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.'"

20 of 1,351 comments (clear)

  1. Patriot Act by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Claiming losses due to fuel-efficient cars, such as Gasoline/Electric Hybrids,

    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."
  3. Re:Why not? Because you are dreaming! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'd really like if said tax helped lower the price of gas.

    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."
  4. Obviously by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Ultra-hypocritical by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So the same government that is mandating zero emission and reduced emission car sales is now trying to take away the consumer incentive for high efficiency vehicles? This is blatantly hypocritical . . .

    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.

  6. Hype? Sensationalism? by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ...

  7. Re:A lot less invasive by anonicon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  8. Obvious Answer by wren337 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.

  9. Re:A lot less invasive by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "So possibly those same roadblocks could sign off a milage log when you enter or leave the state. Purely voluntary, but it's an easy way for you to prove that you were driving X miles outside of the state."

    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!!

    ...usually based on a new way to suck up your tax dollars...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  10. Re:A lot less invasive by Marvelicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  11. Re:A lot less invasive by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 :-D
  12. Re:A lot less invasive by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 :-D
  13. Re:A lot less invasive by ArgieNomad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The people pushing this thig actually drives SUVs and Hummers(seen Arnie?)

    --
    I just read /. for the sigs
  14. Re:A lot less invasive by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    a mile in a small little hybrid, solar, or electric cars is the same mile driven by the huge hulking SUV


    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.

    ... and given that we want to reduce the amount of gas consumed, that's a good thing. Once everybody is driving gasoline-free vehicles, then it will be time to revisit our tax base; but we're nowhere near that point.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  15. Re:So where does this kind of thing end? by cft_128 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is just another bullshit revenue-grab by the state. The state road fund has been pillaged to the tune of about 2 billion a year (the funds have been stolen for the general budget), then they cry wolf about needing money to improve roads?!

    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

  16. Re:So where does this kind of thing end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:A lot less invasive by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. You're being duped by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The scheme has so many flaws (apart from the privacy one), that I hunch they're using this as a scam to soften the blow when they add a new gas tax.

    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.
  19. CA pays $60 billion more Fed taxes than it spends by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Californians pay about $60 billion more in federal taxes than they receive in federal services."

    ...and all you care about is the $10 billion from IMMIGRATION?

    Isn't THAT the "elephant in the room?"

    Please mod parent as immigrant-bashing TROLL.
  20. Re:A lot less invasive by isdnip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.