GPS Tracking: MoD, Jesda, get in here!

[nissangirl74]

Let me be clear:

you do NOT have my permission to track me by GPS, or any other means

you do NOT have my permission to tax me more because I drive more

it is none of your g****** business how much I drive or the places I choose to drive to

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/10 ... icas-roads

Meanwhile, just down the (increasingly bumpy) road to Washington, D.C., the Government Accountability Office ....(the GAO) suggests that the federal government should consider taxing drivers on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

But doing so would not be easy. The GAO points out that there are significant privacy concerns in using devices like GPS to track drivers and, in turn, tax them on their travels. Nor would such a system come cheap. In a press release, the GAO states that "implementing a system to collect fees from 230 million U.S. passenger vehicles is likely to greatly exceed the costs of collecting fuel taxes" -- at least for the first several years.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Right now I look like an angry cartoon character with his ears steaming. Except it's not a cartoon.

New vehicle fleet and driving trends are quickly rendering the fuel tax obsolete.

So the government goes out of its way to subsidize alternative fuels, forces ethanol on us, buys fleets of hybrid and electric cars for official use, wastes hundreds of miles of highway lanespace with commuter/HOV lanes, and meddles in industries they don't understand with widespread effects across the world, and that's all okay. But the moment it starts interfering with their tax revenues, well...we can't have that. Disgusting.

I already pay sales tax on the car, registration taxes every year, fees for inspections I disagree with (emissions testing), fuel taxes...if that's not enough, I'm afraid it's not my problem. I've fulfilled my "accountability". So look elsewhere for your revenue.

And that's ignoring the whole GPS tracking and privacy aspect.

[Jesda]

Until I can get past my anger and form a coherent response, all I can say is:

*RAGE*

[Rev_D21]

Yeh they can institute that tax as soon as they can guarantee good paying jobs within 1 mile of everyone's home. I won't pay it at 90 miles per day work commute. Find me a local job that pays in money not turds. Don't even think of taxing me until then.

[Bubba1]

Until I can get past my anger and form a coherent response, all I can say is:

*RAGE*

Once everyone's rage subsides, this is an interesting issue. Since the gas tax revenues have dropped as a result of reduced gasoline consumption, for a variety of reasons (more fuel efficient cars, sagging economy, alternate fuels/power, telecommuting etc), but the costs associated with repairs/maintenance and infrastructure have not reduced at all. So how do we pay for it???

I don't have the answer, but instead of rage, how about some ideas about a solution.

But for those that said a mileage tax would be difficult to implement, uh, no it wouldn't. I'm not saying it's a good idea or bad idea. But you don't even need GPS to do it. Many states already require a current odometer readings each time you renew a registration. what would be difficult is catching cheaters.

Eliminating waste will obviously be mentioned, and should be included, but that by itself is not going to pay for the rebuilding of decaying bridges that have have been essentially ignored for years. Need more.

Thoughts?

[Jesda]

Using an odometer reading wouldn't be very accurate. 50% of my annual mileage is out of state, wandering around the country.

[Bubba1]

Using an odometer reading wouldn't be very accurate. 50% of my annual mileage is out of state, wandering around the country.

I would thnk the state where one registers their vehicle wouldn't care where you log those miles, just as tolls do not usually differentiate between residents/non-residents. But if an odometer based fee is off the table, then what would you suggest as an alternative?

[MinisterofDOOM]

Some thoughts:

I recognize that people driving EVs don't pay fuel tax, and that this hurts ME as well, since they're sharing the road and not throwing in their share of the taxes. Some kind of solution should is needed (what happens when more than a small number of EVs are on the road?...the load should not be borne solely by internal combustion drivers). But I honestly don't know what it should be.

Odometer readings are a terrible idea. Firstly, they're not accurate, and everyone knows it. Change tire size and it's wrong. Spend a winter driving in the snow and it'll be wrong. This is all fine for large-scale generic stuff like determining a vague degree of use of a vehicle for sale purposes, but it's not suitable for taxation-of-use. Even in the context of used cars, the number alone means more when you know how the miles were put on.
Beyond that, there's the issue of WHERE the miles are driven, as Jesda points out.
Then you run into the issues of multi-owner cars and multi-car owners. And what about fleets? What about miles driven for work? Of course the responsibility would fall to the owner to be sure they're not taxed for miles they shouldn't be. Crap on the consumer because he can't defend himself. Businesses have well-paid lawyers with money at their disposal. Consumers have to do as they're told.

GPS is absolutely unacceptable. It's a massive invasion of privacy.

I don't know what the solution is, but I know what it ISN'T.

[BusyBadger]

They can go by odometer ratings if they want, I'll just start driving the 240 again. Got so used to swapping out the clusters thanks to the HUD that I won't pay anything at all.

Its even worse in Chicago, little Rahm is talking about bike tolls.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... rahmfather

[Rev_D21]

Welfare for the government. Didn't we fight the Revolutionary War because England had stupid amount of taxes on us and we no longer cared to pay them? Wasn't it the Stamp Act that we told them to go to hell with?

[nissangirl74]

I have a question about who is responsible for maintaining the roads and bridges. Is it a state's responsibility to maintain roads or the fed's? Does the federal government allocate money to the states and then the state decides what to do with the money?

The reason I ask this is that I-10 through California is in bad shape. However, the 10 through AZ is pretty awesome. So, is that due to a failure on the feds in CA, a failure on California state officials, or a win for AZ?

[Bubba1]

Bex, if you're talking strictly interstate highways, the States own and operate them, but they are mostly funded by the federal government. Now what the states do with their share of the money can be a topic all by itself.

As far as how long a road lasts, it's a bunch of factors, some within/some outside the state's control. Those factors include, weather (particularly areas with big temperature changes (that include freezing), moisture, maintenance (or lack thereof), if states treat the roads (like salt/other chemicals) how well it was made (more significantly with resurfacing than the original building) the material they used to build/resurface it (some materials last a lot longer than others), the volume & type of traffic that rides on it. Having one one of the worlds largest ports (ie Port of LA/LongBeach means more overweight vehicles combined with some of the more densely populated areas in the country in CA don't help them.



It should not come as much of a surprise that roads in a generally dry, temperate climate like Arizona survive better than other areas.

[float_6969]

As bubba said, the interstates are mostly federally funded, but from what I understand, it's not like the state does a repair and sends the feds a bill. I'm not sure how it's figured, but each state is allocated an amount of money by the federal government every year to spend on the interstates. But as Bubba eluded to, the states don't actually have to prove that they used that money for highway maintainence.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The reason I ask this is that I-10 through California is in bad shape. However, the 10 through AZ is pretty awesome. So, is that due to a failure on the feds in CA, a failure on California state officials, or a win for AZ?

I-15 is the same way. Through most of Utah it's kept in great shape. But cross into Idaho and it's rutted like a bad wagon trail and as smooth as a bottle of cheap whiskey. You can FEEL the border--that's how drastic and abrupt the difference is.

[breadbox]

Meanwhile, just down the (increasingly bumpy) road to Washington, D.C., the Government Accountability Office ....(the GAO) suggests that the federal government should consider taxing drivers on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Isn't that what a gas tax does? The more you drive the more taxes you are paying.

Also I heard our VA Gov. wants to eliminate the gas tax(no one is complaining really about paying this one) and raise the sales tax(something everyone bishez about now and then).

[Jesda]

Using an odometer reading wouldn't be very accurate. 50% of my annual mileage is out of state, wandering around the country.

I would thnk the state where one registers their vehicle wouldn't care where you log those miles, just as tolls do not usually differentiate between residents/non-residents. But if an odometer based fee is off the table, then what would you suggest as an alternative?

Raise the gas tax to compensate for improved fuel economy or charge tolls.


It's not that complicated.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Heck, institute tolls for non-fuel-tax payers. Basically the opposite of what Utah and a few other states are doing with their barely-used HOV lanes. Where the current practice is to allow carpoolers and alternative-fuel vehicles to use the lanes for free, and charge a toll for everyone else...why not reverse that for all lanes? Oh, wait, I know why: we have to force alternative fuels on everyone so we can save the world.

But in all seriousness: if Leaf drivers aren't paying fuel tax, they should be paying tolls instead.