Posted on 12/06/2014 5:31:30 PM PST by Steelfish
Idiot...
a hybrid vehicle would tend to be heavier because of battery weight, but get better mileage.
Sorry, these tax people need to be dropped off in the desert.
Impact to the environment greater due to the batteries.
Also, the hybrids cost more so they should pay a luxury tax.
Mileage times weight would be the fairest method.
You could even calibrate to where it reflected actual wear to roads.
How about service repair people who drive hundreds of miles a day? Guess who is going to pay that extra fee?
would make it fairer for everyone,”.
When is everyone going to realize that there is no such a thing as fair. Suck it up and get on with your life.
I agree with you completely. :)
Before long, Kaliforniastan is going to tax how many times you pee and take a crap. They will tax anything to screw you out of a dollar. I refuse to even enter that state. Period! I am in the south, and I ain’t leaving. I live in the most conservative state in the Union, Alabama. We have a state government that the top 13 positions are republicans. The state senate and house are dominated by republicans. 8 of 9 Congress critters are republican I think it is. Both US Senators are republicans, with Jeff Sessions leading the way and the RINO in the other position. It is danged great to live here and you could not pay me millions to live in Kaliforniastan, or any other socialist homo state.
Faraday Cages rule.....
In theory that might be true, but the point isn't relevant. The difference in the wear and tear caused by a large SUV compared to a subcompact car is inconsequential compared to the wear and tear caused by a fully loaded (80,000-lb.) tractor-trailer combination truck.
“A mileage tax isn’t fair. Lighter fuel efficient vehicles do less damage to the roads than oversized gas guzzlers do.”
Who said the tax would apply equally for all types of vehicles? For that matter, who said that the tax cannot be adapted to also include when you drive and where you drive? And, after that, why not adjust the tax to income levels, so that the rich pay their fair share?
“I’m not sure how this would work...”
The only way it can work is that they track you, every inch you drive. If you don’t have a transmitter (or transponder), you get a ticket.
Actually the more gas consumed per mile would be the fairest method. Oh gee. That’s what we have now.
“And the IDIOTS in Taxifornia just keep voting these criminals back into office. How is Governor Jaunito Marquez BROWN these days??”
Unfortunately the Republicans want this as much as the Democrats. Makes them feel like “market forces” are being applied (coming from their Libertarian side).
By the way, California charges State Sales Tax on their fuel (most states do not)...hmmm, nice revenue source for roads.
Just making the point that there are other options besides tracking everyone’s movements.
They’ll be damned mucky if the new tax replaces the old one. All previous mention of the new taxing idea has presented it as an additional tax not replacing anything.
It’s impossible to believe that tracking won’t be used against people once the information is being gathered.
Doesn’t allow for electric cars. The main purpose of gas taxes is to pay for road construction and maintenance.
So the “fairest method” is miles x weight. Woudl be a sliding scale, of course, as the relationship between weight and road wear probably isn’t linear.
It will never be a replacement tax, it will be in addition to the gasoline tax. It’s how government operates.
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.