Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you care to clue us in specifically to what that "pork" is? Or are you just repeating something you heard on the Fair and Balanced® Entertainment Channel? One state's pork is another state's vitally necessary project.
NASCAR and other racing tax breaks. Rum manufacturers get new tax breaks. $9 billion to banks and manufacturers for active financing. Look it up yourself. The info is right there for anyone to see. Many, many, special interest breaks, for something that was purported to be a economic disaster for the average taxpayer. Taxes are still going up for many people, as is the debt, which was hardly addressed at all. What did it really accomplish? Milk won't double in price. Maybe if the government would get out of business the free enterprise market would take care of itself. The "fiscal cliff" seems to be just another way for some lawmakers to take care of their own, rather the country as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me007gold
Nothing illegal about it, Anything over 10 years old is exempt from mileage reporting any ways. I know for a fact that If I disconnect the cluster in my Trailblazer(06), the vehicle will still run 100% the same, and the only place the mileage is stored is in the cluster, its not in the pcm, not in the bcm, its in the cluster only.
If it's not illegal, and I think it is considered to be fraud in at least some states, it is unethical. Why does an odometer statement need to be signed when a car is purchased from a dealer if the mileage stated being correct isn't a concern?
There is only ONE mass transit system in the world where fares cover operating costs... Hong Kong.
(not even considering the capital costs to build the system which is always covered by taxpayers)
There are several, actually, but all of them are in Asia. The capital costs in HK's case are public-private, sort of like we use for stadiums, luxury condos, boutique hotels, marinas, pizzerias, bars, night clubs. And that's just in Sacramento. I'm more open to spending a few million on a public transit system that covers its operating costs than on a pizzeria as Sacramento does.
Well, you like having roads to drive on, don't you? How do you propose to pay for them if gas taxes are no longer bringing in enough money to keep them repaired? Someone has to pay, somehow. I'm sure the states are open to suggestions.
Why should we suggest it? It was their bright idea that gasoline usage had to be reduced and MPGs had to go up, quick before the North Pole melted and Santa's Elves drowned and all. You reap what you sew, this is the result of higher CAFE standards. Man up and increase the gas taxes and say "oops, we're really sorry but we didn't think supply and demand would impact OUR funds!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me007gold
Nothing illegal about it, Anything over 10 years old is exempt from mileage reporting any ways. I know for a fact that If I disconnect the cluster in my Trailblazer(06), the vehicle will still run 100% the same, and the only place the mileage is stored is in the cluster, its not in the pcm, not in the bcm, its in the cluster only.
If it's not illegal now, you really think they can't make it a requirement that all cars have a functional tamper-proof odometer as part of this program to big-brotherize the miles you drive?
I doubt that the miles driven can be kept tract of. Post 12 mentions using vehicle inspections to do that but many states in the middle of the country don't even any type of vehicle inspections which is good.
America is going the way of Old Rome. Towards the last days of the empire, the government would tax for the dumbest crap to keep the coffers going. A true example, if you and I are neighbors and you die, then the roman government would make ME pay YOUR taxes.
I've noticed in the last 20 years or so, that things you never got taxed for before is being taxed. If someone gives you a gift you have to pay taxes on it. When Oprah gave all of those wonderful teachers a free expensive car several years ago, they were hit with STATE/FED taxes for the vehicles. I don't know if Oprah paid it for them or not, but it goes to show how GREEDY this government has become.
I also don't believe we should be FORCED to pay for health insurance if we don't want it. This is called FORCED COMMERCE. Why can't they just make it a regular tax like they do for medicaid, social security, etc.? What if the government wants to force us to buy potatoes or corn and we don't want to, then what?
When does all of this stop?
When will Americans finally stand up and say THIS IS THE LAST STRAW AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE?!
A lot of those taxes came about because the folks were skipping out on earned income taxes.
Example, company could pay employee less but offer free housing, car, insurance, private tuition for kids, etc. This is an expense for the CO and so written off and no taxes paid, and since the employee didn't get paid as much he pays less in taxes. Everyone wins except the folks who earn regular income W2s.
As far as someone not wanting health insurance, I'm sorry but if that same someone didn't "want" health insurance but broke their arm are you saying they wouldn't go to the ER and get their arm patched up? Of course they would, and they'd be hit with a hugely inflated cash price bill for probably $15k and just walk away from it (many years worth of premiums) and leave the tax payer to handle it.
I'm not 100% sure but I believe this is what factored into the supreme court decision, because while you may want it or not you are GOING to use the healthcare system and if you have no insurance you probably aren't going to pay. Ironically, this will force all those folks that don't have insurance to get some sort of insurance, which no one seems to acknowledge. Getting off topic.
Don't want to pay higher gas taxes, don't go buy a Suburban for that DD to work with just yourself. We have a Prius, 50 MPG average, great car we really like it.
A lot of those taxes came about because the folks were skipping out on earned income taxes.
Example, company could pay employee less but offer free housing, car, insurance, private tuition for kids, etc. This is an expense for the CO and so written off and no taxes paid, and since the employee didn't get paid as much he pays less in taxes. Everyone wins except the folks who earn regular income W2s.
As far as someone not wanting health insurance, I'm sorry but if that same someone didn't "want" health insurance but broke their arm are you saying they wouldn't go to the ER and get their arm patched up? Of course they would, and they'd be hit with a hugely inflated cash price bill for probably $15k and just walk away from it (many years worth of premiums) and leave the tax payer to handle it.
I need to clarify, because I do not mind National Healthcare, but I do NOT want to pay SEPARATELY for it and then be "fined" a $1000 or given jail time if I don't pay into it.
This is MY problem with it. Why can't the government TAX it like they do all the other social programs?
What if I don't have a job or income? Then what happens to me? No one ever covers how this affects the unemployed and AGAIN, I have a problem with being FINED money or facing jail time for NOT paying it.
This bothers me greatly as it should you and everyone else. As much as I like Obama, I'm still confused as to how a judge found this legal. This falls under COMMERCE. What if a couple of years from now, we are forced to save the citrus industry in the country and MUST purchase several citrus products a month or face fines and/or jail?
A line needs to be drawn SOMEWHERE and soon is all I'm saying.
It's extreme micromanagement by the President & his tree-hegging buddies; Chevrolet sold just over 23,000 Volts in 2012, which means that we the people have unquestionably rejected greenmobiles due to their price tags and 'range anxiety'.
A proposed 'mileage tax' makes no more sense either.
I need to clarify, because I do not mind National Healthcare, but I do NOT want to pay SEPARATELY for it and then be "fined" a $1000 or given jail time if I don't pay into it.
This is MY problem with it. Why can't the government TAX it like they do all the other social programs?
What if I don't have a job or income? Then what happens to me? No one ever covers how this affects the unemployed and AGAIN, I have a problem with being FINED money or facing jail time for NOT paying it.
This bothers me greatly as it should you and everyone else. As much as I like Obama, I'm still confused as to how a judge found this legal. This falls under COMMERCE. What if a couple of years from now, we are forced to save the citrus industry in the country and MUST purchase several citrus products a month or face fines and/or jail?
A line needs to be drawn SOMEWHERE and soon is all I'm saying.
Your arguments have no merit (equating a person eating an orange if they desire to someone needing healthcare). If you don't have a job, then I suppose you need to come up with the $$ to pay for your yearly medical? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Hey if you don't, you'll still be able to go to a hospital. Plus there will be some sort of income restrictions that it won't apply if you are making below $xxk, no idea what they are though. I don't know why the fuss about this, it's actually going to hopefully make people pay at least SOMETHING to use the healthcare we have all been subsidizing. It's not so much of a "fine" (although worded as such I suppose) as it is a forced premium payment.
The only other solution is to limit those who have coverage or cash on hand to healthcare and allow hospitals to turn people away. Since that isn't really a human option, we can continue down our current path as more and more employers limit health coverage putting more of a burden on less of the population, or start charging everyone regardless. You'd think the Republicans would be all for it.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me007gold
Nothing illegal about it, Anything over 10 years old is exempt from mileage reporting any ways. I know for a fact that If I disconnect the cluster in my Trailblazer(06), the vehicle will still run 100% the same, and the only place the mileage is stored is in the cluster, its not in the pcm, not in the bcm, its in the cluster only.
Again it depends on the state, but here for example, mileage is not reported on sales but the law still says
in section 46.37.540 of the Revised Code of Washington:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to disconnect, turn back, turn forward, or reset the odometer of any motor vehicle with the intent to change the number of miles indicated on the odometer gauge. A violation of this subsection is a gross misdemeanor."
I thought it would throw a code P0500 if you drive with it disconnected. I have heard that the 2002-2006 had a lot of problems with their instrument panels and many were replaced so unless they still have the required driver door sticker indicating mileage before replacement a lot of them are wrong anyway.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
To each his own. I drive a short way to the park and ride but at the other end I walk over a mile, rain, snow or shine from the bus to the office. I enjoy the walk, and lost 10 lbs. after a couple of months doing it.
And no, mass transit does not ever pay for itself, and has to be subsidized by other revenue sources (taxes). Much of our current gas tax goes to it instead of to roads, a controversial violation of state law. Paying union bus drivers and mechanics, the cost of buses and fuel, transit centers and park & ride lots cost far more than the $3/trip fare. Then people with a transit pass are getting a discounted rate, and even lower when the employer subsidizes it and they buy in bulk like mine does.
But if ten million people ride mass transit every day, instead of driving and parking ten million cars, it is cheaper to subsidize the mass transit, than to build the traffic infrastructure to accommodate ten million additional cars. Besides, there are millions of American who cannot drive cars, for a variety of reasons, so there would need to be mass transit anyway, and if t hey are needed anyway, it makes sense to maximize the ridership, reducing the cost per rider, and that maximization can be achieved by subsidizing the ridership.
One thing that could be looked at is the necessity to make all mass transit handicap accessible, which is terribly costly, for a very tiny number of users. It would be cheaper to pay the cab fare for handicapped, rather than pay the huge additional cost of handicap accessibility, which is mostly done just to make handicapped people feel good and stroke their self-esteem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
