Smithers MINNEAPOLIS - Old HALOSCAN comments, please discontinue the use of these comments.
one problem with an otherwise good idea. everything we consume is briught to the market in a truck, raise the tax on the eighteen wheelers and we will pay higher costs on those goods thus negating our savings. still, i like the defacto tax relief for driving a more fuel efficiant car.
raise the tax on the eighteen wheelers and we will pay higher costs on those goods thus negating our savings.
I have a solution for this that I will detail tomorrow.
Interesting.
Maybe most items shouldn't be delivered by truck, though. That is, maybe it's an inefficiency generated by generous subsidies and unaccounted externalities. The noise, pollution, and physical risks (crashes) created by trucking may not be fully reimbursed in the taxes they pay.
A lot of economists advocate a shift from income taxes to gasoline taxes. That is, the costs of consuming gasoline aren't being fully paid for right now. Raising taxes on them would make it more efficient, and lowering taxes on income would increase efficiency in labor markets.
So probably it would be better to raise more money in gas taxes than is currently done, and less in income taxes.
Yeah sounds good... If we raises taxes for the caliber of gun purchased (less for a 22 more for a 50cal) they'll be less murders. And remember a 22 uses less gun powder then a 50cal. But what uses more gun powder in this situation? Shooting 4 boxes of 22 ammo or one round of a 50cal?
I’ll bet that a Hummer that gets driven 50 miles a week puts a lot less wear on our roads then a hybrid that drive 1000s.
Taxes will not change life styles choices OR stop “global warming.”
OK, I'm in. I will accept the notion of global warming and that my road crunching dinosaur inhaling mafia staff car is the cause for the sake of this discussion.
I pull into the gas station, which of course I have to do a lot of since my car is so inneficient and I drive it like a madman-just kidding Krusey. I have a special government issued key fob which tells the pump who I am and how much my car weighs, etc.
I pay an increased gas tax relative to my fellow gasserupper who pulls up in a Honda Civic. Nice car by the way but I digress.
Since I have accepted this tax and it is designed to solve this problem, I wonder to myself what other national crises could we apply the same strategy to?
I notice that another prominent issue/crisis is our healthcare system. People are uninsured because they can't afford health insurance. Small employers can't provide it sometimes because they can't afford it. Everyone deserves health care coverage. It's a matter of dignity in a civilized society.
And I look over and notice that this person that is gassing up his car weighs as much as his car, and he has one hand on the gas pump and the other on a Snickers bar.
Obesity and Type-2 Diabetes are an epidemic and are for the most part caused by lifestyle and diet. Our healthcare system is burdened by hundreds of Billions of dollars of costs attributable to Obesity according to the CDC. These costs are being passed to all healthcare consumers.
Do you agree that for the most part, obesity is caused by a lack of exercise and an excessive caloric intake? And as such is a personal choice that is costing our economy billions of dollars and preventing many from gaining entry into our health insurance system?
Do you agree then that there should be a tax on obesity?
If not, why is this issue any different?
Obesity is a social problem.
Hummers are a enviornmental problem.
...
If this tax was goign to be put into place I think that it would have to be nation wide and a yearly tax assessed(sp?) rather than each time at the pump.
How could even that work?
...
If the truckers get pissed they will shut down this country. Haven't you seen Convoy with Kris Kristopherson?
I can't wait till were all forced to ride bikes by our government. With the greenies complaining that we shouldn’t use chain oil, rubber tires, plastic water bottles, because they're not earth friendly... I guess we could use olive oil, hemp and coconuts instead.
I like the idea.
Keep in mind that the hummer that only drives 50 miles a week would (likely) still pay less in taxes than a hybrid that drives thousands - and that's perfectly fine with me if someone buys a hummer and then has to garage it because it's too expensive to operate. I hate Hummers, their inefficiency and everything they represent, but GM could continue making millions of them and I'd never care if they were all driven only 50 miles a week, and were garaged the rest of the time. (Buy a $50,000 paperweight, for all I care, it's your money)
cross pollinating this issue with obesity is somewhat unfair - there are a lot of "societal" issues that are equally as important as environmental issues. But since you can't fix everything at once, progress has to be made one issue at a time.
Have you guys seen this?
http://fuh2.com/index.php
Enjoy. You're welcome.
Obesity is a social problem.
Hummers are a enviornmental problem.
So what? What's the difference?
They are both crises brought on by human lifestyle choices and presumably have a huge impact on our way of life or even our survival.
Please elaborate.
cross pollinating this issue with obesity is somewhat unfair - there are a lot of "societal" issues that are equally as important as environmental issues. But since you can't fix everything at once, progress has to be made one issue at a time.
It's unfair that many families can't afford health insurance. And remember, in my scenario, we already took action on Global Warming. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that I'm paying the tax at the pump and we are all feeling good that we "fixed" Global Warming.
My question is, if a punative tax can fix one issue, can't it fix the other?
We tax tobacco and alchohol (and now gas guzzlers and pavement pounders in our scenario).
Obesity is a huge problem (no pun intended) for our healthcare system, couldn't we tax excessive caloric intake? ...or the resulting BMI's?
Guns and obesity are not really germain to this topic. We can discuss these issues later if you like.
Taxes will not change life styles choices
Wrong. People will relocate from one state to another for tax purposes. Taxes can be ued to modify behavior.
Besides, I don't care if you want to keep driving your heavy gas hog, you are just going to pay more to do it.
Taxes can be ued to modify behavior
That's why I brought obesity (or any other detrimental behavior) into the discussion. Because I respectfully disagree.
People still drink. People still smoke. Aren't they (especially smoking) heavily taxed?
Besides, I don't care if you want to keep driving your heavy gas hog, you are just going to pay more to do it.
Smithers, didn't you just make my point?
I thought the whole point behind the tax is you want me to be motivated financially to downsize my car? ...and curb global warming.
You don't care if I keep driving it?
I thought you wanted me to change my behavior? Where would my extra taxes go then?
It sounds like what you actually want is me to pay more taxes because you don't like my lifestyle choice.
That's why (I thought) the obesity example was relevant.
"Guns and obesity are not really germain to this topic."
I don't see a difference. 
Your trying to put on a higher tax to "modify" a behavior. So... you think Snickers should be higher taxed then granola?
Your answer would be "yes."
"Besides, I don't care if you want to get super fat, you are just going to pay more to do it."
You beat me to it jroosh
If you are looking for me to say that this idea of mine is inconsistant and arbitrary I agree that it is.
However, we make inconsistant and arbitary decisions all the time.
My idea works towards a specific goal of using less fossil fuels by taxing those who won't play along.
You don't have to like it. Just be grateful that I'm not I charge of such decisions.
Where would my extra taxes go then?
As I said earlier, the extra taxes would be used to fund alternative energy development, mass transit sytems, etc. etc....Taxation is obviously not a silver bullet. But it could be one of 100 portions of a workable solution.
Obesity can be caused by laziness and gluttony. It's also caused by genetics, and it's also often associated with poverty. When I was in grad school I didn't make much money. (Yet I was still way above the poverty line.) When the last week of the month rolled around, I usually wasn't buying a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables. 99 cent fast food cheeseburgers, macaroni and cheese, and extra large $6 pepperoni pizzas were more like it. Could poverty stricken, obese people make smarter choices? Sure, but it's very hard.
Not long ago I think I was reading those Powerline douchebags and one of them made the point that we're such a rich nation that obesity is a problem for our poor people. I started calculating whether I could make the trip up to minneapolis and kick that guy in the nuts and still get back in a "long lunch" time frame. I decided there was no way to make the gesture carbon neutral so I passed.
Unlike obesity, your purchase and use of a 340 hp car is absolutely an elective choice. That's the difference.
I thought you wanted me to change my behavior? Where would my extra taxes go then?
I want you to change your behavior or subsidize others to do so, I don't care which you choose.
Your extra taxes go to subsidize those who make the decision to consume less fossil fuels.
Keep in mind that, for me, this is less a "global warming" issue and more of a maximizing energy efficiency issue.
Unlike obesity, your purchase and use of a 340 hp car is absolutely an elective choice. That's the difference.
C'mon Krusey, you can do better than that! We all know that there are many people who suffer from obesity that don't have a choice in the matter...and Yes, I know that choosing my car is purely a personal choice. I don't know anyone that's addicted to horsepower.
I was making a point, and basing it on the vast majority of those that suffer from it due to lifestyle choices.
I want you to change your behavior or subsidize others to do so, I don't care which you choose. Your extra taxes go to subsidize those who make the decision to consume less fossil fuels. Keep in mind that, for me, this is less a "global warming" issue and more of a maximizing energy efficiency issue.
Smithers, I can respect that. In fact in a way I already am subsidizing to a certain extent as there already are a fair amount of taxes built in at the pump.
Listen guys, I really enjoy debating these issues with you and want you all to know that I sincerely respect your opinions and point of view.
Moreoever, I respect especially those that have strong feelings and are willing to take a stand and voice your beliefs.
I know that it is not likely that we will change each others' beliefs substantially but I for one can say that blogging and specifically Smithers MINNEAPOLIS has opened my mind to and increased my respect of other perspectives. For that I say thanks Mr. Smithers.
Nothing great in this country has ever been accomplished without great debate.
I think we can all be grateful to live in a country where we can do this without fear.
For that I say thanks Mr. Smithers.
All weekend I'd been meaning to give Smithers a shout out for running a pretty decent couple of discussions.
Nice job, and thanks.
I don't know anyone that's addicted to horsepower.
You clearly haven't met donimator...
I don't know anyone that's addicted to horsepower.
OK OK OK !
I have to come clean with you guys. You're going to find out anyway.
I AM addicted to horsepower.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jro...oosh/434472531/
Yes, that's sixteen cylinders not including the snowblower. Probably more than some people have in their whole neighborhood.
I get thank you letters from ExxonMobil.
If its any consolation, I didn't drive at all today.
I promise I will lease a Corolla next time!
Smithers MINNEAPOLIS has opened my mind to and increased my respect of other perspectives. For that I say thanks Mr. Smithers.
Thanks for the positive comments, I appreciate it. I think it's the readers that make the blog however. If a discussion is worth reading it's thanks to you guys.
Now, if you will excuse me, I am in the process of turning all your IP addresses over to the DHS.
Sorry if I'm late to this, but the key distinction between gas and cheeseburgers is that gas has negative effects on people that aren't involved in the transaction.
Whereas if you eat a cheeseburger you bear the full costs of that choice. Even if you're insured, it's up to the insurance company to make sure they charge you a highe premium to capture the costs of eating that cheeseburger, and up to their other customers to get another policy if they feel the company isn't charging you a high enough premium.
So, for me, it's all about capturing the costs associated with a transaction.
The same could and probably should be done with guns--automatic weapons and handguns should probably be taxed (annually) for their social costs.
I get sick of people expecting society to pick up the tab on the harmful side effects of their lifestyles!
This is a rationale that even the most conservative thinkers could and should buy, IMO.
Finally, I too have had fun discussing this all with you guys.
I agree with PB on the whole cheeseburger thing, it's not pertinent to this discussion. However, if I am reading this right, the tax isn't about slowing down global warming, it's more about exacting revenge on those who are perceived to be contributing more than their fair share to global warming. If that is the case, and if the man-made global warming predictions come to fruition, as the earth explodes into a ball of flames and we're all kissing our asses goodbye and least we'll feel better that those hu2 driving bastards had to pay more for it!!! 
the tax isn't about slowing down global warming, it's more about exacting revenge on those who are perceived to be contributing more than their fair share to global warming
My goal with the tax is to punish inefficiency. Since we are all about freedom and crap in this country I am not interested in taking the right away from people who want to waste energy by driving a vehicle far in excess of what they require. But I want them to pay a price to do it which will subsidize the ability for others to more easily drive more efficient vehicles.
Global warming or not, I think we should be working collectively towards maximizing energy efficiency.
Plan B:
"I get sick of people expecting society to pick up the tab on the harmful side effects of their lifestyles!
This is a rationale that even the most conservative thinkers could and should buy, IMO."
You would think that the last statement would be true but isn't. Part of the criticism from the left, particularly the environmentalists, is that "hidden costs" of the slow distruction of the planet are never factored into what we pay at the pump for example. The uber-capitalist is only interested in maximizing profit in the short term, so any cost that can be passed off or ignored is better for the next quarterly P&L statement.
Sorry if I'm late to this, but the key distinction between gas and cheeseburgers is that gas has negative effects on people that aren't involved in the transaction.
Whereas if you eat a cheeseburger you bear the full costs of that choice. Even if you're insured, it's up to the insurance company to make sure they charge you a higher premium to capture the costs of eating that cheeseburger, and up to their other customers to get another policy if they feel the company isn't charging you a high enough premium.
Sorry Mr. B, but you are off on this one. If you understand where most people get health insurance and how it is priced you may change your perspective on this.
Most people get their health insurance via their employer. Group health plans are priced as a group. Healthy and young = better rate. Less healthy and older, more claims etc. = higher rate.
That is why you are seeing this new controversy where companies are asking prospective employees to give blood and are declining to hire smokers, etc. Also, companies are taking the initiative to promote better lifestyle choices (i.e. diet, exercise) because their health insurance costs are becoming a huge line item on their expenses.
The only situation where what you say is true is when someone applies individually for health insurance.
In summary, we are all paying for obesity, smoking etc. right now, even if you are fit and don't smoke.
Sorry Smithers, I know you didn't want this to get too off track, but I do have some expertise in this area.
It's still an individual choice to work for a company that has group coverage.
And even then you're only paying for your co-workers, not just everyone. So it'd be up to the employer to do something about that, not the government.
I think the example you're looking for is if
1. We had national healthcare, and
2. It charged the same price and offered the same benefits regardless of lifestyle choices.
That would be what it would take to make the example analogous.
Commenting by HaloScan
