California drivers brace for costly new gas tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
I once heard that some gas taxes are rising as more people buy hybrid cars and diesel cars. The argument is that the extra efficient cars burden the road systems just as much as regular cars, but because they use less fuel, the tax revenue collected on fuel doesn't cover the cost of road maintenance.

Is the fuel tax really going to solve their budget problems?

Some other states are debating on how to deal with cars that use less fuel, but create the same burden on the road systems. One suggestion was to have the state tax agency note your odometer reading when you enter and leave a state. I'm not sure if that is going to work.
 
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I once heard that some gas taxes are rising as more people buy hybrid cars and diesel cars. The argument is that the extra efficient cars burden the road systems just as much as regular cars, but because they use less fuel, the tax revenue collected on fuel doesn't cover the cost of road maintenance.

Is the fuel tax really going to solve their budget problems?

Some other states are debating on how to deal with cars that use less fuel, but create the same burden on the road systems. One suggestion was to have the state tax agency note your odometer reading when you enter and leave a state. I'm not sure if that is going to work.


I believe the LAST thing you should give a spendthrift is more money...
 
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^hahaha, yeah, they don't want to discuss that inconvenient fact...

On the contrary, it's well-known lie. Should be rather obvious since that site looks like it was constructed by a 12-year old:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/...d-climate-data/


Peter Gleick? You mean the former chairman of the American Geophysical Union's task force on scientific ethics? The man that had to resign because he illegally phished for information from an opposition group? And likely forged documents in the same indecent?

That Peter Gleick?

Cherry picking? He references 130 years of records on a topic that involves geologic time scales?

And when historical temperature records continue to be altered:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/...-the-year-2000/

No serious conclusions can be made.
 
Quote:
Californians already pay the nation's second highest gas tax at 68 cents a gallon -- and now it will go up again in January to pay for a first-in-the-nation climate change law.


Fox News is wrong about that number; we're paying 71.3 cents per gallon in taxes.

Wikipedia
 
I believe the variance may be due to the sales tax, which varies based upon the price of a gallon. Do you know you have to pay sales tax on the federal gas tax and the state gas tax, in addition to the price of the product? Tax on a tax. What a country!
 
Canada has been doing that with the GST for a while.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Cherry picking? He references 130 years of records on a topic that involves geologic time scales?

So in short, ignoring your attempt to distract, are you saying it's still OK to cherry pick 17 years and 10 months to skew the data?

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

Because your guy has zero credibility it seems....

Well, according to wiki your guy has far less credibility, but I'll bet you didn't do the research.

Obviously you guys are free to think what you want, it's just banter. I'm just glad that most of the people actually in charge are slowly starting to accept what professional scientists are telling them.
 
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
I believe the variance may be due to the sales tax, which varies based upon the price of a gallon. Do you know you have to pay sales tax on the federal gas tax and the state gas tax, in addition to the price of the product? Tax on a tax. What a country!



Yes, an amazing fact to be sure. And supposedly illegal...
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME

California is already ahead of the game having only 2/3 of the total US CO2 output (per capita,) and less than many first-world countries. (source, page 11)
That, at least, is commendable.


Interesting report. I wonder why they left out this chart:
clip_image002.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

AGAIN, I say

WHAT?

How come it looks like an average (aka mean) warming of 0.24* ?
When you actually look at the Y axis numbers, you see that the high goes +0.8, while the low goes -0.1 (deception perspective possibly?). Looks like quite a bit warmer vs colder. Who's side is this graph supposed to support?

If they were trying to show no warming, the blue line would be at 0.0 mean change. The fact that its positive, shows an average warming.
 
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME


Obviously you guys are free to think what you want, it's just banter. I'm just glad that most of the people actually in charge are slowly starting to accept what professional scientists are telling them.
The "professional scientists" can't explain the "pause." Instead spewing dozens of theories. Why would you trust their opinion on the rest of the issue? The whole thing relied on models which were clearly wrong(that's settled for sure). What we knew for certain ten years ago: no ice, more hurricanes, etc. Today: "see what had happened was..."

Nor has anyone been able to explain why global warming would be bad if it did happen. All we know is that it'll be terrible despite actual known history indicating human civilization flourishing during warm periods. The massive sea level rise stuff has already been put to bed.
 
everyone should just give up on this thread.

People who are posting in this thread already believe what they believe; and aren't really looking for an exchange of ideas, but just looking for others to reaffirm their established POV.
 
Originally Posted By: earlyre
frankly I'm amazed this hasn't been locked yet..
Lock = politics time.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar

AGAIN, I say

WHAT?

How come it looks like an average (aka mean) warming of 0.24* ?
When you actually look at the Y axis numbers, you see that the high goes +0.8, while the low goes -0.1 (deception perspective possibly?). Looks like quite a bit warmer vs colder. Who's side is this graph supposed to support?

If they were trying to show no warming, the blue line would be at 0.0 mean change. The fact that its positive, shows an average warming.


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3481120/Re:_a_winter_for_the_ages?#Post3481120
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top