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

On Sat, 03 May 2008 19:47:35 -0700, BurtonUrny wrote:

> On May 3, 8:31 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In sci.econ, The Trucker
>> <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>  wrote
>> on Sat, 03 May 2008 15:09:44 -0700
>> <pan.2008.05.03.22.09.41.131...@[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 shifts 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 ship 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? Ship? 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 fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-
Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> You missed the point. The point for a liberal kook is nationalizing
> rail,or trucking, or the oil industry or manufacturing cars, planes,
> ships, houses etc. It's what the left always wants. They just won't
> come out and tell you unless you dig it out of them.

Typical moron crap.

The cost of fuel precludes the use of trucks over
long distances unless we're talking about really perishable like live
lobsters or meat or the like.  Most of the stuff I hauled was frozen and
it can stay frozen on a rail car or in a warehouse just as well as hooked
to a tractor on the interstate.

Rightarded stupidity, however, seems to trump everything.  It all becomes
a religious proposition.

-- 
"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