Skip to comments.
State Tracking of Auto Movements by GPS Called 'Nutty'
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 1/02/03
| Marc Morano
Posted on 01/02/2003 3:29:09 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
1
posted on
01/02/2003 3:29:09 AM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
I'm afraid to disappoint him. Americans have already accepted a ban on smoking and apparently are resigned to wholesale restrictions on their RKBA earlier generations would have deemed intolerable. The government won't be introducing the GPS measure in one fell swoop. The enemies of liberty never work that way. Instead they'll introduce aspects of it incrementally step by step to minimize potential opposition until the opportunity arises to put the final step in place. People will have lost their precious freedom without even realizing they lost it. What the bureaucrats are now testing is just how much they can get away with for the moment. Everything will be dictated by a need to make sure the sheeple accept what's coming to them. In this day and age the American people are not quite ready to rebel against a government that seeks oppress them in the name of kindness.
To: goldstategop
why bother with vehicles when it'll be on every cell phone by '05 -
To: kattracks
Noting that gas taxes are unfair because of the large differences in the fuel economy of automobilesThat's BS. Increased fuel effeciency is an incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient car! That "unfairness" is supposed to be a good thing!
4
posted on
01/02/2003 3:50:52 AM PST
by
krb
To: kattracks
Question:
What is "Catch 22"?
5
posted on
01/02/2003 4:10:07 AM PST
by
jos65
To: kattracks
Noting that gas taxes are unfair because of the large differences in the fuel economy of automobiles, Whitty and the task force explored alternative taxing methods to ensure equity among drivers. Seventy-percent of Oregon's road maintenance revenues currently come from federal and state gas taxes.This bill should be called what it is: "The Low Gas Mileage SUV Protection Act"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a heavier vehicle uses more fuel, doesn't that mean it's also causing more wear and tear on the road? Doesn't this mean gas taxes ARE fair?
6
posted on
01/02/2003 4:13:17 AM PST
by
xm177e2
To: xm177e2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a heavier vehicle uses more fuel, doesn't that mean it's also causing more wear and tear on the road? Doesn't this mean gas taxes ARE fair?BINGO!
To: xm177e2
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a heavier vehicle uses more fuel, doesn't that mean it's also causing more wear and tear on the road? Doesn't this mean gas taxes ARE fair?"
You are right. The only way gas tax would be unfair only if you take the position that the drivers of fuel efficient automobiles are somehow getting a "free ride" (pun intended) at the expense their low milage counterparts. But isn't this exactly what the big govt. types have been advocating for years? ie. - create incentives to use less gas? So....if gas taxes really are a fair way to make those who use the roads most pay their fair share, then what is the real reason reason for this legislation? I could accept the "SUV protection act" concept except this is Oregon. They are pretty liberal there and those types generally consider SUV's to be the devil incarnate. From all I've read, those people would love the chance to sock it to the drivers of gas guzzlers and reward the Yugo drivers. I could be cynical and paranoid and believe that the real reason for this proposal is just to give the State the power to be able to track everyone in their automobiles and I'm not sure this isn't the correct answer. This whole thing doesn't really add up and although I try to keep an open mind on things, this doesn't pass the sniff test.
8
posted on
01/02/2003 5:17:10 AM PST
by
joebuck
To: kattracks
Wouldn't be a lot simpler to use the vehicles odometer? Idoits.
9
posted on
01/02/2003 5:20:15 AM PST
by
Glenn
To: kattracks
Poor Mr. Whitty is running low on wit.
Also, it's funny that these nitwits blame all of our problems on technology and then turn around and want to use technology for more taxes (their real goal).
To: Glenn
In earlier articles, they claimed they were looking at using GPS technology to differentiate between miles travelled within the state of Oregon (which would be taxable) and miles travelled outside the state (which would not be taxable).
11
posted on
01/02/2003 5:40:52 AM PST
by
SWake
To: kattracks
.
Old news.
Those of us who have been designing emissions controllers and sensors for automobiles all know that the first efforts to track cars came from the Clinton Administration. Was first adoped by GM through pressure from the Auto Unions. Agreed to develop and put it in all their cars in a phased in plan over a 15 year time table.
OLD NEWS.
12
posted on
01/02/2003 5:51:15 AM PST
by
vannrox
To: kattracks
the GPS mileage tracking tax proposal necessary because "it costs a certain amount to drive on the road per vehicle and people ought to pay their fair share of their usage." I thought that that was the purpose of all the other taxes - to build and maintain the roads. This purely Dem thinking is one more sign of why we are in dire straits if we don't stamp out the commies (left-wing "liberal" nutcases in the DemocRATic party) in government.
13
posted on
01/02/2003 6:09:07 AM PST
by
trebb
To: kattracks
I am so confused. The same type of people who complain about SUVs are now worried that the people driving the SUVs are having to pay a higher amount of taxes because of lower gas mileage. Could someone anyone, please, explain this?
14
posted on
01/02/2003 6:20:59 AM PST
by
sticker
To: kattracks
"There was no longer a correlation between miles driven and revenues raised,"Ummm... I thought that was called the "gasoline tax."
The more gas you use, the more tax you pay. Furthermore, users are taxed on the relative efficiency of their cars.
Any gain they anticipate from this intrusive, Orwellian technology will be offset by the mass exodus from Oregon.
15
posted on
01/02/2003 6:42:22 AM PST
by
angkor
To: joebuck; xm177e2
I think this might be anticipation of zero-emission vehicles and hybrids that have very high gas milage or use a source of fuel other than gasoline.
To: kattracks
It would be far simpler to place a "mass tax" on each vehicle where the heavier vehicle is taxed a higher rate; it would be a simple matter to place scales at gas pumps connected to computers that would adjust the fuel price based on the vehicle weight, a 3,000 pound car would pay the standard gas tax while a 6,000 pound truck would pay twice the base rate, and so on.
Honda Accord: $1.39/gal., Cadillac Escalade: $1.55/gal....
To: trebb; kattracks; vannrox
I thought that that was the purpose of all the other taxes - to build and maintain the roads. There are a lot of sides to this issue, but it all boils down to money ... how much money the gov't can use to buy votes and social largess.
First, the gas tax was never intended to, and does not, pay for all road construction. Road construction is best viewed as a "capital expense" necessary for the common good. Road repair is another expensive problem that can be solved by less corruption in gov't, but the Dems won't go there. The issue needs to be divided up to new road construction (access), based upon growth, and road maintenance. The Feds are paying for I35, for example, to be rebuilt all through Texas to handle the increased trafic and weight due to NAFTA.
Second, lighter vehicles cause much less damage to roadways than heavy trucks. Lighter vehicles also pay far fewer fuel taxes, compared to SUVs and trucks. Could zero-emission vehicles impact the ability to states to budget for maintenance? Possibly, but road use taxes will appear at the LNG and hydrogen pumps sooner or later. Electric cars will just have a road use tax built into the price of the car.
Does anyone think that the value of less air pollution will exempt these cars from taxes? Hah! Gov't will never give up a revenue stream.
I don't remember the stats, but every truck, local and especially longhaul, pays a huge proportion of road use taxes in comparison to any private vehicle. The biggest problem in road maintenance is not the number of cars, but of overloaded trucks that damage roads not designed for such weights.
The major issue in Oregon is not the amount of road use taxes collected, but the way in which politicians feel they own the money being disbursed.
To: Old Professer
Please don't give them any ideas for a gas surcharge. Just what we need, another way to hit the SUV crowd.
Of course, we could institute a new "Emergency Room and Medical Tax" on smaller vehicles, since their users disproportionately clog hospitals after traffic accidents.
To: goldstategop
The enemies of liberty never work that way. Instead they'll introduce aspects of it incrementally step by step to minimize potential opposition until the opportunity arises to put the final step in place. People will have lost their precious freedom without even realizing they lost it.
Amen brother. And we're already a long ways into it. Most recently, we have the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, which is one of the biggest steps we've yet taken towards a Big Brother Police State. If not for 9/11, Americans never would have stood for it. Most of the provisions in it WERE tried previously during the Clinton admin., and were rejected because of these same concerns.
In fact some of the provisions in the Patriot Act, such as sneak-n-peek, are now a permanent part of the US Code (with no sunset), and apply to ALL criminal investigations, not just terrorism. They tried attaching the same provision to a 1996 anti-drug law, but it failed. Now, people are perfectly willing to accept it.
I was pleansantly surprised that people did put the kibosh on Operation TIPS though, but it's a minor victory.
My biggest fear from another terrorist attack is not what it will do to the economy, but the loss of our remaining freedom when Washington happily responds to a cowering (cowardly) public demanding more "security".
20
posted on
01/02/2003 9:22:53 AM PST
by
jenny65
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson