Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

In article >,
Brent > wrote:

> On 2009-01-13, Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-01-09, necromancer wrote:
> >>
> >> >> they've spent billions of dollars protecting
> >> >>delicate corporations from the hoi polloi. Are you saying that
> >> >>the Republicans were *wrong?*
> >> >
> >> > Yep. And now, it is payback time...
> >>
> >> Exactly how? By the democrats also expanding the size and scope of
> >> government? The people are going to be the losers again.
> >
> > The real problem is the party system. The exist only to promote and
> > enlarge themselves. All Representatives and Senators ( MPs here -
> > not sure what we'd do with the Upper House) should have to be
> > independents.
>
> you're getting closer to figuring it out. The facade of 'democracy'
> is finally falling off before your eyes.

I retract my earlier comment. It's too late for tinfoil hats.

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.

On 2009-01-14, Tim McNamara > wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-13, Eeyore > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Brent wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-01-09, necromancer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> they've spent billions of dollars protecting
>> >> >>delicate corporations from the hoi polloi. Are you saying that
>> >> >>the Republicans were *wrong?*
>> >> >
>> >> > Yep. And now, it is payback time...
>> >>
>> >> Exactly how? By the democrats also expanding the size and scope of
>> >> government? The people are going to be the losers again.
>> >
>> > The real problem is the party system. The exist only to promote and
>> > enlarge themselves. All Representatives and Senators ( MPs here -
>> > not sure what we'd do with the Upper House) should have to be
>> > independents.
>>
>> you're getting closer to figuring it out. The facade of 'democracy'
>> is finally falling off before your eyes.
>
> I retract my earlier comment. It's too late for tinfoil hats.

So you can tell me what the actual difference between the two parties
that control the government in the USA are? What's the choice we are
given? Where is the significant difference between them? There isn't
one. It's the choice between bigger more powerful and
intrusive government and bigger and more powerful and
intrusive government.

> 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

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

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

[snip]
>
> "Weight based" is affected by registration rates. I.E., a 20 ton dump
> truck should be subject to much higher impact fees than my little ol'
> Honda Civic...

Finding the most equitable tax policy is always a compromise. The best one
would extract greater fees from those who do more damage, due to vehicle
weight, miles traveled or both. Since fuel consumption per mile is a
reasonably good proxy for vehicle weight, a tax based upon fuel useage is
probably the best (and easiest) way to go.

And what do you know .... that's the way it works today.

Tax policy can also be used to encourage and/or discourage certain
behaviors. Modifying the tax structure to put more of a burden on fuel
efficient cars sends a bad signal to the market.

--
Paul Hovnanian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

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