Posted on 06/09/2007 7:36:36 PM PDT by Flavius
Yeah, but what about electric cars? Back in what, the 90's, California went out of their way to build these car charger stations all over the place, in shopping mall lots and what-not. No tax there.
What about those obviously commie hybrid folks? Are they filing an estimated fuel tax payment for the miles driven under battery load? After all, if the car gets 40 mpg instead of 20, ain't that a good case for them paying for the other 20? It seems like this looney state thinks so.
These nutty legislators are working overtime to kill the one great bit of eco-tech that I suspect excites folks on both ends of the political spectrum and in the middle. Who wouldn't wanna cut off Osama's money pipleline? Who wouldn't want to do something useful with old french fry grease other than cook more fries?
The number of vehicles running on homebrew biodiesel, waste oil, or whatever, is truly miniscule. After all, supply and demand will prevent the tech from going mainstream. If suddenly 20,000 people in town wanted waste restaurant oil, it wouldn't be free anymore, and you'd see the price of processing make it not worth bothering with.
Could you use that as fuel and avoid the tax?
If my memory is working right there used to be a lot of illegal stills working up in the Endless Mountains area.
Instead of directly taxing him, all they need to do is tax the disposal fee for his gunked up engine when he has to replace it after burning the biofuel for about 6 months to a year.
Best build it back in the woods where the revenuers cain't find it.
you do know that Diesel ran his car on peanut oil right?
The history of the diesel engine begins in Germany with the invention of the engine by Rudolph Diesel. Rudolph Diesel ran his engine at the 1900 World’s Fair on pure peanut oil.
http://www.dieselsecret.com/drdiesel.html
It would make people realize how much they pay in taxes. The current system (fuel tax) is hidden, just like payroll deductions, etc.
The gov't knows that as long as it hides the taxes, you will blame big oil instead of big gov't.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Don’t sweat it. All water under the bridge, FRiend.
Perhaps he should have tried tobacco.
When I started investigating home ethanol production this spring, I decided that I wanted to be completely above board with everything that I did (out of a sense of personal protection and to stay out of jail), and quite surprisingly, when I contacted all the agencies that might have some cognizance over the issue, I found that they have all been quite supportive and impressed by my individual effort to contribute to alternative fuels usage. No static whatsoever, and so far, everyone I contacted within Rendell's administration have been really on the ball concerning alternative fuels. The problem in Pennsylvania is that the legislature is about 20 years behind times...
Drinking alcohol is way too weak to use as a fuel. It has to be 180 proof or better before it will combust properly. At any rate, it’s much easier to get official permission to make ethanol fuel than to go through the Liquor Control Board hassle to get a liquor production license. I know, since I’ve been talking to all the involved Pennsylvania agencies over the past month to get a handle on all the laws and permits required.
Vehicle weight differences are made up by higher licensing fees here in NC. Not to mention NC’s Personal Property Tax on vehicles, which is based on the state’s valuation of said vehicle (which more than likely has nothing to do with the reality of what said vehicle is actually worth)...
They don’t need that $1.2 B plus the licensing fees plus the tag fees plus the inspection costs. It is fricking ridiculous here.
Thanks. I guess the octane rating of conventional liquor just isn’t high enough.
Actually the bicycle puts a larger stain on the road. A 5000# car with a tire footprint of 200 sq.in. places 25 psi on the road surface. A 180# cyclist has about 2 sq.in on the road, resulting in 90 psi to the pavement.
Liberals count on people with that exact attitude to back them up as they invent evermore all-encompassing (read "totalitarian") taxation schemes. "It isn't fair 'cuz I'm paying and they're not", is sweet, sweet music to the Liberal ear, but it is a funeral dirge to all Free Men, sounding the death of liberty in the lengthening shadow of a dying Republic.
FRiend, you must decide: will you have fairness, or freedom? Choose well, for we'll judge you by your allegiance.
LOLOL!!!!! BWHAHAHAHA...(wiping eyes)
NC has one of the highest gas taxes on the East Coast (right on .30), one of the highest income taxes in the nation, and we have just added a stupid tax (lottery). And yet our roads are worsening, the education system is falling apart here in central NC, and the cops are cracking down even harder on speeders and seat belt violators (roadside tax) because we're running short according to our legislature.
Tell me another one about 'fair' taxes in this state.
> FRiend, you must decide: will you have fairness, or freedom? Choose well, for we’ll judge you by your allegiance.
Sage advice. I see no reason not to have both.
“Freeloading” is a well-established Liberal concept: just like wealth redistribution.
Speaking personally, I’d prefer not to pay road taxes and dog licenses at all. The sad fact is that we must, else the roads would fall to bits and dogs would run amuck.
So if there must be these oppressive measures in place, they should apply equally to all. “Equality” sits alongside “Liberty” and “Fraternity” as good, solid Conservative values, and has done so ever since the French Revolution.
Cats cause just as much damage — or more — as dogs do, so why not license them? Their “freedom” comes at the direct expense of the natural wildlife, which I also enjoy. Their predation has been responsible for the extinction of many species here in NZ, so I’ll shed no tears if their owners are required to license them each year: it will help pay for conservation measures that we all have to fund in some way or another. User-pays is a perfectly good Conservative value.
And bicycles should also bear a fair share of the cost of the roading infrastructure that they enjoy, else they should feel free to ride their bikes in their back yards only.
Why should bikes be afforded all the courtesies of the Road Code and be treated like real vehicles in all ways, except when it comes to paying for the infrastructure? Classic freeloading. Bikes and Bike Riders should at least be licensed (yes, that means little Tommy at 8: if he’s old enough to ride on the road he’s old enough to answer a few questions about road safety).
The “Equality” part of Conservative values is a bitch at times. But it has good, solid, practical uses, and balances out “Liberty” and “Fraternity” rather nicely.
You’re ignoring dynamic loading, a function of speed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.