California Wants GPS Tracking Device in Every Car 1351
HTS Member writes "California has a new excuse for more taxes. Claiming losses due to fuel-efficient cars, such as Gasoline/Electric Hybrids, California is cooking-up a new system to punish people who aren't using enough gasoline. They want to tax commuters by the mile. How would this be accomplished? By requiring everyone to install a GPS device in their vehicle, and charge them their "taxes" every time they fuel-up. From the article: 'Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that.. [a] team at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one.'"
Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
I am hardly a tin foil hat wearing type but, the problem with this is that like every other means to create databases that track/document individuals or groups, they will eventually end up being mined for data that will likely violate your right to privacy. Just remember, Bush is pushing for the Patriot Act again and databases like this will simply be folded into devices like the Patriot Act.
As an aside: gawd, I hate their use of "patriot" that way, does anybody know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation? Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.
Annual Inspection (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a tax. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a user fee.
Pay-per-mile highways.
This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!! (Score:5, Insightful)
After decades of pushing for more fuel efficient cars, now they want to punish you for owning them.
And the next logical step will have to be requiring drivers to have them just to drive in from out of state.
Then the Federal government will have to standardize the units so that Oregon units cross-operate with California units.
Followed by insurance companies using them to determine not only how much you drive now (which is often done by the odometer), but do you drive in more dangerous areas, and hence should be charged more.
It will never end, except the the consumer will pay and pay and pay for something they never wanted in the first place!
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:4, Insightful)
I will never live in such a state (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't live in California.
This is going to do so much damage to costs in business (think of anything that delivers). Why would I want to start my business in Cali when I can be far more successful in other states? I personally won't support it.
It's also hypocritical. It punishes success.
Re:Why not? Because you are dreaming! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are dreaming, or smoking.
Governments do not lower taxes once they have established them.
You will have a Gas Tax and a mileage tax.
Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Better Way Without Privacy Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
A much better way to handle this problem is to simply track the number of miles that each vehicle is driven, from the moment that the vehicle has Californian license plates. California already has a system for mandatory smog checks. The technicians at the smog station transmit the results of the smog checks directly to the state computer system.
The technicians could also tranmit the odometer reading as well. Then, the state government could simply determine the number of miles that you have driven the car since the last smog check and could then send you a bill for the use of Californian roads.
Yeah - that's fair (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, this is total bullshit. The day somebody wants to put a tracking device in my car is the day I buy a pistol.
Ultra-hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be in favor of jacking up the gasoline tax instead. This would put more pressure on the enviromental offenders that drive SUV's and other inefficient vehicles. Afraid that this will punish businesses? Give them a tax credit or tax rebate for business vehicles that are legitimately needed for the business.
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
Something smells awfully fishy about the story anyway. If more and more people are moving to higher gas mileage cars (doubtful since the environmentalists have been screaming blue murder that average gas mileage in cars is decreasing as of late) then the simple solution would be to increase the gasoline tax. There has to be another angle.
Hype? Sensationalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogethe
Who are these "Officials"? The Governor of California? A low-level bereaucrat? There are plenty of low-level bereaucrat in sector 7-G who consider ideas which never really materialize.
Changing the tax structure at this level in California or Oregon would require some approval by the State sentate and legistlature.
Smells of sensationalism
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, given state governments' needs for more funds since federal funding is drying up, I wouldn't be surprised if California wanted to tax people on every mile they drove, then make its residents *prove* they didn't drive those miles in California.
Chuck
Prius vs. Yukon (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just great. I think state senators need to have "REMEMBER THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" tattooed onto their butts.
Re:This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is my sentiment exactly. Progress is really just starting to be made on a large scale with fuel efficient and eco-friendly vehicles and now the state who has the largest group spear-heading the whole movement wants to essentially put a halt to the entire thing. I am so baffled by this idea and its ludicrious assertions on so many levels. Not only are they attempting to curb a movement that is attempting to save the environment but they are also advocating invasion of privacy and the entire premise behind the "open roadways" initiatives of the 60's which built up all the damn freeways in the first place.
Re:So where does this kind of thing end? (Score:3, Insightful)
And would you have to have such a system to be allowed to enter California via vehicle? Illinios and various other states at least just toll you at toll booths as you use the highways, regardless of where you're from or what equipment you have. It's annoying to have to stop every so many miles, but it works. It seems like California residents would get the shaft if out of staters were tearing up their roads with their high efficiency cars and not having to pay for it.
And taxing people for being responsible and using less fuel, making it so everybody pays the same regardless of impact on pollution doesn't seem so smart either. It's downright evil unless the gas tax is solely for road maintenence and nothing to do with some of California's cities' smog problems.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
Obvious Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
If revenues are falling because cars are getting more efficient, why not encourage the trend by raising the per-gallon tax? That would increase the pressure on anyone driving a hummer and make better fuel efficiency revenue-nuetral. Make it automatic, by changing it to a total dollar amount and having it calculated yearly based on the prior years gas sales.
Re:So where does this kind of thing end? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is California is running massive debts due to illegal immigration (costs us about 10 billion a year). BUT NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
Re:This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!! (Score:2, Insightful)
The problems with taxing to curb bad behavior (Score:3, Insightful)
They could always raise the gasoline tax more and then allow right offs for business purposes.
Or use incom tax to add. Or do what the insurance industry does and ask what your commute is and tax you based on it, audit enough that people won't lie. It can't cost too much to verify and address and then verify a place of work. With any luck an innitiative such as that would help reverse suburban sprawl and urban decay.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, couple this along with you new 'National ID' complete with RFID embedded in, this will be the 21st century's version of presenting your 'papers' when traveling. Let it scan your card at the borders at first as you drive, this way each state can tax you appropriatly for mileage...etc. And once we get used to that, I'm sure the checkpoints can easily be multiplies so you are scanned periodically during the day...yup, that'll catch them terrorists.
I'm being sarcastic...but, you know...sometimes just when you think the worst can't come true...it somehow does which some new politician gets a NEW IDEA!!
Re:Patriot Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Theoretically you could design the system so that it can't be abused (by the state), but you'd end up having to make it completely abusive in order to prevent loopholes. What if your black box happens to get reset on accident (regularly)? If it's checked at the gas station, what if you never fill up your car - but instead fill up gas cans and carry them over to the adjacent parking lot?
Actually, I hope there aren't any obvious workarounds, because this is something that needs to be addressed head on. This kind of bullshit should not be tolerated.
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
You could reduce gasoline usage until it becomes a natural byproduct of making other fuels and plastics, where they have shitloads of it sitting around, and the price will skyrocket to keep profit levels at today's standards. They'll justify the cost in storage fees, etc.
Time to bite the pillow California, it's going in dry!
Re:Joy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Put down the pipe.
This is a state proposal to fund the state's transportation fund. Gas taxes pay for roads. If you aren't buying gas, you're not paying for the roads. They want to stop that. This obviously isn't the best way to do it, but to claim that the oil industry has anything to do with this is pretty far out there, since they don't stand to benefit from this proposal as it will affect all vehicles.
Damage is by weight^3 (Score:1, Insightful)
cube of weight, so all those trucks that have the
sticker on the back saying "I pay $9999 dollars
road tax" are often advertising that they pay LESS per damage than lighter vehicles.
If the use tax was based on road damage I am fine
with that. Imagine how low the tax rate would be for bicycles!
Of course a complicating factor is that road damage is also likely to be dependent on which road is traveled and at which speed. I.e. an interstate is probably less damaged by a big truck at 60mph than a side road would be at 35mph. Sounds like the final system could be more byzantine than the IRS tax code.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
I much simplier solution to just logging miles would be to just use the odometer. The problem with that is if you drive out of state or on private property then you would be paying CA taxes. The GPS would have enough information to insure you were only taxed when using public roads.
Now, I think this is totally overkill. The odometer solution would be equivalent to the previous gas tax. Your essentially paying for how many miles you drive.
Generally I'm all for use taxes. They are the most fair system. If you use something pay for it. The GPS solution just wreaks of big brother and is overkill for the revenue problem
a terrible idea (Score:2, Insightful)
if the state is worried about losing taxes on the hybrids, then why not raise the gas tax? Penalize the inefficient cars that cause more damage to the roads and environment instead of wasting billions on gps devices, tracking databases, and gas-station upgrades just to support inefficient gas-guzzlers.
Re:Hype? Sensationalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
The article poster shrieked that taxing people by the mile is "punish[ing] people who aren't using enough gasoline"? Nonsense. It's switching from a gas-use tax to a road-use tax. Those of us who save gasoline the old-fashioned way (by not driving our cars hither and yon) wouldn't be punished by it at all. And since gas taxes have traditionally been justified as being necessary for road construction/repairs, switching to a road-use tax makes a certain kind of sense. Granted, there are privacy issues and the whole "user fee" approach to taxes still deserves to be debated, but this hysterical response to the idea of changing the model by which the user fee is calculated is just silly.
Why gps and not odometer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patriot Act (Score:3, Insightful)
What they are wanting is to increase revenue ostensibly for the purpose of road maintenance. The appropriate place to do this is vehicle registrations: road wear and tear is a function of vehicle weight generally, not how many miles you travel. My vehicle grosses about 2800lbs when I'm sitting in it; that's going to do orders of magnitude less damage to the roads than a vehicle that weighs in at only 5600 lbs (stress durability is not a linear function of load).
Adding the burden of GPS to automotive construction isn't a great thing - but I'm guessing that over time it will happen. Hopefully the general populous of the country will use their Constitutional right to squash this though and say, "we don't want to be taxed for this; figure out a more efficient way to maintain your roads!"
The thing is, this is a conflict between emissions (better fuel economy is good for pollution) and road maintenance (better fuel economy is bad for revenue). You can't have your cake and eat it too in many situations...
Re:This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, the stated purpose is false, and there is another reason for this method. To subsidize SUV owners? Police surveillance? Bribe from GPS makers?
Sheesh, those are all just plain weird. It must be the RAND corporation, in conjunction with the reverse vampires...
SUVs (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should you be taxed per mile when heavier vehicles damage or wear the roads down more? Fuel tax seems like the ideal way that these heavier vehicles can pay for their road use. They pay more because they cost more per mile driven.
If the fuel tax is not generating enough revenue, perhaps its time to raise the fuel tax? Not spend $300+ dollars to equip cars with GPS...
My last threes cars cost under $400 each and I've put about 80,000 miles on them total. I dont want to double the cost of the car with GPS.
Re:Never happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a small car person. I buy larger more comfortable vehicles, and I buy more gas because of it. It is worth it to me. People that are willing to cram themselves into a Metro to save money should sure as hell be allowed that choice!
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are worried about losing money due to Hybrid's how about 'raising' the gas tax a few pennies to compensate, thus encouraging the use of efficient cars, and taxing more heavily the polluting Hummers/SUVs people seem so fond of driving?
Oh wait...my fault...that damned logic/common sense thing again, sorry CA I forgot!
Re:This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
Now...any takers on that actually happening?
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tin Foil Hat for the GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
SUV stooges (Score:4, Insightful)
In each of those three cases added road wear equals additional fuel use.
Given the government's actions to promote fuel economy and reduce air pollution (I just got a letter from the air-quality management board offering $650 to turn in my 1985 car which still passes the smog checks with flying colors) I'm really surprised that they don't do the obvious: adjust the gasoline tax as needed to pay for highway repair.
In fact, given the popularity of huge gas guzzling SUVs I find the assertion that revenues are being harmed by a few hybrids absurd to say nothing of the fact that all the money needed to install, maintain and track the devices could, instead, go toward maintaining the road.
If more revenue is needed and gas taxes have to be raised so be it. I am not going to feel sorry for the few people who have to give up their Ford Extinctions or GMC Expletives.
Or is this for silicon valley? (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO this would be a more practical approach:
- Put all cars into classes, based on milage per gallon, and the emissions. 1-10.
- Add tax to gas based on car as a percentile Hence if your car is an 8 (heavy emissions), it would be 8%.
For commecial vehicles, you can subtract 3. Simply because buses are good (keep people from driving themselves), and big trucks carry more with less emissions than several smaller ones. Also would put less of a burdon on commerce.
what does this solve?
1. No need for GPS
2. Puts emphasis on both cars that get better milage AND reducing milage.
3. Doesn't burdon a particular party.
That would be cheaper, and more inclusive.
IMHO this plan is an attempt to regenerate some electronic industries within the state, rather than serve a monetary, or ecologicial purpose.
Re:Never happen (Score:4, Insightful)
1. GPS stopped working at point a, and started working at point b. Measure the distance and tax'em.
2. Annual inspection. If there is a major difference between GPS miles and odometer miles... and if those miles can't be associated with out of state miles... tax'em.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. They are creating a very complex system to tax based on miles traveled rather than the more simple system of taxing based on fuel used. This is 100% dumb as it discourgaes the use lighter fuel efficent cars that cause less wear and tear on the road. The concern with a loss tax revenue as a result of people buying more fuel efficent cars is legit and they need to raise the damn fuel tax.
The real problem is people in political office don't seem to think it's fair that their vehicels with larger than 5 liter engines should pay more money than econoboxes with sub 2 liter engines failing to take into account that they polute more air and tear up more road than a cheaper import. I argue that it's perfectly fair to give econoboxes a huge tax break for poluting less.
Screw taxes, try law enforcement (Score:2, Insightful)
Me:"Hello, police, my car was stolen. Its a red Eclipse, 2001, my name is CrazyJim."
Police:"Ok, I entered you into the database, and I now have a trace on your car, its headed down I70 at 75mph. Heh, lucky you're not in it, I could have issued you a ticket just now. Anyway we'll have your car back to you by supper."
Maybe society is just retarded, but having stolen cars be a thing of the past would rock. Up until the thieves learn GPS bypass. At that time, you can play hide the GPS, and do multi-GPS. Not many thieves would be advanced enough to go very far though.
Re:Richest State in the Union (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: A lot less invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately, the ratio of people needing it as a penile extension versus people that actually need it (i.e contractors) is pretty slanted towards the former.
If they're so worried about falling tax revenue... (Score:3, Insightful)
The proposed system makes no sense because people who drive more fuel-efficient cars will pay more mileage tax per GALLON than people who drive gas guzzlers. That's a strange way of encouraging more fuel-efficient cars.
Raising the tax on a gallon of gasoline would be simpler and actually promote fuel efficiency.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all -- as you yourself point out directly afterwards. The reason you see those "no trucks over XXX pounds" signs is exactly because the amount of wear and tear on the road is proportional to vehicle weight.
where the electric doesn't pay *anything* in gas taxes.
Fuel efficient cars (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of the New Jersey cigarette tax. They jacked up the price per pack to such a high point that most of the smokers quit. The result: the state had a budget shortfall because they didn't make as much as they estimated off of the tax increase--and actually took in less than the previous year.
Re:So where does this kind of thing end? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is California is running massive debts due to illegal immigration (costs us about 10 billion a year). BUT NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
How much more will we have to pay for our veggies and fruits if we stop illegal immigration? How about for construction? How about when we eat out? Just about every contractor and landscaper I know relies on day laborers with no papers. Our economy currently depends on this cheap labor. Just saying 'get rid of illegal immigrants' is easy but it doesn't solve the problem, it will just create new ones.
I would say one of the main reasons we are running huge debts is all those bloody initiatives that mandate funding for this and funding for that, basically giving the elected officials control over only a very small part of the total budget. Combine that with Prop 13 and you have California today.
Re:Richest State in the Union (Score:2, Insightful)
- California businesses currently view the state as a "cheap tax" state (i.e. a "bargain") relative to other states, and for that reason are situated in that state; and/or
- another (nearby?) state would take on the role of the "bargain" state in which to establish a business if California were to raise taxes.
Since you haven't bothered with such basic details, the post's "Insightful" moderation is a bit silly. It's just as easy to argue that California is under-taxed, and that the state has headroom in which to raise taxes and still be the "best" state in which to establish a business.What's wrong with fuel tax? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be simpler/fairer to raise the tax on each gallon of fuel, and really hit the SUV owner where it hurts. Or is it un-American to tax fuel?
The tax here (outside US) is something like 50% of the final price of fuel, with tax concessions for primary producers, etc.
Re:I will never live in such a state (Score:4, Insightful)
I live in a small town in Nebraska. I'm the application developer for a small company with awesome benefits. My boss pays me to write Free software. I bought a 4,500 sq. ft. 6BR 4BA house for less than $200,000. My taxes are low, the air is clean, and the schools are excellent.
Californians and New Englanders are often amazed to find out that there's actually life between the coasts.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:2, Insightful)
There are obvious problems with pay-by-mile. If instituted only in California, residents will simply register their cars in another state. Also, the cost of installing the monitoring devices and the huge new bureaucracy to monitor them will most likely exceed any additional revenue generated. The gas tax is already the closest thing we have to a perfect tax, in that it comes closest to allocating costs based on actual use. Any changes could only lead to a worse system! (And yes, Oregon has also considered a mileage-based tax. But I don't beleive any state is stupid enough to actually implement such a hare-brained system.)
Re:So where does this kind of thing end? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like slavery? Not an outright troll, mind you, but the 18th century American cotton economy existed primarily due to insanely low labor costs of slavery.
There are many things "wrong" with the current American economic model. Reliance on low labor costs, over dependence on share holdings, focus only on bottom line growth and a non-humanist short term approach to labor are just a few.
There will come a time where it will all collapse in on itself. IMHO it would be better to deal with it responsibly before it becomes a problem than attempt to rebuild a fallen house of cards.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
The thinking is that the more you drive on roads, the more damage you cause them and the more you should pay in taxes to help maintain them. Right now, the method for determining how much you use roads is flawed--it's a gas tax. The idea, of course, being that if you buy more gas, you're driving more. However people who own big gas guzzlers are actually driving less than people who own fuel efficient cars if they buy the exact same amount of gas per year, so the gas guzzlers are being "penalized" with a higher tax when they use the roads precisely the same amount.
The flaw, of course, is that larger, heavier vehicles do more damage to the road than lighter cars. Of course, larger, heavier vehicles tend to use more gas, so in reality, the gas tax works just fine. It's the perception that's skewed such that people believe that they're overpaying.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:0, Insightful)
Have you bought a pistol? Your license plate is a tracking device.
You're being duped (Score:5, Insightful)
CA (think): "Need to get more gas tax". CA (says): " We're going to track your asses with GPS". People (yell):"WAAH WAAH WAAH priivacy! Why not just raise the gas tax"
CA:"The people have spoken they want us to raise the gas tax."
This actually makes sense in theory (Score:1, Insightful)
So from the perspective of having a tax that actually is related to the government services it pays for, this is a great idea! Combined with differential licensing fees for different vehicle classes (cars, trucks, commercial rigs), it actually taxes the thing that is related to the provided service. Yay! A bit like a public version of a toll road, really, without the turnstiles and/or pass cards.
The problem is that there's no way to implement this concept without being very creepy (I'm already creeped out by private pass cards for toll roads!) Good idea in theory + no decent to implement it = crappy idea.
Not to mention, taxing fuel purchases pays for environmental issues caused by emissions that the state needs to pay for. The fact that the tax base is drying up means that this policy is WORKING and that California will have reduced expenditures in the future, in theory. Except that California shares the same atmosphere as Texas. Environmental-minded laws rarely work unless everyone plays along. See Kyoto.
Summary: Interesting but ultimately bad idea, and we're all screwed anyway.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:2, Insightful)
Some places cost more to live in than others; that's life.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:2, Insightful)
-kaplanfx
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's what I don't get though...a Hummer weighs more than a Metro. Even if you drove a hybrid Hummer, it would get worse gas mileage than a hybrid Metro (or a normal ICE Metro), and due to the poorer fuel economy, you'll be paying more for gas. That's the nature of the beast. The lighter a car, the more economical it can be while still meeting performance standards (at highway speeds, aerodynamics and rolling resistance also play a role in mileage). You can't beat physics.
This is a lose-lose situation. If they nix or lower the gas tax, it will kill much of the incentive for people to buy more fuel-efficent cars. If they leave it in while introducing the use-tax on, they will be double-penalizing people (even those with hybrid vehicles).
It will also serve as a disincentive for people who use special-fuel-vehicles, which may not be taxed, but those people pay a higher premium on many of the fuels, due to a smaller distribution network than petrol.
There is also an obvious privacy concern.
I have a simple solution for CA. Stop spending so much damn money!
CA pays $60 billion more Fed taxes than it spends (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't THAT the "elephant in the room?"
Please mod parent as immigrant-bashing TROLL.Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about road wear or lack of funds anyway, it is about big brother and tracking where people go.
Re:1) Dupe of a dupe. 2) Stupid. 3) Corrupt. (Score:2, Insightful)
better idea: more frequent driving tests (Score:3, Insightful)
will kill two birds with one stone:
more frequent driving tests(not the written)
bird #1: you must take the driving test every three years, it'll cost 15$ - presto! instant revenue.
bird #2: we weed out the truly inept, suck-@ss drivers.
as a commuter that drives 64 miles a day through the san fernando valley(on the 101, ech) improving the driving
conditions by removing the morons would make me so much happier due to the increased safety. i'd gladly pay
$15 every three years to retake my driving test; i'm a good driver, so i don't have anything to worry about.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:2, Insightful)
It'll never work (Score:2, Insightful)
Vehicle A: A hummer. it weighs 6 tons, it gets 5 miles to the gallon, and it costs half a million dollars to purchase. (yes, those numbers are all made up)
Vehicle B: An 80cc Honda elite (scooter). it weighs like, 100 pounds. it gets 60+ miles to the gallon, costs well under a grand.
Who's damaging the roads? Vehicle A. Who's paying more for gas? Vehicle A. Who can afford to pay more for gas? Owner of vehicle A. Who gets screwed by a bill like this? Owner of vehicle B.
To me it's very simple. INCREASE THE PRICE OF GASOLINE. Those who are responsible with the roads, who drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles (gas/electric hybrid, for instance) are being penalized because daddy's little princess (or prince) wants to drive a big road-tearing military grade vehicle 10 miles to work every day. Make gas cost 10 bucks a gallon, people will take the goddamn bus to work, or drive a vehicle that is less damaging to the roads, or pay out the ass, and provide enough money for road repair.
To me that makes a lot more sense than keeping track of every (free?????) citizen's wherabouts.
A true tax on the poor (Score:1, Insightful)
Think of it this way, where are the best jobs in California? In dense, very expensive counties of Orange county, San Diego County, LA County. Now where do younger average families who work in those counties live? In Riverside and San Bernadino counties. The younger less affluent ones have to drive longer distances, while those who have more, live closer to the higher employment areas.
Congestion Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
1) It taxes miles driven.
2) It's simple and robust.
3) It doesn't invade privacy.
4) It encourages fuel economical vehicles.
It is somewhat unfair on people who buy small, fuel inefficient vehicles -- such as porsches and BMWs. I think they can afford it.
It's ironic that the alleged reason for Oregon exploring this system is that they fear improved fuel economy will reduce gasoline tax revenue. If so, good -- raise gasoline taxes more: it will create a virtuous cycle of improved fuel efficiency and reduced road use.
The main benefit of a GPS-based tax system is that you can implement congestion tax (tax people for using popular roads at peak times). The big question is just how big a congestion tax you'll need to levy to have any useful effect (the difference between a car registration that only allows off-peak downtown driving and one that allows peak downtown driving in Singapore is tens of thousands of dollars...)
Obviously many kinks to work out... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. this won't be a replacement tax, but rather an additional tax.
2. there will have to be some supporting laws such as "tampering with the GPS tracker on a vehicle punishable by $1B and two consecutive life imprisonment terms.
3. we'll need a complex DB to find people who travel virtually no distance between fuel-ups.
4. development of this database seems to have slipped some milestones... and GPS-Tax revenues are not quite what was expected, please raise the per-gallon gas tax to fund further development of the database and enforcement software.
5. compliance is up! but people have moved closer in and are now travelling much less. as a result, the few remaining in the outskirts are insufficient to fund the major highways... which are rapidly becoming unusable.
6. Our cities are cesspools of crime due to overpopulation and crowding! Gah! Home values are skyrocketing, no one can afford to buy a home of their own now and multi-family, 100-year leases are starting to become common. We need to find some more rich people to subsidize this housing market...
7. Interstate commerce is complaining because the roads are unusable and this is affecting delivery of goods and foodstuffs! Obviously we can tax the truckers to repair the Interstates... Everybody pays!
As usual, the government seems to be living up to my expectations of "a problem in search of revenue."
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
But Gropernor Ah-nold owns several Hummers. As a big friend of Dick Cheney and the Shrub, he likes wasting gas. So he wants a subsidy for Hummer owners and a tax on Prius owners.
Betch fewer than 25% of Prius owners are Republicans.
Betcha more than 50% of Hummer owners are.
Nothing could be proven. (Score:3, Insightful)
"And then when there's a huge discrepancy when you get your annual inspections, you'll explain how?"
I've been an electronics design engineer, so maybe it is obvious to me, but wouldn't be to others. A hundred screwy things could happen to disturb the readings. It could not be proven that the person who owned the car did anything to change the readings.
They are talking about each person having an on board computer linked to a sensitive receiver getting signals from thousands of miles away. What about computer crashes? What about reboots? What about car electrical problems? What about people deliberately jamming the GPS signals with a battery operated transmitter left on the side of a road? What about newly installed equipment that is defective and is emitting radio noise? Even car alternators sometimes become very noisy. What about a woman changing a baby's diapers and putting a wet diaper wrapped in plastic over the GPS antenna?
This sounds to me like corrupt people taking advantage of the technical ignorance of politicians.
GPS only works if the people who have the receivers want it to work, and are willing to maintain it when it fails.
Re:Close but not quite. (Score:2, Insightful)
Your idea doesn't include an easy way to subtract miles that "don't count", where the GPS would.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
And can you show a source on the subsidy/tax statement? Based on the rest of your post I'm a bit leery of the claim, but would nonetheless like to see what you base it off of.
I live in California... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:1, Insightful)
Betcha more than 50% of Hummer owners are."
Betcha you're a douche. Did you happen to take note of what Tereza drove? How bout your friend Barbara Streisand? In the case of the latter, she goes shopping on RODEO in a 5MPG RV that is bigger and heavier than any HUMMER on the plannet. There are plenty of jackasses in both partys, so quit being another one!
Read the Article (Score:1, Insightful)