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

On Sat, 03 May 2008 18:31:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> 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.

Wrong scale and wrong definition of "long haul". A decent length load for
me was 1500 miles and I much preferred 2000 miles.  You can drive 11 hrs a
day or break the hours of service rules.  Most drivers will run 8 or 9
hours a day.  You average about 60mph and so you you run about 500 miles.
It takes 3 days for a 1500 miler and typically it will take 4 days for the
2000. The point is that there is more work involved in the train
stuff.  You load the trailer and instead of delivering it you take it to
the rail yard and put it on the train.  The same thing happens on the
other end as the driver there has to get it from the rail yard and deliver
it.  There is twice as much actual work and a lot less driving.

> 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
**

There is more work to do.  I HATE short trips because I get paid by the
mile.  The time to load and unload and screw around in city traffic is all
overhead to me.  Local truckers get paid by the hour and sit at the
loading docks waiting to get the truck loaded and they don't mind.  I
simply get angry about it. No long haul no ME.  But fuel costs too much
and everyone is going inter-modal.

-- 
"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