Re: BEFORE Trying To Simply Hike the Fuel Tax . . .

On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:11:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:

> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> increase in federal fuel taxes.
> 
> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.

That is correct.  Revenue neutrality is the key to this.  The increase or
decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.

> Anyone who ****fts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> to afford it.

That is true in the most cases.  But a person that actually drives a truck
(long haul) for a living is going to lose no matter what.  There are more
fuel efficient ways to deliver freight over long distances and the people
who ****p the commodities will be discovering these methods.  That is
economic reality and there is nothing that should be done about it but
perhaps to increase the progressive nature of the tax system and
redistribute benefits at the bottom where people are being put our of work
due to the increasing efficiencies.  -- Share the pain --  This is not the
fault of the drivers and many of these efficiency improvements should have
already been done. The Bush solution is to use Mexican nationals as
drivers and pay them half of what is being paid to American nationals.
That allows more to be spent on fuel (money in the pocket of Bush and his
pals) due to the savings in wages.  More "profit" and less wages.  How
very Republican.

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend