National gas tax hike talk is back, or "Tax-by-mile" driven.

[bear1998]

Fleecing for sure- corporate tax breaks, stupid walls, bloated military.

Yea...lets pay Iran trillions instead of billions n of course....let the illegal immigrants do what they want....
Oh...DONT FORGET.......TAX TAX TAX....mark my words!!!
Remember when the previous liberal potus spents hundreds of millions on the solar energy that FAILED! Well...it was sold to chinese for less than what the TAX PAYERS. had invested in it.
Hope if you have any kids or other younger relations they pick up at least two more languages...

 

[LandCruiser]

How would they track miles driven to tax you? Would they have an IRS agent look at your car every year or would this be based on the honor system, like every other utopian fallacy? No way should the fed track our actual vehicles. That would mean they could find us at any given moment.

Eventually a GPS tracker.

The Patriot Act already took whatever was left of our freedoms away.

Covid made it worse.

 

[ElectroBoy]

Unless you want to pay "user fees" everywhere you drive (toll roads), you're gonna get taxed. If the per gallon Fed tax is removed and replaced with a miles driven tax, that seems equitable. As long as it really goes to transportation improvements. We're way behind.

But what do you want to bet the states and counties will hop on board this taxation scheme too?

 

[Jubsz]

I think sometime in the past they suggested that the Government would buy older cars to force people to buy new and improved milage versions.

The per mile tax was opposed buy the "greenies" when it was proposed before because they bought their rechargeable vehicles to avoid the gas tax and thought it was unfair that they be taxed.

Yes, Obama era cash for clunkers program. I forget if the # was 3k or 5k that they'd give for any vehicle. The problem with that program is that it drove up the prices of used cars, particularly at the bottom end of the spectrum. Something that was intended to be a good thing ended up hurting the most disadvantaged that needed transportation. $2,000 cars no longer existed for them because the gov't would pay $3,000 to see them off to the junkyard. Completely took the bottom end of the market out and drove up the price of other used vehicles because there was more competition to buy them.

Glad the greenies voted against a per mile tax... However, I do not think they will vote against it for the same reason/principle I want to vote against it. The gov't will just put in an exception for electric cars and the greenies will go along.

I was talking about the idea that keeping cars on the road longer prevents the resource utilization and emissions associated with the production of new vehicles. Exact opposite of cash for clunkers. Manufacturing vehicles creates a lot of emissions and uses natural resources. Part of the issue, and the biggest reason there is no admission that old cars can prevent environmental damage too, is that people do not want to hamper the auto manufacturers because of the productivity and number of jobs involved in that sector. The gov't is afraid to enact any policy that slows down the purchase of new autos. Cash for clunkers was meant to get old cars off the road and incentivize people to buy newer ones. Low interest rates and longer terms have allowed for the price of cars to go up and people to take on larger debt to buy them. Any question as to why auto manufacturers, lobbyists, and green energy people would agree to cash for clunkers? Look at who it hurt the most in the end, the most poor that need to buy sub $3k cars for transportation.... Somehow those people have largely concluded that the right answer is still more government. They're really good at enacting policy that enforces the exact outcome they're looking for and never has any adverse effects.

 

[jross20]

Take the politics somewhere else....

Normally I would agree...but this isn't really politics anymore.

 

[BobWheelerJr]

Diesel is the whopper of hidden taxes.
It used to be less than gasoline by at least $0.10/gal.
Now, many places it is more than gas, and that cost is passed down to us in this consumer-based society.

Many years ago (like 20) I bought a one-ton crew cab diesel Ford truck. Loved that damned thing. Extended bed, two 18 gallon tanks. 7.3 liter diesel.

Anyway, when I bought it plain old gas was like $1.20 a gallon, premium was a little over $1.50, and I was getting diesel for like $.80 because I could buy farm diesel (it's tinted red and you have to have farm tags to run it). Even the road diesel was like $.95 a gallon.

Since then diesels have become like the plague to the green movement and I can't for the life of my figure out why anyone would own one. Worse, the crap is basically vegetable oil. If you refine diesel two or three more times you can get gasoline.

Such a scam.

 

[BlackCloud]

If they institute a 1 time federal tax at time of vehicle sale, that would generate more revenue w/o tracking us.

The Supreme Court (b/c of the inevitable FBI abuse found in US vs. Jones) now requires police to obtain a search warrant in order to place a GPS tracker on your vehicle. In light of that, I can't see the Court allowing it for tax purposes.

UNITED STATES v. JONES | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[sstyota]

They already did. That awesome new tax "reform" that benefitted corporations and rich people has me paying another $2-3k in taxes every year.

And I'm not wealthy by any stretch.

Taxes serve a purpose. But what's screwed up is who ends up paying the bulk of them. A hint: it's NOT the people who can afford to make big campaign contributions.

And speaking of those kinds of people...

In a former lifetime, I used to work immigration violations. A border "wall" stopping illegal immigration is a promise almost as empty as shampoo that miraculously grows hair on bald men, or an email from an attorney in Nigeria who can make you rich if you help him out with a "small processing fee ." [emoji849].

It's a promise used by xenophobic politicians to folks who don't know any better.

Illegal immigration will continue as long as there are jobs for the illegals. And there will always be jobs when there are little or no consequences for the people who pay them. Why are there no consequences, you ask?

Excellent question. Because the CEO's, business owners, and wealthy stockholders make big campaign donations. And those they contribute money to end up putting political weight on the agencies charged with enforcing the law.

The way it used to work (and it's similar now, but the agency names and some of the terminology are different) was simple. If too many illegals start crossing and maybe there are a few high-profile crimes in the news, the political talking heads will tell us all that they're going to "get tough" on illegals and will tell the agencies to start hitting the meat plants, factories, etc. Then, when we started taking away their labor (even though it was always temporary), the companies start whining and the reins are pulled back.

I actually saw this happen: the INS investigations office in Bloomington, MN was in a big building with multiple tenants (not the federal building). There was a company contracted by building management to do the cleaning at night. It usually ended up that some of their employees were illegal. When the agency was told to "get tough," they'd round up people from their own building's cleaning crew. Otherwise, they let them be. It wasn't the law that dictated whether or not the cleaning guy could stay and work. It was politics. And while the owner of the cleaning company was probably not the kind of guy to have any influence, you can imagine the kinds of influence that DID come into play when you have politically-induced selective enforcement of the law (or don't) across the entire country.

So the only consequences were for the illegals, themselves. They got sent back, but were not criminally prosecuted or even "deported," per se. They were "Voluntarily Returned." By agreeing to go home on Uncle Sam's dime, they avoided criminal liability.

And they were back inside a month, anyway. If you want to make an illegal immigrant's day, arrest him inside the Hormel meat plant where he's working - in Minnesota, and in February - and tell him he's getting a free plane ride back to Mexico or Central America. A little vacation in the sun and, once he can feel his toes again, he's back.

So the entire "build a wall" campaign promise was probably the dumbest one I've seen in my lifetime.

So what do you tell those idiots who have fences in their yards and lock their doors?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RandyDaytona]

Locking your door is quite different. When you lock it, it usually keeps people out. It's also a small, single portal. So you CAN actually lock it and expect it to work.

The entire Southwest border cannot be "locked" in that manner. Even with a wall. There are walls and fences right now, but people go under and over them on a daily basis. There are places where entire sections of "wall" are razed every night so the smugglers can bring truckloads of people through. The government fixes it the next day, and the do it again somewhere else that night. These walls have to be manned with people in order to work, and there are not nearly enough.

For a wall to work, it would have to essentially be militarized, a la the Berlin Wall. And our country, which has styled itself as the "land of the free" for 200+ years, will never do that.

My plan to fix illegal immigration: let everyone in and let everyone work. You get a special SSN that allows that, and you pay into Social Security and pay taxes. However, you cannot draw any disability or retirement (or public assistance) until you become a citizen. And those requirements will be more difficult to meet, like 20 years' residency instead of just 5, REAL English proficiency and not the current lax standards, etc. Basically, you have to WANT to be a part of this country - not just a resident, here for economic reasons, only.