California Considers Tracking Your Car

dan_sdot writes "California's budget problem has led the state to consider desperate measures: taxing you based on how much you drive. The only problem is the way they propose to do it. California is now proposing to put GPS devices on all new cars to track how far people drive and tax them accordingly."

Comments

Dont they already do this?

[slash-tard]

Via the very large tax on gas?

Re:Dont they already do this?

[dbond]

Talk about overengineering! If gas/petrol was taxed higher, they could avoid this completely. I suspect what they really want to know is who's where when and how fast they are going. So the can fine you. 'Cos you speed. Just like everyone else. David

Re:Dont they already do this?

[LemonFire]

It would be so easy to adjust the tax rate on gas as the usage of gas goes down to compensate for this.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[fossa]

Exactly. And if they really wanted to tax "time on the road" rather than "fuel burned", couldn't they ask you to report your vehicle's mileage on a yearly basis? Areas with emissions testing (California?) already report mileage; it shows up in online VIN reports. Sounds somewhat less intrusive.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[ExInferus]

While it doesn't apply to all non-hybrids, H2's in particular probably cause a lot more road wear and tear than a Prius would, just due to the weight difference. So unless they plan to account for that to, it still doesn't really balance out.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[yog]

Yes, that's what the FA says. The problem is that it is a poor basis for raising revenue that perpetuates unfairness. (That's leaving aside the enforceability issues and the simple cost of installing this monstrosity.)

Consider, for example, how some municipalities make millions of dollars a year from parking fines. In Boston, that's traditionally been a major revenue source, and meter cops were encouraged by quotas to overinterpret the law and nail people who were 12 inches out of compliance with distance to the curb, or 1 minute overdue on their meter, etc. (This only began to subside a bit in the late 1980s after the infamous case of a driver in Boston who pulled over, fell out of his car, and lay on the sidewalk having a heart attack; as you can guess, a traffic cop proceeded to ticket his car WHILE HE WAS LYING THERE and the whole sorry scene was captured in a photograph for the Boston Globe's front page.)

Anyway, just because cities and towns develop a dependency on this form of revenue does not mean it is a fair or proper way to raise money. In fact, it encourages people to have contempt for the law and for the law to have contempt for people. Stupid, stupid.

We already pay an enormous amount of taxes to keep our cars on the road. Initial sales tax (in most states), annual excise tax based on the value of the car, automobile insurance which is highly regulated and taxed in most states, gasoline sales tax, tolls, license plate renewal fee, drivers license renewal fee, and speeding and parking fines. No doubt I'm forgetting a few things. Ted Kennedy's luxury tax if your car is > $100K?

I believe that gasoline actually should be taxed much more than it is. Go ahead, California; raise the gas tax to $1 a gallon. It's regressive taxation, admittedly, especially for contractors who have to drive vans and pickup trucks and the like, but overall it will help spur the adoption of alternative fuels such as corn-based methanol and coal- or solar-based hydrogen, which will be tremendously beneficial long term. And dare one mention public transportation? Cities without practical bus and subway systems--well, the voters should face the music and ante up for these programs, because as the boomer population ages it's going to become ever more important. Twenty years from now there are going to be about 90 million 75-year-olds out there driving; look out, world.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[RandomCoil]

You've hammered away at taxes on gas but argue that CAFE-like legislation is the right direction. Consider this counter argument:

Increasing the fuel efficiency of cars through CAFE-type legislation decreases the cost/mile required to operate them. This does not provide any incentive for a vehicle user to travel a shorter distance, rather it allows them to travel further. Legislation like CAFE alone does not work because it does not hit the end user, the consumer, in the one place where she or he will feel it: the pocketbook.

A gas tax is a better solution in a market-driven economy. It hits the end-user where they will feel it and creates a new demand, in this case for fuel-efficient car. There's a reason that small Japanese cars became popular in the 70's and it sure as heck wasn't fuel efficiency related legislation.

The government doesn't need to "tell" to megacorporations anything in this case: they'll go where the money is, whether it's in H2's or hybrids.

I blame Proposition 71.

[Kenja]

I will never understand why we passed Proposition 71 which calls for three billion in bonds over the next few years to fund stem cell reasearch given that our state is broke. Ah well, I dont drive so I guess I dont much care.

Re:I blame Proposition 71.

[77Punker]

OH, but you should care. Pretty soon they'll be tracking your computer to see how much the heat generated by it affects global warming. Okay...that's a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure you get the idea. The more power you let them have, the more they'll try to take. They act like a bunch of drug addicts, high on authority.

Re:I blame Proposition 71.

[ElectricRook]

That was all about people expressing that they believe in Stem Cell Reseach. Most people were under the impression that the President Bush was outlawing stem cell research. When instead, he was limiting federal funding based on right to life concerns.

I'm all for stem cell reasearch, but highly aginst pork-barrel research programs which seem to be concerned with garnering more research money.

Hrmmm...

[spin2cool]

Shouldn't this one be filed under "Your Rights Offline?

Just saying is all...

For once...

[poofyhairguy82]

I was happy I live in Texas instead of California. At least here, we only obsessively track our children.

Odometer

[Rufus88]

Why not just report your odometer reading each year? It could even by done by the service station that performs your annual inspection.

Re:Odometer

[Tackhead]

> Why not just report your odometer reading each year? It could even by done by the service station that performs your annual inspection.

California is only entitled to tax you for miles you drive in the state of California. The minute you cross the border into Nevada, Oregon, or Mexico, you can't be taxed.

Therefore - if you're going to tax by the mile, you must use a GPS tracking device to ensure that only miles taxable within your jurisdiction are taxed. Otherwise you're one judge's gavel away from having your tax law thrown out. Don't fuck with the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Of course, taxing by the mile is an asstastic idea to begin with - but even in the "green" People's Republic of Kalifornia, it doesn't matter how green the idea of "tax the H2 more than the Prius" might be... the only green that matters to a politician is the color of his subjects' money. (and/or the money of the GPS device manufacturers' lobby :)

Re:Odometer

[nbert]

That's a good idea, but there are various ways to manipulate this device. From the good old days when a borer was all you needed to get past 999999 to digital odometer manipulation, which requires more knowledge, but some people make a living out of it for sure... But I guess manipulating GPS devices isn't much harder. I bet that transmitters, which outshine regular GPS signals, will be in stores ~3 months after this bill is passed.

Re:Odometer

[nero4wolfe]

Note that nothing says they can't make the per-mile tax dependant on say, the empty weight of the car (on the principle that heavier cars put more wear & tear on the road).

If that's done, then a heavier vehicle like a Hummer would still pay more taxes than a lighter car like a Prius.

Another tax on the working class

[wembley]

Who has to drive the furthest? People who can't afford to live in the houses they clean. People who run small businesses and have to deliver product themselves. People who deliver pizzas.

This really won't bother your Hummer drivers. They are already getting hit with gas-guzzler taxes.

Tried that over here

[Killjoy_NL]

In the Netherlands they tried something similar a few years back. It stranded long before implementation. And since the American populace loves to drive and loves their cheap gass price, I don't think that the government will be able to do this successfully. (Pardon my typos and possible bad grammar, I'm dutch, so english isn't my first language)

Odometer?

[RaguMS]

Why not just use odometer readings? There are already laws and measures in place to prevent tampering.

Arnold will tax

[grolaw]

how far you drive, how long you f**K and anything else he can. How nice that the democrats aren't to blame for this abomination.

Time to expose the 13-car owner 'govner for what he is - aggressively hostile to everything the average guy or gal needs.

Except that this would target green cars, too

[benhocking]

A tax based on how far you drive does make a certain amount of sense (ignoring the method used), in that tax-payer money goes to building and maintaining roads. However, as someone who drives a high MPG car (Honda Civic), I admit that I prefer methods that target gas guzzlers disproportionately. Of course, one could also argue that gas guzzlers tend to do more harm to the environment, etc., and should pay more, but then that kind of sounds like they're buying the right to poison us.

Of course, what it really boils down to is a new tax that they can add on to existing taxes to pay for even more government programs, preferably to benefit people who made large contributions to the winners' campaigns.

Re:Except that this would target green cars, too

[fossa]

buying the right to poison us

This is how many "everything should be a market" would like pollution to work. It may sound evil when you word it that way, but at least there's a monetary incentive to pollute less. In some schemes, corporations can buy and sell tickets that allow them to pollute a certain amount. A company may gain money by polluting less and selling its tickets (to other companies who will then pollute more). Alternatively, organizations could purchase tickets and then destroy them, or the government could purchase tickets to set an overall limit on the particular polution.

It's an interesting idea that I don't know too much about, just wanted to share.

Sort of

[Dirtside]

Taxing people based on how much they drive is a good idea (because as it stands, the costs of driving are highly externalized -- e.g. the people getting the benefit from driving more are not necessarily the ones paying for it), but there's no reason the mechanism for tracking needs to store any personal info. It's entirely possible to come up with a system for tracking how much you drive, without tracking where you drive.

Nonetheless, rather than tracking your mileage, I'd much rather see gas taxes increased so that the more you drive, the more money the state gets for road maintenance, mass transit, etc. Right now, gas taxes are a fixed number, rather than a percentage of the gas price. You could also include the cost of auto insurance in the gas price, so that everyone's automatically insured to some required minimum, and then you could get more insurance on top of that if you wanted it, rather than the situation now, where it's illegal to drive without insurance (in California) but millions of people, mostly immigrants, do it anyway.

This would also put more of the burden on vehicles that get worse gas mileage, which also tend to be larger, heavier, cause more road wear, are more dangerous to other vehicles, and emit more pollutants.

And of course, people in the U.S. (and especially Southern California, where I live) are so obsessed with being able to drive wherever you want, whenever you want, and not having to pay for it (even though someone has to pay for it!), that they fight gas taxes tooth and nail even though proper application would reduce traffic (by providing more transit options). Europe has the right idea.

Re:Gentlemen, start your engines!

[somethinghollow]

And, damnit, I JUST moved to Cali a few months ago. But, I seriously doubt they can get everyone to have government installed GPS in their car due to privacy concerns. If whatever-car-rental company can't give me a speeding ticked based on GPS because that is invasion of privacy, this method will not fly.

wouldn't it be easier...

[bradley_earl]

wouldn't it be easier to just tax gas at the pump at a higher rate? while it wouldn't would equate to equal taxes per mile per person (because of mileage variations), it would seem a lot less obtrusive. given the price of gas these days, who'd even notice a few pennies difference anyways? if we absolutely had to spend some money to make money- we could always build toll booths. same function, some of the same privacy issues (a la EZ pass etc.) but would hurt the pizza delivery drivers a lot less hard.

1984, anyone?

[flamechocobo]

HUGE privacy issue. There is no telling what can be done with these devices. Plus, GPS unit's don't JUST measure distance traveled. Most also track where you are at all times.

Tolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, back when I lived in New York state, we had a toll system on our main highway (New York State Thruway). WTF would be wrong with just installing toll booths and (gasp) hiring workers to man them?

Generates revenue based on miles driven (roughly), preserves privacy, creates jobs. Low- and high-skill, I might add, as modern transportation systems tend to have electronic monitoring systems. I know the LA area has a centralized traffic monitoring and control system; someone had to program and design all that.

Wait a sec ...

[vlad_petric]

Shouldn't efficient cars be encouraged ?

This proposal will have the opposite effect

Re:Wait a sec ...

[Sancho]

Not entirely. You still have to buy gas.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[cephyn]

Oh yeah that's a faaaantastic precedent to set. What Mr. Big Company? Want to pollute more? Well, pay more money and you can! (well, that's already possible too, but that doesn't make it right).

You should not be able to pay more in order to disregard the environment. The health of the environment should not be for sale, it should be a factor on everyone.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[IAmMaxHarris]

No.

The proper role of government is to preserve the constitutionally-limited negative (which do not require the enslavement of others) rights of citizens.

The government has no business encouraging or discouraging any legal activity. Such "encouragment" necessarily violates the rights of someone.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you have to understand here is that (for years!) California legislators have been laboring under the delusion that the internal combustion engine will go the way of the dodo real soon now.

This is the reason for the ZEV mandate, and for the billions of dollars wasted by GM and Ford on unworkable electric cars. As late as 2001, the California government still thought that 10 percent of vehicles sold in 2003 would produce no emissions other than water... because, golly, they'd passed a law saying so!

Of course, here it is in 2004, and we still have no zero emissions vehicles other than the odd golf cart. Honda and Toyota were smart. They ignored the ZEV mandate and worked on hybrid gas-electric vehicles instead. Thus they reap the rewards while GM is demonized for following orders.

But the folks in Sacramento still haven't learned anything. They have created a 'ultra low emissions vehicle' category, a 'super low emissions vehicle' category. The idea is that, with the right legislation, they can gradually force car manufacturers to make their hybrid cars more and more efficient. The mechanism is to require a large fraction of new cars in successive years to go from LEV to ULEV to SULEV to PZEV categories, until finally (according to this master plan) there will be millions of cars sold in the ZEV category.

This is like breeding mice that eat less food in an attempt to create a mouse which doesn't need any food at all. It won't work. You can make more somewhat more efficient hybrid vehicles, but they'll still need fuel.

If they really want zero emissions vehicles, they should give up on passing all these laws requiring them, and spend money instead on basic research. We need the technology for good enough fuel cells or batteries. Once we have that, cars that don't need gas will appear automatically. But you can't make them just by passing laws that say "make an adequate car that doesn't use gas."

So, anyway, the CA legislature still fails to understand this, and they still imagine that ZEVs are just around the corner. And this makes them worry: the roads are paid for with the gas tax. But then who will pay for the roads when (in just a few years, remember) no one is buying gas anymore?

Thus they have cooked up this whole bizarre GPS car tax scheme. There have been mutterings about it for the last few years. I'd hoped that someone would have enough common sense to kill it off, but I guess it just fits in too well in the bizarre worldview which is endemic to Sacramento.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[Sancho]

Shouldn't efficient cars be encouraged ?

This proposal will have the opposite effect

The opposite effect being, of course, either that efficient cars will be discouraged or that gas-guzzlers will be encouraged.

Neither is true. There is no government encouragement to drive a gas-guzzler under this taxation plan, there is simply no tax-based encouragement NOT to.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[Dr. Spork]

An SUV with knobby tires puts a lot more wear on a road that a prius. A good rule of thumb: the more gas it uses, the more damage it causes.

But I agree, it's stupid to tax gas. Poor people buy almost as much gas as the super-rich, so most of the gas tax is paid by them.

Here's an idea: How about a progressive income tax?

Re:Wait a sec ...

[demonbug]

As far as wear and tear on roads, passenger vehicles and light trucks (including SUVs) are generally responsible for a miniscule portion of road wear. The VAST majority of road wear due to vehicle travel (as opposed to weather/expansion/settling/etc.) is from large trucks and buses. A fully loaded semi has up to about 10,000 times the impact of a passenger car (more commonly in the 500-2,000 range) as far as road wear goes.
The big issue is not paying for road wear (if we based taxes entirely on road wear due to vehicle use every trucking company in the country would be taxed out of business over night) caused by vehicles, but rather the road capacity they necessitate. A semi needs about 2-3 times the capacity (space) of a passenger car; passenger cars, SUVs, light trucks, etc. basically require the same road capacity. The purpose of this GPS system (which seems overly intrusive to me, even if it does make a lot of sense in many respects) is to base taxes on the actual cost incurred by a car - not for repairs due to wear inflicted by the car, but costs incurred by building and sustaining a road system with enough capacity to handle the traffic. The vast majority of maintenance work done on roads is not due to traffic volume, it is due to natural processes like weathering. Larger, higher-capacity roads cost more to build and maintain than smaller roads. From this perspecitve it makes a lot of sense to tax people based on how much they drive (how much capacity they use) rather than how much gas they use (which, as far as road wear and capacity goes, has little do do with the costs incurred).
In my opinion we shouldn't be looking at reducing gas taxes (they should and do provide an added incentive for people to drive more efficient cars), but it is reasonable to look at other criteria for basing taxes on as well. This GPS is just way to invasive; law enforcement already uses things like FasTrak passes to track people's movements, you know that they aren't going to be able to help themselves from getting hold of the GPS data (and in many ways it would be their responsibility to do so).

Re:Wait a sec ...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Hence progressive taxes are for people who have no idea wtf they are talking about (i.e. Basic Economics).

No, progressive taxes are for people that need to eat. The basic idea is that the first bit of income pays for your food, basic shelter, and clothes. After that, it's just improvements to basics and adding luxuries. By the time your tax burden hits 18%, you're sitting pretty in a big house with a nice Porsche (not that Boxter trash) in the driveway.

Honestly, in the old days of the republic, you paid for what you wanted, and that was that.

And government made its money through tariffs. That wouldn't work today, as we're too used to cheap goods from China.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[dvdeug]

The proper role of government is to preserve the constitutionally-limited negative (which do not require the enslavement of others) rights of citizens.

That is, if you're a libertarian. Then there would be no roads or schools, of course, and no forms of finacial support. Of course, you'd be free to beat your kid, because child services is just infringing on the rights of rich folks to keep thier money.

The government has no business encouraging or discouraging any legal activity.

The government of the people and by the people should have the people's interests at heart. That includes us not all dying due to global warming, or (even if you don't believe in that) the world's economy being crippled by the end of fossil fuels. (Come soon or come late, there's only so much of it out there. Given that demand keeps going up, simple logic tells us that it's going to run out some time in the not-so-distant future.)

Re:Wait a sec ...

[goon america]

goon america's law: the first person to use the phrase "basic economics", eg, "this is basic economics", is the one who knows the least about economics.

You're assuming a perfect consumption tax correlated 1:1 with income. No one has ever proposed anything like this. This is what they call attacking a straw man. I take this as a tacit admission that you can't actually think of a good argument against progressive income taxation if you have to resort to that.

You're also assuming that the value of money is a linear function. Again, this assumption is flawed. In terms of raw dollars, is there any difference between giving someone who makes $10,000/year another $1000 and giving someone who makes $100,000/year another $1000? Even in terms of percent: is there no difference between giving someone who makes $10,000/year another $1000 and someone who makes $100,000/year another $10,000? If the value of money was determined by a linear function you would not be able to see any subjective differences between these two cases, either in total or in terms of percent. The difference is, it ought to seem like the person that makes $10,000 would spend the additional $1000 on more food for their kids, but for the other person it would go to buying more luxury toys. Yes, and that's making a moral judgment on what people should and should not have. If you honestly think it's some perverse moral calculus to see a difference between rich people buying more luxury cars and poor people having more food, than that's an interesting definition of morality you have.

As for your second ammendment threat, go hog wild: overthrow the government, I encourage you. If lower taxes would put you over the threshold of affording that Porsche Boxster you've always wanted, I'd like to see it happen.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[jaydonnell]

There are more jobs out there than there are people filling them. Maybe not the jobs you and I prefer, but they are there. And if you need to eat, you would take one, just as I would.

First and foremost is the fact that this is simply untrue. There are far more people than jobs. Second, just because a shitty job exists doesn't mean you can get it. I was laid of from my well paid IT job at Worldcom/MCI after they went bankrupt. I searched for a job, in Los Angeles mind you, for 6 months and was told repeatedly that I was over qualified. One particular interview I had was for a job on a loading dock at a Macy's warehouse.

Frankly, there is a reason why the rich are rich: in the capitalistic system we live in, they get there by being the most efficent allocaters of capital.

Let's see. Most wealthy people are born wealthy. They don't allocate anything better than anyone else. George Bush would be a redneck living in a trailer just like where I grew up if he wasn't born into the family that he was born into. Your either a troll, a teenager, or delusional. I'm going to guess that it's number 2.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[joss]

What makes you think the price will rise gradually ? Everybody I've read who has studied this says prices will rise very abruptly, by this I mean as oil starts to run out, the price rises will be many times greater than the current rate of inflation.

Our attitude to oil consumption is more like the guy falling off a building saying to himself on the way down "so far, so good..." A soft landing is possible, but we better start knitting a parachute sometime soon.

And why not just raise the gas tax instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxing expensive low mileage vehicles is a great progressive tax, and doesn't lessen the importance of doing everything we can to reduce our country's expensive and security-exposing dependence on OIL. This is one of the most humongously dumb ideas I've ever read.

And who says that just because someone doesn't drive much, they shouldn't share in the tax burden to maintain the roads? Just because you don't have kids doesn't mean you shouldn't contribute to the tax to support public education. This pay-as-you-use stuff is for the birds and this is a clear case of overextending it.

So this has nothing to do with budget shortfalls

[IdahoEv]

The article claims this is because of the danger that hybrid cars will eat into the tax income, since they consume less gas and therefore don't pay as much tax.

But the fact is that very few people drive such hybrids, even in California. Far more Californians drive gas-guzzling SUVs; a drive through LA used to surround you with Ford Explorers, but now those seem to be outnumbered by the much larger vehicles like Expeditions and such. A gas tax is a better way to collect income and provide a market incentive to reduce air pollution (as opposed to a regulation, like smog checks, which are expensive to enforce and provide an incentive to cheat rather than to conserve).

So really, this is just a proposal to make sure that people who actually switch to efficient technologies keep subsidizing those who don't. It's completely retarded. It is not only counterproductive to the desire to reduce fuel consumption and air pollution, but requires that the state spend an additional $100 per car just to implement.

Expensive + counterproductive to societal goals = bad government. Bad government! No cookie!

Dumb dumb dumb dumb....

The sex tax.

[rice_burners_suck]

I have an ingenious plan on how every government in the world can solve all its budget problems:

THE SEX TAX

Every male will have a chip installed in his sex organ. This chip would provide the following functions:

• It would provide extra stimulation during the sex act.
• Via a Bluetooth interface, the male would be able to specify sexual parameters, such as extra lasting time, longer orgasms, etc.
• The chip would record all sexual activity and categorize it as follows:
  • Masturbation
  • Vaginal intercourse
  • Oral intercourse
  • Anal intercourse
  • Other intercourse
• The male would have to report all sexual activity on a government document. Government computers would then match these documents against records received wirelessly from sex organ implants. (This step is performed to make the process error-prone on the male's part.)

The male would then be taxed accordingly. Mistakes made in filing the appropriate paperwork would result in interest, fines, interest on the fines, penalties, interest on the penalties, and interest on the interest.

This new technology would create a new revenue stream for the government. Additional benefits for the male include:

• A spousal sex monitoring system, accessible via the web. Using this service, for which women could pay a monthly fee, wives will be able to monitor their husband's sexual activity, uncovering extramerital affairs, dirty masturbational habits, etc.
• Proof of rape allegations. This service would provide women with a method of proving that a male had engaged in sexual intercourse with them. Of course, since there would be no female implant, a woman who is completely unrelated to the male, but who knows that the male had a sexual rendezvous at a certain time, could allege that the male had raped her. Proof would exist that the male had sex, but the male could not present any evidence that the sex had occurred with a different woman. According to the law, the male would be assumed guilty until proven innocent, and the law will provide for only one way for the male to prove his innocence: Sign all assets, property, and money over to the government.

The new law will be called: The Millenium Sexual Freedom Act of 2005.

Yes, this will obviously benefit both the male population, by providing innovative services that all males want, and the government, by providing a much needed revenue stream.

Of course, in the typical government style, the money would be used for anti-sex education.

Tax by CAR WEIGHT, dumbasses!!!

[wernst]

I'm sure readers outside California know this, but in case you didn't know...

Some other states apply their car tax by the vehicle's weight, due to the very sensible reason that a heaver car wears down the roads more than a lighter car, and therefore more repairs (and hence, more cost) are required with heavy cars.

Obviously, SUVs and luxury cars pay more, while lighter and frugal cars pay less, PLUS it just makes sense: if you chew up the pavement and make more potholes because of your heavier car, then you SHOULD pay more.

Of course, this makes too much sense for my state's DMV to figure out...

Re:Wow...

[OrangeTide]

Once we can tax people for having to live out in cheaper areas because they make too little money to afford a home downtown, we can move onto bigger and better things:

We should tax all LLCs 110%. I'm tired of having small businesses that sell furniture, dialup internet, food and liquor. Also I'm sick of all those icky poor people these kinds of places seem to attract.

Also it would be nice if we taxed trucks $1/mile, since they pollute the most, cause the most road wear and deliver things to stores like Wal-Mart. Also truck drivers dress like poor people.

Also we should require additional taxes on bottled water imported to the state. I'm tired of seeing ugly people drink the same brand of water as I do. The milky white city water should be plenty good enough for them.

We should also tax mops and other cleaning supplies. There are a lot of janitors that aren't paying their fair share. We can use these funds to create a wildlife preserve to protect animals from Lysol.

If that doesn't drive out all the poor people, I don't know what will. (if you didn't notice, California's state goverment hates poor people)

Round up the usual suspects...

[ElectricRook]

At smog-check time, the GPS memory gets down-loaded into a database... Remember Gray bought $82M worth of Oracle licenses.

Then when a crime goes unsolved, the local police only need to search the monster database of who was where and when. Round up the guilty, and sentence the convicts.

Remember Big Brother is Watching

I'm beginning to think Americans are suffering from a lack of studying Orwell.

Re:Governmental mixed messages

[farble1670]

They build the roads, but get mad when we drive on them.
no one is mad. it's quite simple: roads cost money. someone needs to pay for it.
They subsidize the roads with tax dollars, then wonder why we don't take the bus.
uhhh. buses drive on the roads don't they? would you take the bus more often if the highway system was in decay? seems like that would affect all motor vehicles equally (including buses).
They tax gas to keep us from buying it, then complain they have budget problems.
gas tax raises revenue. there are many, many sources of income for the a state government, and gas tax is a small part of it. so what's your point? they should cut the gas tax so they have greater budget problems?!?
They want jobs, but they can't stand it when we make money.
don't take it so personal. running a state / nation is expensive. someone has to pay for it. if you don't like it move to some other western nation with lower taxes (hint: you'll be looking a long time).

Go full electric

[HPNpilot]

That will slow them down a bit, as there are no visits to the gasoline pump.

But seriously, if they are talking about wear and tear on the roads, why wouldn't they make the tax a function of vehicle weight AND mileage driven? A heavier vehicle causes MUCH more road damage than a light one.

But what do you expect, the Gov drives Hummers...

I'd heard the Beatles were making a come-back...

[genjo]

Let me tell you how it will be,
There's one for you, nineteen for me,
'Cos I'm the Taxman,
Yeah, I'm the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all,
'Cos I'm the Taxman,
Yeah, I'm the Taxman.
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat,
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Taxman.
'Cos I'm the Taxman,
Yeah, I'm the Taxman.
Don't ask me what I want it for
(Taxman Mister Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more
(Taxman Mister Heath),
'Cos I'm the Taxman,
Yeah, I'm the Taxman.
Now my advice for those who die,
Declare the pennies on your eyes,
'Cos I'm the Taxman,
Yeah, I'm the Taxman.
And you're working for no-one but me,
Taxman.

'Fool on the Hill' was taken already, I guess.

Well this is reeeeallly cute....

[Kartik3]

This just does not seem like a good idea. So they're telling me that a Prius takes up as much space on the road as a freaking Hummer?! The Hummer is gargantuan compared to the Toyota (?) hybrid. If their argument is that the Hummer and the Prius both cause the same amount of wear on a road, I find that to be very thin. Are they considering vehicle weight a factor in regards to how much wear a vehicle induces on the roads? If weight is indeed important here (which I think it is) then I think they had the right idea by taxing the semi-trucking companies and other companies that use the roads. However I feel they should tax the companies using the roads first before the individual drivers.

By the way isn't there a way they could just work this into a toll or something. If you've been driving for X miles on the road you pay a couple of dollars or something at the toll. Because the way it sounds, every time I fill up I'll get taxed a certain percentage based on how much I've been driving. If my gas mileage isn't all that great I have to pay more than if my gas mileage was that of a hybrid.

I just feel too little thought went into this before it's proposed.

Re:Not really

[rsborg]

If we continue down taxing gas usage only, we'll get to a point where rural areas are paying a significant part of the taxes for upkeep of the road, while the city population, which would be near 100% electric in 10 ~ 30 years, gets off tax free.

You know what... It's about frickin time

Rural parts of states live off of our dime in the cities. Urban centers generate the lions share of tax revenue. At least for gas taxes, if they want to pollute, then they should pay their fair share. Hell, if it incoveniences them so much maybe they should lobby for mass transit to be improved? Urban votes are the reason things like the LA/SF fast rail project are ignored in favor of some random state pork project in the boondocks.

Re:Not really

[RandomCoil]

Will a primus will do less damage to the road than a light truck or a small car? The answer is: it depends on the vehicle we're comparing it to. Those batteries are heavy. :D

Surely you saw this coming. A Prius weighs 2890lb, a Civic EX (AT) weighs 2668lb. Pretty negligible.

Let's be honest here, Not everyone can drive a primus around. Trucks and other gas powered will always be needed, expecially for rural and long distance driving.

A Prius with a low-ball mpg rating of 44 (a real-world number I've heard) and its 11.9 gallon tank can go over 500 miles. How far apart are gas stations where you're talking about? I think the basic problem here is you're assuming the Prius is electric. It's not; it's a hybrid. So why can't the truck be a hybrid?

If we continue down taxing gas usage only, we'll get to a point where rural areas are paying a significant part of the taxes for upkeep of the road, while the city population, which would be near 100% electric in 10 ~ 30 years, gets off tax free.

No, people in rural areas will use more efficient vehicles. Last I checked, electric power also made it out there -- why do you think an all-electric vehicle wouldn't be practical in 10-30 years?

Taxing gas is the incorrect tool for the job.

No, it's the perfect tool. It pays for the impact of vehicles in the same way as gambling, smoking, and alcohol pay for their impact: through a sin tax. A gas tax encourages more efficient vehicles, shorter commutes, and public transportation. Taxing mileage only encourages the latter two.

Re:Proposition 71 has no current impact

[Brandybuck]

71 has no impact right now, and will not for some time.

Of course it doesn't have any immediate impact. It's a bond, which is a debt, and which must be repaid. In other words it is a fancy name for a tax on your children.

A progressive income tax IS what we need

[Cryofan]

All taxes should be income-based. No usage or consumption taxes of any kind. And no low income person should pay ANY type of tax.

In a capitalist system like ours, the top 50% should be able to pay all taxes for everything. After all, they have like 85% of the wealth.

If you believe as I do, let's organize and focus our power to change the system. See my sig for more.

Or simply make me one of your Slashdot "friends" via the "Relation" operator on my slashdot page. As more Americans get connected, we progressives can organize together to change America.

Gas taxes?? (Re:Odometer)

[Agent Green]

Isn't this the kind of stuff that gasoline taxes are supposed to take care of?? Since most of populous CA is nowhere near a state border, just raise that. The best part of this, is that if you don't drive, you don't get taxed directly. Who needs more technology for this?

And this will sorely punish the SUV owners that the tree huggers keep bitching about simply by virtue of fuel usage. So, in a way, you are getting taxed by the mile and for having an eco-unfriendly car.

Granted, the whole idea is utter bullshit to begin with...

Re:Purpose is transparent.

[Stauf]

Yeah, I know about the in-state/out-state argument, why not just ignore that and set the median tax at something reasonable.

Why not set up small booths at the major exits to the state - then motorists can drive up, get their odometer read and get a receipt. On the way back, they get another receipt, based on the initial one, allowing them, at tax time, to claim something of a refund?

And make it optional, so anyone who doesn't want the hassle can just drive straight on past - but no receipts = no refund.

Of course, that is not to say that I'm supporting the tax, just that there are fairly simple ways to implement it without the expense and invasiveness of GPS.

Re:Not really

[rileysowner]

So I take it you don't eat!? Don't forget that every piece of food you eat starts with some farmer in the boondocks, and for them to produce that food they need affordable fuel.

Big Brother is watching and charging you for it

[ToasterTester]

So they want to charge you not only for the miles you will drive, but some roads and highways they will charge more for than others. They claim all this is because of people buy more fuel efficient cars. Huh since when is reducing gas consumption and reducing emissions a bad thing??? But I guess I could take the GPS off and put in on my grandmother cars. That will keep my mileage low.

How stupid are these people??? If you leave the current gas tax it has it only way of adjusting it self. People who drive more, buy more gas. People with SUV's and other gas guzzlers by more gas. Even illegal aliens with no license and unregistered cars, still pay gas tax.

Then we shall we get into the invasion of privacy with the GPS tracking everywhere we drive.

Re:New Revenue Source ... For Me

[Dun Malg]

For that matter, gas tax should be percent based rather than volume based. Higher gas prices = higher tax collection.

That's a bad idea. The price of gas has no bearing on either the amount of pollution or the amount of wear and tear on the roads. It'd be just one more reason for the state to look the other way while the oil companies rob us blind.

"Oh, you're closing another profitable refinery to reduce the gasoline supply and drive prices up? Good! That makes our %5 tax bring in more!"

no thanks

Re:taxing the rich MORE reduces their power

[mdfst13]

"(from 70% to about 5-10% for most of the truly wealthy"

It's closer to 13%. Both Cheney and Heinz Kerry published their tax returns. It's also worth pointing out that even though the rate was 90% (prior to the Kennedy years), few people paid it. You are also mixing book rates (90%, then 70%, then 28%, and now 15-35% depending on type of income) with effective rates. The effective rate when tax rates were 70% was much lower than that. Tax loopholes aren't new. In fact, Ross Perot got his own personal loophole in 1978 (which is what made his 1992 claim to be an outsider so ridiculous).

Dropping the top rate from 90% to 28% (1986) encouraged people to get their income in reportable ways. The rich paid *more* in taxes (as a percentage of total taxes paid) in 1988 than they did in 1980. I haven't seen numbers since Bush cut the rate on dividends. It is reasonable to expect that the result has been a drop, but it is hard to say how much was the tax changes and how much was the recession.

"They still have enough money to buy mansions and fancy cars, but they do not then after taxes have enough to manipulate the voters and the govt through media propaganda."

You are confusing income and wealth. You aren't going to take away the rich's "media propaganda" abilities with an income tax. It's not their income that establishes their control of the media. It's the ownership of the media. Even a 100% income tax won't change that. It would only make it more difficult to buy mansions and fancy cars (things that are bought with income).

If you want to reduce the "power" of the rich, tax *wealth*, not income. Income is what pays for the toys. Wealth is what gives the power.

Re:Actually....

[NereusRen]

People in rural areas get subsidized almost everything: electricity, mail, roads... any infrastructure that the government has deemed "public" enough to regulate, they probably force equal prices (if they even allow private competition), even though it is actually much more expensive to provide such things to rural areas, per-person. You say that it would drive up the cost of food if farmers paid the cost of their own roads... yes, it would, and that's a good thing! It would bring food's grocery store cost up to the *actual* cost of providing the food, thus more accurately reflecting the priorities of the populace. The roads would still get paid for by both farmers and cityfolk, since we urbandwellers would consume your food, which would be priced according to the true cost of getting it to us. Don't get scared off by the prospect of more expensive food, though... because it's money that would have come out of your taxes, before. Except it allows you to actually choose whether that is worth spending your money on or not. This would be a much fairer way of charging everyone who benefits from such roads, without taking too much money from peole who don't. (such as people who aren't so "foolish to live so far away from it.") At any rate, it's pretty clear the current tax support for such things is unfair to *someone*, but that's just how central planning is.

Not with new smong laws, they don't

[DemonCat]

CA recently passed laws increasing the smog testing for older vehicles. Cars companies were very pleased with the legistlation, since it will entice people to buy new cars to replace their othewise perfectly good old ones.

Re:Cue GPS hackers...

[G-funk]

I know it's a radical idea, and won't catch on with the american dickheads who think it's god's will to drive a humvee, but here's a tip: TAX THE FLAMIN PETROL PER LITRE! It's not hard, you can't cheat it as easily as messing with something in your car, it actually taxes the people causing the problems, etc etc etc.... Ferchrissake.... GPS??? Solution in search of a problem much?

Re:Thank you GOD

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as god.

I work for a big fortune 500 in Orlando, FL

You must be very proud of yourself. Couldn't make it on your own, huh? Had to suck on the teat of a FORTUNE 500 company? I understand.

I guess that no matter how much I make, I should subject my wife and two children to a crappy community with drugs and violence?

You're already subjecting them to living with you, so I'd assume that a life of drugs and violence would be an upgrade for them.

Re:Gas taxes?? (Re:Odometer)

[Zugot]

You forget that when you raise gasoline prices, you are raising prices for everyone. Think about the companies with the huge fleets of cars and trucks. This will get very expensive.

Re:Not really

[npsimons]

No, it's the perfect tool. It pays for the impact of vehicles in the same way as gambling, smoking, and alcohol pay for their impact: through a sin tax.

While I agree it's the perfect tool, I wish that we would stop calling them "sin" taxes. For one, not all of us believe in "sin". For another, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it (ab)use taxes? Think about it: you (ab)use your lungs (through smoking), you pay to fix them; you (ab)use your liver (through drinking), you pay to fix it; you (ab)use the roads, you pay to fix them. That way, you're not forcing morals on anyone and just being more honest. I know it's mostly semantics, but the idea of a "sin" tax just bothers me.