Fight Global Warming by Taxing

[TongueNGroove]

Just like you "bitch and moan" about "commielibs" and Dems. So we should tax the fuck out of the oil companies? Oh wait, I forgot the administration you voted for is almost completely dominated by ex-oil execs.

How about you don't tax the fuck out of anyone? Don't you think everyone and every business is already being taxed enough?? I sure as hell do.

That's pretty easy really:
The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms offinancial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).

You still didn't define what rich is....Gimme a dollar amount. Saying that %1 of the people own %33 of the wealth doesn't tell me what being rich means. How much money do I have to make a year to be considered rich? How much savings do I have to have? How much debt do I have to have to offset my supposed richness? etc...

What's your point? Semnatics? How about vehicles that get below a certain MPG standard are considered gas-guzzlers and subject to an environmental penalty tax?

My point is all you tree huggers know how to do is run around spouting what the supposed environmental "experts" say. You use SUV like it is a dirty word when there are cars out there that pollute way more than a lot of the SUV's out there, yet I never hear anyone even mention those. And I believe the reason for that is that the word SUV implies a person who has a certain standard of wealth. Since you abhor anyone having any wealth you figure it is an easy target. You never mention all the old ass cars out there that lower income people drive that do even more pollution. They are poor so it isn't an easy target.

So how about you come up with another acronym that actually means something. Something like IMV's, Inefficient Motor Vehicle, which covers every vehicle on the road that pollutes more than it should based on a reasonable standard. Who should set that reasonable standard, I don't know, but I suppose the EPA could do it.

The other part of your answer involves your typical communist mindset of more taxation. tax Tax TAX! People with inefficient vehicles already pay more tax because they consume more gas. Every gallon of gas they use has taxes associated with it, so there, you get your wish, they are paying more taxes than someone who uses less gas.

Maybe. So you're blaming "the poor" for global warming and more locally, smog?

I'm not blaming anyone for Global Warming, I never even said there is Global Warming and I certainly never said that if there is Global Warming it is cause by humans.

What I am saying is, poor people drive older, less efficient vehicles.

How about instead of even more gas tax, you just ban any vehicle made before 2000 from getting on the roads?? How about we force people to use efficient vehicles and force the auto industry to make vehicles get better gas mileage?

Yah, that is a dumb idea, I know, but it makes more since than raising taxes and it would do WAY more good for the environment.

Why not blame the conspiracy in the late 1940s to destroy public transportation in the United States?

There is plenty of public transit out there and people are free to use it. But you know, if people don't buy the fuel that you get all your tax money from to supposedly keep the infrastructure of roads up to date then what are you going to do? It's just like the cigarette tax that keeps going up, they say they use it for schools and what not and they say people need to quit smoking so we are going to make it real expensive, but what are they going to do if people actually do quit smoking?? All that money they count on will no longer be there.

Why not blame people with money that stifle environmental innovation by demanding expensive, superfluous "status symbols" over "green" tech. or even quality in many cases?

BTW, did you know that lower-middle class people are far more likely to drive fuel efficient small cars?

That’s all you ever want to do huh? Blame people with money. You must not have any money or have any hope of ever having money. According to you only 1% of the population has all the money, so are you saying that 1% of the population is the whole reason for pollution?

Maybe. But compare a Honda Civic or Accord that was been very well maintained and has had proper tune-ups (key) and you may find that it stands up very well to modern ULEVs.

Oh, and BTW, cars had better overall fuel economy in 1983 than they do today...

So you’re saying that today’s fuel efficiency standards aren't as high as they were in 1983? Somehow I smell BS.

No fool. He voluntarily pays a SELF-TAX that penalizes his use of more resources. Of course, this shit is completely exaggerated, and Gore mostly purchases "Green" power which is more expensive to begin with.

And BTW, this is just another advancement of the discredited "hypocrite" argument. It changes nothing regarding the facts of Global Warming...

Aren't you a hypocrite for supporting the War in Iraq, while not enlisting for it? Isn't Bush a hypocrite for not having his daughters enlist?

Paying a tax (Carbon Credit) does not help the environment, using less fuel helps the environment. You can't buy your way out of pollution. Al Gore is just one example of the entire hypocrisy of all Global Warming Alarmists. If you look around you will begin to see that hardly any of these people live the life style that they want to force down our throats, they just go around spouting BS so they can fill their pockets with your money. They are using what most marketers use and it's called "direct marketing". If you tell someone their life or their families life may be in danger whether it be true or not people will sign up for whatever you ask. Just like the dumbasses in that Penn and Teller video.

You don't have to be in the military to support your government and troops, that statement is completely asinine. I'll just do like Al Gore and buy some "Military Credits" by paying my taxes.

Do you actually think Bush or any parent has the right to force their kids to join the army? That is a rhetorical question, because obviously that just how your mind works. Are his kids not free people? Do they not have a mind of their own? Or does Bush OWN them? Do you have kids? Do you OWN your kids or are they free? Your communist dictatorship mindset comes thru more clearly with every statement you make.

[Nickdfresh]

...enough?? I sure as hell do.

Then you're out of your mind! Corporationist whores have enjoyed some of the biggest tax breaks in modern history under Bush, as well as record profits. So, YES! They should pay a higher percentage of the tax burden, especially the oil and gas lobby - since the US military is waging an expensive War in their interests!

You still didn't define what rich is....Gimme a dollar amount. Saying that %1 of the people own %33 of the wealth doesn't tell me what being rich means. How much money do I have to make a year to be considered rich? How much savings do I have to have? How much debt do I have to have to offset my supposed richness? etc...

First of all, you're presumption of polar opposite, dichotomous thinking is so retarded that I cannot give you a precise anything, since you fail to offer one yourself.

Rich and poor? How about varying classes? In any case, I think there's a definition established of about households at $200K being "well off" and financially secure and those consistently worth over $2 million a year being somewhat "rich."

In any case, I'm speaking of corporations, not individuals...

My point is all you tree huggers

WTF is the definition of a "tree hugger?" I'm pretty sure I've killed more trees than you've seen in your lifetime...

...know how to do is run around spouting what the supposed environmental "experts" say.

By "experts," do you mean SCIENTISTS? Golly, really? Maybe you can tell me what the Bible says about global warming. I need the irrational, superstitious version...

You use SUV like it is a dirty word when there are cars out there that pollute way more than a lot of the SUV's out there, yet I never hear anyone even mention those.

What I've said is that SUVs use more fuel than do small passenger cars.

You're conflating two distinct, though related issues: Energy security and Global Warming...

And I believe the reason for that is that the word SUV implies a person who has a certain standard of wealth. Since you abhor anyone having any wealth you figure it is an easy target.

Oh God, that's what you believe. I believe a lot of middle class dolts own SUVs when they could just as easily survive owning station wagons, sedans, or at worst -minvans. SUVs were intended for people to use as work or outdoorsmen vehicles. Not for suburbanites to keep on the pavement.

You never mention all the old ass cars out there that lower income people drive that do even more pollution. They are poor so it isn't an easy target.

But they use less gas. And you're forgetting now that we have a lot of "old ass" SUVs since their boom occurred in the early 90s or late 80s, that also pollute and leak oils everywhere, and still get even shittier mileage than an 87' Nissan Sentra...

So how about you come up with another acronym that actually means something. Something like IMV's, Inefficient Motor Vehicle, which covers every vehicle on the road that pollutes more than it should based on a reasonable standard. Who should set that reasonable standard, I don't know, but I suppose the EPA could do it.

Because again, you're confusing two separate and distinct issues!

And in any case, the actual theory is that older cars will take care of themselves and the newer generations of autos (even used ones) will get better mileage and pollute less.

Again, what's your point?

The other part of your answer involves your typical communist mindset

Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid with such hyperbolic shit that belies even a rudimentary understanding of the basics of political science 101?

Why would "communists" "tax" anybody when they already theoretically won all of the wealth?

...of more taxation. tax Tax TAX! People with inefficient vehicles already pay more tax because they consume more gas. Every gallon of gas they use has taxes associated with it, so there, you get your wish, they are paying more taxes than someone who uses less gas.

And yes, sales of SUVs are down as a result. But I also think that instead of just going to the coffers of fucking scumbag oil executives, maybe some of that should go back as revenue for an underfunded, deficit inflating, gov't.

It's called "fiscal responsibility."

Is ignorance of this principle why three of your businesses went defunct?

I'm not blaming anyone for Global Warming, I never even said there is Global Warming and I certainly never said that if there is Global Warming it is cause by humans.

Then WTF is your point? Do you have one at all?

What I am saying is, poor people drive older, less efficient vehicles.

And I'm saying this is a blanket generalization not really backed up by any data.

Define "poor." Because a lot of truly "poor" people cannot afford vehicles, those that can have their driving severally restricted.

How about instead of even more gas tax, you just ban any vehicle made before 2000 from getting on the roads?? How about we force people to use efficient vehicles and force the auto industry to make vehicles get better gas mileage?

Because many vehicles made before 2000 are low emissions and get really good fuel economy. And the problem is being taken care of via auto-emissions testing at registration in most states anyway.

And "commie-libs" have been advocating that auto makers produce more fuel efficient vehicles for a while now.

It's the Republican asshats that you vote for that fuck it up!

In fact, Bush redid the CAFE standards so that vehicles such a Subaru Legacy are considered SUVs, even though it's clearly a station wagon/passenger car while as you mention, pick-up trucks virtually escape any real scrutiny...

Yah, that is a dumb idea, I know, but it makes more since than raising taxes and it would do WAY more good for the environment.

Fucking-aye-right! Tax polluters and corporations...

There is plenty of public transit out there and people are free to use it.

It's inefficient and polluting, because the tire companies, auto manufacturers and the oil companies all conspired with city gov'ts to do away with city train systems after WWII. It's verifiable fact...

But you know, if people don't buy the fuel that you get all your tax money from to supposedly keep the infrastructure of roads up to date then what are you going to do? It's just like the cigarette tax that keeps going up, they say they use it for schools and what not and they say people need to quit smoking so we are going to make it real expensive, but what are they going to do if people actually do quit smoking?? All that money they count on will no longer be there.

And all the money spent in health care to treat the diseases associated with smoking will not be needed either, same with infrastructure for autos...

That’s all you ever want to do huh? Blame people with money. You must not have any money or have any hope of ever having money. According to you only 1% of the population has all the money, so are you saying that 1% of the population is the whole reason for pollution?

I'm blaming corporations. And the statistics don't lie. you're the one advocating "punishing "poor" people by outlawing any cars made prior to 2000, which in itself would be an environmental nightmare. What would you do with all of the cars?

It's much more feasible to gradually target new vehicles...

So you’re saying that today’s fuel efficiency standards aren't as high as they were in 1983? Somehow I smell BS.

Because that's what your full of and your arguments are based on.

But, I'll just give you that facts instead...

We "peaked" in 1987 at 26.2 MPG. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/18/po...abcd56&ei=5070
I can't find a convenient graph right now, but I'm pretty sure we're below that...

Paying a tax (Carbon Credit) does not help the environment, using less fuel helps the environment.

It does of it forces industries to reduce their carbon-footprint...

You can't buy your way out of pollution. Al Gore is just one example of the entire hypocrisy of all Global Warming Alarmists. If you look around you will begin to see that hardly any of these people live the life style that they want to force down our throats, they just go around spouting BS so they can fill their pockets with your money. They are using what most marketers use and it's called "direct marketing". If you tell someone their life or their families life may be in danger whether it be true or not people will sign up for whatever you ask. Just like the dumbasses in that Penn and Teller video.

Again, you're just repeating yourself with the whole "hypocrisy" arguments. Gore drives a Prius. Yes he also has limos and the like, but that changes none of the basic facts...

And again, ask 99% scientists that are not on the oil industry payroll (they've publicly offered money to scientists to "disprove" global warming)....

You don't have to be in the military to support your government and troops, that statement is completely asinine. I'll just do like Al Gore and buy some "Military Credits" by paying my taxes.

Oh, well lordy! We've reached a breakthrough. YOU ALREADY ARE! Our military budget is not only bigger than like the next nine COMBINED, we spend over 50% of the worlds defense budget.

So in a sense, your subsidizing the oil industry and paying protection money in order to insure that the US can "project forces" to the Middle East and guarantee access to relatively cheap oil...

And it's no more asinine that your "hypocrite" argument and it's relation to the facts of global warming...

Do you actually think Bush or any parent has the right to force their kids to join the army?

Well, we did up until 1973!

That is a rhetorical question, because obviously that just how your mind works. Are his kids not free people? Do they not have a mind of their own? Or does Bush OWN them? Do you have kids? Do you OWN your kids or are they free? Your communist dictatorship mindset comes thru more clearly with every statement you make. [/B]

So does your inept grasp of actual issues.

Should "rich" and "privileged" kids have to do some sort of public service? Yes! I'd love to see the draft returned.

P.S. It's not just "communist" liberals saying this, check out what Newt Gingrich has recently stated. And even science-adverse fundamentalist Christians are also getting on board with fighting Global Warming...

[Angel]

A few years back, govt's up here tried to get people to quit smoking by increasing the tobacco taxes. (which are already sky-high). All they accomplished was an increase in crime. Cig trucks/stores getting robbed, and natives "trafficing in tobacco". They had to reduce the taxes to decrease the crime associated.

[ROTHisGOD]

Amen!

[Nitro Express]

Politicians are like ministers

They cook up something to scare the masses, offer a sollution and to get the sollution means paying them money.

In religion they play on people's fear of death and the unknown. They paint the description of a sollution that some believe but you have to pay Jesus to be saved.

Politicians ignore the scientific process to hype the hell out of some psuedo science saying the earth will be destroyed if you don't pay your taxes and fund the sollution.

Nobody knows for sure what is causing the current climate trends. The earth has a long history of warming and freezing. Also, the activity of the sun is higher now than in the past. That very well could be a major part of it and us little things on the blue ball in space have no control over what the sun does.

It's rediculouse to think we have as much affect on the earth as volcanos and solar activity do.

[WACF]

Why is it always about taxing someone.

Do what our Neo-Con government (LOL) has done...give tax rebates to people that buy vehicles with better MPG.

PLUS....introduce legislation that requires minimum requirments from the manufacturers.

The big three are making noise over that last one...the Japs and Germans are just sitting back and smiling.

[Nitro Express]

I've been riding a bycicle a lot lately. I think that justifys me the right to shove a pinapple up Al Gore's private jet, big home, travel in limosine ass.