Jump to content

When gas prices rise, should the oil industries profit margin rise as well?


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why would you want to "penalize" someone TWICE. They already pay throught the nose at the pump because their car burns more, the capitalistic market forces NATURALLY dictate which car you drive, so if $60 a fill up, and TWICE as often is not a dis-insentive, what is. If you can AFFORD a big gas guzzler and want one, great.

Artificially penalizing them on top of market forces is just smacks of a socialist system. As you know, that system has been tried time and time again, and each time it has failed, with drastic consequences for the people living under it. Rome has failed because of it. That's why I am so serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Why would you want to "penalize" someone TWICE.

To further reduce the number of people driving said vehicle. This could also get car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars of any type.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Artificially penalizing them on top of market forces is just smacks of a socialist system. That's why I am so serious. As you know, that system has been tried time and time again, and each time it has failed, with drastic consequences for the people living under it.

Even the United States dosn't operate under a pure capitalistic system (as far as I know anyways) and a blending between two systems may produce a better result than a pure socialist or pure capitalist system.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Rome has failed because of it.

I've heard quite a few theories on why Rome fell, and I have a feeling its a bit more complex than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are you to decide, to impose, and enforce on me your thinking of what kind of car I should drive? If you don't like the big gas guzzlers, don't buy one. If I do, and can afford one, I should be able to, without anyone imposing their personal likes or dislikes on my way of life.

What if I tell you I don't like the tiny hybrid cars. What if I think they are unsafe and whoever buys one should pay an extra $5,000 at the time of purchase and higher insurance premiums because if they get into an accident, there's a higher likelyhood of them getting seriously hurt and therefore it will drive up EVERYONE's insurance rate. Whould you like that? Hm....

P.S. The way socialism blends with capitalism, is since that system CAN NOT systain itself, it leaches off of the wealth capitalism produces, and therefore cripples it. So NO, the combination of two systems is not better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Who are you to decide, to impose, and enforce on me your thinking of what kind of car I should drive? If you don't like the big gas guzzlers, don't buy one. If I do, and can afford one, I should be able to, without anyone imposing their personal likes or dislikes on my way of life.

What if I tell you I don't like the tiny hybrid cars. What if I think they are unsafe and whoever buys one should pay an extra $5,000 at the time of purchase and higher insurance premiums because if they get into an accident, there's a higher likelyhood of them getting seriously hurt and therefore it will drive up EVERYONE's insurance rate. Whould you like that? Hm....

First, no one is imposing a choice on you, they would merely be adding an additional dis-incentive (if that's the right word) against buying that type of vehicle.

Second, that arguement is flawed. "Gas Guzzeling" vehicles are proven to have poor gas effiency and so put a strain on resources and, of course, pollute more. That is fact, not a personal opinion. The idea that hybrid cars are more dangerous is not based on fact and no studies I know of have proven them more dangerous. (Actually, SUVs, one of the worst gas guzzeling offenders, are probably less safe due to the relativily high rollover chance) If it was however, then insurance companies would probably make you pay more for much the same reason I'll get to pay high levels of insurance since I'm a male teenager.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

P.S. The way socialism blends with capitalism, is since that system CAN NOT systain itself, it leaches off of the wealth capitalism produces, and therefore cripples it. So NO, the combination of two systems is not better.

A pure captilistic goverment would be interesting in how it works and how long it lasts.

EDIT: I should add that Hybrids aren't limited to small cars and every car should really have the option of having a hybrid engine. A 30% increase in fuel effiency for a few extra grand is a really dumb thing to say "no" to, especially with the way gas prices are going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have an ARTIFICIAL penalty on buying a big car, that penalty is based on YOUR opinion, and others like you. The person is buying a car that costs him MORE than a smaller one, he is paying MORE to fuel it up, he is paying MORE because he fuels it up more often, he is paying MORE for maintenance, he is paying MORE for insurance because those cars are costlier to fix after an accident, so he pays TONS MORE period, just based on PURE MARKET FORCES.

YOU, on the other hand, want to stick your hatred opinion and PENALIZE them EVEN MORE on top of everything else.

Are you familiar with PRIVATE JET CHARTER? I'll tell you a little bit about it. It's when people can charter a plane, to take them from place to place. NOT an airliner, but a plane for their own, private use. It can be ONE person, in a jet, going from NY (east coast), to CA (west coast). You have ANY idea how many gallons of fuel that burns? THOUSANDS, you have any idea how much POLUTION that creates? Why don't you start ranting in that case, that there shouldn't be luxiries for people who can afford them. Why don't you stick that person, who is supporting and maintaining HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of jobs when he charters that jet, that's right, he gives ME a job, he gives dispatchers a job, he gives fuelers a job, he gives caterers a job, he gives mechanics a job, and HUNDREDS of other professions that surround that industry, why don't you stick him in a commercial public Jet, and say that it's conservation of resources and reduces pollution. Or why don't you impose $10,000 dollars dis-insentive on every charter flight a plane flies.

What then, will you be doing with all the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who will lose their jobs because an industry is gone (where do you think the socialists get their money to support those who are out of jobs, FROM THOSE WHO HAVE JOBS), just because a private jet is NOT economical. That person, CAN AFFORD to spend that kind of money though. Just like someone buying an SUV, they can AFFORD to. So your extra DI-INSENTIVE, is the ugliest, nastiest, horrible, socialistic way of imposing an aritificial TAX, on people who can afford things, and who GIVE YOU a job. Where do you think that "dis-insentive" is going to go? Let me give you a hint, towards more government programs. And WHO do you think will be picking up the cost of that dis-insentive. You think a guy who finally says, screw that SUV, and buys a hyndai loses and you win? Or do you think that the company making that SUV, goes out bussiness, thousand of people lose their jobs, and will now be supported by YOUR socialist system by the way. And don't try telling me that those people will just switch over to building more efficient cars, because they will NOT. Have you checked the car surplus? Well there's TONS of them UNSOLD, each year. So no, NO NEW workers will be needed at the plants that are already producing smaller cars. (Hmmm... wonder why GM is going out of bussiness) Who do you think would be picking up that $10,000 imposed on private charter, by the same token of thinking that it's wastefull. You think a guy who spends $70,000 a trip, easily, is going to say "hey, it's only $10,000 more, no big deal), or do you think that that the guy who spends that kind of money, probably has some kind of bussiness, whos final product YOU use in your daily life, and now that it costs him MORE for his lifestyle, he will be INCREASING the price of his product to compensate, with YOU as the final guy PICKING UP the tab of your own dis-insentive solution. ROFL

Well, it always cracked me up when a democrat would say (Kerry in this case) that they will lower the taxes for the poor and have higher taxes on the rich. Who own the factories, bussinesses, mines, refineries, petroleum wells, ect... and all the poor applaud, and yell HURRAY. Being too stupid to realize that when that politician increases the taxes on those rich guys, bitting into their profit margins, those same rich guys will increase the prices on their products, and those same poor sobs will ultimatly be the ones who end up paying the increase in tax that they applauded for, out of their own venomous hatred of the rich, who provide them with those same jobs that put bread on their tables and roofs over their heads. The ratio of that however, when you go through the chain reaction, IS: For every dollar increase in taxes, the consumer ends up paying 3 dollars more to maintain the same profit margin for the company. ROFL.

Yeah, your dis-insentive is a "great" idea. Now, however, that you should see the whole chain reaction a little more clearly than just big gas guzzlers bad, smaller cars good, I certainly hope you can make an educated decission about what it would REALLY mean, when you say that. Really, FREEDOM, has no comparison, be it personal or economical. US was born a free country, now it's being chained down, and reminds me of a captured wild beast in a zoo, it's sad to see them there sometimes (you can ALWAYS tell which ones were captured and which ones were bred in captivity) just wallowing away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Why would you want to "penalize" someone TWICE.

To further reduce the number of people driving said vehicle. This could also get car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars of any type.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Artificially penalizing them on top of market forces is just smacks of a socialist system. That's why I am so serious. As you know, that system has been tried time and time again, and each time it has failed, with drastic consequences for the people living under it.

Even the United States dosn't operate under a pure capitalistic system (as far as I know anyways) and a blending between two systems may produce a better result than a pure socialist or pure capitalist system.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Rome has failed because of it.

I've heard quite a few theories on why Rome fell, and I have a feeling its a bit more complex than that.


So if this can be done with gasoline, can it be done with water, natural gas, electricity, phone usage, etc?

'Lets see, you used 2000 units of natural gas this month, at $.03 each, thats $60.00. Now lets go ahead and add on the the 'dis-incentive' penalty for your 2850 square-foot house. The penalty tax at a rate of one-one thousandth of a cent per unit per square foot comes to $57, making your total gas payment this month $117 even . Now, lets Talk about you water bill..... '

Last Sunday I sold my SUV because it got too expensive. Now I ride the bus to work. Adding a penalty tax to gas is unnecessary because the current price of gas is having the same effect the penalty tax would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hrm, I wasn't actualy supporting the idea of a gas guzzeling tax, I was just pointing out why someone would think that it is a good idea. Then somehow my agruments turned into that anywho.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

When you have an ARTIFICIAL penalty on buying a big car, that penalty is based on YOUR opinion, and others like you. The person is buying a car that costs him MORE than a smaller one, he is paying MORE to fuel it up, he is paying MORE because he fuels it up more often, he is paying MORE for maintenance, he is paying MORE for insurance because those cars are costlier to fix after an accident, so he pays TONS MORE period, just based on PURE MARKET FORCES.

YOU, on the other hand, want to stick your hatred opinion and PENALIZE them EVEN MORE on top of everything else.

I'll assume you menat "you" in general as I never actualy said that I wanted gas guzzeling tax added...

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Are you familiar with PRIVATE JET CHARTER? I'll tell you a little bit about it. It's when people can charter a plane, to take them from place to place. NOT an airliner, but a plane for their own, private use. It can be ONE person, in a jet, going from NY (east coast), to CA (west coast). You have ANY idea how many gallons of fuel that burns? THOUSANDS, you have any idea how much POLUTION that creates? Why don't you start ranting in that case, that there shouldn't be luxiries for people who can afford them. Why don't you stick that person, who is supporting and maintaining HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of jobs when he charters that jet, that's right, he gives ME a job, he gives dispatchers a job, he gives fuelers a job, he gives caterers a job, he gives mechanics a job, and HUNDREDS of other professions that surround that industry, why don't you stick him in a commercial public Jet, and say that it's conservation of resources and reduces pollution. Or why don't you impose $10,000 dollars dis-insentive on every charter flight a plane flies.

What then, will you be doing with all the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who will lose their jobs because an industry is gone (where do you think the socialists get their money to support those who are out of jobs, FROM THOSE WHO HAVE JOBS), just because a private jet is NOT economical. That person, CAN AFFORD to spend that kind of money though. Just like someone buying an SUV, they can AFFORD to. So your extra DI-INSENTIVE, is the ugliest, nastiest, horrible, socialistic way of imposing an aritificial TAX, on people who can afford things, and who GIVE YOU a job. Where do you think that "dis-insentive" is going to go? Let me give you a hint, towards more government programs. And WHO do you think will be picking up the cost of that dis-insentive. You think a guy who finally says, screw that SUV, and buys a hyndai loses and you win? Or do you think that the company making that SUV, goes out bussiness, thousand of people lose their jobs, and will now be supported by YOUR socialist system by the way. And don't try telling me that those people will just switch over to building more efficient cars, because they will NOT. Have you checked the car surplus? Well there's TONS of them UNSOLD, each year. So no, NO NEW workers will be needed at the plants that are already producing smaller cars. (Hmmm... wonder why GM is going out of bussiness) Who do you think would be picking up that $10,000 imposed on private charter, by the same token of thinking that it's wastefull. You think a guy who spends $70,000 a trip, easily, is going to say "hey, it's only $10,000 more, no big deal), or do you think that that the guy who spends that kind of money, probably has some kind of bussiness, whos final product YOU use in your daily life, and now that it costs him MORE for his lifestyle, he will be INCREASING the price of his product to compensate, with YOU as the final guy PICKING UP the tab of your own dis-insentive solution. ROFL


I think this qualifies as a strawmans aguement... if not than a huge exageration. Why wouldn't they make more fuel effient cars? It mustn't be that hard to add a hybrid engine option to the design of upcoming models of cars. Or are you telling me a company would rather just roll over and die?

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Well, it always cracked me up when a democrat would say (Kerry in this case) that they will lower the taxes for the poor and have higher taxes on the rich. Who own the factories, bussinesses, mines, refineries, petroleum wells, ect... and all the poor applaud, and yell HURRAY. Being too stupid to realize that when that politician increases the taxes on those rich guys, bitting into their profit margins, those same rich guys will increase the prices on their products, and those same poor sobs will ultimatly be the ones who end up paying the increase in tax that they applauded for, out of their own venomous hatred of the rich, who provide them with those same jobs that put bread on their tables and roofs over their heads. The ratio of that however, when you go through the chain reaction, IS: For every dollar increase in taxes, the consumer ends up paying 3 dollars more to maintain the same profit margin for the company. ROFL.

Well a buisness person making millions of dollars probably shouldn't be upping costs based on their personal earnings. Granted a flat tax is probably better for other reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Yeah, your dis-insentive is a "great" idea. Now, however, that you should see the whole chain reaction a little more clearly than just big gas guzzlers bad, smaller cars good, I certainly hope you can make an educated decission about what it would REALLY mean, when you say that. Really, FREEDOM, has no comparison, be it personal or economical. US was born a free country, now it's being chained down, and reminds me of a captured wild beast in a zoo, it's sad to see them there sometimes (you can ALWAYS tell which ones were captured and which ones were bred in captivity) just wallowing away.

This was my idea? And in any event, public transportation trumps personal transportation in effiency in almost ALL forms of comparison and North America really needs to get a system of mass transit similar or greater than Europe's.

Also I would be interested in the link relating tax increase to dollar increase (or the book).

quote:

Originally posted by Matchoo :

[QB] So if this can be done with gasoline, can it be done with water, natural gas, electricity, phone usage, etc?

'Lets see, you used 2000 units of natural gas this month, at $.03 each, thats $60.00. Now lets go ahead and add on the the 'dis-incentive' penalty for your 2850 square-foot house. The penalty tax at a rate of one-one thousandth of a cent per unit per square foot comes to $57, making your total gas payment this month $117 even [whoa] . Now, lets Talk about you water bill..... [big Grin] '

Last Sunday I sold my SUV because it got too expensive. Now I ride the bus to work. Adding a penalty tax to gas is unnecessary because the current price of gas is having the same effect the penalty tax would. [QB]

I'm generally not one to agree with "slipply slope" agruements but it would certainly open the opportunity to argue for that. (Then again, if anything it should only apply to luxries, which water is not.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To your First point, if you don't support the idea, why even explain why someone would want it? Why rationalize something that CAN NOT be rationalized.

On your second point. If it was that easy to make a fuel effiecient SUV or a Hummer, then why don't you go ahead and DO it, seriously, open up your own car manufacturing plant, and build fuel efficient SUV's, you think I would pass up a good SUV that gets 50mpg, for the one that gets 15? No rational man would make a bad choice for himself, when he knows it's bad, it's evolution, and self preservation, it's as simple as common sense, if he passes up the 50mpg one, there would be a REASON for it, that outweights losing those 35 miles in gas savings. If you have the most basic rudementary comprehension of physics, you know that to move something requires force, the heavier it is, the more force is needed to move it. The simplest thing IS, the MORE force you need out of an engine the MORE fuel you burn. And the fact is, the fuel efficient or hybrid engines, just DO NOT put out the power needed to MOVE a 4 ton truck or SUV. Here's an example, you can have a car with 100hp engine, and total weight of 1500 lbs, and a car with 500hp engine, total weight 6000 pounds, the car with 100 hp engine will OUTPERFORM the car with a 500 hp one. Just because it's lighter, and it requires LESS horsepower to propell it, therefore LESS fuel. Every 6 pounds cost you about 1 hp, that's the rule of thumb. Why do you think even the crappiest motorcycle will still out accelerate a Ford Mustang. Because power to weight ratio is in motorcycles favor. That's why they can't simply go ahead and build a "fuel efficient" SUV or truck. What they have on the market right now, IS efficient for an SUV or a truck.

Third point. A guy who makes his millions, is the one who signs his OWN paycheck. Meaning he OWNS that bussiness which nets him that pay, or is at the head of it. Bussinesses profit margins go down, his pay goes down, therefore follows a restructuring to increase profit margins.

Fourth point. Public transportation is just that, public. Private transportation is PRIVATE. Which efficiency does public transportation tramp exactly? If you are talking about gas efficiency, sure, you can pack 100 people into a bus and move them from point A to point B while burning less fuel. Time saving efficieny, um, no, that would go on private transportations side, comfort efficiency, nope, that's private too, safety (not only do 100 people die if that bus goes down "London anyone", but what about the germs, airborn deseases and such), nope safety goes to private also. We can go on, but you get the point, your own car, beats a bus anytime, it's all about what you are willing to spend, and someone coming out and saying, you can use your own car, but on top of that you PAY us a fee, it's just BS. Who are you to decide which mode I should use, or who are you to decide to impose some kind of tax/fee on whichever mode you disagree with.

As for the idea of that ratio of 1 to 3. Here's an explanation:

Lets say you have a factory manufacturing, um, vacuums. Lets say, to keep math simple, you are selling those vacuums at $100 a piece. After all your taxes, lets say you walk away with $50. That's a 50% margin for you. So you get your pay from that, your employees pay, equipment, research, development, property, and some money to expand your bussiness, (bussiness taxes are close to 50% in real life by the way). Now lets say the government comes in and says, hey we will be increasing your taxes, so now you have to pay us $51 dollars on every $100 you make (meaning 51%). You go ok, fine. So now you walk away with only $49, or now your profit margin is 49%, (remember, in bussiness terms, we can be talking about millions if not billions of dollars a year, in a change as little as .10c, not one buck). You however, want that profit margin to where it used to be, because you want your bussiness to expand, you want the lifestyle you had before, you want to develop better vacuums, so you NEED that $50 you were getting before. If you increase the price of a vacuum to $101, you walk away with $49.49, that's still .51c short of $50, you increase it to $102, walk away with $49.98, ALMOST there, you will need around $102.20, JUST to get back to your OLD $50 profits, and that's $, not %. So even though you are still walking away with $50, your % margin has still decreased.

So WHO ends up payin the price for government taxes? The bussinesses, or YOU the consumer, and mind you, per 1 buck more that the government collected, you ended up paying $2.20

And your LAST point. Luxury is not defined as expensive. It's whatever is not easily come by. Water is luxury in a desert, coal is luxury in some poor country in the winter, fuel is luxury where none is found, lumber is luxury where no forests grow. So, when you cram a billion people into one city, water BECOMES a luxury. When you have high demand, low supply for fuel, at a certain point fuel becomes a luxury that not everyone can affod. So, why should you decide, that if I am able to afford something you can not, that I should then pay a dis-insentive tax on that item. Just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean someone else can't. And artificially imposing a fee on that, is not only wrong for ethical reasons, but is bad for economic reasons too.

[ 09-15-2005, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

To your First point, if you don't support the idea, why even explain why someone would want it? Why rationalize something that CAN NOT be rationalized.

On your second point. If it was that easy to make a fuel effiecient SUV or a Hummer,...

There ALREADY are more fuel efficient alternatives, like Diesel engines as discussed before. In Europe, a very large percentage of the population drives Diesel cars, but here in the US, you have the misperception that Diesel cars produce more polution, are extremely loud, and have very low end power. These are all things that have been corrected since the 70's, but still the perception persists, so no one wants to "take a chance" and offer Diesels on anything but the absolute largest SUV, the Excursion. Though Ford HAS finally started offering Diesels on some of thier smaller SUV's. Point is that the Government could help this along, by offering some sort of incentive to the manufacturers to offer Diesels on SUV's. It would only help to reduce our dependancy on Foriegn Oil. I'm sorry if this smacks of "Socialism" to you Soback, I know how sensitive you are on this issue, but I don't feel that we should stand by and do nothing as the nation becomes more and more dependant on OPEC and those member nations that absolutely HATE us. It's like giving money and ammunition to the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the government, instead of stepping in and offering incentives. Instead gets the hell out of the way, drops it's bs, gets rid of the green wackos (who are anti-diesel by the way), and lets capitalism do it's thing. So instead of ending up with another layer of beaurocracy and government tinckering, you have the market decide.

My friend went OUT OF STATE, to buy a diesel VW, golf I think, or some similar 4 door. Government incentive? No, just pure market forces, he saves on gas.

As far as acceleration goes, sorry, I drove his car, it sucks on acceleration, and IS noisy. Would I buy it, yeah, why not, if I was looking to save on gas, and needed a new car, I would. So those who would want a fast car, would still buy the fastest they can afford, government incentive or not, meaning if there was a governemtn incentive in a form of a rebate for a slow $15,000 car, they would STILL buy a $15,000 different brand car that is FASTER, those who look for big, buy the biggest they can afford, if the government was offering $5,000 cash back (your taxes by the way) on a small hybrid, those who need a big trunk or a car that can carry a ton, would still buy big. It's capitalism man, HOW can you even rationalize government kick backs? Not only is it your money being thrown out instead of being put to good use, but it simply does not work, it hasn't worked, and will not work. The people who go for those incentives, were shopping for that or similar product in the first place, those incentives just made it more affordable to them, that's all. Meaning, if I was going to buy a honda civic, and the government says, we give out $1,000 cash back to civic buyers, it's "free" money for me, that came out of YOUR pocket. So I just basically looted $1,000 from people around me, of course it spreads out to less than a cent per person, but in the end, we could be talking hundreds of millions. Remember, every dollar the government spends, is YOURS.

Capitalism, market forces, free economy, or socialism, no freedoms, government beaurocracey. Tough choice.

[ 09-15-2005, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

To your First point, if you don't support the idea, why even explain why someone would want it? Why rationalize something that CAN NOT be rationalized.

As it is an important skill in order to understand how people think and to better understand their arguements. And obviosly it can be as I did...

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

On your second point. If it was that easy to make a fuel effiecient SUV or a Hummer, then why don't you go ahead and DO it, seriously, open up your own car manufacturing plant, and build fuel efficient SUV's, you think I would pass up a good SUV that gets 50mpg, for the one that gets 15? No rational man would make a bad choice for himself, when he knows it's bad, it's evolution, and self preservation, it's as simple as common sense, if he passes up the 50mpg one, there would be a REASON for it, that outweights losing those 35 miles in gas savings. If you have the most basic rudementary comprehension of physics, you know that to move something requires force, the heavier it is, the more force is needed to move it. The simplest thing IS, the MORE force you need out of an engine the MORE fuel you burn. And the fact is, the fuel efficient or hybrid engines, just DO NOT put out the power needed to MOVE a 4 ton truck or SUV. Here's an example, you can have a car with 100hp engine, and total weight of 1500 lbs, and a car with 500hp engine, total weight 6000 pounds, the car with 100 hp engine will OUTPERFORM the car with a 500 hp one. Just because it's lighter, and it requires LESS horsepower to propell it, therefore LESS fuel. Every 6 pounds cost you about 1 hp, that's the rule of thumb. Why do you think even the crappiest motorcycle will still out accelerate a Ford Mustang. Because power to weight ratio is in motorcycles favor. That's why they can't simply go ahead and build a "fuel efficient" SUV or truck. What they have on the market right now, IS efficient for an SUV or a truck.


But they already have. Also other companies have made some too. (Google "Hybrid SUV")

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Third point. A guy who makes his millions, is the one who signs his OWN paycheck. Meaning he OWNS that bussiness which nets him that pay, or is at the head of it. Bussinesses profit margins go down, his pay goes down, therefore follows a restructuring to increase profit margins.


Point, Set and Match to that

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Fourth point. Public transportation is just that, public. Private transportation is PRIVATE. Which efficiency does public transportation tramp exactly? If you are talking about gas efficiency, sure, you can pack 100 people into a bus and move them from point A to point B while burning less fuel. Time saving efficieny, um, no, that would go on private transportations side, comfort efficiency, nope, that's private too, safety (not only do 100 people die if that bus goes down "London anyone", but what about the germs, airborn deseases and such), nope safety goes to private also. We can go on, but you get the point, your own car, beats a bus anytime, it's all about what you are willing to spend, and someone coming out and saying, you can use your own car, but on top of that you PAY us a fee, it's just BS. Who are you to decide which mode I should use, or who are you to decide to impose some kind of tax/fee on whichever mode you disagree with.


Actually, bussing is safer as less people die per passenger mile: linkage

Granted, it takes longer but dedicated bus lanes can help that... and if there are less private vehicles then there are less traffic jams.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

And your LAST point. Luxury is not defined as expensive. It's whatever is not easily come by. Water is luxury in a desert, coal is luxury in some poor country in the winter, fuel is luxury where none is found, lumber is luxury where no forests grow. So, when you cram a billion people into one city, water BECOMES a luxury. When you have high demand, low supply for fuel, at a certain point fuel becomes a luxury that not everyone can affod. So, why should you decide, that if I am able to afford something you can not, that I should then pay a dis-insentive tax on that item. Just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean someone else can't. And artificially imposing a fee on that, is not only wrong for ethical reasons, but is bad for economic reasons too.

Well according to Dictionary.com luxury is something that is not needed to live. Water, on the other hand is, ergo it isn't a luxury and is instead is a necessity.

EDIT: I'll be able to respond to your other post tomarrow Soback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token I can say fuel is NOT a luxury, doesn't make it any more affordable however. Without it, I would have no job, no income, could not drive to work, would not fly airplanes. Granted, I could survive as a bum on the street, fishing in the ocean, and build a bonfire on the beach for warmth and cooking. But seriously. Luxury, is whatever is scarce for YOU. You see, people who loot from you, want you to think that exluding air, water, food, shelter, and some rugs to cover yourself with, everything else, is a luxury that you can do without. The same ones that say you should not eat un till everyone has been fed, you should not have a house, till everyone has a roof over their head, you should not have a car, till everyone has one, because THEN, once you buy into that, you are their slave, who works for THEIR benefit, and not your OWN, to make THEM happy, not YOURSELF (when you make others happy, it should make you happy, sounds familiar?). Funny how those things were the foundation of communism, and are the pillars of socialism. When have you heard in capitalism said that you should give away what you make, I haven't, I HAVE however heard it said in communism, and performed in socialism, obtaining the sanction of the person being looted by guilt, that his neighbor is less fortunate.

Ever heard people saying ".....is a luxury we can not afford right now" when refering to a common place object. That's exactly what they mean, they don't have the budget and can make DO without that object. Some people, CAN NOT make do without gasoline, some can. Some people can afford it, some can't. So if you can't afford it, at a certain point, it becomes a luxury, while for some other guy, he can buy 10 gallons, pour it down the drain without a care, and buy 10 more, is it a luxury for him? Does that mean that just because he is able to waste his money like that, we should punish him for it? I don't think so, I say it's great, because if he can get to that point where he has so much money that he doens't care SO CAN I, (after feeding all my neighbors, providing them with medical care, and a place to live of course, how could I forget).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow,

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/luxury

Luxury:

1.Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.

2.SOMETHING EXPENSIVE OR HARD TO OBTAIN.

3.Sumptuous living or surroundings

Like I said, for someone in the dessert, water CAN be a luxury, is it needed for life, yes, is it hard to obtain in the desert, yes, would it be expensive to buy in the desert, yes. Is it a luxury, YES.

My statement still stands. When you pack a billion people into a city, water can become a luxury there. Remember last week, Katrina, you know, big, dangerous, lots of destruction. Was water a luxury afterwards? I bet it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I feel that it should be self-evident that anyone in America should be able to drive whatever they like.

Having said that, I often wonder why so many people feel the need to own these gas-hungry monstrosities known as SUV's.

The commercials all show these badboys covered in mud, driving up a mountain over rocks and fallen trees. Hell, most REAL SUV owners slow down to .0005 mph just to go over a frickin' parking lot speed bump.

Ah, we American's and our pointless status symbols...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A gas guzzler tax has NOTHING to do with socialism. Like so many other terms these days it's simply a way to minimize the argument.

While a person who drives a gas guzzler may pay more overall, they also use up more resources and generate more pollution over the same period of time than a more efficient vehicle. In other words the consumer of said vehicle has a disproportionately negative impact on others that use the same resource and breathe the same air.

Society is full of disincentives to discourage certain behaviors especially when those behaviors result in a negative impact on the rest of society. It's not socialism, it's common sense.

Given that oil is a finite resource and that vehicles contribute to pollution, anything we can do to limit their use is justifiable and utterly logical. It helps everyone, call it socialism if you want and disagree at your discretion but that doesn't change the fact it's a wise and prudent way to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

By the same token I can say fuel is NOT a luxury, doesn't make it any more affordable however. Without it, I would have no job, no income, could not drive to work, would not fly airplanes. Granted, I could survive as a bum on the street, fishing in the ocean, and build a bonfire on the beach for warmth and cooking. But seriously. Luxury, is whatever is scarce for YOU. You see, people who loot from you, want you to think that exluding air, water, food, shelter, and some rugs to cover yourself with, everything else, is a luxury that you can do without. The same ones that say you should not eat un till everyone has been fed, you should not have a house, till everyone has a roof over their head, you should not have a car, till everyone has one, because THEN, once you buy into that, you are their slave, who works for THEIR benefit, and not your OWN, to make THEM happy, not YOURSELF (when you make others happy, it should make you happy, sounds familiar?). Funny how those things were the foundation of communism, and are the pillars of socialism. When have you heard in capitalism said that you should give away what you make, I haven't, I HAVE however heard it said in communism, and performed in socialism, obtaining the sanction of the person being looted by guilt, that his neighbor is less fortunate.

First just because you can't afford a car dosn't mean you are automaticly reduced to someone who has to live on the street. I know someone who's parents don't have one and they own a house. Second the "gas guzzeling" tax would only apply to low effiency vehciles and would not apply to high fuel effiency vehciles which would not mean you would not be able to drive anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Ever heard people saying ".....is a luxury we can not afford right now" when refering to a common place object. That's exactly what they mean, they don't have the budget and can make DO without that object. Some people, CAN NOT make do without gasoline, some can. Some people can afford it, some can't. So if you can't afford it, at a certain point, it becomes a luxury, while for some other guy, he can buy 10 gallons, pour it down the drain without a care, and buy 10 more, is it a luxury for him? Does that mean that just because he is able to waste his money like that, we should punish him for it? I don't think so, I say it's great, because if he can get to that point where he has so much money that he doens't care SO CAN I, (after feeding all my neighbors, providing them with medical care, and a place to live of course, how could I forget).

Gasoline is not needed for life as a person can make due without having it. Of course it would be harder but it wouldn't cause your death in a few weeks time.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Like I said, for someone in the dessert, water CAN be a luxury, is it needed for life, yes, is it hard to obtain in the desert, yes, would it be expensive to buy in the desert, yes. Is it a luxury, YES.

Whoo hoo, semantics.

It would be if you had more than enough water than is needed to sustain your life. e.g. if you had enough water to water your lawn during a drought.

Othwerwise what Grizzel said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

While a person who drives a gas guzzler may pay more overall, they also use up more resources and generate more pollution over the same period of time than a more efficient vehicle. In other words the consumer of said vehicle has a disproportionately negative impact on others that use the same resource and breathe the same air.


Just because a vehicle uses more gas doesn't mean that it's going to generate more pollution than one that uses less. If it did, emissions tests would be done by looking up your vehicle in a book and assigning it a value, not by the exaust to see what's in it.

Coal is a limited resource and the more you burn the more pollution is caused, but on your power bill do you get charged more per KWH of electricity the more you use each month? I know I don't. There's no difference in charging a penalty on gas as there would be on charging you extra on your power bill according to the size of television you have. The larger your TV, the more power it will draw, so the more you should get charged on electricity. After all, a large television (or even a television at all) is luxury, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, their arguments fall appart under logic.

When they say, hav a car that uses more gas than mine does - impose a special tax, and we say, OK, use more water (have a swimming pool? a large family, more laundry, more showers ect..) - impose a tax, use more electricity (more appliances, bigger, ect...) - impose a tax, maybe we should even tax a family that has more than 2 kids, after all, they use more resources and produce more WASTE, FOR THE REST OF THE SOCIETY.

All these socialists want to do is tax, without UNDERSTANDING that whoever USES more, ALREADY pays more. When you make a point that under their logic, there's no END. They start saying, no no, just cars, just cars, which MEANS that it's just their own personal opinion that they want to force on the rest of population, because WHY just cars, like I, and Matchoo said, use more water = more pullution, use more electricity = more pollution, buy more THINGS (hey BUYING LIMIT AND A TAX WHEN YOU GO OVER IT) = more pollution, more waste taken to the dump. A decade goes by, and they will start looking at their neighbors bigger house, and yelling how he uses more resources, which puts out more pollution, and should have a big house dis-instentive tax.

SOCIALISMT Grizzle, that's what your post means. I will call it by what it is, go to Europe or Canada, they already have it there. Oooops I forgot, Canada wouldn't LET you immigrate because all they take is proffessionals that can make $80,000 or more, because their social system can't handle any more regular workers and leeches, so they need more TAXABLE people. And Europe, go and try finding a JOB there, but then again, you wouldn't have to, those idiots (politicians, so I don't ruffle anyones feather here) will support anyone because they don't have the military bill to foot, as US handles that for them, and they are STILL coming up short, ROFL.

Tuesday, I will be posting an article about smoking bans, and how the socialists screamed and yelled that it will only be in restaurants. Then a little later it was bars, then a little later it was even outside within 20 feet of a door, then a little later they started proposing banning it in YOUR OWN car. WOW. The article will be comparing their argument that if smoking is harmfull to those around you and therefore should be banned, then we should also ban alcohol, as a drunk is harmfull to those around him, especially in a car, we should also ban cold medicine, because it impairs your brain, and the list goes on with REGULARLY AVAILABLE EVERYDAY USE ITEMS that you can get at the store, with the same argument that was presented to ban smoking applied to them.

Leave us normal people be, I am telling you, it's not a joke, because as you encroach on our liberties, push us into the corner, and leach off of us, it's just a matter of time till we will stop supporting you, kick you out of our space, our lives, our homes, and take back what is ours. You see, the reason it's happening now, is because socialists are just that, a social animal, they have a group mentality and are followers. Individualists however, preffer to live their lives, without interfeering with lives of others, and therefore are NOT a loud social group, but instead keeps letting themselfs be looted, time and time again, just to buy themselfs a little more time and peace, from a horde. When those individuals however, will be pushed by the horde so far as to them being unable to live a normal life anymore, when there will be nothing more to loot, they will start coming together, to take back their liberties and freedoms that socialists have looted from them. It will take time, and arguments like Grizzles, prove not only the irrational thinking, but that when that type of irrational thinking is made inot law and enforced on rationaly thinking people, it simply can't stand, and will not last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since quoting everything is just managing to artificly infalte my post size, I'll just respond without them.

Matchoo:

First point; That depends on how you want to measure it. If you measure pollution per gallon then you are correct. However, if you measure it per passenger mile than it causes more pollution.

Second point; agreed, that's why I'm personnaly more in favour of Tax Rebates for things like Hybrids, Solar cells etc.

Soback:

See above for the first paragraph.

I'd have to double-check Canadian immigration policy but I have the feeling your exagerating.. again (which is bad from a logical agrument point of view). Was the military point directed at both Europe and Canada?

I'll wait for your thread on Tuesday then.

Remeber; sweeping generalizations are never right (includng that statement, paradoxically)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some anecdotal evidence...

Gas prices in Birmingham (where there is plenty of gas) are at $2.85 (down from $3.01 last week and since Katrina)

Gas prices directly on the Gulf Coast (Baldwin/Mobile County) are at $2.60 (and have been since Katrina).

Something isn't right. Someone is gouging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't reading deep enough Soback. It's NOT about taxation for it's own sake, it just so happens that in a Capitalist society hitting someone in the wallet tends to get results.

We penalize corporations that pollute the air, we provide tax breaks for those that take measures to reduce it. The concept we are discussing is NO different. Get it?

Now whether you agree with it or not doesn't really matter because you don't and never will live in a bubble. No man is an island.

We as a species form SOCIETIES so we can help one another to survive and in turn prolong the species. While you may believe it's "normal" to be selfish and gluttonous, it's antithetical to the very purpose of existence itself.

It's all about balance and prudence. For every person that cares only for themselves and what they can get without regard to the impact they have on the environment and those around them, there are those that see the wisdom in moderation as a way to perpetuate our existence.

It goes way beyond whether you have to spend a few extra dollars here or there, but you just don't seem to understand that or care to even try.

As Asperson said "sweeping generalizations are never right" and that includes you and me.

I prefer to live my life in a way that not only benefits me, but others as well, you don't. That's really all it comes down to eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

For some anecdotal evidence...

Gas prices in Birmingham (where there is plenty of gas) are at $2.85 (down from $3.01 last week and since Katrina)

Gas prices directly on the Gulf Coast (Baldwin/Mobile County) are at $2.60 (and have been since Katrina).

Something isn't right. Someone is gouging.

Georgia has temporarily reduced the gas tax to lessen the burden. Perhaps they are doing something similar on the Gulf Coast? Or maybe it's because there is less distance to travel from the refinery to the pump. Who knows.

Also, gas has historically been more expensive in California. Do you think it's simply because people can afford it or does it have something to do with consumption or the amount of pollution in the air they have to eat everyday? (Yes eat, have you seen the air around Los Angeles??)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

You aren't reading deep enough Soback. It's NOT about taxation for it's own sake, it just so happens that in a Capitalist society hitting someone in the wallet tends to get results.


Let's say you own a economy car that gets 30mpg and I have a SUV that gets 15mpg. Also, say gas is $2.80 per gallon for regular unleaded. We both fill up and leave from the same gas station and drive 200 miles to the same location. You will have used 6.67 (200/30) gallons of gas and I will have used 13.34 (200/15) gallons. At $2.80 per gallon you will have spent $18.68 in gas and I will have spent $37.35. This is a pretty considerable 'hit in the wallet' for me already.

quote:

We penalize corporations that pollute the air, we provide tax breaks for those that take measures to reduce it. The concept we are discussing is NO different. Get it?

[/QB]

There is a difference.

Say we have 2 corporations, company A and company B. Both A and B make the same exact product, produce the same amount of pollution per item made, and both get charged a tax by the goverment according to how much pollution they generate. If company B is able to market their product better and sells exactly twice as much as company A, then we should assume that the would generate exactly twice as much pollution as company A and therefore pay exactly twice the tax that company A has to pay. But according to what you're saying, they should be penalized further and therefore pay 2 1/2 times more than company A.

Why not just assess a fixed fee to every gallon of gas that is sold, that way the more the person uses, the more they use the more they pay? Oh wait, I know why.....because that's fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. You too Matchoo?

The concept of a guzzler tax is to discourage waste, it's not about fairness or numerical equality. What happens when supplies get low? That's right, it costs EVERYONE more money. Why should I pay a higher price to accommodate someone elses careless attitude and consume more than they need?

We hit polluting companies because we want them to stop polluting!. We credit those that reduce it to give them reason to continue to do so.

Stop thinking with your calculator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...