© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/a-taxing-ordeal/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
Many people have started to cut their use of fossil fuels. Some because of the onerous price of gasoline, some to curtail global warming, and some because they want to embrace the up-and-coming technologies of alternative energy. Most of the outcomes of this movement have been positive things, but in 2003 the state of Oregon started worrying about what would happen if normal people began getting too good at not needing oil, and bought less gasoline—therefore paid less gasoline tax.
It’s not a problem at present, but legislators want to start thinking of the solution now in case hybrid gas/electric cars or fuel cell automobiles start cutting into their bottom line. Of two viable solutions, the legislators’ darling is to require every car on their highways to have a GPS (Global Positioning System) unit installed that will track where the automobile goes, tally the distance, and figure a fee for that. By this means they hope to make a fair and even tax where everyone pays for the miles they travel, regardless of how much fuel they use getting there–this is a good idea because an H2 causes just as much wear and tear on a road as a Hybrid Honda. Cough.
It is a reasonable fear that the money earmarked for the upkeep of roadways will dwindle and die, and inevitably an alternate source of funding will need to be found. One proposal would involve a means of reading a vehicle’s odometer to calculate the mileage tax. This is unacceptable to some because it fails to log in what state all the driving occurred, and cannot tell at what times this driving was done. That, and odometers have proven over time to be vulnerable to some manipulation by the less-than-scrupulous. Hence the GPS solution is fancied by those who think that GPS is invulnerable to human hacking.
Many people, however, fear that allowing the government to install tracking systems into our cars opens a serious privacy issue. There are sentiments that a third party would manage all the GPS data, and only surrender to the government what the user wants the government to see. Not unlike the odometer, however, it seems apparent that such a system could also be compromised, and since there is no way to opt out of the taxing program, any driver could be open to such exploitation. Data like one’s driving habits, schedule, and main haunts could then be available to people we don’t want to have it.
The state of California is eyeing the idea of a mileage tax hungrily, with the added notion of making the tax higher during peak driving hours. This is a win-win for them: either businesses get flexible and allow people to work different places at different times, thus acknowledging obedience to the government, or they just get a truckload more money from it!
The social engineering that could result from such a change, however, is interesting. Will fees based solely on distance cause people to cluster into more densely populated urban centers? Will it make for an increase to internet providers allowing for telecommuting? If there is no tax benefit for using fuel-efficient vehicles will it slow our divergence from foreign oil? Maybe we should examine the echelons of this idea to find if there are any owners of oil stock.
Further reading:
NPR Story
Wired News
CBS News story
© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/a-taxing-ordeal/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Why not just tax all oil usage instead of just petrol, and keep increasing the tax as usage falls? (So that the actual amount of tax received by the government stays constant.) That way no tax revenue is lost, and people have even more incentive to stop using oil. The only people that lose are the oil companies – which of course means that the government will never, ever, ever do it.
I’m sure there’s a flaw in this plan given that I thought it up in about 20 seconds, but it’s a damn sight better than taxing efficient automobiles as much as inefficient ones.
Where do you draw the line? Is anything that’s not human-powered fair game? What about bicycles? Would they get taxed as well, or only if they’re using the road? What about if I walk to work? Wear and tear on pavement, y’know. If I invent a one-person vehicle that looks like a car and uses the roads but is powered like a bicycle, does that get taxed?
What stops me from removing the GPS device from my car and leaving it in a bush in a parking lot?
Does the president get to be excluded from this scheme? If so, that’s hypocrisy; if not, that’s a security risk. Do you really want the president’s car to be transmitting detailed information about its position all the time?
Swiss cheese, my friends, swiss cheese.
Perhaps I misunderstand… Why can’t the government just apply the same tax per gallon of gas to ethanol that it applies to “gasahol”? I know it’s not perfect, but I far prefer that to being tracked via GPS.
One other thing I thought of is how does carpooling factor into this plan. Is it fair to tax only one person when people are trying to do the right thing and keep extra cars off the road and pollution out of the air?
PresMatt has a good point. Why cant they start to tax the new forms of car power and still get their money that way?
I think we need less stupid people running this country.
Or maybe, the state could just stop spending so much so they wouldn’t need the tax?
This is why we need floating cars!
Seriously though they should just have higher environmental/luxury taxes on bigger, less efficient vehicles and use the earnings for road maintenance. Give insurance deduction to car poolers to help increase that trend. At the same time cut public transit fares, this should help reduce road wear. Possibly also increasing fines for people who leave their winter chains on, where they aren’t needed/allowed!
An interesting thing about GPS that I heard from a Taxi driver in India. Apparently they stick a sheet of carbon copying paper on the GPS receiver and the system could not perform the tracking job. I do not know how far it is true. But he said their employer rolled out the GPS system and employees did not like to be tracked, and because of the carbon sheets the system was a total failure. Is the system so vulnerable for simple thing like this?
Is the system so vulnerable for simple thing like this?”
Anything that creates a Faraday cage around the device will necessarily block it from working. I think, however, it is possible to wire the GPS so that it uses a significant portion of the car (maybe the hood or the whole body, for that matter) as an antenna.
A simple glass of water can take out an entire computer. Everything has a weakness.
All of this talk about the gov’t needing more money makes me wonder how much my congressman gets paid…I’m no commie or anything but if they’re looking for money, well…
The problem with any government issue is there’s no competition, so they need to challenge third parties to come up with a solution that follow certain criteria. Remember the “X Prize?” Same thing. Secondly, there needs to be a hit movie, or TV show that makes SUVs seem uncool. That will be more effective than the millions of dollars spent by environmentalists trying to do the same thing.
I agree with white_matter. If government just cut out all the stupid pet projects and pork barrel spending, there would be plenty of money left over for real things. And I have to take issue with your statement that a “H2 causes just as much wear and tear on a road as a Hybrid Honda.” The H2 weighs 8600 lbs., whereas the Honda Civic hybrid weighs only 2655 lbs. I can’t imagine that the Honda does as much damage to the road as a vehicle more than three times its weight. People are already freaking out about RFIDs which can only send a signal a few feet. I don’t think the majority of the country will sit still for tracking units in their cars. I know I won’t.
Just wait until they start mailing speeding tickets that could also be generated from the GPS data.
I like the idea of an escalating fuel tax to always bring in enough revenue.
It sounds to me that Orwell was about a century off with “1984.” Big Brother is coming soon.
What about, when you buy your car and register it, a state road tax is calculated on the weight of the car. Thus the heavier the car the more tax you pay, this will put and end to the craze massive SUV’s on the road.
It makes sense, a tuck does a lot of damage to the road, where as a small car does very little. We need to tax the people that do the damage.
The up side for the government is that they now have the ability to Tax Hybrid cars. And you will still keep the petrol tax.
If you look at the new Hybrid cars they are a bit heavier than a car of the same shape and size, this is due to the batteries weight in the Hybrid. So you end up paying a little more on Road tax, but a lot less on Petrol Tax.
Now you will have a society that not only are trying to use less petrol, they are also not buying such big cars, which reduces fuel consumption, thus makes the world a better place.
It’s a win win situation.
Marius: you obviously lack the word “sarcasm” in your vocabulary. Let me help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sarcasm
Have you noticed the “cough” at the end of the paragraph? :-/
Unfortunately, taxing heavier vehicles at a higher rate probably won’t happen. It makes too much sense; common sense is in short supply these days.
A while ago there was talk about eliminating the tax incentive that allows dentists and lawyers to write off most of the cost of their Hummers (and similar vehicles). Since that tax incentive was origninally designed to help farmers, shouldn’t they change the incentive so that it only applies to vehicles designated for agricultural use? Perhaps if the owners of these large vehicles had to bear the costs associated with purchasing and operating such a large vehicle we would see fewer Hummers (and their like) on the road.
How much would these GPS systems cost to make and install on a vehicle?
But how do you differentiate between the farmer who buys a big truck and uses it around his farm, rarely travelling on the road, and the soccer mom who buys the same truck and commutes 60 miles round trip?
Taxing the use of the vehicle on public roads is the only fair way. To date, the best way is to tax the fuel. Economy cars pay less tax per mile than a heavy truck. The little old lady who drives to church and back once a week pays less tax per year than the hummer owner that commutes to work daily.
At this point the number of alternate fuels on the road account for such a small percentage of drivers it should not be a concern to any of the states.
I do agree that tracking cars with GPS is a complete invasion of privacy. The states should start with raising the gas tax and when that’s not feasible then figure some other solution. I considered maybe an electronic odometer but that still seems like too much information.
A thousand pardons, I did not realize that ‘cough’ was meant to indicate sarcasm.
let them try to put a gps in my car and see how long it stays there…
just stop using your cars, people.
you’d be surprised how little you _actually_ need one…
and, you get to show the finger to “the man” while you”re at it…
Already mentioned that in another article: In Germany we’re paying about 5 bucks a gallon, all due to tax.
It’s effective, in a way. A bunch of people can’t afford their car any more and those driving Humvee’s don’t care – they can pay the added cost anyways. As a consequence, there are armies of compact cars on the road (and they really suck noodles to look at) and the SUVs are still getting more and more. Also the diesels are multiplying and blowing cancer-causing particles all over us in the cities. So cars are getting smaller and bigger but not better.
By the way, do ya’ll really think them taxes would be used for rebuilding the roads? The taxes we’re paying here are used to feed our hopelessly oversized social system. Yours would probably be going into the Iraqi fiasco. I just read the war in Iraq will cost the U.S. according to a rather conservative estimation somewhere between one and two trillion dollars! Lord, help me!
It seems like a very sensible idea that the American government should try and keep as many high-polluting cars running as possible. Sending worldwide climate out of control with irresponsible emssions is a much more efficent way of ruining the planet than invading every country individually. Keep up the good work Georgey-boy.
AntonOlsen said:
“The states should start with raising the gas tax and when that’s not feasible then figure some other solution. I considered maybe an electronic odometer but that still seems like too much information.”
AntonOlsen;
This is the focus of the article. Indeed, government officials are trying to “figure some other solution”. They are trying to be preemtive here.
It would figure that some US states would inact more taxation. Didn’t you people separate because of unfair taxation? Some states institute toll roads in order to get money yet the roads seem to be the last thing they ever fix up. You people have lost so many rights since 9/11, are paying more taxes. It’s got me wondering if a revisit of the Boston Tea Party is in order?
Many engines are not designed to run on gasohol. It produces a much more violent explosion and will damage your pistons.
Hybrid cars which run the electrical motor in generator mode are the way to go. A lot of power is used (and ultimately wasted) to brake, then accelerate.
REVOLUTION! TRUTH! LIBERTY! REASONABLY NEGOTIATED AFFECTION! A HARD BOILED EGG!
Against the oppression of a “worlde gonne madd”, one mann standes reddey to fight for the woman he luvs.
(WITHE 1000 ELEFANTS!)
Sorry, I had to. But really, this is BS. There exists more than enough revenue in the form of our income taxes to pay for the printing of money, the training and up-keep of a standing military, the formation and maintenence of our transportation system, and to pay the representatives of our government a fair wage. Is there anything else that we simply cannot take care of in the private sector? Do we really need the government spending the kind of money that they do to test things like the flow rate of katchsup, or dropping copious amounts of scratch on farmers TO KEEP THEM FROM GROWING FOOD! Good steaming crap. I just now looked down and noticed the soapbox forming underneath my feet has risen to a hieght that I’m not comfortable with, so I will step down now and leave this matter to those who I pay to know better.
Sometimes it’s better to light a flamethrower, than to curse the darkness.
Well the GPS solution is absolutely unacceptable….though I must wonder like carcar if there isnt already enough revenue from state and federal income tax to cover road maintenece…
As is usually the case…it is not a matter of where to find and generate new sources of revenue. Instead, like the rest of the world, governments need to STOP WASTING THE MONIES THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPENDING!
There is nothing that government can do that private business can’t do better and cheaper. I can’t believe people think more taxes solve problems. When the US still can’t account for 50 billion dollars that dissapeared before 9/11 just shows how inept they are. All roads should be toll roads, privatley owned. You only pay for the up keep of the roads that you drive on. If you don’t like that road, take a differant route.
Logan says: All roads should be toll roads, privatley owned. You only pay for the up keep of the roads that you drive on. If you don’t like that road, take a differant route.
Whatever you’re eating to make you think this way… …you should change your diet.
Privatize every road, instill a toll on every road, and you still end up with government involvement. Big Brother will have to monitor an entire network of now “corporate highways”. It would just be another corporate industry in with the likes of electrical utilities, airlines, and telephone carriers. The damn government would use it as another ploy to line their pockets utilizing the protect citizens from unfair industry theory yet again. The system we have now works fine, you pay more taxes if you use more fuel. It’s the government’s inability to implement a realistic and working budget that needs to be addressed.
I have a feeling that most people think that the entire U.S. is going along with this plan, but that is not the case. This is just in Oregon, and the state is testing it on about 300 cars by Portland. In addition to adding a GPS to each car, they also have a Wi-Fi transmiter, and at every gas station this unit would send your millage ( and possibly where you traveled). If this plan goes gets off of the ground (which it might, our gov has a habit of bypassing all of the legustar and doing it anyway) it would cost around $300-$500 for each unit, plus every gas station in the state would need Wi-Fi service.
The question, as always, SHOULD be, how much does it really take to run this country? Because no matter how much we give it never seems to be enough.
Any politician that is concerned that a reduction in a practice that is bad in itself, such as smoking or consumtion of gas or alcohol, will lead to reduced tax intakes should be unceremoniously booted from office for sheer lack of foresight. There is always some other form of spending to replace it that will generate the shortfall and probably more.
Marius said: ” I don’t think the majority of the country will sit still for tracking units in their cars. I know I won’t.”
I’m new here, and reading all the old posts, so I realize that no one may ever see this.
Marius, I have to disagree with you on this point. We already have tracking units of a type in our cars. The OMD computer that is in your car is required to be there by law. It was placed there in part for the ability to hook in and download the emissions. If you are driving a newer car with the OMD II, it also tracks things like, has the car ever been redlined, has the stutterbox ever been engaged, ect. With a new gen. OMD, a GPS tracking chip would be installed and there would be very little that you could do about it. Disengage the OMD and the car doesn’t run.
It sucks, but that’s what happens when you allow wacko’s to write the laws.
By the way, this coming from someone (me) that has worked in car dealerships, when someone brings in a Mustang (or any sports car) for engine warranty, the first thing done is check the OMD II to see if the car has ever been redlined or if it has been rechiped. If either has happened even once, the entire warranty is void.
Did I miss something? Why not just make a mandatory road tax as part of owning a car? The government has taxes for things like public education, even if your children go to private school, so why not a road tax?
I agree with everyone that says that they should just have to look in the pockets of the politicians in this country for the extra money. They definately don’t need to invent some other way of getting us to fork over our hard earned cash. Hell, take it from the insurance companies!!! Talk about legal stealing. It’s a law that you have to have insurance on your car (which i understand and agree with) but when you are actually in an accident whether it was your fault or not they will raise your rates for a period of time. I bet if you do the math the amount that they raised your rates would probably have fixed your car (or the other guy’s car) if you just handed the money right out of your pocket. So where did the money that you had been paying the insurance companies for all those years go? Right into their pockets. It’s dispicable (I know I can’t spell)
Actually most of the money taken from the average joe by insurance companies goes into all the lawsuits and such they have to deal with. Whenever two people have an accident, the one can sue the other for damages and fault. Insurance isnt there for the initial damage of the car itself. It is to protect average joe from average jerk who wants to sue the second he feels he has been wronged or inconvienced in some way.
For instance, there was an accident I was involved in. Nothing serious. In fact there was barely any damage. I sustained no damage, and the car in front of me barely carried a dent. Afterwards I heard the insurance companies were having it out cause of damages to the frame, neck injuries, etc. Basically they saw an oppertunity to fight for each other’s money and went for it. Insurance now is less about keeping people safe and providing a service and more about us paying for protection against money badgers heh.
So to answer your questions directly, the money that is taken from your pocket is normally used for defending the accidents its clients have. Also insurance fraud plays a big part in your rate for the area. They are just trying to make money doing something they really should be losing money on for the most part. Think about it, claims today are in the tens of thousands if you stubbed your toe. For big accidents it could be hundreds of thousands or even millions. That money has to come from somewhere, thus your increased rate when you have an accident.
This is applied to pretty much all forms of insurance. Car insurance only being topped by medical insurance if I remember correctly.
Cars don’t damage roads, no matter how much they weigh. Road damage occurs due to wind, rain, ice, sun, plants, et cetera. In short, forces of nature. Just look at roads that are driven on versus those that aren’t.
Carcar said: “Sometimes it’s better to light a flamethrower, than to curse the darkness.”
’nuff said!!