Slashdot Mirror
US Contemplating 'Vehicle Miles Traveled' Tax
dawgs72 writes "This week the Congressional Budget Office released a report saying that taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues, and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance. The proposed tax would be enforced through the use of electronic metering devices installed on all vehicles. The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
So, um, how are they going to split that between county, state, and federally-funded roads?
Infrastructure is infrastructure. Everyone benefits from having it. Putting this kind of administrative overhead on it just makes it more expensive *and* takes away the benefit.
I think the real problem is that people mostly can't afford to live close to where they work. This leads to a lot of inefficiency, as they waste lots of time and energy driving back and forth from their cheap suburbs to the higher rent districts that pay just barely enough to survive if you live a neighborhood a tier or two away. Relatively cheap transportation sorta creates this situation, but there has got to be better ways to solve this than by making transportation more expensive with all of this metering equipment.
Make cities denser, cheaper, more accessible to families with better schools & playgrounds, etc. Get rid of suburban sprawl by zoning more parks and greenways. Maybe build some summer cottages / timeshares so people can still get away "to the country". Done! All the other countries are doing it :-P
Isn't this already covered by the gas tax, which is inherently incurred on a "per mile" (gallon, really) basis?
Anything that can be taxed, will. Those things which can not be taxed will be fined.
Shouldn't we be encouraging people to use less gas? An excise tax on gasoline is an excellent way to do so.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I ask this quesiton sincerely-- I honestly would like an answer from those who agree with this.
If I lived in Arkansas, and I only drive on local roads in state, and I do 3-4000 miles a year doing so,... why would this be justified by either Constitution or 10th amendment? I dont mean to troll or attack, but I cannot conceive of why this should be federally managed. I am not against seatbelt laws or think that all regulation or social programs are evil, but honestly, shouldnt there be a limit to what the Fed deals with?
It's bad enough when applied to bandwidth, applying it here just makes it more obvious that it is a Bad Idea.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
OK, so let me get this straight. They want to create a GIANT system with many layers of government, to take more money based on actual miles driven. But we already have that - called a gasoline tax. At least with the gas tax I have an incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient car if I must commute (I must, far too). With this I would have much less. I think this is just to avoid being the "bad guys" that raise the gas tax. I thought one of the points of the gas taxes was to encourage efficiency.
Privatize the roads and make the tollways. No need to have big brother watching our every move.
Win-win!
That being, that they (State and federal governments) are spending too much money already.
How about they do something a little more useful, like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Oh dear-- I just imagined government workers being cautious with other people's money! How silly of me!
Thank Ghod I'm in Canada where we measure distances travelled in Kilometers
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
I've avoided milage-based insurance because of privacy issues.
Also, this will raise the incentive for odometer fraud.
This will open a huge bag of worms.
Far easier than direct billing are excise taxes on consumables such as fuel, tires, and the like bases on their rated life.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How long until the sensor has GPS and telemetered data collection?
Was not meant to be a design document. And yet, ubiquitous government-mandated, government controlled GPS positioning for all vehicles. And so on, quite suddenly, to the end of freedom to travel, to internal passports ("Papers, please! Have you paid your congestion tax for Washington DC? No? I'm afraid I'm going to have to turn you back, sir. No, I do not care that you wish to attend a rally. Move along, sir, now").
"one nation united, with surveillance and homeland security for all."
But damn it feels good to be on the outside looking in, for once
I would only be ok with this if: 1) I didn't have to pay ANY taxes when registering a car (in NY it gets a little out of hand) 2) The electronic device did *not* have gps 3) The readings were taken during my annual inspection, and they just read the mileage on the odometer (ie - no new hardware to install, no costs associated with it)
dreaming... ain't gonna happen
If you can dream it, we can tax it.
by the logic of "hybrid vehicles aren't paying enough to cover construction costs" for roads - why do low MPG pay a "gas guzzler tax" - shouldn't they pay less in taxes?
Better yet WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZE THESE VEHICLES SINCE THEY ARE NOW COSTING THEM MORE MONEY. ugh
Not only do you still have your Big Brother, you have less control of them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Why do we need GPS-based electronic tracking to know how many miles our vehicles have travelled when the odometer already does that? In states with yearly safety inspections, those numbers are already recorded. Why is that not sufficient? It suggests that knowing not just how far each individual has travelled, but exactly where and when is what the government wants.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Tell me again why we want to tax them equally? Haven't we figured out that the way to jump start the economy is to create more jobs in green technology? Instead of incentivising people to buy more efficient cars we're going to disincentivise all driving. That will fix the economy, more people staying at home doing nothing....
This will just drive prices for everything through the roof. I'm all for toll roads to save time and increasing the gas tax moderately but to tax per mile? I would likely stop driving my car and look to biking or telecommuting to work. Which I think if businesses can allow workers to do so they should get a tax break on it or at least write off the expense associated with providing telecommuting technology.
It doesn't get rid of the "gas guzzlers", it just restricts them to the few.
How about no tax?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Anything that monitors my car will not sit well with me.
Oh wait, or anyone at all.
My captcha is "pitiful". How appropriate.
Anyway, any rep who votes for this gets thrown out on his ear. This is just the noise the politicians make when they want to distract the politically minded.
....is always politically better than raising an existing tax.
One could always ride a bike...& get killed by some doofus in a big dually diesel pickup.
Or, hey, become homeless...there's a thought. Tempting...
Isn't it curious that some politicians always rail about cutting waste, get elected, then can't seem to find all this waste they've been railing about???
Personally, I'd like to see h1b visa peoples' taxes quadrupled. Yeah, let's do that!
Everyone in the Congressional Budget Office needs to be fired immediately. That would reduce the amount of taxes the government needs to collect...
Cutting costs? Preposterous!
Thank Ghod I'm in Canada where we measure distances travelled in Kilometers
...that just means you rack up the units of measurement faster, leading to higher taxation. :p
(...then again, at least they can be a bit more granular about it.)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Let us be honest here, politicians seldom come up with particularly original technical ideas.
The idea that a group of politicians got together and said "Say, I know. If someone were to invent some sort of box which sits in the car, records mileage and reports back to some central system we could tax everyone based on the miles they've driven" - to me that's vanishingly unlikely.
What I think is rather more likely is a manufacturer of little black boxes contacted a bunch of politicians and said "Say, we've invented some sort of box which sits in the car, records mileage and reports back to a central system. You could legislate to make this box compulsory in all cars and then tax people based on the miles they've driven".
So, who makes such boxes?
A big reason for highway maintenance is damage caused by the wear and tear of heavy trucks. Cars do not cause the same damage. Increase road or fuel tax for trucks and see every product they transport go up. That aside why after all this time do we still have the same tar and asphalt roads anyway? Isn't there a better road surface that would wear better, be more weather resistant and maybe even improve fuel mileage? Yes it would be a cost up front but new road surfaces could be done to the most traveled commercial highways for starters. Any reason that would not fly besides cost?
"these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance...The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
If this were really the case then the gasoline tax is both a great proxy for miles driven and the weight of the vehicle (heavier vehicles consume more gasoline and also damage roads more per mile). It also fosters the purchase of lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles.
As soon as there is a public transport system that means I don't have to drive further to the bus stop than I do to my job......
As soon as there is a train station less than 80 miles away from me.....
As soon as I can fly somewhere without being groped and made to pay to actually take something with me..... .... Then we can start talking about measures that will reduce my ability to use the only vehicle that works for me.
How many months has it been since we last heard this? 4? 5? For some reason, despite the fact that it would be enormously expensive and a logistical nightmare, this idea keeps coming back from the dead. You see it floated from time to time as idle banter, but once someone starts to work out the details the whole idea falls apart.
Anything that requires you to buy and install hundreds of millions of GPS units is going to die when someone prices out the cost of GPS units. It's slightly more realistic if your annual safety inspection included a look at the odometer and a tax on how many miles you drove that year, but then it gets into the whole state/federal mess and the fact that some states don't do inspections and some do them at different intervals, etc...
Of course the easiest solution is to just raise the gas tax, but obviously that's politically difficult to do when you get campaign funds from the oil industry.
I read the internet for the articles.
In other news, the government has continued to squeeze blood from stone and instituted a tax on breathing.
"We generously provide all this air for you. It's only just that we be compensated" said Ima Asshat, a government spokesperson during a press conference today.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Taxes have been cut multiple times since the early 80s, while spending has increased. I'm all for cutting taxes, AFTER we get our spending under control. The govt should only be able to cut taxes if receipts > expenses AND there is no current deficit. It'll be a long time before our budgets are balanced unless we lay off the entire military or let poor people start dying in the streets. Had we been a little more responsible over the past 30 years none of this would have been an issue.
What is wrong with simply reading the odometer? Read the odometer when renewing auto tags each year. Granted, tag expirations are staggered throughout the year so people won't all have their odometers read in December (end of year). Still, even if you made a separate trip to the DMV to have the odometer read it'd likely be more cost effective (for both the government and for drivers) than installing metering devices in cars. To me, it just smells like an excuse to get tracking devices installed in everybody's cars.
So, I wonder what kind of lobbyist-fueled-by-special-interest-tech-industry is pushing this? Sounds like a republican's wet dream: find a way to get more money out of the middle class and pump some more money into big business by selling millions of cheap to build, overpriced metering devices.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
"used to offset the costs of highway maintenance" I thought that was what the gas tax was for.
"being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally"
The totally electric cars aren't going to be paying any gas tax, so are their mileage charges going to be greater so that they pay the same thing?
Besides, I thought we wanted a reward people who are "going green".
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
This issue's been brought up multiple times, and I've always asked the same question, and never gotten an answer --
Does the weight of the vehicles travelling affect road lifetime?
If so, those heavier vehicles, which naturally get worse gas mileage will contribute more based on a pure gas tax vs. a 'miles driven' tax.
In my opinion, the problem is that most of the gas taxes are 'per gallon' taxes, rather than a percentage tax ... so as gas prices go up, people buy smaller cars or drive less, and there's less tax base to maintain the roads. With a standard sales tax based on percentage, as the gas prices go up, so do the taxes, and so there's still revenue to maintain the roads, even if the gas consumption goes down.
If there are concerns that the gas prices will go down too far, then you do a split system, where the total tax is per gallon + a percentage.
The only thing this doesn't deal with is pure electric vehicles or those that can act in that way; but you can either handle those in a separate system ... if you go to a miles driven thing, you have to build out a whole new reporting system, and you'll have to deal with each individual vehicle, rather than just the points of sale. Some states have safety or emissions testing on a regular basis (every 1 to 3 years), so they might be able to take an odometer reading there, but then how do you handle farm vehicles where the majority of their miles driven aren't on the roads?
I'm guessing part of this is a protectionist move against electric vehicles and hybrids.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Honestly this is stupid. It's going to make transporting goods extremely expensive, driving the prices of everything up - including things that the government buys. On a side note, I really wish the country would loosen up on drug laws; the whole war on drugs thing really is starting to hamstring our economy. The revenue we'd make off of taxes is astronomical if we taxed them (even just minor ones such as cannabis), and the money we'd save on prisons is just as big (a significant of prison inmates across all tiers of the prison system are nonviolent minor drug offenders). Further, industrial hemp is a fantastic crop, its hardy, prolific, and easy to grow in the US (it was so plentiful and hard to kill it got its nickname, "weed"). Its effectively banned in the US. Pair that with effective, fact-based drug education (not the reefer-madness inspired DARE program) and I honestly don't see that many problems really coming from it.
Most of the money spent by the government is from mandatory spending. The part where government gets to decide what to do with the money (discretionary spending) is 19% of the total budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
So let's imagine that you somehow convince the federal government to cut all discretionary spending. Great job! But our mandatory spending continues to rise... in the next years (depending on who you ask), our mandatory spending will be greater than 100%.
How do you cut mandatory spending? Well, break our promises, basically. Don't pay out social security. Don't provide medicare. "But the gov't promised!" Oh well. NOW imagine the consequences.
So, lets say they do put this meter in your car. As it stands right now we can literally reprogram EVERYTHING in your car via OBDII. So how long do you think before there would be hacks setting it to something stupid. And when questioned, all people are going to say is 'well, I car pool'. Even if they go based on your mileage. There are still ways you can fake the mileage on your car. Do I think many will go to that extreme? Who knows. Point is unless its guaranteed its going to happen. Its utter BS and they should be ashamed for even suggesting it.
...where I can read an article about the government doing something, ANYTHING without facepalming.
Unfortunately, I don't see this ever becoming a reality.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
It's called an odometer.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Good idea, our shitty health care system and insane military spending is bankrupting us. Solution: Lets stop maintaining our roads.
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut can't name a single program to cut that is both A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut. Would you take benefits away from people on a fixed income, who were promised and rely on that income and those benefits to make it through the month? Would you cut spending on military and defense? Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway? Cut funding for sciences and eduction? NASA?
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
Especially if I can stop paying those taxes for public transit that I don't use. I'd happily pay by distance. I don't see why electronic meters would be required though. I go for bi-annual emmissions tests anyway, just look at the odometer then, and charge me accordingly.
It's also great because unlike gas taxes, it won't tax tourists driving through. Since tourists certainly do their part to contribute to the economy, giving them cheaper gas makes a lot of sense. Truckers are already covered in their own ways, so that's not a factor.
I like it. usage-based billing. makes a lot of sense. especially when I want to rev the engine and burn gas for fun. although, I drive around for fun too.
either way, great idea. let's do it. as long as pot-holes are fixed, and road construction doesn't close roads for months at a time. I'm in.
It doesn't matter, it will fail if they pass it when they try to implement it.
If they require it on new cars, used cars will become more valuable, to the point new car sales would come to a near complete stop. Would you buy the 2015 with built in tax instead of a used 2014 with no tax counter? Would anyone?
They could require a device in used cars. On post-1996 cars, they could use the OBDII port, but a lot of them (if not all) can be reprogrammed to correct the speedometer anyway. Set the final gear ratio to 0 and drive tax-free.
A different gear in the transmission or on the differential will change the measurement. Even if they installed sensors on the axles (not a cheap proposal), you can make it read less mileage if you used larger wheels or tires.
You can easily block a GPS or transmitter antenna.
I don't see how they would implement it in a way that isn't easily and simply defeated.
This sentence no verb.
Aside from the DoD, the government really isn't spending too much money. The real issue is that they aren't taxing sufficiently to maintain a viable government without going into debt. Things like roads, schools, law enforcement and other things cost money, you can't continually to cut them without damaging or eliminating the tax base.
But, the other bit of it is that the voters reward the politicians that are willing to go into hock to start pointless wars and cut taxes for the rich and for corporations. We've got the money to pay, it's just that we're penny wise and pound foolish.
Plus, it's got basically nothing to do with government workers, they aren't the ones that pass these insane ideas or sign them, that's your politicians work.
Had they not cut taxes on the rich since Reagan this would not be a problem. Rich people don't like to use their own money to pay for their governing the rest of us.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Aren't there already federally mandated distance tracking devices in vehicles? I believe they're called "odometers."
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
TFS makes it sound like my 350 lb motorcycle should be paying an equal tax amount for road repair as a 3 ton big rig that travels the state distance. Nonetheless, one of the reasons I chose to start riding a motorcycle was because I wanted to reduce the amount of damage my vehicle was doing to the road it travels on. How does this new tax fairly address the fact that some commuters and travelers make a conscious effort to negatively impact roadways as little as possible?
Also, isn't this supposed to be addressed by state laws that require folks to re-register their vehicles every year?
Oh wait, I get it, this is just another case of the government proposing a law that hurts those citizens which possess some manner of self-imposed responsibility. And other countries wonder why we Americans hate every god damned thing that our bloody federal overlords get their hands on. I'm starting to see the wisdom held by those folks that say fuck it and don't bother to do their part in supporting society. It's not like the extra effort ever gets rewarded anymore.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Aside from the obvious legal challenges that are going to arise from this, the cost of enforcing this is going to be astronomical. Mileage counters would effectively have to be installed on every existing vehicle on the road. The cost of that alone is going to be insane. Plus, what's to keep me from removing said device as soon as I get my car home from the DMV? Or say that the device runs into mechanical problems and stops recording? Ignoring the legal and moral ramifications of this idea, it just doesn't seem practical to me.
I got a better idea. GE just reported $14.2 billion in revenue for 2010 and is paying $0 in federal taxes. That should never, ever be possible. The gov't is looking for new sources of revenue from you and me because wrong-headed "tax reform" policies over the last 30-years have made it possible for the wealthy and corporations to completely duck their obligations to support the system that allows them to profit so richly. Start by correcting this gross error first.
Isn't that double jeopardy in taxes? I mean they already tax you for the gas you used to travel those miles. Not to mention if you have a gas guzzler, you pay a gas guzzler tax when you buy the car. That would mean you were triple taxed.
like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Great idea! Slow down economic activity until economic activity speeds up!
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
Your phones GPS tracks where you are, your vehicles-soon-to-be GPS tracks where you are going and your internet traffic shows what your doing... *sigh* I really hate the new millennium...
What if a bunch of miles I drive are off-road in my jeep? Are they going to tax those for road maintenance even if I wasn't on a road?
C|N>K
Presently offering this kind of equipment or have it under development? If so - info on any kind of "contributions" to politicians and amount of lobbying activity?
That would be big business, getting a box (manufactured overseas of cause) into every car..
And taxing the less consumptive vehicle more instead of rewarding sound like the way to go as well.
Millions would be raised, and idiotic youtube comments would dissapear. Everybody would win (except stupid people)
This just seems not only overly complicated, but fucking stupid. Just raise the gas tax if this needs to be done. It would be easier to implement, cheaper, and make more sense.
Regardless about how you feel about AGW, using less gas is a good thing on many levels. So simply raising the gas tax would be a two-fer in that regard. If everyone somehow miraculously switches to electric vehicles, then worry about how to deal with it then. Not that it would happen that fast anyhow.
How much fun will it be to deal with the "devices" that must be installed on all vehicles? Adding them to new cars would be trivial, but I think that would seriously hurt new car sales. What's to keep someone from hacking or disconnecting the devise? How long until there will be kits to modify these devices? What happens if it breaks? Or is stolen? How much will it cost to retrofit an older car? Who pays to install it? What about classic cars? Farm use vehicles?
Increasing the gas tax just makes so much more sense if we must do this.
A Republican's wet dream forsooth.
The report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who held a hearing on transportation funding in early March. In that hearing, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the Obama administration is hoping to spend $556 billion over the next six years, much of which would go to federal transportation improvement projects.
I don't see a whole lot of Republicans in this story...
The idea that Republicans are in the pocket of big business and the Democrats are not is demonstrably false. They all are, and the sooner we all start focusing on what is realistic, reasonable and feasible instead of ideals and supporting "our" team, the better off we will all be.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Taxes, or an excuse to get a GPS device on every car in the US? I remember what they did with the GPS devices in every phone, *promising* that it could only be used for emergency 911 calls. Now a warrant isn't even needed to track them.
I'm normally not paranoid, but jeeeez...
Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
I typically drive about 16,000 miles a year due to being in school and having school/work/home just far apart that driving is practical enough when I'm commuting from one place to another. Now, it looks like it wouldn't be since that'd raise my cost of commuting even more.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'd be all for this if public transit (trains / buses) went to the main areas I need to get to but they don't. Build that up and then talk to me.
Right, because the design of the American system of measurement precludes counting in tenths of a mile.
I don't think it would be that big a deal for the U.S. to switch, and there would probably be some benefits too it (not necessarily more successful space probes, there was more sloppiness there than just doing a unit conversion improperly), but the ways most of the arguments go are just silly.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
My mileage drops 10% from 80 to 70 mph.
Measured many times, over my 50 mile one way commute, for the last 10 years.
Given that It doesn't drop nearly as much as adding 10% ethanol to the gas, but it's significant.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Instead of messing with the cars, just make people hang onto their emissions statement. Report it on your taxes, and a copy of the emissions statement attached.
Another stupid idea from government. What states do not have emissions testing yet?
Not this again. I swear, every 6 months some mid-level bureaucratic functionary (state or federal) who doesn't really "get" the way government in the US works floats this idea. There are simply too many constitutional issues around this to ignore. The fact that such a system would necessarily require some degree of Federal monitoring already raises questions of 4th amendment issues, not to mention the questionable authority of the Feds to directly tax grandma on the 2 miles she drives to and from church on Sunday. The other side of the coin is state governments trying to do this and justifying either a) taxing drivers on miles they drive in other states, or b) mandating a 4th Amd-questionable GPS device that monitors where you're driving to only count miles in state.
The either need to raise the gas tax or find a different way to fund their idiotic bullshit wars.
1) people who drive economy cars will be taxed the same as those driving V12 trucks, sports cars, and heavy luxury sedans. Not to mention minivans and SUVs, which also consume more fuel. 2) rural people will be paying more because they have to drive more. 3) Oil companies won't be suffering as much because there won't extra incentive to reduce consumption. 4) There won't be an increased incentive to build more fuel-efficient vehicles and public transit (again, good for oil). 5) There's little most will be able to do about it; you can lighten your lead foot, inflate the tires, even buy another vehicle more cheaply than you can buy a new home closer to where you work. 6) Even though the big, heavy vehicle puts more wear on the road and requires wider lanes, it will be taxed the same as the tiny tin box. Conclusion: Basically a flat tax for cars, and just as "fair" as a flat tax always is, disproportionately burdening those on the lower end of the income scale. I'll file this away in the same sad little corner as the proposal to eliminate federal food assistance for families of people on strike.
Road damage goes as the 4th power of the axle weight so a Honda Insight does essentially no damage. An Escalade does do damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance
I'd rather not see a miles traveled tax. It would be better to have a new vehicle fee proportional to the expected life of the vehicle and the 4th power of the axle weight. That cost gets passed along proportionally in the further sale of the vehicle.
Raising taxes from historically low, unsustainable levels? Preposterous!
Emission testing is on a county by county basis here (Indiana). My county doesn't have testing.
Gone!
we already have a way to fund road infrastructure that is based on mileage - its called the Federal Gas Tax. Are these bureaucrats really suggesting we spend $XXX per car to fucking track how many miles everyone drives electronically?
In Massachusetts, I pay an excise tax each year on each vehicle I own. I work 33 miles from home, and 25 of those miles are on a toll road. Our gas tax is 21 cents/gallon. How many times do I need to pay for my miles?
Just what we need - another regressive tax to bail us out of a recession caused by the shortsighted greed of the richest people in the country.
And as an added bonus, some rich man will get even richer by selling us all the required electronic devices, which of course will be made in China.
But, uhm, remind me why all vehicles should be treated equally? I mean, other than the fact that it would favor the people who can afford to buy and operate gas guzzlers?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It will also tax 2,500 lbs cars the same as 6,000 lbs SUV at the same reate, but guess which one does more damage to roads?
So they want me, a driver of a ford focus, to pay the same amount in mileage tax as some jerk with a hummer?
~ChibiSkuld~
So much for living in a "free" country.
Good luck trying to get equipment installed on someone's personal property. Even if it is a legal requirement, there will be hundreds of ways to disable the technology rendering it useless and nothing but a waste of tax payer money.
If you really want to do this, make more toll roads so people have a choice of were they can travel; fast, convenient, well maintained roads, or not.
If you want to stop congestion in big cities, do like London, England and impose tolls leaving the city core to deter people driving into the core in the first place.
If you want to save the environment, tax the hell out of gas guzzlers and offer tax rebates for more fuel efficient vehicles.
If you want to get re-elected, end this nonsense.
Doesn't this impinge on the the whole "Freedom of Movement" clause in the U.S. Constitution? Remember the path to socialism isn't made in one step, but rather the gradual erosion of rights.
Indeed.
The CBO reports on all sorts of things. The existence of this report only means that one person in congress asked them for a report. It does not mean that congress as a body is even considering such a thing, much less likely to do it.
For "nerds" a lot of people sure are susceptible to propaganda.
I can't help but think this is another shock doctrine excuse to embed the Federal governent further into our private lives. How long before the FBI (for example) starts using this info as a basis for search warrants and arrests based on "suspicious" activity?
20% is the defense department, which I consider mismanaged. We could reduce that efficiently, but it's too beurocratic to run an efficient defense department.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I cannot believe this idea. How about taking care of the real systemic budget problems and not nickel and dime us to death? If the politicians were not all corrupt, we'd have a working system, but because they spent all our money on dumb ideas and bailouts and sweetheart deals, now they need more money. Idiots.
Currently hooked on AMP
"The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids and EVs as well in order to generate more revenue."
There, that's more accurate.
instead of adding yet more ways to reach into our pockets, all the political fat cats cut back their pay to something more reasonable, and stop allocating ridiculous amounts to all kinds of political bumfuckery, so that there is actually cash left to go where it was intended instead of various peoples pockets.
Nah, that'll never happen, we're all just too fucking stupid to actually unify and push the issue. Too busy trying to force everyone to believe in our version of god, or our version of the perfect family, or any other numerous selfish ignorant narrow-minded drivel. Because that's what's important right?
Hey, how about we just put a tax on every breath you take? Oh, oh...wait, what about for every beat of your heart? For every mile your blood flows inside your body, how about that one?
If it's not obvious, I'm not a fan of the idea of taxing miles driven, because it will effectively punish those who have doen things like moved to hybrid and EV technologies. More than that, those who can't afford the tax will be forced to no longer travel farther to look for better work, but rather be 'stuck' in a smaller range to find lesser work, thus creating a viscious cycle.
Not only that, it punishes those who travel under normal non-hybrid/EV means as part of their employment. Visiting various clients, servicemen who go from call to call and so forth.
This really is just a poorly concieved idea.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
A mileage tax would be regressive, harming especially rural people and the rural poor. Most cities have some sort of public transportation that can be used to get to work and thus avoid a good portion of a miles traveled tax, not so in rural areas. On the other hand, rural salaries tend to be lower and commuting distances longer with no option for public transit. This would be especially hard on agricultural workers who can often barely afford a car in the first place (but couldn't work without one), but would now also be asked to pay mileage taxes on top. Vehicle mileage tax is inherently unfair, in my mind.
OMDB
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but last time I checked, every vehicle was already equipped with a device to track miles traveled. Couldn't the odometer just be checked and the mileage fee be assessed at an annual inspection?
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The reality of the situation is that imposing such a moratorium would have little to no effect on the significant problem we face and would ensure that we pay more over time to maintain infrastructure (letting something get to the point you must fix it costs more over time than just doing incremental repairs/improvements). The US must address the largest items within our budget: military spending and entitlement program, if it wants to have a long term balanced budget. The cumulative total of all the rest could be zeroed and there would still be a long term problem.
People who cavalierly wast resources should be paying this burden, not us people who are stuck with commutes, but thoughtful enough to buy vehicles which are misers on gas consumption.
I'm confounded when I drive through suburban neighborhoods and see 80% of the homes have at least one Pickup/SUV in the driveway - most of these are never going to be used for construction or off-road. They're the modern equivalent of the Station Wagon. If gas is so cheap these people are commuting with these, and I see them in large percentages on my daily commute, then gas is still too cheap. Get off that addiction, people!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
I'm not sure what oasis of happiness you grew up in, but this is exactly what I was told growing up.
Just because we don't want to cut costs doesn't mean that we can't. It will be painful, but I'd rather have a little pain now than a lot of pain later. Unfortunately for me, many politicians tend to think the opposite way.
I appreciate the idea of making sure all vehicles are taxed for their use of roads, but would only agree to such a tax if the current gas taxes were then reduced. I've been paying to support roadways via the gas tax every time I fill my mower, snow thrower, weed whacker, and blower, and some of my friends pay that tax when they get fuel for their boats, snowmobiles, and ATVs. I'm sure the total non-auto/truck consumption is trivial compared to that used by roadway vehicles, but it should not be forgotten.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Clearly, we aren't taxed enough already, right? The government is horrible at money management, the last thing they need is More Money.
If GPS becomes required on all vehicles they are going to have the problem x 1000.
There really is no need to install measuring devices. When you get your annual vehicle inspection the garage would send a report to the state with the VIN and mileage. The state would just subtract the previous years mileage from the current to calculate your tax. Then they can send you a bill for the amount due. Or if the inspection garage had computer access to the DMV database they could add it to your inspection fee. To really be fair on the road wear & tear issue, they could use the vehicle weight in the tax formula.
If this were really an alternative to fuel tax, and not an addition to it, I'd say it's awesome that something is finally sticking it to those bastard Prius owners.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
So, the idea here is to double dip where gas powered cars are concerned? Tax them for getting gas, and then tax them for using the gas? Meanwhile EVs just pay for how much they drive?
The US government is as stupid and corrupt as ever.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Is to increase the funding for public transit and increase the cost of driving. Americans love their cars but a lot of countries get by using public transportation.
Heavier vehicles cause more damage to the road. So they should be taxed more. Just taxing it by the gas consumed may not be perfect, but it is close, and it avoids the added costs of new devices, the issues with retrofitting them on older cars, maintaining and calibrating all these devices, and making sure people don't break them or hack them (not something I have any confidence in business or government to every get right).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke. Want more money? Just jack the existing gasoline rates up.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Or they could tax the rich. They after all are the biggest abusers of federal programs. You know that one called money.
1) Excessive military expenditures (Notice, I said moratorium on NEW expenditures.) We have plenty of skunkworks projects already. We really dont need new ones, and can reasonably afford to stop innovating new killing machines while we wait for the economy to recover. Pundits will claim military expenditures in R&D create jobs, but that suffers serious paraxoical problems; Money spent on military research and development mostly just enriches private enterprises, who then use tax sheltering ponzi schemes to evade paying taxes back to the government. The money they pay their workers is necessarily less than what the government paid out initially (They need to turn a profit, yo!), so the ROI is always negative.
2) Revise pensioning plans for government workers to be more in line with commercial offerings. Working for the government does NOT entitle people to that "Sweet ass deal where I can vacation in the Bahamas every winter when my summer home in Martha's Vinyard is too cold." [Note, I don't mean marginalize pensions into oblivion, I mean make them sensible. Living comfortably != living lavishly. Such revisions would INCLUDE senators.]
3) Avoid creating new agencies and new departments to handle old problems. (Like this one, where we would be creating new overhead in regulators, enforcement, manufacturing contractual agreements, etc-- to deal with an old problem-- )
4) Actively find ways to use old departments to handle new problems.
We'll provide both medicare and social security. We'll do it by socializing the healthcare industry and paying out less valuable dollars in SS via inflation. Putting all the net profits of all health care and insurance providers in the country into government coffers is going to balance the budget. It's already been done in places like Japan.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
The "Interstate Commerce Clause" is an easy way to declare everything unconstitutional without really thinking about it, but the logic falls apart pretty quickly.
The gasoline that you pump into your car is distilled from oil supplies, most of which come from out of state.
If those oil supplies dried up, you and every other American would be totally screwed.
That's why the United States of America maintains a global military presence, keeping shipping lanes open, and ensuring oil supplies are "stable". Every once in a while an especially corrupt President invades a country like Iraq for oil, but that's not really the subject here.
The point is that the gasoline you pump into your car, upon which the infrastructure of the entire country is founded, doesn't come from Arkansas. And I guarantee a good portion of the roads you drive on were built with federal money.
It makes alot more sense to me to tax the Oil than vehicle miles traveled, but I'm not a Republican... I don't like to continually victimize the people who least deserve it.
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
Why is why America is going to to bankrupt rather than fix its problems.
Didn't you gyus invent the Tea Party to stop the legislative assholes, who have a massive sense of entitlement, from taxing anything that moves?
Lowering spending from historically high, unsustainable levels? Ridiculous!
The last time we were spending this high of a % of our GDP on government we were using it to beat the Nazis.
The overhead of this system alone is going to fail the feasibility test. If there are 230 million cars on the road, and if the cost per car is 500 dollars (for the actual electronic device, and the distributed cost per vehicle to get a reporting system up) then your cost just to initially implement this tax is 115 billion dollars. We all know the installers will be paid well more than they probably should, so I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost to implement approaches 200 billion. Then you have to build in regulations for tampering, reporting, tax code adjustments, etc. Overall, this might be the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Why not tax people who drink more water because they urinate more, or tax bike riders or those people who walk to work because they aren't buying gas? Or, tax people who pay there bills by regular mail, since they aren't using the internet. This is just ridiculous.
Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
Eliminate the National Organic Certification
My idea seem to be fairer than others that seem to want a tax based off of mileage to deal with alternative fuels, hybrid, and electric vehicles to raise revenue for roads.
1. Remove the gas tax
2. Use a formula like ("annual mileage"/"vehicle weight in tons")*"cost factor" to get the total amount each vehicle is taxes each year.
3. Remove any vehicle that is exempt form excise taxes
4. Stop siphoning off road funds for things like buses, or trains. Example: the Minnesota MVET law that was passed a few years ago that mandates that at most 60% of the MVET can go towards roads and at least 40% must go towards mass transit. This was promised to solve the roads issue in Minnesota but hasn't.
As an added bonus this would encourage lighter vehicles and fewer miles. Of course this wouldn't fly because it doesn't pick favorites like government likes to do.
Time to offend someone
If the government needs to raise revenue, repeal the tax break for the wealthiest tax payers! This new tax idea will go over like a lead balloon with the trucking and transportation industry I hope the AFL/CIO shows their fangs. Also get rid of waste like stop paying farmers for not growing shit.
I can see the idea of making people pay to support the road infrastructure, but that's what tolls on roads are for. Under current laws the states have the power to register motor vehicles so unless Uncle takes this power away I thing such a tax is unconstitutional at the moment.
Would you cut spending on military and defense?
Yes. Then maybe we can keep our nose out of everyone elses business and focus on just this country. There is no need for our military to be this big. We should go back to being a neutral country and be happy with it.
Social-security and medicare are interesting in that they are theoretically self-funded already. Well, medicare has a major issue because costs are growing too fast, but the main problem with social-security seems to be that they bought treasury bonds as a method to save for the future. So the gov borrowed against social security and now needs to pay itself back. You can't default on those loans because it would kill our credit rating. Treasury bonds are supposed to be safe so it looks like a good investment, but on the other hand it looks like the gov borrowing from itself, which doesn't look so good.
I have no idea what the solution is, and don't really expect to be able to collect social-security in my old age, but there isn't an easy solution to the mess
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut
"I'm a fiscal conservative" is almost always a euphemism for "I don't like paying taxes, and I damn sure don't like having my tax money spent on things that benefit people from the lower classes."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I can leave doors open all day, I have left windows on the lower level of my home open all day, simply because of where I live which is the suburbs
Big city schools, yeah that is where its at, if at is graduating a small portion of your students and generally getting stomped by most schools in surrounding counties for GPA/SAT and graduation rates. Top it off with more chances for gang activity and I think you begin to see why people might not want to live in them.
You live your life and let the rest live theirs. NYC is special because of rent control and the like which has gone further than many other cities. Or perhaps you would prefer San Francisco which has nicely driven nearly all blacks from the town by pricing them out of the mark with new building rules and restrictions on what can go where.
Cities work for some people, they don't work for everyone. Atlanta is almost to racial parity but is that a good thing? It is a simple reason really, the city is getting too expensive for the poor to live in it and the poor are majority minority here. Yet people say "move to the city" which brings more yuppies who tear down or gut nice row homes jacking the costs to live in the neighborhood
Back to the story. It was to be expected with the push for better mileage vehicles that the method of taxation must change. Why they need meters I will never know, they can just do inspections and check your mileage. Of course with meters and GPS they can tell which roads you used. It all comes down to one thing.
Instead of spending the money they get and doing well with it they are forever looking for new sources and usually spending it before they get it
.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
First of all, how long before this system actually pays for itself considering the cost of putting these devices on every vehicle in the U.S.? Secondly, you know these devices are going to be tampered with like no tomorrow; and what about the ones that malfunction and don't report mileage accurately? Thirdly, there are some serious Orwellian implications here, obviously. I don't think I need to elaborate. Just raise the blasted gas tax. This is to maintain the roads, correct? Doesn't a Hummer cause far more wear and tear to the roads than a Prius? Oh, but that wouldn't favor the rich jerks with their massive vehicles. We can nickel and dime everyone to death with this nonsense, but heaven forbid we take away the tax cuts for the top 2% because that would be bad for the economy. The middle class just needs to bend over and take one more for the team, right?
Would you cut spending on military and defense?
Mismanaged, overspending. Yes, I would, of course. I'd have it audited, I'd have questions asked, and I'd have changes made. There may be spending increases at first--spend more to spend less, you know? For example, improve training and move from Interceptor to Dragonskin armor. Now you only need 50% of the troops (you can penetrate Interceptor armor with two good shots--it's ceramic plate mail, basically, and I've seen people take three hit bursts concentrated and have two bullets in them, one in the armor). We're also having a company design anti-RPG systems for tanks to protect infantry, because the one Israel has (that they'll happily supply us) is 96% effective and "that's not enough" so we're having an American company design one from scratch, which takes years, tons of money, etc. Fuck that, 96% is great, they have to fire 20 times as many missiles to cause the same damage.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
If you want to eliminate social security, then yes, this is the plan. It's short term vs long term: employers pay 6% and employees pay 6% (now 4%) into social security per employee wage. That means you free up 12% of the economy by eliminating social security, plus the system is always going to have growing problems due to inflation and population aging. The only way to support those already paying in is to keep taxing the workforce while telling new entrants (say, people under 18) that they must manage their own retirement because they WILL NOT have social security coverage when they get old. If you think there is a definite long term benefit to eliminating social security, then you must realize the cost is taxing people for no benefit.
Stop looking at problems like "We can't we can't we can't" and start looking at problems like "how do we do this, what would the cost be, the benefit, is the short term problem too crippling, is the long term problem worth the pain...." Social security is a great example: maybe it's better for the next generation if we eliminate it, but it's "not fair" to the current generation. Is it fair to the rest of the people born under this government for all eternity to subject them to the economic hardship of supporting a social security system? What if we raise the retirement age again, to 72 ... then to 84 ... then 92 ... is it still fair to anyone?
The military is another great example, because a lot of people like to put up "our military is wasteful" and a lot of other people like to put up "got a better idea?" like they think it's so efficient. If you honestly believe our military is the most efficient machine ever, you're really clueless. The fact of the matter is we don't have a good plan for addressing it--which is point number one: we don't have a good plan, which means we should start examining the problem to determine what problems we have, then try to fix them.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Your viewpoint is exactly what I would expect of somebody who is comfortable with big, unaccountable, all-powerful government. You actually trust them, and believe that they work for your benefit, rather than their own. Just be aware that some of us don't see it that way. For example, I don't believe in 95% of what government does, and I sure as hell wouldn't be paying for it if I wasn't threatened with physical force. On first glance that sounds atrocious to you, doesn't it? Would I honestly support a downsizing of the US government by 95%? You're god damn right I would.
Keep in mind we are talking about the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed. To me, any claim that the US government STILL doesn't have enough money or power is absurd.
My ideal government is roughly 5% the size of the current US government, measured both in revenue and power over the people. But you don't care about me: I am forced to support your ideology no matter what, and I will be forced to support your ideology until the day I die.
It is a fallacy that government subsidies enrich the economy, at least as far as government income is concerned.
Example-- I, as the government, give a subsidy to an energy company so that they can provide the necessary infrastructure my population requires. The energy company accepts my subsidy with sweaty palms, then promptly invests that money in an overseas venture. "We can't possibly track individual dollars as they move through our enterprise!" they proclaim. By "pure coincidence," a large sum of money approximating the savings that they received from the subsidy ends up in a non-taxible foriegn subsidiary, in say-- Ireland.
Meanwhile, prices at the pump and for the domestic services for which you have implemented the subsidy, remain unchanged, or, rather, increase. "We have to charge to meet demand!" they proclaim.
Similar stories with telecom. Did you know that the US government made a slushfund to replace the copper POTS network with straight up fiber in the 90s? Where did the money get spent instead? Oh dear.... That's what I thought.
how fauxking much could we possible still owe to finish paying the holycost? if it were for anything but flat out killing, there might be some considerations? disarm. then you won't need so much fauxking money, freakish (fear based) control etc... every second of every day forever. we can rebuild our society (using accurate math, history facts etc.. without any fauxking.gov. things were MUCH better before we (inadvertently deceived) allowed royalty to take us over/have its way with us.
we still have a choice?
The invasion of Iraq was very expensive, and at it's root it was fought to secure oil for a few "well connected" oil companies.
That oil flows into gas guzzlers at a higher rate than more fuel efficient car. Since the gas tax doesn't even cover road maintenance anymore its kind of a moot point, but at some point we'll have to pay the piper.
There should be a large war and global military presence tax on every gallon of gasoline.
It's pathetic that we borrow money from the Chinese to pay for our wars instead of taxing the commodity that the war was fought for.
Uh, the defence budget?
but then they wouldn't know where you are.
I bet this "electronic device" will also report your location in realtime to the government for "bookkeeping".
"Make cities denser"
I heard something about urban sprawl that "might" make sense. It was said by one of the big city mayors that part of the reason for urban sprawl was a secret cold war program (by the federal government) to encourage urban sprawl. The thinking was that the U.S. would better survive a nuclear war if the population density was less. I don't have any facts to back me up on this other than it was said by a big city mayor. It does seem to make some sense but, if so, it was a misguided policy.
Easy. Cut pension plans for public servants. Make them use 401k like the rest of us. California's pension system is driving the state bankrupt...
The more I read about your government's decisions and proposals the happier I am that I don't live there.
This has nothing to do with taxes. This is only a back door to put GPS devices on all cars.
Instead, they could ask for odometer readings when you renew registration, but noooo - they must put gps...
I guess it's a win-win for gov and big oil.
That being, that they (State and federal governments) are spending too much money already.
Do you offer this as fact or opinion?
How about they do something a little more useful, like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Funny thing is, we can always afford wars half-way around the world and tax cuts for billionaires, but can't afford to keep the country running.
And that's with a "liberal" in the White House.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
does Arkansas take any federal money for roads? I bet they do
Would you cut spending on military and defense?
Yes. Why is defense the white elephant of fiscal conservatives?
Do I have to be taxed for something until the pirates stop plundering my tax dollars for their own purposes?
Seriously, we have a plethora of taxes on the books already to facilitate this, at the federal, state, and/or local level.
Fine, you want another tax specifically for road maintenance? Then reduce my state and local taxes by an equivalent percentage as they are already supposed to include money for this.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
In no particular order
- $50 BILLION in food stamps in 2010. How many people are "poor" and do we do a fiscal audit on them first?
- The entire Constellation program at NASA. Keep supporting ISS and astronauts. Begin pure research into a inter-planetray craft, use the VASIMIR. Do not touch the unmanned side.
- F22 and F35 planes. Why did the Air Force crash (mech fail) an F15 in Libya, when we bought those mother fuckers 170+ F22. We can cut back on the Air Forces need for F35s. Also drones are a hell of a lot cheaper.
- How much are we spending on keeping a shit load of Nuclear weapons ready, when what we have on all our boomers can't take care of multiple countries. We are not going to attack China or Russia anytime soon.
- IT efficiencies across the board and consolidation of office spaces into efficient buildings that cost less to operate.
there is a start.
And on top of all the double/triple/etc dipping that the government will be doing, Who is going to pay for this new electric gadget to be added to my vehicle.. Oh yeah. I will. Most likely costing atleast 200 to 300 bucks just so the government can tax me even more money. Yeah... thanks but no thanks.
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
According to wikipedia, in 2007 there were just shy of 255 million registered vehicles in the US. Let's assume that 90% of these are not brand new and will have to be retrofitted with these monitoring devices (this assumes that new cars will be required to have them, so the manufacturers will pass the cost on to the consumer and the government won't have to pay for the devices on new cars). That means about 229.5 million cars will need to have these devices installed. Let's say it costs $25 per device for parts and installation (which is probably low, but I don't how to make a more accurate guess). That means it'll cost $5,737,500,000 or 5.7 BILLION dollars just to get the things installed. Granted, they'd offset that cost fairly quickly with the additional tax revenue, but do we really need to spend almost 6 billion dollars on this at this point? If they only required new cars to have the monitoring devices, they'd save the case, but I'd say that's a pretty solid reason to buy a used car instead of a new one if it meant you avoided the tax. Maybe they'd require all cars sold (new and used) to be fitted with a monitoring device. If that's the case, that's just another fee that further raises the price of our already overpriced cars. This doesn't even take into consideration the cost of manpower and equipment that would be necessary to manage the program. If they're going to do electronic monitoring, then you have to add the cost of the infrastructure (I doubt AT&T or Verizon will be thrilled about adding that many devices to their networks). If they're going to do it via inspections, they'll have to pay for the states that don't already do vehicle inspections (Florida, for example). Sheesh...
By creating this new "road use fee" they do not raise the gas tax and can say that they did not raise taxes during their next election.
Of course I also read about this a few weeks back and someone mentioned that a company making a GPS unit that can track the cars mileage was in the home state of one of the bills sponsors.
If you ask me, raise the gas tax. This is essentially the same thing and it still encourages fuel economy. In the long term it will also lower oil demand offsetting some (not all) of the tax increase. Using gas taxes also eliminates the costs involved with buying/implementing the new program.
You can also save money by eliminating all subsidies to consumers/businesses in order to buy hybrid and electric vehicles. If higher gas prices are not enough to encourage this behavior anyway you are just giving your tax money away. You may say that people can not afford the upfront cost of a car without a subsidy, but most people get an auto loan anyway, and the gas savings from using a hybrid can pay for the increase in the monthly loan payment.
Of course congress is impotent when it comes to almost anything, especially something that increases taxes and the cost of gas. Even if it is good for the long term.
BTW: before you consider me a troll for my suggestion, my "fuel-efficient" car gets 25mpg on the highway, so a gas tax will hit me harder than mileage based usage.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
I can think of quite a few things we could cut:
And we could also start being more effecient:
New revenue:
I'm sure I could think of more, but it's not like taxes and cutting funding are the only solution.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
People in the countryside necessarily are forced to drive more miles than city dwellers. In urban and suburban areas, commutes are shorter (distance), even if they take longer time wise because of congestion. Additional, there usually are some public transit options available in the city. People in rural areas have no choice but to drive long distances.
This is doubled in the last 30 years by the âoeWal-Mart Effectâ. Small town economies have been crippled by 1) shutting down local manufacturing with massive amounts of cheap imports (yes, lots of small towns had factories) and 2) driving out all small town downtown business with predatory pricing by big-box stores. In some areas, every type of business or service is concentrated at a regional mid-size town which has the regional Wal-Mart and the surrounding towns are reduced to bedroom communities. In some towns, there isnâ(TM)t even a grocery store anymore because Wal-Mart has run them out of business. People in these towns are forced to drive 20 miles to get groceries or to go to the doctor. As economic activity has concentrated in the regional centers, so have the jobs. With the factories shutdown and the downtown shuttered, people have to commute to work in the regional centers instead of working locally.
A tax like this would disproportionally tax people who are already poor.
Not AC for anonymity... I simply forgot my login. I'll tell you one major area we can cut that will have impact overall: defense/military spending. I'm in the military, I have attended every quarterly budget meeting since sewing on E-5, and it's *atrocious* how we spend taxpayers' money. I can't begin to describe to you just how out of control and wasteful it is. I have made every attempt to report the specifics for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse and have literally had a Colonel laugh at my phone call.
I'm not talking about things that I feel unnecessary, and don't see "the big picture" and that's why it's laughed down. We get told constantly to "spend that money" so that we get the same amount next year (any other military here can provide an alibi for my statement). So one report I made was how we purchased $17k out of a 90k annual budget for one work center for oscilloscopes.
WE ALREADY HAD WORKING AND CALIBRATED O-SCOPES. And to top it off, this particular work center has progressed in technology in the last 10 years that we don't even use them EVER. No, seriously. NO ONE in a Tech Control will ever, ever, ever, ever use an o-scope for troubleshooting. This was 2009. This is only one example.
Please, someone back me up on this.
The current system of taxing vehicles based upon their value is ass-backwards. A brand new mini-cooper has less of an impact on the roads and the environment then a 10 year old suburban. Also, a person who drives 8,000 miles a year shouldn't be paying the same automotive taxes as a person who drives 30,000 miles a year. This is why I've thought that increasing taxes on gasoline would make a lot of sense.
I assume that there are commercial challenges/implications to doing this (although Europe doesn't seem to have a problem working these issues through) so that is why I assume they are now looking at electronic metering. I don't want any government devices tracking me (even if it is just an odometer).
In any case, tracking miles traveled doesn't address wear and tear and roads (i.e. heavier cars = presumably more wear 'n tear) and the need to promote fuel efficiency. This is why I still think taxing gas provides a better reward/punishment system without the privacy (and cost) implications of a tracking system.
Evolution: love it or leave it
How is this different than a gas tax other than that it would be more expensive and difficult to implement? I realize that certain vehicles may use more gas but not put proportionally more wear on the road, but so what? Aren't we trying to encourage cleaner vehicles that rely less on fossil fuels? Also heavier vehicles == more gas == more road wear, so even if the correlation is exact, it can't be too far off.
If not enough money for roads is the problem, increase the gas tax. If you don't want to do that, I can think of a certain department of the government that spends hundreds of billions of dollars (and by "spends" I mean of course "gives to Lockheed Martin" and by "Lockheed Martin" I of course mean "Stark Industries") buying all kinds of cool missles and stuff for two different wars we should never have gotten involved in. Maybe they could trade a couple fighter jets for better roads (and while we're at it, how about better schools, and better infrastructure all around).
Then put a tax on electricity that covers that. But we can't have that! That would kill business!
Here's the cold, hard reality: infrastructure costs money. Lots of it. Businesses profit tremendously from a well-maintained infrastructure. We already measure gasoline consumption, electricity, etc. It's a cinch to add a percent to the cost of an already existing transaction. The end-result is exactly what we want: the heaviest users pay the most. Compare that to a mileage metering scheme, which doesn't exist, requires new infrastructure, creates whole new ways of cheating and will be a nightmare to administrate. How do you compare an empty 18-wheeler with a fully loaded one? What about land-trains? What a car with a trailer? Without? Fully loaded? Single occupant?
I don't understand this fascination that Americans have with tap-dancing around energy taxation by creating nightmarish regulatory pretzelworks. It doesn't work. But I guess it caters to the class of people who have a religious opposition to visible taxation.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Wait... so in order to level the playing field, we're violating taxpayers' privacy to ensure that the user of a light hybrid sedan pays as much as an SUV?
I think something else is going on here. I won't name names, but it starts with an "O" and ends with an "il Lobby"
If you just insist on taxing me on my miles traveled, use it as a total replacement to gas taxes, give me a refund on the taxes I just paid on my new domestic car purchase, allow me to deduct gas purchases from my taxes when I file my income taxes again this time next year, and don't ask me to pay anything extra just because I still have the car again next year. I'm so damned tired of being taxed on everything we do. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to me that I pay taxes on my wages earned (income taxes), then pay taxes again on car that I purchase (sales tax), and then pay taxes again for keeping it (annual ad valorem), and now you want to tax me for how much I use it (mileage tax) on top of the extra taxes (gas/excise tax) added on to the taxes paid (sales tax) to fuel it???
How much money could we save to put towards the spiraling American national debt if gave up the same amount of our money in taxes as we did before, but all at once, eliminating the wasted overhead from so many separate calculations and transactions?
The whole concept of being taxed over and over again is becoming ridiculous. As a successful young professional, I want my government to do this: Figure out a rough approximation of what I owe society, please. Add whatever my portion is of the interest on the debt is, and increase the whole thing by 1-2% of that total to cover the sins of my fathers and start paying the existing debt. Send me one bill for that, and get rid of all the extra bureaucracy while you're at it so that those tax dollars go just a little bit further towards the things we're told they go to, rather than some bean counter's salary. But I suppose that makes too much sense to be done in a political sphere, huh?
Not exactly-- What I have a problem with is not people becoming more educated, being able to afford their own homes, or to ensure quality education for their children, as many left wing pundits would claim about me.
What I have a problem with is senators and other government employees creating subsidy programs in both military research expenditure budgets, and in technology and infrastructure budgets that generate conditions that destroy actual market competition, with the goal of enriching themselves through enriching the corporations they offer the subsidies to (Shock, horror, Senators can own stock!).
"You just dont want to pay taxes so little Timmy O'Toole can get new crutches!" is a red herring. What I really dont want to pay taxes for is so Dick Cheney can get richer from killing people in Iraq, or so government regulators can get spiffy pension pension plans, while people are starving and suffering contrived forclosures (remember that leak about bank of america?) and losing everything.
Basically, I dislike being told I hate the poor, while watching senators do land grabs and Cesar spout soliloquies while Rome burns to the ground.
Clear enough for you?
It's electronic, what's to stop me from fucking with it when nobody's looking? Just like slowing down your power meter.
Jeez, so true, please mod up!
Because don't we all make $400,000 per year? I mean why not charge everybody more money than they're used to having to pay out in taxes during the most severe economic downturn since the stock market crash in 1929 and the single most severe global economic downturn in history. Sure, I mean why not. It couldn't possibly have any effect whatsoever on the economy.
I do think it's a great way to level the playing field between gas guzzlers (the ones that tear up the road the most) and more efficient vehicles. How dare the less wasteful, lighter footprint vehicles get a tax advantage!
Gas taxes have always apportioned the road tax unfairly, so they probably shouldn't be the only solution (other than some really basic models, highly efficient cars have tended to cost more than cars of average efficiency, so poor people tend not to have the most efficient cars), but how do you know that lighter vehicles cause less wear on the roads? Do you have a paper on this you can point us to, or is this assertion just based on a feeling?
Certainly a heavy truck will cause more wear than a passenger car - but what about a small car compared to a mid-sized car, or even a sports car with a powerful engine?
On a more powerful car which has larger, wider tires, the weight per unit of tire contact area on the road could (pounds per square inch, or N/m^2) actually be lower than in a small car with narrow low-rolling-resistance tires. Rolling resistance is reduced in tires by making the tires harder and by reducing the size of the contact patch between the tire and the road - a recipe for increased road wear if the efficient car is not drastically lighter than the normal car. The Prius weighs more than some sports cars with much more powerful engines, (certain Porsche 911 models come to mind), but the Porsche cars have much larger tire contact patches.
Assuming the tires are not actually spinning on the road surface, could not the larger (or just more powerful and less efficient per mile traveled) car actually be wearing the road surface less than the smaller car?
Putting moderation advice in your
We have a larger navy than the next 11 countries combined, and 9 of those are our allies.
Step 1) Reduce navy to the save of the next 5 countries combined.
We have more agriculture department employees than there are farmers.
Step 2) Eliminate all farm subsidies and cut the agriculture department to the bone.
We fight too many wars
Step 3) Stop fighting wars and eliminate supplemental war expenditures.
Stop fighting the "war on drugs" and every other "war on..." that we have been loosing since the 1960s. Get over it already.
Step 4) Stop prosecuting and start taxing vices and victimless crimes.
I currently work as a defense contractor, and I know first that the government is incompetent and defense spending is largely wasteful.
Wow politicians told you it wouldn't be there and to pay anyway? Which ones? Names please.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
Lets not forget their real goal here... They want to install GPS units to record millage in every ones car. To make sure the revenue goes to the county whos roads are getting used, they'll log your location. While they're at it they can track your speed and eliminate the need for police to monitor for speeders.
Raising taxes is easy, you just RAISE TAXES. Tricking the public into giving up their civil liberties, well, that's just a tad bit harder. But not much.
Oh dear - you just imagined a government providing no safety net to citizens and no confidence to investors until some vaguely-defined point in the future! How silly of you!
State and federal governments are not spending too much money - if anything, they're not spending enough (and not only that but they're taxing the wrong people to get it). The job of the government is to provide for the security and well-being of its citizens. Cutting spending during a massive economic downturn is absolutely no way to do that job. Providing help through stimulus and job creation is.
I swear, it's like the only lesson all the small-government starve-the-beast meatheads learned from the Great Depression is to have a couple of wars when your country is going to shit.
the coolest club on
This is bullshit. I can identify four programs that I would cut. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare. I don't think we should cut DOD money, but we should definitely close most of the overseas bases. Japan, South Korea, and Europe can learn to defend themselves.
So, to avoid punishing gas guzzlers that pollute the environment, we want to invade the privacy of each and every person? Stupid. Forget about trying to tax the plug in vehicles at least until they account for more than half of the vehicles out there. Once that happens, all you have to do is enact a tire tax. Tires wear out and and the more they wear out the more wear they caused to the road.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"The proposed tax would be enforced through the use of electronic metering devices installed on all vehicles"
Anyone else think this is a privacy issue?
So the idea is to tax drivers on a per-mile basis rather than a per-gallon basis in the name of equality...but not all cars weigh the same amount. Driving 30 miles every day in a 1978 Chevy pickup is significantly harder on the road than driving that same distance every day in a 2002 Nissan Sentra. Furthermore, what about motorcycles and scooters? Should a motorcycle that weighs ~600lbs seriously be charged the same amount per mile as an SUV that weighs ~2 tons?
Yeah, taxing per-mile seems way more fair than per-gallon.
Don't fret, it's easy to form a LLC and deduct the mileage as a business expense from your Schedule C at $0.50/mile. Problem solved.
Right. Because the best thing to do when you're in debt is to spend your way out of it.
Try to not get caught up in the rhetoric of the economists/experts and use common sense. The government is not supposed to be the primary economy driver, it's supposed to be a passenger (stuff in the trunk) and get out of the way for legitimate private enterprise.
just tax gas, and other energy.
penalize gas guzzlers,
ultimately we need to stop driving so much. We need infrastructure that reflects the true cost of things. We are simply not sustainable.
We should live and work within walking distance.
We need to stop going to the gym ( walk and work instead)
We should do more labor intensive things to lower unemployment.
We should invest in insulation, for noise and for heat xfer and fire containment...
Then have much denser housing.
Do this by taxing fuel, we know it is a volitile comodity, we can use the taxes to buy a buffer quantity and have stability.
Taxing by miles??? what the heck, a prius does very little road damage compared to big trucks...
They should do away with the gas tax (and any other tax at any level of government meant to repaire roads) and put in place a tax on any vehicle, payable at time of registration (annually) based on the Gross Vehicle Weight and mileage change from previous registration, which is known of EVERY vehicle type, including big trucks. This is fair in every respect I can think of, without the intrusiveness of GPS, etc...
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
we should be encouraging people to use EVs and hybrids, even if you don't believe in global warming there's no question that our dependence on imported oil is a drain on our economy. Now if we get to the point that everyone is using EVs and there's not enough gas being sold to support our roads, then we should look at alternatives. But we're years away from that, for now jacking the gas tax is the best way to go, and the simplest.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Really sounds like a new way of tracking where you go. If they are installed on every car, then the meter can associate your car to a location. No thanks. I'll take public transit and rent a car when needed. Doesn't just taxing the gas do the same thing meanwhile encouraging more gas efficient vehicles... This is also potentially brutal on tourism.
Somehow my car manufacturer installed a "miles covered" counter in my car already, and I have to send it to the local state so they can calculate my car taxes.
Why on earth would they need to install an "electronic metering device" in my car, when one has been installed in all cars for over 50 years? Sorry, I forgot; they just want to monitor everything about me, so a simple mileage counter doesn't fulfill the "other" non-stated needs.
When an agency (Of any sort) spends more capital than it receives, it is spending too much money.
Perhaps you were unaware of the extreme deficit crises (Yes, multiple ones) effect many major state governments?
Spending MORE money will not solve the problem of insolvency. These state governments CANNOT get loans, their credit is so bad. Who is going to pay for basic infrastructure? PRIORITIES man! PRIORITIES!
Yeah, USA's GDP did drop significantly over the past several years.
It's not that the programs are bad, it's that they are run incredibly inefficiently. I am a member of the US Army Reserve in a Brigade level unit. Whenever we buy a computer from Dell, we get a brand new monitor too. That is how the contract is set up. What if we don't need a new monitor you say? We get one anyway. We have a little over 20 brand new 22" lcd monitors in our supply cage collecting dust. It's retarded shit like that that the government wastes it's money on without enough sensible/responsible people having the authority to say "hey! that's fucking retarded, why are we spending money on that!?" Oh and another example, my last unit got a new Mobile Storage Container Lift (think Giant Wheeled Crane). The thing cost us a little over $3 Million. We had 3 fucking containers. Again, the problem isn't the program, its the inefficiencies in the program.
*Vehicles already have odometers, and don't all states require periodic emissions inspections? If they really wanted to tax based on actual miles traveled, they can just copy down the mileage then.
Only areas that are non-attainment or borderline on air quality require periodic emissions inspections and not always for all cars.
In my state, because the air quality is good enough, cars over a certain age do not require emissions tests if they passed a test previously. Some very old cars were never inspected (although this tends to be antique cars that are not driven a lot). Cars under four years old are not tested either. Many of the rural counties are not required to have vehicle emissions testing either, because the population density is low and the gradual phase-in of modern cars have helped keep the air clean.
There is no safety inspection here either - the logic is that most of the time these are a waste of time and money as most people are afraid of killing someone with an unsafe vehicle. Heavy trucks are inspected for safety, but not passenger cars and light trucks (under 16,000 lb, which can be just a large pickup truck).
Putting moderation advice in your
Well... It would be nice if we could get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And yeah, I know it doesn't tend to go over well with conservatives, but do we really need to spend quite so much on the Military? The ROI on military spending doesn't seem so good.
I mean, this is kind of what happened under Clinton... No big wars, cut Military Spending, Invest wisely. Seemed to have worked out well enough.
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
Given that OP is clearly a conservatroll, I suspect "funding to buy niggers on welfare Cadillacs" - which as every good conservative knows consumes at least half of the federal budget...
My guess is that over-usage of the objects of Sin Taxes often translate into increased medical / social costs, except the rates may be sawtooth rather than a smooth curve. For example, taxes on cigarettes would possibly offset the public subsidy of Medicare claims *if* the accounting were done honestly.
The problem is now we have a bad problem of the "stated/theoretical" use of some policy, and the "actual/sneaky" bait&switch use of policies.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I would definitely cut the military, by about 90%. Close down those 500 bases around the world and bring *all* the military back onto US soil. Abandon the silly wars and take the military payroll down to about 10% of what it is now.
Wrong. Cut everything by the same percentage amount. EVERYTHING. There is no political issue with everyone taking the same haircut by the same percentage amount. The other alternative is simple: let the money run out and all government programs are cut equally - to ZERO.
Federally managed because the federal government is what people want.
Which people? Sure, the plutocrats in DC want this, and media regurgitates their desires. But I haven't heard from the people...
It is not sustainable to continue spending more than you take in year in and year out, especially not when the gap between the two starts to widen.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly,...
If we do not reduce government spending soon, it won't be there for them when they are elderly, whether we tell them that or not.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Explain how this is fair?
In my region most corporate offices are located in higher income areas. This means most employees, excluding middle and upper management of course, can't afford to live close to where they work. It's not even close to being an option, no way in hell could I afford to live closer than the 15 miles I currently live from work. Coming from the other direction I probably couldn't afford to live within 30+ miles of my job. But then oftentimes upper management lives within walking distance of the office.
I commute to work, not that I like to, but I do like my wife (whose job is not close to mine), and I like being able to afford a townhouse, so living close work and quitting my job were not options. Where I live we have this new-fangled thing called a "toll road." You see, the way it works is you pay to drive on it based on how far you travel. When the road was built, the promise was that the tolls would only be used to pay off construction bonds and maintenance. Unfortunately, the state realized that no one can do without that toll road and they could set the price at whatever they like, so they changed the law, raised the tolls, and now they use it as a way to fund pet projects of all varieties. Of course, given their long history of honesty in policy making, I'm sure the federal government would never pull a bait and switch like that...
CUT MILITARY SPENDING! CUT WAR! CUT FUNDING TO OTHER NATIONS THAT WILL NEVER PAY IT BACK! CUT THE WAR ON DRUGS!
Spending money on building something to destroy something else is the most retarded fucking idea our society has ever come up with.
There's also the ugly fact that most employers discourage telecommuting (say, from home; zero mileage tax!), right up until they outsource your job to somewhere without labor laws.
If employers had to count commute time as part of the working day and compensate employees for fuel and maintenance, or have to pay employees enough to live closer to where they work, you would see a "free market" solution to this problem real fast. Plus, it would probably have the added benefit of forcing companies to upgrade Internet infrastructure.
Nathan's blog
You can either tax the rich or have jobs but you can't do both.
There is no need to eliminate the social security program. The only problem with social security is that the distribution of income is different than assumed when the program was designed. Simply raise the cap on earnings and the program is funded indefinitely (or until earnings distribution is further skewed). See: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/the-social-security-cap/
Increasing fuel efficiency standards are reducing fuel tax revenue per mile. Solution; tax actual miles. Does this mean Prius drivers aren't `paying their fair share?' Does this not reduce the incentive to utilize more efficient vehicles?
Tell you what; DON'T exempt the "poor," old, non-white, etc. and I'm for it. If you have the political temerity to apply this without exempting every political constituency with an AARP size lobby then it's fine with me. BTW, we have odometers; there's no need for any elaborate GPS solution; if odometers aren't sufficient for any reason then forget it because location tracking is politically infeasible.
Anyhow, whomever is `contemplating' this is pissing in the wind. The '10 election results guaranteed there will be no further federal tax `innovation' for a while.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
cut taxes if receipts > expenses AND there is no current deficit
This is a pretty good idea. Put the fiscal conservative mouth where their money is.
To compensate for cutting taxes, I think we should institute new marginal tax brackets at $1 million, $10 million, and $100 million.
For those in the new $1 million tax bracket, they would have the peak Clinton-era rate.
For those in the new $10 million tax bracket, they would have the peak Reagan-era rate.
For those in the new $100 million tax bracket, they would have the peak Eisenhower-era rate.
:(){
Let's start with defense spending. Stop the wars. Remove all bases on foreign soil.
I read on /. that New York had a tax for the smaller fuel efficient cars, BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO FUEL EFFICIENT....
so you get taxed if you buy a big gas consuming car, or if you buy one that does not give them enough taxes on fuel...
How will this be different, you have a car that you dont drive, they will charge you for not driving it enough....
I hate these times, we have more taxes then ever before, yet we are more in the whole then ever before too.....
I just dont get it.....how does a country like caymen islands which has no taxes, or dubai or any other (cant list them all...)
get by without taxing everything....maybe they got something right?
Whoosh.
like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Great idea! Slow down economic activity until economic activity speeds up!
Wealth is NEVER created by government; it is only transfered from one group to another group. Take a simple example by removing money from a transaction: A farmer works hard by growing wheat (that is real wealth) and a shoe maker works hard making shoes (more real wealth) and the farmer and shoe maker agree to this exchange - 2 pairs of shoes for 1 bushel of wheat. That is real wealth being transferred. Now, pretend that before the farmer made the above exchange for shoes, he is robbed of 1 bushel of wheat. The robber then takes the wheat and exchanges the stolen wheat for 2 pairs of shoes. The robber did not "create" any wealth or any "economic activity." He simply transferred real wealth from the farmer to himself. He got the shoes that the farmer was entitled to. Government is the robber. When it spends, it has to take, by force or threat of force, from real producers of wealth and then it uses that wealth to buy. By doing this is transfers the wealth to itself, but it creates absolutely no wealth. It is, like the thief, a parasite and nothing more.
Commercial vehicles (and buses) tend to have higher axle loads than even SUVs. Of course, corporations have lobbyists and try to get roads paid for with gas taxes or the general fund, to have the general population pay for their vehicle damage. The general population doesn't know about, and probably doesn't care about this.
Depending on your state & locality, not all of your motor fuels tax is going towards road construction & repair. In North Carolina, about 25-30% of that money is being diverted into the general fund.
So when a politician calls for an increase in tax "because we need good roads", ask him where the rest of the money he collected went that was supposed to have gone to replacing bridges in imminent danger of collapse.
Chip H.
Sure, it may be so in the USA. But lets not forget that this is an international messageboard. In Europe the 'roadtax' is usually far in excess of what is needed for actual road maintenance. The rest is used to fund the treasury as well.
Apart from the road tax there is a very large tax on fuel which can reach to over half of the price paid at the pump. Not surprisingly, fuel is now at 9.10 USD per gallon in the Netherlands. Sure, we have "socialist" healthcare (I'm paying just 155 USD per month, all inclusive) but we get fleeced by other taxes.
Still, I'm not complaining. People in Rwanda have it worse, still...
Not only is it Double dipping. But it is taxing the people that are spending money on the more efficient vehicles.
So let me get this straight we want to use more imported oil? And less replenishable resources like wind and solar?
I understand we need to pay for the roads. But for now it would be better to increase the gas tax. At least until many more people are using non taxed vehicles. We need to encourage change not tax change.
So I'm being punished because my boss moved me to a new facility twice as far from work as when I first started? How about you go fuck yourself, I'll tax it, and we'll compare.
if the issue is electric vehicles not paying for road wear and tear just raise the gasoline tax and eliminate the hybrid/electric subsidies on vehicle purchase
everyone pays a little more to support the roads, an incentive for switching away from fossil fuels is maintained and it requires no complex/expensive/intrusive new systems to administer
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
They subsidize the oil industry out of our pockets and we never pay less at the pump. They put down every hint of true alternative transportation infrastructure, so most of us have no choice but to drive to work. Why not just go the full distance. We need air monitors so they can tax us per breath, along with taxes for our CO2 omissions. Perhaps a surcharge for each pump of our heart.
Where the hell are the conservatives on this. This is not small government or fiscally conservative. We will have the mother of all invasions tracking our every last movement so as to tax it.
If they put this through, the American sheep-le deserve it!
Oh, you know, he'd like to cut $422 million in federal funding to CPB, which is dedicated to educating the public through non-commercial radio broadcasting, but he doesn't want to cut US subsidies to NASCAR and other racing groups - $40 million in tax cuts, $7 million in direct US military sponsorship of NASCAR teams, $5 million for drag racing - which are mostly dedicated to lining their own pockets. OK, it's a factor of ten difference, but I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of "Republican Cultural" institutions that also get military and other government subsidies.
most of the morons posting here have bought into the line that more money is needed for roads, meanwhile they have no idea where the money paid in goes. the vast majority of Americans are against the budget as it is currently structured, and this is why unions are crying like infants who lost their pacifier. End the government funded life styles of the leeching parts of America (pensions, SSDI, Inner City Baby Factories) and fund the things that need it.
Funny, I thought the significant taxes on gasoline were supposed to pay for roads. Oh yeah, they looted all that money for other stuff.
yes, there's a reason maxume is on my "foe" list
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
How about all of the above? I would cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and Defense. Political suicide?... Probably. In the end if the cuts aren't made the country will go bankrupt and then everyone will be up sh*t creek without a paddle. I don't plan on Social Security being there when I retire and neither should anyone else.
To be honest I think the only reason the US economy hasn't tanked is the fact that the dollar enjoys "reserve-currency status" with the rest of the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency) Our pension for solving our economic problems by printing more money and thus devaluing the dollar, may very well undo our entire economy once the rest of the world gets fed up and decides the Euro (or something else?) should become the new reserve currency.
Bottom line, America needs to make some hard choices, but the sooner it's done the better off the country will be.
I believe that I have clearly spelled out my rationale for making the parent post at least 3 times within this thread already.
Not once did I mention any kind of race hatred, but you most certainly did-- Far the contrary in fact, I argued a totally different tact concerning further enriching corrupt senators and against payola.
I even argued for the reduction of military spending.
Sadly, you were just too busy and self-conceited in your opinion of me to bother reading them, apparently.
Please, take your racial biggotry someplace else, preferable someplace with fire, so you can put both it and yourself in it, and spare the rest of us your ignorance.
The real solution is a hover car, no more damage to roads.
I don't see a whole lot of Republicans in this story...
For the record, Ray LaHood is a republican.
The idea that Republicans are in the pocket of big business and the Democrats are not is demonstrably false. They all are, and the sooner we all start focusing on what is realistic, reasonable and feasible instead of ideals and supporting "our" team, the better off we will all be.
Agreed.
I am not for this either, because of the expensive, privacy reducing, gps device. But they don't just raise the gas tax because of hybrids like the Prius. It is also necessary to determine which roads you drive on (an therefor where you are at any given time) to know how much to charge you. It gives them an excuse to map your driving habits. The GPS device could even monitor your speed and detect if you violate posted speed limits. Revenue and Control.
Hey now! As a station wagon owner, I would like to protest. My Outback (2001) gets 25 miles per gallon in normal driving (YMMV), and can move 5 people in seat belts, their stuff, and a dog all at once (picture creative packing here). Comparing that to a pickup or SUV is slander!
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
Half of my money is forcibly taken from me. How is this historically low? Oh right, obama let jeff immelt make 14 billion last year with 0 in taxes, that balances mine out.
Okay, I'll bite.
1) Stop fighting two wars. Let the people of Iraq settle their own affairs and let Afghanistan rebuild. The threat from terrorism isn't large enough to justify the wars, and there are better ways to deal with that threat.
2) Stop trying to enforce bans on drugs. It's more effective (7x, by some measures) to put the money into education instead of enforcement.
3) Related to #2, let all non-violent drug offenders out of prison immediately. Non violent offenders don't offer a risk to society, and we shouldn't be putting people into prison for what amounts to a personal choice.
4) Close Guantanamo bay. Drop the inmates back in their home country with $50K each and a brand new copy of the Koran. It would be cheaper in the long run than keeping the prison open. Per #1, there are more effective ways to spend money to combat terrorism. (Specifically, money spent to intelligence gathering)
5) Reduce US military presence by 40% worldwide. Give South Korea the task of protecting their Northern border, close bases in Japan and Germany. Keep only a selection of bases worldwide to be used for tactical support, should we ever need to attack a particular area.
6) Get rid of DHS entirely. Route 10% of that budget to the FBI and CIA for intelligence gathering.
7) Stop beating up on illegal immigrants. Make a fast-track for citizenship so that they can start paying taxes as soon as possible. Our population growth is declining. If you don't count immigration, the population growth would be *negative* already. Adding all the immigrants would add almost nothing to overpopulation and add to our economic strength. Oh, and contrary to popular belief, the vast, vast majority of them simply want to be peaceful law-abiding citizens.
The fact that you don't see informed people suggesting things to cut says more about yourself than the situation. Of all the infighting about the national budget, the elephant in the room is our military spending. With the fall of the USSR, and with Cuba and North Korea ludicrous, and with the current changes in the mideast... the world is a much safer place which doesn't need our military presence.
So I suppose being a liberal is a euphemism for stealing money from future generations to support my current lifestyle. Who cares if everyone is drowning in debt when I'm dead.
They should just lump them all together and tax me to live. If I stop paying the tax, they flip a switch and a little explosion makes my brain explode. This would suck because seeing as it would be a government program there would be horrendous glitches in the system causing thousands to die needlessly each day (not to mention the pissed off government workers that would just walk in one day and randomly flip a bunch of switches 'cause they're having a bad day). The real bitch would be the death tax which they would charge because I'm no longer a contributing member of society.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
Probes and telescopes bring us science. What science has the manned space program done lately? I'd also get rid of the heavy lift successor that Congress wants.
A lot of these silly laws start out as political ploys and veiled schemes which are not honest attempts to do what is written. Also, dumb segments of a bill can serve to distract or harm supporters of that bill-- obviously, it is used as a poison pill to kill bills as well. Unless a wingnut is behind it - its probably not seriously there for its stated purpose.
If you look at the actual cost to build roads (as i have) you'll find that the biggest factors are SPEED and weight with possible surprise costs after site inspection. Lower road speeds and you get the biggest cost reduction of all. But we never ever could dare to limit the speed - your time is sooo important!! (so important you work too many hours with little vacation time and then zone out on the crap on tv... do the math for a change... 5mph faster probably wouldn't even gain you a minute of time but it ups the bad statistics. Hell your crash regulations for your car are not likely above 35mph!)
Its really basic physics and the velocity of these heavy machines on the roads is the biggest factor in road wear; car weight is less of a factor because of the numbers (there are more cars than big trucks and high speed limits makes them all go faster not just the heavy ones.) I skipped the obvious winner - not driving on the road at all.
If Americans were responsible, we wouldn't be in this mess - nothing is free and skimping on the roads only costs you more later.
Logistically, it makes most sense to tax by weight. Automated tolls for tax heavy congestion or even highway use (high speed = high cost) can more fairly apply the cost burden upon those who use it. Speed tracking involves "big brother" as does distance tracking.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Of course, had they cut taxes on the rich AND cut spending since Reagan, this also would not be a problem and there would be the possibility for taxes to be lowered even further.
Wow. Just...wow.
To all the folks crying to cut government worker pay and pensions, there are a few things you should keep in mind.
First, which government? Most of you are making no distinction between federal, state, local, and any other other sort of government. You should. There's a great deal of difference.
In a nutshell, most people seem to think feds are the problem. They're not.
Federal government workers are paid, on the low end, slightly more than their private sector counterparts. Or, put another way, because we believe our government should be a little more fair in the way it treats people (as contrasted with, say, your typical mega-corp robber baron), that government pays clerical folks almost enough to get by, putting them a bit ahead of the normal private sector slave wage level. However, since there are far more low-end employees than high-level ones, their slightly more fair salary makes it look like average federal wages are high. That's not the case. If you have a decent education or special skills or you are a high-level manager, working for the fed means being woefully underpaid. There is, essentially, no federal equivalent of the private-sector executive who makes a million bucks a year.
So if you want to cut federal wages, what you're really asking is that the vast majority of federal workers on the low end of the wage scale be pushed down even further, often past the poverty line. That's not progress; that's volunteering the other guy to be exploited and, ultimately, it doesn't help.
When it comes to the folks demanding a reduction in federal pensions, I can only ask "Where have you been for the last 25 years?" The old Civil Service Retirement System, which is what you're thinking of when you think of some sort of traditional, gold-plated pension plan, ceased to take in new members over a quarter of a century ago. The last people in that plan are retiring now.
Everyone who's hired on since the mid 1980s is a part of the Federal Employees Retirement System, which is a perfectly reasonable, slightly-better-than-private-sector retirement plan with three components: a tiny pension, a Thrift Savings Plan (govt-worker version of a 401k), and Social Security.
CSRS retirees are dying off and FERS employees aren't causing a problem.
Is there anyone out there who actually thinks *federal* workers should have their pay or pensions cut? I'd love to hear why.
As long as they then reduce the federal income tax, since it is supposedly used to build and maintain infrastructure. Whenever I say we need to cut back on government people say "without the government who would build the roads?". If they're going to be charging a fee to drive on the roads, they will be no different from a private citizen charging you a tole to drive across his land. All of the conventional rationalizations for the kind of government we have are collapsing as the government moves further and further from it's original intended purpose. They are now essentially a glorified wealth redistribution scheme, and in they future they will be much more so.
well i'm sure we could save a buck or two by GTFO of a few wars, not sending money oversees to support other countries/dictators/monarchs/despots/etc, and it probably wouldn't hurt to get rid of half the loopholes for corporations that let them not pay taxes due to various excuses/creative accounting practices/etc.
people love the joke that is trickle down economics, but the only thing trickling down from up above is scat after they consume their plate fulls.
i'm still for the flat rate tax across the board, no exemptions of any kind, everyone pays equally based on how well off they are, that way it'll 'hurt' equally across the board.
Since all vehicles have both an odometer and a fuel gauge, a simple microprocessor can measure miles traveled and fuel consumed from the signals to the car's gauges. The gas tax at the gas pump can then be eliminated, and paid along with the mileage tax.
One effect of this is a reduction of gas prices. That's a damn fine sales point for the legislation.
VOTE FOR MONITORING; LOWER GAS PRICES!!!
It will be a cold day in hell when I let someone put a monitoring device on my truck without a fight.
What is wrong with the gas tax, at least in the short term. If we are having trouble paying for our roads today, then raise the tax, the use of pure EV is not having a real impact on revenues at this time. If there is an issue for commercial vehicles being taxed too much, then setup some complicated paperwork they can fill out to be partially reimbursed by the increase. Sure increasing the gas tax impacts people with older cars and trucks somewhat unfairly. But in the long term it encourages people to buy only as much car as they need. Theoretically if we all chose significantly more efficient cars the next time we upgraded there would be more fuel for others as our population (and number of cars) continues to grow.
You know what really damages the roads, all that spilled fuel and oil. It eats away at the asphalt. If you have en electric car your impact is significantly less (lithium cells don't leak acid). If we end up in a world where most people are using EV, then do a little math to how much electricity is being used to charge cars and add a tax with an upper limit to consumer electric fills, possibly only in one of the higher rate bands. Not entirely fair to people who don't have an EV, but I suspect their electric bill might be slightly lower too.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If I were to seriously think about Speed and Distance Tracking - which I'm against - I'd say that you require cell phones to report this information by law. Its already spying on you and if people let you do that you may as well leverage the smart phones do to it.
Sure... people would turn off the phone. or not own a phone... or not take it in the car... This would be great for smart people who'd know how to turn off their phone... and costly for the morons who use their phone WHILE DRIVING.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
...
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
How about 50% everywhere. I mean everything. Ok, sure, what I really want to mean is everything but defense (right wing nut case here!), but I'm even willing to go there if it actually means 50% everywhere else.
There, how hard was that? Chop - across the board. Period. End of story.
Oh, all the looters that squeal about not getting their benefits? Their offset by the producers who now get to keep more of what they produce.
It really is that simple, stop trying to make it hard.
Cut it all. Get rid of taxes. Instate anarchy.
There are a number of serious problems with this proposal. The first two are similar. Who will pay for these tracking devices and the installation? Second, is it legal for the government to impose a tracking device on your vehicle, without cause?
The third and rest are more pragmatic. This solution totally ignores how damage is done to highways. A fully loaded 18 wheeler going 70mph does significantly more damage to highway infrastructure than your Honda Civic, same with an SUV. The heavier the vehicle the more wear and tear to the pavement. So why should the small lighter car subsidize the bigger vehicles? It seems like the very idea of this is that those who use the roads more should pay more for maintenance and upkeep, kind of like turning the roads into electronic toll roads. However, it should really be based on those who damage the roads should be paying more for the maintenance and upkeep, more like an actual user fee: heavier vehicles use up more of the road surface, so should pay more to replenish that surface.
Then there is the issue of these "public" roads have already been paid for by individual's tax dollars. Federal fuel tax is for new construction, not maintenance. Maintenance is left up to the states, so while this scheme may keep the federal government from increase the fuel tax, under current law it does nothing to help with maintenance. If the federal government is concerned with the state's cost of maintaining the highway system, there is nothing stopping congress from changing the law on how the funds can be used right now.
Finally, if the concern is with hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles not paying their fair share, then slap an excise tax on those vehicles to cover what the fuel tax revenue would have been. Of course, that would make them less popular and not as many people will want to buy them. But if the goal is to make every body pay, then this would be simpler to administer, which means it would be cheaper to administer. It also would not require modification to everybody's vehicle.
Who comes up with these crazy ideas?
This is idiotic. The government should inconvenience us the least possible amount. Tolls, making a mandatory drive to a tax station, standing in some insanely long line at the DMV- This is all a bunch of garbage.
Mostly I want my government to be invisible. I don't want to have to fill out forms, and mail in paperwork, and calculate how much the price is with tax. I don't want to be evading "use tax" because I'm to lazy to figure out what I bought interstate last year. I don't know anyone who even knows how to pay use tax.
I want services, and I'm aware that a fair tax needs to be charged to provide those services. But when people write these laws up they treat taxpayers time as a free resource.
I don't see how a mileage tax can be considered a good thing.
A gas tax makes fuel efficiency a much more desirable goal.
If were not taxing diesel to the point where it is sufficient to repair the roads, then we're subsidizing shipping to the detriment of trains.
I like things to balance, and for technologies to compete fairly..
I see the whole mileage tax as a really dumb idea.
Though I do see a need to figure out a sensible system to deal with electric vehicles road damage. (Which we subsidize outright anyway, so we can take some time to do this right)
Rather than miles travelled though, I'd rather see it on tires calculated based on the square root of the mass of the tire --- that way larger vehicles would pay more, smaller ones less. There's also already a system in place to collect that (the existing fees for disposal of used tires).
The alternative would be to have special charging connectors for electric vehicles and tack the tax onto such, which would require monitoring people bypassing such, witness the existing problems w/ sales of off-road diesel (which has a special dye in most localities).
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
The problem with toll road solution is that it treats every vehicle the same regardless how much damage it does to the road. The heavier the vehicle, the more damage to the roadway occurs. Semi's are the worst, then regular non-semi trucks, then SUVs and pickups with something like the smart car being the least damaging (because it is so light). Shouldn't the fee paid be based on the damage to the road surface incurred? I'm not opposed to the toll road principle, but it should include a base rate plus a tonnage weight.
Everything, across the board. No exceptions, everyone feels the same pay. Oh wait, you work for the government and want to keep your job? Fine, you and everyone else from the top down, will take a pay cut. No exceptions. No targeted politics. No Back Room Dealings. Share the pain.
Personally?
Would you take benefits away from people on a fixed income, who were promised and rely on that income and those benefits to make it through the month?
Is this another way of asking about Social Security? See below.
For 'welfare', we have tried this for a couple of generations and it doesn't seem to work. There are people who do not use it to help themselves out of a jam, they use it permanently because there is no reason not to. Maybe this is a very small problem that is overexposed to whip up opposition - if so, reason tends to prevail. If not, it should absolutely be stopped, because it is not everyone else's responsibility to prop up dumb people who make dumb decisions, or people who have learned to take advantage of the system. I don't have an answer for how to handle things when it's too hard to distinguish between the truly needy and the freeloaders.
Would you cut spending on military and defense?
Absolutely.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
Yep. SS should sunset, existing people would pay until then and if you do not get old enough to receive benefits before it's gone, tough.
Cut funding for sciences and eduction?
Maybe. We need more resources here, but maybe we really just need more efficiency out of existing resources. Probably we need both. Education is critically important but it needs to be _correct and meaningful_, not this ideologically tainted bullshit that some of the wingnuts out there want.
NASA?
No. Again, critically important.
Without doing any research, I believe the biggest pieces of the pie today are social security and defense. We're either so far ahead of 'the competition' in defense, or we're so much less efficient with the dollars we spend, that we have to be able to achieve meaningful long term savings there. Social Security was a bad idea to begin with and should have been killed off a long long time ago.
We also need to do something meaningful about healthcare, and I don't think the answer is necessarily socializing the program. The healthcare industry manages to find ways to extract a lot of money regardless of who's paying, and moving to a single payer system is not going to magically make it all better. People also need to learn what's important and what's not, so they stop clogging the medical system with demands for the purple pill, immediate visits to remove hangnails, etc.
The problem we have here in the US is that we're too big and too slow to achieve meaningful reform before an election cycle, and our elected officials are able and obviously willing to make a career out of being what they are. So we get a lot of small overhyped progress, small overhyped regression and the big problems continue to fester because they are just too big.
The top four things we spend money on are: Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and Medicaid. Which of those would you like to cut first? And where will you be hiding when the interests behind each one come after you?
Infographic (i.e., me doing your homework): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html?src=tp
Well, it's easy to reduce the budget by simply decreasing the amount by which existing funding for annual budget items is increased. Easy logically, that is, not necessarily politically. It's not like the choice is between eliminating Social Security and halving the federal budget, or increasing spending by adding services and creating new government. The third choice is to simply maintain current spending.
That said, as a "fiscal conservative", I would change Social Security at the very least by implementing means testing. And yes, I would begin to phase out Social Security. It wasn't intended to be used as a retirement fund so much as a safety net. Not everyone is supposed to get their money back out of it, and if you're relying on Social Security to provide for you in your old age, you're probably going to need a few other safety nets as well. I don't expect to get a dime back from Social Security, if it's even still around when I retire, and that's fine. I just look at it as another tax, frankly.
I would also cut defense spending, which I believe is one of the bigger line items in the federal budget. IMO, the State department is underfunded, while Defense is bloated. There's a massive military industrial complex that soaks up a lot of tax dollars, when we should be sending some of that money to State, and some of it elsewhere in the budget.
And I know this is unpopular, but I would eliminate the Department of Education, which I believe is more properly a state-level matter. And Homeland Security, which is totally unnecessary and has consistently failed to accomplish its overall mission since its inception. Also, I would take a look at stuff like agricultural subsidies, which are a pretty fair chunk of the budget.
Even if you make a quarter of those cuts, and only cut a quarter of those elements of the budget, you're already saving a lot of money. My point is that, just because you might not be able to find one single line item in a budget that is both unpopular enough to be cut without political danger, yet large enough to make a big dent in the budget by itself, does not mean that there isn't a problem with wasteful and/or unnecessary spending in the federal budget.
Ps. I would leave NASA alone, because more money gets spend on the food stamp program than gets sent to NASA. And NASA is a model of efficiency within the Fed, frankly, before we even start talking about all the useful technology and research we gain from that particular agency.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
So you fail to give us the budget for the high speed rails we need and instead supply us with some frivolous tax?
Queue private toll road purchases and watch your (highway) infrastructure crumble.
Taxes have been cut multiple times since the early 80s, while spending has increased. I'm all for cutting taxes, AFTER we get our spending under control
Each time the tax rates were cut, actual revenue increased (in some cases, even as a percentage of GDP). If you really want to balance the budget, tax cuts makes sense. At the very least, the government should eliminate those taxes that require more money to collect than they bring in (or find a more efficient way to collect them than the bloated IRS bureaucracy).
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
Yes. In fact, as a young person, I'm already resigned to the fact that I'm paying for social security and when I retire at 70ish (because that's what the age will have to be then) I will not be receiving benefits from it because there will be no money. It'd be better to lay the news on the rest of the country now than have people try to plan retirement around benefits that will almost certainly no longer exist.
Stop being the world police. End foreign wars, bring the funding home. Largest, simplest way to bring an end to significant unrecoverable spending. Bush gave us two, Obama ups it by adding a third.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
I was told that my entire life by both my parents and my schools, now at 32 guess where the biggest chunk of taxes goes to, so whats stopping them from being truthful
TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
And you still haven't even come near to balancing the budget, have you?
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
I disagree. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I have no problems with tax money providing a social safety net (and would prefer to see the US have Western Europe-style "social nets"). To steal from another Slashdotters signature, "I like taxes; they buy me civilization."
What I want is efficient spending. Get me the biggest bang for my buck.
Conversely, I *do not* want my tax money wasted. I've worked for the federal government through the DOE on an LHC detector. I've *seen* how the money is wasted (no, the LHC isn't a waste, I watched how a DOE lab's computing division burned money away because, heh, we've got it, might as well spend it even if we don't need it). To the point, I'm saying "Take my tax money", but please, use it as efficiently as possible.
Fiscal conservative = ruthless efficiency.
Don't they already screw us enough?!?!
>Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
To start with, for the duration of the war, no contract for the military would be payable in cash. Beyond operating expenses, profit would be paid strictly in the form of War Bonds which would be redeemable at a good rate of return but only *after* the war. These million dollar bombs you hear about would be much closer to the actual cost of raw materials and the actual cost of labor, paid at a subsistence level (there is a war on, after all), and if it *still* "costs a million dollars each", there is a REAL problem with that which is putting the country at a military disadvantage to begin with!
Anyway that's exactly where I would start. More on topic, there would be a whole lot of other things as a result of being at war, such as very strict rationing of fuel, non-commodity foods, and raw materials for civilian enterprise.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I don't think what you have said is all that insightful (modded so). Loads of folks have been saying just this for the past couple of years. And I mean loads. People like their social programs - the military too - but don't want to pay for it. Liberals win with the giveaways but are getting it for deficit spending - and only pay lip service to higher taxes. Conservatives win with low taxes, but are getting it for deficit spending - and only pay lip service to spending cuts.
Americans want their cake and eat it too. Fucking morons. The eventual end to this - that is if the nation doesn't get clued in - is a failure in the bond market. Starting with the states, short term bond can't be rolled over with realistic rates. Then severe austerity. Or a debt crisis, in that the US defaults or restructures some obligations.
Why would you want to tax hybrids and other more fuel-efficient vehicles equally?!! That's totally non-progressive, as well as being expensive to implement,
Increase the gas tax - the US should be doing this anyway as a way to reduce demand, hence dependence on gas. I say this as the owner of a gas-guzzling SUV.. It's my choice and I'm happy to pay for it, and I'd also expect to benefit from lower costs if I chose to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle!
You are welcome to make a gift to the government: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Don't all vehicles already have a mileage meter (odometer)? And don't they get official inspections every year? And don't we already pay annual fees for vehicles? All these things apply in my state (GA). The only thing they need do is add the tax- anything else is just justification for taking more control over people.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed, the tin-foil hatters will be up in arms with the government thinking of putting electronic metering (tracking) devices in everyone's car.
A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut.
That's like saying you can't find a number between 3 and 5 that isn't 4, therefore, we math cannot exist.
Of course huge ass programs need to be cut. And there are 4 areas of government that will need to come under serious fire:
- Social Security:
a. phase out for anyone that is above the poverty line between now and 75 years from now
b. reduce the tax to 1-2% of net earnings to encourage hiring
c. Match the (Life Expectancy - Retirement Age) delta from 1935 to today's Life Expectancy
- Medicare
a. We'll start with negotiating for drug prices. When was the last time *you* bought something for 40 million people and didn't get a volume discount?
- Department of Defense
a. No one in their right mind thinks we need to be the world's police anymore.
- Discretionary Spending
a. We don't have any money. There is no "entertainment" budget. Cut it all.
When we balance the budget, and we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, we can start spending again. If you're going to spend, you're going to have to tax. It's that simple. Focusing solely on Discretionary Spending (which only Republicans want to cut, Democrats are still holding out on even that), and ignoring DOJ, SS, and Medicare, which no one wants to cut, is a fool's game. It's senseless and no one should take any politician seriously when they say they want meaningful cuts but ignore these areas.
If Barack Obama gets his way, we'll spend $1.65 trillion this year (we still don't have a budget because of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid ineptitude from last year).
- that's a 7.5% *increase* in spending over last year
If John Boehner gets his way, we'll spend $1.55 trillion this year.
- that's a 6.5% *increase* in spending over last year.
So that brings up 2 questions:
1. what the hell are Democrats complaining about, when even John Boehner wants to increase spending by 3x the rate of inflation? Stop being children and deal with these problems like adults do when they balance their checkbooks.
2. why would anyone in their right mind think that either of these men aren't complete jokes?
These folks don't give a shit about our economy and deficit, and are just fooling around with the United States Economy as if it's their first chance to get a Nintendo and play Mario Bros. We are out of extra lives, and I don't see a Game Genie lying around anywhere.
I can see the line out the door now of lobbyists looking for exemptions for UPS, Teamsters, trucking companies. Not to mention the petroleum companies who would be happy to slow down hybrid adoption. Small vehicles have the least impact on road costs. The Republicans will like it as another chance to stick it to the little guy. Democrats will have a hard time looking past the lobbyist money, the teamsters arguments, the way of the future rhetoric. Sounds a lot like the XXAA interference the US government does to protect their outdated role. US innovation is seriously hampered by the wealthiest vested interests the world has ever known.
Military expenditure is at something like $1.6T, right? Someone made a huge mistake by going to war and paying for it with creds instead of taxes.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Regarding the "How can you tax a semi at 80K pounds and a prius at 3K pounds the same rate" you don't.
Currently commercial vehicles have separate tax and DMV fees, nothing changes.
$1/1 lbs. annual car tax.
1. Incentive to choose a lighter vehicle
2. Average weight of vehicles decreasing leads to less road wear.
3. Lighter weight vehicles will use less gasoline.
4. No Hummer/Smartcar collision fears because the consumer pull for cars will be for lighter weight
The manufactures will be motivated to innovate on reducing weight to meet demand. Less death,
less gas, less road wear, initially more taxes accrued.
I like it how you never answered the question what exactly you would cut. You're like, totally, not the stereotype he parodies in his post.
"The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
Yes, because putting the tax on gas would be far too simple. Much better to waste billions of dollars on 'spy in the cab' devices. How bloody ludicrous.
Yes, cut military spending. We have huge guns and huge numbers of troops basically waiting for something to pop off. So we engage in ridiculously asymmetric wars that bog us down for years when, irony of ironies, the people who barely have enough funding to keep AK47s loaded don't want to have a stand up, open conflict with our tanks and airplanes and instead use gorilla tactics to give us a death by a thousand cuts.
We're on the verge of leaving Iraq with token forces and what have we gained for all the blood and money? Not a sense of security, that's for sure. The Iraq war lasted longer than WW 2 for the US, but not quite as long as the Vietnam war did (yet). And how did the Vietnam War work out for the U.S. again?
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
How about our war budget?
The real litigious bastards...
"Aside from the DoD"
Stop being a tree hugging hippie.
2010 spending percentages: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg)
Defense: 18.74
Social Security 19.63
Welfare 16.13
Medicare 12.79
Medicaid 8.19
So, 56.74% of the budget went to Social welfare programs. You want a problem, that's where it's at. Get the military out of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan would go a long way towards helping too.
The Tea Party has 17 members in the House (out of 241 Republicans) and 10 members in the Senate (out of 47 Republicans) so they don't "run" Congress.
Why do they need electronic metering? In New Zealand, if you drive a vehicle that runs on anything but petrol or LPG (road user charges are included in the price of fuel), you buy a ticket that sits in your window and covers up to a certain odometer reading... much simpler than fitting new equipment to a vehicle.
Goodby Economy.
Our government is so far out of control and so corrupt, I'm not sure it can even be fixed anymore. I think we passed that point up a long time ago. sigh.
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
We already know exactly what we have to cut. We have a whole branch of the government (the CBO) whose main purpose is to answer that question, and they've been telling us the same thing since 2000. All we need are leaders with the will and courage to do it. Yes it may be political suicide to make those cuts. But not making those cuts is economic suicide. You see in the news how the EU is struggling with the bankruptcy or impending bankruptcy of Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Ireland? That is our economic destiny if we don't make the necessary cuts.
I see lots of calls to cut defense spending, and I completely agree there's a lot of fat in there which can be trimmed. But defense is not what's killing our budget . Medicare and Medicaid are. The budget problem is spiraling out of control because half the country refuses to believe that, and thinks cutting defense will solve all our woes. News flash: If we dropped our defense spending to zero - completely eliminated the DoD and our armed forces - growth in Medicare and Medicaid would consume all of that savings in roughly 20-25 years. We are not going to fix this mess until we start addressing the real problem. Read the CBO reports .
I'm beginning to wonder if any of you have ever driven a car . . . .
You car is bigger and does more damage . . . you should be taxed more . . .
You drive faster and more dangerously than I do . . . you should be taxed more . . .
Pretty soon we're going to be paying taxes ON our taxes.
They choose to call federal funds non-user money by ignoring the federal gas tax, which exceeds federal highway spending. Federal gas tax money subsidizes mass transit.
Gas tax receipts exceed road costs by almost 100% nationwide.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You are right. Social security is a separate issue with its own tax, but the big 3 are medicare, medicaid, and defense. Unless you cut those you won't get far. I would cut all 3. Cuts are painful - if they aren't you can bet they are pointless (NPR?).
I think the answer is a combination of cuts, freezes, and tax restructuring and simplification (lower overall rates, eliminate most deductions, more revenue ultimately).
It will never happen though. Most people are for cuts until its "their" program. And no one directly benefits from cuts. The ultimate result of high debt (total economic collapse) is unlikely in our lifetimes, so most people don't really care to do much.
No, something else will ache as they screw us yet another time. They will not stop until we just hand it all over to them.
Some don't want to live close to their work, its not a matter of afford. And its NO ONES business to force me to move.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If you want to eliminate social security, then yes, this is the plan. It's short term vs long term: employers pay 6% and employees pay 6% (now 4%) into social security per employee wage. That means you free up 12% of the economy by eliminating social security, plus the system is always going to have growing problems due to inflation and population aging. The only way to support those already paying in is to keep taxing the workforce while telling new entrants (say, people under 18) that they must manage their own retirement because they WILL NOT have social security coverage when they get old. If you think there is a definite long term benefit to eliminating social security, then you must realize the cost is taxing people for no benefit.
There is no way - ever - we as a nation will let elderly people who cannot fend for themselves suffer the consequences of poor decisions of their youth. Saying you are going to do this is all well and good, but seventy years from now, a few news stories about grandma freezing to death will be all it takes to bring it right back. We just aren't that cruel. Knowing that, can't we just be smart about it? Ideally, I agree, everyone would manage their own retirement. But just as we are not willing to let the uninsured bleed to death on the street, we won't let our elderly starve. Can't we please be realistic and try to solve the problem intelligently?
> Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
Yes, because it's the truth. SS is not sustainable in its current form. The sooner we face reality and find a sustainable form for it, the less painful the transition is going to be. If benefits are sacrosanct, then the taxes _must_ go up on _someone_, by a large amount, and will have to keep being hiked every few years (becuase the population of retirees is increasing as lifespans go up and the birthrate stays low). Or alternately, you could keep taxes the same and reduce future benefits, or do a mix of the two.
There are a wide variety of things that could be done to fix it (ranging from means-testing the benefits so rich elderly don't collect SS benefits, to taking away the cap on earnings subject to taxes, to letting the retirement age rise as life expectancies do, to letting benefits stay at their present level rather than rising every year....). Some of these I like, some I don't, but we need to have the conversation about which of them we'll do, and have it soon. The longer we wait to do something, the more the problems will pile up.
This fiscal conservative is well aware that social security and medical programs are the long term fiscal disaster for this country (though I think medical costs are worse), and something needs to be done about them. (defense is also large enough to have a noticeable impact if cut, but unlike the other two, it's not inherently getting worse every year... so while I wouldn't object to doing something about it, it wouldn't be my priority.)
Let's say a vehicle drives 10 miles per day round trip. That trip takes 30 minutes, of the 30 minutes 10 is spent idling in traffic. How will this system account for the fuel wasted at idle?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I think you are a liberal, and just don't realize it. At least with the definitions of today -- your rant is more likely to come from a self-described liberal than a conservative anyday.
For me, I don't give a crap what the government spends money on: what I do care about is that the spending is 1) constitutional, 2) efficient, and 3) everyone (including corps) pay an equal share of taxes to fund the spending (flat-taxes with no deductions/exemptions/loop-holes) and never have a yearly-deficit.
In 1937 when it was first initiated, the United States life expectancy was:
Male, 58.1
Female, 61.6
The retirement age was 55. So SS was designed to pay out for 3.1 years for males and 5.6 years for females.
Today, the retirement age is 67 (at best) and life expectancy is 78. We are paying out 9 years on average.
Raising fuel taxes fails to tax electric and hybrid vehicles appropriately. Raising registration fees would unfairly tax low-mileage drivers the same as high-mileage drivers. This GPS tracking system would be much more expensive to implement than raising gas or registration taxes, penalizes vehicles regardless of weight distribution, and raise privacy issues.
So working with these constraints; we want a system that will have minimum overhead and paperwork costs, is based on a vehicle's impact on the road, is not based on the type of fuel used, and doesn't infringe our basic Constitutional rights. Just base it on mileage and vehicle weight, which the DMV already has:
Annual Registration Mileage Fee = $Mileage_Tax_Coefficient * Miles_Driven_Last_Year * (Gross_Vehicular_Weight/Number_of_Axles)^4
where
$Mileage_Tax_Coefficient = Federal_Rate + State_Rate + County_Rate + City_Rate
Dropping the fuel tax would reduce overhead and paperwork, although perhaps that should be left alone to discourage gas use, kinda like cigarette taxes. :-) (unless my congressman doesn't read slashdot, or he really likes the idea of tracking my every move).
And efficient governance is achieved once again through the application of basic math!
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
The gas-driven cars are doing far more damage to everyone else than the rest of them. An increased tax on gas (which is still ridiculously cheap in the US) encourages people to get smaller and more efficient cars and doesn't require any new mandatory monitoring or any new infrastructure at all. Just bump the tax percentage a bit, and you're done.
Unless it is scaled by vehicle weight, it is absurdly (not that that bothers gov't types) out of balance with the maintenance demands generated by the vehicle. Even my largest motorcycle (650 lbs) does much less damage to the road than any SUV (even the lightest Kia, or whatever), and we both do less than a 5-ton, and up, truck.
VMT still has to be read from the vehicle. There has to be a place set up for each vehicle to have its meter read while the meter can be verified to be attached to the assigned vehicle. Setting up this infrastructure may be easier in states with regular vehicle inspections and smog checks, but even California doesn't "smog" every vehicle every year, so it will still cost money to expand, if not create the verification infrastructure.
Validation is also going to require a rather intrusive log or it will be very easy to defeat these things ("didn't drive much; car sat in a shed that seems to block GPS/cell/... signals" or "didn't drive much; the car battery died and I didn't get around to replacing it"). We know that once the log is there, it will be used for more than the VMT tax.
You want to recover the "road use" tax for electrics? Shift more to the excise tax on tires, rather than fuel, since tire wear has some correlation to road use. At least until the battery packs last infinitely long, put an excise tax on those (adjusted for technology). Neither of these requires the infrastructure costs or intrusive technology of a VMT tax.
If this comes to pass, I think that someone is going to design a "fake" gps transmitter that you can wire to the devices gps antenna to that basically fools the device into thinking it's stationary (probably not too hard to create a PRN sequence generator for the signal and the rest is probably just a microcontroller with a fake satellite "almanac"). Since it's wired to the gps antenna it isn't broadcasting anything with an antenna, it probably shouldn't interfere with a hand-held GPS navigation unit in the same car.
Maybe they'll sell it like those cable descramblers, or catalytic converter bypass kits from the 70's. Instead of selling them in soldier of fortune magazine, you could buy them on craigslist or ebay and "chip" your car tracker.
I'm sure there would be other uses for this other than tax evasion, but I'll leave that to your imagination.
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut can't name a single program to cut that is both A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut.
I'm a conservative.
1. Military Spending
2. Obamacare
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. Welfare
In that order. Everything else is peanuts. Yes, the first three would be political suicide; but either we find a way to cut those or its not going to matter what else we cut.Yes Obamacare largely hasn't been implemented, but projections show that it's going to be fiscally unsustainable (all that "revenue neutral" crap was finally disproven by the CBO earlier this year). And Social Security just went into the red, so either we figure out how to stabilize that or it'll fast displace Medicare in my Top 3.
I'll bite. Yes, either a 15% across the board federal employee layoff, or a 15% reduction in all federal employee pay.
If it's good enough for the private sector, it's good enough for the public sector.
Captcha: Fateful
...you insensitive clods.
The meter needs to base the tax on the number of people in the vehicle, the weight of each person, the weight of the vehicle, the personal income and assets of each person, and how far each person travels. Also far far and at what speed.
and I hope that after the supreme court and republicans knock off the healthcare purchase mandate, the IRS can fasttrack asset seizure for all the freeloaders wanting $250 K worth of cancer treatment (followed by a quick bankruptcy) on the taxpayer's dole.
it's all the same bucket of steaming poo.
... and leave the rest of us alone? Seriously!
Eventually we'll probably have to do something like this to replace gas taxes. But for now, isn't a good idea to be giving a break to Hybrids and electric vehicles?
It seems like an unsustainable economic cycle is running here.
A business relies upon the United States to buy their products at a rate and price that is higher than many other parts of the world. They move the manufacturing overseas to reduce costs. That reduces the number of people with good jobs, thus reducing the rate of consumption and the price that can be charged. As more jobs are exported, the consumption rate of the United States decreases. If the decrease is too much, the businesses will go out of business unless the rest of the world can take up that slack.
If the rest of the world can't take up the slack, the businesses deserve to go out of business.
Who wants to increase the warm snuggling embrace of our surveillance society further? I've avoided, and will continue as long as possible to avoid, car models with built in tracking (ON-STAR, for instance). Requiring pay-per-use on the roads is offensive to our privacy. Hopefully the idea will die as most of the pay-for-toss garbage schemes have...
He favors outlawing abortions. He was against (and voted against) the HealthCare public-option.
The problem with your question is you have to identify specific things to cut. Solution, cut everything by 10%. There are mandatory spending bits we can't cut, so cut everything else.
Make everyone be more efficient with their money, and don't spend it like it's endless. Yes, cut education, and make schools be more efficient. Yes cut defense, especially.
Cutting a specific program means you're going to lose jobs. Making programs be more efficient means you might lost a few jobs here and there, but you're less likely to have a mass impact on employment numbers.
NASA? Yes, I'd cut the $1.4 million/day spent on Constellation. And every government agency has similar excess it can trim, if only people are made to look at their budgets. Cutting Constellation means loss of jobs? Not necessarily, NASA is already putting as much of that towards developments that qualify as Constellation yet support other projects as it can. So it's already nearly dead.
Think of every agency going trough its books and identifying money it can live without, and there's piles of cost savings right there. The 'spend it or lose it' culture has to go, replaced with 'return it and we'll trust you to return more next year.'
Please support your contention that road damage is solely dependent on number of tires that touch the ground. Here is source directly contradicting you. (Thank you, user mdsolar, for finding this.) This would confirm the GP's post that an escalate @ curb weight of 5900lbs (source) getting 10mpg would do more damage than a prius @ 3000 pounds (source) getting 50mpg.
One more reason to keep an eye on your money.
You can't save everyone, and you can't save everyone from their own stupidity. It's like saying if we install cameras and microphones in every room in every house and monitor citizens 24/7, we could save 100 lives per year. If that were absolutely true, would you allow it? Or would you say those 100 people are better off dead, or at least we're all far better off without them than we are with them and the cameras? (it's more the latter, really; you're not much better off dead, barring extreme circumstances)
I think we should let the uninsured bleed to death on the street; Obamacare is a mistake. What we need is a sane free clinic system, maybe a couple other simple things, spend 10% of the cost fix 90% of the problem and be better off.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
They don't even count the federal gas tax. It simply treats federal dollars as non-user money and ignores the excess tax the feds collect and divert to subsidize mass transit etc.
For the last year I could find data we collected 66 billion in gas taxes nationwide and spent about 35 billion on road maintenance.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Plus, it's got basically nothing to do with government workers, they aren't the ones that pass these insane ideas or sign them, that's your politicians work.
That can't be true. Clearly it's the public service labor unions doing this. Scott Walker told me so.
You feds tried that before and our State Constitution threw it out before.
Just raise the GVW license fees instead. Wear and tear is most highly correlated with Mass (or Weight).
Otherwise, why would a bicycle cause so little damage bike paths use an inch thick strip to ride on while fed highways literally are very very thick due to 18 wheel trucks?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
We've proven as a society we are not willing to do that. Insisting that we do is not dealing with reality. This is why they say "reality has a well known liberal bias", and this is why it is pointless to argue with conservatives - they are too concerned with how things should be, and not the way they are.
While we're at it can we get the schools paid for by a "time in class" tax? I don't have kids, why should I fund schools for my entire life?
This lament inaccurately assumes static behavior. If you examine year to year tax receipts after these cuts, revenues actually rise from most of them (too early to tell on the latest round). If lowering a given tax rate increases revenue, not doing so would be incredibly foolish. I agree that past such a point, lowering rates must be balanced by reducing expenditures. If you look at spending as a percentage of GDP you will notice that it is a spending problem, rather than a revenue problem that we face. There are spending spikes for the War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII (and to a lesser extent Korea). In most cases, spending receded to a level a bit above prewar until we reach the depression where things balloon and for the most part grow steadily from 5% to 20% of GDP. Clinton had spending declining and but Bush II and the wars gave back those savings. If we reduce spending to 10%, twice that of pre-depression levels we would have no fiscal problems.
For expenditures vs GDP see:
For tax cuts leading to revenue growth see:
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676
or google for others. Rather than raising nominal rates, we should be looking to remove some of the deductions currently allowed both for revenue and to simplify filing, thereby reducing the costs to taxpayers (of filing) and government (auditing).
Well yes, that's the nature of addiction, isn't it? To literally 'freak out' at the very idea that your substance of choice (that is, money) may not be available in the requisite quantities according to your habituated, ever growing need.
You've of course carefully phrased the question - "name something large enough to matter AND that people aren't passionate about" - to be unanswerable.
There are plenty of programs that NEED pruning, if not outright demolition. Political cowardice on the part of the weasels inhabiting the Beltway (of both parties) is no excuse:
- Social Security: a government-backed Ponzi scheme. Make it voluntary: if someone volunteers to have their lifetime SS contribution absorbed with no payout in return, then their children are subsequently free of the burden of paying into SS, and can never collect benefits. I'll be the first, I've been paying in for 30 years. Of course, as the SS payor pool shrinks, payments out would have to be summarily reduced to match the size of the payor pool. My guess is that within 50 years, you would have NOBODY who is actually gainfully employed remaining on the system.
- Complete end to any government assistance to any able-bodied person 18-50.
- Means-testing for any other government aid
- end corporate subsidies (as well as indirect subsidies like sub-market land leases) for any business whose executives have a positive income.
- terminate industry-protective subsidies.
- close the Dept's of Energy, Agriculture, Education.
I'm just getting started, is that enough yet?
-Styopa
Isn't it somewhat agreed on that a lot of money in government simply "disappears"? Didn't something like this actually happen in Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars? How about all those huge contracts that are bid for then invariably go grossly over budget, sometimes doubling the bill. NJ recently stopped the tunnel to Manhattan because the bid price ballooned from 6 billion, to 10, to 12, before Christi pulled the plug.
The above are somewhat anecdotal, and I'm not speaking of any specifics nor have I scanned through any spending records, but I am sure there's a lot of waste and a lot of mishandling of money that never comes to light.
Cutting spending on important things does suck. Social programs, the EPA's funding getting slashed in half in the new fed budget, etc. But there is a history of loose spending of other people's money in the government. If people there paid attention, they wouldn't pay $900K for the delivery of two washers, as seen in an episode of American Greed. And the only reason those people got caught was because they became outrageously greedy. How much of it goes undetected?
So fiscal conservatives since the 1930's have been screaming about how all the social programs will be a drain on society in the future, and now that they ARE a drain on society (the future is now!), now it's the fiscal conservative's problem how to cut the government down to size.
The people that said this will lead to people's dependence on the government were laughed at, but now we have 40 million+ people on foodstamps.
Had these programs not been created, there would be no problem, right? But the government creates the program, says it will fund itself, but when it does not, the solution is not to get rid of the program but to raise taxes.
The infrastructure wouldn't be much if you use odometer readings. If you renew online, it is just an input box on your license tab renewal form where you fill in your current mileage. If the renewal is via paper, the person inputing the data just has to enter another six characters. Behind the scenes code changes would be minimal.
The vehicle weight should already be recorded and the miles traveled can be based on the difference between current mileage and the prior mileage. Multiply by some sort of constant and you get the mileage/weight based tax amount.
Now people could cheat and under report their mileage. But that will bite them when they sell the vehicle and have someone else reporting the mileage on the transfer papers.
Privacy is somewhat protected by the fact that you are tracking total miles, and not locations and mileage. And gas prices, even without gas taxes, will encourage people to buy more efficient cars.
I can think of a few programs to cut that might make an impact:
DEA - I don't take any drugs, never have, don't plan to start, but the war isn't being won by current methods, so we need to figure out another solution. If not dissolved, the DEA should be audited to make sure they are making the most of what they have.
TSA - Dreaming here, but it seems like there may be a few 3 letter acronym agencies that could be rolled together, share budgets and responsibility.
If nothing else, give every government department and agency an audit. Make them prove they are using our money wisely, and not just blowing it on million dollar donuts every morning. Give them some accountability for our money.
They all told us to pay anyway and managed it such that is is guaranteed not to be there.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Had they not cut taxes on the rich since Reagan this would not be a problem. Rich people don't like to use their own money to pay for their governing the rest of us.
I thought they figured they shouldn't have to pay the flat fee when they already pay the politicians directly.
Hey asshats at the CBO instead of figuring out new ways to screw the working class at the behest of your corporate paymasters. How about you start with a plan to get multinationals that are currently GETTING MONEY BACK from the US government to actually pay any sort of share much less their actual fair share.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?src=me&ref=general
Now that I know GE the largest American corporation pays 0 in taxes anyone wanting to tax me more can fuck right off. You need to start where the real problems is I pay my fair share.
This is such bullshit when are people going to get upset enough about this sort of blatant corporate led American government corrupotion to actually do something about it. Don't say vote Democrat or Republican because we have had both and here we are.
Cut everything. Everyone you promised money to gets XX% less. Everyone deals with the consequences of overspending.
This.. is retardedly laughable. We already have a tax on motor vehicle distance travelled. It's called fuel.
When will whoever's-in-charge realize the state of affairs? When will they give a fuck? We are stretched to the breaking point. People are getting less hours and making less money and getting charged more for 'crucial' services, such as food and rent and health "insurance". With credit, for a while we could throw money that wasn't ours at these problems.. but now we have no way to even pay that back. Our government is doing the same thing.. the credit card is called the federal reserve and NONE of those dumb fuckers in Congress are interested in paying the balance. Uncle Sam has become a degenerate and has NO INTEREST in paying back debts. And is therefore, less honorable than someone who does.
Only if you assume the trust fund funds will come back as real money (as opposed to freshly printed money).
Treat the trust fund realistically and that ship has sailed decades ago.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I believe that most states have an annual license renewal for vehicles. If one of the requirements is to record your odometer reading as part of the registration, you could make things a lot more fair. Your tax bill would be based on miles traveled and vehicle weight.
If you cheat, odds are you'll get caught if you sell the vehicle. There could be substantial penalties for under reporting.
Odometer 'malfunctions' might result in having to make an assumption that you travel X thousand miles a year, for the first year of the malfunction. If you don't get it fixed it may go up to ten times X thousand miles a year to encourage you to get it fixed.
Maybe they should just spend less.
Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
Want to tax someone? Tax tractor trailers, they are the ones that tear the road up the most. Most of its to due they dont use brakes like cars do, they gear down to brake which causes ruts in the roads, uneven pavement and such at the bottoms of hills, right before turns in the roads and so on where it looks like the road has a big thumb print.
They wouldnt have to fix the roads so damn much if they would do it right the first time. When you get holes in the road what do they do? Put that coal patch stuff in it shoveled in off a truck by a couple guys. Then that crap gets flung up on cars till it packs down and in a couple months there is a hole there again.
You just told us why. Because they are earning more then they are worth. You think they should get that to be 'fair'. You are wrong.
The main problem with the federal work force is feather bedding. Fire half of them and the rest will get _more_ done (if you fire the right half).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am 27 and would tell those 30 and under that social security is not going to be there for them, but that they have to keep paying in to support their parents' generation, explaining that their (great) great grandparents got a free ride during the depression. I would tell those 31-50 that their benefits will be proportionally smaller and begin later than those 50 and older will receive and to plan accordingly. I would tell those 51 and older that 10 years from now COLAs will be halved. I would inform Europe that we plan to reduce our military stationed there by 50% and begin steps to sell off or close down most bases there while retaining enough bases to operate aircraft in the region/transship aircraft to/from Asia/Africa. I would implement plans to shrink the army by 100k, and the other three branches by 50k over a period of 10-20 years (gradually so as not to drastically shift age demographics within the services). I would begin the dismantling of the Department of Education, beginning first with a efficiency examination of programs and a phasing out of federal funding with the option of states assuming control. I would announce that all farm subsidies will be phased out by 2040 or 2050 (as with the military, the actual implementation would require some further analysis of purchase lead times to allow time for farmers to adjust equipment purchases and for markets to adjust to the resulting reduction in subsidized products and increase in non-subsidized. I would enact many of the tax code simplifications suggested by the deficit reduction group or simply begin a 4 year phaseout of all tax deductions concurrent with a series of tax-cuts to remain revenue neutral with the goal of having 4 lower flat rates at the end.
I grant you such a program would be political suicide, but when a patient you care about is ill, do you want the doctor to reassure you or to take the necessary steps to treat the illness, even though they may cause short term pain?
Here's a totally insane* idea.
Instead of increasing taxes on struggling citizens coping with high unemployment and an already extremely-shaky economy, how about reducing the cost/size/scope of government?
Hey, wow!
I didn't even spontaneously burst into flames at the mere mention!
Strat
*"Insane" as defined by politicians determined to increase their personal wealth & power.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The only way to do it is to increase taxes and cut spending. You need to do both. Doing one or the other will not do much to the deficit. That means making tough unpopular decisions. Yes, it means that Social Security, Entitlements, and Defense Spending all need to be cut. Spending cuts for small items will not make much of a difference. Going after the big items is the only way. Increasing taxes will help reduce the cuts and make it politically possible. The deficit can not be reduced to nothing without both spending cuts and tax increases. Note I consider myself a "fiscal conservative".
How about rolling back the size of government to 2008 level as a start?
Tampering can get the Feds and the States on your tail for several different reasons. If it replaces the gas tax, that will be yet another reason to go after someone tampering with the odometer.
I think the real problem that's freaking politicians out is that electric vehicles will be raising no fuel tax at all. And with the high price of gasoline and the inevitable reduction in EV pricing, most commuters will probably be going EV within 5-10 years.
Better to deal with that budget shock now than when the revenue crash comes.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Sooo i buy a car for $700 fix it, it gets taxed at $1750 (figure that one out) by the state now that car that i paid $700 end's up costing me $109 in taxes which is a 15.5% tax on the sale price and now they want to tax me for how far i drive it? I love the line TXDOT has on there site "Texans are required to pay motor vehicle sales tax (6.25 percent) on either its purchase price or its standard presumptive value (SPV), whichever is the highest value." F*cking money grabbers.
... it's to start spending less. Individuals get that. Why don't governments? Oh, wait. It's because their citizens want the government to take care of them, so that they don't have to do it themselves. I forgot.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
10% (or whatever percent is needed to balance) from every single program. NO EXCEPTIONS no loopholes nothing too sacred. The bill submitted should literally be no more than a few sentences.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
At 32 with a net worth of less than $10K, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat if it was part of a commitment to use only the resources we have to solve only the problems that don't create more problems. "You have to take care of yourself and do what you can for the less fortunate" is a much, much better deal than "we'll keep screwing up and you have to keep paying for it."
1) Social Security tax was a war time tax putting in place during WW2 so solder's had money when they got home. im personaly against having the tax but i do know alot of people who need it just to get by.
2) NASA was supposed to have there funding cut and that was the plan but the kept talking about the orion project and got funding to keep going.
3) start cutting food stamp programs and un-employment checks. yea there are people that need them but most dont, atleast in my area.
4) cut down on meaningless marajuana raids in cali. they are licenced despencers and the goverment is waisting your money by temperarly detaining a legal substence(which costs money to hold) then they are forced to return or pay for the product. hell make it legal and tax the shit out of it like they proposed during the elections. we would skyrocket out of this.
5) make it easier to become a legal citizen instead of this bull shit 3 month green card and then find out you got declined after that 3 months.(im not mexican but i feel that some of the hoops we make them jump are insane)
6) get rid of all taxes except sales tax and increase sales tax by 3-4 cents maybe even 2 cents. there's no getting around taxes at that point. that would trim down the irs quite abit.
Why even look for specifics? Take the budget from 25 years ago, adjust all numbers for inflation, and use that. Presto!
But since you asked for specifics:
That's just the outright cuts I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty more, and still more that could be pared back and reorganized.
Constitutionally Correct
Frankly, we can't worry about "political suicide" any more. The way we are spending, we are on the verge of actual national suicide. The Federal Reserve is talking about bankruptcy as a real possibility. Nationally and internationally, there are signs that faith in the dollar is waning fast. If the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency of choice, the US economy as we know it will go into a tailspin of hyperinflation. We're at the point where we have to cut, deeply, and across the board, or we'll see a depression that will make the 30s look mild by comparison.
Constitutionally Correct
If they drop the gas tax in favor of a weight/mileage tax it will be a flat tax based on hard numbers. You could even apply it to bicycles if you wanted to.
Sorry ... slashdot likes to axe non-ASCII characters, it seems.
Constitutionally Correct
If the mileage tax is based on mileage AND a weight multiplier, then the road damage aspects would be addressed. It would also encourage people to drive lighter vehicles when possible.
what about all the other taxes that were supposed to do this? oh right, they got funneled off into some other shitty half-assed government program. that device will be removed from all my cars.
About the only 'good' reason for using a GPS based system is to fairly distribute the taxes based on actual road usage. Otherwise is could be considered corporate welfare, especially for manufacturers of GPS systems. If something is required by law, you automatically have a captive audience.
A better system would be to have annual odometer reporting. You already have regulations for handling tampering and recording could simply be filling in an additional field when you renew your vehicle license. Tax code adjustments would also be minimal and you could even get rid of some of the tax code by eliminating the gas tax.
It would be much simpler just to bump up the tax on gas and diesel [jet fuel etc] by 5 or 6 bucks a gallon. provide a credit for the first say 5,000 gallons per household, then we could virtually eliminate income taxes on, say the first 20 million of earnings.
Also consider removing the use of bond issues and property taxes for road development and repair.
Another thing would be to prorate police, fire and other emergency services so that the road funds pay for the costs that are transportation related and the property taxes pay for the costs that are property related.
Why an electronic metering device. Isn't an odometer what they're looking for?
I'll take my dirt roads back nao plox! We are slowly reaching the point where they are taking half the money we make, if we aren't there already, and I really don't think they need more tax money. Didn't Ron Paul suggest something like this to replace some of the taxes we already pay to make things more fair on the tax payers? Leave it to some asshat who does not pay for their own gas, does not pay for their own lunch, does not have social security woes with an improved retirement plan and gets both their paycheck payed by and pet projects funded by our taxes to pervert such tax innovation in effort to squeeze more money out of the American public. Where is the legislation to restore the balance of power? Where is the legislation to make taking a bribe an act of treason punishable by death under military tribunal? Where is the legislation to hold the Federal Reserve accountable? Why is it the only thing these bastards will vote for is just about anything that will further tax or subjugate the American people?
California's pension system wouldn't be a problem if the state funded it the way it was supposed to in good years. California state employees pay a significant amount into their pension funds from their own paychecks.
Mostly what governments want to do is watch you. The government doesn't have any reason to care about 99% of what people do. But that 1% that really pisses the government off...they want to be able to instantly detect such behavior, track the perp down, and enforce swift punishment.
I would wager that this mileage tracker device will double as a location tracker and probably have a mic that the feds can remotely activate to listen in to the conversations being had in the car.
We should do the same thing we did at the end of prohibition when the government was broke and decided legalising and taxing alcohol would balance their budgets. Take a substance that the US Government ruled to be illegal to use (say Marijuana), that has a large base of illegal users, and then make it legitimate, tax it, and regulate its use to mitigate any safety concerns. It's a double whammy, you cut down on your DEA expenses fighting it and you reap the benefits of taxing it's users.
The easy answer is, you cut all those tax breaks that the top 1% are getting. Then, the people you'd employ for checking on these milages, could be instead applied to tracking down all the illegal off-shoring of money to tax havens that these same billionaire cunts are using. There's where your infrastructure money can easily be found.
The problem is, those people tend to put up a much larger (and obviously better funded) fight than the average dumbass in Ballbag, Iowa somewhere.
Until there's a violent, bloody, fiery revolution... bend the fuck over and take it, ladies and germs, 'cause things like this will keep happening regardless of who is in office at any level.
Politicians are the cancer that the populace need to come together and remove. They're the ones who do the corporations' bidding and pass all these lovely taxes on to you.
When dealing with essential infrastructure like roads, spending less can cost more in the long run. If you let your roads get too bad, people end up paying more because they have to pay for vehicle repairs and new tires. If the road conditions cause accidents, people may pay with their lives.
In some instances, spending MORE can mean fewer expenditures in the future. High quality roads can be more expensive to build front end but they can last longer with less maintenance.
If people want good roads, they need to remember TANSTAAFL.
The more you drive, the more you use, the more you pay. If you drive a big truck, you pay more. If you drive a mid-size european-type car (you'd call them "toys" I guess), you'll pay much less because they'll do 60-70mpg. US fuel is priced too cheaply for its scarcity and really needs to be brought in line with the rest of the world. It's amazing how economy (in choice of vehicle, miles travelled and driving technique) comes to the forefont of your mind when fuel costs around $7-8/gallon... Daern (who does vehicle tracking for a living, funnily)
Everyone is tracked. Endgame.
Phone calls: monitored and possibly recorded. Internet surfing: recorded. Texts: recorded. GPS location on phone: recorded. eBook purchases: recorded. Credit card activity: recorded. Purchases: recorded. Music purchases and listening habits: recorded. MAC addresses/IP addresses: recorded. Visible activity: recorded. Political beliefs: recorded if you protest. Library checkouts: recorded. Train usage: recorded. Bus usage: recorded. Plane usage: duh. The last thing left to do: car tracking. Every damned thing you do, say, listen to or read, and everywhere you go, recorded, now or very soon.
The people who are doing this? Not recorded. Bush's White House staff emails from the 9/11 period are gone, baby, gone. Amazing, ain't it.
Professor William Cronon is having his every electronic posting subpoenaed soon as retaliation for an article he wrote summarizing Governor Walker of Wisconsin's transgressions. And the Republican Party will probably get every communication he's ever made, digging for dirt to destroy him. That's what this all means.
Told you so, ten years ago. Endgame.
And oh yeah: raise your damned taxes to pay for the roads. EVERY damned shortfall is being used as an excuse to cut spending for the weak or poor, or to further extend the police state to endgame. Instead, just pay taxes, cheapskates. Life costs.
Time to setup a website and track the politicians and all of the "thoughts" they have and laws they vote for that are not what WE THE PEOPLE want.
We are not RULED by GOVERNMENT we RULE the GOVERNMENT.
For those who replied, notice that I said "almost always". I don't know you, so I don't have any opinion about what makes you tick.
But when you look at public figures, almost all the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives are all too happy to piss money down the drain. They just want to use a different drain - one that fills rich men's pocketbooks.
Also, I've commented before on the bizarre referenda in the 90s, where people would come down hard in favor of a proposition that limits a state's or city's ability to tax and spend, but in the same trip to the polls voted themselves a new stadium so the ball team wouldn't move to another town.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In the Netherlands (a much smaller country than the US), they tried and failed to introduce this idea (road pricing), abandoning it in 2001. The problem was, how to implement it? Their are basically two ways to do it: either an attempt is made to identify all the cars on all the roads at all times in order to work out how far each has traveled so that they can all be taxed accordingly, or all vehicles must have a tracking device installed (basically a cell phone with a GPS) so that the tax authorities can perform the same calculations. The former is impractical due to the cost and complexity of implementation, while the second raises serious privacy concerns. Because of this, the Dutch government eventually decided to back down and stick with the decades-old flat tax for all motor vehicles no matter how much or how little the individual motorists use the roads.
Actually, if the idea had been implemented, it would have made all forms of commercial transportation using the roads (for goods, services and people) significantly more expensive. Well, would the companies involved have had to pay those taxes equally? Perhaps. If so, you know those costs would have been passed on to the consumers anyway (including the ones without cars), making everything from peanuts to public transportation more expensive. If not, the average motorist would consider the tax unjust.
Consider also that there is a much simpler alternative: simply add more tax to the price of fuel (75% of which already consists of tax in the Netherlands). This is not only an effective solution (those who drive more pay more tax), it's also low-tech (so it's super cheap to implement) and it further encourages people to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. In addition, a fuel tax is arguably also a more effective method of taxing foreign vehicles that would otherwise likely pay less, or no road tax at all.
The bus is how winos stay warm and how poor people and students commute.
A grown man does not take the bus. Once you hit about 40, its like tattooing "I am a fucking loser" on your forehead.
Why, exactly, would these damn fools *want* to tax fuel efficient vehicles as much as conventional ones? This would be a great opportunity to help increase the use of fuel efficient vehicles, not to penalize their owners.
One could also raise taxes. In the last decades, my federal income tax has been cut, my state income tax has been cut, and I've had several chances to take advantage of lower interest rates to refinance my mortgage. I recall the Clinton years, that was not so bad, was it?
It's also somewhat interesting to compare how much of our GDP we spend on medical care, versus any other country. Given that by most metrics, we do worse than so many countries that spend much less, arguably, the place where we are objectively pissing away several percent of our GDP, is in the medical/insurance industry.
Hm... I'm thinking this could be exceedingly awful.
And I know this is unpopular, but I would eliminate the Department of Education, which I believe is more properly a state-level matter.
Unpopular? It's one of the Tea Party/Conservative/Republican Shibboleths. You can't be a member without proposing it.
But I call it BS. 70 billion dollars is a small fraction of the Federal budget. Most spending for education is by local and state authorities.
You aren't saving enough for me to believe you are serious or informed about the subject. And believe it or not, I can see a federal role in education. Several actually. Coordination of schools across the states would be useful, especially with the increased mobility of the population. Support of education programs for the federal governments acknowledged roles is another. Then there's the education of students in federal jurisdictions.
That's just off the top of my head. It may not bear much relationship to the current budget of the Federal department, but I doubt your idea of what you think they fund is any more accurate, and I am sure it's not thinking of what and how they could perform.
Seriously though, you want to improve education spending in this country? Go to your local school board. They are the ones with the power of the purse.
Otherwise you're just engaging in the same political theater already mentioned as nothing more than grandstanding. I dunno, maybe you mean well, and just inadvertently proposed this right-wing mantra without knowing that it was one, but you should educate yourself first.
Also, I would take a look at stuff like agricultural subsidies, which are a pretty fair chunk of the budget.
Uh huh. The US federal budget is...3.5 trillion. The direct agricultural subsidies are 20 billion.
That is not a pretty fair chunk. Even if you increased it 10 fold, it'd still be tough to convince me that it would be worth it, given what the results would be.
I'd rather keep people's farms stable myself. Something about not upsetting the food supply.
I would leave NASA alone, because more money gets spend on the food stamp program than gets sent to NASA.
How about leave the Food stamp program alone because starving children is a BAD thing? Hell, starving anyone is bad.
Maybe if you were willing to fix problems with it, I'd believe you were well-intentioned, but as I said, you've not shown otherwise yet. You're just a standard phony fiscal hawk who is really pushing the same old tired nonsense.
Sure, pollution is directly proportional to population size. I'm sorry, but so what? We shouldn't take steps to minimize the impact of our actions because it's difficult, or because there's a large impact? A large population means there's going to be inherently more pollution than a much smaller one, but that isn't the proper comparison. The proper comparison is between the large population and the environmental interactions we have now, and alternative ways that this large population could interact with its environment.
Well if recent headlines of "Large Corporations makes obscene profits. Pays no taxes." are true, I can suggest one place to start - cut Corporate welfare.
I wish I had mod points ... your post surely deserves promotion. Made me laugh and made me nod in agreement (I live across the water in Nanaimo). Well done!
licet differant, aequabitur
Listen fucktard, they don't have the money to spend. They'd need to beg for more to get more and in doing that they're fucking us all. You're the fucking stupid fucking meathead. Fucking retard.
You missed the part where I said that Federal tax revenues have been between 18-19% no matter what the tax rate. This means even when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.
You do know that most measures used to compare medical care between countries weighs how much of it the government pays for rather heavily, don't you? And as far as metrics of health care goes one of the best I can think of is, what is your prognosis if you are diagnosed with a serious illness. By that metric, U.S. health care outstrips most other countries.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The milage would be taxed if the government would stop subsidizing the oil companies. The US pays next to nothing for their fuel
I don't understand your remark, at all, about health care spending. Since most other first-world countries have some form of universal care, that would tend to result in over-reported spending (if I understand you correctly). Yet they are reported to spend less -- do I therefore infer that their spending is even lower than reported in the statistics?
And your claim about serious illness prognosis -- I am not sure what to make of that. Consider that they live longer. Longevity is a great metric, because we're really good at telling when people are dead (much better than determining if they are "seriously ill", for example). The two metrics are crossed -- I have to assume that (1) we use a more relaxed definition of "serious" in this country, hence that makes us look good or (2) serious illness is so rare, that other factors overwhelm it in the longevity results (in which case, shouldn't I also consider those other factors, too?), or (3) we have a higher rate of serious illness, so even though we treat it better, in the end, it kills a proportionally larger share of people here, thus resulting in reduced longevity.
So what do you make of this? Given the squishiness and ambiguity surrounding your statistic, why do you find it so interesting? I'm a big fan of not dying, from any cause. That seems like a very important metric, yet it isn't for you. Why is that?
I'm a cleaning contractor and my job requires me to drive over 90 miles a day. If the govt were to pull something like that on me , I'd go bankrupt right away. I wouldn't be able to pass on the costs to my customers because they already complain about prices as it is!
We're still in the midst of an economic catastrophe and these limo-driving, "green" bureaucrats are already out there to add more hardships to my life. Give me a break.
If I lived in Arkansas, and I only drive on local roads in state, and I do 3-4000 miles a year doing so,... why would this be justified by either Constitution or 10th amendment?
Probably because your state built local roads where you live, you are not having to drive out of state to get to where your going! Thus interstate commerce is being prevented and thus falls under federal regulation!
IANAL!
My last job as a networking consultant in northern Indiana, and living 100 miles away from my daughter in Chicago, had me driving 3000-4000 a month. Would Congress punish me for having a shitty job and trying to be a good dad?
Now I have a steady gig 400 miles south of Chicago. Work is only 20 minutes away, but I have a 16 hour commute north and south to see my daughter once a month. Again, it's not an enviable position but it beats not working. Will Congress fuck me out of my money? Probably because they're all thieving assholios.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Two factors, one, most reports that rate the healthcare delivery in various countries heavily weight whether or not the government pays for healthcare. Thus if in country A, the government does not pay for healthcare and in country B the government does pay for healthcare, the reports will rate country B's healthcare as being much better than country A's, even if all other things are equal (actually even if all other things favor country A, but that is a more complicated debate). That means that none of those reports can be used to determine if the government paying for healthcare results in better healthcare or not, since they define the government paying for it as better healthcare.
The reason that using longevity as a measure of comparing healthcare between the U.S. and other first world countries is twofold. First, the U.S. has a much larger population than other first world countries distributed over a much larger, more diverse geographic area. Second, U.S. population is much more heterogeneous than the population of other first world countries. An example of why this is significant, Japan has a longer expected lifespan than the U.S. and thus is used as an example of a country with better healthcare than the U.S., yet Japanese living in the U.S. have a longer expected lifespan than those living in Japan.
When I say serious illness, I do not mean some generic category. I mean pick a serious illness, say colon cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease, or lung cancer, or AIDS, or etc. In most, if not all of those cases, your prognosis if you are diagnosed with it is better in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Actually, given the results, I would cut the department of education completely. It never worked.
However, you are correct, there is nothing big enough to make a difference without committing electoral suicide. Not even the Pentagon is big enough, especially since the Democrats and Republicans are equal opportunity war mongers.
I already telecommute whenever possible.
Tax my miles and I'll drive my 2 year old hybrid for the next 8 years.
Raise the price of gas high enough and I'll be looking for a more fuel-efficient vehicle sooner. At a minimum that means I will contribute in a small way to the income of some auto factory laborers, a truck driver, a salesman and a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk.
And to imagine that just a blink of an eye ago, in the middle ages, most people lived their lives without travelling more than a few miles from their homes. Except for vikings, mercenaries, priests, scholars, merchants, journemen, troubadours, and troupes of entertainers (actors, acrobats, etc.). Mainly because of all the cost, inconvenience, uncertainty and general difficulty.
Wouldn't it be even more convenient to require "travel-cards", certifying that you paid your "travel-tax" before travelling. You could have a "travel booklet", color-coded to indicat how far you could travel, using which resources, in which areas. Why not incorporate a "strain on non-local resources" tax, for staying at places outside your designated "home" area? Isn't that just great?
Man, and I thought the Iron Curtain socialists were a fucked-up gig! Whould'a thunk it?
Why don't we stop this "war on drugs" legalize most of them, and then make up the fucking missing money that way?
After all it's billions of dollars a year business.
Whats that? what sort of message does that send to the kids?
One better then the message that was sent when we bailed out Wall Street, imo.
Be seeing you...
That's the rub. If a black box is in your car recording where you were an hour ago, where you are now and the time difference, what else can they do? Check your speed; it is easy math once distance and time are known. No need for speed cameras any more. We'll all have one with us at all times.
And if this information is let out to those who want to know, on a real time basis, then it will not only be a question of civil liberties. Yes, those. The ones the Constitution are supposed to protect.
It will be a question of having us pay not a few cents a mile, or a couple of dollars on trunk routes. It could well also be a case of adding on a charge for being permitted to get there faster. Plus the speeding ticket on top if you go above the top limit allowed.
And with the ultra precise military level GPS they have they will be able to tell exactly which shop or business you go to. It could be as innocuous as Subway, or, say, Hooters. If you don't mind people knowing that. Or it could be that you were visiting the XXX EXXXPRESSS SEXXX SHOPPP. But maybe you don't mind that either, even if the person accessing the information is your neighbour on his duty roster at the local enforcement center. Or even if the visit wasn't at a shop but at your PA's apartment when you were supposed to be on that convention in LA. Or at the tennis courts when your boss thought you were ill in bed. Or..., or..., or...
Personally, I think this needs a bit of thinking out.
Maybe I am wrong...
Disclaimer: apologies if I am repeating something here. I couldn't make the time to look through 1,000+ posts to see if the same points had already been made!
Taxes:
1) Lets Tax people and create pension plans so that people have a nice fund to retire with when they are older. It will adjust dynamically with the populations age so that there is always enough money for the future: Social Security.
Nope. Looted by JP Morgan Chase/Goldman Sachs. Thats what happened.
Your told some hogwash about not enough people paying into the fund....etc.
2) Lets take peoples pension plans in corporations and match contributions and dynamically adjust with the corporations size and age of employee population so that the fund remains sounds.
Nope. Looted by JP Morgan Chase/Goldman Sachs. Thats what happened.
You are told it is "too expensive to have pensions". You can't have pensions without socialism.
(INSERT BS HERE.)
3) Lets have a tax for highways so that people pay into and we maintain the roads.
Nope. Looted by JP Morgan Chase/Goldman Sachs.
You are told it is just too expensive and the fund is insolvent. (No reason given.)
4) Milwaukee Public School District. Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan: Give us your pensions so we can invest them, with a much higher rate of return.
Nope. Looted and bet against by JP Morgan/Goldman Sachs.
You are told that there is not enough money to cover pensions because public workers get too much, and big government is bad.
Notice a pattern here?
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Of course, if you pick your terms, you get to present whatever images you want in your analogy.
Let's say the farmer and the shoemaker are separated by a river. So a man makes a ferry. He charges half a barrel of wheat to cross. OMG!
What's happening there? What if the ferryman also builds a road so they can both travel? What if he kills the REAL robber on the road? What if he clears the trees?
Seriously, why do people like you think that the government just taxes and does nothing with it??? You may not appreciate the benefits, you may argue over the costs, but they DO exist.
Try a more sensible argument that isn't so transparently biased, you might get somewhere.
Really, if your government is so worthless to you, then you should rise up in armed revolt instead of posting about it here. Then at least I would know you were committed to your cause. Otherwise it just seems you're a selfish and ungrateful person who would very much like to be a thief yourself.
Red One
Konvict
Gaga Oh eh
I've had a little bit too much, much
All of the people start to tax, start to tax
What's go-ing on, on the floor
I love this tax baby but I can't pay up anymore
Keep it cool,
What's the name of this tax
I can't remember but it's alright, a-alright
Just tax,
It's gonna be okay da da doo-doom, Just tax,
Spin that tax babe da da doo-doom, Just tax,
It's gonna be okay
Da da da
tax, tax, tax
Just, just, just, just tax
For example, improve training and move from Interceptor to Dragonskin armor.
Don't believe the hype RE: Dragonskin. http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=24039 http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=36793
Those who drive more are already paying a "vehicle miles traveled' tax by virtue of the tax on gasoline.
"Fucking stupid" is an understatement; it's surreal. Only in America are these kind of things considered serious debating points. In any other country, I'd imagine a room full of politicians bursting out in laughter, followed by: "heh, where were we... oh yeah, fuel tax". Most west European countries have gone through this already, decades ago. Note the total absence of raging unemployment, anarchy, regression to medieval times or rise of totalitarian regimens in those countries. What they do have is small energy-efficient cars and decent public transport (paid for in part by fuel tax) *shudder*
Ok. This basically requires a GPS in every vehicle, giving the government total access to your location at all times. Can you spell "rights to privacy"! Nazi Germany tried to be this egregious. We had to slap them down hard...
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
How about subsidies to AGRICULTURE, TOBACCO and OIL?. How about tax writeoffs to send jobs overseas? How about properly taxing the wealthy whose tax burden over the last 10 years has been significantly reduced? Over the last 10 years, just 400 wealthy Americans have accumulated more wealth than over 155 million Americans have. The conservatives don't want a lean government, they only want a lean government for poor Americans. By the way, ALL of these subsidies were voted for by the "Fiscally responsible" Tea party since they've taken power. Really says alot about them when they go after average working Americans (look at Wisconsin) yet lavish themselves and their friends with funds that they raped from the average tax payer.
The conservatives say they are for free markets and competition, yet time and time again, they vote for monopolies (just look at the voting records of the FCC, FDA, Patent office etc.), corporate welfare, and handouts.
It is in fact very easy to identify areas that need to be cut. They are just areas the lobbyists, politically connected, and special interests don't want be cut. Instead, they go after average Americans who have no political power, and who are barely surviving.
live close in to DC - great transit - do not own a car (wife has an older toyota) and I just moved from California (Silicon Valley) sort of a mini-LA - there is no serious option for almost everyone there unless they are on welfare with endless time to twiddle - or a very few who manage to fit Bart or Caltrain or even a ferry in - so it is an eye-opener to see an entire region nonchalantly living entire lives around transit - yet this all depends on electrical power - where does THAT come from? much comes from massive coal burning plants - but have friends who have moved here from Cal as well and live 'way out past Dulles in sprawling developments crawling west and south devouring farms and woods - these guys b***h about the traffic all the time - the only thing that gives more of a nod to here is the fact that people here don't seem so fixated on ownership of pickups and suvs - so a tariff on miles traveled, if a way could be cobbled together to manage it, AND with incentives on vehicle mileage might do some good, if someone didn't burn down the program administration headquarters.
...that's the beauty of time travel...bye
Seconded. Gas used is a decent proxy for amount of damage to roads caused anyway. Big heavy car will equal more damage. Smaller lighter car is less damage. Any differences can be approximated when the tag is renewed.
Then there's the question of where does the money come from for the meters and inspecting the meters and couldn't they just spend that on the infrastructure instead. I suspect the answer is they don't want that because it doesn't create a pool of money ripe for 'borrowing' to pay for pork.
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut can't name a single program to cut that is both A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut.
So glad you asked. Political suicide it is. For the remainder of this post, an asterik (*) means something is explained in greater detail elsewhere in the post.
Cuts:
-End the wars, all of them.
-Withdraw all forces from every other nation (yes Mideast, yes Japan, yes Korea, yes Europe).
-End TANF*, Medicaid*, need-based SS*, and Medicare*.
-Cut off SS for everyone under 55.
-CIA gone.
-DEA gone, legalize all drugs.
-BATFE gone.
-IRS gone*.
-Domestic wiretapping portion of NSA gone.
-Federal Reserve gone*.
-Pay off national debt*.
-several others departments, Commerce, Education*, NRLB*, USPS*, many more I can't think of at the moment.
Finance:
Abolish the fed and create a National Vault. This will have full reserves and make a loss, must be tax-supported. Inevitably, all the banks will go bankrupt*. Optionally transfer everyone's bank funds to the National Vault (at the account holder's option). Accounts should have a security vs. privacy balance decided by individuals (everything from sign up online and create a password all the way up to giving fingerprints, photos, etc).
A note about banks:
Banks attempt to be both investment houses (make money using other people's money) and vaults (a safe place for people to put their money). The two are not reconcilable. So, create the National Vault, taxpayer-supported, and allow private vaults as well. All loans will then be up to investment houses in the private sector. Rates on housing, cars, business loans, etc, will then rise to market rates. Private banks should also be allowed for the foolish; however, they are inherently unsustainable and will end in bankruptcy. People will inevitably try it. When they fail, they must be allowed to lose everything they own (subject to normal bankruptcy law).
National Vault:
Probably the best idea is to eliminate the postal service and convert buildings to National Vault buildings. That gives locality. Other than that, I would not suggest bringing gov into the ATM business. I should note, these are vaults for currency, not safe deposit boxes for jewelry, gold, or other valuables. Let the private sector do that.
National Debt:
In accordance with above, national debt can easily be paid off, for good. Nullify the debt for all domestic holders (this is the majority of debt). Domestic holders are either banks or investors. Fuck the banks, let them rot in hell. And the investors should have known better than to participate in the scheme. Give a one-time payoff to all foreign holders of debt, paid with currency, not more treasury securities. After paying off the debt, gov shall not be authorized to go into debt* (see TAXES), loan money to anyone, or to issue interest-bearing securities.
Taxes:
Oh boy, fun. Replace all taxes (yes property, yes sales, yes income, yes cap gains, yes business, yes all) with the following 4 taxes:
-Inflation tax. This will be the primary method of taxation. Gov simply prints currency to cover costs. Yes, this increases prices and devalues savings. That's how the tax works. TANSTAAFL. This tax can't be cheated (except for inside job). This tax is neither progressive nor regressive, it hits everyone equally, proportional to their share of the wealth. Foreign holders of currency, when redeeming currency to us* (see wire tax), should be compensated for the difference in value. After all, they shouldn't be paying our taxes.
-Tariffs. Index tariffs to relative CPIs of trading partners. And I mean a real CPI, not the bs that currently comes from BLS. All international trade must be physically controlled to make this work. That means gov owns and oper
...Just tax tires.
The more miles you drive, the sooner you have to replace your tires, and the more tax revenue they get, regardless of your means of propulsion.
And as a side benefit, the kind of stupid, potentially unsafe behavior that wears out tires more quickly will financially penalize the idiots doing it even further.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
" enjoy my life in my postage stamp sized studio with my significant other"
That sounds like a horrible existence, like you're a rat in a hole where the city dictates what you can and cannot do.
If thats living, what's the point?
Come out to where I live, you can hike, climb mountains, work in your backyard, get anything you want within a 20 minute drive, have room for my family so they're not on top of each other all the time.
I'm imagining the life you've created and how that will play out as you get older. Sitting in that efficiency staring at each other, kids sitting there wondering why you're too cheap to get a place where they don't have to stare at you 24 hours a day.
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
Let's start with what the internal government (GAO) report on waste advised:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf
If even the government knows it needs to cut or consolidate these programs, the politics shouldn't be hard to overcome. They may not have a $100B impact, but it will be significant. Its just really hard to justify new taxes when there are 15 agencies involved in food safety, 100 programs addressing surface transportation, over 20 federal programs addressing homelessness, 82 programs for teacher improvement, etc. The duplication and waste makes me not trust the government with any more of my money.
Think that it is a money grab to help the Feds pay down the debt. If they tax vehicle mileage, then they should remove all fuel taxes. Would they also tax farming vehicles or foreign vehicles too?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Partly for all the reasons listed above in detail by everyone else who has already posted. For instance, we have toll roads for a reason. And I already get taxed for highway maintenance in my regular taxes, not to mention the exorbitant titling and registration costs to the tune of hundreds of dollars every year I have to renew, not to mention mandatory insurance (how much do the insurance companies get taxed for supporting road use, I'm guessing none?) gas taxes, sales tax, and ridiculous fees tacked on to every traffic ticket. Here is why ELSE it won't work:
I am, just like lots of other people in this country, a delivery driver. I use my own vehicles for work. I put a lot of miles on them, and I make money doing it. Currently, the miles my car travels are tax deductible as a business expense. This is because it already costs me money just to work: Nobody reimburses me for gas, and when I get a string of no-tippers on any given day this prevents me from basically depreciating my car and working for free. (Because, due to previous governmental meddling, we are in the same class as waiters and therefore our employers are allowed to pay us FAR less than minimum wage, and therefore 100% of them do.)
There are two kinds of delivery driver in this world: Punk high-school kids who drive around in the summertime or between 'real' jobs for a couple of months to make a few bucks, and us professionals who have been tough enough not to be chewed up and spit out by the bullshit that is the modern American experience. (Complete with crime, corruption, and personal peril. Accept no substitutes.)
Let me tell you something about professional delivery drivers. We are, to the last man, batshit fucking insane. Not only is it the only way to survive, but it's the only way to make money. You would HAVE to be cracked to make a living driving your own car into the middle of the ghetto with somebody else's pizza and a light up sign on your roof that says "rob me" twenty times a night. But we do it. We do it because the trademark of the professional driver is that we don't take shit from anybody. Not the customer, not the punks on the street, not the boss, not the police, and sure as fuck not some swine in Washington who can't figure out how to pay their goddamn bills.
If this passes into law, two things are going to happen: Of course, everyone else in the world is going to whine and moan on the Internet and in newspaper opinion columns, and many hands will be wrung with nothing done about it. But meanwhile, there's going to be a traffic jam on the beltway; A line of cars as far as the eye can see, each emblazoned with a sign: Domino's, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, more Chinese restaurants than you can count. There will be fucking taxicabs in there. Stretch limos, and private tour buses. Every one of those vehicles is gonna have one pissed off professional driver behind the wheel, and they're all going to be headed to Washington D.C. to personally strangle whoever is responsible for this bill.
And we're not gonna take "no" for an answer.
This isn't the first time we've seen this - it's been proposed in Oregon and California and probably other states, with no success. I don't know who's pushing this one, but apparently now they're trying to sell the Feds on it.
There's an easy way to track mileage if you want to - it's the odometer. But no, the people pushing this one want to have a mechanism for tracking your driving in much more detail, and that's really what this is about. I don't know if they're doing it because they're Big Brother types who want this for the tracking system, or if they're hardware vendors who want to make everybody buy their hardware, or if it's really just some guy that's obsessed about it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Man, it's a good thing there's absolutely no way an odometer or one of these boxes (or its sensors) could be faked out, right? Because there wouldn't be any profit in doing that AT ALL.
Or are they going to track via inertia or GPS? In which case they wouldn't just be recording miles traveled, they'd be recording exactly where every car had ever gone over its entire life.
It must be to protect freedom. From terrorists. For the children.
i cant pay my taxes(what taxes??) as it is..now you want to tax me more?
Nazis....Terrorists....Same thing right?
Right?
Had me fooled, I can't tell the difference between the Republicans and the teabaggers.
That is a ridiculous statement. Too concerned with how things should be, and not how they are? So, things should be like X, but we are too lame and are causing bigger problems by doing Y as a feel-good measure, we shouldn't worry about that and should just deal with the stupidity?
The definition of progress is figuring out how things should be, comparing them with how they are, and somehow getting from here to there.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You pretend that I'm not in favor of cutting all of the above. If you chopped 15% off of all of those (probably more off of military and medicare, as those are responsible for most of the recent bloat) I don't think it would change our general well-being as a country hardly at all. I'm not even completely convinced it would require giving up on Iraq and Afghanistan from a strategic standpoint, although that would definitely help things.
As for special interests (what interest isn't special by the way? You might as well just say "voters who care about this topic"), I didn't say this was a likely plan, just that in terms of running the country, cutting spending back to sustainable levels does not require going back to some stone-age state-of-nature in terms of government support.
Nah, he's doing 10% fewer miles at 70. Therefore, technically, he's correct.
MPG he's probably either mistaken, confused or telling porkies.
I live in a town of 3,000 and drive ~20 miles (one way) to a job in a city of 16,000. No, I can't move to where I work. No, there is not an equivalent job where I live. I'm lucky to have the job I do have (though the pay is very low even with cost-of-living added in). Not everyone is a cool hipster with a smorgasbord of cool hipster choices.
On topic: usage by miles seems theoretically fair, but can never be affordably implemented without opening a Pandora's Box full of privacy issues.
The politicians won't give an answer either way. The evidence tells me that Social Security won't have the money to pay out benefits in another decade.