Results 1 to 10 of 11

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3919
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stagehand View Post
    Putting GPS chips in car inspection stickers. "They" only want to know how many miles you drive and bill you accordingly.
    I must say this is a good way to get rid of the socialist practice of everybody paying for the roads either equally, or based on what they earn, not how much they use.

    Quote Originally Posted by jockeys View Post
    y'all are missing the bad part. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE AT HOME with wireless routers will be held criminally accountable if they get wardriven. This is a huge deal. A BAD deal.
    Well if crimes can be committed over the internet, I guess it makes sense that some responsibility would be with those who provide the tools for these crimes.
    I would think I would be held responsible if I leave my gun widely accessible and somebody takes it and goes on a killing rampage. Or may be I wouldn't - I'm not quite sure really.

    It seems to me that as often the case is, the people with the money buy the laws they like. The only way for the people without the money to get their say is to get in sufficiently large numbers so that the lawmakers would have a slightly different cost/benefit problem to deal with (i.e. lose the money or lose the job). Of course there are lawmakers that make laws based on convictions, not on cost/benefit analysis, but I think they're a minority.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to gugi For This Useful Post:

    denmason (02-25-2009)

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Braintree Ma. U.S.A.
    Posts
    112
    Thanked: 17

    Default

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stagehand
    Putting GPS chips in car inspection stickers. "They" only want to know how many miles you drive and bill you accordingly.


    [quote=gugi;332057]I must say this is a good way to get rid of the socialist practice of everybody paying for the roads either equally, or based on what they earn, not how much they use.


    If you want to charge per mile, Why not bill from the odometer reading that is recorded during the annual vehicle inspection required in Massachusetts. I find it hard to believe that the Commonwealth would charge for miles only driven in Mass. And how can you prove otherwise?
    Several years ago Massachusetts tried to charge delinquent excise tax going back 15 years; and it was up to you to prove the Commonwealth wrong . Many people payed a second time only because they could not prove otherwise. Most people that I know keep records for no more than 7 years like the IRS suggests.
    Please excuse the rant I just don't trust Big Brother

  4. #3
    what Dad calls me nun2sharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kansas city area USA
    Posts
    9,173
    Thanked: 1677

    Default

    You already pay road usage taxes on the fuel you buy,the more you use the road the more fuel you burn, the more taxes you pay.
    It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled. Twain

  5. #4
    The original Skolor and Gentileman. gugi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17,430
    Thanked: 3919
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stagehand View Post
    I find it hard to believe that the Commonwealth would charge for miles only driven in Mass. And how can you prove otherwise?
    Several years ago Massachusetts tried to charge delinquent excise tax going back 15 years; and it was up to you to prove the Commonwealth wrong . Many people payed a second time only because they could not prove otherwise. Most people that I know keep records for no more than 7 years like the IRS suggests.
    LOL, this is fantastic!!! See, people extrapolate from the federal guidelines to the local government - I bet next time they'll follow the Commonwealth's own guidelines for conducting business with the comonwealth
    Yes, sorry if I lived in MA it probably wouldn't be so funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by nun2sharp View Post
    You already pay road usage taxes on the fuel you buy,the more you use the road the more fuel you burn, the more taxes you pay.
    Since different cars use different amount of fuel per mile it is not too 'fair'. But since it all goes to the various governments either way I think I can look at it as part of the tax is just for the abuse of the road and the rest is for the abuse of the environment done by say the emissions.

  6. #5
    Senior Member denmason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tracy, Ca
    Posts
    512
    Thanked: 122

    Default

    Just say no!, folks. This sort of thing is like being guilty of a crime you haven't committed yet.

  7. #6
    Shaves like a pirate jockeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Posts
    2,423
    Thanked: 590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gugi View Post
    Well if crimes can be committed over the internet, I guess it makes sense that some responsibility would be with those who provide the tools for these crimes.
    I would think I would be held responsible if I leave my gun widely accessible and somebody takes it and goes on a killing rampage.
    .
    what if your gun could be accessed, even if you had it in your safe, locked, by a person driving a car by OUTSIDE of your house, with a laptop and a cantenna and a bunch of scripted tools that automatically use your gun?


    it's apples and oranges. wireless routers can be broken no matter how well you lock them up, provided your attacker has enough time. odds are you won't even know someone is doing anything, even post facto.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •