The future is getting better nad better...

This doesn't make sense other than to blatantly raise revenue. Either that or they simply want to tax individuals for having the audacity to not use public transit.

If the intention were to lower fossil fuel consumption/CO2 production, they would simply raise the tax on gasoline. If the intention were to have more equitable tax based on road usage, the tax should factor in exact weight of the vehicle with cargo loaded, type of tires used, driving practices, etc.

Do YOU sense more & more intrusive government???

Ya think!

Fred

They're absolutely up front about it - a 10-fold increase in vehicle taxation rates.

Then, the first time the dam,neds thing glitches and I get a single read in, say afghanistan and they charge me for the 8000 miles or so, it all goes away.

Note that the Manhattan initiative failed (which, of course explains why the City of Montreal plans to charge for a similar system . . .

It's a chicken and egg thing - they want to put more busses (which, depending on the load factors may well be more polluting than all of the cars in the region, but the greenies LIKE IT when everyone keeps their heads in the sand. And the bus riders combined don't pay enough income tax to cover the subsidies that are paid to the transit operations to keepo the busses rolling.

Rather than taxing everyone, I'd REALLY like to see governments get off their butts and live within their means'

If it requires cutting services, so be it.

I don't think this govt has lived within its means since the 1913 passing of the 16th amendment.

This is why the Tea Party Movement is growing in leaps and bounds.

The cost to implement the program will be outrageous. Needless to say, the stock price of the transponder manufacturer will jump dramatically.

I can see a black market on devices to "Reset" the transponder, fake transponders, you name it. Oh yeah, somthing else for thieves to steal.

It would be so much easier to just raise the road tax on fuel. But then the electric and hybrid vehicles would not pay their "Fair" share.

What will tell them it's just a "Visiting" vehicle?

I just read the well-funded Brookings Institute report and it's slick. I’ll give it long shot odds that given the fiscal situation they’ll give this thing enough political momentum to eventually push it through all 50 states. They seem well prepared to rationally address just about every objection including such issues as privacy concerns, effects of taxation across economic class, and urban vs. rural travel.

The report acknowledges that introducing a road-use tax scheme (congestion fees plus VMT charges) at the national level would be far too radical, thus the pilot study in the Washington D.C. region to serve as a model for adoption in other parts of the country. Additionally if you read through to the conclusions, you will see reference to improvements characteristic of the ‘new urbanism'.
http://www.newurbanism.org/

However, what was suggested at first reading is that many localities may have to institute regional implementation given that urban areas often straddle political boundaries (e.g., cities on the borders of two states).

On the upside, I have seen at least one study that invokes the cost savings of implementing multistate cooperatives but I’m curious if there remains a potential stumbling block with developments surrounding the state sovereignty movement which is rooted in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even though the fiscal conditions may be conducive for passage of the road-use tax it could be an uphill battle given the political climate of potential resistance to expansion of federal powers especially as it concerns unfunded mandates.

intrusions into privacy no freedoms will, ultimately, be safe. The answer will come down to two Americas, sooner than later is my hope...

intrusions into privacy no freedoms will, ultimately, be safe. The answer will come down to two Americas, sooner than later is my hope...