I mean, out of state plates shouldn't matter much. The residents of the state should be paying for the road maintenance, not people from out of state.
So the total cost of the roads should be bared by the residents, and their fees should be high enough to account for the damage done from out of state vehicles
I say this Soley because our of state vehicles don't need to be in California, and they don't need Californian roads, so why should they pay for them?
The residents of the state benefit from them being there because they are delivering goods to be sold in California to Californians, or to travel and spend tourist dollars in California providing jobs to locals, etc.
Residents should pay for the roads because the roads benefit the residents by allowing out of state traffic. It shouldn't solely be a straight charge to every vehicle that uses the roads.
You can have tiers to solve that, like vehicles under 5000lbs pay $x per kilometer driven, vehicles between 5000lbs and 10,000lbs pay $y per kilometer driven, and vehicles over 10000lbs pay $z per kilometer driven.
When the internet is flooded with untrue statements like this, they can more easily and reliably deny the true statements for when they really start to fuck shit up.
There should simply be an annual fee based on vehicle weight and distance driven
Keep the vehicle in your garage and only drive a handful of times? Low fee, drive a monster truck thousands and thousands of miles? Large fee.
This also solves the problem of electric vehicles not paying towards road maintenance, as they are heavy and would wear the roads more than a standard vehicle that uses gas.
I think you're a bit naive if you think the fighting would stop once the hostages are returned. Israel has been looking for an excuse to invade an annex the territory and the hostages were the perfect one. If they were returned they would simply come up with an excuse to continue.
Someone also needs to start a fourth party at the same time which is socially left but fiscally right. A lot of conservatives don't give a shit about the social aspect of the Democrats but just like the financial side of Republicans more so they vote that way instead.
A 4 party system is better than 3 party, and this way instead of a third party syphoning votes from only Democrats you'll have another party syphoning votes from Republicans at the same time so there's no downside.
The decision needs to be made right now, because there are always going to be those that encourage voting 3rd party like 3 months before the election even though none of the groundwork has been done for the previous 4 years.
If the work is started now it's a lot better then 3 months before the election where it really just syphons votes away from at least preventing Republicans from winning.
How would elections even work if there were three parties? Doesn't there need to be a majority for the president to be declared? Or is that because of the current two party system? Does it just need to be the party with the most electoral votes, not over 50%?
If there were three parties and it ended up being 33/33/34, would the party with 34% of the electoral votes be the one to win the presidency?
I mean, ya many meetings are largely unnecessary, but if you're missing a fair bit of them and still employed the middle managers aren't doing their job I guess 😂
I seriously don't understand why we don't have a mandatory class that covers taxes, T4 slips, investing, labour laws, budgeting, reading nutritional information on foods, etc.
Most CEOs aren't actually good at doing things, they got where they are because they're rich and charismatic for the most part, not because they are good at doing things.
Pyr @ Pyr_Pressure @lemmy.ca Posts 8Comments 1,657Joined 2 yr. ago
They also didn't need to put an actually wall behind the photo and destroy the Tesla, but why not?