Oil use supports terrorism. Would you support higher gas taxes if it was returned in payroll tax cuts?

Question

The state religion of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism, a Muslim sect which calls all non-Muslims (and many Muslims) "infidels" who are worthless and justly killed. The money we pay at the gas pump pays for their schools, or "madrassas", where they train people to hate. These madrassas are everywhere, including the United States.

People who race around in gas guzzlers are causing the very problems we are fighting world-wide (e.g. the train bombings in Spain and London as well as 9/11). Instead of paying for police and military through our income taxes, why not make the people who are contributing to the problem pay for its solution? It would also reduce the amount of money flowing overseas, and get US consumers to think about buying efficient cars like the Europeans and Japanese have been doing for years.

To answer questions posed below:

1.  Yes, there is ample supporting data for everything I've said.  Take a look at http://www.iags.org/vision.htm for one example, or all the neo-conservatives suddenly driving Priuses.

2.  Gas taxes are arguably regressive... but payroll taxes are even more regressive.  Poor people spend a greater fraction of their income on fuel, but less in total dollars (directly and indirectly) because they just don't have as much money.  Any scheme which gave a nearly-flat rebate would give more money back to the poor than they paid.  The difference would come from richer people.  The US uses about 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year, or about 700 gallons per worker.  A $2/gallon tax on gas would pay for an elimination of all FICA taxes on the first $10,000 of everyone's income, and they could CHOOSE to spend it on gas... or not.

Answer 1

The problem with gas taxes is that they are regressive, since people with lower incomes tend to spend a higher percentage of their income on gasoline. Those same lower-income people cannot necessarily afford to upgrade their vehicles to more fuel efficent cars. Payroll taxes, on the other hand, are progressive -- taxing those with higher incomes at a higher rate. Cutting payroll taxes and raising gas taxes would result in a reverse Robin-Hood effect of robbing the poor to feed the rich.

If your goal is to reduce consumption of foreign oil, there are less regressive appraches, such as: More strengent CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for new cars -- this will encourage the manufacture of Hybrid vehicles; Invest in research & development of alternative fuels; Invest in a better public transportation system. There are, no dout, other viable approaches.

-------------

Reply: The statement that "A $2/gallon tax on gas would pay for an elimination of all FICA taxes on the first $10,000 of everyone's income" could only be true if we assume that gasoline consumption remains constant after the gas tax is implimented. If that is the case, then the stated purpose of increasing the gasoline tax will have been defeated. If, on the other hand, gasoline consumption is significantly reduced, then where is the government going to go to for the additional revenue that would thereby be lost?

Answer 2

we'd want to deliver all our jobs to China the position the persons get $2.50 an hour for exertions and then we bail the corporate out because some Communist became elected as President then and now! Obama is already to blame of 5 counts of treason and refused to address them or the officer that presented those prices. bill Clinton also dedicated treason and became not in any respect charged! He gave our missile practise structures to China. One might want to awaken. Giving issues to the chinese authorities isn't helping the chinese human beings! the persons comprehend what that is like and it appears that evidently like ignorant human beings will quickly locate out that similar truth. The chinese each individual isn't the chinese authorities. the authorities there loved bill Clinton and loves Obama. the persons there favor Obama lifeless!!! Earl

Answer 3

If you don't stop listening to the Liberals your going to become an Idiot. Nope! Too late.

Answer 4

Or why not devlop the car that ran on water, which has already been invented.

Answer 5

You have a source for all of these claims?

Answer 6

No.