When I'm finally elected into power as dictator of this great country ("and there was much wailing, and gnashing of teeth"), it will be partially because the people have voted for my party's multi-faceted plan for transportation. This plan would of course include improved public transport (including trains and buses with the ability to kill vandals and dispose of the body in an environmentally friendly manner), improved driver education, a 4-foot foam-rubber barrier around the outside of all taxi cabs, and the introduction of the Voluntary Vehicular Wanker Tax.
Yes, the Voluntary Vehicular Wanker Tax, or VVWT. The VVWT would apply to all those selfish pricks who insist on doing stuff they know is stupid, and endangering the rest of us, purely because something is trendy or they think it looks good. Sometimes they're right about that, lots of the time they're wrong, but most of the time they're threatening the rest of us as we attempt to go about our daily business.
Note that the VVWT should not be confused with any form of variable valve timing. Just how severe the taxation rate would be under the proposed VVWT remains to be seen, pending the results of the senate inquiry which should be under way ... by the time you read this. However, although I'm unable to report the exact penalty rates involved, I can tell you they will be in the order of $2000/vehicle-confiscation/firstborn-confiscation/castration/beheading. And I can already hear you clamouring to know which of the many offences against society, which we see on a daily basis, will be included under the umbrella of this new method of revenue raising.
First on the list would have to be those people that insist on driving around in fine weather with fog lights or driving lights on. Yes, these dickwads have annoyed everyone but themselves, and regardless of how many times you tell them they're doing it, they just claim it "looks kewl" and keep on committing the offence. A partial deduction known as a Stupidity Rebate may be claimed by imbeciles, such as Excel drivers who drive around blinding traffic behind them, blissfully unaware of how to operate the controls in their car; but that deduction can be claimed if they offend only once. Double taxation will apply to those lower classes of sewer scum who have their fog lights on in lieu of headlights, not only blinding oncoming traffic but giving themselves inadequate forward vision.
Some uncommon cases may require further investigation and the associated subclauses may need to be adjusted for these cases; one such example is the Mitsubishi Verada owner, whose car has the fog light controls mounted directly behind the headlight controls, so they're very easy to turn on by accident. Such cases may require the original designer to forfeit his or her life in a very slow, controlled and extremely painful fashion.
Secondly we must have the "doofdoof" driver. This particular group of shaved monkeys not only has the dubious taste involved in enjoying repetitive music which seems to consist only of frequencies below about 100Hz, but he or she also has a need to impose the shyte on everyone else around them. But more importantly, they can't hear a friggin' thing... Yesterday afternoon I saw one of these deafened dufii sitting in the way of an ambulance, blissfully unaware of the fact that the siren was screaming and that there were these bight multicoloured lights strobing in the rear vision mirror that he obviously never uses. I suspect we shall be implementing the new Medical Advancement Levy on these particular neanderthals; they will probably be used in experimentation in industrial deafness, and the examination of what happens when somebody halts your breathing by shoving an 18-inch subwoofer down your throat and the ambulance is held up by just over five minutes.
Have I mentioned those poor-handling oversized fuel-guzzling resource-depleting overweight battering rams that we call four-wheel drives yet? We'll have to deal with this one on a "guilty until proven innocent" basis, I feel owners of vehicles over a certain height will have to offer conclusive proof that they have used their vehicle for the intended purpose, or they will be charged VVWT. 4WD owners will have to produce photographs of their vehicle being used off-road at least once per year, which will have to be verified by two credible witnesses (ie people that do not own 4WD's). As this will be IMPOSSIBLE to show for 99.999% of all 4WD's out there, because they've never even seen a dirt driveway let alone a track that actually needs 4WD traction, we do expect some backlash from the voters against this proposal. Comprehensive culling of those who do not agree should allow the bill to be passed without much difficulty, however. It is envisioned that the monies levied from this tax will pay for driver education (an educated driver wouldn't choose a 4WD unless they intended to use it off-road, thus reducing 4WD numbers further), and stress relief exercises for the rest of society who are living with the lack of vision caused by these unnecessary impediments.
There are many other activities in this list of taxable conduct; such as having obstructions hanging from rear vision mirrors, usage of mobile phones without paying enough attention to the road, and reckless noisy driving in residential areas at 2am. This list will be published once it has been finalised.
Debate has also been raging on whether certain pointless but non-dangerous activities warrant taxation under the VVWT. It is true that excessive plastic bolted to a car is a crime against good taste, and increases fuel usage, but it has little real effect on others despite being stupid. Similarly, arrays of smurfs glued to dashboards will really only damage the driver and passenger when they become embedded in the forehead during an accident (and their wallet when the vehicle achieves poor resale). And the carrying of bulky 2-foot long fashion-accessory scooters only really annoys the person who paid too much for the fashion accessory in the first place. The bill only proposes the branding of the letter "L" into these people's foreheads, at their own expense.
We had considered charging a large levy on people smoking while driving, but we realised that these people are unfairly being taxed way too much already; and besides, it has not been proven that tobacco smoking causes any harmful effects. Anyway, I've just received a nice healthy cheque from a Mr P. Morris, so I'm off to buy myself a new 60-foot luxury cruiser and motor off to the Caymans ... ciao.
