If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Republican economist suggests taxing annoying people and promptly gets taxed to death in a puff of logic   (nytimes.com) divider line 50
    More: Interesting, logic, N. Gregory Mankiw  
•       •       •

1861 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jan 2013 at 10:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-08 10:06:50 AM
It was enough to make me wish for congestion pricing - a tax paid by drivers to enter crowded areas at peak times. After all, it costs drivers about $16 to enter central London during working hours. A few years ago, it nearly caught on in New York. And on that drive home, I would have happily paid whatever it cost to persuade some other drivers that it wasn't worth it for them to be on the road.

And I would happily pay $16 to have a homeless man kick you in the jimmy, because that would make me feel better as well.

But then I wouldn't have the satisfaction of knowing I may have made it impractical for someone to commute to work for their crappy inner city job.
 
2013-01-08 10:41:30 AM

PreMortem: It was enough to make me wish for congestion pricing - a tax paid by drivers to enter crowded areas at peak times. After all, it costs drivers about $16 to enter central London during working hours. A few years ago, it nearly caught on in New York. And on that drive home, I would have happily paid whatever it cost to persuade some other drivers that it wasn't worth it for them to be on the road.

And I would happily pay $16 to have a homeless man kick you in the jimmy, because that would make me feel better as well.

But then I wouldn't have the satisfaction of knowing I may have made it impractical for someone to commute to work for their crappy inner city job.


If there was a $16 per car tax at congestion times you'd would be more likely carpool with your friends, and the oddball who decided this was the perfect time to go to the mall might also change their minds, several others who had the luxury might also decide to shift their schedule just a bit, suddenly your paying $16 for a smooth ride to work without congestion, you might just have saved that much in time/gas. Then again, if they don't use that money to improve the roads and population continues to go up eventually you'll be paying $16 for the right to sit in congestion anyways.
 
2013-01-08 10:47:11 AM

PreMortem: It was enough to make me wish for congestion pricing - a tax paid by drivers to enter crowded areas at peak times. After all, it costs drivers about $16 to enter central London during working hours. A few years ago, it nearly caught on in New York. And on that drive home, I would have happily paid whatever it cost to persuade some other drivers that it wasn't worth it for them to be on the road.

And I would happily pay $16 to have a homeless man kick you in the jimmy, because that would make me feel better as well.

But then I wouldn't have the satisfaction of knowing I may have made it impractical for someone to commute to work for their crappy inner city job.


The side, that the Republicans don't see to the congestion tax, as executed elsewhere, is that money goes into mass transit, not into roads... it makes it so poor people can get into work more easily, and takes strain off of the already overburdened auto infrastructure. By the by though, some of my favorite cities to get around in (Berlin, Portland) don't have a congestion tax, they just have a fairly robust and low-cost mass-transit system.
 
2013-01-08 10:50:23 AM
Taxing negative externalities sounds like sound conservative policy - making sure you can pay for what you spend/waste.
 
2013-01-08 10:55:24 AM
I drove about 150 miles that day and emitted, according to E.P.A. data, about 140 pounds of carbon dioxide.

That doesn't smell right.

High school chemistry class was 38 years ago and I'm too lazy to relearn the whole stoichiometry thing right now, but to emit 140 lbs of carbon dioxide I'd think you would have to burn a lot more than 140 lbs. (approx. 17.5 gallons) of gasoline.
 
2013-01-08 10:59:32 AM
we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.
 
2013-01-08 11:01:08 AM

phaseolus: I drove about 150 miles that day and emitted, according to E.P.A. data, about 140 pounds of carbon dioxide.

That doesn't smell right.

High school chemistry class was 38 years ago and I'm too lazy to relearn the whole stoichiometry thing right now, but to emit 140 lbs of carbon dioxide I'd think you would have to burn a lot more than 140 lbs. (approx. 17.5 gallons) of gasoline.


Assuming that he means mass and not weight, it should be more than 140 pounds. Gasoline is mostly carbon, and that carbon has to go somewhere, plus the mass of the oxygen it's bound to.

I'm more curious about a car that burns 17.5 gallons of gasoline in 150 miles. I know busses that do better than that. If you're stuck in traffic, turn off the damn car.
 
2013-01-08 11:02:06 AM

MindStalker: if they don't use that money to improve the roads and population continues to go up eventually you'll be paying $16 for the right to sit in congestion anyways.


This would be my fear. Our legislators are anything but forward thinking. Hell, our population is anything but forward thinking. After spending time in San Francisco and Sydney, where mass transit is robust and virtually everyone uses transit daily, I come back to Atlanta, where we couldn't get a penny tax to fund an overhaul of the severely disjointed transit system. But hey, you want a new highway? Atlanta can find money for that, betcha by golly. Even if it means putting in a ridiculously unpopular and unused toll lane.
 
2013-01-08 11:02:58 AM

phaseolus: I drove about 150 miles that day and emitted, according to E.P.A. data, about 140 pounds of carbon dioxide.

That doesn't smell right.

High school chemistry class was 38 years ago and I'm too lazy to relearn the whole stoichiometry thing right now, but to emit 140 lbs of carbon dioxide I'd think you would have to burn a lot more than 140 lbs. (approx. 17.5 gallons) of gasoline.


phaseolus: I drove about 150 miles that day and emitted, according to E.P.A. data, about 140 pounds of carbon dioxide.

That doesn't smell right.

High school chemistry class was 38 years ago and I'm too lazy to relearn the whole stoichiometry thing right now, but to emit 140 lbs of carbon dioxide I'd think you would have to burn a lot more than 140 lbs. (approx. 17.5 gallons) of gasoline.


It sounds about right. 150 miles, assume 30 gallons/mile, so 5 gallons of gasoline were burned. Gasoline is 6.1 pounds/gallon, call it 30 pounds of gasoline. Gasoline is almost entirely carbon and hydrogen. The weight comes in when it's burned and each carbon atom (mass 12) combines with two atoms of oxygen (mass 16) from the air, more than tripling its weight.

/dnrtfa
 
2013-01-08 11:03:50 AM

phaseolus: I drove about 150 miles that day and emitted, according to E.P.A. data, about 140 pounds of carbon dioxide.

That doesn't smell right.

High school chemistry class was 38 years ago and I'm too lazy to relearn the whole stoichiometry thing right now, but to emit 140 lbs of carbon dioxide I'd think you would have to burn a lot more than 140 lbs. (approx. 17.5 gallons) of gasoline.


You would be wrong. Carbon makes up over 80% of the mass if gasoline, but only 30% of the mass of carbon dioxide. To emit 140 lbs of carbon dioxide, you need about 50 lb of gasoline, or about 7 gallons.
 
2013-01-08 11:07:25 AM
OK, just did the actual math and got 45.3 lbs, or 7.25 gallons. So he's probably driving an SUV to get 20 mpg. Seems pretty spot-on actually.
 
2013-01-08 11:08:41 AM
Just look at the comments in there. The Times is a good paper, despite its flaws, and has the smart readers to show for it.

The one that cracked me up was:

"Taxing Fox news for every bit of falsehood it spews would be the ultimate Pigovian solution"
 
2013-01-08 11:10:06 AM

LazarusLong42: OK, just did the actual math and got 45.3 lbs, or 7.25 gallons. So he's probably driving an SUV to get 20 mpg. Seems pretty spot-on actually.



Okay, thanks.
 
2013-01-08 11:10:13 AM

Wooly Bully: Just look at the comments in there. The Times is a good paper, despite its flaws, and has the smart readers to show for it.

The one that cracked me up was:

"Taxing Fox news for every bit of falsehood it spews would be the ultimate Pigovian solution"


NYT comments restore my faith in humanity after spending too much time on the interwebs.
 
2013-01-08 11:10:53 AM

SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.


I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms
 
2013-01-08 11:15:03 AM

YouAreItNoTagBacks: NYT comments restore my faith in humanity after spending too much time on the interwebs.


It's the exact opposite of the way one feels after reading, say, YouTube comments, which always give the impression the world is hopelessly f*cked.
 
2013-01-08 11:16:16 AM

The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms


you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.
 
2013-01-08 11:18:47 AM

firefly212: PreMortem: It was enough to make me wish for congestion pricing - a tax paid by drivers to enter crowded areas at peak times. After all, it costs drivers about $16 to enter central London during working hours. A few years ago, it nearly caught on in New York. And on that drive home, I would have happily paid whatever it cost to persuade some other drivers that it wasn't worth it for them to be on the road.

And I would happily pay $16 to have a homeless man kick you in the jimmy, because that would make me feel better as well.

But then I wouldn't have the satisfaction of knowing I may have made it impractical for someone to commute to work for their crappy inner city job.

The side, that the Republicans don't see to the congestion tax, as executed elsewhere, is that money goes into mass transit, not into roads... it makes it so poor people can get into work more easily, and takes strain off of the already overburdened auto infrastructure. By the by though, some of my favorite cities to get around in (Berlin, Portland) don't have a congestion tax, they just have a fairly robust and low-cost mass-transit system.


Low cost mass transit? Sounds like socialism.
 
2013-01-08 11:18:57 AM

SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.


Afraid Obama's going to take your cars?  As opposed to subsidizing them while folks who can't afford them have to take 1-2 hours to get across town for work, despite paying taxes on the same roads and highways that cars use?
 
2013-01-08 11:20:22 AM

MindStalker: PreMortem: It was enough to make me wish for congestion pricing - a tax paid by drivers to enter crowded areas at peak times. After all, it costs drivers about $16 to enter central London during working hours. A few years ago, it nearly caught on in New York. And on that drive home, I would have happily paid whatever it cost to persuade some other drivers that it wasn't worth it for them to be on the road.

And I would happily pay $16 to have a homeless man kick you in the jimmy, because that would make me feel better as well.

But then I wouldn't have the satisfaction of knowing I may have made it impractical for someone to commute to work for their crappy inner city job.

If there was a $16 per car tax at congestion times you'd would be more likely carpool with your friends, and the oddball who decided this was the perfect time to go to the mall might also change their minds, several others who had the luxury might also decide to shift their schedule just a bit, suddenly your paying $16 for a smooth ride to work without congestion, you might just have saved that much in time/gas. Then again, if they don't use that money to improve the roads and population continues to go up eventually you'll be paying $16 for the right to sit in congestion anyways.


its NYC, they aren't going to use the money to improve the roads. hahahaha.

NYC has been waiting decades for the second avenue subway to start construction, and its going to take another 20 years (at least) for the project to finish. the BQE has been under reconstruction since 1997, with a target date of 2020.

its too bad Bloomberg's plan failed, he almost succeeded in creating the largest gated community in the country.
 
2013-01-08 11:29:50 AM

SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.


I didn't say it clearly, obviously. Robust mass transit is great. I worry, though, that an effort to bring people close to work and out of suburbs will turn into political bullying.

It's happening on a small scale where I live. The town I live in is trying to revitalize its down town, and has adopted a growth plan that limits spread and focuses on infill (both are ideas that I like).

But my town is currently in the process of suing neighboring towns that still focus on suburb growth. This is after the planning and approval stages for these suburbs have passed. So far, the only argument the city council has made for the suit is that the neighboring towns' plans don't agree with ours. This strikes me as bullying and attempting to take away choices.

Hope that made more sense.
 
2013-01-08 11:37:54 AM
Republican antipathetic to annoying people.

Is he a South Park fan?

www.themeparkreview.com
 
2013-01-08 11:38:17 AM

YouAreItNoTagBacks: SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.

Afraid Obama's going to take your cars?  As opposed to subsidizing them while folks who can't afford them have to take 1-2 hours to get across town for work, despite paying taxes on the same roads and highways that cars use?


Not at all. I think we should all get the benefits if what we pay for. Not sure where Obama or car-taking came in. I never tried to make this about one person or party.
 
2013-01-08 11:41:53 AM

The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.

Afraid Obama's going to take your cars?  As opposed to subsidizing them while folks who can't afford them have to take 1-2 hours to get across town for work, despite paying taxes on the same roads and highways that cars use?

Not at all. I think we should all get the benefits if what we pay for. Not sure where Obama or car-taking came in. I never tried to make this about one person or party.


Fair enough...my bad.  What freedoms are you referring to then?
 
2013-01-08 11:49:04 AM
I would be all for a tax shift toward Pigovian (and Georgist) taxes, and away from taxing labor, capital, and trade. If it were done in a revenue-neutral way, I think it would improve our economy and our environment quite a bit.

And as for the difficulty of finding out how much to charge for externalities -- well, we seem to have no problem at all levying income taxes (other than fiddling with a few percent at the margins), and those are worse than Pigovian taxes in pretty much every respect.

/Well, other than people are used to them, and we already have the machinery in place to collect them. "The only good taxes are old taxes" or something like that.
 
2013-01-08 11:50:37 AM

YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.

Afraid Obama's going to take your cars?  As opposed to subsidizing them while folks who can't afford them have to take 1-2 hours to get across town for work, despite paying taxes on the same roads and highways that cars use?

Not at all. I think we should all get the benefits if what we pay for. Not sure where Obama or car-taking came in. I never tried to make this about one person or party.

Fair enough...my bad.  What freedoms are you referring to then?


No problem. I appear to have been too vague (pretty new to online conversations). I'm worried about preserving every freedom. What I was trying to refer to is my idea that we have the freedom to live and work where we want, and should be able to do so. I hate that my work is now fifty miles from my house, especially after moving closer to it originally. I think, though, that you should be able to live 100 miles from work if you wish, even if I think that's stupid. We have the freedom (not claiming it's a right) to be considerate and smart, or wasteful and stupid. I'm all for trying to educate and convince the inconsiderate and stupid, though.
 
2013-01-08 11:58:19 AM

firefly212: The side, that the Republicans don't see to the congestion tax, as executed elsewhere, is that money goes into mass transit, not into roads... it makes it so poor people can get into work more easily, and takes strain off of the already overburdened auto infrastructure.


"Why don't poor people get a job so they can afford a car?"

grist.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-08 12:01:08 PM
Republican economist - good one,  subby.
 
2013-01-08 12:02:36 PM

Snarfangel: I would be all for a tax shift toward Pigovian (and Georgist) taxes, and away from taxing labor, capital, and trade. If it were done in a revenue-neutral way, I think it would improve our economy and our environment quite a bit.


the term Capital usually includes land ownership. The basic capital needed for agricultural production. So it is mighty unusual for a Georgist to want to exclude that.
 
2013-01-08 12:04:05 PM

The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.

Afraid Obama's going to take your cars?  As opposed to subsidizing them while folks who can't afford them have to take 1-2 hours to get across town for work, despite paying taxes on the same roads and highways that cars use?

Not at all. I think we should all get the benefits if what we pay for. Not sure where Obama or car-taking came in. I never tried to make this about one person or party.

Fair enough...my bad.  What freedoms are you referring to then?

No problem. I appear to have been too vague (pretty new to online conversations). I'm worried about preserving every freedom. What I was trying to refer to is my idea that we have the freedom to live and work where we want, and should be able to do so. I hate that my work is now fifty miles from my house, especially after moving closer to it originally. I think, though, that you should be able to live 100 miles from work if you wish, even if I think that's stupid. We have the freedom (not claiming it's a right) to be considerate and smart, or wasteful and stupid. I'm all for trying to educate and convince the inconsiderate and stupid, though.


That's all fair, although I'd argue about the freedom to be wasteful when it starts to have a negative impact on neighbors' quality of life.  But taxing wastefulness benefits those who make the effort to have a positive effect, especially if the tax goes to bettering the community.  No one's saying you can't be wasteful and drive as much as you want, but it makes sense that people should actually be made to acknowledge and pay the effect that their dependence on the car has on their community.  

That said, this only works if people can afford to live within walking/biking/transit distance of their work and transit is clean/safe enough to be appealing.
 
2013-01-08 12:06:36 PM
dumbobruni:

its too bad Bloomberg's plan failed, he almost succeeded in creating the largest gated community in the country.

Second largest. I am pretty sure North Korea's population is higher than New York City's.
 
2013-01-08 12:13:21 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Snarfangel: I would be all for a tax shift toward Pigovian (and Georgist) taxes, and away from taxing labor, capital, and trade. If it were done in a revenue-neutral way, I think it would improve our economy and our environment quite a bit.

the term Capital usually includes land ownership. The basic capital needed for agricultural production. So it is mighty unusual for a Georgist to want to exclude that.


I usually distinguish land, labor, and capital. I think the conflation of land (natural resources of inherently fixed supply) and capital (something produced by human labor to be used as a factor of production) is a problem when trying to craft tax policy. :)
 
2013-01-08 12:20:23 PM
Thanks, I learned two new things today! Pigovian taxes and Georgism.
 
2013-01-08 12:30:37 PM

YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.

Afraid Obama's going to take your cars?  As opposed to subsidizing them while folks who can't afford them have to take 1-2 hours to get across town for work, despite paying taxes on the same roads and highways that cars use?

Not at all. I think we should all get the benefits if what we pay for. Not sure where Obama or car-taking came in. I never tried to make this about one person or party.

Fair enough...my bad.  What freedoms are you referring to then?

No problem. I appear to have been too vague (pretty new to online conversations). I'm worried about preserving every freedom. What I was trying to refer to is my idea that we have the freedom to live and work where we want, and should be able to do so. I hate that my work is now fifty miles from my house, especially after moving closer to it originally. I think, though, that you should be able to live 100 miles from work if you wish, even if I think that's stupid. We have the freedom (not claiming it's a right) to be considerate and smart, or wasteful and stupid. I'm all for trying to educate and convince the inconsiderate and stupid, though.

That's all fair, although I'd argue about the freedom to be wasteful when it starts to have a negative impact on neighbors' quality of life.  But taxing wastefulness benefits those who make the effort to have a positive effect, especially if the tax goes to bettering the community.  No one's saying you can't be wasteful and drive as much as you want, but it makes sense that people should actually be made to acknowledge and pay the effect that their dependence on the car has on their community.  

That said, this only works if people can afford to live within walking/biking/transit distance of their work and transit is clean/safe enough to be appealing.


I can see where you're coming from. And, as long as there's a reasonable metric for deciding when wastefulness has a negative impact on your neighbors, I can agree with taxing it. Choices can have fair consequences.

Could not agree more on your last point. My town has poured millions into beautifying its downtown area, but it all goes to pot because there is very little work in downtown and the people who live there are already low income and often don't have good options in life. So we have an unsafe, unappealing, city center. We may get a permanent indoor farmers market downtown, though, which could be great. Cheaper, easier access to good food for downtown, and hopefully more business for the area (we do have decent support for farmers markets here). Hope it works.
 
2013-01-08 12:44:16 PM
Did you even read the article, subby? Interesting stuff.

Increasing gas taxes seems like a no-brainer to me. Much better than the inefficient CAFE standards.

If it offends liberals, take the revenue and use it for renewables research or public transport or better yet give everyone a flat tax credit that makes it revenue neutral. Incent people to drive less/buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
 
2013-01-08 12:58:40 PM

The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.

Afraid Obama's going to take your cars?  As opposed to subsidizing them while folks who can't afford them have to take 1-2 hours to get across town for work, despite paying taxes on the same roads and highways that cars use?

Not at all. I think we should all get the benefits if what we pay for. Not sure where Obama or car-taking came in. I never tried to make this about one person or party.

Fair enough...my bad.  What freedoms are you referring to then?

No problem. I appear to have been too vague (pretty new to online conversations). I'm worried about preserving every freedom. What I was trying to refer to is my idea that we have the freedom to live and work where we want, and should be able to do so. I hate that my work is now fifty miles from my house, especially after moving closer to it originally. I think, though, that you should be able to live 100 miles from work if you wish, even if I think that's stupid. We have the freedom (not claiming it's a right) to be considerate and smart, or wasteful and stupid. I'm all for trying to educate and convince the inconsiderate and stupid, though.

That's all fair, although I'd argue about the freedom to be wasteful when it starts to have a negative impact on ...


Holy crap, a reasonable conversation just happened on FARK.

/sorry for starting it like a dick...I hate Tuesdays
 
2013-01-08 01:04:30 PM

YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: The number 7 and the letter Q!: YouAreItNoTagBacks: SuperT: The number 7 and the letter Q!: SuperT: we need more people living where they work AND masstransit. I shouldn't have to drive from downtown to the suburbs to work because of some shady property tax deal. Suburbs and their localities are leeches.

I can agree to a certain extent. I would be happy to ride well-managed mass transit to work, and would love to have work closer to home.

I worry, though, that some jerk politician (which one? Yes) would use this goal as an excuse to take our choices away. I worry about restricting freedoms

you're gonna have to explain this to me. I don't see how robust mass transit would restrict freedoms.

Afraid Obama's going to take your cars?  As opposed to subsidizing them while folks who can't afford them have to take 1-2 hours to get across town for work, despite paying taxes on the same roads and highways that cars use?

Not at all. I think we should all get the benefits if what we pay for. Not sure where Obama or car-taking came in. I never tried to make this about one person or party.

Fair enough...my bad.  What freedoms are you referring to then?

No problem. I appear to have been too vague (pretty new to online conversations). I'm worried about preserving every freedom. What I was trying to refer to is my idea that we have the freedom to live and work where we want, and should be able to do so. I hate that my work is now fifty miles from my house, especially after moving closer to it originally. I think, though, that you should be able to live 100 miles from work if you wish, even if I think that's stupid. We have the freedom (not claiming it's a right) to be considerate and smart, or wasteful and stupid. I'm all for trying to educate and convince the inconsiderate and stupid, though.

That's all fair, although I'd argue about the freedom to be wasteful when it starts to have a negative impact on ...

Holy crap, a reasonable conversation just happened on FARK.

/sorry for starting it like a dick...I hate Tuesdays


Stuff happens. Don't know if you're to the left or right of me politically and I don't care. Thanks for a fun conversation that made my morning more enjoyable.

Now to attend to the crying little "letter Qs". Don't know if I'll be back today. Have a good one.
 
2013-01-08 01:18:25 PM
Why tax shower-singers? Couldn't you just mandate corded microphones and then let nature take its course?
 
2013-01-08 01:38:55 PM
Nice reference, Subby.

/42
 
2013-01-08 01:42:57 PM
If he was an actual Republican, he should be advocating for tax breaks to those who are being considerate as opposed to tax increases for those who are annoying.

States could give a tax refund to those who take mass transit or who live less than 20 miles from work. Toll bridges/tunnels could be $4 during rush hour and $2 at other times.
 
2013-01-08 01:54:12 PM

Wooly Bully: YouAreItNoTagBacks: NYT comments restore my faith in humanity after spending too much time on the interwebs.

It's the exact opposite of the way one feels after reading, say, YouTube comments, which always give the impression the world is hopelessly f*cked.


I'm amazed aliens haven't shown up and laid waste to our planet "for the galactic good", given the concentration of milliderps we regularly emit.

Or to build a bypass.

Wouldn't blame 'em.
 
2013-01-08 02:42:39 PM
As he said - Don't tax the job-creators who take all the risk by borrowing money at 3% to get 20% returns. Tax the workers who already allocate 20% of their budget for transportation, the majority of which is going to and from work.
 
2013-01-08 03:53:02 PM

phaseolus: High school chemistry class was 38 years ago and I'm too lazy to relearn the whole stoichiometry thing right now, but to emit 140 lbs of carbon dioxide I'd think you would have to burn a lot more than 140 lbs. (approx. 17.5 gallons) of gasoline.


Doing a bit of back-of-the envelope...to release 140 pounds of carbon you would have to burn about 155 pounds of gasoline, so not a lot more. Hydrogen atoms outnumber carbon atoms in gasoline by a hair over 2-to-1, but the carbon atoms outweigh the hydrogen atoms by a factor of 12. Now, to emit 140 pounds of CO2, which might be what the writer meant, you would only have to burn about 42 pounds of gasoline.
 
2013-01-08 04:11:53 PM

pciszek: phaseolus: High school chemistry class was 38 years ago and I'm too lazy to relearn the whole stoichiometry thing right now, but to emit 140 lbs of carbon dioxide I'd think you would have to burn a lot more than 140 lbs. (approx. 17.5 gallons) of gasoline.

Doing a bit of back-of-the envelope...to release 140 pounds of carbon you would have to burn about 155 pounds of gasoline, so not a lot more. Hydrogen atoms outnumber carbon atoms in gasoline by a hair over 2-to-1, but the carbon atoms outweigh the hydrogen atoms by a factor of 12. Now, to emit 140 pounds of CO2, which might be what the writer meant, you would only have to burn about 42 pounds of gasoline.


Oxygen masses zero. Neat. (and yes, you count atmospheric oxygen burnt in determining CO2 produced)
 
2013-01-08 04:30:14 PM
To the right, "Freedom" means "Not having to pay for the cost externalities that I impose on society."
 
2013-01-08 05:05:05 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Doing a bit of back-of-the envelope...to release 140 pounds of carbon you would have to burn about 155 pounds of gasoline, so not a lot more. Hydrogen atoms outnumber carbon atoms in gasoline by a hair over 2-to-1, but the carbon atoms outweigh the hydrogen atoms by a factor of 12. Now, to emit 140 pounds of CO2, which might be what the writer meant, you would only have to burn about 42 pounds of gasoline.

Oxygen masses zero. Neat. (and yes, you count atmospheric oxygen burnt in determining CO2 produced)



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you burn 42 pounds of gasoline, the atmosphere will contain 140 pounds of CO2 more than it did before. It will also contain 102 pounds less oxygen than it used to, but that is a separate issue. You added 140 pounds of CO2 and removed 102 pounds of Oxygen; to subtract the two numbers and claim that you only added 38 pounds of CO2 would be incorrect. It would be correct to say that you added 38 pounds of elemental carbon, in the form of CO2. Since it is the greenhouse properties of CO2 that are of concern, most climatologists would be more concerned with the amount of CO2 rather than the amount of elemental carbon. (They are also interested in the amount of methane added to the atmosphere, but they would want to measure that amount separately.) On the other hand, when talking about taxing carbon, it makes more sense to talk about the amount of elemental carbon burnt. Unfortunately, some people refer to the amount of "carbon" added to the atmosphere and the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere interchangeably.
 
2013-01-08 11:14:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Increasing gas taxes seems like a no-brainer to me. Much better than the inefficient CAFE standards.


I like tolls more as it makes for a more efficient use of a limited resource: the amount of car lanes. If you just tax gas then people won't mind idling that much as it isn't costing them that much money. If they spent $5 to get over a bridge and get stuck in traffic then they'll be pissed off and might switch over to a bus that can go in a special lane.

This is more like a convenience fee
 
2013-01-09 11:08:57 AM

pciszek: Vlad_the_Inaner: Doing a bit of back-of-the envelope...to release 140 pounds of carbon you would have to burn about 155 pounds of gasoline, so not a lot more. Hydrogen atoms outnumber carbon atoms in gasoline by a hair over 2-to-1, but the carbon atoms outweigh the hydrogen atoms by a factor of 12. Now, to emit 140 pounds of CO2, which might be what the writer meant, you would only have to burn about 42 pounds of gasoline.

Oxygen masses zero. Neat. (and yes, you count atmospheric oxygen burnt in determining CO2 produced)


I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you burn 42 pounds of gasoline, the atmosphere will contain 140 pounds of CO2 more than it did before. It will also contain 102 pounds less oxygen than it used to, but that is a separate issue. You added 140 pounds of CO2 and removed 102 pounds of Oxygen; to subtract the two numbers and claim that you only added 38 pounds of CO2 would be incorrect. It would be correct to say that you added 38 pounds of elemental carbon, in the form of CO2. Since it is the greenhouse properties of CO2 that are of concern, most climatologists would be more concerned with the amount of CO2 rather than the amount of elemental carbon. (They are also interested in the amount of methane added to the atmosphere, but they would want to measure that amount separately.) On the other hand, when talking about taxing carbon, it makes more sense to talk about the amount of elemental carbon burnt. Unfortunately, some people refer to the amount of "carbon" added to the atmosphere and the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere interchangeably.


So using octane ( C8H18) as a stand-in for gasoline, you want to burn 42 pounds of it. so (8*12)/(8*12+18) * 42 is the weight of the carbon in 42 pounds of octane. Or 35.3 lb C. 2 moles of O to 1 mole of C to make CO2, so the mass of CO2 from 42 pounds of octane is

35.3 + (35.3/12)*(16+16) or about 129.4 lb of CO2.

That's way off from the "to release 140 pounds of carbon you would have to burn about 155 pounds of gasoline" back of the envelope statement, Its 7,5% off the second estimate.

Mostly I was miffed that the mass of oxygen wasn't even mentioned.

And it seems more likely the original term 'Carbon' would almost certainly have to be a jargon for the carbon contained in the fuel burnt, because the greenhouse effect of gases is not proportional to the amount of elemental carbon involved. But it could be taken as a good approximation that all the carbon in the fuel becomes CO2 in the atmosphere. Taking that definition, 155 lbs of octane contains 130.5 lb of carbon. So that's probably what the writer meant. The mass of the carbon in the fuel burned, changed into CO2.
 
2013-01-09 12:18:03 PM
That makes perfect sense from an economic point of view/is nothing new. It's basically just a new kind of sin tax. We don't like people smoking? Tax the hell out of cigarettes. Not a fan of Drinking? Booze gets a 21% tax. Totally sound.
 
2013-01-09 01:11:58 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: That's way off from the "to release 140 pounds of carbon you would have to burn about 155 pounds of gasoline" back of the envelope statement, Its 7,5% off the second estimate.


Yeah, I screwed up the molecular weight of octane. Looking at my numbers, I think I added up the mass of eight carbons, two hydrogens on the ends, and eight instead of sixteen carbons in between. Fixing that, I get 45.3 lbs of gasoline leading to 140 lbs of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 166 lbs of gasoline containing 140 lbs of elemental carbon.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report