Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

In article >, marcodbeast > wrote:
>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

Blood is good for crops, too.

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

I agree, it comes down to charging the people that use something a fair rate
to support it.

As a child, bus systems were all privately owned and you paid a rate
designed to keep the company in business which was agreed upon by the public
utilities commissions.

The reasons transit went public was because there was such resistance to
fare changes, most companies simply went out of business because they could
not stay profitable. As a result the public took over the transit systems.

Cheap public trasit became an entitlement that no one wants to give up.

There has long been a belief that federal dollars should support public
transportation systems. Someone in Wyoming would question this.

Philadelphia's system has been working with reduced support for several
reasons:

Gradual rate increases to realistic levels

Reducing runs on bloated schedules resulting in empty vehicles, and
terminating underutilized services

This has created hardships for many that have no alternative but has served
the greater good.

The profitable portion of SEPTA's business is the commuter rail bringing
paying workers in from the burbs.

That said, Philly did not work that well during the strike, even with the
regional rail working while the buses and subways were out.

I would not want to even be near NYC during a strike.

I have a friend that lives in Manhatten and garages his car 22 blocks
uptown.

They have to cab or bus to the garage to take a ride on the weekend.

I personally avoid center city Philly as much as possible and since I
changed jobs, never go to NYC any longer.

Bottom line is the city, the riders and the businesses they work at should
be paying the freight.

They ought to consider allowing new businesses to start running on speific
routes and see how the cost shake out.

It won't happen of course because in Philly and NYC at least it would
threatan union jobs, and we all know who pulls the strings in these towns.

If you want to tax my gas to pay for the roads I drive on, go ahead.







"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
news
> 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 Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:32:37 -0800 (PST), Jeff >
wrote:

>On Jan 10, 10:29*am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>> The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass transit
>> users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that they
>> use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for the
>> resources (road repair and building) that they use?
>
>That is a valid question.
>
>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.
>
Pfft. You liberals. Always wanting the infrastructure to work. Don't
you know that we should sacrifice civilization to the ideology of Ayn
Rand?

On 2009-01-15, Gordon McGrew > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:32:37 -0800 (PST), Jeff >
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 10, 10:29*am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>>> The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass transit
>>> users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that they
>>> use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for the
>>> resources (road repair and building) that they use?
>>
>>That is a valid question.
>>
>>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.
>>
> Pfft. You liberals. Always wanting the infrastructure to work. Don't
> you know that we should sacrifice civilization to the ideology of Ayn
> Rand?

Because civilization is defined as using a threat of violence to take
from some people to give to other people while taking a cut.

You never heard of Illinois? We have a county known as Cook (should be
called Crook) where the current County Board preisident keeps spending more
and more and more and probably spends more than many states. He's paying to
keep his family and his father's cronies on the payroll. Won't fire or
retire any of them, never mind that most of them are glorified
chair-warmers.

And Illinois itself would have had a surplus, had both Lyin Ryan and
Governor BlowJob not gone to spending the state's largesse to buy still more
votes and curry more favor with the Outfit and the Unions. Revenues until
last year were way up, but state spending was increasing at over twice the
rate of the revenue increase. Instead of retireing old debt (which Illinois
has from foolish spending in the past.), or putting money away in case of
revenue downturns, Lyin Ryan comes up with Illinois First, and Governor
BlowJob spends money on the I**** system so he can put his name all over it.
And for some reason, every year I-294 is getting 'resufaced' or 'widened'
for the last 10 years in exactly the same spot, just south of the IBEW union
hall. And a newly built I-355 (just opened November 2007) is getting
'resurfacing' work already. All that is there is 'make work' to keep the
construction unions happy.

If you want to argue about schools, I think they ought to entirely close the
public school system anyway. Instead of an education center, they've become
liberal indoctrination centers. Kids complete high school thouroughly
indoctrinated, but unable to read and write and think for themselves and
with little knowledge of what really made this country great. They know
political correctness and 'They Owes It To Me', and that's about it. I've
seen some of the public screwel system 'graduates'. Part of the reason
we've got so many illegal aliens is they know more than your average public
screwel system graduate. By the time I graduated high school back in the
stone age, it was already obvious what was happening. I had to teach
myself. I could tell that outcomes had already been downshifted over one
grade year from when my father went to the same schools 30 years before.
They still used some of the same textbooks (new revision, of course) as my
Dad had, but he had the same courses a year earlier than I did. In one
case, TWO years earlier. And he was in the 'technical' course, I was in the
'college prep' course.

So public schools are not for the kids. They're only to curry favor with
the NEA. They're indoctrination centers for 'political correctness' but
they're not there to teach the kids anymore.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon.

On 2009-01-15, Shawn Hirn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>
>> I would think that a per mile tax (gas) along with a sliding rate on
>> registration fees that reflect a particular vehicles impact on roads and
>> maintenance would be the way to go.
>>
>> As such, large commercial vehicles would pay considerably more than sub
>> compact cars.
>
> The reality is that gas taxes have to go up as the price of gas drops.

The hell? gasoline taxes for road use are per gallon, not a price
percentage. The sales tax, which doesn't go to road use is a percentage.
At least in every state and county and city I'm familiar with.

> The driver of an SUV or a Civic uses the same amount of gas and drives
> the same distance regardless of the cost of that gas at the pump.

So? The SUV is heavier.

> I do like your idea of having the cost of auto registration tied to the
> impact a vehicle has on the roads. Heavier vehicles should cost more to
> register than lighter vehicles.

But then it's unlimited free extra impact miles after that difference is
made up.

On 2009-01-15, CharlesTheCurmudgeon > wrote:

> If you want to argue about schools, I think they ought to entirely close the
> public school system anyway. Instead of an education center, they've become
> liberal indoctrination centers.

replace 'liberal' with 'government'.

> Kids complete high school thouroughly
> indoctrinated, but unable to read and write and think for themselves and
> with little knowledge of what really made this country great. They know
> political correctness and 'They Owes It To Me', and that's about it.

I've seen this license plate frame a couple times now:
"Prosperity is my birthright"

This greater depression is going to be all sorts of fun as the
government is used as weapon to destroy what's left of the productive
sector for behalf of the parasite economy. (both the very wealthy that
control the government and those living on government handouts)

> So public schools are not for the kids. They're only to curry favor with
> the NEA. They're indoctrination centers for 'political correctness' but
> they're not there to teach the kids anymore.

they are more like prisons to get kids used to the controlling state.

On 2009-01-15, Shawn Hirn > wrote:
> In article
>,
> Jeff > wrote:
>
>> On Jan 10, 10:29*am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>> > The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass transit
>> > users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that they
>> > use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for the
>> > resources (road repair and building) that they use?
>>
>> That is a valid question.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Mass transit passengers don't ride for free ... at least most don't.
> Every public transportation system I know of charges money for the
> services it provides. And fares have been steadily rising over the
> years, more so than the gas tax. As you said, mass transit takes a huge
> load off the highway system in most major cities.

The fares do not cover the cost of the ride and well come to chicago
where blago is taxing millions of people to give those who reached the
age of 65 free rides on the CTA.

On 2009-01-15, Shawn Hirn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> It evens out though because those who can use the CTA help pay for the
> cost of the roads you use.

This makes no sense. The road taxes that a non-driver pays go to the
most local of roads. The same roads the buses they take use. The taxes
paid by a non-driver who lives in wrigleyville do not in any way support
the driving of someone living out in Naperville.

On Jan 15, 5:40*am, Shawn Hirn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeff > wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 10:29*am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> > > The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass transit
> > > users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that they
> > > use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for the
> > > resources (road repair and building) that they use?
>
> > That is a valid question.
>
> > 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.
>
> Mass transit passengers don't ride for free ... at least most don't.
> Every public transportation system I know of charges money for the
> services it provides. And fares have been steadily rising over the
> years, more so than the gas tax. As you said, mass transit takes a huge
> load off the highway system in most major cities.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It does, and yet it's not used as much as you would think (at least
around here) and there's good reason for it. When I lived in Boston
and worked in Newburyport, it was cheaper and faster for me to drive
to and from work than it was for me to take the train. Going the
other way traffic may eliminate the time difference, but it's still
likely cheaper to be in your car than on the train. If the train
didn't take just over an hour to cover a 35 minute drive the appeal to
pay more would likely be much greater.