Actually, it IS difficult. The reason is that it is the truckers that really need the increased taxes. Yet, if oregan raises their taxes above neighboring states, it will cause the truckers to fill up outside of the state and then drive across without paying any taxes what so ever.
What is really needed is for FEDERAL CONgress to pass a bill that will slowly increase diesel tax yearly, and put 100% of the new increase into the highway system. By that, I mean, inter AND INTRA highway system. Basically, the money needs to go to state highways as well as federal highways.
BTW, states should also raise gasoline taxes slowly at the same time, but it is not a big disaster. Few of the heavy vehicles use gasoline. So raising gas taxes above the neighbors is not a killer. It will impact taxes around a 20 mile range from the borders, but that would be the worst of it. OTOH, if the majority of drivers are within that 20 mile range, then they might have issues. But, I do not think that is the case.
blame the congress/DOT, not the unions. It comes down to what DOT will pay. However, as one that grew up in Ill back in the 60s and 70's, Ill has ALWAYS had shit roads. ALWAYS. The reason is that they always did the minimum amount to get by.
But for those that use the argument of electric vehicles, there is an easy solution to this. Skip worrying about those that charge at home. The reason is that if they charge at night, they actually LOWER ALL OF OUR ELECTRICITY COSTS. Yes, by charging in the middle of the night, power companies are able to run their base load systems at a higher rate, and more importantly, when they do build new plants, it will be base load systems, as opposed to more expensive day-time on-demand systems.
So, where and when should you tax electric cars to pay their way? When they charge in high demand times. Basically, the more cars that charge in daytime, and the more that it will cost ALL electric users. Charging in the daytime at a home is expensive. The reason is that most home owners of electric cars get price breaks during the night time. During the daytime, they pay full price. BUT, the commercial stations, such as at walgreens, should be charged a tax for day-time usage. Interestingly, all of the systems, have the ability to do just that. IOW, taxes can be added to those commercial systems, and can be time based.
In fact, it should be the feds that have enough balls to do what is right and increase fuel rates on diesel across ALL states. Then the increase should go ONLY to the federal interstate AND state intrastate HIGHWAY system, including bridges. The fact is, that staring with reagan, we have not invested into our road infrastructure. As such, it makes sense to increase diesel tax.
wrong. The loads will simply switch to trains which is where they actually belong. I do not want to subsidize an inefficient trucking system.
And if you really want to escape the fuel tax, simply switch to Natural Gas. At this time, there is no tax on it. It will be taxed in the future, BUT that is down the road.
Except this is not yet the future, and it especially was not in 2001 when they started studying how to make up gas tax shortage. Fuel-efficient vehicles are still nowhere near the numbers they need to be for this to even make sense from an bureaucratic/administrative perspective ("The administrative costs of starting the new system would also outweigh any additional revenue for years").
And, while governments are great at reacting to things, they're notoriously bad at prescriptive action without some lobby group pushing an agenda.
Really? Do you have a study that shows that to be true?
wrong. vehicle MPG is roughly correlated with vehicle weight. And it is vehicle weight that does destruction. The real fair way is not to pay per mile, but to pay for weight times miles. And since mpg correlates well with weight, then fuel tax is fairly close to fair.
No, they do NOT pay more. The fact is, that smaller vehicles are much lighter vehicles and as such, typically have higher mpg. As such, they pay a whole lot less than heavier, larger vehicles.
So, if they are wrong, are you implying that bicycles would then give the same wear and tear to roads that semi-trucks do? I mean, where exactly do you think that wear-tear comes from?
It currently does just that. MPG is largely a factor of larger vehicle size (aerodynamic drag is larger) which is a larger vehicle weight. As such, MPG will decrease for the larger vehicles and they will pay more in increased fuel. As such, they should stay with this.
Vehicles do NOT use the roads equally. Far from it. Light-weight cars do not make anywhere near the damage that a semi-truck does. The reason is that it is not just miles on the vehicle but weight. And the MPG is a pretty good indicator of car weight. The fact is, that 2 vehicles from the same time, will have roughly the same efficiency in the engine. As such, what changes the mpg is the weight (which also correlates with power).
Most fair share is the fuel tax since it does all this without convoluted calculations.
Not just gas, but diesel fuel. And since diesel is mostly used by interstate trucks, the feds should bump it up for the whole nation, and then send more to the states for the highways (including state highways) and road infrastructures. If the feds do not bump it up, then what happens is that truckers simply buy the fuel out-of-state and avoid buying the fuel in your state while continuing to use the roads.
The main reason why mileage is going up is NOT due to having radically different engine designs with high MPG, but mostly due to lightening the loads in the vehicles. Unibodys are much lighter than the old truck chassis. Likewise, using aluminum and plastic instead of steal lowers the weight.
Finally, moving from large 6 passenger cars to small 4 and even now 3 or 2 passenger vehicles means small LIGHT cars.
A light car does not use up the roads the ways that a massive truck or suburban does. Those will put a large load on each tire, which digs deeper into the roads. Take a turn and it removes both tire AND road surface.
Now, if you wish to point to electric and NG vehicles as not paying, well, you would be right. However, these are such a small number and will remain such, that it is foolish to change the system for these. However, even these can be taxed at the right time. Electric cars are efficient when charged at night. If somebody is charging in the daytime, it actually costs ALL OF US money to charge that. The reason is that it will put a larger demand on the electric system. So by putting a tax on auto electricity from commercial systems during the daytime, we can encourage electric cars to charge at night as well as match the vehicles to the demand.
If these lawmakers really want to tax the users that cause the most damage, than they should simply increase taxes on fuel. In addition, to keep the states from battling it out with neighboring states, the tax on diesel should be increased and handled by the feds for the highways and infrastructures. The fact is, that semi trucks do the vast majority of damage to roads, not lightweight cars.
I agree with most of that, except the part about dave. He was not the one that brought the MBAs onboard. Both he and bill brought Young and then Platte. Neither was great, but were not disasters. The issue came when Platte picked Fiorna to take over as CEO. And yes, it was Platte that pushed that nightmare. Interestingly, Platte was pushed aside by her within 2 weeks of getting the job. That should have been a sign of what was to come. She (and the idiots that followed) never understood the HP way (or bell labs either, since I was there at the split and saw the damage that she did to us there ).
Dave was not the one to blame for bringing on-board idiot MBA's. Platte was.
BTW, Both Platte and Young were MBAs, but they had been PEs first, with actual work experience. IOW, they had some understanding of engineering.
She was the start of it, but she has not been alone. Dunn, Hurd, Apotheker, and now whitman have worked hard to bring HP down. All of these MBA's should be lined up and shot.
Again, this bozo MBA continues to destroy HP. Between the likes of fiorina, apotheker, hurd, and dunn, HP is quickly being destroyed.
What kills me is that it took decades for Hewlett and Packard to build the company up, but all of the executives are hard at work to get their money out, and are taking less than 2 decades to destroy it.
Seriously, it is the return trip that will do the most damage. The reason is that we will not send as much fuel there to comeback with. IOW, the return trip will be slow. So, send the ppl on a one-way and put them underground. Once we have NERVA going, and can make a trip in 1 month, THEN allow them to come back.
No proof of macro evolution? So, you mean that birds coming from the dinosaurs is NOT proof of such? Or that Man came from other primates, which is trivially provable via our DNA? Hell, they have birds that exists on different islands that over time have evolved to the point, where they will not mate.
LOADS of support for it. BUT, until you can prove that the negative of it can not happen, it remains a theory.
For 2012:
Pensions $805 Billion
Medicare $432 Billion
Welfare (Medial and handouts) $764 Billion
Deficit $1.1 Trillion (Remember how unacceptable Bush's $500 Billion was?)
So yea, we can keep hammering defence and ignore other areas, but that just shows you as a partsian shill.
Really? Please show some honest links on those. You will find that the 'welfare' section includes Medicare as well. Here is a nice pic here is another.
The fact is, that the items that YOU hate (wic, medicaid, HUD, etc) are next to NOTHING. If you wipe them out, we would still have about 3/4T deficit. Worse, our costs would rise elsewhere. So, you COULD go after Medicare and SS, but good luck with that. I noticed that even the republicans that voted for the neo-cons expect that THEIR ss/medicare will continue. Of course, none of them want to raise THEIR taxes either.
Please give us a CREDIBLE link to that. Not faux news, pravda, national enquirer, or Daily Mail; not some blog where you in another name state it; but a video, or an honest news organization which reports that.
NO. It is the republicans (actually, the neo-cons who currently control the republicans) who are fighting against private space. They are the fucks that continue to force NASA to spend money on Constellation and now on SLS. Hell, it is the republicans that told NASA HOW to build the SLS and which companies that HAD to use.
The great news is that in 201[34], Falcon Heavy WILL launch. And once it does, a large cheap cargo carrier is ready to go to space. SLS will be redundant, and more importantly, wasteful. The best thing is, that many of the worse neo-cons (shelby, hutchinson, hatch, wolfe, etc) will be gone or gutted. At that point, SLS WILL die and privatization of launch systems can continue unabated.
Slashdot Mirror
And you probably have better roads for it.
Actually, it IS difficult. The reason is that it is the truckers that really need the increased taxes. Yet, if oregan raises their taxes above neighboring states, it will cause the truckers to fill up outside of the state and then drive across without paying any taxes what so ever.
What is really needed is for FEDERAL CONgress to pass a bill that will slowly increase diesel tax yearly, and put 100% of the new increase into the highway system. By that, I mean, inter AND INTRA highway system. Basically, the money needs to go to state highways as well as federal highways.
BTW, states should also raise gasoline taxes slowly at the same time, but it is not a big disaster. Few of the heavy vehicles use gasoline. So raising gas taxes above the neighbors is not a killer. It will impact taxes around a 20 mile range from the borders, but that would be the worst of it. OTOH, if the majority of drivers are within that 20 mile range, then they might have issues. But, I do not think that is the case.
blame the congress/DOT, not the unions. It comes down to what DOT will pay. However, as one that grew up in Ill back in the 60s and 70's, Ill has ALWAYS had shit roads. ALWAYS. The reason is that they always did the minimum amount to get by.
and not Natural gas.
But for those that use the argument of electric vehicles, there is an easy solution to this. Skip worrying about those that charge at home. The reason is that if they charge at night, they actually LOWER ALL OF OUR ELECTRICITY COSTS. Yes, by charging in the middle of the night, power companies are able to run their base load systems at a higher rate, and more importantly, when they do build new plants, it will be base load systems, as opposed to more expensive day-time on-demand systems.
So, where and when should you tax electric cars to pay their way? When they charge in high demand times. Basically, the more cars that charge in daytime, and the more that it will cost ALL electric users. Charging in the daytime at a home is expensive. The reason is that most home owners of electric cars get price breaks during the night time. During the daytime, they pay full price. BUT, the commercial stations, such as at walgreens, should be charged a tax for day-time usage. Interestingly, all of the systems, have the ability to do just that. IOW, taxes can be added to those commercial systems, and can be time based.
Natural gas, can also be charged at the stations.
In fact, it should be the feds that have enough balls to do what is right and increase fuel rates on diesel across ALL states. Then the increase should go ONLY to the federal interstate AND state intrastate HIGHWAY system, including bridges. The fact is, that staring with reagan, we have not invested into our road infrastructure. As such, it makes sense to increase diesel tax.
wrong. The loads will simply switch to trains which is where they actually belong. I do not want to subsidize an inefficient trucking system.
And if you really want to escape the fuel tax, simply switch to Natural Gas. At this time, there is no tax on it. It will be taxed in the future, BUT that is down the road.
Except this is not yet the future, and it especially was not in 2001 when they started studying how to make up gas tax shortage. Fuel-efficient vehicles are still nowhere near the numbers they need to be for this to even make sense from an bureaucratic/administrative perspective ("The administrative costs of starting the new system would also outweigh any additional revenue for years").
And, while governments are great at reacting to things, they're notoriously bad at prescriptive action without some lobby group pushing an agenda.
Really? Do you have a study that shows that to be true?
wrong. vehicle MPG is roughly correlated with vehicle weight. And it is vehicle weight that does destruction. The real fair way is not to pay per mile, but to pay for weight times miles. And since mpg correlates well with weight, then fuel tax is fairly close to fair.
No, they do NOT pay more. The fact is, that smaller vehicles are much lighter vehicles and as such, typically have higher mpg. As such, they pay a whole lot less than heavier, larger vehicles.
So, if they are wrong, are you implying that bicycles would then give the same wear and tear to roads that semi-trucks do? I mean, where exactly do you think that wear-tear comes from?
It currently does just that. MPG is largely a factor of larger vehicle size (aerodynamic drag is larger) which is a larger vehicle weight. As such, MPG will decrease for the larger vehicles and they will pay more in increased fuel. As such, they should stay with this.
Vehicles do NOT use the roads equally. Far from it. Light-weight cars do not make anywhere near the damage that a semi-truck does. The reason is that it is not just miles on the vehicle but weight. And the MPG is a pretty good indicator of car weight. The fact is, that 2 vehicles from the same time, will have roughly the same efficiency in the engine. As such, what changes the mpg is the weight (which also correlates with power).
Most fair share is the fuel tax since it does all this without convoluted calculations.
Not just gas, but diesel fuel. And since diesel is mostly used by interstate trucks, the feds should bump it up for the whole nation, and then send more to the states for the highways (including state highways) and road infrastructures. If the feds do not bump it up, then what happens is that truckers simply buy the fuel out-of-state and avoid buying the fuel in your state while continuing to use the roads.
The main reason why mileage is going up is NOT due to having radically different engine designs with high MPG, but mostly due to lightening the loads in the vehicles. Unibodys are much lighter than the old truck chassis. Likewise, using aluminum and plastic instead of steal lowers the weight. Finally, moving from large 6 passenger cars to small 4 and even now 3 or 2 passenger vehicles means small LIGHT cars.
A light car does not use up the roads the ways that a massive truck or suburban does. Those will put a large load on each tire, which digs deeper into the roads. Take a turn and it removes both tire AND road surface.
Now, if you wish to point to electric and NG vehicles as not paying, well, you would be right. However, these are such a small number and will remain such, that it is foolish to change the system for these. However, even these can be taxed at the right time. Electric cars are efficient when charged at night. If somebody is charging in the daytime, it actually costs ALL OF US money to charge that. The reason is that it will put a larger demand on the electric system. So by putting a tax on auto electricity from commercial systems during the daytime, we can encourage electric cars to charge at night as well as match the vehicles to the demand.
If these lawmakers really want to tax the users that cause the most damage, than they should simply increase taxes on fuel. In addition, to keep the states from battling it out with neighboring states, the tax on diesel should be increased and handled by the feds for the highways and infrastructures. The fact is, that semi trucks do the vast majority of damage to roads, not lightweight cars.
Oops. I'm sorry. I doubt that the story was true.
great post. However, I doubt that it was true.
Not as much as MBA's reward each other for that.
I agree with most of that, except the part about dave. He was not the one that brought the MBAs onboard. Both he and bill brought Young and then Platte. Neither was great, but were not disasters. The issue came when Platte picked Fiorna to take over as CEO. And yes, it was Platte that pushed that nightmare. Interestingly, Platte was pushed aside by her within 2 weeks of getting the job. That should have been a sign of what was to come. She (and the idiots that followed) never understood the HP way (or bell labs either, since I was there at the split and saw the damage that she did to us there ).
Dave was not the one to blame for bringing on-board idiot MBA's. Platte was.
BTW, Both Platte and Young were MBAs, but they had been PEs first, with actual work experience. IOW, they had some understanding of engineering.
She was the start of it, but she has not been alone. Dunn, Hurd, Apotheker, and now whitman have worked hard to bring HP down. All of these MBA's should be lined up and shot.
Again, this bozo MBA continues to destroy HP. Between the likes of fiorina, apotheker, hurd, and dunn, HP is quickly being destroyed.
What kills me is that it took decades for Hewlett and Packard to build the company up, but all of the executives are hard at work to get their money out, and are taking less than 2 decades to destroy it.
Seriously, it is the return trip that will do the most damage. The reason is that we will not send as much fuel there to comeback with. IOW, the return trip will be slow. So, send the ppl on a one-way and put them underground. Once we have NERVA going, and can make a trip in 1 month, THEN allow them to come back.
No proof of macro evolution? So, you mean that birds coming from the dinosaurs is NOT proof of such? Or that Man came from other primates, which is trivially provable via our DNA? Hell, they have birds that exists on different islands that over time have evolved to the point, where they will not mate.
LOADS of support for it. BUT, until you can prove that the negative of it can not happen, it remains a theory.
Lets keep this discussion fair at least. here
For 2012: Pensions $805 Billion Medicare $432 Billion Welfare (Medial and handouts) $764 Billion Deficit $1.1 Trillion (Remember how unacceptable Bush's $500 Billion was?)
So yea, we can keep hammering defence and ignore other areas, but that just shows you as a partsian shill.
Really? Please show some honest links on those. You will find that the 'welfare' section includes Medicare as well.
Here is a nice pic
here is another.
The fact is, that the items that YOU hate (wic, medicaid, HUD, etc) are next to NOTHING. If you wipe them out, we would still have about 3/4T deficit. Worse, our costs would rise elsewhere. So, you COULD go after Medicare and SS, but good luck with that. I noticed that even the republicans that voted for the neo-cons expect that THEIR ss/medicare will continue. Of course, none of them want to raise THEIR taxes either.
Please give us a CREDIBLE link to that. Not faux news, pravda, national enquirer, or Daily Mail; not some blog where you in another name state it; but a video, or an honest news organization which reports that.
NO. It is the republicans (actually, the neo-cons who currently control the republicans) who are fighting against private space. They are the fucks that continue to force NASA to spend money on Constellation and now on SLS. Hell, it is the republicans that told NASA HOW to build the SLS and which companies that HAD to use.
The great news is that in 201[34], Falcon Heavy WILL launch. And once it does, a large cheap cargo carrier is ready to go to space. SLS will be redundant, and more importantly, wasteful. The best thing is, that many of the worse neo-cons (shelby, hutchinson, hatch, wolfe, etc) will be gone or gutted. At that point, SLS WILL die and privatization of launch systems can continue unabated.