Federal mandate for GPS tracking of vehicles coming??

[98valk]

The DOT has wanted to mandate this since the mid '90s when I was first reading about it, they also back then wanted to implement "no vehicle older then 5 yrs can be driven on the hwy", they were using air polution as the reason to pass the law.
mileage tax- a similar program is already being used in london, and oregon has tried to pass a similar law for yrs.
draw your own conclusions.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Driving-tax-gains-favor-as-cnnm-3287317126.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

Because greater fuel economy is letting motorists drive more miles using less gas, the current gas tax that funds the federal government's efforts to build and maintain highways isn't generating enough money.

A driving tax, officially known as a "vehicle miles traveled" tax, could close that gap.

While many see a driving tax as more efficient than the gas tax, there are privacy concerns over how driving information would be collected. Plus, lawmakers opposed to the idea say it places a heavier burden on motorists from rural states.

Because greater fuel economy is letting motorists drive more miles using less gas, the current gas tax that funds the federal government's efforts to build and maintain highways isn't generating enough money.

A driving tax, officially known as a "vehicle miles traveled" tax, could close that gap.

While many see a driving tax as more efficient than the gas tax, there are privacy concerns over how driving information would be collected. Plus, lawmakers opposed to the idea say it places a heavier burden on motorists from rural states.

[Bobbo]

I would like to see a GPS recording device for this tax.  I could make a tidy sum designing and selling spoof devices!   

[Bob E.]

Since I work in the transportation industry (highway/structural engineer) I've seen all sides of this.  Certainly, lack of infrastructure funding is a real problem.  And even though gas taxes are about the most efficient and easy way to raise revenues, raising them is politically toxic, especially when gas prices are so high as they are now. I used to wonder why the taxes weren't based on percentage like a sales tax.  This would seem to be a simple way to solve the political issues.  But after it was explained to me by a former PennDOT District Executive and Secretary of Transportation how the revenues were collected, it was pretty simple.  The bottom line is that it is just about the easiest way to enforce because every station has a meter on the pump and all the state has to do is periodically inspect the meters, verify against delivery receipts (also metered), and do some simple math.  If it were tied to a percentage cost, the daily fluctuations of gas prices would make it too difficult to calculate and enforce (not to mention budget for). So you would lose efficiency because of the need for more beauracracy.

But really, what are the options?  Mileage taxes are difficult to enforce because of the expense to equip all of the existing cars with GPS devices, not to mention the whole privacy/tracking arguements.  The other option would be to have the mileage recorded at the time of annual inspection.  But, many states do not have inspections.  Another option is turning interstates into toll roads, which you are starting to see in many states.  They've tried it 3 times now in PA with I-80, but there are alot of federal statutes and regulations in place that make converting roads too toll roads difficult.  FHWA keeps turning PA down because the revenues would have to be spent solely on I-80.  BUt PA is trying to use it as a revenue stream to supplement the rest of the DOT bridge/highway maintenance programs...which isn't allowed.

In the end, the money has to come from somewhere.  The question is where?

[ptgb]

  ...BUt PA is trying to use it as a revenue stream to supplement the rest of the DOT bridge/highway maintenance programs...which isn't allowed...

Didn't they, at least at first, want to use I-80 toll monies to pay for public transportation in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? If so, I can see why it would tick off many. I can spit from my yard and hit I-80 and I am situated about 10 miles into Ohio from the PA line... I use I-80 often in PA and would be very much against paying to keep the buses running in Philly or Pittsburgh.

[John Schmidt]

I would like to see a GPS recording device for this tax.  I could make a tidy sum designing and selling spoof devices!   

And I'd be one of your first customers.    As for the odometer, I'd be riding a 200k mile bike with only 50k on it, same with my cars. 

[Jabba]

But really, what are the options? 

FairTax.

Eliminate ALL the rest of them.  PERIOD.

Jabba

[RoadKill]

They just want a cut of the money you make,and a % of the money you spend. And a little more to invest FOR you. Now they just want a little of what is left over. What the big deal?  They are going to take it one way or another so just spread the wealth 

[Gryphon Rider]

The simplest and fairest way to have a road user fee is to continue the $ per gallon tax and just increase it until desired revenues are received.  One more type of tax (such as a $ per vehicle mile travelled tax) requires more administration costs, both to the government and to the vehicle operator.  The fact of the matter is that heavier vehicles that cause more wear and tear on the roads also happen to require more fuel per mile to move that weight.  I'd rather pay a higher tax per gallon and have roads properly maintained than wreck my wheels and suspension on poorly maintained roads.

[Bob E.]

  ...BUt PA is trying to use it as a revenue stream to supplement the rest of the DOT bridge/highway maintenance programs...which isn't allowed...

Didn't they, at least at first, want to use I-80 toll monies to pay for public transportation in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? If so, I can see why it would tick off many. I can spit from my yard and hit I-80 and I am situated about 10 miles into Ohio from the PA line... I use I-80 often in PA and would be very much against paying to keep the buses running in Philly or Pittsburgh.

I believe public transit was one of the issues...at least one of the times the feds shot it down.  But I'm not 100% sure.  As for the locals such as yourself using I-80, as I understand it, there weren't going to be tolls at every exit.  So it would be possible to get on the highway and drive a ways and get off at the next exit or two without paying any tolls.  This was one of the deals put in place to satisfy the locals.  In addition, the PTC was going to use some of the revenues to improve the local roads to handle the potential increase in local traffic bypassing I-80 to avoid tolls.  The problem is that the rules say that revenues generated by a toll road must be used specifically on that toll road.  So that was shot down too.

[Brad]

The simplest and fairest way to have a road user fee is to continue the $ per gallon tax and just increase it until desired revenues are received.  One more type of tax (such as a $ per vehicle mile travelled tax) requires more administration costs, both to the government and to the vehicle operator.  The fact of the matter is that heavier vehicles that cause more wear and tear on the roads also happen to require more fuel per mile to move that weight.  I'd rather pay a higher tax per gallon and have roads properly maintained than wreck my wheels and suspension on poorly maintained roads.

With more electric cars, compressed natural gas cars, homemade biodiesel, plug-in hybrid cars and other tax free alternatives using the roads the gas tax is no longer the "fairest" way to pay for the roads.  There are now more and more big rigs using compressed natural gas as well and they are heavy users of the roads.  I am not a fan of big brother tracking me with gps and I don't have the answer to the problem but I do know that the current system is not going to work any longer

[Bob E.]

But really, what are the options?  

FairTax.

Eliminate ALL the rest of them.  PERIOD.

Jabba

As I see it, the problem with the fairtax is that the term "fair" is very subjective.  Not everyone will agree as to what is fair. Contrary to what the fairtax.org website says, the fairtax is not very fair to lower to middle income people, even with the 50% rebate for those under the 2xpoverty line. The problem is that of simple math.  Lower income people spend nearly 100% of their income.  So someone at just over 2x poverty line would spend the full 23% on taxes.  I can assure you that my federal taxes are MUCH less than 23%.  In fact, having just paid my taxes, after deductions for my dependents (my only real deduction), I paid about 4% of my real gross salary.  So even when added to FICA it is much less than 23%.  Meanwhile, millionaires generally spend much less than their salary, saving or investing the rest of their income to amass piles of wealth.  So, if they spent half of their salary to "live", they are now only paying an effective rate of about 12.5%.  And the problem is that the higher the salary, the lower the likely effective tax rate.  As you can see, this system would HIGHLY favor the rich and would place a much higher burden on folks with modest incomes.  I don't see this as fair at all.  In fact, this would actually be worse than the flat tax proposals that are out there.  I do agree that the tax system does need an overhaul to clean out all of the garbage the lobbyists have pushed through over the years. But the "fairtax" isn't it.

The thing is that we as a citizenry demand alot from our government at all levels, from defense to infrastructure to scientific research to education to clean air and water to SS and medicare just to name a few.  And those programs, like it or not, are expensive...and we need to pay for them.  The question is how.

[Jess from VA]

But really, what are the options? 

FairTax.

Eliminate ALL the rest of them.  PERIOD.

Jabba

I like Fair Tax plenty, but the the solution is to cut the federal govt in half (or more) first, and make them live on what they are collecting now with no tax increases of any kind for any purpose.

[Bob E.]

But really, what are the options? 

FairTax.

Eliminate ALL the rest of them.  PERIOD.

Jabba

I like Fair Tax plenty, but the the solution is to cut the federal govt in half (or more) first, and make them live on what they are collecting now with no tax increases of any kind for any purpose.

Cut government by 50%??  What could you possibly cut that would total 50% without totally devastating this country?  And cutting services that you think should be left to the states (like education or highways) doesn't count because that would only transfer the tax burden and not really lower taxes overall.  I'd like to hear specific cuts you would make to get to 50%.

[Jess from VA]

I'd like to hear specific cuts you would make to get to 50%.

I bet you would, and then we could argue about it.  No thanks.

This country runs despite the Federal Government, not because of the Federal Government. Cutting the G will not devastate the Country.

[Bob E.]

I'd like to hear specific cuts you would make to get to 50%.

I bet you would, and then we could argue about it.  No thanks.

This country runs despite the Federal Government, not because of the Federal Government. Cutting the G will not devastate the Country.

I don't want to have an arguement.  My point is that it is real easy to just say "Cut 50%", but alot of what government does is necessary and and was enacted to address a real issue at the time.  Medicare, for example, was enacted because the elderly couldn't get health insurance at any price.  If it were eliminated now, who is going to insure a 75yr old with diabetes and heart disease?  The republicans suggest turning it into a $15,000 voucher program.  Hell, at 40 years old, it would cost me almost that much for insurance on the open market.  I pay nearly $7000 a year now for my inusrance "benefit" from my employer for my family. Medicare is necessary.  Even the oil subsidies everyone is so up in arms over right now were put in place because back then, they were ncesessary to encourage domestic oil production because the price of oil at around $10 a barrel was too low to make exploration profitable.  But now, with oil around $100 a barrel or so, they aren't necessary.  Even the oil companies have admitted that.  So when you get down to it, cutting 50% is alot easier said than done.  Defense, Social Security, and Medicare account for something like 2/3 of the total budget, and all 3 of them are political 3rd rails.  And the fact that people like yourself just make general statements, but refuse to go on record and actually say what they would cut is the reason this problem is as bad as it is, and won't likely get better any time soon.

[F6Dave]

I'm a Republican with a Libertarian point of view, having switched from being a Democrat several years ago when I finally realized liberals had very little interest in liberty. While the government has clearly exceeded it's taxing capacity (look up Hauser's Law) the one tax you can make a reasonable case for raising is the gas tax, IF IT IS USED FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION.  Providing infrastructure is one of the few legitimate and necessary functions of government.  Since the tax is based on volume, not price, it isn't indexed to inflation as are sales and income taxes.  And the ever increasing fuel economy of all vehicles also reduces the amount collected per mile over time.  So this is one tax that clearly needs to be raised once in a while.

[Bob E.]

While the government has clearly exceeded it's taxing capacity (look up Hauser's Law)...

From wikipedia:

However, 2009 tax collections, at 15% of GDP, were the lowest level of the past 50 years and 4.5 percentage points lower than Hauser's Law suggests.[6] The Heritage Foundation has stated that the recent world economic recession pushed receipts to a level significantly below the historical average.[7]

It appears that even according to Hauser...tax revenues are currently less than optimal.  Not enough to make up the entire deficit, sure.  But to say we are overtaxed while quoting a conservative (backed by the heritage foundation according to wiki) economist that apparently disagrees is disingenuous.

[GreenLantern57]

So, getting back to GAS TAX.

Self-made bio-diesel, Natural gas, electric vehicles.  How do you force money out of them for the wear and tear on our roads?
Some states are starting to see this as a real threat to maintaining roads. Long ago, California offered the trade-a-clunker to clean the air. It worked, too good, people replaced that 8 mpg vehicle and upgraded to something around 20 mpg or better. Let us see what happened. Gas sales tax plummeted. Miles drive per day did not decrease, but someone that filled up every other day, now only had to fill up twice a week.  Those clunkers also needed repairs. So mechanics and parts houses that pay sales tax on their daily business also had a drop in revenue. New cars also do not need tires for a while. There goes that tax revenue.  Once the program was over, car sales also took a dive.  Look at the whole picture and the pennies added up quick. Just another case of blinders on when you are pushing an agenda. 
Electric vehicles, start adding a fee at license plate renewal takes away an advantage that someone took to do a small part of enviromental care.  <we will not argue the toxic waste that is the batteries right now>
Self-made bio-diesel.  How do you track that?
Natural gas, just make the tax an equivelant rate to gasoline BTU.  Cuts out the advantage again, but they are using the same roads as gasoline and diesel vehicles that are paying taxes already.

Who has the answer?  Dammit, I mean a real answer!

[ValkFlyer]

So, getting back to GAS TAX.

Self-made bio-diesel, Natural gas, electric vehicles.  How do you force money out of them for the wear and tear on our roads?
Some states are starting to see this as a real threat to maintaining roads. Long ago, California offered the trade-a-clunker to clean the air. It worked, too good, people replaced that 8 mpg vehicle and upgraded to something around 20 mpg or better. Let us see what happened. Gas sales tax plummeted. Miles drive per day did not decrease, but someone that filled up every other day, now only had to fill up twice a week.  Those clunkers also needed repairs. So mechanics and parts houses that pay sales tax on their daily business also had a drop in revenue. New cars also do not need tires for a while. There goes that tax revenue.  Once the program was over, car sales also took a dive.  Look at the whole picture and the pennies added up quick. Just another case of blinders on when you are pushing an agenda. 
Electric vehicles, start adding a fee at license plate renewal takes away an advantage that someone took to do a small part of enviromental care.  <we will not argue the toxic waste that is the batteries right now>
Self-made bio-diesel.  How do you track that?
Natural gas, just make the tax an equivelant rate to gasoline BTU.  Cuts out the advantage again, but they are using the same roads as gasoline and diesel vehicles that are paying taxes already.

Who has the answer?  Dammit, I mean a real answer!

Oh come on now, it's simple...Bend Over!  That's what's expected!!!        

[Bob E.]

So, getting back to GAS TAX.

Self-made bio-diesel, Natural gas, electric vehicles.  How do you force money out of them for the wear and tear on our roads?
Some states are starting to see this as a real threat to maintaining roads. Long ago, California offered the trade-a-clunker to clean the air. It worked, too good, people replaced that 8 mpg vehicle and upgraded to something around 20 mpg or better. Let us see what happened. Gas sales tax plummeted. Miles drive per day did not decrease, but someone that filled up every other day, now only had to fill up twice a week.  Those clunkers also needed repairs. So mechanics and parts houses that pay sales tax on their daily business also had a drop in revenue. New cars also do not need tires for a while. There goes that tax revenue.  Once the program was over, car sales also took a dive.  Look at the whole picture and the pennies added up quick. Just another case of blinders on when you are pushing an agenda. 
Electric vehicles, start adding a fee at license plate renewal takes away an advantage that someone took to do a small part of enviromental care.  <we will not argue the toxic waste that is the batteries right now>
Self-made bio-diesel.  How do you track that?
Natural gas, just make the tax an equivelant rate to gasoline BTU.  Cuts out the advantage again, but they are using the same roads as gasoline and diesel vehicles that are paying taxes already.

Who has the answer?  Dammit, I mean a real answer!

All good points and I don't have an answer.  And these issues are why you are seeing people rethink different ways to collect the revenue like the GPS mileage trackers, etc.  If a mileage tax is the answer, and with the various types of fuels being developed it just may be the way to go, I think the best answer would be to have the mileage recorded at an inspection site.  And for states that do not have inspections, then you would have to set up that system.  Either that or they should develop the GPS devices in such a way that they only record mileage and do not track/record locations.  But with either of these methods, you would have to address potential fraud issues by making the odometers/GPS devices tamper proof.

On the other hand, if we as a country really want to motivate people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and move towards cleaner fuels like natural gas and/or batteries, then maybe raising the existing gas tax is the answer.  If trucking companies are really moving towards natural gas, and the trucks are what cause most of the damage, then maybe you could enact an equivalent tax on natural gas or other fuels like bio-diesel as well.  I don't think this would address the "self-made" bio-diesel, but really I don't think you would lose out much because the volume of this fuel is really small.

[Jack]

I would like to see a GPS recording device for this tax.  I could make a tidy sum designing and selling spoof devices!   

+1

[F6Dave]

From wikipedia:

However, 2009 tax collections, at 15% of GDP, were the lowest level of the past 50 years and 4.5 percentage points lower than Hauser's Law suggests.[6] The Heritage Foundation has stated that the recent world economic recession pushed receipts to a level significantly below the historical average.[7]

It appears that even according to Hauser...tax revenues are currently less than optimal.  Not enough to make up the entire deficit, sure.  But to say we are overtaxed while quoting a conservative (backed by the heritage foundation according to wiki) economist that apparently disagrees is disingenuous.

So what’s your point?  That we could increase taxes now without throwing the country into a deeper recession, and reducing tax revenues even more?  History, and even many on the left, wouldn’t agree.  BTW Hauser’s law, described scantily and with some bias (and a distortion of Heritage's position) in that Wiki entry, concedes short-term anomalies can be caused by booms and recessions.  But the historical reality of a maximum taxing capacity does not change.

My point was simple.  The gas tax, being a user fee, and when used for its intended purpose, enjoys broad support on both sides of the political spectrum.  And since inflation and advances in technology erode its effectiveness, it is both fair and logical to increase it from time to time.

[shortleg]

 What do you say.
   Did I use a big enough Spoon.
        Shortleg[Dave]