Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday April 16, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2013, 08:00 AM   #26
scott_gunn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4203
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Vehicle:
2009 WRX 5spd hatch
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

Raise gas taxes.

Or why can't we pay for road improvements out of the general federal/local tax funds? Calling it a mileage tax is just a ploy to at least make some people (those who don't drive much, like old people) still vote for them after they vote to raise taxes.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
scott_gunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 12:59 PM   #27
gpshumway
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 43950
Join Date: Sep 2003
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
07 WRX LTD Wagon
Satin White Pearl

Default

The gas tax is certainly easier, but a mileage tax has the potential to be more efficient. As a general rule though, I think road maintenance should be paid for primarily by those who use the roads most. We should stop subsidizing the long commutes of some with the income tax of people who live near work.

They don't say this explicitly, but it would be a good idea to have a mileage tax with the rate of taxation based on vehicle mass. Why? Because it's generally accepted that wear on roads goes with the 4th power of vehicle mass[1]. So a 6,000lb SUV wears out the roads 16 times faster than a 3,000lb sedan. Since said SUV gets much better than 1/16th the fuel economy of the sedan, gasoline taxes cause sedan drivers to pay for road repairs which should be attributed to SUV drivers. In that way, a mileage tax could be more efficient. Of course we currently have the infrastructure to collect gas taxes, but not mileage taxes, at least not everywhere. Minnesota (as an example) doesn't have state vehicle inspections.

[1] AASHO Road Test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
gpshumway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 01:09 PM   #28
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post
The gas tax is certainly easier, but a mileage tax has the potential to be more efficient. As a general rule though, I think road maintenance should be paid for primarily by those who use the roads most. We should stop subsidizing the long commutes of some with the income tax of people who live near work.

They don't say this explicitly, but it would be a good idea to have a mileage tax with the rate of taxation based on vehicle mass. Why? Because it's generally accepted that wear on roads goes with the 4th power of vehicle mass[1]. So a 6,000lb SUV wears out the roads 16 times faster than a 3,000lb sedan. Since said SUV gets much better than 1/16th the fuel economy of the sedan, gasoline taxes cause sedan drivers to pay for road repairs which should be attributed to SUV drivers. In that way, a mileage tax could be more efficient. Of course we currently have the infrastructure to collect gas taxes, but not mileage taxes, at least not everywhere. Minnesota (as an example) doesn't have state vehicle inspections.

[1] AASHO Road Test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not just commuters, but you punish people that live out in rural areas. Roads which see far less traffic and require less repair and maintenance over a greater span of time.

Commuters almost always have small cars, or at least fuel efficient vehicles. We wear the roads less, but get taxed more even though we typically travel most of our miles on highways which are designed and built up to widstand higher traffic loads and speeds. They utilize thicker pavemnt layers, harder subsoils, and macadam/cement properties.

Gas tax would be easier with zero extra administration (government is already too big). It would also punish people with larger vehicles more than people with smaller vehicles. For urban dwellers, even though they get worse mileage in the city, aside from hybrid cars, they travel far less miles in a given day. When i lived in the city, a tank of fuel would last me a full week, i would fill up on weekends. Now i fill up about 3 times a week.

Bottomline is roads used to be heavily subsidized by state, federal and local tax dollars which was bolstered by gas taxes and toll fees. Now that the government is low on money with higher unemployment, bigger government, more social programs and such. They are cutting those dollars for roads in order to pay for other programs as well as their rediculous pention. So now the money for roads has to come from somewhere. It's not enough that 34% of my yearly income goes to some kind of tax, but people want more free handouts even though the country can't afford it.

Last edited by gggplaya; 01-11-2013 at 01:22 PM.
gggplaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 01:09 PM   #29
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Here's an idea: Lets open a theme park and charger PER RIDE instead of just charging for the use of the park as much as you want between open and close! I bet the park would do excellent, especially the small stands that sell stuff.
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 01:14 PM   #30
gpshumway
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 43950
Join Date: Sep 2003
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
07 WRX LTD Wagon
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
seriously though, you would have to exempt 18 wheelers, as they are the backbone of the entire country. They are the only reason we have stores full of stuff to eat and consume.

taxing them per mile is just a way to make everything cost a CRAP load more.
The US relies much more on trucking than other countries partly because of the subsidies to road infrastructure. Trains are a much more efficient way to move goods, both fuel wise and traffic wise.

Quote:
These are the consequences of government meddling, yet again, they have unintended consequences.
Every form of taxation will impose some level of distortion on the marketplace, but that doesn't change the fact that we need infrastructure for the marketplace to function, and we therefore need to raise revenue to pay for that infrastructure. The key is to devise a taxation scheme which has minimal administrative costs while raising the required revenue in the least distortionary (most efficient) way.

Quote:
How about mandates to make cars smaller and lighter...It would make the roads last longer.
See my above post for how a well implemented mileage tax would do exactly this. If the mileage tax on a Tahoe driven 10,000 mi a year was $800 while the mileage tax on a Focus driven the same amount was $200, that would be a pretty good incentive to buy the Focus instead of the Tahoe.
gpshumway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 01:26 PM   #31
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXHillClimb View Post
Here's an idea: Lets open a theme park and charger PER RIDE instead of just charging for the use of the park as much as you want between open and close! I bet the park would do excellent, especially the small stands that sell stuff.
You just described a carnival.
gggplaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 01:43 PM   #32
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post
The US relies much more on trucking than other countries partly because of the subsidies to road infrastructure. Trains are a much more efficient way to move goods, both fuel wise and traffic wise.



Every form of taxation will impose some level of distortion on the marketplace, but that doesn't change the fact that we need infrastructure for the marketplace to function, and we therefore need to raise revenue to pay for that infrastructure. The key is to devise a taxation scheme which has minimal administrative costs while raising the required revenue in the least distortionary (most efficient) way.



See my above post for how a well implemented mileage tax would do exactly this. If the mileage tax on a Tahoe driven 10,000 mi a year was $800 while the mileage tax on a Focus driven the same amount was $200, that would be a pretty good incentive to buy the Focus instead of the Tahoe.
There isn't any more land to build train tracks unless you are basically out in the middle of nowhere. 80% of goods are trucked because america is extremely vast, trucking is also quicker to transport goods than a train. So if you shift from trucking cross country to simply local trucking and cross country trains, you will need to add many more tracks from all the extra railroad traffic.

A train leaves on a certain schedule. You are adding the extra step of loading all of your goods onto a cargo container, driving it to the trainyard, offloading onto the train. Wait for the train to leave towards it's destination. At every stop the train will offload and reload some cargo. Trains have to slow down for certain intersections. Then when it gets to your nearby train stop(which would be hours of driving in the midwest). You have to get your cargo offloaded. Then drive to your destination and offload your cargo like normal.

An 18 wheeler is different. First truck drivers usually keep 2 log books and fudge them as needed to make their destination in record time. They can leave and travel as soon as their cargo is loaded. They have to stop every 150 miles for a 15 minute break and check their cargo(flatbed trailer). They have to take so many sleep breaks if it's a long haul.

I've been all over the country for my job, i work with truck drivers all the time to move my goods. While a train has its uses and in some circumstances can be better for transporting if your product doesn't need to ship very fast, and you're located relatively close to a train depot. But i really don't see anyone investing trillions of dollars into buying land, tearing down houses, and laying down tracks in the vast open united states.

Trucking will continue because time is money. America is one of the worst countries for being too fast paced in a "want it now" impatient society. If you tax per mile, if you raise the price of fuel, if you tax by vehicle size and weight, or per axle, trucking will continue. They'll just charge higher fees and as an end result your groceries as well as other good will go way up in price. Keep in mind that about 65% of our produce and seafood is imported into the U.S. So that all has to be trucked in from an east coast or west coast port to you local city in a very timely manner(due to spoiling).

Last edited by gggplaya; 01-11-2013 at 01:50 PM.
gggplaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 01:47 PM   #33
shikataganai
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
2007 Land Cruiser
2013 LEAF

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post
it's generally accepted that wear on roads goes with the 4th power of vehicle mass[1]. So a 6,000lb SUV wears out the roads 16 times faster than a 3,000lb sedan. Since said SUV gets much better than 1/16th the fuel economy of the sedan, gasoline taxes cause sedan drivers to pay for road repairs which should be attributed to SUV drivers. In that way, a mileage tax could be more efficient.
No way would the mileage tax be that progressive with respect to weight, even though it should be. I'd be surprised if proposed rates for a 6k vehicle were even double those for a 3k vehicle.
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 01:58 PM   #34
MidnightSti05
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 74064
Join Date: Nov 2004
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Default

Gas tax?
MidnightSti05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 02:07 PM   #35
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
You just described a carnival.
Every carnival I've been to has just a gate entrance fee. It's all the stupid crap like side shows and freak attractions that cost extra, which I don't do anyways. Also, they are no where near as expensive and even if they did charge per ride, I bet it's like $1 a ride. What we would see here is more like $20 to enter the park and $5 per ride, ultimately resulting in the same $50 ticket for people who use VERY VERY little and then much more for people who drive the average, and heaven forbid you drive OVER the average mileage. You might as well move from your nice suburban neighborhood to the big city, crowded, small, tight, overly expensive areas where you own NO actual property and pay $600/mo for 50 square feet of living space.

Yeah... never going to happen. **** big city life and the conglomeration of tons of people, which results in a disproportionate increase in uneducated, low life people being held up by the forced helping hand of other's because of forced moral values.
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 02:08 PM   #36
bakadayo
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 41230
Join Date: Aug 2003
Default

So it's decided then, gas tax since it's easier to implement. Done and done.
bakadayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 02:33 PM   #37
dangerousatom
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70710
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Quakertown/AREA1320 391whp
Vehicle:
2002 04STi Swaped RS
w/PPGS & 02 Wagon w/PPGs

Default

I say start drilling and building more refinery's, stop exporting 1/3 of our oil/fuel to non US country's. Tell all the tree hugging people to go hug a tree and stay out of politics and stop causing such a backlash when our nation actually tries to take a step forward in the right direction.

If we just started fending for ourselves when it comes to Oil, our nation would pull itself up out of this financial trouble and create tons of jobs on so many levels within a few years. Granted those years may be hard and lean till things are up and running but the economy and pretty much all other issues would snap back surprisingly fast. The US relies far too much on the rest of the worlds oil, when in all reality we have as much if not more untapped oil just sitting in the ground. The tables could so easily be turned if we as a nation would just pull up our boot straps and grow a pair on so many of these issues.

Gas Tax is the simplest and fairest solution.
dangerousatom is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 02:34 PM   #38
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakadayo View Post
So it's decided then, gas tax since it's easier to implement. Done and done.
Agreed. That or get rid of some of the bloat the government has in pretty much EVERY one of its departments, streamline it efficiency wise, and see where that gets you in terms of cost savings.
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 02:40 PM   #39
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
1971 240Z

Default

If by streamline you mean continuously keep increasing the size of the standing army of federal employees every single year, year after year, then yes.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 02:43 PM   #40
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
If by streamline you mean continuously keep increasing the size of the standing army of federal employees every single year, year after year, then yes.
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 02:49 PM   #41
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2006 Pontiac GTO M6
Triumph Street Triple R

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dangerousatom View Post
I say start drilling and building more refinery's, stop exporting 1/3 of our oil/fuel to non US country's. Tell all the tree hugging people to go hug a tree and stay out of politics and stop causing such a backlash when our nation actually tries to take a step forward in the right direction.

If we just started fending for ourselves when it comes to Oil, our nation would pull itself up out of this financial trouble and create tons of jobs on so many levels within a few years. Granted those years may be hard and lean till things are up and running but the economy and pretty much all other issues would snap back surprisingly fast. The US relies far too much on the rest of the worlds oil, when in all reality we have as much if not more untapped oil just sitting in the ground. The tables could so easily be turned if we as a nation would just pull up our boot straps and grow a pair on so many of these issues.
And what exactly do you think the result of this oh so brilliant plan would be?
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 03:13 PM   #42
Indocti Discant
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 138000
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: et ament meminisse periti
Vehicle:
SF Teri Ma

Default

VA has an interesting plan. Drop all state gas taxes and replace it with a 0.8% sales tax.

Quote:
In Virginia, controversy is a-brewin' over Governor Bob McDonnell's plan to eliminate the state's gasoline tax. The funds generated from that tax have traditionally been earmarked for maintenance and construction of Virginia's roads.

To replace gas tax revenue, McDonnell plans to do three things: (1) raise the state's sales tax by about 16%, (2) increase vehicle registration fees, and (3) siphon off money from schools, mental health programs, and public safety initiatives.

Which is to say, he's planning to start a fight with elected officials on both sides of the aisle.
On the right, many groups take issue with McDonnell's plan to rely on sales taxes for roadway funds. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, says that McDonnell is correct when he insists that the gas tax is stagnating. However, CEI also points out that the gas tax may be the most accurate gauge of road usage and therefore, the best source of revenue.

CEI's Marc Scribner insists that "New vehicle fleet and driving trends are quickly rendering the fuel tax obsolete. But abandoning the user-pays/user-benefits principle, which has long guided transportation funding in the United States, is not the answer." Instead, he says that "[s]trengthening the user-pays principle through all-electronic tolling and other mileage-based charges is the most prudent and fiscally conservative approach."

Translation: the people who use roads should pay for their upkeep, and money should be collected from those folks via tolls and other charges, based on how far users drive.

On the left, McDonnell is likely to face opposition from Democrats, who have often been very uncomfortable taking funds from education, healthcare, and other public/social services to pay for transportation infrastructure.

In the middle, we find the Washington Post, which agrees with McDonnell that the gas tax is an inadequate source of revenue for roadway maintenance, but also points out that his plan to rely on sales taxes and money pilfered from other state programs won't meet the anticipated costs. On average, the pricetag for maintaining and constructing new roads in Virginia is about $1 billion per year; McDonnell's new plan would only generate about $600 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/s...dfa_story.html
Indocti Discant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 03:26 PM   #43
dangerousatom
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70710
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Quakertown/AREA1320 391whp
Vehicle:
2002 04STi Swaped RS
w/PPGS & 02 Wagon w/PPGs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC View Post
And what exactly do you think the result of this oh so brilliant plan would be?
Less money spent to out of nation places and organizations so we can spend it on our selves. Our nation was once rich and strong. Now we have become fat relying on other nations work and poor from spending it on there stuff. We need to focus on ourselves as a nation not the other problems in the world.

In all reality I dont ever see the current problems ever being solved, but getting worse until the end.
dangerousatom is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 05:19 PM   #44
gpshumway
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 43950
Join Date: Sep 2003
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
07 WRX LTD Wagon
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
If by streamline you mean continuously keep increasing the size of the standing army of federal employees every single year, year after year, then yes.
I hate talking politics, mostly because there are lots of people who are sure, just SURE they know things, in spite of the facts. This is a reasonably benign example, but it illustrates the misinformation out there.

Total Federal employment in 1962: 5,354,000
Total Federal employment in 2010: 4,443,000

2010 even includes temporary workers for the census.
Peak Federal employment occurred in 1968 at 6,639,000

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historica...tsince1962.asp
gpshumway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 05:40 PM   #45
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post
I hate talking politics, mostly because there are lots of people who are sure, just SURE they know things, in spite of the facts. This is a reasonably benign example, but it illustrates the misinformation out there.

Total Federal employment in 1962: 5,354,000
Total Federal employment in 2010: 4,443,000

2010 even includes temporary workers for the census.
Peak Federal employment occurred in 1968 at 6,639,000

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historica...tsince1962.asp
I thought Scrappy worked for the feds too via NASA maybe he is a private contractor or something.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 05:43 PM   #46
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dangerousatom View Post
I say start drilling and building more refinery's, stop exporting 1/3 of our oil/fuel to non US country's. Tell all the tree hugging people to go hug a tree and stay out of politics and stop causing such a backlash when our nation actually tries to take a step forward in the right direction.

If we just started fending for ourselves when it comes to Oil, our nation would pull itself up out of this financial trouble and create tons of jobs on so many levels within a few years. Granted those years may be hard and lean till things are up and running but the economy and pretty much all other issues would snap back surprisingly fast. The US relies far too much on the rest of the worlds oil, when in all reality we have as much if not more untapped oil just sitting in the ground. The tables could so easily be turned if we as a nation would just pull up our boot straps and grow a pair on so many of these issues.

Gas Tax is the simplest and fairest solution.
You are kinda very wrong about oil. We don't have enough conventional oil. If we did we would be using it instead of more expensive alternatives. If someone else sells us oil cheaper than we can produce it here why shouldn't we import it?
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 05:56 PM   #47
blubaru703
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 71380
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: International
Default

How about the government learns to live within it's means? How's that for an idea? Ridiculous!!!
blubaru703 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 06:44 PM   #48
Mosher47
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 219198
Join Date: Aug 2009
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Westfield, MA
Vehicle:
2005 Impreza WRX
Crystal Grey Metallic

Default

We could probably save millions a year by not putting 3-4 cops at every road construction site at 50 buck an hour
Mosher47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 07:05 PM   #49
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
1971 240Z

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post
I hate talking politics, mostly because there are lots of people who are sure, just SURE they know things, in spite of the facts. This is a reasonably benign example, but it illustrates the misinformation out there.

Total Federal employment in 1962: 5,354,000
Total Federal employment in 2010: 4,443,000

2010 even includes temporary workers for the census.
Peak Federal employment occurred in 1968 at 6,639,000

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historica...tsince1962.asp
What about the increase in the past 4 years of some 240,000 federal employees.

yes, I am talking recent history, like the hundreds of thousands of jobs added under the Bush and Obama administrations...
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2013, 07:59 PM   #50
industrial
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 7250
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Home
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ
WRB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
What about the increase in the past 4 years of some 240,000 federal employees.

yes, I am talking recent history, like the hundreds of thousands of jobs added under the Bush and Obama administrations...
They are cutting government jobs all over the place nowadays. They just do it through attrition so you don't hear much about it.

Gas tax makes sense, mileage tax not so much.
industrial is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.