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.
You folks remember during the 2007/2008 drought when we were told to conserve water? We did, our bills went down, revenue decreased and the following year the rates were raised? This is the same thing. Nobody complained about the water rates though because the Democrats were in control. So quit being hypocrites. You cannot remove a revenue source and not expect the government to compensate.
AS I said in my earlier first post I understood the need but I do agree we are pentalizing for fuel efficiency.
The beauty of the gas tax anyone who travels from another state and stops and fills up in NC contribute to the tax.
This budget proposal doesnt consider out of state electric cars not contributing to the pot since they do not register and pay the 100 dollar fee so....
Hybrids, they may pump less and that debatable in how it used would be tax twice.
Hybrids only work off electric during slow speeds like traffic or neighborhood driving.
Part of me, like go for it because I spend more time driving on the interstates in this state that I would never own a hybrid for it to be effective.
Plus they are able to get a tax deduction to pay for their fee.
Raise the sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol including the wineries would be better.
Last edited by SunnyKayak; 05-23-2013 at 05:06 AM..
You folks remember during the 2007/2008 drought when we were told to conserve water? We did, our bills went down, revenue decreased and the following year the rates were raised? This is the same thing. Nobody complained about the water rates though because the Democrats were in control. So quit being hypocrites. You cannot remove a revenue source and not expect the government to compensate.
Hypocrites? First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about with the water rates. The rates where I live have increased, but not because of lower usage. They increased to pay for infrastructure improvements, for which I have no problem helping out. Secondly, the issue we're discussing is not whether to remove a revenue source, but rather the fairness of tax policy. Gasoline taxes are intended to fairly spread the cost of road construction and maintenance. It's been considered a fair method because the per mile cost of gas was relatively similar for most drivers. But the introduction of electric cars, along with increased efficiency of gas engines, has skewed the burden toward those with less efficient vehicles. I think we've all agreed in earlier posts that the concept of making up the difference is reasonable. But the rub in this approach is that it may discourage buyers from purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles, which most would agree is not a good thing for the environment and our energy policy. That's what we're talking about here, and no one is being a hypocrite.
You folks remember during the 2007/2008 drought when we were told to conserve water? We did, our bills went down, revenue decreased and the following year the rates were raised? This is the same thing. Nobody complained about the water rates though because the Democrats were in control. So quit being hypocrites. You cannot remove a revenue source and not expect the government to compensate.
Fine. Property tax cars by how fuel inefficient they are. Raise the gas tax.
It'll make more money.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
For a bunch of people who slavishly worship at the altar of business like it's a Sumerian fertility goddess they really suck at figuring out how to shift capital structures.
For a bunch of people who slavishly worship at the altar of business like it's a Sumerian fertility goddess they really suck at figuring out how to shift capital structures.
That's because they're idiots.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
They want to charge a fee for fuel efficient vehicles but issue permanent tags for privately run charter schools which would exempt them from fees and inspections. They really don't make much sense down there on Jones Street.
They want to charge a fee for fuel efficient vehicles but issue permanent tags for privately run charter schools which would exempt them from fees and inspections. They really don't make much sense down there on Jones Street.
It's pretty simple actually, those who drive fuel efficient cars are usually smart people. Smart people didn't vote these clowns into office, so they are trying to stick it to those who didn't support them. That is one reason and another is the clowns running this state got a lot of their money from the fossil fuel industry.
It's pretty simple actually, those who drive fuel efficient cars are usually smart people. Smart people didn't vote these clowns into office, so they are trying to stick it to those who didn't support them. That is one reason and another is the clowns running this state got a lot of their money from the fossil fuel industry.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
