| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
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. |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
|
|
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
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) |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:05:03 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: 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 news:3lbi251s1p4f30ft0e3q14v0haod3co6h3@4ax. com... 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. For passenger cars, weight is a very valid and practical method of assesing tax. It's been done that way for a hundred years. I can even remember Florida License plates with letters on them indicating weight class. Bigger cars paid more. That was in the 1950's. I'm not sure if they still do it. 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. That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get better mileage is reduce weight. Ther should also be a "Nuttle surcharge" for anyone with that name. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:26:16 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:05:03 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: 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 news:3lbi251s1p4f30ft0e3q14v0haod3co6h3@4ax .com... 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. For passenger cars, weight is a very valid and practical method of assesing tax. It's been done that way for a hundred years. I can even remember Florida License plates with letters on them indicating weight class. Bigger cars paid more. That was in the 1950's. I'm not sure if they still do it. 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. That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get better mileage is reduce weight. Ther should also be a "Nuttle surcharge" for anyone with that name. The original post concerned giant polluting autos. It now appears to have digressed to a discussion of tax philosophy. The concept of taxing for vehicle weight seems to have originated with the idea that total vehicle weight effected road costs, which it doesn't, the real roadway costs, other then normal civil engineering problems, are primarily a matter of pounds per square inch, i.e., gross vehicle weight divided by total tire contact area. Thus, it would be logical to partially adjudge vehicle tax rates by the weight of the owner - skinny people, weighing less, cause less deterioration to roadways then fat folks. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
|
|
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:29:16 -0500, cavelamb
wrote: wrote: SNIPPED - to demonstrate the technology... That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get better mileage is reduce weight. Unfortunately, reducing weight goes hand in hand with increased trauma in accidents. WHY do you thing people have kept buying heavy vehicles? It's not for the mileage! Basically, probably misconceptions about autos. Have you ever heard the phrase "a heavy car holds the road better". On the other hand, racing cars are all lighter then "road" cars and apparently hold the road much better. The argument that heavy cars reduce trauma is also somewhat erroneous. Just look at accidents on the race track. So traumatic that most of the car disintegrates.... and the driver walks away. But yet the race car is lighter then even "light" road cars. Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that the car buying public doesn't want one. I have no special feeling for any particular sort of motor vehicle but the car buying public is particularly hypocritical. On one hand they are **so** concerned with the environment and on the other they *need* that six liter auto. Cheers, Bruce in Bangkok (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:29:16 -0500, cavelamb
wrote: wrote: SNIPPED - to demonstrate the technology... That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get better mileage is reduce weight. Unfortunately, reducing weight goes hand in hand with increased trauma in accidents. The weight advantage in accidents is highly over-rated. It's sometimes a factor, but not the main factor. WHY do you thing people have kept buying heavy vehicles? It's not for the mileage! Sales of big heavy vehicles have plummeted. Even Lincolns and Caddys are now about the size of a Dodge Dart. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lake Superior RAPIDLY WARMING!
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Lake Superior dropping and warming, fishing and boating effected | General | |||
| Lake Superior Powerboat Chartering | Cruising | |||
| Puts Lake Superior to shame | ASA | |||
| Lake Superior - Michipicoten Bay - needs your assistance | Touring | |||
| Lake Superior - Michipicoten Bay - needs your assistance | Whitewater | |||
Hybrid Mode
