Taxed by the miles you drive; tracked by GPS - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 02-20-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

View: Transportation secretary considers taxing miles driven
Source: USAToday
posted with the TFP thread generator

Transportation secretary considers taxing miles driven
Transportation secretary considers taxing miles driven
By Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn — an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.

Gasoline taxes for nearly half a century have paid the federal share of highway and bridge construction. But they can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.

LaHood said he firmly opposes raising the federal gasoline tax in the current recession.

"We should look at the vehicular miles program, where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.

Most transportation experts see a vehicle-miles tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.

The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars, since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.

Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.

"What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.

The program that funds the federal share of highway projects is part of a surface transportation law that expires Sept. 30. Last fall, Congress made an emergency infusion of $8 billion to make up for a shortfall between gasoline tax revenue and the amount of money promised to states for their projects.

The gap between money raised by the gas tax and the cost of maintaining the nation's highway system and expanding it to accommodate population growth is forecast to continue to widen.

Among the reasons for the gap is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a reduction in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don't use gasoline are expected to start showing up in greater numbers.

"One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways," LaHood said. "It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there's no question about that. But the big question now is, We're into the 21st century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs ... with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $8 billion by Congress last year?"

A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a vehicle-miles tax.

The system would require cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle is driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.

The device would tally how much tax motorists owe depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.

Rob Atkinson, president of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, the agency developing future transportation funding options, said moving to a national VMT would take about a decade.

Privacy concerns are based more on perception than any actual risk, Atkinson said. The satellite information would be beamed one way to the car and driving information would be contained within the device on the car, with the amount of the tax due the only information that's downloaded, he said.

The devices also could be programmed to charge higher rates to vehicles that are heavier, like trucks that put more stress on roadways, Atkinson said.

No. Not a fan. I'm not a fan of GPS tracking on my personal items as a requirement. I've been in rental cars that have GPS tracking and limitations listed in a contract that specifically outline what the GPS is used for and where I am out of bounds or breach of contract. Will it just be taxes or what about "suspected" people?

I also see this as driving up the costs of the "last mile" which refers to all items eventually get to a story via a truck. Things may be shipped by air, sea, rails, but ultimately the last miles are done via a truck.

What do you think?

Strange Famous · 02-20-2009, 10:52 AM

This is by far the fairest way for us to pay for our road systems. Surely as a capitalist you believe that people should pay for the driving they do, rather than a flat rate taxed on everyone?

Cynthetiq · 02-20-2009, 11:06 AM

no, i believe that the general fund pays for some of the infrastructure for those that don't use it with a car. They use it with the "last mile" for goods and services, since everyone uses it in that manner.

Fuel consumption is a great manner for fair taxation for road usage. If the tax isn't adequate to cover the longer range of high mileage vehicles, raise the tax that already exists to double, triple, or whatever seems commensurate to the average increase. Tie it to the US CAFE standards, so that the increase in the CAFE standard will reflect a higher tax revenue as the CAFE standard increases.

dksuddeth · 02-20-2009, 11:08 AM

and I think there should be a weight scale in every toilet so sewage waste can be taxed by human waste weight.

typical socialist policy....tax people on every action they make.

Glory's Sun · 02-20-2009, 11:13 AM

this goes way over the line really. besides the tax issue, the gps monitoring is dangerous. Who knows how wrongly it could be used, but let's be honest, the government would certainly use it for their own means.

I'm sure all the trucking companies are going to love this idea..

Strange Famous · 02-20-2009, 11:14 AM

The people who use the roads the most damage them the most so should pay the most.

Thats called the market, not socialism.

You weigh your "demand" to drive against the cost of "supply" of the service of a road network.

Should a single mum driving 2 miles a day to school and back pay the same car tax as a family driving a heavy 4x4 around?

Surely that is simply unfair?

StanT · 02-20-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

typical socialist policy....tax people on every action they make.

Huh? Taxing people independent of use would be socialist. Taxation based on use is fairly capitalistic.

In any case, I prefer the gas taxes that are already in place. It provides an incentive to drive more fuel efficient vehicles.

genuinegirly · 02-20-2009, 11:17 AM

If the existing system is working, why muck it up?

Cynthetiq · 02-20-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The people who use the roads the most damage them the most so should pay the most.

Thats called the market, not socialism.

You weigh your "demand" to drive against the cost of "supply" of the service of a road network.

Should a single mum driving 2 miles a day to school and back pay the same car tax as a family driving a heavy 4x4 around?

Surely that is simply unfair?

The 4X4 will consume more gas than the 2 miles a day, but both vehicles pay the same state taxes for DMV license, registration, emmissions control. So your argument works for the license, registration, and emissions.

But fuel consumption is more for the heavier 4x4, even with the same 2 miles a day driven. Thus they pay more because it costs more fuel to haul more weight. Take note that is why shipping goods is by weight and girth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

If the existing system is working, why muck it up?

because they aren't collecting as much as they should since fuel efficiency has increase, not to mention groups pillaging the highway funds like they do social security...which is why I suggest increase the tax on the fuel.

genuinegirly · 02-20-2009, 11:30 AM

Ah, thanks for the clarification.
I thought the general trend was to drive fewer miles when fuel prices are up. I didn't think that taxes played much of a role in fuel consumption. Based on this, I figured there wouldn't be an increase in funding if you charge people for the number of miles they drive.

shakran · 02-20-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

This is by far the fairest way for us to pay for our road systems. Surely as a capitalist you believe that people should pay for the driving they do, rather than a flat rate taxed on everyone?

No it isn't. We're already taxed based on the miles we drive. It's called having to fill the tank more often if we drive more.

But under the current system, those of us who drive 20-40mpg cars rather than jackholes with 8mpg Hummers end up getting a tax break.

Tax us per mile by mileage trackers, and I have to pay the exact same rate as the environmentally-damaging resource-wasting morons. After all the government programs giving tax breaks to hybrid drivers and other energy conservationists, it's pretty foolish to kill off the farthest-reaching one.

ASU2003 · 02-20-2009, 06:58 PM

I would be fine with it for the big semi trucks who already get tracked. They do a lot of the wear on the roads as it is. You might see road trains and regular trains play a bigger role if that is the case.

But, my tax dollars have gone to making the roads, they shouldn't be able to charge me for driving on them. And would they charge me for going over the speed limit?

Anyways, this story is a non-story because the White House shot it down. But if I drive an electric car, I won't be paying any gas tax.

Terrell · 02-21-2009, 12:33 PM

I would oppose this as far as ordinary cars/trucks are concerned. I think that the current system is more fair. Those who consume more fuel should pay more. As another poster mentioned it's not fair to the Prius driver to make him pay the same rate per mile as the Hummer driver.

Redlemon · 02-21-2009, 12:39 PM

Well, it isn't going to happen in the near term US-wide...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mileage tax floated, then quickly sunk -- chicagotribune.com

Transportation chief touts concept, which White House rejects

By Rebecca Cole | Washington Bureau
February 21, 2009

WASHINGTON — As quickly as talk of taxing mileage instead of gasoline surfaced in the Obama Cabinet, the White House sank it.

Concerned that traditional gas taxes cannot keep pace with the cost of building and repairing highways, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Friday that he was considering taxing motorists according to miles driven.

But President Barack Obama has no interest in such a tax, the White House swiftly said.

"I can weigh in on it and say that it is not, and will not be, the policy of the Obama administration," said Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary. The spokesman succinctly added later: "It's a no-go."

Even the concept — which would require the placement of global positioning satellite tracking devices in the cars and trucks that everyone drives — strikes some critics as a colossal invasion of privacy, with the government tracking the travel of all motorists.

Yet the idea of a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax already has been road-tested successfully in some places as an alternative to gas taxes.

The Obama administration's new transportation secretary elevated the debate by suggesting the federal government should take a mileage tax seriously.

"We should look at the vehicular miles program, where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," LaHood told The Associated Press on Friday.

LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, is the sole registered Republican in the new president's Cabinet. Obama, a Democratic former senator from Illinois, tapped a trusted ally for transportation.

The White House quickly shelved the secretary's mileage tax talk, directing any questions to LaHood about whether he had spoken out of turn.

"Secretary LaHood was giving the spectrum of options available for funding of the national transportation system," LaHood spokeswoman Lori Irving said, "and was not advocating a VMT-based taxing system."

The nation's aging infrastructure of roads and bridges is in dire need of cash, but revenue from the gas tax is not enough to cover federally promised maintenance and repair projects. Last fall, Congress injected $8 billion to cover the shortfall.

And with the advent of fuel-efficient and electric cars, experts say, revenue from the gas tax will continue to dwindle.

"One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways," LaHood said.

While the idea of a mileage toll may seem radical, taxing motorists for the number of miles they drive rather than how much gas they burn may not be so far off.

In Oregon, the idea already has been tested in a 2006 pilot program of 285 vehicles, and the Oregon Department of Transportation deemed it a "proof-of-concept" success. Last month, Gov. Ted Kulongoski presented recommendations to the legislature to move away from the gas tax as a central funding source for transportation.

This isn't the first time that Oregon has pioneered in the field of transportation. In 1919, it became the first state to enact a gas tax.

The state is taking a similar lead with its Road User Fee Pilot Program, a 12-month study launched in 2006 that measured the viability of an electronic collection system for a VMT tax to replace the gas tax. With a $2.1 million grant from the Federal Highway Administration, the state outfitted two service stations in the Portland area with mileage-reading technology and recruited 260 volunteers to have passive, receiving-only GPS devices implanted in their vehicles. The tracking counts their mileage but doesn't record their locations.

James Whitty, manager of the state Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding, which oversaw the project, says the test proved that the technology is viable, but people still have "visceral reactions" when they hear abut the concept — especially concerning the issue of privacy.

Reese · 02-21-2009, 02:38 PM

It'd definitely suck for more rural areas like mine where I have to drive 25 miles both ways just to go to Wal-Mart. Not only do rural folks live farther from towns, They're statistically poorer than someone who does live closer to their jobs/stores/schools.

biznatch · 02-21-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

no, i believe that the general fund pays for some of the infrastructure for those that don't use it with a car. They use it with the "last mile" for goods and services, since everyone uses it in that manner.

Fuel consumption is a great manner for fair taxation for road usage. If the tax isn't adequate to cover the longer range of high mileage vehicles, raise the tax that already exists to double, triple, or whatever seems commensurate to the average increase. Tie it to the US CAFE standards, so that the increase in the CAFE standard will reflect a higher tax revenue as the CAFE standard increases.

I agree. The taxes, if they should put anywhere at all, should be linked to fuel purchase. It's related to the number of miles you drive, as well as the ecological cost of burning so much fuel.
What's next, personal GPS to be carried on us for the amount of walking we do so know what the sidewalk tax is?

Slims · 02-21-2009, 04:28 PM

I would support a use-based tax for driving. I absolutely am against GPS tracking.

If you want to tax my driving based on the number of miles driven, then just require an odometer statement at the beginning of each year, no GPS nonsense necessary.

laconic1 · 02-21-2009, 08:09 PM

I don't understand how this would be any better than the gas tax in place. As others have said, the current gas tax already has people who use more resources paying more in taxes. Plus the gas tax is universally collected. It seems like around here I see a lot of cars that are unregistered, or have expired tags or out of state tags, or even quite a few vehicles with Mexico license plates. I'm guessing quite a few of those people that are paying gas taxes now every time they fill up will be able to avoid the mile based taxes. Also how would it work if I go on a road trip out of state? Do I get a separate bill from each state I drove through at the end of the year? And how much will this cost to implement, providing tracking devices for every vehicle in the country? Look how expensive the digital television transition has been, I would think this would be many times greater. All in all just a giant bureaucracy created to eliminate a perfectly good, fair system with a much more expensive, cumbersome system that ultimately doesn't accomplish anything new.

MSD · 02-21-2009, 09:26 PM

I would walk rather than drive in a GPS-tracked car. I don't care if I have to go coast-to-coast, I'd walk.

lt1s10 · 02-21-2009, 10:11 PM

Who'd install, monitor, and police it? The infrastructure to establish this system seems immense and I think that cost would far outweigh the income generated. What's to stop someone from unplugging it every other week or permanently except for inspection time?

Where I live the state and city and county already has a hard enough time enforcing registration, yearly safety checks, and insurance. If we eventually get emissions and then gps mileage it'd be one giant crap heap that'd take decades to sort out.

If they need more money for infrastructure I think that they should raise the gas tax, vehicle weight taxes, and registration fees. If you use more gas, drive heavier cars, drive more expensive cars you should pay more. If you've changed your driving habits to save gas and/or use less resources you shouldn't pay the same as a single occupant escalade going the same distance. They made the choice to drive bigger they should pay more.

A question for those that live outside the US what is the road infrastructure like vs the tax rates? I've visited Germany, Japan, and New Zealand and their roads all seemed well maintained even in the rural areas that I visited. Also saw the National Geographic program on the Autobahn and they replace sections when repairs are needed. I have not ever seen that happen in any state I've been to so far. I've only seen them patch pot holes in the asphalt or concrete many times until it gets really bad then maybe they will replace or repave a large section. Also many times when they repave with asphalt it's never level for long. Always ends up wavy and uneven in less then a year.

Anexkahn · 02-21-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lt1s10

Who'd install, monitor, and police it?

They proposed a similar system in Oregon earlier this year. In that pilot system the GPS trackers connected to the fuel pumps. It read the GPS odometer and then assessed the mileage tax as part of the fill up.

The general idea was that it would be an opt in system, where if you were equipped with the GPS you would pay one rate based on mileage, and if you choose not to have the GPS you would get the standard per gallon rate (which would usually be higher).

I believe the Oregon program got shot down too, but i thought the logistics of that system sounded pretty decent.

lt1s10 · 02-21-2009, 10:39 PM

That kind of sounds reasonable but if you daily drive something with a mechanical fuel pump you'd be unable to opt in? Where I am there are still a large number of VWs, domestic work trucks, and even imports all daily driven that would probably not be able to opt in.

Blackthorn · 02-22-2009, 07:19 AM

The argument in favor of this is that the existing system is no longer working because people a buying and driving more fuel efficient cars which lowers the overall tax roll created by the gas tax. Changing the model to include taxes by miles driven would raise the revenue lost by this transition to green automobiles.

That said I'm opposed to this form of taxation. On one hand the goverment wants you to drive a more fuel efficient car and then on the other hand they want to tax for you driving it across the city... the government will take to support it's need to spend so make no mistake about it. This idea will not replace an existing form of revenue. It will come online in ADDITION to the existing form of revenue.

I'm opposed to any government mandated GPS device that tracks where I go, when I go there, how far I go to get there, and how long I stay. It gives the government too much of an opportunity for shenanigans and like it or not it won't stop with miles driven.

Do I have a better idea? You bet... The goverment must SPEND LESS... end of story.

Fotzlid · 02-22-2009, 07:42 AM

The only thing I see this proposed tax actually doing is creating another bloated, mismanaged government bureaucracy where the majority of the revenue goes towards salaries and buildings/maintenance. Not to mention in 5-7 years having to spend billions to upgrade the technology.
That is, of course, assuming that hackers won't have completely defeated the system in about a week or two.

JamesB · 02-24-2009, 11:17 PM

Ever get that sense that big brother is watching you?

This is a very serious issue and should be stricken down at every opportunity. No good could possibly come of this.
If you want to generate revenue on how many miles people drive - tax your damn gas more! But tracking people ... wow ... anybody else thinking Cuba looks like playschool now?

gardens · 02-26-2009, 07:11 PM

absolute no if they put the gps in on how many miles driven then they'll move into how fast you were driving then how many people are in your car in the carpool lane then...not sure if this should go in paranoia or not

still say no on miles driven, increase the gas tax and then you get more fuel efficient cars and carpooling, I don't see many people hoping on bikes to escape the miles driven, considering how the trucking industry employs almost 9 million people if we had miles driven I think a lot more would be out of work then if the gas tax was increased though the tax on diesel is quite steep

robot_parade · 02-26-2009, 08:26 PM

I think this is a terrible idea, for the privacy reasons, because of the cost of implementation, the temptation to game the system, and because gas taxes are (imnsho) a good enough proxy for usage. Gas taxes also encourage fuel efficiency by raising the cost of gas. Sure, when everyone is driving electric vehicles, the tax structure will have to change.

Is there some divine requirement that taxes be based upon usage? People without children don't pay lower taxes than those who do have children, even though the latter (probably) makes use of the public education system. Same deal for any number of public services. In fact, the biggest argument to me for the gas tax is more to encourage fuel efficiency than anything else - burning gasoline has an environmental impact that effects everyone. Taxation helps to increase the cost of burning gas, and thus discourage use.

pan6467 · 02-26-2009, 10:10 PM

I just love this country more and more... tax miles now... lol so let's see, there goes vacations and road trips.

It almost makes as much sense as taxing cigarettes into the black market.

Let's see, if we tax miles and no one drives and we tax tobacco and noone uses it.... what do they tax to pay for that lost revenue??????

Cuddly Knife · 02-27-2009, 01:22 AM

i begin to hate this country

Suzz04 · 02-27-2009, 04:46 AM

i'm not sure if i missed it or now, but it raises the question of truckers. the ones that get paid by the miles they travel. wouldn't this cancel out the time they've spent on the road, away from their families from days up to weeks at a time?

as a previous poster stated about driving 25 miles each way to go to walmart's, i have to drive a good distance to reach walmart's to at least save some money on shopping. our local area stores have alot of things that are much cheaper at walmart's.

i don't drive much. i hate it. i only go out when necessary for what we need and doctor visits. the only other thing is the SO driving to work.

things are getting more ridiculous it seems as time goes on. our goverment officals in the high up end, senate etc, they get paid a hefty amount each year. why not cut back some of their paycheck? maybe that's just me on that thought though.

02-20-2009, 10:52 AM	#2 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	This is by far the fairest way for us to pay for our road systems. Surely as a capitalist you believe that people should pay for the driving they do, rather than a flat rate taxed on everyone? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-20-2009, 11:06 AM	#3 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	no, i believe that the general fund pays for some of the infrastructure for those that don't use it with a car. They use it with the "last mile" for goods and services, since everyone uses it in that manner. Fuel consumption is a great manner for fair taxation for road usage. If the tax isn't adequate to cover the longer range of high mileage vehicles, raise the tax that already exists to double, triple, or whatever seems commensurate to the average increase. Tie it to the US CAFE standards, so that the increase in the CAFE standard will reflect a higher tax revenue as the CAFE standard increases. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

02-20-2009, 11:08 AM	#4 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	and I think there should be a weight scale in every toilet so sewage waste can be taxed by human waste weight. typical socialist policy....tax people on every action they make. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

02-20-2009, 11:14 AM	#6 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The people who use the roads the most damage them the most so should pay the most. Thats called the market, not socialism. You weigh your "demand" to drive against the cost of "supply" of the service of a road network. Should a single mum driving 2 miles a day to school and back pay the same car tax as a family driving a heavy 4x4 around? Surely that is simply unfair? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-20-2009, 11:17 AM	#8 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	If the existing system is working, why muck it up? __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

02-20-2009, 11:13 AM	#5 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	this goes way over the line really. besides the tax issue, the gps monitoring is dangerous. Who knows how wrongly it could be used, but let's be honest, the government would certainly use it for their own means. I'm sure all the trucking companies are going to love this idea..

02-20-2009, 11:30 AM	#10 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Ah, thanks for the clarification. I thought the general trend was to drive fewer miles when fuel prices are up. I didn't think that taxes played much of a role in fuel consumption. Based on this, I figured there wouldn't be an increase in funding if you charge people for the number of miles they drive. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

02-20-2009, 06:58 PM	#12 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I would be fine with it for the big semi trucks who already get tracked. They do a lot of the wear on the roads as it is. You might see road trains and regular trains play a bigger role if that is the case. But, my tax dollars have gone to making the roads, they shouldn't be able to charge me for driving on them. And would they charge me for going over the speed limit? Anyways, this story is a non-story because the White House shot it down. But if I drive an electric car, I won't be paying any gas tax.

02-21-2009, 12:33 PM	#13 (permalink)
Terrell Insane Location: Orlando, Florida	I would oppose this as far as ordinary cars/trucks are concerned. I think that the current system is more fair. Those who consume more fuel should pay more. As another poster mentioned it's not fair to the Prius driver to make him pay the same rate per mile as the Hummer driver.

02-21-2009, 02:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
Reese Delicious	It'd definitely suck for more rural areas like mine where I have to drive 25 miles both ways just to go to Wal-Mart. Not only do rural folks live farther from towns, They're statistically poorer than someone who does live closer to their jobs/stores/schools. __________________ “It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

02-21-2009, 04:28 PM	#17 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I would support a use-based tax for driving. I absolutely am against GPS tracking. If you want to tax my driving based on the number of miles driven, then just require an odometer statement at the beginning of each year, no GPS nonsense necessary. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

02-21-2009, 08:09 PM	#18 (permalink)
laconic1 Junkie	I don't understand how this would be any better than the gas tax in place. As others have said, the current gas tax already has people who use more resources paying more in taxes. Plus the gas tax is universally collected. It seems like around here I see a lot of cars that are unregistered, or have expired tags or out of state tags, or even quite a few vehicles with Mexico license plates. I'm guessing quite a few of those people that are paying gas taxes now every time they fill up will be able to avoid the mile based taxes. Also how would it work if I go on a road trip out of state? Do I get a separate bill from each state I drove through at the end of the year? And how much will this cost to implement, providing tracking devices for every vehicle in the country? Look how expensive the digital television transition has been, I would think this would be many times greater. All in all just a giant bureaucracy created to eliminate a perfectly good, fair system with a much more expensive, cumbersome system that ultimately doesn't accomplish anything new.

02-21-2009, 09:26 PM	#19 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I would walk rather than drive in a GPS-tracked car. I don't care if I have to go coast-to-coast, I'd walk.

02-21-2009, 10:11 PM	#20 (permalink)
lt1s10 Crazy	Who'd install, monitor, and police it? The infrastructure to establish this system seems immense and I think that cost would far outweigh the income generated. What's to stop someone from unplugging it every other week or permanently except for inspection time? Where I live the state and city and county already has a hard enough time enforcing registration, yearly safety checks, and insurance. If we eventually get emissions and then gps mileage it'd be one giant crap heap that'd take decades to sort out. If they need more money for infrastructure I think that they should raise the gas tax, vehicle weight taxes, and registration fees. If you use more gas, drive heavier cars, drive more expensive cars you should pay more. If you've changed your driving habits to save gas and/or use less resources you shouldn't pay the same as a single occupant escalade going the same distance. They made the choice to drive bigger they should pay more. A question for those that live outside the US what is the road infrastructure like vs the tax rates? I've visited Germany, Japan, and New Zealand and their roads all seemed well maintained even in the rural areas that I visited. Also saw the National Geographic program on the Autobahn and they replace sections when repairs are needed. I have not ever seen that happen in any state I've been to so far. I've only seen them patch pot holes in the asphalt or concrete many times until it gets really bad then maybe they will replace or repave a large section. Also many times when they repave with asphalt it's never level for long. Always ends up wavy and uneven in less then a year.

02-21-2009, 10:39 PM	#22 (permalink)
lt1s10 Crazy	That kind of sounds reasonable but if you daily drive something with a mechanical fuel pump you'd be unable to opt in? Where I am there are still a large number of VWs, domestic work trucks, and even imports all daily driven that would probably not be able to opt in.

02-22-2009, 07:19 AM	#23 (permalink)
Blackthorn Beware the Mad Irish Location: Wish I was on the N17...	The argument in favor of this is that the existing system is no longer working because people a buying and driving more fuel efficient cars which lowers the overall tax roll created by the gas tax. Changing the model to include taxes by miles driven would raise the revenue lost by this transition to green automobiles. That said I'm opposed to this form of taxation. On one hand the goverment wants you to drive a more fuel efficient car and then on the other hand they want to tax for you driving it across the city... the government will take to support it's need to spend so make no mistake about it. This idea will not replace an existing form of revenue. It will come online in ADDITION to the existing form of revenue. I'm opposed to any government mandated GPS device that tracks where I go, when I go there, how far I go to get there, and how long I stay. It gives the government too much of an opportunity for shenanigans and like it or not it won't stop with miles driven. Do I have a better idea? You bet... The goverment must SPEND LESS... end of story. __________________ What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

02-22-2009, 07:42 AM	#24 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	The only thing I see this proposed tax actually doing is creating another bloated, mismanaged government bureaucracy where the majority of the revenue goes towards salaries and buildings/maintenance. Not to mention in 5-7 years having to spend billions to upgrade the technology. That is, of course, assuming that hackers won't have completely defeated the system in about a week or two.

02-24-2009, 11:17 PM	#25 (permalink)
JamesB Insane Location: Ottawa	Ever get that sense that big brother is watching you? This is a very serious issue and should be stricken down at every opportunity. No good could possibly come of this. If you want to generate revenue on how many miles people drive - tax your damn gas more! But tracking people ... wow ... anybody else thinking Cuba looks like playschool now? __________________ -- apt-get install spare_time --

02-26-2009, 07:11 PM	#26 (permalink)
gardens Tilted Location: Kolob	absolute no if they put the gps in on how many miles driven then they'll move into how fast you were driving then how many people are in your car in the carpool lane then...not sure if this should go in paranoia or not still say no on miles driven, increase the gas tax and then you get more fuel efficient cars and carpooling, I don't see many people hoping on bikes to escape the miles driven, considering how the trucking industry employs almost 9 million people if we had miles driven I think a lot more would be out of work then if the gas tax was increased though the tax on diesel is quite steep

02-26-2009, 08:26 PM	#27 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	I think this is a terrible idea, for the privacy reasons, because of the cost of implementation, the temptation to game the system, and because gas taxes are (imnsho) a good enough proxy for usage. Gas taxes also encourage fuel efficiency by raising the cost of gas. Sure, when everyone is driving electric vehicles, the tax structure will have to change. Is there some divine requirement that taxes be based upon usage? People without children don't pay lower taxes than those who do have children, even though the latter (probably) makes use of the public education system. Same deal for any number of public services. In fact, the biggest argument to me for the gas tax is more to encourage fuel efficiency than anything else - burning gasoline has an environmental impact that effects everyone. Taxation helps to increase the cost of burning gas, and thus discourage use.

02-26-2009, 10:10 PM	#28 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I just love this country more and more... tax miles now... lol so let's see, there goes vacations and road trips. It almost makes as much sense as taxing cigarettes into the black market. Let's see, if we tax miles and no one drives and we tax tobacco and noone uses it.... what do they tax to pay for that lost revenue?????? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-27-2009, 01:22 AM	#29 (permalink)
Cuddly Knife Banned	i begin to hate this country

02-27-2009, 04:46 AM	#30 (permalink)
Suzz04 Crazy Location: Virginia	i'm not sure if i missed it or now, but it raises the question of truckers. the ones that get paid by the miles they travel. wouldn't this cancel out the time they've spent on the road, away from their families from days up to weeks at a time? as a previous poster stated about driving 25 miles each way to go to walmart's, i have to drive a good distance to reach walmart's to at least save some money on shopping. our local area stores have alot of things that are much cheaper at walmart's. i don't drive much. i hate it. i only go out when necessary for what we need and doctor visits. the only other thing is the SO driving to work. things are getting more ridiculous it seems as time goes on. our goverment officals in the high up end, senate etc, they get paid a hefty amount each year. why not cut back some of their paycheck? maybe that's just me on that thought though. __________________ Quantum Cat Theory: Upon hearing the sound of a can being opened, it becomes possible for a cat to travel faster than the speed of light.