posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:14 AM
I'll try to avoid cursing at the thought of newer and higher taxes. *grin*
There are a *lot* of major problems with this plan. First, let's look at the 'ripple effect'. Jacking up the price of gas and diesel fuel by $1.00
isn't just going to raise the cost of gassing up the Kia by $20.00 per tank (more on that score later). It's going to hit long and short-haul
truckers with yet another hike in fuel prices, which will have to be passed down the price chain to the consumer. It's also going to hit farmers
fairly hard. I know from growing up on a family farm exactly how much profit margin they DON'T have. Once again, the increased fuel price will have
to get passed down the chain. There'll be a (or another) huge impact on commercial air travel, which will carry through into business costs and take
more wind out of the sails of the tourism industry. In the short term, your proposal would probably drive several small farmers under, along with
several regional airlines. The price of food and manufactured goods would go up as well.
Another problem is that "10% of the vehicle's value" idea. Is that 10% of the value of the vehicle when it's new? 10% of its depreciated value?
10% of its "blue book" value? What if I add things that increase value, like a better stereo, custom paint, or better tires? Do those things up my
"research surcharge" ?
Are commercial vehicles subject to this 10% fee? If so, you're going to cause a massive spike in prices for everything, and drive even more people
out of certain sectors of the economy. If they aren't, then what stops me from incorporating as "Stormhammer Consulting" and declaring my vehicle
to be a company car? Talk about an enforcement nightmare! I need a Tylenol now...too bad that they're going to cost around $2.00 each.
You're also assuming that 'earmarked' revenue stays earmarked. I can guarantee you that it won't. All of that extra money is going to become yet
another Congressional hog-trough. Even if you put provisions into the law locking it to a certain purpose, it will be subverted within two years. I
watched it happen in Missouri when they instituted a state lottery. Lottery profits were earmarked for education....so when the money started rolling
in, the state Congresscritters took one look at all of that cash, and promptly sent it all over to the Education budget....then cut the conventional
funding for education by the same amount, and used the cut money for their projects. If you think it wouldn't happen here, think again.
On to other problems. This is going to sound snide, though it's not intended to be. Do you work for a living? My wife and I both do, and your
proposal would pretty much land us both in the poor house. "Reduce consumption" isn't always an option. My driving is already limited to commuting
4 days per week, driving to church on Sunday, and twice a month runs to the grocery store. My wife is in pretty much the same boat. Our schedules
don't mesh well with mass transit, and the low staffing on our shifts makes carpooling with co-workers impossible. I don't have $57,000 to buy a
matched pair of Toyota Prius, and I certainly don't have the $Ins,ert, Rid,ic,ulo,us A,mou.nt needed to buy a house closer to one of our jobs....just
how am I supposed to 'reduce consumption' ?
Sorry...your idea would probably reduce consumption, all right...by triggering a rather stunning economic depression...which would pretty much stall
the very research you're trying to promote, long before it had a chance to bear fruit. Then there'd be the problem of getting the new technology
built, but that's another story.