...then who was phone!?
48 cents a litre would be more like it.RAIMIUS wrote:
48 cents a gallon isn't enough?
I agree that federal spending does need to change at a structural level. Our current commitments are not sustainable without some sort of change. I'm just wondering why you picked those items.
Or you can continue effectively subsidising people to send your dollars abroad, up to you.
A tax on jet fuel would be a start.
Fuck Israel
What is your intent? Are you trying to "punish" shipping and airlines, create jobs, or increase tax revenue?Dilbert_X wrote:
48 cents a litre would be more like it.RAIMIUS wrote:
48 cents a gallon isn't enough?
I agree that federal spending does need to change at a structural level. Our current commitments are not sustainable without some sort of change. I'm just wondering why you picked those items.
Or you can continue effectively subsidising people to send your dollars abroad, up to you.
A tax on jet fuel would be a start.
To troll.RAIMIUS wrote:
What is your intent? Are you trying to "punish" shipping and airlines, create jobs, or increase tax revenue?Dilbert_X wrote:
48 cents a litre would be more like it.RAIMIUS wrote:
48 cents a gallon isn't enough?
I agree that federal spending does need to change at a structural level. Our current commitments are not sustainable without some sort of change. I'm just wondering why you picked those items.
Or you can continue effectively subsidising people to send your dollars abroad, up to you.
A tax on jet fuel would be a start.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
to create socialist australia.Jay wrote:
To troll.RAIMIUS wrote:
What is your intent? Are you trying to "punish" shipping and airlines, create jobs, or increase tax revenue?Dilbert_X wrote:
48 cents a litre would be more like it.
Or you can continue effectively subsidising people to send your dollars abroad, up to you.
A tax on jet fuel would be a start.
lol fuel at 1.48 a litre go fuck yourself.
that's paying 5.61 per gallon, no including exchange rate (aussie dollar is higher).
we're only about .20 behind aus
do you realize what you just posted?krazed wrote:
we're only about .20 behind aus
words?
No-ones trying to 'punish' anyone, just spread the tax burden away from payroll and tilt the system to discourage wasteful imports.RAIMIUS wrote:
What is your intent? Are you trying to "punish" shipping and airlines, create jobs, or increase tax revenue?Dilbert_X wrote:
48 cents a litre would be more like it.RAIMIUS wrote:
48 cents a gallon isn't enough?
I agree that federal spending does need to change at a structural level. Our current commitments are not sustainable without some sort of change. I'm just wondering why you picked those items.
Or you can continue effectively subsidising people to send your dollars abroad, up to you.
A tax on jet fuel would be a start.
Fuck Israel
I just paid £1.39 per litre to fill up here in the great UK. I think all of Europe is pretty similar.Cybargs wrote:
to create socialist australia.Jay wrote:
To troll.RAIMIUS wrote:
What is your intent? Are you trying to "punish" shipping and airlines, create jobs, or increase tax revenue?
lol fuel at 1.48 a litre go fuck yourself.
that's paying 5.61 per gallon, no including exchange rate (aussie dollar is higher).
Yeah coz we aussies are really paying our fair share for clothing, movie tickets, gas, rent, internet and everything! best country ever!Dilbert_X wrote:
No-ones trying to 'punish' anyone, just spread the tax burden away from payroll and tilt the system to discourage wasteful imports.RAIMIUS wrote:
What is your intent? Are you trying to "punish" shipping and airlines, create jobs, or increase tax revenue?Dilbert_X wrote:
48 cents a litre would be more like it.
Or you can continue effectively subsidising people to send your dollars abroad, up to you.
A tax on jet fuel would be a start.
Yeah, except doing that increases the costs for virtually every manufacturing, transportation, and retail business in the nation! It "discourages" everything except the extremely local economy.Dilbert_X wrote:
tilt the system to discourage wasteful imports.
Which clearly makes things more "fair" in an extremely globalized world.RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah, except doing that increases the costs for virtually every manufacturing, transportation, and retail business in the nation! It "discourages" everything except the extremely local economy.Dilbert_X wrote:
tilt the system to discourage wasteful imports.
Get with the program, RAIMIUS!
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Efficiency is the most hateful obscenity that can be uttered in the presence of a Luddite.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What it encourages is efficient use of energy, and investment to achieve the same.RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah, except doing that increases the costs for virtually every manufacturing, transportation, and retail business in the nation! It "discourages" everything except the extremely local economy.Dilbert_X wrote:
tilt the system to discourage wasteful imports.
That and fuel tax can be very effectively cost neutral as far as companies and the public are concerned - eg tax fuel and return the exact same amount of money as tax breaks for purchase of more efficient vehicles -> which use less imported fuel over their lifetimes which is good for the economy. Or simply return it as company or individual income tax cuts -> consumption would be unaffected.
Problem is, you're the Luddite on this subject.Jay wrote:
Efficiency is the most hateful obscenity that can be uttered in the presence of a Luddite.
Fuck Israel
Its not about 'fair', its about tackling your trade deficit and preparing for when fuel prices really do skyrocket.FEOS wrote:
Which clearly makes things more "fair" in an extremely globalized world.RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah, except doing that increases the costs for virtually every manufacturing, transportation, and retail business in the nation! It "discourages" everything except the extremely local economy.Dilbert_X wrote:
tilt the system to discourage wasteful imports.
Get with the program, RAIMIUS!
Fuck Israel
By astronomically increasing the cost of everything, to include goods and services produced relatively nearby?Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not about 'fair', its about tackling your trade deficit and preparing for when fuel prices really do skyrocket.FEOS wrote:
Which clearly makes things more "fair" in an extremely globalized world.RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah, except doing that increases the costs for virtually every manufacturing, transportation, and retail business in the nation! It "discourages" everything except the extremely local economy.
Get with the program, RAIMIUS!
Do you even understand the concept and/or reality of globalized markets?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
He doesn't care about reality. Oil is evil and we must destroy ourselves in order to wean our population off of it. He's stated quite clearly in the past that he thinks the world is overpopulated. Forcing the world off oil would force population decline (via famine). He kills two birds with one stone.FEOS wrote:
By astronomically increasing the cost of everything, to include goods and services produced relatively nearby?Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not about 'fair', its about tackling your trade deficit and preparing for when fuel prices really do skyrocket.FEOS wrote:
Which clearly makes things more "fair" in an extremely globalized world.
Get with the program, RAIMIUS!
Do you even understand the concept and/or reality of globalized markets?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
terk err jerbs
a dirk er jurrrrbs
a dirk er jurrrrbs
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
O:
THINK ITS TIME OBAMA DID SOMETHIN FOR HIS PEOPLE, REPAIRATIONS WOULD B A GUD START OR IS HE A TOM????
Fix ur damn caps lock u noob lolzHurricane2k9 wrote:
THINK ITS TIME OBAMA DID SOMETHIN FOR HIS PEOPLE, REPAIRATIONS WOULD B A GUD START OR IS HE A TOM????
That assumes the government can A. track the economy with high precision, B. evaluate the factors influencing decisions accurately, C. determine the appropriate "equal" in tax breaks/returns, D. properly budget for such subsidies, E. efficiently distribute those subsidies, and F. continually do all of the above in a constantly changing marketplace...Dilbert_X wrote:
What it encourages is efficient use of energy, and investment to achieve the same.RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah, except doing that increases the costs for virtually every manufacturing, transportation, and retail business in the nation! It "discourages" everything except the extremely local economy.Dilbert_X wrote:
tilt the system to discourage wasteful imports.
That and fuel tax can be very effectively cost neutral as far as companies and the public are concerned - eg tax fuel and return the exact same amount of money as tax breaks for purchase of more efficient vehicles -> which use less imported fuel over their lifetimes which is good for the economy. Or simply return it as company or individual income tax cuts -> consumption would be unaffected.
Already explained it, there would be no additional costs - except for dinosaur industries which are better off replaced.FEOS wrote:
By astronomically increasing the cost of everything, to include goods and services produced relatively nearby?
Oil is going to run out in your lifetime - whats your plan genius?Jay wrote:
He doesn't care about reality. Oil is evil and we must destroy ourselves in order to wean our population off of it. He's stated quite clearly in the past that he thinks the world is overpopulated. Forcing the world off oil would force population decline (via famine). He kills two birds with one stone.
In the meantime do you really want to continue sending your dollars abroad, in the process crippling your own economy, and to fund third world fundamentalist Islam?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-09-17 22:00:03)
Fuck Israel
Whats the alternative, let the free-market come up with a plan?RAIMIUS wrote:
That assumes the government can A. track the economy with high precision, B. evaluate the factors influencing decisions accurately, C. determine the appropriate "equal" in tax breaks/returns, D. properly budget for such subsidies, E. efficiently distribute those subsidies, and F. continually do all of the above in a constantly changing marketplace...
Most CEOs don't think further than the next quarter's stock options, do you think they'll have a plan for when oil is gone and the economy is sunk?
Fuck Israel