
A black box in your car? Some see a source of tax revenue - eplanit
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-roads-black-boxes-20131027,0,6090226.story
======
PeterisP
Why is raising the gas tax not an option? I mean, almost noone wants to pay
more taxes, but if the road fund needs to take money then it's far simpler to
raise the existing tax rate rather than implement a new process, collection
agency, and monitoring tools.

The rate listed in article (18 cents/gallon) is not a big influence to prevent
driving - it's ten times less than the gas excise tax I pay in EU, which comes
out to a bit less than $2 per US gallon. Business doesn't stop because of it,
and there's extra motivation to reduce the polluting transportation.

~~~
chiph
With the new CAFE mileage goals, tax revenue will fall as cars become more
fuel efficient. Or as people buy more electric vehicles.

The deal is that cars actually cause very little damage to the roads. Trucks
are the real cause of road damage -- up to 80,000 pounds spread over five
axles. Compare that to 4,000 pounds over two axles for a car (or 5-6k pounds
for a loaded pickup or SUV) -- the per-axle weight is much higher for a truck.

The trucking lobby is very powerful in Washington, and will resist any effort
to increase the diesel motor-fuels tax. They have a powerful argument in their
favor: The majority of food in America is delivered by truck. Raise the tax,
raise the cost of food.

But even outside of that, there's a simple way to get about a 20% increase in
funds for repairing the roads & bridges, and that's to stop the diversion of
funds out of the highway trust fund into the general fund. The tax money
intended to go to build & maintain our crumbling transportation
infrastructure, is instead being fed into the sausage factory where it gets
turned into pork.

~~~
PeterisP
The valid argument for not taxing a flat rate ($xxx per car per year) is that
it unfairly penalizes those who use it very little. For personal vehicles that
makes sense, so their 'costs' are mostly paid by the gas excise; but for
commercial trucks you can just tax them directly - for example, here local
semi-trailers pay ~$350 annual vehicle tax; does USA have something like this?

The food argument is bullshit, of course, but probably effective because it
sounds nice. The truck fuel cost is a very tiny part of the actual food cost -
taxes on farming fuel would impact food, but not that. Of course, extra taxes
always create inflation; but fuel tax is probably the one most evenly spread
across everything, as it affects burger prices just the same as Barbie prices.

~~~
chiph
The federal diesel motor fuels tax is 28¢ per gallon. The states will have
their own tax as well. Texas imposes a 20¢ per gallon tax. Connecticut's is
54.9¢.

There's also a tax on the vehicle itself. I want to say that it's in the $500
per year range, depending on it's GVWR and the state.

------
awjr
As others have said in this thread, just raise taxation on fuel.

In the UK ($8.50 per US gallon) it has encouraged people towards more
efficient vehicles and the government has made electric vehicles free from
yearly charges (Vehicle Excise Duty is based on emissions which again punish
bigger engined cars).

Of note it is quite unusual to see an 18 year old with a car these days. Cost
of fuel and insurance discourages the young from getting a car.

In fact there is a major push towards 'Active travel' (Cycling/walking/public
transport).

Where I can see these type of devices finding a home is in reducing your
insurance premiums. In fact I can see the Russian situation where something
like this box with a dashboard cam will almost become mandatory. Well not so
much mandatory, but as the only way to get cheap insurance.

~~~
maxsilver
> As others have said in this thread, just raise taxation on fuel.

This is one of those "uniquely American" problems.

You simply can't get any meaningfully-large group of US citizens to agree to
raise taxes. On anything.

Even if it's in their own interest. Even if there is zero drawbacks of any
kind. Americans will fight tooth-and-nail against anything that looks or feels
like a "tax" of any kind.

In addition, many Americans already feel like the gasoline prices are "high"
here. (Even though, factually, we live with very low subsidized prices:
they're around $3.25 per US gallon here today).

Raising tax on fuel is not even fathomable.

~~~
binarycrusader

      You simply can't get any meaningfully-large group
      of US citizens to agree to raise taxes. On anything.
    

Really?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/in-
california-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/in-california-
voters-approve-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxesin-california-approve-voters-
ballot-measure-that-raises-taxes.html)

I was one of the voters that voted for the increase. I don't mind paying taxes
most of the time; with them I buy civilization.

~~~
maxsilver
Your right. I should have started all of the above sentences with "most of the
time".

------
scragg
Moronic. So to _create_ tax revenue, let's spend tax revenue on a device, data
collection, analysis, complex billing, which of course the gov having a great
history of being good stewards with our tax dollars, will overpay. All for
something that can double as a spying device. yay.

Just raise the gas tax to make up for lost revenue. Sick of hearing "we are
addicted to oil" every state of the union and the answer is right there.
Solves the road revenue problem as well.

------
yetanotherphd
People need to get out of the false notion that the government is desperate to
increase tax revenue by any means, and will foist us with an extra tax at
every opportunity.

There are two main drivers of tax policy. The bad, is that there is political
gain to be made by making taxes less salient. If people don't notice they are
being taxed, they will complain less. The article claims gasoline taxes are
more salient than the proposed new technlology.

The good, is that the government wants to tax negative externalities, and give
tax breaks for positive externalities, and possibly tax luxury items to make
taxes more progressive (the last one isn't always good policy). The proposed
policy may or may not achieve this - as mentioned, it does allow for
congestion taxation.

So whether you are saying what the government should do, or what the
government does do, the paradigm of a government desperate to obtain more
revenue is a poor one.

~~~
MichaelGG
Local governments are notorious for trying to increase revenue. Like changing
yellow-light duration to increase red-light traffic violation tickets after
cameras were installed.

Governments in general, at a federal level, might not be this way, but local
cities and counties certainly often try many tricks. From "taxes" on driving,
to abusing seizure laws. Hence the notion people have.

~~~
yetanotherphd
Yeah good point. I guess for various reasons higher levels of government tend
to reign in the ability of lower levels of government to raise taxes, and it
does create precisely the situation you describe.

Still, all the more reason to make fine distinctions - in this case between
local state and federal government

------
dlgeek
And we have to use complicated tracking/transmitting devices that force us to
trust us that you're not monitoring our movements instead of just having our
odometers read annually (perhaps during emissions testing?)...why?

------
tomohawk
At least in the state I live in, the gas tax would more than pay for road
upkeep and upgrades, but they keep diverting the money to other uses (usually
ending up in the pockets of politically connected cronies). We now have
bridges in need of replacement and roads falling apart.

It's no surprise that, having found a great gimmick to divert money, while at
the same time making it seem like the money is actually needed, that
politicians want to see how far they can push it.

------
djillionsmix
Four or five times a year someone floats this eternally stupid idea for the
Exciting New Car Tax!!! and the answer to why the hell people would ever
accept this, but not a gas tax increase, is always _mumble mumble mumble_
"hey, look over there!"

------
mieses
This sentence discredits the writer:

"Libertarians have joined environmental groups in lobbying to allow government
to use the little boxes to keep track of the miles you drive, and possibly
where you drive them — then use the information to draw up a tax bill."

Libertarians are for use tax and privatization of roads. Unless misled by
clever wording, they would never support a state administered use tax that
tracked your location.

------
cschmidt
Oregon is doing exactly this, apparently. The Economist had an interesting
article on it recently.

[http://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21588097-oregon-...](http://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21588097-oregon-wants-tax-motorists-miles-driven-not-petrol-burned-
will-it-work-roads-less)

It does seem like raising the gas tax would be an easier option.

------
RexRollman
I really don't see how this would work. Just because I put a certain number of
miles on my vehicle, it doesn't mean they were accumulated in my home state.
That would end up being a tax for out of state travel.

------
ISL
A tire tax might be simpler to implement, and would capture similar
information.

~~~
protomyth
A tire tax is a really bad idea from a safety point of view. People will delay
tire purchases past the safety line.

~~~
toomuchtodo
A flat yearly tax on the vehicle.

~~~
waterlesscloud
You could call it a vehicle registration fee.

~~~
protomyth
If your vehicle registration fee was in the several thousand dollar range, it
would cripple a goodly number of poor and low income folks.

~~~
toomuchtodo
They're already paying the taxes; its just streamlining the collection. If
they're crippled by current fuel taxes, they'd still be crippled (or rather,
unable to afford) taxes under the proposed scheme as well.

See my post where I outline the math:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=6623693](https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=6623693)

~~~
protomyth
No, it is easier for people to pay small chunks at different times then to be
confronted by one huge bill. Planning is not something innate in people. This
is the exact reason withholdings were created.

Number 2, the cost addition to government budget should be unacceptable and
the cost of this program will increase the tax beyond what is needed.

------
lbcadden3
I haven't read it yet. So they are going to get rid of the fuel tax right?

------
kunai
The TRON-ripoff logo isn't helping at all.

------
Freeboots
lol americas stupid-low petrol prices catch up with them faster than expected.

This seems like a crazy attempt to use tech to confuse people and trick them
into paying higher tax. Tax which could/should come by the far more simple
means of fuel tax. They should just suck it up and give their constituents
some tough love.

