Many forms of property can be taxed, and still not make you a profit in the end. Most cars are taxed ( in addition to a usage tax, you get taxed for owning the vehicle). I don't know of many cars that go up in value over time.
If this was a tax on profitability, it would only go down as an income tax.
I know CA allows the private diesel. Look at all the diesel full size pickup trucks. Course, my dad had a 82 Oldsmobile station wagon with a diesel. Very slow on the acceleration, but it made decent milage for that time period.
The question should be, why don't we see many small diesel vehicles for sale in CA, or even the USA?
"No, that was not Zathras, that was Zathras. There are 10 of us, all of family Zathras, each one named Zathras. Slight differences in how you pronounce. Zathraas, Zathras, Zathras.. You are seeing now?" "There are ten of you?" "Yes! Well, nine now."
Zathras and Ivanova, Conflicts of Interest
Copied from http://scv.bu.edu/~aarondf/b5quotes.html
I'm thinking of people who are independent contractors of such. People with their own tree trimming business, roofers, pizza delivery boys(admittedly, they should not be driving a 1 ton crew cab for that!)
And probably my own mentality, of not wanting the state to know how much gas I use for work, and then for my own pleasure.
True, but what about people who use big gas guzzlers? They are driving the same amount of miles. You can argue that they can pay more for having the heavy weight that destroys the roads, or that they deserve it for using a gas guzzler.
My thinking though is that it unfairly hurts people who use a light to medium weight truck for work purposes, who are using the road in a consitant amount.
The argument for a gas tax is that it pays for the roads. The problem here is that gas consumption is not a consistent gauge of miles driven. I'm not neccesarily a fan of having GPS tracking by the state in my vehicle, but if I only got billed for those miles driven inside the state of California, it could be a real economic advantage to me.
The way it was said on the morning radio, KROQ's Kevin and Bean, was that this was coming about because too many fuel efficient cars meant the amount of monies recieved from gas taxes was reduced. So by taxing the number of miles driven a year, they can more accuratly pay for the roads.
What's the cost advantage of the current gas guzzler and getting a high milage vehicle.
A few years ago I worked it out for a friend of mine with an F-350 he uses to commute every day (about 30 miles one way). He uses the truck to haul his boat to the Colorado River from the LA area about 5 or 7 times a year. The cost of a slightly used high milage car (to commute in, and keeping the truck only for the river), the insurance and registration would not offset the fuel cost savings he would of gained.
Some rough estimates right now for me: My F-150-15 mpg is my worst average. Figure 300 miles a week. So 20 gallons.
A Focus or other affordable higher milage car? Being generous at 30 mpg, that's 10 gallons. I save about 20 dollars a week. And the insurance is much cheaper. But I can't do the things I like to do, and sometimes need to. I have to put chains on when I go skiing, I have to be more careful of things in the road, and I can't go off roading.
That 20 bucks a week, and the extra insurance is money I can afford right now and I enjoy it. Enough motivation for me.
As for the hybrid cars.... The total cost of purchase is far to high to be made back in 3 or 4 years I think in gas savings. Great for the conscious. Bad for the wallet. But maybe in a few years....
In the US here, we're supposed to have some protection from the Tyranny of the Majority( 3/4 majority of states to modify the Constitution, the "elder, wiser" body of the Senate, and of course the Supreme Court), while giving the majority a good say.
The framers were quite afraid of the mob menatlity, and wanted several safeguards. Some of those are now gone(only people who vote being white male property owners, older than 25 for example), but the idea of protecting the minority(in this case, rich aristocrates like Washington and Jefferson) ran deep.
Capitalism does tend towards monopoly. But the monopolistic trend is countered by some things Marx never considered. Inventers, developers, people who just think outside the business box, they then provide more competition. Of course, the Monopolies will try to eat them up, but they can and do fail at that, and get washed up and forgotten.
While Communism, that's the Monopoly of the state, with no chance for competition, after all the State KNOWS what you need and want. Even if it's true for the majority, the Tyranny of the Majority is not something to be desired either.
So Monopoly, from Communism or Capitalism is bad. But at least with Capitalism, we have a chance against it.
I hope to have that kind of stamina when I get to that age. Course, I also hope to have enough money not to have to work at that age too. All the more reason not to have kids.....
I've worked for componet's companies, and fire is a big concern. The biggest work over the past decades in airtravel has been in the adhesives(glues, epoxys, etc). It is considered a BIG thing if you can create a new epoxy that will give people 5 more seconds to get off a plane.
When dealing with the adhesives, it's generally not the fire that gets you. It's the fumes. Not just smoke, some composite materials burn clear, but the invisible fumes will still kill you.
For the record, nothing we made was structural, as in if it failed, the plane would come down. We made floor panels(if that fails, you may put your foot thru it, but it's not going to kill you)
The best description I ever heard was: "The plane's going to burn. If we can keep people alive for 5 more seconds, that's better odds for everyone"
Turns out even Europe is based on the Imperial system, at least for somethings.
Where I work, in making airplane panels, the original design came up for about 44 inches from support beam to support beam. So all panels had to be 44 inches from there on out. Of course this is a pain to order, so most companies simply order 48 inch wide panels(that's an even 4 feet for all of the metric people out there), and trim the panel down in house.
The really strange thing is, when European companies order from us, they do give us the spec in metric, but it turns out to be the same 48 inches, and they again trim it down to the size they need.
Yes, it does create a lot of waste, but this is the way things were started back in the beginning of time, and no one has ever bothered to change things, so far as I know. I got all this from a coworker who started sometime in the 50s, and spent the time to ask "Why?", so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and please correct me.
A few years ago I was on the Nevada Test Range where they did the atomic testing, and Area 51 is a part of it's northern area. Anyway, I was in a welcome building getting my pass to go on base(to pick up some stuff I bought at an auction:trucks, misc broken parts, a tractor. Don't ask), and I see a sat photo of the whole area. Nice 3' x2' photo. I got to see a nice 5 mile or so(measuring with my pen against the scale) runway, and a few buildings in that general vincinity. I also saw the roads running all over the base, and only one of them went over the mountains into the Area 51. Unlike the rest of the base, where there were roads running all over the place.
Now for posting this, will I get a knock on my door? I sure hope not, I didn't sign a non disclosure agreement or anything.....
Slashdot Mirror
Many forms of property can be taxed, and still not make you a profit in the end. Most cars are taxed ( in addition to a usage tax, you get taxed for owning the vehicle). I don't know of many cars that go up in value over time.
If this was a tax on profitability, it would only go down as an income tax.
In Soviet Russian, polar bear say:
"All our base belong to you"
I know CA allows the private diesel. Look at all the diesel full size pickup trucks. Course, my dad had a 82 Oldsmobile station wagon with a diesel. Very slow on the acceleration, but it made decent milage for that time period.
The question should be, why don't we see many small diesel vehicles for sale in CA, or even the USA?
That won't stop Steve.
"No, that was not Zathras, that was Zathras. There are 10 of us, all of family Zathras, each one named Zathras. Slight differences in how you pronounce. Zathraas, Zathras, Zathras.. You are seeing now?"
"There are ten of you?"
"Yes! Well, nine now."
Zathras and Ivanova, Conflicts of Interest
Copied from http://scv.bu.edu/~aarondf/b5quotes.html
Zathras wasn't funny. That was Zathras who was funny. Zathras got all of mothers funny.
No, poor Zathras here likes dirt and bugs. All part of great scheme of things.
I'm thinking of people who are independent contractors of such. People with their own tree trimming business, roofers, pizza delivery boys(admittedly, they should not be driving a 1 ton crew cab for that!)
And probably my own mentality, of not wanting the state to know how much gas I use for work, and then for my own pleasure.
True, but what about people who use big gas guzzlers? They are driving the same amount of miles. You can argue that they can pay more for having the heavy weight that destroys the roads, or that they deserve it for using a gas guzzler.
My thinking though is that it unfairly hurts people who use a light to medium weight truck for work purposes, who are using the road in a consitant amount.
The argument for a gas tax is that it pays for the roads. The problem here is that gas consumption is not a consistent gauge of miles driven. I'm not neccesarily a fan of having GPS tracking by the state in my vehicle, but if I only got billed for those miles driven inside the state of California, it could be a real economic advantage to me.
The way it was said on the morning radio, KROQ's Kevin and Bean, was that this was coming about because too many fuel efficient cars meant the amount of monies recieved from gas taxes was reduced. So by taxing the number of miles driven a year, they can more accuratly pay for the roads.
What's the cost advantage of the current gas guzzler and getting a high milage vehicle.
A few years ago I worked it out for a friend of mine with an F-350 he uses to commute every day (about 30 miles one way). He uses the truck to haul his boat to the Colorado River from the LA area about 5 or 7 times a year. The cost of a slightly used high milage car (to commute in, and keeping the truck only for the river), the insurance and registration would not offset the fuel cost savings he would of gained.
Some rough estimates right now for me: My F-150-15 mpg is my worst average. Figure 300 miles a week. So 20 gallons.
A Focus or other affordable higher milage car? Being generous at 30 mpg, that's 10 gallons. I save about 20 dollars a week. And the insurance is much cheaper. But I can't do the things I like to do, and sometimes need to. I have to put chains on when I go skiing, I have to be more careful of things in the road, and I can't go off roading.
That 20 bucks a week, and the extra insurance is money I can afford right now and I enjoy it. Enough motivation for me.
As for the hybrid cars.... The total cost of purchase is far to high to be made back in 3 or 4 years I think in gas savings. Great for the conscious. Bad for the wallet. But maybe in a few years....
In the US here, we're supposed to have some protection from the Tyranny of the Majority( 3/4 majority of states to modify the Constitution, the "elder, wiser" body of the Senate, and of course the Supreme Court), while giving the majority a good say.
The framers were quite afraid of the mob menatlity, and wanted several safeguards. Some of those are now gone(only people who vote being white male property owners, older than 25 for example), but the idea of protecting the minority(in this case, rich aristocrates like Washington and Jefferson) ran deep.
Bill
Capitalism does tend towards monopoly. But the monopolistic trend is countered by some things Marx never considered. Inventers, developers, people who just think outside the business box, they then provide more competition. Of course, the Monopolies will try to eat them up, but they can and do fail at that, and get washed up and forgotten.
While Communism, that's the Monopoly of the state, with no chance for competition, after all the State KNOWS what you need and want. Even if it's true for the majority, the Tyranny of the Majority is not something to be desired either.
So Monopoly, from Communism or Capitalism is bad. But at least with Capitalism, we have a chance against it.
Bill
Wasn't his daughter just born a year or two ago?
I hope to have that kind of stamina when I get to that age. Course, I also hope to have enough money not to have to work at that age too. All the more reason not to have kids.....
I've worked for componet's companies, and fire is a big concern. The biggest work over the past decades in airtravel has been in the adhesives(glues, epoxys, etc). It is considered a BIG thing if you can create a new epoxy that will give people 5 more seconds to get off a plane.
When dealing with the adhesives, it's generally not the fire that gets you. It's the fumes. Not just smoke, some composite materials burn clear, but the invisible fumes will still kill you.
For the record, nothing we made was structural, as in if it failed, the plane would come down. We made floor panels(if that fails, you may put your foot thru it, but it's not going to kill you)
The best description I ever heard was: "The plane's going to burn. If we can keep people alive for 5 more seconds, that's better odds for everyone"
Turns out even Europe is based on the Imperial system, at least for somethings.
Where I work, in making airplane panels, the original design came up for about 44 inches from support beam to support beam. So all panels had to be 44 inches from there on out. Of course this is a pain to order, so most companies simply order 48 inch wide panels(that's an even 4 feet for all of the metric people out there), and trim the panel down in house.
The really strange thing is, when European companies order from us, they do give us the spec in metric, but it turns out to be the same 48 inches, and they again trim it down to the size they need.
Yes, it does create a lot of waste, but this is the way things were started back in the beginning of time, and no one has ever bothered to change things, so far as I know. I got all this from a coworker who started sometime in the 50s, and spent the time to ask "Why?", so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and please correct me.
A few years ago I was on the Nevada Test Range where they did the atomic testing, and Area 51 is a part of it's northern area. Anyway, I was in a welcome building getting my pass to go on base(to pick up some stuff I bought at an auction:trucks, misc broken parts, a tractor. Don't ask), and I see a sat photo of the whole area. Nice 3' x2' photo. I got to see a nice 5 mile or so(measuring with my pen against the scale) runway, and a few buildings in that general vincinity. I also saw the roads running all over the base, and only one of them went over the mountains into the Area 51. Unlike the rest of the base, where there were roads running all over the place.
Now for posting this, will I get a knock on my door? I sure hope not, I didn't sign a non disclosure agreement or anything.....