If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   I Can't Drive 55 ..... Miles: Abolishing the U.S. gasoline tax and replacing it with a levy based on miles driven could happen "tomorrow" regardless of hurdles   (bloomberg.com) divider line 372
    More: Interesting, Steve LaTourette, gasoline taxes, Federal Highway Administration, Infrastructure Committee, Highway Trust Fund, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Republican Main Street Partnership, House Transportation  
•       •       •

13836 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 10:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



372 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-27 08:54:05 AM
How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).
 
2013-03-27 09:19:05 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


I think the issue derives from the fact that nobody wants to raise the gas tax, and this would be a way to do so while letting your congressman argue "I didn't vote for no tax increases!" during his next reelection campaign.
 
2013-03-27 09:31:44 AM
Miles driven could replace gas tax, FARK COCK SHIATE BALLS, LaTourette says.
 
2013-03-27 09:34:15 AM
Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?
 
2013-03-27 09:34:15 AM
How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.
 
2013-03-27 09:53:21 AM
I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices.  So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.
 
2013-03-27 09:55:00 AM

vernonFL: Miles driven could replace gas tax, FARK COCK SHIATE BALLS, LaTourette says.


I'm glad someone said it.

*repetitive twitching motion*
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 09:58:07 AM
Who believes the gas tax would vanish?

In my state the government already knows how many miles you drive. Once a year the inspection station plugs into your computer and gets a data dump. It would be easy to combine the mile tax and municipal property tax into one consolidated registration fee.

Or they could just take 1.5 cents per mile target revenue times typical miles per year and charge $200 per year to register a car.
 
2013-03-27 10:14:36 AM

ZAZ: Who believes the gas tax would vanish?

In my state the government already knows how many miles you drive. Once a year the inspection station plugs into your computer and gets a data dump. It would be easy to combine the mile tax and municipal property tax into one consolidated registration fee.

Or they could just take 1.5 cents per mile target revenue times typical miles per year and charge $200 per year to register a car.


Only 19 states (18 + DC) require yearly safety inspections, so it would be easy to combine this in those states, but the other 32 states would have to implement some sort of inspection program - met with backlash of "Why do I have to bring my car in to let some government agent plug a computer in and see where I've been driving?"

/31 states do have emissions testing, but generally only in major metropolitan areas for pollution concerns -- most are not implemented statewide.
 
2013-03-27 10:15:30 AM
Steve LaTourette, former Republican representative of Ohio, says government boogeymen could track your car and tax you.
 
2013-03-27 10:23:28 AM
I think this is bullshiat.  The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way.  Mass transit isn't an option for most people.  Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries?  An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo.  That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car....

bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?


Walmart (and FedEx and UPS etc) would love for individual motorists to foot the bill for our infrastructure, or to pay the same amount for their massive fleets of huge trucks that individual motorists do with their cars.
 
2013-03-27 10:24:48 AM

Donnchadha: /31 states do have emissions testing, but generally only in major metropolitan areas for pollution concerns -- most are not implemented statewide.


My state (Maryland) has emission testing statewide every 2 years, and yes on newer models they just plug into the computer under the dash. On older cars they put a sensor in the tailpipe to actually test the exhaust.
 
2013-03-27 10:30:56 AM

vernonFL: Donnchadha: /31 states do have emissions testing, but generally only in major metropolitan areas for pollution concerns -- most are not implemented statewide.

My state (Maryland) has emission testing statewide every 2 years, and yes on newer models they just plug into the computer under the dash. On older cars they put a sensor in the tailpipe to actually test the exhaust.


Wikipedia and Maryland's MVA website agree -- only 13 counties (out of 23) plus Baltimore City require testing, and within that there's a fair number of exemptions
 
2013-03-27 10:34:40 AM
My family is down to one fuel-efficient vehicle and I run commute. Go pay for your own highways gassholes...
 
2013-03-27 10:36:10 AM

Donnchadha: Wikipedia and Maryland's MVA website agree -- only 13 counties (out of 23) plus Baltimore City require testing, and within that there's a fair number of exemptions


Thanks, I didn't know that. I do know there are exemptions for diesel (shouldn't they be tested MORE?) and older classic cars.
 
2013-03-27 10:41:22 AM
Oh, also, Maryland is about to raise our state gasoline tax to pay for roads and bridges etc. The money is supposed to be earmarked special and goes into something called the "Transportation fund"

We've always had a "transportation fund", but over the last 3 years the state has raided that fund to pay for other things.

So to say that the money will go to infrastructure improvements may or may not be true, its possible that they will just take that money and use it for something else.
 
2013-03-27 10:45:47 AM

vernonFL: I do know there are exemptions for diesel (shouldn't they be tested MORE?)


The problem with diesels is up until recently with DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) there was no way to "clean" diesel exhaust, so what ever comes out of the engine is what comes out of the exhaust pipe.  Emissions testing just tests all the equipment that cleans the exhaust.
 
2013-03-27 10:46:47 AM

slayer199: I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices.  So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.


No reason they can't raise taxes on both. Since when does that stop them?

Bonus? Hurts more rural people, helps more urban. Democrats tend to cluster more in urban environments.
 
2013-03-27 10:47:02 AM
If only we could tax something that cars use to power themselves.
 
m00
2013-03-27 10:47:03 AM
This would benefit people with cars who have bad gas mileage.
 
2013-03-27 10:47:18 AM
Looks like my 8 mpg gas-hog wasn't such a bad investment after all.
 
2013-03-27 10:47:27 AM

Elzar: My family is down to one fuel-efficient vehicle and I run commute. Go pay for your own highways gassholes...


GOOD FOR YEW

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-27 10:48:20 AM

slayer199: I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

They do that now by buying more gas than you.

 
2013-03-27 10:48:32 AM

markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.


There simply are not enough drones....yet.
 
2013-03-27 10:48:34 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


How about we just cut the bullshiat stop it with these itemized taxes and just use a single income based progressive tax and set the amount at what we farking need to run and pay for shiat.

Sounds crazy I know
 
2013-03-27 10:48:36 AM

slayer199: On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices.


There already is an incentive -- you use less fuel, and therefore pay less money to drive your car.
 
2013-03-27 10:48:39 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


I was just thinking that. If we had a mileage tax, I'd pay the same in my 4x4 as the guy in the Prius who drives the same distance. With the gas tax, I buy more gas and pay more taxes for the same miles driven. The mileage tax would be far less painful for me than the Prius driver.
 
2013-03-27 10:49:59 AM

Fark It: I think this is bullshiat.  The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way.  Mass transit isn't an option for most people.  Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries?  An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo.  That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car


That is true, except the # of passenger cars far, far outnumbers the # of trucks on the road, and those cars fill up all the lanes and constantly need new ones added. There's more to what the gas tax pays for than worn out pavement and bridges; it also pays for the new lanes too.
 
2013-03-27 10:50:09 AM
That's alright. The US Senate is passing a bill allowing the States to tax us for online purchases. Oh, and CISPA is back.
 
2013-03-27 10:51:02 AM
So, what happens when I drive across the border to Canada?  Who gets those miles?
 
2013-03-27 10:51:12 AM
They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.
 
2013-03-27 10:52:25 AM
Problem with the mileage tax is it looks back in time and someone can accumulate a hefty bill they can't afford.

Gas tax is like Withholding Tax.   Government gets their money upfront.   You can't get a refund of your fuel tax either.
 
2013-03-27 10:52:45 AM
Just do what other countries do, tax based on engine displacement.
 
2013-03-27 10:53:14 AM

NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.


But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime), I'm all for it.
 
2013-03-27 10:53:22 AM

Bendal: Fark It: I think this is bullshiat.  The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way.  Mass transit isn't an option for most people.  Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries?  An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo.  That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car

That is true, except the # of passenger cars far, far outnumbers the # of trucks on the road, and those cars fill up all the lanes and constantly need new ones added. There's more to what the gas tax pays for than worn out pavement and bridges; it also pays for the new lanes too.


I live in the Chicago metro.  The only decent mass transit options are if you are commuting to the loop.  What is this "adding lanes" that you speak of?
 
2013-03-27 10:53:23 AM
So If I disconnect my spedometer/odometer, I can avoid the tax?
 
2013-03-27 10:53:50 AM
As electric and hybrid cars steadily take over, the revenues generated by gas taxes will decline. So we have to start thinking about alternatives. I don't think taxing the number of miles driven is the best answer. It may be better for the federal government to levy a transportation payroll tax and use the money to improve public transportation. They could apportion some of the revenue to the states so that state gas taxes could also be eliminated. But they'd have to earmark the funds for infrastructure and public transportation use, lest the states divert the funds to other uses. A payroll tax would take the sting out for citizens, since a smaller sum would be paid each pay period instead of in a lump sum. It would also allow for those who do not drive automobiles to share in the nation's transportation system rather than just pay a train or bus fare that doesn't come near meeting maintenance and development costs.
 
2013-03-27 10:55:11 AM

Elzar: My family is down to one fuel-efficient vehicle and I run commute. Go pay for your own highways gassholes...


The only point you are missing is that you already pay for the highways don't kid yourself. They are simply taking you for more.
 
2013-03-27 10:57:00 AM
Sounds like another way to raise taxes on the middle class/poor and cut taxes for the rich. Sounds fantastic.

Let's just go for a fair tax policy next so we can really tell these poverty stricken assholes to get a better job and carry their own weight.
 
2013-03-27 10:57:54 AM
Total Farkers who are on here more than others should pay more than $5 a month?
 
2013-03-27 10:58:29 AM

kaduh: Total Farkers who are on here more than others should pay more than $5 a month?


Says the freeloader....
 
2013-03-27 11:01:48 AM
Tax based on (miles driven * weight of the car) / <some magical factor>

The weight of the car does more damage to the road than anything else. Taxing a very light Smart for 2 the same as a Subdivision (Suburban) makes no sense, one really hurts the road, the other doesn't.

/Yes, I do drive small, light cars, why do you ask
//I'm OK with a miles driven tax if implemented as I suggest, otherwise not in my lifetime.
 
2013-03-27 11:03:05 AM

cgraves67: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

I was just thinking that. If we had a mileage tax, I'd pay the same in my 4x4 as the guy in the Prius who drives the same distance. With the gas tax, I buy more gas and pay more taxes for the same miles driven. The mileage tax would be far less painful for me than the Prius driver.


I think that is the point. They are losing gas tax money from the people with the fuel efficient cars that they pushed. Now they want that money that they are losing.
 
2013-03-27 11:03:38 AM
Just doing the math quickly, this would nearly double the amount of federal tax I pay. Judging on 10 gallons a week average, comes out to about $95 / year in gas tax (Federal. I haven't included NYS gas tax, because even if they eliminate the fed gas tax, you'll never get NYS to give up on collecting a tax) I can safely round this up to $100, because I occasionally take trips where I drive and fill up the tank more often.

I also drive roughly 12,000 miles / year, which with the suggested tax of $0.015 / mile, would end up charging me $180 / year in taxes. So it's at least an 80% increase. Imagine the outrage if they suggested that you pay 80% more taxes in any other area.

If they start charging for distance driven, are they also going to eliminate toll roads on interstates? Because when I take those long roadtrips, I often take roads like the I-90 or the PA Turnpike which charge me for the privilege, which I assumed was supposed to go for maintenance on those roads. (Considering tolls are often higher for larger vehicles like trucks and based on how far you drive along the interstates)
 
2013-03-27 11:05:10 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

How about we just cut the bullshiat stop it with these itemized taxes and just use a single income based progressive tax and set the amount at what we farking need to run and pay for shiat.

Sounds crazy I know


Hell, I'd be satisfied that if a specific tax is levied to pay for "X" (in this instance infrastructure), all the revenue generated is actually spent on "X".
 
2013-03-27 11:05:19 AM
Prove I wasn't driving outside the country.
 
2013-03-27 11:05:32 AM
Doesn't the gas tax already tax you per mile driven?  And at the same time that it encourages efficient vehicles?  If there is a shortfall, the rate can be increased.  I don't like the idea of a GPS dealiewhatsit logging all my travels to the feds.
 
2013-03-27 11:06:03 AM
Major reason, at least in Florida, that diesel is more expensive than regular gas, is that the tax more.
 
2013-03-27 11:06:37 AM

Fark It: I live in the Chicago metro. The only decent mass transit options are if you are commuting to the loop. What is this "adding lanes" that you speak of?


PACE buses in the Chicago suburbs provide 2 million rides every weekday.

Maybe you chose to live somewhere without options, or riding the bus is beneath you, but millions of people use public transit outside the city center.
 
2013-03-27 11:07:05 AM
lets see... I drive ~22000 miles per year.
at $0.015/mile, that's $330 under the new tax

under the old version, those miles are split around 19000 miles at 22 mpg and 3000 miles at 60mpg. 864 gallons + 50 gallons = 914 gallons. at $0.184/gallon, that's $168.18 under the old tax

you're punishing truckers more than anything else. increased shipping costs means everything is going to cost more, people will spend less, and the economy starts sucking even more. Looks like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through.
 
2013-03-27 11:08:15 AM

FoxKelfonne: So it's at least an 80% increase. Imagine the outrage if they suggested that you pay 80% more taxes in any other area.


Cuz paying an extra $80 is EXACTLY like having your entire income taxed another 80%.
 
2013-03-27 11:09:00 AM

rkettens: They do that now by buying more gas than you.


Yes and no.  The point I was making is that people that may drive more have likely moved to more fuel-efficient vehicles as there is an incentive to do so...so they may not buy more fuel.

As I said, I'm rather conflicted on this because theoretically, the current system is fair and I really don't like the idea of the government tracking the miles I drive for "taxation" purposes.
 
2013-03-27 11:09:08 AM

jaytkay: Fark It: I live in the Chicago metro. The only decent mass transit options are if you are commuting to the loop. What is this "adding lanes" that you speak of?

PACE buses in the Chicago suburbs provide 2 million rides every weekday.

Maybe you chose to live somewhere without options, or riding the bus is beneath you, but millions of people use public transit outside the city center.


I've looked into PACE.  It's not feasible for where I work, live, and go to school.

But thanks for making assumptions about people who are stuck in their cars, it's not smug or sanctimonious in the least.
 
2013-03-27 11:09:52 AM
What could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-03-27 11:10:28 AM
Oh, OK, it "could" happen, according to some daydreaming Republican.

Fark this noise. It's perfectly legit that the gas tax punishes people who drive gas guzzlers and rewards those who drive fuel efficient vehicles. If too many people buy fuel efficient vehicles to properly fund infrastructure, then recalibrate the level of the tax across the board. But those who damage the environment and drive up fuel costs for everyone else should have to pay extra to do so.
 
2013-03-27 11:10:35 AM

fireclown: Doesn't the gas tax already tax you per mile driven?  And at the same time that it encourages efficient vehicles?  If there is a shortfall, the rate can be increased.  I don't like the idea of a GPS dealiewhatsit logging all my travels to the feds.


Pretty much this.  You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.
 
2013-03-27 11:10:47 AM
The real question is why are gas prices continuing to go up when the U.S. oil production is continuing to rise and we are set to become completely self sufficient in oil production in a few years.
 
2013-03-27 11:12:52 AM

The_Original_Roxtar: lets see... I drive ~22000 miles per year.
at $0.015/mile, that's $330 under the new tax

under the old version, those miles are split around 19000 miles at 22 mpg and 3000 miles at 60mpg. 864 gallons + 50 gallons = 914 gallons. at $0.184/gallon, that's $168.18 under the old tax

you're punishing truckers more than anything else. increased shipping costs means everything is going to cost more, people will spend less, and the economy starts sucking even more. Looks like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through.


increase the usage of trains, helps our infrastructure overall.

win!
 
2013-03-27 11:13:57 AM

styckx: The real question is why are gas prices continuing to go up when the U.S. oil production is continuing to rise and we are set to become completely self sufficient in oil production in a few years.


Here's how it works according to the oil companies: oil production or supply goes down, gas price goes up because of supply and demand.  Oil production or supply goes up or stays the same, gas prices stays the same or go up because profits, er cuz um uh no seriously we've got a good reason hang on a second...
 
2013-03-27 11:14:35 AM

Fark It: jaytkay: Fark It: I live in the Chicago metro. The only decent mass transit options are if you are commuting to the loop. What is this "adding lanes" that you speak of?

PACE buses in the Chicago suburbs provide 2 million rides every weekday.

Maybe you chose to live somewhere without options, or riding the bus is beneath you, but millions of people use public transit outside the city center.

I've looked into PACE.  It's not feasible for where I work, live, and go to school.

But thanks for making assumptions about people who are stuck in their cars, it's not smug or sanctimonious in the least.


You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop. You chose to live and work where there is no mass transit. Statements of fact.

No need to feel guilty and defensive about it.
 
2013-03-27 11:16:29 AM
I'm just so very thankful that there is no corruption is the highway building/maintenance industry that makes cost substantially higher than they should be requiring more tax dollars.
 
2013-03-27 11:17:02 AM
Instead of increasing efficiency and utility of revenue already collected, let's just collect more.

The mantra of government.
 
2013-03-27 11:18:36 AM
Instead of driving 180 miles/week to and from work, I'll drive 20/week and take the train. It will cost me about 4 hours of time, but enjoy that tax money. Just like how your cigarette tax increase got me to quit.
 
2013-03-27 11:18:48 AM
You guys are missing the point..

The Government will then need GPS registration on your vehicles to monitor this, especially if you claim to drive off-road or out of the country.


Move along, Citizen....and pay your taxes as you do.
 
2013-03-27 11:20:41 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


My gas-tax-free electric car is using public resources that I don't contribute to paying for with a gas tax.  As this trend continues, roads will be completely tax free (or paid for by people who still use gas with hyper-inflated taxes applied to them since they can't/won't buy a new gas-free vehicle).
 
2013-03-27 11:21:51 AM
Not only do I have to pay tax on my fuel, but to register my vehicle. I have to pay for the infrastructure in way of tax dollars and now I have to pay taxes to drive.

WTF is this shiat.
 
2013-03-27 11:22:29 AM

grinding_journalist: Instead of increasing efficiency and utility of revenue already collected, let's just collect more.

The mantra of government.


Too bad the money already collected won't pay off the already collected debt.  The manta of creditors.
 
2013-03-27 11:22:52 AM
Because I have a moderately efficient vehicle, this would over double my taxes.
 
2013-03-27 11:23:35 AM

markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.


I will gladly pay more taxes for this to be implemented.
 
2013-03-27 11:24:07 AM

slayer199: Pretty much this. You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.


It was the reason for my breakup with Progressive Flo.
www.curtisinsuranceagency.net

Ya broke my heart, Flo.
 
2013-03-27 11:25:36 AM

bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?


They'll get an exception.

//Or ship more via rail.
 
2013-03-27 11:25:42 AM

jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.


I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.
 
2013-03-27 11:25:55 AM
My uncle has a country place that no one knows about. He says it used to be a farm, before the Motor Law.
 
2013-03-27 11:26:14 AM

jaytkay: FoxKelfonne: So it's at least an 80% increase. Imagine the outrage if they suggested that you pay 80% more taxes in any other area.

Cuz paying an extra $80 is EXACTLY like having your entire income taxed another 80%.


So you think high-percentage tax increases don't matter as long as it's not a big percentage of your total income?  You'd be fine with a gas tax increase of 400-500-600 percent as long as your overall income tax was not increased by 600%?
 
2013-03-27 11:27:10 AM

vernonFL: Donnchadha: /31 states do have emissions testing, but generally only in major metropolitan areas for pollution concerns -- most are not implemented statewide.

My state (Maryland) has emission testing statewide every 2 years, and yes on newer models they just plug into the computer under the dash. On older cars they put a sensor in the tailpipe to actually test the exhaust.


Not us out in Western Maryland.
 
2013-03-27 11:27:37 AM

Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.


Right, we get it. You're above riding the bus. That's what homeless people do. And there's no way you could bike either, because "stuff".
 
2013-03-27 11:29:36 AM

Broktun: Not us out in Western Maryland.


How far west are you?  I just had them read the output from the data port on my effing Prius a few weeks ago?

/Hagerstown
 
2013-03-27 11:29:50 AM

jaytkay: FoxKelfonne: So it's at least an 80% increase. Imagine the outrage if they suggested that you pay 80% more taxes in any other area.

Cuz paying an extra $80 is EXACTLY like having your entire income taxed another 80%.


I never suggested it was, but it's still an 80% tax increase, and it's pretty ridiculous. To use another "small tax" example. Current sales tax in Niagara County, NY is 8.75%. If both the state and county sales taxes increased by the same amount to result in an overall 80% increase in sales tax, you'd end up with a 15.75% sales tax rate.
You can say that it's not a big deal, that you're now paying $1.16 for something that used to cost you $1.09, and that you're crying over pennies, but it adds up when you think of all the other taxes you already have to pay, and people even biatched when the sales tax went up from 8.5 to 8.75.
 
2013-03-27 11:30:49 AM
I don't  think it's enough to just pay by the mile. Let's keep the tax on gasoline, tax by the mile, and add tolls to all major highways.
But exclude all road related taxes for people over 65.
/ why yes, I am over 65.
 
2013-03-27 11:30:52 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

How about we just cut the bullshiat stop it with these itemized taxes and just use a single income based progressive tax and set the amount at what we farking need to run and pay for shiat.

Sounds crazy I know


mostly because the gov't can't help but spend more money year after year and that number you payed last year will be smaller than the number you pay this year and you will notice just how badly the gov't mismanages your money ALL OF THE TIME.
 
2013-03-27 11:30:53 AM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Not only do I have to pay tax on my fuel, but to register my vehicle. I have to pay for the infrastructure in way of tax dollars and now I have to pay taxes to drive.

WTF is this shiat.


They call it taxation, that's what it is.
 
2013-03-27 11:33:28 AM
Will it eventually happen? Probably. But there are still technological issues to overcome first. I think you'll find a sizable amount of people will be against this for the logistics issues. One, I'm not crazy about any system where I'd be taxed once a year on all my mileage. A 1.5 cents/mile tax would cost me $225 year considering I do about 15000 miles/year. A more frequent check would work better for me and a lot of others so the tax is spread out through the year. Then you have people who live near state lines. Say I live in North Georgia. The nearest major city to me is Chattanooga, TN, so I work and do a lot of my personal errands there. Should I be giving Georgia all the tax on mileage even though most of my miles are in Tennessee? The best way to do this would be to utilize a GPS-based system or something like electronic toll systems. Even if the federal government got the ball rolling on this (and this would have to be a nationwide initiative, state-to-state systems just won't work in this instance), it would likely be 10 to 20+ years before such a system could actually be turned on and utilized across the country.
 
2013-03-27 11:34:42 AM

farker99: Taxing a very light Smart for 2 the same as a Subdivision (Suburban) makes no sense, one really hurts the road, the other doesn't.


Guess which type of vehicle the people proposing this tax drive?
 
2013-03-27 11:34:47 AM
I wonder if you could avoid this tax by leasing a new car every year.
 
2013-03-27 11:35:29 AM
Infrastructure should be funded with a miles driven tax that is scaled by vehicle weight.  The current gasoline tax should be abolished and replaced by a pollution tax that is at least as big as the current gas tax, and which is used to fund alternative transportation initiatives and/or give incentives to people with very efficient vehicles and electric vehicles.
 
2013-03-27 11:35:30 AM

squegeebooo: Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

Right, we get it. You're above riding the bus. That's what homeless people do. And there's no way you could bike either, because "stuff".


I could bike, but in ideal weather it would probably be a four-hour commute each way on days that I have school and work.  Forget if there's snow.

Also:

www.soul-amen.com
 
2013-03-27 11:35:31 AM

jkl65s4: The best way to do this would be to utilize a GPS-based system or something like electronic toll systems.



Yes because that is not going to freak people out in an environment where they are already stocking up their bunkers.
 
2013-03-27 11:36:20 AM
And those of us who itemize our taxes will probably be able to write a portion of this off, while all the poor people will get screwed yet again.

Unless owning a car means that you're automatically not poor. I keep forgetting the republican score card on what it takes to be poor in America.
 
2013-03-27 11:36:41 AM

crab66: jkl65s4: The best way to do this would be to utilize a GPS-based system or something like electronic toll systems.


Yes because that is not going to freak people out in an environment where they are already stocking up their bunkers.


People who think that the government gives a shiat about where they drive are welcome to pay a yearly flat fee.  And no, it won't be cheaper.
 
2013-03-27 11:36:42 AM
I don't believe for a second that any piece of shiat politician of any stripe would actually REMOVE the gas tax and add the usage tax.  They will add the "miles driven" tax on top of the gas tax.

Mark my words.

Because they are all pieces of shiat.
 
2013-03-27 11:37:27 AM

farker99: Tax based on (miles driven * weight of the car) / <some magical factor>

The weight of the car does more damage to the road than anything else. Taxing a very light Smart for 2 the same as a Subdivision (Suburban) makes no sense, one really hurts the road, the other doesn't.

/Yes, I do drive small, light cars, why do you ask
//I'm OK with a miles driven tax if implemented as I suggest, otherwise not in my lifetime.




Roads are designed to carry 80,000 pound trucks; a Suburban doesn't do any more damage to a road than your small light car does. It does take up more space on the road though.
 
2013-03-27 11:37:37 AM

GORDON: I don't believe for a second that any piece of shiat politician of any stripe would actually REMOVE the gas tax and add the usage tax.  They will add the "miles driven" tax on top of the gas tax.

Mark my words.

Because they are all pieces of shiat.


Totally agree with you!
 
2013-03-27 11:37:44 AM

ZAZ: Who believes the gas tax would vanish?

In my state the government already knows how many miles you drive. Once a year the inspection station plugs into your computer and gets a data dump. It would be easy to combine the mile tax and municipal property tax into one consolidated registration fee.


Yep, how hard would it be to require an odometer reading each year you renew your tags?
 
2013-03-27 11:37:51 AM

GORDON: I don't believe for a second that any piece of shiat politician of any stripe would actually REMOVE the gas tax and add the usage tax.  They will add the "miles driven" tax on top of the gas tax.

Mark my words.

Because they are all pieces of shiat.


One can hope.  There should be a usage tax to pay for the roads you drive on.  There should be a gas tax to pay for the shiat you are blasting into the atmosphere.
 
2013-03-27 11:38:14 AM
Yes, let's do this. There are so many ways to cheat on this tax, many people will never pay any tax at all.
 
2013-03-27 11:38:41 AM
Hey remember when Democrats were going to use the gas tax money to fix the roads?  Haha, Democrats are liars.
 
2013-03-27 11:38:49 AM

Fark It: bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?

Walmart (and FedEx and UPS etc) would love for individual motorists to foot the bill for our infrastructure, or to pay the same amount for their massive fleets of huge trucks that individual motorists do with their cars.


Truckers already pay for milage with their IFTA reports.
 
2013-03-27 11:39:24 AM

Tom_Slick: vernonFL: I do know there are exemptions for diesel (shouldn't they be tested MORE?)

The problem with diesels is up until recently with DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) there was no way to "clean" diesel exhaust, so what ever comes out of the engine is what comes out of the exhaust pipe.  Emissions testing just tests all the equipment that cleans the exhaust.


Only half true.  DIesel emissions systems have only appeared recently... but the amount of soot and other nano-particle filth belched by diesel engines is directly related to their state of tune and the health of their fuel injectors.   You don't need fancy emissions hardware to significantly improve the exhaust from most of the diesels on the road, you just need conscientious maintenance.

A smog-control program aimed at enforcing decent maintenance on diesel engines could do a lot to clean up the air, but... would face a lot of opposition from a politically well-connected industry, not to mention a politically easy-to-inflame population segment.

Diesel emissions limits ARE arriving, in baby steps... but there's a reason that cars have been clean for thirty-plus years while trucks are just now starting to feel the heat.
 
2013-03-27 11:39:43 AM

wambu: Yes, let's do this. There are so many ways to cheat on this tax, many people will never pay any tax at all.


We don't abolish income tax just because people cheat on it.  Tax fraud isn't going anywhere, but severe penalties scare most people away from it.
 
2013-03-27 11:41:16 AM

grinding_journalist: Instead of increasing efficiency and utility of revenue already collected, let's just collect more.

The mantra of government.


Racist.
 
2013-03-27 11:41:16 AM

Marcus Aurelius: If only we could tax something that cars use to power themselves.


Electricity?
 
2013-03-27 11:42:56 AM
Either go with a full usage tax code scheme and ditch the income tax, or ditch all of these nickle and dime hidden taxes and go with an income only tax.


We have no clue our final tax bill at the end of the year.  The tax system is intentionally idiotic, and people in here are fine with adding new ways for them to add to it.
 
2013-03-27 11:44:31 AM
Just another expert who knows nothing about the real world or a shill on some agenda.
Move along.
 
2013-03-27 11:44:33 AM

farker99: Tax based on (miles driven * weight of the car) / <some magical factor>

The weight of the car does more damage to the road than anything else. Taxing a very light Smart for 2 the same as a Subdivision (Suburban) makes no sense, one really hurts the road, the other doesn't.

/Yes, I do drive small, light cars, why do you ask
//I'm OK with a miles driven tax if implemented as I suggest, otherwise not in my lifetime.


This is the rational way to do it.  "Some magical factor" should be engine, or motor if electric, horsepower.  Multiplied, not divided.
 
2013-03-27 11:44:48 AM
Always remember.  Ride a bicycle to work.  And make sure your bike has a basket for groceries.

You have to save up for gasoline on vacations after all.
 
2013-03-27 11:45:38 AM

fireclown: slayer199: Pretty much this. You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.

It was the reason for my breakup with Progressive Flo.
[www.curtisinsuranceagency.net image 314x319]

Ya broke my heart, Flo.


the progressive ODBII device doesn't have a GPS antenna in it, only an accelerometer and stuff to read the odometer, so it guesses how much you drive and also how aggressive.  my wife used it and we got a 20+% discount, locked in forever*.  and besides, the government already HAS the GPS data, unless you are a luddite without a cellphone.  quit being ridiculous.
 
2013-03-27 11:45:59 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


this.  I drive a ridiculously fuel efficient car, partly because I'm a pinko commie lib and partly because I like saving money.  But you know, the earth and all.
 
2013-03-27 11:46:00 AM
I telecommute, so I'm fine with this tax.   BRING IT ON!
 
2013-03-27 11:46:04 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


They would never go for that.  The decrease in tax revenue resulting from more fuel efficiency vehicles is the exact reason they are pushing this type of thing. Providing incentives for driving more fuel efficient vehicles would defeat the purpose of their goal, which is making up for the decline in tax revenue.
 
2013-03-27 11:46:52 AM

papercut: the progressive ODBII device doesn't have a GPS antenna in it, only an accelerometer and stuff to read the odometer, so it guesses how much you drive and also how aggressive. my wife used it and we got a 20+% discount, locked in forever*. and besides, the government already HAS the GPS data, unless you are a luddite without a cellphone. quit being ridiculous.


Plus it is a voluntary program.  If you liked Progressive but not the snapshot program, you didn't need to use it.
 
2013-03-27 11:47:20 AM
You know what's rad? Not paying any gas tax!

Or for fuel . . .

This
carreleasedates.com
plus this
iowaenvironmentalfocus.files.wordpress.com
= never paying for farking gasoline or gas taxes again! I love living that life.
 
2013-03-27 11:47:20 AM

markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.


Followed by one on the people who insist that the right-hand lane also be a fast lane.
 
2013-03-27 11:47:30 AM

Why Would I Read the Article: Hey remember when Democrats were going to use the gas tax money to fix the roads?  Haha, Democrats are liars.


Here in Minneapolis/St Paul they patched and resurfaced damn near all roads just before election day. The commute was smmootthh. Winter happened, still. All the bandaids fell off and you could lose a wheel real easily on any major road.
 
2013-03-27 11:47:48 AM
Our tax system is so goddamn complicated and manipulable because every tax has to "make sense" to people who have no sense.

The State needs $X to pay for everything people want.  Ability to pay is the pertinent criterion.  All taxes should be income taxes.  Now STFU and GBTW.
 
2013-03-27 11:48:41 AM

MrSteve007: You know what's rad? Not paying any gas tax!

Or for fuel . . .

This
[carreleasedates.com image 620x391]
plus this
[iowaenvironmentalfocus.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]
= never paying for farking gasoline or gas taxes again! I love living that life.


I want a solar setup so bad.
 
2013-03-27 11:48:50 AM
Well, I guess they have to do something<sarcasm>.    And soon people just won't be buying as much gasoline and then how will government steal from them?  After-all, these guys are about to reinvent the auto industry<not sarcasm>.

 Wikispeed - 2 seat mid engine, rear wheel drive roadster, five star crash rating pending, 0-60 in 5 seconds, 100+MPG, and the best part is that in spite of all of that it can't meat federal safety requirements because it doesn't have air bags, only a five point racing harness commonly used to make 200MPH crashes survivable.  And they even have the audacity to be in the continuing process of redesigning parts so that they can be fabricated in a home workshop making the owner completely independent of the auto industry's planned-obsolescence business model. The only way conceivable to build the car is license the manufacture out to as many shops as decide to opt in, because they can't build more than I believe fifty before the air bag thing kicks in.
http://www.wikispeed.com/Affordable

Thank you internet.  This is a first of many transformative ways you will free humanity from oligarchy(hopefully).
 
2013-03-27 11:48:54 AM

theMightyRegeya: markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.

Followed by one on the people who insist that the right-hand lane also be a fast lane.


And then one for people who stay in the left lane until they're *at their offramp* and then stop until they can get over, holding up all the traffic behind them.
 
2013-03-27 11:49:24 AM
The gas tax is very fair, as far as paying for infrastructure: Larger vehicles damage roads more than smaller vehicles. People who drive more pay more. People who pay a little extra for a car, which is reflected in taxes, (barring any refunds or breaks given) then pay less in usage fees.

It's not perfect, but it works out pretty well in the end.

The only problem I see is that many large trucks have been given exceptions on emissions requirements or are sometimes classified as off road vehicles. It varies from state to state, but in some cases those dump trucks you see with "Construction Vehicle" on the back are exempt from a lot of taxes and regulation, even though they are on the road with you.
 
2013-03-27 11:51:11 AM

theMightyRegeya: markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.

Followed by one on the people who insist that the right-hand lane also be a fast lane.


Plz don't tell anybody about the right lane. Is mine own lane, always empty and now for the fast movers.
Amazing to come up behind the clot of drivers on a roadway. 10 of 11 will be in the left lane 3 miles under speed.
Why do they all huddle together and block both or 3 or all 4 lanes?? Gravity does not work that way.
 
2013-03-27 11:51:45 AM
"But then you get the black helicopter people saying if you put something in my car, you'd know I was at my girlfriend's house last night."

Concerned about personal privacy?  You must be a paranoid tin foil head.  What do you have to hide?
 
2013-03-27 11:53:14 AM
This is so Obama's drones can follow you to Wal-Mart, Chick-Fil-A, and the strip club out by the interstate.
 
2013-03-27 11:53:26 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Our tax system is so goddamn complicated and manipulable because every tax has to "make sense" to people who have no sense.

The State needs $X to pay for everything people want.  Ability to pay is the pertinent criterion.  All taxes should be income taxes.  Now STFU and GBTW.


No sense. Just has to fool some of the people all of the time.
 
2013-03-27 11:54:04 AM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


Fuel efficient vehicles are the problem.  They drive more miles per tax they pay.

People who drive fuel efficient vehicles should be the ones who pay the fees since they are not paying their fair share.
 
2013-03-27 11:54:59 AM
Hahahahhah  Suck it fuel efficiency!!

Our government is run by a bunch of retarded, rabid  effing baboons.
 
2013-03-27 11:58:42 AM

snocone: Why do they all huddle together and block both or 3 or all 4 lanes??


www.trepaning.com

I call it "Cheerio Theory" because it seems like everyone clings to the one car going slow, for fear of passing, and being seen by a cop as "Speeding".
 
2013-03-27 11:59:22 AM

MrSteve007: You know what's rad? Not paying any gas tax!

Or for fuel . . .

This
[carreleasedates.com image 620x391]
plus this
[iowaenvironmentalfocus.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]
= never paying for farking gasoline or gas taxes again! I love living that life.


Enjoy that for the few minutes it lasts.  Sure you wont be paying gas taxes, but the politicians are still working hard to take your money.   http://www.portlandpulp.com/stories/Oregon-lawmakers-propose-to-tax-e l ectric-and-hybrid-cars-per-mile-185579392.html
 
2013-03-27 12:00:43 PM

Fark It: I think this is bullshiat.  The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way.  Mass transit isn't an option for most people.  Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries?  An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo.  That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car....

bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?

Walmart (and FedEx and UPS etc) would love for individual motorists to foot the bill for our infrastructure, or to pay the same amount for their massive fleets of huge trucks that individual motorists do with their cars.



If you don't think they'll just pass on the added costs in the form of higher retail prices, you've got another thing coming. Wal Mart is not going to pay. Central Freightways is not going to pay. Your local grocery chain is not going to pay. You are.
 
2013-03-27 12:01:03 PM

MrSteve007: You know what's rad? Not paying any gas tax!

Or for fuel . . .

This
[carreleasedates.com image 620x391]
plus this
[iowaenvironmentalfocus.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]
= never paying for farking gasoline or gas taxes again! I love living that life.


What if you have to drive more than 40 miles in one trip?
 
2013-03-27 12:01:23 PM

BGates: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

Fuel efficient vehicles are the problem.  They drive more miles per tax they pay.

People who drive fuel efficient vehicles should be the ones who pay the fees since they are not paying their fair share.


The problem with a mileage tax, though, is that, as a country, we should be encouraging greater fuel efficiency, which gas taxes do.  With a mileage tax, it doesn't matter if you're driving a hybrid, a motorcycle or a Hummer, you get charged the same.  The best move would be to raise the gas tax to make up for lost revenue, but no politicians want to do that.
 
2013-03-27 12:01:48 PM

MrSteve007: You know what's rad? Not paying any gas tax!

Or for fuel . . .

This
[carreleasedates.com image 620x391]
plus this
[iowaenvironmentalfocus.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]
= never paying for farking gasoline or gas taxes again! I love living that life.


Where did you get your solar system?  What's the projected payoff time (from savings)?  Are the panels sturdy enough to hold up in an area that sometimes sees somewhat high winds and storms?
 
2013-03-27 12:02:28 PM

bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?


Funny you bring up Walmart because they spent a bunch of money modernizing their fleet and making it more fuel efficient. Replacing the gas tax with a per-mile tax disincentivises that kind of thing,
 
2013-03-27 12:02:49 PM

slayer199: I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices.  So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.


LOL! I love all the practical "how-can-we-best-social-engineer-the-proles-to-enhance-my-pet-idea?" people on this thread. Not picking on you specifically, just that your post is one of the more nuanced ones.

Thinking through HOW this would be implemented.... There would have to be some sort of GPS device on every single car, right? Either that, or you enter your odometer readings on your IRS 1040 every year (yeah, right, that couldn't be gamed, not at all). No, I think the GPS route would be the most "practical" method. Additional benefit: the government would know everywhere you went and how long you spent there. No, something like that would NEVER be abused. It would just be used to catch turrists and pot tobacco smokers and drinkers of Big Gulp 64 oz sodas and other non-patriotic Murkins.

Please, don't even try to tell me that you don't vote Democratic.
 
2013-03-27 12:02:59 PM

Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.


You have no choice about where you live and work?

Are you in prison?
 
2013-03-27 12:04:58 PM

Thunderpipes: slayer199: I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices.  So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.

No reason they can't raise taxes on both. Since when does that stop them?

Bonus? Hurts more rural people, helps more urban. Democrats tend to cluster more in urban environments.


Bingo. Get all the proles into easily-controlled clumps.
 
2013-03-27 12:06:25 PM

genepool lifeboat: So, what happens when I drive across the border to Canada?  Who gets those miles?


The UN.....
 
2013-03-27 12:07:25 PM

Voiceofreason01: bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?

Funny you bring up Walmart because they spent a bunch of money modernizing their fleet and making it more fuel efficient. Replacing the gas tax with a per-mile tax disincentivises that kind of thing,


It incentivises the localization of goods.   Which would renew local economies in an amazing way.   Long distance shipping would go to rail.
 
2013-03-27 12:08:01 PM

buckets_of_fun: markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.

There simply are not enough drones....yet.


I had a hallucination one day in traffic about giant robot beetle drones, painted black and white with flashing red-blue eyes, enforcing traffic laws by landing on offenders cars.
 
2013-03-27 12:08:05 PM
Great. This way energy corporations will find a "reason" to bring prices back up to the current prices we're used to paying, and then we'll have the mileage tax to pay also.
 
2013-03-27 12:08:09 PM

Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime) funding government pensions and pork barrels, I'm all for it.


Fixed.
 
2013-03-27 12:09:27 PM
They really need to just increase the gas tax and/or increase plate fees if they need more money. Not only do I not trust the government to track me with a GPS, but it will take a lot of overhead to install/maintain all of the equipment necessary to have a miles-driven tax.
 
2013-03-27 12:09:43 PM

jigger: What if you have to drive more than 40 miles in one trip?


I frequently do 80 miles a day, and I have yet to use anything above the 'trickle' 110v charger. I charge at home, at night, and I plug into an outlet in a lightpole at work during the day. Pretty much whenever I leave home or work, I have 90-100 mile range.

If I want to go any further, my region has level-III 'fast' chargers (20-minutes to 80% charge) about every 30 miles along the interstates. I'm contemplating doing a 260-mile round trip over a mountain pass this weekend.

Carn: Where did you get your solar system? What's the projected payoff time (from savings)? Are the panels sturdy enough to hold up in an area that sometimes sees somewhat high winds and storms?


While that photo isn't from my rooftop PV system, mine is pretty similar. All of my components came from local manufacturers, using local materials, down to the fasteners. I used Outback Power for the inverter, Silicon Energy for the panels, and Tacoma Screw for the fasteners. My ROI is 6.5 years - and the panels are strong enough to jump on top of, hold up a dually work truck and stop a .38 bullet - so I think they'll deal pretty well with most storms.
 
2013-03-27 12:10:11 PM

jaytkay: Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

You have no choice about where you live and work?

Are you in prison?


He has a job. That is not something you readily give up to move to a city (likely more expensive where you're living) where you don't have a job (good luck getting one in this economy).

Are you in your mommy's basement?
 
2013-03-27 12:12:35 PM

JackieRabbit: As electric and hybrid cars steadily take over, the revenues generated by gas taxes will decline. So we have to start thinking about alternatives. I don't think taxing the number of miles driven is the best answer. It may be better for the federal government to levy a transportation payroll tax and use the money to improve public transportation. They could apportion some of the revenue to the states so that state gas taxes could also be eliminated. But they'd have to earmark the funds for infrastructure and public transportation use, lest the states divert the funds to other uses. A payroll tax would take the sting out for citizens fool the proles better, since a smaller sum would be paid each pay period instead of in a lump sum. It would also allow for those who do not drive automobiles to share in the nation's transportation system rather than just pay a train or bus fare that doesn't come near meeting maintenance and development costs.


Fixed

"....share in the nation's transportation system...." Damn, Sparky, that's one really fine euphemism there. Seriously, that's on a level with "helping distribute energy use" when discussing frying someone in the electric chair.
 
2013-03-27 12:13:03 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime) funding government pensions and pork barrels, I'm all for it.

Fixed.


You didn't fix squat. I wouldn't support it if it goes to fund government pensions or pork barrel projects. I would support it if it goes directly back into improvements and infrastructure.

Maybe you're pro-government greed, but I'm not.
 
2013-03-27 12:14:36 PM

This text is now purple: Prove I wasn't driving outside the country.


Prove you were, citizen.
 
2013-03-27 12:14:54 PM
Yay, more regressive taxation!

Maybe we could just get to the bottom of the slope and have poor people carry rich people around on their shoulders.
 
2013-03-27 12:14:55 PM
Girion47:
It incentivises the localization of goods.   Which would renew local economies in an amazing way.   Long distance shipping would go to rail.

no it won't.
 
2013-03-27 12:15:59 PM

Donnchadha: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime) funding government pensions and pork barrels, I'm all for it.

Fixed.

You didn't fix squat. I wouldn't support it if it goes to fund government pensions or pork barrel projects. I would support it if it goes directly back into improvements and infrastructure.

Maybe you're pro-government greed, but I'm not.


You're interpretive brain cells aren't working too well, are they?
 
2013-03-27 12:16:18 PM

slayer199: fireclown: Doesn't the gas tax already tax you per mile driven?  And at the same time that it encourages efficient vehicles?  If there is a shortfall, the rate can be increased.  I don't like the idea of a GPS dealiewhatsit logging all my travels to the feds.

Pretty much this.  You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.


They'll start off claiming they won't. Then they'll make an exception. Then another...

I don't want the gov to know anymore about me than they already do because they'll just abuse it.
 
2013-03-27 12:16:33 PM
This is dumb. The system we have in place now already does this, the more you drive, the more gas you buy. The more gas you buy, the more tax you pay. If you drive an excessively large amount of miles yet insist on driving a low MPG vehicle, then that's your choice and you have no room to complain. High MPG cars are typically lighter weight and cause less wear/tear on roads so it pretty much evens out.
 
2013-03-27 12:17:25 PM

styckx: The real question is why are gas prices continuing to go up when the U.S. oil production is continuing to rise and we are set to become completely self sufficient in oil production in a few years.


Because the oil market is global and even with our additional production -- which is still well below the 1970 peak -- the global supply has been roughly on a plateau since 2005.
 
2013-03-27 12:19:05 PM

wambu: Yes, let's do this. There are so many ways to cheat on this tax, many people will never pay any tax at all.


Pretty much this.  I can disconnect the odometer/speedometer in about 3 minutes on my old pickup.  More in the range of 15 seconds to disconnect the ones on the motorcycles.  Since my state has no IM or safety inspections I could easily see a number of people saying "Yes, that is correct.  I drove 8 miles last year.  Problem?"

NO idea how to disconnect the odometer on my wife's car though...
 
2013-03-27 12:19:18 PM

fireclown: slayer199: Pretty much this. You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.

It was the reason for my breakup with Progressive Flo.
[www.curtisinsuranceagency.net image 314x319]

Ya broke my heart, Flo.


www.curtisinsuranceagency.net

No me. I would do nasty, nasty things to Flo. I'd start by gently kissing her mega red lips and groping her more than ample behind. Slowly, I would work my way towards her hair bump which is where I would insert my manhood thrusting repeatedly while she yelled "I'll lower your insurance bill!! !" until I finally climaxed over her head and onto her FLO name tag on her until then, clean white smock.
 
2013-03-27 12:19:58 PM
Then they wil re-institute the gas tax and now we'll have both.
 
2013-03-27 12:20:38 PM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


This says it all. There is never an abolishment of a tax, we'll just get a new tax added for miles driven along with a nice helping of more government surveillance so they can keep track of the number of miles driven.

Just like how the IRS get to know about every dollar you make so they can tax them, you'll end up with a GPS tracker in your car to do the same.
 
2013-03-27 12:21:49 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You're interpretive brain cells aren't working too well, are they?


Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2013-03-27 12:22:57 PM
Get rid of the gas tax entirely, and add the fees into annual tag renewal, based on GVWR + mileage since the previous renewal.  Everyone pays their fair share, regardless of the fuel source, based on how much damage they are causing to the roads.
 
2013-03-27 12:23:03 PM

OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).


so both!
which works for me ...

WHOOPS
what about people like me whose odometer has broken and I havent gotten around to pay to get it fixed.
Will there be an annual estimate??

/I see a cottage industry popping up to reset/adjust odometers. and then laws punishing them and DIY and and and
 
2013-03-27 12:23:20 PM
"Policymakers could immediately replace it with a tax of about 1 1/2 cents per mile"

"The existing taxes are 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline"



So vehicles that get 12.26 mpg or less would pay less taxes as a result.

/USA, USA, USA!
 
2013-03-27 12:23:41 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: lets see... I drive ~22000 miles per year.
at $0.015/mile, that's $330 under the new tax

under the old version, those miles are split around 19000 miles at 22 mpg and 3000 miles at 60mpg. 864 gallons + 50 gallons = 914 gallons. at $0.184/gallon, that's $168.18 under the old tax

you're punishing truckers more than anything else. increased shipping costs means everything is going to cost more, people will spend less, and the economy starts sucking even more. Looks like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through.


What you have to realize is that the Fed is trying to make up for some illusionary shortfall in the fund. So there is really no solution that will result in anyone having more money in their pockets.

the best case scenario is farker99's idea (Tax based on (miles driven * weight of the car) / <some magical factor>) as it will at least balance out who is paying the lion's share of road repair based on their share of damage caused to the roads.
 
2013-03-27 12:24:10 PM

mizchief: Just like how the IRS get to know about every dollar you make so they can tax them, you'll end up with a GPS tracker in your car to do the same.


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
I do like the idea of a GPS tracking device to track usage.
Can we start with all elected officials and public employees and all contractors?
PRETTY PLEASE??!!!
 
2013-03-27 12:24:16 PM
Bring back dirt roads.
 
2013-03-27 12:24:37 PM

slayer199: I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices.  So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.


I have a better idea. Everyone uses the roads or benefits from their use. So just pay for the damned things out of the general tax fund and stop trying to control everyone's life through the tax system. If taxes need to be high to pay for all of the nonsense, then just raise the rate and deal with it. I'm just sick of all of these hidden taxes.
 
2013-03-27 12:27:20 PM

wildcardjack: buckets_of_fun: markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.

There simply are not enough drones....yet.

I had a hallucination one day in traffic about giant robot beetle drones, painted black and white with flashing red-blue eyes, enforcing traffic laws by landing on offenders cars.


img163.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-27 12:28:27 PM
This remains stupid.

People who drive more already pay more tax... Because they buy more gas.
 
2013-03-27 12:29:11 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: lets see... I drive ~22000 miles per year.
at $0.015/mile, that's $330 under the new tax

under the old version, those miles are split around 19000 miles at 22 mpg and 3000 miles at 60mpg. 864 gallons + 50 gallons = 914 gallons. at $0.184/gallon, that's $168.18 under the old tax



Your calculation missed a factor, there is the Fuel Tax, which is the .184 cents per gallon you previously identified, and then there is the State Tax, which was not accounted for. Since your profile indicates you are in Virginia your total tax is now .383 cents per gallon. This brings you up to $350. For you, the proposed change in the article is $20 less for you.
 
2013-03-27 12:30:13 PM

Worldwalker: jaytkay: Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

You have no choice about where you live and work?

Are you in prison?

He has a job. That is not something you readily give up to move to a city (likely more expensive where you're living) where you don't have a job (good luck getting one in this economy).

Are you in your mommy's basement?


I have a job. I chose it. I have skills, so there were other jobs available, but I had to pick one.

I guess you were assigned one job and one home you are forced to accept that choice forever. Weird.

Are you in North Korea?
 
2013-03-27 12:33:12 PM
As the owner of 3 cars that get a total average MPG of 40, and who drives about 5,500 miles a year, I think this is a load of crap and unfair to those who buy fuel eficient cars on purpose.
 
2013-03-27 12:34:46 PM

markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.


Are we twins? I want to get an attack helicopter and just fly down I-70 in Maryland all day and blow up people who do that
 
2013-03-27 12:35:45 PM

A dalek: The_Original_Roxtar: lets see... I drive ~22000 miles per year.
at $0.015/mile, that's $330 under the new tax

Your calculation missed a factor, there is the Fuel Tax, which is the .184 cents per gallon you previously identified, and then there is the State Tax, which was not accounted for. Since your profile indicates you are in Virginia your total tax is now .383 cents per gallon. This brings you up to $350. For you, the proposed change in the article is $20 less for you.


Meh, after rereading the article and finishing reading the highpoints in the thread, I realized that the individual States would never give up their own tax income on the gasoline consumed. This leads me to the  conclusion that we're pretty much farked.
 
2013-03-27 12:39:14 PM
Holy cow, for once I wouldn't get screwed over. I can complete the bulk of my errands in this [shiathole] small town by walking. If I do have to drive, it is maybe 5 miles/week. Yes!

Ok, euphoria aside, this is bad juju...
 
2013-03-27 12:43:02 PM
More taxes, what next? taxing my email useage?? Oh shiat.
 
2013-03-27 12:47:53 PM

Evil Mackerel: Just do what other countries do, tax based on engine displacement.


Well, the badge on my car says 5.0 but the displacement is 408 cubic inches.  Hope they don't notice
 
2013-03-27 12:48:37 PM

MrSteve007: You know what's rad? Not paying any gas tax!

Or for fuel . . .

This
[carreleasedates.com image 620x391]
plus this
[iowaenvironmentalfocus.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]
= never paying for farking gasoline or gas taxes again! I love living that life.


That's a real nice solar setup you got there.  Be a shame if a hail storm came and farked it all up.
 
2013-03-27 12:48:46 PM
If you're going to tax based on miles, wouldn't it be easiest to just tax the tires?
 
2013-03-27 12:48:54 PM

jaytkay: Worldwalker: jaytkay: Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

You have no choice about where you live and work?

Are you in prison?

He has a job. That is not something you readily give up to move to a city (likely more expensive where you're living) where you don't have a job (good luck getting one in this economy).

Are you in your mommy's basement?

I have a job. I chose it. I have skills, so there were other jobs available, but I had to pick one.

I guess you were assigned one job and one home you are forced to accept that choice forever. Weird.

Are you in North Korea?


You are fortunate to have multiple jobs available and the ability to quit one you don't like and immediately get one you like better. This is not the case for many people. Consider the spike in the unemployment rate over the past few years. We did not suddenly have a worldwide epidemic of slacking. Instead, people lost jobs -- often for reasons totally outside their control, like their employers going out of business -- and were unable to find new ones.There are more people who want jobs than there are job openings. Therefore, people who have jobs don't readily give them up. People who have to deal with the real world (where, for most people who are not independently wealthy, employment is essential) don't quit the job they already have in the hopes of finding a better one somewhere else.

By the way, I'm portable, employment-wise: I'm a website designer, and I've never even met some of my clients. I do most of my work from this chair. But I also know a lot of people who go where the work is, and take any job they can get, and are happy to get ANY job, rather than being in the segment of the population that is looking for work but can't find any at all. So no, I'm not in North Korea, but I continue to suspect you're in your mommy's basement. Reality isn't like "if you don't like your job, get a different one; if you don't like where you're living, move."
 
2013-03-27 12:57:06 PM
Skyd1v:
I had a hallucination one day in traffic about giant robot beetle drones, painted black and white with flashing red-blue eyes, enforcing traffic laws by landing on offenders cars.

[img163.imageshack.us image 250x401]


Thank you man!  I remember reading this a billion years ago and couldn't for the life of me remember who wrote it or what the name of the book was.
 
2013-03-27 12:57:54 PM

stovepipe: That's a real nice solar setup you got there. Be a shame if a hail storm came and farked it all up.


Considering my solar panels can stop a .22 or .38 bullet fired at close range - without penetrating the first layer of bullet-proof glass (they are impact glass on the front and back), I don't think a piddly little hail (or even large hail) will do shiat to my panels. 

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-27 01:00:07 PM

m00: This would benefit people with cars who have bad gas mileage.


You don't actually think the price of gas will go down, do you?
 
2013-03-27 01:05:31 PM

Fark It: An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo. That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car


The biggest reason I ride a motorcycle is the environmental benefits; almost complete lack of a footprint on the roads, can share a single parking space with 6 other similar vehicles (or park in a non-parking space), and the mileage...that infrastructure hardly even notices I'm there.  Heck, quite literally, sometimes - redlights often don't detect me, for instance.
 
2013-03-27 01:08:09 PM

Broktun: Not us out in Western Maryland.


Exactly
 
2013-03-27 01:17:42 PM

Fark It: I think this is bullshiat.  The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way.  Mass transit isn't an option for most people.  Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries?  An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo.  That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car....

bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?

Walmart (and FedEx and UPS etc) would love for individual motorists to foot the bill for our infrastructure, or to pay the same amount for their massive fleets of huge trucks that individual motorists do with their cars.


Just don't complain when the cost for items goes up. All additional taxes/costs put onto manufacturers or shippers will be passed onto the consumer.
 
2013-03-27 01:19:03 PM

Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime), I'm all for it.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1!!

NutWrench is spot on.  And I'm with with you, Donnchadha, but that money will still be funneled to other things.  My Spidey-sense tells me that this is a way to raise moar monies and power, not to be fair to motorists.  Shocking, I know.  I suggest that although the taxes are high, they are plenty enough to maintain the roads and directly-related infrastructure--such as roads, roads, highways, signs, and roads.  Add to that the state and any local revenue to federal taxes already in place. That's a lot of money to fix and maintain the roads.  A major problem is the fine print that allocates a portion of gas taxes to other non-road making/maintaining projects and groups.  It is a complex issue, with endless "studies," corruption, red tape, etc., but ultimately the problem is politicians of ALL stripes taking that money for other purposes other than my aforementioned list.  Like what they've done with Social Security, for example.

/Such as.
 
2013-03-27 01:21:41 PM

gerrychampoux: If you're going to tax based on miles, wouldn't it be easiest to just tax the tires?


Thereby increasing the miles driven on bald tires.  You're a genius.
 
2013-03-27 01:30:34 PM
Federal Odometer Laws and Regulations

49 U.S.C. §§ 32701-32711 (Formerly 15 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1991),

49 C.F.R., Sections 580.1-580.6 - Odometer Requirements
Violations -

Resetting or altering odometer with intent to change mileage.Making false odometer disclosure statement.Failure to provide buyer complete odometer disclosure statement.In acquiring vehicle for resale, failure to obtain complete odometer disclosure statement from seller.Conspiring to violate any of the Federal odometer statutes.
 
2013-03-27 01:31:32 PM

bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?


Actually, I'll bet that Walmart would love to have its fleet of trucks pay the same per-mile tax as ordinary cars, instead of paying tax on each gallon of fuel consumed.
 
2013-03-27 01:32:27 PM
Miles-Driven Could Replace Augment Gasoline Tax, LaTourette Says Never fails
 
2013-03-27 01:38:26 PM
Switching to a tax on miles driven would:

1. create an incentive for emplyoees to move closer to work, and industry to move closer to workforce, thus creating
2. a tighter living infrastructure which has higher maintenance costs, higher crime, and is a better target for every disaster movie ever made, from infections to insurection to invasion to acts of FSM, which in turn,
3. creates an impetus for surviving younglings to "get outta this craphole and live somwhere I can BREATHE... screw the miles tax", which leads to a congress (small c) that says  "Hey... let's switch the tax to gallons consumed, not miles driven, and that will allow folks to disperse and reduce crime, poverty, and stress on inner city resources!! We've save a butt load of tax dollars!!"

Repeat in 75+ year intervals until stasis is acheived.
 
2013-03-27 01:39:13 PM

ferretman: Just don't complain when the cost for items goes up. All additional taxes/costs put onto manufacturers or shippers will be passed onto the consumer.


Currently, those companies are paying for road repairs via the fuel tax.  If this change goes into effect, they will get off scott free, paying by the mile as if their trucks were cars.  Do you think the reduced cost will be pass on to the consumer?
 
2013-03-27 01:40:47 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Miles-Driven Could Replace Augment Gasoline Tax, LaTourette Says Never fails


In PA we still pay the Johnstown Flood Tax.
 
2013-03-27 01:41:38 PM
Can't we just sell the roads to a private company and they in turn charge us a toll to use the roads.  Private enterprise is always best.
 
2013-03-27 01:42:52 PM

fireclown: Doesn't the gas tax already tax you per mile driven?  And at the same time that it encourages efficient vehicles?  If there is a shortfall, the rate can be increased.  I don't like the idea of a GPS dealiewhatsit logging all my travels to the feds.


THIS!!!!

Raise the farking rate... What?  Then more people will buy electric cars to avoid the gas tax?  ISN'T THAT THE FARKING POINT!? We want more people driving electric cars, right?

Ya, I know, if everyone drives an electric car, then no one will pay the gas tax, and then how do you fund road infrastructure?!?  I propose a system where every family sends their first born child at the age of 12 to work in the mandatory road work crews for 2 years as payment.  Job creators exempt of course.

/problem solved
 
2013-03-27 01:44:27 PM
Steve LaTourette is a creep who wants to tax you for having a gas efficient vehicle.
He was supposedly elected by the people of Ohio, and reelected a number of times.
But he is really owned by big oil.

He hates people, he hates efficiency, he hates you.
http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Steven_LaTourette_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Shame on Bloomberg for the article title.
It should read "Steve LaTourette: Who is this creep?  Ohio elected this guy? SRSLY?"
 
2013-03-27 01:45:14 PM

styckx: The real question is why are gas prices continuing to go up when the U.S. oil production is continuing to rise and we are set to become completely self sufficient in oil production in a few years.


Look at the rising price of ethanol contracts.
 
2013-03-27 01:45:20 PM

JackieRabbit: As electric and hybrid cars steadily take over, the revenues generated by gas taxes will decline. So we have to start thinking about alternatives. I don't think taxing the number of miles driven is the best answer. It may be better for the federal government to levy a transportation payroll tax and use the money to improve public transportation. They could apportion some of the revenue to the states so that state gas taxes could also be eliminated. But they'd have to earmark the funds for infrastructure and public transportation use, lest the states divert the funds to other uses. A payroll tax would take the sting out for citizens, since a smaller sum would be paid each pay period instead of in a lump sum. It would also allow for those who do not drive automobiles to share in the nation's transportation system rather than just pay a train or bus fare that doesn't come near meeting maintenance and development costs.


Problem with that. Hybrids and electrics are no longer "en vogue," due to the reality hitting the people in the face. What reality? They aren't effective alternatives to the standard gas engine, and in some cases more expensive, more polluting (depending who provides the electricity to your car), and a bit more dangerous. Heck, despite the number of hybrid models doubling, hybrid sales have dropped from 2.8% in 2008 to 2.4% in 2012. Matter of fact, in 2012, only 35% of those who bought into the hybrids look at hybrids again for a new vehicle.

If the gas tax goes away and the mile tax hits, even more people will be discouraged to switch, while I'll be busy driving my pickup around.

/still wants my air-powered car.
 
2013-03-27 01:47:37 PM
EVs are so good for Best America that we should continue to subsidise them, well, forever.

We don't necessarily have to make them road-tax exempt.  Just give them a break so more people use them.

We can produce more electricity.  We can't [economically, you pedants] produce more gasoline.
 
2013-03-27 01:47:47 PM
How exactly would they verify the miles you've driven?  Will this cause government to then create mileage attestation stations where we'd all need to stop in at once each year?  Hire employees to work those stations and charge us $20 for the convenience?  Take additional properties off the real property tax rolls to setup said stations?

What about farm tractors, lawn mowers, generators and other such petroleum powered equipment that captures engine hours vs. miles?  It would seem that they are willing to give up collecting taxes for that fuel usage all together.

Seems like a lose/lose proposition and yet another ringing endorsement to just how truly stupid our elected officials are.
 
2013-03-27 01:54:06 PM
Just not good.

If I drive a tank, getting about 5 gallons to the mile and churning up the road as I go then I should have to pay more than a person in a sensible car. It is not right that both drivers should pay the same, one is causing much more road and environment damage which costs money to fix.

Increase the tax on gas then the people with the biggest or most inefficient cars or who drive the most miles get hit the most, as it should be, because they can afford it more, having bought a big car. If they drive a lot then no difference unless they want to drive a lot in a big or inefficient car. If they can`t afford it then it`s an incentive to have an efficient car...

/have a haulage subsidy of course. I still want my disposable goods delivered cheaply to my door in a vehicle that causes 9600 times the damage to the road when compared to a family car
 
2013-03-27 01:54:18 PM

BGates: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

Fuel efficient vehicles are the problem.  They drive more miles per tax they pay.

People who drive fuel efficient vehicles should be the ones who pay the fees since they are not paying their fair share.


Those cars are also heavily subsidized by the federal governments with some estimates at 40% of actual costs. Tripling the gas tax on green vehicles at a minimum is the only way to ensure they pay their fair share.
 
2013-03-27 01:56:07 PM
It's only fair. All those 1 percenters who can afford Teslas and other electric cars don't have to pay gas taxes now. How else would we be able to pay for the highways once electric cars get cheap enough for the rabble to afford?
 
2013-03-27 01:57:15 PM

Land Ark: As the owner of 3 cars that get a total average MPG of 40, and who drives about 5,500 miles a year, I think this is a load of crap and unfair to those who buy fuel eficient cars on purpose.


We live in a society. Why do you choose to avoid paying your fair share. You own 3 cars showing you can pay a fair share.
 
2013-03-27 01:58:20 PM

D135: Raise the farking rate... What?


All right now baby, it's all right now
All right now baby, it's all right now
Let me tell you now
I took her home to my place, watching every move on her face
She said, "Look, what's your game, baby?
Are you tryin' to tax me in shame?"
I said, "Slow, don't go so fast
Don't you think that fuel can last?"
She said, "Fuel, lord alive, now you're gonna trick me to drive"
All right now baby, it's all right now
All right now baby, it's all right now
Yeah, it's alright now
 
2013-03-27 01:59:24 PM

farm machine: How exactly would they verify the miles you've driven?  Will this cause government to then create mileage attestation stations where we'd all need to stop in at once each year?  Hire employees to work those stations and charge us $20 for the convenience?  Take additional properties off the real property tax rolls to setup said stations?


Simple: they'd look at your odometer. Just as they do in every state that has vehicle inspections. It's one of the things they fill out on inspection reports.

But yeah, it's a big lose for the people who have made the choice to drive smaller, fuel-efficient cars, and a big win for the people with the big, inefficient vehicles. People who, not surprisingly, are not poor.
 
2013-03-27 02:01:04 PM

People_are_Idiots: JackieRabbit: As electric and hybrid cars steadily take over, the revenues generated by gas taxes will decline. So we have to start thinking about alternatives. I don't think taxing the number of miles driven is the best answer. It may be better for the federal government to levy a transportation payroll tax and use the money to improve public transportation. They could apportion some of the revenue to the states so that state gas taxes could also be eliminated. But they'd have to earmark the funds for infrastructure and public transportation use, lest the states divert the funds to other uses. A payroll tax would take the sting out for citizens, since a smaller sum would be paid each pay period instead of in a lump sum. It would also allow for those who do not drive automobiles to share in the nation's transportation system rather than just pay a train or bus fare that doesn't come near meeting maintenance and development costs.

Problem with that. Hybrids and electrics are no longer "en vogue," due to the reality hitting the people in the face. What reality? They aren't effective alternatives to the standard gas engine, and in some cases more expensive, more polluting (depending who provides the electricity to your car), and a bit more dangerous. Heck, despite the number of hybrid models doubling, hybrid sales have dropped from 2.8% in 2008 to 2.4% in 2012. Matter of fact, in 2012, only 35% of those who bought into the hybrids look at hybrids again for a new vehicle.

If the gas tax goes away and the mile tax hits, even more people will be discouraged to switch, while I'll be busy driving my pickup around.

/still wants my air-powered car.


The hybrids did what they needed to do though, which was kick the industry in the ass a bit. If it wasn't for Prius and co. making fuel efficiency trendy, we wouldn't be seeing all these small 4 cylinder turbos. We'd still be doing, "put a V12 in that commuter car, AMERICA!"
 
2013-03-27 02:01:56 PM

Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime), I'm all for it.


Do you actually believe that is how the money will be spent?
 
2013-03-27 02:02:56 PM

MyRandomName: Land Ark: As the owner of 3 cars that get a total average MPG of 40, and who drives about 5,500 miles a year, I think this is a load of crap and unfair to those who buy fuel eficient cars on purpose.

We live in a society. Why do you choose to avoid paying your fair share. You own 3 cars showing you can pay a fair share.


It`s a fair share decided on usage, not income. You want to tax car ownership? do it at the point of sale. The fair share of road tax, to fix roads and deal with motoring related costs, should be shouldered by the ones causing the damage as a check and balance on them farking things up too much. There should be incentives to get a less damaging vehicle. Mind you, three cars adding up to 40mpg doesn`t sound good. Is one 12mpg, another 13mpg and the last 15mpg?
 
2013-03-27 02:03:02 PM

farkturf: It's only fair. All those 1 percenters who can afford Teslas and other electric cars don't have to pay gas taxes now. How else would we be able to pay for the highways once electric cars get cheap enough for the rabble to afford?


My all-electric Leaf only costs me $199 a month. How much a month do you spend on gas?
 
2013-03-27 02:03:31 PM
This will turn into a complicated system where a special new Congressionaly  appointed committee of 12 former union bosses get $120,000 each a year for copy pasting manufacturers estimated MPG for each model of car  to a new 3000 page law that requires you to fill out a 20 page form requiring your receipts for mandatory quarterly   tire pressure inspections and adding tax penalties fror gameday flags, reindeer antlers, tennis balls and  heavy duty windshield wipers that if left unreported could bring a $5000.00 fine or 2 months in jail.
F them all in the A!
 
2013-03-27 02:05:53 PM

OgreMagi: Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime), I'm all for it.

Do you actually believe that is how the money will be spent?


No, but it is how it SHOULD be spent and quite often given a sheen of a lie that it actually is how it is spent by just not telling us what it really is spent on unless pushed. I too would be all for it if that would happen.
 
2013-03-27 02:06:56 PM

Worldwalker: farm machine: How exactly would they verify the miles you've driven?  Will this cause government to then create mileage attestation stations where we'd all need to stop in at once each year?  Hire employees to work those stations and charge us $20 for the convenience?  Take additional properties off the real property tax rolls to setup said stations?

Simple: they'd look at your odometer. Just as they do in every state that has vehicle inspections. It's one of the things they fill out on inspection reports.

But yeah, it's a big lose for the people who have made the choice to drive smaller, fuel-efficient cars, and a big win for the people with the big, inefficient vehicles. People who, not surprisingly, are not poor.


Just weight the mileage tax by the EPA numbers for the car and/or its smog numbers (if applicable), or even vehicle weight. There, 50 miles in a Prius is less than 50 miles in a Suburban, but the guy driving 50 miles in an full EV still pays for infrastructure. It's not like it has to be all one or the other, just make the mileage part cover the wear due to mileage.
 
2013-03-27 02:09:06 PM

dready zim: MyRandomName: Land Ark: As the owner of 3 cars that get a total average MPG of 40, and who drives about 5,500 miles a year, I think this is a load of crap and unfair to those who buy fuel eficient cars on purpose.

We live in a society. Why do you choose to avoid paying your fair share. You own 3 cars showing you can pay a fair share.

It`s a fair share decided on usage, not income. You want to tax car ownership? do it at the point of sale. The fair share of road tax, to fix roads and deal with motoring related costs, should be shouldered by the ones causing the damage as a check and balance on them farking things up too much. There should be incentives to get a less damaging vehicle. Mind you, three cars adding up to 40mpg doesn`t sound good. Is one 12mpg, another 13mpg and the last 15mpg?


Are you kidding, it's great. If he can drive three cars for a combined 40MPG, that's each car getting 120MPG. I wonder how he reaches all the pedals though.
 
2013-03-27 02:15:01 PM
Summary: Fark you Electric, Hybrid, and high-mileage vehicles.
 
2013-03-27 02:16:54 PM

Fark It: I think this is bullshiat.  The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way.  Mass transit isn't an option for most people.  Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries?  An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo.  That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car....


Don't be so quick to bash the trucking industry.  If you've got it, a truck brought it, period.

Trucking already pays more than its fair share of tax:

The average truck gets (if lucky) 7 MPG, so clearly there is more tax paid at the pump.

Licensing (depending upon the state you're in) runs on average $2,000 per truck, per year.

Heavy highway tax to the feds of $575 per year per truck.

Highway use tax varies by state... in some states it's .15/mile.

Federal Excise Tax is 12.5% of all new trucks and tires purchased.  Imagine buying a $20,000 car and paying an additional $2,500 on top of that for FET.

Compliance with EPA, DOT, etc. regulations has increased the average purchase price for a new truck  from $70,000 to $135,000 in the past ten years.

And in order to haul to California, you need a new truck.

And you wonder why the cost of milk ain't what it used to be.  It's expensive to haul it, and trucking companies can't do it for free.
 
2013-03-27 02:19:01 PM

ProfessorOhki: Just weight the mileage tax by the EPA numbers for the car and/or its smog numbers (if applicable), or even vehicle weight. There, 50 miles in a Prius is less than 50 miles in a Suburban, but the guy driving 50 miles in an full EV still pays for infrastructure. It's not like it has to be all one or the other, just make the mileage part cover the wear due to mileage.


But that's not how they've proposed doing it. They want to make 50 miles in a Prius cost exactly as much as 50 miles in a Suburban. They see another way of getting money out of the little guy and benefiting the big guy. Given that our laws are made by millionaires, bought and paid for by billionaires (or billion-dollar corporations) they're not going to something that would hurt themselves.
 
2013-03-27 02:19:40 PM

dready zim: OgreMagi: Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime), I'm all for it.

Do you actually believe that is how the money will be spent?

No, but it is how it SHOULD be spent and quite often given a sheen of a lie that it actually is how it is spent by just not telling us what it really is spent on unless pushed. I too would be all for it if that would happen.


I don't believe that it will be spent strictly on infrastructure, nor do I think you could possibly enforce that it would. Oddly, Dilbert (and Dogbert) have something appropriate to say about it too:

caracaschronicles.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-27 02:20:42 PM

MugzyBrown: Zeb Hesselgresser: Miles-Driven Could Replace Augment Gasoline Tax, LaTourette Says Never fails

In PA we still pay the Johnstown Flood Tax.


I'm well aware; I'm a regular contributor myself.  It is a perfect example of why we can't have nice things.

http://www.johnstownfloodtax.com/
 
2013-03-27 02:20:43 PM

IamAwake: The biggest reason I ride a motorcycle is the environmental benefits;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution

Noise can have a detrimental effect on wild animals, increasing the risk of death by changing the delicate balance in predator or prey detection and avoidance, and interfering the use of the sounds in communication, especially in relation to reproduction and in navigation. Acoustic overexposure can lead to temporary or permanent loss of hearing.


So, will you be buying an electric scooter, or are you in the "loud pipes save lives" crowd?
 
2013-03-27 02:21:25 PM
Just cause this is a gasoline chat, and because I love the details of energy & cost, here's my historical household energy use:

Monthly average
2011: gasoline = $212 electricity = $83
2012: gasoline = $280 electricity = $56
2013: gasoline = $56   electricity = $70

Since the summer hasn't hit and my solar panels aren't pumping out much yet for 2013, I expect my monthly electricity to go way down this year, even with an electric car. Keep in mind I have no propane, oil, or natural gas consumption. I'm very curious how the trend will look by the end of the year.
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-27 02:23:03 PM

MrSteve007: farkturf: It's only fair. All those 1 percenters who can afford Teslas and other electric cars don't have to pay gas taxes now. How else would we be able to pay for the highways once electric cars get cheap enough for the rabble to afford?

My all-electric Leaf only costs me $199 a month. How much a month do you spend on gas?


How much of your actual cost is being subsidized by the government and my tax dollars?
 
2013-03-27 02:26:42 PM

dready zim: OgreMagi: Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime), I'm all for it.

Do you actually believe that is how the money will be spent?

No, but it is how it SHOULD be spent and quite often given a sheen of a lie that it actually is how it is spent by just not telling us what it really is spent on unless pushed. I too would be all for it if that would happen.


Just making sure you aren't delusional.

Add me to the list of people who don't think they'll be replacing the existing tax.  They'll add the new tax and promise the old tax will be phased out.  Except they'll forget to phase it out.
 
2013-03-27 02:28:22 PM

CujoQuarrel: How much of your actual cost is being subsidized by the government and my tax dollars?


In the 2012 model, $7,500 off the top from the Feds, and on the State level, it was sales tax free (about $3,000). Interestingly, just as incentives are designed to do, prices of electric cars are now rapidly coming down. The price of the 2013 Leaf dropped by about $6,000.

What I find most curious, is where were you "Oh noez, subsidies!" people 10-years ago, when we were giving huge tax ride offs to people buying Hummers.
 
2013-03-27 02:30:24 PM

Donnchadha: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

I think the issue derives from the fact that nobody wants to raise the gas tax, and this would be a way to do so while letting your congressman argue "I didn't vote for no tax increases!" during his next reelection campaign.


Plus this dicks over the poor disproportionately more than the wealthy, so of course the GOP likes it and will be able to sell it pretty easily to its base.

Not sure how easy a sell this would be to anyone outside of the GOP base.
 
2013-03-27 02:30:38 PM

pciszek: ferretman: Just don't complain when the cost for items goes up. All additional taxes/costs put onto manufacturers or shippers will be passed onto the consumer.

Currently, those companies are paying for road repairs via the fuel tax.  If this change goes into effect, they will get off scott free, paying by the mile as if their trucks were cars.  Do you think the reduced cost will be pass on to the consumer?


The person I had responded to stated to just charge the truckers instead not cars, hence my response.
 
2013-03-27 02:31:18 PM

CujoQuarrel: How much of your actual cost is being subsidized by the government and my tax dollars?


Oooh, and I forgot one major point. How much of my tax dollars are being spent to militarily protect oil producing countries  that we wouldn't give a shiat about otherwise?
 
2013-03-27 02:35:24 PM

ZAZ: Who believes the gas tax would vanish?

In my state the government already knows how many miles you drive. Once a year the inspection station plugs into your computer and gets a data dump. It would be easy to combine the mile tax and municipal property tax into one consolidated registration fee.

Or they could just take 1.5 cents per mile target revenue times typical miles per year and charge $200 per year to register a car.


What's a computer in the car?  Oh you mean that biatch box in modern pussy vehicles.  Yeah about that.  Old vehicles don't have those.

/old school roll
 
2013-03-27 02:35:26 PM

MrSteve007: farkturf: It's only fair. All those 1 percenters who can afford Teslas and other electric cars don't have to pay gas taxes now. How else would we be able to pay for the highways once electric cars get cheap enough for the rabble to afford?

My all-electric Leaf only costs me $199 a month. How much a month do you spend on gas?


~$50.00/wk and get almost 350-400 miles per tank. Drive an '04 accord.
 
2013-03-27 02:38:09 PM

MrSteve007: CujoQuarrel: How much of your actual cost is being subsidized by the government and my tax dollars?

Oooh, and I forgot one major point. How much of my tax dollars are being spent to militarily protect oil producing countries  that we wouldn't give a shiat about otherwise?


Do you even no how many products you use contain petroleum? Just about anything plastic, make-up, lubrication products etc.; all use petroleum derivatives.
 
2013-03-27 02:38:10 PM

MrSteve007: farkturf: It's only fair. All those 1 percenters who can afford Teslas and other electric cars don't have to pay gas taxes now. How else would we be able to pay for the highways once electric cars get cheap enough for the rabble to afford?

My all-electric Leaf only costs me $199 a month. How much a month do you spend on gas?


I only get 21 mpg, I spend about 80 a month on gas.
 
2013-03-27 02:42:46 PM

ferretman: ~$50.00/wk and get almost 350-400 miles per tank. Drive an '04 accord.


My commute is 60 miles a day (so 300 miles a week) - factor in the occasional summer road trip to Yellowstone and the annualized fuel cost will be fairly similar to what I saw. A 20mpg truck vs. a 26mpg car doesn't gain too much.

However, on a per mile basis, for fuel, electric cars are about 1/8th of the cost.
 
2013-03-27 02:46:53 PM

stovepipe: MrSteve007: You know what's rad? Not paying any gas tax!

Or for fuel . . .

This
[carreleasedates.com image 620x391]
plus this
[iowaenvironmentalfocus.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]
= never paying for farking gasoline or gas taxes again! I love living that life.

That's a real nice solar setup you got there.  Be a shame if a hail storm came and farked it all up.


Hailstorms don't fark up solar panels.  Recently I threw some of the glass we use in our PV modules on a concrete floor.  It bounced.  That shiat is ridiculously strong.
 
2013-03-27 02:47:36 PM

Worldwalker: ProfessorOhki: Just weight the mileage tax by the EPA numbers for the car and/or its smog numbers (if applicable), or even vehicle weight. There, 50 miles in a Prius is less than 50 miles in a Suburban, but the guy driving 50 miles in an full EV still pays for infrastructure. It's not like it has to be all one or the other, just make the mileage part cover the wear due to mileage.

But that's not how they've proposed doing it. They want to make 50 miles in a Prius cost exactly as much as 50 miles in a Suburban. They see another way of getting money out of the little guy and benefiting the big guy. Given that our laws are made by millionaires, bought and paid for by billionaires (or billion-dollar corporations) they're not going to something that would hurt themselves.


Yeah, this proposition is probably bad. I was just toying with the general concept of balancing incentivising fuel efficiency without starving the infrastructure. Really, it comes down to what you think the role of taxation is. It's not totally unreasonable to have the position of, "taxes are for wear on tear on roads, mileage only. Low-emissions regulation will be handled through non-tax means," especially if you're opposed to taxes as a social instrument in general (though we crossed that bridge long ago).
 
2013-03-27 02:49:34 PM

ferretman: Do you even no how many products you use contain petroleum? Just about anything plastic, make-up, lubrication products etc.; all use petroleum derivatives.


And do you know how much petroleum is forever wasted by burning it up in American automobiles vs. actually going to useful products?

And frankly, there's plenty of alternatives: corn-based plastic is fairly common, before we had plastic we had ebonite, and there's plenty of synthetic lubrication products out on the market. I'm not saying we remove all fossil fuel use, but we could easily reduce our needs by 75% by switching to viable alternatives that are already on the market. I have. And the US Navy is rapidly doing it too.

This isn't science fiction any more. The era of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end - the faster people realize it, the better off our nation will be.
 
2013-03-27 02:50:39 PM
Look, kids ... however they have to word it, Politicians will find a way to dig deeper into your pocket for their money

It's like being raped cartoon style
 
2013-03-27 02:51:10 PM

CujoQuarrel: How much of your actual cost is being subsidized by the government and my tax dollars?


How much of the cost of the pollution your car spews out for free is subsidized by my lungs?
 
2013-03-27 02:51:13 PM

MrSteve007: ferretman: ~$50.00/wk and get almost 350-400 miles per tank. Drive an '04 accord.

My commute is 60 miles a day (so 300 miles a week) - factor in the occasional summer road trip to Yellowstone and the annualized fuel cost will be fairly similar to what I saw. A 20mpg truck vs. a 26mpg car doesn't gain too much.

However, on a per mile basis, for fuel, electric cars are about 1/8th of the cost.


I have all highway driving with zero traffic and I travel with the cruise set at ~70 mph. ~40 miles a day...on long trips I can get over 400 miles to the tank. It's all about smart driving (when you don't live in a traffic hell hole).
 
2013-03-27 02:53:33 PM

Girion47: MrSteve007: farkturf: It's only fair. All those 1 percenters who can afford Teslas and other electric cars don't have to pay gas taxes now. How else would we be able to pay for the highways once electric cars get cheap enough for the rabble to afford?

My all-electric Leaf only costs me $199 a month. How much a month do you spend on gas?

I only get 21 mpg, I spend about 80 a month on gas.


My rated MPG is 14 combined. I spend maybe $90/mo... where gas is $4+/gal
 
2013-03-27 02:55:18 PM

ProfessorOhki: Girion47: MrSteve007: farkturf: It's only fair. All those 1 percenters who can afford Teslas and other electric cars don't have to pay gas taxes now. How else would we be able to pay for the highways once electric cars get cheap enough for the rabble to afford?

My all-electric Leaf only costs me $199 a month. How much a month do you spend on gas?

I only get 21 mpg, I spend about 80 a month on gas.

My rated MPG is 14 combined. I spend maybe $90/mo... where gas is $4+/gal


So you drive 10 miles a day.  Buy a goddamn bike.
 
2013-03-27 02:57:55 PM

Hollie Maea: So you drive 10 miles a day. Buy a goddamn bike.


But he lives in Southern California. He might get a sunburn in the winter!
 
2013-03-27 03:02:23 PM
God this is one of the stupidest ideas in congressional history - and that takes effort.
Taxing a sale is relatively easy, but creating an entirely new government beauracracy to handle people reporting their mileage? Honestly, there are far more pressing problems the US needs to be dealing with right now - for instance, RUNNING OUT OF MONEY...
 
2013-03-27 03:04:46 PM

slayer199: I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices.  So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.


Actually with the current system people who drive more DO pay more for road usage since they have to buy more gasoline thereby paying more taxes for road usage. The gas tax also rewards those who responsibly use more fuel efficient vehicles. If they go with this moronic idea the guy driving the hybrid will pay the same a[mount toward taxes as the neck in the hummer when driving the same number of miles. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but the whole idea is to be able to track vehicles, not make more tax money.
 
2013-03-27 03:05:46 PM
The gas tax works quite nicely, thank you very much Congresscritters.

The gas tax also effectively penalizes people who don't know how to drive properly -- the gas-or-brake people who slam on the gas then slam on the brake constantly.  It also encourages people like myself to hack their cars for better efficiency & performance.

Even with a 2nd AC added to my car (it's Florida and I like 45F air blowing from the air vents even if it is 98F outside), I'm getting ~26mpg in normal driving.  Not bad for a 375HP 4.5L V8 9 year old car.   For comparison, my friend with a brand new Lexus RX300h hybrid only gets 21-22mpg.  I thought hybrids were supposed to be fuel efficient.   The hybrid certainly isn't fun to drive by any means.  The engine sounds terrible when you push it.
 
2013-03-27 03:08:27 PM

Hollie Maea: ProfessorOhki: Girion47: MrSteve007: farkturf: It's only fair. All those 1 percenters who can afford Teslas and other electric cars don't have to pay gas taxes now. How else would we be able to pay for the highways once electric cars get cheap enough for the rabble to afford?

My all-electric Leaf only costs me $199 a month. How much a month do you spend on gas?

I only get 21 mpg, I spend about 80 a month on gas.

My rated MPG is 14 combined. I spend maybe $90/mo... where gas is $4+/gal

So you drive 10 miles a day.  Buy a goddamn bike.


No, that would mean I drove an average of 10 miles a day, assuming that the combined rating applied and that it was accurate. While not the case, the numbers would be the same if I drove 70 mi once a week. Though, I probably did fark up the math somewhere, because 10 mi is way off.
 
2013-03-27 03:10:11 PM

MrSteve007: Hollie Maea: So you drive 10 miles a day. Buy a goddamn bike.

But he lives in Southern California. He might get a sunburn in the winter!


If I lived in SoCal, I would find a way to never need to get near a road. I've passed through a few times and... nope.
 
2013-03-27 03:13:10 PM

Girion47: Federal Odometer Laws and Regulations

49 U.S.C. §§ 32701-32711 (Formerly 15 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1991),

49 C.F.R., Sections 580.1-580.6 - Odometer Requirements
Violations -

Resetting or altering odometer with intent to change mileage.Making false odometer disclosure statement.Failure to provide buyer complete odometer disclosure statement.In acquiring vehicle for resale, failure to obtain complete odometer disclosure statement from seller.Conspiring to violate any of the Federal odometer statutes.


mhmm
but this is only a problem if you SELL the vehicle
 
2013-03-27 03:15:07 PM

Donnchadha: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You're interpretive brain cells aren't working too well, are they?

Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.


DEF: Troll: Someone who says something you disagree with. PURPOSE: Much easier than coming up with, you know, a rational counterargument.
 
2013-03-27 03:20:07 PM

ferretman: Do you even no how many products you use contain petroleum? Just about anything plastic, make-up, lubrication products etc.; all use petroleum derivatives.


But if we weren't burning it as fuel, would we need to import it, or would domestic production be enough?
 
2013-03-27 03:21:53 PM
My commute is about 70 miles round trip and takes 40 minutes to an hour (traffic sucks).  When the weather is good, I ride my motorcycle.  Otherwise I drive my rather small car.  Public transportation would take over 2 hours EACH WAY even if transfers are perfectly timed (and they never are).

So because I drive fuel efficient vehicles the government has decided I need to be punished?  I have a plan.  It involves tar, feather, rope and a few trees (some assembly required).
 
2013-03-27 03:24:23 PM

MrSteve007: Oooh, and I forgot one major point. How much of my tax dollars are being spent to militarily protect oil producing countries that we wouldn't give a shiat about otherwise?


So that's basically just Iraq and Saudi, right?

Because NATO treaties cover the UK and Canada, and the Monroe Doctrine covers Venezuela and Mexico.

And we'd probably still be in the Middle East, just because the Suez runs through there.
 
2013-03-27 03:25:50 PM

Terrydatroll: Actually with the current system people who drive more DO pay more for road usage since they have to buy more gasoline thereby paying more taxes for road usage. The gas tax also rewards those who responsibly use more fuel efficient vehicles. If they go with this moronic idea the guy driving the hybrid will pay the same a[mount toward taxes as the neck in the hummer when driving the same number of miles. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but the whole idea is to be able to track vehicles, not make more tax money.


THIS!!

1) if revenue is down because more people are driving hybrids, increase the gas tax until you meet revenue goals.
2) if you need more dollars for road and bridge repairs, increase the gas tax until you meet revenue goals.

this is not rocket science. this is designed to screw over hybrid, small car drivers and a savings for everyone else. hell taxing by mileage traveled and tracking via GPS are clearly unconstitutional. They directly and indirectly infringe on your right to travel.


The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause).
 
2013-03-27 03:27:53 PM

MrSteve007: And do you know how much petroleum is forever wasted by burning it up in American automobiles vs. actually going to useful products?


Our great-grandchildren are going to look back at our world and say "they had all that petroleum and they burned it up?!?!?!"
 
2013-03-27 03:32:57 PM

dready zim: MyRandomName: Land Ark: As the owner of 3 cars that get a total average MPG of 40, and who drives about 5,500 miles a year, I think this is a load of crap and unfair to those who buy fuel eficient cars on purpose.

We live in a society. Why do you choose to avoid paying your fair share. You own 3 cars showing you can pay a fair share.

It`s a fair share decided on usage, not income. You want to tax car ownership? do it at the point of sale. The fair share of road tax, to fix roads and deal with motoring related costs, should be shouldered by the ones causing the damage as a check and balance on them farking things up too much. There should be incentives to get a less damaging vehicle. Mind you, three cars adding up to 40mpg doesn`t sound good. Is one 12mpg, another 13mpg and the last 15mpg?

 
2013-03-27 03:34:35 PM

pciszek: ferretman: Do you even no how many products you use contain petroleum? Just about anything plastic, make-up, lubrication products etc.; all use petroleum derivatives.

But if we weren't burning it as fuel, would we need to import it, or would domestic production be enough?


Petroleum is a small part of a global market. The US exports oil to countries and then the US imports oil from countries. The overall effect of just stopping petroleum would be disastrous on a global scale (economic wise).
 
2013-03-27 03:43:25 PM
Maybe it would help if each person in the picture wasn't making $50k+/yr for standing around:
3.bp.blogspot.com
/but you can't do anything that may affect the Unions....
 
2013-03-27 03:48:29 PM
Just tell me where to send the payment.

I'm tired of complaining and fighting...they win.  Just reach in my wallet and take what you want...I'm sure my kids will be cared for by the government really well once I'm completely broke.
 
2013-03-27 04:01:17 PM

Terrydatroll: Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but the whole idea is to be able to track vehicles, not make more tax money.


I'm in agreement.

The reason I said I was conflicted is that in theory, people that drive more should pay more (which they do in theory).  When the tax is on fuel that basically incentivizes driving a fuel-efficient vehicle (something the government claims they want people to do).  It really doesn't make sense for the government to disincentivize being fuel efficient other than they will be able to track people which they'd never take advantage of.....very scary stuff.
 
2013-03-27 04:06:13 PM
f you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
 
2013-03-27 04:09:27 PM

slayer199: Terrydatroll: Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but the whole idea is to be able to track vehicles, not make more tax money.

I'm in agreement.

The reason I said I was conflicted is that in theory, people that drive more should pay more (which they do in theory).  When the tax is on fuel that basically incentivizes driving a fuel-efficient vehicle (something the government claims they want people to do).  It really doesn't make sense for the government to disincentivize being fuel efficient other than they will be able to track people which they'd never take advantage of.....very scary stuff.


Nah.  They'll just install more cameras that read and record your licence plates.
As they do right now in DC
 
2013-03-27 04:14:28 PM

ProfessorOhki: I probably did fark up the math somewhere, because 10 mi is way off.


I figured, hence the snark.

/And the fact that I tend to be snarky in EV threads.
 
2013-03-27 04:15:58 PM
I completely support a miles based tax rather than a gas tax. Furthermore, motorcycles should pay the exact same tax as cars. Those freeloading bastards have shirked their fair share for far too long.
 
2013-03-27 04:17:30 PM
Whoops... My odometer just broke....   OOPS!!! the trip meter broke too... I don't know what happened...
 
2013-03-27 04:21:15 PM
On that note, why doesn't the gas guzzler tax apply to mini vans?
 
2013-03-27 04:31:16 PM

FoxKelfonne: jaytkay: FoxKelfonne: So it's at least an 80% increase. Imagine the outrage if they suggested that you pay 80% more taxes in any other area.

Cuz paying an extra $80 is EXACTLY like having your entire income taxed another 80%.

I never suggested it was, but it's still an 80% tax increase, and it's pretty ridiculous. To use another "small tax" example. Current sales tax in Niagara County, NY is 8.75%. If both the state and county sales taxes increased by the same amount to result in an overall 80% increase in sales tax, you'd end up with a 15.75% sales tax rate.
You can say that it's not a big deal, that you're now paying $1.16 for something that used to cost you $1.09, and that you're crying over pennies, but it adds up when you think of all the other taxes you already have to pay, and people even biatched when the sales tax went up from 8.5 to 8.75.


80% increase?

That's nothing.

When I lived in Michigan, they increased the sales tax 150%.  It went from 4% to 6%.  Amazingly, they called it a 2% increase in sales tax, which it also was.

Percentages are fun, aren't they?
 
2013-03-27 04:35:09 PM

5monkeys: cgraves67: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

I was just thinking that. If we had a mileage tax, I'd pay the same in my 4x4 as the guy in the Prius who drives the same distance. With the gas tax, I buy more gas and pay more taxes for the same miles driven. The mileage tax would be far less painful for me than the Prius driver.

I think that is the point. They are losing gas tax money from the people with the fuel efficient cars that they pushed. Now they want that money that they are losing.


This is all fixed with an extra fee on electric and "super efficient" vehicles on the vehicle registration that must be done once per year.
 
2013-03-27 04:40:16 PM
Now my 3-hour commute looks like a bad idea! WAAAAAAHHHH!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 04:47:40 PM
Maul555: Whoops... My odometer just broke.... OOPS!!! the trip meter broke too... I don't know what happened...

They will ask your car's computer and your car's computer is not programmed to lie. Copying numbers off instrument displays is 20th century technology.
 
2013-03-27 04:52:14 PM
GPS units in every vehicle that will track you everywhere you go, so they can create a database of your whereabouts in order to something something terrorism

/Those RFID toll cards are awesome to track people with as well.
//You mean setting up a portable scanner in various locations would be considered an invasion of privacy? shiat.
///Well instead you won't mind the automated license plate recognition cameras in the police car then.
///What database? Umm its for just like ummmmm automatically looking for stolen cars and ahhhh expired tags, sure thats it. shut up and go away and quit asking... LALALALALAlallalallalla
 
2013-03-27 04:53:27 PM
My odometer broke a long time ago ... take that Mr. Not-in-Congress-Anymore LaTourette ... Imma gonna go egg your house tonight after work ... see you in hell!
 
2013-03-27 04:53:35 PM

ZAZ: Maul555: Whoops... My odometer just broke.... OOPS!!! the trip meter broke too... I don't know what happened...

They will ask your car's computer and your car's computer is not programmed to lie. Copying numbers off instrument displays is 20th century technology.


my motorcycle has no computer. what now?
 
2013-03-27 04:58:04 PM

Hollie Maea: wambu: Yes, let's do this. There are so many ways to cheat on this tax, many people will never pay any tax at all.

We don't abolish income tax just because people cheat on it.  Tax fraud isn't going anywhere, but severe penalties scare most people away from it.


My point is that as a method of revenue generation, per-mile-driven is certainly more problematic. So why switch to it?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 05:00:37 PM
The_Original_Roxtar: my motorcycle has no computer. what now?

Your motorcycle uses half the road space of a car and puts less than half as much wear on the pavement. Under the current system it probably brings in a quarter the gas tax revenue of a typical car, half as many miles at twice as many miles per gallon. We can afford a system where some bikers roll back their odometers. They aren't important enough.
 
2013-03-27 05:01:22 PM

Carn: styckx: The real question is why are gas prices continuing to go up when the U.S. oil production is continuing to rise and we are set to become completely self sufficient in oil production in a few years.

Here's how it works according to the oil companies: oil production or supply goes down, gas price goes up because of supply and demand.  Oil production or supply goes up or stays the same, gas prices stays the same or go up because profits, er cuz um uh no seriously we've got a good reason hang on a second...


Put yourself in the shoes of the local gas station.  They have a big oil company name on the outside of the building, but they are just a franchisee.   They pay for that gas to fill up the tanks at the current prices.   When prices go up they have to increase the price or lose money just to compete  and keep bringing in customers to the store (which is where they make most of the money).   So when prices start going back down, the price falls a lot slower than it rises because they are still just trying to get to the break even point and have enough cash to fill the tanks up again...  A lot of people do not know that most gas stations don't make a lot of money on gas.  The gas is just the item that brings customers to the convenience store...  Hell, the government makes more money on gasoline sales than the convenience stores and the oil companies combined.
 
2013-03-27 05:11:28 PM
So my 500lbs motorcycle is causing as much wear on roads as a fully loaded gravel truck, and should be taxed the same? Huh.
 
2013-03-27 05:12:08 PM

Fark It: I think this is bullshiat.  The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way.  Mass transit isn't an option for most people.


I am finishing up a healthcare program with similar issues. I was able to take mass transit for the first semester in the program, but after that there was no way to take mass transit and arrive on time at the assigned clinical site. They send us all over a multi-county area for clinical rotations. I actually had to buy a car for the program; even car-pooling wasn't an option as different cohorts are at different sites at different times.
 
2013-03-27 05:19:18 PM

wambu: Hollie Maea: wambu: Yes, let's do this. There are so many ways to cheat on this tax, many people will never pay any tax at all.

We don't abolish income tax just because people cheat on it.  Tax fraud isn't going anywhere, but severe penalties scare most people away from it.

My point is that as a method of revenue generation, per-mile-driven is certainly more problematic. So why switch to it?


It's more a political problem than anything.  We don't have nearly enough money for upkeep of infrastructure, due to increases in fleet fuel efficiency.  But no one has the political will to increase gas taxes significantly.  So they are blundering around looking for other funding sources.  The bottom line is that having decreased gasoline usage (desired by society) at direct odds with maintained roads (also desired by society) is a terrible idea.  Gasoline taxes should ONLY be a pollution tax, and the revenue from them should ONLY be for developing methods of reducing gasoline usage.  That way when the revenue dries up, it will also be no longer needed.
 
2013-03-27 05:19:52 PM
I'm not sure I understand/believe the idea that driving more fuel efficient vehicles actually helps the country in any way.  First, it does mean less tax revenue for taxing authorities....but it also doesn't really do anything to reduce our dependence on gasoline.  It actually makes driving longer distances more tolerable, making it easy to avoid 'real changes' like not living an hour drive away from where you work or cities investing money in public transportation systems because, without them, people won't live there.
 
2013-03-27 05:27:50 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: It actually makes driving longer distances more tolerable, making it easy to avoid 'real changes' like not living an hour drive away from where you work or cities investing money in public transportation systems because, without them, people won't live there.


Overall usage is declining though.  Some people might be willing to drive farther, but not as much as you would think.  AFAIK, sitting in traffic is a bigger disincentive for long commutes than high cost of gas.
 
2013-03-27 05:33:21 PM
If you think the government is going to get rid of the gas tax, you must be cracked. They'll keep that tax, and add the mileage tax to it's revenue stream.

All you FarkLibtards should be against the abolishment of the gas tax any way, right? Tax cuts don't work.
 
2013-03-27 05:34:44 PM

Hollie Maea: Fark_Guy_Rob: It actually makes driving longer distances more tolerable, making it easy to avoid 'real changes' like not living an hour drive away from where you work or cities investing money in public transportation systems because, without them, people won't live there.

Overall usage is declining though.  Some people might be willing to drive farther, but not as much as you would think.  AFAIK, sitting in traffic is a bigger disincentive for long commutes than high cost of gas.


As a citation for my previous statement, the following link (table 3 on page 10) shows that household vehicle miles travelled peaked during their 2001 survey, and by 2009 was lower than the 2001 and 1995 levels.  In spite of more fuel efficient cars.

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf
 
2013-03-27 05:36:25 PM

Tumunga: If you think the government is going to get rid of the gas tax, you must be cracked. They'll keep that tax, and add the mileage tax to it's revenue stream.

All you FarkLibtards should be against the abolishment of the gas tax any way, right? Tax cuts don't work.


Yes, I am against the abolishment of the gas tax.  I think a mileage tax should be added, for infrastructure, and the gas tax should be retained (and increased) as a pollution tax.  I'm tired of subsidizing your pollution.
 
2013-03-27 05:37:02 PM

fugeeface: Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime), I'm all for it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1!!

NutWrench is spot on.  And I'm with with you, Donnchadha, but that money will still be funneled to other things.  My Spidey-sense tells me that this is a way to raise moar monies and power, not to be fair to motorists.  Shocking, I know.  I suggest that although the taxes are high, they are plenty enough to maintain the roads and directly-related infrastructure--such as roads, roads, highways, signs, and roads.  Add to that the state and any local revenue to federal taxes already in place. That's a lot of money to fix and maintain the roads.  A major problem is the fine print that allocates a portion of gas taxes to other non-road making/maintaining projects and groups.  It is a complex issue, with endless "studies," corruption, red tape, etc., but ultimately the problem is politicians of ALL stripes taking that money for other purposes other than my aforementioned list.  Like what they've done with Social Security, for example.

/Such as.


Too true.   Here the people in charge have removed money earmarked for road construction to other projects specifically so they can say that there is not enough money and we must install toll roads.  WE MUST!!!!
 
2013-03-27 05:39:00 PM

ZAZ: Maul555: Whoops... My odometer just broke.... OOPS!!! the trip meter broke too... I don't know what happened...

They will ask your car's computer and your car's computer is not programmed to lie. Copying numbers off instrument displays is 20th century technology.


Quite a coincidence, since my truck is also 20th century technology.  No computer to rat me out provide helpful data.
 
2013-03-27 05:44:23 PM

markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.


YES. THIS. NOW.

/drives the 405 parking lot every morning
 
2013-03-27 05:45:00 PM
This is a power grab looking for an excuse.

Simply put there folks in government that would like to better know where we go and when. Some may even want automated speed enforcement everywhere. Eventually perhaps even leading to needing permission to travel. Once the transponders or number plate readers are in place the possibilities are endless for ways to exploit the technology and infrastructure.

thenewspaper.com already caught government in a lie regarding the revenue reasons for going to this tax by mile model. Their revenues suffered because new heavy truck sales cratered, not because of hybrids.

The gasoline tax is anonymous. It scales with use and vehicle weight pretty well. Your '71 pinto with a 428SCJ stuffed in it or equally a '72 Vega with a 454, not withstanding of course. Then there is the cost of collecting the tax. The infrastructure required for tax by the mile is at present still rather expensive compared to fuel taxes. Meanwhile real fleet fuel economy hasn't changed significantly since the early 1990s. However the value of the dollar has gone down a good deal.

So, the solution, if there was a problem,* would be to increase the tax gas or fix the dollar. Maybe find a way to tax plug in electrics. However, government can 'never waste a crisis', or in this case an opportunity to grab a power that can then be exploited for decades to come.

*considering other areas of government always see road funds as something to re-purpose or raid makes it one of the better funded areas and thus if the diversions were stopped perhaps would have any financial issues greatly reduced if not eliminated.
 
2013-03-27 05:50:12 PM

Hollie Maea: Tumunga: If you think the government is going to get rid of the gas tax, you must be cracked. They'll keep that tax, and add the mileage tax to it's revenue stream.

All you FarkLibtards should be against the abolishment of the gas tax any way, right? Tax cuts don't work.

Yes, I am against the abolishment of the gas tax.  I think a mileage tax should be added, for infrastructure, and the gas tax should be retained (and increased) as a pollution tax.  I'm tired of subsidizing your pollution.


If it's a pollution tax, then the less I drive, the more I should be taxed because I have less pollution?
 
2013-03-27 05:58:27 PM

slayer199: fireclown: Doesn't the gas tax already tax you per mile driven?  And at the same time that it encourages efficient vehicles?  If there is a shortfall, the rate can be increased.  I don't like the idea of a GPS dealiewhatsit logging all my travels to the feds.

Pretty much this.  You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.


The way I understand it the thing about ECU (your cars computer) GPS data. In most or all models its real time only, the data is not stored. You can access the data by plugging in or a service like Onstar and find out where a car is right now, but it wont tell you where it was in the past.

It would be easy enough to mandate data storage in new models, but to add it to existing models would be a challenge. All cars with OBDII and newer ECUs would have to have software updates (if they even have sufficient internal memory) and older cars without computers would need some sort of computer attached to them to log the data.
 
2013-03-27 06:07:03 PM
I think I am starting to notice a trend with some people in this thread....   repeat after me:  THE GAS TAX IS NOT FOR INCENTIVISING FUEL EFFICENT VEHICLES.  IT IS FOR PAYING FOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE.

The gas tax just happens to incentivise fuel efficient vehicles and some people think that this is the best thing about it.
 
2013-03-27 06:08:31 PM

Land Ark: As the owner of 3 cars that get a total average MPG of 40, and who drives about 5,500 miles a year, I think this is a load of crap and unfair to those who buy fuel eficient cars on purpose.


You pay less tax for the road you use compared to a vehicle that gets less mileage.  It would be fair to charge people with a fuel efficient vehicle more.
 
2013-03-27 06:12:31 PM

ZAZ: Maul555: Whoops... My odometer just broke.... OOPS!!! the trip meter broke too... I don't know what happened...

They will ask your car's computer and your car's computer is not programmed to lie. Copying numbers off instrument displays is 20th century technology.


Whats stopping me from buying a 2nd computer for my car?  They are not too hard to switch out.
 
2013-03-27 06:18:39 PM

Tumunga: Hollie Maea: Tumunga: If you think the government is going to get rid of the gas tax, you must be cracked. They'll keep that tax, and add the mileage tax to it's revenue stream.

All you FarkLibtards should be against the abolishment of the gas tax any way, right? Tax cuts don't work.

Yes, I am against the abolishment of the gas tax.  I think a mileage tax should be added, for infrastructure, and the gas tax should be retained (and increased) as a pollution tax.  I'm tired of subsidizing your pollution.

If it's a pollution tax, then the less I drive, the more I should be taxed because I have less pollution?


WTF are you talking about?
 
2013-03-27 06:21:41 PM

Maul555: I think I am starting to notice a trend with some people in this thread....   repeat after me:  THE GAS TAX IS NOT FOR INCENTIVISING FUEL EFFICENT VEHICLES.  IT IS FOR PAYING FOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE.

The gas tax just happens to incentivise fuel efficient vehicles and some people think that this is the best thing about it.


It IS the best thing about it.  Because the other part, paying for road infrastructure, is pants on heads retarded.  Road infrastructure should NOT be tied to gas tax, because we DO want less gas usage but we DON'T want less money for road infrastructure.  Gas taxes, which should be higher than they are now, should ONLY be used to incentivise fuel efficient vehicles.  It should NOT be used to fund anything that we would like to have long term.
 
2013-03-27 06:31:37 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: I think I am starting to notice a trend with some people in this thread....   repeat after me:  THE GAS TAX IS NOT FOR INCENTIVISING FUEL EFFICENT VEHICLES.  IT IS FOR PAYING FOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE.

The gas tax just happens to incentivise fuel efficient vehicles and some people think that this is the best thing about it.

It IS the best thing about it.  Because the other part, paying for road infrastructure, is pants on heads retarded.  Road infrastructure should NOT be tied to gas tax, because we DO want less gas usage but we DON'T want less money for road infrastructure.  Gas taxes, which should be higher than they are now, should ONLY be used to incentivise fuel efficient vehicles.  It should NOT be used to fund anything that we would like to have long term.


Gas taxes are allready high.  The problem is that politicians keep raiding funds and electric vehicle people seem to thing they deserve a free ride.  Add a fee to super efficent vehicles so that your ultimate dream can come true.  If you do not, then we will be a country full of electric cars driving on dirt.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 06:34:55 PM
Whats stopping me from buying a 2nd computer for my car? They are not too hard to switch out.

I don't know what happens. I can think of three plausible results:

1. You get away with it.

2. The DMV notices an implausible change in mileage (e.g. backwards) and smacks you, anywhere from felony charges to being charged the maximum rate (say, 30,000 miles).

3. The system notices the change in engine control computer serial number. You have to sign an affidavit of true mileage the same as if you had a mechanical odometer replaced. Last time I checked a car title the transfer part had a space where you wrote down the odometer reading or swore an oath on Ralph Nader's grave that the true reading ought to be ____ no matter what those lying digits said. Mile taxes would need a similar method to make an exception.
 
2013-03-27 06:47:42 PM

Maul555: Too true. Here the people in charge have removed money earmarked for road construction to other projects specifically so they can say that there is not enough money and we must install toll roads. WE MUST!!!!


I did a quick google search on California's transportation budget and fuel taxes.  I'm not sure how accurate my findings are, so take it with a grain of salt.  California collects about 7 billion from the gasoline tax (this doesn't count diesel, which is another big chunk of cash).  It spends about 1.5 billion for maintanence and new roads.  Any California politician who says there is not enough money to fix our shiatty roads is a lying sack of dung.
 
2013-03-27 06:50:23 PM

markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.


This. And on the flip side, how about a tax on all the assholes who tailgate me when I'm already doing 80 in a 65 mph zone. Which is everyone here in Socal. Slow the fark down!
 
2013-03-27 06:55:47 PM
Maul555:

Gas taxes are allready high.

No they are not.  We are nowhere near internalizing the pollution externality associated with gasoline.

The problem is that politicians keep raiding funds

No, the problem is that gasoline usage per mile has dropped significantly, due to commendable efforts by the government.  While increased fuel efficiency does solve a lot of problems, it does not build or maintain roads.

and electric vehicle people seem to thing they deserve a free ride.

No we don't.  I am a member of an Electric Vehicle association.  Our position, which we have relayed to politicians, is that ALL vehicles should pay a road usage tax that is used for road construction and maintenance, regardless of efficiency or drive train.  What we do NOT support is an additional tax that only targets high efficiency vehicles.  That would be like taxing me for not smoking, just because I don't pay the taxes on cigarettes that smokers do.  If we need more money (we do) then tax everyone.  We also believe that there should ALSO be taxes on gasoline, to internalize the pollution externality and to incentivize fuel efficient vehicles.  This money should not be used for road construction and maintenance.  The usage fee, which we believe that we should also pay, would be for that.  This would end the conflict between fuel efficiency, which society needs, and road maintenance, which society also needs.

Add a fee to super efficent vehicles so that your ultimate dream can come true.

Herp derp derp.  My dream is that we have enough money for roads and other nice things.  Everyone should pay for that.  My other dream is that we can be weaned off gasoline usage for the most part.  Gas taxes should stay high for that.

If you do not, then we will be a country full of electric cars driving on dirt.

Strawman arguments do not help your case.  Most electric vehicles associations have public statements on this issue.  We do not want crumbling infrastructure, and we are more than happy to pay our part on that.  What we are not willing to do is to subsidize cheap gas for you.
 
2013-03-27 07:00:43 PM

Hollie Maea: Tumunga: Hollie Maea: Tumunga: If you think the government is going to get rid of the gas tax, you must be cracked. They'll keep that tax, and add the mileage tax to it's revenue stream.

All you FarkLibtards should be against the abolishment of the gas tax any way, right? Tax cuts don't work.

Yes, I am against the abolishment of the gas tax.  I think a mileage tax should be added, for infrastructure, and the gas tax should be retained (and increased) as a pollution tax.  I'm tired of subsidizing your pollution.

If it's a pollution tax, then the less I drive, the more I should be taxed because I have less pollution?

WTF are you talking about?


You know, as well as I know, ice cream doesn't have bones.
 
2013-03-27 07:05:30 PM
And you wonder why there is ROAD RAGE like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlbabcOKU0g
 
2013-03-27 07:09:27 PM

ThatBillmanGuy: markie_farkie: How about a tax on all the assholes who drive in the left lane TEN MILES UNDER the limit, and refuse to yield to faster traffic..

And by 'tax', I mean 'drone strike'.

This. And on the flip side, how about a tax on all the assholes who tailgate me when I'm already doing 80 in a 65 mph zone. Which is everyone here in Socal. Slow the fark down!


Get out of the left lane!
 
2013-03-27 07:14:19 PM

ZAZ: Maul555: Whoops... My odometer just broke.... OOPS!!! the trip meter broke too... I don't know what happened...

They will ask your car's computer and your car's computer is not programmed to lie. Copying numbers off instrument displays is 20th century technology.


Your computer will do what it is programmed to do.  If it is programmed to lie, it will lie.  There is an active community of car firmware hackers out there.  Want to guess how long it would take them to tweak the mileage reported?
 
2013-03-27 07:15:10 PM

pciszek: bdub77: Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?

Actually, I'll bet that Walmart would love to have its fleet of trucks pay the same per-mile tax as ordinary cars, instead of paying tax on each gallon of fuel consumed.


Yeah this and a number of other flaws occurred to me after I said it. Not to mention that semi-trailers are harder on the road than cars.

I also think disincentivizing higher MPG cars is a bad thing. In fact this whole bill pretty much sucks. The gas tax works because it already reflects miles driven and the cars with worse gas mileage are bigger and harder on the road so they pay more for the use of the road.

If lost revenue is an issue, just raise the gas tax more. If that means the cost of gas goes up by $1 or more, it also means people will go for higher MPG cars and trucks. It's a win-win for improving emissions.  Eventually the gas tax prices gas out of the market and EVs take over.
 
2013-03-27 07:16:30 PM

OgreMagi: Want to guess how long it would take them to tweak the mileage reported?


If there were a 10 year prison stay and a 5000 dollar fine for getting caught, probably quite a while.
 
2013-03-27 07:17:14 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555:

Gas taxes are allready high.

No they are not.  We are nowhere near internalizing the pollution externality associated with gasoline.

Yes they are.    -   Excuse me?  WTF does this mean?


The problem is that politicians keep raiding funds

No, the problem is that gasoline usage per mile has dropped significantly, due to commendable efforts by the government.  While increased fuel efficiency does solve a lot of problems, it does not build or maintain roads.


No, The problem is that politicians keep raiding funds.   To a lesser degree, there is is also a problem with electric vehicles and other super efficient vehicles not paying their fair share to the highway funds because they essentialy exempt themselves from the tax by their very nature.    so tax them.Its a loophole.

and electric vehicle people seem to thing they
deserve a free ride.

No we don't.  I am a member of an Electric Vehicle association.  Our position, which we have relayed to politicians, is that ALL vehicles should pay a road usage tax that is used for road construction and maintenance, regardless of efficiency or drive train.   What we do NOT support is an additional tax that only targets high efficiency vehicles.  That would be like taxing me for not smoking, just because I don't pay the taxes on cigarettes that smokers do.  If we need more money (we do) then tax everyone.


No, I am sorry, but you are wrong again.  This would be like taxing E-Cig users the same as regular cigarette users.  Except that is still not quite accurate.  The basic point this boils down to is that electric vehicle users, and to a lesser degree other drivers, are not paying for road wear like the rest of us dirty gasoline users.  You think this is OK because gasoline is "bad".     your proposed system is exactly like jacking up the tax on cigaret users because there are less cigarette users...  Except we don't need the cigarette tax to function... we need that infrastructure money regardless of vehicle types on the road.  The more fuel efficient and electric vehicles we get onto the road, the greater the NEED to tax them.  If you ever do get your wish, and we get rid of petroleum based transportation, then who will pay for the roads?   You cant just keep jacking up the tax on a smaller and smaller group of people, that system will implode.

We also believe that there should ALSO be taxes on gasoline, to internalize the pollution externality and to incentivize fuel efficient vehicles.  This money should not be used for road construction and maintenance.  The usage fee, which we believe that we should also pay, would be for that.  This would end the conflict between fuel efficiency, which society needs, and road maintenance, which society also needs.

Add a fee to super efficent vehicles so that your ultimate dream can come true.

Herp derp derp.  My dream is that we have enough money for roads and other nice things.  Everyone should pay for that.  My other dream is that we can be weaned off gasoline usage for the most part.  Gas taxes should stay high for that.


Now you are starting to troll...  Herpa derpy derp....

If you do not, then we will be a country full of electric cars driving on dirt.

Strawman arguments do not help your case.  Most electric vehicles associations have public statements on this issue.  We do not want crumbling infrastructure, and we are more than happ ...


Strawman arguments?  Letting you know what will happen if we don't tax electrics is a strawman?


Lets just cut to the chase and agree that we live in different worlds...
 
2013-03-27 07:20:38 PM

namatad: Can we start with all elected officials and public employees and all contractors?


Yeah and cameras in their bedrooms too.
 
2013-03-27 07:22:30 PM

Maul555: Letting you know what will happen if we don't tax electrics is a strawman?


You are an idiot.  I stated three times in my last post, and numerous times before, that I think electrics should be taxed.  I'm sorry that you lack reading comprehension.
 
2013-03-27 07:23:49 PM

Hollie Maea: OgreMagi: Want to guess how long it would take them to tweak the mileage reported?

If there were a 10 year prison stay and a 5000 dollar fine for getting caught, probably quite a while.


Just like the threat of execution has completely eliminated murders.
 
2013-03-27 07:24:35 PM

edmo: namatad: Can we start with all elected officials and public employees and all contractors?

Yeah and cameras in their bedrooms too.


Do you seriously want video of Nancy Pelosi making monkey faces?
 
2013-03-27 07:29:27 PM
I find it funny that some have commented to tax commercial trucks more but not their precious car. They already pay more. Here's a fun fact-everything you own has likely been in a truck. So taxing trucks more than they already do get taxed will just raise the price of everything you buy.
 
2013-03-27 07:29:35 PM
The gas tax is a massive subsidy to suburbanites and rural folk as it stands now.  City drivers pay the same tax in per gallon as everyone, but per capita get far fewer miles of highways than exurbs/suburubs/rural-folk.  Tax per mile is the only way to make sure those who do the using are the ones doing the paying.
 
2013-03-27 07:29:57 PM

Maul555: Except we don't need the cigarette tax to function... we need that infrastructure money regardless of vehicle types on the road.


Exactly.  We don't aggressively tax cigarettes to raise revenue.  We aggressively tax cigarettes to discourage their use.  What I am saying is that GAS TAX SHOULD BE LIKE THAT TOO.  We should not tax gas to raise money for roads.  That money should be raised by a mileage tax that all cars INCLUDING ELECTRICS pay equally.  Gas should be taxed to discourage it's use.  That way we can reduce its use without worrying about not being able to pay for infrastructure.

Imagine if we used cigarette tax money to pay for sewage treatment.  Every time we tried to have a public health push to decrease the number of smokers, we would have to worry about untreated sewage.  That would be a terrible idea.

Your problem is that you don't think that the usage of gasoline should be discouraged.  But that's a fringe view that our society as a whole does not agree with.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 07:31:57 PM
OgreMagi

Fine, let every owner who currently hacks firmware also hack the reported miles. Let every passenger car older than the OBD rules get away without reporting mileage. Let every electric car escape the gas tax. In all three cases the number of vehicles is too trivial to matter. We only care because of a perception of unfairness.
 
2013-03-27 07:32:26 PM

5monkeys: cgraves67: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

I was just thinking that. If we had a mileage tax, I'd pay the same in my 4x4 as the guy in the Prius who drives the same distance. With the gas tax, I buy more gas and pay more taxes for the same miles driven. The mileage tax would be far less painful for me than the Prius driver.

I think that is the point. They are losing gas tax money from the people with the fuel efficient cars that they pushed. Now they want that money that they are losing.


That's it in a nutshell.  It's the only sane way to do it-- using a gas tax to pay for roads is a kludge.  It kinda-sorta worked for a while, but cars got much more efficient.  But not all cars, so you can't just raise the bar for the Prius without tripling the tax on the PT Cruisers.  Gas consumption is no longer a good proxy for road wear.

It makes sense to have a road-use tax to pay for roads.
 
2013-03-27 07:52:54 PM
If someone can show me a cost-effective, practical, and non-big-brothery way to do this, I'm all for it.

Also, while we're at it, can we stop spending all the Highway Trust Fund money on things other than highways?
 
2013-03-27 08:00:30 PM

Hollie Maea: No we don't. I am a member of an Electric Vehicle association. Our position, which we have relayed to politicians, is that ALL vehicles should pay a road usage tax that is used for road construction and maintenance, regardless of efficiency or drive train. What we do NOT support is an additional tax that only targets high efficiency vehicles. That would be like taxing me for not smoking, just because I don't pay the taxes on cigarettes that smokers do. If we need more money (we do) then tax everyone. We also believe that there should ALSO be taxes on gasoline, to internalize the pollution externality and to incentivize fuel efficient vehicles. This money should not be used for road construction and maintenance. The usage fee, which we believe that we should also pay, would be for that. This would end the conflict between fuel efficiency, which society needs, and road maintenance, which society also needs.


What should it be used for, because if it's not earmarked and goes into a fund politicians can play around with, you're going to see it get ridiculous real quick.
 
2013-03-27 08:22:31 PM

trappedspirit: "But then you get the black helicopter people saying if you put something in my car, you'd know I was at my girlfriend's house last night."

Concerned about personal privacy?  You must be a paranoid tin foil head.  What do you have to hide?


People hate Congress, and, clearly, Congress hates them right back.
 
2013-03-27 08:30:11 PM

ProfessorOhki: What should it be used for, because if it's not earmarked and goes into a fund politicians can play around with, you're going to see it get ridiculous real quick.


It should ONLY be used for developing technologies that decrease gasoline usage, and the construction (but not operations) of public transit systems.  That way, when gasoline usage declines, and the revenue dries up, it's "reason for existence" will also be gone and no one will be screwed.

If it is used to fund anything that we need permanently, then that will be in opposition to our goal of reducing gasoline usage.

Just like cigarette tax.  The money should ONLY be used to fund anti smoking initiatives, so that if people stop smoking the money won't be needed any more anyway.

I know this is idealistic, but if we were to do it right, that would be the way.
 
2013-03-27 08:31:47 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555:

The problem is that politicians keep raiding funds

No, the problem is that gasoline usage per mile has dropped significantly, due to commendable efforts by the government.  While increased fuel efficiency does solve a lot of problems, it does not build or maintain roads.


No, fuel economy has not changed significantly since the early 90s. Most fuel economy improvements have been offset with additional weight from safety mandates. 

Politicians are always raiding/re-purposing road monies. Often it's things that are vaguely road like such as bicycle paths that go around in circles in forest preserves. Sometimes they use it to fund police state activities such as checkpoints. The list goes on and on.

Our position, which we have relayed to politicians, is that ALL vehicles should pay a road usage tax that is used for road construction and maintenance, regardless of efficiency or drive train.

If you are talking wear and tear on roads passenger cars are essentially zero. Passenger vehicles are taxed to subsidize trucking. It's heavy trucks that do the wear and damage. Why? Because roads are designed for certain life with the design load. The design load is a heavy truck, a passenger car is a small fraction of the weight and thus the stress, the fatigue goes down dramatically. It's exponential, not linear in relationship.

We also believe that there should ALSO be taxes on gasoline, to internalize the pollution externality and to incentivize fuel efficient vehicles. 

Given current regulations, the pollution to power your electric vehicle is probably greater. It's simply been externalized from the vehicle.

This money should not be used for road construction and maintenance.  The usage fee, which we believe that we should also pay, would be for that.  This would end the conflict between fuel efficiency, which society needs, and road maintenance, which society also needs.

Road maintenance is not at odds with fuel economy. The relationship between weight and fuel economy always exists. The values may change but that only means adjusting the fuel tax appropriately. The alternative is granting government vast new power of surveillance which it can then capitalize on to gain control over our travels.  The whole idea that fuel efficiency is hurting revenues is a lie anyway. Fuel efficiency, real fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet in use, is maybe 10% better than it was in 1993. Cars are now designed to do  well on the EPA and CAFE tests, but in the real world the fuel economy gains have been consumed by safety requirements.

The fuel tax however is cents per gallon. The dollar doesn't buy what it used to. Gasoline is almost three times what was in 1993. There's the real problem. The constant devaluation of the dollar's purchasing power.
 
2013-03-27 08:37:24 PM
The_Original_Roxtar:

you're punishing truckers more than anything else. increased shipping costs means everything is going to cost more, people will spend less, and the economy starts sucking even more. Looks like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through.

That could work in the long run.  if the true and full costs of surface shipping were passed along to the consumer, perhaps we'd see more interest in locally grown/produced stuff.  That, and there might be some innovation in shipping methods.
 
2013-03-27 08:43:47 PM

BMFPitt: If someone can show me a cost-effective, practical, and non-big-brothery way to do this, I'm all for it.


Here is how I would do it. I would use a GPS based device that would keep track of how far and in what "zones" it was driven (to account for things like driving in a different state, or to allow for congestion taxing). But the device would not actually hold on to the information of where it was driven--for instance if you drove a mile in a zone that cost 5 cents per mile, that would just accrue 5 cents to the running total.  So the device, and big brother, can't keep track where you are driving.  At the same time, the device would transmit to a central server where it was driving.  But...it would not transmit the vehicle ID.  So the central server would know that some car was driving in such and such a place at such and such a time, but it would not know what car it was.  This would help with things like traffic engineering, but again, big brother wouldn't know where you personally were driving.  When you re registered your car, you would pay whatever was accrued on the device.  Or you could set up for monthly autopay so that you didn't get hit by a big lump sum once a year.

Objections:

1. "Hey, that's still big brother.  The government might say they won't watch, but they still will."

At some point, most people do trust the government somewhat.  I personally don't think that the government gives a shiat where I am driving.  And if they do want to snoop on me behind my back, there are way easier ways to do that, like by tapping cell phones.  But nevertheless, I would add the option for people to forgo the device and pay a yearly lump sum.  The flat fee would be high enough that you couldn't "get off easy".  The higher flat fee could be justified by the fact that you would not be contributing data for traffic engineering, etc.

2. "People will cheat"

People cheat at everything.  Every law we have has some cheaters.  But most people wouldn't cheat.  It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.  And people who set up services to hack other people's systems would be relatively easy to catch.  If you put a penalty for cheating, just like there is a penalty for any tax fraud, most people would not take the risk just to save themselves a little bit of usage tax.  I would wager that the money lost from all the cheaters combined would be less than some single individuals currently defraud the IRS.

3. "That device sounds expensive"

I don't think so.  The components are cheap these days.  GPS chips don't cost much.  And since the device would go into nearly every car, economies of scale would keep the cost down.


Anyway, that is how I would do it.

Also, while we're at it, can we stop spending all the Highway Trust Fund money on things other than highways?


Yes, please.
 
2013-03-27 08:47:35 PM

leadmetal: Given current regulations, the pollution to power your electric vehicle is probably greater. It's simply been externalized from the vehicle.


This has been widely shown to be completely untrue.
 
2013-03-27 08:48:58 PM

leadmetal: Road maintenance is not at odds with fuel economy.


Then why all the whining about how high efficiency vehicles aren't paying their fair share of the road maintenance costs?  That is what this entire farking thread is about.
 
2013-03-27 08:51:28 PM

leadmetal: No, fuel economy has not changed significantly since the early 90s.


While it is true that fuel economy was stagnant for about 15 years, since 2005 average has been rapidly increasing.  That just happens to correspond to when people started fretting about high mileage vehicles and EVs not "paying their fair share".  Everyone expects this trend to accelerate over the coming decade or two, which is why we are having this conversation now.
 
2013-03-27 08:53:12 PM

Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.


hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".
 
2013-03-27 08:57:36 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".


If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months.  Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".
 
2013-03-27 09:04:57 PM

dready zim: MyRandomName: Land Ark: As the owner of 3 cars that get a total average MPG of 40, and who drives about 5,500 miles a year, I think this is a load of crap and unfair to those who buy fuel eficient cars on purpose.

We live in a society. Why do you choose to avoid paying your fair share. You own 3 cars showing you can pay a fair share.

It`s a fair share decided on usage, not income. You want to tax car ownership? do it at the point of sale. The fair share of road tax, to fix roads and deal with motoring related costs, should be shouldered by the ones causing the damage as a check and balance on them farking things up too much. There should be incentives to get a less damaging vehicle. Mind you, three cars adding up to 40mpg doesn`t sound good. Is one 12mpg, another 13mpg and the last 15mpg?


I have a Subaru daily driver that is currently getting about 18mpg, a newer muscle car that gets about 16, and a full size car from 1967 that I hesitate to guess. But, 40 doesn't seem unreasonable when I watch the gas gauge.

My main issue is that because of the short sightedness of the legislatures we are changing the rules in the middle of the game. People followed the rules and many are honestly trying to do the right thing but because so many are, now we have to take away the added incentive.
It's like when housing prices fell and municipalities started raising property tax rates to make the amount collected the same as before. It's not something we citizens can get away with.
 
2013-03-27 09:07:49 PM

Hollie Maea: The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".

If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months.  Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".


"see, i put this metal cage around it to protect it... didn't want to damage it you know?" (faraday cage)
"don't know officer, must have fallen off when I ran over some garbage in the roadway"
"that switch? that's for some auxiliary lights that I removed a couple weeks back"
or are you suggesting that the police trace every wire in every car they pull over? have you any clue how many wires are in a car?
 
2013-03-27 09:10:27 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Donnchadha: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You're interpretive brain cells aren't working too well, are they?

Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.

DEF: Troll: Someone who says something you disagree with. PURPOSE: Much easier than coming up with, you know, a rational counterargument.


I shouldn't respond to you. You're a farking troll, and I know it - and you know it. But you're an idiot too.

I said "If they do X, I'm for it".

You "corrected" it for me to say "If they do X Y, I'm for it"

I respond saying, "No, I wouldn't support Y. I'd support X." There's nothing in there about the likelihood of X or Y or if the politicians would say "This is totally for X!" while writing a bill to make it about Y instead.

You respond by trying to insult me, then claim I need to make a rational counter argument? A counter argument to what exactly? You haven't made a rational argument in the first place about ANYTHING that I could possibly respond to.

The rest of us are now dumber for being the same thread as you. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Good day.
 
2013-03-27 09:16:33 PM

bdub77: Eventually the gas tax prices gas out of the market and EVs take over.


This is the kind of forced bullshiat that enrages people like me.
 
2013-03-27 09:16:44 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".

If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months.  Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".

"see, i put this metal cage around it to protect it... didn't want to damage it you know?" (faraday cage)
"don't know officer, must have fallen off when I ran over some garbage in the roadway"
"that switch? that's for some auxiliary lights that I removed a couple weeks back"
or are you suggesting that the police trace every wire in every car they pull over? have you any clue how many wires are in a car?


Christ, this shiat isn't that hard.  I ride the MAX light rail system here in Portland a lot.  People who get busted without a ticket give all kinds of bullshiat excuses.  Those excuses don't farking work.  Also, I don't know why everyone assumes this thing would be on the bottom of your car.  It would be in the engine compartment along with all the other shiat that doesn't fall onto the road when you run over garbage.

The switch one is the easiest one.  Simply have the device keep track of when it has power.  There is no reason why it couldn't always have standby power, drawing a milliamp or two along with things like the security system.  So it would know if you ever switched it off.

Again, there would be some people who would find a way to get around that, and there would be a few really stupid people who would be willing to risk a severe penalty to cheat the system.  There would even be a handful of people who were successful at getting away with it.  But it would be a minuscule amount, not nearly enough to break the system as a whole.  It certainly would not be the easiest way to commit tax fraud, for those who want to give that a try.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 09:17:57 PM
Elaborate schemes to save $50-$500 per year tax are not cost-effective and they only work if they are unpopular. When they become popular, countermeasures will be deployed. The state will verify the checksum in your engine control computer. They will use tamper-evident devices to secure the GPS to old cars. Or they will ban old cars; CARB would love that option. If the device doesn't have signal for a while it deactivates the car. (Getting signal occasionally is your problem.) The device could have a transponder. Passing cop car automatically scans the plate and pings your transponder. In-state plate, no transponder, he pulls you over, arrests you, and seizes your illegal car. (Maybe you get it back for a first offense.) In-state plate, transponder complains "no GPS signal", he pulls you over, writes you a ticket for improper equipment, and checks the mileage the old-fashioned way.
 
2013-03-27 09:18:06 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: Letting you know what will happen if we don't tax electrics is a strawman?

You are an idiot.  I stated three times in my last post, and numerous times before, that I think electrics should be taxed.  I'm sorry that you lack reading comprehension.


You think they should be taxed by adding a tax to EVERYTHING...  So your precious EV's get a small tax, and everyone else gets taxed out the ass...  Sound about right?
 
2013-03-27 09:18:23 PM

Maul555: bdub77: Eventually the gas tax prices gas out of the market and EVs take over.

This is the kind of forced bullshiat that enrages people like me.


No one cares.  You probably spend most of your time being enraged anyway.

The rest of us are not willing to decline moving forward with history just because you are enraged.
 
2013-03-27 09:19:18 PM

Maul555: You think they should be taxed by adding a tax to EVERYTHING...  So your precious EV's get a small tax, and everyone else gets taxed out the ass...  Sound about right?


Actually, I just don't think that polluting should be free.
 
2013-03-27 09:20:02 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: Except we don't need the cigarette tax to function... we need that infrastructure money regardless of vehicle types on the road.

Exactly.  We don't aggressively tax cigarettes to raise revenue.  We aggressively tax cigarettes to discourage their use.  What I am saying is that GAS TAX SHOULD BE LIKE THAT TOO.  We should not tax gas to raise money for roads.  That money should be raised by a mileage tax that all cars INCLUDING ELECTRICS pay equally.  Gas should be taxed to discourage it's use.  That way we can reduce its use without worrying about not being able to pay for infrastructure.

Imagine if we used cigarette tax money to pay for sewage treatment.  Every time we tried to have a public health push to decrease the number of smokers, we would have to worry about untreated sewage.  That would be a terrible idea.

Your problem is that you don't think that the usage of gasoline should be discouraged.  But that's a fringe view that our society as a whole does not agree with.


Well then all I have to say is fark you and go fark yourself.   I dont appreciate being a social engineering project for environmental zealots.
 
2013-03-27 09:24:10 PM

Hollie Maea: The switch one is the easiest one. Simply have the device keep track of when it has power. There is no reason why it couldn't always have standby power, drawing a milliamp or two along with things like the security system. So it would know if you ever switched it off.


you've never worked on a car have you?

disconnecting the battery is often step 1 in any repair.
batteries go dead all the time. I have a car that's been sitting without a battery in it for 2+ years. it also hasn't moved, but that's not the point here.
the point here is that people don't want to have their movements tracked by an obviously corrupt government. Were the powers that be to attempt to install a tracking device on any of my vehicles, I'd disable it in short order.
 
2013-03-27 09:30:53 PM

Hollie Maea: The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".

If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months.  Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".


You have a whole lot of bad ideas I see...  Please don't drop our government any "helpful" suggestions
 
2013-03-27 09:31:20 PM

Hollie Maea: ProfessorOhki: What should it be used for, because if it's not earmarked and goes into a fund politicians can play around with, you're going to see it get ridiculous real quick.

It should ONLY be used for developing technologies that decrease gasoline usage, and the construction (but not operations) of public transit systems.  That way, when gasoline usage declines, and the revenue dries up, it's "reason for existence" will also be gone and no one will be screwed.

If it is used to fund anything that we need permanently, then that will be in opposition to our goal of reducing gasoline usage.

Just like cigarette tax.  The money should ONLY be used to fund anti smoking initiatives, so that if people stop smoking the money won't be needed any more anyway.

I know this is idealistic, but if we were to do it right, that would be the way.


Gasp, a self-regulating negative feedback loop instead of a run-away positive feedback loop? Sheer madness.

/If no one smokes, how will we afford our anti-smoking campaigns?!
//Quick, tax something else!
 
2013-03-27 09:34:18 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: bdub77: Eventually the gas tax prices gas out of the market and EVs take over.

This is the kind of forced bullshiat that enrages people like me.

No one cares.  You probably spend most of your time being enraged anyway.

The rest of us are not willing to decline moving forward with history just because you are enraged.


Not everyone agrees with your idea of moving forward.
 
2013-03-27 09:34:26 PM

Maul555: I dont appreciate being a social engineering project for environmental zealots.


And I don't appreciate being a player in an experimental project to see if people who don't believe in science are right about the world.

If you want to drive 60,000 miles a year in a Ford F-450, I'm not interested in stopping you.  But the shiat that comes out of your tailpipe shouldn't be free just because you don't believe in science.
 
2013-03-27 09:42:39 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: I dont appreciate being a social engineering project for environmental zealots.

And I don't appreciate being a player in an experimental project to see if people who don't believe in science are right about the world.

If you want to drive 60,000 miles a year in a Ford F-450, I'm not interested in stopping you.  But the shiat that comes out of your tailpipe shouldn't be free just because you don't believe in science.


How can you pull all that bullshiat about me out of your ass and claim not to be a troll?
 
2013-03-27 09:45:19 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: you've never worked on a car have you?


I am currently working on building my own electric vehicle.  I would be more able than most people to cheat the device.

disconnecting the battery is often step 1 in any repair.
batteries go dead all the time. I have a car that's been sitting without a battery in it for 2+ years. it also hasn't moved, but that's not the point here.


These days, most devices have backup power supplies that can keep a device active in trickle standby mode for long periods of time.  Speaking of which, for new cars, these devices would be integrated into the vehicle systems, and could be cross checked against the odometer.  Modern digital odometers are not quite as easy to disable as the old ones.  So that lessens the pool of people who can cheat the system with a low tech solution to people with old cars.  Much smaller pool, and getting smaller all the time.  At some point, your potential cheater is a collectible car enthusiast who isn't afraid to commit tax fraud.  Again, some people would successfully cheat.  But the numbers would be low enough for the system to work.

the point here is that people don't want to have their movements tracked by an obviously corrupt government. Were the powers that be to attempt to install a tracking device on any of my vehicles, I'd disable it in short order.

If you think that the government cares where you go to buy your groceries, you would be free to go with the flat fee option.  There are enough paranoid people in this country that the system would have to have an alternative method, and no one would be forcing you to have a tracking device on your car.  If this is just about trying to figure out how to not pay your share of road maintenance, that's a different story.  Unfortunately, the "obviously corrupt government" will probably find another way to track you, if they care to do so.

What is the alternative?  If this system won't work because of cheaters, then it won't work on anyone, including electric vehicle owners.  What would stop EV owners from cheating?  A lot of EV owners, even ones with Leafs and whatnot, started out doing their own conversions.  They know more about electronics and electrical systems than the average person.  If anyone could cheat this thing, it would be me and my friends.  So that means that we are back to relying only on the gas tax, and going online to biatch about how EV owners "don't want to pay their fair share".
 
2013-03-27 09:46:19 PM

Maul555: Hollie Maea: The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".

If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months. Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".

You have a whole lot of bad ideas I see... Please don't drop our government any "helpful" suggestions


Hmm, how about this:
1) Give each car a unique (asym/sym, up to you) cryptographic key
2) Give the car a button which will display on a screen, signed with that key, the odometer reading, VIN, and a datetime stamp
3) That output must be included when registering your car

DMV has the other key to decrypt that. They know the mileage at a given point in time, and they can authenticate the car it came from. There was no tracking, there was no radio, there was no infrastructure.

Driving out of the country? Give border patrol the number on the way out and on the way back. Get a receipt verified by them, include with registration, don't pay taxes for those mileages.

Immediate problems I see? Interstate travel, they have a special reg for that already, don't they? Either way, the majority of wheels are intrastate. Driving on private property? Eh, create some sort of special use class like they do now for recreational use. Tampering with the actual odometer hardware? - already illegal. Swapping the unit in and out? I guess, but I doubt that many people will put the effort in, besides there's all sorts of fun tamper-flagging you can do.
 
2013-03-27 09:46:44 PM

Maul555: Hollie Maea: Maul555: I dont appreciate being a social engineering project for environmental zealots.

And I don't appreciate being a player in an experimental project to see if people who don't believe in science are right about the world.

If you want to drive 60,000 miles a year in a Ford F-450, I'm not interested in stopping you.  But the shiat that comes out of your tailpipe shouldn't be free just because you don't believe in science.

How can you pull all that bullshiat about me out of your ass and claim not to be a troll?


You are angry about paying gas taxes, and you have said repeatedly that it is stupid to try to discourage gasoline usage.  It's not much of a stretch.
 
2013-03-27 09:47:40 PM
Hollie Maea, you are elitist, arrogant, and dismissive.   You obviously have no regard for the freedoms of others, and are willing to enforce all kinds of bullshiat to get your way.  The ends justify the means to you...  GO FARK YOURSELF!

/ignored
 
2013-03-27 09:49:13 PM

ProfessorOhki: Hmm, how about this:
1) Give each car a unique (asym/sym, up to you) cryptographic key
2) Give the car a button which will display on a screen, signed with that key, the odometer reading, VIN, and a datetime stamp
3) That output must be included when registering your car

DMV has the other key to decrypt that. They know the mileage at a given point in time, and they can authenticate the car it came from. There was no tracking, there was no radio, there was no infrastructure.

Driving out of the country? Give border patrol the number on the way out and on the way back. Get a receipt verified by them, include with registration, don't pay taxes for those mileages.

Immediate problems I see? Interstate travel, they have a special reg for that already, don't they? Either way, the majority of wheels are intrastate. Driving on private property? Eh, create some sort of special use class like they do now for recreational use. Tampering with the actual odometer hardware? - already illegal. Swapping the unit in and out? I guess, but I doubt that many people will put the effort in, besides there's all sorts of fun tamper-flagging you can do.


Not a bad idea.  But again you would have to make sure that there is a flat fee option for people who don't trust the gubmint.
 
2013-03-27 09:52:58 PM
Aw shiat...I got ignored again due to another climate change / Electric Vehicles argument.  I didn't think my arguments were that unreasonable but I obviously hit a nerve.

/Seriously not trying to troll, but I consider this shiat to be important.  Also not "anti freedom" but I just don't think that "freedom to pollute for free" is a legitimate freedom.
 
2013-03-27 09:56:16 PM
If the government needs the money, they need to raise taxes. Tough titty if they 'don't want to'. We need to punish fossil fuel consumption. It's destroying a LOT of stuff.

/another republitard snow job.
 
2013-03-27 09:56:47 PM

Hollie Maea: ProfessorOhki: Hmm, how about this:
1) Give each car a unique (asym/sym, up to you) cryptographic key
2) Give the car a button which will display on a screen, signed with that key, the odometer reading, VIN, and a datetime stamp
3) That output must be included when registering your car

DMV has the other key to decrypt that. They know the mileage at a given point in time, and they can authenticate the car it came from. There was no tracking, there was no radio, there was no infrastructure.

Driving out of the country? Give border patrol the number on the way out and on the way back. Get a receipt verified by them, include with registration, don't pay taxes for those mileages.

Immediate problems I see? Interstate travel, they have a special reg for that already, don't they? Either way, the majority of wheels are intrastate. Driving on private property? Eh, create some sort of special use class like they do now for recreational use. Tampering with the actual odometer hardware? - already illegal. Swapping the unit in and out? I guess, but I doubt that many people will put the effort in, besides there's all sorts of fun tamper-flagging you can do.

Not a bad idea.  But again you would have to make sure that there is a flat fee option for people who don't trust the gubmint.


No, you really don't. Just like there's no option to pay a flat fee instead of tax based on income. See, the thing is, if people are paranoid, no matter how much you give in to them, they're still going to be paranoid. So, if you bother with them, you end up with a hideously complicated system that they still are up in arms about.
 
2013-03-27 10:23:42 PM
I blame the Prius drivers.

For everything.
 
2013-03-27 10:24:28 PM

Intoxoman: I find it funny that some have commented to tax commercial trucks more but not their precious car. They already pay more. Here's a fun fact-everything you own has likely been in a truck. So taxing trucks more than they already do get taxed will just raise the price of everything you buy.


That's true but here's another fun fact, trucks pay more because they are the cause of the damage to the highways, you think your average car weighing 2000-2500 lbs causes any measurable amount of wear and tear to a road compared to an 80,000 lb semi-truck? I have no problem with them paying more, even if it only raises the price of the goods they deliver.
 
2013-03-27 10:26:04 PM

leadmetal: This is a power grab looking for an excuse.

Simply put there folks in government that would like to better know where we go and when. Some may even want automated speed enforcement everywhere. Eventually perhaps even leading to needing permission to travel. Once the transponders or number plate readers are in place the possibilities are endless for ways to exploit the technology and infrastructure.

thenewspaper.com already caught government in a lie regarding the revenue reasons for going to this tax by mile model. Their revenues suffered because new heavy truck sales cratered, not because of hybrids.

The gasoline tax is anonymous. It scales with use and vehicle weight pretty well. Your '71 pinto with a 428SCJ stuffed in it or equally a '72 Vega with a 454, not withstanding of course. Then there is the cost of collecting the tax. The infrastructure required for tax by the mile is at present still rather expensive compared to fuel taxes. Meanwhile real fleet fuel economy hasn't changed significantly since the early 1990s. However the value of the dollar has gone down a good deal.

So, the solution, if there was a problem,* would be to increase the tax gas or fix the dollar. Maybe find a way to tax plug in electrics. However, government can 'never waste a crisis', or in this case an opportunity to grab a power that can then be exploited for decades to come.

*considering other areas of government always see road funds as something to re-purpose or raid makes it one of the better funded areas and thus if the diversions were stopped perhaps would have any financial issues greatly reduced if not eliminated.


You crystallized my thoughts precisely.  There is no way that this plan is to benefit motorists or the general population.
/the right people just haven't had a chance to be in charge yet...amiright?  Huh? Huh?
 
2013-03-27 10:27:04 PM
It's okay ... my big V8 burns every drop of gas your Prius doesn't ... :-D

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

badges.fuelly.com
 
2013-03-27 10:39:58 PM

Hollie Maea: Aw shiat...I got ignored again due to another climate change / Electric Vehicles argument.  I didn't think my arguments were that unreasonable but I obviously hit a nerve.

/Seriously not trying to troll, but I consider this shiat to be important.  Also not "anti freedom" but I just don't think that "freedom to pollute for free" is a legitimate freedom.


What is unreasonable is your "fine them and jail them" attitude towards anyone who balks at another beurocratic nightmare invading what privacy we have left.  You come across as a jack-booted environmental thug.

Although you mentioned riding public transport in Portland, so I guess that goes with the territory.
 
2013-03-27 11:02:22 PM
We could slightly lower the subsidies we give Big Oil.  Beside providing an admitedly small cut in the defict it would also result in a slight increase in consumer prices.  I don't know about other states but our state has a sales tax built in to gas prices (yes, we pay tax on our tax) so that would be more money for the state.
 
2013-03-27 11:03:35 PM

Skyd1v: Hollie Maea: Aw shiat...I got ignored again due to another climate change / Electric Vehicles argument.  I didn't think my arguments were that unreasonable but I obviously hit a nerve.

/Seriously not trying to troll, but I consider this shiat to be important.  Also not "anti freedom" but I just don't think that "freedom to pollute for free" is a legitimate freedom.

What is unreasonable is your "fine them and jail them" attitude towards anyone who balks at another beurocratic nightmare invading what privacy we have left.  You come across as a jack-booted environmental thug.

Although you mentioned riding public transport in Portland, so I guess that goes with the territory.


We fine and jail other people who get caught doing tax fraud. There is nothing extreme about that.
 
2013-03-27 11:05:06 PM

ProfessorOhki: People_are_Idiots: JackieRabbit: As electric and hybrid cars steadily take over, the revenues generated by gas taxes will decline. So we have to start thinking about alternatives. I don't think taxing the number of miles driven is the best answer. It may be better for the federal government to levy a transportation payroll tax and use the money to improve public transportation. They could apportion some of the revenue to the states so that state gas taxes could also be eliminated. But they'd have to earmark the funds for infrastructure and public transportation use, lest the states divert the funds to other uses. A payroll tax would take the sting out for citizens, since a smaller sum would be paid each pay period instead of in a lump sum. It would also allow for those who do not drive automobiles to share in the nation's transportation system rather than just pay a train or bus fare that doesn't come near meeting maintenance and development costs.

Problem with that. Hybrids and electrics are no longer "en vogue," due to the reality hitting the people in the face. What reality? They aren't effective alternatives to the standard gas engine, and in some cases more expensive, more polluting (depending who provides the electricity to your car), and a bit more dangerous. Heck, despite the number of hybrid models doubling, hybrid sales have dropped from 2.8% in 2008 to 2.4% in 2012. Matter of fact, in 2012, only 35% of those who bought into the hybrids look at hybrids again for a new vehicle.

If the gas tax goes away and the mile tax hits, even more people will be discouraged to switch, while I'll be busy driving my pickup around.

/still wants my air-powered car.

The hybrids did what they needed to do though, which was kick the industry in the ass a bit. If it wasn't for Prius and co. making fuel efficiency trendy, we wouldn't be seeing all these small 4 cylinder turbos. We'd still be doing, "put a V12 in that commuter car, AMERICA!"


Mhmm... I have a 6-banger, tyvm. As a truck, it gets 27-29 miles per gallon. Wanna know what happened to it? Ford discontinued it so it can roll out more F-150s (which sucks on the gas pump). More of what I see are Hummers and high-end SUVs, with maybe an occasional overblown golf cart. Any Civic I see here are at least 10 years older... And the reason we're getting better mileage is not from hybrids, it is from the regulations taking effect that the government put in place a while ago, bumping MPG up.
 
2013-03-27 11:05:54 PM
Also, the tax that people would be fined and jailed for cheating has nothing to do with environmentalism. It is the usage tax that would be used for road maintenance. The environmentalism tax would be the gas tax, which, obviously, would not be possible to cheat.

Please do try to keep up.
 
2013-03-27 11:06:06 PM

seadoo2006: It's okay ... my big V8 burns every drop of gas your Prius doesn't ... :-D


Aww, cute.  Your mom let you borrow her car.  [Insert "Your mom let me..." joke here.]
 
2013-03-27 11:18:34 PM

No Line For Beer: seadoo2006: It's okay ... my big V8 burns every drop of gas your Prius doesn't ... :-D

Aww, cute.  Your mom let you borrow her car.  [Insert "Your mom let me..." joke here.]


Yes, my mom ... meh ... nice try. Yawn ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZvnN0I7ZTw
 
2013-03-27 11:21:20 PM

Hollie Maea: Also, the tax that people would be fined and jailed for cheating has nothing to do with environmentalism. It is the usage tax that would be used for road maintenance. The environmentalism tax would be the gas tax, which, obviously, would not be possible to cheat.

Please do try to keep up.


Keep up?  With the likes of you?  I think not.  I have read your posts filled with condescending remarks combined with a strident call to regulate everything you don't "like".  To include creating new and inventive ways of punishing or imprisoning those who don't toe your line.  I don't much care to keep up with anyone on that path.

You do show up in "Troll Green #2" now, so you have that going for you, which is nice.
 
2013-03-27 11:23:47 PM

Skyd1v: Hollie Maea: Also, the tax that people would be fined and jailed for cheating has nothing to do with environmentalism. It is the usage tax that would be used for road maintenance. The environmentalism tax would be the gas tax, which, obviously, would not be possible to cheat.

Please do try to keep up.

Keep up?  With the likes of you?  I think not.  I have read your posts filled with condescending remarks combined with a strident call to regulate everything you don't "like".  To include creating new and inventive ways of punishing or imprisoning those who don't toe your line.  I don't much care to keep up with anyone on that path.

You do show up in "Troll Green #2" now, so you have that going for you, which is nice.


heh...
 
2013-03-27 11:39:14 PM

Skyd1v: Hollie Maea: Also, the tax that people would be fined and jailed for cheating has nothing to do with environmentalism. It is the usage tax that would be used for road maintenance. The environmentalism tax would be the gas tax, which, obviously, would not be possible to cheat.

Please do try to keep up.

Keep up?  With the likes of you?  I think not.  I have read your posts filled with condescending remarks combined with a strident call to regulate everything you don't "like".  To include creating new and inventive ways of punishing or imprisoning those who don't toe your line.  I don't much care to keep up with anyone on that path.

You do show up in "Troll Green #2" now, so you have that going for you, which is nice.


Oh well.  Looks like we are stuck with using gas tax to pay for infrastructure, which means that you get to subsidize my electric car.  At least it will give you something to whine about.
 
2013-03-28 12:17:59 AM

Donnchadha: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Donnchadha: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You're interpretive brain cells aren't working too well, are they?

Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.

DEF: Troll: Someone who says something you disagree with. PURPOSE: Much easier than coming up with, you know, a rational counterargument.

I shouldn't respond to you. You're a farking troll, and I know it - and you know it. But you're an idiot too.

I said "If they do X, I'm for it".

You "corrected" it for me to say "If they do X Y, I'm for it"

I respond saying, "No, I wouldn't support Y. I'd support X." There's nothing in there about the likelihood of X or Y or if the politicians would say "This is totally for X!" while writing a bill to make it about Y instead.

You respond by trying to insult me, then claim I need to make a rational counter argument? A counter argument to what exactly? You haven't made a rational argument in the first place about ANYTHING that I could possibly respond to.

The rest of us are now dumber for being the same thread as you. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Good day.


Sigh. My original point may have been too nuanced for you. The point being that - regardless of the issue or item, the government generally spends money on things like pensions and shiny toys that go boom. The last time anyone actually spend a bundle on major Infrastructure was under Eisenhower (Interstate Highway System). Prior to that it was Roosevelt as make-work for the WPA.

But please, continue with the name calling. THAT makes this thread dumber.
 
2013-03-28 12:28:16 AM

Hollie Maea: Skyd1v: Hollie Maea: Also, the tax that people would be fined and jailed for cheating has nothing to do with environmentalism. It is the usage tax that would be used for road maintenance. The environmentalism tax would be the gas tax, which, obviously, would not be possible to cheat.

Please do try to keep up.

Keep up?  With the likes of you?  I think not.  I have read your posts filled with condescending remarks combined with a strident call to regulate everything you don't "like".  To include creating new and inventive ways of punishing or imprisoning those who don't toe your line.  I don't much care to keep up with anyone on that path.

You do show up in "Troll Green #2" now, so you have that going for you, which is nice.

Oh well.  Looks like we are stuck with using gas tax to pay for infrastructure, which means that you get to subsidize my electric car.  At least it will give you something to whine about.


And why, exactly, would I do that?  My comments were regarding your willingness to over-complicate the situation and make criminals out of anyone who objects.  I think we have more than enough of THAT already, thankyaverramuch.

I hope that EV brings you lots of joy and opportunity to spread plenty of smug.  I'd get one myself if they made one that could haul a boat, 2 4-wheelers, and a couple of dead caribou 400 miles in 0 degree temps.
 
2013-03-28 12:37:48 AM

People_are_Idiots: The hybrids did what they needed to do though, which was kick the industry in the ass a bit. If it wasn't for Prius and co. making fuel efficiency trendy, we wouldn't be seeing all these small 4 cylinder turbos. We'd still be doing, "put a V12 in that commuter car, AMERICA!"

Mhmm... I have a 6-banger, tyvm. As a truck, it gets 27-29 miles per gallon. Wanna know what happened to it? Ford discontinued it so it can roll out more F-150s (which sucks on the gas pump). More of what I see are Hummers and high-end SUVs, with maybe an occasional overblown golf cart. Any Civic I see here are at least 10 years older... And the reason we're getting better mileage is not from hybrids, it is from the regulations taking effect that the government put in place a while ago, bumping MPG up.


The story I always heard is they intentionally got away from the small-truck type class and went to full truck chassis pickups/SUVs specifically because that class's use as work/fleet vehicles made them practically off-limits for efficiency regulation; the regulation is what caused the stuff like your truck to disappear. As far as hybrids, I'm just saying they brought the entire issue of fuel efficiency into the spotlight in a trendy way. There were fuel-efficient vehicles long before, of course. The novelty of the Prius was just the iPod of efficient vehicles. "OMG, Honda invented a car that gets more than 30 mpg, this is ground-breaking, GET ME A REPORTER OUT THERE!"
 
2013-03-28 12:39:46 AM

Skyd1v: Hollie Maea: Skyd1v: Hollie Maea: Also, the tax that people would be fined and jailed for cheating has nothing to do with environmentalism. It is the usage tax that would be used for road maintenance. The environmentalism tax would be the gas tax, which, obviously, would not be possible to cheat.

Please do try to keep up.

Keep up?  With the likes of you?  I think not.  I have read your posts filled with condescending remarks combined with a strident call to regulate everything you don't "like".  To include creating new and inventive ways of punishing or imprisoning those who don't toe your line.  I don't much care to keep up with anyone on that path.

You do show up in "Troll Green #2" now, so you have that going for you, which is nice.

Oh well.  Looks like we are stuck with using gas tax to pay for infrastructure, which means that you get to subsidize my electric car.  At least it will give you something to whine about.

And why, exactly, would I do that?  My comments were regarding your willingness to over-complicate the situation and make criminals out of anyone who objects.  I think we have more than enough of THAT already, thankyaverramuch.


Sigh.  The thread went something like this: "EV drivers are not paying their fair share for road maintenance because they don't pay gas tax".  "OK, we should change to a mileage based usage tax so that everyone pays for the roads that they use."  "Argh, but if you set up any mileage based system, people will just cheat the system (disconnecting odometers, disabling GPS devices, etc)"  "Well, of course there would be penalties to deter cheaters, like there are for all tax frauds"  "Argh!  Why do you want to penalize people you socialist environazi?"  "OK looks like we have to stick with gas tax, with EV drivers not  paying their fair share"  "Why would you say that?"

And I'm the farking troll?

I hope that EV brings you lots of joy and opportunity to spread plenty of smug.  I'd get one myself if they made one that could haul a boat, 2 4-wheelers, and a couple of dead caribou 400 miles in 0 degree temps.

I'm not driving EVs to be smug.  Tired meme is tired.  I'm driving EVs because they have a lot of advantages, and I am saving a lot of money.  I happen to like the fact that they pollute less, but that's pretty far down the list.  I really don't have any problem whatsoever with you driving a gas powered vehicle.  I just think you should pay for the pollution that it causes.
 
2013-03-28 01:10:08 AM

ProfessorOhki: People_are_Idiots: The hybrids did what they needed to do though, which was kick the industry in the ass a bit. If it wasn't for Prius and co. making fuel efficiency trendy, we wouldn't be seeing all these small 4 cylinder turbos. We'd still be doing, "put a V12 in that commuter car, AMERICA!"

Mhmm... I have a 6-banger, tyvm. As a truck, it gets 27-29 miles per gallon. Wanna know what happened to it? Ford discontinued it so it can roll out more F-150s (which sucks on the gas pump). More of what I see are Hummers and high-end SUVs, with maybe an occasional overblown golf cart. Any Civic I see here are at least 10 years older... And the reason we're getting better mileage is not from hybrids, it is from the regulations taking effect that the government put in place a while ago, bumping MPG up.

The story I always heard is they intentionally got away from the small-truck type class and went to full truck chassis pickups/SUVs specifically because that class's use as work/fleet vehicles made them practically off-limits for efficiency regulation; the regulation is what caused the stuff like your truck to disappear. As far as hybrids, I'm just saying they brought the entire issue of fuel efficiency into the spotlight in a trendy way. There were fuel-efficient vehicles long before, of course. The novelty of the Prius was just the iPod of efficient vehicles. "OMG, Honda invented a car that gets more than 30 mpg, this is ground-breaking, GET ME A REPORTER OUT THERE!"


Nope. It's actually because everyone was going for the gas-gulpers for trucks.... and no wonder I hated the Prius, I hate iPods too.
 
2013-03-28 03:15:53 AM
How about this...  Keep the gas tax for cars that burn gas and add the per mile tax for electric cars.

If people want to buy gas guzzling cars and SUVs, let them.  They'll use more gas and by doing so they'll pay more tax.
 
2013-03-28 06:16:14 AM

Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.




I looked into taking a bus to work, only three busses and FOUR HOURS one way.
 
2013-03-28 06:26:34 AM

jaytkay: Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

You have no choice about where you live and work?

Are you in prison?




Some people have no choice about where they can AFFORD to live and work.
 
2013-03-28 10:39:38 PM
Some people have no choice about where they can AFFORD to live and work.

Provide an example.
 
2013-03-29 10:38:04 AM

alfuso: jaytkay: Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

You have no choice about where you live and work?

Are you in prison?

Some people have no choice about where they can AFFORD to live and work.


Bullchit.
Solve your logistical problems without the self delusion and attitudinal crazy.
 
2013-03-29 02:59:43 PM

studebaker hoch: Some people have no choice about where they can AFFORD to live and work.

Provide an example.


snocone: alfuso: jaytkay: Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city.  I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want.  I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment.  For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option.  It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit.  I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

You have no choice about where you live and work?

Are you in prison?

Some people have no choice about where they can AFFORD to live and work.

Bullchit.
Solve your logistical problems without the self delusion and attitudinal crazy.


Silicon Valley in Northern California.  People who work in the service industry (as opposed to highly paid tech workers) have a difficult time finding affordable housing within a reasonable distance of where they work.  And if you say, "get a different job", you need to STFU.  We've had 10% unemployment here.
 
Displayed 372 of 372 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report