quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Sure, Ken. As they illustrated forcing through Obamacare, the Dems wouldn't do anything without getting bipartisan support...

Rocks and glass houses, kiddo, rocks and glass houses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the bulk of driving takes place with the use of gasoline.
Thought you should know.

But, it's not the gasoline that is the cause of the road damage, is it?

And, I'm not sure you're aware, but the amount of gasoline that is used to travel a mile seems to be going down, so the ratio between the amount of miles traveled on the roads vs. the amount of gasoline used is rising.

Thought you should know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the bulk of driving takes place with the use of gasoline.
Thought you should know.

But, it's not the gasoline that is the cause of the road damage, is it?
And, I'm not sure you're aware, but the amount of gasoline that is used to travel a mile seems to be going down, so the ratio between the amount of miles traveled on the roads vs. the amount of gasoline used is rising.
Thought you should know.

You have successfully passed Sanity as the biggest clown on this forum. Congratulations!
Perhaps, if you think really, really hard, you'll be able to figure out the connection between using gasoline in vehicles and wear and tear on the roads.
A lot of things other than driving cause wear and tear -- extremes of weather and snow plows in particular up here.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No, they're not maintained, because the fat cat government cronies refuse to adequately fund them.

One major economic advantage the US has is its infrastructure. If we actually let it crumble, we'll lose that advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the bulk of driving takes place with the use of gasoline.
Thought you should know.

But, it's not the gasoline that is the cause of the road damage, is it?
And, I'm not sure you're aware, but the amount of gasoline that is used to travel a mile seems to be going down, so the ratio between the amount of miles traveled on the roads vs. the amount of gasoline used is rising.
Thought you should know.

You have successfully passed Sanity as the biggest clown on this forum. Congratulations!
Perhaps, if you think really, really hard, you'll be able to figure out the connection between using gasoline in vehicles and wear and tear on the roads.
A lot of things other than driving cause wear and tear -- extremes of weather and snow plows in particular up here.

I'm surprised at my latest "triumph."

I understand the relationship between gasoline use and wear and tear to roads. But, if we simply use taxes on gasoline to support maintenance for the wear and tear, then we aren't really taxing that which is causing the wear and tear. And, for those vehicles that don't use gasoline, they may not be paying their "fair share" for the wear and tear they are causing.

Extreme case, if every person in America switched to an all-electric vehicle for non commercial driving, only commercial vehicles will be paying the taxes, yet commercial vehicles aren't the only ones contributing to the wear and tear on the roads.

But, yeah, let's just tax gasoline and peg it to inflation. That'll solve everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
We should tax the weather (and the snowplows; most of which run on diesel fuel, around here).
I think, if we want to worry about rebuilding the infrastructure (and we should) then we should take a page out of the democrats playbook but, we should do it, correctly:
A few years back, our failure-in-chief said: "You didn't build that". Most of the intelligent people know he was trying to take a shot at entrepreneurialism but, he tried to back-peddle, saying he was talking about infrastructure. If we accept that (and I don't), he was right (but for the wrong reason).
Most of the damage to our roads can be traced to weather (we can't tax that) and larger vehicles (trucks). I would support raising taxes on diesel fuel or commercial truck registration.
Further, we need to tax the "citizens" who are using those trucks to get their goods delivered. We can kill two birds with one stone, here, also. I'm not very good with math but, there has to be a certain number that we can raise taxes (for infrastructure repair/rebuilding) and offer some companies a break that will still ensure they pay more for the repairs but, not bleed them to death. At the same time, we can help working Americans.
For a lot of different reasons (but Obummercare being a big one), it is very difficult for Americans to find and maintain full-time employment. Of course it's because of corporate greed but let's see:
If we need to increase taxes by 4 percent to cover costs of infrastructure, we could jack up their corporate taxes by (I am NOT claiming that these numbers work out. I'm giving an example) ... 6 percent and then offer a 2 percent discount if 80 percent of their workforce is based in this country and 75 percent are full-time employees.
We still get our 4% and if the companies want to save 2%, they hire more people full-time which helps the American worker. Everyone (except the scumbag politicians) feels like they won a little and lost a little. That's the result of a successful negotiation.
Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Yeah, I was laughing at him too, thinking let's just tax the weather.
As far as won a little lost a little -- that's how politics USED to work, back in 1980. Now, everything is all or nothing...so we get nothing.
But in the case of maintenance, nothing turns to entropy, subtracting from what we do have.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I think both of you have missed what I was trying to say. I don't believe taxing gas is the right way to go about stuff. 20 years ago, the company I worked for had 3 straight trucks and none ran on gasoline. One was diesel, but the other two were propane. If we up the taxes on propane, we'll also be taxing grillers and people who rely on propane for residential heating/cooking fuel to pay for roads. That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

There may be merit in a "mileage" tax, though, with rates differing according to vehicle type. That way, a commercial truck will pay more than a family car, which would be "fair" considering the increased wear and tear from a commercial truck). Plus, that means a Honda Civic (for instance) with a gas engine pays the same rate as a Civic with a Hybrid engine, a Nat.Gas engine or a Hydrogen Fuel engine. If owners of all those Hondas all drove the same number of miles, they would all pay the same tax, which would be more akin to being "fair," as the wear and tear on the roads would be pretty much the same. With a gasoline tax, that isn't the case.

Isn't it better to do things the right way, rather than just to do anything so you can say you're doing something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


You have successfully passed Sanity as the biggest clown on this forum. Congratulations!

Perhaps, if you think really, really hard, you'll be able to figure out the connection between using gasoline in vehicles and wear and tear on the roads.

A lot of things other than driving cause wear and tear -- extremes of weather and snow plows in particular up here.