Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Considers GPS-based Road Taxes
Oregon is considering instituting a road tax - a tax based on the mileage driven within the state. The tax would be implemented with mandatory GPS boxes in each vehicle recording the mileage driven in Oregon. We've done a couple of previous stories on Great Britain's initiatives in this area.
The article fails to say why they would do this. Why not just increase the gas tax if you want more money? At least your citizens get relieved of some of the burden of the gas tax because visitors to the state pay as well. With this GPS thing, it will cost a lot to implement, and no visiting cars will pay the tax. Seems like a losing situation for the taxpayers of Oregon.
The more you drive, the more gas you buy and no need for big brother to put his hairy eyeball on oyu.
Good thing no one breaks laws. Good thing that people can't change laws once written. Good thing there is no privacy challenge related to non-real-time data collection.
Good thing I DON'T LIVE IN OREGON.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
It has come to the attention of many of the affluent SUV owners that low-income people and students and other undesirables drive economical cars and drive many miles on not much gasoline and are thus not paying their fair share of gasoline taxes and are thereby beating the system. Thus, the affluent want to change the system to tax miles instead of fuel. Nevermind that the fuel tax is easy and economical to collect. Never mind that road wear increases more than linearly with vehicle weight. Never mind that out-of-state vehicles will ride free. Never mind that dependence on foreign oil because of large vehicles is a huge problem for anyone trying to give the US a rational foreign policy. Let's just help the people with the money.
As an Oregon resident, I first got wind of this about six months ago... Privacy was my first thought as well. Thankfully, the system they're looking at can't track vehicles in realtime, as it's a GPS receiver unit only. There is no transmitter.
My guess is that, no matter how well designed, this system is doomed from the start- it's just too complex for John Q. Taxpayer to understand. People in Oregon, just like the rest of the country, don't like new taxes. That's why we've managed to be one of the last holdouts for no sales tax, and we just soundly defeated a Canadian-style universal healthcare bill that would have laid ruin to the state's economy.
-M
Taxing cars on the number of miles they drive, rather than the amount of fuel they consume in effect punishes people with fuel efficient cars. With current gas taxes, people who drive vehicles which have poor gas mileage (such as SUVs and sports cars) pay more tax than those who drive more efficient vehicles like Geos and Insights.
Of course the whole idea of using GPS to track mileage is ludicrous. GPS tracking fails in many situations such as tunnels and even heavy weather. Not to mention that they take time to 'lock on' to the satellite signal, often times longer than the trip itself. And of course buying a GPS device for every car would cost an outrageous amount of money.
The whole idea is DOA.
But they can -- and probably already do -- require Oregon residents to drive cars registered in Oregon. And they could make the GPS box required to pass inspection, prior to getting registration. This'll only affect Oregonians, unless it works, in which case some blockhead will immediately call for a nationwide system to collect tolls on, say, the Interstates.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
No need for that. Have you ever used a GPS? It doesn't take much to block the signal.
All you'd need to do is shield the antenna on the receiver. Your hand over the antenna on a handheld GPS is enough to stop it working for example.
First off, I really doubt this will get anywhere beyond the testing stage and hopefully it won't even get that far as it would be a huge waste of money.
Besides being an idiotic idea technically - costs for the GPS boxen (of course they'll probably want to charge the drivers for the box - why not just have everybody cough up the cost of a GPS box when they register their car and actually apply that money to roads instead of the GPS box, but I digress), tracking all of those cars, trying to make sure people don't disconnect them - it's not politically viable. Remember this is a referendum state. For something this far-reaching the legislature will be afraid to just enact it without a vote of the people - that's pretty much how it works here.
Currently some of the beaurocrats are whining about how they're not getting their gas-tax money from all of those folks driving hybrids (must be about 10 of them in the state by now, so it's a major crisis). Problem is, those hybrids do run on gas, they just do it much more efficiently. One would think that using less gas would be something the state would try to encourage instead of wringing their hands trying to figure out how they can spend $millions in order to make not much more money than they are now.
Hopefully, the bozo beaurocrat that came up with this idiotic idea will be promptly fired.
Doesn't it seem like there should be an absolute limit on the amount of money that the Governments (State, Local and Federal) should be allowed to take from individuals?
Each Government should be able to set an amount of money that is required to provide the services for which they were formed. This is called a realistic budget.
It seems to me that the Government mission has become clouded. Maybe our officials need to sit down and define the scope of government in the context of our State and Federal constitutions. Just because the Constitution does not prohibit government from entering into a particular area does not mean that they are mandated to do so.
Why is it that every time a new technology surfaces that enables something to be measured, government feels the need to use it to extract more money from its citizens?
Taxing the use of our roads seems like a good idea except that whenever you tax an action that is a right you change that action from being a right to a privilege. For example: we have a right to free speech. If your local government made a law that required a permit to speak it would in effect be saying that you do not have a right to speech that speech is a privilege. Rights cannot be taken away without due process.
It has been successfully argued that driving a car is a privilege not a right even though one of our rights allows freedom to travel. The constitution obviously does not specify the method of travel so I guess that's deemed to mean that walking cannot be taxed. Personally I feel that it's very close to the constitutional line. But then what do I know.
Anyway to end this rant I would ask Oregon's Government to consider the question; Just because you may have the technology to use GPS to extract more money from your people, is it really the right thing to do?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The government does not pay for the internet to more than a trivial extent. It pays for close to 100% of roads.
It's unworkable currently, but a great idea economically when it becomes feasable. Economies run far more efficiently when users of services pay in proportion to that use.
It's an economic no-brainer. And presumably, it would lead to LOWER taxes for people not clogging up the roads and creating air pollution.
Gas taxes work better, and promotes lower weight better milage veichels; this law would do the opposite.
The privacy issues (which I believe to be the real reason the proposal is being made) are huge.
But consider also:
Cars already have a way to measure miles on the road that would not involve a large extra cost to the consumer - an odometer. It could be read when the car's license is renewed, of if Oregon has inspections at that time, and people could be taxed accordingly. For those who do a lot of out of state travel (as if that's a real issue), they could supply documentation of such (such as out of state gas receipts) with their taxes and get a rebate. If you don't like that approach, even remote reading odometers for recording mileage at the boarders (for checking people in and out based on mileage) would be less expensive and less obtrusive than trying to track everyone in the state by GPS.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
From the Article...
To protect drivers' privacy, using the system to track cars in real time would be illegal.
Right. Just like social security numbers weren't supposed to be used for identification purposes.
If I understand what you're saying, not quite. I can choose to buy a car that's more fuel efficiant, lowering the amount I pay in taxes for the gas that I use for driving the same distance.
Correct - that was my point, although perhaps not properly explained. We don't have to drive at all. We have choice in where we live and what kind of car we drive and what kind of job we have. Taxing gasoline or mileage isn't discrimination (in the negative sense of the word) because it's something we can do something about. It would be like taxing cell phone usage. Is it discriminatory against people who use cell phones a lot? Well, yes, but not in a violation-of-rights sort of way.
I'll stop here because I think that we're arguing the same point. Consider this post a further explanation of my previous post.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
If Oregon wants to give special treatment to selected groups (truck drivers, low income, etc.), they can tax diesel differently, issue identification that would let these groups pay reduced taxes right at the pump, or institute a rebate program.
The use of GPS for this purpose is so stupid that it suggests to me that there may be a hidden agenda: get the GPS into vehicles and start using it for tracking and surveillance. Or, perhaps, it's simple political stupidity: politicians think that increasing gas taxes is political suicide, but voters are too stupid to figure out thie Rube Goldberg proposal. Or maybe it's just heavy lobbying from electronics manufacturers.
These are just some silly bureaucrats trying to pull the solution to Oregon's multimillion-dollar budget deficit (caused by one of the lowest tax rates in the nation) out of their ass. It hasn't even hit Congress yet, and it'll die quietly there if it even makes it.
Hell, even if the polits were desperate enough to consider it, it'd only be put up to a referendum where about 90% of the votes would be "No."
This is because the majority of Oregonians are non-idiots, tax-haters, or both.
You've been hearing a lot of bad stuff about Oregon because we have an extremely loud press that will stir up huge controversy about any government issue that involves the word "tax" (on the conservative side) or anything involving civil rights (on the liberal side).
Oregon is fucking insane and schizophrenic, but I love it. At least we try to keep the environment intact. It takes a lot of guts to look at a sludgepit like the Willamette River and not throw up one's hands in defeat.
This is not necessarily true. California started requiring additional pollution control equipment on all cars sold in the state some time in the mid-sixties, I believe. It wasn't until 15-20 years later that you no longer saw cars that fell under the categories of "California model" and "49-state model". I'm not saying that it'd take that long with GPS trackers, but if it took 20 years to homogenize smog equipment on all cars when California required it, how long will such a thing take when a smaller state like Oregon does?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Damn. I read through all these comments, and yearn for the days when /. readers used to be SMART.
/.
I am an Oregon resident, and this has been analyzed and discussed locally and all that LONG before it made any national news streams - or
Oregon's laws are no better or worse than anywhere else in the country. Every state has sucky laws. Every state has screwed up government. Every state has bad taxing schemes. Every state has areas with bad roads, crummy schools, or high crime. Every state also has some good stuffs, nice places, good policies - what have you. Portland has some strange laws (It is illegal to ride a bycicle on the streets downtown) and some good ones (they were the first major city to oficially legalize skateboarding and give skateboarders rights and responsibilities).
1. Oregon is looking at this system for the LONG TERM future, not immediate gain. The simple truth is that Petrolium based fuels are going to be replaced with other mechanisms. They are just THINKING of how they will be able to still provide roads when no one is buy buying gasoline any more. (Flashes of "Mr Fusion" powerd cars come to mind). "OUR ROADS SUCK - WE WANT MORE, BETTER ROADS!!! What do you MEAN you want us to PAY for them? Why should we have to PAY for them?"
2. These things you have been reading about are all trial programs to test the viability. They are planning on passing legislation to allow them to TEST these types of systems with voluntary participants. The results of these tests will be used to design the real system. (with the speed of state govt, it'll be a while.)
3. Part of the needs of these tests is to design a system that charges appropriately. Some of the discussed options is having the mileage rate also be based on vehicle weight, size, number of axels, etc... So that a smaller lighter vehicle won't pay as much as a large heavy one.
4. Outsiders will just pay the regular gas tax for now. Just like they do currently. If you buy gas in a state - any state - and you pay their gas taxes, you are helping to pay for their roads. If you pass through the state without buying gas - you are using the roads at a discount. (Some of all roads is paid for with federal dollars and federal gas taxes - so no one gets a completely free ride).
5. GPS is important so that they don't bill people for miles they drive outside of Oregon, or not on Oregon roads. The ultimate goal is for the GPS to only count miles driven on ROADS. We all know that GPS is not perfect, but we have to start figuring out something - and it is a place to start.
6. I do have very real privacy concerns. The system is NOT real-time - but who is to say what info they actually record? Even if it is after the fact, it could be abused. "Lets see, this indicates you were in the vincinity of this crack house - we should search your home for drug paraphanalia." "Hmmm, looks like you broke the speed limit 38 times this month. Here is ticket."
7. Any system would have to have the ability to detect tampering - much like cars computers do now (the dealership can tell if you have a chip or modified system) - and they would have to account for irregularities or weather problems. Our GPS devices we have now work pretty good here - except in forests. And since 2/3 of oregon residents live in the Willamette valley - full of dense forests - this could pose a problem.
8. People REMEMBER: Gas taxes are usage fees THE SAME WAY but just collected differently. Currently, a large heavy vehicle will typically get much less mileage, and thus pay more per mile for usage. A motorcycle that gets 70mpg will pay much less gas tax, but also damages the road much less. If you drive a million miles a year - you pay gas taxes - thus mileage fees - evey gallon of gas you consume.
9. Oregon already taxes trucks heavily. Deisel taxes are higher than gasoline taxes - which sucks for those who drive the 50mpg Volkswagen TDIs. In addition, Oregon taxes trucks on a weight / miles driven scale IN ADDITION to the fuel taxes. Pretty steeply as I understand it. Thats why we have so many weigh stations on our highways.
10. There could be better ways. Toll roads. I always have thought they were a good choice - because then the people who use that specific road pay for it. Transponders. Could work just like toll roads - with less manpower requirements. Maybe a combination of all the solutions. Nothing is perfect.
11. I *like* not having to pump my gas. Last night it was damn cold and raining sideways. I got to sit in a warm car while someone else froze. I always watch them and make sure they don't F up. And AFAIK Oregon is not the only state that it is illegal to pump your own gas, New Jersey the other maybe? One on the east coast anyway.
12. The one most important thing they could do is either get rid of studded tires - or tax them heavily. They freaking destroy the roads! We get nice ruts - so deep you can take your hands off the steering wheel and let the car just steer itself in the "tracks". And they are ABSOLUTELY un needed. I ski regularly, and on a two wheel drive rear drive van - I make it just fine without studs. Have for 5 years now. Only need chains occasionally. People use studs forgetting that studded tires REDUCE your traction in wet or dry conditions. NW Oregon has mostly wet conditions. So by using studs you REDUCE your traction 99% of the time, so that the ONE day a year we MIGHT get Ice, or the once a week you ski, or the one time you need to go through the mountains - you will have traction. Dumbasses. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. I love when it is a sunny warm spring day, and I am walking around in a short sleeved shirt downtown Portland, and cars are driving by clacking with studs. Good thing they had them, those bone dry roads can be treachorus.
HELLO PEOPLE. STUFF IS NOT FREE. There is ALWAYS a cost somewhere. (I have heard people complaining that they had to pay a $3 use fee at a state park when before THAT policy they complained that trails that were washed out were not being fixed fast enough.)
I'm sorry, you seem to be suffering from the unfortunate misconception that the state government is a company. Common among big-L Libertarians, I'm told.
Tax rates mainly paid for a certain rate of service several years ago. Now, due to a number of circumstances, those tax rates no longer pay for services. Thus taxes must be adjusted upwards -- raised.
Spending has not increased past inflation and devaluation over the last biennium. Revenues have decreased. The only way to keep services at a constant level is to increase tax revenues.
No budget has been been overrun here -- the tax dollars have underrun.
Both roads and schools are equally useful to those who don't "use" them directly. Every time you buy a product in a store, you are making use of the roads that got that product to you. Every time you send a piece of mail, you are making use of the roads. And every time you fail to get mugged by gangs of punks roaming the streets with no education and no prospects for respectable work, you are using the public school system.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Two positives: It taxes road use, and makes SUV's pay more per mile.
So simple. and better.
This goes to show that the real use of this GPS TAX is identification and location of vehicles.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
"The gas tax would remain in effect. In paying the new tax, drivers would get credit for gas tax paid." This is a way to get MORE money! Get real..how long do you think they'll get credit? One year? Two years? Certainly not more then that! This is another law like the seat belt law. They slide it in under the voter's nose by saying: "It's only 15 bucks and we won't enforce it unless you get stopped for something else" Well, guess what? Here in CA that lasted about 3 years. Now it's 35 bucks and they CAN pull you over just for not wearing a set belt! This is how Govt. works. Crack the door open an inch for them and the next thing you know there IS no door!
Grandparent post is talking about incentive for the State of Oregon to encourage fuel efficiency.
It's like cigarette taxes - they discourage smoking, but they also raise revenue, and state governments get 'hooked' on the money, to the extent that truly discouraging smoking gets problematic, in a budgetary sense.
That's one way to guarantee a dubious activity will remain permitted for a long time. For example, in Washington State, both timber sales and the state Lotto send money directly to the education budget. That way, if you're against aggressive logging or state-sponsored gambling, you can be painted as against children.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
The original intent of blue laws was exactly what you say they were "pretending", but if the law was enforced equally (i.e., small businesses weren't exempt) then it really does sound fair, even if it wasn't necessarily a good idea.
Unfortunately, the real problem is government attempting to right some imbalance by passing a law and then passing another law to adjust for the new problems created and then passing yet another law when that doesn't quite work... that's why the government is constantly screwing the consumer in areas like cable and satellite TV. They are trying to level the playing field by badaging the symptoms rather than curing the causes and are causing more problems then they solve.
It's also how our Federal tax code got to its ludicrous, elephantine state. Just like in programming, sometimes you have to throw the whole thing out and start over. It will be much less work in the long run.
A flat tax or something equivalent wouldn't be a panacea, but it would sure be a better starting place for adjustments than the status quo. Also, not leading people around by the nose through the tax code (incentives, disincentive and other nonsense, social engineering through draconian bureaucracy...) would be a good idea.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.