Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

I was being ironic in response to Galt's claim about the true purpose of
the environmental movement- a claim which about a chock full o' nuts as
can be.

 

It's just one facet, not the 'true purpose'. Government takes from some
people and gives to others so those others benefit. It uses excuses for
this to cover it, the environment is one of those exuses.

 

It's the economy stupid ! But they've become unstoppable here now. They just
ignore protest.

Graham

 

The real problem is the party system. The exist only to promote and enlarge
themselves. All Representatives and Senators ( MPs here - not sure what we'd do with
the Upper House) should have to be independents.

Graham

 

So they did damage something you cared about.

They aren't doing anything differently than they did before, just more
of it. It was just us kooks that warned of the consquences.

 

you're getting closer to figuring it out. The facade of 'democracy' is
finally falling off before your eyes.

 

They are not punishing drivers of high mpg cars for their fuel
efficiency. They are extracting a charge for use of and wear and tear
on the road. Roads get worn out by the number of miles an automobile
uses the roadway and not by the mpg.

A weight-based assesment might make some sense.

 

Then in that case they should lower the fuel taxes...


....but they won't.

 

"Weight based" is affected by registration rates. I.E., a 20 ton dump
truck should be subject to much higher impact fees than my little ol'
Honda Civic...

JT

 

That's the purpose of capitalism- securing the benefit of the few at the
expense of the many. Just check the ratio of CEO incomes to those of
the average worker over the past 50 years.

Tinfoil hats help.

 

I retract my earlier comment. It's too late for tinfoil hats.

 

No, that the purpose of the state. (the government) Capitalism can't do
that, only the power of the state can.

And Iraq was invaded for the WMD.... lol. It's amazing how people can
compartmentalize and decide that when the government is doing something
they like, something that happens to go along with their own views, the
government is honest and motivated by good yet when they run the same
sort of game to do something they don't agree with they see the excuse
for what it is. Guess what? It's always an excuse to expand the size
and power of the state.

 

So you can tell me what the actual difference between the two parties
that control the government in the USA are? What's the choice we are
given? Where is the significant difference between them? There isn't
one. It's the choice between bigger more powerful and
intrusive government and bigger and more powerful and
intrusive government.

 

A good way to nail the SUV's, many of which are overkill.

 

No, that's a reason to tax New Yorkers in general to support public
transportation. It's not a reason to tax, e.g., drivers in Albany to
pay for NYC public transportation.

Furthermore, NYC is pretty much singular in this respect.
Philadelphia, for instance, works with only relatively minor
inconvenience when SEPTA strikes.

 

All of Illinois is taxed to support the CTA. Those of us closer to the
CTA but still outside it's service area get to be taxed more for it.

 

Because, of course, gasoline burns clean as a whistle. lol

 

Blood is good for crops, too.

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

[snip]

Finding the most equitable tax policy is always a compromise. The best one
would extract greater fees from those who do more damage, due to vehicle
weight, miles traveled or both. Since fuel consumption per mile is a
reasonably good proxy for vehicle weight, a tax based upon fuel useage is
probably the best (and easiest) way to go.

And what do you know .... that's the way it works today.

Tax policy can also be used to encourage and/or discourage certain
behaviors. Modifying the tax structure to put more of a burden on fuel
efficient cars sends a bad signal to the market.

 

I agree, it comes down to charging the people that use something a fair rate
to support it.

As a child, bus systems were all privately owned and you paid a rate
designed to keep the company in business which was agreed upon by the public
utilities commissions.

The reasons transit went public was because there was such resistance to
fare changes, most companies simply went out of business because they could
not stay profitable. As a result the public took over the transit systems.

Cheap public trasit became an entitlement that no one wants to give up.

There has long been a belief that federal dollars should support public
transportation systems. Someone in Wyoming would question this.

Philadelphia's system has been working with reduced support for several
reasons:

Gradual rate increases to realistic levels

Reducing runs on bloated schedules resulting in empty vehicles, and
terminating underutilized services

This has created hardships for many that have no alternative but has served
the greater good.

The profitable portion of SEPTA's business is the commuter rail bringing
paying workers in from the burbs.

That said, Philly did not work that well during the strike, even with the
regional rail working while the buses and subways were out.

I would not want to even be near NYC during a strike.

I have a friend that lives in Manhatten and garages his car 22 blocks
uptown.

They have to cab or bus to the garage to take a ride on the weekend.

I personally avoid center city Philly as much as possible and since I
changed jobs, never go to NYC any longer.

Bottom line is the city, the riders and the businesses they work at should
be paying the freight.

They ought to consider allowing new businesses to start running on speific
routes and see how the cost shake out.

It won't happen of course because in Philly and NYC at least it would
threatan union jobs, and we all know who pulls the strings in these towns.

If you want to tax my gas to pay for the roads I drive on, go ahead.