Off topic, but if it passes it will COST US

imported post

heresolong wrote:

My 1971 Dodge Challenger (440ci) would cost me how many hundreds of dollars to register once I finish restoring it, even though I will probably put less than two or three thousand miles a year on a restored collector's car? Ridiculous. That is why a user tax (ie gas tax) makes so much more sense. Drive a lot, pay more tax. Drive a gas guzzler a lot, pay more tax.

Thank goodness this one died although you can guarantee we will see it again next year.

Click to expand...

Also, a gas tax will reach into the pocket of that Prius owner that drives 60,000 miles a year. They clog up the road a lot more than I do with my Pickup that only drives 10-12,000 miles a year.

imported post

Personally, I do not like gas tax. Not that this tax would be any better!!!

The best option, IMHO, would be a toll device that bases your taxes on the mileage you drive and the times/roads you drive on. Charge me for the mileage I actually use, charge me for creating traffic during peak times, charge me for using a more costly road.

If users were forced to pay for creating traffic, they would take the unimportant trips during off peak times... reducing overall congestion... If every mile we drive showed up on a little meter built into the dash, just like a taximeter, it might make people realize the actual cost of driving... I am not an advocate of the environment...too many other people already are so I focus on more important issues... but, none-the-less, I certainly agree that less driving would be a good thing... and unless people see the effects on their pocketbooks, in real-time, people will not change their habits...

(huge caveat on the device... I do not like big brother... give people the option of how to "feed the meter"... install bright red lights over my license plate or something... require the meter to have a smartcard, or to receive a download or enter a pin, etc... don't have it report my driving, just have it use up my money... technologically, this is far superior and possible... just have it keep a running mileage total, and a running paid mileage total, which can then be compared to the mileage total on the odometer when getting emmissions done... It could receive new GPS mapdata/charging info at each emissions check as well... thus avoiding any big brother worries)

Thank god this stupid law didn't get any support though...

(sorry if any of this is incoherent... I'm in class and trying to pay attention to both... and haven't bothered to edit this, for which, I apologize in advance...)

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

Personally, I do not like gas tax. Not that this tax would be any better!!!

The best option, IMHO, would be a toll device that bases your taxes on the mileage you drive and the times/roads you drive on. Charge me for the mileage I actually use, charge me for creating traffic during peak times, charge me for using a more costly road.

Click to expand...

Then they have to keep track of when and where you are driving. I certainly don't want the government doing that.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

joshmmm wrote:

Personally, I do not like gas tax. Not that this tax would be any better!!!

The best option, IMHO, would be a toll device that bases your taxes on the mileage you drive and the times/roads you drive on. Charge me for the mileage I actually use, charge me for creating traffic during peak times, charge me for using a more costly road.

Click to expand...

Then they have to keep track of when and where you are driving. I certainly don't want the government doing that.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. It's none of the governments business where I go and when.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Unsure about that. At any rate it's nuts. The libs will say it's a good thing though. I actually found myself using a liberal argument against it elsewhere saying it affected the poor and working class unjustly.

Click to expand...

That's not necessarily only a liberal argument. Don't we justify our opposition to bans on so-called "Saturday Night Specials" on the grounds that such bans effectively price poor people out of the gun market?

imported post

Yes we did, I was talking ona local blog sight that is somewhat liberal and I found myself using their usual arguments when I was objecting to this, and they started pulling out the enviroment. It's odd that's all...

imported post

It's a liberal argument only when it interferes in the free trade of goods and commodities. If we're arguing AGAINST regulation that artificially inflates certain prices, it's no different than arguing against regulation that places price controls on certain items.

Also, I dislike the liberal vs conservative paradigm that people tend to get into, personally. It's not a liberal argument, it's a failed argument. There are plenty of 'liberal' ideas that are great or at least ok in my book, but interfering with free trade and the free market are not included in those.

That said, I know that when you refer to liberals here, you're referring to gun grabbers, looters, etc.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Did you see the part about the emissions tax? They want to tax us out of cars instead of finding other ways to encourage better, more efficient vehicles.
Those who can afford the newer, pricier more efficient vehicles will buy them and leave everyone else paying through the nose.

Click to expand...

And when those who buy effecient vehicles cause the revenues generated to decrease, they will surely raise the tax claiming that they can't operate the Government with the "loss" of the previously collected revenue.

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

Did you see the part about the emissions tax? They want to tax us out of cars instead of finding other ways to encourage better, more efficient vehicles.
Those who can afford the newer, pricier more efficient vehicles will buy them and leave everyone else paying through the nose.

Click to expand...

And when those who buy effecient vehicles cause the revenues generated to decrease, they will surely raise the tax claiming that they can't operate the Government with the "loss" of the previously collected revenue.

Click to expand...

...just as they did after the $30 registration fee.

Yano, instead of eliminating the millions of dollars in "pork-bellied" money being spent. Honestly... does Senator such-and-such really need a secretary?... why can't he just pick up the damn phone himself?!

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

Did you see the part about the emissions tax? They want to tax us out of cars instead of finding other ways to encourage better, more efficient vehicles.
Those who can afford the newer, pricier more efficient vehicles will buy them and leave everyone else paying through the nose.

Click to expand...

And when those who buy effecient vehicles cause the revenues generated to decrease, they will surely raise the tax claiming that they can't operate the Government with the "loss" of the previously collected revenue.

Click to expand...

...just as they did after the $30 registration fee.

Yano, instead of eliminating the millions of dollars in "pork-bellied" money being spent. Honestly... does Senator such-and-such really need a secretary?... why can't he just pick up the damn phone himself?!

Click to expand...

To be fair, mine actually contact me directly. Sometimes via phone call.

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

Did you see the part about the emissions tax? They want to tax us out of cars instead of finding other ways to encourage better, more efficient vehicles.
Those who can afford the newer, pricier more efficient vehicles will buy them and leave everyone else paying through the nose.

Click to expand...

And when those who buy effecient vehicles cause the revenues generated to decrease, they will surely raise the tax claiming that they can't operate the Government with the "loss" of the previously collected revenue.

Click to expand...

...just as they did after the $30 registration fee.

Yano, instead of eliminating the millions of dollars in "pork-bellied" money being spent. Honestly... does Senator such-and-such really need a secretary?... why can't he just pick up the damn phone himself?!

Click to expand...

To be fair, mine actually contact me directly. Sometimes via phone call.

Click to expand...

Lucky you... I've got Senator Paull Shin. We've all heard volumes of him here already.

imported post

I agree with you Bear:shock:, That is why I have the GPS function in my cell phone turned OFF.

Bear 45/70 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

joshmmm wrote:

Personally, I do not like gas tax. Not that this tax would be any better!!!

The best option, IMHO, would be a toll device that bases your taxes on the mileage you drive and the times/roads you drive on. Charge me for the mileage I actually use, charge me for creating traffic during peak times, charge me for using a more costly road.

Click to expand...

Then they have to keep track of when and where you are driving. I certainly don't want the government doing that.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. It's none of the governments business where I go and when.

Click to expand...

imported post

Me too!

Trigger Dr wrote:

I agree with you Bear:shock:, That is why I have the GPS function in my cell phone turned OFF.

Bear 45/70 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

joshmmm wrote:

Personally, I do not like gas tax. Not that this tax would be any better!!!

The best option, IMHO, would be a toll device that bases your taxes on the mileage you drive and the times/roads you drive on. Charge me for the mileage I actually use, charge me for creating traffic during peak times, charge me for using a more costly road.

Click to expand...

Then they have to keep track of when and where you are driving. I certainly don't want the government doing that.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. It's none of the governments business where I go and when.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

imported post

I keep mine off too. It's bad enough the cell towers can track you, without enabling GPS tracking too.

imported post

Wether Steve is 'for or against', he still gets a lot of respect from me for actually replying instead of sending a canned message of 'thank you' ... Maybe some other reps/sens. should learn from him..

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

I agree with you Bear:shock:, That is why I have the GPS function in my cell phone turned OFF.

Click to expand...

Doesn't do any good. I worked briefly on a project for Sprint four or five years back, building a system to collect and publish to companies the positions of their company-provided phones, so they could track their employees as they went around their delivery routes or whatever. The difference between a GPS-enabled phone and one without GPS (or with GPS off) is about 150 yards of accuracy. At the time, GPS-enabled phones were fairly rare, so tower-based triangulation was mostly what we did.

Your phone's signal reaches at least three towers in most cases, even though it's only actively talking to one or two (during handoff), and it's a simple matter for the network operator to use the information to triangulate your position with surprising precision, even without GPS.

If you don't want to be tracked through your phone, turn it off. As long as it's on, you can be tracked with more than enough accuracy to keep detailed tabs on your movement. GPS just makes it a little more precise.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

I keep mine off too. It's bad enough the cell towers can track you, without enabling GPS tracking too.

Click to expand...

SV,

The only time anyone is "tracked" via cel phone is when there is a warrant orpc to arrest. It is a very handy tool for this purpose. Otherwise you have nothing to worry about, as there is no reason you would be tracked.

Btw, Swilden is correct.

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

Wether Steve is 'for or against', he still gets a lot of respect from me for actually replying instead of sending a canned message of 'thank you' ... Maybe some other reps/sens. should learn from him..

Click to expand...

He probably does it in the hope that I'll stop bothering him every other day or so, lol

imported post

swillden wrote:

Trigger Dr wrote:

I agree with you Bear:shock:, That is why I have the GPS function in my cell phone turned OFF.

Click to expand...

Doesn't do any good. I worked briefly on a project for Sprint four or five years back, building a system to collect and publish to companies the positions of their company-provided phones, so they could track their employees as they went around their delivery routes or whatever. The difference between a GPS-enabled phone and one without GPS (or with GPS off) is about 150 yards of accuracy. At the time, GPS-enabled phones were fairly rare, so tower-based triangulation was mostly what we did.

Your phone's signal reaches at least three towers in most cases, even though it's only actively talking to one or two (during handoff), and it's a simple matter for the network operator to use the information to triangulate your position with surprising precision, even without GPS.

If you don't want to be tracked through your phone, turn it off. As long as it's on, you can be tracked with more than enough accuracy to keep detailed tabs on your movement. GPS just makes it a little more precise.

Click to expand...

Yah, I think it's Google that has an app that gives your phone GPS using that technique. I was reading about that on Digg months ago, I think.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

...you have nothing to worry about...

Click to expand...

Please forgive me if I am not reassured when a representative of the government says that.