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.'"
It seems to me like GPS provides other features than mileage tracking which the government could use.
If we are only concerned about tracking the mileage, there is already nice tool that does just this, couldn't it be used to also display how much it costs us in real time ?;-)))
Since it's a federal tax, it doesn't really matter where you drive from the point-of-view of collecting taxes. How you dole out that money for highway projects is a problem however.
It does if the states decide to piggyback off the service as well, and you can rest assured that they'll want to. Since federal fuel taxes are dropping it means state fuel taxes are also declining for the exact same reasons. They'll likely want to use this system to tax drivers on their state roads, and to do that you need the accuracy & tracking that GPS provides.
Agreed. It would be so much cheaper to just raise the fuel tax. The mechanism is already in place (gas stations collect it, just change the amount if you need more money) and by taxing fuel not miles, it encourages fuel economy. I just don't get it. Unless of course the real reason is to track everyone.
I worked at a place where the boss decided installing GPS receivers in all of the work vehicles was a good idea. In theory (and only that) it was a good idea. The boxes decided on were from "GE Security". Basically, a hockey puck went on the dash. That wired to a receiver under the dash that transmitted GPS data over Sprint's network once every 5 minutes. It also reported engine on and off events. Based on the GPS data, it reported speed and direction. Based on their own data, it reported speed violations.
It was horribly flawed. For example, on a local expressway where it is impossible to make a U-turn, one driver was shown to constantly be changing directions, all the while maintaining 65mph. We knew his true direction, because we knew his destination, and we called him to ask "have you turned around at all during this trip?" He said "no".
Some of the drivers didn't like being tracked. The unit itself didn't store anything. If it was unable to transmit, it simply wouldn't send. On the next timed send event, it would attempt a send again. Mileage estimates were vague at best, even when the driver wasn't tampering with the device. A few drivers figured out that they could simply lay a static bag over the GPS antenna, and it either couldn't read the GPS signals, or it couldn't connect to transmit. Either way, they were invisible, and according to our own tracking were sitting at their last reported location. The drivers also knew that if their device appeared to be malfunctioning, we would investigate and have it repaired, so "disabling" it by covering the antenna was reserved for after hours use, or when they were rushing between sites. We had no way to tell if it was an intentional act, or the device simply couldn't send.
I was a bit upset at the purchase. I wanted to purchase one for testing. Instead, the sales rep got them on the entire fleet. {sigh} I wanted to build something more appropriate for our business needs, that wouldn't be as obvious or invasive for the drivers. For example, if the system pushed job information out to the drivers, and provided live driving directions, that would be very useful to them. It would have been a simple matter to store all events to transmit when the device could make a connection, or even a wifi connection when they came to the office to drop off paperwork. They wouldn't have to initiate anything themselves, it would be a simple matter that they drove close enough to the office to establish a wifi connection to one of our AP's, and update the server with the full log. Nope, we got a half-ass solution that didn't serve the bosses intended purpose.
So, $100 per vehicle setup and $50 per vehicle per month on a 2 year contract began. That's why CEO's should leave CIO tasks to the CIO.
How much of your mileage isn't on public roads? For most people, I'd guess almost none (up and down the driveway doesn't account for much for my trip into work each day). So, tough shit. No system is going to be perfect.
- 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.
The reason for the tax is because I can now buy production electric cars which don't use any gas. So you could put whatever amount of tax on gas you wanted and the government wouldn't get a cent.
This then leads to: SUV owner pays a lot of tax. Trucking Industry collapses. Daily commuter pays near the same tax due to fuel economy. Hybrid owner pays low tax. EV owner pays no tax.
All use the same roads, but are now taxed at different rates.
My solution: Tax tires. It has a direct correlation to road usage and all vehicles use tires. If you drive hard you do more damage to the road and your tires, meaning you'll need to replace both sooner. If you drive like a granny your tires will last longer and so will the roads.
I'll remove any GPS unit they try and put in my car. I may soon be spending a great deal of time in jail.
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.
Eventually they could probably come up with an electric metering system for plug-ins which would be far less intrusive than having a GPS watching you all the time.
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.
"the Prius drivers have more of an impact on the roads because they can drive much further (and cause much more wear on the roads) than the Hummer drivers."
The Prius weighs in at just over 3000 lbs, the Hummer H3 at just over 6000. How is the Prius with it's smaller wheels and less weight going to do MORE damage to roads no matter how far they drive? Seems like the way to measure the damage is per mile right, not vehicle range?
You're probably joking but I can think of a couple of inventive (and fun!) ways to abuse this. The first way to save yourself some money if this actually becomes a reality would be to simply remove the GPS device and leave it in your garage somewhere. Obviously it would have to still be functional for this to work, but I'm sure some hackerish type will figure that out.
The second (devious and more fun way) would be a great way to get revenge on someone. Remove their GPS device from their vehicle and attac
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.
They already do write down the mileage when you get the emissions checked. Not for the safety check I think. The info is in the DMV database. maybe the DMV database is so screwed up that the tax people do not want to touch it.
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.
GPS would be infinitely useful for governments. In addition to tracking mileage they can automatically charge tolls and even issue speeding tickets.
Why not just continue to raise the fuel taxes to generate revenue? That would serve to continue to reduce fuel consumption which would be a good thing.
Here I was just wondering what kind of a job I'd need to have in order to need one of these:
http://dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.8758 [dealextreme.com]
$33 for a GPS blocker/jammer seems like it'd be a lot cheaper than paying tolls.
I guess I no longer have to worry about the signs in Virginia which alert me that "Speed limits enforced by aircraft." I always figured they'd just hit you with a SAM and be done with it, though I can see how this might hurt the revenue angle.:-)
We don't do shit to repair the roads as it is! If this was put into place we'd find a way to further screw over our highways. Some of these potholes are big enough the only way we get them filled is to hold a funeral in one.
They could just tax gasoline more. You know, the driving-related thing that they already tax. That has the side benefit of helping to cut down on pollution more than a flat per-mile tax, too.
See, the people will revolt if we suddenly double or triple the gas tax, which is 18.5 cents a gallon.
But, since we're going to mandate that all cars get 35 miles per gallon, and then we charge 1 to 2 cents (and it'll be two cents, if not four by the time it gets passed), then that means we've effectively upped the gas tax to between 35 and 70 cents a gallon (or $1.40 by four cents a mile). And the great part is that, just like income tax, they won't see the per gallon increase, they just get a bill at the end of the month that they have to pay.
Way to double, triple, or more the gas tax without looking like it.
Also, by the law of unintended consequences, by removing the tax from the gas, it makes it more cost effective to buy an older, cheaper gas guzzler, than a new, expensive, hybrid car. Thanks for destroying the environment, morons.
We are coming up with all sorts of expensive plans to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the consumption of foreign oil, so why are we also trying to come up with a way to reduce the incentive to get a more fuel efficient car? Instead we should be massively increasing the tax on gasoline and possibly offering a flat rebate to counteract the regressive nature of use based taxes. That way tax revenue would keep up with decreasing demand and we would actually be naturally moving the market towards our long term goals.
Like it or not, a direct result of higher fuel prices is a drop is demand. Regardless of your views on oil production/drilling/exploration, it seems like it would be in everyone's best interest to use less fuel.
There was once--many years ago--talk of taxing motor fuel to reduce consumption. While I never personally agreed with the proposal, the idea of removing taxes from gasoline (which would make it appear cheaper to consumers) seems like a step in the wrong direction.
I wonder who is advising the "federal commission" on the options available to them? Why on earth would they decide a massive new taxation infrastructure was the "best path forward" unless they were being advised by someone who would benefit in some way from the massive purchase of new GPS tracking equipment?
Call me a curmudgeon, but I'd really like to know...
I work for the DoD. There are those of us that work on "black" projects that have covert everything, including travel. It would be absolutely intolerable to have a record of where a car has been, either personal or rental, for an enemy agent to exploit. If there's a meeting of folks hammering out the requirements for a new fighter jet or littoral cruiser, who goes to the meeting, where the meeting was, what time the meeting was, etc. are all way too valuable to be recorded.
No, this idea is a non-starter for National security reasons. We won't even talk about organized crime getting ahold of it in order to track likely kidnap candidates' usual movements.
This concept stinks like crude oil. Probably because it's heavily supported by the oil industry.
A 'miles driven' tax is exactly the kind of problem that allows people to completely externalize a lot of the public the cost of their fuel-inefficient vehicles (pollution, dependence on foreign oil, etc). We need to force people to pay those costs, in order to provide a disincentive to buying inefficient vehicles.
If we're going to switch to a miles-driven tax instead of a gas tax, then let's put a surchage tax on the purchase of inefficient vehicles. Let's make it $100 per rated mpg under 50.
Here's the math:
Say a pickup truck gets 20 mpg (generous), and will be driven for only 100,000 miles over its life. That's 5,000 gallons of fuel -- at federal excise rate of 18.4 cents/gal, that's $920 in gas taxes over the life of the vehicle.
Now look at a truck that gets 15 mpg. Fuel taxes over the life of the vehicle are $1380 (again, assuming only 100k miles driven).
A miles-driven tax, where both trucks pay the same amount, completely removes a big incentive to purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle. And given that the low mpg rating is typical of heavier vehicles that cause more road wear-and-tear, it's only fair that they pay higher taxes.
Most people have an EZ-pass equivalent in their car. We also have license plate reading cameras. Ticketing virtually all speeders, at least on highways, is possible now. They will never, ever do this because if you ticket all speeders, no one will speed. They will lose millions of dollars in fines, on top of creating massive anger and traffic clogs that would result in the speed limit being raised to the speed people actually go anyway.
So it's much too good an idea and will never be done.
GPS can also be fairly easily jammed. In a number of areas (particularly with cheaper devices), it's very difficult to get reliable GPS signals, so blocking reception wouldn't be all that suspicious.
We fight this kind of crap every year in California. People insist that hybrid cars are screwing us out of fuel taxes and are unfairly using the road. Well if it's so unfair maybe we should quit giving them a tax credit and put that money into the road budget instead. When everyone use hybrids we should raid the fuel tax to compensate. It's pretty simple, and doesn't require the government to contract an agency to build a $500 secured GPS unit to stick in every car.
Side effect: it becomes cheaper to drive a gas guzzler, and more expensive to drive an economy engine:
At current gas tax rates, that trip would cost my truck somewhere around $60 in existing gas taxes.
Existing gas tax would be about $10 in a fuel-efficient car.
Small fuel-efficient cars tend to be driven by lower-income people, who will therefore be hardest hit by this as their economy cars will pay a disproportionate amount of tax, based on per mile rather than per gallon.
There'd probably be a minor resurgence in the odometer-resetting industry, but fact is most people won't bother. Tying it to your annual vehicle licensing sounds good otherwise... until I had this thought:
When I buy gas with cash, I am absolutely anonymous. It doesn't matter if I drive 10 miles or 10,000 miles in a week. No one can know anything about my driving habits.
Now, recall that it is already commonly considered 'evidence of drug trafficking' if you are caught carrying a large amount of cash. What if 'driving a lot of miles' began garnering similar suspicions? I see the next step as confiscating cars (just as they presently do cash) without a hint of due process, just because your odometer mileage was outside of the norm.
"You drove 5,000 miles a week? Must have been running drugs. No one drives that far every week for any legitimate purpose."
It could go both ways, too.... for people like myself who drive very little (about 3,000 miles a year) -- that is ALSO suspicious: "No one who lives near [insert long-commute city here] drives so few miles, you must be getting your odometer reset!!"
So while it's an improvement over the GPS's invasive tracking, there are still problems that can impinge upon our freedoms, by encouraging scrutiny from looking-for-trouble Big Brother types.
Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me like GPS provides other features than mileage tracking which the government could use.
If we are only concerned about tracking the mileage, there is already nice tool that does just this, couldn't it be used to also display how much it costs us in real time ? ;-)))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taximeter [wikipedia.org]
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's another really nice tool that has the advantage that EVERY car already has one:
Odometer [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Funny)
Think of the government lobbyists, you insensitive clod!
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:4, Informative)
List is in the lower right here. [dot.gov]
I did not see Binky, Shakes, or Crusty in the list.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It does if the states decide to piggyback off the service as well, and you can rest assured that they'll want to. Since federal fuel taxes are dropping it means state fuel taxes are also declining for the exact same reasons. They'll likely want to use this system to tax drivers on their state roads, and to do that you need the accuracy & tracking that GPS provides.
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. It would be so much cheaper to just raise the fuel tax. The mechanism is already in place (gas stations collect it, just change the amount if you need more money) and by taxing fuel not miles, it encourages fuel economy. I just don't get it. Unless of course the real reason is to track everyone.
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked at a place where the boss decided installing GPS receivers in all of the work vehicles was a good idea. In theory (and only that) it was a good idea. The boxes decided on were from "GE Security". Basically, a hockey puck went on the dash. That wired to a receiver under the dash that transmitted GPS data over Sprint's network once every 5 minutes. It also reported engine on and off events. Based on the GPS data, it reported speed and direction. Based on their own data, it reported speed violations.
It was horribly flawed. For example, on a local expressway where it is impossible to make a U-turn, one driver was shown to constantly be changing directions, all the while maintaining 65mph. We knew his true direction, because we knew his destination, and we called him to ask "have you turned around at all during this trip?" He said "no".
Some of the drivers didn't like being tracked. The unit itself didn't store anything. If it was unable to transmit, it simply wouldn't send. On the next timed send event, it would attempt a send again. Mileage estimates were vague at best, even when the driver wasn't tampering with the device. A few drivers figured out that they could simply lay a static bag over the GPS antenna, and it either couldn't read the GPS signals, or it couldn't connect to transmit. Either way, they were invisible, and according to our own tracking were sitting at their last reported location. The drivers also knew that if their device appeared to be malfunctioning, we would investigate and have it repaired, so "disabling" it by covering the antenna was reserved for after hours use, or when they were rushing between sites. We had no way to tell if it was an intentional act, or the device simply couldn't send.
I was a bit upset at the purchase. I wanted to purchase one for testing. Instead, the sales rep got them on the entire fleet. {sigh} I wanted to build something more appropriate for our business needs, that wouldn't be as obvious or invasive for the drivers. For example, if the system pushed job information out to the drivers, and provided live driving directions, that would be very useful to them. It would have been a simple matter to store all events to transmit when the device could make a connection, or even a wifi connection when they came to the office to drop off paperwork. They wouldn't have to initiate anything themselves, it would be a simple matter that they drove close enough to the office to establish a wifi connection to one of our AP's, and update the server with the full log. Nope, we got a half-ass solution that didn't serve the bosses intended purpose.
So, $100 per vehicle setup and $50 per vehicle per month on a 2 year contract began. That's why CEO's should leave CIO tasks to the CIO.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your odometer can report how much of your mileage was on public roads? Cool!
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Informative)
- 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.
Parent
That's not a good replacement (Score:5, Insightful)
There's another really nice tool that has the advantage that EVERY car already has one: Odometer
So who gets the money from that?
Currently if I am driving in a state the state usually gets some percentage of the gas tax.
If you are just checking the odometer, my home state gets all the money even if I travel out of state often?
I don't like the GPS idea one bit, I'm just saying checking the odometer does not solve the problem.
Parent
Re:That's not a good replacement (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't like the GPS idea one bit, I'm just saying checking the odometer does not solve the problem.
I think the problem is a government so out of control with spending and managing people's lives that it requires this much tax.
Parent
Re:That's not a good replacement (Score:5, Insightful)
Raising the gas tax is far cheaper, impossible to turn into Big Brother, and localizes the the state and community pretty well, on average.
Parent
Re:That's not a good replacement (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you missed the point entirely.
The reason for the tax is because I can now buy production electric cars which don't use any gas. So you could put whatever amount of tax on gas you wanted and the government wouldn't get a cent.
This then leads to:
SUV owner pays a lot of tax.
Trucking Industry collapses.
Daily commuter pays near the same tax due to fuel economy.
Hybrid owner pays low tax.
EV owner pays no tax.
All use the same roads, but are now taxed at different rates.
My solution: Tax tires. It has a direct correlation to road usage and all vehicles use tires. If you drive hard you do more damage to the road and your tires, meaning you'll need to replace both sooner. If you drive like a granny your tires will last longer and so will the roads.
I'll remove any GPS unit they try and put in my car. I may soon be spending a great deal of time in jail.
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not tax fuel?
- consumption is proportional to milage!
- promotes fuel efficiency!
- collection is easy!
- big brother not included!
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Eventually they could probably come up with an electric metering system for plug-ins which would be far less intrusive than having a GPS watching you all the time.
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Informative)
*brrrring!*
Hello?
Ah, it's for you, fellow named William Jevons [wikipedia.org] calling.
Parent
Re:Do we really need GPS to track mileage ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"the Prius drivers have more of an impact on the roads because they can drive much further (and cause much more wear on the roads) than the Hummer drivers."
The Prius weighs in at just over 3000 lbs, the Hummer H3 at just over 6000. How is the Prius with it's smaller wheels and less weight going to do MORE damage to roads no matter how far they drive? Seems like the way to measure the damage is per mile right, not vehicle range?
C.
Parent
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
This is great, especially as there is no way to abuse this.
Re: (Score:3)
You're probably joking but I can think of a couple of inventive (and fun!) ways to abuse this. The first way to save yourself some money if this actually becomes a reality would be to simply remove the GPS device and leave it in your garage somewhere. Obviously it would have to still be functional for this to work, but I'm sure some hackerish type will figure that out.
The second (devious and more fun way) would be a great way to get revenge on someone. Remove their GPS device from their vehicle and attac
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming they'll drop the gasoline tax. I'm betting it's more like a leap from $106.73 to $406.73.
Parent
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Odometer (Score:5, Interesting)
They could just check the odometer during emissions checking.
Plus, if they go through with something like this, then they'd better eliminate the fuel taxes. (fat chance, I know)
Re:Odometer (Score:5, Insightful)
They already do write down the mileage when you get the emissions checked. Not for the safety check I think. The info is in the DMV database. maybe the DMV database is so screwed up that the tax people do not want to touch it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill
Re:Odometer (Score:5, Funny)
Also, in Indiana, they don't verbs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Great Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
GPS would be infinitely useful for governments. In addition to tracking mileage they can automatically charge tolls and even issue speeding tickets.
Why not just continue to raise the fuel taxes to generate revenue? That would serve to continue to reduce fuel consumption which would be a good thing.
GPS Jammer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GPS Jammer (Score:4, Funny)
I guess I no longer have to worry about the signs in Virginia which alert me that "Speed limits enforced by aircraft." I always figured they'd just hit you with a SAM and be done with it, though I can see how this might hurt the revenue angle. :-)
Parent
What about Oklahoma? (Score:5, Funny)
Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hidden doubling (or more) of taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
See, the people will revolt if we suddenly double or triple the gas tax, which is 18.5 cents a gallon.
But, since we're going to mandate that all cars get 35 miles per gallon, and then we charge 1 to 2 cents (and it'll be two cents, if not four by the time it gets passed), then that means we've effectively upped the gas tax to between 35 and 70 cents a gallon (or $1.40 by four cents a mile). And the great part is that, just like income tax, they won't see the per gallon increase, they just get a bill at the end of the month that they have to pay.
Way to double, triple, or more the gas tax without looking like it.
Also, by the law of unintended consequences, by removing the tax from the gas, it makes it more cost effective to buy an older, cheaper gas guzzler, than a new, expensive, hybrid car. Thanks for destroying the environment, morons.
Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Positive Change (Score:3, Insightful)
And this encourages conservation how??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like it or not, a direct result of higher fuel prices is a drop is demand. Regardless of your views on oil production/drilling/exploration, it seems like it would be in everyone's best interest to use less fuel.
There was once--many years ago--talk of taxing motor fuel to reduce consumption. While I never personally agreed with the proposal, the idea of removing taxes from gasoline (which would make it appear cheaper to consumers) seems like a step in the wrong direction.
I wonder who is advising the "federal commission" on the options available to them? Why on earth would they decide a massive new taxation infrastructure was the "best path forward" unless they were being advised by someone who would benefit in some way from the massive purchase of new GPS tracking equipment?
Call me a curmudgeon, but I'd really like to know...
Seriously Bad Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for the DoD. There are those of us that work on "black" projects that have covert everything, including travel. It would be absolutely intolerable to have a record of where a car has been, either personal or rental, for an enemy agent to exploit. If there's a meeting of folks hammering out the requirements for a new fighter jet or littoral cruiser, who goes to the meeting, where the meeting was, what time the meeting was, etc. are all way too valuable to be recorded.
No, this idea is a non-starter for National security reasons. We won't even talk about organized crime getting ahold of it in order to track likely kidnap candidates' usual movements.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Something that might get more Americans to ride bicycles.
Just awful (Score:5, Interesting)
A 'miles driven' tax is exactly the kind of problem that allows people to completely externalize a lot of the public the cost of their fuel-inefficient vehicles (pollution, dependence on foreign oil, etc). We need to force people to pay those costs, in order to provide a disincentive to buying inefficient vehicles.
If we're going to switch to a miles-driven tax instead of a gas tax, then let's put a surchage tax on the purchase of inefficient vehicles. Let's make it $100 per rated mpg under 50.
Here's the math:
Say a pickup truck gets 20 mpg (generous), and will be driven for only 100,000 miles over its life. That's 5,000 gallons of fuel -- at federal excise rate of 18.4 cents/gal, that's $920 in gas taxes over the life of the vehicle.
Now look at a truck that gets 15 mpg. Fuel taxes over the life of the vehicle are $1380 (again, assuming only 100k miles driven).
A miles-driven tax, where both trucks pay the same amount, completely removes a big incentive to purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle. And given that the low mpg rating is typical of heavier vehicles that cause more road wear-and-tear, it's only fair that they pay higher taxes.
It will be both taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way in hell that the government will remove any gas taxes, they will just add the per mile tax.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better watch your speed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people have an EZ-pass equivalent in their car. We also have license plate reading cameras. Ticketing virtually all speeders, at least on highways, is possible now. They will never, ever do this because if you ticket all speeders, no one will speed. They will lose millions of dollars in fines, on top of creating massive anger and traffic clogs that would result in the speed limit being raised to the speed people actually go anyway.
So it's much too good an idea and will never be done.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GPS can also be fairly easily jammed. In a number of areas (particularly with cheaper devices), it's very difficult to get reliable GPS signals, so blocking reception wouldn't be all that suspicious.
the government is ran by ninnies (Score:3, Interesting)
We fight this kind of crap every year in California. People insist that hybrid cars are screwing us out of fuel taxes and are unfairly using the road. Well if it's so unfair maybe we should quit giving them a tax credit and put that money into the road budget instead. When everyone use hybrids we should raid the fuel tax to compensate. It's pretty simple, and doesn't require the government to contract an agency to build a $500 secured GPS unit to stick in every car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I guess they will have exemptions for older cars, cars that have value in original condition and adding/changing something will reduce value, etc.
They're politicians, they don't care a whit about you or your car. They care about getting reelected and getting more of your money to spend.
Regressive tax, will hurt the poor (Score:3, Interesting)
Side effect: it becomes cheaper to drive a gas guzzler, and more expensive to drive an economy engine:
At current gas tax rates, that trip would cost my truck somewhere around $60 in existing gas taxes.
Existing gas tax would be about $10 in a fuel-efficient car.
Small fuel-efficient cars tend to be driven by lower-income people, who will therefore be hardest hit by this as their economy cars will pay a disproportionate amount of tax, based on per mile rather than per gallon.
So -- this is a regressive tax.
Re:Roads/infrastructure need to be paid for (Score:5, Interesting)
There'd probably be a minor resurgence in the odometer-resetting industry, but fact is most people won't bother. Tying it to your annual vehicle licensing sounds good otherwise... until I had this thought:
When I buy gas with cash, I am absolutely anonymous. It doesn't matter if I drive 10 miles or 10,000 miles in a week. No one can know anything about my driving habits.
Now, recall that it is already commonly considered 'evidence of drug trafficking' if you are caught carrying a large amount of cash. What if 'driving a lot of miles' began garnering similar suspicions? I see the next step as confiscating cars (just as they presently do cash) without a hint of due process, just because your odometer mileage was outside of the norm.
"You drove 5,000 miles a week? Must have been running drugs. No one drives that far every week for any legitimate purpose."
It could go both ways, too.... for people like myself who drive very little (about 3,000 miles a year) -- that is ALSO suspicious: "No one who lives near [insert long-commute city here] drives so few miles, you must be getting your odometer reset!!"
So while it's an improvement over the GPS's invasive tracking, there are still problems that can impinge upon our freedoms, by encouraging scrutiny from looking-for-trouble Big Brother types.
Parent