Gas Tax Revamp

B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Just a bunch of communists trying to take more of our paychecks to give to the lazy--errr, I mean poor.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
But on a serious note, every time someone buys a car with a better MPG than the one before it, you are saving money for yourself at the pump--and that is revenue to pay for there monstrous high ways.

And I do mean monstrous. We have been building a network that is fiscally unsustainable...in addition to being economically, environmentally, and socially unsustainable too.

The lobbyists from the military-industrial complex and the massive automobile corporations and unions made the US Govt work from 1945-1990 building the biggest waste of money in the history of the world, and cause the biggest transfer of wealth (money to the middle east) in the history of economics.

We have intentionally built cities so stratified and spread out to suck as much money out of your paychecks as possible. Instead of cleaning up our cities and building neighborhoods, we built into the countryside. We destroyed our world-class mass transit systems and enslaved ourselves to our cars.

I don't want to sound like some socialist European circlejerker, we cannot move in the direction of Europe. But we can move in the direction of Australia.

In short, look at this:

Revised_petrol_use_urban_density.JPG


We plan our cities in the most nonsensical fashion. We deserve to have out gas taxes raised. We have been idiots for decades on the matter.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
This has been discussed publicly before, but it looks like some states are getting close to implementing something. Anyone around here live in a state that is trying to do the Vehicle Mileage Tax?

Gas tax revenue down, officials eye mileage levy - Yahoo! Finance

Never heard of this till now. I don't like this. I lean left but there is right and wrong things to tax. I believe climate change and I think this sends the wrong message. Its is essentially failing to award people that have more fuel efficient cars that are good for the environment.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Never heard of this till now. I don't like this. I lean left but there is right and wrong things to tax. I believe climate change and I think this sends the wrong message. Its is essentially failing to award people that have more fuel efficient cars that are good for the environment.

If you drove 15 miles to work and had a vehicle with 20mpg, that's 150 miles/20mpg = 7.5gal weekly.

If you bought a car with 40mpg (not hard to find today), you'd only need 3.25gal weekly.

So you'd save yourself three gallons of gas, but that's three less gallons the state is taxing to support your roads.

As people have said for decades, we are now feeling the effects of this:

Highway-1-Los-Angeles-Cal-001.jpg


Every time you build one of these, it's billions of dollars and they need to be maintained.
 
Last edited:
G

Grahambo

Guest
I you drove 15 miles to work and had a vehicle with 20mpg, that's 150 miles/20mpg = 7.5gal weekly.

If you bought a car with 40mpg (not hard to find today), you'd only need 3.25gal weekly.

So you'd save yourself three gallons of gas, but that's three less gallons the state is taxing to support your roads.

As people have said for decades, we are now feeling the effects of this:

Highway-1-Los-Angeles-Cal-001.jpg


Every time you build one of these, it's billions of dollars and they need to be maintained.

Holy crap what a disaster that is. So basically highways were created to get us using cars more which in turn means more gas which obviously means more money for the corporations?
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
6,451
I use to teach about this stuff ages ago [urban sprawl, the forced dependence upon the individual automobile, the ultimate dependency on an unsustainable and dangerous resource --- dangerous because so much of it was in unstable and/or unfriendly geography, etc].

Our problems today are completely understandable. The geniuses [no mockery meant by that word --- they WERE geniuses] who designed the "American System", did not foresee the colossal side-effects that their designs would cause. The power of multiplication of population, automobile units, parking spots, oil gallons used, exhaust fumes, et al were inconceivable to these guys. They pursued a big dream and one which seemed to work. The world viewed it as The American Way.

The American Way was an accelerating Giant with a big appetite. As long as it could eat cheap resources, and local ones, it grew and everyone got at least a little rich. Plus, your own car was independence and it was fun. We were encouraged to for at least part of our days to never grow up. Our car became the focus of who we were and the sign of our "worth". It became the untouchable symbol of America.

So everything went on the roads. But as the railroads shrunk, the trucks [which carried the vital support materials --- all manner of food even now] grew in size and numbers and highway-breaking weight. As resources shrunk locally, they had to come more distantly. More trucks; more destroyed highways, more hurting state governments needing taxes. As jobs went elsewhere, whole states began to fail, but the need to repair the vital infrastructure didn't lessen. The country became haves and have nots --- some pleading for funding to the feds harder than others to allow the auto-centric-demanding populations to be supplied by the trucks and the spoiled children to drive their cars to the corner store.

The populations had a history of having it all and wanting it all. They hadn't ever bothered to see a bigger picture nor did they want to. The stupidity of demanding repaired roads and personal vans, hummers, and trucks without being willing to pay for them, refused to enter their minds. As the country's economic world dominance slumped in the competition of the global economy, they refused to believe that they had to sacrifice anything to adjust to that.

This story goes on... it is the story of the wholecloth interwoven American and Global Systems, and how we Americans are the last people on Earth to admit what's going on. Road repairs and Gasoline taxes are the least of it.

A large element of the environmental community has, in fact, given up. We do not any longer believe that there is any solution to the ignorance and selfishness of the majority of the American population and those who tell them happy thoughts to keep the blind dance whirling.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Holy crap what a disaster that is. So basically highways were created to get us using cars more which in turn means more gas which obviously means more money for the corporations?

In many perspectives, yes. They still have undeniable benefits and I would never recommend a policy to get rid of cars (believe me, there are many students who think that's a possible solution haha).

In short, we simply don't build neighborhoods anymore. I haven't read about a real neighborhood being built in this country for decades until the early 1990s. Every subdivision is a sin. We need neighborhoods. Cars aren't the worst problem.

A large element of the environmental community has, in fact, given up. We do not any longer believe that there is any solution to the ignorance and selfishness of the majority of the American population and those who tell them happy thoughts to keep the blind dance whirling.

True. But that's why I stress that the American model is unsustainable in other ways than just environmentally.

Economically, we have exchanged downtowns for shopping malls, corner-stores for strip malls. We have eroded the tax base of our cities and left many to crumble. Only now are many beginning to see a resurgence as younger generations increasingly reject suburbia.

Socially, anyone with wealth moved away from dirty/more dangerous areas--instead of fixing the problem. They fled, and when the crime spread they fled again. We now have doughnut-cities (i.e. a ton of wealth/activity on the outside and a huge ghetto on the inside). Now suburbs, after having stolen the tax-paying citizens from the big cities, refuse to help pay for the mass transit or even allow it. It is definitely rather racist, to be honest. In short, we created two worlds. An inner-city poor word and a suburban rich world. They live in different countries, basically.

Environmentally, there are a myriad of problems with sprawl. Obviously, we have destroyed endless acres of the world's best farmland. The runoff from the cities crippled our ground water supply. The CO2 from our cars kills our earth. etc. etc. etc. Horribly inefficient.

Politically, since we have separated the rich and the poor we have quite honestly bifurcated our states. The Democrats dominate every city in America, and Republicans generally win the suburban elections. It's precisely why you'll never see a Republican policy in favor of natural parks, or denser community, or building actual neighborhoods, or say anything kind about streetcars or high-speed rail. There is nothing in it for them.

It's one big headache to look at in all honesty. But different people have different concerns. For example I consider environmental policies lower on the scale versus economic ones.

And I should note for everyone reading this, the different fronts have had varying success. Places like Columbus, OH have had great success over the last fifteen years. Cincinnati and Cleveland are seeing resurgences in their downtowns and older neighborhoods. Progress is being made.
 
Last edited:

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
6,451
To Buster: when I say that many of the older environmentalists have given up, I do not mean that we have personally quit.

We still do things, even somewhat heroic personal things to do our part [I drive no car; I put out only three trash bags per year and recycle or compost everything else; I use the bus and my 72 year old feet; I have tried mightily for ten years to design a sustainable community ecovillage --- now that it looks to fail, I will try to retrofit an old urban house into a co-op].

What I mean is that although we still try to do the best we can in our lives, we believe that so few else give a damm that the larger battle is lost is several irretrievable ways --- ecosystems, vital farming land, species, drying central US farms, ...etc etc ad nauseum. To fight a destruction, the environmentalist has to win every fight for a lifetime. Without larger support the environmentalists will ultimately lose. Then whatever that natural asset was is gone.

The same thing is true with huge systemic "slow bullets" like the climate change. Once certain threshholds are passed, mere money and technology cannot reverse these monster systems for decades at a minimum and for some a century or more. These are the things that we have given up on --- the big happy picture of a healthy sustainable world of peoples who have at least the potential to thrive and while doing so, decide not to kill each other.

But everyone should do their best in their own life. It's good for the soul.



i should add the following irrelevancy: this 72 year old man needs to say evening prayers and go to bed now and let the youngsters rule the night. I mention this as I won't be able to read anything else here and give it a respectful notice.

Have a good evening gentlemen. You can still cleanse your own parts of this old world, and your souls as you do it. Peace.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Another broken part of our political system is the gerrymandering of representative districts on both sides is another issue. Roughly 35-40 of the 435 house seats are competitive. Red states get more red and blue states are getting more blue so there is more gridlock. If politicians had to worry more about general elections and less about primaries more might get done for the mainstream of the population.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Never heard of this till now. I don't like this. I lean left but there is right and wrong things to tax. I believe climate change and I think this sends the wrong message. Its is essentially failing to award people that have more fuel efficient cars that are good for the environment.

This got some pub a few years back (early to mid 2011 if I remember) when some reported that the administration had considered alternatives such as tax per mile.

To me, I still I have a problem with for the obvious creepy factor, but I also want to know why a Fiat would be taxed as much as a semi? If so, I think that would be a huge mistake. Truck traffic has a major impact on road wear. To me, we should be pushing rail more for heavy transportation.

Too Big for The Road
 

Downinthebend

New member
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
77
Another broken part of our political system is the gerrymandering of representative districts on both sides is another issue. Roughly 35-40 of the 435 house seats are competitive. Red states get more red and blue states are getting more blue so there is more gridlock. If politicians had to worry more about general elections and less about primaries more might get done for the mainstream of the population.

Why do politicians get to choose their voters? I thought the democratic process was supposed to be the opposite?
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
I live in Houston (duh), probably one of the most paved/sprawling cities in the U.S., if not the world, and I love it. I've lived downtown and the 'burbs and I liked both.

On $60k/year salary a person can get a 3000 sq ft 3/2 home of their own, within 30 minutes of downtown if that's where you work. Fortune 100's are routinely moving here for the infrastructure. And you don't have the classic east-coast urban dynamic where you're either living in a small 2/2, paying out the nose for the few "good" neighborhoods, or living far far away in the burbs.

So while I don't really mind the whole "You're-Doing-It-Wrong!!!" type of grand overhaul of cities by environmentalists/etc., I would prefer that Houston be left out of it.
 
Top