On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:11:32 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"mmc" wrote in message
ng.com...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jaustin/ICE.html

Yeah, these guys living off Global Warming funding say it's rising
.06C/yr!

By the year 5485, it may be warm enough, if this rapid trend continues,
TO
SWIM IN!

Global Warming - Your CO2 tax dollars at work.....



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

I really think the resistance to anything that could be considered as
environmentally responsible stems from the same "me generation" thinking
as people who want to do something about the homeless but just can't skip
thier next latte and give the $4 to the man/woman on the corner instead.
It's like the friggin stupidity (not caring if this insults -it is
incredibly stupid) of the "conservative" legislators squealing about Obama
setting new mileage standards.
"It's my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to protect my family" by driving a friggin
SUV that's as big a tractor trailer. These sure look like the same
assholes that were preaching energy independence not too long ago.
Yeah. We Americans can get behind anything as long as we aren't expected
to sacrifice anything AT ALL for it. Well, maybe we can buy the $1.95
yellow ribbon to show our support for the troops but it's only because we
don't want to be seen as unsupportive!
We couldn't support a WWII nowadays like our parents did - we're too
friggin spoiled. We're 5 year old children being told to share our cookies
with a sibling.
memememe, I got mine but I want more, more, more! has screwed america.



I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All
they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel
costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the
morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the
first to the next stop light.


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.

--
KLC Lewis

Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations!
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.


I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
news

I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Okay, but horsepower is related to displacement and vice-versa. The active
displacement of my Impala's engine when it's only running on 3 cylinders is
half that of when it's running on all six. It would seem unfair to tax me
based on the maximum displacment volume of my engine when it doesn't use its
full displacment all the time, and taxing it the same as an engine which
*doesn't* turn off half its cylinders to conserve fuel.

But I do agree about the "lip service" bit.

--
KLC Lewis

Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations!
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:18:40 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:




"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
news

I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Okay, but horsepower is related to displacement and vice-versa. The active
displacement of my Impala's engine when it's only running on 3 cylinders is
half that of when it's running on all six. It would seem unfair to tax me
based on the maximum displacment volume of my engine when it doesn't use its
full displacment all the time, and taxing it the same as an engine which
*doesn't* turn off half its cylinders to conserve fuel.

But I do agree about the "lip service" bit.


The point is that you don't know what horsepower your auto is capable
of producing. While "Horse Power" is usually thought of as a simple
formula based on torque and RPM when it comes time to measure an
automobile engine there are variables - should the generator be
included? What about the water pump?

First of all there are several standards for horse power

Mechanical Horse Power = 745.6999 Watts
Metric = 735.49875
Electrical = 746.00
hydraulic = 745.6999
even Boiler = 9809.5 Watts

Secondly there are many, many methods of arriving at a horse power
figure, certainly more then I care to list here (see the Wikipedia
explanation for details).

Certainly there are many methods of indirectly controlling emissions
and a tax on engine size is only one of them. However, it is an easy
system to implement and readily understandable by most, and I suggest,
as equitable as possible, considering the entire vehicle using public.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.


I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It should be based on Vehicle weight.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.


I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It should be based on Vehicle weight.


Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P.

A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:28:10 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
m...


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.


I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It should be based on Vehicle weight.


Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P.

A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It should be based on weight. That is a system that has been used
since there have been motor Vehicles.

There are very few F-1 cars used for commuting to work or taking kids
to soccer games. Probably not street legal, either.

There are already Federal mileage standards which by themselves
completely negate your theory anyway.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:56:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:28:10 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
om...


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.


I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It should be based on Vehicle weight.


Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P.

A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It should be based on weight. That is a system that has been used
since there have been motor Vehicles.

There are very few F-1 cars used for commuting to work or taking kids
to soccer games. Probably not street legal, either.

There are already Federal mileage standards which by themselves
completely negate your theory anyway.


I agree that there are few F1 cars registered on the road. I was
simply using the genus to illustrate that weight is not an indication
of emissions - which, if you'll remember WAS the point of this thread.

The federal mileage standard are ludicrous. what are they now? 35
miles/gallon? Jesus! My diesel pickup does that now and it is six
years old.

As I wrote befo

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...

I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.

I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
It should be based on Vehicle weight.


Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P.

A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
I have a solution: NO NEW TAXES. Lets not use the tax system as a
vehicle for social change. There are some people who need a large
vehicle to complete their daily errands, and their need will exist no
matter what the liberals want.