China, India and Indonesia subsidize gas to keep prices lower for consumers. Gas subsidies are 25% of Indonesia's government budget. The currencies of India and Indonesia are being weakened because of the rising costs of subsidies, they are raising rates to compensate. You can't escape the market, costs will find a way to get you.

No, better speculators than taxes. Speculators eventually run themselves out of business. Tax collectors never seem to.

Joe's got it exactly right. The problem with taxes is the same as counter-cyclic government spending – the less money to government option never happens. Any tax increase to balance out declining prices will never be decreased, so to use that as a justification is extremely naive.

oj-

trust me, you will appreciate the changes brought about by more rather than less dependence on market forces as opposed to social engineering through the heavy hand of state, be patient.

Tom:

Why should George Soros get the benefit of higher gas prices instead of American taxpayers?

joe:

Of course not, we want government and need taxes to pay for it. Better consumption taxes than income.

If you think it is good for the US to rely less on oil from the Middle East, in the long run, allowing speculators to invest in other areas and/or other technologies is the fastest and most effective way to develop alternatives. Letting the government increase taxes just means the extra money goes for some other purpose than developing other sources of energy.

The high energy prices we are currently seeing don't just make oil companies rich. It puts a whole army of people to work developing alternatives because they want to get rich also.

We need the tax money to increase the size of our military by 100,000 and increase their pay and benefits. We also need it to defray the cost of GWoT. As OJ says, we rely too heavily on the income tax and need consumption tax componets as an increased part of the revenue. A $3/gal. gas tax should produce $300 Billion/yr.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at August 31, 2005 1:57 PM

joejoe:

Yes, make gas expensive enough and alternatives become economically viable.

Robert:

We need to shrink the military. If you leave generals infantry they use it.

oj, list some alternatives. I'll start you off: sitting at home is an alternative. Good for you, not so good for anyone whose livelihood depends on customers coming to their place of business. Artificially jacking up the price of a basic commodity helps no one in the long run. You perceive that the price mechanism works to limit the damage and you confuse this with an actual positive benefit. That's mere magical thinking on your part, but then you do a lot of that.

So we need a bigger government and a smaller military? David's right.

So far joe shropshire is the only person who hasn't started drinking today.

smaller government--the military is just another bloated government bureaucracy.

joe:

Telecommuting. There's hardly a white collar worker in America who needs to leaqve his own house, nevermind does much work once he does.

Then what do you need more tax revenue for?

So far so good for the white-collar workers. What about the rest of the country? I don't know that many telecommuting plumbers.

Plumbers work locally and won't have very high gas bills.

joe:

You don't. You need less. But you need to have it come from where it's most useful to tax--sin.

oj-

soros is a currency guy. speculators add liquidity to markets. there'e nothing wrong with it. cash passing through the state is not an efficient use of resources.

"Telecommuting. There's hardly a white collar worker in America who needs to leaqve his own house, nevermind does much work once he does. = Double ouch.

OJ: I tow a 3,000lb BBQ to festivals, events and concerts to sell people who show up there scrumptious food. Your gas tax would mean less people show up, cost me more to get there and leave me no room to pass on the additional cost to those who do manage to show up.

Gas is the WD-40 of Capitalism. You want to keep it available AND affordable. Let's try spending less first.

Accordingly to oj's logic, then: this would also be a good time to confront our problem with obesity. Let's tax food so people can break their habit of eating. "Simply" because people couldn't hardly afford the luxury of eating too much.

John:

Yours is a business where its easy enough to justify and then pass on gasoline costs. No one would likely even notice if you just emailed in your day job.

OJ: You're right on the telecommuting. Though my 0.7 mile "commute" -- which I often walk instead of driving -- almost obviates the benefit of e-mailing it in. On the other hand, people who've already paid tax-inflated gas prices to show up at an event aren't likely to be the most receptive to a "passed-along" gasoline charge just so they can enjoy my fabulous food. The reality is, we'd have to eat the increase internally (pardon the pun).

No thanks. Spend less. More $ to the Government is simply more power -- and they have too much already.

Not more money to the government, just different money.

No, more money. There is no chance in Hades that consumption taxes will replace income taxes. They'll go on top of them, just as the VAT does in the EU.

OJ: Ya, sure, pal. You go first. Lower & flatten the income taxes, set up private accounts for SS and triple my yearly HSA deduction amount then we'll talk about "different money".

"We need to shrink the military. If you leave generals infantry they use it."

We can only hope so. There are a lot of folks who need to get the sharp end of the sword.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at August 31, 2005 7:12 PM

joe:

Why? We change our tax code all the time and the GOP manages to lower the overall burden periodically.

John:

Chairman Thomas wants to do them all at once. That seems ambitious. It'll all happen in time though.

"We need to shrink the military. If you leave generals infantry they use it."

OJ: you are daft. There is a war on and a world full of bad guys. Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; For I am the most heavily armed nation in the world.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 1, 2005 12:36 AM

Use the arms.

Yes, We should.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 1, 2005 10:18 AM

Oj,

If we increased the government, we stand a good chance of hiring guys like you who would probably want to do stuff to make my life miserable. No thanks. We have too many liberals doing that already.

Perry:

We don't need more government. We need to pay for less with a more sensible tax scheme.