Politics: J'accuse!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Nearly every individual and business would be adversely effected, and some industries extremely so (e.g., airline, trucking, etc.).

Airlines use jet fuel--different tax rates.
Trucks use diesel fuel--different tax rates.

(but, I'll hasten to add, diesel is undertaxed).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How? Because we have greater disdain for smokers and drinkers? If you think pollution is bad, and can be cured by less gasoline use, then I see no principled difference.

And why can't the pool man/yard guy raise prices? If they can't, then they're charging too much now.

OK, how about factory/mine workers in rural areas? Or health care workers, e.g. public health nurses in poor areas?

Yeah, I have less of a problem with raising prices for luxuries like tobacco and alcohol than for raising a cost of having a job for people who are having a hard time making ends meet.

I'm not saying don't raise the gas tax. God knows, by the standard used by most here, this is the best tax ever because it barely affects the only important people in the world, me and my immediate family -- we all happen to have short commutes and fairly fuel-efficient cars and/or readily available public transportation. I'm merely saying that there will be externalities that I doubt will get dealt with and I am concerned about that.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's been proposed, for junk food and mcdonalds. And, hell, adopted. See cigarette taxes.

Holy cow, no way, really? OMG! Who would have thought! I'm, like, psychical or whatever that is called. I think I deserve a new lipstick as a reward! Or maybe even new boobs!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

Yeah, I have less of a problem with raising prices for luxuries like tobacco and alcohol than for raising a cost of having a job for people who are having a hard time making ends meet.

I doubt most smokers consider tobacco a luxury.

But let's assume they're different. What you're saying is that it's generally not a good idea to raise the costs of inputs to production, regardless of whether there are costs imposed on society by that input. So I guess we should continue to let paper cos. have at the forests at low, Low, LOW prices, because charging them market value for the wood would hurt the working poor.

Yes. Changing taxes on anything has displacement effects. But if that argument wins the day, then a) you can't ever change tax rates and b) you can't use taxes for social policy. If you're worried about displacement, phase in changes. 5c increase per year for 10 years. By the time it's fully phased in, people can adjust their behavior my moving and getting more fuel efficient cars.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Or maybe even new boobs!

they've proposed taxes for these.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
they've proposed taxes for these.

Bush. Clinton proposed a subsidy. Or refundable tax credit.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
IF your costs go up and you can't raise your rates, then your clients are paying too much now.

You assume the elasticity of my pricing and my costs are identical, and in some way related. Don't ever try to run a business that way!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Airlines use jet fuel--different tax rates.
Trucks use diesel fuel--different tax rates.

(but, I'll hasten to add, diesel is undertaxed).

See this is why you are on top of the ticket.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does a gas tax not essentially accomplish this, given that ceteris paribus, a heavier car will use more fuel?

It does, but not with an equivalent effectiveness. Trucks cause almost all of the damage on highways because of the weight per square inch from the wheels. Thus, you don't have to have a linear weighting adjustment. You could increase the tangential slope of the incremental adjustments as the weights increased.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I doubt most smokers consider tobacco a luxury.

But let's assume they're different. What you're saying is that it's generally not a good idea to raise the costs of inputs to production, regardless of whether there are costs imposed on society by that input. So I guess we should continue to let paper cos. have at the forests at low, Low, LOW prices, because charging them market value for the wood would hurt the working poor.

Yes. Changing taxes on anything has displacement effects. But if that argument wins the day, then a) you can't ever change tax rates and b) you can't use taxes for social policy. If you're worried about displacement, phase in changes. 5c increase per year for 10 years. By the time it's fully phased in, people can adjust their behavior my moving and getting more fuel efficient cars.

You are unusually prone to comparing apples to oranges and making broad generalizations today. Everything OK in burgerland? As you point out, cigarettes are not an input to any kind of production. OK, people who are addicted to them are probably somewhat less efficient (for a time) if deprived of them, but that's pretty marginal. And in what office are workers required to buy their own paper?

Changing taxes on very specific items has a very different effect than changing, e.g., income taxes. However, I do kind of like your phase-in idea. It does seem like the collection costs would be more efficient if we just raised the tax on oil rather than on prices right at the pump. If we don't raise diesel taxes, how do we punish* the Mercedes drivers?

Having said everything useful I have to say (plus a lot of non-useful stuff), I'm out on this topic.

*ha, ha.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Bush. Clinton proposed a subsidy. Or refundable tax credit.

You oppose a subsidy or refundable tax credit for providing more bush in the capital? What are you, some freak deviant homo?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You assume the elasticity of my pricing and my costs are identical, and in some way related. Don't ever try to run a business that way!

I'm assuming that if an entire industry faces the same across-the-board cost increase, then the elasticity of demand for that industry's products/services is close to zero over the range of that passed-through cost increase, because everyone will pass it through or be unable to maintain long-run viability. If you're the only guy trying to raise prices, sure, you face infinite elasticity (well, high, because some clients actually hire you for talent, not price . . at least I assume). But if everyone has higher costs, and thus a need to raise prices, it's a different proposition. Seems to me plenty of firms (indeed, all), raised prices when their associate salaries increased.

If you're contending you're entitled to supra-competitive prices, well, as a client, I say fuck you, sir, fuck you.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What are you, some freak deviant homo?

Similar to the question on everyone's lips: Is President Bush a Homo?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
[Engineering stuff]

Or just raise diesel taxes.

And, fuck, jet fuel taxes too, to pay for new ATC. Those airline fuckers will just add the tax as some semi-hidden cost, to go along with the departure tax, arrival tax, 9-11 tax, bankruptcy tax, etc. I'm not sure which is worse in terms of actual price information, an airline ad or a cell-phone ad.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or just raise diesel taxes.

Seems to me, at least here, we hit them up on the weight basis at yearly registration. I would think the fuel tax would be a much more economical system to administer, if combined with some weight-driven surcharge at tab time.