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?

[cephyn]

Did you read the article? oh wait, I'm not new here, so no, you didn't.

Since a prius will drive much further on a tank than a person in an H2, if both individuals drive 100 miles, the person in the H2 pays significantly more in taxes. They're proposing to change the system so that its based on how far you drive, not how much gas you use.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[Rufus88]

No, see, the problem with this suggestion is that it fails to take into account differences in fuel economy. The gas tax unfairly favors those who drive energy-efficient cars, and unfairly burdens the folks who exercise their god-given right to drive Hummers and SUVs. We need a mileage tax that levels the playing field.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[ke6]

The way it was said on the morning radio, KROQ's Kevin and Bean, was that this was coming about because too many fuel efficient cars meant the amount of monies recieved from gas taxes was reduced. So by taxing the number of miles driven a year, they can more accuratly pay for the roads.

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?

[ackthpt]

Via the very large tax on gas?

Not nearly enough, from what I see. California is supposed to be one of the most expensive places to live, with housing and taxes, but don't believe all of it.

I judge whether the price of gas is high or not by the number of big-ass trucks and SUV's I see cruising the roads and they're still hot sellers, so the price of gas isn't too high, yet.

In terms of taxes, Californians aren't taxed any more, on average then the rest of the country. Actually, all together taxes are fairly low in the state. Biggest problem is the way it's spent, or more importantly not spent. Schools in Cal, which were once top notch are in the bottom third nationally in terms of funding. Consider that a teacher has to be paid fairly high on average to live here (housing mostly) and you can see there's little left for school upkeep, instruction, programs, etc.

I'm keenly aware of this as I now work for a school district in an area which has some of the richest and poorest of Californians in the same district.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[BlueFashoo]

It's actually a little less than the Federal Tax on gas.

The federal excise tax on gas 18.4 cents/gallon, whereas the state tax in 18.0 cents/gallon.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_taxes .h tml

According to this site:
http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/ACF15F.PD F
the state excise tax is .4 cents/gallon less than the national average.

I would much rather increase the tax on gas another 5 or 10 cents than put some sort of tracking device in my car.

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?

[Sancho]

Doesn't work if you EVER drive out of state. You need GPS to ensure that you only tax people for the time spent on YOUR roads.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[hazem]

couldn't they ask you to report your vehicle's mileage on a yearly basis?

My state is toying with this too. The problem is that they don't have a legal right to tax you for time you drive on your private roads or more importantly, out of state. I live on the border of Washington & Oregon, so without either some kind of border crossing monitoring station, or a GPS system, they can't know when I'm actually driving in the state.

If this is such a grave issue, then we should just raise the gas tax overall. Or maybe a sliding tax can be used based on the model/year of car.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[chochos]

I didn't RTFA either, but I don't think they will eliminate or cut taxes on gas, so maybe the system will be based on how far you drive PLUS how much gas you use...

Re:Dont they already do this?

[walt-sjc]

You have never been to California have you?

Yes, you have some wealthy people driving hummers around. However, a Prius is frickin A expensive too! Much more so than a regular car.

No, in California, if you are poor you can drive a POS car belching smog, and don't have to fix it. If your car is older than 25 years or so, then it's a "classic" and you don't have to pass smog checks. There are no safety inspections because that would hurt the poor.

California's laws and regulations dealing with vehicles are insane. Frankly California in general is really fucked up which is why I left. Everyone that had a clue saw California's tax problem comming long before it was announced.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[mrchaotica]

A Prius is a $20,000 car (before the popularity markup), about the same as a Camry or Accord. An H2 is about a $50,000 car (also before popularity markup). So no, a Prius is not more expensive than a regular car, and emphatically not more expensive than an H2!

Also, 25 years old would mean cars made before 1980. I don't doubt that there's a lot of '85 - '95 cars on the road, which are also less safe and more polluting, but there can't be all that many 25+ year old cars -- they would either have to have been maintained well, or they would have fallen apart by now!

Re:Dont they already do this?

[ScrewMaster]

When will we learn that punitive taxation levied upon groups that we happen to personally disagree with solves nothing, because it just gets the government in the habit of punitively taxing people, and sooner or later we will be the ones being taxed on something that we really want or need. Bad idea all around. That kind of sledgehammer social engineering I can live without, thank you very much.

No, the problem isn't the SUV or the Hummer or the people that drive them (who I personally detest because most of them can't. Drive, that is.) The problem is the massive investment the global culture has made in the reciprocating internal combustion engine. We need to get away from this technology completely ... it has severe limitations on maximum efficiency that are simply not acceptable in the modern world. A gallon of gasoline, if consumed by, say, an eighty percent efficient engine would drive that Hummer down the road just sipping gas.

Automobile engines are designed to accommodate the expected peak load that will be applied to them, i.e., when under heavy acceleration or when towing. Unfortunately, no-one drives their car under those conditions all the time, so most of time the engine is loafing, and is in effect oversized for the job. Efficiency suffers significantly under those conditions. On top of that, they only achieve maximum conversion efficiency within a very narrow range of RPMs.

Penalizing the consumer for poor decisions made by the government and the automobile manufacturer is just wrong. Congress was headed in the right direction when it implemented CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) some years ago, but they simply didn't go far enough. Automakers can ship toy cars like the Neon which get excellent mileage (but don't make much money) and use those higher-mileage numbers to offset the poor efficiency of the much more profitable SUVs. Remember, it's Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

And that is unadulterated, pure bullshit. Politics at work. I simply don't believe that a megacorporation such as a General Motors, or a Toyota, hasn't the resources to come up with a power plant capable of burning gasoline with substantially higher efficiency than what we have now. The fact is that there's just a lot of economic inertia in the way, and frankly they're making a ton of money doing things the old way and don't really see a reason to change. But, at some point, they're just going to have to be told: "If you want to market a car in this country, it had better be 75% efficient or better. No exceptions. Deal with it." And when that happens, I won't like the people that drive those Hummers and SUVs any more than I do now, but at least I won't be able to complain about how much gas they use.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[Martin Blank]

I wish taxes on gas were used for maintaining the roads. If they were, we wouldn't have the severe congestion that gives California such a bad name in terms of traffic.

Here's what's happening in a nutshell:

A group of people decided that they wanted to get Californians to start using public transportation and not use their cars for so many things. So they decided to stop building freeways, on the hypothesis that if there was no more room on the freeways, people would stop coming to California. This goes back to Gov. Jerry Brown, and the idea failed miserably.

Next, they decided to build carpool lanes, which would encourage people to, if not taking public transportation, at least get a few more people in the same car. Wrong again. They don't even have a decent state-wide model for carpool lanes: in SoCal, carpool lanes are carpool lanes 24 hours a day. In NorCal, carpool lanes are carpool lanes only during normal rush-hour traffic, and are normal lanes otherwise. Hence, some freeways have had their capacity increased by anywhere from 20% to 50%, and the lanes are not usable by the vast majority of drivers.

So then they jacked up gas tax rates, promising to build more freeways and add lanes to the congested parts (except then governors, Democrat and Republican, including Schwarzeneggar, started "borrowing" the funds from the gas tax to pay for general fund stuff, and the roads further deteriorated and failed to get expanded). The increases was also allegedly to encourage people to buy smaller vehicles that would be more fuel efficient and cause less wear and tear on the roads. Despite past measures that had largely failed because the California car culture is basically impossible to buck, people actually did buy newer, fuel-efficient cars (but still drive them alone), and gas tax revenues (and hence funding for pet projects that have nothing to do with the roads) went down.

So now they're in a corner. How do they get the taxes back? Why, based on mileage, of course! And with a GPS unit, they can also see when you go over the speed limit or perhaps lane change too often and send you automatic tickets or tax your auto insurance (who may also get a report on your driving habits and thus raise the rates on their own). This isn't part of the proposal *yet*, but I can imagine someone is thinking it.

They're also talking about watching when you're using certain high-use roads, and increase the tax based on congestion, so if you go to work on the 5 through Los Angeles or Orange County at 7:45am, then you get an extra tax because you're helping to cause slow traffic. You know what the really ironic thing is? The people behind this idea are almost exactly the same people who were yelling about how toll roads were going to punish the poor people who couldn't afford them, and now they've come up with a method to not only inflict what are essentially tolls, but to inflict them potentially on every single public road and street in the state.

(Wow, that's a big nutshell. I wonder if there's a walnut in there.)

Re:Dont they already do this?

[tho 1234]

In this country, you obey the laws of thermodynamics.

Technology can't break the laws of physics.

- There's no way to get around the carnot efficiency in a heat engine. Maybe if billions of dollars were invested into a hydrogen economy you might be able to get up to 40 percent efficency with fuel cells, but if the hydrogen comes from fossil fuels and you account for the losses in the H2 production process, you're better off sticking with internal combustion engines.

- THere's no way of avoiding newton's second law- F=ma and its derivation E=1/2mv^2. Even if we could make the theoreticlaly impossible 80% engine, a 5 tonne SUV will still consume twice as much energy as a 2.5 tonne car to accelerate.

-And once you get to speed, there's no way of avoiding fluid dynamics- The drag force is proportional to cross sectional area, so driving a giant car will always waste fuel, no matter how much technology you have.

No, the answer isn't technology (unless cold fusion gets developed, which is highly unlikely in our lifetimes). The answer is conservation- why spend billions of dollars to develop a 300HP high efficiency SUV when a 150 HP car is enough for people's needs, and a current 150 HP car will consume less fuel than ANY 300 HP SUV made with ANY technology that could ever be developed?

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.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[soft_guy]

That's bullshit. A Prius is a tiny car. You can't compare it to a H2 or a Camary. You should compare it to a similar car in size and features - a $10K Toyota Echo.

The Prius is enormously expensive for what you get.

Re:Dont they already do this?

[mdfst13]

"This does not provide any incentive for a vehicle user to travel a shorter distance, rather it allows them to travel further."

Nah...if that were happening, we would see people moving farther and farther from the cities. First, into suburbs and then even farther, maybe to something called an "exurb." Obviously that isn't happ...

Oh, wait. It is.

If a gas tax causes unfairness (because the poor buy as much gas as the rich), it can always be fixed by rebates (possibly means tested but not necessarily).

A national gas tax would also help in that prices tend to rise in a smaller amount than the tax increase due to demand changes. I.e. some of the tax is born by oil *producers*, rather than consumers (who would be Americans).

Re:Dont they already do this?

[Thagg]

The older Prius (pre-2004) was a tiny car -- in fact, it was basically a re-engined Echo.

The newer ones are far larger. It's quite a nice four-passenger car, with a reasonably roomy hatchback and other bits of storage space.

And, the new ones are more powerful and more fuel efficient than the older ones. You just cannot imagine the lengths that Toyota engineers went to to get the last few percent of fuel efficieny and pollution-control. Thermos bottles to retain heat in the coolant, carbon canister to trap startup hydrocarbons, drive-by-wire braking to do only regenerative braking until below 5 MPH, fins and baffles under the car to route air more efficiently...the list is almost endless. It basic Synergy drive, which throws in for free a CVT by basically using electricity the way other cars use transmission fluid, is the best known radical system, but it's only the beginning.

Ob-topic -- this is an insane scheme. I have to agree with the tinfoil-hat crowd that the only reason this makes sense is to get the GPS units into the cars for some other purposes -- like making it more expensive to drive through downtowns in rush hour (as they do in London, Singapore, and other rediculously congested cities.)

There are so very many ways that the State (and the state) benefit from more fuel efficient cars, that reducing the incentive to drive them is remarkably short-sighted. Treating the fuel tax as a carbon-dioxide tax really does make sense -- those Hummers and SUV's really do impose a cost on everybody else. Reducing the gasoline-delivery infrastructure is a good thing, from reducing the number of tankers that need to port in California, reducing the number of tankers on the roads, reducing the number of leaky gas tanks under service stations...these reflect costs on everybody that the gas tax goes some part of the way to paying for. Fewer kids dying of asthma would be a good thing.

If they want more money from the gas tax, they should just raise the tax.

Thad Beier

Re:Dont they already do this?

[EnglishDude]

We in the UK already pay much more than $1 per gallon in fuel tax. I paid 82.9p a litre a few days ago to fill up my car. Converting that to US gallons, 3.79 liters into 1 US gallon, so that's £3.14 an US gallon and in dollars that's $5.82 USD per US gallon. IIRC, 75% of the petrol price is tax, that's around $4.40 a gallon fuel tax. And do we have alternative fuels? Do we hell.

Fair enough, we have LPG and the like but petrol stations supplying them are still rare and prices are around 38 to 40p a litre, cars needs to be converted into LPG (around £2,000 but then again in the long run it will pay itself off and there's government grants for that) and LPG isn't that much better your-run-of-the-mill petrol.

No hydrogen powered cars, electric cars are still painfully rare, etc etc.

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.

Cue GPS hackers...

[mOoZik]

Right. Then we'll get a few smart people to develope a means of faking the mileage and paying next to nil. Not only will it not work, but it's not fair. I live in CA and am frankly sick of all the car-related restrictions that we have to abide by!

Re:Cue GPS hackers...

[ForestGrump]

And in 5 years when you trade in your car.
Dealership: Your odometer says you have 100k miles.
You: Yea, so appraise me for 100k mile then.
Dealer: But your in-car GPS reports 20k mi.
You: oh cra...oh, blame the aftermarket wheels. screwed up the circuference.

Re:Cue GPS hackers...

[MemoryAid]

For once, a tinfoil hat will actually come in handy...for the GPS antenna. Just cover the latter with the former to block the signal, and it won't be able to receive the satellites. That should probably just be done for the long trips, leaving it uncovered for believable mileages near where the man thinks you live.

Disclaimer: I may or may not live in California.

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:Cue GPS hackers...

[surprise_audit]

Didyou look at the image linked in the article header, that shows how Oregon proposes to implement such a system?? It seems to be saying that whenever you fill up with gas, the Service Station will interrogate your car for a mileage report. The simple fix for that system, for people living near enough to the state line, would be to drive out-of-state to fill up. And take a couple of 5-gallon gas cans along as well, in case they get caught short too far from the state line...

Yeah, I already got the letter about this one...

[Skyshadow]

Yeah, I got a letter about this one a few days ago:

--------

State of California
1 Aahnold St.
Sacramento, CA

Dear Skyshadow,

While we in the state of California appreciate your interest in our state and the contributions you've made while living here the last fours years, it has become increasingly apparent that you're not getting the message. So, let us be direct:

Get the hell out.

Frankly, all of you refugees from Jesusland are seriously overpopulating our state, and we can't afford it anymore. We figured you might have gotten the hint after we destroyed our public school system with Prop 13. We thought you would have put it together when we started referring to pet owners as "guardians" like they were our fucking kids or something. And, really, we're stunned that electing the guy from "Commando" as our governor didn't make you reassess living here.

C'mon, how much is nice weather, a neat bridge and decent wine really worth? A crappy 900 sq. ft. house in Walnut Creek with a postage-stamp sized yard is a steal at $400k because of all you idiots flooding in! Go home!

Anyhow, by now we're sure you've read about our plan to implant a GPS tracker on your car and tax you for every mile you drive. We're proud of that one -- we know you're driving an hour each way to and from work because of the sky-high housing prices around the Bay Area (again: your fault), and we figure that nicely conveys our point. And frankly, if this doesn't get our message across, we're going to have to resort to simply grabbing you out of your bed in the middle of the night and feeding your to that Great White we have on display down in Monterey. Don't think we won't. Hell, we'll feed her your goddamn cheesehead cats, too. Try us.

Move back to Wisconsin. We're not kidding.

Love, California

What's next,....

[GestaltPhoenix]

taxing walking to cover pavement depreciation? this kind of stuff scares me...

GPS Blackbox

[fembots]

Wouldn't it be easier and less privacy-intruding if there's a blackbox in the car with GPS, which determines if the car has crossed a state line, and record mileage accordingly?

This way car owners can go to a fee-station any time to pay whatever tax whatever state wants to charge per mile travelled.

New Revenue Source ... For Me

[Mad Martigan]

So, does that mean that if I run my car in reverse, the state will start sending me checks? Hmm, no ... that doesn't sound right ...

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

Hrmmm...

[spin2cool]

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

Just saying is all...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

[El]

Because they only want to bill you for the miles you actually drove within California, not the trip you took to New York...

Re:Odometer

[physicsnerd]

Because that assumes that you only drive in California. Which isn't a bad assumption for most people in California. However, a good chunk of my driving is cross country. I may put 5,000 miles on my car in california and another 10,000 miles out of state in a year. I'm sure that there are many other people in my situation.

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.

Re:Odometer

[mark-t]

How are they "entitled" to anything?

If the roads are costing the state too much to maintain, and they don't want all residents to shoulder the burden equally, then they need to increase the tax on gasoline... plain and simple. People who do sufficient amounts of their driving outside the state of Calif. will probably be able to regularly fill up outside the state and therefore won't have to pay the higher taxes.

Not that I'm a proponent on high gasoline taxes, but only someone without the slightest grip on reality should fail to see that putting a GPS in a car to measure how far a car travels within the state is, when all is said and done, overcomplicating things waaaaaaay too much. Adding complexity to a system brings addition possible points of failure to that system and this idea would be almost certain to bring with it more problems than it would really solve.

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.

Could somebody explain this to me?

[Jonas the Bold]

California being in debt is a huge problem, gets lots of attention, in need of desperate measures and so on, but the federal government being MASSIVELY in debt isn't.

Is there a reason for this or is it just because republicans haven't been successful with the federal budget? (not trolling)

Re:Could somebody explain this to me?

[hopemafia]

States debts get more attention since they don't make the money...literally. The feds can do pretty much whatever they want to give themselves more money, but the states have less power, and thus have less options to cover their debt.

Also many states are required by their own laws to balance their budgets.

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)

Re:Tried that over here

[zakezuke]

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

It's not so much the fact that we love to drive. It's the fact that we lack useable public transportation. Many cities had fabulous rail and light rail systems 100 years ago but in our wisdom they tore up the tracks. For many of us, the car is the only option.

That being said, only a complete moron would even consider taxing a car that weighs in over 3000kg the same as a car that weighs in at 1100kg. To me this is total non-sense. I looked the article and saw that the Hummer, an off road vehicle, is taxed twice as much as an average sized car, which is taxed about twice as much as tiny sub average sized car. This to me is more than fair.

Wow...

[JoeLinux]

Can they figure out any OTHER way to try to drive out business out of this state?

We have some of the highest sales tax, the highest standards of living, permits are required to do anything short of wiping my ass and whacking off.

I propose a tax on ravers. We have enough of them. San Francisco could wipe out our debt in and of itself. It's simple to do it too: if the number of dead glowsticks in your apartment/mom's basement weigh more than your furniture, you get taxed. They certainly have the money for it. If they can afford those E hits....

Just a thought,

Joe

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)

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the highest standards of living"

Perhaps you are unaware that a high standard of living is a good thing. Just thought I'd let you know that before you continue ranting and, uh, raving, about it.

Maybe you might not be so happy with that tax on raving you propose...it could come back to haunt you.

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.

Re:Arnold will tax

[Brandybuck]

In California this was recommended by a bipartisan commission. That means Democrats were involved. Next year it's getting implemented in Oregon, an emphatically Democrat state.

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

[brianosaurus]

They really need to embed these trackers into shoes, so they can also tax those bastards who walk or ride the bus instead of driving themselves.

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.

They 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)

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.

Burgerflickle

[evangellydonut]

This is a Travesty, a Sham, and a Mockery, a Traveshamockery!

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 ...

[Sancho]

Oh I'm sorry, does that mean that you no longer have to fill up the tanks of your gas-guzzling cars? Do they run on sunshine and happiness now?

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 ...

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

it won't have an opposite effect, it would hit people equaly.

And yes, its nice to encourage people to by efficent cars, but they shouldn't need added encouragement, since the car using less gas is their encouragement.

Anyways. You forget road wear, no matter what your milage is, your still putting wear and tear on a road, and clogging it up and so forth. If you drive a whole lot, your using that system more then those who don't use it much. Maybe a person has a car that gets 1 mpg, but only drives to church and the grocery store on sundays in a 5 mile loop. But the person in a Prius drives 1000 miles a week, the person in the prius is using the system much much more.

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 ...

[Rick the Red]

This is absolutely true. Road and Track magazine does an April Fools road test each year (the Budwiser beer wagon, the Goodyear blimp, etc.). One year they decided that while they had done road tests, they had never tested road, so that's what they did. They got with their DoT and looked at the equipment that's used to test roads. Stuff I'd never imagined, like a gizmo that looks like a huge steam roller but what it does is measure the deflection of the pavement (why? I don't recall, but it's important to the pavement wonks).

Anyway, one tidbit of information I took away from that article was the fact that roads last longer if you use them, but not if you abuse them. Remote roads that are seldom used actually break up faster than roads that are moderately used. Cars use them, constantly rolling them flat; trucks abuse them, constantly squeezing them like a toothpaste tube.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[Engineer Andy]

The traffic engineering paper I took at university informed me that 90% (or thereabouts) of pavement wear comes from trucks, and that pavement would last a very very long time if heavy trucks did not use it.

I may well be wrong as I'm not practising as a traffic / pavement engineer, but your regular corolla / family sedan is not the culprit in wearing out roads

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 ...

[NetFu]

Um, I think everyone is forgetting here that the California government is CONSIDERING this. It's far from even being a bill that we'd vote on -- if this was just passed without our consent, everyone in the state government knows that HEADS WOULD ROLL. I think that was one lesson they learned from Gray Davis' recall and Schwarzenegger's election.

This is the kind of sensationalist crap you see on Slashdot -- WAY blown out of proportion.

From working in a gas station before, I can tell you how much of the price of gas is government tax -- about HALF. I've seen the invoices that gas stations pay for gas. So, I would seriously have to look at exactly how this kind of tax would compare to the gas tax we already have.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "gas tax" both Federal and State? So, this driving distance tax would only eliminate part of the current gas tax.

Of course, in my position this kind of change may be just fine for me because we tend to stay very close to home (within 50 miles) because we have a young family.

This kind of change would probably hit commuters the most because of the high cost of housing in the urban areas. Remember, even if this would encourage people to move to the urban areas in California, that doesn't mean they would. They still have to have a job that would support buying a $600k-$900k+ house. A large percentage of people I work with just could not afford it, and companies like ours faced with losing employees or handing out raises would simply leave California.

This kind of tax change would make the exodus from California go through the roof and in the end probably decrease the total amount of taxes the state collects. The governator isn't going to let that happen.

So, it probably won't happen, but it's nice to "entertain" it...

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 ...

[dscotton]

How about not? Why are the rich paying more? Because they have more money? That's a fucked up excuse.

There are several good reasons for progressive taxation. First, rich people receive a disproportionate amount of the benefits taxes pay for. Large portions of the government, from law enforcement to defense, are devoted to protecting property, both physical and intellectual, which is primarily owned by wealthy people. Second, people have a decreasing marginal utility for money. This means that taxing someone who has a lot of money harms them a less than taxing someone with less money. Third, taxing rich people is better for the economy. Poor people spend a much larger portion of their income than rich people. Rich people save and invest most of their income. Taking away money that would otherwise be spent has a contractionary effect on the economy. Taxing rich people has less of a contractionary effect than taxing poor people.

If you paid according to your income, on everything, people wouldn't work, because 10% of $0 would be the same as 10% of $1,000,000.

How in the world did this post get modded up? I never imagined that "$0 == $100,000" could be considered insightful or interesting.

Hence progressive taxes are for people who have no idea wtf they are talking about (i.e. Basic Economics). Damn, if I made $80,000 a year, and paid $2 for a McDonald's cheeseburger, and a guy making $40,000 pays $1, and a guy making $0 pays $0, what would be the point of working hard?

I find it pretty ironic that you're criticizing others for not having a grasp of "basic economics", considering that you clearly have no idea how progressive taxation works. Your cheeseburger example attempted to describe a situation where everyone's income is effectively the same. That is not progressive taxation. Under progressive taxation, the first M dollars you earn are taxed at a certain rate, the next N dollars are taxed at a higher rate, and so on. No matter how much you earn, the first M dollars will never be taxed higher than the base rate, which means you're always going to keep more money if you earned more money. There will be slightly less incentive to work hard, since you will keep less of the additional money you earn. But the incentive is still there. Plus, it is misleading to say you will have no incentive to work hard, since the largest amounts of wealth don't come from hard work, they come from investment. When someone's not actually doing anything to create their wealth, it hardly matters how incentivized they feel.

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 ...

[n0nsensical]

Well, the governor IS Arnold Schwarzenegger.

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.

Re:Wait a sec ...

[IAmMaxHarris]

First, I'm an Objectivist, not a Libertarian.

Of course, you'd be free to beat your kid

Absolutely not. Child abuse is a serious criminal matter that should be handled by the police (which is a proper government function).

The government of the people and by the people should have the people's interests at heart.

The problem with this is that your interests are not necessarily mine. The only moral way to deal with this is to speak in terms of negative rights (which tell us exactly how we will not interfere with each other).

If you haven't already, read John McCarthy's (best known as the creator of Lisp) Sustainability of Human Progress pages. He writes about a large number of environmental topics, and comes to what I consider very solid conclusions.

Defrauding the System

[delta_avi_delta]

This would be seriously easy to crack: GPS receivers must have a clear view of the sky. This gives you a limited amount of obvious places to mount the device. Now cover with a tasteful home-made faraday cage (made from recycled cans or some-such, this being California) and voila, no tax.

So in effect this is a tax on people who flunked physics 101. Just like lottery is a tax on people who failed Math.

Re:Yeah, I already got the letter about this one..

[Anonymous Coward]

we know you're driving an hour each way to and from work because of the sky-high housing prices around the Bay Area (again: your fault),

Boy, are they wrong about that one! It's actually San Andrea's fault.

Governmental mixed messages

[RealProgrammer]

They build the roads, but get mad when we drive on them.

They subsidize the roads with tax dollars, then wonder why we don't take the bus.

They tax gas to keep us from buying it, then complain they have budget problems.

The State taxes me so I don't drive, but the Feds let me take it off my (business) taxes.

They want jobs, but they can't stand it when we make money.

What's a self-employed nerd to do?

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).

Re:space age taxes

[ackthpt]

It is government measures like this that will continue to drive the traffic to the internet, but of course, the tax man will eventually find his way here, unless...

Little do you know, we're already paying taxes for the internet. Not to our ISP, but to those who run the line. There are creative naming conventions for taxes, such as 'telecommunications fee'

Back when my college couldn't raise tuition and couldn't get enough from taxes, they added ta-da fees! Learning resources fee, high cost (of instruction) fee, and so on. It was really an increase in tuition, just like is happening to taxes.

BTW, we had a slough of tax proposals this Nov. 2 which, all together, would have made our local sales tax ~ 10% (it's 8.25% at the moment, IIRC) Bush or Governator cut income tax? No worries. We'll just pay through another tax system. New fee schedules, you know?

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...

Oregon Already Proposed This (and /. Covered it.)

[mlmitton]

Here's the link to a slashdot story on Oregon's proposal, which includes a link to an earlier slashdot story on Oregon's proposal.

Oregon Slashdot Article

gas saving technology unwelcome

[gfody]

this seems somewhat on topic. I found this article from 1995 (!) about a new electronically controlled valvetrain system that would increase fuel efficiency by at least 10%
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9510/cleaner_engine/

here we are 10 years later and no production cars come equipped with such a system, nor is there anything like it in the after market. The details of it seem simple enough, prototypes have been demonstrated to work well and manufacturing costs as well as tcoo are lower than the current line of mechanical valvetrains.

does this not exist because america can't afford to take the tax hit?

Re:gas saving technology unwelcome

[QuasiEvil]

It's not all about efficiency - mechanical valves, cams, and timing belts are extremely reliable mechanisms in ICEs that have been refined over decades. Electric valves and all the high power, complex electronics behind them just aren't proven. Even if they came out in production cars tomorrow, I wouldn't buy one for at least 5-10 years. Why? They're not proven reliable in the long run.

While I'd like fuel efficiency (hence the reason I have and usually drive a 95 del Sol - nearly 40 mpg with no exotic technologies at all, perfectly reliable for its first 180k miles), reliability is absolutely paramount. I travel into some of the more remote parts of the US and Canada that are still accessible by road, and a breakdown hundreds of miles from the nearest service facility or cell tower is not acceptable. I carry a rather extensive set of tools for dealing with most minor issues and some not so minor (anybody ever spent most of the night changing a halfshaft in a parking lot of your hotel?), but a major drivetrain failure in one of these places would be more than annoying. A dead valve would be just that, especially if it was the only one the exhaust side of a cylinder - a major failure. There just aren't that many ways that a mechanical valve can fail.

Not saying it can't be done, but if I was a car company engineer, I'd make sure those things had been in a fleet prototype test vehicles for 5 years and 250k miles before ever turning them loose on the mechnically-inept public.

As others have posted, though, a significant portion of the benefits can be gained by adjusting the timing on a mechanical cam - Honda's VTEC, a well proven technology, powering my del Sol since, well, 1995. ;)

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.

Purpose is transparent.

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

I'm sort of a "tinfoil hat wearing" type of guy, but this seems really transparent to me. With everything that's been happening lately, perhaps tinfoil will become the latest fashion trend, but... Remember that the state of Oregon proposed this same thing perhaps a year ago, Slashdot did an article on it then...

Think of this logically, as some of the others here already have. If the state were interested in taxing you based upon milage, they would simply record your odometer readings at each emmissions inspection and bill you accordingly for your tabs. Yeah, I know about the in-state/out-state argument, why not just ignore that and set the median tax at something reasonable.

If the state were interested in reducing polution and oil consumption, they'd simply increase the already in place tax on gas and let the people in their Prius' slip through with their good milage. There are not really that many of them, and you could always give truckers a rebate at the end of the year if you feel sorry for them. Yeah, you COULD buy gas in Nevada or Oregon or Mexico, but you'd use up that gas getting back across the border, making any savings moot. Besides, the number of people living on the border is pretty fractional.

Seems clear to me, the intention is NOT about simply taxing vehicle use based upon how far you drive, but something more nefarious. Something like the car rental places have been implementing. Looks like California wants to incorporate GPS into the new "black boxes" discussed on cnet a few days ago, those boxes that the government & insurance industry wants to put into your cars in order to give you better rates and let you prove that you're law abiding. They'd have the ability to track all vehicles.

Each of the other taxation methods (checking odometer / gas tax) are simpler and already have the infrastructure necessary to implement in place. Both would accomplish the desired goal (more money for state based upon usage). Because something like this would be all new and would involve MUCH new infrastructure, it seems clear that simple revenue is NOT the intent of this proposal.

California is a big enough market, that they cause defacto standards for cars. The lawmakers know this, and I'm guessing that they are acting as the "stalking horse" in order to get all cars in America fitted with such devices. I don't think the insurance industry alone has the clout to pull this off over the objections of the car driving public, but if each of the players asks for some little addition, they might all be able to get their way. Think of it like this, insurance wants feature A, Feds wants feature B, and state wants feature C. Expect all three features in one DMCA protected box that you must not tamper with, under penalty of law. Expect lawyers to get access to ALL recorded information.

I would expect this proposal to move just about as quickly and silently as the copyright modifications moving through the Senate currently... Think fast and quiet.

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.

Most vehicles are trucks/SUVs

[IT Steve]

The majority of vehicles in my area are trucks and SUVs anyway, so if they dropped the gas tax and went with mileage tax, the people with low gas mileage would pay effectively less tax, therefore possibly defeating the purpose. Besides, we need more insentive for people to buy CARS instead of huge trucks and SUVs that they're not using for any reason other than trying to be cool and wasting gas. I'm tired of having some jackass in an SUV driving 2 inches from my back bumper just because he can see over the top of my car.

H2 purchasers can get big tax writeoff

[jayveekay]

the H2 pays significantly more in taxes

If you are self-employed (e.g. doctor, lawyer) and buy a vehicle that weighs 6000 lbs or more (e.g H2), then you can write off the cost of the vehicle against your income as a business expense. Ok, I'm not a tax lawyer so I may have the precise wording or details wrong, but the end result is that you purchase the H2 for $50k and save $20k on income tax. You have to buy a lot of fuel for the government to get that $20k back.

Thirty feet long, 2 lanes wide, it's sixty-five tons of American Pride --- Canyonero!

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...

Re:Not really

[nmx]

Let's be honest here, Not everyone can drive a primus around.

In fact, no one can, because it doesn't exist. Maybe you were thinking of the Prius?

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.

but cars last 20 years in CA

[museumpeace]

if they don't start salting the roads, and the gps units are only going on NEW cars, The biggest effect they will have is to further depress new car sales [ie get LESS tax to the state]
dumb!

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.

Do it!

[PHAEDRU5]

Let the brain drain begin!

We here in GA welcome our new CA overlords!

Y'all want grits, right?

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...

Oregon proposed this and it went nowhere

[PotatoHead]

All it's going to take to bury this one is a quick call to your representative, or a letter.

Ask a bunch of questions:

who will pay for the devices?

What about shared cars?

Does travel outside the state count?

How about the tourists?

Rental cars?

and on and on and on.

It will die the same death Oregons proposal did.

Re:Oregon proposed this and it went nowhere

[Sime208]

who will pay for the devices?

Who do you think? Governments don't have money, they only have yours or will borrow on your behalf. If they see a way of skimming that little extra from your pay cheque, they'll do it. And they'll ask you to pay for it too.

What about shared cars?

What about them? The registered keeper will get the bill and it'll be up to them to go through the hassle of working out who owes them what.

Does travel outside the state count?

Eventually.

How about the tourists?

What about them? If their cars don't have the units now, they'll get away with it. Eventually they will have though, and then they'll pay.

In the mean time, that extra money they're bringing your local economy will have to cover it.

Rental cars?

When you drop the car off you'll pay based on how many miles you did.

Hope this has answered your questions :-)

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.

Other ways of tracking use

[ESarge]

You may not believe but there are other ways of taxing based on road mileage. Every vehicle has an odometer which tracks the distance travelled - use that.

In New Zealand, we have a tax on petrol to fund roads and other useful things. Because diesel vehicles can get vastly different fuel efficiency they use a Road User Charges (RUC) system.
You can buy RUCs from many places like post offices or AA stores. You must keep your RUCs up to date or you face a fairly steep fine (I think it's 3 times what the RUCs would have cost you). The police check the RUCs every time they do a routine stop. Normally the distance travelled is measured from the odometer however large truck and trailer units will often have a hub mounted distance meter (I don't know why).

Fairly simple and doesn't involve expensive privacy-invading tracking units.

And while we're about things - don't bother whinging about increased taxes. The price of petrol in the US is about a third what much of the rest of the world pays.

Actually....

[Degrees]

It is a false claim that urban centers generate any larger or smaller share of tax revenue.

The agriculture industry in the central San Joaquin Valley produces about 1/10 of the California "GDP". (That doesn't include the Imperial valley down around San Diego.)

10% of GDP is 10% of GDP, whether it comes from an urban area or a rural area.

The only place where lower taxes come into effect is the endpoint sales tax on groceries. Sales tax revenues are consumed locally - so you don't really lose.

FWIW, since Ag takes about 3% of the population to produce that 10% of GDP, we are actually more efficient than you: it's you who are the moocher.

If you really want to shift roads expenses to us rural people - go for it. But don't be surprised when the delivery cost on food becomes astronomical to you people who are so foolish to live so far away from it.

Maybe you want to let that sleeping dog lie, eh? Or, you can continue to stab at it with a sharp stick. What do your brains tell you?

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.

Re:Not really

[RandomCoil]

Trucks can't be electric because the sheer amount of torque needed to simply budge that 80,000 lbs of cargo.

Freight trains run on electric motor powered either by overhead electric lines or diesel turbines. Torque is not an issue for electric motors. Power storage would be the primary concern.

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.

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:A progressive income tax IS what we need

[Money for Nothin']

LOL, Cryofan up to his old socialist tricks...

I just calculated what the effect on me would be if we replaced the Federal income tax (FICA) with a national sales tax, as some GOP'ers have been considering. And you know what?

At a $15/hour wage, a national sales tax (a national consumption tax) would put *more* disposable income in my pocket than the current income tax. The income tax does not start looking better for me until the national sales tax reaches about 50% -- and the current claims by the left is that we would have to set it at about 30% in order to reap the tax revenues as the govn't currently takes in via the income tax.

A sales tax is far-more fair, for the simple reason that if you so choose, you don't *have* to buy anything, and thus, you pay nothing in taxes. It'd be a miserable, agrarian lifestyle (much like that of the Amish I suspect), but it could be done.

Likewise, the people who buy the most expensive, most luxurious items -- the Beemer and Rolls-Royce crowd we both envy but only one of us is jealous enough of to support theft to get those riches -- would pay the most taxes on those items, b/c they tend to buy those items in the greatest quantities.

Now, to reduce the regressive nature of the sales tax, were it me, I would eliminate *all* sales taxes on life-necessities: food, any health/medical supplies (including prescriptions), and possibly housing (but not land; the property tax should definitely stay, so as to prevent people from hoarding land).

And I would further raise the sales tax on items which have socially-negative effects: alcohol, tobacco, marijuana (if it's ever legalized), possibly firearms (I'm a gun nut, of course, but I also recognize the socially-negative aspects of them), and so on. I'd probably place a luxury tax on grossly-expensive items (items that only the top 5% of income earners typically purchase -- again, the Rolls, the Bentley, the 50' yachts, etc.).

That way, the tax is made at least somewhat progressive, but still is optional -- people are left free to decide whether or not to pay the tax (by consuming).

You know, a national sales tax ought to appeal to the leftie anti-consumerist, anti-materialist mentality which says that "Americans consume too much! Ach, it makes me sick that all people do is buy stuff! Waaahh!" Funny that they've been silent on the issue.

Anyway, whether the GOP will be so smart as to implement my version of the sales tax is another question...

I'm curious why you think low-income people shouldn't pay taxes. Don't they owe a responsibility to the state? By what right do they *deserve* a free ride? The right of being poor? Under your system, if everyone could get a free ride off the rich by being poor, I think I would remain poor too, just so I could loaf around and do nothing on the rich man's dollar.

Gosh, how nice it would be to sit around and let the rich man work for me. Boy, the world owes me a living!! LOL.

http://www.odot.state.or.us/ruftf/newspage.html

[Anonymous Coward]

News Releases

2004

* November 15 -- RUFTF meeting Nov. 19
* May 12 -- OSU, ODOT give gas tax alternative first test
* May 11 -- Road User Fee Task Force to meet May 14

2003

* November 7 -- Road User Fee Task Force to meet Nov. 21
* October 8 -- Oct. 10 RUFTF meeting cancelled
* January 10 -- Task Force weeks new revenue system for roads (opinion piece)

2002

* November 13 -- RUFTF to meet Nov. 15
* September 4 -- RUFTF meeting in Salem Sept. 6
* July 2 -- RUFTF public hearing and formal meeting in North Bend
* May 31 -- RUFTF June 4 meeting announced
* April 30 -- RUFTF to hold public meeting in Pendleton
* April 26 -- Road User Fee Task Force to meet May 3 in Pendleton
* April 4 -- April RUFTF meeting
* March 1 -- RUFTF to meet March 8
* January 22 -- RUFTF meeting Feb. 1

2001
* November 21 -- Governor, Legislature announce Road User Fee Task Force members

Re:Gentlemen, start your engines!

[Sime208]

Don't bet on it. This has been suggested over in the UK too, and while not a popular suggestion, it's something that WILL happen here and where you are. If not tomorrow, then at some point in the future.

That privacy you think you have is quietly being eroded, and as the majority of your country has shown recently, you just don't care.

If the only purpose of these devices was to tax you based on how many miles you drive, wouldn't a milometer do? Sure the old mechanical ones can be fiddled, but aren't manufacturers capable of creating one that can't be? If they aren't, how are they capable of creating a GPS unit that can't be modded to make it look like the car has never moved from the driveway?

The powers that be won't be happy until they know exactly where you are all the time. To introduce it, they'll tell you how it'll benefit you tax-wise first. If that doesn't work, they'll tell you it'll help fight terrorism. ("Hey, if we had GPS units in cars we'd have been able to track the terrorists to within a square yard!"). The point that terrorists would probably use a stolen/rental car, bus or taxi will be skated over.

It won't be for a few years yet (there's no infrastructure to bill people even if the units were fitted), but it won't be long. If you get away with paying a tax based on how far you drive, your kids won't.

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

[Euler]

exactly. And my orignal point was to dispute the poster who said that only diesel engines have the torque available to move a truck. Electric motors have the best torque curves across all speeds compared to combustion engines. Electric trains and trucks are usually direct drive, or fixed gearing to avoid complexity and failure points.

Obviously, the electricity has to come from somewhere. But an electric drive-train opens up many other options: regenerative braking with a battery, dynamic braking which is more reliable and conisitant than mechanical brakes, and constant RPMs on the diesel for efficiency and reduced wear.

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.

Re:Yeah, I already got the letter about this one..

[Thagg]

What most people outside of California (and most inside California too, as people here have the average attention span of a three-day-old kitten) fail to realize is that Prop 13 was really the result of a series of California Supreme Court decisions in Serrano v. Priest a couple of years prior to it. That Supreme Court decision said that education was a state mandate, and that all schools must be funded equally. This was a dramatic departure from the status quo ante, which let the property taxes of relatively wealthy areas fund very good public schools in those areas, and left the poorer areas with significantly inadequate funding.

These court decisions, and the various legislative responses to them, led people in the relatively wealthy areas (read "people who care enough to vote") to limit their property taxes dramatically. In the end, school funding is equal -- yes -- but equal at a very low level. People remember the tax cut and the 2/3 vote necessary to raise taxes, but they don't remember or even know the political environment that caused it to happen.

Thad Beier

Re:Not really

[CompleteMoron]

Oshkosh is working on a hybrid truck which means a diesel engine with A/C electric torque motors. There are several benefits to this as well as some potential downsides such as decreased overall efficiency when using a pure D/E drivetrain on a highway truck. Obviously some large off-highway trucks used in the mining industry as well as loaders, etc. are D/E now because of the flat torque curves of electric motors and the elimination of mechanical complexity of routing power through the vehicle using transmissions. BTW *any* engine can be used to move a truck with torque amplified by the correct gearing. The total power will determine speed and load ability. It just so happens that diesel is more efficient as displacement increases, a fact supported by the use of diesel engines on large ships.