If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
Eeyore wrote:
> > Mike Hunter wrote: > >> Lets see if I understand this. I live in Oregon and I have two vehicles, >> one weighs 2,000 LB, the other weighs 3,000 LB. one gets 20 MPG, and the >> other gets 35 MPG, doing 60 MPH on the interstate. I pay MORE in gas taxes >> for the one than the other, per 100 miles driven, right? >> >> The one that gets 35 MPG has only two seats, the other seats seven. I >> have a wife and four children, all of us can NOT travel in the one that gets >> 20 MPG. If I must take us all, 100 miles away, to my in-laws house. I >> need to make five trips in both directions with one, at total of ten trips >> and only one each way with the other, for a total of two. >> >> Now my question is, which situation would cause the most damage when I'm on >> that trip and should I sell the one that weighs 2,000 LB and gets 20 MPG to >> pay the per mile tax and keep the other because I have a wife on four >> children or should just keep the one that weighs 2,000 LB and gets 20 MPG >> and just leave my wife and kids, as well as Oregon? > > If you lived in Europe, your MPV (as we call them) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-purpose_vehicle > > Would probably get 30 mpg and have a nice torquey diesel engine. And the state > would get even less tax. > > My opinion. Roads should be provided as essential infrastructure and not ties > too taxes. > > Graham > Oooh, troll fight! nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message ... > Lets see if I understand this. I live in Oregon and I have two vehicles, > one weighs 2,000 LB, the other weighs 3,000 LB. one gets 20 MPG, and the > other gets 35 MPG, doing 60 MPH on the interstate. I pay MORE in gas > taxes for the one than the other, per 100 miles driven, right? > You currently pay more in one than the other by virtue of one needing more gas than the other to get where you want to go. The problem for the state is that if the vehicle fleet becomes more efficient and the CAFE (for lack of a better illustration) goes from 17.5 to 22.5, then there will be fewer taxes collected. (I pulled those numbers out of my ass, what the numbers are and what they go to does not really matter. All that matters is our cars are getting more efficient, so fewer gas taxes are being collected.) If they go to a GPS-based taxation system, then presumably all motorists will be taxed on the distance they travel, not the gas it takes to get there -- as is the current tax model. Part of the current consumer motivation to move toward fuel efficient cars is causing the state to collect fewer taxes. If gas taxes are $0.20 per gallon, and your Suburban gets 15 mpg while a Yaris gets 30 mpg, the Surbuban will pay $1.33 in gas taxes to go 100 miles, the Yaris will pay $0.67. With a GPS-based system, all drivers can be forced to pay $1.33, defeating (at least in part) the whole purpose of buying a Yaris. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message > ... >> Lets see if I understand this. I live in Oregon and I have two >> vehicles, one weighs 2,000 LB, the other weighs 3,000 LB. one gets 20 >> MPG, and the other gets 35 MPG, doing 60 MPH on the interstate. I >> pay MORE in gas taxes for the one than the other, per 100 miles >> driven, right? >> > > You currently pay more in one than the other by virtue of one needing > more gas than the other to get where you want to go. > > The problem for the state is that if the vehicle fleet becomes more > efficient and the CAFE (for lack of a better illustration) goes from > 17.5 to 22.5, then there will be fewer taxes collected. (I pulled those > numbers out of my ass, what the numbers are and what they go to does not > really matter. All that matters is our cars are getting more efficient, > so fewer gas taxes are being collected.) > > If they go to a GPS-based taxation system, then presumably all motorists > will be taxed on the distance they travel, not the gas it takes to get > there -- as is the current tax model. Part of the current consumer > motivation to move toward fuel efficient cars is causing the state to > collect fewer taxes. > > If gas taxes are $0.20 per gallon, and your Suburban gets 15 mpg while a > Yaris gets 30 mpg, the Surbuban will pay $1.33 in gas taxes to go 100 > miles, the Yaris will pay $0.67. With a GPS-based system, all drivers > can be forced to pay $1.33, defeating (at least in part) the whole > purpose of buying a Yaris. Right, and if we want to encourage people to who don't need Suburbans to drive Yarises, this is a bad idea. Far better to simply raise gas taxes until the required revenue for infrastructure maintenance is collected. Then, if someday we find that a significant portion of the fleet is running on fuels that aren't taxed, we should revisit this discussion. Until then, no need to make it any more complex than it has to be. nate (you do realize you were replying to Mike Hunt, right?) -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On 2009-01-09, Eeyore > wrote:
> > > Tim Howard wrote: > >> Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline > > The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just the USA) > is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only nominal. > > The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full scale > revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government poking its nose > into stuff it has no business in. Nanny state finally went after something you care about? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message ... > nate > > (you do realize you were replying to Mike Hunt, right?) Yes. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
I can't see it working.
Everytime the goverment gets involved it adds a management and regulatory burden that will become unmanageable. Just suck it up and raise the gas tax. No new technology burden please. Plus the feds and the states will have to settle on a standard system. Hah!!! "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > Tim McNamara > wrote: > >> The damage each driver causes to the roads is based on how many miles >> they drive and only vaguely on how much gasoline they burn; from that >> perspective a mileage tax makes more sense than a gasoline tax. > > In one of my college economics classes way back when, the professor > discussed the fairness of weighing your salad bar puchase and paying per > ounce vs. per plateful. Interestingly enough, many students used the > "it's not fair" cry on the per ounce method... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On 2009-01-09, Jay Giuliani > wrote:
> Just suck it up and raise the gas tax. Better yet, the government could stop diverting gas tax funds to purposes other than keeping up the roads. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
In article >,
Eeyore > wrote: > Tim Howard wrote: > > > Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline > > The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just > the USA) is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only > nominal. > > The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full > scale revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government > poking its nose into stuff it has no business in. How can that be? The right wing has controlled at least two branches of the US government for 26 of the past 28 years. They've told us that government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem. They shrunk the size of government (just ask them), eliminated reams of burdensome regulations, they've spent billions of dollars protecting delicate corporations from the hoi polloi. Are you saying that the Republicans were *wrong?* |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:30:15 -0600, Tim McNamara
> wrote: >In article >, > Eeyore > wrote: > >> Tim Howard wrote: >> >> > Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline >> >> The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just >> the USA) is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only >> nominal. >> >> The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full >> scale revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government >> poking its nose into stuff it has no business in. > >How can that be? The right wing has controlled at least two branches of >the US government for 26 of the past 28 years. They've told us that >government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem. It wasn't the size og govt, it was who the govt was bowing down to... >They shrunk the size of government (just ask them), eliminated reams of >burdensome regulations, Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, TSA, Real ID(which so far they have been unsuccessful at)... > they've spent billions of dollars protecting >delicate corporations from the hoi polloi. Are you saying that the >Republicans were *wrong?* Yep. And now, it is payback time... -- "If you want change in Washington, if you hope for a better America (sic), then we're asking for your vote on the 4th of November." --Sarah Palin |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
"Jay Giuliani" > wrote in message
... > Just suck it up and raise the gas tax. That causes people to drive even less, so it could get into a vicious cycle. Reminds me the nicotin taxes that became such a large part of state revenues. The more they raise it, the less they get out of it. pj |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers! | Tim Howard | Driving | 133 | January 22nd 09 02:14 PM |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers | Tim Howard | General | 35 | January 18th 09 12:25 AM |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers! | Tim Howard | BMW | 38 | January 12th 09 12:25 PM |
Most fuel efficient RPM? | [email protected] | Driving | 11 | October 26th 07 06:34 PM |
Bicyclists - Best way to punish drivers who endanger you | Laura Bush murdered her boy friend | Driving | 271 | February 25th 05 06:46 PM |