Tax on Skiing in NY

[Harvey]

What does anybody think about taxing the bejebes out of (cash) bonuses paid to bailout execs?

Admin may have a point about where does it end.

But there's no doubt in my mind that massive gasoline tax in Europe has had an impact on infrastructure development and energy efficiency over there.

The recent runup in the price of gas...while not a tax...shows that societal change requires a catalyst. For a while...at $4/gallon... people really changed their thinking. I'm hoping it will stick, but my guess is that energy efficiency will be on the back burner until the economy recovers and the price of gas goes back up.

Now this may be socialism or communism or some bad ism.... but I think that at $2 per gallon, the true cost of driving isn't being paid. When you drive you're not just using roads and bridges, you are incurring lots of other expense that we won't pay until later.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I will side with Admin in his basic GWB/Gordon Gekko world view. It would be nice (and a lot less complicated) if market forces could smoothly dictate our lives/economies. And it is ridiculous (and impossible) to regulate every objectionable behavior through taxation, but look at the other side of the coin -- trying to clean up after eight years of an Adam Smith-based administration.

Consider the loads you see everywhere in this country -- people who eat/drink/smoke too much, spend money they don't have, waste resources, buy homes that don't fit their finances, etc. -- and the social costs that the rest of us have to carry because there's no carrot or stick to force them to act responsibly.

I don't like either choice... does anyone have a third option?

 

[Sharon]

:lol: You don't expect anyone to take you seriously, do you? You can't possibly even believe yourself.

Spirited debate is always ok and encouraged...here and throughout our great country.

When it crosses into personal attacks it's really not and personal respect and decency are often the the first casualties.

I'm disappointed with you, Admin

 

[Admin]

:lol: You don't expect anyone to take you seriously, do you? You can't possibly even believe yourself.

Spirited debate is always ok and encouraged...here and throughout our great country.

When it crosses into personal attacks it's really not and personal respect and decency are often the the first casualties.

I'm disappointed with you, Admin

It wasn't a personal attack. If you are determined to interpret it that way, that's your prerogative.

 

[Sharon]

:lol: You don't expect anyone to take you seriously, do you? You can't possibly even believe yourself.

Spirited debate is always ok and encouraged...here and throughout our great country.

When it crosses into personal attacks it's really not and personal respect and decency are often the the first casualties.

I'm disappointed with you, Admin

It wasn't a personal attack. If you are determined to interpret it that way, that's your prerogative.

You turned a spirited debate into something personal.

 

[Admin]

Yeah, whatever. :roll: As I told you backchannel, if you can't tell the difference between attacking you and attacking your ideas, I can't help you.

I'm tired of this now. Go try this on TGR and let us know how it all turns out.

 

[Sharon]

Yeah, whatever. :roll:

This is the respect you show for your posters? No wonder why so many people have stopped posting here [-X

 

[Admin]

I'm tired of this now.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I'd rather ski the East.

 

[Admin]

I'd rather ski the East.

:lol: Nicely played!

 

[jamesdeluxe]

This is a positive example of the carrot/stick approach that I mentioned earlier... similar to taxing.

I maintain proper forum decorum and Admin sends me his final pair of Squall sunglasses from Serfas Optics, complete with interchangeable lenses.

Everyone wins.

 

[Admin]

Nice try.

 

[rfarren]

This is a positive example of the carrot/stick approach that I mentioned earlier... similar to taxing.

I maintain proper forum decorum and Admin sends me his final pair of Squall sunglasses from Serfas Optics, complete with interchangeable lenses.

Everyone wins.

Nice try.

HAHA!

 

[Tony Crocker]

I'm always up for :stir: on these topics. :lol:

Taxes should never be used as a means to modify behavior.

This is a ridiculous statement. All taxes discourage the taxed behavior whether intended or not. This was the lesson of the Reagan/supply side policy of the 1980's, which slashed marginal rates dramatically, broadened the base and was overall revenue neutral as percent of GDP.

At the margin would you rather tax income/payroll or cigarettes/booze/oil imports/carbon? As most of you know I'm not sold on global warming, but I think this is an easy call which is less of a drag on the economy and might have some ancillary positive side effects.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Taxes should never be used as a means to modify behavior.

This is a ridiculous statement.

You conservatives need to get on the same page... last time I checked, taxes were the one issue that all of you agreed on. No wonder the GOP is in disarray.

So Tony, you're saying that The-Artist-Formerly-Known-As-Sharon didn't deserve Admin's brickbats?
:stir: 8-[

 

[Tony Crocker]

Of course Sharon was overly sensitive. I do not take this stuff personally.

Absolutely conservatives are in disarray. FDR solutions were not appropriate for the economic crisis Reagan faced. Reagan solutions are probably not appropriate for the current crisis. Ideologues who insist on living in the past will often be wrong when new circumstances arise.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Absolutely conservatives are in disarray. FDR solutions were not appropriate for the economic crisis Reagan faced. Reagan solutions are probably not appropriate for the current crisis. Ideologues who insist on living in the past will often be wrong when new circumstances arise.

Look at Tony, getting all mavericky! =D>

But where do conservatives go if you take taxes off the table? For the record, I think it's pretty silly/boring when you always side with one side of any equation. I was actually ready to vote for McCain in 2000... very sad how he changed between that failed run (can't believe he forgave Bush for railroading him out of the primary) and the 2008 version.

Yesterday's NY Post:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03152009/po ... 159691.htm

 

[rfarren]

Of course Sharon was overly sensitive. I do not take this stuff personally.

Absolutely conservatives are in disarray. FDR solutions were not appropriate for the economic crisis Reagan faced. Reagan solutions are probably not appropriate for the current crisis. Ideologues who insist on living in the past will often be wrong when new circumstances arise.

I'm in complete agreement with Tony on this. It's funny but I agree with Tony on most things including global warming. I consider myself a pragmatist, and judging from Tony's way of thinking he is one too.

Personally, I like to see numbers behind logic. That is why I'm always skeptical of ideologues, be it from the liberal or conservative side.

 

[Harvey]

I have to say...while at some level I knew that taxing any behavior discourages it...I never quite thought of it that way Tony.

So can we assume you'd be for a consumption tax vs. income or property tax?

I forget... is consumption tax a liberal or conservative thing? Does it help rich or poor?

It should help the planet right? It's gotta help cheap sobs like me.

And James ...you know I'm challenged when it comes to deciphering sarcasm. That Post article made my head spin around.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Look at Tony, getting all mavericky!

I was an enthusiastic supporter of McCain in 2000, and judged that his real beliefs were similar this time despite some of the rhetoric.

One should look at the overall tax burden as a percent of GDP. My understanding is that the Bush tax cuts did lower that percent somewhat. Meanwhile the spending side increased significantly, most obviously for the wars and homeland security after 9/11 but also on other programs.

I have no problem in the abstract with Keynesian spending to prevent another Depression, or with modestly increased taxes to balance the "full employment" budget. But I do understand why conservatives would be very nervous that under Democratic control the spending increases might be permanent and the tax increases well beyond what Bush cut.

I would like the Keynesian spending to be temporary with a minimum of pork, and for the modestly increased taxes to be on oil imports/carbon rather than repeal of the Bush cuts. That's probably living in a dream world.