Bret Ludwig

Lee Ayrton wrote:
> Again, we're paddling rapidly away from Jeeps but...
>
>
> Lowering at-the-pump taxes has a couple of unpleasant side effects:
>
> 1) You've got to make up the revenue someplace (roads have to repaired,
> snow plowed, buildings heated, police paid, National Guard benefits,
> etc.), meaning a higher tax on something else.
>
> 2) If your registration were that someplace else, it would have to go up
> about $230/year to make up the revenue lost if you eliminated the state
> gas tax. (Assuming 15K miles/year at 20 MPG.) That's one painful lump
> every time you renew instead of an invisible $4 and change at every fill-up.
>
> 3) Shifting from a fuel tax to higher registration fees shifts the tax
> burden from a use tax to a property tax, meaning that someone who drives
> a little is paying the same as someone who drives a lot, and if your
> Jeep is a second-car toy that sees occasional use you'll be paying
> twice. There's a loose correlation between fuel consumption and weight,
> and weight is a major factor in road wear. Worse, by moving away from a
> use tax you reduce the amount of money those out-of-state vehicles on
> their way to the their million-dollar log "cabins" pay into your state
> and move it onto in-state taxpayers. You'll be subsidizing the stinkin'
> touristas.
>
> 4) You reduce whatever incentive there is for some drivers to drive
> vehicles that don't guzzle fuel. It's a weak effect that really only
> affects those with the means to buy another vehicle, but it's there.
>
> 5) Generally speaking, you cannot add toll stations to existing
> federally-funded highways without losing federal money. So, again
> you'll be digging deeper into your pocket just to keep up. The federal
> money you lose will go to another state, so your federal taxes won't
> decrease either.
>
> 6) Tolls waste time and fuel for drivers, they cause accidents
> (Connecticut removed theirs from I-95 after a tractor-trailer drove into
> a queue of cars and killed 6). Yes, there are transponder technologies
> but you still need toll stations, a contractor to support the technology
> and staff to collect tolls from vehicles without transponders, so you
> are spending a lot more taxpayer money than you would by having fuel
> stations send in a check for taxes once a month.


The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
efficient and fair way to finance roads there is. Not taxing
alternatives until a certain percentage of people convert is the
fairest way to incentivize it.

The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.

Bret Ludwig

Lee Ayrton wrote:
> Again, we're paddling rapidly away from Jeeps but...
>
>
> Lowering at-the-pump taxes has a couple of unpleasant side effects:
>
> 1) You've got to make up the revenue someplace (roads have to repaired,
> snow plowed, buildings heated, police paid, National Guard benefits,
> etc.), meaning a higher tax on something else.
>
> 2) If your registration were that someplace else, it would have to go up
> about $230/year to make up the revenue lost if you eliminated the state
> gas tax. (Assuming 15K miles/year at 20 MPG.) That's one painful lump
> every time you renew instead of an invisible $4 and change at every fill-up.
>
> 3) Shifting from a fuel tax to higher registration fees shifts the tax
> burden from a use tax to a property tax, meaning that someone who drives
> a little is paying the same as someone who drives a lot, and if your
> Jeep is a second-car toy that sees occasional use you'll be paying
> twice. There's a loose correlation between fuel consumption and weight,
> and weight is a major factor in road wear. Worse, by moving away from a
> use tax you reduce the amount of money those out-of-state vehicles on
> their way to the their million-dollar log "cabins" pay into your state
> and move it onto in-state taxpayers. You'll be subsidizing the stinkin'
> touristas.
>
> 4) You reduce whatever incentive there is for some drivers to drive
> vehicles that don't guzzle fuel. It's a weak effect that really only
> affects those with the means to buy another vehicle, but it's there.
>
> 5) Generally speaking, you cannot add toll stations to existing
> federally-funded highways without losing federal money. So, again
> you'll be digging deeper into your pocket just to keep up. The federal
> money you lose will go to another state, so your federal taxes won't
> decrease either.
>
> 6) Tolls waste time and fuel for drivers, they cause accidents
> (Connecticut removed theirs from I-95 after a tractor-trailer drove into
> a queue of cars and killed 6). Yes, there are transponder technologies
> but you still need toll stations, a contractor to support the technology
> and staff to collect tolls from vehicles without transponders, so you
> are spending a lot more taxpayer money than you would by having fuel
> stations send in a check for taxes once a month.


The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
efficient and fair way to finance roads there is. Not taxing
alternatives until a certain percentage of people convert is the
fairest way to incentivize it.

The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.

Bret Ludwig

Lee Ayrton wrote:
> Again, we're paddling rapidly away from Jeeps but...
>
>
> Lowering at-the-pump taxes has a couple of unpleasant side effects:
>
> 1) You've got to make up the revenue someplace (roads have to repaired,
> snow plowed, buildings heated, police paid, National Guard benefits,
> etc.), meaning a higher tax on something else.
>
> 2) If your registration were that someplace else, it would have to go up
> about $230/year to make up the revenue lost if you eliminated the state
> gas tax. (Assuming 15K miles/year at 20 MPG.) That's one painful lump
> every time you renew instead of an invisible $4 and change at every fill-up.
>
> 3) Shifting from a fuel tax to higher registration fees shifts the tax
> burden from a use tax to a property tax, meaning that someone who drives
> a little is paying the same as someone who drives a lot, and if your
> Jeep is a second-car toy that sees occasional use you'll be paying
> twice. There's a loose correlation between fuel consumption and weight,
> and weight is a major factor in road wear. Worse, by moving away from a
> use tax you reduce the amount of money those out-of-state vehicles on
> their way to the their million-dollar log "cabins" pay into your state
> and move it onto in-state taxpayers. You'll be subsidizing the stinkin'
> touristas.
>
> 4) You reduce whatever incentive there is for some drivers to drive
> vehicles that don't guzzle fuel. It's a weak effect that really only
> affects those with the means to buy another vehicle, but it's there.
>
> 5) Generally speaking, you cannot add toll stations to existing
> federally-funded highways without losing federal money. So, again
> you'll be digging deeper into your pocket just to keep up. The federal
> money you lose will go to another state, so your federal taxes won't
> decrease either.
>
> 6) Tolls waste time and fuel for drivers, they cause accidents
> (Connecticut removed theirs from I-95 after a tractor-trailer drove into
> a queue of cars and killed 6). Yes, there are transponder technologies
> but you still need toll stations, a contractor to support the technology
> and staff to collect tolls from vehicles without transponders, so you
> are spending a lot more taxpayer money than you would by having fuel
> stations send in a check for taxes once a month.


The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
efficient and fair way to finance roads there is. Not taxing
alternatives until a certain percentage of people convert is the
fairest way to incentivize it.

The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

An E100 if that's the Ford van you're talking about, then all their
blocks are cast iron.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Considering that a good proportion of the alcohol burning cars in
> Brazil are VWs with almag cases and they are not "vaporizing", and
> considering the insides of the AEIO-540 Lycs operated on E100 by a US
> aerobatic team that I saw myself were as clean inside as the day they
> came out of Williamsport.....I can assuredly state you are on powerful
> drugs as is so often the case. No pun intended.
>
> What led you to this imaginary idea?

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

An E100 if that's the Ford van you're talking about, then all their
blocks are cast iron.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Considering that a good proportion of the alcohol burning cars in
> Brazil are VWs with almag cases and they are not "vaporizing", and
> considering the insides of the AEIO-540 Lycs operated on E100 by a US
> aerobatic team that I saw myself were as clean inside as the day they
> came out of Williamsport.....I can assuredly state you are on powerful
> drugs as is so often the case. No pun intended.
>
> What led you to this imaginary idea?

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

An E100 if that's the Ford van you're talking about, then all their
blocks are cast iron.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Considering that a good proportion of the alcohol burning cars in
> Brazil are VWs with almag cases and they are not "vaporizing", and
> considering the insides of the AEIO-540 Lycs operated on E100 by a US
> aerobatic team that I saw myself were as clean inside as the day they
> came out of Williamsport.....I can assuredly state you are on powerful
> drugs as is so often the case. No pun intended.
>
> What led you to this imaginary idea?

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

An E100 if that's the Ford van you're talking about, then all their
blocks are cast iron.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Considering that a good proportion of the alcohol burning cars in
> Brazil are VWs with almag cases and they are not "vaporizing", and
> considering the insides of the AEIO-540 Lycs operated on E100 by a US
> aerobatic team that I saw myself were as clean inside as the day they
> came out of Williamsport.....I can assuredly state you are on powerful
> drugs as is so often the case. No pun intended.
>
> What led you to this imaginary idea?

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

I thank ARCO out here and their ten percent water and alcohol for
making me rebuild my carburetor's neoprene seats for the older steel
used back in the twenties.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Mike Romain wrote:
>
> My owners manual says to only use alcohol mix in an emergency to get to
> real gas no matter how many drying agents they say they put in.....
>
> I also lose 100 miles per tank with the crap.
>
> Have you read the owners manual of your Jeep?
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

I thank ARCO out here and their ten percent water and alcohol for
making me rebuild my carburetor's neoprene seats for the older steel
used back in the twenties.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Mike Romain wrote:
>
> My owners manual says to only use alcohol mix in an emergency to get to
> real gas no matter how many drying agents they say they put in.....
>
> I also lose 100 miles per tank with the crap.
>
> Have you read the owners manual of your Jeep?
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

I thank ARCO out here and their ten percent water and alcohol for
making me rebuild my carburetor's neoprene seats for the older steel
used back in the twenties.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Mike Romain wrote:
>
> My owners manual says to only use alcohol mix in an emergency to get to
> real gas no matter how many drying agents they say they put in.....
>
> I also lose 100 miles per tank with the crap.
>
> Have you read the owners manual of your Jeep?
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)