TD, it appears you're OK with the concept, but only to a certain point.
That's fine, but it immediately triggers the old, tired "slippery slope" argument.
To wit: a dollar is too much right now, but how about 50 cents this year, 75 cents next year, then a dollar and then a dollar 25?
My point is actually this: a tax, at any level, by definition goes to the government.
To support your position, I'd have to believe that the government could do more and better problem-solving if only it had more of your money and mine.
That might actually be the Republican take (in the current administration) but it doesn't strike me as conservative.
It DOES strike me as the kind of incremtalism that, in recent years, has enjoined free citizens from everything from medium-rare hamburgers and eggs over easy, to restrictions on who may own a firearm for protection and where in the great outdoors one might light a cigarette.
None of these things happened all at once, but slowly over years.
How much harm are you willing to do to the American economy to solve a problem that the free market will solve without you?
When pumped oil exceeds a certain price, shale, bio, nuclear and hydrogen will move in to fill any void.
In the meantime, the government enjoys quite enough of my earnings.
Sure. As I said, taxes are a necessary evil, and like Reagan I emphasize the "evil".
To support your position, I'd have to believe that the government could do more and better problem-solving if only it had more of your money and mine.
Absolutely not. I would oppose any increase in the gas tax that was not balanced by reduced taxes elsewhere. In fact net taxes should be cut substantially, but that's a separate issue.
It DOES strike me as the kind of incremtalism that, in recent years, has enjoined free citizens from everything from medium-rare hamburgers and eggs over easy, to restrictions on who may own a firearm for protection and where in the great outdoors one might light a cigarette.
Actually the gas tax is less invasive than any of those examples. It doesn't say you can't buy the type of car you want, as CAFE standards do. It does say that if you use a lot of gas, you should be taxed more because you are imposing more costs on society.
When pumped oil exceeds a certain price, shale, bio, nuclear and hydrogen will move in to fill any void.
Yes. But my claim is that the true cost of gas is higher than what is reflected in the price at the pump due to the negative externalities, and thus without correction market forces will take too long to make the transition.
In the meantime, the government enjoys quite enough of my earnings.
Completely agreed.
BTW your screen name is great. I'm a night person, and mornings suck.