Right. Who are you quoting there as saying there should be a higher tax on gas "just because"? I can use fake quotes, too: "strawman". I think there should be a higher tax on gas because it's the most effective way to get individuals to consider the negative externalities caused by their consumption of gas, thus arriving at the socially optimal amount of gasoline used. As it is now, individuals get all of the benefits of their own consumption, while others bear much of the cost (in terms of environmental damage, congestion, higher risk of accidents, wear on roads, etc.). We can be more precise than "middle and lower class working families" by saying that it would be those who use the most gas that would feel the bite; however, if you're concerned about the less-fortunate in our society, consider this: because of the nature of elasticity of supply and demand in the market for gasoline, most of the burden of a higher gas tax would fall on those who sell the gas and not on those who purchase it. Those who purchase it could be more than compensated for their losses in the form of offsetting tax cuts (for instance, we could use a payroll tax cut to help the working poor). At the same time, everyone would have a greater incentive to conserve gas.
What I'm responding to is you assertion that it's ok for entry level at investment houses to make huge amounts out of college vs. what happens European is ok because "look at the revenues they generate". I disagree with that whole-heartedly. I will buy a lot of the other arguments such as they're some of the young brightest minds that work their butts off doing things very few people in the world can understand. And that our financial system, simplified to it's core and when it's working, the math models are a work of art to be marveled at. I can buy that argument. I sympathize with entry level workers at those institutions because I understand who gets put in those positions, what it takes to get there and what is usually asked of them once they get there. I just don't think the argument that the revenues justifies what they make holds. My accountability argument was geared at the top. You're saying that they're looking for jobs, but some of the fired guys did very well the last 3 years, enough so that if they don't work for the next 10+ years, they'd still be ok. Yes, they lost their jobs, but if you're at upper level managment and you know that a good earning call this quater means a few million more in vs.a potential CHANCE of losing a lot of $$$$$$$ for the company and get fired in the future, you are likely to take the quick cash. I just think the current pay structures favors risk takers way too much. Also, I do think that if we're giving so much money to the finance industry with so little control (I understand why things are happening the way they are and even though I don't like it, I can't really argue against the Tarp) that the auto industry should get some for the help. And while I don't like the UAW (Engineer friends filled me in on how much UAW control the big 3 and what it actually does to inovation and making the right business decisions), I do think they've made a lot of concessions. They can sitll make more, but I don't blame the fail deal in congress on them.
so did we identify those things with AIG? with citigroup? with every bank in the country? with money market funds? if not, i see this is as blue collar work hate. no its not at all. at 22 making 140k a year for helping make excel/powerpoint for pitchbooks. but thank you for the lessons on nyc. secondly we have seen that the 'revenues' the nyc banks were pulling were out of their ass. i can fake making money for a couple years too. point is, bankers make absurd amounts of money which is completely unreasonable but we forgive them because we, well republicans like you, like white collar jobs and don't care for unionized blue collar jobs. there is no other reason. ps: great argument. people who live in expensive cities deserve to be paid more. i have a better idea. why dont they move to north dakota. the economy is really doing great there. becuase in a bailout situation we reduce costs.
(which is Latin for "just because") Ironically, those are the middle class working families that can least afford it. You see, they have a tendency to live farther from work because that is where they can afford the real estate. Right. I can think of so many times where corporations just eat the taxes rather than passing it on to their customers.
We didn't have to identify these things with the financial sector because the guaranteed health care did not exist there for the workers. It was a non-issue. You can call it blue collar work hate if you want...but you'd be wrong. Pound sand, buddy. My grandfather was a Longshoreman for 40 years. I very well know the good that unions do for their workers and the vital role they play in most blue collar economic sectors. I also know a union that has gotten WAY too much power and has strongarmed an industry to get things that NOBODY else in the country gets (save and except Congress) when I see it. That union is the UAW. You make assumptions about me and levy accusations about my motives without knowing a damned thing about me. You have taken this from a debate of the issues and tried to make it personal. I wonder why that is...
So here you're basically saying that you don't understand the basic economics involved in the issue. And here you prove it. I'm done talking about this with you.
I understand the premise that a tax on gasoline would, in theory, cause people to conserve. That is a good thing for the environment. I just disagree whole-heartedly with the "regardless of who we crush along the way" mentality.
