[Zimm63]

My newest vehicle is from 1993, so I should be safe from big brother.

Zimm

[windjamer]

Think it cant happen?? Headline in my morning newspaper says Dutch drivers to pay taxes on road time. www.pressconnects.com Amsterdam, The Dutch goverment plans to bring the polluter-pays principle into the home garage.
Acording to the paper, in 2012 the gps unit in your car will track the time and place each car moves and send the data to a billing agent witch will then bill the owner. Others, and Im sure that includes we uns will watch the new system to see how it works. You can bet your last hard earned dollar New York will JUMP on this wagon. The only thing NY. dosnt charge a tax on now is the air we breathe.

[Larry Schramm]

Give NY time and they will be billing you for that too

[Dave@Moon]

And yet we pay the lowest taxes in the Western world. Go figure.

It's just not going to work looking at this issue with a "glass half-empty" perspective.

Bluntly put, roads cost money and you have to cough it up somehow. While there's no excuse for any government agency to abuse that reality, there's equally no excuse for denying it or thinking you can legitimately avoid it. Fuel taxes will soon be a VERY unfair way of raising this money, heavily penalizing older car owners (Sound like anyone you know?) in favor of the owners of hybrid and alternative fuels cars (Sound like anyone whose words you're reading?).

So just keep carping about the "unfairness" of all of this, and keep on doing whatever you can to stop this from happening. Please!

[NTX5467]

Unless the gov't entity owns the GPS unit, there's no way for them to access it to determine driving habits. It probably would take a valid search warrant to gain access to any possible OnSTAR records, too, if any exist for areas traveled, etc.

Some states are passing enabling legislation for car insurance companies to have variable rates depending upon how much a vehicle is driven, in what zip codes, etc. in order to better match "risk" (i.e., monthly payments) to vehicle use and location. This could help "fixed income" customers have lower rates, but might also increase rates for a high-mileage driver or drivers that drive in "high-risk" areas. The GPS unit would be the property of the insurance company.

There's also a deal where a used car dealer can install a tracking device on vehicles they sell to ensure their customers make their payments on time.

Raising the federal gasoline tax might not get Presidential approval, but the states also have their own gas taxes which they can consider raising. An 8 cent raise has been mentioned in TX . . . seems our Federal gas taxes have been financing road projects in other states, our current Governor claims. What might be better . . . an increase in gas taxes or more toll roads? In reality, "neither" in our current times of struggling economies and the vanishing middle class.

Regards,
NTX5467

[NTX5467]

At a local Valero gas station, there were some ads on the gas pumps about how much the proposed "Cap and Trade" situation could raise fuel prices by 75cents/gallon OVER what they now are.

With all due respect, "CaT" seems to be highly regarded by those with lots of money OR some ties to the Chicago Environmental Exchange. Such higher energy and consumer goods prices would not affect them very much, but those in the lower income spectrums would really feel such an increase. Consider how many of our normal, every day items have some link to carbon fuels!

As some might desire to raise taxes on the upper 2% of incomes in the USA to compensate for tax cuts for lower income demographics, CaT would be a tax for EVERYBODY, just not called "a tax".

It seems that trying to move away from a carbon-based society is something that will take many years to really accomplish, but those with money who are strongly advocating this "dream" are passionate about it . . . at all costs.

They keep talking about all of the new "clean energy" jobs that'll be created by such a switch . . . but the FAIL to acknowledge the "carnage" of lost jobs and economic buying power which would result in many significant industries related to energy production in the USA and the world. The world they claim to be adamant about saving might not be such a great place to be, after they get their way, especially for those "without" money to enjoy the fruits of the alleged benefits!

Just some thoughts,
NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

To go along with the hijack of this thread.....

Originally Posted by NTX5467

At a local Valero gas station, there were some ads on the gas pumps about how much the proposed "Cap and Trade" situation could raise fuel prices by 75cents/gallon OVER what they now are.

That's a drop in the bucket compared to what gas is about to cost. Read all the science, not just what seems comfortable or is compatible with preconceived notions.

Uncomfortable times are coming. "Cap & Trade" is only a cushioning blow.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."--Dr. Steven T. Colbert D.F.A., 4/26/06

[John Chapman]

Well, as long as the hijack has taken place... relax and enjoy.

As for the 'tax by mile' discussion, it's pretty easy to set it up. Progressive Insurance has already developed a module that will extract driven miles information from OBD II systems (most all passenger cars >1996) in order to offer MyRate (currently available in Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey and Oregon). Cars without OBD II could be easily required to have an annual mileage certification. No GPS required.

If (and that's a big word here) all, or most, road tax was transitioned to a use-based tax it would be an effective way to generate tax revenue divorced from fuel consumption. IMHO, there should continue to be a reduced 'general revenue' tax component to road funding in reflection of the general good derived by a well-maintained road system by all citizens whether they directly use it or not. It would also be 'tunable' to impose the highest taxes on vehicles that cause the most wear on the roads. We must watch our greedy political brethren, lest they try to continue both (current fuel tax and mileage tax). The VAT discussion is germane.

As for coupling this to the 'Tax and Cap' discussion, it is an essential part of that discussion. Whether 'Peak Oil' is the issue is irrelevant to a large extent. What is relevant is that the 'T&C' is an economy-crippling wealth transfer mechanism that will enrich some at the expense of many and hold productive economies hostage to unproductive economies.

What we really need is a coherent, functional national energy policy that will maximize our natural energy resources and prepare the groundwork for transitioning to a fundamentally new energy use model. We have immense energy resources available in petroleum, natural gas, and coal. We need a policy that: First, significantly reduces dependence on outside sources; Second, begin a transition to electrification of personal urban transport; Three, work at restoration of our national freight and passenger train service; Fourth, let the Government set the guidelines and fund infrastructure... then get out of the way.

[Dave@Moon]

Originally Posted by John Chapman

What we really need is a coherent, functional national energy policy that will maximize our natural energy resources and prepare the groundwork for transitioning to a fundamentally new energy use model. We have immense energy resources available in petroleum, natural gas, and coal. We need a policy that: First, significantly reduces dependence on outside sources; Second, begin a transition to electrification of personal urban transport; Three, work at restoration of our national freight and passenger train service; Fourth, let the Government set the guidelines and fund infrastructure... then get out of the way.

There's no way a coherent, functional anything is going to be adopted as long as people continue to 1.) Believe that there is "immense resources" of petroleum in the U.S. or anywhere else relative to (current) need. and 2.) Believe that 99.99% of the world's scientists are liars concerning the future costs of buring the natural gas and coal we do have in relative abundance. The first flies in the face of even the most basic math, especially re. U.S. oil reserves. The second flies in the face of prudence, let alone logic.

For the life of me I'm astounded how many people there are who think they can tell vast sums of degreed professionals in the scientific fields of study that they know less about their own field of study than the average Fox News viewer because they said something else (or found someone who would). Until these ideas are abandoned that facts are negotiable, and/or that sources for "facts" are all of equal weight (with the concomitant assumption that we only believe the nice "facts"), there will never be enough understanding to build even a shaky policy on, let alone a "coherent, functional policy".

Conservation, whether voluntary or involuntary, is coming. It's the truly conservative thing to do given our situation as a species or as a nation. You can help or you can rail against it. It won't matter. Uncomfortable times are coming, blame yourself first. I do.

[John Chapman]

Dave,

A predictably toned response from you. Recent relevations about the veracity of the AGP community aside, I doubt that 99.99% of the world's scientists are liars. I just think that the ones that support conclusions based on massaged data that are then foisted upon us by failed politicians for personal gain are suspect. With good reason and regardless of news source.

Now, that said, I think we did say the same thing: conservation from both reduction of consumption and efficiency are the answer.

A coherent national energy policy could bring to bear the natural and intellectual resources we have in abundance to solve our energy problems. We are NOT doing that, chosing instead to pursue a politically infused path that has a separate agenda not in the best interest of our nation. We should keep in mind that this is the nation that, in the short interval of 12 years (1957-1969), progressed from exploding rockets on the pad at Cape Canaveral to landing a man on the moon. We can do this.

So, we don't have 200 years of oil... OK, what we do is prioritize how it is used. We do have 200 years of coal and a lot of natural gas. How can we best use those resources? And so goes the question... where's the coherent, productive policy? What would YOU do?

JMC