Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

On 2009-01-12, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:20 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-01-11, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>> In message >, John David Galt
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
>>>>homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
>>>>and climbing higher forever.
>>>
>>> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
>>> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is USENET
>>> I know I never will.
>>
>>The proof of it IMO is in the actions that they support that are counter
>>to environmentalism. I've heard and read of cases where through the
>>power of government (in different states) land was taken from its
>>rightful owners to preserve 'open space' and the like. Later on down the
>>road the land was sold by the government to insiders who then developed
>>it and built very expensive homes upon it. I didn't save the cites on it
>>but I have read/heard about it so it's not new to me.
>>
>>Beyond that I think he is pointing out a subset of the "true purpose".
>>The true purpose is clearly that of a ruling class wishing to remain a
>>ruling class and have everything to themselves while the rest of us have
>>nothing.
>>
>>It is my belief that if I were to develop a $10 zero point energy device
>>(I'm just using that as a 100% clean miricle energy source that would
>>preserve the environment and raise the standard of living world wide)
>>that could run a car or a home for 25 years that every attempt I made to
>>bring it to market would be blocked by government. I would also likely
>>be killed if that would prevent its release.
>
> Undoubtedly why Fleischman and Ponds went public directly. Now nobody can
> "duplicate the experiment." Yeah... right...

Even with an explaination someone misses the point. Okay, I'll use wind
power. Remember when we were supposed to spend money developing and
building wind power when wind power didn't work and couldn't work? Where
if wind was used power would have to be rationed, etc? Now wind power
is working to a degree and guess what? Now wind power is bad. It chops
up birds and kills fish (when hydro electric has to use the spillways
because wind is over-generating) and the like. Wind power is ugly and
disturbs the view and every other objection that has appeared in the
last few years.

If you believe that people in power wouldn't kill to preserve it, I
suggest a better understanding of human society is in order. It is the
most ruthless that rise to the top. If you're not willing to kill either
directly or indirectly you won't get very far in the halls of power.


>>There are natural zero calorie sweeteners that have been blocked from
>>market in the USA by the FDA because of who stood to loose if they made
>>it to market. Now the FDA is slowly reversing itself on one that has
>>been used in Japan for 30 years because the soda giants want to use it.
>>And that's just the sugar industry...
>>
>>
>>

In article >,
Brent > wrote:

> On 2009-01-11, Tim McNamara > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >
> >> In message >, John David Galt
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the
> >> >prices of homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes,
> >> >outrageously high and climbing higher forever.
> >>
> >> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full
> >> thesis and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since
> >> this is USENET I know I never will.
> >
> > And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is
> > chock full of environmentalists.
>
> In the sense of using environmentalism to gain wealth and power, yes.

I was being ironic in response to Galt's claim about the true purpose of
the environmental movement- a claim which about a chock full o' nuts as
can be.

On 2009-01-12, Tim McNamara > wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-11, Tim McNamara > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message >, John David Galt
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the
>> >> >prices of homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes,
>> >> >outrageously high and climbing higher forever.
>> >>
>> >> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full
>> >> thesis and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since
>> >> this is USENET I know I never will.
>> >
>> > And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is
>> > chock full of environmentalists.
>>
>> In the sense of using environmentalism to gain wealth and power, yes.
>
> I was being ironic in response to Galt's claim about the true purpose of
> the environmental movement- a claim which about a chock full o' nuts as
> can be.

It's just one facet, not the 'true purpose'. Government takes from some
people and gives to others so those others benefit. It uses excuses for
this to cover it, the environment is one of those exuses.

On Jan 8, 12:16*am, Tim Howard > wrote:
> Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
> By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer
> * *– Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET
>
> PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring
> ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of
> how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring
> devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as
> Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric
> hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely
> with gasoline taxes.
>
> "I'm glad we're taking a look at it before the potholes get so big that
> we can't even get out of them," said Leroy Younglove, a Portland driver
> who participated in a recent pilot program.
>
> The proposal is not without critics, including drivers who are concerned
> about privacy and others who fear the tax could eliminate the financial
> incentive for buying efficient vehicles.
>
> But Oregon is ahead of the nation in exploring the concept, even though
> it will probably be years before any mileage tax is adopted.
>
> Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has
> envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007.
>
> The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure
> Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways,
> bridges and transit programs in good shape.
>
> But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should
> consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more
> fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.
>
> As cars burn less fuel, "the gas tax isn't going to fill the bill," said
> Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the House Transportation and
> Infrastructure Committee.
>
> The next Congress "could begin to set the stage, perhaps looking at some
> much more robust pilot programs, to begin the research, to work with
> manufacturers."
>
> Gov. Ted Kulongoski has included development money for the tax in his
> budget proposal, and interest is growing in a number of other states.
>
> Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would
> require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles.
>
> In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a
> quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
>
> James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge
> of the state's effort, said he's also heard talk of mileage tax
> proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota.
>
> "There is kind of a coalition that's naturally forming around this," he
> said.
>
> Also fueling the search for alternatives is the political difficulty of
> raising gasoline taxes.
>
> The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and nearly two dozen
> states have not changed their taxes since 1997, according to the
> American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
>
> In Oregon's pilot program, officials equipped 300 vehicles with GPS
> transponders that worked wirelessly with service station pumps, allowing
> drivers to pay their mileage tax just as they do their gas tax.
>
> Whitty said the test, which involved two gas stations in the Portland
> area, proved the idea could work.
>
> Though the GPS devices did not track the cars' locations in great
> detail, they could determine when a driver had left certain zones, such
> as the state of Oregon. They also kept track of the time the driving was
> done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage.
>
> The proposal envisions a gradual change, with manufacturers installing
> the technology in new vehicles because retrofitting old cars would be
> too expensive. Owners of older vehicles would continue to pay gasoline
> taxes.
>
> The difference in tax based on mileage or on gasoline would be small —
> "pennies per transaction at the pump," Whitty said.
>
> But the mileage tax still faces several major obstacles.
>
> For one, Oregon accounts for only a small part of auto sales, so the
> state can't go it alone. A multistate or national system would be needed.
>
> Another concern is that such devices could threaten privacy. Whitty said
> he and his task force have assured people that the program does not
> track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and
> cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies.
>
> "I think most people will come to realize there is really no tracking
> issue and will continue to buy new cars," Whitty said, noting that many
> cell phones now come equipped with GPS, which has not deterred customers.
>
> Others are worried that a mileage tax would undermine years of
> incentives to switch toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.
>
> "It doesn't seem fair," said Paul Niedergang of Portland, that a hybrid
> would be taxed as much as his Dodge pickup. "I just think the gas tax
> needs to be updated."
>
> Lynda Williams, also of Portland, was not immediately sold on the idea
> but said it was worth consideration.
>
> "We all have to be open-minded," she said. "Our current system just
> isn't working."

They are not punishing drivers of high mpg cars for their fuel
efficiency. They are extracting a charge for use of and wear and tear
on the road. Roads get worn out by the number of miles an automobile
uses the roadway and not by the mpg.

A weight-based assesment might make some sense.

In article >,
Brent > wrote:

> On 2009-01-12, Tim McNamara > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Brent > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-01-11, Tim McNamara > wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In message >, John David Galt
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the
> >> >> >prices of homes, especially good (single-family detached)
> >> >> >homes, outrageously high and climbing higher forever.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full
> >> >> thesis and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since
> >> >> this is USENET I know I never will.
> >> >
> >> > And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is
> >> > chock full of environmentalists.
> >>
> >> In the sense of using environmentalism to gain wealth and power,
> >> yes.
> >
> > I was being ironic in response to Galt's claim about the true
> > purpose of the environmental movement- a claim which about a chock
> > full o' nuts as can be.
>
> It's just one facet, not the 'true purpose'. Government takes from
> some people and gives to others so those others benefit.

That's the purpose of capitalism- securing the benefit of the few at the
expense of the many. Just check the ratio of CEO incomes to those of
the average worker over the past 50 years.

> It uses excuses for this to cover it, the environment is one of those
> exuses.

Tinfoil hats help.

On 2009-01-14, Tim McNamara > wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-12, Tim McNamara > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Brent > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-01-11, Tim McNamara > wrote:
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In message >, John David Galt
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the
>> >> >> >prices of homes, especially good (single-family detached)
>> >> >> >homes, outrageously high and climbing higher forever.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full
>> >> >> thesis and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since
>> >> >> this is USENET I know I never will.
>> >> >
>> >> > And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is
>> >> > chock full of environmentalists.
>> >>
>> >> In the sense of using environmentalism to gain wealth and power,
>> >> yes.
>> >
>> > I was being ironic in response to Galt's claim about the true
>> > purpose of the environmental movement- a claim which about a chock
>> > full o' nuts as can be.
>>
>> It's just one facet, not the 'true purpose'. Government takes from
>> some people and gives to others so those others benefit.
>
> That's the purpose of capitalism- securing the benefit of the few at the
> expense of the many.

No, that the purpose of the state. (the government) Capitalism can't do
that, only the power of the state can.

> Just check the ratio of CEO incomes to those of
> the average worker over the past 50 years.

>> It uses excuses for this to cover it, the environment is one of those
>> exuses.

> Tinfoil hats help.

And Iraq was invaded for the WMD.... lol. It's amazing how people can
compartmentalize and decide that when the government is doing something
they like, something that happens to go along with their own views, the
government is honest and motivated by good yet when they run the same
sort of game to do something they don't agree with they see the excuse
for what it is. Guess what? It's always an excuse to expand the size
and power of the state.

> wrote in message
...
> On Jan 8, 12:16 am, Tim Howard > wrote:
>> Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
>> By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer
>> – Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET
>>
>> PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring
>> ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of
>> how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring
>> devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as
>> Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric
>> hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely
>> with gasoline taxes.
>>
>> "I'm glad we're taking a look at it before the potholes get so big that
>> we can't even get out of them," said Leroy Younglove, a Portland driver
>> who participated in a recent pilot program.
>>
>> The proposal is not without critics, including drivers who are concerned
>> about privacy and others who fear the tax could eliminate the financial
>> incentive for buying efficient vehicles.
>>
>> But Oregon is ahead of the nation in exploring the concept, even though
>> it will probably be years before any mileage tax is adopted.
>>
>> Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has
>> envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007.
>>
>> The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure
>> Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways,
>> bridges and transit programs in good shape.
>>
>> But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should
>> consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more
>> fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.
>>
>> As cars burn less fuel, "the gas tax isn't going to fill the bill," said
>> Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the House Transportation and
>> Infrastructure Committee.
>>
>> The next Congress "could begin to set the stage, perhaps looking at some
>> much more robust pilot programs, to begin the research, to work with
>> manufacturers."
>>
>> Gov. Ted Kulongoski has included development money for the tax in his
>> budget proposal, and interest is growing in a number of other states.
>>
>> Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would
>> require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles.
>>
>> In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a
>> quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
>>
>> James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge
>> of the state's effort, said he's also heard talk of mileage tax
>> proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota.
>>
>> "There is kind of a coalition that's naturally forming around this," he
>> said.
>>
>> Also fueling the search for alternatives is the political difficulty of
>> raising gasoline taxes.
>>
>> The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and nearly two dozen
>> states have not changed their taxes since 1997, according to the
>> American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
>>
>> In Oregon's pilot program, officials equipped 300 vehicles with GPS
>> transponders that worked wirelessly with service station pumps, allowing
>> drivers to pay their mileage tax just as they do their gas tax.
>>
>> Whitty said the test, which involved two gas stations in the Portland
>> area, proved the idea could work.
>>
>> Though the GPS devices did not track the cars' locations in great
>> detail, they could determine when a driver had left certain zones, such
>> as the state of Oregon. They also kept track of the time the driving was
>> done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage.
>>
>> The proposal envisions a gradual change, with manufacturers installing
>> the technology in new vehicles because retrofitting old cars would be
>> too expensive. Owners of older vehicles would continue to pay gasoline
>> taxes.
>>
>> The difference in tax based on mileage or on gasoline would be small —
>> "pennies per transaction at the pump," Whitty said.
>>
>> But the mileage tax still faces several major obstacles.
>>
>> For one, Oregon accounts for only a small part of auto sales, so the
>> state can't go it alone. A multistate or national system would be needed.
>>
>> Another concern is that such devices could threaten privacy. Whitty said
>> he and his task force have assured people that the program does not
>> track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and
>> cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies.
>>
>> "I think most people will come to realize there is really no tracking
>> issue and will continue to buy new cars," Whitty said, noting that many
>> cell phones now come equipped with GPS, which has not deterred customers.
>>
>> Others are worried that a mileage tax would undermine years of
>> incentives to switch toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.
>>
>> "It doesn't seem fair," said Paul Niedergang of Portland, that a hybrid
>> would be taxed as much as his Dodge pickup. "I just think the gas tax
>> needs to be updated."
>>
>> Lynda Williams, also of Portland, was not immediately sold on the idea
>> but said it was worth consideration.
>>
>> "We all have to be open-minded," she said. "Our current system just
>> isn't working."
>
> They are not punishing drivers of high mpg cars for their fuel
> efficiency. They are extracting a charge for use of and wear and tear
> on the road. Roads get worn out by the number of miles an automobile
> uses the roadway and not by the mpg.
>
> A weight-based assesment might make some sense.

A good way to nail the SUV's, many of which are overkill.

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:
>
>In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
>what would happen if mass transit stopped?
>
>From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
>strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
>was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
>and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
>Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
>into and out of NYC) were still running.
>
>Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
>not enough roads in NYC without it.
>
>So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
>public transportation so that the system continues to work.

No, that's a reason to tax New Yorkers in general to support public
transportation. It's not a reason to tax, e.g., drivers in Albany to
pay for NYC public transportation.

Furthermore, NYC is pretty much singular in this respect.
Philadelphia, for instance, works with only relatively minor
inconvenience when SEPTA strikes.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

On 2009-01-14, Matthew Russotto > wrote:

> No, that's a reason to tax New Yorkers in general to support public
> transportation. It's not a reason to tax, e.g., drivers in Albany to
> pay for NYC public transportation.

All of Illinois is taxed to support the CTA. Those of us closer to the
CTA but still outside it's service area get to be taxed more for it.

Brent wrote:
> On 2009-01-08, Tim McNamara > wrote:
>
>> The damage drivers do to the environment from burning fossil fuels is
>> based on how much fuel they burn, not on how many miles they drive.
>> A "carbon tax" for funding addressing the problems thus created makes
>> sense and appropriately places the burden on people who drive
>> inefficient gas guzzlers (with apologies to poor folks who can only
>> afford cheap, used and generally boat-like cars).
>
> A carbon tax to 'save the environment' makes sense in the same way a
> blood sacrifice to the sun god for good crop yields made sense.

Because, of course, gasoline burns clean as a whistle. lol