Outside of the obvious privacy and security concerns. Wouldn't the cost of tracking this heavily eat into the revenues from taxation? I can't see the government pulling this kind of operation without it costing a lot of money.
So the question is - is the difference between what the new net benefits be greater than the current system. And then you need to add both the political anger from security + privacy into the equation.
The UK is already a surveillance state. Cameras on every corner with sophisticated software to identify license plates and piece the data together. So the movement of people is already being tracked.
As for the cost of doing so? I would guess its already very cheap and only getting cheaper.
The potential for taxation is just a more presentable way of selling such a plan. Saying “we want to track your every movement” isn’t yet palatable. In another 10 years and some overhyped criminal incident later, it might be, though.
I would think a main benefit would be that fewer roads need to be built and maintained. That’s serious cost cutting. Lower congestion also can be a huge gain.
Also, from what I understand the tracking already is somewhat solved in London.
So the question is - is the difference between what the new net benefits be greater than the current system. And then you need to add both the political anger from security + privacy into the equation.