Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2009 > January > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWhy abandon the gasoline tax?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The state of Oregon is toying with the remarkably stupid idea of trying to tax people for transportation based on how many miles they drive. The idea is to use that new tax revenue to replace the traditional per-gallon gasoline tax, which taxes people based on how much gasoline they consume.
“A state task force will look at equipping every new vehicle in the state with a Global Positioning System tracking device to quietly record every mile driven and where…. The plan still requires legislative endorsement, and the full details could take several more years to work out, but state analysts said the governor’s endorsement is a crucial step on a road many states are beginning to travel —- ending dependence on the gasoline tax.
‘This is a way to try to develop a fair funding mechanism that we’re going to have to have if we’re going to be aggressive in terms of looking at electric cars and hybrids and plug-ins and all those options, and at the same time continue to invest in our roads and infrastructure,’ said Rem Nivens, the governor’s deputy communications director.”
As the story suggests, the Oregon approach reflects a growing national disenchantment with the gasoline tax as a source of revenue. I’ve heard Georgia DOT Commissioner Gena Evans, for example, also speak favorably if theoretically about the idea of taxing by miles traveled instead of by gallons consumed. The fascination with tolls as a financing method for transportation is also motivated at least in part by that aversion to the gasoline tax.
But that makes no sense to me. For one thing, collecting revenue through a gasoline tax requires very little infrastructure or government bureaucracy, and no inconvenience to the motorist. It is simple and straightforward. By contrast, collecting revenue through tolls or a massive GPS-monitoring system is far more intrusive, complicated and expensive. (Do we really need to attach GPS systems to our cars so government can track our every move? Does the concept of privacy have no meaning any more?)
Second, the problem that Oregon is trying to address is that under the current gasoline tax, people who drive hybrids and other high-mileage vehicles will pay less in taxes than people who drive gas hogs. But that doesn’t sound like a problem to be solved; quite the contrary, it sounds like a solution to be encouraged.
Energy-wasting vehicles ought to be taxed higher, because they impose more external costs such as forcing us to import more oil and contribute more to air pollution and global warming. Using taxes to discourage energy inefficiency is a good idea, not a bad one.
Now, if all-electric cars ever become a major part of our transportation infrastructure, some kind of mileage-based tax might conceivably be necessary. But that’s a long, long way into the future. I see no reason whatsoever to abandon the gasoline tax.
As another writer recently put it:
“…. the virtues of a gas tax remain what they have always been. A tax that suppresses U.S. gas consumption can have a major effect on reducing world oil prices. And the benefits of low world oil prices are obvious: They put tremendous pressure on OPEC, as evidenced by its disarray during the current collapse; they deal serious economic damage to energy-exporting geopolitical adversaries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran; and they reduce the enormous U.S. imbalance of oil trade which last year alone diverted a quarter of $1 trillion abroad Furthermore, a reduction in U.S. demand alters the balance of power between producer and consumer, making us less dependent on oil exporters. It begins weaning us off foreign oil, and, if combined with nuclear power and renewed U.S. oil and gas drilling, puts us on the road to energy independence.”
That writer is the conservative Charles Krauthammer, in the current issue of the conservative Weekly Standard, proposing a $1 increase in the federal gasoline tax with the revenue used to reduce federal payroll taxes.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By JAY BOOKMAN
January 5, 2009 1:41 PM | Link to this
I only posted this so Management gets two NEW off-topic opportunities.
By ByteMe
January 5, 2009 1:47 PM | Link to this
Jay, if you acknowledge that he exists, the terrorists win.
By Abomi Nation
January 5, 2009 1:47 PM | Link to this
I think Democrats have completely lost their minds.
The Oregon tax on mileage is just plain stupid. The Obama tax cut and stimulus plan will do nothing but cause more harm.
This country is in deep and serious danger, soon we will realize Bush wasn’t our only idiot.
By Morningside
January 5, 2009 1:48 PM | Link to this
Ha Ha..good one Jay.
This should have a grand effect on the hospitality industry, among other things. Another genius (sarc) idea! Weeel, think I’ll rethink that vacation since I’ll be penalized……
Beware! Big brother is watching you! They are watching your vacations, your trips to the corner grocery, your bedroom (bah humbug).
By Davo
January 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Link to this
“I only posted this so Management gets two NEW off-topic opportunities.”
I will be interesting to see how far pandering to your antagonist will get you, Jay.
By RW-(the original)
January 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this
I tend to agree with this column excluding the little reference to anthropogenic global warming being a factual reality, but I don’t understand why you think an embedded tax on gas is a much easier way to collect taxes and fund government services when you so vehemently oppose it when it comes to all goods and services through the FairTax.
By Paul
January 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this
Well, I was going to say I’d get it out of the way and note this idea comes from Oregon, a decidedly liberal state run by Democrats, but Obomi Nation makes the point.
Jay, I agree with you and with Krauthammer. Strange bedfellows, eh? But this is about politicians’ objections to the gas tax - they have to go on record to increase it. Cowardice and political self-preservation rule.
We’ve already seen local authorities convert already-paid-for roads to toll roads. It’s about the money. Seems to always get back to that - money or power. Or both.
By Abomi Nation
January 5, 2009 1:55 PM | Link to this
I don’t usually stick up for AJC/DNC Management but he sure seems to always get the last laugh, and for the most part rules this blog.
Kudos AJC/DNC Management, well played.
By Midori
January 5, 2009 2:08 PM | Link to this
I can certainly understand why you feel that way Abomi — as you sound just like him.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
January 5, 2009 2:32 PM | Link to this
In my opinion a mileage tax is a truly stupid idea. The more you drive, the more fuel you burn, the more tax you pay. Same difference. I wonder if some of the companies that make GPS units are pushing this idea behind the scenes?
By ByteMe
January 5, 2009 2:32 PM | Link to this
RW: too easy. If you accept the premise that taxing gas would decrease consumption (a good thing) and I think your statement makes it clear that you do, then the “Fair Tax” taxing ALL consumable goods and services would do what to consumption of all goods and services? Since 70% of GDP comes from consumers consuming, can you say “depression”?
It’s easy enough to apply a tax to a small segment of the economy and watch the effect, but to attach it to the entire economy and hope it works out in the end is not a good strategy.
By RealityKing
January 5, 2009 2:38 PM | Link to this
Gas taxes mostly burden the poor..
By mm
January 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this
All taxes burden the poor. Hey Reality King, have you finally figured out why people in the low salary range pay no income tax?
By Joey
January 5, 2009 2:59 PM | Link to this
Jay, there is a slight tick in your Enviormentalist conversion.
Soon after President Obama takes office the purchase and use of high-gas-consumtion vehicles will decline. In 2-3 years fossil fuel consumption by personal vehicles will be nearing zero as drivers choose to use electric and other alternative fuel vehicles.
(The goal is energy independence, right. But we can’t count on the tax from ethanol fuels distilled from pine tops because subsidies to that industry will consume much more than any tax generated.)
This means the fuel tax collections will net out near zero. But roads will still be used and must be constructed and maintained. In fact large portions of Democrats Economic Recovery Progrom will be road and bridge construction.
But with little or no fossil fuel being consumed by these vehicles, available tax funds will be almost nil.
So Democrats must have the ability to collect taxes in other areas. Like, Miles driven. With a premium on the time of day you drive. And another premium if the area is congested. These new taxes will become major sources of tax income.
Plus the added benefit of now the Feds know exactly where you are and where you have been.
If you don’t like your car being tracked by the Feds, you can ride public transit. But you will have to use computer cards for tickets. Which of course will also track your destinations.
We will be as free as bird.
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 3:11 PM | Link to this
Here’s Why
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
And to think our Revolution started over a tea tax. Our founding fathers would sure see us as wimps.
By Dusty
January 5, 2009 3:11 PM | Link to this
mm 2:47
Right. People in low salary range pay no taxes. Not INCOME taxes.
But the big companies that deliver food supplies and every other kind of supplies in trucks pay taxes; gasoline besides income tax. Any cost increase that happens is added to the price the “poor” pay at the store for what was delivered.
So the poor, like everybody else, pay for gas tax whether they know it or not. Whether they drive or not.
I guess it has a name. Deferred taxes?
By AF
January 5, 2009 3:18 PM | Link to this
Jay, for heavens sake don’t say you agree with Krauthammer He may have a valid point or two, but for the most part he is a Repugnican apologist and can’t get past the last century in thought.
And, I don’t think he is right on gas taxes. Tax gas guzzlers now, not gasoline; tax them at point of purchase, resale, and annually. All that Krauthammer says needs to be accomplished can be accomplished if we tax the guzzlers and reward the owners of fuel efficient cars.
Lets have those contributing to the problem be penalized and lets not penalize those contributing to the solution.
By getalife
January 5, 2009 3:21 PM | Link to this
I only posted this so Management gets two NEW off-topic opportunities.
Ha, he does tend to ramble on.
Another assault on freedom and listening to gop hacks is another terrible idea.
By mm
January 5, 2009 3:28 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
Please enlighten me as to how people in low salary ranges pay no taxes at all.
I stated they pay no income tax. They pay taxes on everything The Corporal mentioned above.
Are we in agreement or are you saying the sky is green?
By AJC/DNC Management
January 5, 2009 3:31 PM | Link to this
I appreciate the reload.
Bad idea on the gas tax, it is one that gets spread across all other essential industries, it is factored in as a cost for food, clothing, energy, government and any other entity that uses transportation. In other words it disproportionately affects the poor, whether they drive or not.
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 3:33 PM | Link to this
Liberalism is another way of saying spread the misery around.
By Redneck Convert
January 5, 2009 3:34 PM | Link to this
Well, I might of knowed the city slickers would come up with some way to increase our taxes. The city people get to take MARTA or walk to work without having one of them GPS things on them. Us good folk that live out in the country and need to drive alot of miles to get to and from work end up paying thru the nose. Pretty soon some guvmint worker would be blabbering about how often I go to Billy Bob’s for a beer or three or four.
It’s another commie scheme, is what it is. First they tell us to cut down on gas use and put a tax on it. Now they want to tax us more if we drive alot. And keep tabs on where we go, to boot. Next thing I know some guvmint worker will be in my bedroom. Good thing I’m too old for him to see anything worth watching.
By RW-(the original)
January 5, 2009 3:39 PM | Link to this
ByteMe,
Did you just polish off the last of the season’s eggnog before you built your little strawman argument? I said that Jay was making the claim that an embedded tax on gas is an easier way to collect that money and I agree that it is.
The current taxes on gas didn’t have anything to do with lowering demand nor did I say they did.
By Road Scholar
January 5, 2009 3:42 PM | Link to this
One point missed in the mileage tax by GPS is, that you not only get location and mileage, but you get time of day of use and speeds! The time of day could lead to a congestion assessment. That is, during peak usage (congestion) you pay a higher rate to “alleviate” congestion(higher rate discourages use (less congestion)). The distance versus time/duration provides speeds. Enforcement? perhaps. Probably not; it would be used to graduate the per mile cost based on relative congestion.
Also a point missed is how do you assess/pay a tax on out of state or non- sensored vehicles? Standards would need to be adpoted by all states or, at least, the auto industry, to be able to tax in different states.
With toll roads only those routes with toll sensors/booths (ie SR 400 IP) are taxed. This would allow the use of ALL roads to be taxed.
Finally when do you pay the bill? Monthly? Yearly? When you buy gasoline or get serviced?
Personnaly right now the gas tax seems the fairest. If you use it you pay based on usage If you have a clunker or SUV you pay more. If you have a hybrid, you pay less, but aren’t you reducing your emissions of noxious fumes? If they get an electric car, you don’t pay at all, except when you plug in your vehicle (put a sales tax on that!)
A funding solution is needed immediately not only to address our transportation needs, but to stimulate the economy, and create jobs. Waiting on the spineless legislature to prolong the sales tax by region idea is a waste of time. Also the Gov’s idea of bonding a $1 Billion only gets us back to where we are today. A GDOT with debt service and bond payments of 1/5th its annual budget being paid for with future money, which may not be there. A federal gas tax increase is also needed.
I know the “No Tax Increase” people are getting ready to scream. But instead of complaining and threatening, what is your solution to raise more money for infrastructure replacement, improvement and expansion? How would you pay for it? And remember, Shrubs check book is overdrawn! Trickle down hasn’t worked, esp for transportation programs.
By Dusty
January 5, 2009 3:47 PM | Link to this
Dear mm,
I was saying that poor people pay increased costs on goods they buy. I don’t believe that is called a tax increase. It is the result of a tax incrase. Nothing new about that. Just thought I would mention it. AJC/DNC said it better @3:31
No, the sky is gray today, Grumpy. You too?
By Taxpayer
January 5, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this
Corporal,
That list of yours. Just for the record, Republicans refer to those as Fees — not taxes. Republicans are opposed to taxes. Well, except some Republicans. Some of them even support other forms of taxation such as the ever-popular Deferred Tax — a true Bush legacy in the rough. There will be just trillions of reasons for historians to kick that one around for years to come.
Jay,
I must say that I never before (today) realized just how much you care for Andy. (Andy, you should consider yourself a very fortunate person.) If anyone else were in need of a thread due to their shortage of Off Topics, would you so readily accommodate them.
You alternative tax scheme supporters,
There is no such thing as a fair tax. It’s FairTax[TM]. Got it. You don’t want Boortz or that nutty politician that co-authored that piece of crap legislation and book to come after you, do you?
By mm
January 5, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
Thanks for the clarification. Not grumpy, just bewildered that you discussed an issue without using the words Bush, Iraq, and Safe.
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 4:06 PM | Link to this
I guess all you liberals just like paying taxes.
By Bosch
January 5, 2009 4:14 PM | Link to this
Paul!
JANUARY 16TH!!!
JANUARY 16TH!!!
What were we talking about?
By Dusty
January 5, 2009 4:17 PM | Link to this
Dear mm,@3:57
You are bewildered. Bush, Iraq and Safe are the words you use for propaganda. I only use them in sane discussions. I believe taxes were being discussed here. Did you forget?
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 4:17 PM | Link to this
Tax revenue should always be bare bones and below the minimum needed.
It helps to prevent waste, abuse, pork barrell spending and corruption.
If one doesn’t have enough of anything, one will use or dispense it much more wisely.
By Dusty
January 5, 2009 4:19 PM | Link to this
bosch is on codeine cough medicine AGAIN.
By Bosch
January 5, 2009 4:24 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
Something VERY important to Paul and I will occur on January 16th. You wouldn’t understand.
By cranky old man
January 5, 2009 4:25 PM | Link to this
Taking the miles driven makes no sense, for the reasons Jay already stated. Also, less fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be heavier, and heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the roads. So shouldn’t their drivers pay more to repair them?
A second thought: Let’s say gas is at $2.00 per gallon, and $.50 of that is tax. People start buying more fuel efficient cars, so tax revenue decreases, prompting an increase in the tax to $.75 per gallon. This prompts people to drive less and buy even more fuel efficient vehicles. This decrease in demand causes the price of oil to drop $.25 per gallon, causing the price you pay per gallon at the pump to remain $2.00.
Okay, that’s a bit simplistic, but you get the idea.
By Bud Wiser
January 5, 2009 4:26 PM | Link to this
Gas taxes only burden the poor?
If they’re poor, they shouldn’t have cars.
Make them walk to the welfare office to pick up their check.
The exercise will do them good.
By The Way
January 5, 2009 4:27 PM | Link to this
the oregon plan does seem ridiculous.
By Dusty
January 5, 2009 4:38 PM | Link to this
bosch,
I don’t believe I asked or want to understand what’s between you and Paul on some important day. Sorry but I possess no code ring for special messages and don’t want one.
By the way, it is customary to say important to Paul and me instead of “important to Paul and I”. Still on codeine?
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 4:45 PM | Link to this
“To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men.” Edmund Burke
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
January 5, 2009 4:53 PM | Link to this
Jay, Jay, Jay, more poor, sweet, naive, innocent (but misguided) Jay,
Looks like I’m going to have to come down off the senior, executive leadership perch for a moment or two to help you understand a couple concepts.
First, when you pen, “Second, the problem that Oregon is trying to address is that under the current gasoline tax, people who drive hybrids and other high-mileage vehicles will pay less in taxes than people who drive gas hogs. But that doesn’t sound like a problem to be solved; quite the contrary, it sounds like a solution to be encouraged” you are way offbase. The issue isn’t that individual hybrid drivers (include Ol’ Wyld Byll in this lot) will pay less, the state’s concern is that if a sufficient number of drivers are converted to hybrids then revenue collections and, therefore, State revenue will fall. The State, as always, has no concern for the individual.
Next, and this is a lot easier to explain, close your eyes and say, “Bush good; Obama bad.)
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
January 5, 2009 5:03 PM | Link to this
Dusty 4:38 PM
It more than “customary to say important to Paul and me” (instead of important to use “Paul and I”), because it is proper english to use “Paul and me.” After all, one would say give the ball to I, would one?
By Swami Dave
January 5, 2009 5:06 PM | Link to this
-If- someone were going to migrate to the “miles driven” model from a collection mechanism based on gasoline taxes, I would pose that the technology already exists to track the number of miles driven. It is called an odometer. I am a computer programmer and someone who enjoys gadgets, but trying to form some techno-quack scheme based on installing millions of GPS trackers into cars to track the number of miles driven (when almost all already have a perfectly working mechanism for doing it) is simply another case of a politician failing to see “the forest for the trees”. It is almost as stupid as someone suggesting that we frame houses with gold nails. Sure, they would work like steel ones, but you’d be paying more for something different that accomplishes that same outcome with no noticeable improvement in the results.
It is already illegal (and a felony I think) to tamper with odometers in an attempt to defraud so we already have laws governing that eventuality (as if the whole GPS-tracking scheme wouldn’t immediately create a garage industry of these same types of cheats as would an odometer-based method).
Require reporting of mileage figures with car tag / registration payments offers the tracking mechanism. If they lie, it would almost guaranteed to be found on the sale of the vehicle (as a subsequent owner would have -alot- of incentive to double check past reporting when title changes hands).
Personally, I cannot say that I am for or against the idea of updating the funding models from gasoline taxes to mileage-driven based collections. However, I would oppose the bloated expenditures required to implement a masterful technology solution when a working one already exists (at minimal cost).
-Swami Dave
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
January 5, 2009 5:16 PM | Link to this
Swami Dave 5:06 PM
Working in hypotheticals, odometers present two problems: 1) the state would either have to have an honor system or establish a means for periodic inspections; and 2) the state receives the gas tax on, probably, a bi weekly or monthly system it would not want to defer cash collections so it is left with the choice of having monthly inspection/collections based on odometer readings or finding another less instrusive way of monitoring and collecting.
By Dusty
January 5, 2009 5:16 PM | Link to this
Wyld Byll Hyttnyr 5:03
Maybe you should read my post of 4:38 again.
bosch was saying “Paul and I”@ 4:24, not my correction. Sorry you missed it.
I should not have mentioned his mistake. It doesn’t matter that much. Not surprising either.
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
January 5, 2009 5:21 PM | Link to this
Dusty 5:16 PM
I read the earlier post, but worded my “piling on” Bosch awkardly. Please accept my regrets.
By Paul
January 5, 2009 5:31 PM | Link to this
Bosch 4:14
What else matters?!!? Just last night I recorded the last 5 episodes to review. Went to myxer dot com and got the original theme as my ringtone. The countdown begins…
Dusty - it should read important to Paul and the world! but the world does not understand what’s really important in the eternal scheme of things. As usual, it is the informed few who must become the vanguard of the new millennium.
By @@
January 5, 2009 5:38 PM | Link to this
So the upper-most left coasters wanna be Big Brother?
Whodathunkit?
So it’ll be the hybrid-hummers who get to bail on the poor and disenfranchised who can’t afford a hybrid due to……I dunno……”lack of opportunity?” What’s next, are they gonna be FORCED to take the bus?
What the heck is this country coming to? I thought it was Republicans who were greedy, nosey and oppressive.
By Bosch
January 5, 2009 5:40 PM | Link to this
Paul,
The last 10 episodes……….. ooooohhhhhhh.
I need to review too. I wish Sci-Fi would replay them. I don’t have a fancy Tivo machine or anything like that. What is this myxer dot com you write about?
Have you seen the previews to “Caprica?” Eric Stoltz? WTF? Please.
By AJC/DNC Management
January 5, 2009 5:40 PM | Link to this
!!!!Off Topic Post Allowance Numero Uno (that’s number one, taxpayer)!!!!
PMSNBC BANS COULTER FOR LIFE; CUT FROM ‘TODAY’ SHOW OVER BOOK’S CLAIMS, NO MORE CABLE
I like this, make a lib throw a fit and get yourself some free advertising.
Aaahhhh, sigh, Conservative women, smart and gorgeous.
You libs can have the battle axes.
ew
By TW
January 5, 2009 5:48 PM | Link to this
MSNBC banned Coulter over her? refusal to put the seat back down when she’s finished.
BLAHHHHHYYYYYYYYUCK!
By getalife
January 5, 2009 5:57 PM | Link to this
Banning Mann is a good start.
Talk about unpatriotic.
By AJC/DNC Management
January 5, 2009 6:11 PM | Link to this
!!!!Response to a Topic another blogger brought up!!!!
Oh yeah, al-Gitmo, taunt the lovely Ann from within eyesight of your full size wall poster of Bruno.
After all, JFK jr. wrapped his tongue around that, no, not sHrillary.
ew
By @@
January 5, 2009 6:11 PM | Link to this
Well, it’s oil so I guess it’s on-topic.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is suspending a three-year-old program that provided heating oil to low-income households in the United States. Citgo Petroleum, the U.S. refining unit of Venezuela’s state oil company is suspending deliveries of the heating oil “until further notice,” according to a statement from Citizens Energy Corp. President Joseph P. Kennedy II. Chavez is facing pressure to maintain Venezuela’s social programs even as its income from oil drops.
‘Ya just can’t count on a dick-tater to deliver. Is Hugo following Putin’s example? He (Putin) cut off the gas to Ukrauine January 1, now he’s upping the price.
Russian natural gas behemoth Gazprom has made Ukraine a new offer for the purchase of natural gas Jan. 4, this time raising its price from $179 per thousand cubic meters (tcm) to $450 per tcm — a price Moscow knows Kiev cannot pay.
By sunshine and thunder
January 5, 2009 6:13 PM | Link to this
JAY
Oregon WILL keep the per gallon tax on top of the per mile tax.
That’s how liberal politicians work.
The closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program. Ronald Reagan.
By david sink
January 5, 2009 6:15 PM | Link to this
i would like to read an article addressing the obvious. If ,we lower the capital gains tax to say 15%, i’m guessing here, then couple that with a tax break, let’s say 5% of the purchase price of a home, money will flow into real estate and the overall US economy. We should not try to return to the OK Corral days of real estate but investment money is looking for a good home and so are a lot of people.
Lending standards need to remain high but with more investment capital allocated to housing the qualification requirements should ease. I am not a Republican and have disagreed with bush on almost everything. He has allowed this economic situation to fester for years in order to put a positive spin on his presidency and policies in order to divert attention from the real problems at home and abroad, but tax cuts on investment are powerful incentives. We need powerful incentives. Hell, let’s make tax cuts available for green housing incentives and hybrid car purchases. That’s a no brainer.
Tell GM to dig up those old electric car plans while your at it to exchange for more money.
I know all of this been written before?
By @@
January 5, 2009 6:28 PM | Link to this
Obama picked Leon Panetta to head the CIA!!??!!
By sunshine and thunder
January 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Link to this
DAVID SINK
You may not like Bush but what you describe is exactly what he sent to congress in 2002 and 2003 which jump started the economy out of Clinton’s recession and the double hit of 9-11.
He proposed, and congress passed, a capital gains tax cut to 15% and a cut on dividend taxes to 15%, as well as an across the board income tax cut (don’t listen to the liberal liars, the rich’s share of the income tax burden went up after the Bush tax cuts.)
By Paul
January 5, 2009 6:41 PM | Link to this
Bosch
How embarrassing. I was reading the previous thread and thought our enlightened discussion had been chopped. ‘twasn’t. Just my previous post telling you about myxer dot com as a place to download a free BSG ringtone (played by the Longhorn band, appropriate as tonight they hook Ohio) and wondering how one can live without a DVR just never made it past the AJC server.
That, and my musing to Management as to why NBC will ban Coulter but give a contract to Olbermann.
@@
I figured you’d be the one to bring it up. Striking, isn’t it? The Obama team could not find one intelligence professional who’d want to serve in their administration. That is fodder for discussion. So we have Panetta. Oh well, he’s a decent enough sort, an able manager. I suppose he’s more qualified for that than… Barney Frank is to head a banking committee. At least we have a retired flag officer as the Nat’l Intel guy - who will be Panetta’s boss.
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 6:45 PM | Link to this
Panett for the CIA is like George Plimpton playing quarterback for the Lions.
By getalife
January 5, 2009 6:50 PM | Link to this
Andy,
Mann is a man, man.
Check out that adams apple.
Ew
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 6:52 PM | Link to this
Coulter is being banned from NBC …. ah, the champions of free speech.
FOX News won’t have to counter with anyone because a lot of liberals won’t come on their programs anyway. They don’t like answering the tough questions.
By AJC/DNC Management
January 5, 2009 6:54 PM | Link to this
I’m not one to pick at old scabs but this On Topic post from a long running scrum-
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Know what I mean?
By getalife
January 5, 2009 6:54 PM | Link to this
Yes @@,
The Clinton team is back in power.
Payback time.
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 7:00 PM | Link to this
Leon Panetta (aka: Inspector Clouseau)
By Paul
January 5, 2009 7:10 PM | Link to this
Corporal
As I said, I think Panetta is a decent sort with a long record of public service. Interesting that he switched to the Dem Party when he thought the Reps were straying too far from the center. So why’s he stay a Democrat? :-)
But I’d be more satisfied if we had a person with a solid intel background there. Even some ex military guys have blown it in that position - I don’t think Adm Turner had the best stint there.
Still and all, if one has to have a guy from outside their world, one could do a lot worse than Panetta.
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 7:12 PM | Link to this
They’re still trying to recover from what Carter did to them.
By Ray
January 5, 2009 7:15 PM | Link to this
Coulter has stated more wisdom in her rhetoric than most any other pundit. She is harsh, pointed and acid in her comments but there needs to be someone like her to balance the left leaning press and the TV talking heads. They might get fed up with her comments but she is spot on a lot of the time. It needs to be said and she is the person to do it.
By Midori
January 5, 2009 7:25 PM | Link to this
Guilty: Coulter’s latest book filled with falsehoods
Yeah - she’s full of wisdom, all right.
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 7:28 PM | Link to this
They must really fear her. This will cause her new book GUILTY to sell millions !!!
Money in her pocket. Thanks NBC.
By Midori
January 5, 2009 7:33 PM | Link to this
Corporal,
when the book comes out, and makes the NY Times best selling list, pay special attention to the “bulk sales” symbol that always accompany her screeching diatribes. They symbol and its explanation is always there for all to see.
How do you think wingnut sites such as “Newsmax” can afford to give her books away for little or nothing by the thousands?
Yeah - we are real scared of Coulter.
Real scared indeed.
By Paul
January 5, 2009 7:34 PM | Link to this
Midori
Her books are best sellers. She’s in the news, a lot. I still think it best for serious networks to host her, challenge her and expose the falsehoods. Not ‘ban’ her. Smacks too much of incompetence - they can’t stand up to her so they won’t have her on.
I’ve cited before - one of the last times O’Reilly had her on he took her to task over much of what she’d said and written. He scolded her and noted she’d get more serious consideration if she toned down the outrageous nonsense.
Her response? “Every time I say something like that my book sales go up and my bookings increase.” BOR just had an exasperated “well, there you have it” look. He exposed her for what she is - a smart person who plays the game to enrich herself. NBC could do the same.
But now I’m off to fix some Buffalo Chicken Wings and watch Texas hook Ohio.
Later, Oz. Zod. Zur. Oh heck, can I just stick with “Midori”?
By Midori
January 5, 2009 7:38 PM | Link to this
Money in her pocket. Thanks NBC.
yet she’s too cheap to buy some decent clothes.
she’s been wearing that same skanky, slutty looking black dress that comes up to her navel for the past 10 years.
By @@
January 5, 2009 7:41 PM | Link to this
Paul:
It’s been said that no one would take the CIA spot out of fear that Eric Holder, a terrorist’s favorite terrorist, would come down on them hard if they strayed.
This is probably why Obama tapped Panetta.
By Eric
January 5, 2009 8:54 PM | Link to this
Well-reasoned argument, Jay. I completely agree!
By sunshine and thunder
January 5, 2009 9:32 PM | Link to this
——————-,
What, do I detect a smattering of jealousy from the feminazis on this thread? Too bad old ugly democrats can’t measure up to the real beauty in the world.
What’s that huge thing behind you?
By The Corporal
January 5, 2009 10:10 PM | Link to this
Trouble in Paradise
Feinstein rips Obama on CIA-Panetta pick: ‘I was not informed’…
Ooops. A woman scorned….
By mj
January 6, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this
Well Jay, there’s always the fact that our money belongs to us and not the government. Dummy.
By ed scripps
January 11, 2009 11:09 PM | Link to this
tax like europiens, by size of moter.