|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Jan 4, 2009 11:58:20 GMT -5
Abrupt change of topic: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090103/ap_on_re_us/mileage_taxOregon exploring the possibility of taxing mileage instead of gas. Personally, I"m agin it. So the person who drives a Prius 100 miles gets taxed the same as a Hummer who drives 100 miles? Maybe they put the same amount of wear on the roads (which is unlikely), but they still do more harm to the environment, as well as using up vital resources. As more people drive more efficient cars, just raise the gas tax, if necessary. Still places a higher burden on those who use more gas which, to me, is more than just a "road-usage" issue. The biggest problem with gas taxes is that they are, by federal law, a fixed number of cents per gallon, rather than a percentage of the price. This keeps them from rising with inflation. Add that to improved mileage, and road building budgets consistently lose ground against inflation. People, in general, not speaking of anyone here, have weird ideas about road construction, maintenance, and repair costs, as if somehow governmental bodies are exempt from labor and materials costs and road construction is less complex and time-consuming than building a house. Bitter, bitter, bitter, sorry; Tim Eyman and Dino Rossi have worn out my patience for this issue, and having the quarter-mile traffic back-up at my corner start at 4am rubs on that sore place. Julia, I think the mileage thing is a surtax, anyway, and is meant to fund road demand by super communters, one of whom commutes six hours a day between my neighborhood and Salem, OR.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 4, 2009 16:35:13 GMT -5
Abrupt change of topic: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090103/ap_on_re_us/mileage_taxOregon exploring the possibility of taxing mileage instead of gas. Personally, I"m agin it. So the person who drives a Prius 100 miles gets taxed the same as a Hummer who drives 100 miles? Maybe they put the same amount of wear on the roads (which is unlikely), but they still do more harm to the environment, as well as using up vital resources. As more people drive more efficient cars, just raise the gas tax, if necessary. Still places a higher burden on those who use more gas which, to me, is more than just a "road-usage" issue. The biggest problem with gas taxes is that they are, by federal law, a fixed number of cents per gallon, rather than a percentage of the price. This keeps them from rising with inflation. Add that to improved mileage, and road building budgets consistently lose ground against inflation. People, in general, not speaking of anyone here, have weird ideas about road construction, maintenance, and repair costs, as if somehow governmental bodies are exempt from labor and materials costs and road construction is less complex and time-consuming than building a house. Bitter, bitter, bitter, sorry; Tim Eyman and Dino Rossi have worn out my patience for this issue, and having the quarter-mile traffic back-up at my corner start at 4am rubs on that sore place. Julia, I think the mileage thing is a surtax, anyway, and is meant to fund road demand by super communters, one of whom commutes six hours a day between my neighborhood and Salem, OR. Sorry, brain-dead, I can't tell whether you hate it or think it's great and hate the folks who oppose it. (Although, I think I understand that you have strong feelings in general, one way or the other )
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 4, 2009 16:52:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jan 4, 2009 18:08:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Jan 4, 2009 18:55:40 GMT -5
The biggest problem with gas taxes is that they are, by federal law, a fixed number of cents per gallon, rather than a percentage of the price. This keeps them from rising with inflation. Add that to improved mileage, and road building budgets consistently lose ground against inflation. People, in general, not speaking of anyone here, have weird ideas about road construction, maintenance, and repair costs, as if somehow governmental bodies are exempt from labor and materials costs and road construction is less complex and time-consuming than building a house. Bitter, bitter, bitter, sorry; Tim Eyman and Dino Rossi have worn out my patience for this issue, and having the quarter-mile traffic back-up at my corner start at 4am rubs on that sore place. Julia, I think the mileage thing is a surtax, anyway, and is meant to fund road demand by super communters, one of whom commutes six hours a day between my neighborhood and Salem, OR. Sorry, brain-dead, I can't tell whether you hate it or think it's great and hate the folks who oppose it. (Although, I think I understand that you have strong feelings in general, one way or the other ) Much more nuanced than that, The way that highway transportation projects are funded through the gas tax is fundamentally flawed, since there is no connection between road use and taxes, nor inflation taxes. And "that's not my understanding of the Oregon plan, from the way it's been reported in local media" atop. Julia, Washington and Oregon share a local regional cabel news network, so I hear a lot of Oregon news.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 5, 2009 12:47:00 GMT -5
I really do appreciate Nate Silver's commentaries on all manner of political trends: www.fivethirtyeight.com/Today's entry is on why there are no black senators and the (un)wisdom of gerrymandering congressional districts. And, in local news, Bill Frist has decided not to run for Gov. of TN. Hard to believe, but our current governor is a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 9, 2009 9:55:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jan 9, 2009 13:30:56 GMT -5
Yeah, the history of banana production and consumption really is fascinating. And it's not the kind of thing that you learn about in grade school. I remember reading somewhere else (it may have been in that other article that was referenced), that in the beginning, advertisements had to include instructions as to how to eat it. In other words, there was no concept of the banana, much less the demand for it and now it's one of the most generic fruits. So the companies created both the supply and the demand, and we've gone from "what is this banana you speak of?" to (if they knew about what is going on, that is) "No, don't take our bananas away from us!"
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 9, 2009 16:16:16 GMT -5
Yeah, the history of banana production and consumption really is fascinating. And it's not the kind of thing that you learn about it grade school. I remember reading somewhere else (it may have been in that other article that was referenced), that in the beginning, advertisements had to include instructions as to how to eat it. In other words, there was no concept of the banana, much less the demand for it and now it's one of the most generic fruits. So the companies created both the supply and the demand, and we've gone from "what is this banana you speak of?" to (if they knew about what is going on, that is) "No, don't take our bananas away from us!" Also, why is the history taught in school so boring when it could be about stuff like this? Or, at least repetitious. I mean, by 3rd grade all kids at least know something about the Pilgrims, Washington and Lincoln. With the easy availability of kilo-tons of information these days wouldn't it make more sense then in middle school and high school to give kids a long list of potential topics to be researched and then reported on to the class---everybody could followup one small thread about something that really sounded intriguing to them personally and then share with everyone else. Of course, on Friday's you'd have to have "memorize facts for the standardized tests" day.....
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 9, 2009 16:17:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 9, 2009 16:35:22 GMT -5
Oh! There's a mention for our University and our erstwhile Professor Vedder. He's kind of a celeb, in our tiny, celebrity-free town. Interesting article - unintended and unforeseen consequences are also unavoidable I think, with any sweeping legislation. I'm not sure I truly buy the causality he's postulating here, but I don't feel motivated to do the research to convince myself one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 9, 2009 16:44:26 GMT -5
Oh! There's a mention for our University and our erstwhile Professor Vedder. He's kind of a celeb, in our tiny, celebrity-free town. Interesting article - unintended and unforeseen consequences are also unavoidable I think, with any sweeping legislation. I'm not sure I truly buy the causality he's postulating here, but I don't feel motivated to do the research to convince myself one way or another. And even if there is some causality it still doesn't mean that at the time the law wasn't needed to help alleviate a persistent "evil." It sure is hard to know what effects things are going to have down the line is all and we can't be paralyzed into doing nothing. I often read this kind of stuff and post it just because I find it interesting --- not because I necessarily agree or even know where I stand on an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jan 9, 2009 17:10:26 GMT -5
Yeah, the history of banana production and consumption really is fascinating. And it's not the kind of thing that you learn about it grade school. I remember reading somewhere else (it may have been in that other article that was referenced), that in the beginning, advertisements had to include instructions as to how to eat it. In other words, there was no concept of the banana, much less the demand for it and now it's one of the most generic fruits. So the companies created both the supply and the demand, and we've gone from "what is this banana you speak of?" to (if they knew about what is going on, that is) "No, don't take our bananas away from us!" Also, why is the history taught in school so boring when it could be about stuff like this? Or, at least repetitious. I mean, by 3rd grade all kids at least know something about the Pilgrims, Washington and Lincoln. With the easy availability of kilo-tons of information these days wouldn't it make more sense then in middle school and high school to give kids a long list of potential topics to be researched and then reported on to the class---everybody could followup one small thread about something that really sounded intriguing to them personally and then share with everyone else. Of course, on Friday's you'd have to have "memorize facts for the standardized tests" day..... Well, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I know how I would respond to that. Suffice it to say that public education, no matter what country you're in, is highly political. It's easy for us to look at curriculum under the Nazi and Soviet regime and point to how the children were manipulated this way or that way; it's a lot harder to look at our own education system and accept that the decision to teach this and not is a similar attempt to shape (though possibly not to such an extreme degree) the values and behavior of our fellow citizenry. Because we ourselves all grew up in the system. On a less paranoid level, I'd say that kids are taught these sorts of things because most of the teachers don't know about them. Nor the school administrators nor the school board members. Because they were never taught them either and never happened to discover the curious twists of history on their own like we happened to.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jan 9, 2009 17:13:15 GMT -5
That's fascinating. I had no idea.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 9, 2009 18:27:27 GMT -5
Oh! There's a mention for our University and our erstwhile Professor Vedder. He's kind of a celeb, in our tiny, celebrity-free town. Interesting article - unintended and unforeseen consequences are also unavoidable I think, with any sweeping legislation. I'm not sure I truly buy the causality he's postulating here, but I don't feel motivated to do the research to convince myself one way or another. And even if there is some causality it still doesn't mean that at the time the law wasn't needed to help alleviate a persistent "evil." It sure is hard to know what effects things are going to have down the line is all and we can't be paralyzed into doing nothing. I often read this kind of stuff and post it just because I find it interesting --- not because I necessarily agree or even know where I stand on an issue. Keep it up, Sue. I love checking out your links.
|
|