[blahblahblah]

New Balance shoes are very popular among a certain demographic.

[blahblahblah]

New Balance shoes are very popular among a certain demographic.

[blahblahblah]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

Here in the US, the demand curve for gasoline is fairly inelastic. Ditto for cigarettes, among that portion of the market that is seriously addicted (doesn’t include casual smokers). People will beg/borrow/steal the money to purchase essentials, and gasoline is definitely one of those. Have cigarette taxes discouraged consumption? Probably among new or potential smokers, definitely. Among the seriously addicted? I’m guessing not as effective (but I could be wrong).

Increasing gas taxes could help cut down on unnecessary trips; we did see that happen last summer when prices went very high. However, people must still travel to and from their jobs and to the grocery store/etc… A drastic increase in fuel taxes could spur more people to carpool for these kind of trips, and that could be a good thing.

I stand corrected — looks I misspoke about gasoline taxes in the US. I just looked them up here, and I am quite surprised just how low they are here. This wiki page does mention that high fuel taxes have been helpful in reducing consumption in Europe; however, many European countries have much more developed public transport systems than the US does, so people can opt to use that instead. Fewer people here will be able to use public transport, at least until it is developed.

I’m not against these taxes in principle, it’s just that we already spend more than we take in. Adding new taxes without drastically reducing spending or even limiting what that revenue may be spent on is a bad idea IMO. If they could be put in a special fund that would only be used for public transport, wind/solar/biomass, new nuclear plants, etc… I would support it. But of course they won’t do that, they’ll just give it to their criminal buddies on Wall street and use it to make more bombs to drop on people.

[blahblahblah]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

Here in the US, the demand curve for gasoline is fairly inelastic. Ditto for cigarettes, among that portion of the market that is seriously addicted (doesn’t include casual smokers). People will beg/borrow/steal the money to purchase essentials, and gasoline is definitely one of those. Have cigarette taxes discouraged consumption? Probably among new or potential smokers, definitely. Among the seriously addicted? I’m guessing not as effective (but I could be wrong).

Increasing gas taxes could help cut down on unnecessary trips; we did see that happen last summer when prices went very high. However, people must still travel to and from their jobs and to the grocery store/etc… A drastic increase in fuel taxes could spur more people to carpool for these kind of trips, and that could be a good thing.

I stand corrected — looks I misspoke about gasoline taxes in the US. I just looked them up here, and I am quite surprised just how low they are here. This wiki page does mention that high fuel taxes have been helpful in reducing consumption in Europe; however, many European countries have much more developed public transport systems than the US does, so people can opt to use that instead. Fewer people here will be able to use public transport, at least until it is developed.

I’m not against these taxes in principle, it’s just that we already spend more than we take in. Adding new taxes without drastically reducing spending or even limiting what that revenue may be spent on is a bad idea IMO. If they could be put in a special fund that would only be used for public transport, wind/solar/biomass, new nuclear plants, etc… I would support it. But of course they won’t do that, they’ll just give it to their criminal buddies on Wall street and use it to make more bombs to drop on people.

[blahblahblah]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

Here in the US, the demand curve for gasoline is fairly inelastic. Ditto for cigarettes, among that portion of the market that is seriously addicted (doesn’t include casual smokers). People will beg/borrow/steal the money to purchase essentials, and gasoline is definitely one of those. Have cigarette taxes discouraged consumption? Probably among new or potential smokers, definitely. Among the seriously addicted? I’m guessing not as effective (but I could be wrong).

Increasing gas taxes could help cut down on unnecessary trips; we did see that happen last summer when prices went very high. However, people must still travel to and from their jobs and to the grocery store/etc… A drastic increase in fuel taxes could spur more people to carpool for these kind of trips, and that could be a good thing.

I stand corrected — looks I misspoke about gasoline taxes in the US. I just looked them up here, and I am quite surprised just how low they are here. This wiki page does mention that high fuel taxes have been helpful in reducing consumption in Europe; however, many European countries have much more developed public transport systems than the US does, so people can opt to use that instead. Fewer people here will be able to use public transport, at least until it is developed.

I’m not against these taxes in principle, it’s just that we already spend more than we take in. Adding new taxes without drastically reducing spending or even limiting what that revenue may be spent on is a bad idea IMO. If they could be put in a special fund that would only be used for public transport, wind/solar/biomass, new nuclear plants, etc… I would support it. But of course they won’t do that, they’ll just give it to their criminal buddies on Wall street and use it to make more bombs to drop on people.

[blahblahblah]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

Here in the US, the demand curve for gasoline is fairly inelastic. Ditto for cigarettes, among that portion of the market that is seriously addicted (doesn’t include casual smokers). People will beg/borrow/steal the money to purchase essentials, and gasoline is definitely one of those. Have cigarette taxes discouraged consumption? Probably among new or potential smokers, definitely. Among the seriously addicted? I’m guessing not as effective (but I could be wrong).

Increasing gas taxes could help cut down on unnecessary trips; we did see that happen last summer when prices went very high. However, people must still travel to and from their jobs and to the grocery store/etc… A drastic increase in fuel taxes could spur more people to carpool for these kind of trips, and that could be a good thing.

I stand corrected — looks I misspoke about gasoline taxes in the US. I just looked them up here, and I am quite surprised just how low they are here. This wiki page does mention that high fuel taxes have been helpful in reducing consumption in Europe; however, many European countries have much more developed public transport systems than the US does, so people can opt to use that instead. Fewer people here will be able to use public transport, at least until it is developed.

I’m not against these taxes in principle, it’s just that we already spend more than we take in. Adding new taxes without drastically reducing spending or even limiting what that revenue may be spent on is a bad idea IMO. If they could be put in a special fund that would only be used for public transport, wind/solar/biomass, new nuclear plants, etc… I would support it. But of course they won’t do that, they’ll just give it to their criminal buddies on Wall street and use it to make more bombs to drop on people.

[blahblahblah]

Taxes don’t stop consumption?

When did they repeal the law of supply and demand?

cigarette taxes have been instrumental in cutting smoking, there is a lot of data on that….

And do you care to list what part of a gallon of gas is taxes?

Here in the US, the demand curve for gasoline is fairly inelastic. Ditto for cigarettes, among that portion of the market that is seriously addicted (doesn’t include casual smokers). People will beg/borrow/steal the money to purchase essentials, and gasoline is definitely one of those. Have cigarette taxes discouraged consumption? Probably among new or potential smokers, definitely. Among the seriously addicted? I’m guessing not as effective (but I could be wrong).

Increasing gas taxes could help cut down on unnecessary trips; we did see that happen last summer when prices went very high. However, people must still travel to and from their jobs and to the grocery store/etc… A drastic increase in fuel taxes could spur more people to carpool for these kind of trips, and that could be a good thing.

I stand corrected — looks I misspoke about gasoline taxes in the US. I just looked them up here, and I am quite surprised just how low they are here. This wiki page does mention that high fuel taxes have been helpful in reducing consumption in Europe; however, many European countries have much more developed public transport systems than the US does, so people can opt to use that instead. Fewer people here will be able to use public transport, at least until it is developed.

I’m not against these taxes in principle, it’s just that we already spend more than we take in. Adding new taxes without drastically reducing spending or even limiting what that revenue may be spent on is a bad idea IMO. If they could be put in a special fund that would only be used for public transport, wind/solar/biomass, new nuclear plants, etc… I would support it. But of course they won’t do that, they’ll just give it to their criminal buddies on Wall street and use it to make more bombs to drop on people.

[blahblahblah]

All we’re left with is are the fondle memories.

Heeeee hee! Everyone pour out a little Jesus Juice for our dead homey MJ.

It’s not commonly known, but the real MJ died years ago.

[blahblahblah]

All we’re left with is are the fondle memories.

Heeeee hee! Everyone pour out a little Jesus Juice for our dead homey MJ.

It’s not commonly known, but the real MJ died years ago.

[blahblahblah]

All we’re left with is are the fondle memories.

Heeeee hee! Everyone pour out a little Jesus Juice for our dead homey MJ.

It’s not commonly known, but the real MJ died years ago.

[blahblahblah]

All we’re left with is are the fondle memories.

Heeeee hee! Everyone pour out a little Jesus Juice for our dead homey MJ.

It’s not commonly known, but the real MJ died years ago.

[blahblahblah]

All we’re left with is are the fondle memories.

Heeeee hee! Everyone pour out a little Jesus Juice for our dead homey MJ.

It’s not commonly known, but the real MJ died years ago.

[blahblahblah]

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) “Carbon credits” “Carbon taxes”, “cap&trade”, etc… are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people’s fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The “carbon tax” has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don’t actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is “doing something” about the problem. Meanwhile they’ll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc…

And they’ll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like “weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!” No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they’ll claim victory, if it gets hotter they’ll claim victory. Just like “global warming” has morphed into “global climate change.”

[blahblahblah]

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) “Carbon credits” “Carbon taxes”, “cap&trade”, etc… are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people’s fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The “carbon tax” has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don’t actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is “doing something” about the problem. Meanwhile they’ll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc…

And they’ll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like “weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!” No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they’ll claim victory, if it gets hotter they’ll claim victory. Just like “global warming” has morphed into “global climate change.”

[blahblahblah]

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) “Carbon credits” “Carbon taxes”, “cap&trade”, etc… are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people’s fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The “carbon tax” has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don’t actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is “doing something” about the problem. Meanwhile they’ll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc…

And they’ll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like “weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!” No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they’ll claim victory, if it gets hotter they’ll claim victory. Just like “global warming” has morphed into “global climate change.”

[Author]

Posts