I Will Not Comply

[Steve Stuck]

"Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn."

This line started a recent interview by Ray LaHood in an interview with the Associated Press. The idea is to put a GPS device or special chip in peoples cars to monitor how many miles they drive. Here is another excerpt to the interview:

The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.

The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.

This is too offset the growing deficit for highway funding that gasoline taxes do not raise. Guess what, not my problem. Government wastes so much money on tax revenue already raised, really not my problem anymore. I do agree that the federal highway system is a much needed tax revenue venture to help prosper our nation. In the end, I pay more than enough in federal income taxes and gasoline taxes that I have done my part along with millions of others. Now it is up too the federal government to get their spending priorities in line too correct these budget shortfalls.

Second problem I see is that all the sudden, those who opposed our last Presidential administration on privacy issues seem to be muted on this subject. Your vehicle is your private property. The necessary steps are implemented for your social responsibility to have car insurance and registering your vehicle. Other than that, government needs no little tracking device to monitor your behavior. This is unconstitional if this law gets passed.

That is why I will not comply if voted in and will prepare myself for the penalties they will impose on me. Go ahead, snitch on me and tell the proper authorities about this blog.

The government does not scare me nor should it scare you.

[Kristen Horton]

Aside from the privacy concerns, I actually believe this may save us $.

According to the current proposal by North Carolina ... from the article AP Interview: LaHood Eyes Taxing Miles Driven
"a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax" - if one considers the current gasoline tax (for Indiana) - this is a significant decrease in what we are currently paying (29.2 cents per gallon for Indiana - found on The Tax Foundation website.

By my computations, the proposed .025 per mile tax means that I would have to drive 4 miles to pay 1cent, or for every gallon I use, I would pay a total gas tax of 6 cents (I average 24 miles per gallon).
Currently I pay 29.2 cents per gallon- so I'm all for this (unless I've completely miscalculated the cost savings - and if so, please feel free to provide the correct figures) until we switch to electric cars or until I can buy that cute little Mini Cooper I've been wanting...

[Steve Stuck]

I would be for this if it was just strictly a consumption tax and all other taxes (local, state and federal) on gasoline were abolished. That will not be the case for this proposal and yet more taxation on top of existing.

I would never put a tracking device on my vehicle for government monitoring.

[PK Koduri]

I have to agree with Steve - this is a stupid plan, where I drive and how far I drive is my business. I always thought Distances driven were inversely proportional to cost of gas - higher the price lower the consumption. I would imagine folks driving more and taking more vacations away from homes if fuel consumption standards improved. Having said that don't folks in cities like NY, CHI, and DC have some kind of an electronic device that activates the toll road meters? Looks like a precedence has already been set.

[Phoenix R. Cavalier]

This is unconstitutional based on the fact that the constitution grants people the "freedom of locomotion" to and from anywhere. The introduction of a 'license to drive' was originally intended only for commerce, not individuals. Following on the broad use of taxes related to roadways, if this idea would cost less per-person, than it stands to reason that the state would earn less, thereby failing to provided added revenue.

There is no way to divorce this idea from privacy concerns, individual behavior and operation of ones vehicle are none of the governments business, and with any governments track record of abuses of information, and the subsequent hiding of information gathered, this idea is terrible.

I am in favor of changing the composition of road materials, reducing the need for them to be re-paved and fixed so often. There are many very interesting advances in concrete, pavement, and other cement technologies. One I like most recycles tires into the pavement material, creating a level of flexibility to the surface, increasing traction, and allowing for moderate expansion in hot and cold temperatures. This single change would radically reduce waste in landfills, (there are enough tires in landfills to stack them to the moon eight times, last I checked), provide a longer life-span for our roadways, and it could even reduce traffic deaths of road-workers by decreasing the amount of repairs needed annually.

So, again, if we want to talk about tracking devices, we all have one, it's called a cell phone, however, it's data is (even with illegal wire tapping) not used as a revenue generation source. (Curious about this: Even if your phone does NOT have GPS, it does have a signal called E911, that was originally activated by the user when 911 was dialed; quietly in about 1999 or so, the signal became 'always-on' automatically, so your phone can "save your life" in an emergency.)

Peace be with you, and may liberty and freedom be ours forever.

Phoenix C.

[Erik Deckers]

Something tells me this one isn't going to pass, or even make it into Congress.

Besides, we're getting taxed on the number of miles we drive anyway. We pay gas tax already. If we drive more miles, we buy more gas, and we pay more taxes. So, I'm with you on this one, Steve.

I suppose if we weren't spending billions of dollars on other, more destructive ventures, we would have the money to fix the roads and not need mileage taxes anyway. ;-)

[Donna Storm]

The mileage tax is "a no go,'' the White House says, in rapid response.

[Kirk Booher]

Expect more of this type of INTRUSIVE government with this administration...someone is going to have to PAY for all this spending...you cant get something for nothing...if you want government to take care of you, prepare for the consequences