Socialism Hits Kentucky Town Hard

[LAGC]

So when is someone going to tell the resident bed-wetter that this isn't actually socialism?

Oh?

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Although with as often as Fox News and right-wing talk radio bandies the term around, its kind of become just a general catch-all pejorative, hasn't it? So its understandable that many folks don't know its original meaning...

[LAGC]

You couldn't have used a worse example than a hospital.

Government: VA

Private: St. Mary's

Hey, our local VA gets rave reviews. None of the problems or big delays some of the bigger cities have faced.

I think part of the problem is that so many retirees move down to warmer places like Arizona and Florida, they have overwhelmed the system down there.

It's not a fault of the hospitals per se, just poor capacity planning from those who should have anticipated increased demand for services in those areas.

[El Jefe]

Hey, our local VA gets rave reviews. None of the problems or big delays some of the bigger cities have faced.

I think part of the problem is that so many retirees move down to warmer places like Arizona and Florida, they have overwhelmed the system down there.

It's not a fault of the hospitals per se, just poor capacity planning from those who should have anticipated increased demand for services in those areas.

In other words; you got fucking nothing and yet again are caught flat footed, talking out your ass.

Noted.

[raxar]

Oh?

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Although with as often as Fox News and right-wing talk radio bandies the term around, its kind of become just a general catch-all pejorative, hasn't it? So its understandable that many folks don't know its original meaning...

No, See in socialism the state would simply take the gasoline and give it to the population (unless of course you live in the real world where the state takes the gasoline, sends the station owner to the gulag, keeps 80% of the gas and hands the rest out to the politically connected.)

What we have here is state capitalism, since they are attempting to lower the market by offering cheaper gasoline that people still have to pay for. A grievous evil since it is forcing business owners to fund their own competition (you can't relate to this of course because you could never handle a business of your own, so just imagine if the .gov took money from you and gave it to a church). It is also incredibly unwise to start trumpeting this as a triumph, since you have no idea how it will work out in the end.

And one could also point out that if the mayor was really such a benevolent fellow why the fuck didn't he use his own money to start a gas station and charge less? Nothing you do with other people's money is heroic.

[Kadmos]

The city doesn't have to make a profit since they use other people's money to run their business. As it has been said, it works great until they run out of everyone else money.



Greedy oil companies...

The oil companies don't have to pave and maintain roads and bridges.

The tax on gas also hasn't gone up with inflation either, the work and materials are now more expensive and the taxes aren't covering it. We had to do an extra 500 billion road construction bill back in 2005, but that didn't cover it.

It's easy to say "simply lower the gas tax", but that ends up costing more money in repairs for road, bridges, and vehicles, plus delays and rerouting, and of course the issue of bridges collapsing and killing people.

So for less the $75,000 the city built a gas station and bought the fuel for it using tax payer money so they could provide lower priced gasoline for the city's tax payers.
The people that are buying the fuel are paying twice the amount. Once when the tax dollars buy it for the gas station and when they buy it at the pump to put in their automobiles.

Your logic is off. The taxpayers pay the 75K to set it up, plus possibly the cost to initially fill those tanks. Then they buy the gas in those tanks, the money from which goes to filling up the stations tanks, plus whatever towards the initial 75K.

So no, they aren't paying for it twice, just the once to set it up, then it keeps going off of them buying the gas.


308, you do make a good point, this if it were to spread, could be a bit of a job killer.

[raxar]

Your logic is off. The taxpayers pay the 75K to set it up, plus possibly the cost to initially fill those tanks. Then they buy the gas in those tanks, the money from which goes to filling up the stations tanks, plus whatever towards the initial 75K.

So no, they aren't paying for it twice, just the once to set it up, then it keeps going off of them buying the gas.

If I take 10 cents from Johnny, and use it to buy a glass of lemonade, and then sell that glass of lemonade to Johnny for 10 cents Johnny has lost 20 cents to gain 10 cents worth of lemonade.

[LAGC]

If I take 10 cents from Johnny, and use it to buy a glass of lemonade, and then sell that glass of lemonade to Johnny for 10 cents Johnny has lost 20 cents to gain 10 cents worth of lemonade.

Except it's more like taking 3 cents from Johnny, using it to help buy a whole cooler full of lemonade, then selling that lemonade back to Johnny (over and over again) saving him 1 cent EACH TIME versus how much he'd pay if he bought it from the other kid down the street.

After 3 refills, Johnny has already got his initial money's worth back. And the dividends keep paying -- the lemonade is still 1 cent cheaper than it is down the street.

[raxar]

Except it's more like taking 3 cents from Johnny, using it to help buy a whole cooler full of lemonade, then selling that lemonade back to Johnny (over and over again) saving him 1 cent EACH TIME versus how much he'd pay if he bought it from the other kid down the street.

After 3 refills, Johnny has already got his initial money's worth back. And the dividends keep paying -- the lemonade is still 1 cent cheaper than it is down the street.

Wow, you're math is really bad

At best you have to sell Johnny that lemonade for at least what you paid for it (I know, you don't understand that losing tax money is the same as losing real money). So while you used Johnny's money to pay for that gas in the first place, you're using more of his money to pay for that gas a second time when he buys it

Johnny's net worth

-3 cents tax
-3 cents he pays for lemonade
=
-6 cents
+3 cents worth of lemonade
=
-3 cents


Let us compare that to the lemonade down the street that cost 4 cents

-4 cents for lemonade
+3 cents worth of lemonade
=
-1 cent

State capitalism lemonade is 2 cents more expensive

[LAGC]

No, the initial investment is only 3 cents -- not just from Johnny, but every kid on the block. The lemonade itself costs 8 cents per serving to buy the mix and 1 cent toward paying back the initial investment, for a total of 9 cents per serving. But the greedy capitalists down the street have been charging 10 cents per serving, pocketing 2 cents as profit each cup sold.

Most of the kids on the block start buying the cheaper lemonade, quickly recovering their initial investment from the savings, so that it can be used to fund other things. Once that's paid back, the lemonade itself only costs 8 cents per serving and can be sold at cost -- an even better bargain versus the gougers down the street.

( Okay, I'm about through with this crappy lemonade analogy. )

[Kadmos]

If I take 10 cents from Johnny, and use it to buy a glass of lemonade, and then sell that glass of lemonade to Johnny for 10 cents Johnny has lost 20 cents to gain 10 cents worth of lemonade.

You've still got flawed logic, Johnny only "pays" for his part of the initial setup, then once for whatever gas he uses.

We can use real math...well, decent guesses anyway..

Somerset has about 11,200 citizens (obviously not all are taxpayers, like small kids, but lets gloss over that), so each resident's portion of the 75K is about $6.60.

So using 308's estimate of $6 per tank savings, the first time Johnny fills up he has paid for his gas, saving $6, and has paid his part into the system $6.60.

So in that sense the first fill up is a net loss of 60 cents, he got the same amount of gas, but paid a bit more.

The next fill up, he doesn't have to pay more into the system, just the cost of his fuel, so he saves his $6, meaning overall he has $5.40 more in his pocket than he would have had he gone to one of the other stations and this system isn't in place.

If he fills up once a week, he will save $312 over the course of a year, minus his initial "investment" of $6.60. Meaning over a year he bought the same amount of gas, but has an extra $305.40 in his pocket

Assuming every resident does the same (once again, obviously they wont, some are kids), the citizens will have saved over 3.4 million dollars...not bad for a 75K investment

Which makes it understandable why they decided to do this.

[ready]

What about the people that don't drive? What do they get for their money?

[Oswald Bastable]

The oil companies don't have to pave and maintain roads and bridges.

Eureka Archimedes...not their job.

Adding taxes to their products harms lower income folks at a disproportionate rate...how do you justify savaging the poor to advantage the middle class or rich in this way?

[Kadmos]

What about the people that don't drive? What do they get for their money?

Depends.

Assuming they aren't kids getting rides, then maybe they are old people who take the bus, never leave the house, or hippies/hipsters/vegans who ride around on hemp bicycles...well, I guess they get to not hear people bitching about the price of gas as much, perhaps putting people in a better mood, and any who run a business, like selling hemp bracelets and "healing stones" might get an increase in sales because people have a bit more money.

At worst though, they are out $6.60 which is one vente half caf soy latte, and a locally sourced free range whole grain gluten free fair trade mini muffin.

[Kadmos]

Eureka Archimedes...not their job.

Adding taxes to their products harms lower income folks at a disproportionate rate...how do you justify savaging the poor to advantage the middle class or rich in this way?

By keeping bridges from falling out from under, or on top of, them.

[Oswald Bastable]

By keeping bridges from falling out from under, or on top of, them.

So it's oil, and oil products that keep bridges in the air?

[El Jefe]

Democrats love breaking it off in the ass of the poor while blaming conservatives for the damage.

A day will come when the peeps see this, I wouldn't want to be labeled a lefty fuck the day that happens.

Might be fun to watch tho.

[Kadmos]

So it's oil, and oil products that keep bridges in the air?

Do I really need to explain that the money from those taxes goes to maintenance?

It started in the Revenue Act of 1932, 1 cent per gallon to start the "Highway trust fund", the last increase, to 18.4 cents per gallon happened in 1993.

It raises about 25 billion dollars a year (Federally), but it doesn't do the job. As I said, another 500 billion went to emergency repairs and expansions in 2005, and since then about another 40 billion has gone to the HTF out of necessity.

[l921428x]

You've still got flawed logic, Johnny only "pays" for his part of the initial setup, then once for whatever gas he uses.

We can use real math...well, decent guesses anyway..

Somerset has about 11,200 citizens (obviously not all are taxpayers, like small kids, but lets gloss over that), so each resident's portion of the 75K is about $6.60.

So using 308's estimate of $6 per tank savings, the first time Johnny fills up he has paid for his gas, saving $6, and has paid his part into the system $6.60.

So in that sense the first fill up is a net loss of 60 cents, he got the same amount of gas, but paid a bit more.

The next fill up, he doesn't have to pay more into the system, just the cost of his fuel, so he saves his $6, meaning overall he has $5.40 more in his pocket than he would have had he gone to one of the other stations and this system isn't in place.

If he fills up once a week, he will save $312 over the course of a year, minus his initial "investment" of $6.60. Meaning over a year he bought the same amount of gas, but has an extra $305.40 in his pocket

Assuming every resident does the same (once again, obviously they wont, some are kids), the citizens will have saved over 3.4 million dollars...not bad for a 75K investment

Which makes it understandable why they decided to do this.

why does the guy not buy cigs, candy for the kids, a newspaper or a soda for himself and save 4XXX that amount?

[l921428x]

You should explain that to the liberals in charge here in the Portland area. Our streets are like goat trails and the leaders are begging for another tax to help pave the streets. I wonder where all that gas tax money went. Oh yeah...Lego sets on the EBT card.

TOUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kadmos]

You should explain that to the liberals in charge here in the Portland area. Our streets are like goat trails and the leaders are begging for another tax to help pave the streets. I wonder where all that gas tax money went. Oh yeah...Lego sets on the EBT card.

Oregon was actually the first state to implement a gas tax, within a few years every state plus the federal government did the same.

The gas tax built the worlds greatest road system.

The problem is the taxes haven't kept up with inflation, and better gas mileage has led to more use with less revenue. Now, the gas tax in Oregon only pays for about half the money Oregon spends on maintaining it's roads.

The reality is every penny the gas tax there collects goes to roadwork, plus another penny from the general fund.

To simply maintain the roads at the current level, without dipping into the general fund would require more than double the current gas tax level.

Which is why Oregon has been kicking around the idea of taxing road use by mile rather than the gas tax.