Honda Car Forum

In article <gkl4gi$lsi$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2009-01-14, Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> 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.

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 IPiss 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 <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <TKwal.279060$Mh5.64164@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> 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 <n5hsr@comcast.net> 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 <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
><81f717f2-a3cf-4352-9485-542719cc9785@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com> 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 <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <gkl4gi$lsi$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-14, Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> 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 13, 8:49*pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article
> > <471e50d9-3882-4d54-93ba-42c60e776...@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > *smulle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 8, 12:16 am, Tim Howard <tim.how...@suddenlink.net> 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.
>
> > Then in that case they should lower the fuel taxes...
>
> > ...but they won't.
>
> "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...
>
> JT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And it is. Have you ever tried to register, buy fuel for or own a
large commercial truck? It's a whole lot more expensive than your
average daily driver.

On Jan 15, 5:40*am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <81f717f2-a3cf-4352-9485-542719cc9...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeff <jeff....@gmail.com> 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.

The point is vehicle owners are taxed in various ways by the federal, state
and is some cases the municipal governments, to help pay the cost of
operating mass transit systems. The largest single portion of the federal
gas tax is going to mass transit rather than the interstate roadways. Why
do we allow the government to do that?

Why should those that use the system NOT be paying their own way, as do
those that choose to use Taxis and limo services, rather than making vehicle
owners pay from them to ride for less?

When I am in Philadelphia or NYC I engage a limo service, rather than
subjecting myself to the
idiosyncrasies of public transit system.


<DanKMTB@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f832d17-9461-4255-b9d9-3ca82d90cdd9@l37g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 5:40 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <81f717f2-a3cf-4352-9485-542719cc9...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff <jeff....@gmail.com> 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.

In article <srhi-652329.05364615012009@news.newsguy.com>,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>What would you propose states with falling revenues do in order to
>budget their money in this economy? Should they close off roads and
>bridges that need repairs and tell drivers to use alternate routes until
>they have the money to do the repairs?

That's a valid option. When money's tight, cutting back is
important.

>Should they fire cops and firemen?

Lay them off, rather.

>Close parks.

How is that going to reduce expenditures? They'll have to hire extra
security to keep people out of the closed parks.

>day per week? Yes, there are ways in most states to cut spending, but
>the cuts are a drop in the bucket compared with the lost revenue.

Then they might actually have to (horrors) cut the unimportant stuff
that gets the campaign contributions along with the police, fire, and
libraries.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress