footballer
Member
I have read, heard that contained in the trillions of dollars infrastructure bill, is legislation that a tax will be imposed on every mile driven. Does any one have any information on this?
| LIFE Government Business
- Thread starter footballer
- Start date
If true, that's a bullshit and underhanded way to push their "global warming" agenda. We all know the Democrats like to cry about global warming and fossil fuels and nuclear energy. But their solution is methods that don't do any better. Yet, they're worse as far as output. And to try and match the same output would do more to harm the environment than what we currently have.
So, in my opinion, they want to tax your mileage so they can try and sway you towards an electric car, or driving less; whether by carpooling or byu working from home. But not everyone can work from home. I certainly can't. My job is impossible to do from home. It requires me to drive somewhere. And I'd almost be willing to guarantee they'll hound the larger delivery businesses (Amazon, Walmart, grocery stores, etc.) into going with full electric fleets. Yet the cost for doing that would be absolutely tremendous. And how do you think they'd pay for that cost? They'd raise their prices.....and not by a small amount. So then prices of most things would go up.....again. And the economy would take another hit. But yeah, let's force people and companies to do things that aren't actually good for them. But we'll call it combating global warming so maybe won't notice that the economy has gone to shit. And only when people can't afford the products they actually need, will they take notice. But by then it'll be too late.
If you want to make something absolutely fucked up, put the government in charge of it.
So, in my opinion, they want to tax your mileage so they can try and sway you towards an electric car, or driving less; whether by carpooling or byu working from home. But not everyone can work from home. I certainly can't. My job is impossible to do from home. It requires me to drive somewhere. And I'd almost be willing to guarantee they'll hound the larger delivery businesses (Amazon, Walmart, grocery stores, etc.) into going with full electric fleets. Yet the cost for doing that would be absolutely tremendous. And how do you think they'd pay for that cost? They'd raise their prices.....and not by a small amount. So then prices of most things would go up.....again. And the economy would take another hit. But yeah, let's force people and companies to do things that aren't actually good for them. But we'll call it combating global warming so maybe won't notice that the economy has gone to shit. And only when people can't afford the products they actually need, will they take notice. But by then it'll be too late.
If you want to make something absolutely fucked up, put the government in charge of it.
XXL TideFan
Member
There is also a provision to criminalize science denial. Some on this board are going to remember my rantings after we can only access essential websites in the future.
footballer
Member
The government is denying science when the say to mask up in order to keep from getting the virus or spreading it. There is NO science anywhere that proves that a particle mask can stop anything as minute as any virus.
I’ve read nothing in the bill and, lazily, I’ve been distracted the last week to even read reputable summaries. A per mile tax will turn rural America further against the Dems, unless it comes with a wonderful tax credit for lower income.
I’m hopeful another ten years of conservative sway in SCOTUS will blunt some of the most egregious liberty theft, but I’m not optimistic.
I’m hopeful another ten years of conservative sway in SCOTUS will blunt some of the most egregious liberty theft, but I’m not optimistic.
XXL TideFan
Member
I know we are are odds sometimes and I’m not trying to yank your chain. I don’t understand how anyone can have any level of faith and trust in any government institution regardless of level. I don’t and the judicial branch is as corrupt as any. We were warned by one of the founding fathers I think it was to not let the SCOTUS be the sole or final interpreter of the constitution or we risk being ruled by oligarchs in black robes.
XXL TideFan
Member
I read something the other day and still looking for additional verification. Anti semitism has a new federal definition and you can be charged with a federal hate crime for it on federal property or lands. Now someone can be charged for saying, “Jews control the media” or whatever the ADL says. My understanding criticizing or engaging in the divestment movement. One fact I do know, Ben & Jerry’s got blacklisted from Florida Retirement Fund investment because they refused to sell in the Jewish parts of Jerusalem(I think).
I don’t completely disagree, but we either have faith in the Constitution, admittedly a construct of man, and the checks and balances it prescribes, or we simply jettison any reliance upon the rule of law at any level. I know enough to know all aspects of government are not corrupt, but also that there is enough to foster the view that it is absolutely corrupt.
footballer
Member
I have faith in the constitution, I do not have any faith in the people in charge of enforcing it.
The libs believe the constitution is outdated. Like saying the ar15 wasn't invented then for the 2nd. They fail to mention the same about the first. There was only a quil pen then.
Rolltide24
Member
After load up on some Uber and Lyft stock if this is the case… geez, the only good thing about a tax like that is that everyone will pay something no matter the income level. Would obviously hit rural folk harder, but folks would all have to pay, no skirting that one.
It really depends how it's monitored and collected. For years, highway taxes have been on a per gallon of gas or diesel basis, you buy more gas you pay more tax. It's always hit lower income folks harder, both as a percentage of disposable income, plus they are more likely to drive an older less efficient car - plus pickup owners. If they move to an ELD-based system like truckers went to several years ago, that would remove the fuel source issue as other fuel types more fully come online. As long as they avoid charging the tax to EV drivers, that continues to be a subsidy of sorts for what are typically higher earners.
Of course, this opens up another can of worms - the monitoring of our whereabouts. Cell phones, mass plate readers, your cars' black boxes and internet uplinks, electronic transactions, etc., we've long since lost our ability to fully move anonymously.
A friend of mine's daughter was in an auto accident where a driver turned and she t-boned the car, seriously injuring the other driver. Other drive was clearly at fault, turned right in front of her, but the black box data on her jeep showed she was driving seven (7) miles over the speed limit, and at civil trial a judged decided she was 30 percent liable for damages. My friend had an umbrella policy that paid out $1.3 million to the injured driver.
RTR,
Tim
TerryP
Staff
Is that not a little "quirck" in Georgia's law: liablity and damages can be split between both parties?
rocknthefreeworld
Member
They have talked about that for some period of time. The current bill includes a provision that calls for "volunteers" to have trackers put on their vehicles to determine the charges. Oregon has already set this up and gives a credit to those int eh study for their gas taxes. Long term, I am pretty sure there is no way this would pass Constitutional muster if it requires everyone to allow trackers to be installed, although the rulings on Obamacare give me pause. Under most of those rulings, they could give you the option to pay a high tax rate on each vehicle or allow a tracker to be installed.
Similar threads
| CURRENT EVENTS
The Presidential Race: The Debacle. Err, debate.
- Article
