Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile

Originally posted by ViperChili
What possible reason would the feds have to ever give up a revenue stream?

To lower prices at the pump and lay the burden on those that drive excessively. That's a fairly damn good reason.

reply to post by Ahabstar
Hmmm...... Chip my car and track me?

And I'll bet the good ole' Gubbbermint will make sure nothing bad happens to me, since they'll know right where I am at.

Scary stuff. Thanks for the post.

reply to post by Aggie Man

burden on those that drive excessively

Why don't we just throw those damn commuters in jail?

Oh yeah, they won't be able to generate that all important revenue stream.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Lol if you think that has any chance of happening, you are delusional.

The feds will not be giving up that valuable source of cash.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I hope not. But I can hold my pee for a while.

Taxing pee is a viable plan - because they can make the argument that the toilets are killing the precious Earth and require all toilets to be sold with meters which will tax you $3 or $4 every time you flush. That way all of you people celebrating this idea because you live in a city can be educated on what it means to serve because the cities will be infested with feces and urine resembling India and then we'll have some losers on ATS telling us how they don't mind the extra tax because they don't pee much [edit] or that its justice to balance the system from those that pee excessively. This is why they have pee troughs in India and China. How the stupidity of socialism can be demonstrated in one topic!

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

cut spending...

I don't think that term is clearly understood by any elected official in Washington D.C.

Some years ago, when there was talk of cutting the rate of spending growth, many members of congress described that as a spending cut.

I for one hope the debt ceiling doesnt pass. Even if it means economic catastrophe.. If that is whats needed to force washington to understand we can only spend what we take in then so be it.

I would also like to see the Gvoernment masively downsize to areas they should be responsible for, and shift other funding back to the states (education, medicare, medicaid etc).

I also think that for every dollar we spend on the Military, the exact same amount should be spent on education and infrastructure.

Education is the silver bullet. While I think the states should be more in a position to determine the needs of their students, I think the FEds should be able to help out with technology and infrastructure for schools.

I think we should downsize the number of military bases we currently have. I dont think its neccisary to have a military base in almost ever single country on the planet. We also need to get out of the mindset that we should contuinue military projects just because they emply people. Our military should be able to grow and flux to meet the challenge of the future, and not because closing a base would result in lost jobs.

I am a huge proponent of a balanced budget amednment, with an exception for natural disasters / military issues (and then only under very stringenet criteria on a quaterly basis).

I also fail to understand why we would red tape off shore drilling to death of rUS companies, while giving foreign companies billions to develop their own off shore drilling (brazil and columbua if I remember right).

We have priorities - Sadly, the priorities we have are any country but our own.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I dont think its neccisary to have a military base in almost ever single country on the planet.

...

I also fail to understand why we would red tape off shore drilling to death of rUS companies, while giving foreign companies billions to develop their own off shore drilling (brazil and columbua if I remember right).

X, I think its pretty clear - we're the world's private military but they (a) don't want our concept of freedom to ever take root again and (b) dependent people are easier to control and "grow" to suit their needs. [edit] They've been at it for a while to the point we have ATS people on here begging to be taxed to save something that'll never need saving.

Blah, blah blah. We should instead be talking about why we have to pay any taxes at all. Our problems stem from our inability to print money without going into debt. The simple solution is to simply print the money our government needs to operate and you offset that by reducing the bank's ability to create money. take the tax issue out of play and we just may be able to create a more effciient government. A 20% cut to bank leverage would be enough to pay off our debt with newly printed money without increasing the total amount of money.

I think he and his ilk would tax us to breath air.
Whats next?

reply to post by Aggie Man

That's why they put the $.009 tax on gas by the gallon... The less you drive, the less gas you use, the less you're taxed...
This tax by the mile is to hit people like me and my wife that drive a Toyota Echo (40+ MPG) and Toyota Prius(50+ MPG)... It's a tax on top of tax...
And don't for a second think that they will get rid of that $.009 per gallon tax and just use this new tax system.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Good! I barely drive anywhere....maybe 3000 miles a year. If I drive less, then I should be taxed less. I'm shouldn't have to foot the bill for those that drive excessively.

In which you already are taxed less because you are not paying the same amount of Federal and State taxes on gasoline than the person driving much more than you. How can you not see that?

The current model of taxes placed upon gasoline is prime example of a consumption tax. You drive more, you are taxed more. You drive less, you are taxed less. This proposal and should remind everyone that it is still a draft, is planning on taxing on top of that consumption tax.

Your attitude here Aggie is example of the "More cigarette taxes! I don't care, I don't smoke!" line of thought. Effectively this is very akin to making gasoline a "sin tax".

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by centurion1211
What about farmers and people who live in the West, where you have to drive farther just to get the necessities of life? Are those the people who drive "excessively" that you are pointing the finger at?

Oh, you mean the farmers who already receive agricultural tax breaks and subsidies? Not to mention, that is such a small percentage of the population...I figured you could have come up with a more substantial segment of the population to defend.

Any chance you realize where the food in the grocery store you go to comes from?

Nonetheless, I doubt the plan would be as black and white as you paint it. Certainly there would be exemptions.

And a whole new expensive bureaucracy to track all those "exemptions".

Additionally, (and I should have added this in my original post) I am working under the assumption that this would be in lieu of a federal gas tax, not in addition to.

This is called in the legal system, "assuming facts not in evidence".

And I figured you could have come up with more substantial logic to defend this latest piece of work from obama.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by ViperChili
What possible reason would the feds have to ever give up a revenue stream?

To lower prices at the pump and lay the burden on those that drive excessively. That's a fairly damn good reason.

And who determines excessiveness? You? The Government? You are living in a fantasy world if you think this would lower prices at the pump. It would be tacked on top of the current consumption tax that is already embedded into the gasoline prices.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
You are living in a fantasy world if you think this would lower prices at the pump.

There you have it.

"progressive" thinking does = fantasy world.

One where the government protects us all from potentially bad things - if you'll only just send them all your money to pay for it.

reply to post by boondock-saint


They would do it if they could.
Probably in the future when nut jobs get caught up in the air quality it will happen. Right after they create some air cleaning systems. Just like catalytic converters.... which do absolutely nothing, all the environmental controls just decrease the cars efficiency, yet increase the cost of purchasing and running (more gas) a car.

If they are stupid enough to mandate something that increases the amount of gas you use to drive, with the implication that it helps the environment... well... they have proven how stupid they are, just in it to get votes and money from lobbies.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Problem is with that scenario there would be hyper inflation. Without any type of balance in the system, you would see prices go through the roof.

I think we should reduce spending, stream line operations, eliminate uneeded departments with overlap, and enforce existing tax law.

A flat tax would be something to look at as a replacement to the current tax system.

reply to post by macman


they already do tax the air you breath aka the carbon tax and epa regulations that have all driven consumer goods up.



to the op stupidty in washington will never end. tax tax tax tax and spend is the only thing they know how to do.


to the rest cutting military budget 50% wont do crap when they are spending 3 trillion on entitlements you cut defense and then you will be spending 4 or 5 trillion on entitlements.

i am sick of the idiots in washington.

Mileage Tax Plan Nixed By Obama

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday rejected his transportation secretary's suggestion that the administration consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy.

"It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, when asked for the president's thoughts about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's suggestion, raised in an interview with The Associated Press a daily earlier.

Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood told the AP.

LaHood is a republican, he was appointed by Bush in 2006 and remained in the position after Obama came into office. This follows a string of proposals from republicans on taxing mileage, the earliest of which came from Bruce Starr (R-Oregon) in 2001 in, where he chaired the 2001 Road User Fee Task Force. The "Road User Fee Task Force" was established through HB 3946, passed by the 2001 Oregon Legislative Assembly. (House and Senate leaders were both republican).

Originally posted by Xcathdra

A flat tax would be something to look at as a replacement to the current tax system.

I can see it now. A flat tax but on top of all the other taxes. Some sort of American VAT.

And then flat tax supporters will get blamed for the bastardized version the gov hits the people with.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


I gave you a star on that because you are spot on! This simple taxation on the lack of use of petroleum products.

Much like the people in CO who can not collect their own rain water because it would take away water from the CA farmers who supply our winter food crops.

It is getting to the point for me, where I see the gross neglect our government has for our rights as humans. It is certainly not about the right to pursue happiness, but rather what they can do to ensure that their financial happiness is fullfilled at any cost.