North Carolina Wants To Tax Your Movement

In North Carolina some politicians would like to install GPS receivers in cars, and then use them to track how far people drive and then tax them based on the mileage.
And they’re doing this because people are buying less gasoline and thus tax revenues are falling.

With gas-tax revenues plummeting, the state of North Carolina is looking seriously at taxing motorists for how far they drive.
If the “road-use tax” is implemented, it would at first be simple – with the state checking your odometer annually and taxing you based on how many miles you have driven. But transportation experts say new GPS technology could allow the state to charge people different rates based on when and where they drive, in an attempt to manage congestion.
Talk of a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax has long been discussed as a necessity in a decade or so, because cars are becoming more fuel efficient, and states and the federal government are losing gas-tax revenue.

The (pertinent) privacy questions aside, what I don’t understand is what the justification is for this new tax.
Gas taxes are supposed to fund repair and maintenance to road and highway infrastructure, no? Well if people are driving less, less maintenance should be needed right? So what’s the justification for a new tax?
Also, if people are using less gas that means they’re driving less right? So what makes these politicians think that slapping a GPS in the car and taxing mileage is going to result in anything different. I suppose you could argue that it would mean people with more fuel efficient vehicles, who are buying less fuel, would pay the same amount of tax as someone driving an SUV. But is that really a direction we want to go?
Frankly, I think the fuel tax is a perfectly logical one. As I’ve already mentioned, it’s supposed to fund roads and highways (though politicians are notorious for swiping it for other purposes), and so basing the tax on the amount of consumed fuel makes sense. The more you drive the more you use the roads and highways and thus the more tax you pay. If you drive a heavier, less fuel efficient vehicle you’ll pay less tax than a lighter, more fuel efficient vehicle.
If people are driving less, less tax revenue should be needed. I don’t see a problem here outside of political greed and a desire to, literally, tax anything and everything that moves.

Tags: ,


«
»
  • http://Array RebTex

    Hydrogen is the answer to screwing the politicians.
    You’ll need a hydrogen recovery unit, though.
    Costs about $3000 to convert your first vehicle & about $300 each after that, presuming folks up there have more than 1 car per Family.

  • RebTex

    In Texas, we pay the road use tax when we get our plate stickers.
    NC could just drop some cash into the big 3 & use the OnStar data to track & charge the customers….

  • RebTex

    If anyone here would like to trade ideas on alternative fuels or high effeciency, drop me an e-mail

  • RebTex

    Electric cars won’t be that plentiful for a long while.
    When they are, you can bet there’ll be a special outlet with a special plug to track & tax the use of that car!
    Of course, we’ll all be very ill due to all the mercury & PCB’s

  • Hungry Bear

    Registering my car in California costs about 4 times as much as registering a similar car in Nevada. We have a really high gas tax. Our state should be awash in highway money.

    Unfortunately the Dems in the state assembly constantly loot the highway funds to pay $53 Billion a year in welfare and pay of public sector unions.

  • Nobody of Note

    What happens when vehicles go all electric (or mostly so) and the roads are still used, but much less fuel is? Frankly, I’ve never seen a politician who is that forward looking, but there is a valid reason for making this change, although it does seem to be premature.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

    “Nobody,” look at your electric bill. It’s taxed pretty heavily, too. The state would make out just fine, though connecting the revenue to roads might be tough.

    Plus, electric cars have a NASTY disadvantage; batteries are costing about $1000/kW-H for lithium or NiMH. (not the rats of, BTW) So to get your “Civic” from point A to point B on electricity (or your Chevy Volt) pretty much makes it as expensive as a Lexus. Breaking even, even with juice at a nickel/kW-H, ain’t gonna happen.

    Nor is a greatly better battery; Lithium is already the best material God created. Helium and hydrogen don’t have rigid states that would allow them to be used in a battery this way, and hence Lithium is your best bet.

    So when is electricity going to supplant the internal combustion engine? Cerberus will be selling ski tickets at that point, if you catch my drift. (and I’m not talking about Chrysler’s owner, either)

    By the way, the absurd idea of taxing miles has come up in Oregon, Minnesota, and elsewhere. Crazy–the gas tax already provides all the right incentives, and we’re trying to replace it?

    Sigh.

  • Lance

    WOW! Just when you think New York owns the crown for ludicrous ideas, North Carolina 1-ups them. How do the get around the unconstitutionality of this? Maybe through purchase of a motor vehicle it automatically implies consent?

  • HG

    So why not the obvious solution. Eliminate the fuel taxes and make up for it in one of the many, many other taxes. I’m sure sales tax, property tax, vehicle license fees, or one of the others could be easily adjusted to make up the difference without something as ludicrous and intrusive as the government checking my odometer or a gps in every car.

    I am almost sick to my stomach every time a politician opens their mouth.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    I eventually see a revolt to taxes coming and eventually the left will get the opposite result they wanted. They are going to have a nation of people pissed off at them.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    By the way, the absurd idea of taxing miles has come up in Oregon, Minnesota, and elsewhere. Crazy–the gas tax already provides all the right incentives, and we’re trying to replace it?

    That’s the point I’m making.

    Taxing mileage instead of fuel consumption puts better-mileage vehciles at a disadvantage. Basically, a Hummer and a Prius would be taxed the same for driving 100 miles despite different impacts on the road.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    What happens when vehicles go all electric (or mostly so) and the roads are still used, but much less fuel is? Frankly, I’ve never seen a politician who is that forward looking, but there is a valid reason for making this change, although it does seem to be premature.

    Interesting point, but given that pretty much nobody is driving electric cars it’s a moot one.

    I’d put that in the “let’s cross that bridge when we come to it” category.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development