. To detail the particulars comprehended in the general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume, instead of a single piece in a newspaper. Indeed it would be a task far beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect taxation.Under this clause may be imposed a poll tax, a land tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fireplaces, on cattle and on all kinds of personal property. It extends to duties on all kinds of goods to any amount, to tonnage and poundage on vessels, to duties on written instruments, newspapers, almanacks, and books. It comprehends an excise on all kinds of liquors, spirits, wines, cider, beer, etc., and indeed takes in duty or excise on every necessary or conveniency of life, whether of foreign or home growth or manufactory. In short, we can have no conception of any way in which a government can raise money from the people, but what is included in one or other of these general terms.
We may say then that this clause commits to the hands of the general legislature every conceivable source of revenue within the United States, Not only are these terms very comprehensive, and extend to a vast number of objects, but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy. It opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise collectors to prey upon the honest and industrious part of the community, [and] eat up their substance
BRUTUS, The New-York Journal of December 13, 1787
We had this proposal come before the Oregon legilature where it was defeated. Here is the letter I wrote at the time.
O-DOT Plus GPS Equals KGB
Victor Sheymov entered Eighth KGB Directorate in 1971. When he escaped U.S.S.R. in 1980, he directed KGB cipher communications worldwide, and as such was the highest-ranking intelligence official to defect.
Victor’s first obstacle for executing escape plans was contacting a Known Intelligence Official (KIO). He circumvented multi-level surveillance preventing KIO contacts. KGB tactics included agents posing as foreigners, permanent listening and optical devises in restaurants and hotels, and stationary surveillance by Seventh Directorate “traffic officers” or agents in covert stations with powerful optics.
Elaborate, labor-intensive methods proved effective because the Soviet Union restricted foreigner’s travels. Those from NATO countries received special attention, and qualified for up to sixteen surveillance teams, and for planted vehicle homing devices. Restricted travel meant direction-monitoring towers provided real time vehicle locations.
The KGB would have benefited enormously from Oregon Department of Transportation (O-DOT) 21st century technology placing GPS monitoring devices in every vehicle. The devices with computers provide complete travel histories. They enable real time and historical vehicle collocations. The KGB could have greatly enhanced KIO, and key employee surveillance with reduced human resources.
The GPS, lauded nationwide, allows charging tax by mile instead of charging by amount of gas used, so low mileage and high mileage vehicles pay equivalent amounts. However, this approach contradicts policies to conserve fossil fuels.
Just because you are not paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. Is this comprehensive government intrusion into our lives warranted? Victor escaped the Soviet Union, but where do we go?
They can have this when all elected and non-elected government employees and officials wear webcam/microphones 24/7 so we can monitor them and make sure they're being good, too.
Why don’t they just put GPS collars on us all? Run them the same way self winding watches do. That way a LEO has any questions, he can scan the collar memory and download all your movements a la KGB/East Germany People’s Paradise.
I’ll just post this each time I see this article or something like this...
So here we are, looking at a mileage tax. It’s very emotional, since it squarely attacks one of our major freedoms in the US, which is the ability to get in our cars and drive around without ANYONE knowing what we’re doing. We can even drive cross-country and it’s likely that no one will know we ever left home, if we pay cash the whole way and stay clear of places (like motels) where they require ID. So, I want to take a calm and measured look at this.
In my case, based on my income (assuming, of course, it continues), my debts (very small, just a house payment at 20% of my take-home, and my cash at hand (plenty), I figure that I can pay whatever tolling rates they want, without barely noticing. And, if they did implement this scheme, it would almost certainly clear the roads of traffic, something that I would like (although others would have a tough time affording to drive on those clear roads - after all there is a reason why they’d be clear). In other words, from a purely selfish standpoint, I should support this scheme...but I don’t.
So why not? In a perfect world, where Atlas DOESN’T have to shrug and where everyone acted as finely tuned robots, nothing could be better than pricing road travel to assure the exact same level of traffic at 4:30 in the morning as 4:30 in the afternoon...and the same traffic at 5 AM Sunday, as 5 PM Friday. We would simply get the best use out of our roads. That is why this idea sits well at CATO and Heritage...where very well-paid, pointy-headed guys simply want to be able to drive home after work without having to “fight the traffic”. But, of course, it’s not that simple.
So, let’s step back and look at why we might want to impose a Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT). I can think of several reasons:
1) There are two many cars on the road at a given time (i.e., rush hour).
2) We are importing too much oil.
3) We are not collecting enough revenue to fix and expand our roads.
4) People are driving cars that are too big
5) We are emitting too much carbon
6) Driving without restrictions simply represents too much freedom for a modern, progressive, society.
7) We want to sell-off our roads to someone with lots of cash, to pay down the national debt.
So, you step back and try to figure out how to address the above and look at the options.
Option 1: Increase revenue enough enough money to keep up with highway needs
Option 2: Increase revenue enough to seriously cut down on road travel and provide extra money for social programs.
Option 3: Control the movements of people, and allow those movements to be monitored...also pay back debts to other countries.
You find that an increase of the gas tax will help with everything except #6 and #7, which is controlling freedom and paying our debts. Even with a high gas tax, people will still drive where they want, when they want. If money is just needed for highway repair and expansion, an increase of the gas tax of, maybe, 25 to 50 cents per gallon will easily cover it. If we want to cut way back on imported oil, then 2 to 4 dollars per gallon of tax increase will cover it. That same increase (2 to 4 dollars per gallon) will also provide PLENTY of revenue to repair and expand highways...and the expanding part will not even be necessary with fuel prices that high (i.e., there will be a LOT less driving).
So we come down to #6 and #7. #6 (i.e., monitoring of peoples’ movements) is obvious - once you have GPS, then THE G-MAN will know where you are at any time. For #7, you’re getting into how to payback our creditors (mainly the Chinese and Japanese, but also much of Europe and US banks). The idea is that once a mileage-based tolling system is in place, the revenue can be sent overseas and our banks...which may prevent WW3 (particularly after we finish disarming). The amount of money that can be generated...if priced for maximum revenue, is likely 30 to 50 cents per mile (average)...or close to a trillion dollars per year.
To be honest, I have no clue what the long-term intentions are, I only look at what COULD be done.
Needless to say, this crap needs to be stopped PRONTO, as we have much better options than giving government control over where we drive, what we drive, and when we drive.
Some ranchers fly around on their ranches...wonder if they will tax that, too. If not now, they will later.
Obama doesn't care what we think. He only cares about what he wants to do TO us.
I'm moving to Rhode Island...or getting a motor bike.
If they can track you with GPS, they can do a lot more than simply tax the number of miles you drove. They will know where you went, when you went there, how long you stayed, and how fast you drove.
No problem....
http://www.jammer-store.com/gps-blockers-jammers.html
Taxing incomes allows the government to destroy financial privacy. If we allow government to require us to have a GPS device for recording our driving, no matter how much we are assured that it will not be used to violate our travel privacy, as sure as the sun rises and sets, sooner or later some future version of it will be used to do just that!
(For example, when we start down this road, the taxation device will only record mileage. However, soon somebody will lobby for being taxed at a different rate for driving on special roads. At that point, the device has to record you were on that that road. There are all kinds of ways that once such a device is available and required that either some bureaucracy or legislature will find it easy to justify “mission creep”, and poof there goes your ability to drive where you please without anyone being able to know.)
This isn’t anything like the cigarette tax. If it were, you wouldn’t be allowed to drive, while in your vehicle.
A gas tax is a tax on every mile you drive. If you use more gas (via driving more or bad gas mileage) you pay more tax and are presumably paying in accordance with your use of the highways and damage to the ecology (I didn't say I believe this BTW). But you see, much like the cigarette tax, the more you tax something the less revenue you get as people will conserve in various ways.
So the spendaholics have got to figure out a way for you to pay taxes not connected to what you drive, these people just don't stop.
Feareth not.
GPS jammer stock will go through the roof. And everyone will have one.
Ridiculous? Of course it is. That's why it's really gonna suck when crap like this starts kicking in.
The last time I heard, we already had a “fuel” tax. Seems to me that is sufficient without all this added BS. Double Taxation.
Fry any POL who advocates such dribble.
Bye Bye Bye Dummies.
Now, who makes a faraday cage which will block the GPS transciever in a vehicle?
A per-mile gas tax would adversely effect southern state, but most particularly western states where you have to have a car to get around because everything is so spread out. Most of NYC wouldn’t have to pay this tax because they don’t have any cars!! It’s simply not fair.
A per-mile gas tax would adversely effect southern state, but most particularly western states where you have to have a car to get around because everything is so spread out. Most of NYC wouldn’t have to pay this tax because they don’t have any cars!! It’s simply not fair.
The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. [n12] Chafee, [p126] Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160. “Our nation,” wrote Chafee,
has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.
Kent v Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 decided June, 1958