Global Warming Tax

[jhitson]

I have a Novel Idea. Why don't we put a tax on mass-transit: say 50 cents per ride. We then use this revenue to subsidize Hydrogen fuel cells for all of us who do not use mass-transit. This way, the environment gets cleaned up, and the green weenies get to pay for it. Its a win win situation.
(In case you missed it, this is satire.)

[Roflmao]

Ahh what a lively discussion haha. Just a thought for the whole crowd here... last I checked buses ran on gasoline, or at least diesel. I remember back in my high school days of riding the public bus, our fares got increased as gas increased. So... my thought process is that the people who can't afford cars STILL pay into the tax correct? They just do not pay as much, which makes sense because thats the way the entire tax system is set up, the less money you make the less taxes you pay. Just a thought for all those people who say everyone who takes the bus doesn't pay into the tax....

The reason I brought the post up and thought the idea was retarded was because of the global warming. Personally I am with DGthe3 in saying the idea of funding mass transit is a great idea, at least in the major cities. This however should not get labeled with global warming, but instead something to the effect of a pollution control act. Imagine this everyone, you own your Camaro, and instead of pumping tons of money into it as a daily driver in gas and maintanence, you get to drive it whenever you WANT to, and not when you have to. Know what would make this possible? An awesome mass transit system. Would you rather sit in traffic or take a state of the art bullet train running on air (with the help of magnets) to work? I pick the train.

Be honest, if the mass transit was a LOT better, you would be using it for those of you in major cities.

[DGthe3]

I was thinking about this thread about an hour ago, and it seems we have missed part of the point. We began debating funding for mass transit, which isn't what this tax is about. Not directly at least. The purpose is to lessen the impact on the environment. I hate the fact that its getting labeled as a global warming tax, but we gotta play the cards we're dealt. So looking at it from an impact perspective, it makes sense to have them pay for the solution to the problem they are making. Thats why I don't like calling it a global warming tax. But cars do emit more pollution and CO2 per occupant than buses and trains do. So by helping to make public transit a more attractive alternative, it will draw more riders, reduce the cars on the road, and improve the air quality for everyone.

I take some of the responsibility for losing some focus with my comments in the second half of my post (#11).

[jhitson]

I have no problem with trying to make things as clean as possible. I am an Eagle Scout. I have as much respect for the environment as anyone out there. But, in my opinion, Wealth redistribution is not going to solve anything. You have to understand that Global warming, as with any marketing campaign, is just a way to seperate you from your hard earned dollars.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Roflmao

Ahh what a lively discussion haha. Just a thought for the whole crowd here... last I checked buses ran on gasoline, or at least diesel. I remember back in my high school days of riding the public bus, our fares got increased as gas increased. So... my thought process is that the people who can't afford cars STILL pay into the tax correct? They just do not pay as much, which makes sense because thats the way the entire tax system is set up, the less money you make the less taxes you pay. Just a thought for all those people who say everyone who takes the bus doesn't pay into the tax....

The reason I brought the post up and thought the idea was retarded was because of the global warming. Personally I am with DGthe3 in saying the idea of funding mass transit is a great idea, at least in the major cities. This however should not get labeled with global warming, but instead something to the effect of a pollution control act. Imagine this everyone, you own your Camaro, and instead of pumping tons of money into it as a daily driver in gas and maintanence, you get to drive it whenever you WANT to, and not when you have to. Know what would make this possible? An awesome mass transit system. Would you rather sit in traffic or take a state of the art bullet train running on air (with the help of magnets) to work? I pick the train.

Be honest, if the mass transit was a LOT better, you would be using it for those of you in major cities.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I was thinking about this thread about an hour ago, and it seems we have missed part of the point. We began debating funding for mass transit, which isn't what this tax is about. Not directly at least. The purpose is to lessen the impact on the environment. I hate the fact that its getting labeled as a global warming tax, but we gotta play the cards we're dealt. So looking at it from an impact perspective, it makes sense to have them pay for the solution to the problem they are making. Thats why I don't like calling it a global warming tax. But cars do emit more pollution and CO2 per occupant than buses and trains do. So by helping to make public transit a more attractive alternative, it will draw more riders, reduce the cars on the road, and improve the air quality for everyone.

I take some of the responsibility for losing some focus with my comments in the second half of my post (#11).

The City doesn't pay the same for gas that public drivers do. City vehicles get gas at cost or close to it. So, if the city was going to tax it's own buses by making them pay for it in addition to everyone else then I'm all for it. But the details of the article say it will be enforced at the pump or on vehicle registration. In this instance I'd support CAFE before I'd support this. At least with CAFE the cost is directly related to the root cause. If you believe that global warming is caused by gases emitted from cars. All I'm saying is if you want to make mass transit better then everyone should bear the cost. Until you can prove the global warming is really caused by greenhouse gases produces by cars, in spite of the fact that the earth has been on a cooling trend for the last few years, then I don't buy that car owners should pay for a transit system that isn't as effective as owning a car.

And yes people who make less money should pay less money in taxes. But they should pay the same percentage as everyone else.

Edit: I totally agree that in certain cities, like DC, mass transit is AWESOME. when I go there I never rent a car and can always get around where I need to in the city. But, if I lived there I would still own a car. I would just drive it a lot less. I can tell you from experience there isn't a single city in CA that has a transit system anywhere near what you find in a place like DC. These CA transit projects are grossly mismanaged and way over budget with huge project problems. So that is another reason why I would be fired up if the cost of fixing these projects fell on car owners only.

[Roflmao]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

The City doesn't pay the same for gas that drivers do. So, if the city was going to tax it's own buses by making them pay for it in addition to everyone else then I'm all for it. But the details of the article say it will be enforced at the pump or on vehicle registration. In this insance I'd support CAFE before I'd support this. At least with CAFE the cost is directly related to the root cause. If you believe that global warming is caused by gases emited from cars. All I'm saying is if you want to make mass transit better then everyone should bear the cost. Until you can prove the global warming is really caused by greenhouse gases produces by cars, in spite of the fact that the earth has been on a cooling trend for the last few years, then I don't buy that car owners should pay for a transit system that isn't as effective as owning a car.

And yes people who make less money should pay less money in taxes. But they should pay the same percentage as everyone else.

If an act like this was passed, it would be a state law, and therefore the cities would still pay the tax I would assume, even if their gas is discounted (the reason I would think it was discounted was no city tax, imo). If the city doesn't pay the tax they should, and you can add that into the law.

I am with you on the global warming thing, thats why I said it should be a pollution and air quality type of act, not global warming.

Why do you think everyone should pay the same percentage btw?

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by jhitson

I have no problem with trying to make things as clean as possible. I am an Eagle Scout. I have as much respect for the environment as anyone out there. But, in my opinion, Wealth redistribution is not going to solve anything. You have to understand that Global warming, as with any marketing campaign, is just a way to seperate you from your hard earned dollars.

HUGE +1

[Roflmao]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

Edit: I totally agree that in certain cities, like DC, mass transit is AWESOME. when I go there I never rent a car and can always get around where I need to in the city. But, if I lived there I would still own a car. I would just drive it a lot less. I can tell you from experience there isn't a single city in CA that has a transit system anywhere near what you find in a place like DC. These CA transit projects are grossly mismanaged and way over budget with huge project problems. So that is another reason why I would be fired up if the cost of fixing these projects fell on car owners only.

Haha damn you edited while I was posting. If fixing this stuff doesn't fall on car owners, then who? You said yourself you would use a GOOD transit system, and you being a driver could benefit from it. So why not?

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Roflmao

If an act like this was passed, it would be a state law, and therefore the cities would still pay the tax I would assume, even if their gas is discounted (the reason I would think it was discounted was no city tax, imo). If the city doesn't pay the tax they should, and you can add that into the law.

+1

I am with you on the global warming thing, thats why I said it should be a pollution and air quality type of act, not global warming.

Why do you think everyone should pay the same percentage btw?

Only because its fair. I've been on both ends of the spectrum. And I worked so hard to get where I am. And when I look at my tax return and see how much money Is taken by the Gov. I almost relish the thought of making less money so I don't have to give a bigger percentage away. Quick example. When I got my first big promotion at my current Job I was so excited, My wife and I went to dinner we talked about trading in our beater truck for something new. The whole bit. Things are great for the next nine months. Then I do my taxes. The year before I got a $2000.00 check back. The next year I paid almost $4000.00. Because I moved from one tax bracket to another I actually had less take home pay after getting the big promotion. I was literally making more money before the raise because I was paying a lower percentage. Ever since that day I was convinced that we should all pay the same percentage.

The top 1% wage earners in the country earn 17% of the total income in the U.S. They also pay 35% of the total income taxes collected by the Gov. That's not fair. Its redistribution of wealth. Or IMO the beginning of a welfare state.

Also, please see my edit in the earlier post about mass transit.

[jhitson]

On another note....I think it is time for more spy shots. we are all getting bored.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Roflmao

Haha damn you edited while I was posting. If fixing this stuff doesn't fall on car owners, then who? You said yourself you would use a GOOD transit system, and you being a driver could benefit from it. So why not?

It should fall on everyone, Not just car owners. Everyone. I think I've said it about 5 times now. If everyone in the state bears the cost of this new law then I have no argument.

I think we pretty much agree on everything else.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Roflmao

it should be a pollution and air quality type of act, not global warming.

Thats what I'm trying to say now. We can debate global warming all we want, but there is no denying the fact that cars reduce air quality in cities, and I believe that California is one of the most urbanized states in the US, could be wrong though. Besides, 1 state isn't going to have an effect on global warming anyway.

[stovt001]

The simple matter is, this is all fear-driven revenue generation, and has been going on for a long time, long before global warming. The government and the big businesses that support it know a good way to get revenue from you is to create hysteria, introduce products to combat it, writing regulations to force you to buy those products, and then taxing you for creating the "problem" they made up. Global Warming and the imminent threat of year-long sweatiness and drowning polar bears is being used right now because enough people are stupid enough to believe it, and while they do the government can tax them for it, and they say thank you. The government can force you to buy energy efficient stuff from their friends the appliance makers and home improvement store owners, and they laugh all the way to the bank, while you think you did a good thing. Once global warming wears thin, they'll just move on to the next fear. Apparently they're already trotting out global cooling. As long as I can smack the hands trying to grab my wallet, I just sigh in annoyance. It kinda makes me want to gut my catalytic converter, just to piss the green liars off.

[GTAHVIT]

Just to calm the waters.

I'm not upset with any of the content in the posts discussing this particular tax. What has me fired up is the fact that local, state and federal gov's continue to single out a specific groups of people to pay for projects. That's what makes me mad. The conversation in general has been constructive. IMHO.