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

On May 3, 10:53=A0pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 18:31:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In sci.econ, The Trucker
> > <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > =A0wrote
> > 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=A0am, 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. =A0Revenue neutrality is the key to this. =A0The
inc=
rease or
> >>>> decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.
>
> >>>> > Anyone who ****fts away from driving or at least from driving low
mp=
g
> >>>> > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> >>>> > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be
abl=
e
> >>>> > to afford it.
>
> >>>> That is true in the most cases. =A0But a person that actually
drives =
a truck
> >>>> (long haul) for a living is going to lose no matter what. =A0There
ar=
e more
> >>>> fuel efficient ways to deliver freight over long distances and the
pe=
ople
> >>>> who ****p the commodities will be discovering these methods. =A0That
i=
s
> >>>> economic reality and there is nothing that should be done about it
bu=
t
> >>>> 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. =A0-- Share the pain -- =A0This
i=
s 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. =A0More "profit" and less wages.
=
=A0How
> >>>> 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. =A0But actual the substitute is irrelevant. =A0The
economi=
cs
> >> demands a more efficient means of delivery.
>
> >>> You think long haul trucks are part of the problem??
>
> >> Of course they are. =A0It 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. =A0Most 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. =A0The long haulers will be short haulers. They
wi=
ll go
> >> home at night as opposed to sleeping in a truck. =A0They will have
wive=
s and
> >> kids like normal people. It will just be different.
>
> > I highly doubt that. =A0If 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. =A0You can drive 11
hrs=
 a
> day or break the hours of service rules. =A0Most drivers will run 8 or 9
> hours a day. =A0You 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. =A0You load the trailer and instead of delivering it you take it
to=

> the rail yard and put it on the train. =A0The same thing happens on the
> other end as the driver there has to get it from the rail yard and
deliver=

> it. =A0There 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 fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
>
> There is more work to do. =A0I HATE short trips because I get paid by
the
> mile. =A0The time to load and unload and screw around in city traffic is
a=
ll
> overhead to me. =A0Local truckers get paid by the hour and sit at the
> loading docks waiting to get the truck loaded and they don't mind. =A0I
> simply get angry about it. No long haul no ME. =A0But 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 Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend-
Hide
quoted =
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Then Nationalize the trucking industry. You get paid by the hour and
we can get illegals in here to your job for half the price.!

Oh, wait.... don't outsource MY job! Nationalize Exxon, they are the
*evil* ones.

You are still a marxist trucker!
-------
DemonCraps.... Making the lives of poor people even more miserable!
DemonCraps.... Save a planet, Starve a Nation