"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:49:05 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

Amen to that. Fuel should be taxed at *least* enough to pay the costs
of maintaining the roads and all the other collective costs of
automobiles.

My understanding is that the taxpayers subsidize private cars to the
tune
of $3000-5000 per year per car. That just sounds like bad economic and
environmental policy to me.


How many taxpayers do not own private cars?

In 1970, less than 6 percent of American households owned three or more
vehicles, according to the Department of Transportation. By 2000, that
percentage had jumped to 18.

More than 244 million vehicles were in operation in 2006, far outnumbering
the 202 million licensed drivers in the country, according to the most
recent federal statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/business/06auto.html


JC

----------
According to the latest numbers I could find, there are 1.05
vehicles [cars or light trucks, not including motorcycles] per
person in the US, with a high of 1.82 per person in Wyoming to a
low of 0.48 in D.C.

The unusual thing is that the per capita vehicle ownership
decreases as the per capita GDP income increases, possible
because higher income individuals tend to be concentrated in
congested areas where cars are less useful.

For data and regression chart in xls format click on
http://mcduffee-associates.us/PE/vehiclespercap.xls


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

I owned a construction equipment leasing company years ago. So partner and
I each owned 2 vehicles, pickups for us and car for wife and kids. Plus we
owned 4 delivery trucks. Our drivers drove their own vehicle to work. Lots
of that steps up the number of vehicles per person. As to taxing enough to
fix the roads. We probably do. Just the state legislature, at least in
California, keep spending the money on non highway stuff.

On Jan 7, 1:09*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:49:05 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

Amen to that. *Fuel should be taxed at *least* enough to pay the costs
of maintaining the roads and all the other collective costs of
automobiles.
JC

...As to taxing enough to
fix the roads. *We probably do. *Just the state legislature, at least in
California, keep spending the money on non highway stuff.-

This is a small example in a small state that shows the nature of the
problem:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/4221

Righteous pleas to make users pay their own costs are not followed by
equally righteous efforts to spend the money only as originally
specified. In this case the people diverting the money argue that the
ends justify the means. The tax payers sued to block the diversion,
the commuter rail supporters sued to force a rail corridor down the
median. The forces that favor a spending project are usually sharply
focussed while the ones against the extra spending defend a broad
front thinly.

jw

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:22:51 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

According to the latest numbers I could find, there are 1.05
vehicles [cars or light trucks, not including motorcycles] per
person in the US, with a high of 1.82 per person in Wyoming to a
low of 0.48 in D.C.

The unusual thing is that the per capita vehicle ownership
decreases as the per capita GDP income increases, possible
because higher income individuals tend to be concentrated in
congested areas where cars are less useful.

For data and regression chart in xls format click on
http://mcduffee-associates.us/PE/vehiclespercap.xls
-----------------
This also gives some insight into the cause for the sales slump.
Just how many vehicles does one person need? The market is
simply over-saturated. Note that the 1.05 vehicles per person
includes babes in arms and people in nursing homes that have not
driven in years. When only the active/licensed drivers are
considered, the licensed vehicles per capita number is much
higher.

The pols are already making noises about forcing older vehicles
off the road through [much] higher taxes and stricter
inspections. This was tried before in several states with an
ecological rationale that older vehicles are dirtier.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:20:41 +0000 (UTC),
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

snip

They say that every time the government passes a new air quality law,
the Japanese auto manufacturers hire a hundred new engineers and the
American auto manufacturers hire a hundred new lawyers.

snip
---------------
The problem in a nut shell. One of the few nuggets that makes
sense.


A mate that works in the car industry sent me this once and said, having
worked with Ford on various engine projects, that it is all too true. A
colleague of his has also worked for the Japanese and has said that many
things are not necessarilly well designed as it seemed everyone on the
design team had to have a bit of input on a part, but they did make the
parts well.

Ford Potatoes

How a Honda employee bakes a potato:

* Preheat new, high-quality oven to 350 F
* Insert a 1.0 lb Idaho potato
* Go do something productive for 45 minutes
* Check for doneness, then remove perfectly baked potato from oven and
serve


How a Ford employee bakes a potato:

* Conduct market test with suppliers in Mexico, Brazil, and Turkistan to
supply 0.75 lb potatoes, choose lowest cost supplier with best Wings tix
* Change to incumbent supplier of Idaho potatoes, insist they meet
Turkistan
pricing with 3% annual price reductions
* Upgrade to 1.0 lb potato, insist supplier erred by pricing for 0.75
lbs as
instructed when he knows Honda uses 1.0 lb potatoes
* Instruct potato supplier to preheat the oven to 350 F
* Demand that the supplier show you how he turned the dial to reach 350 F,
and have him come up with documentation from the oven manufacturer proving
that it was calibrated properly
* Review documentation, then have supplier check the temperature using a
sophisticated temperature probe
* Direct supplier to insert potato and set timer for 45 minutes
* Have supplier open oven to prove potato has been installed correctly, and
request a free study proving that 45 minutes is the ideal time to bake a
potato of this size and variability due to
orientation within the oven
* Request a Six Sigma Study showing variable cook times for various potato
sizes and orientations
* Check potato for doneness after 10 minutes
* Check potato for doneness after 11 minutes
* Check potato for doneness after 12 minutes
* Become impatient with supplier (why is this simple potato taking so long
to bake?). Demand status reports every five minutes.
* Conduct Value Engineering session and new market test
* Change to 0.9 lb potato because customers will only notice if potato
weight is reduce to 0.85 lb
* Check potato for doneness after 15 minutes...
* After 35 minutes, conclude that potato is nearing completion. Pass
through
Gate review reporting all Green status.
* Congratulate supplier, then update your boss on all the great work you've
done, despite having to work with such an uncooperative supplier
* Remove potato from oven after 40 minutes of baking, as a cost save
without
loss of function or quality versus the original 45 minute baking time.
* Serve potato
* Wonder aloud what on earth those Japanese folks are doing over there to
make such good, low-cost baked potatoes that people seem to like better
than
Ford potatoes



Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

OT -- Let Detroit Build Profitable Cars -- UAW chief Ron
Gettelfinger doesn't seem to get the picture. Let's help him

FWIW -- The head of the UAW, Ron Gettelfinger, (and most of the
UAW members) most likely "got it" years ago.

The problem is that the UAW is limited to "working in the manner
directed with the tools and materials provided," and about the
only thing the UAW can do is make sure their members were paid
all the market would bare with lots of benefits.

It can be argued [but not plausibly] that by "going along to get
along," the UAW helped cause this financial crisis by not
insisting on paid individual annuities with established insurance
companies rather than allowing the car companies to "manage" the
pool of retirement funds, which are now in danger.

The "schemes" such as the Saturn operation, which were to
encourage greater worker participation were never functional.
The workers made plenty of suggestions, but these were totally
ignored, and while the Saturn brand name remains, the actual
Saturn operation has been reincorporated into GM and GMAD
[general motors assembly division] with a total loss of identity
and any worker involvement, other than the traditional "working
in the manner directed, with tools and materials provided."

This can be summed up by the management statement "it's all the
workers fault -- they did exactly what we told them to, but they
knew that wasn't what was needed, and they should have stopped
us."


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


The pols are already making noises about forcing older vehicles
off the road through [much] higher taxes and stricter
inspections. This was tried before in several states with an
ecological rationale that older vehicles are dirtier.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]


there are two kinds of "older" cars - old junk cars that are in fact dirty
and polluting, and collector cars which are rarely driven - just taxing
older cars drives the collector cars off the road too - and those of us
who like old cars are made unhappy - for example (see my web site under
hobbies/cars) I have a 59 cadillac that I haven't driven at all this last
year, though it is fully restored and with a battery charge ready to go -
so I ask you, how much pollution does that car create? (nearly zero) -
but if they raise the tax on it to a level that I find prohibitive, all I
have to do is not pay the license fee and they just lose the revenue that
would have accrued because there is nothing that says anyone can't have an
unlicensed car in a garage or driveway, you just can't operate it on a
public roadway.

what does help is enforcing insurance laws - true collector cars are
inexpensive to insure because they are rarely driven


In California you have to have either a certificate of non operation or the
vehicle licensed. They can enter you property and take it if neither. I
would have had a problem with my corvette racecar. Was trailered and not
run on the street. Except to load / unload the trailer.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

The unusual thing is that the per capita vehicle ownership
decreases as the per capita GDP income increases, possible
because higher income individuals tend to be concentrated in
congested areas where cars are less useful.


How about lower income people having two beaters with the hope that one of them will get
them to work?

Wes

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

My understanding is that the taxpayers subsidize private cars to the tune
of $3000-5000 per year per car. That just sounds like bad economic and
environmental policy to me.


How many taxpayers do not own private cars?

In 1970, less than 6 percent of American households owned three or more
vehicles, according to the Department of Transportation. By 2000, that
percentage had jumped to 18.

More than 244 million vehicles were in operation in 2006, far outnumbering
the 202 million licensed drivers in the country, according to the most
recent federal statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/business/06auto.html



You didn't answer the question. If most adults own a car and most of them are tax payers,
how is it that tax payers are subsidizing tax payers that own cars?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

The unusual thing is that the per capita vehicle ownership
decreases as the per capita GDP income increases, possible
because higher income individuals tend to be concentrated in
congested areas where cars are less useful.


How about lower income people having two beaters with the hope that one of
them will get
them to work?

Wes

One of them is the chicken coop.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

My understanding is that the taxpayers subsidize private cars to the
tune
of $3000-5000 per year per car. That just sounds like bad economic and
environmental policy to me.


How many taxpayers do not own private cars?

In 1970, less than 6 percent of American households owned three or more
vehicles, according to the Department of Transportation. By 2000, that
percentage had jumped to 18.

More than 244 million vehicles were in operation in 2006, far outnumbering
the 202 million licensed drivers in the country, according to the most
recent federal statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/business/06auto.html



You didn't answer the question. If most adults own a car and most of them
are tax payers,
how is it that tax payers are subsidizing tax payers that own cars?

By giving money directly to the auto industry and skipping right over the
buying cars part.

--

JC

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:33:43 -0800, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


The pols are already making noises about forcing older vehicles
off the road through [much] higher taxes and stricter
inspections. This was tried before in several states with an
ecological rationale that older vehicles are dirtier.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]


there are two kinds of "older" cars - old junk cars that are in fact
dirty and polluting, and collector cars which are rarely driven - just
taxing older cars drives the collector cars off the road too - and those
of us who like old cars are made unhappy - for example (see my web site
under hobbies/cars) I have a 59 cadillac that I haven't driven at all
this last year, though it is fully restored and with a battery charge
ready to go - so I ask you, how much pollution does that car create?
(nearly zero) - but if they raise the tax on it to a level that I find
prohibitive, all I have to do is not pay the license fee and they just
lose the revenue that would have accrued because there is nothing that
says anyone can't have an unlicensed car in a garage or driveway, you
just can't operate it on a public roadway.

what does help is enforcing insurance laws - true collector cars are
inexpensive to insure because they are rarely driven


In California you have to have either a certificate of non operation or
the vehicle licensed. They can enter you property and take it if neither.
I would have had a problem with my corvette racecar. Was trailered and
not run on the street. Except to load / unload the trailer.


from my understanding and direct communication with the DMV, that is just
plain false, there is both title and license, and you can have one without
the other - you only need license to operate on a public roadway (or park or
exist on a public roadway) but a car in a museum, or impaled in your wall as
a piece of art, as one Lotus owner did in disgust, no, you do not need a
certificate of non operation.

but it is sufficiently far off topic and totally irrelevant so let's not
argue about it -

If you do not have a NON OP, in California, the fees for registering the
vehicle up to 7 yrs later, are on the orde of, in the worst case, up to
400% of the registration fee. After7 yrs the vehicle falls of the
computer and it become a new registraton minus all the late fees.

Many local governments have requirements that if a vehicle has no Non OP
or current registration, the vehicle is considered abandoned if viewable
from a public roadway, and an eyesore, and they are able to force you to
remove it, cover it up, or they may simply come and take it.

Thats one of the reasons I have a 6' tall steel sheet fence around my
property line.

Also noted that the Certificate of Non Operation is purcha$ed each
year, and the DMV does not send out standard notices that its due for
renewal.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg102.pdf

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/fees/reg_fees.htm

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr01.htm




———BUYER BEWARE!———

If you purchase a vehicle, you will be responsible for past due fees and
penalties when you transfer the title into your name, unless:

* Registration is current.
* A non-operational status is on file with the DMV. Fees must be
paid before operation to avoid penalties.
* The vehicle was otherwise exempt from these reporting
requirements.

Note....this includes fees due by PREVIOUS owner.

Compare California fees with yours in your home state

https://mv.dmv.ca.gov/FeeCalculatorWeb/index.jsp


Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:09:28 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


The pols are already making noises about forcing older vehicles
off the road through [much] higher taxes and stricter
inspections. This was tried before in several states with an
ecological rationale that older vehicles are dirtier.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]


there are two kinds of "older" cars - old junk cars that are in fact
dirty and polluting, and collector cars which are rarely driven - just
taxing older cars drives the collector cars off the road too - and those
of us who like old cars are made unhappy - for example (see my web site
under hobbies/cars) I have a 59 cadillac that I haven't driven at all
this last year, though it is fully restored and with a battery charge
ready to go - so I ask you, how much pollution does that car create?
(nearly zero) - but if they raise the tax on it to a level that I find
prohibitive, all I have to do is not pay the license fee and they just
lose the revenue that would have accrued because there is nothing that
says anyone can't have an unlicensed car in a garage or driveway, you
just can't operate it on a public roadway.

what does help is enforcing insurance laws - true collector cars are
inexpensive to insure because they are rarely driven


In California you have to have either a certificate of non operation or
the vehicle licensed. They can enter you property and take it if
neither. I would have had a problem with my corvette racecar. Was
trailered and not run on the street. Except to load / unload the
trailer.


from my understanding and direct communication with the DMV, that is just
plain false, there is both title and license, and you can have one without
the other - you only need license to operate on a public roadway (or park
or exist on a public roadway) but a car in a museum, or impaled in your
wall as a piece of art, as one Lotus owner did in disgust, no, you do not
need a certificate of non operation.

but it is sufficiently far off topic and totally irrelevant so let's not
argue about it -


I have read where the used the law to remove extra vehicle from private
property. I think one of the places was San Jose.


http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22658.htm



http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/s...0021&showall=1

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/business/06auto.html



You didn't answer the question. If most adults own a car and most of them
are tax payers,
how is it that tax payers are subsidizing tax payers that own cars?

By giving money directly to the auto industry and skipping right over the
buying cars part.

I didn't find that in the link you included. It is common to give tax abatements to any
industry to get it to locate in a state, county or city.

Now since we are talking about car owners, people that pay federal gas taxes, how about we
talk about auto owners subsidizing mass transit via federal gas taxes. Then there are
these idiotic beatification programs putting in street lights in nowhereville when fixing
a bridge would be a more proper use.

You can't just single out auto owners and ignore every other tax and support out there. By
your standard, we are subsidizing people that eat since we have a farm bill with price
supports each year.

Wes

John R. Carroll wrote:

By giving money directly to the auto industry and skipping right over the
buying cars part.


This may amuse you.

http://boingboing.net/2008/12/09/a-m...o-boing-b.html


Kevin Gallimore

"axolotl" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:

By giving money directly to the auto industry and skipping right over the
buying cars part.


This may amuse you.

http://boingboing.net/2008/12/09/a-m...o-boing-b.html



Pretty funny Kevin.
Did you read any of the comments?


JC

John R. Carroll wrote:

Pretty funny Kevin.
Did you read any of the comments?


Yes. Looks a lot like here.


Kevin

"axolotl" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:

Pretty funny Kevin.
Did you read any of the comments?


Yes. Looks a lot like here.

Catch the Charlie Rose interview with Mitch Albom if you can.
It aired last night so you probably can't see it from the web until Monday.


JC