Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Tim Howard, Jan 8, 2009.

  1. Tim Howard

    Tim McNamara Guest

    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.
     
    Tim McNamara, Jan 12, 2009
    #61
  2. Tim Howard

    Brent Guest

    It's just one facet, not the 'true purpose'. Government takes from some
    people and gives to others so those others benefit. It uses excuses for
    this to cover it, the environment is one of those exuses.
     
    Brent, Jan 12, 2009
    #62
  3. Tim Howard

    Eeyore Guest

    It's the economy stupid ! But they've become unstoppable here now. They just
    ignore protest.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jan 13, 2009
    #63
  4. Tim Howard

    Eeyore Guest

    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.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jan 13, 2009
    #64
  5. Tim Howard

    Brent Guest

    So they did damage something you cared about.

    They aren't doing anything differently than they did before, just more
    of it. It was just us kooks that warned of the consquences.
     
    Brent, Jan 13, 2009
    #65
  6. Tim Howard

    Brent Guest

    you're getting closer to figuring it out. The facade of 'democracy' is
    finally falling off before your eyes.
     
    Brent, Jan 13, 2009
    #66
  7. Tim Howard

    smullenjm Guest

    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.
     
    smullenjm, Jan 13, 2009
    #67
  8. Tim Howard

    Alan Baker Guest

    Then in that case they should lower the fuel taxes...


    ....but they won't.
     
    Alan Baker, Jan 13, 2009
    #68

  9. "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
     
    Grumpy AuContraire, Jan 14, 2009
    #69
  10. Tim Howard

    Tim McNamara Guest

    That's the purpose of capitalism- securing the benefit of the few at the
    expense of the many. Just check the ratio of CEO incomes to those of
    the average worker over the past 50 years.
    Tinfoil hats help.
     
    Tim McNamara, Jan 14, 2009
    #70
  11. Tim Howard

    Tim McNamara Guest

    I retract my earlier comment. It's too late for tinfoil hats.
     
    Tim McNamara, Jan 14, 2009
    #71
  12. Tim Howard

    Brent Guest

    No, that the purpose of the state. (the government) Capitalism can't do
    that, only the power of the state can.
    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.
     
    Brent, Jan 14, 2009
    #72
  13. Tim Howard

    Brent Guest

    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.
     
    Brent, Jan 14, 2009
    #73
  14. Tim Howard

    Sharx35 Guest

    A good way to nail the SUV's, many of which are overkill.
     
    Sharx35, Jan 14, 2009
    #74
  15. 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.
     
    Matthew Russotto, Jan 14, 2009
    #75
  16. Tim Howard

    Brent Guest

    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, Jan 14, 2009
    #76
  17. Tim Howard

    marcodbeast Guest

    Because, of course, gasoline burns clean as a whistle. lol
     
    marcodbeast, Jan 14, 2009
    #77
  18. Blood is good for crops, too.
     
    Matthew Russotto, Jan 14, 2009
    #78
  19. Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

    [snip]
    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 PE, Jan 14, 2009
    #79
  20. Tim Howard

    Jay Giuliani Guest

    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.
     
    Jay Giuliani, Jan 14, 2009
    #80
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.