Gas Taxes

[rwh11385]

By that logic riding a horse everywhere has environmental and heath cost associated with it.

Or how about walking, riding your bike????


there are environmental and health risks/costs with just being fucking alive.

by the logic of the hippie article, McDonalds should have a Big Mac for $7 after government taxes on cattle production, since cow farts do more harm to the planet through global warming than transportation...

http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2

[mrsleeve]

I know that came to mind as well

[herbivor]

by the logic of the hippie article, McDonalds should have a Big Mac for $7 after government taxes on cattle production, since cow farts do more harm to the planet through global warming than transportation...

http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-ca...at-methane-CO2

I doubt it would shock you if I completely agreed with that. If an industry or commodity causes health and environmental costs, wouldn't it be more in line with free market capitalism if the those costs were built in with the production or use of said commodity (assuming that could be determined)? Don't you think it would provide a more level playing field for other products that may not create such costs? I mean, the money to pay for health and environmental impact has to come from somewhere. Why should I have to pay for your pollution? Shouldn't you be charged for the clean up of your own shit. Wouldn't you charge me to clean of garbage I threw in your front yard?

[gwb72tii]

I doubt it would shock you if I completely agreed with that. If an industry or commodity causes health and environmental costs, wouldn't it be more in line with free market capitalism if the those costs were built in with the production or use of said commodity (assuming that could be determined)? Don't you think it would provide a more level playing field for other products that may not create such costs? I mean, the money to pay for health and environmental impact has to come from somewhere. Why should I have to pay for your pollution? Shouldn't you be charged for the clean up of your own shit. Wouldn't you charge me to clean of garbage I threw in your front yard?

the free market already does
you can regulate allowable pollution as we do and McDonalds passes the costs on to the buyer of the big mac. they also pass on the cost of healtcare to the buyer of the big mac so in reality they already do as you suggest. big mac eater's health costs reverberate thru the system and are part of the premiums we all pay.
and you're more conservative than you think if you believe we should pay true costs cause that would mean fat people would get charged a premium for healthcare over and above healthier people

[herbivor]

the free market already does
you can regulate allowable pollution as we do and McDonalds passes the costs on to the buyer of the big mac. they also pass on the cost of healtcare to the buyer of the big mac so in reality they already do as you suggest. big mac eater's health costs reverberate thru the system and are part of the premiums we all pay.
and you're more conservative than you think if you believe we should pay true costs cause that would mean fat people would get charged a premium for healthcare over and above healthier people

What you are saying is not happening. That's my point and the point of the article, the costs are NOT being passed through to the product. If they were, it would be a more level playing field...and for the McDonald's example, there would be fewer fat people as a result.

[rwh11385]

What you are saying is not happening. That's my point and the point of the article, the costs are NOT being passed through to the product. If they were, it would be a more level playing field...and for the McDonald's example, there would be fewer fat people as a result.

Yeah, there'd be less fat people and some more starved, poor corpses.

[CorvallisBMW]

^

Put you hippie, enviro-waffleswaffleswaffleswafflesbag socialist propaganda back in your pipe and smoke it.

BS article,

the free market already does
you can regulate allowable pollution as we do and McDonalds passes the costs on to the buyer of the big mac. they also pass on the cost of healtcare to the buyer of the big mac so in reality they already do as you suggest. big mac eater's health costs reverberate thru the system and are part of the premiums we all pay.
and you're more conservative than you think if you believe we should pay true costs cause that would mean fat people would get charged a premium for healthcare over and above healthier people

So basically what you're saying is... Herbivore is right. McDonalds doesn't pay any price at all for the 'pollution' they create, they simply pass it on to the consumers, health care industry, gov't, etc. I think what he was trying to get at is that the current market, as it sits, doesn't require any kind of accountability for most of the harmful side effects of whatever is produced. BP had to pay big bucks for the gulf oil spill cleanup, but they don't pay a dime when acid rain falls on a forest. If McDonalds or BP had to pay a fair market price for the value of their 'pollution', the products they sell would have to be more expensive since the company would have to factor in the side effects, instead of passing the costs down the line to the consumers.

[z31maniac]

The end result is the same, the $5 big mac now costs $10. If businesses don't pass on the increased costs, by raising prices to maintain a profit, they go out of business.

In other words, if tomorrow Congress said, "McD's will now be charged $1 per burger to pay for pollution." The following day, the price of a burger would increase by $1.

So it still get's passed on to the consumer.

[CorvallisBMW]

The end result is the same, the $5 big mac now costs $10. If businesses don't pass on the increased costs, by raising prices to maintain a profit, they go out of business.

In other words, if tomorrow Congress said, "McD's will now be charged $1 per burger to pay for pollution." The following day, the price of a burger would increase by $1.

So it still get's passed on to the consumer.

Agreed 100%, it's just a matter of where and when they have to pay it. Currently the health costs of a big mac diet are picked up by the gov't and employers who buy insurance plans for their employees. gov't borrowing means our kids will have to pay for it, and coverage purchased by employers is passed down through fewer raises, lower pay, higher premiums, etc. It just bumps the costs down the line further and further.

[rwh11385]

If you account for externalities in all areas, that is different than simply targeting one industry because its a hot topic and the sheep want to attack something making money while they aren't doing as well. I've been over people saying a company is evil that provides goods that they demand and continue to buy. Hypocrites.

It would certainly be a different economy if sustainable choices were encouraged, not by excise taxes to punish behavior and questionably effective "stimulus" for green or healthy choices, but instead by affecting market price in a non-blanket way. But it's the government, controlled by those companies who would stand to lose and incentives which would be abused.

Then again, would all things that are sustainable to grow / produce be healthy? Maybe. How would poor people pay for more expensive food? Government? They would obviously be the ones reeling in the $$$ from controlling for externalities. But then, how would enough food (or transportation) be created in the world?

[mrsleeve]

If you account for externalities in all areas, that is different than simply targeting one industry because its a hot topic and the sheep want to attack something making money while they aren't doing as well. I've been over people saying a company is evil that provides goods that they demand and continue to buy. Hypocrites.

It would certainly be a different economy if sustainable choices were encouraged, not by excise taxes to punish behavior and questionably effective "stimulus" for green or healthy choices, but instead by affecting market price in a non-blanket way. But it's the government, controlled by those companies who would stand to lose and incentives which would be abused.

Then again, would all things that are sustainable to grow / produce be healthy? Maybe. How would poor people pay for more expensive food? Government? They would obviously be the ones reeling in the $$$ from controlling for externalities. But then, how would enough food (or transportation) be created in the world?

Golf clap for heeter.


we agree on this point 100%

[rwh11385]

Moreover, excise taxes may seem like bringing externalities into the marketplace, but in reality they are just the government's (and politicians / control-happy voters') effort to control others to what they see as right. Should fast food be taxed? Tanning? Alcohol? Guns? Gasoline? Tobacco? Gambling? (even that which generates large income for the state?) Those are just targets of those who want to control others and impose on the liberty of them in order to "make the world a better place". (Or easy sources of revenue) But where does it stop?

Tax cars for young drivers, since vehicle accidents are the leading killer? (sure, insurance is already high but this doesn't prevent their deaths). Or MAYBE more kids should do stuff like BMWCCA Foundation's Street Survival training. Why punish all teenagers, including those who are responsible, because in general they may not be? Ground all kids, even those who behave??

Why increase costs of tasty meat for those who enjoy it responsibly as part of a healthy diet because there are people who eat junk and drink soda and get fat? Punish the poor for other's gluttony.

"Sin taxes" are not the answer for a nation full of moronic people who make bad choices because they punish those among us who want to enjoy our liberties responsibly. Before you get into "making the world right" with raising the price of anything, maybe look at what the government encourages through subsidies. It rewards people for having children, even if they can't afford them and taking on debt (for education and homes). Wouldn't it be easier to leave it all alone and worry about what government should be concerned about (safety through defense and police and our liberties in tact, while preserving our property by not taking it away unnecessarily).

[mrsleeve]

yet another golf clap for heeter

I am too tired and busy this week, to make any posts of this nature and you are doing such a good job of it

[herbivor]

"Sin taxes" are not the answer for a nation full of moronic people who make bad choices because they punish those among us who want to enjoy our liberties responsibly.

How do you know you're not one of the moronic people? A 50%+ obesity rate is not because of moronic people, it's because of the flaws in the food industry, flaws created by government subsidies, loosened regulations, and the agribusinesses' hand in the government's purse. You can take that example to pretty much any large industry.

Oddly, I think we may be in agreement in the since that the government puts their hands in business too much in the form of subsidies. However where we disagree is that you think they should stay out completely, whereas I think they should create regulations to protect the people's environment and health. Regulations do not require "Sin taxing", but politicians do it as a form of regulation so that people are still free to make stupid choices. I think collecting a pollution tax on gasoline, a health tax on junk food, and a war tax on war would definitely change people's behavior and decision making, especially if the taxes were used for cleaning up pollution, improving people's health and paying for war. I mean isn't that being fiscally responsible, to pay for your shit? Conservatives should be all for it.

[rwh11385]

How do you know you're not one of the moronic people? A 50%+ obesity rate is not because of moronic people, it's because of the flaws in the food industry, flaws created by government subsidies, loosened regulations, and the agribusinesses' hand in the government's purse. You can take that example to pretty much any large industry.

Oddly, I think we may be in agreement in the since that the government puts their hands in business too much in the form of subsidies. However where we disagree is that you think they should stay out completely, whereas I think they should create regulations to protect the people's environment and health. Regulations do not require "Sin taxing", but politicians do it as a form of regulation so that people are still free to make stupid choices. I think collecting a pollution tax on gasoline, a health tax on junk food, and a war tax on war would definitely change people's behavior and decision making, especially if the taxes were used for cleaning up pollution, improving people's health and paying for war. I mean isn't that being fiscally responsible, to pay for your shit? Conservatives should be all for it.

I've got a good deal of standardized tests that state, in fact, I am not a moron. In addition, I have worked around this subject matter, amongst industry thought leaders and was up to snuff. Believing that people don't need taxes to let them know sugar, oil, and processed foods are bad for them is not moronic, it's fucking logical.

What you have to understand is you come off as a naive, granola-eating hippie with no understanding of implementation or reality. That's actually what a lot of green or liberal publications come off as, with moving voice-overs or animations to fill the void of actual understanding or good solutions.

But, there are issues with the food industry. For a straight-forward look at this, I liked "King Corn". Just stated facts and information, without pressing you to take what they said for your opinion, but to educate or get you to think. (A novel approach in today's age of media telling you what is bad or who you should be outraged at).

Regulations will be de facto flawed as long as the companies in which they are aimed against will have great influence over the politicians that make them. And politicians are in the business of getting themselves re-elected, not necessary improving the country or making a positive impact. But we are also hurt by the rise of pathos-driven argument versus logos. No one really cares to understand wtf is going on, but rather have fragments of truth compiled to create a biased message. If people had the attention span to learn the matters at hand, then maybe we could get somewhere.