• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should GPS be installed inside vehicles in order to charge mileage taxes

Should tracking devices be installed inside vehicles in order to charge mileage taxes

  • Yes,its a great way to raise revenue.

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • mileage taxes is a great idea but no GPS

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 41 93.2%

  • maybe/I do not know

    Votes: 2 4.5%
  • Total voters
    44
Infinite Chaos said:
The point goes beyond that - unless the US govt system is completely different from any other democratically elected govt in the world?

My point is that some processes and policies have a "rollover" - some policies may go beyond one political party and there is development rather than re-invention after a Govt is replaced by another.


Which is sort of my point. When one administration changes I highly doubt that everything the previous administration did was absolute rubbish or is abandoned - some elements continue beyond the lifetime of left or right, conservative or centrist or liberal etc.

Anyhow, thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...

My original point was that no one who voted for Obama has any moral authority to complain when the economy tanks when these public works fail because those people are supporting the continuation of proven-failed policies of the past.

I have no idea why you atempted flame with your time-traveler counter point as we apperantly agree :confused:

w/e
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Well that is just foolish. Not only is our reliance on oil bad for our economy (due to the negative effect on our balance of payments), it is also bad for our environment and national security.
Click to expand...

I'm right with you regarding foreign oil having control over our economy security. However, you need to know that every word directed at me regarding the environment is wasted, so please save them for someone willing to listen. There is no replacement for oil and everything it does, and nature pollutes itself far more than human industry with a single volcano belch, so I'm not open to that particular debate until one of those things changes.

In any event, I fail to see the connection you are referring to between OPEC and internal tax revenue. Could you clarify that for me please?


Kandahar said:
We could save a lot of money overseas with one simple act: Withdraw from Iraq. Health care is irrelevant to this debate; there is no reason we can't spend money on both health care and our infrastructure. And the people who would be receiving government health care are, for the most part, not the same people who would be paying the bulk of the taxes on infrastructure improvements, so your logic about "taking money out of their income" is flawed.
Click to expand...

There is no credibility in any argument which favors pulling out of Iraq now, as such arguments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the war that would follow and how the US would be pulled right back in.

My example on healthcare was an example of how the government mismanages everything it touches, so that is a valid example. Another example is Social Security. Obama's proposed public works will be equally mis-managed for the same reasons: bearcats make decisions based on politics, not turning a profit.

Kandahar said:
Once again I've yet to see you present any explanation as to why public works projects are "doomed," or present any alternative to fixing our infrastructure.
Click to expand...

As I've said many times, turn it over to the private sector and let capitol market forces take over.

Kandahar said:
Well personally I'm practical enough to see that it is in our nation's economic interests to have a functioning infrastructure system that can move people and freight from Point A to Point B quickly and cheaply, and that the private sector simply cannot do that on its own. That's why I support infrastructure improvements, and is why I'm a liberal. (Not to say that rational conservatives can't support that as well.)
Click to expand...

Just because the government can't do it doesn't mean I don't want it done. That doesn't follow so your claim is invalid.

I see a difference between a government grant to a private industry and the government doing it itself; or over regulating the industry.
 
How would GPS know whether a car is being towed or not?
 
Jerry said:
I would guess that until the car is sold...or at least arrives at a dealer, that these systems are off-line as no one is paying the bill.
Click to expand...

They could read the odometer with an OnStar type system.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Not on a train, airplane, or ferry.
Click to expand...

Trains and ferries would be easy enough to differentiate because no road is in place where trains and ferries travel. A GPS system would surely be smart enough to determine if a path of travel was along a road or a railway or over water.
I am not sure automobile travel by plane would be widespread enough to even worry about.

GOVCO shouldn't be installing GPS in private cars anyway.
 
Jerry said:
I'm right with you regarding foreign oil having control over our economy security. However, you need to know that every word directed at me regarding the environment is wasted, so please save them for someone willing to listen. There is no replacement for oil and everything it does, and nature pollutes itself far more than human industry with a single volcano belch, so I'm not open to that particular debate until one of those things changes.

In any event, I fail to see the connection you are referring to between OPEC and internal tax revenue. Could you clarify that for me please?
Click to expand...

Sure. If we have a gas tax to fund our infrastructure and public transit, it will reduce the demand for gasoline which will reduce the demand for oil which will deprive petrocrats of their main source of revenue.

Jerry said:
There is no credibility in any argument which favors pulling out of Iraq now, as such arguments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the war that would follow and how the US would be pulled right back in.
Click to expand...

I see. So you're against foreign aid except when you're not. That's fine, but it doesn't help your credibility when you rant about how foreign aid soaks up so much money, yet you support the biggest recipient of foreign aid of all.

Jerry said:
My example on healthcare was an example of how the government mismanages everything it touches, so that is a valid example. Another example is Social Security. Obama's proposed public works will be equally mis-managed for the same reasons: bearcats make decisions based on politics, not turning a profit.
Click to expand...

Infrastructure projects can almost never make enough profit for any specific business to justify the cost, which is why government manages it in the first place. Take, for example, the levies in New Orleans. Who in the private sector would find it profitable to repair them? The businesses in New Orleans? If I had a business in New Orleans, I would calculate that the cost of paying my share of the levy-repair is simply greater than the marginal benefit.

Another example: Let's look at crumbling bridges in Minneapolis. Who is going to find it profitable to repair them? If I owned a nearby restaurant, why would I pay a dime to fix the bridge? There's a chance the nearby bridge won't collapse, and if it does some of my customers will find other ways of getting to me, and in either case the repair isn't worth the expense to me.

Or let's look at the simplest example of all: A road with ten businesses on it. If I own one of the ten businesses, why should I pay to have it repaired? Why not let the other nine suckers pay for it?

The government controls infrastructure specifically BECAUSE it isn't profitable...not the other way around.

Jerry said:
As I've said many times, turn it over to the private sector and let capitol market forces take over.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm confused about what you're suggesting. Toll booths on every street corner in America?

Jerry said:
Just because the government can't do it doesn't mean I don't want it done. That doesn't follow so your claim is invalid.

I see a difference between a government grant to a private industry and the government doing it itself; or over regulating the industry.
Click to expand...

I see very little difference, because they're essentially the same thing. I have no problem at all with the government hiring private contractors to do the work...that's what it does for a lot of its public works projects anyway.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The government controls infrastructure specifically BECAUSE it isn't profitable...not the other way around.
Click to expand...

What you're telling me is that the cost of the street is greater than the profit of the 10 businesses on that street. The street is a drain on the system.

Solutions include doing something to increase the business’s profits so that they can pay the maintenance cost of the street (this rules out increasing taxes), or the street needs to be allowed to fall into disrepair until the property value is low enough to attract an investor who can turn that block around.
 
Jerry said:
What you're telling me is that the cost of the street is greater than the profit of the 10 businesses on that street. The street is a drain on the system.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that none of the businesses will want to pony up his share of the cost, when there are nine other suckers who can pay for it.

Jerry said:
Solutions include doing something to increase the business’s profits so that they can pay the maintenance cost of the street (this rules out increasing taxes),
Click to expand...

What did you have in mind? If I own one of those ten businesses, it doesn't matter if I'm earning $100K or $200K per year. There are still nine other suckers who can pay for the street.

Jerry said:
or the street needs to be allowed to fall into disrepair until the property value is low enough to attract an investor who can turn that block around.
Click to expand...

Ya that's a wonderful idea. It's been tried in just about every African nation, with marvelous results.
 
Kandahar said:
No, I'm saying that none of the businesses will want to pony up his share of the cost, when there are nine other suckers who can pay for it.
Click to expand...

Then this is an issue of enforcing existing IRS regulation. No additional projects are needed.

Kandahar said:
What did you have in mind? If I own one of those ten businesses, it doesn't matter if I'm earning $100K or $200K per year. There are still nine other suckers who can pay for the street.
Click to expand...

Is this response accounting for my inaccurate understanding of your argument, or is this a counter to my argument which was based on a false premise, and is therefore also a an argument based on a false premise?

Assuming the former, you have made it clear that this is an enforcement issue, so the solution I would propose is a tried and true conservative solution: enforce the existing laws.

Kandahar said:
Ya that's a wonderful idea. It's been tried in just about every African nation, with marvelous results.
Click to expand...

Adopt-a-highway programs which gives supporters easement rights to advertise is a wonderful idea. That fact that this is not standard practice and hence our roads suffer for it only serves to support my argument, not your argument.
 
Jerry said:
Then this is an issue of enforcing existing IRS regulation. No additional projects are needed.



Is this response accounting for my inaccurate understanding of your argument, or is this a counter to my argument which was based on a false premise, and is therefore also a an argument based on a false premise?

Assuming the former, you have made it clear that this is an enforcement issue, so the solution I would propose is a tried and true conservative solution: enforce the existing laws.
Click to expand...

What existing laws are you referring to? There aren't any existing laws requiring businesses to pay for nearby infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. I really have no idea what you're proposing.

Jerry said:
Adopt-a-highway programs which gives supporters easement rights to advertise is a wonderful idea. That fact that this is not standard practice and hence our roads suffer for it only serves to support my argument, not your argument.
Click to expand...

Adopt-a-highway programs generally involve picking up trash near the road, not the full-scale maintenance of the road. That would be too expensive. Even so, did you ever notice that most of the sponsors are volunteer/community organizations rather than businesses? The reason it isn't "standard practice" has nothing to do with government regulations, it has to do with the fact that it simply isn't profitable for private businesses to pay to fix potholes in exchange for a little green sign with their name on it.
 
Kandahar said:
What existing laws are you referring to? There aren't any existing laws requiring businesses to pay for nearby infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. I really have no idea what you're proposing.
Click to expand...

I won't insult your intelligence by pretending you're unaware of "property value" or that taxes are based on property value. Instead, I choose to acknowledge that I don't understand your confusion and look to your next post to make that clearer.



Kandahar said:
Adopt-a-highway programs generally involve picking up trash near the road, not the full-scale maintenance of the road. That would be too expensive. Even so, did you ever notice that most of the sponsors are volunteer/community organizations rather than businesses? The reason it isn't "standard practice" has nothing to do with government regulations, it has to do with the fact that it simply isn't profitable for private businesses to pay to fix potholes in exchange for a little green sign with their name on it.
Click to expand...

It hasn’t been made profitable, we agree.

Imo adopt-a-highway programs should be made profitable, be it via increased tax write-offs as a 501c3, easement rights or similar.

I acknowledge the fact that this cannot work everywhere, but I support a reasonable tax to maintain roads.

The problem I see is not that taxes are levied to maintain the roads, but that the government inflates the price far beyond where it actually sould be to perform the same maintenance on the same road.

This is where privatization comes in, imo. The government should use the tax money to hire a private firm to maintenance the road. These should never be no-bid contracts, as it is bidding which makes privatization a viable and superior option.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
What existing laws are you referring to? There aren't any existing laws requiring businesses to pay for nearby infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. I really have no idea what you're proposing.
Click to expand...
Depends on the city I guess, my city has some infrastructure requirements built into the code process, like drainage ponds, sidewalks, etc. I don't know of anything federal or state though.
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
I won't insult your intelligence by pretending you're unaware of "property value" or that taxes are based on property value. Instead, I choose to acknowledge that I don't understand your confusion and look to your next post to make that clearer.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The government extracts taxes and spends it on highway infrastructure. I thought you were talking about the private sector financing it...

Jerry said:
It hasn’t been made profitable, we agree.

Imo adopt-a-highway programs should be made profitable, be it via increased tax write-offs as a 501c3, easement rights or similar.
Click to expand...

They still wouldn't be profitable unless you allowed businesses to write off 100% or more of what they spent, thus denying tax dollars to everything else the government does.

Jerry said:
I acknowledge the fact that this cannot work everywhere, but I support a reasonable tax to maintain roads.
Click to expand...

Good. That is exactly what I'm talking about. A tax to fix our infrastructure (which of course can be supplemented by voluntary contributions from anyone). The most economically sensible tax would be a gasoline tax.

Jerry said:
The problem I see is not that taxes are levied to maintain the roads, but that the government inflates the price far beyond where it actually sould be to perform the same maintenance on the same road.
Click to expand...

That is an unfortunate consequence of most things the government does, but is not necessarily a sufficient reason not to do it.

Jerry said:
This is where privatization comes in, imo. The government should use the tax money to hire a private firm to maintenance the road. These should never be no-bid contracts, as it is bidding which makes privatization a viable and superior option.
Click to expand...

Then I don't really think we have a disagreement other than semantics. I'm not at all opposed to the government contracting out infrastructure-repair to private companies. I thought you were referring to actually having private entities fund and oversee the projects themselves.
 
Having to install GPS is a serious invasion of privacy. The Idea that some government agency could check on my movements for no reason is pure
Bull sh*t. I don't break the law. It would be like everyone being forced to wear an ankle bracelet all the time. No one needs to know what I am doing or where or when I go somewhere. I don't have a criminal record and don't want the government treating me like a criminal. It is almost like they want to turn the USA in Communist China. :(
 
Last edited:
dragonslayer said:
Having to install GPS is a serious invasion of privacy. The Idea that some government agency could check on my movements for no reason is pure
Bull sh*t. I don't break the law. It would be like everyone being forced to wear an ankle bracelet all the time. No one needs to know what I am doing or where or when I go somewhere. I don't have a criminal record and don't want the government treating me like a criminal. It is almost like they want to turn the USA in Communist China. :(
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have something to hide....:2wave:
 
Kandahar said:
Exactly. The government extracts taxes and spends it on highway infrastructure. I thought you were talking about the private sector financing it...

They still wouldn't be profitable unless you allowed businesses to write off 100% or more of what they spent, thus denying tax dollars to everything else the government does.

Good. That is exactly what I'm talking about. A tax to fix our infrastructure (which of course can be supplemented by voluntary contributions from anyone). The most economically sensible tax would be a gasoline tax.

That is an unfortunate consequence of most things the government does, but is not necessarily a sufficient reason not to do it.

Then I don't really think we have a disagreement other than semantics. I'm not at all opposed to the government contracting out infrastructure-repair to private companies. I thought you were referring to actually having private entities fund and oversee the projects themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm one conservative that hasn't been shown why more taxes are needed. I haven't seen any data either way. I don't know the problem which is said to exist, I haven't seen estimates on the cost of repairs, nor have I seen the proposed actions Obama would like to make.

I haven't seen any real information on these new infrastructure projects Obama is looking to fund, only snippet of articles and various opinions from talking heads here and there; nothing really substantive.

Most importantly, I haven't seen the estimated profit the economy will make through these projects.

When you tell me that infrastructure is not profitable, that means the economy will not come out of the recession nor grow if these projects are implemented, so there's no point to carrying those plans out.

If the economy will grow due to new infrastructure, then someone's making a profit, and I would very much appreciate it if you or anyone else in the know could put your finger on exactly who would stand to make exactly how much.

As a conservative I am not opposed to increased taxes when those taxes are in fact needed, but I still don't think a gas tax is the way to go. A gas tax will reduce gas consumption, which will in turn lower tax revenue, defeating the point of the tax.

Typically, the best way to increase tax revenue is to lower tax rates, so increasing any tax rate in the name of needing more money is counter intuitive.
 
Jerry said:
I'm one conservative that hasn't been shown why more taxes are needed. I haven't seen any data either way. I don't know the problem which is said to exist, I haven't seen estimates on the cost of repairs, nor have I seen the proposed actions Obama would like to make.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem as I would define it: Our roads, bridges, and levies are falling apart, and there aren't enough highways in some cities. Our power grid is antiquated and has the potential to cause enormous regional blackouts. And our public transit system sucks.

Jerry said:
I haven't seen any real information on these new infrastructure projects Obama is looking to fund, only snippet of articles and various opinions from talking heads here and there; nothing really substantive.

Most importantly, I haven't seen the estimated profit the economy will make through these projects.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to estimate something like that.

Jerry said:
When you tell me that infrastructure is not profitable, that means the economy will not come out of the recession nor grow if these projects are implemented, so there's no point to carrying those plans out.

If the economy will grow due to new infrastructure, then someone's making a profit, and I would very much appreciate it if you or anyone else in the know could put your finger on exactly who would stand to make exactly how much.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand what I mean by it not being profitable. It's unprofitable for any individual business to voluntarily pay for its own share of the infrastructure. But it's most definitely profitable for the economy as a whole for the government to fund infrastructure.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any profits being made. Whomever the government hires/contracts to fix the roads will profit of course.

Jerry said:
As a conservative I am not opposed to increased taxes when those taxes are in fact needed, but I still don't think a gas tax is the way to go. A gas tax will reduce gas consumption, which will in turn lower tax revenue, defeating the point of the tax.
Click to expand...

That is the main purpose of the gas tax, not to generate revenue. The extra revenue is only an incidental benefit, and the tax could even be made revenue-neutral if we cut payroll taxes by an equal amount. The main purpose *is* to reduce gas consumption.

Jerry said:
Typically, the best way to increase tax revenue is to lower tax rates, so increasing any tax rate in the name of needing more money is counter intuitive.
Click to expand...

That is demonstrably false even for income taxes...and I've never even heard anyone claim that for a sales tax before. If this something-for-nothing approach for governance was correct, then we could eliminate all taxes and the government would be raking in the cash.
 
Kandahar said:
That is the main purpose of the gas tax, not to generate revenue. The extra revenue is only an incidental benefit, and the tax could even be made revenue-neutral if we cut payroll taxes by an equal amount. The main purpose *is* to reduce gas consumption.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we’re not talking about needing to fund new infrastructure.

Why does gas consumption need to go down?

If you're going to respond with an environmental answer, then since I'm closed to those arguments please simply indicate such and spend your time preparing a sandwich ;)
 
No, tax revenues for roads should come from the business profits made using the roads. Not from people going back and forth to work or traveling.
 
jamesrage said:
Should tracking devices be installed inside vehicles in order to charge mileage taxes?

Now Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he’d like the legislature to take the next step.

As part of a transportation-related bill he has filed for the 2009 legislative session, the governor says he plans to recommend “a path to transition away from the gas tax as the central funding source for transportation.”
Click to expand...

HELL NO!!!!! -- An absolutely rotten and invasive idea.


TOJ said:
Higher mileage vehicles translate into less money for the governement via gasoline taxes. This is simply a move by the government to assure it's income in the event a high percent of the good citizens really do start buying them.

The principle is already in use. Anyone that travels turnpikes and uses EZPass or something similar is paying based on miles driven and their movements could be/are being easily tracked by the system.
Click to expand...

The smaller, lighter, higher mileage vehicles do a great deal less wear and tear on the roads. That should compensate for less revenue. Less revenue will also ensure fewer eminent domain seizures for projects we are better off without.

The EZ Pass only tracks driving on the turnpike, so it is less invasive than a system that tracks everything. However, even the EZ Pass can be used to invade privacy.


WI Crippler said:
I'm not worried, as I just cannot see any possible way something like this could ever get abused. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Want to bet? Have you ever looked at history and noticed the many STUPID and ABUSIVE laws that have been passed AND ENFORCED over the years?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom