Hybrids are less than 5% of cars on the road and their damage is insignificant so why should they pay more?
which is why in an earlier post i said that weight should be a factor.
my point with the hybrid vs similar sized car was that the hybrid does the same amount of damage to the road but pays less for it.
it should also be an ethier or tax. we ethier have a gas tax, or a per mile tax. and no gps
Hybrids are less than 5% of cars on the road and their damage is insignificant so why should they pay more?
Isn't this a perfectly conservative idea? I thought they were all about people paying fees for what they use.
The first thing we should do is correct the fact that the gas tax has lost 33% of its purchasing power since it was last raised. It should be a either a percentage or indexed to inflation as opposed to a flat number.
actually it's lost almost 100% of its purchasing power to help fix our roads because the fund was raided to pay for things in the general fund . . . didn't you hear?
Hybrids are less than 5% of cars on the road and their damage is insignificant so why should they pay more?
snip
If ever faced with this, I will be rolling back my odometer daily, and anyone trying to install shit in my property without my consent will find their ashes dumped in a random cement mixer.
If true, this would be pretty regressive policy. The poor are much less likely to be able to afford to live near their jobs, and public transit in the Bay Area and LA (not to mention the rest of the state) is sketchy at best. The poor also benefit less from roads than do businesses whose client traffic and supply lines are made possible by them, yet this wouldn't tax those businesses at all for what they're getting out of the system.
On a kind of interesting side note, this would also totally push everyone into Amazon's arms with their increasing delivery options, meaning that Walmart and every other brick-and-mortar store would be strongly against this.
Also, yes, living closer to where you work is better for anyone who cares about clear air and water AND/OR doesn't like sitting in traffic for a commute for hours. How is that something that causes such anger and vitriol here? It's better for everyone if we had efficient, clean public transit options, fewer people drove, and people lived nearer where they work.
I can tell you for a fact that the public transportation system in SF is a complete fucking mess of over spending and deficits. MUNI is consistently in the hole despite tax hikes, fee increases and sadly the service provided is pretty mediocre in many ways.
How are they going to stop the cars from running? Are they going to actually mechanically and electrically modify each and every car, when its registration gets renewed? Who's going to pay for the inevitable botched implementations?You take it out or disable it, your car doesn't run. Sure there will be people that find some illegals ways, but for the most part, people are going to not F with it. It seems a far more fair way to pay for roads than we do now.
Use of fuel taxes is just a conceptual convenience. Everyone uses roads. If you don't drive on them, you still use things that travel on them, and have business with other people that use them. It is entirely fair to use taxes from wherever they can get them to keep up such infrastructure.But...what will you do when battery and electro related advances and penetration are the majority % of vehicles sold? Say in 30-50 years? It seems like we're bound for my type of solution no matter which way we go...
Also, yes, living closer to where you work is better for anyone who cares about clear air and water AND/OR doesn't like sitting in traffic for a commute for hours. How is that something that causes such anger and vitriol here? It's better for everyone if we had efficient, clean public transit options, fewer people drove, and people lived nearer where they work.
How are they going to stop the cars from running? Are they going to actually mechanically and electrically modify each and every car, when its registration gets renewed? Who's going to pay for the inevitable botched implementations?
Use of fuel taxes is just a conceptual convenience. Everyone uses roads. If you don't drive on them, you still use things that travel on them, and have business with other people that use them. It is entirely fair to use taxes from wherever they can get them to keep up such infrastructure.
Gas taxes are falling behind with hybrids and electrics but 10 cents/mile is ridiculous. GPS also makes no sense. An odometer tracks milage without invading privacy.
The gas tax is no longer funded because it was robbed to pay for the general funds. Now they're suggesting that a GPS be installed on all of our cars to track our miles driven and tax us between .01 and .10 per mile based on time of day. They anticipate $15 million in revenue PER DAY from the bay area alone.
Number one this is going to cost A LOT. Personally it'll be 3000/year JUST TO GO TO WORK since I commute from SJ to SF. That's not counting trips to go to the gym or shopping. They're pushing for more and more efficient cars, and then complaining when the gas tax revenue goes down.
Number two this is a HUGE privacy concern. A gps to know where i am? Big brother is here!!! Automatically send a speeding ticket if you exceed the posted limit on the freeway, etc. . . .
They're also talking about raising bridge tolls during rush hour. Further punishing those who work. public transit IS NOT AN OPTION most of the time. I used to use it going to school everyday because it was convenient. Now i've got a 2 year old and have to go shopping. I'm not going to ride the bus for something like that.
We really need to get our big trucks off the road or make special roads for them to travel on. It's a bit ridiculous how fucking quick a street repair can get ripped up when you have 18 wheelers driving over it.
I'd actually be for this nationally. Use modern day tech to solve modern day problems. Just have to make sure the system and results are inaccessible by anyone other than DOT.
Chuck
If I were to move to California, and this were enacted, are they going to have a custom ECU made for my car, and warranty it against any faults they may be introducing? How much of a tax will to take to pay for the development and production of such small-volume (relatively) items? But then, if you only worry about future cars' integrated systems, then two things are bound to happen:Cars don't run without computers. The computer would have a 3G/4G/LTE chip in it, they don't have to electrically modify it, they just have to switch it over in the national/state system when the title changes hands, like they already have to do.
Then why are you so hung up on what tax is used? If we can agree that everyone depends on the roads, then it really shouldn't matter where it comes from. Except, of course, that a per-mile-driven tax is going to penalize regular commuters far more than commercial users, despite those users doing more damage, and you can bet that utilities and municipal vehicles will be able to get exemptions.Yes, Everyone depends on roads. The truckers can increase their rates to cover their road fees, passing them onto the distributor, who passes them onto the retailer, who passes them onto us consumers. Everyone will pay their fair share, whether they drive or not.
Chuck
Fraud. System results need to be editable by no one, but accessible by anyone with physical access to the car, and willingness to buy a connecting gadget (they wouldn't use a common interface, obviously). If I can't verify the information, and must trust an impenetrable bureaucracy to have correct results, with no recourse, the only thing it makes easy is fraud on their part, to increase revenues.why? what would our country get out of it?
What? Its true.
The problem isnt so much that we have eco-kooks but that they somehow keep influencing government. THATS the real issue.
why? what would our country get out of it?
:Originally Posted by chucky2
Cars don't run without computers. The computer would have a 3G/4G/LTE chip in it, they don't have to electrically modify it, they just have to switch it over in the national/state system when the title changes hands, like they already have to do.
If I were to move to California, and this were enacted, are they going to have a custom ECU made for my car, and warranty it against any faults they may be introducing? How much of a tax will to take to pay for the development and production of such small-volume (relatively) items? But then, if you only worry about future cars' integrated systems, then two things are bound to happen:
1. The used market gets stronger.
2. New sales will reduce in the area.
If they're going to do such a tax, the odo is the only sane way to go about it.
Verifying odometer readings at each license renewal will also be cheap to implement for any state, whereas a tracking system will cost billions, be of questionable value, and be of questionable ethics. Ethics and cost concerns would, without major corporate backing, also make it a difficult pill for the U.S Congress, if you wanted something more standard.
Yes, Everyone depends on roads. The truckers can increase their rates to cover their road fees, passing them onto the distributor, who passes them onto the retailer, who passes them onto us consumers. Everyone will pay their fair share, whether they drive or not.
Chuck
Then why are you so hung up on what tax is used? If we can agree that everyone depends on the roads, then it really shouldn't matter where it comes from. Except, of course, that a per-mile-driven tax is going to penalize regular commuters far more than commercial users, despite those users doing more damage, and you can bet that utilities and municipal vehicles will be able to get exemptions.