Oregon liberals have come up with a high tech way to raise your taxes again and they want to make you pay $225 for the privilege.
Mark Fox
again and again and again...... and they want to make you pay for the
privilege of them raising your taxes.
Can you just imagine having to pay $225 for the government to install a
tracking device in EACH of your cars just so you can have the privilege
of paying more taxes as you drive?? What's up with these liberals and
their continual lust for more taxes. If those stupid liberals would
just raise the gas tax as cars become more fuel efficient then they
would get the tax money they need to build roads and still punish gas
guzzling cars. This tracking system described below lets the big SUV
owners off the hook for extra taxes due to larger gas consumption per
mile.
Given the chance, liberals will drive anything and anyone into complete
bankruptcy.
Don't vote for democrats or liberals in the next election.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml
Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring Oregon has already
started road testing the idea. "Drivers will get charged for how
many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that," says
engineer David Kim. Kim and fellow researcher David Porter
at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a
global positioning device to keep track of its mileage.
Eventually, every car would need one.
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,58616,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
Oregon wants to know more about where people are driving -- a lot more.
And it's looking at some high-tech ideas to generate tax revenue by
billing drivers for every mile they travel on the state's roads.
The Oregon Department of Transportation is evaluating a scheme that
uses the global positioning system to keep track of the distance every
car travels in order to impose a road-use tax.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5982762.html
The U.S. Department of Transportation has been handing millions of
dollars to state governments for GPS-tracking pilot projects designed
to track vehicles wherever they go. So far, Washington state and Oregon
have received fat federal checks to figure out how to levy these
"mileage-based road user fees."
http://www.worrad.com/archives/2004/12/06/oregon-dot-pilots-program-to-track-and-tax-mileage/
Oregon DOT has been funding a project at Oregon State University (also
mentioned in GPS World) as a potential solution to the decreasing
revenue from gasoline taxes. The proposed program uses a combination of
existing GPS and radio technology to tax the motorist for the miles
driven every time they refill their fuel tank.
http://economics.about.com/od/taxesandeconomicgrowth/a/mileage_tax.htm
As consumers buy more fuel efficient cars, they'll use less gasoline.
States collect taxes from gasoline, so if less gasoline is sold, the
state will collect less tax revenue... States can ill
afford a drop in revenue as those funds pay for road repairs. Thus we
must find a new way to tax drivers to make up for this lost revenue.
Thus the Oregon government is considering a system where Oregon
drivers get taxed for every mile they drive within the state. ...the
Oregon
government would like to add a GPS (Global Positioning System) to
every car that would track what percentage of a cars miles were
driven in Oregon. Such a system could add up to $225 to the
cost of a new car.
bill_sm...@yahoo.com
Yeah, bush has done a heck of a job. Give us more war and tax cuts for
the wealthy!
Ship more companies over seas and kill the Amercian job market!
How much tax will be required to pay off this war? $500 billion is a
lot of money folks.
How about all those disability checks that will be going out over the
next forty plus years...
And nearly everyone of those vets receiving a disability check will
give anything just to have their legs and arms back.
Yep, conservatives have done a great job so far!
t1gercat
Whine, whine... The fact is that Oregon is one the greatest places to
live in the United States and one of the places most rationally
managed. This is just a proposal, probably one of several options
Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
fuel consumption. They could also raise simply raise the tax on fuel,
which to me would be easier and more rational. In any event, the state
has to have roads, and that's hardly a liberal or a conservative issue,
is it? How would you fund the deficit, by invading California and
trying to steal its oil?
Wexford
rightwinghank
state......
when the assholes who live there have had enough of the taxes....they
will change?
Dont bet on it.....liberals are stupid.
love
hank
..........................................
Agent777
> Oregon liberals have come up with a high tech way to raise your taxes
> again and again and again......
>
> tracking device in EACH of your cars
These are the same people having conniption fits because
Bush listens in on terrorist's phone calls but they want the
government to be able to track your every move.
Joe S.
"Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136131169....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So? This is what long-haul truckers have done for years -- pay for use of
the roads.
Mark Fox
bill_sm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Don't vote for democrats or liberals in the next election.
>
> Yeah, bush has done a heck of a job. Give us more war and tax cuts for
> the wealthy!
Bush also cut taxes on hard working middle class families. Why do you
constantly ignore that? Where are the democrat proposals to cut taxes
on hard working middle class families????
> Ship more companies over seas and kill the Amercian job market!
Bill Clinton signed NAFTA not a republican president.
http://www.multied.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html
"... NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American
jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement..."
- The President of the United States, Bill Clinton. (Applause.)
Is it your liberal agenda to scare workers into voting democrat by your
constant lies? Do you enjoy playing the politics of fear?? Do you
think that we can't tell when you are lying?
>
> How much tax will be required to pay off this war? $500 billion is a
> lot of money folks.
Yet amazingly the federal government found the money to fund the
development cost of the Oregon car tracking program. Lets start the
deficit reduction by cutting off the pork barrel spending in Oregon for
car tracking devices.
Red Rider
>
> bill_sm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >Don't vote for democrats or liberals in the next election.
>>
>> Yeah, bush has done a heck of a job. Give us more war and tax cuts for
>> the wealthy!
>
> Bush also cut taxes on hard working middle class families. Why do you
> constantly ignore that? Where are the democrat proposals to cut taxes
> on hard working middle class families????
>
>
>> Ship more companies over seas and kill the Amercian job market!
>
> Bill Clinton signed NAFTA not a republican president.
NAFTA was King Bush the Elder's idea. It was a typical Pug plan.
Bush hasn't 'cut' taxes on the middle-class.
Cutting taxes on apples and raising taxes on oranges is not "cutting" taxes.
The idea in Oregon isn't a "Democrat" idea, either.
Save your tripe for alt.smoke.and.mirrors
Mark Fox
Red Rider wrote:
> "Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1136133609.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > bill_sm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >Don't vote for democrats or liberals in the next election.
> >>
> >> Yeah, bush has done a heck of a job. Give us more war and tax cuts for
> >> the wealthy!
> >
> > Bush also cut taxes on hard working middle class families. Why do you
> > constantly ignore that? Where are the democrat proposals to cut taxes
> > on hard working middle class families????
> >
> >
> >> Ship more companies over seas and kill the Amercian job market!
> >
> > Bill Clinton signed NAFTA not a republican president.
>
> NAFTA was King Bush the Elder's idea.
How do you post, with a straight face, a complete lie like this right
after I posted a quote from Clinton approving NAFTA?? Are you stupid
or just teasing us with these bald faced lies? Are you one of those
people who are so immersed in their lies that they would even pass a
lie detector test while they are lying?
http://www.multied.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html
"... NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American
jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement..."
- The President of the United States, Bill Clinton. (Applause.)
>...It was a typical Pug plan.
Are you too stupid to be able to spell "republican". LOL!
Grow up and grow a brain, then get yourself a clue, boy!
> Bush hasn't 'cut' taxes on the middle-class.
Another complete and total bald faced liberal lie. You liberals should
be ashamed of your lies. Is CBS and Dan Rather you poster child for
looking into the camera and telling complete and total lies to the
American people with a straight face? Do you really think you are
going to win elections by lying all the time??
> Cutting taxes on apples and raising taxes on oranges is not "cutting" taxes.
Show us one example of Bush raising taxes. Show us just one example.
You are a sad pathetic liar who is living in a demented dream world.
The good news for the rest of us is that you are completely unknown,
irrelevant and impotent sitting there at your mother's computer spewing
this false trash. Let us know later how that plan works out for you.
LOL!!
> The idea in Oregon isn't a "Democrat" idea, either.
The current batch of liberal democrat leaders is lusting after the idea
of raising taxes on hard working middle class families. Don't vote for
that. Joe Lieberman for President!!!
> Save your tripe for alt.smoke.and.mirrors
Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking about you. LOL!!!
Red Rider
>
> Grow up and grow a brain, then get yourself a clue, boy!
I got your "Little Boy" right here. Suck it Pug.
Don Homuth
>Oregon liberals have come up with a high tech way to raise your taxes
>again and again and again...... and they want to make you pay for the
>privilege of them raising your taxes.
Why do you figure this is Only liberals? If you ask around, you'll
find that consurrrvative legislators are also discussing the potential
of a weight-mile user fee as the fairest way to pay for roads.
Lighter vehicles will pay less per mile than heavier ones. That's
entirely fair, since heavier vehicles do more road damage than lighter
ones. Those vehicles that drive More will pay more as well --
regardless of weight class.
>Can you just imagine having to pay $225 for the government to install a
>tracking device in EACH of your cars just so you can have the privilege
>of paying more taxes as you drive??
Yes -- just as I can imagine paying an extra several hunnert bucks for
the OnStar system, which is rapidly becoming popular as a means of
dealing with emergencies. And more for better shocks and brakes, and
more for air bags and a whole raft of things.
But none of those things mean a Damn if there aren't roads to drive on
in the first place. Figuring the most fair way to pay for them is
hardly unreasonable.
> What's up with these liberals and
>their continual lust for more taxes.
There is no requirement that there will be More Taxes from this. But
the taxes will be more appropriately distributed, without question.
Some will pay more; some will probably pay less. It will depend on
how much weight you put on the roads and how much you drive that
weight around.
Mind you -- the cost of administering such a road fee would be
considerable, but as technology improves, those sorts of things become
less expensive to implement over time.
>If those stupid liberals would just raise the gas tax
Whenever that gets proposed, the consurrrvatives reject it out of
hand. They continue to believe they can get something for nothing --
and they can't.
> as cars become more fuel efficient then they
>would get the tax money they need to build roads and still punish gas
>guzzling cars.
But that wouldn't deal with the Fairness question -- which is why this
gets discussed at all. Road maintenance is a function of road wear,
which is a function of the cross product of vehicle weight and mileage
driven. Oregon has a weight mile tax on trucks for precisely that
reason even now. Trucking companies bitch and whine about it at
considerable length, because it apportions the road fee in a manner
that doesn't allow for a trucker to avoid it by filling up in a
neighboring state with a lower fee on fuel, thereby avoiding paying
Anything for the highway use in Oregon.
The same principle applied to cars requires more technology to make it
work (the number of cars matters as does the means by which the use is
tracked).
At the moment, we have a gasoline "tax" which roughly approximates a
User Fee for roads, but it is not quite as precise as technology can
provide for. Raising that fee gets all sorts of heat -- not from
Libruls, but from Consurrrvatives.
>This tracking system described below lets the big SUV
>owners off the hook for extra taxes due to larger gas consumption per
>mile.
Nope -- it does not. The fee being discussed is Not a straight per
mile amount. It is a per mile with some multiplier of vehicle weight
class combined. You misread what's being discussed.
There was an early proposal simply to tax every vehicle the same per
mile. That would be patently unfair, since vehicles differ in the
road wear they cause -- hence the weight class multiplier built into
the fee. Technically it's a trivial problem to deal with.
>Given the chance, liberals will drive anything and anyone into complete
>bankruptcy.
Nah -- given the chance technology, bereft of any Political component,
just Might come up with a fairer way of ensuring that roads are built
and maintained.
>Don't vote for democrats or liberals in the next election.
You'd doubtless say that, whether or not you actually understood the
proposal.
But don't worry. It's some years off yet. The end result is most
likely going to be nationwide (the same problem exists everywhere) and
will involve a transponder in the vehicle providing an automatic
readout of mileage by vehicle, and the electronic record will include
the weight class automatically. We can do it now -- but the costs of
implementing the system don't make it feasible.
Still and all, if you really Want to discuss something important and
significant in highway costs, deal with the studded tire issue. Those
devices cause msot of the surface wear on highways and involve most of
the maintenance costs -- present and deferred. If we Want to do
something about highway costs, banning them outright or taxing them
for the already calculated amount of road damage they do over their
useful life wouldn't be a bad idea either.
We won't, of course.
But we should. Minnesota did it years ago, and it saved them >$50M/yr
on road maintenance.
Mark Fox
LOL! If that's whining then Paul Revere must have been "whining" when
he rode across the countryside warning the people of the approaching
British troops.
> The fact is that Oregon is one the greatest places to
> live in the United States and one of the places most rationally
> managed.
Is that why no one is moving to Oregon?? - because it is such a "great
place to live"??? LOL
http://www.neworegontrail.com/growth.htm
This article says that people only move to Oregon from California when
Californians just can't afford to live with California's unbelievably
outrageously high taxes and thus no jobs.
> This is just a proposal, probably one of several options
> Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
> fuel consumption.
Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Don't vote for
liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
put tracking devices in your cars. They only want to have more excuses
to raise your taxes and steal your hard earned money and give it to
someone who doesn't feel like working.
> They could also raise simply raise the tax on fuel,
> which to me would be easier and more rational.
So you admit that Oregon is not being rational? Thanks for finally
being honest. We will ignore the part above where you lied and said
that Oregon was "rational" as a fit of temporary liberal duplicitous
insanity.
> In any event, the state
> has to have roads, and that's hardly a liberal or a conservative issue,
> is it?
The point is that the current taxes were good enough in the past and
are good enough now. The wasting of tax money that could have been
spend on building roads to develop a tracking device for every car in
Oregon is just another example of liberal lust for more and more and
more and more taxes. Oregon liberals are addicted to tax increases
like a pervert is addicted to porn.
> How would you fund the deficit, by invading California and
> trying to steal its oil?
LOL! from the article I posted above, it looks like California is
invading Oregon because Californians can't afford to pay their taxes.
>
> Wexford
You should spell that "dufas".
sinistersteve
bike lanes and start charging those cyclists money for using the road.
Cyclists here want the same rights (if not more) as cars on the road yet
want to contribute nothing to them.
"Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136131169....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don Homuth
>
>t1gercat wrote:
>> This is just a proposal, probably one of several options
>> Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
>> fuel consumption.
>
>Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS.
Of course it is! What else would it be funded by? Public roads
require public dollars -- tax dollars. That's how this works.
> Don't vote for
>liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
>put tracking devices in your cars.
You left the important part of the discussion out -- how the tax thus
proposed is a weight-mile tax -- not just a mileage tax.
> They only want to have more excuses
>to raise your taxes and steal your hard earned money and give it to
>someone who doesn't feel like working.
None of this money would go to such a thing.
>> They could also raise simply raise the tax on fuel,
>> which to me would be easier and more rational.
>
>So you admit that Oregon is not being rational?....
The road fee on fuel is an approximation of a weight-mile fee -- but
not as precise as technology could make it. Hence the proposal. Which
is entirely rational on its face, in that it would impose a road fee
more accurately than is possible now.
>> In any event, the state
>> has to have roads, and that's hardly a liberal or a conservative issue,
>> is it?
>
>The point is that the current taxes were good enough in the past and
>are good enough now.
Nope. Times and conditions have changed. Technology has changed them
and will continue to do so. As, for example, cars are developed that
use No gasoline at all, some means of coming up with a fair way of
charging their owners for the use of the highways will become even
more imperative. The weight-mile tax is the accurate way to do that.
> The wasting of tax money that could have been
>spend on building roads to develop a tracking device for every car in
>Oregon is just another example of liberal lust for more and more and
>more and more taxes. Oregon liberals are addicted to tax increases
>like a pervert is addicted to porn.
Nonsense! The funds thus derived will be used to pay for
transportation services, not for social programs. It's a designated
fund.
But the key datum you need to know is that the road fees under
discussion are on a combination of weight and mileage -- not just
mileage alone. When you comprehend that, the idea should be easier
for you to understand.
Don Homuth
<sinist...@goto.hell> wrote:
>Oregon should stop spending road tax dollars on public transportation and
>bike lanes and start charging those cyclists money for using the road.
There is no reasonable way to administer such a fee. The cost of
doing it would be more than the revenue generated from it, on a
weight-mile basis.
>Cyclists here want the same rights (if not more) as cars on the road yet
>want to contribute nothing to them.
On any reasonably comparative basis, cyclists are a net plus to
transportation when compared to automobiles.
But don't worry -- the rains on the Left Coast mean they won't be
adopted en masse any time soon.
Red Rider
"rightwinghank" <rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136132557.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Its a good example of tax and spend liberal democrats......in a liberal
> state......
What part of Bush's spend, spend, spend don't you understand, Goofball?
Red Rider
"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bv6gr1903ln8au3is...@4ax.com...
Bikes have been considered "vehicles" for years in California and must obey
traffic laws.
Don Homuth
>Bikes have been considered "vehicles" for years in California and must obey
>traffic laws.
That's true in about every state, at least the legal requirement.
But:
* It's too much bother to enforce the traffic laws, unless there's a
flagrant violation. Bike Cops do that -- sometimes.
* It's too much bother to try to tax them for road maintenance
purposes. It would cost more to try than the revenues gained.
Which is why we don't do much of either.
t1gercat
You can't discuss this rationally with him. He's just another stupid,
emotional right-wing freak ready to break into hysteria at any moment.
I'll bet he just loves the Bush deficits whose underfunding we'll all
have to pay-for in terms of billions of dollars of interest.
Wexford
Curt
"sinistersteve" <sinist...@goto.hell> wrote in message
news:EOWdnYVYzqs...@comcast.com...
> Oregon should stop spending road tax dollars on public transportation and
> bike lanes and start charging those cyclists money for using the road.
> Cyclists here want the same rights (if not more) as cars on the road yet
> want to contribute nothing to them.
No way. Every bike on a bike lane is a car that isn't in my way when I'm
driving. I want to encourage people to use bikes.
Curt
J.M. Flagg
> Every bike on a bike lane is a car that isn't in my way when I'm
> driving. I want to encourage people to use bikes.
So go cheer at the Tour de Fwonce, ya meddling socialist fuckwit!
hal
Joe S. wrote:
> > Thus the Oregon government is considering a system where Oregon
> > drivers get taxed for every mile they drive within the state. ...the
> > Oregon
> > government would like to add a GPS (Global Positioning System) to
> > every car that would track what percentage of a cars miles were
> > driven in Oregon. Such a system could add up to $225 to the
> > cost of a new car.
> So? This is what long-haul truckers have done for years -- pay for use of
> the roads.
Which is exactly what we do with fuel taxes. In general the heavier
the vehicle the more fuel it uses and the more taxes the owner pays to
support the roads (and boondoggles like light rail). There are a
couple of problems with the"Big Brother" proposal however:
1. GPS is easy in the extreme to defeat. A bit of aluminum foil in
the right place and it doesn't read at all. Big Brother's monitors
won't be able to tell if the owner defeated it or if the vehicle just
went into heavy tree cover or into a metal roofed garage.
2. For things like light trucks, it would not distinguish between an
empty vehicle and one fully loaded and towing an equally fully loaded
trailer. Gross weight on such vehicles can easily exceed twice the
tare. What ya gonna do? Tax on the tar, or on the maximum gross, or
guess and punish those who seldom exceed tare?
Remember, long haul truckers (and many short haul as well) go by the
scales regularly. They are required to keep logs of mileage etc. Do
you want to do that to every light vehicle on the road?
However I can believe that the statists would go for this idea. It's a
step toward tracking all of us for whatever reason they want. Hello
Big Brother.
Curt
"J.M. Flagg" <j...@flag.biz> wrote in message
news:QiZtf.43168$Fb2...@fe03.news.easynews.com...
Mmm-kay. And, hey, you enjoy your crowded freeways.
Imbecile.
Curt
Don Homuth
>
>Joe S. wrote:
>
>> So? This is what long-haul truckers have done for years -- pay for use of
>> the roads.
>
>Which is exactly what we do with fuel taxes.
But only to an approximation. Technology can make it more precise.
> In general the heavier
>the vehicle the more fuel it uses and the more taxes the owner pays to
>support the roads (and boondoggles like light rail).
That is true, Provided that the fuel involved is gasoline. But modern
technology is changing all of that, and the road fees required are
going to have to change along with that technology. For example, NG
cars, hybrids, fuel cells, hydrogen -- the list is interesting, and
some variation of each is probably going to be used in the future --
IF this nation ever decides to wean itself from depending on gasoline
as its only fuel of choice.
We don't assess a road use fee on those fuels, and on some of them we
probably can't come up with a way to do it.
The cost of roads is a function of two things: Vehicle Weight and
Mileage traveled. The type of fuel is not involved. We merely assess
the use fee against it because (a) it's nearly universal, and (b) it's
administratively inexpensive to do it.
The more precise and more fair method would be to assess the road use
fee on the cross-product of weight and mileage, and leave the type of
fuel out of it altogether. So if a gasoline-powered car weighing 2500
lbs travels 10k miles, and a hybrid car weighing 2500 lbs travels 10k
miles, the two would be taxed equally.
That's what the technology is working towards, and we're going to get
to that point. It would be the equivalent of a Toll Road, only on a
universal scale. When implemented, the fee assessed through fuel use
would disappear and be replaced by the weight-mile fee.
> There are a
>couple of problems with the"Big Brother" proposal however:
>
>1. GPS is easy in the extreme to defeat....
It won't necessarily require GPS. It can be done internally to the
vehicle and reported via transponder to stations right along the
highway.
>2. For things like light trucks, it would not distinguish between an
>empty vehicle and one fully loaded and towing an equally fully loaded
>trailer. Gross weight on such vehicles can easily exceed twice the
>tare. What ya gonna do? Tax on the tar, or on the maximum gross, or
>guess and punish those who seldom exceed tare?
For trucks, which are a relatively small portion of the overall
traffic, that's nearly an inconsequential matter. But if it's a
problem, the technology to emplace a scale right on the highway and
weight the trucks has already been developed. Commercial vehicles can
be differentially treated from conveyances.
>Remember, long haul truckers (and many short haul as well) go by the
>scales regularly. They are required to keep logs of mileage etc. Do
>you want to do that to every light vehicle on the road?
You wouldn't need to do that.
>However I can believe that the statists would go for this idea. It's a
>step toward tracking all of us for whatever reason they want. Hello
>Big Brother.
There's no reason to have to track exact location regardless. Besides
-- why do it twice? You already have agreed to be available for such
tracking through your cell phone, have you not? Those are already
doing the tracking through OnStar, for example, and that will
doubtless spread as well.
The times, they are a-changin, and so is the technology. The changes
will not be limited only to the vehicles, nor should they.
Lobby Dosser
> You can't discuss this rationally with him. He's just another stupid,
> emotional right-wing freak ready to break into hysteria at any moment.
> I'll bet he just loves the Bush deficits whose underfunding we'll all
> have to pay-for in terms of billions of dollars of interest.
>
>
What do you think of NSA listening in on the phone conversations of
American Citizens?
Now put tracking technology in your vehicle And in the hands of that same
government. Now what do you think?
Lobby Dosser
THE VICAR
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml
>
> Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring Oregon has already
> started road testing the idea. "Drivers will get charged for how
nice quote. actually reading the article would tell you that the governator
is considering the same plan for Kalheefornya. i thought he was the rightard
poster boy?
fiend999
<dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2006 09:59:11 -0800, "Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >t1gercat wrote:
> >> This is just a proposal, probably one of several options
> >> Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
> >> fuel consumption.
> >
> >Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS.
>
> Of course it is! What else would it be funded by? Public roads
> require public dollars -- tax dollars. That's how this works.
>
> > Don't vote for
> >liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
> >put tracking devices in your cars.
How do you feel about the National ID that is coming your way? Who do
y ou think is paying tax dollars for that?
If you are looking for smaller, cheaper, less intrusive government, you
are looking in the wrong place if you are thinking republicans are a
good idea.
Scratch
>
Thank you think so
Scratch
> Mark Fox wrote:
>
>>again and again and again...... and they want to make you pay for the
>>privilege of them raising your taxes.
>>
>>Can you just imagine having to pay $225 for the government to install a
>>tracking device in EACH of your cars just so you can have the privilege
>>of paying more taxes as you drive?? What's up with these liberals and
>>their continual lust for more taxes. If those stupid liberals would
>>just raise the gas tax as cars become more fuel efficient then they
>>would get the tax money they need to build roads and still punish gas
>>guzzling cars. This tracking system described below lets the big SUV
>>owners off the hook for extra taxes due to larger gas consumption per
>>mile.
>>
>>Given the chance, liberals will drive anything and anyone into complete
>>bankruptcy.
>>
>>
>>
>>Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring Oregon has already
>>started road testing the idea. "Drivers will get charged for how
> live in the United States and one of the places most rationally
> Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
> which to me would be easier and more rational. In any event, the state
> has to have roads, and that's hardly a liberal or a conservative issue,
> trying to steal its oil?
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Very typical example of demoncRATS/socialists wanting it both ways and
taxes being the holy grail to them. Use to much gas they want to tax you
more don't use enough they want to tax you more.
hal
Don Homuth wrote:
> >> So? This is what long-haul truckers have done for years -- pay for use of
> >> the roads.
> >Which is exactly what we do with fuel taxes.
> But only to an approximation.
Probably a better approximation than the proposed system. Consider the
difference between a lightly loaded small car, such as a Geo metro, and
one loaded more heavily. Say a 120 lb woman driving alone with no
luggage vs 4 men at 200 lb each with luggage. Makes a significant
percentage difference in the weight of those small cars.
> Technology can make it more precise.
Only if you also include something to measure the actual weight.
> > In general the heavier
> >the vehicle the more fuel it uses and the more taxes the owner pays to
> >support the roads (and boondoggles like light rail).
> That is true, Provided that the fuel involved is gasoline. But modern
> technology is changing all of that, and the road fees required are
> going to have to change along with that technology. For example, NG
> cars, hybrids, fuel cells, hydrogen -- the list is interesting, and
> some variation of each is probably going to be used in the future --
> IF this nation ever decides to wean itself from depending on gasoline
> as its only fuel of choice.
Fer cryin' out loud Don! Surely you have enough imagination to figure
out that we could just charge taxes depending on how far the particular
fuel will move a certain load! Google "Oregon fuel tax" and you will
even find a table to convert things like LPG to equivalent gasoline
value for tax purposes.
Right now we don't do much of that, not because it's impractical but
because some things like hybrids are regarded as socially beneficial so
we want to encourage them.
Of course the fuel tax also has the advantage of encouraging people to
keep their vehicles tuned up which benefits us all.
> We don't assess a road use fee on those fuels, and on some of them we
> probably can't come up with a way to do it.
Which motor fuel do we not tax? Perhaps a pure electric car but I
don't know many of those. If we ever get 'em and want to tax them we
can do it by odometer reading each quarter.
...
> The more precise and more fair method would be to assess the road use
> fee on the cross-product of weight and mileage
Don, please get your math terms straight! "Cross-product" has a
specific meaning having to do with things like vectors. What you are
talking about is a simple product. This bit you also a while back in
my little statistics problem. I thought then you were just trying to
use a fancy sounding term. Maybe you really don't know the difference.
Ordinary multiplication is just a product.
> and leave the type of
> fuel out of it altogether. So if a gasoline-powered car weighing 2500
> lbs travels 10k miles, and a hybrid car weighing 2500 lbs travels 10k
> miles, the two would be taxed equally.
We could do that easily if we wanted to, just add a differential
determined by odometer reading. Right now govt. wants to encourage
hybrids so won't do it.
> That's what the technology is working towards, and we're going to get
> to that point. It would be the equivalent of a Toll Road, only on a
> universal scale. When implemented, the fee assessed through fuel use
> would disappear and be replaced by the weight-mile fee.
If done accurately and without the Big Brother aspects that would be
acceptable. The current proposal does not do that.
> > There are a
> >couple of problems with the"Big Brother" proposal however:
> >1. GPS is easy in the extreme to defeat....
> It won't necessarily require GPS. It can be done internally to the
> vehicle and reported via transponder to stations right along the
> highway.
Then why are all the experiments using GPS?
"Kim and fellow researcher David Porter at Oregon State University
equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of
its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one." (from the
initially referenced URL)
> >2. For things like light trucks, it would not distinguish between an
> >empty vehicle and one fully loaded and towing an equally fully loaded
> >trailer. Gross weight on such vehicles can easily exceed twice the
> >tare. What ya gonna do? Tax on the tar, or on the maximum gross, or
> >guess and punish those who seldom exceed tare?
> For trucks, which are a relatively small portion of the overall
> traffic, that's nearly an inconsequential matter.
It's not inconsequential if I get charged as though I were hauling a
heavy load when I normally run tare. And there are a *lot* of pickups
running around for business use carrying heavy tools or pulling
trailers, just look on the roads.
> But if it's a
> problem, the technology to emplace a scale right on the highway and
> weight the trucks has already been developed. Commercial vehicles can
> be differentially treated from conveyances.
Care to calculate the cost of putting such scales, along with receivers
for the vehicle ID, all around so we get the people only traveling in
town etc?
...
> There's no reason to have to track exact location regardless. Besides
> -- why do it twice? You already have agreed to be available for such
> tracking through your cell phone, have you not?
That would be a tad difficult seeing that I have no cell phone. And
not all cell phones include GPS, nor do all that include it allow
continuous tracking. Daughter of a friend recently lost her purse with
the cell phone inside. Phone co. said that if somebody made a call
they could get a GPS reading but failing that they could not. If I
were to buy a cell phone I would seek one without continuous GPS
tracking.
> Those are already
> doing the tracking through OnStar, for example, and that will
> doubtless spread as well.
There is a difference between voluntarily using OnStar (which does not
continuously track) and involuntarily being tracked by Big Brother.
And I hear OnStar is costing so much GM may try to drop it.
Scratch
> Its a good example of tax and spend liberal democrats......in a liberal
> state......
>
> will change?
>
> Dont bet on it.....liberals are stupid.
>
> love
> hank
> ..........................................
>
Liberals are elitists. They don't consider themselves stupid. They
convince each other real hard that they are not :)
Scratch
What part of Spend spend spend are you talking about? National Security?
Or the leftist socialist programs?
Scratch
> Mark Fox wrote:
>
>> Oregon liberals have come up with a high tech way to raise your taxes
>> again and again and again......
>>
>> tracking device in EACH of your cars
>
>
> on terrorist's phone calls but they want the government to be able to
> track your every move.
Ha, ha, ha good point. And they want that huge bureaucratic boondoggle
called health insurance run by the government. They are such losers :)
Galileo
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> What do you think of NSA listening in on the phone conversations of
> American Citizens?
>
> Now put tracking technology in your vehicle And in the hands of that same
> government. Now what do you think?
Um, OnStar??? Do you REALLY think the government can't hack that
system?
Curt
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XR_tf.7373$7x.5348@trnddc03...
A)I'm agin it on principle.
B)Oregon DMV is not, in any way, the "same government" as the NSA.
Curt
Awful Knopfel
It's called the odometer.
Why track exactly where everyone goes?
Sounds more like something George, "spy on Americans, without a warrant, "
Bush would find appealling.
I find it appalling.
Awful Knopfel
> Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Don't vote for
> liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
> put tracking devices in your cars. They only want to have more excuses
> to raise your taxes and steal your hard earned money and give it to
> someone who doesn't feel like working.
All those wacko liberals need to do is to pitch it as post 9/11 safety
measures, and the Neocons will swoop down and claim it as their own.
"Tracking American's whereabouts in their private vehicles is essential to
keeping Americans safe from 'terrism.'
That's all they need to say to the scaredy cat Republicans to get them to
sell out all our rights to privacy.
"The roads belong to the state, and therefore the states have the right to
monitor who is using them."
"Privacy is not a right it's a priviledge."
and on and on...
Awful Knopfel
news:eiVtf.4307$UF3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
The US government hasn't paid for 8 trillion (8,000,000,000,000) dollars of
it's spending.
Hence less taxes.
That's what draws people like hank to the GOP.
Lobby Dosser
Lobby Dosser
A) Good.
B) You don't think NSA could tap in to the Oregon system?
>
> Curt
>
>
>
Lobby Dosser
> That's what the technology is working towards, and we're going to get
> to that point. It would be the equivalent of a Toll Road, only on a
> universal scale. When implemented, the fee assessed through fuel use
> would disappear
Yeah, and pigs'll fly!
Lobby Dosser
> There's no reason to have to track exact location regardless. Besides
> -- why do it twice? You already have agreed to be available for such
> tracking through your cell phone, have you not?
The cell phone is voluntary.
Lobby Dosser
> Fer cryin' out loud Don! Surely you have enough imagination to figure
> out that we could just charge taxes depending on how far the particular
> fuel will move a certain load! Google "Oregon fuel tax" and you will
> even find a table to convert things like LPG to equivalent gasoline
> value for tax purposes.
>
Don? Imagination? Surely you Jest!
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> Ha, ha, ha good point. And they want that huge bureaucratic boondoggle
> called health insurance run by the government. They are such losers :)
Dunno. Medicare seems to deliver a fairly high level of health care
to 35 million seniors and disabled at a reasonable price. And the
elderly and the disabled are not the cheapest demographics which to
provide with health care.
Oh, and medicare delivers that care with an overhead cost of but
3% as opposed to the 15%-25% overhead costs which private health
insurance companies incur.
If -everyone- was insured under medicare, we would instantly
cut our national expenditures for health insurance by between
12% and 22%!
Score one for the "huge bureaucratic boondoggle"!
Peace and justice,
Lobby Dosser
Said with a French accent!
Is Flagg another Spammy cover? I've kinda lost track of Spammy. Not that I
miss him - or her - or It.
jbohren
Theres no difference between that and cell phones with GPS locators. More
big brother.
There is no excuse for warrentless wiretaps, except that Bush thinks he's
above the law.
Scratch
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:37:18 GMT, "Red Rider" <ni...@snls.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Bikes have been considered "vehicles" for years in California and must obey
>>traffic laws.
>
>
> That's true in about every state, at least the legal requirement.
>
> But:
>
> * It's too much bother to enforce the traffic laws, unless there's a
> flagrant violation. Bike Cops do that -- sometimes.
>
> * It's too much bother to try to tax them for road maintenance
> purposes. It would cost more to try than the revenues gained.
>
> Which is why we don't do much of either.
If they thought they could get away with it they would. It's all about
taxes and fines with the lefties to line their pers coffers. I can see
em being pulled over now and told to get off the vehicle and show their
license and registration. I got pulled over for crossing a fog line this
year in September. Lucky I had my card with me or he would have written
me up for such a stupid thing.
Scratch
> "J.M. Flagg" <j...@flag.biz> wrote in message
> news:QiZtf.43168$Fb2...@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>
>>Curt wrote:
>>
>>>Every bike on a bike lane is a car that isn't in my way when I'm
>>>driving. I want to encourage people to use bikes.
>>
>>So go cheer at the Tour de Fwonce, ya meddling socialist fuckwit!
>
>
> Mmm-kay. And, hey, you enjoy your crowded freeways.
>
> Imbecile.
>
>
>
Yeah and remember curts bike runs on Methane. Yuk, yuk.
Scratch
Go to a county planning meeting see how efficient government is run. Or
go to a commissioners meeting. What a frigging joke. No thanks. I can do
with LESS not more government.
Mark Fox
Awful Knopfel wrote:
> "Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1136138351....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Don't vote for
> > liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
> > put tracking devices in your cars. They only want to have more excuses
> > to raise your taxes and steal your hard earned money and give it to
> > someone who doesn't feel like working.
>
>
> All those wacko liberals need to do is to pitch it as post 9/11 safety
> measures, and the Neocons will swoop down and claim it as their own.
>
> monitor who is using them."
Its becoming clear that liberals think its only constitutional to
search my wallet without a warrant. Everything else should be off
limits.
>
> "Privacy is not a right it's a priviledge."
>
> and on and on...
Indeed!
Mark Fox
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "t1gercat" <wexfo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You can't discuss this rationally with him. He's just another stupid,
> > emotional right-wing freak ready to break into hysteria at any moment.
> > I'll bet he just loves the Bush deficits whose underfunding we'll all
> > have to pay-for in terms of billions of dollars of interest.
> >
> >
>
> What do you think of NSA listening in on the phone conversations of
> American Citizens?
>
> Now put tracking technology in your vehicle And in the hands of that same
> government. Now what do you think?
Are you too stupid to understand the differrence between the government
of Oregon and the government of the United States? Its no wonder you
are unknown and unimportant.
Mark Fox
fiend999 wrote:
> In article <nk6gr1h5ck78jr654...@4ax.com>, Don Homuth
> <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Jan 2006 09:59:11 -0800, "Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >t1gercat wrote:
> > >> This is just a proposal, probably one of several options
> > >> Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
> > >> fuel consumption.
> > >
> > >Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS.
> >
> > Of course it is! What else would it be funded by? Public roads
> > require public dollars -- tax dollars. That's how this works.
> >
> > > Don't vote for
> > >liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
> > >put tracking devices in your cars.
>
> How do you feel about the National ID that is coming your way? Who do
> y ou think is paying tax dollars for that?
I showed you an actual program being funded by your tax dollars
intended to cost you even more tax dollars for driving your car and
they even want to make you pay for the privilege then you mouth off
about some fantasy? What kind of stupidity is that? Are you stupid?
>
> If you are looking for smaller, cheaper, less intrusive government, you
> are looking in the wrong place if you are thinking republicans are a
> good idea.
You can't even tell the difference between a real project and a fantasy
in your mind. What would you know about "cheaper, less intrusive
government". LOL!!
Mark Fox
Awful Knopfel wrote:
>
> ... the scaredy cat Republicans...
How old are you?
Scratch
To the majority of the voting public it is called doing his job in
protecting its citizens. Those that wold do harm to America, I say screw
em. Tough shit. Now lets not forget where this story originated. At that
great bastion of freedom called the New York times. You know that very
honest and credible place of truth? Last I heard it was like 64%
approved of Bush doing just that.
Scratch
> fiend999 wrote:
>
>>In article <nk6gr1h5ck78jr654...@4ax.com>, Don Homuth
>><dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 1 Jan 2006 09:59:11 -0800, "Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>t1gercat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>This is just a proposal, probably one of several options
>>>>>Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
>>>>>fuel consumption.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS.
>>>
>>>Of course it is! What else would it be funded by? Public roads
>>>require public dollars -- tax dollars. That's how this works.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't vote for
>>>>liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
>>>>put tracking devices in your cars.
>>
>>How do you feel about the National ID that is coming your way? Who do
>>y ou think is paying tax dollars for that?
>
>
> I showed you an actual program being funded by your tax dollars
> intended to cost you even more tax dollars for driving your car and
> they even want to make you pay for the privilege then you mouth off
> about some fantasy? What kind of stupidity is that? Are you stupid?
>
Read his posts. Real easy to come to that conclusion.
Galileo
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> Sure they can. But that is Voluntary.
True. But the point is that people don't realize all the ways the
government can access information on where you go and what you. OnStar
is one of those ways.
I think equipping each car with its own device is excessive, but maybe
the Oregon state government doesn't trust people to accurately fill out
forms declaring vehicle weight and miles driven.
I don't see how they figure this is necessary, but I'm not a
politician. I have never figured out how their minds work - other than
in self-interest - so I have no idea what caused them to think this
would work.
Won't people just figure out how to crack the device and change the
readings? Then the program will really be effective.
Don Homuth
>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>> >> So? This is what long-haul truckers have done for years -- pay for use of
>> >> the roads.
>
>> >Which is exactly what we do with fuel taxes.
>
>> But only to an approximation.
>
>Probably a better approximation than the proposed system.
Nope. Not even close. The new technology being discussed can handle
this question of a weight-mile fee precisely.
> Consider the
>difference between a lightly loaded small car, such as a Geo metro, and
>one loaded more heavily. Say a 120 lb woman driving alone with no
>luggage vs 4 men at 200 lb each with luggage. Makes a significant
>percentage difference in the weight of those small cars.
Not one worth bothering with, however. The idea will be to place
vehicles in weight categories. We can calculate an average weight of
vehicle+passengers+luggage, and it won't vary by more than a couple
hundred pounds. That differential won't really matter when it comes
to road wear.
Remember the old adage: Being approximately right is not the same as
being absolutely wrong.
Even within those ranges, it will still be more correct than the
current system, which measures only fuel consumption rather than
actual road wear factors.
>> Technology can make it more precise.
>
>Only if you also include something to measure the actual weight.
As I said, we don't need to do that.
>> > In general the heavier
>> >the vehicle the more fuel it uses and the more taxes the owner pays to
>> >support the roads (and boondoggles like light rail).
>
>> That is true, Provided that the fuel involved is gasoline. But modern
>> technology is changing all of that, and the road fees required are
>> going to have to change along with that technology. For example, NG
>> cars, hybrids, fuel cells, hydrogen -- the list is interesting, and
>> some variation of each is probably going to be used in the future --
>> IF this nation ever decides to wean itself from depending on gasoline
>> as its only fuel of choice.
>
>Fer cryin' out loud Don! Surely you have enough imagination to figure
>out that we could just charge taxes depending on how far the particular
>fuel will move a certain load! Google "Oregon fuel tax" and you will
>even find a table to convert things like LPG to equivalent gasoline
>value for tax purposes.
Oh, I've done all of that stuff long since. Still doesn't change
anything substantive. The weight-mile approach does a Far better job
of dealing with actual road wear factors than does Any measurement of
fuel consumed.
>Right now we don't do much of that, not because it's impractical but
>because some things like hybrids are regarded as socially beneficial so
>we want to encourage them.
For the moment, we want to do that. When they get wider acceptance,
we'll stop subsidizing them and charge them for their contribution to
road wear, just like any other vehicle. Which is entirely proper.
It'll be difficult to get that passed, but it will likewise be
important to put everyone on the same fee approach.
>Of course the fuel tax also has the advantage of encouraging people to
>keep their vehicles tuned up which benefits us all.
That's the rumor, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Inspections
do a far better job of that.
>> We don't assess a road use fee on those fuels, and on some of them we
>> probably can't come up with a way to do it.
>
>Which motor fuel do we not tax? Perhaps a pure electric car but I
>don't know many of those.
There's a place in Salem on 12th Avenue that sells them in a large
showroom. One sees them regularly on the streets. Keep watching.
> If we ever get 'em and want to tax them we
>can do it by odometer reading each quarter.
It still won't capture the two factors that account for road fees --
weight and mileage driven.
>...
>
>> The more precise and more fair method would be to assess the road use
>> fee on the cross-product of weight and mileage
>
>Don, please get your math terms straight! "Cross-product" has a
>specific meaning having to do with things like vectors. What you are
>talking about is a simple product. This bit you also a while back in
>my little statistics problem. I thought then you were just trying to
>use a fancy sounding term. Maybe you really don't know the difference.
> Ordinary multiplication is just a product.
Good catch. Was on automatic with that one.
Product it is. We now return to the substance of the discussion --
which remains in place.
>> and leave the type of
>> fuel out of it altogether. So if a gasoline-powered car weighing 2500
>> lbs travels 10k miles, and a hybrid car weighing 2500 lbs travels 10k
>> miles, the two would be taxed equally.
>
>We could do that easily if we wanted to, just add a differential
>determined by odometer reading. Right now govt. wants to encourage
>hybrids so won't do it.
A temporary subsidy for hybrids is acceptable. But overall, the
fairest way to handle it is as I stated just above. Same weight, same
mileage pays the same road fee.
>> That's what the technology is working towards, and we're going to get
>> to that point. It would be the equivalent of a Toll Road, only on a
>> universal scale. When implemented, the fee assessed through fuel use
>> would disappear and be replaced by the weight-mile fee.
>
>If done accurately and without the Big Brother aspects that would be
>acceptable. The current proposal does not do that.
One of the current proposals does not do that. But it's not the Only
one on the table. We don't really Need to go the GPS route -- we can
do the same with an internal chip and a transponder.
>> > There are a
>> >couple of problems with the"Big Brother" proposal however:
>
>> >1. GPS is easy in the extreme to defeat....
>
>> It won't necessarily require GPS. It can be done internally to the
>> vehicle and reported via transponder to stations right along the
>> highway.
>
>Then why are all the experiments using GPS?
All of them aren't. Just the ones you've read about.
>"Kim and fellow researcher David Porter at Oregon State University
>equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of
>its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one." (from the
>initially referenced URL)
Ibid, as above. Technology does that sort of thing.
But I wouldn't worry about the Big Brother aspect of it either. That
would require a monitoring capacity that we are not going to build or
staff. Not going to happen. We'll just automate the mileage
reporting, and that will be both simpler and less expensive.
>> >2. For things like light trucks, it would not distinguish between an
>> >empty vehicle and one fully loaded and towing an equally fully loaded
>> >trailer. Gross weight on such vehicles can easily exceed twice the
>> >tare. What ya gonna do? Tax on the tar, or on the maximum gross, or
>> >guess and punish those who seldom exceed tare?
>
>> For trucks, which are a relatively small portion of the overall
>> traffic, that's nearly an inconsequential matter.
>
>It's not inconsequential if I get charged as though I were hauling a
>heavy load when I normally run tare. And there are a *lot* of pickups
>running around for business use carrying heavy tools or pulling
>trailers, just look on the roads.
We don't need the Precise figure on a couple of hundred pounds of
stuff in the box. Close enough will do Just Fine, since the road wear
oin the differential hardly matters at all.
Being approximately correct is not the same as being absolutely wrong.
>> But if it's a
>> problem, the technology to emplace a scale right on the highway and
>> weight the trucks has already been developed. Commercial vehicles can
>> be differentially treated from conveyances.
>
>Care to calculate the cost of putting such scales, along with receivers
>for the vehicle ID, all around so we get the people only traveling in
>town etc?
No. A bunch of them are already in place, however.
>...
>
>> There's no reason to have to track exact location regardless. Besides
>> -- why do it twice? You already have agreed to be available for such
>> tracking through your cell phone, have you not?
>
>That would be a tad difficult seeing that I have no cell phone. And
>not all cell phones include GPS, nor do all that include it allow
>continuous tracking.
Nevertheless, the capacity is already there. The phones are in
continuous contact with a tower, and the system can track an
individual number to within several miles -- if it's turned on.
> Daughter of a friend recently lost her purse with
>the cell phone inside. Phone co. said that if somebody made a call
>they could get a GPS reading but failing that they could not. If I
>were to buy a cell phone I would seek one without continuous GPS
>tracking.
Good luck!
>> Those are already
>> doing the tracking through OnStar, for example, and that will
>> doubtless spread as well.
>
>There is a difference between voluntarily using OnStar (which does not
>continuously track) and involuntarily being tracked by Big Brother.
>And I hear OnStar is costing so much GM may try to drop it.
That's a problem -- for now. Did you likewise note that GM is still
promoting the hell out of it, including teevee commercials?
Weight-mile is the most precise and most fair way of charging road
fees. The technological approach to it does Not require GPS -- that's
just presently one of the methods being tinkered with. It can all be
handled internally to the vehicle, and the technology can include the
weight class of the vehicle in the electronic report. Which could
well be done automatically at a gas station or even through a wireless
connection.
It need not require Real Time tracking, and predictably will not,
because the capacity to monitor that is Very difficult and Very
expensive and Very labor-intensive.
We will seek a technology that minimizes the cost of administration,
overall, and apportions road use fees in the fairest way.
Hard as it may be to believe, we Can do that. And over time,
predictably we Will do it.
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> There's no reason to have to track exact location regardless. Besides
>> -- why do it twice? You already have agreed to be available for such
>> tracking through your cell phone, have you not?
>
>The cell phone is voluntary.
And becoming universal. Voluntary doesn't really matter. The next
generation of drivers will all have one. As ours dies off -- and it
will -- cell phones will be universal.
Don Homuth
<Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote:
>Go to a county planning meeting see how efficient government is run.
It's not supposed to be Efficient, as its first requirement. It's
supposed to be democratic and inclusive. There is no Right for
everyone to be involved in every business, but there is a Right for
everyone to be involved in public policy formation.
> Or go to a commissioners meeting.
I do that regularly. As such things go, quite efficient.
> What a frigging joke. No thanks. I can do
>with LESS not more government.
Then move some gubmental functions back down to the local level and
let local folks handle them. Just don't buck your disagreements back
Up the system when you don't happen to win the day.
Don Homuth
<Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:37:18 GMT, "Red Rider" <ni...@snls.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bikes have been considered "vehicles" for years in California and must obey
>>>traffic laws.
>>
>>
>> That's true in about every state, at least the legal requirement.
>>
>> But:
>>
>> * It's too much bother to enforce the traffic laws, unless there's a
>> flagrant violation. Bike Cops do that -- sometimes.
>>
>> * It's too much bother to try to tax them for road maintenance
>> purposes. It would cost more to try than the revenues gained.
>>
>> Which is why we don't do much of either.
>
>If they thought they could get away with it they would. It's all about
>taxes and fines with the lefties to line their pers coffers.
No -- they wouldn't. If they thought it could be made sef-supporting,
they might. But it can't be made self-supporting, so they won't.
Traffic enforcement is hard enough without adding bicycles to the list
of high priority items.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>The technology is already here, and it's in every vehicle.
>
>It's called the odometer.
>
>Why track exactly where everyone goes?
Precisely. No need to do that. All the technology will do is
automate the odometer reporting.
>Sounds more like something George, "spy on Americans, without a warrant, "
>Bush would find appealling.
>
>I find it appalling.
Don't worry overmuch. We're not going to do real time tracking of
every vehicle in the country.
Ghostfacekilla
simply cut taxes and all the government services you're used to will
keep on coming?
Taxes are the dues we pay to belong to a free and powerful nation. If I
had any confidence that money wasn't going into the pockets of people
like Duke Cunningham (R. Calif), so he can buy another solid gold
crapper, and if every American RESIDENT could sleep knowing that if
their kid gets sick they're not going to lose everything they own, I'd
be happy to pay higher taxes.
No administration in the history of the USA has spent money anywhere
near the level of George Bush's KKKrew. They're just putting off paying
for it because they know the next president will be a Democrat and they
can blame him/her for the tax increases that will have to come, since
even the "increased revenue" of this so-called "booming economy" won't
come close to paying for the Iraq invasion and bridges to nowhere.
And, by the way, January 8th is "IMPEACH" day. Guerilla activists
around the country are invited to place the word "IMPEACH" in a publicly
seen place ala The Freeway Blogger. Here in Chicago, I'll be doing my
small part by stenciling the word in a place seen by hundreds of
thousands of commuters on the Blue Line. The word "IMPEACH" will be
like a viral idea, getting into people's heads. They will come to learn
that there are crimes worse than getting a blow job that George Bush has
committed with impunity.
I love hearing about how all the "freedom-loving" Republicans just don't
have any problem with the idea of the government listening in on phone
conversations or reading their email. Just like they told us in the
50's that there was a commie under every bed, today, they're trying to
convince us that there's a terrorist behind every tree. And using this
to create enough fear that they'll be able to seize unheard of levels of
power.
God Bless the 2nd Amendment! IMPEACH George Bush!
Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:vu4gr1h5ae1nhtp9h...@4ax.com:
> On 1 Jan 2006 07:59:29 -0800, "Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Oregon liberals have come up with a high tech way to raise your taxes
>>again and again and again...... and they want to make you pay for the
>>privilege of them raising your taxes.
>
> Why do you figure this is Only liberals? If you ask around, you'll
> find that consurrrvative legislators are also discussing the potential
> of a weight-mile user fee as the fairest way to pay for roads.
>
> Lighter vehicles will pay less per mile than heavier ones. That's
> entirely fair, since heavier vehicles do more road damage than lighter
> ones. Those vehicles that drive More will pay more as well --
> regardless of weight class.
>
>>Can you just imagine having to pay $225 for the government to install
a
>>tracking device in EACH of your cars just so you can have the
privilege
>>of paying more taxes as you drive??
>
> Yes -- just as I can imagine paying an extra several hunnert bucks for
> the OnStar system, which is rapidly becoming popular as a means of
> dealing with emergencies. And more for better shocks and brakes, and
> more for air bags and a whole raft of things.
>
> But none of those things mean a Damn if there aren't roads to drive on
> in the first place. Figuring the most fair way to pay for them is
> hardly unreasonable.
>
>> What's up with these liberals and
>>their continual lust for more taxes.
>
> There is no requirement that there will be More Taxes from this. But
> the taxes will be more appropriately distributed, without question.
> Some will pay more; some will probably pay less. It will depend on
> how much weight you put on the roads and how much you drive that
> weight around.
>
> Mind you -- the cost of administering such a road fee would be
> considerable, but as technology improves, those sorts of things become
> less expensive to implement over time.
>
>>If those stupid liberals would just raise the gas tax
>
> Whenever that gets proposed, the consurrrvatives reject it out of
> hand. They continue to believe they can get something for nothing --
> and they can't.
>
>> as cars become more fuel efficient then they
>>would get the tax money they need to build roads and still punish gas
>>guzzling cars.
>
> But that wouldn't deal with the Fairness question -- which is why this
> gets discussed at all. Road maintenance is a function of road wear,
> which is a function of the cross product of vehicle weight and mileage
> driven. Oregon has a weight mile tax on trucks for precisely that
> reason even now. Trucking companies bitch and whine about it at
> considerable length, because it apportions the road fee in a manner
> that doesn't allow for a trucker to avoid it by filling up in a
> neighboring state with a lower fee on fuel, thereby avoiding paying
> Anything for the highway use in Oregon.
>
> The same principle applied to cars requires more technology to make it
> work (the number of cars matters as does the means by which the use is
> tracked).
>
> At the moment, we have a gasoline "tax" which roughly approximates a
> User Fee for roads, but it is not quite as precise as technology can
> provide for. Raising that fee gets all sorts of heat -- not from
> Libruls, but from Consurrrvatives.
>
>>This tracking system described below lets the big SUV
>>owners off the hook for extra taxes due to larger gas consumption per
>>mile.
>
> Nope -- it does not. The fee being discussed is Not a straight per
> mile amount. It is a per mile with some multiplier of vehicle weight
> class combined. You misread what's being discussed.
>
> There was an early proposal simply to tax every vehicle the same per
> mile. That would be patently unfair, since vehicles differ in the
> road wear they cause -- hence the weight class multiplier built into
> the fee. Technically it's a trivial problem to deal with.
>
>>Given the chance, liberals will drive anything and anyone into
complete
>>bankruptcy.
>
> Nah -- given the chance technology, bereft of any Political component,
> just Might come up with a fairer way of ensuring that roads are built
> and maintained.
>
>>Don't vote for democrats or liberals in the next election.
>
> You'd doubtless say that, whether or not you actually understood the
> proposal.
>
> But don't worry. It's some years off yet. The end result is most
> likely going to be nationwide (the same problem exists everywhere) and
> will involve a transponder in the vehicle providing an automatic
> readout of mileage by vehicle, and the electronic record will include
> the weight class automatically. We can do it now -- but the costs of
> implementing the system don't make it feasible.
>
> Still and all, if you really Want to discuss something important and
> significant in highway costs, deal with the studded tire issue. Those
> devices cause msot of the surface wear on highways and involve most of
> the maintenance costs -- present and deferred. If we Want to do
> something about highway costs, banning them outright or taxing them
> for the already calculated amount of road damage they do over their
> useful life wouldn't be a bad idea either.
>
> We won't, of course.
>
> But we should. Minnesota did it years ago, and it saved them >$50M/yr
> on road maintenance.
>
jbohren
"Scratch" <Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote in message
news:rdSdnSFIA4WP3yTe...@comcast.com...
Every time a little freedom is lost- in the name of security- the terrorists
win.
As has been pointed out before, there are avenues for getting warrants for
these wiretaps without losing time.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Um, how do you think roads should be financed?...
By those factors that deal with roads and maintenance.
The amount of weight moved across them and the mileage driven on them.
fiend999
Fox <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> fiend999 wrote:
> > In article <nk6gr1h5ck78jr654...@4ax.com>, Don Homuth
> > <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 1 Jan 2006 09:59:11 -0800, "Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >t1gercat wrote:
> > > >> This is just a proposal, probably one of several options
> > > >> Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
> > > >> fuel consumption.
> > > >
> > > >Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS.
> > >
> > > Of course it is! What else would it be funded by? Public roads
> > > require public dollars -- tax dollars. That's how this works.
> > >
> > > > Don't vote for
> > > >liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
> > > >put tracking devices in your cars.
> >
> > How do you feel about the National ID that is coming your way? Who do
> > y ou think is paying tax dollars for that?
>
> I showed you an actual program being funded by your tax dollars
> intended to cost you even more tax dollars for driving your car and
> they even want to make you pay for the privilege then you mouth off
> about some fantasy? What kind of stupidity is that? Are you stupid?
What fantasy? Have you not heard of the Real ID act?
> >
> > If you are looking for smaller, cheaper, less intrusive government, you
> > are looking in the wrong place if you are thinking republicans are a
> > good idea.
>
> You can't even tell the difference between a real project and a fantasy
> in your mind. What would you know about "cheaper, less intrusive
More than you, apparently.
fiend999
<Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote:
> rightwinghank wrote:
> > Its a good example of tax and spend liberal democrats......in a liberal
> > state......
> >
> > when the assholes who live there have had enough of the taxes....they
> > will change?
> >
> > Dont bet on it.....liberals are stupid.
> >
> > love
> > hank
> > ..........................................
> >
>
>
> Liberals are elitists. They don't consider themselves stupid. They
> convince each other real hard that they are not :)
Nice grammar. If you are going to call others stupid, you should
probably check yourself "real hard".
fiend999
<Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote:
Got a particular instance, or are you just following the right wing
policy of "say whatever I have to in order to smear and hope nobody
checks it out- even if the facts just aren't there"?
>
Jerry Baltimore
<Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote:
> Red Rider wrote:
> > "rightwinghank" <rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1136132557.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Its a good example of tax and spend liberal democrats......in a liberal
> >>state......
> >
> >
> > What part of Bush's spend, spend, spend don't you understand, Goofball?
> >
> >
>
>
> What part of Spend spend spend are you talking about? National Security?
> Or the leftist socialist programs?
Government spending is up, thanks to the republican control of the
federal government. Got it now?
Bill Shatzer
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> Scratch (Scratch@im_still_here.com) writes:
>> -snip-
>>>Ha, ha, ha good point. And they want that huge bureaucratic boondoggle
>>>called health insurance run by the government. They are such losers :)
>> Dunno. Medicare seems to deliver a fairly high level of health care
>> to 35 million seniors and disabled at a reasonable price. And the
>> elderly and the disabled are not the cheapest demographics which to
>> provide with health care.
>> Oh, and medicare delivers that care with an overhead cost of but
>> 3% as opposed to the 15%-25% overhead costs which private health
>> insurance companies incur.
>> If -everyone- was insured under medicare, we would instantly
>> cut our national expenditures for health insurance by between
>> 12% and 22%!
>> Score one for the "huge bureaucratic boondoggle"!
> Go to a county planning meeting see how efficient government is run. Or
> go to a commissioners meeting.
Well, as no less than Donald Rumsfeld opined, "Democracy is messy".
And if yer trying to be democratic, a certain amount of messiness
just comes with the territory. And this is generally A Good Thing -
it insures that the maximum number of differing opinions are heard
and considered.
Still, the messiness is generally at the policy determination
stage. Once the policies have been determined, the actual implimentation
and operation tends considerably smoother.
> What a frigging joke. No thanks. I can do
> with LESS not more government.
The medicare example is not hypothetical - it is an actual
function government program which is providing quality health
insurance for a significant number of American citizens with
greater efficiency and at less cost than private insurance
alternatives.
And, incidently, surveys indicate that medicare has a higher
"customer satisfaction" score than do private HMOs as well.
By and large and on average, folks are happier with the service
they get from medicare than they are will private health insurance
companies.
It seems rather silly to dismiss the established benefits of
a medicare-type health insurance system merely because of some
philosophical attachment to "LESS government".
If more government can provide better health insurance at lower
costs, it would seem only a fool would reject that merely because
it involves more government.
Peace and justice,
Mark Fox
Apparently not.
Jerry Baltimore
> fiend999 wrote:
> > In article <nk6gr1h5ck78jr654...@4ax.com>, Don Homuth
> > <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 1 Jan 2006 09:59:11 -0800, "Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >t1gercat wrote:
> > > >> This is just a proposal, probably one of several options
> > > >> Oregon will have to explore to make up for tax revenue lost due to less
> > > >> fuel consumption.
> > > >
> > > >Yes, its a proposal funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS.
> > >
> > > Of course it is! What else would it be funded by? Public roads
> > > require public dollars -- tax dollars. That's how this works.
> > >
> > > > Don't vote for
> > > >liberals who vote to raise taxes to pay for programs to force you to
> > > >put tracking devices in your cars.
> >
> > How do you feel about the National ID that is coming your way? Who do
> > y ou think is paying tax dollars for that?
>
> I showed you an actual program being funded by your tax dollars
> intended to cost you even more tax dollars for driving your car and
> they even want to make you pay for the privilege then you mouth off
> about some fantasy?
Um, you mentioned how one state's department of transportation was
considering such a measure and claimed that it was somehow being pushed
by "liberals". You never backed up that part of the claim. And then
you scoffed at the idea of an actual federal act which really was
pushed by republicans. You are a clown.
http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.
html
Scratch
Perhaps you would feel safer by advertising what the intention of the
CIA, FBI, NSA e.t.c. are in the New York times before they do it?
Man I'm glad the lefties are not in charge of running EVERYTHING in
security. We would most likely be toast!
Scratch
Ha, ha, ha as always the lefties have nothing but grammar jabs to offer.
At least they offer 5 seconds of laughter got to hand em that.
Scratch
Was that my question?
Scratch
Pot, kettle
Scratch
Sure it is. I can still remember my dad and the issues he had with them
and he was middle income when he retired and died at 84. Never knew a
socialist program that a socialist didn't like yet.
hlil...@juno.com
>>> >> So? This is what long-haul truckers have done for years -- pay for use of
>>> >> the roads.
>>> >Which is exactly what we do with fuel taxes.
>>> But only to an approximation.
>>Probably a better approximation than the proposed system.
>Nope. Not even close. The new technology being discussed can handle
>this question of a weight-mile fee precisely.
You make that claim, then at least twice, regarding the new technology,
you
write, " Remember the old adage: Being approximately right is not the
same as
being absolutely wrong."
You are of course wise to include that statment since the new
technology is
only approximately right as is the fuel tax method. Neither is
precise. The
new one is approximate because of the variations of weight within a
class I
previously described, plus it is likely to be easy to block. It is
pretty
close for a mid sized or large car, not as close for small cars and
very bad
on light trucks. The fuel tax method is inaccurate because of
variation in
fuel efficiency. I doubt either of us has the data necessary to
calculate
which is more accurate. However the fuel tax method has the advantages
of
an existing system, no "Big Brother" effect, insensitivity to things
like
signal blocking, rewards for fuel efficiency (which reduces pollution
as
well), insensitivity to signal blocking, etc.
>> Consider the
>>difference between a lightly loaded small car, such as a Geo metro, and
>>one loaded more heavily. Say a 120 lb woman driving alone with no
>>luggage vs 4 men at 200 lb each with luggage. Makes a significant
>>percentage difference in the weight of those small cars.
>Not one worth bothering with, however. The idea will be to place
>vehicles in weight categories. We can calculate an average weight of
>vehicle+passengers+luggage, and it won't vary by more than a couple
>hundred pounds. That differential won't really matter when it comes
>to road wear.
It's as big a differential as there typically is in fuel efficiency.
If that
is not worth bothering about, neither is it worth bothering about the
difference in fuel efficiency between vehicles.
>Remember the old adage: Being approximately right is not the same as
>being absolutely wrong.
You said it. Applies to the fuel tax method as well.
>Even within those ranges, it will still be more correct than the
>current system, which measures only fuel consumption rather than
>actual road wear factors.
A statement in need of something to back it up. How about something
beyond
your own blatent assertion?
Indeed a major problem with fuel efficiency would be an out of
alignment
front end. That increases fuel consumption *and* causes road wear but
will
not show up in weight-mile methods. How often do you think the average
motorist has alignment checked?
[delitions to avoid repetitive stuff.]
>>Of course the fuel tax also has the advantage of encouraging people to
>>keep their vehicles tuned up which benefits us all.
>That's the rumor, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Inspections
>do a far better job of that.
??? Passenger cars in Oregon are checked one every two years. How
effective
is that? Especially since diesel vehicles rated 9000 GVW or greater are
not
tested at all.
I know I just changed an air filter just to get better mileage. For
the same
reason I do things like keep tires inflated. I suspect I'm not the
only one
and it is clear that there is a lot of advertising pushing that. With
the
recent increase in fuel prices I suspect a lot of people are
maintaining their
cars better.
>>> We don't assess a road use fee on those fuels, and on some of them we
>>> probably can't come up with a way to do it.
>>Which motor fuel do we not tax? Perhaps a pure electric car but I
>>don't know many of those.
>There's a place in Salem on 12th Avenue that sells them in a large
>showroom. One sees them regularly on the streets. Keep watching.
I shall. When there are enough of them to worry about I'm sure our
governor
will find a way to tax them unless he wants to enocourage their use by
leaving
them untaxed.
>> If we ever get 'em and want to tax them we
>>can do it by odometer reading each quarter.
>
>It still won't capture the two factors that account for road fees --
>weight and mileage driven.
Say what? Odometer readings *are* mileage. And weight is as easily
accounted
for that way as it is with a GPS or similar weight mileage system.
Setting up
different weight classes would work quite as well with an odometer
system as
it would with your system.
...
>>> It won't necessarily require GPS. It can be done internally to the
>>> vehicle and reported via transponder to stations right along the
>>> highway.
>>Then why are all the experiments using GPS?
>All of them aren't. Just the ones you've read about.
With good reason I suspect. Things like stations beside the road are
expensive if we make enough of them to catch the drivers who don't do
much
distance driving. And they are also subject to signal blockage.
...
>But I wouldn't worry about the Big Brother aspect of it either. That
>would require a monitoring capacity that we are not going to build or
>staff. Not going to happen. We'll just automate the mileage
>reporting, and that will be both simpler and less expensive.
Not to monitor every motorist all the time but certainly the GPS system
would
be able to follow particular motorists as the powers that be decide.
If
someone in power wants to track your car they will be able to do it.
...
>>> For trucks, which are a relatively small portion of the overall
>>> traffic, that's nearly an inconsequential matter.
>>It's not inconsequential if I get charged as though I were hauling a
>>heavy load when I normally run tare. And there are a *lot* of pickups
>>running around for business use carrying heavy tools or pulling
>>trailers, just look on the roads.
>We don't need the Precise figure on a couple of hundred pounds of
>stuff in the box. Close enough will do Just Fine, since the road wear
>oin the differential hardly matters at all.
A couple of hundred pounds? What *have* you been smoking? The
difference
between an empty pickup and one fully loaded can easily be a ton. Add
a
trailer and you can double or triple that. A couple of hundred pounds
is what
you might put in the trunk of a passenger car.
>Being approximately correct is not the same as being absolutely wrong.
And as I said that applies to the fuel tax method as well.
>>> But if it's a
>>> problem, the technology to emplace a scale right on the highway and
>>> weight the trucks has already been developed. Commercial vehicles can
>>> be differentially treated from conveyances.
>>Care to calculate the cost of putting such scales, along with receivers
>>for the vehicle ID, all around so we get the people only traveling in
>>town etc?
>No.
Understandable. It would take gobs of them.
> A bunch of them are already in place, however.
Only at major points where they want to check trucks. And they are
still a
bit of a pain. Trucks have to slow down, and you have to be careful
that only
one vehicle is on the scale until the reading is taken and the scale
recovers.
Think you can do that on a city street during rush hour?
>>...
>>> There's no reason to have to track exact location regardless. Besides
>>> -- why do it twice? You already have agreed to be available for such
>>> tracking through your cell phone, have you not?
>>That would be a tad difficult seeing that I have no cell phone. And
>>not all cell phones include GPS, nor do all that include it allow
>>continuous tracking.
>Nevertheless, the capacity is already there. The phones are in
>continuous contact with a tower,
Nope, at least for most. They are only in contact with a tower if they
are
turned on. Some people like to only turn them on when the are
expecting or
want to make a call.
> and the system can track an
>individual number to within several miles -- if it's turned on.
Or much closer if the phone has continuous GPS tracking. Without
that, it is a fairly major process to get an accurate fix on location.
Indeed
it probably can't be done past tense, only if the phone is on and cells
can
triangulate in real time.
>> Daughter of a friend recently lost her purse with
>>the cell phone inside. Phone co. said that if somebody made a call
>>they could get a GPS reading but failing that they could not. If I
>>were to buy a cell phone I would seek one without continuous GPS
>>tracking.
>Good luck!
At least friend's daughter had sort of good luck. Someone found the
purse. It
had been run over an the phone was ruined but at least she got her ID
back. I
suspect phones without GPS will continue to be available.
...
>>There is a difference between voluntarily using OnStar (which does not
>>continuously track) and involuntarily being tracked by Big Brother.
>>And I hear OnStar is costing so much GM may try to drop it.
>That's a problem -- for now. Did you likewise note that GM is still
>promoting the hell out of it, including teevee commercials?
Standard procedure, it sells cars. Lots of businesses continue to
advertise
things till they are certain they want to drop the product. Pretty
meaningless in terms of if the product will stick around. Of course GM
is in
kind of a bind on this. They have lots of systems out there with a
promise
that they will serve the owners. Dropping it would require some way to
continue that support.
>Weight-mile is the most precise and most fair way of charging road
>fees.
You've yet to show that is is more accurate than fuel taxes.
> The technological approach to it does Not require GPS
Nor have you shown that any other method will avoid the problems of
GPS.
>-- that's
>just presently one of the methods being tinkered with. It can all be
>handled internally to the vehicle, and the technology can include the
>weight class of the vehicle in the electronic report. Which could
>well be done automatically at a gas station or even through a wireless
>connection.
At a tremendous cost to install the hardware and software for no yet
proven
increase in precision. And any wireless system is easily blocked.
Lobby Dosser
>
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "t1gercat" <wexfo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You can't discuss this rationally with him. He's just another
>> > stupid, emotional right-wing freak ready to break into hysteria at
>> > any moment. I'll bet he just loves the Bush deficits whose
>> > underfunding we'll all have to pay-for in terms of billions of
>> > dollars of interest.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> What do you think of NSA listening in on the phone conversations of
>> American Citizens?
>>
>> Now put tracking technology in your vehicle And in the hands of that
>> same government. Now what do you think?
>
> Are you too stupid to understand the differrence between the
> government of Oregon and the government of the United States? Its no
> wonder you are unknown and unimportant.
>
>
Are you so technically ignorant that you don't understand how GPS Tracking
workds?
Lobby Dosser
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 06:14:04 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The cell phone is voluntary.
>>
>> And becoming universal. Voluntary doesn't really matter. The next
>> generation of drivers will all have one. As ours dies off -- and it
>> will -- cell phones will be universal.
>>
>What a pessimist you are.
Nothing pessimistic about it. That's what's going to happen. Save
for some specific applications, I'd opine that within a decade or so,
the land line phone will be a thing of the past, pretty much across
the board.
One could see this coming two decades ago, when third world nations
installing phone systems simply didn't even bother to use land lines
and went with cell phones from the getgo in their undeveloped areas.
The trend is clear and unmistakeable.
Lobby Dosser
Awful Knopfel
news:k5pir1plka03uss30...@4ax.com...
Never give the government your unconditional trust.
It's wise.
Don Homuth
>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>>>> >> So? This is what long-haul truckers have done for years -- pay for use of
>>>> >> the roads.
>
>>>> >Which is exactly what we do with fuel taxes.
>
>>>> But only to an approximation.
>
>>>Probably a better approximation than the proposed system.
>
>>Nope. Not even close. The new technology being discussed can handle
>>this question of a weight-mile fee precisely.
>
>You make that claim, then at least twice, regarding the new technology,
>you write, " Remember the old adage: Being approximately right is not the
>same as being absolutely wrong."
>
>You are of course wise to include that statment since the new
>technology is only approximately right as is the fuel tax method. Neither is
>precise.
But one is Far more precise than the other -- which is the point.
Fuel use is only tangentially related to road wear factors. It was
convenient to charge a fee on it as a stand-in, but now that vehicles
can handle the calculations all on their own, the only thing that
keeps us doing it is inertia until the fleet retires.
>The new one is approximate because of the variations of weight within a
>class I previously described, plus it is likely to be easy to block.
Your variations don't matter. We can use as one of the multipliers
the vehicle weight class with an average load. A 6500 lb Hummer 2
with passengers and luggage aboard will weight maybe 7500 lbs fully
loaded. Split the difference, and use a 7000 lb figure for reporting
purposes. On the average, that'll be about right.
It'll work out Just Fine. All you then need is the mileage figures --
and that Can be precise -- and you're there.
> It is pretty close for a mid sized or large car, not as close for small cars and
>very bad on light trucks.
Take an average weighted load. It'll work fine.
>The fuel tax method is inaccurate because of variation in
>fuel efficiency. I doubt either of us has the data necessary to
>calculate which is more accurate.
We don't Know what fuel efficiency is. We know what factors affect it
-- like tire pressure. But that is Not a road wear factor. Mileage
and weight are the road wear factors, and what a road use fee ought
properly to be based on.
> However the fuel tax method has the advantages
>of an existing system,
So long as gasoline is the dominant fuel. If -- and it's a Big if --
we actually do start down the road toward alternative fuels, etc -- it
won't be nearly so useful. But you are right -- it has a large
installed base, for the moment. That situation will not be the case
in another decade.
> no "Big Brother" effect, insensitivity to things like signal blocking,
Those are important only if we use GPS. We need not do that.
>rewards for fuel efficiency (which reduces pollution as well),
Pollution is not a factor of road wear. If we wish to subsidize
fuels, we can do so without regard to the road use fee. I would
support not subsidizing Any automotive fuel. If we wish to provide
incentives for new drive technologies, we can do that with a direct
subsidy better than trying to spread it out in the road use fee.
> insensitivity to signal blocking, etc.
Doubtless etc.
You fail to twig on something important: We really don't Need to use
GPS technology to do that. It can all be handled internally quite
nicely. In fact, better and less expensively than with GPS. There's
no need to track Where folks have been and are. All we need to know
is Mileage Driven. Nothing else. In the end, that's how we'll do it
because that's the least expensive way to administer it.
>>> Consider the
>>>difference between a lightly loaded small car, such as a Geo metro, and
>>>one loaded more heavily. Say a 120 lb woman driving alone with no
>>>luggage vs 4 men at 200 lb each with luggage. Makes a significant
>>>percentage difference in the weight of those small cars.
>
>>Not one worth bothering with, however. The idea will be to place
>>vehicles in weight categories. We can calculate an average weight of
>>vehicle+passengers+luggage, and it won't vary by more than a couple
>>hundred pounds. That differential won't really matter when it comes
>>to road wear.
>
>It's as big a differential as there typically is in fuel efficiency.
>If that is not worth bothering about, neither is it worth bothering about the
>difference in fuel efficiency between vehicles.
I don't bother about that now. And we wouldn't Need to bother with
fuel efficiency if we simply calculated weight x mileage driven and
assessed the road use fee on that basis. Folks who have vehicles with
lesser fuel efficiency will pay for that on their own through the cost
of fuel. Their lack of fuel efficiency does not contribute to road
costs, and the use fee ought not to involve it at all.
>>Remember the old adage: Being approximately right is not the same as
>>being absolutely wrong.
>
>You said it. Applies to the fuel tax method as well.
But there are different Degrees of being approximately right. Better
is...well....better, and the weight-mile approach is simply better.
>>Even within those ranges, it will still be more correct than the
>>current system, which measures only fuel consumption rather than
>>actual road wear factors.
>
>A statement in need of something to back it up. How about something
>beyond your own blatent assertion?
Sigh. Are you going to retreat to that sort of nonsense? Road wear
is Not -- I repeat Not a function of fuel efficiency. It is a
function Primarily of weight and mileage driven. (I mentioned earlier
the bothersome problem of studded snow tires, and those ought to be
taxed or banned outright -- a problem best handled on its own without
regard to the road use fee question.)
Surely you can see that.
>Indeed a major problem with fuel efficiency would be an out of
>alignment front end. That increases fuel consumption
It does indeed.
> *and* causes road wear
No -- it increases Tire wear, not road wear. The frictional change is
so minor it's not worth tracking for road wear. It is worth tracking
for fuel use. For that, the vehicle owner ought to handle his/her own
maintenance.
> but will not show up in weight-mile methods.
Nor is it supposed to. The increased cost of fuel use ought to
reflect entirely the mechanical problem, without adding an additional
penalty for a road wear component that is, to all intents and
purposes, not even measurable.
> How often do you think the average
>motorist has alignment checked?
Less than they should, more than likely, though more often than
previously, given the regular maintenance of the current fleet
required.
>>>Of course the fuel tax also has the advantage of encouraging people to
>>>keep their vehicles tuned up which benefits us all.
>
>>That's the rumor, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Inspections
>>do a far better job of that.
>
>??? Passenger cars in Oregon are checked one every two years. How
>effective is that?
Dunno. Unlike past generations of automobiles, the new ones stay in
tune Lots longer and require lots less maintenance. But if we want
more inspections, we can surely require them.
> Especially since diesel vehicles rated 9000 GVW or greater are
>not tested at all.
Doesn't bother me a bit, so long as they pay their weight-mile fees.
>I know I just changed an air filter just to get better mileage. For
>the same reason I do things like keep tires inflated. I suspect I'm not the
>only one >and it is clear that there is a lot of advertising pushing that. With
>the recent increase in fuel prices I suspect a lot of people are
>maintaining their cars better.
That's good, and if you/they do that, you ought to be rewarded with
lesser fuel costs. But not a lesser road use fee, since your fuel
mileage is entirely unrelated to road wear costs.
>>>> We don't assess a road use fee on those fuels, and on some of them we
>>>> probably can't come up with a way to do it.
>
>>>Which motor fuel do we not tax? Perhaps a pure electric car but I
>>>don't know many of those.
>
>>There's a place in Salem on 12th Avenue that sells them in a large
>>showroom. One sees them regularly on the streets. Keep watching.
>
>I shall.
Report in, from time to time, if you would.
> When there are enough of them to worry about I'm sure our
>governor will find a way to tax them unless he wants to enocourage their use by
>leaving them untaxed.
As I said, if we wish to subsidize such things, we ought properly to
do it directly. That way the subsidy is transparent and obvious. But
they ought to pay their fair share of road use fees, based on the only
two factors that contribute significantly to that -- weight and
mileage driven.
>>> If we ever get 'em and want to tax them we
>>>can do it by odometer reading each quarter.
>>
>>It still won't capture the two factors that account for road fees --
>>weight and mileage driven.
>
>Say what? Odometer readings *are* mileage.
Quite. But it's how they are reported that matters.
> And weight is as easily accounted for that way
No -- weight must be dealt with separately from mileage.
>... as it is with a GPS or similar weight mileage system.
It's really simple: Within the car's computer, it "knows" what weight
class it's in. So that's one of those constants. It calculates the
mileage, and reports both on a timely basis.
It's just not that hard, and it doesn't require a GPS system to make
it work.
>Setting up different weight classes would work quite as well with an odometer
>system as it would with your system.
It would, and doing that would work just fine. I can program a chip
to "know" what weight class it's in without any problem at all. The
mileage will vary from vehicle to vehicle.
Not a problem at all.
>>>> It won't necessarily require GPS. It can be done internally to the
>>>> vehicle and reported via transponder to stations right along the
>>>> highway.
>
>>>Then why are all the experiments using GPS?
>
>>All of them aren't. Just the ones you've read about.
>
>With good reason I suspect.
Yep -- convenience.
> Things like stations beside the road are
>expensive if we make enough of them to catch the drivers who don't do
>much distance driving.
Not really. They are, as such things go, inexpensive and becoming
more so all the time.
> And they are also subject to signal blockage.
Again, not really. Sooner or later the signal Will get read and the
road use fee assessed.
>>But I wouldn't worry about the Big Brother aspect of it either. That
>>would require a monitoring capacity that we are not going to build or
>>staff. Not going to happen. We'll just automate the mileage
>>reporting, and that will be both simpler and less expensive.
>
>Not to monitor every motorist all the time but certainly the GPS system
>would be able to follow particular motorists as the powers that be decide.
A good reason not to use it, since it would be more expensive to do
that than the simpler internal system.
>If someone in power wants to track your car they will be able to do it.
IF they want to do that, they can do it now.
>>We don't need the Precise figure on a couple of hundred pounds of
>>stuff in the box. Close enough will do Just Fine, since the road wear
>>oin the differential hardly matters at all.
>
>A couple of hundred pounds? What *have* you been smoking? The
>difference between an empty pickup and one fully loaded can easily be a ton.
Not all the time, certainly. We can handle that simply enough --
almost trivially.
> Add a trailer and you can double or triple that.
Unimportant. License the trailers with a fixed fee, and let it go at
that.
> A couple of hundred pounds is what you might put in the trunk of a passenger car.
Or in a p/u box.
>>Being approximately correct is not the same as being absolutely wrong.
>
>And as I said that applies to the fuel tax method as well.
The weight-mile fee works better, even if not Perfectly. It need not
work perfectly -- it just needs to be better.
>>>Care to calculate the cost of putting such scales, along with receivers
>>>for the vehicle ID, all around so we get the people only traveling in
>>>town etc?
>
>>No.
>
>Understandable. It would take gobs of them.
Not really. There's no need to do this in Real Time.
>> A bunch of them are already in place, however.
>
>Only at major points where they want to check trucks.
Only. I drive by two of them daily, almost.
> And they are still a bit of a pain.
Why is that important?
> Trucks have to slow down,
Aw gee -- trucks have to slow down. What a problem! I can hardly
stand the inconvenience.
> and you have to be careful that only one vehicle is on the scale until the reading is taken and the scale
>recovers.
We don't need to do that at all with an internal system.
>Think you can do that on a city street during rush hour?
There's no Need to do that. It's just not necessary.
We can handle it nicely come license plate renewal time, for example.
That need not be the Only time, however, nor need it involve real time
location tracking.
>>>...
>
>>>> There's no reason to have to track exact location regardless. Besides
>>>> -- why do it twice? You already have agreed to be available for such
>>>> tracking through your cell phone, have you not?
>
>>>That would be a tad difficult seeing that I have no cell phone. And
>>>not all cell phones include GPS, nor do all that include it allow
>>>continuous tracking.
>
>>Nevertheless, the capacity is already there. The phones are in
>>continuous contact with a tower,
>
>Nope, at least for most. They are only in contact with a tower if they
>are turned on. Some people like to only turn them on when the are
>expecting or want to make a call.
The car would be turned on when it was in contact for the electronic
reporting too. Simply not a problem at all.
>> and the system can track an
>>individual number to within several miles -- if it's turned on.
>
>Or much closer if the phone has continuous GPS tracking.
To repeat: We don't Need GPS tracking in order to implement a
weight-mile system. It's just not necessary.
> Without that, it is a fairly major process to get an accurate fix on location.
>Indeed it probably can't be done past tense, only if the phone is on and cells
>can triangulate in real time.
Interesting, I'm sure, but non-germane altogether.
>>> Daughter of a friend recently lost her purse with
>>>the cell phone inside. Phone co. said that if somebody made a call
>>>they could get a GPS reading but failing that they could not. If I
>>>were to buy a cell phone I would seek one without continuous GPS
>>>tracking.
>
>>Good luck!
>
>At least friend's daughter had sort of good luck. Someone found the
>purse. It had been run over an the phone was ruined but at least she got her ID
>back. I suspect phones without GPS will continue to be available.
The general vector of technology will be to make things More Complex
and Wonderful when it comes to such devices.
>>>There is a difference between voluntarily using OnStar (which does not
>>>continuously track) and involuntarily being tracked by Big Brother.
>>>And I hear OnStar is costing so much GM may try to drop it.
>
>>That's a problem -- for now. Did you likewise note that GM is still
>>promoting the hell out of it, including teevee commercials?
>
>Standard procedure, it sells cars.
With OnStar on board -- which is the point of it.
> Lots of businesses continue to advertise
>things till they are certain they want to drop the product. Pretty
>meaningless in terms of if the product will stick around. Of course GM
>is in kind of a bind on this. They have lots of systems out there with a
>promise >that they will serve the owners. Dropping it would require some way to
>continue that support.
It or some variant is likely to continue well into the future. Not
something to be terribly concerned about.
>>Weight-mile is the most precise and most fair way of charging road
>>fees.
>
>You've yet to show that is is more accurate than fuel taxes.
This is forward-looking technology, Hal. I'm reasonably certain you
are aware it has not been implemented. In fact, it's in its Very
early stages of experimentation.
But if this nation moves toward non-petroleum fuels or alternative
energy sources for motive power, the question of how to assess the
road use fee is going to become larger.
The answer to it is simple and straightforward: Assess the fee only
on those factors that unfluence road coast. Those are vehicle weight
and mileage driven. Handle the studded snow tire abomination
separately (tax or ban it outright) and every other factor is
inconsequential.
That's what we're eventually going to do.
>> The technological approach to it does Not require GPS
>
>Nor have you shown that any other method will avoid the problems of
>GPS.
I have indeed -- you haven't been paying attention. A single chip in
the car's electronic system can "know" its weight class and
continually track its mileage. It can be read quickly and easily and
the road use fee calculated from it.
It's just not difficult to do it.
> >-- that's
>>just presently one of the methods being tinkered with. It can all be
>>handled internally to the vehicle, and the technology can include the
>>weight class of the vehicle in the electronic report. Which could
>>well be done automatically at a gas station or even through a wireless
>>connection.
>
>At a tremendous cost to install the hardware and software for no yet
>proven increase in precision.
The development will continue for some time yet.
> And any wireless system is easily blocked.
Not for long and not forever.
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>And tracking doesn't bother you?
You can't track what isn't turned on. Mine mostly isn't.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:k5pir1plka03uss30...@4ax.com...
>> Don't worry overmuch. We're not going to do real time tracking of
>> every vehicle in the country.
>
>Never give the government your unconditional trust.
I don't -- especially when the Rs are in control of it.
>It's wise.
It's wise in any event. Which is why representative democracy is such
a good idea.
Curt
> "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:XR_tf.7373$7x.5348@trnddc03...
> >>
> >> > You can't discuss this rationally with him. He's just another
> >> > stupid, emotional right-wing freak ready to break into hysteria at
> >> > any moment. I'll bet he just loves the Bush deficits whose
> >> > underfunding we'll all have to pay-for in terms of billions of
> >> > dollars of interest.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> What do you think of NSA listening in on the phone conversations of
> >> American Citizens?
> >>
> >> Now put tracking technology in your vehicle And in the hands of that
> >> same government. Now what do you think?
> >
> >
> > B)Oregon DMV is not, in any way, the "same government" as the NSA.
>
> A) Good.
> B) You don't think NSA could tap in to the Oregon system?
Sure. But DMV isn't the "same" as NSA.
NSA could tap into your Safeway card records too, and maybe already has. But
Safeway isn't the same as NSA.
Curt
Lobby Dosser
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Bq3uf.620$Rb1.182@trnddc01...
>> "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:XR_tf.7373$7x.5348@trnddc03...
>> >> "t1gercat" <wexfo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > You can't discuss this rationally with him. He's just another
>> >> > stupid, emotional right-wing freak ready to break into hysteria
>> >> > at any moment. I'll bet he just loves the Bush deficits whose
>> >> > underfunding we'll all have to pay-for in terms of billions of
>> >> > dollars of interest.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> What do you think of NSA listening in on the phone conversations
>> >> of American Citizens?
>> >>
>> >> Now put tracking technology in your vehicle And in the hands of
>> >> that same government. Now what do you think?
>> >
>> > A)I'm agin it on principle.
>> >
>> > B)Oregon DMV is not, in any way, the "same government" as the NSA.
>>
>> A) Good.
>> B) You don't think NSA could tap in to the Oregon system?
>
> Sure. But DMV isn't the "same" as NSA.
Just another Enabler.
>
> NSA could tap into your Safeway card records too, and maybe already
> has. But Safeway isn't the same as NSA.
What about them WallyMart tracking cards? Jeesus, the bastids is
everywhere!
>
> Curt
>
>
>
Lobby Dosser
You Know this? Technology is whirring right along. You know that your
computer keeps track of the date and time while it's off, right?
Lobby Dosser
> We can handle it nicely come license plate renewal time, for example.
> That need not be the Only time, however, nor need it involve real time
> location tracking.
>
>
Exactly. They take your ODOMETER reading, they know the make and model of
vehicle and therefore weight class, and they assess the tax. ALL with
EXISTING non-intusive technology.
fiend999
<Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote:
I was merely pointing out your stupidity and hypocrisy. Apparently
those are two requirements for being a republican these days.
fiend999
<Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote:
Thank you for admitting you were full of shit. Did I smear anyone with
no facts? No. Your pot kettle quip is meaningless - kind of like you.
Jerry Baltimore
<Scratch@im_still_here.com> wrote:
You asked what part of spend spend spend the other poster was talking
about. I told you who is doing all the spending. Bush has not vetoed
a single spending bill. They are not all for defense. Look it up.
Any so-called "socialist programs" that have been funded or created in
the last few years are whose baby then?
Scratch
Na, just being able to spot a sock puppet like yourself is all that is
required. It's easy.
Scratch
Yet you have the temerity to reply. Interesting
Scratch
I have to agree in part sadly. But why select just the past few years?
Is it because those happen to be the Bush years? Na, you wouldn't do
that, that would be to obvious :)
Ermine Todd III
The ONLY President in the past few decades to veto spending bills was
President Clinton - who forced the GOP lead Congress to spend less unwisely
resulting in the end of deficits and the beginning of paying off of the
national debt. EVERY GOP President has been quite happy with the massive
growth in spending that the GOP Congresses have created. Scratch, you
really should learn to accept reality.
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:57:47 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>And tracking doesn't bother you?
>>
>> You can't track what isn't turned on. Mine mostly isn't.
>>
>You Know this?
I do.
>Technology is whirring right along. You know that your
>computer keeps track of the date and time while it's off, right?
Know that too, else it couldn't work at all. Separate battery, doncha
know?
Time is Nature's way of ensuring that everything doesn't happen all at
once. If it weren't for the clock, computers wouldn't work at all.
Don Homuth
It will likewise be non-intrusive if it's done electronically more
often.
cor
Its called Alternative Minimum Tax.
Originally designed to tax the super rich, now available for the masses.
http://www.fairmark.com/amt/