# GPS to help States charge you by Mile of Driving

### Taxes

 Next, they'll find some way of measuring the amount of air you breath and tax that also.

### Remember this

 The majority of the Interstate highways was constructed with 3 cents a gallon fed tax.
--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

### and?

 And probably most if not all toll highways/bridges were supposed to be free after they were paid for from tolls. So far they were paid years ago, sometimes many times over, and tolls are not only removed by are going up. So base on this precedent we should treat as natural this new per-mile-tax?

 The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day. The air that is inhaled is about 20-percent oxygen, and the air that is exhaled is about 15-percent oxygen, so about 5-percent of the volume of air is consumed in each breath and converted to carbon dioxide. Therefore, a human being uses about 550 liters of pure oxygen (19 cubic feet) per day. At 10 cents per liter per day. YEOW !!!!!!

### taxes

 spokybob wrote: The majority of the Interstate highways was constructed with 3 cents a gallon fed tax. So how do you tax the gallons of electricity used by all the new electric cars? It would be unfair for them not to pay for the roads! There is also the issue with all the people making their own bio diesel!
--
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

### air

 TheProf wrote: The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day. The air that is inhaled is about 20-percent oxygen, and the air that is exhaled is about 15-percent oxygen, so about 5-percent of the volume of air is consumed in each breath and converted to carbon dioxide. Therefore, a human being uses about 550 liters of pure oxygen (19 cubic feet) per day. At 10 cents per liter per day. YEOW !!!!!! Well that is unfair! Look at all those joggers/runners, and bicyclists out there gulping down all that air!
--
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

### air

 you forgot politicians senators congressmen all that hot air and BS promote global warming we should really be taxing them even more.

### and ...

 spokybob wrote: The majority of the Interstate highways was constructed with 3 cents a gallon fed tax. when gas was 30 cents a gallon and median annual family income was \$5000. The interstate highway system was an expensive government program for sure, but it has served us well.
--
Alan - Android Auto, DriveLuxe 51LMT-S, DriveLuxe 50LMTHD, Nuvi 3597LMTHD, Oregon 550T, Nuvi 855, Nuvi 755T, Lowrance Endura Sierra, Bosch Nyon

### Oregon is proposing to do

 Oregon is proposing to do this come February for electric cars. Washington State already charges a \$100 surchage to electric cars in lieu of tracking mileage. It's pretty stupid if you ask me.

### Electric cars do not emit

 Electric cars do not emit cancer causing pollutants unlike regular gas vehicles. Plus they are typically small vehicles. Smaller, lighter, cars do less road damage. They should get an economic and environmental discount. Call it even for not paying fuel taxes.

### Pay by the mile makes sense

 With more highly efficient and alternative fuel cars on the road it no longer makes sense to fund highways primarily with gasoline and diesel taxes. Fuel taxes could be reduced substantially and replaced with a fee based on your annual miles driven. That would a true user fee. It would not affect the nondriver and it is easier to make adjustments for public transportation or non-highway vehicles.
--
Brent - DriveLuxe 51 LMT-S

### Terrible

 I think taxpayers should demand that the government stop finding ways to tax us more and instead use the current revenue more wisely. Every year the federal government spends around \$50 billion in foreign aid. \$15 billion of this is in military aid. Why not stop all foreign aid? We can't even pave our own roads and fix our bridges right now! If one were to examine the government books, you'd find all kinds of waste, fraud and outright theft. If that keeps happening, then they have zero right to raise taxes for any reason. Even more significant is the cost of war. At one point, we were spending \$1 billion per day in Iraq and Afghanistan. The total cost of the war in Iraq is reported to be over \$3 trillion!! The Pentagon's budget is around \$700 billion a year! See this article for what all that money could have gone for: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-16/news/30078831... I feel the country's finances are being handled in a totally irresponsible manner. The government constantly spend more than they take in, they can't even take care of basic stuff like roads and bridges which only amounts to less than 5% of all revenue and yet they keep asking for more taxes. The government is like a little irresponsible brat that keeps asking for more and yet we keep giving it to them.

### I agree

 brentrn wrote: With more highly efficient and alternative fuel cars on the road it no longer makes sense to fund highways primarily with gasoline and diesel taxes. Fuel taxes could be reduced substantially and replaced with a fee based on your annual miles driven. That would a true user fee. It would not affect the nondriver and it is easier to make adjustments for public transportation or non-highway vehicles. A side effect of taxing per mile driven might be that more carpooling would take place. That would have the effect of reducing the amount of CO2 emitted and would be a way for politicians who deny that global warming exists to participate in the mitigation of the impact of CO2 without having to change their views. Putting a black box in every new car would be a way to keep track of miles driven and that data could be read on annual emissions inspections. Several levels of governments would use the proceeds. The federal government would use the funds for the interstate highway system; Cities would use the funds for the roads within their city limits and states would cover the rest. The per mile charges could be (and would be) set based on needs.

### I say NO

 jgermann wrote: Putting a black box in every new car would be a way to keep track of miles driven and that data could be read on annual emissions inspections. I can already see where you're going with this. You'll eventually want to tax people based on how much emissions they create? Yep, just more ways to tax us. It sounds like you're all for anything that puts more money into the pockets of the government. You're already anticipating where that money will go. I don't want some black box tracking the number of miles I drive and then reporting it to someone. That's my business and none of theirs. The gas tax is already a consumption tax proportional to your consumption. It already encourages driving more fuel efficient vehicles because you use less gas. But the government doesn't like that because they get less money so now they want to tax you by the mile. I say NO!

### Not trying to conserve gas

 class3 wrote: ... The gas tax is already a consumption tax proportional to your consumption. It already encourages driving more fuel efficient vehicles because you use less gas. But the government doesn't like that because they get less money so now they want to tax you by the mile. I say NO! You might consider that the gas tax is not uniform among the states. A good resource is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax At one time I would buy my fuel in Georgia even though I live in Tennessee because of the tax differential. As far as Tennessee was concerned, my contribution to their fuel tax was not proportional to my use of the roads in Tennessee. If the goal was to reduce the consumption of gas, then a proportional tax makes sense. However, the goal is to generate funds for the repair of the infrastructure that made the efficiencies of the mid to late last century possible - our highway system.

### Tax in Illinois & Iowa

 ILL = 60c Iowa = 40c Illinois has sales tax built into their tax. Looks like Illinois has tripled the sales tax per gallon in the last 10 years. I drive over to Iowa when my truck needs 35 gallons of gas. This week I saved 31 cents per gallon. I also get pure gas, not E-10 at Sams club over there. I save 2 ways.
--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

### I still say NO

 jgermann wrote: You might consider that the gas tax is not uniform among the states. A good resource is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax I am aware that the gas tax is not uniform among the states. You might consider that the vast majority of people do not live close enough to state borders to conveniently buy gas somewhere else. A good resource is the Census' population density maps: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/2010_census_profile_maps/... Even if you could, at some point, the distance driven to save on gas is offset by the gas you just used to get there. Also, what is your time worth to do all that? So the impact by these "cross border gas raids" in infinitesimal and certainly does not warrant putting monitoring devices in everyone's cars just to squeeze every ounce of "proper" tax out of us. Quote: However, the goal is to generate funds for the repair of the infrastructure that made the efficiencies of the mid to late last century possible - our highway system. I understand the goal, but I don't agree with the method. The article states we need around \$120 billion to fix this infrastructure. Instead of creating yet another tax scheme requiring monitoring devices, administration, etc. (yet more waste) I propose we stop foreign aid, stop wars, stop nature building and instead work on our own nation here. Doesn't that make more sense?

### Will need all of the above.

 class3 wrote: ... Instead of creating yet another tax scheme requiring monitoring devices, administration, etc. (yet more waste) I propose we stop foreign aid, stop wars, stop nature building and instead work on our own nation here. Doesn't that make more sense? It will not be that simple. I am one of the baby boomers and what we have created is a set of entitlements that will take all of tax revenue AND THEN SOME. I agree that we should stop spending on wars but I think that foreign aid is a necessary evil. Spend some time looking at how China is using foreign aid to gain the dependence of countries with abundant natural resources and you might conclude that we need to match that influence buying. We do need to work on our infrastructure so that we can be productive in the manufacture of goods. Even more, we need to spend on education so that we will have skilled workers in the future to take advantage of any revitalized infrastructure. When someone says that we need to stop taxing and instead stop spending, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of just how deep a hole we have dug by cutting taxes already. We will never get out of this hole except by increasing revenue - hard as that is to accept.

### well,

 class3 wrote: I understand the goal, but I don't agree with the method. The article states we need around \$120 billion to fix this infrastructure. Instead of creating yet another tax scheme requiring monitoring devices, administration, etc. (yet more waste) I propose we stop foreign aid, stop wars, stop nature building and instead work on our own nation here. Doesn't that make more sense? Rather than just carping about the proposal, suggest something that could add to the solution of keeping the roads and bridges in good repair.
--

### Odometer

 Doesn't the odometer tell how far you have driven? No need to get high tech with this. Sure, there is some inaccuracy, but it should be sufficient.
--
Streetpilot C340 Nuvi 2595 LMT

### I have solutions

 Box Car wrote: class3 wrote: I understand the goal, but I don't agree with the method. The article states we need around \$120 billion to fix this infrastructure. Instead of creating yet another tax scheme requiring monitoring devices, administration, etc. (yet more waste) I propose we stop foreign aid, stop wars, stop nature building and instead work on our own nation here. Doesn't that make more sense? Rather than just carping about the proposal, suggest something that could add to the solution of keeping the roads and bridges in good repair. It's ironic you said that because you just quoted three solutions I suggested! We can save billions if we recalled all our troops and started shutting down foreign military bases--just as I was "carping" about earlier. Here's a detailed list of US foreign aid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid Why is it necessary to give \$6.8 billion in military aid to Afghanistan? Or \$1 billion to Pakistan? Or \$1.3 billion to Egypt or \$2.8 billion to Isreal? Israel has a GDP of \$243 billion dollars. They can take care of themselves. Why is foreign aid a "necessary evil"? It sounds like we have to bribe other countries to be on our side otherwise other countries will gain influence? That's hogwash. We should mind our own business and simply be friends and trade with other countries, instead of bribing dictator and regimes as we have done in the past. The United States has not been a saint. The idea that only new revenues will dig us out of this hole is irresponsible. We need to make cuts and big ones. Look at these charts: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/recent_spending US total spending has almost doubled in just ten years. In 1999, it was about \$3 trillion. Now it's \$6 trillion in 2012. Why? Why? Why? 2012 doesn't feel that much different than 1999. Why does spending have to double? The population sure hasn't doubled. It was 280 million in 1999 and 311 million today. We've been racking up \$1 trillion deficits every single year for the last four years. That means spending more than you take in by almost 30%! The deficit was growing by hundreds of billion under Bush as well. This totally irresponsible and needs to stop. It's ridiculous to ask for more money when they can't even stay within budget. Would you give your child more money if they can't spend it wisely? Having this kind of mentality is what will make the hole get deeper.

### Truth

 catalyt1ca wrote: Electric cars do not emit cancer causing pollutants unlike regular gas vehicles. Plus they are typically small vehicles. Smaller, lighter, cars do less road damage. They should get an economic and environmental discount. Call it even for not paying fuel taxes. Oh please tell me where all the electricity comes from!?!? Not nuclear powerplants with radioactive wastes, nor coal burning plants perhaps? Just because the pollution is not right in your face does not mean it is not produced! I won't even go into how toxic producing those cars is.....
--
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

### The Cars themselves dont

 For those of you who say electric cars don't pollute. Think again they do unless you have a personal power source as in windmill, hydro-dam, solar cell, or a hand/pedal cranked gen. That power has to come from somewhere. As in coal, natural gas, oil, nuke, wind, solar and so on. El cars are good but just don't think they are the silver bullet to the gas/energy probs of the roads.

### And

 onestep wrote: catalyt1ca wrote: Electric cars do not emit cancer causing pollutants unlike regular gas vehicles. Plus they are typically small vehicles. Smaller, lighter, cars do less road damage. They should get an economic and environmental discount. Call it even for not paying fuel taxes. Oh please tell me where all the electricity comes from!?!? Not nuclear powerplants with radioactive wastes, nor coal burning plants perhaps? Just because the pollution is not right in your face does not mean it is not produced! I won't even go into how toxic producing those cars is..... Don't forget the pollutants involced in producing, shipping, and disposing of those giant batteries in electric/hyrbid vehicles.

### no black box

 class3 wrote: jgermann wrote: Putting a black box in every new car would be a way to keep track of miles driven and that data could be read on annual emissions inspections. ~snip~ I don't want some black box tracking the number of miles I drive and then reporting it to someone. ~snip~ For states with an annual inspection just read the odometer, no need for a black box tracking anyone for any reason, too much government intrusion in our lives already. Who's to say that black box wouldn't end up tracking for other reasons, maybe a yearly review of how you drive, not in par with how the gov't wants, fine you or suspend your license. Give them an inch they want 100 miles. You can win with gov't. First they want more efficient cars then they realized with such they lose tax money in fuel needed. I agree the gov't needs to better spend it's money, just like the rest of us have to do. Stop penalizing us for their shortcomings. Let the rest of the world fend for itself, lets take care of our own for a change, the rest of the world hates us anyway, well except for our money and knowledge.
--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

### Batteries for electric cars

 What do they do with those batteries? I thought the cores were lead or lead based? If true then after the batteries have been recycled all they can what happens to the cores?

### Howstuffworks.com

 gus2259 wrote: What do they do with those batteries? I thought the cores were lead or lead based? If true then after the batteries have been recycled all they can what happens to the cores? There are three major types of batteries that companies use or are considering for use in hybrid cars: lead-acid, nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) and lithium-ion (Li-ion). By far, lead-acid is considered the most toxic of the three, and on top of that it's also extremely heavy, reducing some of the fuel efficiency gains from the electric motor
--
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

### Are they solutions?

 class3 wrote: Box Car wrote: class3 wrote: I understand the goal, but I don't agree with the method. The article states we need around \$120 billion to fix this infrastructure. Instead of creating yet another tax scheme requiring monitoring devices, administration, etc. (yet more waste) I propose we stop foreign aid, stop wars, stop nature building and instead work on our own nation here. Doesn't that make more sense? Rather than just carping about the proposal, suggest something that could add to the solution of keeping the roads and bridges in good repair. It's ironic you said that because you just quoted three solutions I suggested! We can save billions if we recalled all our troops and started shutting down foreign military bases--just as I was "carping" about earlier. Your "solutions" cause more problems than they resolve. Granted, a lot of foreign "aid" could be classified as bribery, but still more does provide true aid to those that receive it. Shutting off foreign aid leads to isolationism, which is something that has been tried and found to be another failed utopian concept. Foreign aid is closely aligned with trade, so stopping one impacts the other as not all aid is monetary. Stopping foreign trade impacts business and that affects all walks of life. With little or no raw materials nor places to buy our products, then there isn't need for manufacturing plants is there? Where would you propose we get the wealth to support those millions that would be out of work with no jobs in manufacturing? Your suggestions lack any real way of implementing them because the impacts on our economy would be devastating. I'll also lay odds there are very few here that have looked into the issue of charging for miles traveled rather than a tax on fuel. Fuel taxes vary from state to state as others have noted. The revenue from the taxes in each state are supposed to go to transportation projects however, many state governments have "raided" or "borrowed" from these funds to support other projects not related to transportation. This is the same issue our US Congress has with funds supposedly set aside for specific purposes. It seems whenever the politicians see money sitting in a dedicated fund, they feel it needs to be put to use for almost any project other than for what it was designated. The premise behind taxing based on the vehicle miles traveled is a charge would be levied against a vehicle and its owner based on the distance it traveled. The money collected would then be distributed to each locality based on the number of miles traveled within their boundaries. The State of Oregon has a pilot project currently running where volunteers have devices on their vehicles. These drivers receive a refund on all state gas tax paid within the state and, in exchange, pay a flat fee for the miles traveled within the state. As an example, say a river fills his tank in Portland and then makes a round trip to Seattle. They would be credited for the fuel tax and then pay the state back for the few miles the vehicle was on Oregon roads. Washington state would receive nothing, much as it is today with the tax being collected at the pump.
--

### Federal plan

 I reread the article. I do not see any plan to compensate the states or to keep track of where the vehicles traveled. Quote: ow the federal government's top accountant has told Congress it should experiment with taxing drivers by the mile to make up billions of dollars in shortfalls. The debate isn't whether you'll pay more to drive in the future, but how you'll pay And then Quote: In the Nevada and Oregon tests, drivers had devices installed on their cars that sent data to special fuel pumps; those pumps automatically adjusted their fees based on how far the vehicles had driven, without revealing data that would amount to tracking drivers.
--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

### Changing With The Times

 Apart from the whole misappropriation question (where supposedly targeted taxes are diverted to "general revenues"), I think that the idea of a tax on gasoline as a proxy for road usage was reasonable at the time. However, times change and such a tax may someday resemble a special tax on oats to pay for horseshoe damage to roadways, manure removal, etc..

### Another way

 VersatileGuy wrote: Apart from the whole misappropriation question (where supposedly targeted taxes are diverted to "general revenues"), I think that the idea of a tax on gasoline as a proxy for road usage was reasonable at the time. However, times change and such a tax may someday resemble a special tax on oats to pay for horseshoe damage to roadways, manure removal, etc.. The only way the gas tax would not be relevant is if huge numbers of electric cars starting hitting the roads. That's just not very likely for a long time. The numbers prove that right now. Also, electric vehicle owners aren't really saving that much money even if they don't pay the gas tax. They pay huge premiums on the car as is and then they have to replace the extremely expensive battery after some time. The best thing to do to save money and the environment is to buy a reliable car and use it for a long, long time. I've used my Honda for 12 years now. But here's something to think about. Maybe the gas tax and any future tax by mile/GPS really isn't needed at all! If we just made cuts elsewhere like with the military and stopping wars, we could easily fund all of infrastructure with current revenue. If we did that, we wouldn't have to worry about how to tax different vehicles by their fuel/energy (they still pay a registration fee for the vehicle). Then everyone would have more money in their pocket that they could spend how they see fit and this would help the economy!

### Not so

 class3 wrote: VersatileGuy wrote: ... If we just made cuts elsewhere like with the military and stopping wars, we could easily fund all of infrastructure with current revenue. If we did that, we wouldn't have to worry about how to tax different vehicles by their fuel/energy (they still pay a registration fee for the vehicle). Then everyone would have more money in their pocket that they could spend how they see fit and this would help the economy! Cutting military and stopping wars is a good idea, I agree. However, that will not be enough to fund the entitlement programs that are in place now. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will, in a generation, require all of the current taxes.

### Apathetic Bloody Planet, I've No Sympathy At All....

 The government does not serve in the best interests of the governed, and the ideas presented in the first post of this thread yet again prove this. However, nothing is done because the bulk of the adults in this country have become so apathetic and complacent that they're simply willing to let it all happen. Change comes from education and information. However, it's impossible to bring about change when 90% or more of your adult population is saddled with a sub-par education and is spoonfed news the government wants broadcast by news outlets so the population can see, hear, or read it. Many citizens of the US think they have it so good because of all the material things they have acquired. Those same citizens think that the government can protect us from the "evils" that surround us, only to be blinded to the truth of the matter: the evil is within. The countries around us are not the evil ogres the government has made them out to be. Citizens of the US, if they bothered to spend any time learning a little about the world instead of accepting as writ what appears on the television, would know this. The true evil is in Washington D.C., not in the form of the President of the United States, but in the congressmen and senators who have let power and greed corrupt them, rather than serve those who elected them. Congressmen and senators are elected officials, and they are in Washington to serve us. Serving in our best interests is why they have been elected, however they have forgotten this in the push to expand their personal wealth and their prestige. They aren't being reminded of that fact either, because the bulk of the citizens of this country have become apathetic: they are too far removed from the goings on in the nation's capital, thanks to the lack of education and government-sponsored misinformation. The sad truth is that the average citizen of the US no longer cares about his country. The ones who do are vastly outnumbered. Thus, the government will continue to lumber on and do what it has been doing for the last half-century, because there's no one to stop them. By the time the citizens do start caring, it will be too late.
--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

 Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote: The government does not serve in the best interests of the governed, and the ideas presented in the first post of this thread yet again prove this. However, nothing is done because the bulk of the adults in this country have become so apathetic and complacent that they're simply willing to let it all happen. Change comes from education and information. However, it's impossible to bring about change when 90% or more of your adult population is saddled with a sub-par education and is spoonfed news the government wants broadcast by news outlets so the population can see, hear, or read it. Many citizens of the US think they have it so good because of all the material things they have acquired. Those same citizens think that the government can protect us from the "evils" that surround us, only to be blinded to the truth of the matter: the evil is within. The countries around us are not the evil ogres the government has made them out to be. Citizens of the US, if they bothered to spend any time learning a little about the world instead of accepting as writ what appears on the television, would know this. The true evil is in Washington D.C., not in the form of the President of the United States, but in the congressmen and senators who have let power and greed corrupt them, rather than serve those who elected them. Congressmen and senators are elected officials, and they are in Washington to serve us. Serving in our best interests is why they have been elected, however they have forgotten this in the push to expand their personal wealth and their prestige. They aren't being reminded of that fact either, because the bulk of the citizens of this country have become apathetic: they are too far removed from the goings on in the nation's capital, thanks to the lack of education and government-sponsored misinformation. The sad truth is that the average citizen of the US no longer cares about his country. The ones who do are vastly outnumbered. Thus, the government will continue to lumber on and do what it has been doing for the last half-century, because there's no one to stop them. By the time the citizens do start caring, it will be too late. your post is really spot on, the only thing I could say is you left out one group, the bureaucrats, politicians come and go but the bureaucrats stay on kind of like roaches. Don't know if your familiar with Jerry Pournelle, he has what he calls the 'Iron Law of bureaucracy', to bottom line it, once a bureaucracy is formed it will do what ever it takes to protect itself, even to the detriment of job it was originally intended to do.

### IMO

 If you ever have the inclination to buy a hybrid consider this. I'll use a Ford Fusion as an example. The regular gasoline powered Fusion is \$5,500 cheaper to buy than the hybrid version. Wouldn't it be better to buy the regular Fusion and a \$5,000 Gas card if your only reason to buy a hybrid is to save money?
--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

### Or disposing of the batteries

 onestep wrote: catalyt1ca wrote: Electric cars do not emit cancer causing pollutants unlike regular gas vehicles. Plus they are typically small vehicles. Smaller, lighter, cars do less road damage. They should get an economic and environmental discount. Call it even for not paying fuel taxes. Oh please tell me where all the electricity comes from!?!? Not nuclear powerplants with radioactive wastes, nor coal burning plants perhaps? Just because the pollution is not right in your face does not mean it is not produced! I won't even go into how toxic producing those cars is..... Didn't you know that the electricity to recharge these car comes from wind and solar farms
--
All the worlds indeed a stage and we are merely players. Rush

### Once a Tax always a tax

 Here in Indiana we have a: - Wheel Tax - and a tax to pay for the local jail both of these taxes were suppose to be temporary but they have been in place for several years now (about 5-7 years or longer) The lottery here was suppose to be used for Schools and roads but yet our school are closing and teachers are being laid off and the roads and bridges are falling apart. Now you have the new Fica 2% tax. Did anyone notice after this was put into place The president gave everyone a raise in the Government. These new taxes never go for what they are suppose to go for. Stop helping all the other nations and focus on the USA. Makes me wonder what new tax they will come up with next.
--
Garmin Nuvi 3597, Garmin StreetPilot 2720, Garmin 76CSx (Hand Held), Iphone 6S Plus

### Milage

 Last Mrk wrote: If you ever have the inclination to buy a hybrid consider this. I'll use a Ford Fusion as an example. The regular gasoline powered Fusion is \$5,500 cheaper to buy than the hybrid version. Wouldn't it be better to buy the regular Fusion and a \$5,000 Gas card if your only reason to buy a hybrid is to save money? Plus some people buy them and live in the wrong areas, there are 2 Hybrid Escape owners that live in my area (Northumberland Hills) getting 12+L/100KM, V6 Escapes are getting 9-10. I'm averaging 8-9 with a 4 cyl Escape and I have a heavy foot.
--
All the worlds indeed a stage and we are merely players. Rush

### The Iron Law of Bureaucracy

 blake7mstr wrote: Don't know if your familiar with Jerry Pournelle, he has what he calls the 'Iron Law of bureaucracy', to bottom line it, once a bureaucracy is formed it will do what ever it takes to protect itself, even to the detriment of job it was originally intended to do. I know who he is, but I've not read any of his works. Thus, I wouldn't be familiar with the Iron Law of Bureaucracy, but damn if it isn't a spot on one-sentence assessment of the government, even if the original premise dealt solely with bureaucrats.
--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

### Moderation

 This thread has been lightly moderated. Please keep on topic and refrain from making personal attacks. http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28855 ~Angela