+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    Taxes seem high because average wages have not kept up with inflation. I would much rather have my salary increased 10% than my taxes lowered 10%.

    Recent tax breaks have gone almost exclusively to those at the top, and because of this, many cities and states have had to make up the shortfall on the average person. Which just makes things worse.

    Oil companies are the recipient of numerous tax breaks. Why give them handouts? They're supposed to be smart business leaders. Handouts, if any, should go to people, not corporations. Take away their tax breaks and give the money to taxpayers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. This would create a big push for the latest technology, save on health care costs, DoD costs, increase our national security and help to reduce global warming costs.

    The return on investment is much higher for demand-side conservation than for supply-side handouts.

  2. Remove Advertisements

  3. #12

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    I think giving tax breaks to people to purchase fuel efficient vehicles is already happening, I look at this as a "Hand out" of tax payer dollars to Honda and Toyota to sell products that would not otherwise sell on thier own merit. VW does not get tax breaks to sell the TDI, I guess it pays to lobby congress huh?

    Tax breaks for big oil are no different than the ones given to the transplant auto companies like Honda and Toyota who have plants built for them at tax payer expense money for training employee's ect...

    I hate to be the one to tell you, But, if everybody drove a hybird we would still be dependant on forign oil. Most of our oil does not come from the middle east, I believe Canada and Mexico are our largest suppliers with about 15% comming from the middle east.

    If national security is such a concern for you, Why not purchase cars from an American company? This will keep our tax base strong for schools, roads ect.. Not to mention keep Americans employed in good paying jobs.

  4. #13

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    There's a lot more money given in handouts to oil companies than is going to hybrids. Let's put it all there. The idea is to encourage behavior that helps our country, and discourage behavior that doesn't. Making us more dependent on oil from any source is bad in general because of all the external costs associated with it: wars, pollution, health care, global warming, etc......these costs are long term and aren't seen directly by individuals, but are still real and states and the federal govt. realize them. Hence the need for the tax breaks--they reduce these long-term costs.

    It may help Toyota and Honda now, but if the tax break is just structured for the top several (5, 7, 10?) high mileage cars, then every manufacturer has a chance to build those vehicles. Tax breaks on the supply side are hidden and don't help.

    National security is important. Buying American autos won't help our security because we will just need to spend our money on wars for oil. US companies have been sending jobs overseas on their own for a long time. My purchase won't help that. That problem needs to be solved in other ways. Take tax breaks away from companies that push jobs overseas......

  5. #14

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    Tax breaks on hybrid cars push the price up. Tax breaks are only a good idea when meant to encourage behavior that the market would not already encourage, like producing medicines that will only help a very small population. Hybrid cars are already popular, Prius's only stay on the lot for an average of 8 days before being sold.

    Plug-in Hybrids powered by nuclear power is the solution. Hopefully in 20 years this will be accomplished. If you're interested in electric vehicles, build more power plants and improve the various regional electric grids to handle an increased load.

  6. #15

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    Hybrids have a short stay on the lot because there are so few of them. We don't need to encourage hybrids exclusively....the most efficient vehicles should all be encouraged. It gives companies a goal to strive for. Supply-side handouts (corporate tax breaks) encourage waste (cheap oil, etc.), demand side handouts (to consumers) can be used to encourage savings.

    Plug-in hybrids are a good idea, but we don't need nuclear power to fuel them. Nuclear power has already lost in the market place. Even the insurance industry won't insure them....at least for the first $10B or so in damages. Large-scale windmills are now as expensive as natural gas and coal plants; solar power is on par with nuclear. There is no reason for nuclear.

    We can gain more capacity through energy efficiency than from adding power plants or oil wells. Demand-side gains are much more cost-effective. Corporations such a DuPont, IBM and BP have all instituted energy efficiency policies and goals....and they have all made profits from it.


    Two more poinsts: 1) The job of someone installing insulation, solar panels or a windmill at my house can't be outsourced; 2) if there isn't a need for nuclear power....then any country trying to develop it, is obviously doing it for bomb-making purposes. This makes political decisions a lot easier!

  7. #16

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    So being dependant on oil is a bad thing huh? So, why don't you enlighten us on how we can stop using evil oil? Don't you think if there was a better solution it would already be on the market?

    I think giving tax breaks to oil is a good thing, it promotes new discoverys of oil not yet found, More resources for drilling and many other benefits since at the present time it is our most dependable and affordable source for energy

    I may be wrong but you seem to think all of our oil is from the middle east and this is the reason for war? Fact is most of our oil comes from Mexico and Canada and we have never had a war over oil with either country. So this war thing you talk about is just not true.

    Tax breaks for the transplant auto companies are a big thing, Honda just said they would build a new plant in either Indiana or Ohio, I forget. One community in my state was trying to get them to build here, Offering tax free business, Free land, Would build them the plant and pay to train the workforce. This is a little more than just a tax break on hybirds.

    GM, Ford and Chrysler do build cars in other countries, Whats different than Honda and Toyota doing this? The big three still build more than 80% of all cars made in the US.
    Know anything about ww2? who was it that supplied tanks aircraft and many other things to the effort? The US auto companies, By not buying American, plants are idled, tax base is lost, reaserch and developement is not done or delayed, Its an ugly cycle.
    You also seem to think that American cars are less fuel efficient than the imports? excluding hybirds its not true, a VW jetta with a 4 cyl gas engine was rated at 29mpg highway, So is a Buick Lesabre, Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler LHS. a new Chevrolet Impala with a 300 hp v8 also gets 29mpg highway all these cars are bigger, weigh more and are safer than a Jetta yet still get the same mileage.
    What is a Honda Accord with a v6 rated at 28-29?

    Just for the record I own an 04 Jetta TDI and an 05 Mercury Sable, The Mercury has been far more reliable than the Jetta

  8. #17

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    Please think about what others are posting before you ramble.....you'll save everyone a lot of time going over the same points.

    See previous posts for responses and rebuttals to your fox news garbage.

  9. #18

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    Vince- I would argue that MOST take breaks encourage waste. Look how overburdened the tax code is with 'pet project' tax breaks. They're for the most part a waste of time. People already want hybrid cars, so adding tax incentives to purchasing them will only increase their price through increased demand. The car dealers stand to benefit from tax breaks more than anyone else. You don't need tax breaks to encourage behavior that is already taking place. Any arguments concerning using tax incentives to encourage foreign investment in auto plants I would direct towards the need for a complete overhaul of the tax code. Being a libertarian above all else (which makes me a Republican by default), I just take issue with the government using tax incentives to encourage behavior it deems beneficial, with the exception of the medicines argument I presented above.

    My views on nuclear power and plug-in hybrids are just opinions. I work in tax policy and take a great interest in energy, and the consensus among the people I speak with is that nuclear power is ONE of the directions we're heading in. I think you're way off base saying it's 'lost' though. Nuclear power is by far the best idea we've ever come up with to generate ordered power. Wind power has certainly made great advances in the last 20 years, and is in some cases cost effective. I know wind farms are springing up all over the country right now. However nuclear power plants are also being sighted and approved for the first time in more than a decade. I hate to say it, but look at the French. They generate almost all their electricity through clean nuclear power. There are zero emissions (aside from heat) and through the use of recycled fuels their total nuclear waste is stored in a facility not much larger than a high school gymnasium. Nuclear power has been put on hold due to domestic politics. However an interesting coalition has been forming the last few years among enviromentalists, economists, and the utilities. Just an opinion though.

    Being a libertarian, I can't support government mandated conservation, as long as I'm paying for my energy consumption and it's produced in a responsible (see nuclear power) manner. I also don't think it's politically feasible. Additionally, most data I've seen suggests that any efficiency gains are always more than compensated by increased demand.

    I apologize for the length, and once again, these are just my opinions. I don't profess to be an expert on anything. I look forward to your response.

  10. #19

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    Not just rehashing the same points Vince, And I usually tune into the Lou Dobbs show rather than fox news, Seems to me you have no logical answer to the points I made. So, lets throw blame.Good comeback!

  11. #20

    TAX the profits of big oil companies...

    Alex: I would agree that most tax breaks encourage waste. However, most tax breaks that I know of are on the supply-side, not the demand side, and supply-side is worse because they are hidden. UNfortunately, we're not going to be able to stop congressman from giving handouts, I'm just suggesting that those handouts go to people, where we can "see" them, rather to corporations where they are hidden from the taxpayer. I also think that tax breaks can be structured such that they help the country, not hurt it, regardless of whether they cause prices to rise. The dealer where I got my Prius did not raise prices at all....so that argument is not always true, and frequently wrong. The economic reasoning may seem sound, but the data do not show it. And as more people want these cars, and as more companies are encouraged to build them, no matter how many tax breaks there are, competition will keep prices low.

    Whereever you find nuclear power, you will find many government handouts---even in France. If all energy handouts were eliminated, conservation and energy efficiency would be winners by far--both economically and engineering-wise.

    In the same way that tax breaks CAN encourage waste, building nuclear power plants will do the same thing by providing "cheap" power--a thing which they have NEVER been able to do! At one time nuclear power was touted as producing electricity that will be "too cheap to meter." That has never been true. Maybe we can agree that congress should get rid off all energy subsidies.....? I'd be all for that!

    Spending money on reducing people's need for energy in the first place will do a lot more good for the country long term by reducing energy bills, and reducing health care costs and global-warming costs.

    Being a libertarian is nice to say, but governments have responsibilities for the health and welfare of their citizens. Encouraging energy efficiency is one of those responsibilities. The major problem is global warming costs will escalate rapidly in the coming decades, and governments around the world need to encourage lower CO2 emissions now. Nuclear power actually hinders this because of the long lead times needed for designing, building, etc. Only conservation and efficiency are able to reduce CO2 emissions rapidly. If I turn off a light bulb, I instantly reduced my CO2 emissions--in the same way, large-scale conservation and efficiency can work.

    You might be paying for your energy yourself...but there are many soldiers dying for it. There are many civilians dying for it. There are many children getting asthma because of it. There are many senior citizens getting bronchitis because of it. There are many companies losing money because of lost-time at work. Epidemiologists have studied pollution and its affects on health. These costs are difficult to estimate, but they are nonetheless real, and quantifiable on large scales. When one's "freedom" causes others to have higher costs and more problems, one needs to take responsbility for one's actions. And if one abdicates that responsibility, then the government should take action. The whole world is much more connected now than ever before.

    Length is not a problem....intelligent discussion is always a good thing.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts