Yes, they need to have one in the shop here. Maybe I will have to see what it takes and start my own PAC. I probably will need a century or so the register and get it certified tax exempt, given the current performance level of the tax system.

You are correct, I am NOT adverse to paying because I use more road. BUT, before I do that, the damn system needs to own up and NOT pay for bikes or trains, and scale it as you suggest. As you said, Critical Thinking dictates you pay for what you use in a reliable, fair and transparent system. Unfortunately that DOE NOT support the Democrap desire to give away to their little groups. Just like reforming a State retirement system that is doomed to bankruptcy can never happen when a crowd big enough to effect an election, is involved. So, Oreogn will follow California into bankruptcy at some point, and all the time they will tell you why it is your fault. So Ayn Randish it's scary... Thank you, your post was very well said.

Well,again, they know they have you hostage. You can't bail because of dumb ass greedy politicians. There arn't many other places that do not have their own version. The legalizatin of pot is going to contribute to the general silliness factor going up 100%, so it will just get worse. Intel left Colorado because they wanted to increase their taxes a big amount, and Oregon buys them with tax exemptions. Washington is almost worse, buy a Hybrid and pay 500/year "surcharge" because you are not paying your fair share. The most offensive bit about this is a 100% tax increase, all slid under the table as "fair". But nothing to address the real issue: how to get bike people to pay their fair share, and make the train people pay theirs. Same issue in California. But they will implode in the next year or so from their own issues with water, so we may get to start over there. Thanks

Thank you sir, I sometimes feel like a lone gun in just wanting to pay for what I use and make the idiots be responsible for their own dumb ass agenda.

Jan, I am waiting for Elio to get their 83mpg 2 seater, 3 wheeler car going, and they are being assailed by all the special interests as well with every excuse in the book (just as they destroyed Tucker). But that just makes their complaint louder as I will use less gasand still "steal" road usage. There are so many special interests tied up in this mess, you cannot just blame it on efficiency. Oregon gives you big tax breaks for having a hybrid, so how can they give that and then complain about the other. And don't get a hybrid in Washington state, they want to charge a 500.00/year "surcharge" for registration based on the same argument. It still goes back to greedy corrupt government wanting to take money given for one purpose (roads) and use it for their own agenda(bikes/trains) and then turn around and bitch out the cash cows and claim they are not paying their fair share. They should take all the cost of bike lanes, divide by number of registered bikes, and charge them the surcharge needed to pay for it. But then, that would offend many Liberal agendas,which we can't have.

If you sell your car, or in California, get a mandatory smog check, the government gets the current odometer reading so the battle to keep how many miles you drive private is long gone.

Assuming the government keeps being building and maintaining the roads, they have to be paid for. I think it does make more sense to make it a targeted use tax that a general tax on everyone that pays for the road.

Unless you are going to make try to make the case that the 1% should be paying for the roads -- which I rather suspect is not something you are going to advocate!

Simple: There are many studies that show what you say is true, yet most trucking fees go to Federal programs. In this case, you can keep a log and pay that way (which will be really accurate), but my objection is that there is a 30cent a gallon tax for roads. That money has been squandered for bike trails, bike paths and mass transit. That is not related to roads. I am pretty sure I am paying my fair share for my little car (1200 lbs of Fiesta). Based on the "use" theory, why does not a big F250 which weighs 4 times what my car does, have to pay 4 times more for the "use" they get. Also, these idiots are the same ones who think that a 30 cent a gallon icrease for "greener" fuel is off set by better fuel efficiency, which demolishes the "you use less and need to pay more" argument, as they are the ones encouraging/forcing you to get a more efficient car. It all goes back to this: Government NEVER has enough money to give away freely to all the special interest groups that have gotten them elected, AND all of their own "special" programs and interests. The gas tax was for roads and road maintenance, I do not think I should have to pay 100% more to pay for their Liberal agenda or interests. When they get their crap together, go back to just maintaining and building roads, cull all the parasites they have brought in "their buddies", and still do not have enough, come back and justify why an increase is needed, and we'll talk. Until then, they can go loot the bike riders or whoever. Look at the post I put up about California, a perfect example of this, their roads are falling apart and gridlocked, but Goofy Brown wants to spend 4 billion for a train that supports 250K people. I don't like other people telling me why I have to pay for someone else's fetish. I will get my own fetishes, thank you.

your state and federal govt were to use the general revenue for the maintenance of roads. well that failed-because they had other schemes. so they add a gas tax. Unfortunately it is not a legitimate revenue source for roads because it goes directly into the general coffers. so discussing how best to calculate such a tax is discussing how efficient the govt should be in increasing the level of your slavery. The per mile scheme is a 4th and 5th Amendment violation. The govt has no business knowing without your consent how many miles you drive. (still setting aside the private owned roads argument).

My issue with these systems is that I don't want the government keeping track of where I'm driving.

I also think that trucks should pay more, because they damage the roads more.

That said, assuming we can find a way to do this that protects people's privacy, I don't have a problem with the method. People who drive more pay more. Seems fair to me. What way do you think would be more fair?

Oh, Jan, it can get lots worse than that... Back in the early '60s and the First Gas Shortage, I could get no more than $2-3 worth of gas at a nearby NJ station, but if I drove 30 miles and crossed the Delaware into PA, I could get a fill-up and the service guy would ask if he could check the oil and clean the windshield.

Some month or so later I discovered that NJ had NOT voted for the then-current President, but PA had! Go figure!

I wrote my NJ congressman about that and gee... in a month or so, SUDDENLY the NJ gasoline allocation went way up.

Really!
Such bullshit... all over the place! Nothing new.

William, toll roads might work in a lot of areas, but one nasty question their proponents NEVER answer is... "what's a 'reasonable' price PER MILE for vehicles, if you're charging per-mile tolls?"

I'd love a Consumer Reports chart for tunnels and highways showing the Per-Mile charges!

Talk about non-Transparency!

see my post, below... re: how to structure such taxes...

And people laugh at my Laws... Like #33...

http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#33rd

Enjoy!

Bumper Sticker...

I'm a Cash Cow...
Just ask my Legislators.

My post to that linked title page, (awaiting approval from the Powers That Be, of course...)

For a VERY long time, I’ve advocated something like that plan as what MIGHT be the only equitable way to pay for infrastructure creation and maintenance, but I’ll bet that all of the states are missing a point or two…

Per Critical Thinking, what determines the need for highways, bridges, tunnels and their replacement and maintenance?

1) the number of vehicles using them.
2) the number of miles the vehicles travel.
3) the gross weight of the vehicles.

So a SMART ‘gas tax’ would include a flat “per vehicle” rate (to cover the basic ‘paperwork’ overhead and administration. Maybe $10-20 a year per car.
Next would be a Per Mile assessment, and the easiest way to do that is yearly, during the annual vehicle inspection.
And the per-mile assessment would be based on a sliding scale proportional to the WEIGHT of the vehicle.

There’s no reason for me to pay any rate on my 4-5000-per year Prius at 43 mpg that’s similar to the 15-ton gravel truck creating potholes with its every-day on-the-job pavement-pounding work.

Or for a motorcycle to subsidize a mobile home or interstate truck.

ALL of the taxes paid by commercial companies would be passed on to everyone who USES the services of those trucks, buses and whatevers. Seriously “fair,” if I can use that word at all.

Think about it. Per-Mile ALONE makes NO sense without a gross-vehicle-weight plan.

But, since most such ‘tax laws’ need only one thing in order to be passed… What they’re taxing must be MEASURABLE, and little more than that… we’ll definitely see a lot of this unthinking crap surface in the years ahead.

Critical Thinking is Dead.

Although a few laws like those might create something just as effective as Term Limit Legislation, which NO legislature will EVER pass…

Ah, the irony!

U.S. vehicle computer systems from about 1984 were able to transmit location, the reasoning at the time was to keep vehicles that were built non compliant with California emission systems from being sold in California dealerships, we got a service notice on it back in the day. Modern vehicles equipped with GPS systems can already track your location and route....got Onstar? Systems in place, satellites in place, only thing left is access to your bank account.....got autopay? IRS deposit your tax refund direct deposit? What goes in can be extracted.

Intersil (formerly part of Harris) has a small fab lab here, although most of it went to California. You are correct in saying that we have no Intel presence. As for the thunderstorms, yes, we do have a lot of them in the rainy season. You could still snowbird here.

Thi is the inevitable result when the government insists on owning all the roads.

Sorry I meant traffic not taxes

Too bad you couldn't get a gyro copter like the mailman that landed at the whitehouse. He didn't use any roads and no taxes. Don't forget to buzz the state capital. 😀

they just found another "defensible" way to
extract $$ from the masses. . thieves. -- j

They're mostly doing this because it isn't politically possible to charge heavy trucks in proportion to the damage they do.

So just exactly how much of 1.5 cents will end up as asphalt? Essentially none of it by the time you pay for the infrastructure and wages to administer the project. Just another welfare for the govt tax.

No, Wait, This just came to me; the govt will have a way of knowing who bought how much gas where and a GPS in each car to know where we drove at what speed and where we stopped for how long?
1.5 cents a mile is the least of the problem here. This is complete and total invasion of constitutional privacy and control of the citizens.
Who stopped at what sex toys store and who went to the theater showing AS3? Anyone not agreeing with the monkeys "on the hill" just became a terrorist and they have the data to prove it!