Govt out to get you , one way or the other

[valvano]

Govt/environmentalist decry SUVs and push hybrids....

hybrids use less gas, therefore people pay less fuel taxes...

no govt still wants their money, so will instead tax you based on mileage:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

so what the point then of buying a hybrid???? moral reasons???
:D

[bb_bboy]

A lot of the roads around my community are terrible - I don't know if that is from a lack of revenue available to put towards road repairs or inefficient use of the revenues already available. In either case, I think that those using the roads should be responible to contribute towards the regular maintenance of those roads and paying for the actual number of miles driven seems like a better approach albeit a difficult one to implement.

[Qdrop]

that is just fucked up.

why don't my federal and state income taxes pay for the roads.

what the fuck does the gov't NOT tax?...anything?

[yeahwho]

Govt/environmentalist decry SUVs and push hybrids....

hybrids use less gas, therefore people pay less fuel taxes...

no govt still wants their money, so will instead tax you based on mileage:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

so what the point then of buying a hybrid???? moral reasons???
:D

The new tax would be charged each time you fill up. A computer inside the gas pump would communicate with your car's odometer to calculate how much you owe.

It doesn't say SUV's get a free ride, they too will pay by the mile plus the higher gas prices, that is economic incentive, not moral.

I agree that this is probably the wrong way to go about revenue. But it will really punish the SUV industry and all the RV's out there, they do a hec of alot more damage than a lightweight hybirds.

[Schmeltz]

Maybe the point of being a hybrid could be to reduce the use of gasoline - you know, the finite resource whose consumption is bad for the environment. That's less moral than practical.

[bb_bboy]

Also, it is an incentive for the use of mass transit, if you are fortunate enough to have that available.

[Qdrop]

But it will really punish the SUV industry and all the RV's out there, they do a hec of alot more damage than a lightweight hybirds.

how will this punish SUV industries more?

this punishes those that drive the most, period.


and i really hate the idea of taxing by "use or non-use".
on the surface it seems fair...but i think it actually opens a can of moral worms in the long run....

[yeahwho]

how will this punish SUV industries more?

this punishes those that drive the most, period.

Fuel cost's + mileage = double whammy. The bill doesn't give SUV's better mileage per gallon.

[bb_bboy]

...i really hate the idea of taxing by "use or non-use".
on the surface it seems fair...but i think it actually opens a can of moral worms in the long run....

Can you briefly explain why you think so or give an example (without hyperbole)?

[Echewta]

It will never float. I'm not having the government throw a GPS or track where I'm going in my car. Nobody else will either.

Pay at the pump.

The Oil industry makes billions and billions of dollars in net profit every year regardless of what cars are on the road, economic condition, or what war we are fighting in the middle east.

Lets suck up all the oil ASAP and stop riding on the backs of dinosaurs.

[Qdrop]

Fuel cost's + mileage = double whammy. The bill doesn't give SUV's better mileage per gallon.

eh...cept it's kinda becoming a myth that SUV's gussel that much more gas then other vehicles....nor do they have higher emission rates.

many of the latest SUV models get about 30mph and climbing....

[yeahwho]

Lets suck up all the oil ASAP and stop riding on the backs of dinosaurs.

I love it! Ethical Treatment of Dead Dinosaurs, Let Dino RIP! :D

[Qdrop]

Can you briefly explain why you think so or give an example (without hyperbole)?


when you give people the option to "not pay that tax cause i don't use it", it gives a message of independant selfeshness.
we are a social society (redundant),...it's not about "me and what i do and what i need", it's about everyone around you that you rely on...whether you realize it or not.

so someone doesn't own a car. they don't want to pay road taxes.
but the mail they recieve, the ups packages they order, the company they have over to thier home all have to use those roads to get their.
the food they pick up at the market was delivered on trucks that drive on those roads.
whether you drive on them or not.....you rely on them.

in retort, someone could break it down into meticulous detail...and state "well, i pay for the supermarket food...and the supermarket should pay for the roads for thier trucks" and other hair splitting arguments...
but still belays the fact that we are a social nation.....an interdependant nation....not a nation of indendant "me's" that should only have to worry about thier immediate selves....

[racer5.0stang]

Obviously they are considering newer cars. What about the older ones, say 95 and older. They already cannot perform OBD II testing on them, so how will the pump communicate with them.

In either case it is crap. Taxed on the gas itself and taxed on the miles your drive. I'm getting a bicycle. Oh wait, I drive almost 50 miles per day.

[yeahwho]

eh...cept it's kinda becoming a myth that SUV's gussel that much more gas then other vehicles....nor do they have higher emission rates.

many of the latest SUV models get about 30mph and climbing....

Sure, sure. If this bill were to fly (i'm a driver, so I hope it doesn't) SUV's will have to be trimmed down considerably to fit into the 40-60 MPG range. I myself cannot justify the cost/damage today.

But there is a moral side w/o the tax that many people believe in today. My grandfather is a WWII vet and he drives a Hybrid, not because it saves him $$, because it sends a message and set's an example.

[racer5.0stang]

I wouldn't mind having a hybrid, if they had some horsepower and torque.

[bb_bboy]

when you give people the option to "not pay that tax cause i don't use it", it gives a message of independant selfeshness.
[...] we are a social nation.....an interdependant nation....not a nation of indendant "me's" that should only have to worry about thier immediate selves....

I can accept this idea to a point, but I still think that the amount contributed towards the maintenance of any item, sytem, etc. should reflect the amount of the item, system, etc. used in almost all cases. Like you hinted at with your counterpoint, the costs (which would include mileage feees) of transporting certain items could be reflected in the final costs associated with those items.

If you were to carry out your argument to the nth degree, then you could say that the gasoline taxes paid by the entire nation should be split up amongst everyone in the country, regardless of whether they use the gas or not. You could demonstrate this by showing that the amount of total gas used affects everyone in at least some meniscule way, and therefore the amount levied by the taxes in whole should be divided equally amongst everyone. This idea allows for some people to use much much more gas but only contibute the same amount of taxes towards it, which is not fair to those who use next to nothing. Just like in the instance of road systems.

I think that the biggest problems associated with 'taxation by use' come to a head in high dollar financial public works projects such as the construction of a new public school where you have some people who have already used the public school sytem, some who are currently using the public school system, some who will be using the public school system and some who will never use the public school system. This is where taxes based on the notions of societies taking care of themselves rather than individuals taking care of themselves seems more appropriate.

Or, we could simply privatize everything and have people pay for the use of each system that is currently being taken for granted. ;)

[Qdrop]

If you were to carry out your argument to the nth degree, then you could say that the gasoline taxes paid by the entire nation should be split up amongst everyone in the country, regardless of whether they use the gas or not. You could demonstrate this by showing that the amount of total gas used affects everyone in at least some meniscule way, and therefore the amount levied by the taxes in whole should be divided equally amongst everyone. This idea allows for some people to use much much more gas but only contibute the same amount of taxes towards it, which is not fair to those who use next to nothing. Just like in the instance of road systems.


actually, yes....i do believe in this.
i guess that is the little socialist in me (even though i am pro controlled capitalism).
i think the flat tax is the best idea as well.
it is a unifying, equalizing ethic.

we are a society with societal responsibilities......


I think that the biggest problems associated with 'taxation by use' come to a head in high dollar financial public works projects such as the construction of a new public school where you have some people who have already used the public school sytem, some who are currently using the public school system, some who will be using the public school system and some who will never use the public school system. This is where taxes based on the notions of societies taking care of themselves rather than individuals taking care of themselves seems more appropriate.


yep...good point.

[Qdrop]

i still haven't decided what my next car will be.

i would definately go for a Honda hybrid....

cept i actually live in a climate where for 5-6 months out of the year, i COULD justify getting a 4 wheel vehicle of some sort (be it a pick up truck, suv, jeep, whatever) due to very large snowfalls and resulting road conditions....
and i seriously need one....my little honda hatchback gets stuck on side streets in the city regularly...and i can rarely park in my apart. biulding driveway or even side streets during heavy snow months.
it's pathetic.

maybe in 2 years when i am ready for a new car.....they'll have a hybid 4W drive vehicle with enough balls (torque/horsepower) to warrant the 4W monicer.

i'm just scarred of the incredibably high "roll over" danger of most SUV's nowadays.....
fuckin death traps....

[bb_bboy]

we are a society with societal responsibilities......


I respect your point of view and think that we will never completely agree on what those social responsibilites specifically are.

Health, welfare, afforable driving, etc. etc. ...

;)

[Echewta]

The way they test MPG is from the 60s I believe. Outdated.

But you all need to understand that there is a crisis in this country and thats Social Security. We should be worried about that.

[Qdrop]

But you all need to understand that there is a crisis in this country and thats Social Security. We should be worried about that.

i can't tell if you being sarcastic or not...

i'm guessing sarcastic...
;)

[ASsman]

This is gay, goes to show how the government is incapable of correctly using funds.

Someone get these fucks some Sim City.

[acehole2002069]

yo bitches

[acehole2002069]

they are all communists. the brother hood will kill all communists and destroy canada

[Qdrop]

^ the fuck are you?

[ASsman]

Obviously one of
2,002,069 idiots.

[Whois]

Obviously one of
2,002,069 idiots.

You mean 260,000,000...

[yeahwho]

Obviously one of
2,002,069 iditarots.

I never knew the iditarod dog sled race had that many participants.

Feckin' Eh'

[Ali]

A lot of the roads around my community are terrible - I don't know if that is from a lack of revenue available to put towards road repairs or inefficient use of the revenues already available. In either case, I think that those using the roads should be responible to contribute towards the regular maintenance of those roads and paying for the actual number of miles driven seems like a better approach albeit a difficult one to implement.Heavy trucks are responsible. Trucking companies should shoulder the majority of the cost of road repair in areas where they operate.

[valvano]

Heavy trucks are responsible. Trucking companies should shoulder the majority of the cost of road repair in areas where they operate.

as that i have to date enjoyed a 10 year career in the ltl industry, i can first hand tell you that over the road trucking companies pay way MORE than their fare share of fuel taxes, license taxes, equipment taxes, etc...........no to mention toll rates that are higher than your normal 2 axle passenger cars, etc.

and don't forget, trucks move the majority of the freight in this country, want them to pay even higher taxes and fees? then get ready to pay more at the checkout line because the additional cost will be passed on from the carrier to the shipper and on down the line to the end user.....the consumer

:rolleyes:

[ASsman]

Heavy trucks are responsible. Trucking companies should shoulder the majority of the cost of road repair in areas where they operate.
Hmm, get a bike.

[Ali]

as that i have to date enjoyed a 10 year career in the ltl industry, i can first hand tell you that over the road trucking companies pay way MORE than their fare share of fuel taxes, license taxes, equipment taxes, etc...........no to mention toll rates that are higher than your normal 2 axle passenger cars, etc.

and don't forget, trucks move the majority of the freight in this country, want them to pay even higher taxes and fees? then get ready to pay more at the checkout line because the additional cost will be passed on from the carrier to the shipper and on down the line to the end user.....the consumer

:rolleyes:doesn't sound like you enjoyed it;)

The majority of freight USED TO be moved by rail,

people USED to ride through towns and cities on trams,

why, now does the majority of the freight get moved on trucks and do most people use cars to get around towns and cities?

Why does the US Government not subsidise Amtrak more and reduce the cost of sending stuff by rail or operating a tram service in a city (all the infrastructure's gone and the roads are clogged with cars, so that's pretty much impossible now - why did it get dismantled?)

Fucking Cato Institute again (http://www.cato.org/dailys/5-22-97.html)

Oh... your govt has invested 13 billion U$ between 1972 and 1997

that's a lot

NOT (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html)

Could it be that the people controlling the govt wanted you to buy more cars?

then get ready to pay more at the checkout line because the additional cost will be passed on from the carrier to the shipper and on down the line to the end userit's always about money, isn't it?

The worst thing in the world is having to pay more for something when there's a cheaper way, regardless of the problems it causes.

Fuck the trains, they cost way too much, much cheaper to rely on cars (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1059/cartax.html)

and trucks (http://www.munley.com/truck_accidents_article01.html)

[valvano]

i love it, i come from a transportation family (dad and all relatives his side but in railroading), i tried banking when i graduated from college and hated it. i deal with loss and damage issues (analysis, financial reporting) including work in cargo theft. but i find time during the day to check things out on the bbmb


while i have an office job, i do hit the field every now and then and work on a dock

the problem with rail is service. back in "the day" ltc (less than carload for the uneducated) was a big part of the service they offered, you've all seen the old timey pictures of the family waiting at the local depot to pick up their order from sears? well, the railroad out-priced themselves from that and in came the truckers. the problems with trucks back then though was regulation. you had to bid on certain lanes, etc. your truck might be able to go to VA, but not NC. then deregulation hit and it killed all the unionized carriers who relied on not having any competition.

thats why see shippers cheer when the big bad railroads sale off a branch line to short line operator. they provide better service for a better price. for example, csx, you have to place a call to jacksonville, fl, just to get a car spotted on your spur. thats crazy.

out of the 100 largest motor carriers around when deregulation hit, only 4 are still around today. in trucking, just being able to make a profit is an accomplishment.

;) ;)

[checkyourprez]

how bout we get some of that missing 9 billion in iraq to pay for our roads...(and a shitload of other stuff)

[yeahwho]

eh...cept it's kinda becoming a myth that SUV's gussel that much more gas then other vehicles....nor do they have higher emission rates.

many of the latest SUV models get about 30mph and climbing....

It's kinda becoming a myth that many SUV's are getting 30 MPG. Oh wait you said 30mph, yes they all achieve 30+mph nowadays, an engineering breakthrough in gas guzzling.

This historic moment in "Crass Consumerism" is brought to you by ConocoPhillips, who use their pioneering spirit to responsibly deliver energy to the world. (y)

[ASsman]

I wonder how much the H2 gets.

[Qdrop]

It's kinda becoming a myth that many SUV's are getting 30 MPG. Oh wait you said 30mph, yes they all achieve 30+mph nowadays, an engineering breakthrough in gas guzzling.


it's a typo....shut up.

research, then talk.
and CHECK the dates on the websites and info you pull....
there are hundereds of websites and consumer reports hovering around the net on google searches that are from 1998 and shit....
i'm talking about the newest models of many SUV's...2004-2005....
many of these models hover around 28-30 (the average being about 24-25)....which is light years ahead of what the original models were doing...

granted....the average car is getting up to 35+....

and yes, there are some SUV that still get 16mpg.....pathetic.

it's simple, if you need/want an SUV....consumers should invest in the ones that get the highest MPG....
vote with your dollar......

[Ali]

the problem with rail is service. back in "the day" ltc (less than carload for the uneducated) was a big part of the service they offered, you've all seen the old timey pictures of the family waiting at the local depot to pick up their order from sears? well, the railroad out-priced themselves from that and in came the truckers. the problems with trucks back then though was regulation. you had to bid on certain lanes, etc. your truck might be able to go to VA, but not NC. then deregulation hit and it killed all the unionized carriers who relied on not having any competition.

thats why see shippers cheer when the big bad railroads sale off a branch line to short line operator. they provide better service for a better price. for example, csx, you have to place a call to jacksonville, fl, just to get a car spotted on your spur. thats crazy.

out of the 100 largest motor carriers around when deregulation hit, only 4 are still around today. in trucking, just being able to make a profit is an accomplishment.

;) ;)Respek your excellent post. I was joking about you not liking yer job, because your post wasn't so cheerful :D

Do you agree that it's way more expensive to operate a rail network and that the Government needs to subsidise the railroads in order to make it viable and affordable to send stuff/travel by train again?

I know that this will put a lot of trucking companies out of business and I take on board how hard it must be for Truckers to make a profit anyway, but the fact is that large, 18 wheeled semi-articulated tractor-trailers are dirty and dangerous; they take up huge amounts of space on the roads, are often operated by dangerously overworked drivers, cause a lot of death, injuries, damage and destruction when they crash and use huge amounts of diesel and oil, belching large amounts of Sulphur, CO, CO2 and what the hell else into the atmosphere. Trains can run on electricity and have their own tracks. I understand what you are saying about ltc and there will always be a need for smaller trucks to take these sorts of loads that don't take up a whole railroad car, but 18-wheel Semis should not replace trains IMHO.

Britain pivatised their rail network and it now costs way more to take the train than to fly anywhere, the trains are always late and occasionally jump badly-maintained tracks and the roads are jammed solid with cars and lorries (English for Semi).

Here in France, you can take a train anywhere, for next to nothing, including to other European countries and to the UK. The French govt subsidises the hell out of the railways and it shows. It cost me 20€ to take the train from Paris to Basel last weekend, a six hour journey in a big, comfortable seat, propelled by nice, clean electricity. Granted, there are still large numbers of cars and trucks on the roads, but I shudder to think what would happen if it wasn't as cheap as it is to travel by rail. Hey, Ms Peachy, if you take the Eurostar from Paris to London, and you buy the ticket in France, you pay 20% less for exactly the same ticket!

I'm (obviously) not an expert on the transportation industry, so Volvano I'd value your opinion on whether governmental support of the Railroads would in any way help reduce the numbers of heavy vehicles, cars and planes we have no choice but to use... and thereby use less oil and spew less shit into the air and water.

[Qdrop]

I wonder how much the H2 gets.

10-12 MPG
(n)

[ASsman]

We might aswell start driving around with 2 stroke engines.

[Qdrop]

We might aswell start driving around with 2 stroke engines.

john deer....

[Whois]

We might aswell start driving around with 2 stroke engines.

"Wank-wank" = Two Stroke

[yeahwho]

it's a typo....shut up.

research, then talk.
and CHECK the dates on the websites and info you pull....
there are hundereds of websites and consumer reports hovering around the net on google searches that are from 1998 and shit....
i'm talking about the newest models of many SUV's...2004-2005....
many of these models hover around 28-30 (the average being about 24-25)....which is light years ahead of what the original models were doing...


consumer reports 2004-05 rates one SUV @ 30 or above highway MPG.
the Toyota Matrix XR AWD, yet it's 150-mile-trip mpg rates it @29.

Subaru Forester 2.5X, Toyota RAV4 , Honda CR-V EX, Subaru Baja all rate @ below 30MPG Highway, 28-27 mpg...25- on the 150-mile-trip mpg rating.

That is as good as it get's in 2004-05 for SUV's according to CR.

Of the 16 small SUV's rated such as above, the highway mileage drops from 27 to 23 after # 8...mid-size and large drop the overall mileage of 2004-05 SUV's considerably lower.

Unless CR is of course some sort of a Myth Maker and my research is all messed up.

[Qdrop]

consumer reports 2004-05 rates one SUV @ 30 or above highway MPG.
the Toyota Matrix XR AWD, yet it's 150-mile-trip mpg rates it @29.

Subaru Forester 2.5X, Toyota RAV4 , Honda CR-V EX, Subaru Baja all rate @ below 30MPG Highway, 28-27 mpg...25- on the 150-mile-trip mpg rating.

That is as good as it get's in 2004-05 for SUV's according to CR.

Of the 16 small SUV's rated such as above, the highway mileage drops from 27 to 23 after # 8...mid-size and large drop the overall mileage of 2004-05 SUV's considerably lower.

Unless CR is of course some sort of a Myth Maker and my research is all messed up.

that's pretty much on par with what i said....
check my post.

although i did think there were more than 1 or 2 SUV that 30+ mpg...
my bad...
although i can check some more myself.

yes, they can do better.....and with alot of nudging...they will.

SUV's like the H2 are an embarrassment to our culture (10-12 mpg).
but is an unfair stereotype to mentally classify ALL SUV as such....

[yeahwho]

that's pretty much on par with what i said....
check my post.

although i did think there were more than 1 or 2 SUV that 30+ mpg...
my bad...
although i can check some more myself.

yes, they can do better.....and with alot of nudging...they will.

SUV's like the H2 are an embarrassment to our culture (10-12 mpg).
but is an unfair stereotype to mentally classify ALL SUV as such....

I'm only talking about the 16 small SUV's on the US market. Not the total of 42 which inludes mid-size and large SUV's.

The more bothersome element is the GPS tracking and privacy issues within this way of tax collecting. When you go to Wal-Mart everybody's gonna know.

[ASsman]

but is an unfair stereotype to mentally classify ALL SUV as such...
Yah, power cell and solar powered SUVs are the victims here.

[Qdrop]

Yah, power cell and solar powered SUVs are the victims here.

exactly...
right now, as we speak...they are crying.

[Qdrop]

I'm only talking about the 16 small SUV's on the US market. Not the total of 42 which inludes mid-size and large SUV's.


yeah, but we should focus on the top sellers really....which is a mixed bag when it comes to MPG.

the H2 is not a commonly sold SUV.... compared to the RAv4 and such.


the real point i'm making is that their ARE higher MPG, top selling SUV's out there....for those that want/need an SUV.
and we can vote with our dollars.



When you go to Wal-Mart everybody's gonna know.

afraid of gettin found out?
;)

[yeahwho]

yeah, but we should focus on the top sellers really....which is a mixed bag when it comes to MPG.

the H2 is not a commonly sold SUV.... compared to the RAv4 and such.


the real point i'm making is that their ARE higher MPG, top selling SUV's out there....for those that want/need an SUV.
and we can vote with our dollars.

The focus is on the top selling SUV's. The Honda Pilot (http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4019412), 17/22 city Hiwy. is #1.

[baltogrl71]

It doesn't say SUV's get a free ride, they too will pay by the mile plus the higher gas prices, that is economic incentive, not moral.

I agree that this is probably the wrong way to go about revenue. But it will really punish the SUV industry and all the RV's out there, they do a hec of alot more damage than a lightweight hybirds.
In md they want to charge a $750 ayear tax to all suv (6000lb) or over, and all the dealers are bitching it will hurt their sales. I doubt it. These dealers and makers should all be fined because no matter how much money you collect they are still destroying our environment, you can rebuild roads but how do you put a price on life on species that are vanishing do to global warming? You cant, and most of the people driving these vehichles don't need them for anything but their ego so the should pay and be forced to live next to a nuclear power plant.

[ASsman]

I have a better idea, raise the taxes on Gas. WAY UP.

[bb_bboy]

Lets also tax the bicyclists - they are taking advantage of the sidewalks and thoroughfares that our gasoline taxes paid for and causing unmeasurable wear and tear on our transportation infrastructure. Those with knobby tires should pay higher rates as well as those carrying children in childseats/on handlebars. We can record their mileage with an odometer and read it when they stop to buy granola and soy products.

[Qdrop]

Lets also tax the bicyclists - they are taking advantage of the sidewalks and thoroughfares that our gasoline taxes paid for and causing unmeasurable wear and tear on our transportation infrastructure. Those with knobby tires should pay higher rates as well as those carrying children in childseats/on handlebars. We can record their mileage with an odometer and read it when they stop to buy granola and soy products.

FINALLY!!
thank you!

been trying to get this bill passed locally for years.....

[paulk]

Good work Valvano.

If such nonsensical legislation is ever passed:

1. Buy car built before whenever They started hiding tracking devices in cars.

2. Disconnect your speedometer cable.

[ASsman]

That's a think crime, you better chill out Paul.