Trump Likes Lower Gas Prices

[Revoltingest]

Yes, actually I do.
My rent kept going up because the real estate market was. My parents home value kept going up because the residential real estate market was exploding in value.
Yeah, actually I do know what was happening. You are wrong.
Tom

You rented a unit.
Your parents have a house.
And this makes you an expert in a field you don't even work in?
I saw a bigger picture because I owned & managed many houses & commercial properties at the time.

I'm reluctant to be so harsh in dissing your extremely limited experience, but
dang, guy.....you just keep removing all doubt with such vitriol & sanctimony.

 

[Nakosis]

Their payroll taxes are significant, & could be reduced or eliminated.
I've never been a fan of those anyway.

Me either, but I think the truth is there's not enough rich folks to carry the burden of government.

The more people (rich or poor) who use less fuel the better.
This would result from a host of things, eg, carpooling, more efficient
vehicles, public transportation, reducing unnecessary trips.

Higher gas prices isn't going to affect rich folks. Not enough to change their driving habits. In fact they probably already have a tax write-off for it.

 

[columbus]

Yes, actually I do.
My rent kept going up because the real estate market was. My parents home value kept going up because the residential real estate market was exploding in value.
Yeah, actually I do know what was happening. You are wrong.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Me either, but I think the truth is there's not enough rich folks to carry the burden of government.

The burden of government will be carried simply because government always continues.
There are bumps in the road now & then, but they always find a way to get the revenue
needed to cover expenses (eventually). So our issue in this thread is how to use fuel
tax to become a bigger percentage of the revenue stream.

Higher gas prices isn't going to affect rich folks. Not enough to change their driving habits. In fact they probably already have a tax write-off for it.

And they'll pay thru the nose if they use a lot of fuel (subidizing the rest of us).
But of the wealthy people I know, they're not more wasteful in their driving habits than others.

How do they write it off?

 

[columbus]

You rented a unit.
Your parents have a house.
And this makes you an expert in a field you don't even work in?

Yeah, actually, I made a lot of money during the real estate boom. From 2002 to 2006, approximately, business was good.

The trade mags were all about how to cash in on the real estate market. It was not just me. It was the whole market.

Sorry if your corner of Revoltingestan missed out. Maybe you should have picked better tenants or something. Que sera, sera.
Tom

 

[Nakosis]

The burden of government will be carried simply because government always continues.
There are bumps in the road now & then, but they always find a way to get the revenue
needed to cover expenses (eventually). So our issue in this thread is how to use fuel
tax to become a bigger percentage of the revenue stream.

Yes, government always finds a way. However why should government decrease the tax burden in some other way? Why decrease the revenue, ever?
Business can at least pay for lobbyists.

And they'll pay thru the nose if they use a lot of fuel (subidizing the rest of us).
But of the wealthy people I know, they're not more wasteful in their driving habits than others.

How do they write it off?

Business expense. Politicians especially got it made as they just get the tax payer to pay for their gas. Politicians could increase gas taxes 1000 times and it wouldn't affect them.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/06/29/california-gas-tax-cards/

 

[Quetzal]

Then you're misreading
I didn't propose an overall cut in taxes.

That would be silly anyway if it isn't coupled with equal cuts to spending. But that is another discussion entirely.

 

[Revoltingest]

That would be silly anyway if it isn't coupled with equal cuts to spending. But that is another discussion entirely.

Right.
I like a balanced budget, so even though I'd like lower overall taxes, this isn't the time to do it.
Think better taxation, rather than less for now.
That's the theme driving my fuel tax proposal.
(And propane is another matter entirely.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, government always finds a way. However why should government decrease the tax burden in some other way? Why decrease the revenue, ever?

They should decrease revenue when they can cut the cost of government.
But I don't expect to see the latter in my lifetime.
Government tends to grow.

Business expense. Politicians especially got it made as they just get the tax payer to pay for their gas. Politicians could increase gas taxes 1000 times and it wouldn't affect them.

Business expenses don't apply to personal use.
But looking at big trucks on the highway, they do much to save fuel costs, deductability notwithstanding.
So the conservation incentive still works.
As for government waste, a fuel tax would have less effect on the fed.
Ain't no solution perfect.

 

[Nakosis]

They should decrease revenue when they can cut the cost of government.
But I don't expect to see the latter in my lifetime.
Government tends to grow.

Exactly. Idealistically you're correct and it's all good.

Business expenses don't apply to personal use.
But looking at big trucks on the highway, they do much to save fuel costs, deductability notwithstanding.
So the conservation incentive still works.
As for government waste, a fuel tax would have less effect on the fed.
Ain't no solution perfect.

Smart folks can make it all about business. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Well actually I don't trust the government with tax money. Probably drives my criticism more than anything else.

 

[BSM1]

Business expense. Politicians especially got it made as they just get the tax payer to pay for their gas. Politicians could increase gas taxes 1000 times and it wouldn't affect them.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/06/29/california-gas-tax-cards/

I'm sure you haven't realize that if bona fide business expenses (costs to produce goods and services) were not deductible, then the price of everything you buy would increase proportionately.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm sure you haven't realize that if bona fide business expenses (costs to produce goods and services) were not deductible, then the price of everything you buy would increase proportionately.

Sure, I'm not against it. Otherwise poor folks would be hit again having to pay those additional costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Smart folks can make it all about business. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Well actually I don't trust the government with tax money. Probably drives my criticism more than anything else.

As one who has survived several IRS audits, I can assure you that one dare
not go too far. I had no such problems, but that's something they'll look at.
But people can cheat any system, eg, buying off road (tax free) diesel fuel
for trucks & cars. Don't get caught.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, I'm not against it. Otherwise poor folks would be hit again having to pay those additional costs.

To succeed politically, my proposal would have to address concerns
of the poor. If not done as I propose, something else would be needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I should note something of great concern.
Anyone who disagrees with me is supporting Trump.
Hah!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Trump praises record-low July 4th gas prices

I say this is bad public policy because it encourages big government.
Why?
Low prices discourage conservation, wasting resources, & making us more dependent upon
foreign sources. That has traditionally been addressed by regulation (CAFE standards for
automakers).
I'd prefer a fuel tax, one which can fluctuate to make pump prices stable & regularly increasing.
(Regular increases prevent comlacency.) This would provide revenue, & let the market drive
conservation...resulting in less government regulation & potentially better results.

Now, fellow posters, please attack me.
Show no mercy!

I'd put up with higher prices if it meant not funneling funds to Saudi Arabia. So perhaps we're allies of convenience?
Also, my fashion sense is well below average.
I can try and make it worse, of course, so we're more aligned.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd put up with higher prices if it meant not funneling funds to Saudi Arabia. So perhaps we're allies of convenience?

That addresses the militarily strategic value of energy independence.
When trouble breaks out, tis dangerous if a depended upon foreign
source dries up.

Also, my fashion sense is well below average.
I can try and make it worse, of course, so we're more aligned.

It will take time, thought & effort, my young padawan.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What I find odd about Trump is that he's taking credit for a lot of Obama's accomplishments.

Obama didn't accomplish much.

 

[idav]

Obama didn't accomplish much.

Then what is all that stuff Trumps trying to undo?

 

[Stevicus]

That addresses the militarily strategic value of energy independence.
When trouble breaks out, tis dangerous if a depended upon foreign
source dries up.

I would say that this is true about everything that we import, which is why we (as a nation) should not grow too heavily dependent on foreign imports, no matter what they are or where they come from.