fordmantpw Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 You have to simply apply the solution to the vast majority of vehicles when the solution takes affect. So the vehicles that don't have the hardware don't have to pay the taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Can you supply evidence that you yourself have that credentials to evaluate that? You keep quoting a 254M figure as if that means something in the technical sense. I have the credentials required to evaluate statements that lack supporting evidence. And yes, I keep citing the number of registered vehicles that drive on the road because your solution requires tracking the movements of registered vehicles that drive on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) Compiling data? We do that today already. Please provide evidence to support your claim that a single system is tracking the movement of 254 million discrete items over 3.7 million square miles. Edited April 16, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I'm an IT architect with a fortune 50 company for the last 28 years. I've worked on multi-billion dollar multi-year projects. More importantly I've worked projects all the way from development through production support and lifecycle management. Your solution has too many holes in it to be taken seriously. Would it work in a proof of concept lab environment? Sure. Real world over 20 or 30 years? Not a chance. More importantly, if you assume that the average tax per person was $400/yr and that the difference between types of roads was 25% then you're talking about trying to charge some people $300 and some $500 instead of just charging everyone $400 which doesn't require any of this nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) I think we all agree that EU government approach to tax is different to that of the US. Look at traditional taxation methods used there and most are user pay via increased fuel taxes and registration costs. Most heavily congested areas will no doubt have some form of tax imposed via registration plate recognition or E-toll technology. But do those states need to know the location of evbery single vehicle? probapbly not, all I'm saying is that there's probably simpler solutions to collect more tax and prevent road users avoiding it.. A tax only works as income for the government if people pay it, if people avoid the tax then it's social engineering. What happened in France was first social engineering that forced people to choose more fuel efficient vehicles to avoid tax and then true tax by forcing all diesel owners to pay more tax. Edited April 16, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnV Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) Whatever.... Edited April 16, 2015 by LincolnV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 When IT guys debate... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Interesting reading on the subject of tracking vehicles: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/22/new-york-e-zpass-tracking/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.