Global Warming Tax

[rmyers]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

But I completely agree with using gasoline taxes to fund mass transit. Because for every person that rides a bus is one less person causing trafic congestion. And traffic is a massive problem in places like LA. The more funding that mass transit gets the more its service can expand and the more effective it can be. If subsidising were pulled you would see a massive rise in the number of cars on the street. And that would cause much longer traffic delays and cause you to waste gas, costing you money anyway....

I cannot get over how self centered Americans tend to be. Its all about the rights of the individual. Opposing mass transit funding and opposing health care because it will take your money and give it to someone else. What of the rights of the less fortunate? ...

Sorry man...I have major propblems with your assumptions.

#1 Are you telling us that there are not enough mass-transit options in CA now. Does this mean if I go to get on a public bus, it will be full and I have to stand up? I don't live in California, but if I did, and they wanted to raise my taxes to increase public transportation, I would want to see actual proof that the current system cannot handle the needs and as a result, buses, trams, and other forms of public transportation or just to full and people are having to wait too long, and the current infrastructure is over-burdened. What good does 100 more empty buses do for the transportation system or climate change?

#2 I'm self-centered because I want to keep more of my own money. Sorry, but the constitution does not give you the right to an education, a job, a car, a drivers license, and you certainly don't have a constitutional right to health-care. Those are all priveledges. Priveledges that we all pay for if we want them. I know life can be tough, I got married at 16 and in 26 years have achieved both failure and success. The key to success is to work your butt off. The key to failure is to expect the government to provide every thing you need.

So there you have it, that is my rant.

Ron

[Roflmao]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

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.

My parents hit sort of the same thing with an increase in pay that bumped them up to another tax bracket, they didn't lose money but they basically broke even. Did you fill out another W4 when you got the raise? That can affect things. Also, was the pay increase less than $6000 dollars? If it wasn't then you still gained money with the raise. Either way, I sympathize with you, but I do feel that the higher incomes ultimately should pay a bigger percentage. I know everyone works very hard for their money and hates to give it up, but there are a lot of reasons the government needs the money (yes they suck at spending it now, but thats another topic all together). If everything was fair, the distribution of wealth would be pretty even. Then how is it fair that the top 1% earn 17% of all the money? Are they working that much harder than the 99%? It goes back to the old saying of you are only as strong as your weakest link. If those top 1% were re-distributing the money through the economy, then I would be with you 100%. The problem is the majority of the top 1% don't do that, they go to foreign markets to spend their wealth on foreign cars, houses, vacations, anything they can outside of the country. You would see a major major downfall in the country if the money was not being taxed the way it is, not only because the gov't didn't have any money, but because the economy would desimate.

Oh, and I replied to your edit if you look closely

[Roflmao]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

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.

Unless you do not take any form of transportation at all, you do pay into the tax, I said that in my posts.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Roflmao

My parents hit sort of the same thing with an increase in pay that bumped them up to another tax bracket, they didn't lose money but they basically broke even. Did you fill out another W4 when you got the raise? That can affect things. Also, was the pay increase less than $6000 dollars? If it wasn't then you still gained money with the raise. Either way, I sympathize with you, but I do feel that the higher incomes ultimately should pay a bigger percentage. I know everyone works very hard for their money and hates to give it up, but there are a lot of reasons the government needs the money (yes they suck at spending it now, but thats another topic all together). If everything was fair, the distribution of wealth would be pretty even. Then how is it fair that the top 1% earn 17% of all the money? Are they working that much harder than the 99%? It goes back to the old saying of you are only as strong as your weakest link. If those top 1% were re-distributing the money through the economy, then I would be with you 100%. The problem is the majority of the top 1% don't do that, they go to foreign markets to spend their wealth on foreign cars, houses, vacations, anything they can outside of the country. You would see a major major downfall in the country if the money was not being taxed the way it is, not only because the gov't didn't have any money, but because the economy would desimate.

Oh, and I replied to your edit if you look closely

Well, I really don't have a response to your view on what is fair. We certainly don't agree on what makes someone successful. Nor do we agree that just because you make more money you are obligated to give a larger percentage of it away. What you describe is closer to socialism than a democracy or capitalism. Let the Government decide how much you should make, and then let them decide what services they should provide you with.

And yes it is completely fair that the top 1% earns 17% of the total income. Because there is nothing preventing any of us from being in that top 1%. and if they paid 17% of the taxes that would even be more fair. But they pay 35%. And in spite of that discrepancy, you give me the impression that you think this is more than fair because they are wealthy and it isn't fair that some aren't. And you justify that by saying rich people don't work hard enough to justify having all that wealth.

Like I said, I just don't have an answer for you. I appreciate your position. But see no reason to continue this debate. We are so polarly opposite that you might as well try and trade Jeeter to Boston.

It's time to agree to disagree.

I concede to you the last word.

[Roflmao]

Originally Posted by rmyers

Sorry man...I have major propblems with your assumptions.

#1 Are you telling us that there are not enough mass-transit options in CA now. Does this mean if I go to get on a public bus, it will be full and I have to stand up? I don't live in California, but if I did, and they wanted to raise my taxes to increase public transportation, I would want to see actual proof that the current system cannot handle the needs and as a result, buses, trams, and other forms of public transportation or just to full and people are having to wait too long, and the current infrastructure is over-burdened. What good does 100 more empty buses do for the transportation system or climate change?


Ron

Just to let you know, CA and LA in particular have AWEFUL public transit. I think the only city I know of that has a decent system is San Francisco. It's not just that they don't have enough buses for the people, its that all the equipment and the system itself across the board has no money to deal with its currect self, much less modernize and keep up with the increase of population. Las Vegas is in a similar situation. We don't even have a subway system (which imo we should). Our busing system is actually pretty good. But we don't have trains. Only other form of transport really is a few mile long monorail on the strip. We are now hitting the point that LA did a while back with the fact that our highway system simply cannot hold the traffic. I can't remember the specific number, but billions of gallons of gas are wasted idling in traffic each year, and LA was the #1 contributor. Want gas prices to drop a bit? This is a good way to do it. Yet... somehow places like Japan who have 10 times the population concentration are able to deal with this. Why? Because they have advanced mass transit. Hell I remember talks of a bullet train between LA and Las Vegas that could cover the distance in 2 hours. The project would save millions in gas and pay for itself within 10 years or something, but they never could come up with the funds for it.

[Roflmao]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

Well, I really don't have a response to your view on what is fair. We certainly don't agree on what makes someone successful. Nor do we agree that just because you make more money you are obligated to give a larger percentage of it away. What you describe is closer to socialism than a democracy or capitalism. Let the Government decide how much you should make, and then let them decide what services they should provide you with.

And yes it is completely fair that the top 1% earns 17% of the total income. Because there is nothing preventing any of us from being in that top 1%. and if they paid 17% of the taxes that would even be more fair. But they pay 35%. And in spite of that discrepancy, you give me the impression that you think this is more than fair because they are wealthy and it isn't fair that some aren't. And you justify that by saying rich people don't work hard enough to justify having all that wealth.

Like I said, I just don't have an answer for you. I appreciate your position. But see no reason to continue this debate. We are so polarly opposite that you might as well try and trade Jeeter to Boston.

It's time to agree to disagree.

I concede to you the last word.

Haha I'm with you on the agree to disagree. I just wanted to sort of voice the other side of the argument. I am very happy this hasn't gotten out of hand and is still a very good discussion.

My point on the topic was basically you are only as strong as your weakest link. Throughout history, if the poles of wealth get to far apart, everything collapses. Hence the French revolution. I'm not going to the point of saying the government deserves over half your money. You do realize that the highest tax bracket is 35%, while in almost every country in europe the brackets START at 50%? At the very highest bracket, you get to keep 65% of your money for whatever you earn. This certainly wouldn't discourage me from working, 65% of a 5,000 dollar raise is over 3 grand. Plus with all the little loopholes in the system, you can easily get your money taxed down to 30% or below. Now, what do you do every day? You use roads, buy gas, use banks, use utilities, eat food, get protected, etc etc. all that is paid for directly or indirectly by the government. If you are making a good amount of money, why wouldn't you want these systems to stay intact? That is what you rely on at your job and indirectly the very reason you make the money in the first place.

I'm not looking for agreement here, to each their own, I just want some understanding is all...

[rmyers]

Hey Guys and Girls....when its all said and done....the important thing(well at least for the here and now, is) the Camaro is coming back. Whether you are conservative or liberal, you are a Camaro fan...you're ok by me...and after all there is hope for a liberal Camaro fan! Kidding. Have a great weekend!

Check out the Fairtax. www.fairtax.org

Ron

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by rmyers

Sorry man...I have major propblems with your assumptions.

#1 Are you telling us that there are not enough mass-transit options in CA now. Does this mean if I go to get on a public bus, it will be full and I have to stand up? I don't live in California, but if I did, and they wanted to raise my taxes to increase public transportation, I would want to see actual proof that the current system cannot handle the needs and as a result, buses, trams, and other forms of public transportation or just to full and people are having to wait too long, and the current infrastructure is over-burdened. What good does 100 more empty buses do for the transportation system or climate change?

The money could be spent in several ways
1) replace 20 year old busses with new models that are more fuel efficient and less polluting
2) reduce fares so that more people choose to take the bus
3) buy more busses and increase the frequency of certain routes/add new routes
4) same goes for comuter trains.

100 empty buses don't help to reduce total vehicle emissions. But if the money is properly spent it will help. And rember, this tax is $0.09/gal so it works out to 50-100 bucks a year, depending on how much gas you use. It is not an income tax, its a consumption tax. The more you contribute to the problem, the more help you provide to the solution.



Think of it this way, would you (this is a general question by the way) rather have a gas tax, a hp cap, or a fuel economy minimum? The gas tax is the least restrictive. I'm thinking that global warming is a crock, but air quality in LA is one of the worst in the world. Part of that has to do with geography, some is industry, some is from cars. They aren't asking people from other states to fix their problem. They aren't asking people who have made ecofriendly choices to solve the problem. They are saying "you are making this mess, you clean it up"

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The money could be spent in several ways
1) replace 20 year old busses with new models that are more fuel efficient and less polluting

3) buy more busses and increase the frequency of certain routes/add new routes.

GM's Hybrid busses, anyone?

I know this argum-...discussion is probably far from over, but I wanted to thank everyone in here. It's very rare, actually - it's almost never that you can speak politics, and taxes on an online discussion board without it erupting into a flame war. But after a couple of trials now...if anything like this comes up again, I don't think we mods are going to have to worry: You guys are all awesome - Thank You!!!

[Kyle2k]

Yay for us?