Slashdot Mirror
California Wants GPS Tracking Device in Every Car
HTS Member writes "California has a new excuse for more taxes. Claiming losses due to fuel-efficient cars, such as Gasoline/Electric Hybrids, California is cooking-up a new system to punish people who aren't using enough gasoline. They want to tax commuters by the mile. How would this be accomplished? By requiring everyone to install a GPS device in their vehicle, and charge them their "taxes" every time they fuel-up. From the article: 'Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that.. [a] team at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one.'"
They want to tax commuters by the mile. How would this be accomplished? By requiring everyone to install a GPS device in their vehicle,
I am hardly a tin foil hat wearing type but, the problem with this is that like every other means to create databases that track/document individuals or groups, they will eventually end up being mined for data that will likely violate your right to privacy. Just remember, Bush is pushing for the Patriot Act again and databases like this will simply be folded into devices like the Patriot Act.
As an aside: gawd, I hate their use of "patriot" that way, does anybody know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation? Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Why not just read the mileage once a year when you get your car inspected and base the taxes off that?
After decades of pushing for more fuel efficient cars, now they want to punish you for owning them.
And the next logical step will have to be requiring drivers to have them just to drive in from out of state.
Then the Federal government will have to standardize the units so that Oregon units cross-operate with California units.
Followed by insurance companies using them to determine not only how much you drive now (which is often done by the odometer), but do you drive in more dangerous areas, and hence should be charged more.
It will never end, except the the consumer will pay and pay and pay for something they never wanted in the first place!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I suspect they only want to tax your use of california roads, not any road you drive on.
WRCT Pittsburgh, 88.3FM
Don't live in California.
This is going to do so much damage to costs in business (think of anything that delivers). Why would I want to start my business in Cali when I can be far more successful in other states? I personally won't support it.
It's also hypocritical. It punishes success.
Berto
You are dreaming, or smoking.
Governments do not lower taxes once they have established them.
You will have a Gas Tax and a mileage tax.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This is just stupid. What if you own a large ranch and drive around in it, not on public roads? What if you drive on (private) toll road freeways, like the one we have in Southern California? What about the people who will obviously find a hack for the system? What if you pick up your gas in a large plastic tank and avoid paying fees? This is ridiculous, and whoever thought this up should face electoral consequences.
So both my Ford Focus and Giant Urban Assault Vehicle get to pay the same tax, sure the UAV uses more gas, and tears up the road more, but if we both put 50 miles on the cars, then we both get taxed the same.
That said, this is total bullshit. The day somebody wants to put a tracking device in my car is the day I buy a pistol.
[javac] 100 errors
I would be in favor of jacking up the gasoline tax instead. This would put more pressure on the enviromental offenders that drive SUV's and other inefficient vehicles. Afraid that this will punish businesses? Give them a tax credit or tax rebate for business vehicles that are legitimately needed for the business.
Silly poster - the gas tax won't go away, this is just a bonus tax!
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
This article smells of Sensationalism. Note the lack of detail in the article.
...
Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogethe
Who are these "Officials"? The Governor of California? A low-level bereaucrat? There are plenty of low-level bereaucrat in sector 7-G who consider ideas which never really materialize.
Changing the tax structure at this level in California or Oregon would require some approval by the State sentate and legistlature.
Smells of sensationalism
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
You're new around here, aren't you? ;-)
Actually, given state governments' needs for more funds since federal funding is drying up, I wouldn't be surprised if California wanted to tax people on every mile they drove, then make its residents *prove* they didn't drive those miles in California.
Chuck
If revenues are falling because cars are getting more efficient, why not encourage the trend by raising the per-gallon tax? That would increase the pressure on anyone driving a hummer and make better fuel efficiency revenue-nuetral. Make it automatic, by changing it to a total dollar amount and having it calculated yearly based on the prior years gas sales.
Well, couple this along with you new 'National ID' complete with RFID embedded in, this will be the 21st century's version of presenting your 'papers' when traveling. Let it scan your card at the borders at first as you drive, this way each state can tax you appropriatly for mileage...etc. And once we get used to that, I'm sure the checkpoints can easily be multiplies so you are scanned periodically during the day...yup, that'll catch them terrorists.
I'm being sarcastic...but, you know...sometimes just when you think the worst can't come true...it somehow does which some new politician gets a NEW IDEA!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It doesn't matter if it will work or not. What's important is that we'll soon be flooded with "H1d3 Y0ur Dr1v1ng H15t0ry" spam for sites selling tinfoil-based "car tax privacy shields" that go over the receiver's antenna.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What worries me here is that everyone is arguing about the invasivness of this (don't get me wrong, it IS invasion of privacy of the worst kind), but no one is considering how dumb the idea is in the first place! Punishing people for buying fuel efficient cars? What a load of shit! You know this one has been proposed by people who drive SUV's the size of aircraft carriers.
I'm not a small car person. I buy larger more comfortable vehicles, and I buy more gas because of it. It is worth it to me. People that are willing to cram themselves into a Metro to save money should sure as hell be allowed that choice!
Send whiskey and fresh horses!
As an owner of a Hybrid, yes I use a good bit less gas.
If they are worried about losing money due to Hybrid's how about 'raising' the gas tax a few pennies to compensate, thus encouraging the use of efficient cars, and taxing more heavily the polluting Hummers/SUVs people seem so fond of driving?
Oh wait...my fault...that damned logic/common sense thing again, sorry CA I forgot!
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Agreed...the common sense solution here is to raise the gas tax so that people in less efficient cars/trucks pay more and people in hybrids and such pay less ;-)
Now...any takers on that actually happening?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The people pushing this thig actually drives SUVs and Hummers(seen Arnie?)
I just read
I've always felt that the gas tax is one of the fairest taxes around. Not perfect, but pretty good. The wear and tear you put on the roads is generally related to three things: 1) how far you drive, 2) how heavy your car is and 3) how you drive (hard vs. gentle acceleration, etc.)
In each of those three cases added road wear equals additional fuel use.
Given the government's actions to promote fuel economy and reduce air pollution (I just got a letter from the air-quality management board offering $650 to turn in my 1985 car which still passes the smog checks with flying colors) I'm really surprised that they don't do the obvious: adjust the gasoline tax as needed to pay for highway repair.
In fact, given the popularity of huge gas guzzling SUVs I find the assertion that revenues are being harmed by a few hybrids absurd to say nothing of the fact that all the money needed to install, maintain and track the devices could, instead, go toward maintaining the road.
If more revenue is needed and gas taxes have to be raised so be it. I am not going to feel sorry for the few people who have to give up their Ford Extinctions or GMC Expletives.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Is this a chance to give Silicon Valley a boost by providing Hardware/software for this?
IMHO this would be a more practical approach:
- Put all cars into classes, based on milage per gallon, and the emissions. 1-10.
- Add tax to gas based on car as a percentile Hence if your car is an 8 (heavy emissions), it would be 8%.
For commecial vehicles, you can subtract 3. Simply because buses are good (keep people from driving themselves), and big trucks carry more with less emissions than several smaller ones. Also would put less of a burdon on commerce.
what does this solve?
1. No need for GPS
2. Puts emphasis on both cars that get better milage AND reducing milage.
3. Doesn't burdon a particular party.
That would be cheaper, and more inclusive.
IMHO this plan is an attempt to regenerate some electronic industries within the state, rather than serve a monetary, or ecologicial purpose.
what are the smoking!!! I have a GPS and I can tell you this will NEVER work. 1. GPS is useless in areas with lots f tall buildings like Boston for example (my last trip there my gps was a total joke
1. GPS stopped working at point a, and started working at point b. Measure the distance and tax'em.
2. Annual inspection. If there is a major difference between GPS miles and odometer miles... and if those miles can't be associated with out of state miles... tax'em.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. They are creating a very complex system to tax based on miles traveled rather than the more simple system of taxing based on fuel used. This is 100% dumb as it discourgaes the use lighter fuel efficent cars that cause less wear and tear on the road. The concern with a loss tax revenue as a result of people buying more fuel efficent cars is legit and they need to raise the damn fuel tax.
The real problem is people in political office don't seem to think it's fair that their vehicels with larger than 5 liter engines should pay more money than econoboxes with sub 2 liter engines failing to take into account that they polute more air and tear up more road than a cheaper import. I argue that it's perfectly fair to give econoboxes a huge tax break for poluting less.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
As there is free trade across state lines, companies would move out of California if you raised the taxes. You realise companies shop around for tax rates when they decide to set up shop don't you?
Not at all -- as you yourself point out directly afterwards. The reason you see those "no trucks over XXX pounds" signs is exactly because the amount of wear and tear on the road is proportional to vehicle weight.
where the electric doesn't pay *anything* in gas taxes.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The problem is California is running massive debts due to illegal immigration (costs us about 10 billion a year). BUT NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
How much more will we have to pay for our veggies and fruits if we stop illegal immigration? How about for construction? How about when we eat out? Just about every contractor and landscaper I know relies on day laborers with no papers. Our economy currently depends on this cheap labor. Just saying 'get rid of illegal immigrants' is easy but it doesn't solve the problem, it will just create new ones.
I would say one of the main reasons we are running huge debts is all those bloody initiatives that mandate funding for this and funding for that, basically giving the elected officials control over only a very small part of the total budget. Combine that with Prop 13 and you have California today.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Such a tax would do nothing to discourage ownership of large vehicles, since paying $5 mileage tax on top of $50 fuel is almost nothing (10%). For a small car, it might well be $20 tax on top of $20 fuel (100%)!
Wouldn't it be simpler/fairer to raise the tax on each gallon of fuel, and really hit the SUV owner where it hurts. Or is it un-American to tax fuel?
The tax here (outside US) is something like 50% of the final price of fuel, with tax concessions for primary producers, etc.
With each breath in, a flower somewhere opens; with each breath out, a flower withers away. In between lies beauty.
Our economy currently depends on this cheap labor. Just saying 'get rid of illegal immigrants' is easy but it doesn't solve the problem, it will just create new ones.
Like slavery? Not an outright troll, mind you, but the 18th century American cotton economy existed primarily due to insanely low labor costs of slavery.
There are many things "wrong" with the current American economic model. Reliance on low labor costs, over dependence on share holdings, focus only on bottom line growth and a non-humanist short term approach to labor are just a few.
There will come a time where it will all collapse in on itself. IMHO it would be better to deal with it responsibly before it becomes a problem than attempt to rebuild a fallen house of cards.
Of course they are.
The thinking is that the more you drive on roads, the more damage you cause them and the more you should pay in taxes to help maintain them. Right now, the method for determining how much you use roads is flawed--it's a gas tax. The idea, of course, being that if you buy more gas, you're driving more. However people who own big gas guzzlers are actually driving less than people who own fuel efficient cars if they buy the exact same amount of gas per year, so the gas guzzlers are being "penalized" with a higher tax when they use the roads precisely the same amount.
The flaw, of course, is that larger, heavier vehicles do more damage to the road than lighter cars. Of course, larger, heavier vehicles tend to use more gas, so in reality, the gas tax works just fine. It's the perception that's skewed such that people believe that they're overpaying.
CA (think): "Need to get more gas tax". CA (says): " We're going to track your asses with GPS". People (yell):"WAAH WAAH WAAH priivacy! Why not just raise the gas tax"
CA:"The people have spoken they want us to raise the gas tax."
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Isn't THAT the "elephant in the room?"
Please mod parent as immigrant-bashing TROLL.Your arguments are entirely correct, of course.
But Gropernor Ah-nold owns several Hummers. As a big friend of Dick Cheney and the Shrub, he likes wasting gas. So he wants a subsidy for Hummer owners and a tax on Prius owners.
Betch fewer than 25% of Prius owners are Republicans.
Betcha more than 50% of Hummer owners are.