Yeah, that will encourage people to drive cars that are "better for the environment".

Part of your inspection will be a mileage reading. Then next year they check it again. Then you get a bill.

Or they can go fark themselves.

Learn how to live within your limits. The rest of us farking do.

If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for the government.

pudding7: Isn't that part of the taxes I pay when I buy gas?

/averages around 60mph on the 405, 80 miles round trip every day
//at 40mpg
///motorcycle FTW

The issue is that as cars get better and better mileage the state is getting less revenue. They could raise gas taxes but then that would end up hitting the poor (the people who simply cannot afford a Prius) the hardest.

cannotsuggestaname: this showed up last year and was shot down then. There is no chance I am putting a government owned or operated GPS device in any one of my vehicles.

Yup, this will never get passed just for that reason alone. Plus I'm willing to bet that the car owner would be responsible to pay for it and its installation.

"the plan would likely involve GPS-like devices installed in cars"

So the state will keep track of my trips to strip clubs, adult bookstores, and "massage" parlors? Hmmm.

Radioactive Ass: pudding7: Isn't that part of the taxes I pay when I buy gas?

/averages around 60mph on the 405, 80 miles round trip every day
//at 40mpg
///motorcycle FTW

The issue is that as cars get better and better mileage the state is getting less revenue. They could raise gas taxes but then that would end up hitting the poor (the people who simply cannot afford a Prius) the hardest.

cannotsuggestaname: this showed up last year and was shot down then. There is no chance I am putting a government owned or operated GPS device in any one of my vehicles.

Yup, this will never get passed just for that reason alone. Plus I'm willing to bet that the car owner would be responsible to pay for it and its installation.

This would hit the lower middle class more than the 'poor'. I'm speaking of the real workers who have to travel 100 miles a day to work in order to afford a home.

What I don't understand is, why would a tracking device be necessary? Why not just have a yearly odometer reading (with a multiplier based on vehicle weight, since heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads)? I can see that people wouldn't want to pay tax if they weren't actually driving on a public road, maybe, but beyond parking lots and driveways, most people don't drive off public roads. And if you're only wanting to charge for certain stretches of road, well, isn't that what toll roads are for?

I wonder how many GPS "malfunctions" will happen

Peki: California already has a huge problem with fraud in their smog inspection system. This would just give mechanics another thing they could charge under the table for so they can "fix" it for you. That GPS device would be a bit harder to mess with.

Okay, but that still doesn't address just adding toll roads. Also, GPS jammers aren't that hard to find. Link

NightSteel: What I don't understand is, why would a tracking device be necessary? Why not just have a yearly odometer reading (with a multiplier based on vehicle weight, since heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads)? I can see that people wouldn't want to pay tax if they weren't actually driving on a public road, maybe, but beyond parking lots and driveways, most people don't drive off public roads. And if you're only wanting to charge for certain stretches of road, well, isn't that what toll roads are for?

A pure odometer reading could leads to disputes. I am not a tax lawyer, but I can't imagine that if this tax was implemented California would be able to tax you on miles driven outside of the state. Drivers could just say that they spent most of the miles on a road trip cross country and only a couple hundred miles were spent getting from the bay to Nevada/Arizona/Oregon/etc.

No matter what, the proposed tax is asinine.

NightSteel: What I don't understand is, why would a tracking device be necessary? Why not just have a yearly odometer reading (with a multiplier based on vehicle weight, since heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads)? I can see that people wouldn't want to pay tax if they weren't actually driving on a public road, maybe, but beyond parking lots and driveways, most people don't drive off public roads. And if you're only wanting to charge for certain stretches of road, well, isn't that what toll roads are for?

They would be able to track peak or off-peak.

Charging by the time of the day.

Silly SoCal and your extraneous articles before freeway numbers!

Lorelle: pudding7: Isn't that part of the taxes I pay when I buy gas?

/averages around 60mph on the 405, 80 miles round trip every day
//at 40mpg
///motorcycle FTW

This would be a separate tax. Too bad the article doesn't indicate how the money collected is to be spent.

/lives next to the 405, is getting a kick...

It's California. We already know the money will be spent on new personal pork projects. No politician would ever consider, for even a second, the option of balancing the budget with additional revenue. That is why I am 100% against any new state tax.

I dearly wish the state would drop the sales tax on gasoline and implement a separate fuel tax at the same rate so it would be possible to learn exactly how much revenue is generated at the fuel pumps. At present, it is impossible to know since it's lumped in with everything else that has a sales tax. I figure the system isn't changed because the amount is so asoundingly more than what is being spent to maintain our (shiatty) roads that the people would demand answers.

Go fark yourself, California. We already have an impact-based tax for drivers and it's very simple. It's called fuel tax. The more fuel you buy, the more tax you pay. Got a big, heavy vehicle that wears out roads fast? You pay a higher tax rate because it takes a lot of fuel to move that beast. Got a little Ford Focus? You get a tax break because your low-impact vehicle requires less fuel to go the same distance. I doubt legislators were thinking that deep when they created the fuel tax but it happens to work out very well and doesn't require any additional administrative overhead to apply the tax with some basic level of fairness.

Trying to create not only an additional tax but an entirely new method of taxation is absurd.

Again, go fark yourself, California.

/lifelong California resident

Look, you think that high speed rail is going to pay for itself?

All of you people out there are going to have to pony up and pay some extra. There are tracks to be laid! Engines to purchase! Beavers to bulldoze!

Cinch up your belts and pay. It's for the children.

Or the elderly.

Or minorities.

Or the environment.

One of those. Just pick. But you're going to have to pay,

If poor people are exempted, I wonder how many cars they could get signed up in their name without tripping into the non-poor level where the car incurs this tax?

Yeah, fark the gps tracker. No chance that stupid idea is ever happening.

StoPPeRmobile: NightSteel: What I don't understand is, why would a tracking device be necessary? Why not just have a yearly odometer reading (with a multiplier based on vehicle weight, since heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads)? I can see that people wouldn't want to pay tax if they weren't actually driving on a public road, maybe, but beyond parking lots and driveways, most people don't drive off public roads. And if you're only wanting to charge for certain stretches of road, well, isn't that what toll roads are for?

They would be able to track peak or off-peak.

Charging by the time of the day.

A somewhat modern toll system would do just fine for that - Tolls during peak hours can be increased, then lowered for off-peak hours. As long as they don't put in stupid toll booths / tokens / tickets - use cameras to identify license plates, send the bill to the registered owner. No odometer readings, no GPS tracking, no toll booth traffic tie ups.

Since my car is made before 1980, it has no computer.
Since it has no computer, it has a mechanical speedometer operated by a cable attached to the transmission tail shaft.
I reach under the car, unscrew the cable and tie it back with a tie wrap.
Problem solved.

So pay a tax on the gas, pay a fee to register your car, pay another fee to test your car, and then frequently pay tolls when crossing bridges or use of some roads...and now also pay a tax on each mile you use the car.

Ok ok lets just say we like the tax and what it's money would be used for(just pretend with me for a min).
Now how should we track the miles?

Will it be with a basic Odometer that can send it's miles in a wireless signal...no lets use the track your movements to specific locations thing instead. Yea that thing that probably costs a bit more and gathers more info about you than is really needed for what we are talking about. yea that's the ticket.

Oh and speaking of tickets, you were on a 40 MPH road and doing 60 MPH, here's your ticket with that tax bill.

...and if they force me to install a GPS, covering the antenna with some copper tape will solve the problem as well...and keep the government from knowing where on the planet I am.

AliceBToklasLives: "the plan would likely involve GPS-like devices installed in cars"

So the state will keep track of my trips to strip clubs, adult bookstores, and "massage" parlors? Hmmm.

Oh, come on now, you know this will never be abused in any way whatsoever by law enforcement, insurance companies, etc. Take your tin foil hat off.

Though, it probably wouldnt be much worse than what we're dealing with these days with smart phones, etc

/sarcasm

Subbitard fails California geography. The "405" is in SoCal, while TFA is about the Bay Area, oh...like 400 miles north of the 405.

As for the tax, read my lips...NOT IN THIS FARKING LIFETIME!!!.

That clear enough?

/Bay Area Californian who votes...IN EVERY FARKING ELECTION
//vote-by-mail FTW
///oh, and fark the 405... ;^)

"the" 405: LA
proposed tax: SF
headline: inaccurate

/being "that guy"
//in all seriousness, how do they plan to enforce this with those who live outside the area but come in to drive? GPS dispensers on the side of the road?

Virtue: I wonder how many GPS "malfunctions" will happen

or disconnections of the speedometer, etc.

lol no

Lorelle: Too bad the article doesn't indicate how the money collected is to be spent.

Unwisely.

Death_Poot: Virtue: I wonder how many GPS "malfunctions" will happen

or disconnections of the speedometer, etc.

I have several odometers for my car. if they check it during an inspection, I can easilly swap it out just for that purpose...but I am so glad I do NOT live in California...and my car never has to do any smog checks anyway.

NightSteel: Why not just have a yearly odometer reading (with a multiplier based on vehicle weight, since heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads)?

Because sometimes people take their car into other states/countries.

jtown: Go fark yourself, California. We already have an impact-based tax for drivers and it's very simple. It's called fuel tax. The more fuel you buy, the more tax you pay. Got a big, heavy vehicle that wears out roads fast? You pay a higher tax rate because it takes a lot of fuel to move that beast. Got a little Ford Focus? You get a tax break because your low-impact vehicle requires less fuel to go the same distance. I doubt legislators were thinking that deep when they created the fuel tax but it happens to work out very well and doesn't require any additional administrative overhead to apply the tax with some basic level of fairness.

Trying to create not only an additional tax but an entirely new method of taxation is absurd.

Again, go fark yourself, California.

/lifelong California resident

So much THIS.

We're trying to figure out how to push for a reduction of the environmental impact of transportation AND raise revenue. Seems to me that simply raising the fuel tax would do both. More efficient vehicles burn less gas and are rewarded with a lower tax burden. Sounds fair to me!

saeufer82: jtown: Go fark yourself, California. We already have an impact-based tax for drivers and it's very simple. It's called fuel tax. The more fuel you buy, the more tax you pay. Got a big, heavy vehicle that wears out roads fast? You pay a higher tax rate because it takes a lot of fuel to move that beast. Got a little Ford Focus? You get a tax break because your low-impact vehicle requires less fuel to go the same distance. I doubt legislators were thinking that deep when they created the fuel tax but it happens to work out very well and doesn't require any additional administrative overhead to apply the tax with some basic level of fairness.

Trying to create not only an additional tax but an entirely new method of taxation is absurd.

Again, go fark yourself, California.

/lifelong California resident

So much THIS.

We're trying to figure out how to push for a reduction of the environmental impact of transportation AND raise revenue. Seems to me that simply raising the fuel tax would do both. More efficient vehicles burn less gas and are rewarded with a lower tax burden. Sounds fair to me!

They're trying to get the public used to this new mileage based tax ON TOP of the current structure. Kinda of like the VAT idea that occasionally gets pushed without fundamental reform of the federal tax code. Waiting for them to plead that "its for the children"..........

ZAZ: this showed up last year and was shot down then

The federal government is pushing this and you're going to keep hearing about it until the government has realtime GPS tracking and tolling of every car.

They will backdoor realtime GSP along with an automobile "black box" by requiring them at the manufacture's level.

/in practice, this doesn't really bother me from a privacy point of view - I'm not so important the government is actually going to keep track of my stupid life
//in principle, this bothers me a lot - for obvious reasons

Private owned market priced toll roads would be a far better idea. But those are racist ...

/very pro market pricing of all transportation, especially private toll roads like they have in France
//but this reeks of a liberal power grab

I am sure the rental car agencies and car sharing companies would love to deal with this...........

Virtue: I wonder how many GPS "malfunctions" will happen

You mean how fast with a good, reliable GPS hack be readily available??? Probably be out a good 6 months before the law would ever take effect.

"Mr. Anderson... it shows here that you live 45 miles from work and work 5 days a week. You only took one week's vacation and were off 2 days sick this year.... yet, you only drove your car a mere 345 miles?"

"That's what the GPS shows and I'm sticking to it, farker! Go ahead and tax me, ya bastage!


Lorelle: Too bad the article doesn't indicate how the money collected is to be spent.

I am guess that coming right out and saying they will be wasting it on dinners, booze and hookers would be insulting to most.

Actually, this is one of the stupid things about trying to be more energy efficient -- there are people relying on the taxes and revenue related to our consumption. So then the government or electric company or whatever then will hike rates as people consume less. So you won't really save any money by going more efficient (at least in the long term average).

I think that taxing based on odometer isn't that bad of an idea if they got rid of the tax on gas, but of course they wouldn't consider that. Then all vehicles would pay for road wear, but you would still save on fuel as you got more and more efficient vehicles.

But increasing taxes because people consume less gas = stupid.

I'm curious how they will charge out-of-state drivers. Do you have to report your odometer as you enter the state, then again when you leave? That'll be especially fun around populated border areas like Tahoe.

As someone who paid close to 20k in state income tax, plus fuel tax, plus sales tax, plus car registration, NV or TX, where that 20k would go away, is looking better by the day.

This I'm sure would be ON TOP of the 4% increase they're trying to push through for state income. They say it's only for top earners, but "top earner" starts at 60k which in California means you work somewhere other than fast food.

\fark u CA legislature

I only drive 2 miles a year, honest!