BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/ the love of change Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-1048 Jarred Mon, 05 May 2008 15:49:56 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-1048 What do you guys think about <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/windfall_profits.php" rel="nofollow">this guy's idea</a> to raise the gas tax and return half of the new revenues to consumers in the form of a rebate? This seems like it would encourage conservation by consumers and also send a message to oil companies to start looking at other forms of energy for their profits. The other half of the revenue would be used to invest in alternative energy. What do you guys think about this guy’s idea to raise the gas tax and return half of the new revenues to consumers in the form of a rebate?

This seems like it would encourage conservation by consumers and also send a message to oil companies to start looking at other forms of energy for their profits. The other half of the revenue would be used to invest in alternative energy.

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-2993 Jarred Taylor Mon, 05 May 2008 15:49:00 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-2993 What do you guys think about <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/windfall_profits.php" rel="nofollow">this guy's idea</a> to raise the gas tax and return half of the new revenues to consumers in the form of a rebate? This seems like it would encourage conservation by consumers and also send a message to oil companies to start looking at other forms of energy for their profits. The other half of the revenue would be used to invest in alternative energy. What do you guys think about this guy’s idea to raise the gas tax and return half of the new revenues to consumers in the form of a rebate?

This seems like it would encourage conservation by consumers and also send a message to oil companies to start looking at other forms of energy for their profits. The other half of the revenue would be used to invest in alternative energy.

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-1036 Sierra Alpha Mike Sat, 03 May 2008 00:25:59 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-1036 Obviously, there's may be thresholds here and there at which, statistically, people who drive large amounts are more likely to be in an accident. However, is it possible that people who drive more are going to be better drivers and less accident prone? I drive all the time and have never had more than a small bump with no damage. Obviously, there’s may be thresholds here and there at which, statistically, people who drive large amounts are more likely to be in an accident. However, is it possible that people who drive more are going to be better drivers and less accident prone? I drive all the time and have never had more than a small bump with no damage.

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-2992 Anonymous Sat, 03 May 2008 00:25:00 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-2992 Obviously, there's may be thresholds here and there at which, statistically, people who drive large amounts are more likely to be in an accident. However, is it possible that people who drive more are going to be better drivers and less accident prone? I drive all the time and have never had more than a small bump with no damage. Obviously, there’s may be thresholds here and there at which, statistically, people who drive large amounts are more likely to be in an accident. However, is it possible that people who drive more are going to be better drivers and less accident prone? I drive all the time and have never had more than a small bump with no damage.

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-1023 Jarred Fri, 02 May 2008 16:21:49 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-1023 I'm no energy or green expert, but it seems to me that it would be OK to offer incentives for all (as opposed to having Congress or the White House pick and choose who gets funding). Similar to what Taylor says: develop standard requirements for government subsidies. Sure, this will likely be politicized somewhat, but it's better than nothing. We all agree that oil companies should be taxed like any other company... but I don't think Taylor or others are proposing a windfall tax simply because they produce a commodity. They are proposing a windfall tax specifically because oil -- while necessary for our economy -- is also helping to kill out planet and hijack our foreign policy, and these companies are making a killing off of it. Exxon just announced, what, $10 billion in profit? And that was underperformance?! I’m no energy or green expert, but it seems to me that it would be OK to offer incentives for all (as opposed to having Congress or the White House pick and choose who gets funding). Similar to what Taylor says: develop standard requirements for government subsidies. Sure, this will likely be politicized somewhat, but it’s better than nothing.

We all agree that oil companies should be taxed like any other company… but I don’t think Taylor or others are proposing a windfall tax simply because they produce a commodity. They are proposing a windfall tax specifically because oil — while necessary for our economy — is also helping to kill out planet and hijack our foreign policy, and these companies are making a killing off of it. Exxon just announced, what, $10 billion in profit? And that was underperformance?!

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-2991 Jarred Taylor Fri, 02 May 2008 16:21:00 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-2991 I'm no energy or green expert, but it seems to me that it would be OK to offer incentives for all (as opposed to having Congress or the White House pick and choose who gets funding). Similar to what Taylor says: develop standard requirements for government subsidies. Sure, this will likely be politicized somewhat, but it's better than nothing. We all agree that oil companies should be taxed like any other company... but I don't think Taylor or others are proposing a windfall tax simply because they produce a commodity. They are proposing a windfall tax specifically because oil -- while necessary for our economy -- is also helping to kill out planet and hijack our foreign policy, and these companies are making a killing off of it. Exxon just announced, what, $10 billion in profit? And that was underperformance?! I’m no energy or green expert, but it seems to me that it would be OK to offer incentives for all (as opposed to having Congress or the White House pick and choose who gets funding). Similar to what Taylor says: develop standard requirements for government subsidies. Sure, this will likely be politicized somewhat, but it’s better than nothing.

We all agree that oil companies should be taxed like any other company… but I don’t think Taylor or others are proposing a windfall tax simply because they produce a commodity. They are proposing a windfall tax specifically because oil — while necessary for our economy — is also helping to kill out planet and hijack our foreign policy, and these companies are making a killing off of it. Exxon just announced, what, $10 billion in profit? And that was underperformance?!

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-1022 Taylor Fri, 02 May 2008 16:04:14 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-1022 To be clear, I'm not for a second arguing that we've managed to find the right incentives for alternative energy development. The disastrous energy bill missed the mark, in my view, by issuing mandated volumes of SPECIFIC types of alternative energy (x% from corn ethanol, y% from wind, etc)and by not recognizing that those solutions should vary by location. Instead of dictating what solutions will work, why not try to develop an objective standard for "clean energy?" This might well be a complete fantasy, but why wouldn't it be a good thing (in theory) for tax policy to reward a company that creates an energy product which emits less than X pounds of carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) per KWH? Or mile? You'd have to be careful to capture the production cycle of the fuel (i.e. corn ethanol would fail any decent standard), and setting a standard would be difficult, but wouldn't this speed up alternative energy development? I know that many brilliant companies are working on energy solutions--I've personally invested in the few of them that have gone public. But why not give THEM the tax breaks that would accelerate their ability to bring solutions to market? To be clear, I’m not for a second arguing that we’ve managed to find the right incentives for alternative energy development. The disastrous energy bill missed the mark, in my view, by issuing mandated volumes of SPECIFIC types of alternative energy (x% from corn ethanol, y% from wind, etc)and by not recognizing that those solutions should vary by location. Instead of dictating what solutions will work, why not try to develop an objective standard for “clean energy?” This might well be a complete fantasy, but why wouldn’t it be a good thing (in theory) for tax policy to reward a company that creates an energy product which emits less than X pounds of carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) per KWH? Or mile? You’d have to be careful to capture the production cycle of the fuel (i.e. corn ethanol would fail any decent standard), and setting a standard would be difficult, but wouldn’t this speed up alternative energy development?

I know that many brilliant companies are working on energy solutions–I’ve personally invested in the few of them that have gone public. But why not give THEM the tax breaks that would accelerate their ability to bring solutions to market?

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-2990 Taylor Fri, 02 May 2008 16:04:00 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-2990 To be clear, I'm not for a second arguing that we've managed to find the right incentives for alternative energy development. The disastrous energy bill missed the mark, in my view, by issuing mandated volumes of SPECIFIC types of alternative energy (x% from corn ethanol, y% from wind, etc)and by not recognizing that those solutions should vary by location. Instead of dictating what solutions will work, why not try to develop an objective standard for "clean energy?" This might well be a complete fantasy, but why wouldn't it be a good thing (in theory) for tax policy to reward a company that creates an energy product which emits less than X pounds of carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) per KWH? Or mile? You'd have to be careful to capture the production cycle of the fuel (i.e. corn ethanol would fail any decent standard), and setting a standard would be difficult, but wouldn't this speed up alternative energy development? I know that many brilliant companies are working on energy solutions--I've personally invested in the few of them that have gone public. But why not give THEM the tax breaks that would accelerate their ability to bring solutions to market? To be clear, I’m not for a second arguing that we’ve managed to find the right incentives for alternative energy development. The disastrous energy bill missed the mark, in my view, by issuing mandated volumes of SPECIFIC types of alternative energy (x% from corn ethanol, y% from wind, etc)and by not recognizing that those solutions should vary by location. Instead of dictating what solutions will work, why not try to develop an objective standard for “clean energy?” This might well be a complete fantasy, but why wouldn’t it be a good thing (in theory) for tax policy to reward a company that creates an energy product which emits less than X pounds of carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) per KWH? Or mile? You’d have to be careful to capture the production cycle of the fuel (i.e. corn ethanol would fail any decent standard), and setting a standard would be difficult, but wouldn’t this speed up alternative energy development?

I know that many brilliant companies are working on energy solutions–I’ve personally invested in the few of them that have gone public. But why not give THEM the tax breaks that would accelerate their ability to bring solutions to market?

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-1021 Eric Fri, 02 May 2008 15:47:40 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-1021 You're absolutely right, we should end the tax breaks and tax them like any other company. Just don't levy additional taxes just because they are producing a commodity. Certainly don't get the government involved with giving subsidies to develop alternative fuels. We've seen how that's worked out with the corn-based ethanol market. Prices will definetly rise as any finite commodity depletes. However, the free market will find a way to fuel the future, there are hundreds of companies right now who are working on smart and sustainable fuel options. Why muddy the process up and have the govenment decide which of these possible opportunities we should fund based on what group Congress or the president is pandering to today? What happens if the government gets it wrong and the company that could produce the most sustainable and clean energy source is forced out of business because the government decides to fund switchgrass or algae? You’re absolutely right, we should end the tax breaks and tax them like any other company. Just don’t levy additional taxes just because they are producing a commodity. Certainly don’t get the government involved with giving subsidies to develop alternative fuels. We’ve seen how that’s worked out with the corn-based ethanol market. Prices will definetly rise as any finite commodity depletes. However, the free market will find a way to fuel the future, there are hundreds of companies right now who are working on smart and sustainable fuel options. Why muddy the process up and have the govenment decide which of these possible opportunities we should fund based on what group Congress or the president is pandering to today? What happens if the government gets it wrong and the company that could produce the most sustainable and clean energy source is forced out of business because the government decides to fund switchgrass or algae?

]]> BUY Melphalan ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION http://tropophilia.com/2008/05/02/pay-as-you-drive/#comment-2988 Eric Fri, 02 May 2008 15:47:00 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=257#comment-2988 You're absolutely right, we should end the tax breaks and tax them like any other company. Just don't levy additional taxes just because they are producing a commodity. Certainly don't get the government involved with giving subsidies to develop alternative fuels. We've seen how that's worked out with the corn-based ethanol market. Prices will definetly rise as any finite commodity depletes. However, the free market will find a way to fuel the future, there are hundreds of companies right now who are working on smart and sustainable fuel options. Why muddy the process up and have the govenment decide which of these possible opportunities we should fund based on what group Congress or the president is pandering to today? What happens if the government gets it wrong and the company that could produce the most sustainable and clean energy source is forced out of business because the government decides to fund switchgrass or algae? You’re absolutely right, we should end the tax breaks and tax them like any other company. Just don’t levy additional taxes just because they are producing a commodity. Certainly don’t get the government involved with giving subsidies to develop alternative fuels. We’ve seen how that’s worked out with the corn-based ethanol market. Prices will definetly rise as any finite commodity depletes. However, the free market will find a way to fuel the future, there are hundreds of companies right now who are working on smart and sustainable fuel options. Why muddy the process up and have the govenment decide which of these possible opportunities we should fund based on what group Congress or the president is pandering to today? What happens if the government gets it wrong and the company that could produce the most sustainable and clean energy source is forced out of business because the government decides to fund switchgrass or algae?

]]>