Oregon Governor Proposes Vehicle Mileage Tax 713
tiedyejeremy writes "As covered by the Crosscut Blog, the Governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, is proposing a change in the funding of the Oregonian transportation system that drops gasoline taxes and, by way of GPS tracking, taxes the number of miles driven, to the tune of 1.2 cents per mile. The reason for the proposed change is that lower fuel consumption via fuel efficiency will leave the system underfunded. The concerns involve government tracking of the movements of vehicles within the state, though this has been denied by ODOT official, James Whitty. I'm wondering how this affects people using the Interstate System and private roads, and if the outputs can or will be used by law enforcement to check alibis."
Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the part where they leave the gas tax in place.
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's two problems with the gas tax.
1. As a road usage tax it doesn't take into consideration gas for equipment like lawn mowers and chainsaws.
2. It doesn't take into consideration driving done on private roads or roads not maintained by the government.
#2 is pretty big in Oregon due to the amount of logging they do. There's a lot of people who spend most of their time driving on logging trails. #2 is also the reason why GPS tracking of miles driven is dumb. It could very well count miles driven on private roads.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Texas, they have the idea of farm gas. The diesel has a red dye added and you get it at a much cheaper cost than regular diesel because you aren't driving your F350 or tractor on public roads. The dye is added so that if you're caught with it and are romping around on public roads, then you get fined.
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing prevents you from doing it. Although the extra step pretty much ensures that your usage of off road fuel in a road vehicle is no longer capable of being an accident and if someone reports you or you somehow get caught, your going to be fined pretty big.
You will likely get caught when your vehicle breaks down and a mechanic discovers your not using the right fuel or when your wife or ex gets pissed off at you and someone makes an anonymous tip. In California, they actually set up fuel checks and rand
As an Oregonian, higher gas tax, not a milage tax! (Score:5, Insightful)
As an Oregon resident, I'll state my preference for a higher gas tax for just these reasons.
A gas tax simply aligns with the public externalities of motor vehicles a lot better than just milage, since bigger cars cause more wear. There's no incentive for buying less damaging vehicles this way. Also, gas taxes are easy to collect, while this is more complex. Net revenue will be reduced by the cost of monitoring, plus there's the initial capital cost of getting the whole thing set up.
And while all taxes cause some distortion in the market, it's best to pick ones where the distortion is the least painful or disruptive, or otherwise aligned with society goals. Reducing petroleum imports and carbon emissions are both clear public goals. If consumption is going down, the tax is doing what it should, and so the best thing to do is to raise it to maintain the incentive to get smaller, more efficient vehicles that we saw last summer.
Since governments at all levels need funding, higher gas taxes seem like one of the best options. And a high tax sets a minimum on gas prices, and so a floor for how inefficient a vehicle people are willing to take. A $0.50 gallon tax, split evenly between states and the fed, would pay for a whole lot of economic recovery, give a stable floor to the value of alternative energy, and still be way cheaper than it was a few months ago. Right now, we're seeing state governments cutting services and payroll at the very time we need an expansionist policy nationwide to avoid deflation. The net effect is the federal government will need to borrow and spent even more money to balance out the state cuts before we can even start climbing out of the hole (if state payrolls drop by 500K, that means the fed employment target from the stimulus plan needs to be 3.5M, not 3.0M, to have the same effect).
I'd much rather see our governor recommend raising the gas tax by $0.25, drop this milage/GPS nonsense, and restore funding to education, get the new I-5 bridge started, etcetera.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to say that those are about the poorest justifications against the tax I can imagine... First, #1 is just silly. Even if you are a professional landscaper or gardener, it's unlikely that you are using enough gas in your lawnmowers and chainsaws to really be a significant concern. And since the cost of the fuel you use should be a deductible expense, the net tax you pay is negligible. If you are not a professional, you probably use less than 10 or 20 gallons of gasoline (for most people MUCH less) per
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
#1 is idiotic. When I grew up I always mowed the lawn with a riding lawn mower. It took about 2 gallons per mow for a several acre property. I go through more gas than that every couple of days in my car and I don't drive that much. The amount of Gas that goes into a container vs a vehicle is probably 1/100th the fuel sales. Hardly worth investing in expensive taxation infrastructure for the mass majority of the customers.
#2 is also stupid because those customers aren't spending money on gas taxes as i
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Very, very few people if any are able to completely avoid the public system. Groceries, utilities, emergency services, those things all require a maintained public street system for nearly all the work. So even those that theoretically don't drive on public roads are still benefiting from the ability to do so."
Any goods delivered on a public road system are delivered by vehicles driving on that road which require fuel to run which is in turn taxed. I suppose people like me freeload a bit when we walk a few blocks to the grocery store on the nice sidewalks and roads instead of driving a car which pay for road upkeep through fuel consumption, but I still have to drive to work and other places so they invariably get me in the end. Of course there might be a few people who use the public roadways without driving a car at all. My personal belief is that these people should get a free pass as they're choosing a means of conveyance that will keep them healthier without adding to the amount of pollution in a given area. I think that the small amount of money lost from these people is made up in other areas.
Gas tax works remarkably well for the most part and is probably one of most fair taxes that I could think of off of the top of my head. The only problem is that as we shift towards electric cars and hybrids we're still using the roads but not using the fuel. At that point it probably just makes more sense to have the state apply some other form of tax. A flat tax per vehicle per year works out well enough, but it does tend to punish those who don't use their vehicle as often. If they really wanted, they could just set up toll booths and collect funds that way as well.
The proposed solution seems nice, but I feel as though it's overly complex and would require significant cost to implement at this point; never mind the potential for abuse.
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the real problem involves electric vehicles, then they could... wait for it... increase taxes on electricity!! There you go. Problem solved. No need for intrusive GPS tracking. If the problem involves the batteries in hybrid cars, then they can pay some mathmeticians to calculate the cost savings of the batteries, and then tax the production or sale of the cars to offset the revenue lost. Once again, no tracking necessary.
Of course the REAL issue isn't completely related to the loss of revenues from the fuel tax. The real issue is that the government feels like they own us. They believe that they can go crazy with tracking us like merchandise. That is my big, fat, off-topic gripe for this thread. Our government has devolved from our fellow citizens serving their communities, to our fellow citizens trying to dictate our lives to us.
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:4, Insightful)
However the creation of an extensive toll system to tax mileage will undoubtedly make for a nice fat contract to be awarded to a private contractor somewhere in Oregon, and there can be the additional claim of "jobs created". Simply raising the existing gas tax would be far too efficient.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the point is to provide revenue for the government, and depending on your ideological leanings, either use the market system to encourage conservation or unreasonably distort price levels and mess up the market with all of your unwarranted government intervention.
As far as taxation goes, being even roughly proportional is about as good as it gets, and the gas tax is pretty close to proportionate to road usage and wear and tear, within some fudge factors. It's as close or closer to proportional than any
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are very focused on the environmental impact side of the set of repercussions of automobiles and other power equipment. The main focus of the debate seems to be on the road maintenance costs. You are muddying the waters by responding only considering the topic that concerns you rather than the one the GP is concerned with. Here's a way to address both:
Premises:
1. We need infrastructure and transit to support our current population densities (and the variety of land uses that sustain them)
2. We want t
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:4, Insightful)
It should only be collected at the minimum level for govt. to provide infrastructure and defense (mostly fed) and the like. I think a lot of the tax for behavior is what keeps us collecting and paying too many taxes today. It isn't supposed to be a means of behavior modification....that is just as bad as the Feds. using tax revenues as blackmail to make the states do certain things. It certainly isn't any better levelling them at individuals for behavior.
And look..this is an example of it backfiring. Ok..so, the current gas taxes and pricing...cut people intake of gas...but, now, the govt. is so hooked on tax money..they have to move to figure a new way to keep the revenue coming in. In this case...the behavior was changed...but, the tax didn't disappear. This cycle happens over and over.
I don't mind everyone paying a tax to keep the roads up and going...that is what it is for...how much you use it, does seem fari.
However, I really don't want them to start mandating GPS's on cars like this proposal...too easy for the govt.to track yet another datum of the people.
I'm for a fair tax to pay for infrastructure, but, not something that allows more govt. snooping...and I won't want them to tax to change behaviors...
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well that's the point, isn't it... well, maybe.
Not sure about the USA, but in NL you pay all sorts of taxes on gas (one of the highest in the world) + a road use tax. Both go toward, among other, road maintenance as well.
As cars get more efficient in terms of gas use, the gov't wallet slims down.. but given the same car in terms of e.g. weight, footprint (literal - i.e. tires-on-road), it doesn't matter whether you're super-efficient or the worst gas guzzler in the world... you're still putting the same wear-and-tear on that road. Ergo, they have to..
A. increase gas prices more
B. increase road use taxes more
C. create a new (context-dependent) per-mile (kilometer) tax
D. go with a bit of A, drop B and implement C -and- add an entirely new tax that -everybody- pays.. whether you actually drive a car or not, as dropping B does not get compensated enough by A and C.
Of course they spin this as a positive thing, as those who drive a lot will now pay more, while those who drive say 20,000km/year will be off much cheaper... thanks in part to those driving 0km/year helping pay. ho hum.
( not that I'm fervently opposed to it - my goods are delivered by road, so even if I don't travel on it.. transport companies do - but I was under the impression I already paid for transportation cost by paying for the product. hmpf. )
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As cars get more efficient in terms of gas use, the gov't wallet slims down.. but given the same car in terms of e.g. weight, footprint (literal - i.e. tires-on-road), it doesn't matter whether you're super-efficient or the worst gas guzzler in the world... you're still putting the same wear-and-tear on that road.
But taxing by the mile may be less reflective of wear and tear on the road than taxing by the gallon. You see, the larger the vehicle, the more wear and tear. This also correlates to some degree with the gas used by the vehicle. Huge SUVs cause more wear because of their weight and at the same time tend to use more gas. Ditto for cargo trucks and semis. Since gas used reflects the umber of miles travelled as well, this seems like a tax that would financially discourage transport companies and individuals fr
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Informative)
Free health care and you pay less in taxes than Americans. Most Americans insist that isn't true, and it's not if you make over a million a year.
There may be a reason that most Americans insist this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe [wikipedia.org]
Not only is the income tax higher - often considerably - but on top of that there's that lovely VAT.
But hey, enjoy your fantasies.
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Interesting)
My jaw dropped when I saw that page. Until I saw "The quoted income tax rate is, except where noted, the top rate of tax: Most jurisdictions have lower rate of taxes for low levels of income."
That was the difference between the stated 54.3% that page states and my 18% taxes paid.
I live in Norway BTW, which arguably has one of the best healtcare systems in the world.
So it's not a fantasy. It's a reality.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My jaw dropped when I saw that page. Until I saw "The quoted income tax rate is, except where noted, the top rate of tax: Most jurisdictions have lower rate of taxes for low levels of income."
That was the difference between the stated 54.3% that page states and my 18% taxes paid.
I live in Norway BTW, which arguably has one of the best healtcare systems in the world.
So it's not a fantasy. It's a reality.
And who do you think is going to be spending the R&D money to find new cures and ways to treat uncured illnesses? If America switches to universal government healthcare, then all the money spent in the industry will go to curing known illnesses and fixing people. None will be spent on R&D. So then you'll propose more government involvement for that, for sure.
Thanks, I'd rather have my big Pharma's like Phizer blowing billions on research, because with our system there is a MARKET for new cures. Than
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:4, Informative)
I am not going to argue that we Americans pay more or less in taxes, but your link doesn't really make your point. For one, as the large banner at the top of the page points out, the numbers presented may or may not be inaccurate. Secondly, even assuming the numbers are correct, they appear to reference the top income tax rate. Not knowing the lower tax rates, how income is calculated for tax purposes, and other information, is is impossible to determine the effective tax rate as compared to the United States. Showing a chart of the alleged top tax rates in other countries doesn't really demonstrate anything actually.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you add in the average rate that Americans pay privately for the things that are included in the European tax dollar, does the comparison hold true? Most corporate employees I know here pay somewhere in the range of 5% to 10% of their income as insurance premiums for health care. The national average is actually about 7%, accounting for copays and the myriad non-covered expenses. When evaluated in that apples-to-apples context, American taxes are only lower for
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Informative)
It's either/or: If the gas pump detects your GPS computer, it charges you $.012/mile. Otherwise it charges you $.25/gallon. Or thereabouts, I haven't heard what the new gas tax portion is going to be.
Oh, and also it's only on NEW cars- old cars are grandfathered into the gas tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I hope to drive my 1990 300zx until I die
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and also it's only on NEW cars- old cars are grandfathered into the gas tax.
I wonder then if there would be any penalty to hacking the device (for the technophiles) or just ripping the GPS out (for the less technically inclined) of a newer vehicle to avoid the privacy issues. I don't want to be tracked, and it seems like the more fuel efficient cars would fare better by the gas tax method anyways.
Besides: why are we pushing legislation that puts gas guzzlers and fuel efficent hybrids back onto even footing when it comes to taxes? Shouldn't tax rates ENCOURAGE fuel efficient vehicles? If underfunding is the problem just raise the gas tax to make up for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or you can easily block them:
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.3619 [dealextreme.com]
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Interesting)
What I don't get is this: why in h*ll would they put a privacy-violating GPS device in to count mileage when:
Even if we assume that the GPS will merely be used to determine where you are, half the Oregon borders are in the mountains, so you may well find yourself getting billed for miles not driven within the state. Not to mention that you're probably adding a couple hundred bucks to the cost of every automobile, all for the sole purpose of giving the government more revenue.
To add insult to injury, at 1.2 cents per mile, you would have to go almost 17,000 extra miles in that hybrid beyond what you would have gotten on that amount of fuel in a non-hybrid car. With typical hybrids getting maybe 5-10% higher MPG on average, the break-even point is when the car has gone between 170k and 340k miles. If everybody just paid that same $200 to the state as a tax on the sale of a new vehicle, it would give the state probably twice as much money as they would make off of this, all for the same cost to the consumer, all without violating people's privacy.
Here's a more sane proposal: when you apply for your tags, make one line on the form be the current odometer reading. Charge an additional license fee based on the mileage. Once the vehicle starts going in for smog checks, this can be corroborated by periodic reporting by the smog check station, so there's low risk of significant cheating.
Allow people who do a substantial amount of out-of-state driving to apply for a tax credit on his/her personal income tax for driving outside the state. Require them to provide some corroborating evidence (receipts from out of state hotels or gas stations during the period in question, pay stubs proving an out-of-state job, etc.).
By making the small percentage of people who regularly drive outside the state spend an extra ten minutes filling out their income tax forms, you save the cost of additional hardware in new vehicles, additional hardware at the pumps (the cost of which will be paid by everyone), etc. and you avoid all the privacy questions. More to the point, since all new cars sold anywhere would then have to have these devices (since car makers won't build a separate model just for Oregon, even if these GPS devices only cost $100, my plan will save almost 2 billion dollars annually nationwide in unnecessary hardware when compared with the Oregon governor's plan.
Just to put that number in perspective, that's billion with a 'B'---enough money to bail out on the order of 20,000 home owners who are defaulting on their mortgages. Anyone in favor of something so asinine should be publicly flogged.... The people of Oregon deserve someone with better math and problem solving skills than this....
Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! (Score:5, Interesting)
GPS unit 1341235423523 bought 50 gallons of gas but only drove 50 miles per the GPS. Odd that Prius is only getting 1 MPG.
Aside from extreme examples, I look forward to watching tax agents bust down doors of people whom have poorly maintained cars because they "must" be tax cheats. My old 1980's plymouth horizon got 30 MPG on a good day, but when the choke stuck during winter I was lucky to get double digit MPGs on short trips.
I suspect the next step is location based taxes. For example parking a car within 500 feet of a church is free, yet anyone whom parks within 500 feet of an adult video stores will have their visit documented on a public web site and charged a $50 parking fee. Or anyone whom doesn't attend / park nearby a church every week will pay a higher tax "Y".
Then of course there are the known tobacco smokers whom drive within X feet of a public school where it's illegal to have or use tobacco products within X feet. Or gunowners. Etc.
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like the opposite of taxation without representation. I don't live in Oregon, but with this proposal I can drive through the place and pay less tax than the locals. Woohoo!
Oregon is weird. They've outlawed self service at gas stations. Since I don't care to pay to have some high school klutz spill gas on the ground when filling up my tank, I make sure to gas up across the border whenever I do go that way.
Just watch out for the sales tax on the motel room. The whole nation has got on the bandwagon of screwing the traveler with extra taxes on motels, rental cars, and all the stuff only visitors need. Now that's taxation without representation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just watch out for the sales tax on the motel room. The whole nation has got on the bandwagon of screwing the traveler with extra taxes on motels, rental cars, and all the stuff only visitors need. Now that's taxation without representation.
That's not just Oregon: most states have ridiculous taxes on motel rooms and other things that only visitors use. It's easy to raise taxes on these things without causing an uproar from the voters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Leave it to Oregon...
They are interesting indeed. They have no sales tax but do have an income tax. Voters have rejected a sales tax like 12 bazillion times.
The state is broke and needs more money desperately. Watching legislators looking for new ways to increase tax revenue isn't new for Oregonians - it's normal.
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:5, Informative)
First, let me tell you my qualification to discuss Oregon taxes. I lived there for 12 years, and worked there as an out of stater from Washington for 8.
Currently, something like 45 states have a sales tax. Oregonians have rejected a sales tax for a variety of reasons, one of which being that they think the income tax won't go away entirely and they will just get double taxed.
Also, rich people certainly pay more in absolute dollars per capita under an income tax but it's not linear. Higher bracket households have disproportionately more tax deductions than lower income households and don't pay the same percentages.
Sales tax doesn't entirely fix this disparity since higher income households are the most likely to make major purchases from out of state due to availability of the types of goods they often buy.
One serious annoyance for me was that I worked about 3 miles into Oregon while living in Washington and had to pay OR state income tax while receiving no tangible benefits for this tax. I used about 6 miles of road per day, that's it. And to top it off, my state income tax didn't even give me the right to vote on HOW they spend my money.
So, back to your question. Sales tax is generally favorable to income tax in my opinion. I don't think it will ever work for Oregon though. They depend on workers from southern Washington to prop up their income tax and that would disappear if they switch to a sales tax. Also, literally billions of dollars annually are pumped into the Portland metro area by shoppers from WA state looking to avoid their own sales tax.
Yes, its illegal but it happens every day.
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:4, Informative)
I prefer using a gross receipts tax. Any money you receive in return for goods or services is generally recorded (unless it's an under the table transaction, which is currently invisible anyway). You pay a small percentage on that. No deductions, no exclusions. You can have a sliding scale percentage, but all the money is on the table. I'd like to see it identical for personal and corporate entities.
We have a GRT for businesses in my town, and it's very difficult to game. Of course it's a fraction of a percent, so hiding a transaction here or there doesn't really help much. I think I figured once that the federal government could live on 2-3% GRT. My mother hated the idea because she was about to sell a house, and that seemed unfair. I pointed out she just gave 6% to some fool who did nothing but put a sign in her yard - and how much was it worth to defend that land and guarantee her right to own it in the first place. She wasn't swayed :-)
Why New Jersey won't let you pump gas (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know about Oregon, but when I lived in New Jersey they tried to change the gas-pumping law, so I got to see what the politics around it were.
A few years back in was in NJ on business, and pulled into a gas station to refill my car. The guy said his guy who pumped gas was on lunch break and wouldn't be back for 10 minutes, so I went and pumped my gas, having forgotten that that was highly illegal, and he yelled at me when I went to pay. Fortunately, I didn't blow up the gas station or force anybody's grandma out into the cold and snow while I was there :-)
Re:Hacking & Scheming FTW! (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot articles, Jan 2011.
"Today the laptop with the Oregon GPS data was stolen. 177 companies "accidentally" got access to a copy. Now they can give you ads based on where you actually drive because we know the Big Autos need a bailout!"
"Today the Swedish hacker 'Lazor' replaced his GPS with that of a deceased former resident of Taiwan."
"The GPS of the Detroit Police suddenly racked up a lot of miles. Turns out, it was force fed to a migrating bird flying south for the winter."
Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. It's essentially a subsidy for inefficient vehicles.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's blatantly obvious that tracking people is really the reason they want it too. If they just wanted to tax people per distance traveled they could simply check the odometer once a year -- they don't need GPS tracking for that!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:5, Interesting)
And GPS drops out from time to time. What's the state going to do to people who "accidentily" build a faraday cage around the antenna?
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they could just... increase the gas tax. I know. Its a maverick idea.
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they could just... increase the gas tax. I know. Its a maverick idea.
With the added benefit of taxing gas-hogs proportionally higher - works for me.
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some South American countries use the tire tax, so everyone drives around on "superlast, hard as rocks" tires to beat the tax rate - can't be good for safety.
I think that taxing each gallon of fuel is the right way to go, if 0.24 isn't enough, make it 0.48 - we just demonstrated that the world doesn't end when gas passes $3 a gallon.
Taxing fuel:
I think the governor is just talking to get himself heard, drivers of big gas hog vehicles (likely the majority of his constituency) will love the idea, but lawmakers would have to have several screws loose to think this is a good or practical idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
this already works out where many people that work in oregon live in washington (vancouver), buy their gas in washington, drive on mostly oregon roads, do not pay oregon income taxes, do not pay oregon property tax, and since oregon has no sales tax, do not pay washington sales tax since they shop in oregon. it's a big win for them, and a loss to both states in revenue. this would only cause more people to fill up in washington (1 mile from my portland house).
I don't see the problem here. If Oregon wants m
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:4, Insightful)
They likely want something in the guise of "repealing the gas tax" to make themselves look great to the math-challenged masses.
Re: (Score:2)
Odometer can break or be manipulated with--right now, mine is stuck on my car.
This is just flat-out scary, though. For one, the government is trying more and more technological means to tax us--a lot of the more left democrats here are probably quite comfortable with that, though--and two, the privacy concerns are pretty obvious (although, again, make take a back seat for us to "progress" as a society so wonderful social programs can be implemented).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Odometers don't track in-state mileage versus out-of-state mileage. The article isn't clear on if that matters to the plan here (it might only tax in-state driving, for example), but there's this little snippet about the test run:
A GPS-based system kept track of the in-state mileage driven by the volunteers. When they bought fuel, a device in their vehicles was read, and they paid 1.2 cents a mile and got a refund of the state gas tax of 24 cents a gallon.
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:4, Insightful)
A GPS-based system kept track of the in-state mileage driven by the volunteers. When they bought fuel, a device in their vehicles was read, and they paid 1.2 cents a mile and got a refund of the state gas tax of 24 cents a gallon.
So, this only benefits people who get less than 20mpg - since my car [mangocats.com] gets about 24mpg on average, I think I'd rather save the money _and_ keep my privacy intact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
24 cents a gallon vs 1.2 cents a mile.
For the best mileage of my car (~400 miles on 13 gallons) that's $4.80 vs $3.12 (at 24 cents a gallon). A 52.5% increase in the gas tax, essentially.
See, they could just increase the gas tax by 50% or thereabouts but they'd look like the bad guys. This way they get away with "abolishing the gas tax" which looks great on TV but not so great on a calculator.
Because cars can travel on roads everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Why just use the fancy new technology called an odometer?
Because by car you can easily drive to other states?
Why should Oregon collect the money for time spent on non Oregon roads?
Use of a GPS ensures they get tax money for time spent on Oregon roads. Not that it's in any way a good idea, as it does not account for drivers from other states making sue of Oregon roads... That's the advantage of a gas tax, it more or less captures money for the state from most people making use of state roads.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? if you buy your fuel in state A and drive around in state B isnt that exactly what happens now?
This is of course pointless, GPS is VERY easy to jam, and moderately easy to supply fake data to.
It would also cost a LOT of build a suitable 'protected' and robust system and install it into all the cars, of course guess who would end up carrying that additional 'tax'
Just put up the damn fuel tax already, if more money is really required, or more sensibly fire some idiots.
Two huge problems (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy fix. Oregon residents connect their "device" which refunds the "gas tax" and charges them the "road tax"
1) How does Oregon know how much you have spent of gas? You are proposing Oregon collects the ID for every gas purchase?
2) I'm in Oregon, and simply wrap the GPS receiver in aluminum foil until it's time to take it in. I get a full refund on my gas tax and pay for a few tens of miles of roads travelled when in reality I've travelled many thousands. It only has to read enough to get to the border a
Re: (Score:2)
As others have stated - so they can charge you different taxes based on where you are/went. In the case of the USA, that might be state-wise. In the case of NL (where they intend to launch this starting 2012), it's so they can charge you more if you drive during rush hour, more if you take the busy roads, more if you're down town (when you could have parked at the edge and taken a shuttle bus instead), etc.
Plus.. they get to track your vehicle. We see that as privacy invasions, 'they' see that as a great
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know someone at the Uni who was involved in the initial testing for this system. What you say is the main reason why GPS instead of odometer. If you drive in downtown Portland during peak hours, you will pay through the nose. If you drive all your miles in Valley Junction, you will pay a lot less. Also, off-road use is supposed to be tax-free, and currently you have to file for a rebate of those taxes to get your money back at the end of the year.
My friend could simply not understand that paying rates based on time/location means logging driving times and locations as well as miles, and that this data could easily be used to track people and be used against them for all sorts of things. Insurance companies would love this, as well as cops and all sorts of other investigators. "Well, well, Mrs. Lincoln, we see the GPS in your car shows you meeting with a Mr. Booth ..."
ODOT, of course, is denying that any logging will take place. Flat out. Won't happen. They know what chance this has of working of they admit the obvious, and too many people don't understand technology well enough to know what has to happen for the magic to take place. Even my friend, an otherwise very smart engineer and all around nice woman, doesn't get it. Why would Joe Smith?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why just use the fancy new technology called an odometer?
I'm a hypothetical Oregon resident with a big farm. I put 5,000 miles on a truck driving around on the farm, hauling hay, etc. Never once have I been on public property, but ever mile has been inside the state borders. How much do I pay?
Re:WTF do they need GPS for? (Score:5, Informative)
You really think an odometer is harder to tamper with than a GPS tracking unit?
Ignoring direct alteration of tracking data stored on media that you have physical access to -- which is well within the realm of possibility for anyone with a JTAG interface (and quite probably anyone with a serial interface) -- you could simply add a local GPS simulator to your vehicle so the government-mandated unit always got radio signals telling it the car was sitting in your driveway. Such hacking is totally wireless -- it requires no electrical interface to the GPS system -- so it could be added/removed or activated/deactivated even by a brain-dead tax-dodger.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know how much GPS simulators cost?
The better question is "How much will they cost if this nightmare were to become law?"
Judas Priest foretold it! (Score:4, Interesting)
And Jeremy Bentham, but who the hell remembers him? And now, here's how to rock:
Electric Eye by Judas Priest
Up here in space
Im looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do
You think youve private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
Im watching all the time
Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye
Always in focus
You cant feel my stare
I zoom into you
You dont know Im there
I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove
Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye
Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
Theres nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows
Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye
Protected. detective. electric eye
Why not raise the tax on gas? (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that if you tax a staple good, and people will be consuming less of that staple good due to an increase in efficiency... meaning you'll bring in less money from those taxes...
Then you raise the tax. What's the downside? It's not like people are going to consume less gas if the tax goes up.
Arguably, cranking the tax could also lead to people holding onto junker cars for sentimental reasons replacing them or repairing their engines. So really, it's win-win.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, its called Laffer's Curve
Actually it is exactly like that (Score:4, Informative)
Then you raise the tax. What's the downside? It's not like people are going to consume less gas if the tax goes up.
Actually, it's exactly like that. When the price of gas was up summer travel plummeted which impacted tourist destinations everywhere, even stuff in the same state where most of the visitors came from. Also less needed visits like mall visits or museum visits go down, as people cut back on non-essential travel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a very good point. My original question disregarded non-essential travel, imagining fuel as a fixed-consumption good. This is what I meant when I referred to it as a 'staple;' I'm unfortunately failing to recall the term for a good with an inflexible rate of consumption.
However, even though fuel is not fixed-consumption, it seems that this policy would also depress travel; taxing the mileage should discourage people from traveling in a similar way to taxing the fuel.
A better question would b
Re:Why not raise the tax on gas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. This solution is so glaringly obvious that there must be some sinister reason they are ignoring it. I mean, seriously? You're going to go with a fancypants expensive satellite-based high-tech solution requiring lots of new legislation, training, infrastructure, and other costs, not to mention the overwhelming privacy violation -- instead of just raising the tax a little bit? What, seriously? I call shenanigans.
Just the beginning. (Score:5, Interesting)
Add a few more players to the game, and you get:
- A national system of tollways, with microcharging so it's useable on roads of any size
- A billing system for parking stations, event parking, or even roadside parking at all in city zones
- Ability to charge more for certain roads during peak periods (like a congestion tax)
- A speed tax?
Re:Why not raise the tax on gas? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gas is not that inelastic. When the price of gas hit $4/gal., I got a bus pass. There's a park-and-ride right by my house, and the express goes straight downtown to where I work. And I now spend 25 minutes each way on leisure reading rather than fighting traffic. Now that gas is cheap, I still ride the bus. Basically, whoever decided to put on the squeeze made a permanent convert. I probably won't ever go back to driving myself. Between gas and parking, I save $200 to $300 a month and I save myself lots of trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Over here in Europe we have seen the advantage of high gas prices lately. When the barrels went from $40 to $160 (up 400%) our gas at the pump went up from CHF 1.4 to CHF 2.0 (up 40%). Still a hike, but not something to change economics of driving dramatically. The high taxes, besides funding decent roads and non-collapsing bridges, provide a nice cushion against the volatility of the oil market.
Of course, due to the higher price level our cars are in general smaller and more economical anyway.
Markus
Drive in reverse (Score:3, Funny)
Then they pay you.
reg fee instead? (Score:2)
<sarcasm> why not bump the registration fee for high-efficiency cars so people will buy the gas-guzzlers instead? That'll teach people to go green in Oregon!</sarcasm>
I can solve this problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can solve this problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I love my children more than the "poor, uninsured, orphan, elementary school children" and don't want to burden THEM with leveraged debt. Oh, and I get the side benefit of, gasp, not leveraging those others with the same debt!
Wow, how novel is THAT???
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But hiring pump attendants creates jobs! Jobs for people that are specially trained to dispense DANGEROUS flammable liquids! Not just anybody can do that!
Lots and lots of special jobs that pay less than a living wage, that is...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I always thought it was hilarious that Oregon forbids people from pumping their own gas to create jobs, and also allows truckers to pull two trailers.
You'd think promoting jobs for truck drivers, who can earn a decent living, would be more effective than inventing jobs for gas station attendants.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Jobs?
Why don't they mandate that you cannot wipe your own ass; only certified and licensed ass wipers can do that job in the Great State of Oregon. How many jobs would that create!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None of your gas pumps have canopies over them?
I don't recall the last time I saw an operating gas station without a canopy.
Except weight and mileage DOES count... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, fuel efficient cars weigh less, and therefore do less damage to the road.
Thus a gasoline tax is actually better at putting many of the costs on the actual source: heavier, less efficient vehicles. As a bonus, fuel taxes encourage smaller, lighter, more efficient cars which are better for society in the long run.
Re:Except weight and mileage DOES count... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have heard (but can't seem to verify via google etc) that road damage goes up with the fourth power of vehicle weight, with the square of the speed and (naturally) linearly with miles travelled. So, to get people to pay proportional to the amount of road work needed, if I pay $1 for my car, a semi (with reasonable assumptions about speed and miles travelled) should be paying $500,000 or more - the weight is by far the largest factor and when multiplied by number of miles travelled gets big quickly. For lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles the numbers would be even larger.
This kind of tax, then, would penalize most drivers and essentially subsidize the trucking industry even more than is currently the case.
Re:Except weight and mileage DOES count... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad reception (Score:2)
As noted previously, an odometer would serve the "mileage tax" purpose without the unnecessary oversight of GPS position tracking. Just read the damned thing whenever you bring the vehicle in for emissions testing.
misplaced priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm wondering how this affects people using the Interstate System and private roads, and if the outputs can or will be used by law enforcement to check alibis.
Let me get this straight. In a move straight from Orwell, they want to track every vehicle in the state for the purposes of getting more taxes out of people, and you're concerned about whether it can be used for alibis and whether there's a hole in the technical details?
I've got a few problems with this. My first reaction to the statement about more efficient cars is that they shouldn't be punishing people for buying those cars. More efficient cars are also the ones which do the least damage to the environment and the surfaces they drive on since they tend to weigh much less than the alternatives. Punishing those people for being efficient doesn't make sense. A better measure would be to raise the taxes on gasoline. One year ago the price was over double what it is now. Even adding $.50 or $1 to the tax wouldn't bring the prices to what they were.
My next objection would be the costs of the system. The infrastructure would cost a lot of money, it would raise the cost of cars sold in Oregon and also cost the state money in terms of fighting the inevitable legal battles which may render the system entirely worthless. It seems like a gross misuse of funds.
Finally, the philosophical objections. Inevitably, many people will have access to this information, and the abuses are many. They range from the government using it to track people to as simple as a stalker knowing where his victim is at all times. At the very least it would raise concerns with police abuses.
Overall, there is no way that this proposal is a good idea.
Astoundingly stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The amount of damage done to a road by a passing vehicle is a geometric? exponential? function of the weight of the vehicle. For instance, say a road will fail if a 100,000 pound vehicle drives over it. In that case, a 120,000 pound truck would do much more damage than two 60,000 trucks. At the low end, you reach a point where no damage is done at all. It's not possible to ruin a modern highway with bicycles, for example.
So you're justified in taxing vehicles proportionally to their weight, since more weight means more damage, which means more expensive repairs. Conveniently enough, gas mileage is a useful proxy for vehicle weight: the heavier they are, the more gas tax they pay per mile.
I have no love for Priuses, but it's insane to tax them the same as someone in a semi truck. There are two possible explanations that don't involve Gov. Kulongoski being a stark moron:
Any Oregonians have insight on the matter?
Vehicles with no GPS, what to do? (Score:2)
My vehicle doesn't have an integral GPS system. If I lived in Oregon, how would they then track MY mileage? Would they require by law that my vehicle be retrofitted with a GPS system? Who would pay for that? Would they require that I pay for it out of pocket?
Above issues aside, this tax might make some efficiency and environmental sense: people might think twice about making unnecessary trips altogether, or make a more concerted effort (as I do) to delay some trips until I can combine them with other er
Heh (Score:2)
Most likely the state gets much of it's revenue from gas taxes. He's talking about weakening Oregon by forcing citizens to drive less. And how about those that drive though the state from other states such as WA and CA? Time to vote in a new Governor.
Define vehicle (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh my, a mileage tax causes such warm and fuzzy feelings.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Beatles nailed it 40 years ago.
Trucking companies... (Score:4, Insightful)
That'll last about 10 minutes (Score:3)
The concerns involve government tracking of the movements of vehicles within the state, though this has been denied by ODOT
That will last as long as it takes to process the first subpoena, if that. There is no way this won't be abused. If Oregon has vehicle inspection, then why not just use odometer checks instead? Or check the odometer reading when they renew their tags. You don't need GPS for that. Lower the tax per mile and don't worry about whether the miles were in Oregon or not. A penny a mile is like $1,000 on the life of most cars. It can't pay to run some kind of GPS tracking system for that.
Tax Circus (Score:5, Interesting)
Oregon is a circus of strange tax experiments. OR's income tax rates are relatively high (9%), but they do not have a sales tax. Discussions about introducing a sales tax are non-starters, as there are so many changes that multiple parties object. Economic gains/losses are magnified due to this, as the employment numbers rise/fall, but out-of-state shopper populations change on different cycles.
There is also a "kicker" that is given back when state revenue from taxes exceeds the estimate (budget) by 2% or more. But then the state spends about 1.3$million on mailing individual checks, tracking people down, etc - instead of simply putting tax credits on the books for the next year.
There have been serious talks about taxing/licensing bicycles due their use of roads (no idea if its by wheel, weight, speed, rider's age, etc). Portland, OR has a large population of cyclists that intermingle with cars on many local roads.
The state has a huge income disparity between urban and rural districts, and thus pools its school funding monies for dispersal but other statistics, which creates lots of friction all around.
Property taxes go up, but there are endless initiatives to deny funding increases to social services, since they are under constant accusal of being bloated. The truth depends on what you define as adequate social servicing.
See the Oregon Tax Revolt [wikipedia.org] for some info.
Can you say "stupid" ?? (Score:3, Insightful)
This would replace a very fair and workable system (gasoline taxes), with an intrusive, costly, potentially abusive system that probably would not work well anyway.
Did all the politicians in this country take a bunch of stupid pills or something?
farcical (Score:3, Interesting)
This is such a thinly-veiled farce it's not even funny.
First off, the premise that people are dropping their gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient vehicles is just plain wrong. Where I live, huge trucks and SUVs are still all the rage for highway commuters. Cars are still very much in the minority on the roads and I haven't seen any evidence that consumers are migrating to economy cars in any significant numbers, even with the insane gas prices we saw this year. The prices were high enough to be an inconvenience and give SUV owners something to complain about on their way to Starbucks, not enough to cause people to trade in their status symbols for something economical.
Second, I hate it that when one tax revenue stream starts to lower somewhat, the first thing politicians try to do is find something else to tax instead of looking at where they can reduce spending.
Third, as others have pointed out, there are much easier ways of tracking individual vehicle mileage that don't severely impinge on civil liberties. Mark my words, this is a surveillance program first and a taxation program second. Just like the purpose of OnStar isn't as much for life-or-death emergencies (as you hear on the commercials) as it is for tracking the car if/when the police become interested in it.
Obligatory: The Beatles and Orwell (Score:4, Insightful)
--
Taxman
The Beatles
Revolver
Seriously, people. Have we failed somewhere in transmitting the message that the Beatles song is *satire* and Orwell's DYS-topia is a *warning*!? It's not a cook book for Governments to follow to do that voodoo that they do!
Oh, that's a great idea. So THAT's how we can do that and get away with it! Now, how do we tax their feet?
Oregon is Self-Serve Only (Score:3, Insightful)
All that being said, I still think it is a stupid idea.
Gas Tax already works (Score:4, Interesting)
Since hybrids are much lighter (to help achieve better gas mileage), they have much less wear on the road than an SUV.
This miles traveled argument sounds "fair" when you first hear it, but the only benefit it brings is the ability for the State (and Feds) to be able to track every movement of your car. This is a bad idea. The Constitution has already been shit upon for the last 8 years. I am no longer confident it would protect me from abuse by the State Gov't and Feds.
States are always looking to find new ways generate revenue from their citizens. I would first like a better accounting of where all the current money is being spent. It may all be valid, but they sure are generating a lot of revenue already.
Sounds like a plan (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Give 20 million to your political cronies for "R & D" on the new tax.
2. Generate publicity that creates a huge public furor over privacy issues.
3. Wait until even your fiscally conservative opponents are railing that you should just increase the fuel tax.
4. Make a big deal about "listening to the people", then cancel the unworkable plan, raise taxes and make everyone happy.
5. Profit!
50 and 55mph speed limits on the Interstate... (Score:3, Funny)
If you drive in Oregon you're already getting screwed.
They outta tack on a sign below the "Welcome to Oregon" sign that says "License and registration, please."