|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 635
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
|
Maybe I'm missing something but going by the prices quoted for driving on US roads compared to UK road tax etc it seems that US drivers have it easy. Though I'm quite happy to be corrected.
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
What does this have to do with proposed "by-the-mile" taxation to maintain and make necessary repairs to our highway system? "
Everything,, we build higher mpg vehicles to reduce the use of oil, now that the revenues are lacking as Americans save on fuel cost, then to have the government tax more thru a different way is just more of the same, got a problem means tax more that will fix it. Problem, US tax rates are the highest in the world for businesses.
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
Lady X,,,, the history of how taxation per gallon is always progressive.
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
mercianknight wrote:Governments, at both local & national levels, will always find a way to pick your pocket of any loose change. The idea of taxing fuel to fund the maintenance of highways is entirely sensible and the spin doctors will always present a credible case when in fact the truth is more insidious. Take the time to compare the revenues generated from the varied taxes applied to using your private motor vehicle and then compare it to the budget for maintaining said highways. If it is anything like I saw in the UK or here on my idyllic isles, then you will see that much of the monies raised are diverted for other uses - and I still have to dodge pot-holes!  Anyway, I'm sure the monies that 'should' be used to maintain our roads are being used frugally and ethically by our trusted elected officials, and that we will inevitably allow them to apply more stealth taxes on our quality of life.  Obama took office a gallon of unleaded gasoline was 1.86 USD,..... today it is 3.25 USD,,, there is your stealth tax. The USA has more then enough oil on private and public lands but on public lands we lack political leadership to grow our economy, keeping billions of petro dollars in the US economy. No Socialist rather opt for buying Oil from Nation States that hate the USA.
|
|
 
Rank: Thread Mediator
Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,087
Location: United States
|
Buc wrote: What does this have to do with proposed "by-the-mile" taxation to maintain and make necessary repairs to our highway system? "
Everything,, we build higher mpg vehicles to reduce the use of oil, now that the revenues are lacking as Americans save on fuel cost, then to have the government tax more thru a different way is just more of the same, got a problem means tax more that will fix it. Problem, US tax rates are the highest in the world for businesses. But they're clearly low compared to other countries when it comes to fuel taxes. I suppose this loops directly into the "government is too big and needs to cut tons of stuff" discussion for many (perhaps for you as well), but the fact remains, we can't expect taxes that haven't risen at all in 20 years to be sufficiently keeping up with the usage.
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
we can't expect taxes that haven't risen at all in 20 years to be sufficiently keeping up with the usage. " LadyX
Yes we can, think of it like this if you will. Million of more cars on the road then in 1993....
1993 total registered vehicles in the USA = 190 million
2012 total registered vehicles in the USA = 246 Million
Taking the number of registered vehicles x the gallons they use = higher net revenues to the Federal Government
|
|
Rank: Thread Mediator
Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,087
Location: United States
|
At 1993 rates?
A dollar is worth a hell of a lot less now than in 1993. Even if you only factor in the inflation adjustment, that would at least theoretically keep up with the usage.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,026
|
Buc wrote:we can't expect taxes that haven't risen at all in 20 years to be sufficiently keeping up with the usage. " LadyX
Yes we can, think of it like this if you will. Million of more cars on the road then in 1993....
1993 total registered vehicles in the USA = 190 million
2012 total registered vehicles in the USA = 246 Million
Taking the number of registered vehicles x the gallons they use = higher net revenues to the Federal Government
You are forgetting the other side of the equation. By your own numbers, there are 56 million more vehicles on the road now. That's roughly 25% more than in 1993. Which means that roads are going to deteriorate 25% faster. So, not only do you need more repairs, but, you also have to factor in the cost of labour and materials for those repairs has gone up drastically in the last 20 years as well.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,033
Location: ATL in da house!!!, United States
|
LadyX wrote: Actually, according to the article, the taxes are a constant number per gallon, not a percentage of fuel cost. I stand corrected. 
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
Rembacher wrote:
You are forgetting the other side of the equation. By your own numbers, there are 56 million more vehicles on the road now. That's roughly 25% more than in 1993. Which means that roads are going to deteriorate 25% faster. So, not only do you need more repairs, but, you also have to factor in the cost of labour and materials for those repairs has gone up drastically in the last 20 years as well.
I don't think there is a direct correlation between number of cars on the road and deterioration of the roads, here is why. Cars are lighter,,, road are made of better materials.
|
|
Rank: Brawling Berserker
Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,338
Location: Not on your radar, Norway
|
Buc wrote:
I don't think there is a direct correlation between number of cars on the road and deterioration of the roads, here is why. Cars are lighter,,, road are made of better materials.
No direct correlation? So you think that the only thing that wears down the roads is the weather and time? That cars have nothing at all to do with it? Because if there is no direct correlation then that means that you could drive a trillion cars over one piece of road and if it was in vacum it would be as good as new! Can you not see the flaw in your argument here?
An entry for the humour competition! I has it!
Now you can read stuff that's like.. all funny and hillarious and amusing!Choking the Blue Snake!!
|
|
Rank: The Linebacker
Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 3,302
Location: Atlanta, United States
|
I want to start taxing all elected and appointed politicians by their inefficiency. Shit, they'd all be bankrupt in weeks!
Please check out my newest story: "10 Items Or Less"http://www.lushstories.com/stories/milf/10-items-or-less.aspxOr my previous story: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/in-the-land-of-salvation-and-sin.aspx
|
|
Rank: Brawling Berserker
Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,338
Location: Not on your radar, Norway
|
Buz wrote:I want to start taxing all elected and appointed politicians by their inefficiency. Shit, they'd all be bankrupt in weeks! Isn't that why people want to get elected? So they can be inefficiant and slackers and still get payed?
An entry for the humour competition! I has it!
Now you can read stuff that's like.. all funny and hillarious and amusing!Choking the Blue Snake!!
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
No direct correlation? A, he said a 25 % increase in vehicle travel related to a 25% increase in deterioration of roads, I gave but two mitigating factors.
So you think that the only thing that wears down the roads is the weather and time? Only, no of course not, back off the ledge of hyperbolic speech .
That cars have nothing at all to do with it?, They are the primary factor .
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 536
Location: Massachusetts, United States
|
Buc wrote: What does this have to do with proposed "by-the-mile" taxation to maintain and make necessary repairs to our highway system? "
Everything,, we build higher mpg vehicles to reduce the use of oil, now that the revenues are lacking as Americans save on fuel cost, then to have the government tax more thru a different way is just more of the same, got a problem means tax more that will fix it. Problem, US tax rates are the highest in the world for businesses. The US government could cut back on the $100 billion it gives in subsidies to the oil companies. Problem solved. The only reason they get those subsidies are the huge bribes paid by the oil cos to politicians campaign funds and by hiring the wives of congressmen (and SCOTUS judge Thomas) as million dollar a year lobbyists. The blatant corruption of Thomas is particularly disgusting. The man should be in jail as the money paid to his wife goes straight into his pocket and he is hearing cases brought by the people who hire her and there really isn't any other reason to hire Ginny Thomas.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,026
|
Buc wrote:No direct correlation? A, he said a 25 % increase in vehicle travel related to a 25% increase in deterioration of roads, I gave but two mitigating factors.
So you think that the only thing that wears down the roads is the weather and time? Only, no of course not, back off the ledge of hyperbolic speech .
That cars have nothing at all to do with it?, They are the primary factor .
Fair enough. Let's say roads don't deteriorate 25% faster than they did befoore. You still admit that vehicles are the main cause of deterioration. So more cars will mean more deterioration. What about the other factor I mentioned? Inflation. Asphalt is far more expensive tthan it was in 1993. And people are far more expensive too. There is no way that paving a mile of road today costs anything close to what it did back then.
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
You still admit that vehicles are the main cause of deterioration. So more cars will mean more deterioration.
What about the other factor I mentioned? Inflation. Asphalt is far more expensive tthan it was in 1993. And people are far more expensive too. There is no way that paving a mile of road today costs anything close to what it did back then. "
The cost is spread over more motorist, most states collect a fuel tax as well for road repair,,,,,, and then are taxes for titles and taxes for tire disposal and taxes for too expensive a car and taxes on the car it self in sales tax and don't for get licensing fees.
US GDP tumbled in to negative range in 4th qrt, ObamaNomics FORWARD.
|
|
Rank: Thread Mediator
Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,087
Location: United States
|
Flat fees on hybrids seem like the way to bridge the gap, not a per-mile tax. I hope they don't go that route, but we've got a shortfall either way you slice it. We haven't been keeping up with road and bridge maintenance the way we should, for decades. At least a modest hike in the fuel taxes seems more than appropriate.
|
|
Rank: Constant Gardener
Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 9,516
Location: Cakeland, United States
|
Or we could just quit trying to overthrow governments and put military bases in every country in the world. Spend most of our money within the borders of the fifty united states on infrastructure for a change? http://www.businessinsider.com/money-spent-in-afghanistan-could-buy-at-home-2011-8This is beyond sad. It's criminal.
 The best thing you can do for your fellow,
next to rousing his conscience, is - not to give him things
to think about, but to wake things up that are in him...
to make him think things for himself - George MacDonald
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,033
Location: ATL in da house!!!, United States
|
Hey, You! Get the fuck outa here with all that common sense horseshit! If we wanted all that money spent at home, we would have some kind of cabinet-level position only in charge of crap within our borders. Sort of a Department of... The Interior... kinda thing...
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
Flat fees on hybrids seem like the way to bridge the gap" the failure of GM called the "volt" is getting $7 K in US tax dollars per unit. This after a loss of 49 Billion in bailing out GM, that number will grow in losses.
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 327,262
|
US has all the oil it needs, just let the people that bring it to market do it, the flood of cash to the US economy and by taxation to the Federal Govt. That money does not flow out of the US and is cycled within the US.
|
|
Rank: Thread Mediator
Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,087
Location: United States
|
Buc wrote:Flat fees on hybrids seem like the way to bridge the gap" the failure of GM called the "volt" is getting $7 K in US tax dollars per unit. This after a loss of 49 Billion in bailing out GM, that number will grow in losses. Viability of certain cars, and US investment in the companies is a separate issue.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 3,232
Location: California
|
Lafayettemister wrote:My bigger concern is something like those examples. Those little Chips or GPS inserts or whatever, can know everything that's going on inside your car's engine and computer. I'm more worried about government using it to track speed and things like that. Imagine getting a speeding ticked because your government installed GPS registered you doing 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Or if your GPS indicated you were in the area of a crime, they could come to you as a potential witness. Or perp.
I know there's a big difference between a private corporation and government, but it's not as big of a leap of faith that government could employ some of the same tactics. Just my opinion. Actually, I didn't think about that. It's highly unlikely that it would ever get approved because everyone speeds... Even the US congress. But yeah, that doesn't sound too different than red light cameras. I'll give you that pablo.
|
|
Rank: The Linebacker
Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 3,302
Location: Atlanta, United States
|
Both the government and big corporate business want to spy on you and spy whenever and however they can. Its up to us as citizens to put limits on both. As a society we are losing out by allowing the government to take more control over our lives all the time. And government and huge corporations are in partnership. Notice that Obama & Congress didn't bail out any mom & pop businesses, only enormous corporations with union contracts and large guaranteed voting blocks; all part of a very corrupt government/corporate partnership. I oppose taxing vehicles of any sort by the mile as an invasion into our privacy. We already pay taxes on the vehicle, the fuel, the tires, etc.
Please check out my newest story: "10 Items Or Less"http://www.lushstories.com/stories/milf/10-items-or-less.aspxOr my previous story: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/in-the-land-of-salvation-and-sin.aspx
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,165
|
lafayettemister wrote:
My bigger concern is something like those examples. Those little Chips or GPS inserts or whatever, can know everything that's going on inside your car's engine and computer. I'm more worried about government using it to track speed and things like that. Imagine getting a speeding ticked because your government installed GPS registered you doing 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Or if your GPS indicated you were in the area of a crime, they could come to you as a potential witness. Or perp.
I know there's a big difference between a private corporation and government, but it's not as big of a leap of faith that government could employ some of the same tactics. Just my opinion.
Which is why I have the gps disabled on my cell phone, and is just another reason NOT to buy a newer vehicle. I'll stick with my 1987 diesel fuel hog, thank you very much.
"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
|
|
Rank: Constant Gardener
Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 9,516
Location: Cakeland, United States
|
DLizze wrote:
Which is why I have the gps disabled on my cell phone, and is just another reason NOT to buy a newer vehicle. I'll stick with my 1987 diesel fuel hog, thank you very much.
The best thing you can do for your fellow,
next to rousing his conscience, is - not to give him things
to think about, but to wake things up that are in him...
to make him think things for himself - George MacDonald
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 360
Location: United States
|
If cars are becoming too fuel efficient for gasoline taxes to work, why don't they just put a tax on the tires? Every time you buy new tires you pay a highway tax. If you don't drive very much then your tires don't wear. It is a user tax, pure and simple.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/24/2010
Posts: 668
Location: United States
|
Edit:
I misread 2.2 cents a mile isn't that bad $2.2 for 100 miles.
As long as they don't charge truckers more, don't really need price inflation on every last product that gets delivered to stores.
|
|
|
Guest |