Massachusetts Wants GPS Driving Tax, Too
from the big-brother dept
For several years, authorities in Oregon have been pursuing a plan to put GPS units in every car in the state to track and tax drivers' mileage. Now, Massachusetts wants to get in on the act, and replace its gas tax with a mileage-based tax (via Boing Boing) generated by GPS units in cars. The state wants to ditch its gas tax because rising fuel efficiency is leading to decreasing tax revenue, so the new plan would instead charge drivers a quarter of a cent for each mile they drive. The state's governor is talking not just about boosting tax revenue, but says he likes ideas that are "faster, cheaper, simpler." It's not clear how replacing the current gas tax by forcing drivers to install GPS trackers in their cars and building an infrastructure to gather data from them, then assess and collect a mileage tax will be fast, cheap or simple. This doesn't even mention the myriad privacy concerns of giving state employees access to records of Massachusetts drivers' activity. This idea continually pops up, whether as a tax idea or a new way to charge for auto insurance -- but it never seems to hold any more value beyond a soundbite.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: driving, gps, massachusetts, monitoring, tax
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've heard that they want to put tolls on more interstates (they have one currently); that they want to put tolls at on the interstates at state borders; that they want to privatize the current toll road; and that they want to tax based on mileage traveled. My previous understanding was that they wanted the tax to be levied at the time of state inspection, but this new suggestion is much more fun to laugh at.
Gotta love Massachusetts... hope the Big Dig was worth it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
yeah, but you can't track where people go and what they are doing if you read their odometers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I drove about 45,000 miles in a year (and that is a lot of driving, to work and back 40 miles, WAR driving on the weekends and after work, about 150-250 miles a week), and at 1/4 a cent that is only $112, for it to be $300-$1000 that would have to be 120,000 - 400,000 miles. I'm by all means not for this at all for many more reasons then just the money.
Just my 2 cent rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Changing to charging 0.25 cent/mile would mean that as long as your car gets less than 167 MPG, you'd pay less with the new system.
So, I suspect that if they did charge per mile, it'd be a whole lot more than a quarter cent. I'd say that a $0.02 a mile would be their starting point, as that would be about 20 MPG average across all cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading between the lines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheaper? It is for my prius.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html
According to this, the state gets about $0.35 / gallon.
I drive 50 miles round trip to work. I have a Prius. I drive to work 4 times a week. I fill up about every 20 days, and it's about 10 gallons. I get at least 50mpg.
That means I drive about 10K miles round trip to work every year. Under MA's proposed plan, that would cost me 2500 cents, or $25.
10K miles / 50mpg = 200 gallons.
200 gallons * $0.35/gallon = $70.
Wait... I get it. The $0.01/mile is going to drastically and stealthily go up once instituted, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheaper? It is for my prius.
Granted, there are other ways to do so, but this is just another straw on the camel's back to let them not focus on fuel efficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheaper? It is for my prius.
I run a Pneumatic, Air Compression engine uses no gas.
Put a GPS in my vehicle; A magnet and I will make that GPS less than useful in less than 3 minutes.
Then you have tire tax, parts for vehicle tax, along with the gas tax, sales tax, municipal tax, and toll taxes. California can't calculate the individual tax revenue it created. However, take a sampling of 1000 California residents who drive religiously to work and back and the mean came up to $864 for 12 months over a 10 year period. Californians are getting rooked. New York and Massachusetts are even higher. Good Luck with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
One of many oppositions to this idea would be dirver privacy. Who wil maintain the data and how will it be used and, gasp, audited? How can anyone who reads this site on a semi-regular basis not think the travel data contained within a user database would be safe from abuse? Nevermind the potential for data theft.
Ideas like this are simply money and power grabs by the governmental powers that be....they serve no real tax purpose that can't be maintain at a higher level in the supplu chain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
the data will be used by law enforcement to track minorities and people with low incomes. the data on whites with higher incomes will be sold to market research firms. it will then be stolen by criminal groups that are not willing to pay for it. it won't be audited at all and abused by anyone and everyone.
traffic cops will be able to stalk and harrass anyone they want to.
database errors will cause people to owe millions of dollars in mileage taxes.
How can anyone who reads this site on a semi-regular basis not think the travel data contained within a user database would be safe from abuse?
of course it will be abused, that goes without saying.
the data hasn't even been collected yet and it's already being abused. i'll bet that at this very moment there are 10 startup companies founded by MIT alums that are getting their first rounds of venture capital to develop marketing tools to profit from this data.
Nevermind the potential for data theft.
potential? you mean guaranteed certainty.
Ideas like this are simply money and power grabs by the governmental powers that be....they serve no real tax purpose that can't be maintain at a higher level in the supplu chain.
don't forget that you have a choice in the matter: you can be spied on to be protected by terrorists, or you can be spied on to save the environment.
on the right you have the police state, and on the left you have the nanny state.
this is why voting is so important: you get to choose whether you spend your life in a padded cell or in a metal cage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What gets me...
What's Deval (that's his real name) going to do when people start carpooling or taking mass transit (no pun intended) to get around this? Maybe that's his goal? If I know how Deval works, that's totally not it.
In response to my previous post -- Rhody's looking at this too? Seriously? *facepalm*
It's amazing how these politicians think that bureaucracy is the way to solve everything. Get rid of the tolls and other extraneous taxes and you actually have greater profits due to saving the money you would have otherwise spent on said bureaucracy. (For those who are not from this area, consider that Mass toll collectors make about $70k/year. You CAN'T convince me that they raise enough money in tolls to cover that. Source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/09/18/pike_wants_to_eliminate_100_toll_ taker_jobs/)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What gets me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raise the At the Pump Gas Tax
------------------------------------------
Our whole way of thinking concerning "green" solutions is backwards. Cutting taxes and providing subsidies is NOT the way to go. We have a huge budget deficient and providing subsidies just increases the opportunities for fraud. Raise the cost of fuel and the tax revenues generated could be used to reduce the deficit and the higher fuel cost would encourage the both the automotive companies (if they still exist) and the consumer to invest in "green" vehicles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raise the At the Pump Gas Tax
Mileage tax would not tax gas-guzzlers more, but at-pump tax would work.
Why is he taxing driving anyways. Is'nt he planning building 3 casinos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raise the At the Pump Gas Tax
If this plan ever went through, and I lived in MA, no state-installed GPS unit would ever be put on my vehicle. And if it was, I'd have it disabled ASAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess that could help businesses that use gasoline outside of cars and other vehicles.....like in generators, lawn maintenance, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And what about other 2-cycle engines, like ATVs, snowmobiles, etc? No regulations on them? Why is it always car owners that get smacked with taxes and rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pros, and why they are wrong
As I said, this all sounds great, but none of it comes close to justifying the cons. The proposal to monitor these chips is to install devices on street signs statewide. So now you have are replacing a large toll infrastructure with an even larger and more cumbersome "tracker" infrastructure, along with all the personnel to maintain the devices. You add more complexity to the tax structure by introducing potentially drastic fluctuations in the "mileage rate". And to take the cake, you legislate a huge breach of privacy into every vehicle that drives through the state (they intend to charge out-of-state commuters as well, although I'm not sure how that will be monitored).
The current proposal on the table will increase the gasoline tax significantly before instituting this tracker mess by 2014. The first part is perfect. Raise the tax on the fuel, you are directly taxing the mileage as well as incentivising better driving practices and better vehicle choices. To complain that the tax income will fall as more people use public transit or smaller fuel efficient cars is ridiculous; those roads will last longer with fewer, tinier vehicles racing up and down them, so they shouldn't cost as much to maintain. And even if somehow the entire consumer fleet switches off of gasoline in the future (which is hugely desirable), you will still have "fuel" to tax, whether it is hydrogen, LNG, or even metered electricity. Let's worry about THAT issue when we get there, and worry about greening the transportation system first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a business opportunity...
From an engineer's point of view there are so many ways around this that it is funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course.
It's kind of interesting they even bother to go through all the BS to 'quietly rob us'. You would think by now you would have politicians just mugging you in the streets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that pathetic, or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just cover the GPS unit with aluminum foil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just cover the GPS unit with aluminum foil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
horrible idea
Presently there is a problem with charging a toll on the federal interstate roadway system, you need federal approval because it was funded with federal money. This would be a way around that problem.
This is a horrible idea, and is doomed to failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: horrible idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHY
Because you're all terrorists and there is money to be made tracking your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid bastards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay as you go!
The Big Brother spin to this isn't worth much, especially considering most of us carry moderately traceable cell phones anyway. Besides this particular point, many people pay to have this kind of service installed on their cars now to help prevent theft.
This tax won't get people to carpool or take the bus any more than carpool lanes and the existing gas tax do now. In America, we just paid our way through a quadrupling of our gas prices. It did affect many of us to the point of looking into new transportation options, but there was still dense traffic here, at least in Los Angeles. This tax, like every other necessary expense, will quickly become just another fee that we accustom ourselves to as we go about our daily business.
Ways around it? The people who want to cheat the system will continue to do so, while those of us who have better things to do will pay, as always. This tax is just another tax, it will be piled up on an endless supply of nickle/dime taxes we continue to suffer ourselves with.
Eventually we'll have nothing left to tax, and then the uprising will begin. Until then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay as you go!
cellphones are not mandatory. there are no laws anywhere that require you to carry one. therefore, if i don't want to be tracked i can just leave my phone at home and there is no legal concern.
Besides this particular point, many people pay to have this kind of service installed on their cars now to help prevent theft.
that is a choice. it is not legislated by the state. requiring a GPS tracker in every car means that you cannot "opt out" of the service if you have privacy concerns. mandatory tracking is bad. always has been, always will be.
also, you can review the privacy agreement for a service and choose a vendor based on their privacy policy. if no vendor's privacy policy measures up then you can either build your own solution or choose to do without the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pathetic, complicated, improbable solution
Some components to the argument "might make sense", but for God's sake keep it simple, legislation related to cars is complicated enough already, particularly in the Northeast - imagine the overhead to enforce it, install units, inspect units -- just a total mess of a needlessly complicated solution. Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This could be hacked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quarter of a Cent?
The GPS units and collection infrastructure can't be paid for with this amount.
Of course taxes always increase. At .01 a mile it would be 220.00 - even that is less than California vehicle registration tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foil, hacked, or disconnected
This baffles me because the cost to create the infrastructure and install equipment in every car does not justify the means. If the goal is to tax on mileage, then why not do that at registration time? Inspect the vehicle for mileage and tally the difference from the prior year. This would be more cost effective in my opinion.
And yes, people could crack their odometer, so there is no fool proof method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boston Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boston Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boston Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The gov in Mass has forgotten their purpose
If companies are laying off 10% of their workforce left and right, government needs to realize they will have to cut back 10%, maybe more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxing mileage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'll nevah happen
A picture off his face will become the favorite target at my pistol club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lastest from MA
As of the last few weeks there have been tons of ideas proposed to raise revenue, which is what leads me to believe that he is just brainstorming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GPS Driving Tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won't be long now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You got what you wanted politicians - be careful what you ask for in the future, you might get it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Texas to the list...
Texas is a big destination for trade, so how will they handle those vehicles that travel our state but stop and fuel up (we are a good 800 miles across from the New Mexico border to the Louisiana border and a good 500 miles from the Mexico border to the Oklahoma border)?
The privacy concerns will be a GIANT issue on this. It will be very hard to convince the public that the GPS units in their cars would NOT be used for ill-purposes.
Alternative idea? Consider the cheaper Mass Transit option. I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy the idea of someone else driving them to their destination (especially since it takes 3 to 4 hours minimum to get from one city to another in this state). Obviously, we would still need cars to get to those areas that aren't able to be served by mass transit, but it would definitely help the burden that all these cars are taking on the roads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mass driving tax
2. Will the gas tax be reduced to offset the mileage tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]