In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But no usage tax.
>>>>
>>>> Show me a usage tax for automobiles. Extra points if you can show
>>>> one in IL.
>>>
>>> Easy,your plate fee.
>>
>> That's not a usage fee.
>
> Sure it is;you pay it every year,not just once.For just registration,once
> is all that's needed,but you pay every time you renew.That's a usage fee.

IL charges extra every year for special plates. Ones with fancy designs
or custom numbers. My lesser custom plates used to be the same amount to
renew, now they are slightly more. Tell me, how does my car use more of
the road with this license plate 'number' than with a random one?


>>> You don't need a plate if you use your auto on private property.
>>
>> I don't need turn signals, good tires, brakes, and whole host of other
>> things to use a vehicle on private property.
>>
>>> Note that you still also pay a sales tax when you bought the auto,but
>>> not every time you renew your plates.
>>
>>>> I paid use tax on my bicycle when I bought it, same with my cars.
>>
>>> No,you paid a SALES tax.
>>
>> Check IL law. It's semantically called a *USE* tax. This way the state
>> thinks it can then legally collect it on items purchased out of state
>> as a way around the ban on states taxing interstate commerce. IL taxes
>> the use of the item in the state. It functions like a sales tax and is
>> simply a semantic end run around federal law, but you want split
>> semantic hairs so....


>>> You would pay that even if your auto or bicycle
>>> never used any public road.The auto license fee is the fee you pay
>>> every year to use the public roads.
>>
>> The use tax in IL is paid at the time of purchase. When one goes to
>> register a car they just purchased in this state, one has to pay
>> title, registration, and use tax. I had to pay this tax on my
>> torqueless wonder car even though the sales price was ZERO. Thankfully
>> it was the lowest possible value because the car was over the age
>> limit and from a family member.

> You just acknowledged that the plate fee IS a usage fee.(and you pay every
> time you renew)

No. Title = $65, Plates = $78 (or more if it's a special plate), and the
use tax is based on the model year of the car or the sales price or some
other method, I forget.

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/

>>>>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the
>>>>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything.
>>
>>>> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting
>>>> those who drive more.
>>
>>> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle
>>> benefit from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who
>>> never travel at all benefit from roads.
>>
>> What you are saying is that without people who drive less paying more
>> than they use, driving would be too expensive. Wether they *should* or
>> not isn't part of this. You just stated you need non-drivers paying a
>> good portion of the costs.

> Because of the benefits they receive via the roads.
> To USE the roads,they pay more via the yearly plate fee.

How you try and justify it is irrelevant. Your statement is one of
needing people who don't drive to pay.

>>
>>>> That if roads et al were paid for by actual use, then
>>>> driving would be rather expensive. You want driving to be cheap so
>>>> everybody is taxed regardless of how much they drive. The true
>>>> meaning of your statement is that your driving is dependent upon
>>>> people who drive much less or not at all.
>>
>>> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle
>>> benefit from roads.
>>
>> That's an arguement for *should*. Your statement is very clear, you
>> need non drivers and people who drive less than what they pay for to
>> keep the system affordable for people who drive more. Wether those who
>> don't drive enough to get their 'money's worth' directly benefit or
>> not isn't even part of this.

> Damn right about that nonsense. "get their money's worth".<snort>

Your initial statement was very clear. You need to collect taxes from
nondrivers.

>> You need them not using the roads
>> themselves, directly, with motor vehicles to keep driving affordable.
>> You were very clear.

> Only in your twisted mind.
> I refered to paying the total cost of a road only thru plate fees would be
> unaffordable,and others still benefit from them without contributing(like
> bicycles).

The moment you admit that non-drivers pay for the roads you lost the
arguement. You are now exactly what I said, someone hung up on semantics.
If I paid exactly the same amount and one of the line items on my
property tax was labeled 'road usage' your semantic arguement would be
satisified, but there would be no effective difference.

>> Thusly, bicyclists help keep driving affordable by using their
>> bicycles instead of their cars.

> Nonsense.

Your statement was clear, you need non drivers and even non road users
paying for roads to keep driving affordable.