Heck, you might as well cut the gas tax. Too much of it is going to transit anyway.

Congress considers lifting gas tax

by The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Soaring gasoline and oil prices are prompting talk in Congress about temporarily lifting a 4.3 cent-per-gallon gas tax imposed seven years ago, and are focusing renewed attention on opening an environmentally sensitive Arctic wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

Republican senators acknowledged that the Arctic drilling proposals, which attracted 31 GOP senators yesterday, was a long shot and aimed at dealing with long-term oil import problems. Environmentalists immediately denounced the idea.

But with gasoline prices projected to possibly hit $2 a gallon this summer, a growing number of lawmakers are suggesting a temporary cut in the 4.3 cent tax imposed in 1993.

"We've got to take down the price of gas this summer," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Stevens, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said the high cost of oil is being felt by the government as well as motorists. The Pentagon is $2 billion short in meeting its fuel costs because of the price increases in diesel, jet fuel and gasoline, he said.

But the idea of a cut in the federal gasoline excise tax was getting a cool reception from lawmakers who write the tax laws.

Although it might be politically attractive, Rep. Bill Archer, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he was troubled by the idea of cutting a tax and then reinstating it.

Such a tax cut, even if temporary, also would take billions of dollars away from the federal trust fund for highway construction, something that does not set well with lawmakers planning the transportation budget.

Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the lost revenue could be made up later when gas prices go down.

But he also said the turmoil over oil prices - and America's growing dependence on foreign oil - is clear evidence that an Arctic refuge in northern Alaska should be opened to drilling.

Alaska's two senators for years have tried to get Congress to approve drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Meanwhile, oil prices took their steepest dive in nearly a decade on commodity markets yesterday, plummeting more than 9 percent on strong signs OPEC nations are about to loosen their tight grip on production.

Analysts said the slide may signal the end of a steadily rising oil market that has seen crude prices more than triple since December 1998.

Gasoline prices dived 7 percent, too, although it may still be months before consumers see relief at the pumps. The plunge also dragged heating oil down 9 percent and natural gas 10 percent on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The initial impetus for yesterday's selloff came from figures showing one of the largest weekly buildups in crude stocks since 1998, catching experts by surprise.

Also contributing: Iran's capitulation to its Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries partners on a significant oil-production increase. http://www.seattletimes.com/news/nation-world/html98/gaso_20000309.html

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 09, 2000

Answers

Or you might want to consider how lucky we are that gas is as cheap as it is...

By Dirk Beveridge The Associated Press H O N G K O N G, March 9  Americans who worry about paying as much as $1.80 per gallon for gasoline are lucky they dont fill up in Hong Kong. Or Japan, or Britain, or France  just about any of the worlds wealthy economies  where such prices would seem like an unbelievable bargain. Unleaded fuel costs around $5.40 per gallon in Hong Kong, and there is simply no concept here of a divine right to $1-a-gallon a gas that many Americans cling to. U.S. Prices May Hit $1.80 American motorists are paying about $1.50 per gallon, an all-time high that has prompted U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to lobby OPEC to pump more oil and bring the price down. Richardson predicted recently that gasoline could hit $1.80 when summer vacation time rolls around, although hes hoping to avoid that. Such grumbling sounds like nonsense to drivers in Hong Kong. Id like to pay what the Americans are paying, even a little more, but not what they charge here, said Raymond Yip, a 28-year-old restaurant manager who spends about $250 per month to keep his Mercedes 180 fueled up. Its totally unreasonable, but were at their mercy, Yip said.

Steep Taxes Behind Global Prices People in many nations pay far more for gasoline because governments impose steep taxes that keep the prices high and discourage wasteful use of automobiles. Fuel prices have risen quickly in the past year as crude oil prices soared amid a global production cutback, but in nations where the price at the pump is propped up by big taxes, people dont feel the pinch quite as sharply as Americans. For example, as the price of crude oil virtually tripled to about $34 a barrel, French retail gasoline prices rose by about 30 percent to the equivalent of $4.50 per gallon. Ask the Japanese, who pay about $3.46 per gallon, about the problem of high gasoline prices in America and youll likely get some incredulous stares. Im jealous, said Yoichiro Sunagawa, 31, a corporate employee in Tokyo. If gas were that cheap, I might buy a car.

Bloody, Lucky Americans In Takely, England, just northeast of London, BMW salesman Nigel Morris said that out of the $56 he just paid for his petrol, well more than half was going to Her Majestys tax collectors. The English pay about $5 per gallon, regardless of whether theyre driving a beat-up old Ford or sitting back in style as the chauffeur steers the Rolls-Royce down the motorway. Its just another way of raising money for the government and we are getting a raw deal, Morris said. I think the Americans are quite lucky. My family lives there and I keep reminding them that their cost of living is so much lower. Judy Gardiner, an English mother who drives a Nissan Prairie, couldnt understand the American concerns over gasoline that still costs well less than $2 per gallon. Are you kidding me? Gardiner asked. The Americans have all the luck. We are being ripped off.

Americas Car Culture In Tokyo, company worker Naohiro Yagawa expressed some sympathy about the higher price, and its effect on the Americans and their auto culture. Americans depend more on their cars, so I can understand why its a problem, Yagawa said. It isnt just rich countries who face substantially higher prices. In Mexico, the state oil monopoly has a lock on all gas stations in the country, which all charge the same high price, about $2.04 a gallon for regular. Even though rising prices arent felt as strongly in countries that already charge a lot, there is still an impact. In France, for instance, increases were enough to prompt a crippling truckers strike in January. In Italy, where gas now goes for a record $4.28 a gallon, officials are afraid that a new bout of inflation will crimp recent economic gains.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

Yes, and amazingly enough, despite these high prices, worldwide the trend is AWAY from transit and TOWARD more use of the automobile. Transit market share continues to decline throughout Europe, in Asia, Latin America, virtually everywhere. It's STILL the demographics!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 09, 2000.

Lowering the gas tax is extremely important to the working poor, many of whom own older cars which aren't as fuel efficient as a newer vehicle. Unfortunately, eliminating a 4.3 cent tax isn't much of an improvement.

Perhaps, more importantly, is lowering federal and state taxes on diesel, providing significant relief to the trucking industry. The taxes could be phased back in over time, so long-term budgets aren't completely devastated.

If the cost of fuel continues to rise for truckers, they will find it more difficult to maintain their rigs. The result could mean more truck-related accidents or breakdowns, which could mean more congestion for the rest of us (i.e., me).

Republicans talk about lowering taxes, but their talk is empty rhetoric when it comes to workers. Lower the taxes on fuels. Lower the social security tax. Restore the full social security retirement age to 65. Balance the budget. Until all of these are accomplished, there should be no tax relief for the very wealthy.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 10, 2000.

to Craig: Yes, it's the demographics of capacity. As long as the capacity of low-cost transit does not increase, there will not be enough capacity to meet demand.

Once again, on the way to work, before 5:30 AM, I see with my own eyes a Sound Transit articulated bus, and it appears completely full. No matter how high the price of gas goes, the bus will not magically increase its number of seats. If there was some way of linking funding for mass transit to the rising cost of fuel, then you might see a growing market share for mass transit. Likewise, you need to link funding of Park'N'Ride facilities with new subdivision development.

It's the demographics, stupid. Market share can only increase with an accompanying cost-effective increases in capacity of bus routes, park'n'rides, and HOV lanes.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 10, 2000.

Oil, like other commodities such as metals, farm products and lumber etc. are internationally traded commodities whose prices are set and reset in the world market every day. Very basically, EVERYBODY pays the same for a given commodity such as oil at a given time. The variations, and high per-gallon costs come from taxes imposed in the various countries, as Patrick's posts indicate. Virtually all of these countries are vastly more socialized than the U.S. The stifling taxation and regulations that exist in these countries is why Europe, for example, has not registered any meaningful economic growth and essentially not created any new jobs, vs. the millions of new jobs and wealth (check your 401 (k)) created in the U.S. since the early 1980s. And it's why European companies are relocating their manufactuing to other countries, like the U.S. In a global market, they can't keep all their operations in high-tax, high-regulation European countries.

So yes, reduce the fuel tax. A reduction helps foster incentive and competition. Contrary to the static revenue analysis favored by liberals, the increased economic activity from the reduction will result in more overall tax revenue. And yes, reduce the Social Security bite as well. Better yet, give us the choice (those who want to stay in SS can have that option) of putting our retirement money into the private sector, where the real wealth and jobs are created and the return on our investment will be much better, vs. the Ponzi scheme Social Security has become. By the way, Matt, the U.S. income tax system is extremely progressive, meaning that the more you make, the more you pay. I can't cite a source but I have read that the top five percent of taxpayers i.e. the wealthy, pay 40 percent of the taxes. If this isn't enough, how much should they pay before they are eligible for a tax break? 50 percent? 60 percent? 70 percent?

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), March 10, 2000.

"Yes, and amazingly enough, despite these high prices, worldwide the trend is AWAY from transit and TOWARD more use of the automobile."

Hmm, I thought that the rise in gas prices was a relatively recent phenomenon, as in only the last few months. Facinating how a trend can be mapped that quickly.

The long term trend has kept gas prices WAAAAAY below inflation for some time now. Since gas prices were near record lows for almost the entire past decade, it stands to reason that this would encourage personal motor vehicle usage. A few months worth of increased prices probably wouldn't put much of a dent in that trend. However, if gas prices were allowed to follow inflation, instead of being closely controlled, for an extended period, you'd probably see a reversal of that trend.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 10, 2000.

to A.C. Johnson: I'm not advocating higher taxes on the very wealthy. But, I don't think lowering their taxes is a very high priority. I've already listed some of my priorities. Fortunately, you seem to support most, if not all of them.

As for Europe not creating enough jobs, you might want to explain to Boeing how higher fuel taxes prevents Airbus from kicking Boeing's ass.

You're really comparing apples to oranges when you want to compare the "heavily socialized" Europe to the "less socialized U.S.". In subjective and qualitative terms, the quality of life in some European countries is better than the U.S.

You can't just look at job creation. You have to take into account other factors - i.e., does the job provide decent health care coverage? Most of us have seen our health care coverage deteriorate over the years. More and more of us have to pay more and more of the benefits.

So, if unemployment in the U.S. begins to rise faster than Europe, are you going to come out in favor of more socialism?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 10, 2000.

"Hmm, I thought that the rise in gas prices was a relatively recent phenomenon, as in only the last few months. Facinating how a trend can be mapped that quickly. "

Well you're WRONG Patrick. I was paying about $1.25 per LITER (a little under 6 bucks a gallon) in Oslo Norway in the 80s. Gas has been higher due to taxes in most all the social democracies for decades. Private ownership of vehicles continues to trend up, transit market share continues to trend down.

Is there a marginal effect of higher gas prices, very probably. But the underlying long trend is that even far higher gas prices than we have ever seen in the US has not stopped increased automobile use and decreased transit market share in the world as a whole.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 10, 2000.

"It's the demographics, stupid. Market share can only increase with an accompanying cost-effective increases in capacity of bus routes, park'n'rides, and HOV lanes. "

Absolutely correct (a reportable event for you), and the problem is that bus routes and park n rides are cost-effective only where the demographics permits them to be cost-effective. You can certainly BRIBE people to use transit with subsidies, and if the subsidies are great enough, they will. But the demographic niche decides where these things are cost-effective, and where they aren't. Full buses don't imply cost-effectiveness, if the bribe needed to fill them is excessive. Low load factors aren't necessarily non-cost effective, if you are charging a high enough fare, generating a high turn-over of short distance fares, or controlling your operating costs well.

The problem is that the marginal buses being added now are LOSING increasing amounts of money because they are going into areas of lower population density and people as a whole are not using transit as much.

It IS the demographics!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswind.net), March 10, 2000.

Matt-

"It IS the demographics! " (and you ARE stupid)

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 10, 2000.

"Gas has been higher due to taxes in most all the social democracies for decades."

Never said that they weren't. In fact, I believe that the article I posted mentioned it. Gas prices throughout the rest of the world are, and have been for a very long time, much higher than in the US. But unless you're going to tell me that the worldwide price of crude oil DOES NOT affect the price of gas in Europe, I'm still very much correct.

Gas prices throughout the world have been at historic lows throughout the 90's. Those lows in Europe may still be much higher than what we would consider highway robbery here in the states, but they are still VERY low to the Europeans.

And as long as we're talking subsidies and gas taxes, this report details how gas prices are subsidized HEAVILY in the US to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. http://www.icta.org/ projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm Imagine how many people would be commuting via car if gas were the $5 a gallon it really should be.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 11, 2000.

Patrick-

Read the article you referenced on the envirobabble website. What a crock. Gasoline is SUBSIDIZED because it isn't taxed as much as the enviro-wackoes WANT it to be taxed? Get real!

zowi

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 11, 2000.

"Imagine how many people would be commuting via car if gas were the $5 a gallon it really should be. " Patrick- I share Zowie's skepticism, but even if I were to suspend belief and admit that fuel in the US is underpriced, YOU SEEM TO BE FORGETTING THAT THE ENERGY COSTS PER PASSENGER MILE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT EXCEED THAT OF THE AUTOMOBILE.

That would hardly be an indorsement for commuting by methods other than the car. You could conceivably make the case that there might be less overall commuting, but that doesn't seem to be the worldwide trend either. When I was in Oslo the cost of gas was not only around $5.50 a gallon, but the sales tax on a car was 135% of the cost! Norway really was making every effort possible to discourage auto ownership and use, and guess what? Auto ownership and use continues to rise. Sweden also tried the SmartGrowth idea back in the 70s, too, and by the 80s they had largely given up on it. People stayed away in droves. Ultimately, they started building suburbs. Does it ever bother you that the social engineers constantly say that people are too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions (much like the 695 opponents said/say about the MAJORITY of their citizens who voted in favor of 695). Don't you think that this smacks of an elitism more appropriate for an aristocracy or even a fascist sate than for a democracy? How do you justify social engineering from a philosophical perspective? And why do you thing that the social engineering attempts of the Great Society such as the War on Poverty and other such efforts worked so poorly? I actually kind of enjoyed reading B.F. Skinner back in my college days. My personal feeling is that people really DO respond to incentives (look at the massive increase in the percentage of people going to college when a 2S deferment would keep you out of the war in Vietnam) but that those applying the incentives are slaves to their philosophies rather than to rationale thinking, and wind up getting the incentives wrong leading to terrible outcomes (visit beutiful Anacostia on your next trip to DC. It has it's own Metro stop. Just go there and walk around a while and see the results of a half billion dollars of intervention. I'd STRONGLY recommend you do this in daylight hours). But even if the planners and bureaucrats that ran it were more rationale, politics is truly a dirty business with payoffs to special interests that would distort their rationality. And there still exists the ever present risk that the government, any government, can get caught up in a crisis where they abuse their ability to do social engineering, and there goes democracy. Don't believe it? Think I'm being paranoid? Ask Japanese- Americans 65 and older.

So philosophically, Patrick, I just don't LIKE people trying to use the police power of government to try to bring society in line with THEIR social prejudices, any more than I would like someone to force me to accept their deeply held religious belief by force of law.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 12, 2000.

Zowie, have you ever heard the term "Tax Expenditure"? That's the phrase used by the Tax and Spend types to describe ANY possible tax that for whatever reason is not collected to its fullest extent. As it would certainly be possible for the government to put on a tax of around five bucks per gallon on gasoline (or even more, if these people had their way), they sincerely consider this a "Tax Expenditure" that should be collected. You've got to understand the mind-set of these people. They come from a different universe, the one that believes that all things basically belong to the government, and anthing left to the private citizen is only because of government charity.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), March 12, 2000.

"You've got to understand the mind-set of these people. They come from a different universe, the one that believes that all things basically belong to the government, and anthing left to the private citizen is only because of government charity."

And it really isn't these "people" who scare me. It is the private citizen that is complacent, ignorant or indifferent to the constant threat of socialist "ideals". Who do they think will rescue our freedom if it is not themselves?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 12, 2000.

Patrick-

I mentioned Anacostia before. It was one of the showpieces of the Great Society's Urban renewal program. It went horribly wrong. It is only now, 35 years later, STARTING to undo the damage done by the social engineering failings (albeit, well intentioned failings) of the social engineers.

For a picture tour, try: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/ANACOSTIA/photo.html

What makes you feel that the social engineers and bureaucrats will do better this time?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 13, 2000.

My wife told me that the EPA caused the recent rise in gas prices. It seems they capriciously raised their arbitrary standards on storage tanks. This meant fewer tanks to store oil. Which, in turn, caused the shortage of heating oil in the northeast and of gas nationwide.

-- F Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), March 13, 2000.

to Craig: Given the choice between paying taxes to mitigate congestion in the Puget Sound region versus paying the taxes to build roads in Vancouver and Spokane, I'll choose the former every time.

The problem with Initiative 711 is that it will give Olympia and the DOT more power at the expense of regional entities. You have not convinced me that I will be better off having my transportation concerns addressed by Olympia versus Sound Transit.

If there was a regional body which had the authority to build roads in the Puget Sound region, then your argument for increasing road capacity would make some (albeit, limited) sense. However, with decision making in the hands of Olympia, it is more likely that any increases in road capacity will be purely political rather than "scientific". In other words, the politicians in Olympia are likely to build roads where they are least needed. A case in point is Hwy 16, where the politicians have promised to spend $50 million dollars in support of infrastucture leading to the new bridge. This despite the fact that the project provides no new capacity to I-5, which is the destination of 90% of the vehicles on Hwy 16 every morning from % AM to 7 AM!!!

If Initiative 711 provided specific, objective criteria for where, how, and when roads are built, then I would find the initiative signifcantly less objectionable.

As long as the government is going to squander our tax dollars, anyway, I'd just as soon see the money spent on Park'n'Rides and HOV lanes. Keep in mind that the HOV lanes can always be converted to GP lanes, so the money spent isn't a complete waste, even in your eyes. Likewise, Park'n'Rides hardly cost anything, as the money is essentially an investment in prime real estate, with easy access to a main artery. Society can easily recoup its expenditure (with great profit) on a Park'n'Ride after 10 - 20 years.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 13, 2000.

to Marsha: You write: "And it really isn't these "people" who scare me. It is the private citizen that is complacent, ignorant or indifferent to the constant threat of socialist "ideals". Who do they think will rescue our freedom if it is not themselves?"

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most people prefer the efficient application of their tax dollars. Do they have the time and knowledge to monitor the government's expenditures? Probably not. And, if they did, they would still have to effectively organize like-minded citizens in order to override the lobbyists and the status quo.

The tax rate on my income is incredibly low (at least in my opinion). True, I pay high property taxes, but I've lived in a state where there were low property taxes, and, frankly, the public schools were much worse. It is my understanding that Oregon's public schools have the highest median SAT scores, and the public is highly taxed.

There are also high sales taxes, but, to a certain extent, the taxes are optional.

The people passed I-695. They will probably pass the "Son of I-695". So, your fears seem greatly exaggerated.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 13, 2000.

"I'm not sure what you're talking about" Duh! Of course you don't. Because you are one of the ignorant ones.

Wouldn't life be fun if the "State" used some of our tax dollars to take Matt's property for a park and ride lot?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 13, 2000.

Many have voiced opinions that they pay for transportation (through the gas tax) and want those monies devoted to road construction.

So if the gas tax is cut, doesn't that mean that there will be less money for road construction?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), March 13, 2000.

Patrick-

More "social engineering" http://lynn.tams.org/icc/cabrini.htm

Now conceding B.F. Skinner's point that social engineering IS possible, what makes us think we are bright enough (or in our political system, UNBIASED enough) to do it appropriately? Clearly, Anacostia and Cabrini were multi-billion dollar failures, that are now being torn down. The wasted money is bad enough, but the tens of thousands of wasted lives caused by social engineering gone awry are the true tragedy. Where is the accountability for these disasters? Where is the accountability for the NEXT disaster?

Craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 13, 2000.

to Questioning: It is possible that if the gas tax is reduced, then there would be less money for road construction. But, since some of the gas tax is (or was, at one time) used for ferries, HOV lanes, Park'n'Rides, etc., society may be able to reduce the gas tax significantly without necessarily impacting road construction.

On the other side of the coin, a reduction in the gas tax would be followed up with proposed increases in the gas tax, requiring approval by the voter. In order to get the voters to approve the gas tax, the ballot would have to spell out specific road construction projects. The key, here, is that road construction would no longer be decided in the ivory towers of the DOT in Olympia, but, rather, the "customers" (i.e., taxpayers) would get what they really want. How about dem apples!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 13, 2000.

to Marsha: Touche!

Eminent domain is certainly nasty when it's turned upon oneself.

I wonder how often the principle of eminent domain is abused?

Personally, I see no justification for it, ever. It should not be allowed for any purpose, roadbuilding included. But, you roadbuilders opened the door....

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 13, 2000.

Matt asks:

"As for Europe not creating enough jobs, you might want to explain to Boeing how higher fuel taxes prevents Airbus from kicking Boeing's ass." Airbus came about as a three-country consortium (Germany, France and one other country) established by GOVERNMENT and not the private sector. It is extremely heavily subsidized by European taxpayers. Perhaps one reason they pay $5 per gallon of gas is because politicians decided Europe needed to challenge the US in the airliner market, regardless of cost of market efficiency, and they thought they could do it by tapping European wallets at the gas pumps. Whatever subsidies Boeing gets, and I'm not defending them, they are nevertheless miniscule compared to Airbus. But regardless of whether it's government or the private sector, my statement stands: Europe has created very little net jobs or wealth over the past several decades, compared to millions of jobs in the US.

"You're really comparing apples and oranges when you compare the "heavily socialized" Europe to the "less socialized U.S." In subjective and qualitative terms, the quality of life in some European countries is better than the U.S." In terms of scenery, depends on where you are: Scottish highlands are prettier than downtown Newark, but Vienna is prettier than dreary rowhouses in southwest London. But, Americans still get to keep more of their money, and have more freedom than the average European. so "qualitatively and subjectively," we are better off.

"You can't just look at job creation. You have to take into account other factors - i.e. does the job provide health care coverage? Most of us have seen our health care coverage deteriorate over the years. more and more of us have to pay more and more for the benefits." Without going into a long spiel about health care insurance problems, I would just say that if the government left you (and us) with more of our own money, we would be better empowered to provide for ourselves and our families, and to be, in our own way, personal entrepreneurs for our own lives. Too many politicians are trying to create more dependency -- then they make promises to the people they have made more dependent. It's their strategy to get re-elected.

"So, if unemployment in the U.S. begins to rise faster than Europe, are you going to come out in favor of more socialism?" No. I prefer freedom and its sidekick, opportunity, because that gives people the chance to make the most of their skills, experience and intelligence.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), March 13, 2000.

Matt,

It happens! Check out http://www.landrights.org/OCS/

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 13, 2000.

to Marsha: Whoa! That's pretty scary stuff. I didn't read every bit of the website, but I did read about the City of Detroit wanting to "take" riverfront property in order to set up a casino complex. Very, very evil. No doubt about it.

I think the best solution is to require a two-thirds vote of the legislature in order to approve any application of eminent domain. There's really no reason why governmental agencies can't describe their needs in some type of proposal and then solicit voluntary bids. Then, if no bids materialize, the governmental agency can invoke eminent domain, requiring special scrutiny from the representatives of ALL the people.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 14, 2000.

to A.C. Johnson: You write: "I would just say that if the government left you (and us) with more of our own money, we would be better empowered to provide for ourselves and our families..."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Other than property taxes, I'm hardly taxed at all. My federal income tax is about 10% of my income. Hardly excessive. True, some of the income is sheltered, and I'll have to pay taxes on it someday. I pay no state income tax. I pay no sales tax on food.

As for the property tax, "Son of I-695" should slow down its rise, making my situation even more favorable.

The bottom line, then, is the government isn't taking that much, but the health care crisis is eating us alive. I think having some type of a national health network makes sense. It doesn't have to cover every ailment and guarantee every treatment, but it could cover basics like broken bones and sore throats.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 14, 2000.

Michael, are you forgetting the Washington sales tax? Depending on where you live, that's between 8 & 9 percent on EVERYTHING you buy except for food, prescription drugs, and rent. And if you have a cell phone, check your taxes on it. You'll find that these are over 20 percent, and even on your regular phone taxes are now over 10 percent. I think the current figures are that most people pay around a total of 40 percent of their income to the Federal, State, and local governments in taxes. I submit that that is getting to be a bit much.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), March 14, 2000.

Sorry; meant Matthew and typed Michael. I HATE proofreading.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), March 14, 2000.

to Albert: If I add up all the taxes I pay, it comes out to about 30% of my income. However, I do get some services and benefits in return. For example, I pay a gas tax, but there is a network of reasonably maintained roads. I pay property taxes, but there are schools, police, firemen, etc.

So, I'm still not sure what you're talking about. If I had to pay for all the government services and benefits via the private sector, I presume it would still consume at least 30% of my income. True, I might get higher quality service, but, then again, I might not.

I am sympathetic to arguments calling for more privatization of government-supplied services, particularly when the economy is strong and the government has a huge surplus.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 15, 2000.

To Matt:

If you only pay 10 percent of your income in federal taxes, you are extremely fortunate, especially when the lowest rate is 15 percent (I think), and goes up to almost 40 percent for high income earners.

I have a friend, a self-employed guy with initiative, who pays 50 PERCENT of his GROSS income in quarterly federal taxes. Then, he gets to pay state B & O. Then, after that, he can struggle to pay for health insurance and make a retirement account payment so he isn't a dependent ward of the government in his old age. Again, I say let people have more of their own money, and take charge of their own lives. Government needs to get out of the way and let them be personal entrepreneurs for their own future.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), March 15, 2000.