Instead of taxing oil companies that already research alternative fuels, provide many jobs for US citizens, make comparatively low profit margins of 6%, and will only pass these additional taxes on to the consumer...
Why not levy a 95% tax on the top entertainers for alternative fuel research. Actors provide little to this country other than entertainment yet they complain the loudest about energy concerns. We could provide them with the piece of mind that they are affecting real change, for the $20 million they make a film they'd still have $1 million to live on which is plenty compensation for play-acting, and we won't appreciably effect the economy.
For example, using round numbers, the top 10 actors each year get taxed 95% on the $20 million they made per movie. We would end up with $190 million for alternative fuel research per year.
We all win.
2007-03-21 07:41:54 · 7 answers · asked by floatingbloatedcorpse 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A great turn using Democratic tactics, my man! Yes, their idea all along is that rich people don't deserve to be rich while others are "suffering", so let's tax them at a higher rate. Give it to the unholy alliance between Hollywierd and the Libs and see how they like the idea. Maybe pitch it to union heads, newspaper moguls, and network executives too. They all make more than me, so they can afford it, right?
2007-03-21 08:02:42 · answer #1 · answered by Whootziedude 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That may be a win for you -- but it is illegal to tax someone for something they are not directly doing or involved in.
You can't just pick rich people and tax them arbitrarily. The law doesn't work that way.
Taxes must be related to the activity being taxed. Hence, taxing producers of non-renewable fuels to fund renewable fuels.
And with oil companies making billions of dollars in profit a year, they have no rational claim that they cannot afford it.
2007-03-21 14:53:37 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
--------------
Using government or corporate money for alternative fuel research doesn't work anyway. Politicians, automotive companies, and oil interests just find ways to stall and waste the money, because this is a problem they do not want to solve.
*
Instead, look at what has been developed with NO HELP or susidies from any of the above:
*
http://phoenixmotorcars.com/models/fleet.html
*
The Phoenix electric pickup truck - using new, advanced Altairnano batteries (based on research from MIT) - can:
-Travel up to 250 miles per charge
-Carry 5 passengers plus cargo at 95mph.
-Charges batteries in as little as TEN MINUTES.
-Has batteries that last 250,000 miles (never need replacement.)
*
Yes, it is a real car, being built for fleet customers right now.
*
--------------
2007-03-21 21:27:37 · answer #3 · answered by apeweek 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Which simply pales in proportion to the billions a tax on oil companies would produce.
2007-03-21 14:46:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Good idea!!
Let's add sports stars to the list as well.
Hillary and Obama can sign them up.
2007-03-21 14:53:05 · answer #5 · answered by Sean 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sounds good to me!
2007-03-21 15:09:58 · answer #6 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you were to tax the oil companies, who do you think would be paying those taxes? WE WOULD! They would just pass the tax along to the end users, us. Thanks, but NO THANKS!
2007-03-21 14:52:46 · answer #7 · answered by lumpy r 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋