Recommended Posts
kallend 2,147
QuoteWould you apply this to GA? After all most GA is a completely frivilous activity and consumes a great deal of fuel which polutes the environment. Shouldn't there be a huge tax imposed on Jet-A for this reason? What about all the wear and tear on the runway? Those repairs are taxpayer funded and most tax payers are denied access unless they get a pilots license.
Since most GA uses either gasoline (AVGAS) or jet fuel, I think the answer is implicit in what I wrote.
In principle at least, aviation fuel taxes and passenger ticket taxes are supposed to go into a trust fund to maintain aviation infrastructure. The aviation trust fund is routinely raided by the Federal Govt, of course, to offset the deficit (now at record levels, wouldn't you know, thanks GWB) so aviation is not a drain on the non-flying taxpayer, quite the reverse.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon - you've got a good point. Having been in NYC financial services for over 10 years now, I'm not at all convinced that capitalism is a long term stable system (...though I have _no_ idea what could be better).
There isn't _any_ certainty cheaper energy will become available, and odds are, they won't in practical terms.
BTW - the US Senate tabled a bill today that would allow our govt to sue OPEC as a monopoly.
There isn't _any_ certainty cheaper energy will become available, and odds are, they won't in practical terms.
BTW - the US Senate tabled a bill today that would allow our govt to sue OPEC as a monopoly.
We are all engines of karma
billvon 3,114
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>the US Senate tabled a bill today that would allow our govt to sue OPEC as a monopoly.
??? I don't get it.
"We, the USA, find you, OPEC, guilty of overpricing and fine you . . . . ONE BILLION DOLLARS."
"We're not paying that!"
"You better, or we'll invade another country over there!"
"We're not paying that, and if you make a fuss, we're going to cut shipments to you by 25%. And increase prices by 50%."
"OK, well . . . never mind, then."
??? I don't get it.
"We, the USA, find you, OPEC, guilty of overpricing and fine you . . . . ONE BILLION DOLLARS."
"We're not paying that!"
"You better, or we'll invade another country over there!"
"We're not paying that, and if you make a fuss, we're going to cut shipments to you by 25%. And increase prices by 50%."
"OK, well . . . never mind, then."
rehmwa 2
QuoteBTW - the US Senate tabled a bill today that would allow our govt to sue OPEC as a monopoly.
Cool, the Senate just did something with as much teeth in it as a UN resolution.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteQuoteWould you apply this to GA? After all most GA is a completely frivilous activity and consumes a great deal of fuel which polutes the environment. Shouldn't there be a huge tax imposed on Jet-A for this reason? What about all the wear and tear on the runway? Those repairs are taxpayer funded and most tax payers are denied access unless they get a pilots license.
Since most GA uses either gasoline (AVGAS) or jet fuel, I think the answer is implicit in what I wrote.
In principle at least, aviation fuel taxes and passenger ticket taxes are supposed to go into a trust fund to maintain aviation infrastructure. The aviation trust fund is routinely raided by the Federal Govt, of course, to offset the deficit (now at record levels, wouldn't you know, thanks GWB) so aviation is not a drain on the non-flying taxpayer, quite the reverse.
You missed the point. This is the part of your post I took the most aim at:
QuoteThose who drive SUVs with only one occupant into big cities should be fined $500 for the first offense, and $1000 for each subsequent offense.
If I'm understanding you correctly, your opinion is that driving a SUV with only one person in it is a frivilous waste of fuel. Since flying for pleasure is even more frivilous, it would only follow that a fine should be imposed when you waste aviation fuel by your reasoning.
rwieder 0
This is what i'm talking about right here
This kind of help, we don't need. Click on the link and see what our fine senators are "protecting" us from. Me thinks Mr. Mel Martinez has been smoking the chit man!
Quote"When you listen to how those in favor of conducting an inventory discuss the issue, it is clear that these individuals are using an inventory as a precursor to drill," Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), a sponsor of the amendment to remove the provision, said in a statement. "An inventory is simply unacceptable to Floridians."
This kind of help, we don't need. Click on the link and see what our fine senators are "protecting" us from. Me thinks Mr. Mel Martinez has been smoking the chit man!
-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"
kallend 2,147
Quote
If I'm understanding you correctly, your opinion is that driving a SUV with only one person in it is a frivilous waste of fuel. Since flying for pleasure is even more frivilous, it would only follow that a fine should be imposed when you waste aviation fuel by your reasoning.
You omitted the part about cities. There are places where an SUV is quite appropriate, such as off-road activities. I have no objection to those. Of course, most "consumer" SUVs are not actually suitable for serious off-road use.
Try flying a small plane into JFK or O'Hare, or anywhere near DC, and see how much it costs you. There are already stiff penalties in place for frivolous flying.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rwieder 0
I was just watching CNN on the T.V. in my office this morning as i was doing my morning report. There was a report that the Chinese Government is making a strong bid to purchase UNOCAL a major american oil and gas company. Is it me, or is this crazy? 
It would seem we are our own worst enemies at times. I will post a URL when i find it.
It would seem we are our own worst enemies at times. I will post a URL when i find it.-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"
QuoteI was just watching CNN on the T.V. in my office this morning as i was doing my morning report. There was a report that the Chinese Government is making a strong bid to purchase UNOCAL a major american oil and gas company. Is it me, or is this crazy?
Here it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/business/worldbusiness/22WIRE-CNOOC.html?ei=5065&en=4d771759a933fc89&ex=1120104000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
They have also made a bid to purchase Maytag. I'm still trying to put the conspiracy together.
I had heard about Maytag, but that is just downright scary.
China is already buying record levels of our debt, I guess we'll just sell them the rest of the country as well.
I really have to say that I never thought a Republican president would sell our country to the PRC.
It's all about $$$ (and power) but
I guess it's all ok though as long as we don't allow any gays to marry.
China is already buying record levels of our debt, I guess we'll just sell them the rest of the country as well.
I really have to say that I never thought a Republican president would sell our country to the PRC.
It's all about $$$ (and power) but
I guess it's all ok though as long as we don't allow any gays to marry.
illegible usually
QuoteQuote
Do nothing. Just sit back and wait for capitalism to work. Less expensive fuel sources will become available as oil from the ground gets too expensive.
This "solution" has been tried on numerous ocean fisheries.
No, that's a different situation.
Quote
What alternatives have come out - we now have some farmed fish. That form of salmon is a pale version of the wild stuff. Farmed shrimp tastes fine, but requires the destruction of mangrove forests.
As you note we can't duplicate most wild-caught sea food and there are other environmental concerns.
We can make gasoline identical to what we get from natural petroleum.
The environment is not going to suffer if we shut down oil wells. Thermal depolymerization will even make things better because it keeps waste out of landfills.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteI really have to say that I never thought a Republican president would sell our country to the PRC.
Some people are more than willing to make a deal with the devil for personal gain...
QuoteIn my opinion, it is better to use those forces (by increasing taxes, CAFE requirements and alternative-energy incentives) to force that to happen over a longer timespan. Artificially drive prices up ahead of the big spike; that way we have some control over how long it takes.
I believe that increased fuel costs have a minimal effect on people's driving habits. Although gas costs are increasing there's a tremendous amount of low density housing being built far from jobs. Most employers opt for less expensive real estate away from urban centers. Big trucks continue to roll off dealers' lots. People are going to continue driving from low density housing to jobs that are not close by in the vehicles they feel they're entitled to have.
There are political limits to the CAFE standards. Power requirements are a function of weight and frontal area. Honda Civics and smaller cars can easily get 30 - 40 MPG because they don't have much of either. SUVs can't because of their size. People are not going to accept legislation which forces them to drive the small cars needed to meet CAFE standards that significantly improve fuel economy.
Quote
Increasing CAFE standards will help low income people afford efficient cars. That will cancel out the increased costs of fuel.
Eventually. When I made much less money I was only able to spend $2000 on a vehicle. It costs about $250 a year to insure that truck, $25 to register it, and about $25 in oil and filters to run it. One of my friends doesn't make much as a professional skydiver and saves his pennies by driving $500 cars which would have similar operational costs. That sort of money does not buy new cars, perhaps even those made in the last decade.
billvon 3,114
>I believe that increased fuel costs have a minimal effect on
>people's driving habits.
People down here are buying more efficient cars and driving together more often because of gas prices. Especially skydivers.
>People are going to continue driving from low density housing to jobs
>that are not close by in the vehicles they feel they're entitled to have.
If gas prices continue to be high, people will perceive more value in living closer to work - and will make that happen. Those that do will wind up with more money and be more successful. It won't be overnight, of course.
>There are political limits to the CAFE standards. Power requirements
>are a function of weight and frontal area.
Yet hybrid SUV's get better mileage than non-hybrid SUV's of exactly the same size. The hybrids even have more power overall. So that doesn't hold.
>People are not going to accept legislation which forces them to
>drive the small cars needed to meet CAFE standards that significantly
> improve fuel economy.
See above. You can drive SUV's and still meet much higher CAFE requirements.
>Eventually. When I made much less money I was only able to
>spend $2000 on a vehicle.
That's good news for people like you, then. Car companies implement CAFE requirements by reducing costs on their least expensive cars (which are typically also their most efficient non-hybrids) and increasing prices on their largest, most wasteful cars. So the already cheap cars get even cheaper - and thus their resale cost gets cheaper as well.
>people's driving habits.
People down here are buying more efficient cars and driving together more often because of gas prices. Especially skydivers.
>People are going to continue driving from low density housing to jobs
>that are not close by in the vehicles they feel they're entitled to have.
If gas prices continue to be high, people will perceive more value in living closer to work - and will make that happen. Those that do will wind up with more money and be more successful. It won't be overnight, of course.
>There are political limits to the CAFE standards. Power requirements
>are a function of weight and frontal area.
Yet hybrid SUV's get better mileage than non-hybrid SUV's of exactly the same size. The hybrids even have more power overall. So that doesn't hold.
>People are not going to accept legislation which forces them to
>drive the small cars needed to meet CAFE standards that significantly
> improve fuel economy.
See above. You can drive SUV's and still meet much higher CAFE requirements.
>Eventually. When I made much less money I was only able to
>spend $2000 on a vehicle.
That's good news for people like you, then. Car companies implement CAFE requirements by reducing costs on their least expensive cars (which are typically also their most efficient non-hybrids) and increasing prices on their largest, most wasteful cars. So the already cheap cars get even cheaper - and thus their resale cost gets cheaper as well.
rehmwa 2
Quote>If gas prices continue to be high, people will perceive more value in living closer to work - and will make that happen. Those that do will wind up with more money and be more successful. It won't be overnight, of course.
But, but, we can't let that happen. People must_not_be_ allowed to be successful, we obviously must immediately tax the hell out of anyone living within 20 miles of their work or we'll completely undermine the entire social structure of the country. Or else they'll turn around and buy SUVs once they've made it.
you can see it's a vicious cycle.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 3,114
>People must_not_be_ allowed to be successful, we obviously must
> immediately tax the hell out of anyone living within 20 miles of their
> work . . .
You meant 'farther' right?
But no need for that. CAFE standards and gas taxes will take care of the problem without getting out a measuring tape to see how far people live from work.
> immediately tax the hell out of anyone living within 20 miles of their
> work . . .
You meant 'farther' right?
But no need for that. CAFE standards and gas taxes will take care of the problem without getting out a measuring tape to see how far people live from work.
rehmwa 2
Quote>People must_not_be_ allowed to be successful, we obviously must
> immediately tax the hell out of anyone living within 20 miles of their
> work . . .
You meant 'farther' right?
But no need for that. CAFE standards and gas taxes will take care of the problem without getting out a measuring tape to see how far people live from work.
No, within 20 miles - we don't want ANYONE getting successful. farther than 20 miles, well, they have to buy gas. That'll keep em down. It's those jokers that are saving money living in close. They aren't allowed to become affluent. (I know, you aren't a 'flaming' hate the rich liberal, that's more the style of others here, but it seemed to fit. You're more in the tax everyone else but me camp.
)...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 3,114
> You're more in the tax everyone else but me camp.
Heck no! Tax me too. I can afford it.
Heck no! Tax me too. I can afford it.
QuoteAs you note we can't duplicate most wild-caught sea food and there are other environmental concerns.
We can make gasoline identical to what we get from natural petroleum.
The environment is not going to suffer if we shut down oil wells. Thermal depolymerization will even make things better because it keeps waste out of landfills.
You're skipping the point. We, and by that I mean free market, can't manage resources. We exploit it for profit so long as it is possible. And only when the price starts skyrocketing do we start to look for alternatives.
Fortunately, we don't rely on a single species of fish to stay alive, and have many other alternatives. So we stop eating swordfish, big deal. But there's only one real source of energy, and that is oil. If we wait until the steep dropoff happens, it's too late. Mad Max isn't too far outside the realm of possibility.
rehmwa 2
Quote> You're more in the tax everyone else but me camp.
Heck no! Tax me too. I can afford it.
I have no issue with someone paying more to the IRS than what their 1040's indicate. Knock yourself out.
Those who really think that taxes should go up so the government takes care of social issues, then should do that instead of giving to specific charities or organizations of their choice. I just don't see that happening.
But, back to oil and nuclear power....
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 3,114
>Those who really think that taxes should go up so the government
> takes care of social issues, then should do that instead of giving to
> specific charities or organizations of their choice.
Doesn't work that way. People exhibit behaviors to avoid paying taxes, whether those behaviors are buying more efficient cars, buying tax-free municipal bonds, contributing to their 401k's, buying a house and deducting the interest etc. Government certainly has a direct interest in getting enough money to run itself, and it has an indirect interest in not destroying the economy in the process (since good economy = more revenue.) Therefore it makes sense to apportion those taxes so that economy-damaging effects are averted or minimized.
> takes care of social issues, then should do that instead of giving to
> specific charities or organizations of their choice.
Doesn't work that way. People exhibit behaviors to avoid paying taxes, whether those behaviors are buying more efficient cars, buying tax-free municipal bonds, contributing to their 401k's, buying a house and deducting the interest etc. Government certainly has a direct interest in getting enough money to run itself, and it has an indirect interest in not destroying the economy in the process (since good economy = more revenue.) Therefore it makes sense to apportion those taxes so that economy-damaging effects are averted or minimized.
more on that...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=agGmCkuvR_1U&refer=asia
it's starting to look like that deal will go through.
Makes me wonder if Rhino will get his wish. Once the Chairman buys the rest of the US, we probably will outlaw the desecration of the national flag. Too bad it wil look like this...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=agGmCkuvR_1U&refer=asia
it's starting to look like that deal will go through.
Makes me wonder if Rhino will get his wish. Once the Chairman buys the rest of the US, we probably will outlaw the desecration of the national flag. Too bad it wil look like this...
illegible usually
billvon 3,114
Update:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aDubtdLe8SIQ
Oil Traders Raise Bets on $80 Crude on Supply Concern (Update6)
July 4 (Bloomberg) -
Record oil prices may increase to $80 a barrel this year, options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange show. Investors are speculating OPEC won't produce enough oil to compensate for any disruption to supplies.
New York Mercantile Exchange data show 6,900 options contracts outstanding that allow buyers to purchase oil for December delivery at $80 a barrel, compared with an average of 77 contracts in January. The probability that oil will top $75 a barrel when the December crude contract expires is 21 percent, according to Adam Sieminski and Michael Lewis, strategists at Deutsche Bank AG, up from 5 percent at the start of the year.
. . .
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the producer of about 40 percent of the world's oil, is pumping almost as much crude oil as it can to increase inventories before consumption peaks in the fourth quarter. Crude oil reached a record $60.95 in New York on June 27, deepening concern that the cost of energy would slow economic growth.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aDubtdLe8SIQ
Oil Traders Raise Bets on $80 Crude on Supply Concern (Update6)
July 4 (Bloomberg) -
Record oil prices may increase to $80 a barrel this year, options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange show. Investors are speculating OPEC won't produce enough oil to compensate for any disruption to supplies.
New York Mercantile Exchange data show 6,900 options contracts outstanding that allow buyers to purchase oil for December delivery at $80 a barrel, compared with an average of 77 contracts in January. The probability that oil will top $75 a barrel when the December crude contract expires is 21 percent, according to Adam Sieminski and Michael Lewis, strategists at Deutsche Bank AG, up from 5 percent at the start of the year.
. . .
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the producer of about 40 percent of the world's oil, is pumping almost as much crude oil as it can to increase inventories before consumption peaks in the fourth quarter. Crude oil reached a record $60.95 in New York on June 27, deepening concern that the cost of energy would slow economic growth.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites