> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.

> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> to afford it.

> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> to afford it.
>
> Bret Cahill

> On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:11:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:

>> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>> increase in federal fuel taxes.

>

>> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.

>
> That is correct.  Revenue neutrality is the key to this.  The increase or
> decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.
>

>> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
>> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
>> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
>> to afford it.

>
> That is true in the most cases.  But a person that actually drives a truck
> (long haul) for a living is going to lose no matter what.  There are more
> fuel efficient ways to deliver freight over long distances and the people
> who ship the commodities will be discovering these methods.  That is
> economic reality and there is nothing that should be done about it but ...

> On May 3, 10:11 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

>> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>>
>> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>>
>> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
>> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
>> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
>> to afford it.
>>
>> Bret Cahill

>
> There we go.The typical moonbat response. Mandate that the american
> people make drastic lifestyle changes instead of doing the right thing
> and drilling for oil and building refineries.Will your mandate include
> the elites in Hollywood and the limousine liberals in Washington??
> Did'nt think so.

> On May 3, 10:52 am, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:11:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:

>>> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>>> increase...

> What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? Ship? Carrier
> pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
> willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??

> On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:17:22 -0700, HarryNadds wrote:
>

>> On May 3, 10:52 am, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

>>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:11:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:

>>>> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>>>> increase in federal fuel taxes.

>>>

>>>> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.

>>>
>>> That is correct.  Revenue neutrality is the key to this.  The increase or
>>> decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.
>>>

>>>> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
>>>> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
>>>> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able ...

> HarryNadds wrote:

>> What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? Ship? Carrier
>> pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
>> willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??

>
> What would make more sense would be to nationalize the railroad right of
> way so that it would be owned and maintained by the government the same
> as the highways, waterways, and airports.
>
> Then- permit investors to go into business with the running gear in an
> open, and competitive free market rather than the regulated system the
> massive rail corporations now have.
>
> Moreover, convert the rails to a new wide track design that could go
> much faster and carry loads wider than a box car. In this case, they
> could piggie back truck trailers or freighter containers side by side on
> flat cars, or use the flat cars to carry your car, at high speed, cross
> country. You could drive on a flatcar at the station, with the driver's
> side facing the front of the train, then drive off at your destination. ...

> In sci.econ, The Trucker
> verizon.net>
>  wrote
> on Sat, 03 May 2008 15:09:44 -0700
> verizon.net>:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:17:22 -0700, HarryNadds wrote:

>

>>> On May 3, 10:52 am, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:11:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:

>>>>> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>>>>> increase in federal fuel taxes.

>

>>>>> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel. ...