Posted on 12/31/2008 12:34:02 PM PST by hreardon
While the exact details are still being ironed out, Gov. Kulongoski's web page gives the basics of the plan. In it he states, "As Oregonians drive less and demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, it is increasingly important that the state find a new way, other than the gas tax, to finance our transportation system."
He is creating a task force "to partner with auto manufacturers to refine technology that would enable Oregonians to pay for the transportation system based on how many miles they drive." Key studies were performed in 2006 and 2007 that indicate that such a program would indeed be possible.
In the 2007 test which lasted 10 months with 300 motorists at two service stations, drivers were taxed 1.2 cents per mile and were refunded the 24 cents a gallon state gas tax. When the motorists got to the pump, their vehicles connected to government computers informing them of the mileage (calculated via GPS tracking) and issuing tax. Equipment for the test came from Oregon State University.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailytech.com ...
Besides the privacy issues, just look at the lack of logic in it.
So, technology is supposed to improve how many miles per gallon your car can run (hybrids??), making it possible for you to drive more miles on the same car-fuel budget, which with state-mandated GPS-tracking on your vehicle will get you taxed more for driving more miles.
The people who propose things like this are pure Fascists.
Ah yes apparently this is the prelude to the:
Air-Use Tax (for breathibg a state’s air)
and the:
Living-Temperature Tax.
The latter will tax us for maintaining a body temperature that is above the ambient temperature and as a result, ruining the environment.
You asked — “But if Oregonians drive less shouldnt the roads require less maintenance and therefor last longer, thereby costing less to maintain? Or does Oregon just want more money?”
Well, it’s not that they drive less, but rather, they use less gas, but drive as much. Thus, you got a car that does as much miles on the road, but takes less gas, thus causing the same damage to the road, but not paying its share of “use”.
And, yes..., they want more money, but I would say that the money is going to be allocated according to what is *allowed* for gas tax and not for a “general catch-all” in the state budget. So, the tax is going to go to things that are listed on the budget that is for roads (and the associated things, per legislative permission).
But, in my mind, I don’t know why they simply don’t increase the gas tax to make up for what is needed in the budget for the roads. It’s an easier process to simply raise the tax to meet the budget, than it is to put into effect an entirely new program and install all those devices at stations and on all cars.
Wouldn’t “simply” raising the gas tax — be a lot easier?
Defect...LOL
Did it ever occur to the Oregonian lawmakers to perhaps...wow, this is a wild idea...cut spending somewhere else? No, instead of analyzing departments, programs and employees to find savings, they pour their resources into finding more taxpayer arteries to tap. Legislators are vampires.
I suspect this program has less to do with revenue and more to do with control of drivers. The future implications of such a program are horrifying. Speeding tax. Idling in traffic tax. Taxes from individual municipalities for road use. Extra taxes if you drive on snowy days. Extra taxes if you drive on sunny days. Extra taxes if you drive, period.
"Democracy in America will last until the voters find they can vote themselves largesse from the Public treasury." De Tocqueville.
We're just about there.
L
And these are the same people that bitch about monitoring calls between the US and terrorist nations.
That statement is not exactly true. Cars that get better gas milage (25 MPG or more) tend to be smaller in size and lighter in GVW thus the strain they put on the roads tends to be much less.
Why stop at road users? To be sure, millions of Americans support the public school system, whether or not they have children or, whether they utilize the public schools, in the form of property “taxes”. (That I may profoundly disagree with what children are taught, and not taught)
In this same vein, everyone can be assumed to use public freeways and thus benefit. Once you get the hang of it, anyone can think like a “liberal”.
Needless to say that a mandatory designation would soon follow.
Nothing against Truckers (and they pay dearly for it) but I don’t think autos and pickups have much an effect on road surfaces. It’s the big trucks and the like that trash even the interstates. Shoddy materials, installation, and lack of maintenance doesn’t help.
I can think of a way to get around this GPS-system — relatively easily, actually (I mean without “technology” to get around it...).
Since the “gas tax” will be based on the “mileage” driven and *not* the MPG, you can make your car “look” like it’s getting low mileage, so that you’re getting 1/4 the mileage that you’re actually getting.
How do you do that? Well, you have to have about (let’s say) three or four or five gas cans of about five gallons each (depending on your car). And when you fill up, you take half the gas out of your tank and put it into a can (or cans). And then you run it down to near empty and then fill up again. Take 3/4 of the tank out again.
You’ll “show” that you’re only getting 1/4 the mileage that you’re actually getting. When you’ve got a tank of gas (in the cans), you just “fill it up” on your own and get an almost “tax-free” tank of gas... LOL...
Of course, that’s assuming that they are really taxing you according to strictly mileage and not some combination of a “flat tax” for filling up and then an additional “mileage tax”. I’m assuming that they are going to be taxing you exclusively on “mileage” alone. And if so, that’s how you get a “tax-free” tank of gas... That would be pretty slick...
It would be a little bit of work, for the first few tanks, but then you’ll get a *bonus tank* pretty quickly for just about *no gas tax*...
You can’t track peoples every movement if you do that. And those movement records will most likely discoverable in any civil action.
No offense but that horse hockey. Targeted tax use (this tax only for this, the rest of the $ refunded or rolled over to the next year's budget...) is non-existent in almost all state budgets. It is almost always thrown into the general pot and one "need" that be lacking in funds is "paid" by raiding another. You are asking liberals to be given the keys to the car and alcohol in the back seat.
You said — “Needless to say that a mandatory designation would soon follow.”
Well, I think it would be impossible for a “mandatory” designation to follow — because you’ve got a lot of out-of-state traffic. So, you can’t make it mandatory. The out-of-state cars won’t have the equipment and so the pumps have to be allowed to just “pump” the gas and charge a gas-tax at the “pump-rate”.
I think that they’ll always have a “gas-tax” differential to “persuade” people to get the equipment — but that they *always* have to have provision for cars who don’t have the equipment, because of many reasons...
You are right about that. Just drive in the outside 3 and 4 lanes of a freeway and you can tell. But there are many reasons for roadway potholes and such. Cracks from tree roots causes many problems too and once water gets under the subgrade from a crack, it never dries up. As you know a tree is the same above and below ground. Pretty soon a piece of asphalt or concrete pops out and it just gets worse
They are also considering this in North Carolina. And in New York City, they are actually considering an “obesity tax” on higher fat foods !!
You said — “No offense but that horse hockey. Targeted tax use (this tax only for this, the rest of the $ refunded or rolled over to the next year’s budget...) is non-existent in almost all state budgets. It is almost always thrown into the general pot and one “need” that be lacking in funds is “paid” by raiding another. You are asking liberals to be given the keys to the car and alcohol in the back seat.”
I think that the Oregon gas tax is confined to certain areas by law. But someone would have to check on that one. I seem to remember reading that somewhere in the distant past... :-)
You said — “That statement is not exactly true. Cars that get better gas milage (25 MPG or more) tend to be smaller in size and lighter in GVW thus the strain they put on the roads tends to be much less.”
Yeah, in terms of averages, but you can find variances regardless. The point is that they’re wanting to tax “flat rate” according to mileage and not gas used (taking away the MPG factor). And that is supposed to make it easier to fund the roads part of the budget.
I can see how that can happen, you’ve got certain vehicles that have been the same weight, but have been getting better mileage over the years. For example, I’m pretty sure that I’ve got a car (weight-wise) that is just as heavy as one of my older cars (of years past) but it certainly gets a lot better mileage now (on this newer car). So, I would be paying more gas tax on the older car for the same amount of weight, than I am on the newer car of same weight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.