MonsterTDI09
TDIClub Enthusiast, Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Location
- NoVa/NJ
- TDI
- 2010 Jetta DSG/ up keep on 2009 Jetta DSG 2006 Jetta Pag 2 in North SEA Green
It doesn't matter what you drive
- Thread starter MonsterTDI09
- Start date
MrMopar
Top Post Dawg
It is always about the money when Progressives run the show. "Cash Rules Everything Around Me" is their motto.
They are not to be trusted. The money will never go towards what they say it will be for.
They are not to be trusted. The money will never go towards what they say it will be for.
Power_Not_Speed
Veteran Member
Once again Mopar, knock off the politics. Take your beliefs somewhere else.
Ol'Rattler
Top Post Dawg
I was wondering when they would figure out electric cars wouldn't pay for road use through fuel taxes. Does anyone know how much of what we pay for fuel is taxes?
Last edited:
Power_Not_Speed
Veteran Member
supton
Top Post Dawg
Well, they could do tolls, or tack on another surcharge onto the registration. However--is this really such a big problem? Are there that many PEV's on the road today? I'm thinking not. And, not only that, but if the desire is to have more PEV's, at the top level that is, then perhaps they need to think about how to continue to encourage it. And tacking on yet another charge is not going to help that.
I get their point, and it is probably wise to figure out "how to make 'em pay" before PEV's take off; but in so many ways this seems to be a case of two hands working against each other.
I get their point, and it is probably wise to figure out "how to make 'em pay" before PEV's take off; but in so many ways this seems to be a case of two hands working against each other.
thebigarniedog
Master of the Obvious
It will be an interesting topic to watch. The undertone seems to be that the goberment has a vested interest in vehicles that get crappy mileage (despite it's rhetoric otherwise) inorder to maintain a fixed amount of revenue. In this particular newstory, that "revenue" is to fill a budget gap of 5 billion, not for road maintenance purposes (which is what this tax has been publically accepted to be exclusively used for). if I am reading this story correctly, this seems to be in a similar vain to how the goberment was against cigarrettes, but not the taxes from Cigarrettes. 
MrMopar
Top Post Dawg
That is exactly what I said yesterday.
Every time there is a huge budget hole, *some* politicians start looking to bring in more revenue through the time honored tradition of soaking the citizens with taxes/fees/surcharges.
New York State does it by switching the license plates every few years and making motorists buy new ones.
Cincinnati suddenly started impounding cars with large rims, after having ignored them for a decade. Think that the fines/fees have anything to do with budget deficits? http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region...in/police-impounding-cars-with-oversized-rims
The town I used to live in would occasionally have "everyone gets a ticket" days a few times a year. You could look down a long road of parked cars and see yellow tickets on EVERY windshield with the understanding that 99% of people will just pay the $25 Tribute to the Town instead of arguing the ticket, because arguing against a system that is fixed in favor of the Town (with 3 arbitrators who work for the Town) doesn't get you anywhere.
Washington State didn't suddenly have roads that are falling apart due to electric cars flooding the highways. They have a $5 billion deficit because some politicians spend like drunken sailors, and now some people will get the shaft for that.
Victor Huge
Veteran Member
Fight the system
thebigarniedog
Master of the Obvious
That is exactly what I said yesterday.
.......
No, it isn't. If it was, I would have wrote x2.
Ol'Rattler
Top Post Dawg
Around Seatle, the city is putting in more bike lanes and is also replace a lot of storm grates with ones that won't catch a bikes wheel in the attempt to make the streets safer for bike riders. Well guess what? Bikes pay absolutely zero in road use taxes. Everyone should pay their fair share to maintain the roads regardless of what powers what they drive.
If actually road use were factored into the cost of operating a PEV, they become less of a bargain, don't they? perhaps PEVs could be taxed at the meter. you would have one meter for your residence and one meter for your transportation use with the appropriate road tax factored in. Kinda like onroad and off road Diesel.
Also if everyone drove a PEV were would we get the electricity from? Most PEV boosters kinda gloss over that point. Charging during off peak times could provide some of the electricity but not all of it.
thebigarniedog
Master of the Obvious
Bikes also do less damage to roadways --- which means less required maintenance. Again, with respect to the "fair share crowd" the issue is using road tax money for road repairs and maintenance only.
White Crow
Veteran Member
You could live in Maine we pay excise tax based on the retail value of the car/truck when it was new every year. But we have only 1.25 million people in the entire state and thousands of miles to plow and maintain.
supton
Top Post Dawg
Most people who own bicycles also own cars. Hate to tell you, but not every bicyclist is a DUI'er who lost his license. Furthermore, one could argue that every bicyclist removes one car from the road, at least for rush-hour. Remove enough cars, and suddenly one does not need to widen a highway.
Maybe pedestrians should pay a toll too in order to use the sidewalks and/or shoulders?
Furthermore, one could argue that every bicyclist removes one car from the road, at least for rush-hour. Remove enough cars, and suddenly one does not need to widen a highway.Maybe pedestrians should pay a toll too in order to use the sidewalks and/or shoulders?
MrMopar
Top Post Dawg
Those two quotes don't say the same thing with different words?thebigarniedog said:
thebigarniedog
Master of the Obvious
What you did was launch an ad hominem attack, ie people of a certain political party/thought process cannot be trusted (ie they are liers).
What I am saying is that the story has a distinct undertone that the goberment has always had a stake in vehicles that get crappy fuel economy. What I also said is that the public perception for fuel tax has always been tied to road maintenance and that filling a budgetary shortfall (ie using it for something that has nothing to do with road maintenance) is wrong and a violation of that trust.It will be an interesting topic to watch. The undertone seems to be that the goberment has a vested interest in vehicles that get crappy mileage (despite it's rhetoric otherwise) inorder to maintain a fixed amount of revenue. In this particular newstory, that "revenue" is to fill a budget gap of 5 billion, not for road maintenance purposes (which is what this tax has been publically accepted to be exclusively used for). if I am reading this story correctly, this seems to be in a similar vain to how the goberment was against cigarrettes, but not the taxes from Cigarrettes.
Correct, Arnie. Excellent post btw Arnie
. The problem with politics Mr Mopar is that it has become entertainment (like the WWE). The truth, apparently, is not as important as to whether there is a "D" or "R" next to your name. It is a rather limited look at what is going on in this Country. Just a thought ......
MrMopar
Top Post Dawg
The bigger question is, like property taxes, why should you pay a tax on something you already own? Shouldn't you pay once and be done?
Power_Not_Speed
Veteran Member
Your question is rhetorical because your political beliefs allow no room for discussion.