close, so close

[mbossman2]

and then he loses his mind.

Charles Krauthammer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501547.html?sub=AR) writes a piece in the Washinton Post on energy and the various administrations since Carter and what we should do:


Drilling in ANWR - Lets go, while it may take a while to get up to speed up there, having a source for 5% of our needs is a huge step forward. (he did skip over the assinine "conservation fee" that was passed in the 1st "100 hours". I wonder why?)
Nuclear power - yes it creates waste, but so does everything else, but nuclear waste is small and easily contained and nuclear technology is available right NOW and can be providing significant energy without the long additional R&D time that solar, tidal or wind power needs to become commercially viable)


And THEN, he loses his mind: slap a tax on gasoline to $4 a gallon. While on the surface that seems like a good idea. as he puts it:

SUV sales plunge, the Prius is cool and car ads once again begin featuring miles-per-gallon ratings.

but it is the short & long term effects (something everyone seems to turn a blind eye to) that concerns me:


What are we going to do with the money now? Given government's normal proclivities, it will get fucked up
as time passes, this revenue stream becomes expected and then dwindles - what is the plan to wean the public from this revenue stream? or is it just going to spiral up and up to make up for the shortfall and then eventually have to spill over into over revenue sources to make up the shortfall?


The thing that "taxation as guidance" (they use taxes than tax crediting) folks overlook is the addictive nature of tax revenues and politicians. Until they figure that out and plan, with rock solid, irreversible plans to STOP the tax after X amount time (or after certain criteria is met) they must be prevent from these types of taxes.

[drisley]

Yeah, using the tax system for social engineering is a bad idea. Remember, the income tax itself was supposed to be temporary. That didn't work out either.

What its going to take is consumer awareness in order to create a demand. As soon as there is a demand (which is already on the rise) for fuel efficiency and alternative-fueled vehicles, car makers will supply them. We're already seeing increasing sales and manufacturer of these models from Japanese car makers like Toyota and Honda. Government can only be an impediment to the switch away from oil, and its not something that can be forced through the tax system.

[Computer Hobby]

Who would you guys rather have the money. The US government or the Saudis? Just asking.

[mbossman2]

the saudis will always get their cut as the source of the raw materials....

CH you have to take a long term view here (an alternative motor vehicle source will become a reality and mainstream): any tax, regardless of its intent and initial source, becomes expected, viewed by the government bureaucrats as their form of an entitlement. as time passes, the revenue stream dries up but the event/service funded by that revenue continues to grow and requires a "new" revenue stream to continue to provide a (claimed) vital service.

Instead of slamming a tax to obtain the desired effect (the stick technique), IMO, the using tax credits (the carrot technique) is a far better choice. Unfortunately that rapidly becomes a "tax break(s) for the rich" rallying cry. Too bad those people who chant that chant also seem to have zero understanding of how products get adopted and how the early products in the cycle are expensive and why they cost so much. but that is not surprising....if people were economically savvy so much of what our "leaders" propose would be seen for the bullshit that they truly are.

[Computer Hobby]

One bossman's carrot is a tax some other poor shmoe (probably bossman's grandchild) has to pay.

There are no free lunches.