What do all you CA drivers think of this plan?

[scaeagles]

Here's the story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

Basically, CA is considering a "tax by the mile" system. Cars are being outfitted with global positioning software that will track miles and where people are driving - higher traffic areas may equal a bigger tax. Apparently the software would communicate with the gas pump and add the tax when you fill up.

Hmmm....I drive very little - I work from a home office and we live two miles from the school my wife teaches at and my kids go to. But I have a bad feeling about this. Not to mention I live in AZ, but we have a tendency to try stupid things that CA has tried all the time.

[BarTopDancer]

Good luck with that. This sounds a lot like charging SUVs and trucks more for gas. That never panned out. There are people who commute 100+ miles a day to get to work. You can blame the housing costs on most of that. To tax people because they don't live close to their jobs and they don't want to take the [less than mediocore] public transportation system is insane.

[Betty]

Put a GPS on everyone's car?! Psh! NOT! It's none of anyone's business where I go and what I do. The privacy invasion is unreal.

[SacTown Chronic]

Really. I'd effing walk before I'd let 'em track my every movement. Of course, they all ready are.....not that I'm paranoid or anything.

[Moonliner]

Not to argue the side of "The Man" or anything, but just for clarity.

A GSP receiver, like the one mentioned in the article, is not a transmitter. It does not relay your position. It's just a smart odometer. When you pull up to a service station it will spit out how many miles you traveled. It could not be used lojack/onstar style to track where you are or have been.

It only needs the GPS element so that miles driven outside of the state don't count against you.

[SacTown Chronic]

Tool! Tool of the government!

[mousepod]

I'm not a fan of the system for the reasons mentioned here.
As far as the GPS system is concerned, here's an interesting story:
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001july/gee20010703006631.htm

[Moonliner]

I'm not a fan of the system for the reasons mentioned here.
As far as the GPS system is concerned, here's an interesting story:
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001july/gee20010703006631.htm

That's still not the same system (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml) being proposed by CA (as I understand it). If it was ONLY capable of recording milage+time of day how would you feel about it?

Also, my experience is telling me this is "poison pill" politics. First float an idea that's so outragous eveyone freaks then folllow up later with a somewhat softer version that still riases taxes but is not quite as offensive.

[Prudence]

They've been testing this in the Seattle area, too. The idea is to charge you based on when/where/how far you drive. "Our" project is a bit more complicated than Moonliner describes for CA -- as the Seattle-area plan would charge people not only based on how many miles driven, but whether they were driven in peak areas during peak times.

Aside from the usual privacy concerns (including how alleged malfunctions would be handled,) it's yet another regressive tax proposal for the good ol' Evergreen state.

In theory, these proposals are supposed to encourage the use of public transit and/or off-peak commuting. The problems with that (here) are: a) public transit both sucks and blows, particularly from the suburbs; b) housing prices here are skyrocketing. Just today an article in the Seattle P-I notes that a typical first-time home buyer only makes 2/3 of the income necessary to make mortgage payments in a starter home. Of necessity, most of us average flunkies live in the suburbs; and c) average flunkies are the least likely to have flexible schedules or permission to telecommute, as we have to be present in service capacities, and thus will need to travel major commuter routes at the major commuter times.

But the privacy concerns remain the most frightening aspect. I don't care what its initial limits are; I care what some entity that doesn't have my best interests at heart will decide to start using it for. If they're tracking where you drive, as in the WA pilot project, how long until your insurance company declines claims for damages incurred in high crime or high accident areas? Or your employeer discovers you've been patronizing the competition (like the recent beer case -- the brands escape me)?

I swear I don't walk around with a tinfoil hat to keep the gov't from reading my thoughts. I'm my father's daughter (and he considers a personal document shredder an ideal housewarming gift.)

Honestly I don't understand why they don't just increase the gas tax if they need additional transportation revenue (or an incentive to carpool.) It's an existing system and far less intrusive into my personal affairs.

[wendybeth]

I think it's asanine, which means they will probably do it.

[mhrc4]

Put a GPS on everyone's car?! Psh! NOT! It's none of anyone's business where I go and what I do. The privacy invasion is unreal.

thats what i was thinking, lord knows the liberals will be crying over this if it ever comes close to fruitition

[wendybeth]

thats what i was thinking, lord knows the liberals will be crying over this if it ever comes close to fruitition

And the conservatives will be, too. Only they will be upset at the monetary angle...;)

[MerryPrankster]

And the conservatives will be, too. Only they will be upset at the monetary angle...;)

And the moderates will be upset about every angle. :D

The whole thing sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. I don't know...I would expect to see people rioting in the streets over this.

[mhrc4]

im with both of you, i dont think itll ever go anywhere, itll make too many people upset....

[Scrooge McSam]

Makes me wonder who came up with this... just not enough to look it up.

And the key quote for me...
not to mention a disincentive to buy fuel-efficient cars.

[Darkbeer]

^That is the problem, as folks have switched to more fuel efficient vehicles, the amount of the gas tax has gone down... and the government doesn't like it...

The new system actually shifts taxes away from the gas guzzlers such as SUV's, and places more of the burden on the fuel efficient cars, including the hybrids and electric cars, since you will be paying per mile, instead of per tank.

It is stupid, what government needs to do is actually spend the money collected on the gas tax on transportation, instead of switching it to the general fund to pay for other government programs.

Gas Tax, DMV registration and license fees should go straight to the Transportation budget (and pay for the DMV). Let the state and local governments take the regular sales tax charged on gasoline for the general budget.

If this happened, we would NOT need this silly new proposal.... :eek: :snap:

[Moonliner]

The new system actually shifts taxes away from the gas guzzlers such as SUV's, and places more of the burden on the fuel efficient cars, including the hybrids and electric cars, since you will be paying per mile, instead of per tank.


I don't follow you on that one. This would seem to be a flat tax. If you drive 1,000 miles in your SUV or 1,000 miles in your hybrid you pay the same tax. How is that placing more of a burden on hybrids?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't follow you on that one. This would seem to be a flat tax. If you drive 1,000 miles in your SUV or 1,000 miles in your hybrid you pay the same tax. How is that placing more of a burden on hybrids?But look at it from a gas use perspective. "Mileage" isn't a commodity. Gas is. So an SUV driver who uses more gas per mile will be paying less tax per gallon. That will be a dramatic shift in the tax burden.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

God damn those bastards. Every time a program of theirs works, they find new ways to tax us.

In the 70s they pushed programs to force car companies to make more fuel efficient cars. They don't make the money they did in the 70's because the program WORKED. So they add taxes.

They should burn in hell for stealing from citizens, and using an ecological front to do it. :mad: Where's Ragnar Danneskjold when you need him?

[Darkbeer]

I don't follow you on that one. This would seem to be a flat tax. If you drive 1,000 miles in your SUV or 1,000 miles in your hybrid you pay the same tax. How is that placing more of a burden on hybrids?

Ok, we have a SUV that gets 10 miles to a gallon, and a Hybrid that gets 50 miles to a gallon (rounded for math sake)...

Let's look at the current taxes..

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

I am going to make this easy and round the 50.4 cents to 50 cents (out of which the state gets 32 cents), plus of course sales tax...

Each vehicle goes 1,000 miles....

The SUV would need to buy 100 gallons to go 1,000 miles, which would create $50 in tax revenue. (plus sales tax)

The Hybrid would need to buy 20 gallons, which would create $10 in tax revenue. (plus sales tax).

So right now, in this example, an SUV pays 5 times the amount of road tax as does the Hybrid.

The new proposal removes the gas tax, and replaces it with a "per mile" tax, let's say 5 cents a mile...

Now BOTH the SUV and the Hybrid pay $50 per 1,000 miles, a $40 increase to the Hybrid driver, while the SUV driver pays the same amount (of course, prior to the Peak hour extra tax)..... (Remember, this program is designed to increase tax revenues... :eek:

Basically the government would be making a lot more money, Hybrids will be paying a lot more, those who drive fuel efficient cars such as most compact and Mid-size cars (about 25 to 30 mpg), their tax goes up about 3 times....

Basically this proposal shifts the tax back to those folks who have been doing the things the government wants, which is to cut polution and gasoline usage...

Just plain DUMB!!!!!! :mad:

[Moonliner]

But look at it from a gas use perspective. "Mileage" isn't a commodity. Gas is. So an SUV driver who uses more gas per mile will be paying less tax per gallon. That will be a dramatic shift in the tax burden.

You might just as well argue that people that eat more apples are taxed more/apple. It's a usage tax. The more you use the service the more you pay. It replaces a tax that was unevenly applied to the people of California.

[Ghoulish Delight]

You might just as well argue that people that eat more apples are taxed more/apple. It's a usage tax. The more you use the service the more you pay. It replaces a tax that was unevenly applied to the people of California.Umm, no. People who eat more apples are taxed the SAME ammount per apple. That's the point of taxing per apple. They pay more gross, because they use more. With the mileage, they aren't paying per gallon. Go look at Darkbeer's example.

[Moonliner]

Ok, we have a SUV that gets 10 miles to a gallon, and a Hybrid that gets 50 miles to a gallon (rounded for math sake)...

Let's look at the current taxes..

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

I am going to make this easy and round the 50.4 cents to 50 cents (out of which the state gets 32 cents), plus of course sales tax...

Each vehicle goes 1,000 miles....

The SUV would need to buy 100 gallons to go 1,000 miles, which would create $50 in tax revenue. (plus sales tax)

The Hybrid would need to buy 20 gallons, which would create $10 in tax revenue. (plus sales tax).

So right now, in this example, an SUV pays 5 times the amount of road tax as does the Hybrid.

The new proposal removes the gas tax, and replaces it with a "per mile" tax, let's say 5 cents a mile...

Now BOTH the SUV and the Hybrid pay $50 per 1,000 miles, a $40 increase to the Hybrid driver, while the SUV driver pays the same amount (of course, prior to the Peak hour extra tax)..... (Remember, this program is designed to increase tax revenues... :eek:

Basically the government would be making a lot more money, Hybrids will be paying a lot more, those who drive fuel efficient cars such as most compact and Mid-size cars (about 25 to 30 mpg), their tax goes up about 3 times....

Basically this proposal shifts the tax back to those folks who have been doing the things the government wants, which is to cut polution and gasoline usage...

Just plain DUMB!!!!!! :mad:

Or from the other point of view... It stops unfairly taxing one segment of the population and evenly divides the tax among all drivers. Still sounds fair to me.


By the way, I forget. What type of car does your Governor drive?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Or from the other point of view... It stops unfairly taxing one segment of the population and evenly divides the tax among all drivers. Still sounds fair to me.


By the way, I forget. What type of car does your Governor drive?How is taxing people based on what they use unfair? Again, GAS is the commodity, not mileage.

[Moonliner]

Umm, no. People who eat more apples are taxed the SAME ammount per apple. That's the point of taxing per apple. They pay more gross, because they use more. With the mileage, they aren't paying per gallon. Go look at Darkbeer's example.

That would be true if this were a tax on gas. It's not. It's a tax on people that eat apples (or in this case cause wear on the roads).

[Morrigoon]

Aren't we taxed enough?

[Moonliner]

How is taxing people based on what they use unfair? Again, GAS is the commodity, not mileage.

Ps. Don't worry too much. I doubt this is a REPLACEMENT to the gas tax. It's an ADDATION to the gas tax. SUV's will still pay more and so will hybrids. Right now hybrid drivers are not paying their fair share. Under this new plan they would.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What we HAVE is a gas on tax, and that's what it should be. Gas is the commodity.

[Ghoulish Delight]

No, it's a replacement of the gas tax, that's the whole point.

[Darkbeer]

Much of government's rules regarding taxes is "social engineering"... Why are some things, such as mortgage interest tax deductible? To promote building houses... Why are Capital Gains taxes lower, to promote investment in the economy, and even further, the longer you hold onto the investment, the lower the tax. Have children, we want new citizens to help pay future taxes, so tax breaks for those folks. Newer tax breaks, deductions and credits for education, as the government want smarter workers, since the "basic labor" jobs are going oversees...

Same with the gasoline tax... Buy a car that pollutes less, uses less natural resources (aka gasoline), pay less in taxes.... This new proposal just cancels all the effort placed to get folks to use public transit and smaller cars, plus things like hybrids....

Just plain DUMB!!!!!

[Moonliner]

No, it's a replacement of the gas tax, that's the whole point.

RTA. I don't see the word "replacment" in there. I say it's a suppliment.

[Darkbeer]

Ps. Don't worry too much. I doubt this is a REPLACEMENT to the gas tax. It's an ADDATION to the gas tax. SUV's will still pay more and so will hybrids. Right now hybrid drivers are not paying their fair share. Under this new plan they would.

From the original CBS news article...



Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Uuh.
Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile (http://javascript<b></b>:vlaunch('clip=/media/2005/02/14/video674142.rm&sec=3420&vidId=3420&title=TaxingByTheMile&hitboxMLC=eveningnews');)."

[Moonliner]

Sorry, that's just fluff created by the reporter that wrote the article. Not an official statment.

[Moonliner]

Same with the gasoline tax... Buy a car that pollutes less, uses less natural resources (aka gasoline), pay less in taxes.... This new proposal just cancels all the effort placed to get folks to use public transit and smaller cars, plus things like hybrids....


Now that's a much better point. However if you keep the gas tax and add a milage tax, you still stick it to the SUV's but also have enough money to keep the roads up.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Do you have something supporting this supposed "supplement" claim? I've heard about this several times and have ALWAYS heard it referred to as a replacement.

[mousepod]

I'm siding with Darkbeer on this one.
Moonliner, the one hole in your argument (for me, at least) is that you ignore the fact that people who bought Hummers and SUVs knew exactly what they were getting into when they made their purchase, just like the folks that bought hybrids.
Luxury costs, plain and simple. It's not a liberal thing or a conservative thing, it's an American thing. And it's not a bad thing.
I consider myself slightly left of center on most issues, yet I was incredibly incensed when people here in SF were defacing SUVs in The Mission district.
I don't think there's anything wrong with buying "nice things", just don't go all socialist when you realize you have to pay for the privilege of owning them.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Heck, there's no point in just making it a supplement. Why not just raise the existing gas tax? This seems completely superflous if they just want extra tax flow, what with the expense of setting the system up.

[Not Afraid]

I lease my car with a milage limitation on it and now there's a thought of limiting or charging more for the milage I do use.

What's the point in driving a fun, fast little Mercedes then????????


Joyless turds!:mad:

[mhrc4]

I lease my car with a milage limitation on it and now there's a thought of limiting or charging more for the milage I do use.

What's the point in driving a fun, fast little Mercedes then????????
Joyless turds!:mad:

what model of little mercades?

[Moonliner]

Do you have something supporting this supposed "supplement" claim? I've heard about this several times and have ALWAYS heard it referred to as a replacement.

That's just personal opinion based on the fact that goverments vary rarely give up a tax.

So how would YOU fix the problem? It is a real problem. Less money for road maintence.

[Darkbeer]

Now that's a much better point. However if you keep the gas tax and add a milage tax, you still stick it to the SUV's but also have enough money to keep the roads up.

So now you want to raise taxes on EVERYONE!!!!! :mad:

Right now, the California government is raiding the Gasoline Tax funds, and have been for years... And to me that is the Democrats in charge, Gov. GrayOut and Gov. Terminator, they all should get their hands out of the cookie jar, and spend the money where it should be spent.. Transporation! As in roads, freeways and promoting public transit.

If they don't get there act together soon, I can see a new petition that will force the state to use gasoline taxes on roads, and not other programs thru the general fund...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Thread moved to Daily Grind

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's just personal opinion based on the fact that goverments vary rarely give up a tax.

So how would YOU fix the problem? It is a real problem. Less money for road maintence.Like I said, as little sense as just having the mileage tax makes, having both makes even less. Why create a new tax with a heafty pricetag to implement (installing the transmitters on all cars, installing receivers on all gas pumps for starters) when they can just raise the existing tax?

As for what to do to fix it, if it really is a problem, then either raise the existing tax, or better yet, like Darkbeer said, improve spending accountability. The mileage tax will do nothing but reverse any progress made towards conservation.

[Not Afraid]

what model of little mercades?

I have a 2005 C230 Kompressor. It's fun, fas (for a 4 banger especially) and a joy to drive.

[Darkbeer]

So how would YOU fix the problem? It is a real problem. Less money for road maintence.

First thing, spend the gas tax on Transporation (as mentioned earlier).

Then the first thing I would do is remove all automatic increases in the general state budget. That is a major budget issue for years.

Right now, we are spending more than we bring in. And just like if you or I get less income (such as less hours in your job, having to switch to a new company, etc.), what do we do, we tighten our belt.

That is what the state needs to do. Stop the borrowing, and cut the fat. Yes, some hard decisions would have to be made, but that is just a fact of life.

Right now, I am expected to give 32 cents a gallon to the state, plus another 16 cents or so in sales tax (based on $2 a gallon). The Gas Tax money (32 cents) should be spent on Transportation. Sales tax goes to the general fund...

So right now, about a third of the cost of gas is taxes (66.4 cents = 32 cents to the state in gas taxes, 18 cents in Fed taxes and 16 cents in Sales tax)... and now you want to add ANOTHER tax....

Be prepared for the link to the newest petition!!!!! :p

[Moonliner]

Like I said, as little sense as just having the mileage tax makes, having both makes even less. Why create a new tax with a heafty pricetag to implement (installing the transmitters on all cars, installing receivers on all gas pumps for starters) when they can just raise the existing tax?

As for what to do to fix it, if it really is a problem, then either raise the existing tax, or better yet, like Darkbeer said, improve spending accountability. The mileage tax will do nothing but reverse any progress made towards conservation.

Which brings us back to the "poison pill" (http://www.xenarchy.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=10393&postcount=8) statement I made early on.

As the number of hybrids grow you are going to have to keep raising that gas tax. Eventually it will get so high that most people will be forced into some type of hybrid/fuel cell or whatever.

[Name]

I think the entire tax thing in California is insane, If they can not make due with the revenues they are bringing in currently, and make allowances for those responsible ones that choose to drive an automobile that is far less taxing on the environment and resources, then they need to revamp the entire system. There is far to much waste in this state, to tax its people, businesses and commodities so much and still have problems is sickening. ****, they even take the fun out of mail order by imposing a "use" tax on its people. Something that is pretty much unheard of in any other state. So basically my view point is, I'll be damned if I will let them put any type of GPS on my bike to record my mileage, I enjoy my 50 miles a gallon, it is the main reason I ride a motorcycle(besides the lane splitting priveledge during extremely heavy traffic). No, they do not need to raise any more taxes, just get their God DAmn Spending under control. Isn't that something the the governator said he was going to do off the bat.

[wendybeth]

It's interesting to note how many things in Europe that we see as quaint or representitive of a certain period that actually evolved due to weird taxes. Taxes on windows in England, taxes on the width of your house in Amsterdam, etc. Then, of course, there is the matter of a certain rebellion..... I don't know how they can spin this one so the public will buy it, but if they can, they will.

[€uroMeinke]

Hmmm - pay at the pump is a hard tax to avoid, but a GPS system sounds like something that can be tampered with - thus avoiding the tax altogether. I think this a much better solution for the dishonest.

[SacTown Chronic]

You know, California was going to enact a law that allowed hybrid cars that meet certain mpg requirements to use the carpool lanes. Detroit, which as of now cannot make hybrids that can compete with Japan when it comes to fuel efficiency, cried foul and claimed the law was unfair and put American auto makers at a competitive disadvantage. Viola! No new law -- yet.


"Privacy advocates say it's more like big brother riding on your bumper, not to mention a disincentive to buy fuel-efficient cars."


So, who's behind this crapola? Big oil.....or big auto?