Distance-based road tax for all vehicles under investigation [Archive]

davereid

30th December 2006, 14:18

Its a bloody lie anyway - they have been looking at it for years. There was an article on the beca-carter UK website about 2 years ago announcing they had the contract to develop ways of administering the system. Proposal was electronic number plates - sort of like the microchip they plant in your dog, but built into your number plate. So it could be read as you drive along by sensors built into the road. I've noticed a lot of green boxes springing up at choke points on the roads, always next to a diamond shaped cut in the tarseal. I asked everyone who owned them and they all denied ownership. Finally I told a guy in LTSA that as no-one owned them I'd break into the one on my road - it wouldnt matter as no one would care, but suddenly LTSA owned them and would prosecute me etc etc..

Da Bird

30th December 2006, 14:20

If they make the proposed Road User charges based on the weight/size of the vehicle as they do now, and removed the current petrol tax, bikers would (or should) actually be better off, obviously depending on what the new charges are. I think for a diesel car or 4x4, its currently about $24.00 per 1000km, so logic would assume a bike would be about half that. (Although, you need to get a person making the new rules to understand that logic).

James Deuce

30th December 2006, 14:22

Nope Bykey Cop it will be a flat rate depending on fuel type, with petrol vehicles at the top of the tier.

Skyryder

30th December 2006, 16:54

There's gonna be a raft of these things in th years to come. I can not help but wonder the amount of fuel we could have saved with an efficient rail system. I think in the future rail will make a comback if for no other reason than fuel and carbon efficiency.

Skyryder

davereid

30th December 2006, 20:26

Nope, public transport is never green, its either very fuel inefficient, or very transport inefficient. Its just a fantasy that public transport is the future.

We let the transport planners waste our money on it, without ever asking them the basic question .. ie is it any good ? if we asked that question we would never fund it.

Look at it this way...

Fuel efficient bus.. you wait at the bus stop until all 55 seats are full. Thats a fuel efficient bus. Buts its not very transport efficient.

Transport efficient bus.. one every 3 minutes even on your rural route. But 99% of busses only carry the driver. Not very fuel efficient.

Actual public transport is worse - the bus is never regular enough to be useful, andit gets dismal fuel economy per passenger km.

(Exception being cities with existing infrastructure and 12000000 million people.)

The future is already here, its called the motor scooter.

Goes from where you are, to where you want to be, when you want to go and it gets 100 mpg. No waiting for the bus or train, just go and be green.

Swoop

30th December 2006, 20:33

Fuel efficient bus.. you wait at the bus stop until all 55 seats are full. Thats a fuel efficient bus. Buts its not very transport efficient.

Transport efficient bus.. one every 3 minutes even on your rural route. But 99% of busses only carry the driver. Not very fuel efficient.

OR they might get smaller busses much like overseas. These fill quicker and can handle more "round about the houses" routes that are untapped by the stupid too-large buses we currently have. Keep the larger busses for the more popular routes.

Oops... off topic already.
YES, Bloody bastard stupid morons fecking taxes...!!!

If introduced, we will get rid of the current taxes on fuel. - Yeah, right.

Toaster

30th December 2006, 20:55

Who voted for these money grubbing communist self-seeking tossers anyway? I want a real democratic government that doesn't control the media and listens to referendums.

They make masive tax surpluses as it is.... did the buggers not get a big enough payrise or what?

Our problem is we just bend over and take it each and every time... maybe we should protest like the french!

RantyDave

30th December 2006, 21:07

Scum sucking sons of bitches.
So write to them.

"Dear scum sucking sons of bitches,

I write in reference to your proposed legislation of a distance based road tax. If it is indeed proposed that this take the place of the fuel tax you are now not receiving it is effectively a tax on high fuel efficiency. Clearly this incentivises the New Zealand public to use natural resources which we really should be saving for the next generation, and to further damage the environment - something, again, which we ought to be saving for the next generation.

So, really, for a hundred and fifty grand a year I was hoping that at least one of you dumb cunts would engage your brain.

Yours,
Dave"

Swoop

30th December 2006, 21:08

maybe we should protest like the french!
How do you mean? Sit down and drink vast quantities of red wine?

I believe that all we need is a bricklayer and a very long firehose...

When the money grabbing morons (let's call them "politicians and public servants" for now) are all inside the beehive, the bricklayer simply bricks up all the doors.
Then the firehose is put into the top window and water allowed to fill the place up...
It would make fabulous TV viewing!

EDIT: It is also environmentally friendly since no nasty chemicals are required to rid the country of this vermin!!!

Toaster

30th December 2006, 21:11

Then the firehose is put into the top window and water allowed to fill the place up...
It would make fabulous TV viewing!

Kinda like a big fish bowl!! Like it!!

Brian d marge

30th December 2006, 21:35

Our problem is we just bend over and take it each and every time... maybe we should protest like the french!

Whoa ,,thats the first time I have heard that coming from a NZ er ..Usually you lot dont grumble about these things !
Usually its , along the lines of , if you dont like it . or Winging ,,insert race

Well the good news is , Nz is up against it with the ole carbons and lets face it we would save heaps if cars were banned ( every vehicle cept my enfield of course !) and if it is more difficult to actually use the thing , then user pays ..so what the prob ,,,,always the bus ,or better still pushbike ,,,

No matter WHO you voted for , the powers( the ones actually running the show ) that be would push through the agenda Knowing that the largest voting block isnt worried about driving and even IF they did manage to convince federated farmers that this Would cause hardship on the farm(s) THEN MAYBE,,,,, something would get said/done , but I doubt it ,,,I am still waiiting for fart tax to pop up under a different name ,,,

Stephen

( that dog chipping gone though yet???)

NighthawkNZ

30th December 2006, 21:58

Well the good news is , Nz is up against it with the ole carbons

The Kyoto protocol is a fucked up idea... we have met our requirements already... and we have extra credits so we can sell them to china... the government gets the money not the company that made those credits available... hmmmm

Tell me how does that clean up chinas rivers and cities polution and air... how does that change the way china and many other countries thinks about polution and chopping down the forests... no problem we just buy more credits for some other country... how fucked up is that...

No wonder the US and Oz said no they have their head screwed on...

Brian d marge

30th December 2006, 22:15

Was reading in Stuff .co.nz about nz plans for the future regarding energy , 2012 is the transition point, made interesting reading.

Carbon trading I can understand, but I agree shouldnt the BUSINESS get the credits ,,otherwise there is no point in doing it in the first place,,

No one could be that friggen stupid , UNLESS there was a bigger picture ,

I could even accept a polly turning round in a few years time and admitting , we were screwing you ...we made a lot of money sorry ...

I cant accept that they REALLY are this dumb ,,and I have been in the behive and they are porterhouse blue ....but,,

Stephen

James Deuce

30th December 2006, 22:35

So write to them.

Pointless. They don't give a rat's arse. "They've" spent billions in every liberal democracy trying to pump up the guilt factor for "climate change" instead of developing plans for dealing with it.

There'll be a nice big Northern Hemisphere Ice Age very soon. The last one kicked off in a similar way. Arctic Ice shelves break up, Gulf Stream gets interrupted, glaciers invade Europe, the North Sea freezes, the Northern Hemisphere Oceanic waters cool back down again and the climate equalises over 10,000 years to the current conditions. We were headed that way 300 years ago. But we started burning coal and melted the European glaciers by dusting them with soot so they absorbed energy from the Sun, and melted them. The Thames used to freeze almost to the sea up to about 3-400 years ago.

I'm trying to re-jig my brain into glorious leader format but I keep being nice to people. It's very important when you have to line up bureaucracies of 10s of thousands of people against the wall that you utterly lack compassion. I reckon Winja's the man for the job. NZ'ers like fat pollies with a sense of humour and a callous disregard for the wellbeing of the general populace.

We need a benevolent dictatorship or maybe a democratically elected Government of four people at the most.

Oh yeah. The first one of you lot to buy an electric vehicle for daily use is going to get roasted over a coal fire.

Str8 Jacket

31st December 2006, 04:39

Bastards!
I especially loved this quote: "We still need to collect revenue to pay for our transport system, to improve it for safety, to improve it for congestion, to help support public transport."
Bastards!

James Deuce

31st December 2006, 08:14

Yeah it's not like they haven't been raping road users for decades to feed taxes collected by that method into the consolidated fund or anything.

Is it?

TonyB

31st December 2006, 08:35

Not sure if this point has been bought up yet, but if the system can automatically measure how FAR you have travelled, then it will also measure the amount of TIME it took. Therefore, along with road user charges the system will no doubt be able to automatically issue speeding tickets, although initially we'll be told that this will never happen, just like we were told that speed cameras would never be hidden and speed camera zones would always be clearly marked...

Ixion

31st December 2006, 08:40

Which obviously is the real purpose of the exercise. After all, when you already have a simple and effective method of collecting tax based on distance travlled (more distance = more fuel = more tax), why change it to a complicated expensive one which will cost a fortune to implement. Unless you have another , unstated, purpose.

The claimed justification, falling revenue from petrol tax with more efficient vehicles is nonsense. If the problem is that the revenue needs to be $Y instead of $X , then it is not necessary to introduce a complete new system. simply increase the tax on the present system. The amount collected will still be the same, $Y.

Str8 Jacket

31st December 2006, 08:45

Ya'll dont really think that the Govt would lie to us, do you?

Ixion

31st December 2006, 08:55

Of course not. They're there to help us.

TonyB

31st December 2006, 10:07

Ahh, but the funny part is, if that is indeed the idea, the govt will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If it becomes impossible to speed without getting a ticket, then the vast majority of motorists will fall into line and stop speeding. The die hard speed freaks will find a way to cheat the system, and the govt will loose a significant source of income...

Pixie

31st December 2006, 12:30

There'll be a nice big Northern Hemisphere Ice Age very soon. The last one kicked off in a similar way. Arctic Ice shelves break up, Gulf Stream gets interrupted, glaciers invade Europe, the North Sea freezes, the Northern Hemisphere Oceanic waters cool back down again and the climate equalises over 10,000 years to the current conditions. We were headed that way 300 years ago. But we started burning coal and melted the European glaciers by dusting them with soot so they absorbed energy from the Sun, and melted them. The Thames used to freeze almost to the sea up to about 3-400 years ago.

What no run away greenhouse effect?
Are all the things the well funded govt scientists on the global warming gravy train told us untrue?
My faith in them is destroyed

degrom

31st December 2006, 12:40

James Deuce

31st December 2006, 12:45

Lol Pixie. You a cynic? Never!

I went to a talk by Bob McDavitt. PR people are confusing Climate Change with Greenhouse effect. Deliberately.

James Deuce

31st December 2006, 12:48

Yes scooter are a great idea!!! Just get rid of the 2strokes and get more elictrical ones. I know you can get electrical ones in Upper Hutt.

*scuttles outside to get the BBQ pit stoked and the really big spit roasting gear out*

*scuttles back inside to load 50 round Glock 18 mag and attach under barrel laser sight*

You're in Kelson, aren't you degrom?

What's the address of this place in Upper Hutt?

degrom

31st December 2006, 12:53

*scuttles outside to get the BBQ pit stoked and the really big spit roasting gear out*

*scuttles back inside to load 50 round Glock 18 mag and attach under barrel laser sight*

You're in Kelson, aren't you degrom?

What's the address of this place in Upper Hutt?

Here is the Website - http://www.ecobike.co.nz/

LOL... Yes, in Kelson I am. (Why?)

degrom

31st December 2006, 12:54

The scooter's spec's :

Engine Type: Electric, 1 x 1000-Watt rear wheel internal hub motor (Brush-less DC motor)
Battery: 48-Volts (4 x 12-Volt/20Ah) Sealed Lead Acid
Dimensions (LxWxH): 1600mm x 730mm x 1090mm
Wheelbase: 1180mm
Ground to Seat Height: 730mm
Max. Speed: 50kmph
Max. Range: Up to 50km per charge
Max. Load: 100kg
Brakes: Mechanical drum, front & rear
Tyres: Air Filled. 3.00-10 front & rear
Weight: 85kg
Colours:Candy-red, blue, black or dark-green

Ixion

31st December 2006, 12:55

...Just get rid of the 2strokes ...

:Oi: :bash: :nono: :Pokey: :spanking:

degrom

31st December 2006, 12:56

:Oi: :bash: :nono: :Pokey: :spanking:

What? These day's you can't get a WOF for a two stoke right?

(Or is there a bent in rules?)

Ixion

31st December 2006, 12:58

?? Petal got one no problems last week.

degrom

31st December 2006, 13:01

?? Petal got one just fine last week.

Why do I see the letter's in the Smoking rule not lining up correctly?

Ixion

31st December 2006, 13:03

Two strokes are exempt from the smoke emission thing. Cos we're special. (just as well, cos the idiot at the WoF place flooded it, and when I got it started it filled the building with smoke!. He did bitch about the noise, but I pointed out that the mufflers were standard - which they are).

degrom

31st December 2006, 13:06

Two strokes are exempt from the smoke emission thing. Cos we're special.

LOL... Give it a few more years and you will really be special.

(Actually more like in collectors items... :dodge: )

davereid

31st December 2006, 16:13

The Europeans and the yanks are really smart... they have worked out that a 7.5 litre 4 stroke that emits 5% of its burnt fuel as real environmental nasties is cleaner than a 50cc two stroke that emits 15%.

Thats the same as the europeans who think electric cars are the future...

choice (a) burn fuel in your car - some diesels reaching 45% thermal effficiency these days..

choice (b) burn fuel in your thermal power station, transmit it along lossy power lines, put it through a low efficiency charger into batteries made from precious metals (dug up by a big diesel digger, transported by big diesel trucks, refined in a pollutant smelter) and as long as your vehicle is "electric" you must be green eh !

We have to teach physics in our schools again (sigh)

degrom

31st December 2006, 16:20

degrom

31st December 2006, 16:24

I think the idea of an indicator of fuel economy on car that's been sold is a great start. Will help people make better decisions. Companies could benefit.

Promoting bikes are also a good idea.

What else are there?

degrom

31st December 2006, 16:35

What about this .... http://www.formulazero.nl/index_en.htm

<img src="http://www.formulazero.nl/images/content/others/Jeaninkart_small.jpg">

Fuel cell power 8.2 kw
Booster power (5 sec) 28 kw
Total electric power 60 kw (79 pk)
Kart weight (exc. driver) 295 kg
Acceleration (0 to 100) < 8 sec
Topspeed > 110 km/h
Timespan of a race on a full hydrogen tank 12 min
Volume of produced water 700 ml

James Deuce

31st December 2006, 16:41

Bikes aren't fuel efficient. I get better fuel efficiency from my Renault than I do from the Zed.

The electric battery powered vehicle is not a goer. The vehicle needs to generate its own motive force to be regarded as heading toward an efficient vehicle model. Hybrids are also a crock of shit. If the combo in a hybrid vehicle has a small diesel plus electric motors then I would take the manufacturers claims to be building fuel efficient hybrids a little more seriously.

The fuel consumption figures for a Prius are no better than for an Echo, and under no circumstances should you compare the fuel efficiency of the two Toyota models mentioned to a diesel VW Polo. It's just embarrassing for Toyota. Add to that the amount of resource that goes into making a Prius and then having to dispose of all the heavy metals that go into the electricity generation and storage process and you've got a vehicle that does more damage to the environment than Ford F1500.

Honda saw the writing on the wall with their hybrids almost as soon as they sold them and bought them back a year after release and broke them up.

James Deuce

31st December 2006, 16:47

What about this .... http://www.formulazero.nl/index_en.htm

http://www.formulazero.nl/images/content/others/Jeaninkart_small.jpg

Fuel cell power 8.2 kw
Booster power (5 sec) 28 kw
Total electric power 60 kw (79 pk)
Kart weight (exc. driver) 295 kg
Acceleration (0 to 100) < 8 sec
Topspeed > 110 km/h
Timespan of a race on a full hydrogen tank 12 min
Volume of produced water 700 ml

Gaaah!

How many times do we have to say it?

Fuel cells are full of pollutants and cost a fortune to make. Remember that bay in Japan where the local population went mental and died young and produced deformed children because of the mercury in the fish? That'll be nothing compared to what happens to local populations in China when they start making "cheap" fuel cells there.

Don't start down the Hydrogen powered vehicle route either. Ignoring the big bang that would result from a fuel cell failure, it takes as much energy to separate Hydrogen from water as you get out of it. Add to that the distribution network and the hassle of dealing with liquid hydrogen, and you have a net loss in energy.

davereid

31st December 2006, 16:53

The internal combustion engine is the way to go. All we need to do is change the fuel. Modern diesels are super efficient, and will run on virtually any vegetable oil. And if sugars are fermented and distilled the petrol engine has a future too.

So in effect internal combustion engines will be solar powered - the sun shines, photo synthesis creates a plant - absorbing C02 on the way. Then its turned into fuel, burnt, releasing only the C02 that was absorbed in the first place.

The catch is, we have to over-run a sunny, wet, country, kill all the natives off cos they are growing food in OUR fuel paddocks, and plant lots of rape seed.

Or maybe we just keep on putting the price of gas up. Then we will choose more fuel efficient vehicles.

As you comment lots of bikes are not fuel efficient - they are designed for performance. But as demand for fuel efficiency grows, manufacturers will make bikes better.

Even now, your choice of bike gives you a lot of options - lots of twins like the HD 883 sporty or the Kawka 6F give 55-65 mpg no probs, making them the fuel useage equivalent of a Hybrid, but much cheaper to manufacture and dispose of, not to mention parking / congestion / etc etc etc.

James Deuce

31st December 2006, 17:03

Crikey davereid, I hope Hitcher doesn't cotton on to your post. :)

He'll give the reasons why better than me, but using for instance, rape seed to make compression spirits will create its own ecological issues. Somewhere like NZ just doesn't have the space, the climate, or the soil nutrients to grow its own fuel.

TonyB

31st December 2006, 17:32

Are we completely incapable of coming up with an answer that doesn't harm the environment in some way?

No?

Oh well. Thats it, we're doomed.

Zapf

31st December 2006, 17:33

well I am against distance based tax if its a flat rate.

However if it takes into account the distance and the weight of the car / bike / truck then I might support it, as it is the weight that is mainly responsible for destroying the road surfaces.

James Deuce

31st December 2006, 17:41

Ixion

31st December 2006, 20:13

There is really no excuse for any bike to return less than 100mpg. Anything less is laziness on the part of the designers.

RantyDave

31st December 2006, 20:57

Bikes aren't fuel efficient. I get better fuel efficiency from my Renault than I do from the Zed.
SSSHHHH!!! I know that. You know that. F'kin rafts of greenies have no idea and are under the impression that bikes are good for the environment as a result. We want them under this impression. Kindly STFU.

The electric battery powered vehicle is not a goer.
Sure it is. Lithium Ion batteries plus nuclear power stations and we're there. If you can do it with a modified lotus elise (http://www.teslamotors.com) you can do it with a motorcycle. Shitloads of torque too.

Oh, but it's nukiller, and NZ can't have nukiller power stations because newkiller power is BAAAAD don't you know. Like, what are we going to do with that nasty radioactive shit, man?

Dave

RantyDave

31st December 2006, 21:01

Pointless. They don't give a rat's arse.
I got a reply from a cabinet minister once. Pete Hodgson. He had said something which got taken out of context by a reporter from the NZ Herald and made to sound like he didn't give the first flying fuck about innovation in small business, so I wrote to him taking him to task for it and pointing out how far from the party's official line this was.

I got a moderately angry reply so I think it's safe to say he read it. Hasn't done it since, either AND I still managed to get NZVIF to (indirectly) pay for my beer. Bike too, I guess. Whohoo!

Dave

rwh

31st December 2006, 21:43

Oh, but it's nukiller, and NZ can't have nukiller power stations because newkiller power is BAAAAD don't you know. Like, what are we going to do with that nasty radioactive shit, man?

Since I detect sarcasm, I assume you have an answer to that question?

Richard

Brian d marge

31st December 2006, 22:28

There is really no excuse for any bike to return less than 100mpg. Anything less is laziness on the part of the designers.

They do.... reckon nuke is the way to go , even NZ has made overtones in that direction
The real interesting counttry to watch is/will be india ...Ive already invested , in a early fifties designed four stroke single , which will run on almost anything volitile , and gets over 80mpg , the new LEAN burn engines get even more ,,,,and there is talk of a fuel injected model ( hearsay at mo )

I will be investing also in a still ...You all can donate your grass clippings and and Manure , to the cause
I will be taking collections twice monthy of Manure at wellington and will sell the surplus ( should be quite a lot) to anyone who wishes to continue riding

BTW they already have seen that eventuality ,,,have u seen the rego on special fuel vehicles ...ouch

Stephen

James Deuce

1st January 2007, 01:04

Jantar and K14 have explained in detail why NZ can't use Nuclear Power, and it wasn't why you think it would. NZ's energy grid fundamentally isn't able to parcel out the power from even a small reactor in a way that would make it even faintly cost or energy efficient.

Rantydave, it's nice that a polly wrote back to you. Pete Hodgson is probably one of the few humans in the Labour Caucus, but, and I mean this sincerely, not one person in the Labour party cares one tiny little thing about what you or I think about anything. They are all much better than us and we need them to save us from ourselves. At least that appears to be both what they think and practice.

Brian d marge

1st January 2007, 03:06

Must have missed that , is there a link ??? is it transmission losses ,,,?? our here in Japan is 110v and the same if not worse suspended power lines ..and the only bit of flat land is the size of canterbury ,,the rest is like . rather hilly

Stephen

avgas

1st January 2007, 03:57

I guarantee (almost) that the tax will be based on fuel type, not weight. In the interests of keeping the costs of administration down for the "taxpayer". They're obviously targeting petrol powered personal motor vehicles with this one because that is where they will be losing money.

Dont forget all the pit bikes, minichop's, scoots, anythings that "was" cheap fun on the road ("YEAH RIGHT for all of us that know better") etc

avgas

1st January 2007, 04:03

NZ's energy grid fundamentally isn't able to parcel out the power from even a small reactor in a way that would make it even faintly cost or energy efficient.

depends on who you talk to - some people are using pretty fancy stuff in the power industry these days. and transmission based engineering firms in NZ are not exactly going broke.
Going to New York woke me up to that - 90% of the power stuff there is dodgey.....and horrible blue boxes in the subs ;) note for those in the know

James Deuce

1st January 2007, 08:00

Jantar and K14 are Energy brokers and actually manage the Clutha plant. I think they know what they are talking about avgas.

You can be as fancy as you want, you can't introduce the wattage from a single Nuclear plant in a way that makes any sense.

James Deuce

1st January 2007, 08:20

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=592693&postcount=22

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=594250&postcount=58

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=594263&postcount=59

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=594353&postcount=63

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=594681&postcount=66

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=594711&postcount=68

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=594742&postcount=69

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=595054&postcount=73

Overall analysis?

Nuclear energy is too expensive to commission and to introduce Nuclear power would mean decommissioning at least 3 non-Nuclear plants, bringing our total Energy generation output back to our current levels without any capability to add more generation capacity unless those non-nuclear plants are re-commissioned to cope with added demand. In approximately 300Mw chunks.

So someone is going to experience brown outs at peak demand for years at a time.

The price of power will go up massively to cover a $3-400 million operating cost.

At some point in the future there may be modular units that can generate 2-300Mw of power but they are of a type that you put in a hole in the ground and then when it has used up its fuel supply you fill the hole with concrete.

Nuclear waste is not a topic to be dismissed as "trivial", nor dismissed as over-emphasised by Luddites. Irradiated equipment from clothing to spent fuel makes up a large chunk of stuff to dispose of "safely", and even lightly irradiated people are a risk to others around them as well as their own long term health issues.

Dai

1st January 2007, 09:20

The internal combustion engine is the way to go. All we need to do is change the fuel. Modern diesels are super efficient, and will run on virtually any vegetable oil. ...

If you look into the "deisel" engine you will see that modern use of the deisel is very inefficient.

George Deisel designed the engine to run on peanut oil not hydrocarbon.

If the government and petrol companies wanted to they could let these engines run on veggie oils of all kinds.

The by products of these fuels is dramatically less damaging than the fuel we call deisel.

I remember the fuss in the UK when there was a big rash of people buying hundreds of liters of cooking oil at a time from the supermarket because it was 1/3 the price of deisel at the pumps.

I may be cynical here but I find these endless debates about the government and how they are going to change how the gather revenue from its citizens, very tedious.

We moan, complain and postulate all sorts of alternative methods of basically complying with their demands.

Help me out here any legal experts.

It is my understanding that there has never been any act of parliament made into law that forces you to may income tax. It is my understanding that it is more a contractual agreement that when you get an IRD number you enter into an agreement to pay this to the gov.

We all, myself included, just go along with it. Mainly through fear.

If enough of us just refused to support these "taxes" the gov would have to look elsewhere for their spending money. This brings me to another point. Just what do we get for this money we pay?

Education-- a joke
Health -- a farce
The military -- a laughing stock
The police-- self funding from fines now
Roads--- absolute crap
Social services-- $11000 a year for an OAP, Helen gets that a week almost.

We wont do anything because we are SHEEP. We follow the norm making lots of noise doing nothing.

Baaaa Baaaa Baaa

davereid

1st January 2007, 09:36

Yeah, we use the word "diesel" to describe compression ignition engines, or rational heat engines. They dont care what they are fed, as long as it burns !

There are modern compression ignition engines exceeding 50% thermal efficiency. Thats bloody good ! I'm not sure electric vehicles would better that if the calculation started at the generator and included all the losses from the power plant to the wheel.

Often when we discuss "revolutionary" new electric engines we fall for the hype. Lots of these "super fuel efficient" vehicles are only producing 20kw. My ride on mower does that. My mums 3 cyl daihatsu does 40kw !

RantyDave

1st January 2007, 16:42

Nuclear waste is not a topic to be dismissed as "trivial"
No, but it is better than the alternative - being to throw lots more carbon in the air and trigger a whole bunch of right now (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1869000,00.html) problems instead of some 2000 years in the future problems.

But I'm quite willing to believe that our transmission infrastructure is unable to move the power (1.21 GW?) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/quotes) from one end of the country to another.

Little tiny nuclear reactors, that's what we need. With at least one installed in Kerry Prendergast's garden.

James Deuce

1st January 2007, 16:56

I'm sorry Dave, I'm not keen to create a problem for future generations. It's a very short sighted view.

The Mid-Atlantic trench pumps 100s of times more carbon into the atmosphere than mankind does, but I don't see anyone offering to plug that.

You guys from the Northern Hemisphere keep forgetting that NZ is the size of the UK and has the population of Hampshire. We just can't use nuclear power yet.