If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   I Can't Drive 55 ..... Miles: Abolishing the U.S. gasoline tax and replacing it with a levy based on miles driven could happen "tomorrow" regardless of hurdles   (bloomberg.com) divider line 372
    More: Interesting, Steve LaTourette, gasoline taxes, Federal Highway Administration, Infrastructure Committee, Highway Trust Fund, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Republican Main Street Partnership, House Transportation  
•       •       •

13837 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 10:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



372 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 07:16:30 PM

OgreMagi: Want to guess how long it would take them to tweak the mileage reported?


If there were a 10 year prison stay and a 5000 dollar fine for getting caught, probably quite a while.
 
2013-03-27 07:17:14 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555:

Gas taxes are allready high.

No they are not.  We are nowhere near internalizing the pollution externality associated with gasoline.

Yes they are.    -   Excuse me?  WTF does this mean?


The problem is that politicians keep raiding funds

No, the problem is that gasoline usage per mile has dropped significantly, due to commendable efforts by the government.  While increased fuel efficiency does solve a lot of problems, it does not build or maintain roads.


No, The problem is that politicians keep raiding funds.   To a lesser degree, there is is also a problem with electric vehicles and other super efficient vehicles not paying their fair share to the highway funds because they essentialy exempt themselves from the tax by their very nature.    so tax them.Its a loophole.

and electric vehicle people seem to thing they
deserve a free ride.

No we don't.  I am a member of an Electric Vehicle association.  Our position, which we have relayed to politicians, is that ALL vehicles should pay a road usage tax that is used for road construction and maintenance, regardless of efficiency or drive train.   What we do NOT support is an additional tax that only targets high efficiency vehicles.  That would be like taxing me for not smoking, just because I don't pay the taxes on cigarettes that smokers do.  If we need more money (we do) then tax everyone.


No, I am sorry, but you are wrong again.  This would be like taxing E-Cig users the same as regular cigarette users.  Except that is still not quite accurate.  The basic point this boils down to is that electric vehicle users, and to a lesser degree other drivers, are not paying for road wear like the rest of us dirty gasoline users.  You think this is OK because gasoline is "bad".     your proposed system is exactly like jacking up the tax on cigaret users because there are less cigarette users...  Except we don't need the cigarette tax to function... we need that infrastructure money regardless of vehicle types on the road.  The more fuel efficient and electric vehicles we get onto the road, the greater the NEED to tax them.  If you ever do get your wish, and we get rid of petroleum based transportation, then who will pay for the roads?   You cant just keep jacking up the tax on a smaller and smaller group of people, that system will implode.

We also believe that there should ALSO be taxes on gasoline, to internalize the pollution externality and to incentivize fuel efficient vehicles.  This money should not be used for road construction and maintenance.  The usage fee, which we believe that we should also pay, would be for that.  This would end the conflict between fuel efficiency, which society needs, and road maintenance, which society also needs.

Add a fee to super efficent vehicles so that your ultimate dream can come true.

Herp derp derp.  My dream is that we have enough money for roads and other nice things.  Everyone should pay for that.  My other dream is that we can be weaned off gasoline usage for the most part.  Gas taxes should stay high for that.


Now you are starting to troll...  Herpa derpy derp....

If you do not, then we will be a country full of electric cars driving on dirt.

Strawman arguments do not help your case.  Most electric vehicles associations have public statements on this issue.  We do not want crumbling infrastructure, and we are more than happ ...


Strawman arguments?  Letting you know what will happen if we don't tax electrics is a strawman?


Lets just cut to the chase and agree that we live in different worlds...
 
2013-03-27 07:20:38 PM

namatad: Can we start with all elected officials and public employees and all contractors?


Yeah and cameras in their bedrooms too.
 
2013-03-27 07:22:30 PM

Maul555: Letting you know what will happen if we don't tax electrics is a strawman?


You are an idiot.  I stated three times in my last post, and numerous times before, that I think electrics should be taxed.  I'm sorry that you lack reading comprehension.
 
2013-03-27 07:23:49 PM

Hollie Maea: OgreMagi: Want to guess how long it would take them to tweak the mileage reported?

If there were a 10 year prison stay and a 5000 dollar fine for getting caught, probably quite a while.


Just like the threat of execution has completely eliminated murders.
 
2013-03-27 07:24:35 PM

edmo: namatad: Can we start with all elected officials and public employees and all contractors?

Yeah and cameras in their bedrooms too.


Do you seriously want video of Nancy Pelosi making monkey faces?
 
2013-03-27 07:29:27 PM
I find it funny that some have commented to tax commercial trucks more but not their precious car. They already pay more. Here's a fun fact-everything you own has likely been in a truck. So taxing trucks more than they already do get taxed will just raise the price of everything you buy.
 
2013-03-27 07:29:35 PM
The gas tax is a massive subsidy to suburbanites and rural folk as it stands now.  City drivers pay the same tax in per gallon as everyone, but per capita get far fewer miles of highways than exurbs/suburubs/rural-folk.  Tax per mile is the only way to make sure those who do the using are the ones doing the paying.
 
2013-03-27 07:29:57 PM

Maul555: Except we don't need the cigarette tax to function... we need that infrastructure money regardless of vehicle types on the road.


Exactly.  We don't aggressively tax cigarettes to raise revenue.  We aggressively tax cigarettes to discourage their use.  What I am saying is that GAS TAX SHOULD BE LIKE THAT TOO.  We should not tax gas to raise money for roads.  That money should be raised by a mileage tax that all cars INCLUDING ELECTRICS pay equally.  Gas should be taxed to discourage it's use.  That way we can reduce its use without worrying about not being able to pay for infrastructure.

Imagine if we used cigarette tax money to pay for sewage treatment.  Every time we tried to have a public health push to decrease the number of smokers, we would have to worry about untreated sewage.  That would be a terrible idea.

Your problem is that you don't think that the usage of gasoline should be discouraged.  But that's a fringe view that our society as a whole does not agree with.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 07:31:57 PM
OgreMagi

Fine, let every owner who currently hacks firmware also hack the reported miles. Let every passenger car older than the OBD rules get away without reporting mileage. Let every electric car escape the gas tax. In all three cases the number of vehicles is too trivial to matter. We only care because of a perception of unfairness.
 
2013-03-27 07:32:26 PM

5monkeys: cgraves67: OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

I was just thinking that. If we had a mileage tax, I'd pay the same in my 4x4 as the guy in the Prius who drives the same distance. With the gas tax, I buy more gas and pay more taxes for the same miles driven. The mileage tax would be far less painful for me than the Prius driver.

I think that is the point. They are losing gas tax money from the people with the fuel efficient cars that they pushed. Now they want that money that they are losing.


That's it in a nutshell.  It's the only sane way to do it-- using a gas tax to pay for roads is a kludge.  It kinda-sorta worked for a while, but cars got much more efficient.  But not all cars, so you can't just raise the bar for the Prius without tripling the tax on the PT Cruisers.  Gas consumption is no longer a good proxy for road wear.

It makes sense to have a road-use tax to pay for roads.
 
2013-03-27 07:52:54 PM
If someone can show me a cost-effective, practical, and non-big-brothery way to do this, I'm all for it.

Also, while we're at it, can we stop spending all the Highway Trust Fund money on things other than highways?
 
2013-03-27 08:00:30 PM

Hollie Maea: No we don't. I am a member of an Electric Vehicle association. Our position, which we have relayed to politicians, is that ALL vehicles should pay a road usage tax that is used for road construction and maintenance, regardless of efficiency or drive train. What we do NOT support is an additional tax that only targets high efficiency vehicles. That would be like taxing me for not smoking, just because I don't pay the taxes on cigarettes that smokers do. If we need more money (we do) then tax everyone. We also believe that there should ALSO be taxes on gasoline, to internalize the pollution externality and to incentivize fuel efficient vehicles. This money should not be used for road construction and maintenance. The usage fee, which we believe that we should also pay, would be for that. This would end the conflict between fuel efficiency, which society needs, and road maintenance, which society also needs.


What should it be used for, because if it's not earmarked and goes into a fund politicians can play around with, you're going to see it get ridiculous real quick.
 
2013-03-27 08:22:31 PM

trappedspirit: "But then you get the black helicopter people saying if you put something in my car, you'd know I was at my girlfriend's house last night."

Concerned about personal privacy?  You must be a paranoid tin foil head.  What do you have to hide?


People hate Congress, and, clearly, Congress hates them right back.
 
2013-03-27 08:30:11 PM

ProfessorOhki: What should it be used for, because if it's not earmarked and goes into a fund politicians can play around with, you're going to see it get ridiculous real quick.


It should ONLY be used for developing technologies that decrease gasoline usage, and the construction (but not operations) of public transit systems.  That way, when gasoline usage declines, and the revenue dries up, it's "reason for existence" will also be gone and no one will be screwed.

If it is used to fund anything that we need permanently, then that will be in opposition to our goal of reducing gasoline usage.

Just like cigarette tax.  The money should ONLY be used to fund anti smoking initiatives, so that if people stop smoking the money won't be needed any more anyway.

I know this is idealistic, but if we were to do it right, that would be the way.
 
2013-03-27 08:31:47 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555:

The problem is that politicians keep raiding funds

No, the problem is that gasoline usage per mile has dropped significantly, due to commendable efforts by the government.  While increased fuel efficiency does solve a lot of problems, it does not build or maintain roads.


No, fuel economy has not changed significantly since the early 90s. Most fuel economy improvements have been offset with additional weight from safety mandates. 

Politicians are always raiding/re-purposing road monies. Often it's things that are vaguely road like such as bicycle paths that go around in circles in forest preserves. Sometimes they use it to fund police state activities such as checkpoints. The list goes on and on.

Our position, which we have relayed to politicians, is that ALL vehicles should pay a road usage tax that is used for road construction and maintenance, regardless of efficiency or drive train.

If you are talking wear and tear on roads passenger cars are essentially zero. Passenger vehicles are taxed to subsidize trucking. It's heavy trucks that do the wear and damage. Why? Because roads are designed for certain life with the design load. The design load is a heavy truck, a passenger car is a small fraction of the weight and thus the stress, the fatigue goes down dramatically. It's exponential, not linear in relationship.

We also believe that there should ALSO be taxes on gasoline, to internalize the pollution externality and to incentivize fuel efficient vehicles. 

Given current regulations, the pollution to power your electric vehicle is probably greater. It's simply been externalized from the vehicle.

This money should not be used for road construction and maintenance.  The usage fee, which we believe that we should also pay, would be for that.  This would end the conflict between fuel efficiency, which society needs, and road maintenance, which society also needs.

Road maintenance is not at odds with fuel economy. The relationship between weight and fuel economy always exists. The values may change but that only means adjusting the fuel tax appropriately. The alternative is granting government vast new power of surveillance which it can then capitalize on to gain control over our travels.  The whole idea that fuel efficiency is hurting revenues is a lie anyway. Fuel efficiency, real fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet in use, is maybe 10% better than it was in 1993. Cars are now designed to do  well on the EPA and CAFE tests, but in the real world the fuel economy gains have been consumed by safety requirements.

The fuel tax however is cents per gallon. The dollar doesn't buy what it used to. Gasoline is almost three times what was in 1993. There's the real problem. The constant devaluation of the dollar's purchasing power.
 
2013-03-27 08:37:24 PM
The_Original_Roxtar:

you're punishing truckers more than anything else. increased shipping costs means everything is going to cost more, people will spend less, and the economy starts sucking even more. Looks like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through.

That could work in the long run.  if the true and full costs of surface shipping were passed along to the consumer, perhaps we'd see more interest in locally grown/produced stuff.  That, and there might be some innovation in shipping methods.
 
2013-03-27 08:43:47 PM

BMFPitt: If someone can show me a cost-effective, practical, and non-big-brothery way to do this, I'm all for it.


Here is how I would do it. I would use a GPS based device that would keep track of how far and in what "zones" it was driven (to account for things like driving in a different state, or to allow for congestion taxing). But the device would not actually hold on to the information of where it was driven--for instance if you drove a mile in a zone that cost 5 cents per mile, that would just accrue 5 cents to the running total.  So the device, and big brother, can't keep track where you are driving.  At the same time, the device would transmit to a central server where it was driving.  But...it would not transmit the vehicle ID.  So the central server would know that some car was driving in such and such a place at such and such a time, but it would not know what car it was.  This would help with things like traffic engineering, but again, big brother wouldn't know where you personally were driving.  When you re registered your car, you would pay whatever was accrued on the device.  Or you could set up for monthly autopay so that you didn't get hit by a big lump sum once a year.

Objections:

1. "Hey, that's still big brother.  The government might say they won't watch, but they still will."

At some point, most people do trust the government somewhat.  I personally don't think that the government gives a shiat where I am driving.  And if they do want to snoop on me behind my back, there are way easier ways to do that, like by tapping cell phones.  But nevertheless, I would add the option for people to forgo the device and pay a yearly lump sum.  The flat fee would be high enough that you couldn't "get off easy".  The higher flat fee could be justified by the fact that you would not be contributing data for traffic engineering, etc.

2. "People will cheat"

People cheat at everything.  Every law we have has some cheaters.  But most people wouldn't cheat.  It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.  And people who set up services to hack other people's systems would be relatively easy to catch.  If you put a penalty for cheating, just like there is a penalty for any tax fraud, most people would not take the risk just to save themselves a little bit of usage tax.  I would wager that the money lost from all the cheaters combined would be less than some single individuals currently defraud the IRS.

3. "That device sounds expensive"

I don't think so.  The components are cheap these days.  GPS chips don't cost much.  And since the device would go into nearly every car, economies of scale would keep the cost down.


Anyway, that is how I would do it.

Also, while we're at it, can we stop spending all the Highway Trust Fund money on things other than highways?


Yes, please.
 
2013-03-27 08:47:35 PM

leadmetal: Given current regulations, the pollution to power your electric vehicle is probably greater. It's simply been externalized from the vehicle.


This has been widely shown to be completely untrue.
 
2013-03-27 08:48:58 PM

leadmetal: Road maintenance is not at odds with fuel economy.


Then why all the whining about how high efficiency vehicles aren't paying their fair share of the road maintenance costs?  That is what this entire farking thread is about.
 
2013-03-27 08:51:28 PM

leadmetal: No, fuel economy has not changed significantly since the early 90s.


While it is true that fuel economy was stagnant for about 15 years, since 2005 average has been rapidly increasing.  That just happens to correspond to when people started fretting about high mileage vehicles and EVs not "paying their fair share".  Everyone expects this trend to accelerate over the coming decade or two, which is why we are having this conversation now.
 
2013-03-27 08:53:12 PM

Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.


hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".
 
2013-03-27 08:57:36 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".


If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months.  Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".
 
2013-03-27 09:04:57 PM

dready zim: MyRandomName: Land Ark: As the owner of 3 cars that get a total average MPG of 40, and who drives about 5,500 miles a year, I think this is a load of crap and unfair to those who buy fuel eficient cars on purpose.

We live in a society. Why do you choose to avoid paying your fair share. You own 3 cars showing you can pay a fair share.

It`s a fair share decided on usage, not income. You want to tax car ownership? do it at the point of sale. The fair share of road tax, to fix roads and deal with motoring related costs, should be shouldered by the ones causing the damage as a check and balance on them farking things up too much. There should be incentives to get a less damaging vehicle. Mind you, three cars adding up to 40mpg doesn`t sound good. Is one 12mpg, another 13mpg and the last 15mpg?


I have a Subaru daily driver that is currently getting about 18mpg, a newer muscle car that gets about 16, and a full size car from 1967 that I hesitate to guess. But, 40 doesn't seem unreasonable when I watch the gas gauge.

My main issue is that because of the short sightedness of the legislatures we are changing the rules in the middle of the game. People followed the rules and many are honestly trying to do the right thing but because so many are, now we have to take away the added incentive.
It's like when housing prices fell and municipalities started raising property tax rates to make the amount collected the same as before. It's not something we citizens can get away with.
 
2013-03-27 09:07:49 PM

Hollie Maea: The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".

If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months.  Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".


"see, i put this metal cage around it to protect it... didn't want to damage it you know?" (faraday cage)
"don't know officer, must have fallen off when I ran over some garbage in the roadway"
"that switch? that's for some auxiliary lights that I removed a couple weeks back"
or are you suggesting that the police trace every wire in every car they pull over? have you any clue how many wires are in a car?
 
2013-03-27 09:10:27 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Donnchadha: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You're interpretive brain cells aren't working too well, are they?

Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.

DEF: Troll: Someone who says something you disagree with. PURPOSE: Much easier than coming up with, you know, a rational counterargument.


I shouldn't respond to you. You're a farking troll, and I know it - and you know it. But you're an idiot too.

I said "If they do X, I'm for it".

You "corrected" it for me to say "If they do X Y, I'm for it"

I respond saying, "No, I wouldn't support Y. I'd support X." There's nothing in there about the likelihood of X or Y or if the politicians would say "This is totally for X!" while writing a bill to make it about Y instead.

You respond by trying to insult me, then claim I need to make a rational counter argument? A counter argument to what exactly? You haven't made a rational argument in the first place about ANYTHING that I could possibly respond to.

The rest of us are now dumber for being the same thread as you. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Good day.
 
2013-03-27 09:16:33 PM

bdub77: Eventually the gas tax prices gas out of the market and EVs take over.


This is the kind of forced bullshiat that enrages people like me.
 
2013-03-27 09:16:44 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".

If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months.  Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".

"see, i put this metal cage around it to protect it... didn't want to damage it you know?" (faraday cage)
"don't know officer, must have fallen off when I ran over some garbage in the roadway"
"that switch? that's for some auxiliary lights that I removed a couple weeks back"
or are you suggesting that the police trace every wire in every car they pull over? have you any clue how many wires are in a car?


Christ, this shiat isn't that hard.  I ride the MAX light rail system here in Portland a lot.  People who get busted without a ticket give all kinds of bullshiat excuses.  Those excuses don't farking work.  Also, I don't know why everyone assumes this thing would be on the bottom of your car.  It would be in the engine compartment along with all the other shiat that doesn't fall onto the road when you run over garbage.

The switch one is the easiest one.  Simply have the device keep track of when it has power.  There is no reason why it couldn't always have standby power, drawing a milliamp or two along with things like the security system.  So it would know if you ever switched it off.

Again, there would be some people who would find a way to get around that, and there would be a few really stupid people who would be willing to risk a severe penalty to cheat the system.  There would even be a handful of people who were successful at getting away with it.  But it would be a minuscule amount, not nearly enough to break the system as a whole.  It certainly would not be the easiest way to commit tax fraud, for those who want to give that a try.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-27 09:17:57 PM
Elaborate schemes to save $50-$500 per year tax are not cost-effective and they only work if they are unpopular. When they become popular, countermeasures will be deployed. The state will verify the checksum in your engine control computer. They will use tamper-evident devices to secure the GPS to old cars. Or they will ban old cars; CARB would love that option. If the device doesn't have signal for a while it deactivates the car. (Getting signal occasionally is your problem.) The device could have a transponder. Passing cop car automatically scans the plate and pings your transponder. In-state plate, no transponder, he pulls you over, arrests you, and seizes your illegal car. (Maybe you get it back for a first offense.) In-state plate, transponder complains "no GPS signal", he pulls you over, writes you a ticket for improper equipment, and checks the mileage the old-fashioned way.
 
2013-03-27 09:18:06 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: Letting you know what will happen if we don't tax electrics is a strawman?

You are an idiot.  I stated three times in my last post, and numerous times before, that I think electrics should be taxed.  I'm sorry that you lack reading comprehension.


You think they should be taxed by adding a tax to EVERYTHING...  So your precious EV's get a small tax, and everyone else gets taxed out the ass...  Sound about right?
 
2013-03-27 09:18:23 PM

Maul555: bdub77: Eventually the gas tax prices gas out of the market and EVs take over.

This is the kind of forced bullshiat that enrages people like me.


No one cares.  You probably spend most of your time being enraged anyway.

The rest of us are not willing to decline moving forward with history just because you are enraged.
 
2013-03-27 09:19:18 PM

Maul555: You think they should be taxed by adding a tax to EVERYTHING...  So your precious EV's get a small tax, and everyone else gets taxed out the ass...  Sound about right?


Actually, I just don't think that polluting should be free.
 
2013-03-27 09:20:02 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: Except we don't need the cigarette tax to function... we need that infrastructure money regardless of vehicle types on the road.

Exactly.  We don't aggressively tax cigarettes to raise revenue.  We aggressively tax cigarettes to discourage their use.  What I am saying is that GAS TAX SHOULD BE LIKE THAT TOO.  We should not tax gas to raise money for roads.  That money should be raised by a mileage tax that all cars INCLUDING ELECTRICS pay equally.  Gas should be taxed to discourage it's use.  That way we can reduce its use without worrying about not being able to pay for infrastructure.

Imagine if we used cigarette tax money to pay for sewage treatment.  Every time we tried to have a public health push to decrease the number of smokers, we would have to worry about untreated sewage.  That would be a terrible idea.

Your problem is that you don't think that the usage of gasoline should be discouraged.  But that's a fringe view that our society as a whole does not agree with.


Well then all I have to say is fark you and go fark yourself.   I dont appreciate being a social engineering project for environmental zealots.
 
2013-03-27 09:24:10 PM

Hollie Maea: The switch one is the easiest one. Simply have the device keep track of when it has power. There is no reason why it couldn't always have standby power, drawing a milliamp or two along with things like the security system. So it would know if you ever switched it off.


you've never worked on a car have you?

disconnecting the battery is often step 1 in any repair.
batteries go dead all the time. I have a car that's been sitting without a battery in it for 2+ years. it also hasn't moved, but that's not the point here.
the point here is that people don't want to have their movements tracked by an obviously corrupt government. Were the powers that be to attempt to install a tracking device on any of my vehicles, I'd disable it in short order.
 
2013-03-27 09:30:53 PM

Hollie Maea: The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".

If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months.  Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".


You have a whole lot of bad ideas I see...  Please don't drop our government any "helpful" suggestions
 
2013-03-27 09:31:20 PM

Hollie Maea: ProfessorOhki: What should it be used for, because if it's not earmarked and goes into a fund politicians can play around with, you're going to see it get ridiculous real quick.

It should ONLY be used for developing technologies that decrease gasoline usage, and the construction (but not operations) of public transit systems.  That way, when gasoline usage declines, and the revenue dries up, it's "reason for existence" will also be gone and no one will be screwed.

If it is used to fund anything that we need permanently, then that will be in opposition to our goal of reducing gasoline usage.

Just like cigarette tax.  The money should ONLY be used to fund anti smoking initiatives, so that if people stop smoking the money won't be needed any more anyway.

I know this is idealistic, but if we were to do it right, that would be the way.


Gasp, a self-regulating negative feedback loop instead of a run-away positive feedback loop? Sheer madness.

/If no one smokes, how will we afford our anti-smoking campaigns?!
//Quick, tax something else!
 
2013-03-27 09:34:18 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: bdub77: Eventually the gas tax prices gas out of the market and EVs take over.

This is the kind of forced bullshiat that enrages people like me.

No one cares.  You probably spend most of your time being enraged anyway.

The rest of us are not willing to decline moving forward with history just because you are enraged.


Not everyone agrees with your idea of moving forward.
 
2013-03-27 09:34:26 PM

Maul555: I dont appreciate being a social engineering project for environmental zealots.


And I don't appreciate being a player in an experimental project to see if people who don't believe in science are right about the world.

If you want to drive 60,000 miles a year in a Ford F-450, I'm not interested in stopping you.  But the shiat that comes out of your tailpipe shouldn't be free just because you don't believe in science.
 
2013-03-27 09:42:39 PM

Hollie Maea: Maul555: I dont appreciate being a social engineering project for environmental zealots.

And I don't appreciate being a player in an experimental project to see if people who don't believe in science are right about the world.

If you want to drive 60,000 miles a year in a Ford F-450, I'm not interested in stopping you.  But the shiat that comes out of your tailpipe shouldn't be free just because you don't believe in science.


How can you pull all that bullshiat about me out of your ass and claim not to be a troll?
 
2013-03-27 09:45:19 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: you've never worked on a car have you?


I am currently working on building my own electric vehicle.  I would be more able than most people to cheat the device.

disconnecting the battery is often step 1 in any repair.
batteries go dead all the time. I have a car that's been sitting without a battery in it for 2+ years. it also hasn't moved, but that's not the point here.


These days, most devices have backup power supplies that can keep a device active in trickle standby mode for long periods of time.  Speaking of which, for new cars, these devices would be integrated into the vehicle systems, and could be cross checked against the odometer.  Modern digital odometers are not quite as easy to disable as the old ones.  So that lessens the pool of people who can cheat the system with a low tech solution to people with old cars.  Much smaller pool, and getting smaller all the time.  At some point, your potential cheater is a collectible car enthusiast who isn't afraid to commit tax fraud.  Again, some people would successfully cheat.  But the numbers would be low enough for the system to work.

the point here is that people don't want to have their movements tracked by an obviously corrupt government. Were the powers that be to attempt to install a tracking device on any of my vehicles, I'd disable it in short order.

If you think that the government cares where you go to buy your groceries, you would be free to go with the flat fee option.  There are enough paranoid people in this country that the system would have to have an alternative method, and no one would be forcing you to have a tracking device on your car.  If this is just about trying to figure out how to not pay your share of road maintenance, that's a different story.  Unfortunately, the "obviously corrupt government" will probably find another way to track you, if they care to do so.

What is the alternative?  If this system won't work because of cheaters, then it won't work on anyone, including electric vehicle owners.  What would stop EV owners from cheating?  A lot of EV owners, even ones with Leafs and whatnot, started out doing their own conversions.  They know more about electronics and electrical systems than the average person.  If anyone could cheat this thing, it would be me and my friends.  So that means that we are back to relying only on the gas tax, and going online to biatch about how EV owners "don't want to pay their fair share".
 
2013-03-27 09:46:19 PM

Maul555: Hollie Maea: The_Original_Roxtar: Hollie Maea: It would be easy to make it hard enough that nearly everyone would lack the wherewithal to hack the system.

hmmm, gps receiver and a radio transmitter... here are a few options
1: wrap it in aluminum foil. there goes your gps lock
b: install a switch in the wire that feeds it power. turn it off whenever you feel like it.
iii: unbolt it (since this thing needs to be able to be fitted to existing cars) and leave it at home, hooked up to a 12v battery.

device thwarted.
you don't need to "hack the system".

If, in the course of a traffic stop, your device shows signs of having been tampered with, you get a $1500 fine and lose your drivers license for six months. Suddenly we are back to "very few people mess with it".

You have a whole lot of bad ideas I see... Please don't drop our government any "helpful" suggestions


Hmm, how about this:
1) Give each car a unique (asym/sym, up to you) cryptographic key
2) Give the car a button which will display on a screen, signed with that key, the odometer reading, VIN, and a datetime stamp
3) That output must be included when registering your car

DMV has the other key to decrypt that. They know the mileage at a given point in time, and they can authenticate the car it came from. There was no tracking, there was no radio, there was no infrastructure.

Driving out of the country? Give border patrol the number on the way out and on the way back. Get a receipt verified by them, include with registration, don't pay taxes for those mileages.

Immediate problems I see? Interstate travel, they have a special reg for that already, don't they? Either way, the majority of wheels are intrastate. Driving on private property? Eh, create some sort of special use class like they do now for recreational use. Tampering with the actual odometer hardware? - already illegal. Swapping the unit in and out? I guess, but I doubt that many people will put the effort in, besides there's all sorts of fun tamper-flagging you can do.
 
2013-03-27 09:46:44 PM

Maul555: Hollie Maea: Maul555: I dont appreciate being a social engineering project for environmental zealots.

And I don't appreciate being a player in an experimental project to see if people who don't believe in science are right about the world.

If you want to drive 60,000 miles a year in a Ford F-450, I'm not interested in stopping you.  But the shiat that comes out of your tailpipe shouldn't be free just because you don't believe in science.

How can you pull all that bullshiat about me out of your ass and claim not to be a troll?


You are angry about paying gas taxes, and you have said repeatedly that it is stupid to try to discourage gasoline usage.  It's not much of a stretch.
 
2013-03-27 09:47:40 PM
Hollie Maea, you are elitist, arrogant, and dismissive.   You obviously have no regard for the freedoms of others, and are willing to enforce all kinds of bullshiat to get your way.  The ends justify the means to you...  GO FARK YOURSELF!

/ignored
 
2013-03-27 09:49:13 PM

ProfessorOhki: Hmm, how about this:
1) Give each car a unique (asym/sym, up to you) cryptographic key
2) Give the car a button which will display on a screen, signed with that key, the odometer reading, VIN, and a datetime stamp
3) That output must be included when registering your car

DMV has the other key to decrypt that. They know the mileage at a given point in time, and they can authenticate the car it came from. There was no tracking, there was no radio, there was no infrastructure.

Driving out of the country? Give border patrol the number on the way out and on the way back. Get a receipt verified by them, include with registration, don't pay taxes for those mileages.

Immediate problems I see? Interstate travel, they have a special reg for that already, don't they? Either way, the majority of wheels are intrastate. Driving on private property? Eh, create some sort of special use class like they do now for recreational use. Tampering with the actual odometer hardware? - already illegal. Swapping the unit in and out? I guess, but I doubt that many people will put the effort in, besides there's all sorts of fun tamper-flagging you can do.


Not a bad idea.  But again you would have to make sure that there is a flat fee option for people who don't trust the gubmint.
 
2013-03-27 09:52:58 PM
Aw shiat...I got ignored again due to another climate change / Electric Vehicles argument.  I didn't think my arguments were that unreasonable but I obviously hit a nerve.

/Seriously not trying to troll, but I consider this shiat to be important.  Also not "anti freedom" but I just don't think that "freedom to pollute for free" is a legitimate freedom.
 
2013-03-27 09:56:16 PM
If the government needs the money, they need to raise taxes. Tough titty if they 'don't want to'. We need to punish fossil fuel consumption. It's destroying a LOT of stuff.

/another republitard snow job.
 
2013-03-27 09:56:47 PM

Hollie Maea: ProfessorOhki: Hmm, how about this:
1) Give each car a unique (asym/sym, up to you) cryptographic key
2) Give the car a button which will display on a screen, signed with that key, the odometer reading, VIN, and a datetime stamp
3) That output must be included when registering your car

DMV has the other key to decrypt that. They know the mileage at a given point in time, and they can authenticate the car it came from. There was no tracking, there was no radio, there was no infrastructure.

Driving out of the country? Give border patrol the number on the way out and on the way back. Get a receipt verified by them, include with registration, don't pay taxes for those mileages.

Immediate problems I see? Interstate travel, they have a special reg for that already, don't they? Either way, the majority of wheels are intrastate. Driving on private property? Eh, create some sort of special use class like they do now for recreational use. Tampering with the actual odometer hardware? - already illegal. Swapping the unit in and out? I guess, but I doubt that many people will put the effort in, besides there's all sorts of fun tamper-flagging you can do.

Not a bad idea.  But again you would have to make sure that there is a flat fee option for people who don't trust the gubmint.


No, you really don't. Just like there's no option to pay a flat fee instead of tax based on income. See, the thing is, if people are paranoid, no matter how much you give in to them, they're still going to be paranoid. So, if you bother with them, you end up with a hideously complicated system that they still are up in arms about.
 
2013-03-27 10:23:42 PM
I blame the Prius drivers.

For everything.
 
2013-03-27 10:24:28 PM

Intoxoman: I find it funny that some have commented to tax commercial trucks more but not their precious car. They already pay more. Here's a fun fact-everything you own has likely been in a truck. So taxing trucks more than they already do get taxed will just raise the price of everything you buy.


That's true but here's another fun fact, trucks pay more because they are the cause of the damage to the highways, you think your average car weighing 2000-2500 lbs causes any measurable amount of wear and tear to a road compared to an 80,000 lb semi-truck? I have no problem with them paying more, even if it only raises the price of the goods they deliver.
 
2013-03-27 10:26:04 PM

leadmetal: This is a power grab looking for an excuse.

Simply put there folks in government that would like to better know where we go and when. Some may even want automated speed enforcement everywhere. Eventually perhaps even leading to needing permission to travel. Once the transponders or number plate readers are in place the possibilities are endless for ways to exploit the technology and infrastructure.

thenewspaper.com already caught government in a lie regarding the revenue reasons for going to this tax by mile model. Their revenues suffered because new heavy truck sales cratered, not because of hybrids.

The gasoline tax is anonymous. It scales with use and vehicle weight pretty well. Your '71 pinto with a 428SCJ stuffed in it or equally a '72 Vega with a 454, not withstanding of course. Then there is the cost of collecting the tax. The infrastructure required for tax by the mile is at present still rather expensive compared to fuel taxes. Meanwhile real fleet fuel economy hasn't changed significantly since the early 1990s. However the value of the dollar has gone down a good deal.

So, the solution, if there was a problem,* would be to increase the tax gas or fix the dollar. Maybe find a way to tax plug in electrics. However, government can 'never waste a crisis', or in this case an opportunity to grab a power that can then be exploited for decades to come.

*considering other areas of government always see road funds as something to re-purpose or raid makes it one of the better funded areas and thus if the diversions were stopped perhaps would have any financial issues greatly reduced if not eliminated.


You crystallized my thoughts precisely.  There is no way that this plan is to benefit motorists or the general population.
/the right people just haven't had a chance to be in charge yet...amiright?  Huh? Huh?
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report