Honda Car Forum

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:gkalmc02jmb@news1.newsguy.com...
> Jeff 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."
>>
>> I don't understand the subject line. I don't see fuel efficiency being
>> taxed. Just people being held to pay for the resources (road repair
>> and building) that they use.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
> necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
> required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax. The
> latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would a) be
> much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less impact on
> the average road user.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Why doesn't the state learn to budget, like normal people have to do? I
don't support all my cronies, my dad's old cronies, or his party's cronies
and the Outfit besides.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

In article <gkalmc02jmb@news1.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

> Jeff 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."
> >
> > I don't understand the subject line. I don't see fuel efficiency being
> > taxed. Just people being held to pay for the resources (road repair
> > and building) that they use.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
> necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
> required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax.
> The latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would
> a) be much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less
> impact on the average road user.
>
> nate

trim your quotes before posting

In article <elmop-8862BB.13055310012009@mara100-84.onlink.net>, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
[snip 132 lines of untrimmed quotes]
>trim your quotes before posting

Take your own advice...

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.

Jeff

> "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f7855fb8-a079-42c1-b826-5b7359c14b4f@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> 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."
>
> I don't understand the subject line. I don't see fuel efficiency being
> taxed. Just people being held to pay for the resources (road repair
> and building) that they use.
>
> Jeff

Sharx35 wrote:
> Commuting for hours is pure bullshit most of the time. Surely, you can
> MOVE closer if the job has any permanence at all. I have NO sympathy for
> those who commute for HOURS year, after year, after year. Live closer to
> where you work, damnit.

Make the urban-planning assholes allow enough homes to be built so I can
live there without having more money than God, and I'll do it.

"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:gkatt8$cs3$3@blue.rahul.net...
> Sharx35 wrote:
>> Commuting for hours is pure bullshit most of the time. Surely, you can
>> MOVE closer if the job has any permanence at all. I have NO sympathy for
>> those who commute for HOURS year, after year, after year. Live closer to
>> where you work, damnit.
>
> Make the urban-planning assholes allow enough homes to be built so I can
> live there without having more money than God, and I'll do it.

It's not the urban planning assholes, it's the un-real estate agents.
They've been pumping the bubble with happy gas for over a decade now.
Unfortuntely, in order to keep pumping the bubble, they had to sell to
people that were basically unable to really pay their prices, and finally
the bubble burst. They forgot the law of retail gravity. Eventually what
goes up must come down.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

"Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gc1al.4143$Db2.1093@edtnps83...
>
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-837188.05013510012009@mara100-84.onlink.net...
>> In article <brU9l.4084$Db2.3440@edtnps83>,
>> "Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Fess up, how many of you make
>>> MORE than one driving trip a week
>>> to buy groceries? Clue: one does NOT need fresh lettuce every
>>> frigging
>>> day--it WILL keep for a fair while in the fridge.
>>> I buy gas every TWO weeks, groceries every TWO weeks, except for
>>> milk which
>>> I buy ONCE a week. Library trips are ONCE a week. No need to rent
>>> or buy
>>> DVD's etc..I get them on my WEEKLY library trips..
>>
>> So you don't have any kids in your house. Big whoop. Put a couple
>> growing kids in your house and see how your grocery runs get.
>> Every two
>> weeks? hahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Typical ****ing LIEbrawl DEMONrats--their KIDS rule the house.
>

Yeah. Why would someone want to feed their kids?


>

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> The problem for the state is that if the vehicle fleet becomes more
> efficient and the CAFE (for lack of a better illustration) goes from
> 17.5 to 22.5, then there will be fewer taxes collected. (I pulled those
> numbers out of my ass, what the numbers are and what they go to does not
> really matter. All that matters is our cars are getting more efficient,
> so fewer gas taxes are being collected.)

Except that the premise that fewer gas taxes are collected for a given
VMT figure isn't true. The CAFE has remained virtually the same for the
last 25 years.

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.

The fact that stealing is useful doesn't make it any less stealing.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
> It's not the urban planning assholes, it's the un-real estate agents.
> They've been pumping the bubble with happy gas for over a decade now.
> Unfortuntely, in order to keep pumping the bubble, they had to sell to
> people that were basically unable to really pay their prices, and finally
> the bubble burst. They forgot the law of retail gravity. Eventually what
> goes up must come down.

It's actually both groups, plus some developers, and especially the
green movement.

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. The movement's leaders are all rich, white
people who own nice big houses on huge areas of land, and by stopping
most development and new infrastructure they can: (1) create and maintain
a huge shortage of good homes by "protecting" other people's unbuilt land
from use; (2) in particular, make sure that any unbuilt land near THEM
stays empty, so they can keep using it as "viewshed" without paying for
it; and (3) prevent the riff-raff [you and me, and especially minorities]
from moving in next door where their kids might meet ours.

The Sierra Club, and the green movement which it leads and typifies,
exists in order to convince the gullible that the members of this cabal
are unselfish benefactors to the world, when the truth is that they are
"gimme-ist" bastards who have more than enough money already, and use
the unfair power of government to ensure that you and I can never share
in their cherished lifestyle. They are classists, racists, and elitists.

It astounds me that any real liberal (are there any left?) would venerate
such a bunch of hypocrites.