Vehicle weight tax increase vs. Gas tax increase

So now Honolulu is planning to stick drivers with an tax increase in
vehicle weight tax instead of a 2 cent hike in the gas tax? Anyone
think this through yet?

If the weight tax goes up a half cent per pound that would be a $20
tax increase per year on a 4,000 lb. car/light truck/suv. What would
it take to generate an equivalent $20 if the gas tax was hiked 2
cents? You would have to buy 1,000 gallons of gas. I don't know
about you folks but no one in my household buys 1,000 gallons of
gasoline a year. The weight tax increase means that those who live in
town will be subsidizing those who live out of town or those who live
far from their places of work, school, etc. because of where they
chose to live.

Can this be considered another case of the city council (at least the
ones representing in-town constituents) asleep at the wheel? <zzzzzzz>

Perhaps, but it probably has more to do with your representative
thinking
which is going to anger their constituents less.

<quante981@m> wrote in message
news:1067294103-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> So now Honolulu is planning to stick drivers with an tax increase in
> vehicle weight tax instead of a 2 cent hike in the gas tax? Anyone
> think this through yet?
>
> If the weight tax goes up a half cent per pound that would be a $20
> tax increase per year on a 4,000 lb. car/light truck/suv. What would
> it take to generate an equivalent $20 if the gas tax was hiked 2
> cents? You would have to buy 1,000 gallons of gas. I don't know
> about you folks but no one in my household buys 1,000 gallons of
> gasoline a year. The weight tax increase means that those who live in
> town will be subsidizing those who live out of town or those who live
> far from their places of work, school, etc. because of where they
> chose to live.
>
> Can this be considered another case of the city council (at least the
> ones representing in-town constituents) asleep at the wheel? <zzzzzzz>
>
>
>

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, quante981@m wrote:

> So now Honolulu is planning to stick drivers with an
> tax increase in vehicle weight tax instead of a 2
> cent hike in the gas tax? Anyone think this through
> yet?
>
> If the weight tax goes up a half cent per pound that
> would be a $20 tax increase per year on a 4,000 lb.
> car/light truck/suv. What would it take to generate
> an equivalent $20 if the gas tax was hiked 2 cents?
> You would have to buy 1,000 gallons of gas. I don't
> know about you folks but no one in my household buys
> 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year. The weight tax
> increase means that those who live in town will be
> subsidizing those who live out of town or those who
> live far from their places of work, school, etc.
> because of where they chose to live.

I think they're just making projections from existing
revenue. Some businesses probably buy a lot of gas--
more than the average commuter. There's always cars on
the road.

But why consider that the weight tax is a subsidy, when
we already pay too much for gas. In consideration of
the price of gas, you might say that the commuter is
already paying more than his/her fair share and a
weight tax only evens things out.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:<1067315711-sch@news.lava.net>...
> I think they're just making projections from existing
> revenue. Some businesses probably buy a lot of gas--
> more than the average commuter. There's always cars on
> the road.

Businesses have to pay the vehicle weight tax too. So what's your
point?

>
> But why consider that the weight tax is a subsidy, when
> we already pay too much for gas. In consideration of
> the price of gas, you might say that the commuter is
> already paying more than his/her fair share and a
> weight tax only evens things out.

In-town drivers or people who don't drive much will be subsidizing
those who drive long distances or drive a lot. The weight tax does
not depend on use. The fuel tax does. It is only right that those
who use the roads more should pay more than those who don't.

While they are tinkering with the weight tax, is the City bothering to
tiering the weight tax rates like the state does? My guess is they
could care less about doing that. What a great bunch of folks who are
on the taxpayers' dime. Uh huh.

>
> --alvin

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, quante981@m wrote:

>
> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:<1067315711-sch@news.lava.net>...
> > I think they're just making projections from
> > existing revenue. Some businesses probably buy a
> > lot of gas-- more than the average commuter.
> > There's always cars on the road.
>
> Businesses have to pay the vehicle weight tax too.
> So what's your point?

Your figure for average gas consumption is so high that
it seems weighted toward the heavy consumers of
gasoline-- like business usage. Don't you really want
to use medians rather than means???

> > But why consider that the weight tax is a subsidy,
> > when we already pay too much for gas. In
> > consideration of the price of gas, you might say
> > that the commuter is already paying more than
> > his/her fair share and a weight tax only evens
> > things out.
>
> In-town drivers or people who don't drive much will
> be subsidizing those who drive long distances or
> drive a lot. The weight tax does not depend on use.
> The fuel tax does. It is only right that those who
> use the roads more should pay more than those who
> don't.

I think you should recognize that I realize this from
my use of the words "evens things out".

> While they are tinkering with the weight tax, is the
> City bothering to tiering the weight tax rates like
> the state does? My guess is they could care less
> about doing that. What a great bunch of folks who
> are on the taxpayers' dime. Uh huh.

They could tier it but that would make the revenue
projection more difficult and probably less reliable
because it would be variable with trends in stylings of
cars. Like the flat tax, the Council probably thinks
that one rate will be perceived as fairer than a
multitude of rates. With a multitude of rates, people
will speculate more than what we are doing now, about
who gets shafted more by the increases.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1067583901-sch@news.lava.net...
>

>
> I don't think there's been a definite decision other
> than to update old studies, and to review older
> information. If light rail is being proposed than it
> had better be pretty fast since the long commutes from
> Kapolei or further up the leeward coast would take too
> long. I can't see a train going any less than 60mph on
> that long run. If we plan to raise taxes than we should
> get a high speed train. I think BART gets pretty fast
> on the long runs but even in the city it seems to go
> quite fast, relatively speaking.
>
Was thinking about what is going to haapen on Oahu, and I had a couple
of
thoughts. How is a person going to get to the stations for pickup? Is
the
county planning to put in parking lots by the stations and if so, how
big
are these parking lots going to be? How many stations are there going
to be
and how far apart are they going to be? How are they going to make sure
that the cars will not be burgularized while it is sitting in the
parking
lots, if they provide parking lots?

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> Was thinking about what is going to haapen on Oahu,
> and I had a couple of thoughts. How is a person
> going to get to the stations for pickup? Is the
> county planning to put in parking lots by the
> stations and if so, how big are these parking lots
> going to be? How many stations are there going to be
> and how far apart are they going to be? How are they
> going to make sure that the cars will not be
> burgularized while it is sitting in the parking lots,
> if they provide parking lots?

I think that it would be similar to BART where existing
parking could be a large shopping center, like in
Fremont I believe, or parking structures would be part
of the station, like in Daly City. For example, the
Aloha stadium is promoted as a major station in a lot
of plans. I guess they would also earn an income from
the parking. For many living closeby, the wife simply
drops the husband off at the station.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1067676603-sch@news.lava.net...
>

> I think that it would be similar to BART where existing
> parking could be a large shopping center, like in
> Fremont I believe, or parking structures would be part
> of the station, like in Daly City. For example, the
> Aloha stadium is promoted as a major station in a lot
> of plans. I guess they would also earn an income from
> the parking. For many living closeby, the wife simply
> drops the husband off at the station.
>
Now it would seem to me that can only work if the owner of the shopping
center allows them to use their property. Personally, I would feel very
uncomfortable leaving my car sitting there all day, just inviting
someone to
break into your car, which will happen.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1067676603-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> > I think that it would be similar to BART where
> > existing parking could be a large shopping center,
> > like in Fremont I believe, or parking structures
> > would be part of the station, like in Daly City.
> > For example, the Aloha stadium is promoted as a
> > major station in a lot of plans. I guess they would
> > also earn an income from the parking. For many
> > living closeby, the wife simply drops the husband
> > off at the station.
> >
> Now it would seem to me that can only work if the
> owner of the shopping center allows them to use their
> property. Personally, I would feel very
> uncomfortable leaving my car sitting there all day,
> just inviting someone to break into your car, which
> will happen.

People who work at the shopping center park their cars
there all the time. Sure people can break into your
car. This is no greater risk than thousands of people
who leave their cars in lots and parking structures,
have every working day.

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1067764817-sch@news.lava.net...
>


>
> People who work at the shopping center park their cars
> there all the time. Sure people can break into your
> car. This is no greater risk than thousands of people
> who leave their cars in lots and parking structures,
> have every working day.
>
Good point. But I suspect that there is a difference between those who work
at the shopping center and those who would use the shopping center to park
and take the transit. The shopping center is most likely going to provide a
space on the outer fringes of their lot, not in the areas close to their
shops for the transit rider. So, I would suspect, that any thief would be
able to easily determine which cars are going to be there all day. As for
the workers at the shopping center, I would suspect that their cars are
relatively close to the shopping center, but you are right they would also
be targets of thieves. But I guess it all depends on the size of the
parking lot. As for the "thousands" of people who park their cars in
parking structures, there is a difference. Most parking structures, have
barriers to prevent you from leaving. Anhd unless Oahu is different, most
parking lots have attendents. By the way, the reason I say what I say is
because of what happened in Los Angeles. As an example there is a very very
large park and ride lot in the Torrance area. They have had a big problem
keeping thieves from that lot. There is also a small park and ride
capability in the Alpine Village parking area. Same problem. I know,
because we used to park our cars there to ride to work in a vanpool. A
third of us either had our car stolen, or broken into. And in both places
there was security.