States want to "tax by the mile"

[Drgnhntr]

Hope not....


In re-looking at the article that is the basis for this thread, I am struck by Oregon's and California's concern that they are seeing shrinking gas tax dollars. It reinforces both of our perceptions that we did not see the consequence of conservation methods also.

The higher fuel prices are hitting hard the average persons budget. And with the news yesterday ($2,25 to $2.50 a gallon is predicted by summer in the DC area, which means $2.50 to $3.00 in harder hit areas like California) I see further cut backs in driving habits for those that can least afford it.

I quess what I am surprised at in the article is the implication that gas is no longer in high demand. If gas prices are going up, that would imply to me that supply cannot meet demand and there should not be a problem at all with high milage cars. What they need to be addressing is that there is less gas being sold because there is less gas available.

I feel like I am probably one of the few that is not really bothered (as much) by the privacy issue. When gas is no longer widely used, putting GPS in all cars may have to be done to determine road use. Optimistically I can see the benefits of low jacking every car. Imagine the end to amber alerts and car theft, because they can find the offender with the click of a button. That is extremely exciting and terrifying at the same time as I do agree that our government can't be trusted with that power. I feel the technology is there to actually help a lot of people, solve a lot of problems, but no one can be trusted with it.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I quess what I am surprised at in the article is the implication that gas is no longer in high demand. If gas prices are going up, that would imply to me that supply cannot meet demand and there should not be a problem at all with high milage cars. What they need to be addressing is that there is less gas being sold because there is less gas available.

I feel like I am probably one of the few that is not really bothered (as much) by the privacy issue. When gas is no longer widely used, putting GPS in all cars may have to be done to determine road use. Optimistically I can see the benefits of low jacking every car. Imagine the end to amber alerts and car theft, because they can find the offender with the click of a button. That is extremely exciting and terrifying at the same time as I do agree that our government can't be trusted with that power. I feel the technology is there to actually help a lot of people, solve a lot of problems, but no one can be trusted with it.

From what i heard it is not an issue of demand for gas in the US, but shrinking crude oil due to demands from China and such that reduces what we have available to provide gas for us in the US and also Europe.

 

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

I have all the answer, but it takes a group as smart as Mac users to get it.

At least try to address the original post. Refer to the sticky addressed to newbies (like you and me.) But you've piqued my interest.

1. All revenue needed by a taxing body needs to be taken in the form of an income tax. NO other taxes. No sales tax. No tolls. No property tax. If it means income tax goes from 30-some percent to 50-percent, so be it.

Part of the point of levying excise taxes is to reduce the usage of various commodities. Bridge tolls, for example, can be levied to decrease usage of private automobiles and increase the ridership of public transportation in order to decrease congestion and pollution. Excise taxes mostly further public policy rather than filling government coffeurs. (At least, that's the way they're sold in the legislature.)

Besides, why should I subsidize the increased security operations of every airport in the country if I don't fly (this is a hypothetical, but one that is easily realised)? The "September 11th security fee" takes care of this problem just fine. You pay on each flight segment that you fly, and people who don't fly don't pay.

By analogy, why should all Ford customers pay for fully loaded F-150's when some only drive Escorts or Focuses? You pay for what you use. (Excise taxes only. I'm aware of the disproprtionately high usage of government services by the lowest tax brackets who pay the least amount in tax.)

2. "Punitive damages" - why the heck is that going to the plaintiff and the lawyers? Punitive damage money needs to go to one of several funds in the area of wrong-doing (health care, education, etc.) Lawyers and plaintiffs only get the direct award.

Why should anyone but the litigating party get any reward? For public policy reasons? Only the attorney and plaintiff undertook the risk of litigating. If the case was taken under contingency, the lawyer went through negotiation, pleadings, and trial while risking the possiblity that he would not be paid if he did not win at trial. If he litigated under retainer, then the plaintiff undertook that risk.

Why, then, should charities and other orginizations, who have risked nothing, profit? Remember, administrative people at these agencies reap large salaries from donations.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Why should anyone but the litigating party get any reward? For public policy reasons? Only the attorney and plaintiff undertook the risk of litigating. If the case was taken under contingency, the lawyer went through negotiation, pleadings, and trial while risking the possiblity that he would not be paid if he did not win at trial. If he litigated under retainer, then the plaintiff undertook that risk.

Why, then, should charities and other orginizations, who have risked nothing, profit? Remember, administrative people at these agencies reap large salaries from donations.

It goes to the greed that some people file lawsuits for. I see the argument that the plaintiff should only be able to get actual damages. And punitive damages go towards the public good. We may see fewer lawsuits as a result.

 

[pseudobrit]

I'm in favor of putting GPS tracking systems on our legislators and our tax money.

 

[jsalzer]

Where's my drop of water?

At least try to address the original post. Refer to the sticky addressed to newbies (like you and me.) But you've piqued my interest.

Sticky firmly placed on my point about going to income tax as the only tax - which, by default, means eliminating the gas tax, which is the topic of the original post. Isn't it neat when things work out?

The others are OT, but they go together as common sense changes that would solve oh so many problems.

Part of the point of levying excise taxes is to reduce the usage of various commodities. Bridge tolls, for example, can be levied to decrease usage of private automobiles and increase the ridership of public transportation in order to decrease congestion and pollution.

I thought bridge tolls were used to pay for the construction/maintenance/future reconstruction of the bridge when there was no tax money available to build it but it needed to be built.

Actually, tolls are a different beast, at least to me. It's paying for a service which happens to be provided by a government body rather than a company. It's not quite the same as sales tax.

Besides, why should I subsidize the increased security operations of every airport in the country if I don't fly (this is a hypothetical, but one that is easily realised)? The "September 11th security fee" takes care of this problem just fine. You pay on each flight segment that you fly, and people who don't fly don't pay.

See, this is the old "how did you spend the $10 *I* gave you for your birthday?" question. My answer - it got pooled in with the rest of my money. Are you wondering how that specific ten dollar bill got spent, or how I imagine your ten dollars was spent, even if I used two fives to do it?

If public policy (which, supposedly, represents what I and all other citizens have agreed to do) dictates that all of these thousands of things be done (one of which is tightening security at airports), then it will get done. And trying to track whose money did it is senseless. If someone donates $1000 to a school for football uniforms, then the $1000 they had bookmarked for uniforms will go elsewhere. So, did the person pay for the uniforms, or for the elsewhere? Does it really matter?

Why should anyone but the litigating party get any reward? ... Only the attorney and plaintiff undertook the risk of litigating.

For "damages" - fully agreed. The "purpose" of damages is to compensate the victim (and the risk taken by his lawyer). I'm talking here about punitive damages. The "purpose" of those is to punish a company for wrongdoing when the amount of damages (owed to the victim) is not considered appropriate punishment for the extent of the wrong-doing. Why should any one person get this money? If the other victims (who did not go to court) are going to end up with medical issues, shouldn't this money be applied to the medical system? Or if there really only was the one victim, shouldn't that money go toward similar issues for those who have noone to sue (the company went out of business?)

Thanks for taking the time to look at my thoughts. I love this stuff.