Increasing fuel taxes due to a reduction in fuel use.
04-24-2005, 04:38 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moses Lake, WA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Increasing fuel taxes due to a reduction in fuel use.
The one thing that really irritates the living hell out of me is the taxes being added onto the higher fuel costs. Supposidly, for highway repairs and maintenance.
Here in Washington state, w/already high fuel costs, the legislature wants to increase the taxes on it. It's to be used for highway repairs. Boy I'd like to know what ever happened to that Federal Highway Bill w/all that PORK, or I should say FAT, that was suppose to go to the states for their highway repairs?
It's funny, the government wants us to use more fuel efficient vehicles, thus saving fuel, yet because of the reduction in fuel sales, less taxes are coming in, so they raise them. More increased fuel costs, less driving, less revenue coming in. Same goes w/tobacco use. Less smoking, less revenue coming in on the taxes on it, so they raise it again. The state legislature here just raised it again, I believe 12 cents a pack. Not that I care, since I don't smoke, but it's just the point how addicted government is to tax and spend. The more they take in, the more they spend, the more they spend, the more they want, resulting in even more taxes. It's a vicious circle. I wish government would use industry as a model. Less revenue, less spending.
It's one thing if the increased taxes actually go directly into the highway maintenance, they have to be repaired and maintained, but it's another when it only goes into the general fund, to be used anywhere, which I am absolutely against. This state is notorious for doing this. Taxes setup for a specific program, only later to end up in the general fund, to be used elseware.
Washington state is notorious for doing this, with the state lottery profits originally to used strickly for the public school system, but now it's going into the general fund. Seattle is in the process of closing schools due to a lack of funds. Same goes w/that Tobacco settlement, it was suppose to be used to help w/the medical costs of cigarette smokers, but ended up in the general fund.
Here in Washington state, w/already high fuel costs, the legislature wants to increase the taxes on it. It's to be used for highway repairs. Boy I'd like to know what ever happened to that Federal Highway Bill w/all that PORK, or I should say FAT, that was suppose to go to the states for their highway repairs?
It's funny, the government wants us to use more fuel efficient vehicles, thus saving fuel, yet because of the reduction in fuel sales, less taxes are coming in, so they raise them. More increased fuel costs, less driving, less revenue coming in. Same goes w/tobacco use. Less smoking, less revenue coming in on the taxes on it, so they raise it again. The state legislature here just raised it again, I believe 12 cents a pack. Not that I care, since I don't smoke, but it's just the point how addicted government is to tax and spend. The more they take in, the more they spend, the more they spend, the more they want, resulting in even more taxes. It's a vicious circle. I wish government would use industry as a model. Less revenue, less spending.
It's one thing if the increased taxes actually go directly into the highway maintenance, they have to be repaired and maintained, but it's another when it only goes into the general fund, to be used anywhere, which I am absolutely against. This state is notorious for doing this. Taxes setup for a specific program, only later to end up in the general fund, to be used elseware.
Washington state is notorious for doing this, with the state lottery profits originally to used strickly for the public school system, but now it's going into the general fund. Seattle is in the process of closing schools due to a lack of funds. Same goes w/that Tobacco settlement, it was suppose to be used to help w/the medical costs of cigarette smokers, but ended up in the general fund.
04-24-2005, 07:15 AM
#4
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Duvall, WA
Posts: 5,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would put it in the "less than classy" pile when someone takes an avatar from someone and uses it on the very same board they used it on. I can see finding one elsewhere on the net and using it, but on the very same board?
If you are incapable of coming up with an original idea for your avatar and don't mind taking advantage of the work someone else did to produce that avatar, knock yourself out. It just makes you look like a poser.
If you are incapable of coming up with an original idea for your avatar and don't mind taking advantage of the work someone else did to produce that avatar, knock yourself out. It just makes you look like a poser.
04-24-2005, 10:53 AM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moses Lake, WA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WATRD
I would put it in the "less than classy" pile when someone takes an avatar from someone and uses it on the very same board they used it on. I can see finding one elsewhere on the net and using it, but on the very same board?
If you are incapable of coming up with an original idea for your avatar and don't mind taking advantage of the work someone else did to produce that avatar, knock yourself out. It just makes you look like a poser.
If you are incapable of coming up with an original idea for your avatar and don't mind taking advantage of the work someone else did to produce that avatar, knock yourself out. It just makes you look like a poser.
As for using my truck instead, I haven't been able to make my picture small enough to use it. Either it has too many pixels, or is too large, memory wise.
Last edited by WashToy; 04-24-2005 at 10:59 AM.
04-24-2005, 12:41 PM
#7
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Duvall, WA
Posts: 5,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I captured it from the movie on the day that the DVD was released and cut it down to use as an avatar. I used in on this board for several months and still use it on several other forums.
Here's the original capture that I pulled I created and cut down.
Here's the original capture that I pulled I created and cut down.
Last edited by WATRD; 04-24-2005 at 12:44 PM.
Trending Topics
04-24-2005, 12:48 PM
#8
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Duvall, WA
Posts: 5,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, I don't mean to come off as an @ss, it's just that I put work into that and used it and it was a shock to see someone on the same board with my handiwork.
To show I bear you no ill-will, if you have a pic of your truck you like, I would be more than happy to help you cut it down and set it up for use as an avatar. Just email it to me at watrd(a)watrd.com and I will send you back unique, custom avatar.
To show I bear you no ill-will, if you have a pic of your truck you like, I would be more than happy to help you cut it down and set it up for use as an avatar. Just email it to me at watrd(a)watrd.com and I will send you back unique, custom avatar.
04-24-2005, 01:05 PM
#9
Contributing Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: marlbank, canada
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a bit off the taxes topic but still, nice to see things are working out. two gentlemen settling a dispute in a civilized manner. kudos.
back to our regularly scheduled rant: i agree wholeheartedly with you on this matter. it doesnt seem to matter which government we observe, federal, state/provincial or municipal, they all want to get more out of our pockets. the accountability factor for them is to call in the spin doctors and try to make us believe we authorized them to 'misappropriate' these tax dollars into the general fund for the betterment of those programs that would not benefit from the specific gas, alcohol or tobacco taxes otherwise.
welcome to the new reality, government for the government, of the government by the government. how did we common folk miss the gravy train?
lee
back to our regularly scheduled rant: i agree wholeheartedly with you on this matter. it doesnt seem to matter which government we observe, federal, state/provincial or municipal, they all want to get more out of our pockets. the accountability factor for them is to call in the spin doctors and try to make us believe we authorized them to 'misappropriate' these tax dollars into the general fund for the betterment of those programs that would not benefit from the specific gas, alcohol or tobacco taxes otherwise.
welcome to the new reality, government for the government, of the government by the government. how did we common folk miss the gravy train?
lee
04-24-2005, 01:08 PM
#10
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Duvall, WA
Posts: 5,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed.
And on topic, it's nice the see that the house of representitives is using some common sense and it not just approving the gas tax increase because what's her name the "governor" wants it.
And on topic, it's nice the see that the house of representitives is using some common sense and it not just approving the gas tax increase because what's her name the "governor" wants it.
04-24-2005, 01:37 PM
#11
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by WashToy
It's funny, the government wants us to use more fuel efficient vehicles...
I think they are pushing gas guzzlers again because they can sell more gas, and get more taxes.
Its seems fishy to think that gas consumption has gone down with the recent exponential growth of SUV sales, and a relapse of the 70's gas crunch.
04-25-2005, 06:34 AM
#12
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by WashToy
The one thing that really irritates the living hell out of me is the taxes being added onto the higher fuel costs. Supposidly, for highway repairs and maintenance.
Here in Washington state, w/already high fuel costs, the legislature wants to increase the taxes on it. It's to be used for highway repairs. Boy I'd like to know what ever happened to that Federal Highway Bill w/all that PORK, or I should say FAT, that was suppose to go to the states for their highway repairs?
It's funny, the government wants us to use more fuel efficient vehicles, thus saving fuel, yet because of the reduction in fuel sales, less taxes are coming in, so they raise them. More increased fuel costs, less driving, less revenue coming in. Same goes w/tobacco use. Less smoking, less revenue coming in on the taxes on it, so they raise it again. The state legislature here just raised it again, I believe 12 cents a pack. Not that I care, since I don't smoke, but it's just the point how addicted government is to tax and spend. The more they take in, the more they spend, the more they spend, the more they want, resulting in even more taxes. It's a vicious circle. I wish government would use industry as a model. Less revenue, less spending.
It's one thing if the increased taxes actually go directly into the highway maintenance, they have to be repaired and maintained, but it's another when it only goes into the general fund, to be used anywhere, which I am absolutely against. This state is notorious for doing this. Taxes setup for a specific program, only later to end up in the general fund, to be used elseware.
Washington state is notorious for doing this, with the state lottery profits originally to used strickly for the public school system, but now it's going into the general fund. Seattle is in the process of closing schools due to a lack of funds. Same goes w/that Tobacco settlement, it was suppose to be used to help w/the medical costs of cigarette smokers, but ended up in the general fund.
Here in Washington state, w/already high fuel costs, the legislature wants to increase the taxes on it. It's to be used for highway repairs. Boy I'd like to know what ever happened to that Federal Highway Bill w/all that PORK, or I should say FAT, that was suppose to go to the states for their highway repairs?
It's funny, the government wants us to use more fuel efficient vehicles, thus saving fuel, yet because of the reduction in fuel sales, less taxes are coming in, so they raise them. More increased fuel costs, less driving, less revenue coming in. Same goes w/tobacco use. Less smoking, less revenue coming in on the taxes on it, so they raise it again. The state legislature here just raised it again, I believe 12 cents a pack. Not that I care, since I don't smoke, but it's just the point how addicted government is to tax and spend. The more they take in, the more they spend, the more they spend, the more they want, resulting in even more taxes. It's a vicious circle. I wish government would use industry as a model. Less revenue, less spending.
It's one thing if the increased taxes actually go directly into the highway maintenance, they have to be repaired and maintained, but it's another when it only goes into the general fund, to be used anywhere, which I am absolutely against. This state is notorious for doing this. Taxes setup for a specific program, only later to end up in the general fund, to be used elseware.
Washington state is notorious for doing this, with the state lottery profits originally to used strickly for the public school system, but now it's going into the general fund. Seattle is in the process of closing schools due to a lack of funds. Same goes w/that Tobacco settlement, it was suppose to be used to help w/the medical costs of cigarette smokers, but ended up in the general fund.
I can see the states not liking the reduction in fuel use (even though politically they must be for it) since just like a company, it reduces their revenue. Thus they go and up the tax to ensure the revenue stream stays where it was. There is no easy answer for that so the states will need to become more creative as time goes on to find other sources of revenue or cut services until they can run in the black.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Blamalam
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners
22
03-12-2022 07:34 AM
the1998sr5
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
6
07-16-2015 06:20 AM
