Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Privacy

GPS-Based System For Driving Tax Being Field Tested 891

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently, since gas consumption is going down and fuel efficient cars are becoming more popular, the government is looking into a new form of taxation to create revenue for transportation projects. This new system is a 'by-the-mile tax,' requiring GPS in cars so it can track the mileage. Once a month, the data gets uploaded to a billing center and you are conveniently charged for how much you drove. 'A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the "best path forward" to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion. ... The commission pegged 2020 as the year for the federal fuel tax, currently 18.5 cents a gallon, to be phased out and replaced by a road tax. One estimate of a road tax that would cover the current federal and state fuel taxes is 1 to 2 cents per mile for cars and light trucks.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPS-Based System For Driving Tax Being Field Tested

Comments Filter:
  • by TrippTDF ( 513419 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {dnalih}> on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @11:46AM (#28543233)
    A little piece of freedom just died.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @11:56AM (#28543475)

    I can see the way this would go down now. Once implemented, it will only be a matter of time before someone either hacks into and steals the tracking info, or a dishonest/underpaid "billing center" employee takes it and sells it to the highest bidder.

    Because of this, we'd end up with all sorts of exceptions for the elite-class (law enforcement, celebs, politicians, etc.) After all, it's ok for the .gov and some random gov contractor to know where YOU are and going at all times, but your congressman? What if someone finds out his driving patterns and assasinates him (or better yet discovers his indiscretions?)

  • Re:Reasonable! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @11:59AM (#28543509)

    Yes, but for us commuters who do 320 miles/day that's $3.20 to $6.40 in federal road tax per day!
    I already pay enough in federal fuel tax in the gas I buy per day.

    Don't think for one minute that a state won't revise their fuel tax to be a percentage of the fuel tax or
    a piggyback tax.

    And, once all the state and federal fuel taxes are removed, don't think for one minute that the fuel price will come down
    since the gas companies now can raise/keep the fuel price at what it is currently, and get additional profits.

  • Re:Odometer (Score:3, Informative)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @12:00PM (#28543529)

    They already do in many states so they could easily use this to track taxes. On cars built after 1992 they check your odometer against rollbacks. If the odometer has been rolled back, it is reported on your title. They just want to be able to track you in more detail, see when and where you are speeding (automatic speeding tickets), see where you were the night of the murder, which protests you attended, what church you belong to etc. etc.

  • by Sponge Bath ( 413667 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @12:05PM (#28543661)

    List is in the lower right here. [dot.gov]

    I did not see Binky, Shakes, or Crusty in the list.

  • by Kryptonian Jor-El ( 970056 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @12:07PM (#28543723)
    WRONG. I think you meant to do cents per mile, not mile per cents. 18.5/30 = .61666 cents.

    Anybody who is getting better than 18.5 miles per gallon will LOSE money if this happens.
  • Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)

    by ThinkWeak ( 958195 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @12:16PM (#28543867)
    I sense a touch of sarcasm. Anyways, they are basically multiplying the tax level of driving 300%.

    You would be looking at paying $300.00 in taxes annually based on a 15,000 mile a year average, if it is set at a $0.02 per mile level. Opposed to a $0.185 per gallon tax now.

    Say your vehicle holds 13 gallons and goes 30 miles per gallon. You are currently paying $2.775 in taxes for those 390 miles. Stretch that out to 15,000 miles and you are paying $106.73 a year in taxes. That is quite a leap from $106.73 to $300.00.
  • Right now we don't need anything to discourage moving toward electric / hybrid / high mileage vehicles. The environmental benefits and economic benefits of removing the need for foreign oil would far outweigh whatever revenue the government would receive.

    *brrrring!*
    Hello?
    Ah, it's for you, fellow named William Jevons [wikipedia.org] calling.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @12:19PM (#28543933)

    How do you get $75? Hell, how can you get 50 cents for 100 miles?

    2 cents/mile = $0.02/mile, therefore

    • $0.02/mile * 10 miles = $0.20 (20 cents)
    • $0.02/mile * 100 miles = $2.00 (200 cents)
    • $0.02/mile * 1000 miles = $20.00 (2,000 cents)

    See a pattern yet? In 15,000 miles you'll be paying $300 in taxes.

  • Re:Great (Score:2, Informative)

    by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @12:31PM (#28544205)

    Yes, our new president, who promised not to raise taxes on 95% of us, is now say "What I meant was income taxes!"

    So the average family gets about $800 income tax break... and if many of these new proposals go through, as much as $2000 or more in new taxes.

    Change I can believe in.

  • by _avs_007 ( 459738 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @12:56PM (#28544729)
    - fining for speeding ;)
    - fining for running red lights
    - fining for failing to stop


    GPS will not be able to do any of things passively. For example, my GPS units constantly gets confused when I drive the freeway near my house, becuase there is a side street that parallels the freeway, and in some sections, is only separated from the freeway with a simple concrete barrer. If the GPS thinks you are on the side-street when you are on the freeway, it will think the speed limit is 35 instead of 65. I know of several residential areas that are built on loops that branch off an arterial street, and run parallel and reconnect at the end of the subdivision. This street is often separated from the main street with a simple curb. If GPS thinks you are on the loop that runs parallel it will think the speed limit is 25 instead of 45.

    Likewise, there are several intersections in our metro area, where there is a protected lane that bypasses the signals, as it's separated with fixed cones. If the GPS doesn't know you are in the protected lane, it will think you are running a red light.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @01:00PM (#28544793)

    Actually, they're testing this in Iowa, and part of the 'need' for the GPS is so they can charge you more PER STREET you drive on. Say it costs 20 cents/mile on the interstate, but only 5 cents on the slow back roads. They claim this will help to decrease wear on the thoroughfares.

    So basically they're giving a very strong hint on where you should or shouldn't be driving. Neat huh?

    Makes me sick. And the best part, in the Iowa test you pay when you go to the pump, so you can keep track better.

    I almost signed up for the test until I read how intrusive it was.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-20-roads_N.htm [usatoday.com]

  • by Tidalblitz ( 1181273 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @01:15PM (#28545121)
    It's 2 cents per mile. 50 cents per 100 miles. Assuming 15,000 miles per year. That's a $75 tax (plus the $1000 GPS unit, I'm sure, but that's neither here nor there). By switching to bigger tires ($100 minimum) you save $7.50 per year in taxes. And your tires will eventually wear out and need to be replaced at a higher cost than your smaller tires.

    Your math is a bit off. That would be a $300 tax for 15000 miles.
  • Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)

    by kmac06 ( 608921 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2009 @02:08PM (#28546185)
    It's horrifying to me that the idea of government spending less doesn't even cross your mind as a possibility.

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Working...