Originally Posted by noisebeam

What about trips to Mexico, Canada and on private property?

Originally Posted by Roody

The reason countries impose such large fuel taxes is to encourage people to use less fuel.

I would like to see a $4/gal. gas tax. Then give every taxpayer an $80/week payroll tax credit. (This is a "revenue neutral tax." It is strictly to change behavior, not raise money.)

Originally Posted by Richard Cranium

This is a curious subject for a cycling forum. Actually, any tax, by its very existence cannot be equally fair or neutral to its results since the concept of a tax in itself is to "share" burden.

Something I wish I could get people to understand is the complexity of how to fairly distribute a dwindling natural resource in a manner that can still allow for the "reward" of wastefulness of activity or leisure-earned through social responsibility in other areas.

In other words, what the young people among us are going to live long enough to see is: some people nearly freezing for want of heating fuel - while others among us expend the same resource to "jet set" about the planet for fun and relaxation.

This is the greatest argument supporting government regulation and the restriction of "open market" resource consumption. Yet, if those that are "jet setting" are going to Denmark to "fix" global warming, should they be stopped? Or should they only be stopped if they are going to Disneyland?

In yet other words, to understand this problem, think of a huge desert and a group of people where some use up the water to swim, while other are nearly dying of thirst.

The "problem" associated with governing fairly in the face of resource consumption is in determining the "social redeeming value" of the activity and practices associated with the resource consumption.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Metzinger

Not if it's made revenue neutral as per Roody's suggestion. Then it's a dissuasion from driving and resultant promotion of other forms of transport.