Honda Car Forum

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:30:15 -0600, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>In article <49669478.3D4D96F7@hotmail.com>,
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim Howard wrote:
>>
>> > Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
>>
>> The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just
>> the USA) is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only
>> nominal.
>>
>> The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full
>> scale revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government
>> poking its nose into stuff it has no business in.
>
>How can that be? The right wing has controlled at least two branches of
>the US government for 26 of the past 28 years. They've told us that
>government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem.

It wasn't the size og govt, it was who the govt was bowing down to...

>They shrunk the size of government (just ask them), eliminated reams of
>burdensome regulations,

Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, TSA, Real ID(which so far they
have been unsuccessful at)...

> 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...


--
"If you want change in Washington, if you hope for a better
America (sic), then we're asking for your vote on the 4th of
November."
--Sarah Palin

"Jay Giuliani" <jrgiuliani@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hhx9l.4432$BC4.2979@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Just suck it up and raise the gas tax.

That causes people to drive even less, so it could get into a vicious
cycle. Reminds me the nicotin taxes that became such a large part of
state revenues. The more they raise it, the less they get out of it.
pj

On 2009-01-09, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <49669478.3D4D96F7@hotmail.com>,
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim Howard wrote:
>>
>> > Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
>>
>> The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just
>> the USA) is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only
>> nominal.
>>
>> The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full
>> scale revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government
>> poking its nose into stuff it has no business in.
>
> How can that be? The right wing has controlled at least two branches of
> the US government for 26 of the past 28 years. They've told us that
> government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem. They
> shrunk the size of government (just ask them), eliminated reams of
> burdensome regulations, they've spent billions of dollars protecting
> delicate corporations from the hoi polloi. Are you saying that the
> Republicans were *wrong?*

Republicans are little different from democrats. They are also statists
and have expanded the size and scope of government greatly. Then again
you seem to know at least the later. Shattering people's illusions is
another story entirely.

On 2009-01-09, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com> 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.

In message <gk6hn8$hqq$1@news.motzarella.org>, "P J"
<pj@pjama.invalid> wrote:

>"Jay Giuliani" <jrgiuliani@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:hhx9l.4432$BC4.2979@nwrddc02.gnilink.net.. .
>> Just suck it up and raise the gas tax.
>
>That causes people to drive even less, so it could get into a vicious
>cycle. Reminds me the nicotin taxes that became such a large part of
>state revenues. The more they raise it, the less they get out of it.

In Canada they raised the cigarette tax so high at one point that
people actually <gasp!> cut back on their smoking and revenue started
to fall off. They promptly lowered the tax.

But our addiction to oil is much, much worse than our addiction to
nicotine. For most people, it's MUCH easier to cut back on smoking
than it is to cut back on driving.

On Jan 8, 10:50*am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> In article <timmcn-34B0CD.09002708012...@news.iphouse.com>,
> *Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > The damage each driver causes to the roads is based on how many miles
> > they drive and only vaguely on how much gasoline they burn; from that
> > perspective a mileage tax makes more sense than a gasoline tax.
>
> In one of my college economics classes way back when, the professor
> discussed the fairness of weighing your salad bar puchase and paying per
> ounce vs. per plateful. *Interestingly enough, many students used the
> "it's not fair" cry on the per ounce method...

At some US Naval officer clubs you used to pay according to the height
of your sandwich.

"Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In Canada they raised the cigarette tax so high at one point that
> people actually <gasp!> cut back on their smoking and revenue started
> to fall off. They promptly lowered the tax.

Whoa, that's something!

> But our addiction to oil is much, much worse than our addiction to
> nicotine. For most people, it's MUCH easier to cut back on smoking
> than it is to cut back on driving.

True, but for many driving is a necessity of life, while smoking is not.
Being able to go wherever you want and whenever you want is also an
important part of freedom that public transportation can not provide as
fully as one's own car. Most politicians know it and that's why they
feel they can tax it to death and there will still be people driving.
pj

I am all for use taxes, I just don't see this as manageable.

The problem is that in transporation this means tolls and the entire
infrastructure and industry which growa around them.

Imagine your surprise at registration time when you are presented a huge
mileage based tax bill.

It may seem fair but what about the person that has to drive a long way to
work because there is no effective public transit system available.
Promises of Light rail which will not be built for years will not pay that
renewal tax.

I think it will be hugely unmanageable.

Just raise the gas taxes

By the way, I remember those same clubs doing the Mongolian BBQ by the ounce
as well.






"Studemania" <midlant@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aafb317e-6a41-466e-9f28-f0d7177924b9@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 10:50 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> In article <timmcn-34B0CD.09002708012...@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > The damage each driver causes to the roads is based on how many miles
> > they drive and only vaguely on how much gasoline they burn; from that
> > perspective a mileage tax makes more sense than a gasoline tax.
>
> In one of my college economics classes way back when, the professor
> discussed the fairness of weighing your salad bar puchase and paying per
> ounce vs. per plateful. Interestingly enough, many students used the
> "it's not fair" cry on the per ounce method...

At some US Naval officer clubs you used to pay according to the height
of your sandwich.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:58:16 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <gk46bq$cug$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> "Chuck Olson" <chuckolson01@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> How about taxing based on a combination of gasoline per gallon, with a
>> multiplier related to the gross vehicle weight, to account for the real
>> cause of road deterioration - - tonnage.
>
>Hmmmmm.....
>
>Put scales at the gas pump, and dynamically calculate the tax when the
>handle is lifted...hmmm...

And the driver is weighed along with the car, of course.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:50:44 -0500, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote:

>Lets see if I understand this. I live in Oregon and I have two vehicles,
>one weighs 2,000 LB, the other weighs 3,000 LB. one gets 20 MPG, and the
>other gets 35 MPG, doing 60 MPH on the interstate. I pay MORE in gas taxes
>for the one than the other, per 100 miles driven, right?
>
>The one that gets 35 MPG has only two seats, the other seats seven. I
>have a wife and four children, all of us can NOT travel in the one that gets
>20 MPG. If I must take us all, 100 miles away, to my in-laws house. I
>need to make five trips in both directions with one, at total of ten trips
>and only one each way with the other, for a total of two.
>
>Now my question is, which situation would cause the most damage when I'm on
>that trip and should I sell the one that weighs 2,000 LB and gets 20 MPG to
>pay the per mile tax and keep the other because I have a wife on four
>children or should just keep the one that weighs 2,000 LB and gets 20 MPG
>and just leave my wife and kids, as well as Oregon?

Take the bus.



>
>
>"Tim Howard" <tim.howard@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
>news:49658c18$0$5474$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net ...
>> 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.
>