Ed Pawlowski

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:8m3dm41ph30eegcdbg3b9cqmoak7c0a4hv@4ax.com...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
>
> I've been saying that for a decade or more. If not for stupid,
> short-sighted, idiot right-wingers, our country could be in great
> shape right now.
>
> The tax should be per gallon, to encourage efficiency.
>

Bullshit, don't blame the right wingers. The left spends plenty too. BOTH
are part of the den of thieves.

Toss your neighbors into the mix also. Oh, let's vote yes on building that
new $20 million dollar white elephant, it is only costing us a few pennies,
the federal government will pay for the rest.

Tim Howard

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> Are you stupid, or what?
>
> You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
> received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
>
First of all, I just posted this, so I have not had time yet to respond.
Second of all I see people discussing this issue amongst themselves,
which was also part of my plan.

> Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs
> associated with the building and maintenance of roads and highways.
> These costs are funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop
> using gasoline and the costs associated with the building and
> maintenance of the roads and highways continue, where will the funding
> come from?
>
You are missing my point that pollution from autos causes problems and
that means money has to be spent on addressing those problems. Driving
fuel efficient and electric cars saves money by not hurting the
environment so much. We should not be creating the idea in people's
minds that driving cars that don't harm the environment is a bad thing.
What about a state road tax instead? California has proposed a "gas
guzzler" tax on SUVs and big pickups. There are other alternatives.

> I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting
> together, but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of
> fuel-efficiency is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of
> the Oregon plans, I have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs
> to the big-rigs on the mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of
> the need to build and maintain roads and highways is not the answer.
>
They might not be deliberately trying to punish those car owners, but
that's what it amounts to. I read a poster in another thread who
likened it to when his city told people to conserve water one year and
then raised the water tax the next year because people conserved so much
they lost too much money.

Tim Howard

IYM wrote:
>
> My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period. Pretty soon, they'll
> have a tax for taking a crap.

Umm "they" already do that--sewages taxes. I guess you think sewage
processing is free? I don't think most places have a flat rate on
that--the more you flush the more you pay. Are you worried about that
because you are full of crap?

IYM

I don't have sewage tax - Luckly, I live out in the burbs and have my own
septic system -

.....and yes, the only thime I use that system is when I am indeed full of
crap!

"Tim Howard" <tim.howard@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:4966eb7a$0$5475$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
> IYM wrote:
>>
>> My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period. Pretty soon,
>> they'll have a tax for taking a crap.
>
> Umm "they" already do that--sewages taxes. I guess you think sewage
> processing is free? I don't think most places have a flat rate on
> that--the more you flush the more you pay. Are you worried about that
> because you are full of crap?

Pete M

C. E. White wrote:
> I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.

You wouldn't be saying that if you lived here in Europe. 80% of the
price of fuel is tax, so you'd be quickly saying goodbye to anything
with an engine bigger than 2.5 litres.

--
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo
Renault 30 TX Auto

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"

rmac

"Pete M" <pete.murray@SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gk84t7$pl2$2@news.motzarella.org...
> C. E. White wrote:
>> I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
>
> You wouldn't be saying that if you lived here in Europe. 80% of the price
> of fuel is tax, so you'd be quickly saying goodbye to anything with an
> engine bigger than 2.5 litres.
>
Why would I say goodbye to my pickup which has a 5.7 liter engine?
I can afford the price of gasoline even if a large tax were to be added.
Please do not assume that everyone is willing to suffer driving an
underpowered, small size automobile to save a few bucks
(or to appease a few overzealous environmentalists).
Charging by the mile is the only fair way to tax.

Mike Hunter

Make all roads toll roads?

"rmac" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%LN9l.915$ln7.368@newsfe04.iad...
>
> "Pete M" <pete.murray@SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gk84t7$pl2$2@news.motzarella.org...
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
>>
>> You wouldn't be saying that if you lived here in Europe. 80% of the price
>> of fuel is tax, so you'd be quickly saying goodbye to anything with an
>> engine bigger than 2.5 litres.
>>
> Why would I say goodbye to my pickup which has a 5.7 liter engine?
> I can afford the price of gasoline even if a large tax were to be added.
> Please do not assume that everyone is willing to suffer driving an
> underpowered, small size automobile to save a few bucks
> (or to appease a few overzealous environmentalists).
> Charging by the mile is the only fair way to tax.
>
>
>

dizzy

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:8m3dm41ph30eegcdbg3b9cqmoak7c0a4hv@4ax.com.. .
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>>I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
>>
>> I've been saying that for a decade or more. If not for stupid,
>> short-sighted, idiot right-wingers, our country could be in great
>> shape right now.
>>
>> The tax should be per gallon, to encourage efficiency.
>
>Bullshit, don't blame the right wingers.

Why not? It's their fault.

>The left spends plenty too. BOTH
>are part of the den of thieves.

"Spending" isn't bad. "Deficit" spending, "trickle down economics"
are bad.

>Toss your neighbors into the mix also. Oh, let's vote yes on building that
>new $20 million dollar white elephant, it is only costing us a few pennies,
>the federal government will pay for the rest.

It was the Bush gang that decided that it was "bad" to run a surplus
for a while, "bad" to save for a "rainy day". It was the Bush gang
that cut taxes when the enonomy was already going strong (just as
counter-productive as tax increases when the economy needs
stimulation), thus over-heating the economy and leading to the
inevitable hard fall.

This is Macro Economics 101. They blew it.

Pete M

rmac wrote:
> "Pete M" <pete.murray@SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gk84t7$pl2$2@news.motzarella.org...
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due.
>> You wouldn't be saying that if you lived here in Europe. 80% of the price
>> of fuel is tax, so you'd be quickly saying goodbye to anything with an
>> engine bigger than 2.5 litres.
>>
> Why would I say goodbye to my pickup which has a 5.7 liter engine?
> I can afford the price of gasoline even if a large tax were to be added.
> Please do not assume that everyone is willing to suffer driving an
> underpowered, small size automobile to save a few bucks
> (or to appease a few overzealous environmentalists).
> Charging by the mile is the only fair way to tax.

As someone who runs a fleet including a 6.75 litre Bentley Turbo, a 6.7
litre V10 Excursion, a 7.2 Litre Jensen Interceptor III and whos
personal cars include a turbocharged V8 Range Rover (which averages
around 9 MPUSG) I have to agree that fuel prices, if you can afford
them, are irrelevant and will not change your choice of car.
However, I'm also involved closely with the UK secondhand Motor Trade
and when the fuel prices in the UK hit £1.15 UKP / Litre (£5.00 per USG)
combined with a perceived hike in road fund licence on large engined
cars - a lot of the general public believed erroneously that anything
with an engine larger than around 2.0 was going to cost £400 a year in
tax before turning a wheel - the value of anything with a large engine
dropped horrendously. I bought a Range Rover 4.6 around April for £1200,
the garage I bought it from had given £4000 for it as P/X in February
quite reasonably as it had a retail value Jan '08 of £5000. By April it
was almost impossible to sell because nobody knew what it was worth and
buyers of large cars has virtually disappeared in the UK even though the
fuel prices have dropped again.



--
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo
Renault 30 TX Auto

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"

Scott Dorsey

dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>It was the Bush gang that decided that it was "bad" to run a surplus
>for a while, "bad" to save for a "rainy day". It was the Bush gang
>that cut taxes when the enonomy was already going strong (just as
>counter-productive as tax increases when the economy needs
>stimulation), thus over-heating the economy and leading to the
>inevitable hard fall.

Please note that Bush is an idiot and not necessarily representative
of conservative economic philosophy. Do not claim all conservative
economics is worthless just because one man decided to give all your
tax dollars to his friends instead of using it wisely.

>This is Macro Economics 101. They blew it.

Yes, well, I don't think anyone in the White House was thinking any
farther ahead than his own paycheck.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <gk9160$dla$2@news.motzarella.org>,
Pete M <pete.murray@SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> As someone who runs a fleet including a 6.75 litre Bentley Turbo, a 6.7
> litre V10 Excursion, a 7.2 Litre Jensen Interceptor III and whos
> personal cars include a turbocharged V8 Range Rover (which averages
> around 9 MPUSG)

Let's see....and you spend time on the Usenet.

Uh-huh.

Or by "runs a fleet" do you mean "washes the boss's cars"?

John

Weekly in one of the Sydney, Australia newpapers there is an entire page of
letters compiled by a Mechanical Engineer of people asking about problems
with cars. Without fail every week its Ford, Holden ( GM) with rare mentions
of Japanese/Korean/European. I,m sure every brand car has the odd
manufacturing problem but most of the faults reported in this column are
design defects. Blokes with 3-4 failed differentials in 2 years, Brake hoses
bursting, porous engine castings that spout oil. Thats probably one reason
you see more Asian cars.

Jeff

On Jan 9, 8:40 am, "IYM" <s u N r...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I don't have sewage tax - Luckly, I live out in the burbs and have my own
> septic system -
>
> ....and yes, the only thime I use that system is when I am indeed full of
> crap!

Incorrect. You use the system when you are no longer full of crap.

Jeff

> "Tim Howard" <tim.how...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4966eb7a$0$5475$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
>
> > IYM wrote:
>
> >> My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period. Pretty soon,
> >> they'll have a tax for taking a crap.
>
> > Umm "they" already do that--sewages taxes. I guess you think sewage
> > processing is free? I don't think most places have a flat rate on
> > that--the more you flush the more you pay. Are you worried about that
> > because you are full of crap?

Jeff Strickland

"Tim Howard" <tim.howard@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:4966e970$0$5475$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net. ..
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> Are you stupid, or what?
>>
>> You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
>> received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
>>
> First of all, I just posted this, so I have not had time yet to respond.
> Second of all I see people discussing this issue amongst themselves, which
> was also part of my plan.
>
>> Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs
>> associated with the building and maintenance of roads and highways. These
>> costs are funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop using
>> gasoline and the costs associated with the building and maintenance of
>> the roads and highways continue, where will the funding come from?
>>
> You are missing my point that pollution from autos causes problems and
> that means money has to be spent on addressing those problems. Driving
> fuel efficient and electric cars saves money by not hurting the
> environment so much.


But the state wants money for roads and highways. They get through fuel
sales, and if therre are no fuel sales then there are no funds for roads an
dhighways, yet there are still cars rolling upon them.



We should not be creating the idea in people's
> minds that driving cars that don't harm the environment is a bad thing.
> What about a state road tax instead? California has proposed a "gas
> guzzler" tax on SUVs and big pickups. There are other alternatives.
>

That strategy only collects from those vehicles, there are lots of other
vehicles that do not pay their way.




>> I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting
>> together, but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of
>> fuel-efficiency is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of
>> the Oregon plans, I have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs
>> to the big-rigs on the mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of
>> the need to build and maintain roads and highways is not the answer.
>>
> They might not be deliberately trying to punish those car owners, but
> that's what it amounts to. I read a poster in another thread who likened
> it to when his city told people to conserve water one year and then raised
> the water tax the next year because people conserved so much they lost too
> much money.

No. It's false to look at it as punishment. It is not punishment to pay for
roads and highways that you use, regardless of how you use them.

I too have been a victim of conservation that worked so well as to cause a
raise in rates -- water rates, the same as in your example. The water
company said to the regulators, "the people are saving so much water that we
don't make any money at this rate, so we need to raise it." The regulators
signed off.

That scenario is different than the road tax issue that you are talking
about. In the road tax, people are still using the roads via a means that
does not generate the revenue needed to build and maintain them, therefore
they are using the roads for free. In the water issue, we are using water
and paying for it.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <gkar3s$ujo$1@news.motzarella.org>,
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

> But the state wants money for roads and highways. They get through fuel
> sales, and if therre are no fuel sales then there are no funds for roads an
> dhighways, yet there are still cars rolling upon them.

Right.

There's a base cost for having the infrastructure to maintain the
roads--the state must have equipment and people in place. Then there's
the incremental cost, which is how hard the roads are used. That's a
function of vehicle miles and weight.

Question: is this like education, where it's to the benefit of EVERY
citizen of the state that the roads are there and maintained? If so,
then the base cost should be out among ALL citizens, in the form
of a tax. Then the incremental cost can be paid for with fuel taxes or
similar.