JustGetThere

As the Defense Budget Soars, Billions of Dollars are Channelled Offshore to Avoid Paying Taxes

By Tom Burghardt

Global Research | The Obama administration is seeking to increase the obscenely bloated U.S. Defense Department budget to a whopping $708 billion for fiscal year 2011, 3.4% above 2010's record level, The Wall Street Journal reported.

While the overall budget deficit will balloon to a staggering $1.6 trillion in 2011, the result of massive tax cuts for the rich, declining revenues, a by-product of capitalism's economic meltdown, imperial adventures abroad and general corporate malfeasance (the old tax-dodge grift), the administration plans to cut $250 billion over three years from non-military "discretionary spending" on domestic social programs.

However, as the World Socialist Web Site points out: "President Barack Obama has done nothing to reverse decades of wage stagnation, mounting poverty, and attacks on the social welfare system. On the contrary, following George W. Bush, he has seized on the crisis to redistribute wealth to a tiny financial elite through the ongoing bailout of the finance industry."

It is no small irony that despite stark budget figures and an even bleaker future for the American working class, Washington Technology reported January 28 that the "29 largest publicly traded defense contractors increased their use of offshore subsidiaries by 26 percent from 2003 to 2008."

Citing reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), journalist Alice Lipowicz disclosed that the "subsidiaries helped the contractors reduce taxes, in part by avoiding Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes for U.S. workers hired at the foreign subsidiaries."

Considering that the Pentagon hands out some $396 billion annually to contractors, outsourcing everything from "in theatre" construction in places like Afghanistan and Iraq to pricey "intelligence analysts" at secret state agencies, cash not spent on payroll taxes by dodgy firms slices another hole into the already-shredded social safety net.

Amongst the largest firms cited in GAO's 2008 report, updated in January 2010, Oracle Corp., operates in 77 tax havens; Boeing Co., 38; Dell Inc., 29; BearingPoint Inc., 28; Computer Sciences Corp., 21; Fluor Corp., 34; General Dynamics, 5; Harris Corp., 13; Hewlett-Packard, 14; Honeywell International, 7; ITT Corp., 18; L-3 Communications, 15; Sprint Nextel, 7.

Many of the firms are heavily-leveraged in the lucrative "homeland security" market and provide technology and "cleared" intelligence analysts, many of whom jumped ship from government service for richer, if more dubious employment, to a host of secret state agencies including the CIA, DIA, NSA as well as ultra-secretive outfits engaged in global satellite surveillance such as the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).

You would think these firms, flush with record profits since the U.S. embarked on its "War on Terror" in 2001, would do something as pedestrian as paying their fair share of taxes or providing benefits to workers, given severe budgetary pressures on domestic programs, dizzying housing foreclosure rates and skyrocketing unemployment.

You'd be wrong, however; dead wrong.

Read full article

By Mark Anderson

AFP | According to an independent British newspaper editor, in the not-so-distant future, English drivers will be charged based upon the number of miles they drive, as is being done step-by-step in America.

On January 12, AFP interviewed Mike Robinson, the editor of the UK Column, a liberty-minded newspaper not unlike AMERICAN FREE PRESS.

“Road charging,” as it is called in England, is widespread, he told AFP, as fiber optic cable has been laid along most English roads to help track vehicle travel by the mile so drivers can be charged.

“It has been on the European Union agenda for quite a long time,” he added.

His comments came amid recent news of a radical plan to raise $200 billion by privatizing “the motorway network,” as Brits call it. The plan was presented to the three main political parties by NM Rothschild, the influential investment bank, British news sources say.

The Rothschild bank, called “an architect of several privatizations,” reportedly made its pitch in the weeks running up to the summer recess back on July 21, 2009. Bankers told leading politicians that the sale of the roads overseen by the [public] Highways Agency—all motorways and most “big trunk roads”—could help revive battered public finances. This is the same story Americans have been told.

True to form, toll-road companies and “infrastructure funds” would compete to operate and maintain stretches of the British toll network.

In one version of this scheme, the British government would pay for upkeep through a system of “shadow” tolls. A more radical and less politically acceptable option would be for private companies to charge motorists directly through privately owned toll booths or electronic card readers.

And how did U.S. politicians get the idea that privatizing roads was an acceptable future? Two words: Goldman Sachs, according to noted Texas columnist Ed Wallace.

“Yes, large Wall Street investment banks, led by Goldman, started advising states across the nation on how to raise fast money by diverting the most necessary publicly owned assets—roads—into private ownership,” wrote Wallace. “You have to admit, it’s brilliant, because it’s a forced and guaranteed market: Americans can’t get out of driving.”

And as Daniel Schulman and James Ridgeway wrote in a scathing article, “The Highwaymen,” in January 2007, “Many similar deals are now on the horizon, and MIG and Cintra are often part of them. So is Goldman Sachs, the huge Wall Street firm that has played a remarkable role advising states on how to structure privatization deals—even while positioning itself to invest in the toll road market.”

Fox News | The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax on such things as Internet activity or everyday financial transactions like paying bills online.

Such a scheme could raise “tens of billions of dollars” on behalf of the United Nations’ public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.

The multibillion-dollar “indirect consumer tax” is only one of a “suite of proposals” for financing the rapid transformation of the global medical industry that will go before WHO’s 34-member supervisory Executive Board at its biannual meeting in Geneva.

Read full article

Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.

Telegraph | Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday.

An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances.

He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."

However, some have criticised the move as "Orwellian" and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.

Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: "This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It's Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business."

Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.

AFP | The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a "green" road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.

"Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill," the transport ministry said in a statement.

Ownership and sales taxes, about a quarter of the cost of a new car, will be scrapped and replaced by the "price per kilometre" system aimed at cutting the Netherlands' carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent.

"Traffic jams will be halved and it helps the environment," the ministry said.

Dutch motorists driving a standard family saloon will be charged 3 euro cents per kilometre (seven US cents per mile) in 2012. That would increase to 6.7 cents (16 US cents per mile) in 2018, according to the proposed law.

Every vehicle type will have a base rate, which depends on its size, weight and carbon dioxide emissions.

Taxis, vehicles for the disabled, buses, motorcycles and classic cars will all be exempt.

"An alternative payment will be introduced for foreign vehicles," the ministry statement added.

The Dutch cabinet approved the road tax bill on Friday. It will need the backing of parliament before it becomes law.

By Sean O’Neill

Times Online | Draconian police powers designed to deprive crime barons of luxury lifestyles are being extended to councils, quangos and agencies to use against the public, The Times has learnt.

The right to search homes, seize cash, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property will be given to town hall officials and civilian investigators employed by organisations as diverse as Royal Mail, the Rural Payments Agency and Transport for London.

The measure, being pushed through by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, comes into force next week and will deploy some of the most powerful tools available to detectives against fare dodgers, families in arrears with council tax and other minor offenders.

The radical extension of the Proceeds of Crime Act, through a Statutory Instrument which is not debated by parliament, has been condemned by the chairman of the Police Federation. Paul McKeever said that he was shocked to learn that the decision to hand over “intrusive powers” to people who were not police was made without consultation or debate.

Read full article

By Gordon Dickson

Star-Telegram | The Texas Department of Transportation has formally pulled the plug on the Trans Texas Corridor, a hotly contested plan to build toll roads, rail lines and utilities across the state, officials said.

But the state’s once-lofty plan to build $184 billion worth of new statewide infrastructure promises to live on in the governor’s race, where the need to reduce gridlock is often pitted against issues such as property rights, the impact of tolls on residents’ pocketbooks and foreign control of toll projects.

State officials have scheduled a news conference for 11 a.m. today in Austin to announce that the department has selected the "no action alternative" for the proposed first leg of the Trans Texas Corridor from the border region to Dallas-Fort Worth.

During months of testimony in the project’s environmental review, a process governed by the Federal Highway Administration, simply too many Texans voiced opposition to the project, officials said.

"The reason that’s being given for the no-build option is that people don’t want it," Texas Transportation Commissioner Bill Meadows of Fort Worth said Tuesday in a phone interview. "They said, 'Hell no.’ What we basically are doing is we are terminating the process. Formally, absolutely, TTC-35 is dead. We are canceling the contract with Zachry."

Zachry Construction Co. of San Antonio and Cintra of Madrid have been under contract to create a Trans Texas Corridor master plan and to provide a more detailed development plan for the first Trans Texas Corridor leg along the I-35 corridor.

But while that process has reached an end, Gov. Rick Perry and his challenger in the Republican primary, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, continued to exchange barbs Tuesday over the Trans Texas Corridor.

Perry, who initially proposed the corridor in 2002 as a futuristic way to pay for roads — and to revolutionize highway safety and freight movement — has said in recent interviews that he still believes that Texans must find creative ways to pay for transportation improvements.

Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner noted that the Transportation Department had already announced less formally in January that it wouldn’t pursue the Trans Texas Corridor.

"The Trans Texas Corridor has been out of existence since January, so it’s further proof that the senator and her campaign lack any knowledge of transportation issues in Texas," Miner said. "Since Sen. Hutchison has been asleep at the wheel in Washington, Texas has been shortchanged on transportation dollars coming back to Texas, and it has forced us to look at transportation alternatives in the state."

But Hutchison accused the department under Perry’s guidance of continuing to plan the corridor behind the scenes.

"The Trans Texas Corridor will not be officially dead until Rick Perry is no longer governor and his political appointees are no longer running TxDOT," Hutchison campaign spokesman Joe Pounder said in a statement.

"Texans can’t trust Rick Perry when it comes to protecting their land from the government, ceasing to lease our highways to foreign companies or ending the Trans Texas Corridor," he added.

By Robert Watts and Dominic O’Connell

Global Research | A radical plan to raise £100 billion by privatising the motorway network has been presented to the three main political parties by NM Rothschild, the influential investment bank.

Rothschild, an architect of several privatisations, made its pitch in the weeks running up to the summer recess on July 21, Whitehall sources said. Bankers told leading politicians that the sale of the roads overseen by the Highways Agency — all motorways and most big trunk roads — could help revive battered public finances.

Toll-road companies and infrastructure funds would compete to operate and maintain stretches of the network.

In one version of the scheme, the government would pay for upkeep through a system of “shadow” tolls. A more radical, and less politically palatable, option would be for companies to charge motorists directly through toll booths or electronic card readers. The RAC Foundation, a motorists’ group, advocated privatisation in a report last week.

The Rothschild plan has already won the support of Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats’ deputy leader and Treasury spokesman.

“This is an attractive, positive idea which could release considerable resources to the public finances and may have real environmental merits,” Cable said. “The scale of it is vast — it makes rail privatisation look like small beer.”

Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, said the Conservatives had “no plans” to back Rothschild’s proposals: “Rothschilds, like many other banks and consultancies, have approached me and my team on a range of ideas for our transport network, including their ideas for our road infrastructure, but we are not working on any proposals for privatisation of the strategic road network and have no plans to do so.”

Motorway privatisation was considered by John Major’s Conservative administration, which sold British Rail, but was rejected.

A spokesman at the Department for Transport said: “It is not unusual for organisations to suggest ideas to government departments but ultimately all policy is decided by ministers and there are no plans to sell off a stake in the Highways Agency.” Rothschild declined to comment.

The bank was behind many of the key privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s, including British Steel, British Gas and British Coal. It has close links to the Conservatives, having employed several senior Party figures including Lord Lamont, John Redwood and Lord Wakeham. Oliver Letwin, the former shadow chancellor, works there part-time.

Politicians of all Parties are seeking ways to decrease the need for large tax rises or heavy cuts in public services. The bank bailouts and a recent collapse in tax revenues has seen public sector debt rise to more than £800 billion, 56.8% of GDP — up from 35.5% just two years ago.

Road tolls are unpopular, however. When Labour mooted road pricing two years ago, more than 230,000 signed a petition on the Downing Street decrying the plan .

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet | The vampiric and gluttonous feeding frenzy currently being enjoyed by the federal government under the pretext of climate change is set to be expanded with a range of new taxes on products disposed of via waste water, including cosmetics, toothpaste and toilet paper.

The “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” H.R.3202, introduced last week by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), will be “financed broadly by small fees on such things as bottled beverages, products disposed of in wastewater, corporate profits, and the pharmaceutical industry,” according to Blumenauer’s fact sheet.

Though the taxes are “designed to be collected at the manufacturer level,” only the most naive would doubt that multinational corporations would just pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, as is routine.

Items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil will be subject to a 3% excise tax, while water beverages will be hit with a 4% tax, “because these products wind up in the water stream and require clean up by sewage treatment plants,” according to the bill.

The legislation also cites “climate change mitigation” as a justification for imposing the taxes. The Feds’ new feeding frenzy will rake in around $10 billion dollars a year.

The bill even defines “toilet tissue” in section 4172. “The rulemaking to define what rises to the level of a bottom-wipe is in the name of a good cause: to tax the stuff,” writes Chris Horner. “The current band of feds don’t think you’ve paid enough tax — this has been established ad nauseam — and now want a dedicated revenue, er, stream, to pay to replace corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems nationwide.”

The necessity of cleaning up a water supply poisoned with the toxic soup of human disposals seems like a reasonable proposal, especially in light of evidence that antiandrogens in our rivers and lakes are contributing to global sperm reduction and essentially chemically sterilizing men, and yet when the filters are ready to be installed at water treatment facilities that would remove this junk, the government steps in and blocks them under the justification that they contribute to CO2 emissions.

The fact that the global warming feeding frenzy has now reached a level of insanity to the point where the federal government is essentially preparing to tax us to defecate and urinate shows how far down the line we really are. What’s next? A tax on breathing? After all, we humans exhale that evil life-giving poisonous gas carbon dioxide. The New York Times actually introduced the idea of the government imposing a tax on breathing in a March 2007 editorial.

As we are lectured about the necessity of why we must have every aspect of our lives regulated and taxed in order to save the earth, we learn that the government’s last efforts to do so, during the ozone layer scare of the 80’s and 90’s, actually harmed the environment.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), introduced in the 90’s to replace ozone-depleting gases in deodorants, fridges and air conditioners, actually “act like “super” greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.” So while the government was brow-beating us about the evils of emitting CO2 because it apparently caused global warming, they were actually mandating that we use a gas which contributed to global warming to an substantially greater degree.

By Deborah Zabarenko

Reuters | To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Shoibal Chakravarty (Princeton Environment Institute) said, but he did not rule it out: “We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it’s great.”

Read full article

By Leo Lewis

Times Online | With recovery elusive, a population doddering into old age and perhaps a decade of deflation in prospect, Japan may start mulling the most radical monetary policy of all — the abolition of cash.

Unorthodox, untried and, said one Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi strategist, “in the realms of economic science fiction”, the recommendation has nevertheless begun floating around Tokyo’s corridors of power and economists have described Japan as particularly suitable as a testing ground.

The search for more outré economic policies continues, despite the recent surge in the Nikkei 225 index.The market may be reflecting soaring Chinese investment, rising consumer confidence and other cheerful data but economists see few long-term beacons of hope for Japan.

Other extreme ideas mooted by the financial authorities include a tax on physical currency or introducing one to operate alongside the yen.

All three ideas are based on a theory concerning interest rates and the concept that a nominal rate of zero — as Japan has now lived with for much of the past decade — may be too high. In Japan’s case, the theory would suggest that nominal rates of -4 per cent might be closer to what is required to rescue the economy from another deflationary spiral. Having agreed that this might be necessary, the next question is how it could be imposed.

Several MPs in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party believe the abolition of cash, though politically radioactive, might be technically feasible. Richard Jerram, a senior economist with Macquarie bank, told investors that “the proposal has become practical with the broad penetration of electronic money and credit cards in Japan”.

Read full article

Editor: Due to lack of time to articulate this issue, my response to this tax on human life (we are made of carbon) is best summed up in these links. Climate Change and the Carbon Tax, Why a Carbon Tax Won’t Save The Planet, Carbon Tax Fraud - Al Gore, Hillary Clinton & Rothschild, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

A week ago, Rep. John B. Larson introduced the America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009 in the US Congress. The bill which has evolved from its previous version has advocated a nationwide carbon tax in addition to an ‘equivalent’ tax on the imported carbon intensive goods. The bill also proposes to neutralize the impact on the working class by giving out carbon tax rebate.

By Mridul Chadha

Red Green and Blue | Calls for a carbon tax have been increasing ever since President Obama took office. In order to achieve energy independence and reducing carbon emissions due to the country’s ‘historical responsibility’, President Obama proposed the implementation of cap and trade scheme. The administration feels that such a scheme would not only check the nation’s carbon emissions but would also generate much needed income.

The European Union also proposed that the Clean Developments Mechanism be replaced by a global carbon tax. Citing the drawbacks of CDM, like lack of transparency and bureaucratic delays, the EU proposed that a carbon tax seems to be the simplest and most effective method to meet emission targets and help getting developing countries access to the clean technologies.

Calls for a carbon tax also echoed at The International Scientific Conference on Climate Change held at Copenhagen, Denmark. William Nordhaus, professor of economics at Yale university, and James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that it was time that the world leaders must start thinking about carbon tax if they wish to reach a consensus over the future emission reduction deal.

The new bill introduced in the US Congress is in addition to the many initiatives take by the Obama administration which would put immense pressure on developing countries like China and India to agree to mandatory emission reductions. But these measures could very well see some severe opposition back home. Levying new tax during an economic recession seems to be a highly unpopular approach.

Some of the measures proposed in the new bill are:

* Carbon tax of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide from year 2009.
* Increment of $10 every year for five years.
* Increment of $15 every year after five years if emission reductions are not in sync with the 2050 target of 80 percent reduction 2005 levels.
* Levying a ”carbon equivalency fee” on all imported carbon intensive goods from countries which do not have national carbon tax.
* Investments in clean technologies would get tax credits worth $10 billion every year.
* Tax rebates provided to individual and industries to neutralize any loss income due to the tax.

The bill, which would make the United States popular and project it as a leader in addressing environmental problems, would also affect its own people, with some claiming that the low income families would be the hardest hit and that the rebate programs included in the bill would not be enough to counter their financial losses.

However, there are many who feel that even if carbon tax might not be the most popular, it seems to be the most efficient tool at our disposal at this time. The Chief Executive of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, voiced his support to a national carbon tax scheme.

It is feared that if no consensus is build around a single scheme to cut emissions the talks for the next climate treaty would fail. Continuing with Clean Development Mechanism is not an option especially after the UN admitted that it does have flaws. Cap and trade would help cutting emissions at one place but would also give the license to emit the same amount of emissions elsewhere.

The world has experimented with offsetting and has has witnessed its failure now the world leaders must come together and agree to a global carbon tax. The carbon tax is by far the most transparent method of cutting carbon emissions. But the question is that will other countries agree to a global carbon tax and more importantly, will the US public approve of a carbon tax at this time.

WLWT | Thousands of Tri-State residents gathered Sunday on Fountain Square in downtown Cincinnati to voice their opposition to government spending bills recently signed by President Barack Obama.

The group called itself the Cincinnati Tea Party, modeled after the Boston Tea Party of 1773.

Many of the demonstrators carried signs with slogans that said "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage" or "Stop spending my allowance." Some even wore tea bags on their hats to make their point.

Cincinnati police estimated the crowd at 4,000 people. Many who spoke with News 5 Sunday afternoon said they're angry, including Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.

"I bet there's 5,000 people here and they're mad, just as I'm mad. They have a right to be mad at the unbridled spending that's happening in Washington," said Schmidt.

Protesters argued that the government shouldn't be spending money it doesn't have and they fear taxes and deflation will follow.

"The money you have now will be worth half as much next year, if they keep spending this money. They've got to stop spending this money," said Mike Sparks.

Protesters signed a petition rejecting the stimulus package. Organizers said they planned to gather again on April 15 and march the petition to city hall.

Images: Cincinnati Tea Party

By Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet | A New York Times article about the different test studies being conducted as a precursor to the introduction of a CO2 or mileage tax admits that cars will contain tracking devices that will record where motorists have been.

Obama’s transportation secretary Ray LaHood recently caused controversy when he let slip that the administration was considering a “vehicles miles traveled” tax to replace the federal fuel tax. Press secretary Robert Gibbs hastily moved to offset concerns by claiming that such a tax “is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration.”

However, as the New York Times reported in its Sunday edition, a number of different large scale beta-testing programs are currently underway to trial that exact scheme.

The largest is the $16.5 million federal Road User Study, under which thousands of volunteers in Austin, Tex.; Baltimore; Boise, Idaho; Raleigh and Durham, N.C.; San Diego; and the Quad Cities region of Iowa are driving cars equipped with tracking devices that catalogue their every movement.

For such a program to achieve its objective of taxing people by the mile, one would think that the only information the tracking device would need to measure is how many miles the vehicle has traveled. However, the true purpose of the technology is revealed when we learn that the system will also “record where motorists have been”.

Jon Kuhl, principal investigator for the Road User Study, concedes that “invasion of privacy” will be an issue, but the article does not mention how this will be overcome.

“You’d have to have a record where the car is at all times, and that certainly would frighten America,” said Mike Moffatt, an economist at the Ivy School of Business at the University of Western Ontario.

Efforts to sell the mileage tax proposal as a replacement for gas tax are likely to increase as the proposal nears introduction, but as is the case in North Carolina, where legislators are considering introducing a fee of one-quarter of a cent per mile, the charge will be in addition to tax per gallon of gas, not as a replacement for it.

The Times article notes that Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon are also piloting similar schemes.

An increase on the roads of fuel-efficient vehicles and cars run on electricity is causing panic amongst tax-hungry authorities, who are seeking new ways to snag people who are managing to pay far less gas tax.

Indeed, the Times article quotes Susan Martinovich, director of the Nevada Department of Transportation, who expressed her desire to pursue such individuals.

“Those people are not paying as much, and yet they’re still on the road and still causing congestion and impacting pavement. How do I get at those people?” she stated.

“How do I get at those people?” That phrase perfectly underscores the nature of this entire program - a fresh government assault on the personal privacy and the wallet of the beleaguered American taxpayer that will achieve nothing aside driving more people into near-poverty while ensuring their every move is tracked and catalogued by big brother.

The Times article concludes as all the best PR pieces for an expansion of government taxation and surveillance would be expected to, by proclaiming that the mileage tax is “inevitable” and that it will begin by all automakers installing the tracking devices in new cars as standard.

Related: Symposium Planned To Discuss Implementation of Nationwide Mileage-Based Taxing System