Just keep saying it and it might become true. Just ignore all the data shown in this very thread that you are wrong. Just keep saying it and it might become true.
Advocating for galaxy brained technocratic regressive taxes that disproportionately affect the working commuter class instead of⌠you know⌠simply funding the IRS properly to make the obscenely wealthy pay taxes is quite the look for the shitlibs
8 Likes
Nobody has suggested any other solutions other than âtax the richâ. What do you suggest to fund the Highway Trust Fund and to reduce gas usage?
Your point about complicating tax policy is a fair one. As I said I donât see it as a huge barrier. Just cut everyone under a certain income a cheque every month to counter the tax they paid. Heck add some extra to it to counter some of the regression in gas taxes.
Again, we are starting from the same place. Government needs to massively increase taxes on the rich so let a stop using that as some kind of point in this debate.
What else should government do is what we are debating.
1 Like
Congrats. Literally nobody is doing that. You score one point in the fake argument happening in your head.
1 Like
Hey, Iâve noticed you get frustrated during arguments and then just throw up your hands. For instance, last week you were having a heated argument about race play in sex a poster whose name escapes me. It was an excellent educational argument on both sides. But you got frustrated and stopped.
Psh, chauffeur is an independent contractor, thos are his miles, heâs payinâ not the wealthy.
5 Likes
This.
Taxes on gas (and/or road usage) should not be intended as revenue sources. You soak the rich through income tax, treating capital gains as income, eliminating the death tax exemptions, etc.
Taxes on gas and road usage are for getting people to do better things. But those better things have to actually exist. Pete SHOULD be putting a huge public transit vision out there with massive subsidies (and, even better, some sort of punitive measures for states who âopt outâ like they have for medicaid expansion). THEN you tax the shit out of gas.
in the meantime, we should probably look at punitive taxes on shit like $40k+ trucks, especially in cities. Require a CDL for any vehicle over 6ft tall, etc.
6 Likes
you should get your money back
1 Like
Add in either you have to rely on something like self-reporting permitting massive cheating and massive resentment by those who donât cheat, or onerous government tracking resulting in massive resentment by most people generally.
Just dumb dumb policy by someone who thinks the real world works like a theoretical Econ class⌠reminds me of myself in my youth.
I suspect pickup trucks are already stealth taxed due to CAFE standards. Companies have to limit the number of trucks they sell to meet their mileage targets, thus they raise prices on trucks and sell hybrids at a loss.
trucks have a different standard to meet and itâs much more lenient.
e.g. Ford essentially doesnât sell anything BUT trucks anymore, itâs not really bothering them.
the real problem with trucks isnât even their fuel consumption, itâs that they make cities a much more dangerous place
Because too many people donât want to debate in good faith. They want to score fake internet points. Look at jwaxes idiot post. He knows itâs bad faith but he got himself one fake internet point.
Itâs one line zingers âretortsâ and completely ignoring data against their position. Itâs not fruitful.
If once in a while someone said âhmm I hadnât thought of that. You made me rethink my positionâ I might have hope. A very small number of posters do this (Johnny for example) but it almost never happens.
There is no value in debate is neither side is interested in learning or altering their position no matter what is said or what data is provided.
1 Like
Itâs funny that Iâve sort of been backed into the corner as some strong defender of this mileage tax idea. If you go back youâll see my point wasnt that it was some silver bullet but that the motives of pete were simply being made up because people donât like him.
I donât think a mileage tax is some silver bullet but I do think if the regression is addressed it would make it more expensive to drive which should deter driving. The only way to argue that is wrong to argue that sin taxes donât work. Thatâs fine, but itâs a whole other argument and given sin taxes have historically been the choosen policy of the left it goes back to my bizzaro comment where people are arguing against progressive policy simply because pete said it.
If we are going to fight climate change we need way way higher taxes on driving. Iâm open to debate on how that is done but Iâll go back to my original point. Pete suggesting one such way is hardly some wine cave GOP in disguise trick where he can fuck the poor in favour of the rich.
1 Like
Incrementalism is fine. The phenomenon youâre witnessing and describing is whatâs plagued incrementalism always: people use the smokescreen of incrementalism to hide the fact that they really donât want the desired endgame goal. Like, we have a 10step incrementalism plan but theyâre happy with the 2nd or 3rd step, and the cries about being incremental and going slow start ramping around there.
12 Likes
p.s. That still means âincrementalism has been a total failureâ is still correct. Iâm just fleshing it out some.
2 Likes
I donât think driving should be subject to a âsin taxâ. Itâs not cigarettes.
Itâs an absolute necessity to function for many places in America.
1 Like
Thatâs a odd policy choice given climate change. So then you are ok if the millions of Indian and Chinese people just now getting rich enough to buy cars do so?
Why not tax it and spend the money on public transit?
Because the public transit doesnât exist right now.
Carrot and stick is fine, but this would be all stick with a promise of a carrot some years in the future. Implementing it now would just fuck over the working class.
6 Likes