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.
A lot less invasive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Funny)
But how would that allow them to accomplish their real goal of tracking you everywhere you go?
1) Dupe of a dupe. 2) Stupid. 3) Corrupt. (Score:5, Interesting)
This idea came from Oregon, and is entirely wacky. Yes, people will need tinfoil, but not for their hats, for their GPS antennas. A tiny bit of tinfoil will render the GPS completely inoperative.
Those who want corruption attack the weak states first. Oregon state government has become, in my opinion, very corrupt, so that's where the corrupters try their stupid ideas.
Apparently, this has very little to do with "a team at Oregon State University". That's just to give the idea a little credibility. If I remember correctly, the people behind it want to sell the electronics.
Suppose there is a system like this and it records that a teenager drove 10,000 miles in the mountains of Peru last month? What could the government do about that? There would be no taxes in California or Oregon for driving in Peru, would there?
A system like this would make war drivers very, very happy. They could make a very simple electronic device that would send GPS signals to every car as they drove looking for wireless connections. Can you imagine the court cases:
Accused: But judge, the records show that I was calmly driving north on I-5, and then one hour later I was driving more than 100 miles per hour through the streets of Moscow.
Judge: Will you certify for the court that you are not an alien with extraterrestrial means of transport?
Accused: Yes.
Judge: Case dismissed.
Anyhow, this story is a dupe of a dupe, by a Slashdot editor, Michael, who was duped:
Oregon Considers GPS-based Road Taxes [slashdot.org]
More on Oregon and GPS-tracked Gas Taxes [slashdot.org]
If you would like to read more about my part-time, unfinished investigation of state government corruption, see The idea cannot work. So why do they propose it? [slashdot.org]
This story should scare you, even if you don't live in the United States. Two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government. The president is a not-too-smart partier and heavy drinker who has been arrested three times. The vice-president also has been a heavy drinker and has been arrested twice for drunken driving.
Knowing all this, think how corrupt the lower governments must be.
Some of the Bush and Cheney arrest records. [slashdot.org]
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: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)
Now...any takers on that actually happening?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Funny)
Are you a terrorist? All that time we spent crushing innocent women and children heads in Iraq to steal their oil, now you should have the goddamn decency to buy that fucking fuel, at the price of our choosing. Why do you hate our troops?
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:4, Informative)
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:A lot less invasive (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Funny)
This is California we're talking about.
Re:Richest State in the Union (Score:4, 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.
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ta
Re:A lot less invasive (Score:4, Funny)
For a second there, I thought your next words were going to be, "quick, Vyvyan! eat the telly!"
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 c
Re: A lot less invasive (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, taxing by mile does not take into acount that some vehicles inherently put more wear on the road than others. It'd be quite unfair to assign the same road maintenance cost/mile to a user of a Honda Nighthawk [honda.com] or Geo Metro [msn.com] as a Ford Super Duty [fordvehicles.com].
In a hybridless all fossil-fuel powered economy, fuel consumption is an acceptable proxy for road wear. Unfortunately, this goes out the window when hybrid and non-fossil fuel powered vehicles are introduced. One way to get around this might be to scale the mileage tax by the mass of the vehicle. Unfortunately this doesn't distinguish between those who use their Ford Super Duty to commute and those who use it to haul rocks around. Both pay the same amount for "road wear" despite the fact that the rock hauler is doing a lot more wear than the commuter.
Then again, it may serve as a dis-encentive to using a vehicle like the Super Duty to commute, which would be a good thing.
It also doesn't distinguish between mileage used in the taxable jurisdiction, and that used in other jurisdictions.... long-haul truckers are unfairly punished.
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.
Tin Foil Hat for the GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tin Foil Hat for the GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah? So I mow the lawn a lot.
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."
Re:Tin Foil Hat for the GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patriot Act (Score:5, Informative)
It is actually the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".
Re:Patriot Act (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Patriot Act (Score:3, Interesting)
USA PATRIOT Act: Usurping Some Ancient Prerogatives And Terminating Rights to Inaugurate Oppression and Tyranny?
Re:Patriot Act (Score:4, Interesting)
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 tha
Re:Patriot Act (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now, you get to the petrol pump and it says
Welcome to Texaco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Your total bill including fuel, taxes and fines is $600.
Please insert your credit card here.
That already happens in MA! (Score:5, Interesting)
I can deal with that because FastLane is an optional convenience. If California's transmitters become mandatory and they do track people's speeds (which seems likely), I see that as a serious invasion of privacy. Could they use these GPS devices to track criminals with a warrant? Might these transmitters fall under portions of the USA Patriot act that allow wiretapping and such without a warrant? (That's not a rhetorical question; INAL and I seriously don't know). I understand that California needs tax money to keep the roads in good condition, and it makes sense that the people who drive on them should have to pay for them. But there are some major problems with the way this is being done. If these transmitters become mandatory and nobody makes sure that the law protects our privacy, then we could have an invasion of privacy like none other on our hands.
Re:That already happens in MA! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That already happens in MA! (Score:3, Informative)
On a side note, even in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, they have for years had a camera under a bypass mailing people a picture of their car while speeding, and the ticket for speeding.
Not as Orwellian as being id'd by Fastlane detection, but similar. So I don't see why one would scare people more than the other.
Re:That already happens in MA! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Patriot Act (Score:5, Informative)
The state could conceivably rig the _device_ to remember where you were, which is a problem, but properly designed, the state could simply have it remember mileage. GPS is very good at determing velocity (and acceleration).
Additionally, if this was a self-reporting tax (ie, show the number on the LCD to the tax man), potential for abuse would also be minimized.
This is not to say CA's idea is a good one, but I get annoyed when people see "GPS" and assume that means they are being tracked.
-Erwos
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
Re:Patriot Act (Score:5, Interesting)
To echo some previous posts, I can also definately see this as a means for traffic enforcement. It's a trivial thing for a GPS unit to track your speed.
What I find asinine is the duality in California's attitude towards energy conservation. They want everyone to conserve (turn down your A/C, use less water, drive fuel-efficient cars) but penalize you when you do. Here's an idea to raise some cash - cut the graft rampant in the administration.
This unfairly favors out-of-state drivers, too, who will not be subjected to the tax, as they wouldn't have the GPS monitor in their car. What's the state going to do - hand them out at the border?
The danger of this, of course, is that this will catch on in other states. That would take care of the pesky out-of-state driver and would be a boon for the state governments as they create even more wasteful departments and committees while they try to figure out who owes what for driving where.
The end result of this will be the general perception that, gallon for gallon, fuel-efficient cars are taxed more than standard cars.
Introducing the 2006 Chrysler Harrison-Bergeron.....
Re:Patriot Act (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple. The GPS receiver can also be programmed with the coordinates of the state borders. As you drive, increase the milage count as long as you are within the state. The processor which does the counting would also have some sort of radio transmitter/rec
NPR covered this last month (Score:3, Interesting)
NPR [npr.org] had a story about this [npr.org] last month. First off, it's Oregon that's driving this project, not California, although California's interested in Oregon's results. Second, Oregon is currently testing a system that will work much like Mobil's SpeedPass system. Essentially, you'll have a GPS device in your car that'll keep track of where you drive. It can log your miles into zones. When you buy gas, it uploads the mileage info to the pump which then automagically adds the appropriate tax to your gas purcha
Re:Patriot Act (Score:3, Informative)
If you use a digital cell phone, your location from GPS is sent to the cellular site, and recorded. You are being tracked. They could just as easily do this with GPS in your car - On*Star already does.
A new law promoted by the cellular phone companies as a "safety issue for 911 calls" requires ALL new phones to have location identification built in. Of course the REAL reason they got this law to pass was to get rid of an
Re:Patriot Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of tin foil, what's to prevent someone from wrapping their GPS receiver in a material that would prevent it from communicating with a GPS Satellite? Aside from the privacy issues raised by this technology, I think it would be highly ineffective.
Besides, I disagree with this on general principle. I'm fine with the idea that everyone should pay for the roads, and those who use them more should pay more, but that is because every time you drive, you damage the road somewhat. The problem is that most of these fuel efficient cars are fairly light, and don't cause as much damage as large vehicles.
The only way this would be fair is if the weight of the vehicle was some how factored into the cost of the miles driven (the lighter the car, the lower the cost per mile).
Written warning for violating Slashdot dupe law! (Score:5, Funny)
November 17, 2004 [slashdot.org] was your first offense. A warning was sent via email prior to the story posting on February 15th, 2005 at 2:39pm CST but daddypants ignored our notification.
Please note that future violations will result in a hefty fine!
Annual Inspection (Score:3, Insightful)
Never happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Never happen (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
That's not a tax. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a user fee.
Pay-per-mile highways.
So where does this kind of thing end? (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, rather than a GPS unit on every car, why not just institute a smart toll system instead? Wouldn't this be cheaper, not to mention not being quite as scary from a privacy standpoint?
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
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: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.
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.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: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
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:This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Shouldn't people who drive vehicles that wear the road more pay more to use those roads? A light compact car isn't going to wear the road as much as a 7,000 lb Humvee, or a 6,000 lb suburban.
Joy. (Score:3, Informative)
It's not like you can't find the GPS unit and remove it, or just disconnect it so it won't show up until the annual inspection.
And here in Texas, there's an alternative to it - tollways. Beltway 8, the Westpark Tollway - they get tons of traffic every day, and at a buck-twenty-five a stop, they rake in plenty of cash, too.
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
Brilliant! (Score:4, Funny)
Time to register out of state... (Score:3, Informative)
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: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.
No problem (Score:5, Informative)
Just fit one of these [edmo.com] above the antenna. You can fake any journey or lack thereof that you choose.
Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Goon2: Right you are. Let's start taxing based on mileage instead.
Goon3: Well that just sucks. You could drive half your miles in Arizona and get taxed in CA for that.
Goon1: Good point. Any solution to that?
Goon2: Well, I own stock in this company that has a lot of IPR in GPS equipment...
Goon3: How can I get in on that?
Goon1: Hold it! Let's *all* call our brokers before we go any further. We'll meet back next week.
Week passes...
Goon1: Ok. I propose we force everyone to install GPS modules into their cars.
Goon3: I second!
Goon4: Really? Isn't that just adding a horrendous one time tax to all car buyers? Increasing the number of goons needed to police the system...
Goon5: Hey! I'm one of those goons.
Goon4: Oh yeah. Sorry 5.. I know you'd never make it in the private sector. I guess I'll vote for it.
Goon3: Anyone worried about the people getting pissed?
All Goons: Laughter...
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)
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.
I have one word for them (Score:3, Funny)
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:Hype? Sensationalism? (Score:3, Informative)
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 m
faraday car (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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.
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.
Why gps and not odometer (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't Trust Oregon on this one (Score:4, Informative)
Like this. [state.or.us]
Re:Don't Trust Oregon on this one (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not [oregon.gov].
Missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)
The real point is to get people used to the idea that it's OK for the government to track your every movement. As soon as people accept something like this, how long do you think it will be before they mandate chips under our skin?
It's not about taxes, it's about acclimation.
LK
Constitutionally void? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Existing technology (Score:4, Funny)
If they're really just interested in taxing by the mile, check the milage each year as part of the safety/smog inspection and charge accordingly.
Not to mention the inaccuracy or GPS.. If a car suddenly appears to jump 70 miles due to interference, will the driver be charged for that? And I guess it's free miles when solar flares drown out the GPS signals? Come to think of it, I like the idea of GPS much better than an odometer.. "I'm not sure who keeps stealing my antenna, officer. Damn kids."
Robbery (Score:4, Funny)
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.
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: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.
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with raising gas taxes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I have a Miata, and I don't ever see anything approaching that mileage - overall I average 18-20mpg, since most of the time my foot is flat to the floor trying to encourage the hamsters.
Anyway, just interesting data points. I don't agree with the OP that bigger/faster = $$, but I don't think there was