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

In sci.econ, The Trucker
<mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
 wrote
on Sat, 03 May 2008 15:09:44 -0700
<pan.2008.05.03.22.09.41.131674@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:17:22 -0700, HarryNadds wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 10:52 am, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> 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 Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend
>> 
>> What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? ****p? Carrier
>> pidgeon? 
>
> Mostly rail.  But actual the substitute is irrelevant.  The economics
> demands a more efficient means of delivery.
>
>> You think long haul trucks are part of the problem??
>
> Of course they are.  It is much less fuel intensive to put the stuff on
> the rail.
>
>> You
>> willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
>
> No.  Most truckers will be quite busy on shorter runs between the
> rail-yard and the manufacturer and the regional warehouse or Wall-Mart
> style retail center.  The long haulers will be short haulers. They will
go
> home at night as opposed to sleeping in a truck.  They will have wives
and
> kids like normal people. It will just be different.
>

I highly doubt that.  If X number of truckers are doing
long-haul 12-hour runs (give or take), and the rail
replaces these runs with, say, short-haul 30-minute runs, the
arithmetic suggests that we'd only need X/24 the number
of truckers, all other things being the same, since each
trucker could theoretically make 24 runs in the same time
he made 1 before the switchover.

In practice, there's issues such as breaks involved, but
I certainly don't see *more* employment for drivers here.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**