tax
money simply be given to the government to squander in any way they damn
well pleased. I proposed that fuel taxes be used specifically to support the
development of alternative energy systems.
>
> Besides, Howard, do you really think the government would provide you with
> cheap energy? When have they ever provided cheap anything? If you like the
> school system, you will love government energy.

Neither did I suggest that the government would be providing us with cheap
energy. My point was, we should look ahead and act in such a way as to save
some of the earthıs finite oil supply for uses other than cheap
transportation today.

> The problem with the oil supply is two fold. First we are running out.

Agreed. Thatıs why we should ration its use. If taxing it more would help
the population to learn the actual value of oil, then tax it and use the
proceeds to develop alternative energy systems.

> Second, the price of oil has been so low that there is little incentive to
> drill.

So how could that situation be changed? Would the worldıs governments have
to think more than 4 years ahead? That could be a problem. (Oops, I slipped
into sarcasm again.)

Cheers,

Howard
>>
Received on Sat May 15 09:40:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 15 2004 - 09:40:10 EDT