Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

whatwhat wrote:Yeh.

Like me and everyone else in europe putting up with high fuel prices, only being able to afford small engined cars, paying higher taxes on fuel deficient cars. All for the sake of global warming and lowering fuel consumption only to find that american mothers are just throwing all the effort away by doing the school run in an suv. Their not arrogant at all are they?

Honestly, your taking the piss. Why should I have to put up with higher taxes if america doesn't bother? What the hell does my contribution to the fuel issue do when 300million people across the pond dont even care.

Frazzled wrote:

whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.

Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.

We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?

And that's not arrogant either right?

We kicked you to the curb to get you to quit telling us what to do. Why should I care what you do now? My state is larger than your country. My commute is 84 miles daily. What you do and whether or not you are blindly stupid enough to tax yourselves to death is not my concern. Its a regressive tax and its stupid.

Edit: time for some of my favorite images

Frazzled wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Yeh.

Like me and everyone else in europe putting up with high fuel prices, only being able to afford small engined cars, paying higher taxes on fuel deficient cars. All for the sake of global warming and lowering fuel consumption only to find that american mothers are just throwing all the effort away by doing the school run in an suv. Their not arrogant at all are they?

Honestly, your taking the piss. Why should I have to put up with higher taxes if america doesn't bother? What the hell does my contribution to the fuel issue do when 300million people across the pond dont even care.

Frazzled wrote:

whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.

Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.

We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?

And that's not arrogant either right?

We kicked you to the curb to get you to tell us what to do. Why should I care what you do now? My state is larger than your country. My commute is 84 miles daily. What you do and whether or not you are blindly stupid enough to tax yourselves to death is not my concern.

Grizgrin, perhaps you might want to reserve the shouts of arrogant to posts like that.

grizgrin wrote:This is funny. There are people in this thread who actually have the sheer, unadulterated gall to think that they know what's best for everyone in a country of 300 million people. To think that they know what everyone needs, and what everyone warrants.

I actually can see gorgon's point of view. There is sense and thought going into the opinions there, and I say that because he does not apply his logic to "everyone". But for those who are saying that "everyone" should do this, or "no one" needs that? Wow. The arrogance is straight out of an Imperial slogan.

I will CERTAINLY concede that not everyone needs an SUV. Absolutely. But to say that no one needs one is to presume to know the needs of everyone. If you can do that, m'fren, you should be in the world domination business; you'd do ok.

But by all means, continue. I can use the laugh.

I reckon it's just whatwhat that has the extreme opinions. And he may just be being imprecise with his language.
Cars contribute less to global warming than cows though. It's interesting that farmers aren't required to feed their cows in a way that causes less methane emissins.

You missed it. The EPA has let out regulations for hearing that would tax bovines due to their impact on the environment. Fart tax here we come!

January 20th.

Can't wait.

Frazzled wrote:Suporters of a higher gas tax do realize a tax on gasoline affects everyone correct? It doesn't just effect those evil SUV drivers.

You do realize that taxes on gasoline will increase the cost of transport of everything? Where do you think those costs are going to go?

You do realize that the government can craft laws and taxes with clauses in them, right. They don't have to say, "gas tax, $10". They can add clauses that allow tax credits to transportation companies. They can add clauses that add rebates where necessary. They could only add the tax to unleaded gasoline, and not diesels, which would exempt most vehicles (trains, trucks) that are used in our transportation infrastructure.

Besides, it isn't like poor people are paying for their food anyway. Green Stamps and Food Cards are already handed out by the government for those who cannot afford the essentials.

The government should be in the business of creating incentives for behaviours that they want to encourage, and disincentives for behaviours that they wish to discourage. Why are taxes on cigarettes so high? Because the government wants to discourage smoking, to avoid the costs of the health risks that cigarettes lead to. Why are there helmet and seatbelt laws? To discourage risky behaviours that incur health care costs for the public.

Well, rewarding those with efficient, safe vehicles, and discouraging those with wasteful, dangerous vehicles fits that approach. I came up with three ways to prevent this from being a regressive tax in five minutes, I would hope that the professional lawmakers would be able to figure this out.

Frazzled wrote: If we wanted England could be our 51st state too.

As if. Two weeks here with our weather and unbelievable lack of customer service and yuou'll be running home again.Crying.

Oh sweet!
There should be some interesting research on bovine intestinal micro ecology now, it's a great subject.

Hmmmmm....wonder if they'd give me a job doing that?
(Guess what? The feed to reduce methane produces tastier beef too!)

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote: If we wanted England could be our 51st state too.

As if. Two weeks here with our weather and unbelievable lack of customer service and yuou'll be running home again.Crying.

I am sure. Any country that puts beans on their eggs is a country that would be a tough nut to crack. Respect.

[quote=]

You do realize that the government can craft laws and taxes with clauses in them, right. They don't have to say, "gas tax, $10". They can add clauses that allow tax credits to transportation companies. They can add clauses that add rebates where necessary. They could only add the tax to unleaded gasoline, and not diesels, which would exempt most vehicles (trains, trucks) that are used in our transportation infrastructure.

I think both options are acceptable. It is not all about fuel efficiency/ecology as that was not really a factor when fuel taxes were first bought into the UK. The UK has higher taxes but is much more resistant to fuel price shocks - the cost of fuel went up by about 30% here as oil reached crazy prices, but in the states it more than doubled (well over 100% increase). The taxes can always be repealed giving power to the national governments over the oil companies and giving a buffer similar to an additional oil reserve. Farming and transport costs can be kept down by allowing fuel tax rebates, or (in the case of farming in the UK), selling tax free fuel which is dyed so that it can be tracked if resold to consumers. There are naturally still costs for everything that cant claim back rebates from pizza delivery to travelling salesmen so there is an increased cost to everyone, but it is not as bad as it would be if there was not the agricultural rebate.

On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for minimal taxes and a free market on fuel in that the cost of everything is reduced and people can get around much easier and in much more comfort. This is fine until there is a price shock like in the 70s and 2007/2008. I doubt fuel in the US will ever go higher than $6.00 per gallon though as at that price (with no tax), it is reasonable to synthesize fuel from pretty much anything, at a great cost to ecology. With the structural layout of large chunks of the US, around $4.00 per gallon I saw a lot of people start carpooling, driving less, buying more efficient cars and a massive surge in interest for public transport and general ecological technologies, all of which are desirable on a social scale but often not for an individual. It seems logical that as demand recovers, oil will shoot back up in price as a fairly safe speculative good, and so there will be surges in inflation for low fuel tax countries once again.

That is correct-hence the market solves the problem. But again no addresses the regressive nature of the tax.


As an OT, the concept of government reducing a non-income based tax is great, but like the unicorn, although often talked about, I've never seen a real body.

Frazzled wrote:

whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.

Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.

We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?

I wish the UK could become the 51st state. We would immediately become the most populous and wealthy state in the US.

It would make common travel agreements between Ireland and the UK sticky. Imagine the sudden tightening of security at the border in the North?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

whatwhat wrote:The Uk has lower gnp per capita, lower wages and yet we can manage fuel prices three times the price of yours. You can handle it.

Whoever it effects you need to come in line with the rest of the world and get off your high horse.

We can handle it. If we wanted England could be our 51st state too. Neither of these is desired. Whats your point?

I wish the UK could become the 51st state. We would immediately become the most populous and wealthy state in the US.

And thus subject to even more taxes

Da Boss wrote:It would make common travel agreements between Ireland and the UK sticky. Imagine the sudden tightening of security at the border in the North?

Sounds good, I'll move to ireland then.

whatwhat wrote:

Da Boss wrote:It would make common travel agreements between Ireland and the UK sticky. Imagine the sudden tightening of security at the border in the North?

Sounds good, I'll move to ireland then.

Travel between the USA and Canada isn't hard.

Your right, france is a better option. Who would have thought it.

Da Boss wrote:Chaos Dave: More oil for everyone, less greenhouse gasses and dioxins for everyone. Sorta win win.
I was able to run a national livestock survey out of the back of a nissan micra, I reckon most cars have more space than people realise most of the time.

That said there are places and situations where a 4WD is needed. But urban areas are not it.

Well the sooner we burn through the oil the sooner we will be forced to use alternative fuels. Isn't that a win win for everyone? Also more green house gasses cause plants to grow faster, more c02 means better crops and more food for everyone, faster tree growth and forest replacement etc etc. Aren't these win wins also?

Oh I know you are concerned about the new global warming religion. The fact is it's just a method of control, its a scheme to advance global socialism by forcing people to pay more for energy, food and other necessities. Lets look at the "indicators" of global warming: First its average global temperature, one would think that it would be going up correct? Not true, in fact it hasn't increased in over a decade. http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature . Oh then its got to be ice melt cooling right? Oh noes the Polar bears are running out of ice. Not true again, the amount of polar ice is the same as it was in 1979 http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 . Oh I know it's the IPCC model ( the standard by which the UN and everyone is basing the entire global warming myth on) that we need to look at to predict what global warming does. Oops Lord Monckton debunks that http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/22/p28023. So whats left? In the absence of actual fact the only thing left is faith in Global warming, therefore it's Global warming is a religion and you have to have faith to believe in it.

ChaosDave wrote: Lets look at the "indicators" of global warming.

Nah, lets not.

ChaosDave you are a heretic. Report to your local purging office immediately, for your "re-education."

Chaos Dave: Save your breath. I think global warming is a fact. My training and education lead me to conclude that it is probably happening. I can't predict what it will lead to, but I don't feel it is a good thing.

If you cherry pick your information you end up believing all sorts of rubbish.

Edit: I could get more into the argument but I get the distinct impression you've made up your mind.

Lets assume global warning is correct. What does that have to do with taxing the poor? Wouldn't our efforts be better spent on developing a hydrogen based economy with reactors/hydroelectric power? If its really a big deal we should be daming every waterway in the world to generate power and using that power for electric/hydrogen transport. Oil would be reserved for petchems only.

Da Boss wrote:Chaos Dave: Save your breath. I think global warming is a fact. My training and education lead me to conclude that it is probably happening. I can't predict what it will lead to, but I don't feel it is a good thing.

If you cherry pick your information you end up believing all sorts of rubbish.

Edit: I could get more into the argument but I get the distinct impression you've made up your mind.

Everything you just said can be said about the argument for global warming. The entire premise of man made global warming is based on a "cherry picking" of just a few published papers. There are just as many or even more published papers that contradict it and actually have indicators that back the thesis. Yet you choose to "cherry pick" what you want to believe instead of real facts.

Frazzled: I agree entirely with what you said. I'm totally on board with that.
My argument is mostly about efficient cars being better, which hasn't much to do with the tax issue.
I'd be alright with the tax increases too, probably. But I can see the arguments against it. I'd prefer to see proper action by the governments of the world instead of yet another way to get money, but the tax is at least a nod towards the existence of the issue.

Da Boss wrote:another way to get money, but the tax is at least a nod towards the existence of the issue.

I see it solely as a scam by Big Brother to get more money under any guise possible.

Haven't you already made your views on that clear enough?

You're free not to read the thread any further whatwhat.

I know that.

ChaosDave wrote:. There are just as many or even more published papers that contradict it and actually have indicators that back the thesis. Yet you choose to "cherry pick" what you want to believe instead of real facts.

Actually I don't think there are as man y or even more papers etc arguing against climate change ( not global warming). I appreciate there are scientists out there who don't agree, but from all I've read and seen the majority of scientists do believe that the climate is changing and mankind is, at least a partial, cause of this.

I am highly intertained by your definition of "real facts" as well.

Every paper/similar I've seen put forward de-bunking or arguing against climate change/ozone layer holes/cause of the week, has been just as easily debunked or refuted back.

What I do find highly interesting-- and this isn't directed at anyone who has posted here I hasten to add-- is the cries of martydom or greater insight those who profess to disbelieve display. Frequently to the point of daftness if not outright stupidity.

Just to clarify a few achingly obvious points : No, greenhouse gases don't help plants grow as plants also need water which tends to be lost in hot areas, and of course many plants don't grow well in high temperatures.

More CO2 does not mean better planmts and food for everyone, any more than floding helps plants grow as they like water.

And regardless how fast trees grow, we 're still cutting them down faster. Just look at the pictures of the Amazon rainforest from satellites.

With regards to the above links:

1. The one from Newstatesman : An intersting article, that's quite famous (in the UK anyway).

I notice you didn't link to the follow up article in the same publication which pretty much demolishes the entire thing

Please note the quote

Every qualified scientific body in the world, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the Royal Society, agrees unequivocally that global warming is both a reality, and caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

All that said, yes, I am sure Govts. across the world will/do use this as an excuse to raise more tax revenue. Perhaps if we didn't waste so much on bloated military budgets and pointless wars in countries where we're not wanted or needed they wouldn't ned to. But I'm sure people have never ben harassed or hounded for, say, speaking up against a war that has ben proven to be a financially ridiculous and has failed to achieve many of the (many) stated aims.

A tax on gas does unfairly penalise many poorer people, for example tehy frequently can't live close to where they work or lack public transport facilities. I don't see a huge movement to raise income tax instead though.