[OT] milage tax. :/
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:19:39 -0500, Lee Ayrton wrote:
> 3) Other states (New York, for one) is considering _selling_ some highways
> to private companies.
Do you have any references to this? As a NYS resident I am quite
interested to know more.
> These companies will fund their costs -- and their
> corporate profits -- by establishing tolls on the roads. Historically,
> such enterprises fail miserably both in terms of economic success and in
> terms of highway maintanence and the State always ends up buying the road
> back -- at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
In fourth grade I learned some of the history of the Town of Greece.
One of the main roads through the town, W. Ridge Road, used to be an
Indian path and was supposedly formed when the glaciers stopped moving
south right after carving out the Great Lakes. At one time there were
some toll booths along the road. Instead of paying the tolls, the
local farmers allowed the other farmers to travel through their
fields, around the toll booth. That is how Stone Road and some other
road (I don't remember the name now) were formed and why they have the
odd direction they have.
-D
--
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user' as
meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver."
--Daniel Pead
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org
> 3) Other states (New York, for one) is considering _selling_ some highways
> to private companies.
Do you have any references to this? As a NYS resident I am quite
interested to know more.
> These companies will fund their costs -- and their
> corporate profits -- by establishing tolls on the roads. Historically,
> such enterprises fail miserably both in terms of economic success and in
> terms of highway maintanence and the State always ends up buying the road
> back -- at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
In fourth grade I learned some of the history of the Town of Greece.
One of the main roads through the town, W. Ridge Road, used to be an
Indian path and was supposedly formed when the glaciers stopped moving
south right after carving out the Great Lakes. At one time there were
some toll booths along the road. Instead of paying the tolls, the
local farmers allowed the other farmers to travel through their
fields, around the toll booth. That is how Stone Road and some other
road (I don't remember the name now) were formed and why they have the
odd direction they have.
-D
--
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user' as
meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver."
--Daniel Pead
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
Except almost none of Kalifornia's gasoline taxes go towards highway
maintenance, other than bicycle lanes, it's all government grants for
alternative fuels and mass transit.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> I fully recognize that this has fark-all to do with Jeeps, but since you
> opened this little can of rancid worms I've got some thoughts -- not
> argument points, just things to consider:
>
> 1) Highway maintenance costs are relatively fixed and are not directly
> related to fuel consumption. Cracks must be sealed, road kill removed and
> bridges painted whether there's 100 vehicles/day or 100,000 vehicles/day.
>
> 2) Someone's got to pay for it. Is it fairer to shift the cost to those
> who use the roads the most, those whose vehicles cause the most wear, or
> to all who benefit from the road (including non-driving pensioners whowse
> food and medicine comes over the roads) or to ------ the cost in some
> other way? You obviously don't want to pay for it, why should anyone else
> want to?
>
> 3) Other states (New York, for one) is considering _selling_ some highways
> to private companies. These companies will fund their costs -- and their
> corporate profits -- by establishing tolls on the roads. Historically,
> such enterprises fail miserably both in terms of economic success and in
> terms of highway maintanence and the State always ends up buying the road
> back -- at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
>
> 4) California is a representative democracy. If you don't like a proposed
> law complain loudly -- and get lots of other people to complain loudly
> with you. If that doesn't yield the results you wanted, work to vote the
> buggers out in the next election. If you don't, you've no right to
> whinge about the result.
>
> Oh, and a hint on winning friends and influencing politicians: Making
> references to nazism (spelling California with a "K") or totalitarian
> communism (the People's blah blah blah) might seem cute and lets you vent
> some anger, but it makes you look like a raving crackpot to _them_ and
> will just alienate the very people you want to influence. Don't do it
> where they will see it.
maintenance, other than bicycle lanes, it's all government grants for
alternative fuels and mass transit.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> I fully recognize that this has fark-all to do with Jeeps, but since you
> opened this little can of rancid worms I've got some thoughts -- not
> argument points, just things to consider:
>
> 1) Highway maintenance costs are relatively fixed and are not directly
> related to fuel consumption. Cracks must be sealed, road kill removed and
> bridges painted whether there's 100 vehicles/day or 100,000 vehicles/day.
>
> 2) Someone's got to pay for it. Is it fairer to shift the cost to those
> who use the roads the most, those whose vehicles cause the most wear, or
> to all who benefit from the road (including non-driving pensioners whowse
> food and medicine comes over the roads) or to ------ the cost in some
> other way? You obviously don't want to pay for it, why should anyone else
> want to?
>
> 3) Other states (New York, for one) is considering _selling_ some highways
> to private companies. These companies will fund their costs -- and their
> corporate profits -- by establishing tolls on the roads. Historically,
> such enterprises fail miserably both in terms of economic success and in
> terms of highway maintanence and the State always ends up buying the road
> back -- at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
>
> 4) California is a representative democracy. If you don't like a proposed
> law complain loudly -- and get lots of other people to complain loudly
> with you. If that doesn't yield the results you wanted, work to vote the
> buggers out in the next election. If you don't, you've no right to
> whinge about the result.
>
> Oh, and a hint on winning friends and influencing politicians: Making
> references to nazism (spelling California with a "K") or totalitarian
> communism (the People's blah blah blah) might seem cute and lets you vent
> some anger, but it makes you look like a raving crackpot to _them_ and
> will just alienate the very people you want to influence. Don't do it
> where they will see it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
Except almost none of Kalifornia's gasoline taxes go towards highway
maintenance, other than bicycle lanes, it's all government grants for
alternative fuels and mass transit.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> I fully recognize that this has fark-all to do with Jeeps, but since you
> opened this little can of rancid worms I've got some thoughts -- not
> argument points, just things to consider:
>
> 1) Highway maintenance costs are relatively fixed and are not directly
> related to fuel consumption. Cracks must be sealed, road kill removed and
> bridges painted whether there's 100 vehicles/day or 100,000 vehicles/day.
>
> 2) Someone's got to pay for it. Is it fairer to shift the cost to those
> who use the roads the most, those whose vehicles cause the most wear, or
> to all who benefit from the road (including non-driving pensioners whowse
> food and medicine comes over the roads) or to ------ the cost in some
> other way? You obviously don't want to pay for it, why should anyone else
> want to?
>
> 3) Other states (New York, for one) is considering _selling_ some highways
> to private companies. These companies will fund their costs -- and their
> corporate profits -- by establishing tolls on the roads. Historically,
> such enterprises fail miserably both in terms of economic success and in
> terms of highway maintanence and the State always ends up buying the road
> back -- at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
>
> 4) California is a representative democracy. If you don't like a proposed
> law complain loudly -- and get lots of other people to complain loudly
> with you. If that doesn't yield the results you wanted, work to vote the
> buggers out in the next election. If you don't, you've no right to
> whinge about the result.
>
> Oh, and a hint on winning friends and influencing politicians: Making
> references to nazism (spelling California with a "K") or totalitarian
> communism (the People's blah blah blah) might seem cute and lets you vent
> some anger, but it makes you look like a raving crackpot to _them_ and
> will just alienate the very people you want to influence. Don't do it
> where they will see it.
maintenance, other than bicycle lanes, it's all government grants for
alternative fuels and mass transit.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> I fully recognize that this has fark-all to do with Jeeps, but since you
> opened this little can of rancid worms I've got some thoughts -- not
> argument points, just things to consider:
>
> 1) Highway maintenance costs are relatively fixed and are not directly
> related to fuel consumption. Cracks must be sealed, road kill removed and
> bridges painted whether there's 100 vehicles/day or 100,000 vehicles/day.
>
> 2) Someone's got to pay for it. Is it fairer to shift the cost to those
> who use the roads the most, those whose vehicles cause the most wear, or
> to all who benefit from the road (including non-driving pensioners whowse
> food and medicine comes over the roads) or to ------ the cost in some
> other way? You obviously don't want to pay for it, why should anyone else
> want to?
>
> 3) Other states (New York, for one) is considering _selling_ some highways
> to private companies. These companies will fund their costs -- and their
> corporate profits -- by establishing tolls on the roads. Historically,
> such enterprises fail miserably both in terms of economic success and in
> terms of highway maintanence and the State always ends up buying the road
> back -- at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
>
> 4) California is a representative democracy. If you don't like a proposed
> law complain loudly -- and get lots of other people to complain loudly
> with you. If that doesn't yield the results you wanted, work to vote the
> buggers out in the next election. If you don't, you've no right to
> whinge about the result.
>
> Oh, and a hint on winning friends and influencing politicians: Making
> references to nazism (spelling California with a "K") or totalitarian
> communism (the People's blah blah blah) might seem cute and lets you vent
> some anger, but it makes you look like a raving crackpot to _them_ and
> will just alienate the very people you want to influence. Don't do it
> where they will see it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
Except almost none of Kalifornia's gasoline taxes go towards highway
maintenance, other than bicycle lanes, it's all government grants for
alternative fuels and mass transit.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> I fully recognize that this has fark-all to do with Jeeps, but since you
> opened this little can of rancid worms I've got some thoughts -- not
> argument points, just things to consider:
>
> 1) Highway maintenance costs are relatively fixed and are not directly
> related to fuel consumption. Cracks must be sealed, road kill removed and
> bridges painted whether there's 100 vehicles/day or 100,000 vehicles/day.
>
> 2) Someone's got to pay for it. Is it fairer to shift the cost to those
> who use the roads the most, those whose vehicles cause the most wear, or
> to all who benefit from the road (including non-driving pensioners whowse
> food and medicine comes over the roads) or to ------ the cost in some
> other way? You obviously don't want to pay for it, why should anyone else
> want to?
>
> 3) Other states (New York, for one) is considering _selling_ some highways
> to private companies. These companies will fund their costs -- and their
> corporate profits -- by establishing tolls on the roads. Historically,
> such enterprises fail miserably both in terms of economic success and in
> terms of highway maintanence and the State always ends up buying the road
> back -- at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
>
> 4) California is a representative democracy. If you don't like a proposed
> law complain loudly -- and get lots of other people to complain loudly
> with you. If that doesn't yield the results you wanted, work to vote the
> buggers out in the next election. If you don't, you've no right to
> whinge about the result.
>
> Oh, and a hint on winning friends and influencing politicians: Making
> references to nazism (spelling California with a "K") or totalitarian
> communism (the People's blah blah blah) might seem cute and lets you vent
> some anger, but it makes you look like a raving crackpot to _them_ and
> will just alienate the very people you want to influence. Don't do it
> where they will see it.
maintenance, other than bicycle lanes, it's all government grants for
alternative fuels and mass transit.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> I fully recognize that this has fark-all to do with Jeeps, but since you
> opened this little can of rancid worms I've got some thoughts -- not
> argument points, just things to consider:
>
> 1) Highway maintenance costs are relatively fixed and are not directly
> related to fuel consumption. Cracks must be sealed, road kill removed and
> bridges painted whether there's 100 vehicles/day or 100,000 vehicles/day.
>
> 2) Someone's got to pay for it. Is it fairer to shift the cost to those
> who use the roads the most, those whose vehicles cause the most wear, or
> to all who benefit from the road (including non-driving pensioners whowse
> food and medicine comes over the roads) or to ------ the cost in some
> other way? You obviously don't want to pay for it, why should anyone else
> want to?
>
> 3) Other states (New York, for one) is considering _selling_ some highways
> to private companies. These companies will fund their costs -- and their
> corporate profits -- by establishing tolls on the roads. Historically,
> such enterprises fail miserably both in terms of economic success and in
> terms of highway maintanence and the State always ends up buying the road
> back -- at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
>
> 4) California is a representative democracy. If you don't like a proposed
> law complain loudly -- and get lots of other people to complain loudly
> with you. If that doesn't yield the results you wanted, work to vote the
> buggers out in the next election. If you don't, you've no right to
> whinge about the result.
>
> Oh, and a hint on winning friends and influencing politicians: Making
> references to nazism (spelling California with a "K") or totalitarian
> communism (the People's blah blah blah) might seem cute and lets you vent
> some anger, but it makes you look like a raving crackpot to _them_ and
> will just alienate the very people you want to influence. Don't do it
> where they will see it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
This is actually an old story, at least three months and maybe more.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it will happen. The State was driving
the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient cars and trucks,
it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry about lost revenues
because their plans worked out well.
"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:p0bQd.8784$Ps.996@okepread06...
> Just heard this unbelievable load of horsepucky
> on the TV. Places like the PRK (Peoples Republic
> of Kalifornia) are mulling a tax-by-the-mile rather
> than tax on the gallon of fuel. Why? Because folks
> are buying econo boxes to save money and lower pollution
> so the state isn't getting their fair share of the loot.
>
> They also mentioned increased mile taxes for peak rush hours.
> Just what every worker that's trying to make it in a tough
> economy needs.
>
> Now isn't that a kick in the butt. What they won't
> do to get more taxes out of people.
>
> They do that I'm going back to my bicycle. :)
>
> (yea, they will probably find a way to tax that too)
>
> And when they do I'm moving to Mexico.
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
I could be wrong, but I don't think it will happen. The State was driving
the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient cars and trucks,
it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry about lost revenues
because their plans worked out well.
"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:p0bQd.8784$Ps.996@okepread06...
> Just heard this unbelievable load of horsepucky
> on the TV. Places like the PRK (Peoples Republic
> of Kalifornia) are mulling a tax-by-the-mile rather
> than tax on the gallon of fuel. Why? Because folks
> are buying econo boxes to save money and lower pollution
> so the state isn't getting their fair share of the loot.
>
> They also mentioned increased mile taxes for peak rush hours.
> Just what every worker that's trying to make it in a tough
> economy needs.
>
> Now isn't that a kick in the butt. What they won't
> do to get more taxes out of people.
>
> They do that I'm going back to my bicycle. :)
>
> (yea, they will probably find a way to tax that too)
>
> And when they do I'm moving to Mexico.
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
This is actually an old story, at least three months and maybe more.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it will happen. The State was driving
the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient cars and trucks,
it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry about lost revenues
because their plans worked out well.
"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:p0bQd.8784$Ps.996@okepread06...
> Just heard this unbelievable load of horsepucky
> on the TV. Places like the PRK (Peoples Republic
> of Kalifornia) are mulling a tax-by-the-mile rather
> than tax on the gallon of fuel. Why? Because folks
> are buying econo boxes to save money and lower pollution
> so the state isn't getting their fair share of the loot.
>
> They also mentioned increased mile taxes for peak rush hours.
> Just what every worker that's trying to make it in a tough
> economy needs.
>
> Now isn't that a kick in the butt. What they won't
> do to get more taxes out of people.
>
> They do that I'm going back to my bicycle. :)
>
> (yea, they will probably find a way to tax that too)
>
> And when they do I'm moving to Mexico.
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
I could be wrong, but I don't think it will happen. The State was driving
the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient cars and trucks,
it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry about lost revenues
because their plans worked out well.
"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:p0bQd.8784$Ps.996@okepread06...
> Just heard this unbelievable load of horsepucky
> on the TV. Places like the PRK (Peoples Republic
> of Kalifornia) are mulling a tax-by-the-mile rather
> than tax on the gallon of fuel. Why? Because folks
> are buying econo boxes to save money and lower pollution
> so the state isn't getting their fair share of the loot.
>
> They also mentioned increased mile taxes for peak rush hours.
> Just what every worker that's trying to make it in a tough
> economy needs.
>
> Now isn't that a kick in the butt. What they won't
> do to get more taxes out of people.
>
> They do that I'm going back to my bicycle. :)
>
> (yea, they will probably find a way to tax that too)
>
> And when they do I'm moving to Mexico.
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
This is actually an old story, at least three months and maybe more.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it will happen. The State was driving
the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient cars and trucks,
it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry about lost revenues
because their plans worked out well.
"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:p0bQd.8784$Ps.996@okepread06...
> Just heard this unbelievable load of horsepucky
> on the TV. Places like the PRK (Peoples Republic
> of Kalifornia) are mulling a tax-by-the-mile rather
> than tax on the gallon of fuel. Why? Because folks
> are buying econo boxes to save money and lower pollution
> so the state isn't getting their fair share of the loot.
>
> They also mentioned increased mile taxes for peak rush hours.
> Just what every worker that's trying to make it in a tough
> economy needs.
>
> Now isn't that a kick in the butt. What they won't
> do to get more taxes out of people.
>
> They do that I'm going back to my bicycle. :)
>
> (yea, they will probably find a way to tax that too)
>
> And when they do I'm moving to Mexico.
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
I could be wrong, but I don't think it will happen. The State was driving
the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient cars and trucks,
it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry about lost revenues
because their plans worked out well.
"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:p0bQd.8784$Ps.996@okepread06...
> Just heard this unbelievable load of horsepucky
> on the TV. Places like the PRK (Peoples Republic
> of Kalifornia) are mulling a tax-by-the-mile rather
> than tax on the gallon of fuel. Why? Because folks
> are buying econo boxes to save money and lower pollution
> so the state isn't getting their fair share of the loot.
>
> They also mentioned increased mile taxes for peak rush hours.
> Just what every worker that's trying to make it in a tough
> economy needs.
>
> Now isn't that a kick in the butt. What they won't
> do to get more taxes out of people.
>
> They do that I'm going back to my bicycle. :)
>
> (yea, they will probably find a way to tax that too)
>
> And when they do I'm moving to Mexico.
>
> --
> DougW
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
The State was
> driving the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient
> cars and trucks, it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry
> about lost revenues because their plans worked out well.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. During a recently ended drought in the
eastern US, a water authority down the road from me kept instituting
stricter water-saving measures, then complained about their revenue falling,
and proceeded to raise the price of water.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
The State was
> driving the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient
> cars and trucks, it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry
> about lost revenues because their plans worked out well.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. During a recently ended drought in the
eastern US, a water authority down the road from me kept instituting
stricter water-saving measures, then complained about their revenue falling,
and proceeded to raise the price of water.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [OT] milage tax. :/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
The State was
> driving the consumers and the industry towards more fuel efficient
> cars and trucks, it is a bit disengenous to come along now and cry
> about lost revenues because their plans worked out well.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. During a recently ended drought in the
eastern US, a water authority down the road from me kept instituting
stricter water-saving measures, then complained about their revenue falling,
and proceeded to raise the price of water.
