Big Brother and the gas tax
- Thread starter GypsyDogs
- Start date
Help Support Van Living Forum:
GypsyDogs
Well-known member
And it states, right in the Azuga features page, that it can and will track your every move.
Can even track your car when it is parked…
…great
Can even track your car when it is parked…
…great
John_Camping
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2015
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
At least with a cell phone you can turn off gps and put it in airplane mode when you don't want tracked. Disabling this looks like it could get you charged with tax evasion.
GypsyDogs
Well-known member
Sheeple is a bale full of tinfoil-hatters, but they do have Some valid info. And they 'sell inflated gold' to pay the bills. About every 5th 'news' article is a link to an ad that sells something. But, as I said, you have to be able to weed through the scare-ads to get at the interesting facts that are there…
Some Prepper types are also scare/wits that sell gold. Heck- look how many ads http://survivalblog.com has on their front page. LOL
And yes, your smart phone tracks you.. so do traffic cams, bank cams, face recognition, and freakin Google for god's sake.
I was just sharing another way that BB.Gov is trying to monitor and tax our very breath.
Boondocking won't even help- gps can find you out there too.. sigh
Some Prepper types are also scare/wits that sell gold. Heck- look how many ads http://survivalblog.com has on their front page. LOL
And yes, your smart phone tracks you.. so do traffic cams, bank cams, face recognition, and freakin Google for god's sake.
I was just sharing another way that BB.Gov is trying to monitor and tax our very breath.
Boondocking won't even help- gps can find you out there too.. sigh
John_Camping
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2015
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
On second thought you pay the tax at the pump then get a rebate for using it. Properly designed so it doesn't log anything when the car is off, you can fully disable it and just pay the full tax rate when you don't want tracked, and open source(best) or 3rd party privacy advocates can fully audit it... With those qualifiers, it's not really much worse than the status quo of cell tracking, automatic plate readers, intersection cameras, CC logs, satellites(we aren't far from them being able to track every car on the road in real time), etc.
Privacy of general location was lost long ago. Implemented as suggested the benefits might outweigh the costs... ...assuming it won't nuke the world November 2017...
Privacy of general location was lost long ago. Implemented as suggested the benefits might outweigh the costs... ...assuming it won't nuke the world November 2017...
Canine
Well-known member
Easy to track me, I'm hard to miss... Also, look for the all you can eat buffets and lunchtime pizza places... My cc will leave traces. The sobbing managers will verify I was there.
El Muncho strikes again!
Dusty, currently terrorizing buffets in Idaho.
El Muncho strikes again!
Dusty, currently terrorizing buffets in Idaho.
Almost There
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 5,130
- Reaction score
- 6
GypsyDogs said:
Okay, I'm thoroughly confused. It's voluntary and they're only taking 5,000 on this enrollment.
Someone please explain to me how this works and why someone would want to enroll.
For purposes of explaining the program please skip the Big Brother thing, I don't understand what the Oregon government is trying to achieve with this. I know it's a 'fund the road tax' thing but how? I'm blonde...
LeeRevell
Well-known member
One thing that drives such initiatives is the increasing use of hybrid and electric cars. Their drivers are not "Paying their fair share" of gas taxes. This is an attempt to get more road tax monies. Prperly administered it might not be such a bad thing, as long as it remains a choice. But money maker laws seldom stay a choice for long. I would hate to be paying gas taxes AND this "road use" tax. Double jeopardy!
Seraphim
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,610
- Reaction score
- 0
Ride a bike.
But it's what Lee said. This isn't a new issue, any more than taxing your savings as well as taxing your income. I don't consider conspiracy theorists a reliable source of information. They can concoct any theory they like to explain anything they want and they generally do, claiming secret sources of secret information.
Perhaps Oregon should fund road repairs by taxing marijuana sales. Or conspiracy theorists...
But it's what Lee said. This isn't a new issue, any more than taxing your savings as well as taxing your income. I don't consider conspiracy theorists a reliable source of information. They can concoct any theory they like to explain anything they want and they generally do, claiming secret sources of secret information.
Perhaps Oregon should fund road repairs by taxing marijuana sales. Or conspiracy theorists...
highdesertranger
R.I.P HDR
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 22,892
- Reaction score
- 87
actually they have been running the test for a few years. yes they are trying to make up for lost revenue. funny thing first the gov(feds) mandated higher mpg then when they get it and the corresponding drop in revenue then they start crying about that. what in the hell did they think was going to happen? typical. highdesertranger
John_Camping
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2015
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
Freedom... only good till it applies to someone else. I'd challenge your assertion pot makes the roads less safe. Potholes on the other hand...
John_Camping
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2015
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree we don't need it on the road. But that's not what you said. You asserted that pot is causing accidents and used that as justification for punitive tax rates.
1. I agree that pot impaired individuals should not be driving, I disagree that pot impaired individuals are driving under the influence at rates that are measurably increasing accident rates.
2. Even if 1 is true I disagree that I or a responsible alcohol user should be singled out to pay for the social costs of others irresponsible actions. I don't have a receipt on me but the total tax rate on the recreational market in Denver is around 30%. I can't imagine the uproar if we tried to attach those kinds of taxes to the sale of ammunition to pay for the social costs of irresponsible gun owners or anything else that doesn't face moral stigma from a large subset of the population.
1. I agree that pot impaired individuals should not be driving, I disagree that pot impaired individuals are driving under the influence at rates that are measurably increasing accident rates.
2. Even if 1 is true I disagree that I or a responsible alcohol user should be singled out to pay for the social costs of others irresponsible actions. I don't have a receipt on me but the total tax rate on the recreational market in Denver is around 30%. I can't imagine the uproar if we tried to attach those kinds of taxes to the sale of ammunition to pay for the social costs of irresponsible gun owners or anything else that doesn't face moral stigma from a large subset of the population.
Here's a link to a news article about 100% increase in pot related fatal accidents in Colorado:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ease-in-fatal-pot-related-crashes-in-colorado
Why should recreational pot be taxed any less than tobacco products?
Point is that taxing people who choose to drive fuel efficient or electric vehicles is counter productive. Taxing products that have a negative effect on people using the roads, just makes better sense to me. And why isn't some of the lottery money in these states going to fix the roads.
The problem isn't a lack of funds to start with, it's the fact that they divert the funds to fund their other pet projects. If every state would pass laws that all of the gas tax money has to go to repair existing roads or building new roads, they'd have plenty of money without all this nonsense.
There is no shortage of money in the government, they just choose to punish us with the things they know we want or need, and use that as an excuse to raise taxes. If we had a way of cutting out all their pork barrel projects, we'd have a huge surplus of funds for the things we actually need.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ease-in-fatal-pot-related-crashes-in-colorado
Why should recreational pot be taxed any less than tobacco products?
Point is that taxing people who choose to drive fuel efficient or electric vehicles is counter productive. Taxing products that have a negative effect on people using the roads, just makes better sense to me. And why isn't some of the lottery money in these states going to fix the roads.
The problem isn't a lack of funds to start with, it's the fact that they divert the funds to fund their other pet projects. If every state would pass laws that all of the gas tax money has to go to repair existing roads or building new roads, they'd have plenty of money without all this nonsense.
There is no shortage of money in the government, they just choose to punish us with the things they know we want or need, and use that as an excuse to raise taxes. If we had a way of cutting out all their pork barrel projects, we'd have a huge surplus of funds for the things we actually need.
Seraphim
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,610
- Reaction score
- 0
The federal government gives tax incentives for buying electric vehicles, then nullifies that incentive with road use taxes. You can't have it both ways.
Punishing DUI offenders doesn't work. Take away their licenses - they drive anyway. Fine them in court, and they don't pay their fines and drive anyway. Yes, there are those who screw up once and do what they're supposed to do, but the large majority of cases going through our court were multiple offenders with no insurance, no license, and no money.
So let's get the money up front in the form of an intoxicant tax. Anything you do to intentionally make yourself stupid, as well as annoying and dangerous to others should be heavily taxed. And while I'm aware that there are claims that occasional glass of wine has health benefits - for those who do, the cost would be minimal. The higher cost will help reduce drinking for those who can't afford to pay their fines, yet can afford drinking constantly, and perhaps make them healthier and save a few lives. Anything to help people kick their addictions. And then there's tobacco. A great source of income from people who - in my opinion - are stupid enough to gamble their health in exchange for - what? I could never figure that one out.
So there are many other alternated forms of taxation for road repairs which make more sense than taxing people for doing something you want them to do, which you offer incentives for them to do, and which is overall healthier for the environment. Tax the unhealthy habits, and unhealthy fuels. Not the healthy ones.
Punishing DUI offenders doesn't work. Take away their licenses - they drive anyway. Fine them in court, and they don't pay their fines and drive anyway. Yes, there are those who screw up once and do what they're supposed to do, but the large majority of cases going through our court were multiple offenders with no insurance, no license, and no money.
So let's get the money up front in the form of an intoxicant tax. Anything you do to intentionally make yourself stupid, as well as annoying and dangerous to others should be heavily taxed. And while I'm aware that there are claims that occasional glass of wine has health benefits - for those who do, the cost would be minimal. The higher cost will help reduce drinking for those who can't afford to pay their fines, yet can afford drinking constantly, and perhaps make them healthier and save a few lives. Anything to help people kick their addictions. And then there's tobacco. A great source of income from people who - in my opinion - are stupid enough to gamble their health in exchange for - what? I could never figure that one out.
So there are many other alternated forms of taxation for road repairs which make more sense than taxing people for doing something you want them to do, which you offer incentives for them to do, and which is overall healthier for the environment. Tax the unhealthy habits, and unhealthy fuels. Not the healthy ones.
GotSmart
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
- Messages
- 5,356
- Reaction score
- 113
What that is saying is that the number of fatalities of people with M in their bloodstream had doubled in the past 5 years.
The report did not distinguish when the person was smoking. While driving or weeks befor. It also did not distinguish if the person with M in their bloodstream was at fault or not. It was funded by a anti drug federal task force.
Overall traffic fatalities there have dropped by 15%.
Back on subject befor Bob gets mad.
IMHO, gas tax is not a bad thing, providing that the money goes where it is supposed to. The roads and first responders.
Even better, taxing vehicle registrations for that purpose would be a more fair way to go.
The report did not distinguish when the person was smoking. While driving or weeks befor. It also did not distinguish if the person with M in their bloodstream was at fault or not. It was funded by a anti drug federal task force.
Overall traffic fatalities there have dropped by 15%.
Back on subject befor Bob gets mad.
IMHO, gas tax is not a bad thing, providing that the money goes where it is supposed to. The roads and first responders.
Even better, taxing vehicle registrations for that purpose would be a more fair way to go.
