you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

There’s already the risk of fraudulent inspections, possibly more of an incentive. A failed inspection could result in very expensive repairs, giving a customer lots of incentive to offer a bribe.

In addition to enforcement efforts, supposedly a loss of income is a significant incentive for a garage to stay legit. Each inspection may not cost much but it’s a regular stream of guaranteed income that shops do not want to lose

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    There's downsides to most solutions. Over-the-air reporting is another possible answer, but then you get into massive risks to privacy and data harvesting. It's easier to mandate trickle chargers have Over-The-Air reporting than to have the car do it. Logistically there's going to be complications no matter how you assess the taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Continuous or short term reporting is a privacy issue. It can go a long way toward monitoring where someone is going all the time. Definitely something to be avoided.

    While the trickle charging idea might sound good, there is no requirement to use a charger and many people do not. This seems like the biggest gap of any option. And even with public chargers, the infrastructure act charger funding included provisions that you can pay with cash, no account required. Those chargers would intentionally not have a way to track.

    Reporting at annual inspection

    • uses a mechanism that already exists (in most states)
    • is not a privacy concern (an annual total gives no info about where you’ve been)
    • already has incentives against cheating
    • even if you cut your taxes with fraudulent reporting, it just makes next years even bigger, or will come out when you try to sell
  • source
  • parent