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

On Sat, 03 May 2008 23:59:14 -0400, Steven L. wrote:

> The Trucker 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.  
> 
> I've thought about whether, instead of a "windfall profits tax" on oil 
> companies, we could provide a "windfall tax credit" to such small 
> businesses to compensate them for the declining purchasing power of the 
> dollar.  That is, if the dollar declines 20%, then the price of their 
> fuel has risen 20% in dollars.  That should be deductible or credited as

> a business expense.
> 
> After all, it's not THEIR fault that the dollar is declining.  That's 
> due to deliberate Federal Reserve policy.  Why should private business 
> be penalized?

Actually the fall of the dollar is due to fiscal policies.  The burning of
money the Iraq furnace and no taxation to recover the spending.

-- 
"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