Software

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Time for a gas tax

0 helpful
364 replies

by delbertpgh

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

A lot of people would say that the era of $4 gas is a stupid time to put a big new tax on fuel, but there are good reasons to do so. Very good reasons. About four times a year I find myself agreeing with something Charles Krauthammer (the editorialist) says; usually, he's just a conservative nutbag and a Republican shill. However, today he has an a column of huge good sense.

The U.S. currently sends about $400 billion a year to people like Khaddafi and Ahmadinejad and Chavez, money we don't actually have. The best way to choke down the money pipeline to these bandits is to keep the price of fuel high. We'll conserve, and we'll find alternative fuels that make economic sense, without government help or regulation. All it takes is a big, painful tax.

A huge tax on fuel would allow cuts on other taxes. It doesn't need to be kept; it can be injected back into the economy quickly.

Here's the editorial, from the Washington Post.

==============================
At $4, Everybody Gets Rational

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 6, 2008; Page A19

So now we know: The price point is $4.

At $3 a gallon, Americans just grin and bear it, suck it up and, while complaining profusely, keep driving like crazy. At $4, it is a world transformed. Americans become rational creatures. Mass transit ridership is at a 50-year high. Driving is down 4 percent. (Any U.S. decline is something close to a miracle.) Hybrids and compacts are flying off the lots. SUV sales are in free fall.

The wholesale flight from gas guzzlers is stunning in its swiftness, but utterly predictable. Everything has a price point. Remember that "love affair" with SUVs? Love, it seems, has its price too.

America's sudden change in car-buying habits makes suitable mockery of that absurd debate Congress put on last December on fuel efficiency standards. At stake was precisely what miles-per-gallon average would every car company's fleet have to meet by precisely what date.

It was one out-of-a-hat number (35 mpg) compounded by another (by 2020). It involved, as always, dozens of regulations, loopholes and throws at a dartboard. And we already knew from past history what the fleet average number does. When oil is cheap and everybody wants a gas guzzler, fuel efficiency standards force manufacturers to make cars that nobody wants to buy. When gas prices go through the roof, this agent of inefficiency becomes an utter redundancy.

At $4 a gallon, the fleet composition is changing spontaneously and overnight, not over the 13 years mandated by Congress. (Even Stalin had the modesty to restrict himself to five-year plans.) Just Tuesday, GM announced that it would shutter four SUV and truck plants, add a third shift to its compact and midsize sedan plants in Ohio and Michigan, and green-light for 2010 the Chevy Volt, an electric hybrid.

Some things, like renal physiology, are difficult. Some things, like Arab-Israeli peace, are impossible. And some things are preternaturally simple. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.

Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us -- and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.

This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. On this page in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government -- through a tax -- to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.

But instead of doing the obvious -- tax the damn thing -- we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate is debating this week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.

Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand -- and bring down world crude oil prices -- the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.

Herewith concludes my annual exercise in futility. By the time I write next year's edition, you'll be paying for gas in bullion.

364 replies

by w2ktechman

that if Gas was taxed to reduce taxes elsewhere, that those taxes WOULD be reduced???

Once a new tax is in place (even temporary ones), they seem to stay forever.

by notsochiguy

The Tollways in Illinois were supposed to be a temporary way to pay off some construction costs.

We now have the state leasing out management of some of the tollways for $1 billion+.

The people who use the tollways are more temporary than the tollways themselves will ever be!

by dr dij

they reduce the amount of driving and get the people who actually use the road to pay for it.

As for the 'paid for construction costs', upkeep is never free, neither is policing and highway patrol. And states and cities almost never keep up infrastructure, instead they stave off critical maintenance (witness bridge breaking in Minnesota, and the nations water supply framework which was designed to last 50 years and now averages 60+)

Tollways help prevent the universal subsidy of roads, which screws up the market system in this country for transporation, and is the reason that passenger trains in the US are at a very low level.

It is also much more efficient and less costly to transport containers by rail than by truck. Roads have reduced this and increased our costs of goods and distribution.

by jamesrl

Since we balanced our federal budget and kept it balanced, some taxes have been reduced. GST (Goods and services Tax - federal) went from 7% to 6 and now its 5%. Federal Income taxes and some provincial were lowered as well. Propery taxes at least for me, have not dropped at all.

But until you balance the budget, I agree, you won't have significant tax cuts.

James

by charliespencer

"Since we balanced our federal budget and kept it balanced,"

When did we do that? The entire Iraq war is funded through special legislation and is not included in the budget. We're spending billions daily outside the budget on other things too. Any claims the budget is balanced ignores all the debt-generating spending that goes on outside the budget.

Besides, even if the budget is balanced, there's still a couple of decades of national debt to pay off, to the tune of a few trillion dollars.

To get back on topic, jack up the gas tax permanently and require it be spent only on transportation infrastructure - roads, bridges, rail, mass transit, etc.

by jdclyde

for our own good, huh?

Those that don't lose everything they have over the life of that tax for our own good will surely appreciate it, I am sure.

And this also goes back to putting a big part of the blame on the Democratic party. If wasn't for their obstructionist tactics, the money would not be sent overseas because we would be using our own resources.

Does it make sense to you that china can drill off of Florida but we can't? That Mexico and India can drill in the gulf, but we can't?

does it make sense to you to pay the additional costs and resource overhead of shipping the oil from around the world to here instead of getting it local? Same arguement that greenies are using telling people to buy local produce to lower shipping costs and the environmental impact the shipping adds.

by rkuhn040172

Some people just make the answer sound so simple don't they?

The answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. We can't keep exhausting our supplies of oil forever, yet we aren't even drilling in some places.

Anyways, I think you're both right but I'm still waiting on an electric minivan that can fit my family in (4 kids, my wife and me plus a stroller and sometimes the dog) :)

You ever notice that? All these new concept cars are the size of a bicycle. Are we supposed to stop having families now?

You want a good business to invest in? How about a delivery service. Because in the not so far future, President Barrack and his socialist democrats will have us all driving in cars the size of go-carts.

Good luck getting that brand new 50" widescreen TV in it. LOL

by jdclyde

There has been a push to try to delude people into thinking our world is over populated.

People pollute, so it makes sense if they can cut back on the number of people, that is less future polluters.

Combining diesel and electric is the way we should be going, not burning our food. Still have the power required, with less fuel being used.

If I want to take my group golfing, we can't car pool anymore, can we? Can't fit four people and four sets of golf clubs in a compact car, so any savings we pretend we are getting are just BS because now we have more vehicles making the same trip.

The shortsightedness is sickening.

by charliespencer

would you jump off the roof too?

We need more mothers in the U.S. government, but I suppose they're already either too busy or too smart.

by jdclyde

Not getting nagged enough yet?

There is oil there.

The oil is getting drilled.

How is the US refusing to drill for ourselves instead of get the same oil after someone else drilled it, helping ANYTHING?

Sorry, there is not a single logical reason for them to drill off our shores and us not to.

by delbertpgh

If we drilled Florida's waters, and Alaska's wildlife refuges, it would give some relief, but it wouldn't be enough. Most of our oil would still come from overseas, where people like Hugo Chavez would smile as we bid the price up against China and India. Nothing would change much. I say we might as well do it; it would keep a bunch more money from flowing overseas, at least for a while. You can't blame Florida on the Democratic party, by the way; their governors, legislature, and chamber of commerce hate the idea of oil wells on the horizon, and the billions of dollars of beach damage that would come some inevitable day. Florida's such an important electoral swing state, and everybody sucks up to Florida. Did Cheney's energy plan include drilling Florida, or just Alaska?

Look, the country is sending close to half a trillion dollars a year overseas for oil, and that on top of a trade deficit in other goods. This is real money. Some day, after the foreigners have bought up half the U.S. with the money we gave them and there's nothing left worth buying, they're going to stop accepting our promises to pay. This country is in serious trouble. Oil is also a strategic commodity; if we don't keep the sea lanes open for 12 million barrels a day, we slash the effectiveness of our military. No fuel, no going to war. No jobs, either. The way we use expensive imported oil puts us in military, financial, and economic jeopardy. Good government would address this.

Unfortunately, our current good government ideas put government where it doesn't belong: pouring subsidies into grain alcohol, mandating average MPG for auto manufacturers, dreaming up new ways to get its thumbs into the economy. A tax is a simple and straightforward way to get the country to do what we ought to, and leaves the hand of government out of individual economic choices.

The price of fuel should reflect what it costs us. Only part of the cost is what the oil companies charge. The cost of making us vulnerable, that's what the tax should cover. People would reduce their fuel use, and Ford and GM would miraculously come out with more efficient cars (which they already sell profitably in the rest of the world.)

by jdclyde

is we need to do EVERYTHING.

Drilling in the gulf of mexico will help a little? Do it.

Drilling in the ANWAR will help a little? Do it.

Setting up wind farms will help a little? Do it.

Setting up tidel generators will help a little? Do it.

Setting up nuke plants will help a little? Do it.

A lot of "littles" add up.

Reduce consumption.
Be self sufficient.
Don't send all of our money overseas.
Resolve Iraq, not retreat. Don't do it right, our kids will have to go back in 10 years.

Not everyone does or can live close to work, and this tax would cost me directly over $2000. A heavy burden to throw on a single father, busting his ass to raise twin boys on his own.

Is it worth the cost of what that tax will do? Not to me it isn't, especially when NOTHING is being done except blocking and delaying of any US development of our own energy production.

by forum surfer

First of all, I agree with w2ktech. If they raise the tax on gas are they REALLY going to lower taxes elsewhere? Sounds to me that Mr. Krauthammer is living in a fairy tale world where this would happen. Either that or he personally drives a hybrid everywhere. I own an extremely low mileage 00 f150 that I need for pulling my boat, neither of which I will depart with. Sure, I can buy a hybrid GMC truck, but the cost of ownership of that outrageously priced vehicle will certainly outweigh any possible fuel savings unless gas goes over $7 a gallon. All of the smaller hybrid suv's are rated to pull it, but those power starved vehicles will have a rough time pulling a fully loaded 28' boat out of some of the boat ramps I use...which equates to additional wear and tear on the driveline which means yet more costs for me. I can see purchasing a hybrid for commute, but they are weak underpowerd vehicles to use while travelling any distance with kids/girlfriends/luggage/whatever in the car. No thank you. I'll stick to my 24 mpg supercharged rwd piece of american junk for that. The Lexus hybrids have decent horsepower, but considering my car is running on a freshly rebuilt motor (one of my hobbies) and it is paid for as well...I won't be saving any moeny at all.

Boo on your gas tax! I'm not a fan because it will cost me money no matter what I do...even if I were to get rid of my car I still need my truck. Can't justify the cost of a hybrid truck and frankly I'm not eco-concious enough to WANT to spend more money and take a bigger financial hit by buying a new hybrid truck equipped to the same levels as my current ride.

by forum surfer

Case in point, up the street from me is a very nice woman, a single mom of two kids. We're friends, nothing more. Her ex husband is a drunk who doesn't help with anything except creating lawyers fees while trying to keep his low class ignorant a$$ away from her and her kids. This is a nice neighborhood and I have personally escorted him off of her property forcibly a few times because he shows up drunk at 2 am demanding to see his kids, whom he makes no effort to see sober. She has a decent white collar job but is barely making ends meet now that her kids are older. I help her out by doing basic maintenance on her 98 accord when i can...minor stuff like oil changes, brake jobs fluid flushes, rotatating her tires and the like. I help her out because she needs it and typically she has enough good sense to go to Advance Auto, get the parts she needs and has them waiting for me. She never asks, just hints around...but I am happy to oblige because frankly I like getting my hands dirty on a car and she genuinely appreciates my help (damn good cook, lol). SHE can't afford a new hybrid. Maybe she could afford something along the lines of a Prius, but you pack two teenagers, soccer gear, baseball gear and the groceries in that tiny thing. Not cool. Doesn't matter anyway because she can't afford it. People like this will be affected by the tax and it's not fair. Gas prices will continue to rise anyway without further unneccessary taxing.

While this person isn't poor, lots of people like this would be hurting. I suppose she could sell her house, move to a cheaper neighborhood with lower class schools so she could buy a hybrid and do her part to be eco-friendly. But is that fair to her and her kids?

by jdclyde

hurting people badly now doesn't matter either.

I am currently paying out about $100 a week for gas. I don't matter either in this equation.

At least it will make environmentalist feel good about themselves and give more of our money to politicians so they can buy more influince.

by delbertpgh

We were running a big surplus when we left the 1990s, and the government cut taxes. There have been several major rounds of tax cuts in the last 30 years. The idea that once government gets a dollar you'll never see it agains has been disproved.

A gas tax is good long-range thinking. Some people will be hurt badly, others a little. The ordinary workings of the economy hurt people all over the place, but we accept that; a tax that kept gas expensive forever would train us to save, and to develop non-petroleum alternatives. Part of the reason people don't invest big bucks in ideas like algae farms (not corn) as a feedstock for alcohol or other fuels is that they can't count on the price of oil staying high for long enough to recoup their investments. A permanent high tax would fix that.

by forum surfer

That makes this tax unacceptable. Tax the wealthy. Place large federal excise taxes on cars costing more than 50k. Place special taxes on auctions for art museums. Don't infairly tax the common man. I find an increase in gas tax unacceptable regardless of what you say. That's my opinion and I respectfully disagree with you no matter what you say. The rich have it far too easy, tax them first and make them sweat for a dollar like the rest of us.

Increase the small things, like the federal excise tax I'm forced to pay on my tires for my car. My tire size is 295/35/18....which converts to over 11" wide, even though tire sizing isn't exact by the rated size. These size tires are usually found factory issue on Porches, Ferraris, Vipers and z06's. That I can see, it's a tax on what is arguably a toy and truly not neccessary. You have to pay extra to play...you shouldn't have to pay extra to shuttle your kids to school or ball practice. The common man is taxed to death as it is...and these days the common men are the blue and the white collar crowd.

You want to punish the average joe for our dependancy on oil? Let's audit the oil companies and their investors (former and current presidents alike). Let's straighten up big business. Punishing the common man by taking more of his money from his kids isn't the way to fix our dependancy on oil or help fix the enviroment.

by dadspad

Here is the link.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19980202-14467.html

Didn't last too long though> :(

by delbertpgh

The booming econonmy in general, and dot-com stock appreciation in particular, led to huge surplus revenues. Clinton, you might remember, was chuckling about how the entire Federal debt could be paid off in ten years if it kept up.

This scared the hell out of Alan Greenspan, because the whole U.S. banking system depends on holding federal bonds. He recommended, as quick as he could after George Bush was elected, cutting taxes to get rid of the surplus. Paul O'Neill, the Alcoa executive who was treasury secretary at the time, wanted to use the surplusses to transition us out of Social Security into private savings plans. GWB flew with the tax cuts, promptly putting the country back into the red, just in time for a mild recession, to cure which he prescribed (and got) more tax cuts.

I think the last time we had a balanced budget before that was some time late in the Nixon administration, for one year.

by jdclyde

before the price did the big jump, they were talking about this in Congress, to artificially raise the price of gas via taxes.

Well, we got price increases, and now they are pretending to be outraged over the price of gas? the ONLY thing that they are pissed off about is that THEY are not the ones raking in the profits instead of the companies that actually did some work.

by charliespencer

We were running in the black when Clinton left. I couldn't stand Clinton (still can't), but at least he understood you can't spend more than you take in. Apparently the current administration didn't realize you can't pay for a war and cut taxes at the same time. Bad enough to start a war, be it for justified, mistaken, or falsified reasons; worse to expect future generations to pay for it.

by charliespencer

One of the few things W. said I agree with was this country is addicted to oil. Unfortunately, he's done absolutely nothing to relieve that addiction since then. Last month he went (hat in hand, on bended knee, with puckered lips and lubed orifice) to the 'pushers' in the Middle East and asked if they'd sell us more of our 'drug' like he was a hooker looking for a crack fix. Great example of not walking the talk, George; 'superpowers' don't go to third world dictators and beg for ANYTHING.

If we'd smacked on a nice fat tax (say 50 cents a gallon) back when gas was running around $2.00, demand would have dropped like it's finally doing now. Driving it down then would reduced the trade imbalance, sent less money to our terrorist-supporting friends in the Sandbox and Venezuela, and reduced our dependence on the product regardless of where we get it from. Maybe if we jack the tax up now (and I favor doing so permanently, not temporarily) and have those same effects, we won't care as much when oil hits $200 a barrel by the end of the decade.

Long term, oil is going to run out. It takes thousands of years to produce and we're burning it quicker than it can be replaced. As it become less available, the price is going nowhere but up. Someday we're going to have to find a replacement, and doing so is not going to get any cheaper if we wait longer. Knowing this, why would we want to use it up even quicker by pumping more, instead of taking steps to reduce the amount we use?

by jdclyde

we WILL be using oil, it is stupid to be buying it from other people.

This has nothing to do with cost of the oil other than to reduce the overhead of retreavel, production, and distribution, all which reduce emissions.

It also goes to WHERE the money goes. We know it is sucking money out of our economy and pumping it into the Middle East, why would you support continuing that?

Looking for new solutions does not mean we don't have to still take care of our needs until something can be produces and distributed, and that will take decades. What are we suppose to do until then? Keep sending all of our money to the Middle East?

by locrian_lyric

China just cut a deal with Castro.

THE EXACT SAME OIL that the environuts won't let us drill off the coast of florida will be extracted by China through slant-drilling.

by jdclyde

Did the amount of "revenue" generated from taxes go up or down when the Bush cuts were put in place? (hint, records were set)

The problem is spending. How much did the new perscription drug plan cost the tax payers? And yes, the war.

Even Democrats understand that lower taxes are good for the economy, as seen by the "bi-partisan" economic stimulus (tax rebate) check.

Also, the economy was already on it's way down BEFORE Clinton left office, so it isn't like Bush broke the economy.

by locrian_lyric

Yes, *the* Kiev that was downwind from Chernoble.

This man is the biggest proponent of nuclear energy I know.

If this man is not afraid of nuclear energy, then why the HELL are we?

by nicknielsen

The only economy that thing stimulated was my own: I only owe money on one credit card now.

I still don't understand how a government in debt can spend money it doesn't have to "stimulate" the economy (but only in an election year!). Must be because I failed Government Economics.

by locrian_lyric

a three pronged approach:

1)Short term:
DRILL DRILL DRILL!
Drill more, refine more.

AND, while we are engaging in offshore drilling, set up for mid-term...

2)Mid term: use existing oil platforms as staging grounds for aquiring the liquid natural gas at the ocean floor. The platforms could also be used as staging grounds for the installation of windmills or perhaps even turbines that run off of ocean currents.

Also: initiate projects for generation of energry from waste-reclaimation.

Develop a scatter-shot energy policy that ENCOURAGES market participation. Tax inscentives would go a long way here.

Give tax credits to home-owners who power their houses with methods that do not rely on fossil fuels.

Adjust the banking regulations to allow banks to write mortgages for houses with non-standard energy generation. (yes, there are regulations on the books that inhibit 'green' houses from getting mortgages)

Instead of CAFE standards, make it the law that all profits from the sale of automobiles with MPG ratings over 50mpg are TAX EXEMPT AT ALL LEVELS.

3)LONG TERM.
Build more nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, solar et cetera generation. But this time, in areas where it makes sense. Solar power in Seattle isn't going to be of much use.

Upgrade the electric grids to allow for the increased demand that electric cars will generate.

Build mass-transit hubs that are not the jokes that the ones of today are.

Most importantly, any solutions that work will have to be through methods that work WITH human nature, not against it.

Let the free-market solve this one, believe me, if alternative energy is made to be lucrative, people will dive right in.

by dadspad

As I recall, in the celebration of a balance budget, some congressmen said that investors were losing money.

The investors that lent money to the US to pay for our debt were making interest on it. When there was no debt, they had no business, losing money. The balanced budget did not last long.

by locrian_lyric

ALL of my driving is getting to and from work.

I can't live closer to work because there is no way in hell I can affort to live in that area.

Gas costs me about 100/wk as well.

My baby girl may go hungry, but at least environuts can feel happy about themselves.

by forum surfer

I work in a downtown enviroment. In EVERY city I've ever been to dontown is usually done up very nicely with gorgeous townhomes and apartments (I prefer to live in rural areas or suburbs so I can have an acre of land at least). Unfortunately those townhomes are out of reach for the majority of people, and even if it is within reach it's a poor investment unless you buy it prior to or in the intitial stages of a "revitalization" preject. And what is always right outside of these nice neighboorhoods? Crackhouses/low rent government apartments that didn't get bulldozed during the last "revitalization."

I think the "environuts" you mentioned have the best of intentions, but take things way too far. Kinda like the PETA people in my area. While they have the best of intentions, that was no call for them to pass out happy meal bags full of fake, bloody chicken parts. The guy handed that to my kid (who was walking with his mom...had it been me I would have forcibly pushed it back to him and him away for even approaching my child or my wife at the time...but she was all easy going)who opened, dropped it and it scared him. At that point it became an issue because I put the nut job against the wall hard enough to take the wind out of his skinny arse. Who does that to kids? You can't justify that. Thank goodness the manager was there who stopped me from pummeling the guy into hamburger meat...and coincidentally covered my hasty retreat as the poor peta guy's buddies were calling the police. I snapped and it was wrong, but my personality doesn't let disrespect slide...and if you mess with my kid I'm going to hurt you without hesitation. I'm an animal lover myself, but that was ridiculous for them to protest in such a grotesque manner. My kid was expecting a toy and got a bloody spleen. That grounds for getting beat down where I come from.

by jdclyde

but with judges and juries like they are now, it was best to leave while you were ahead.

Can you believe these incredibly stupid people are now fighting to give animals the same rights as people?

We really really really need some chlorine in this gene pool.

by jdclyde

because people FEEL instead of THINK, is why we get in to such trouble with econuts and democrats alike. Now the mental disorder of liberalism is even destroying the Republican party.

by bunkyaz

Extra tax on gas does not upset me theoretically. I lived in Europe 30 yrs ago when the price was $2 per inperial gallon- about 250% more than here at the time. The problem I see is the Feds getting more money to squander away on "entitlements" and social programs that never go away and people expect it to last. And tying the tax to a specific purpose does not help. For example, here in Arizona, the electorate has passed two cigarette tax bills. The first one was to use thew money for health care for lower income families and education for helping people quit smoking. Legislature decided the voters did not know what was needed and used the bulk of the money for whatever the legislature decided. In the last two years, a referendum passed adding 80 cents tax to the price of a pack of cigarettes. Now, the state is in a budget crisis , partly because they forecasted huge amounts of income from this tax, and did not believe it would cause people to quit smoking. True, other factors have helped create the budget mess, but the Legislature was already complaining of "decreased revenues from the cigarette tax" before the current economic problems.
Finally, why give the FEDS extra money to play with. Because they will, even with stipulations for its use.

by jdclyde

because it isn't us using up the oil....

how do some people come to conclusions like that? Let someone else drill it, and then we can pay THEM for drilling our oil.

Stupid and self destructive. Intentionally so?

by forum surfer

but animals and humans are on completely different playing fields. I constantly had trouble with neighbors who have "aggressive" dogs in my last neighborhood where fences were against the landowners guild...which was mandatory to join upon land purchase. While pit bulls and the like can be raised to be loving animals...by their nature when provoked (a small child getting too close or poking the dog in the eye mistakenly while trying to pet them) they react with swift, decisive force most of the time. I had many, many incidents where people let dogs like this roamed the neighborhood. I called animal control ONE time for each dog that came close to my yard. I then would go to the owners house, tell him that I have contacted animal control and he can fix the problem or I'll do it myself. Almost like clockwork each owner responds by being upset at me implicating their dog as being aggressive. But sure enough if nothing was done, sooner or later I'd see a pitbull or a doberman from time to time making a full force charge towards my son's power wheels with teeth bared. I carry a concealed carry permit and very few times I go unarmed, and I kept a .22 in a small of the back holster for yardwark and just such occasions. Each time it was the same thing...dog steps onto my property with teeth shown and growling, dog yelps and falls to the ground permanently, call the local county police myself, the officer writes a report saying that I acted in defense of my family and then notify owner to pick up their no longer aggressive dog. That happen about 7 times in the one year I lived in that neighborhood and each incident involved a pitbull. .Once I was unarmed and caught one rounding the corner of my house full stride dead in the face with a shovel. I'll never forget that sound. It's happened many places I live, but I'm not going to let some dog bite my child and leave him scarred for life because the owner says the dog is harmless...even when he is clearly growling and showing his teeth. Smaller kids, even good kids that listen and do their best to treat a dog with love are goint accidently poke him in the eye or squeeze him too hard when hugging him...so keep him off my property and away from my kid or when at a park.

Moral of the story:

kids > dogs PERIOD

Now grown ups are a different story, I think more highly of my lab than alot of people I've met in my life. :) Coincidentally my dog would never make an aggressive move towards kids even if they try to saddle him up like a horse (instant spanking for the child!). BUT if he ever did he's going to be plant food in the blink of an eye. I'll miss him, but I won't feel bad for doing it.

by dr dij

it was 'PROJECTED' that the budget was balanced.

What always happens is that they 'fake out' by calling it balanced then ending up spending more. After all, if you have a 'balanced budget' then you have more money to spend in the eyes of politicians.

But I do concede that it was CLOSER to being balanced as spending was less.

by dadspad

No federal tax would be used in a sane way, if nothing else, overhead would eat up most if it.

We need to get gasoline products replaced with hydrogen [b] WITHOUT PETROLEUM OR PETROEUM PRODUCTS [/b] like they plan to do now.

by delbertpgh

If you tax petroleum but not alcohol, who wouldn't look into alcohol? Or hydrogen?

A tax on petroleum would be easy and efficient to collect. You charge it at the refinery, or on refined goods entering the country.

by dadspad

Even SS was dipped into, when the original bill stated that it could not be used in any other way, but for SS. Money borrowed, never paid back.

by jdclyde

is by making something else UNaffordable, so in [b]comparison[/b] it isn't as expensive?

Can't make something attractive unless you distort it, is the bottom line.

by nicknielsen

A balanced budget does not wipe out current debt, as any home-owner can tell you. The investors who lent money to the US were still earning interest, just not as much. Under Reagan and Bush I the national debt as a percentage of GDP increased drastically. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Clinton managed to reduce that somewhat through 5 straight years of decreasing budget deficits and 3 years of surplus. http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

Bush II almost immediately reversed that trend.

by jamesrl

Having worked with many farm animals, working dogs, having worked at the human society and more, I don't blame the dogs at all.

A properly trained pit bull or any breed will not bite unless provoked, nor would it bare its teeth outside its own territory.

Its not the breed, its the owner. The difference of course is a poorly trained Chihuahua can't do much damage to a child, whereas a pit bull can kill.

While working at the humane society, I once had to work with a doberman who was owned by a bunch of hippies. They had let him run loose in the park, and he had bit 4 people, so he was quarentined with us for 10 days. Once I established with this dog who was the alpha, he was very tractable and didn't even need a leash. He would come on command, follow without complaint, sit before feeding etc. Once he got back with the owners, he was a wild child again.

Dogs generally bite for one of two reasons. One to show their dominance (especially in their own territory), and two out of fear. Samll dogs are often fearful if they have been dominated by large dogs, or have been abused by humans. Large dogs can still be feaful for the same reasons, but do more damage. Handling strays I learned to not prejudge based on breed.

The only dogs I have killed were part of a feral pack that had killed a neighbours horse. But I understand your position, and with bad owners like that, I would do the same.

James

by notsochiguy

....just don't sell it as a temporary solution in order to pander votes for it.

That, and actually maintain the roads (I can understand winter potholes existing for a couple of weeks after the season...but it is cracking 90, and there are still some holes the size of basketballs on the tollways...while the 'crews' are sitting along the road, laughing it up).

I wish I could lose all semblance of dignity, integrity and honesty...these political scams seem like they would be fun to get in on from time to time.

by delbertpgh

The point of taxing oil is to get people to use it efficiently, or to use something else instead. It's not to collect a pool of money tagged for a special purpose.

We tax people for all kinds of reasons. We should base more of that tax on oil, and less on other sources. Unless you wanted to get more money to increase government spending.

Expensive gas will force people to make intelligent choices. I never thought the SUV was a good choice, but when gasoline was $1.30 per gallon, a lot of people did. The beauty of a tax is that the government doesn't have to step into the economy or R&D and mandate this or that; a free economy reacts to price, and fast, too. Also, what the economy does will be scaled to the expected savings; it's easy to imagine a government program that spends three dollars to deliver one dollar of benefit. Businesses and individuals are smarter about not wasting money.

A big tax, and then hands off, is just the best way. It's the conservative, libertarian way, if you want to think of it like that.

by jdclyde

No, that is neither conservative, nor libertarian. It IS right in line with the democratic party though. If it moves, slap a tax on it. If it continues to move, you didn't put on big enough of a tax.

by locrian_lyric

As it is, I've already had to make the choice between food, rent, psychiatric medication and life-saving medication.

But hey, just so long as you FEEL good, that's what matters.

by jdclyde

ESPECIALLY SS.

the stealing from future generations to fund the pyramid scheme that SS is, made sure that in OUR future, it will not be there.

We can be like the Democrats and pretend like it is just fine, or we can come up with ideas for it.

The idea of ALLOWING people to invest part of THEIR money so it grows instead of being the equivalent of a non-interest bearing account IS a good idea. The dems didn't like the idea for two reasons.

One, the money isn't thrown into the system anymore for them to play with.

Two, if you get people a chance to do well on their own, they don't HAVE to be subservient to the Democratic party.

Keeping people poor, scared, and uneducated is very important to the future success of the Democratic party.

by nicknielsen

Tax vehicle mileage. Put the excise tax on the vehicles that get the worst gas mileage as measured by the EPA.

[i]Let's audit the oil companies and their investors (former and current presidents alike)[/i]

What if the investor is an institutional retirement fund? You can punish a whole lot of average joes by taking one of these down.

by forum surfer

Mainly because I get a whopping 9mpg with boat in tow at interstate speeds and the ac running, but that's just me being selfish. I already pay enough vehicle taxes out the yin yang and my boat has taxes on my taxes which results in an over taxed tax fine.

:)

"What if the investor is an institutional retirement fund? You can punish a whole lot of average joes by taking one of these down. "

Take down the people responsible, not the fund. Although an escape goat would be found and none of the truly guilty would see jail time for their corruption...at least it would bring the issues to light making them think twice about future corruption. Too many people in this country can hide behind large bank accounts and corporate lawyers. This has to stop imo before we further hurt the people that ruly keep the country running with our regular pay checks and tax dollars.

by delbertpgh

There are lots of raving loonies seeking a place on the policy stage. Stop wasting a probably fine mind by paying attention to them. Yeesh. People on the left and in the middle have a lot to offer in terms of ideas, and if all you can do is roll them up in the same sticky ball with vegans, yoga nazis, lesbian Stalinists, and Dennis Kucinich, then you do yourself and your forums a disservice.

by delbertpgh

Do you want government to mandate it and fund it? Wind farms, tidal generation, self sufficiency, not sending money overseas? Or would you prefer that the people and the businesses work it out themselves, making individual economic choices based on savings and profit?

There are some things oil costs us as a society that aren't built into the current price of oil. A big tax would address that, and energize individual businesses to take action. People would conserve, without being forced to by law.

by naughtymonkey

as JD said, not everyone has the benefit of living close to work. I drive 80 miles a day in a 4 cylinder car getting 28 mpg. I can't afford a new car that does better, but I did sell my truck when I got my job and bought something more reasonable.

I also can't afford to drop everything and buy a new house closer to where I work. So I am supposed to quit my job or make my company pay for my gas...that will work.

I would love to find a job close to home, but unfortunately with the unemployment rate as high as it is and people still being laid off left and right, there are no jobs to get.

So I loose my job because I can't afford to drive to it and there isn't anything I can do about it. I guess I will need welfare then just to feed my family.

Oh wait, I will hardly get enough to feed my family because most of the money for welfare is already going to illegals, slack people who were raised to live off the government, or drug dealers that have no income but drive $60,000 cars.

Yeah, that is a great plan that will make us better.

by jdclyde

What is required is enough people standing up to people that would dare to tell us how we should or should not live and tell them to piss off.

Then we drill in the Anwar, which is a WASTELAND (the reason people don't friggen live there!). If a square mile of space is taken up with an oil rig, who cares? I know I will never see it and neither will the bleeding hearts.

Animals? It has been shown time and again that other rigs have not hurt the populations of animals, and they are actually flourishing.

Kind of like the polar bear that people are crying for, that have INCREASED in population, yet are now for purely political manipulation, trying to get classified as endangered? Talk about dishonest.

by tonythetiger

[i]Do you want government to mandate it and fund it?[/i]

We want them to [b]get out of the way[/b]. What is the opposite of [b]pro[/b]gress? [b]Con[/b]gress!

by delbertpgh

About a half trillion in direct outlays so far for the Iraq war. Do you think we would have given a rat's ass about Saddam and his unfortunate neighbors if half the world's oil weren't pouring out of the region?

Also, Saddam and Ahmadinejad and all the other demons didn't get to cause all that trouble just by saving their nickels for an AK-47. We gave them billions to do it with. And we'll pay again, to fight some army that we've funded out of oil. Maybe Chavez's, in a guerilla war in Venezuela.

We really need to get to a condition where we don't care about oil.

by tony hopkinson

manipulations like this.
The idea that you can change one factor in an economy and achieve just one one thing is naive at best. Even if everything went to plan and all the money was spent on alternatives and a better one was found and implemented, and in a suitable time time frame, there will be still very bad side effects. It's not just gas that's being taxed it's everything that moves. That's bad enough in the UK, which is a tiny little place with a population density orders of magnitude above the US's.

It wont work and here's why.

The longest term any politician looks at something is their term of office. If the alternative wasn't coming through dramatically by mid term, they would spend the money buying off the taxpayer, say by cutting income tax to secure their next vote.

So do you think an alternative could be found and emplaced in two years? And that's not even counting the current vested interests sabotaging the entire effort.

If so I have a bridge....

by delbertpgh

What you will get with a big gas tax is less driving, and what we learned in Econ 101, the "substitution effect." People will do other things than drive; more people will live closer to where they work; more pizza parlors will appear, so that people don't have to drive so far to reach them, and more customers will order delivery instead of pickup. Oil companies will find and pump more product, provided the tax is reduced for new production, and other energy companies will work on alternative liquid fuels. The full sum of effects will take longer than a couple of years, but reductions in demand will be immediate, and will increase over time, taking the short term pressure off of oil markets, and driving the price down, at least temporarily. There's where a tax is necessary: once oil gets cheap again, you don't want everybody to discard the economizing habits that made it cheap. You don't want everybody who invested money in alternative fuels to lose their shirts on the bet, because petroleum is suddenly undercutting alternatives by 50 cents a gallon. In fact, investors would never bet their shirts if they did not have confidence that their alternatives would not lose their competitive price.

So, sure, there will be some unintended effects, but what of it? Keep the policy simple; live with the outcomes.

And, what's wrong with refunding the extra tax collected, or cutting other taxes compensatorily? We should concentrate our tax policy where it will do some good, or at least less harm.

by forum surfer

By raising gas taxes? Glad you're not running for office! People are having trouble putting food on the table for crying out loud. You or I may not be, but many, many Americans are. THOSE people will be the ones footing the bill for eliminating dependency on oil. Thinking like that is dangerous and could put our country in an even deeper depression.

by locrian_lyric

I am in poor health due to some conditions I suffer from.

My wife also has some health issues.

Our helthcare is costly, We can pay, but it is costly.

Our combined medication bills, AFTER the prescription plan kicks in is still about 300/month.

Our annual medical expenses are high enough for us to itemize them as opposed to taking the standard deduction.

Additionally, I am diabetic and it is expensive to follow the diabetic diet. The rising food prices make it worse.

So, here we are, just scraping by. Moving isn't an option right now because we don't have the money for first/last month's rent + security.

I already retired my truck in favor of a compact car, which cut my gas costs, but the price is rising to the point where that savings has evaporated.

apparently, I'm not hurting enough for this joker.

by forum surfer

So what about the people who NEED the 5000lb battleships? Mine is used to pull my boat...not a need exactly but you can take the keys to my boat, my 5000lb behemoth and my guns from my cold dead fingers. :) Farmers use 5000lb behemoths to haul goods to market. Trucks carry goods all over the roads. Gas tax isn't the answer. If you want to target people who drive large trucks unneccessarily, then find a way...don't tax everyone blindly. If I had an alternative to my truck for pulling my boat economically, I would. I suppose I could get a smaller boat and in turn a smaller truck...but then I wouldn't be able to go into the ocean so that's not an option. Find a way to tax the people driving trucks they don't need or use and tax those guys.

by forum surfer

Don't get me wrong, I truly do love animals and grew up around dogs/animals. My ex-g/f had a 90lb boxer that was gentle as a lamb and %100 harmless. However, putting down a dog (assuming I'm not discharging a fire arm within city limits) is well within my local county rights. Personally I'd rather shoot the owner that doesn't treat/train/care for the dog properly, but that's illegal. :)

by jamesrl

That you don't do what you need to do. You can't reform a bad dog in seconds.

But 99% of the time, its the owners who are at fault, and 1% its a brain tumour.

Dogs are heart are pack animals, and are happiest to follow a leader. If their owner/leader rewards them for bad behaviour(agressiveness), not much you can do when one of these dogs confronts you but defend yourself.

James

by forum surfer

I know you weren't suggesting that. It's a shame that some of the time the dog is smarter than the so called "master". Like I said...we seriously need to consider which one is in need of being placed in the pound or put down.

:)

Have a great weekend!

by locrian_lyric

1)CONGRESS, not the president makes budgets. The president only signs them.

2)The ecconomy in the 90's was red hot and a house of cards. That level of growth was unsustainable.

3)Clinton had NOTHING to do with the economy, the people who PRODUCED did.

4)We had a little something called ground-zero which crippled the ecconomy of the NY metro area for five years.

I hate post-hoc ergo propter-hoc logic.

by tony hopkinson

Including VAT and fuel duty in the UK petrol is $10 a gallon, diesel a bit more than that.

Every year the government take a little bit more, every year everything gets a little more expensive, (it's basically a movement tax), and the only way we'll ever get rid of it is to have a revolution.

There are all sorts of sideeffects as well, for instance our domestic haulage companies are suffering badly from mainland european competition. It's cheaper to hire a french truck drive it over here, pick and drop and drive it back!

This is a tin of worms that should be left un-opened.

As for the idea that the money could be used on alternatives etc, well thats what they've been saying in the UK for decades, sure as sh1t ain't happened yet.

by jdclyde

if "the government" leaching our money on this was going to get us off oil, why isn't the UK off oil?

Please people, think for a change. Putting a penalty tax on something is BULLSH!T and it does NOT WORK productively or positively.

It will NOT magically get us to stop using the internal combustion engine any more than it magically got the UK to stop. Where are THEIR electric cars? Where are THEIR hydrogen cars? Are we going to be arrogant enough to say that because we are smarter, WE will be able to do something they haven't?

WAKE UP! This tax will KILL our economy and deviate the working class.

by forum surfer

Don't give examples of how this tax will not work...the extremeist enviromentalists will start flaming your post. Everyone knows this is a bad idea except for a handful of people. Just another chance to tax the little guy. Sure it taxes everyone the same across the board, but since the little guy makes less money he gets hurt the worst. I suppose those people that can't afford to buy those overpriced (comparitively speaking to similar sized/quality eco-boxes) hybrids do not matter at all and as such we shouldn't worry about hurting them financialy. Screw them, let them and their poor kids go hungry...the hope that alternative fuels will magically appear from seaweed is much more important. That's just what we as a country need, more people in the welfare line.

by delbertpgh

If the answer is yes, then we need a tax to encourage you not to.

The government has to collect taxes somewhere. If it taxes payrolls, it discourages hiring. If it taxes corporate profits, it discourages economic growth. If it taxes motor fuel, it discourages driving and the ownership of 5000 pound highway battleships. When we're going into debt with foreigners to finance our imports, and getting into wars to protect our oil addiction, and the price of the damn stuff triples in a year, and the beneficiaries of the price rise are countries like Iran and Libya... you get the idea.

Tax petroleum motor fuel, don't tax the alternatives. Refund the tax every six months, if you like. Folks would still save fuel by driving carefully in small, unmanly little cars. (Maybe men would go back to wearing gold chains to enhance their virility, like in the '70s.) The capitalists of the country would meanwhile work up sustainable alternative sources of fuel.

And by all means, rip the hell out of Alaskan wildlife reserves and the Florida coast for fresh oil. Nobody goes to northern Alaska anyway, and I could give up one coast of Florida. The country needs it.

by w2ktechman

the best thing for the country would be to tax imports more (higher Tariffs).

This can help to adjust for American companies to build in America again.

Also, drop Tariffs a bit for countries like Brazil that will sell us gasoline alternatives, but put a cap on it.

What will this do? Give us more alternative fuels on the market -- sooner. Help stimulate the economy by creating jobs. More small companies would be able to compete as well.

So, just because you create a couple of points to match your vision, does not mean that you are totally correct.
Just correct from a limited scope.

by tony hopkinson

As resolving poverty by printing more money.

Why would oil companies find and pump more, you haven't incresed demand in fact the whole point of your idea is to reduce it!
Why would they reduce prices, who are they competing with? The alternatives would have to be in place first!

Which bit of this statement don'y you understand
A rise in the price of movement increases the cost of everything that needs moving.

$10 a gallon over 70% of that is tax. Learn from our mistakes.

by Member 25348569

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1318046,00.html

Provided, that is, the US car manufacturers can manage to respond quickly enough.

by jdclyde

because the lowlifes have not put that punative tax in place yet.

If that logic "worked" then why is the UK still using petrol for their cars? Are they not as smart as the Americans, to be able to come up with something that runs off alternate fuels? Are the people in the UK somehow inferior, or does it really NOT work as a policy?

how long have you had the raping gas prices? I would say that is a perfect case study of how it is a failed and flawed way of thinking and only hurts the public.

by Member 25348569

is making people pay according to the size of their car. They are responding by buying smaller ones WITHOUT a tax. Maybe they would further change their habits if there was additional tax or some sort of mechanism to keep gas prices up if the oil price fell.

The logic of using petrol for cars is that there is still no alternative, even at $10 per gallon. We don't have much spare land for biofuels and we still don't have much alternative fuel for anything else. That is mainly because our government is shallow, stupid and can only see as far as the next election. Much like yours, I guess.

We do use a lot more diesel for cars than you do in the States. People ARE using their cars less - I know I am - so there is an effect of punitive gas prices over here. It is really screwing up the transport industry, though, and our government doesn't seem to be able to do anything other than slap a tax on everywhere.

by jdclyde

you want to punish them for getting one, based upon your standards of what is important or not.

That is really pathetic.

by jdclyde

There is nothing wrong with charging everyone the same price for a product as long as it is still a reasonable price.

Should we have different prices at the supermarket, show your tax return and get prorated?

What I am against is ANYONE daring to use a tax as a weapon. Taxes are suppose to be used to generate funds to run the country/state/cities, NOT as a means of intentional manipulation of markets and life styles.

by forum surfer

For a product? Yes. For a tax? No. I'm against more gas taxes period. But what if they all charged us the same tax rate on our income? Not cool...

by jdclyde

If you pay a straight percent, how can that be anything but fair?

You are already paying the same percent on a higher income which means you ARE paying more than the lower income brackets. Why should the amount paid on AND the rate for the higher amount be different? Who came up with that as a "fair" solution?

by jamesrl

A flat tax is very appealing in many ways.

Charge everyone 15%, no one pays zero, no matter how many deductions. The IRS would shrink to a fraction of its size. There were be no disincentives to work more. There would be none of those wasteful tax dodge investments. We could do our taxes in minutes, without the help of accountants.

I haven't seen the math in years, but I recall when proposed decades back it actually worked out. Maybe Max has seen some.

James

by Member 25348569

I'm interested as I've got a boat and I don't have a 5000lb behemoth to tow it with. I wouldn't say that I'd easily launch or recover the boat with my car but I generally rely on a commercial slip that will launch and recover and give me a parking space for car and trailer for $25 US equivalent. They have a tractor.

by jdclyde

are just cement slabs going out into the water, with no one "official" around. In Michigan, you have to have a State Park Sticker (about $30 a year) to use the launches.

I don't believe that a service like you describe is available for the day time boaters, here in the US.

by jdclyde

because that is 10,000 less people burning gas driving back and forth to work?

Many of the independent truckers are going out of business because of the price of fuel.

Why no electric cars in the UK?

If the goal to punish people to use less only? Seems that is the only thing achived over there at great cost to more than just the everyday citizens.

Such shallow thinking (using your word) does more harm than good in the long run, all so some dumbass in office can pretend they give a rats ass about being "green".

by Member 25348569

was a little more reactive then there would be MORE jobs in the US building the smaller cars that people would be anxious to buy. Instead, you import foreign cars because the Japanese and Europeans have long had an economy tailored more towards fuel economy.

Why are there no electric cars in the UK? Because the technology still isn't up to matching the wonderful portability of gas and diesel transport!

What happens in the UK is that the little old lady buys a Ford Ka - 1.3l or smaller or a Smart at 1 litre to use. I posted earlier that I have a Ford Focus whose engine is smaller than any that is produced in the US Focus - and I don't have the smallest that WE can get by any means.

You guys want self-sufficiency in oil to get out from under the thumb of the Arabs and the likes of Chavez. You want to drill Florida and Alaska and then you'll burn what's left of your precious oil in no time at all and be back to square one and all I'm saying is USE LESS. It wouldn't be very difficult for it to be achieved if it wasn't your apparent cultural necessity to have a big car!

by forum surfer

I like massively over powered cars for daily driving (under 300rwhp is unnacceptable for me). I like decent sized boats. I like pulling my decent sized boats with a decent sized 4wd truck. I'm not going to change until someone makes me. I don't really care what anyone thinks of me. People can call me wasteful all they want, I really don't care. I grew up dirt poor, now that I'm reasonably successful I'm going to enjoy it. Do I need stuff like that to enjoy myself? No. But I like taking my car to the racetrack, not a race car...my driver. I also love being out on the water or out in the ocean...not the idea of using a boat as a "status symbol". My sons love going to the track or fishing/skiing with me. Would they be just as happy camping out somewhere after I drove them up in the mountains in a Prius? More than likely yes, but that's not my idea of a good time. I like loud, fast cars and being in the company of other similar people. I like boats and boating. Just a few of my pastimes/family events that I don't intend to stop doing. To me it's not wasteful, these are my hobbies. End of story.

by Member 25348569

I've no problems doing a lake launch with a shallow ramp maybe four foot above the water level. Over here we have 30ft and 40ft tides so you can have a monstrously steep ramp, gradient of 1:3 or 1:4, slicked with weed and mud at half or low tide. My front-wheel drive focus just won't do it.

At high tide, I don't have a problem but it does mean that, if I don't launch and recover within a couple of hours, I have to wait for the next high.

We keep her moored in a marina now. Costs $big but saves the hassle.

by forum surfer

Some I use are nice ribbed concrete pads that offer excellent traction. Others I've used on a local river are either dirt or very, very slick concrete. If the water is high traction is an issue, hence the reason for 4wd also. My boat isn't too large, 26' and it draws a shallow draft so I put it in several local rivers, lakes, as well as the waterway linking to the ocean. I need something to haul 4 people at least usually, as well the boat, fishing equipment and or water skiing/tubing equipment and lots and lots of other odds and ends that create much weight. The boat plus the 5000 truck are both near the "weighted tags" requirement when empty and with little fuel, so I have to get those here. I don't see an option. If you tow a heavy item with a car/truck that is near it's limit...you are asking for transmission and overheating issues. Maybe 1 or 2 of the ones I go to offer the tractor service, so that limits my options.

by naughtymonkey

you are very passionate and I was agreeing with you. I was being facetious in saying I would be more than happy to put my family on welfare and loose everything... when hell freezes over and a tax like that goes into effect. If it were to happen, instead of trying to save to buy a new car or move (neither can I afford), I will save to jump ship and head north because I have no blood left for our crappy government to suck.

At this point, there is only one thing they can suck!

by locrian_lyric

Ever try fitting a snowplow on a Prius?

Ever try to haul lumber in a Yaris?

How much gravel can you put in the trunk of a Neon?

by locrian_lyric

Our vehicle typically has at least five people in it.

It's easier than taking two cars.

AND it has decent gas miliage.

Oh, no wait, I must be one of those evil rich.

Riiiigth, far better to waste gas on 2 or 3 cars than one SUV....