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.
It's funny because alot of people forget Oregon even exists, but they prove they can create just as many dumb law ideas like California.
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
I know there are a few differences in gas mileage etc. but.. don't state gasoline taxes pretty much do the same thing? (If you use gas for say a tractor, you can deduct it from your taxes in most states..)
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Can you imagine having a mandatory GPS in the Pioneering days? The Oregon Trail game sure would have been different:
Travelled: precisely 15.24 miles today.
Health: Pa died of snake bite.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Will the satellite GPS system go out during rainy weather? Satellite TV does that from time to time. Isn't that region of the country known for rainy weather?
I didn't know Britain had interests in Oregon... ;)
Just increase the tax on gasoline instead of having a tax based on mileage. That would be perfectly fair, because the vehicles that use more gas are the ones that cause more wear & tear to the roads anyway.
Repeal the DMCA!
So a couple of issues come to mind immediately:
-- what stops the state or federal govt (or a malicious third-party, like a stalker) from tracking where you go?
-- how does Oregon collect from out-of-state travellers?
If the purpose of the law is to collect revenue for road usage, what about this can't be done via conventional toll roads, with the use of "EZPass"-style transponders to collect payment?
This is probably cheaper and certainly a more robust way to handle road usage costs than going to an untested and privacy-violating GPS system.
Is Oregon a test-bed for how the government can track the movements of its largely car-bound citizens?
-Alex
Thankfully, this is a law "being considered" by legislators who haven't yet been hit with the reality that this tax is unenforcable, and therefore won't work.
The problem is, the "Good Faith and Credit Clause" of the U.S. Constitution means that licenses issed by any state are valid in all fifty. What's more, a car with California plates can legally drive on Oregon roads.
The thing is, Oregon cannot require California-registered cars (or cars registered to any of the 49 other states) to have their tracking devices.
Another cause of death: Suddenly every road in the state effectively becomes a toll road. That'll cost them in federal highway funds, as toll roads in theory are supposed to be spending those tolls on their own repairs. And, you can surely bet the neighboring states' representives will see to it that Oregon loses all their highway funds for implamenting this kind of tax.
So, it's a nice chance to beat up a clueless state legislator or two for getting a little too 1984-ish on us... but there's really nothing to fear here. This law is D.O.A.
First of all, this is an invation of privacy. The State government has no right to know how many miles I drive or where I drive.
Secondly, this tax will discriminate against those people who are forced to drive more miles then others because of their occupation or place of residence.
Just jam the gps signal.
r g/ show.php?p=60&a=13
http://www.phrack-dont-give-a-shit-about-dmca.o
This GPS thing assumes that every mile driven inside Oregon is somehow a public road. I imagine some Oregonians have large ranches, and they can rack up some miles "riding fences." For that matter, would horses have to wear the silly thing?
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Teenagers rarely by cars worth a damn, they are going to make these kids buy a piece of hardware worth more then their car?
And what about all the people in the state? Sure GPS units have gone down in price but they still aren't cheap. SO does that mean the State will give a voucher for the units to make it cheaper? No didn't think so.
This law will be defeated because it discriminates against the poor.
Most states already record your vehicle milage at each pass through the emissions check! This happens either every year or every other year when tabs are due...they could just use that figure to calculate the tax without the implications of "where were you on the night of Friday December 13th" type measures.
Or even simpler, just apply the tax to gas with the dual effect of driving (pun intended) people towards more fuel efficient cars.
Having this type of tracking information will only lead to more invasive government...and records which could be abused. I grew up in Oregon, and I don't think the people there would go for "manditory GPS tracking" of their vehicles...you might start to see a lot of tin cans mounted above the GPS receivers if the state forces this stupid/invasive measure through.
road taxes were often levied on the basis of miles travled using a technology called "toll boothes."
I seem to vaguely recall something called a "gasoline tax" as well, which was supposed to have the same effect. Not to mention various levies on tires, which, again, are paid directly in relation to miles traveled.
And now that I think of it, didn't cars used to have something in them specifically to recored miles traveled *already*?
Of course the GPS boxes will never *ever* be used to actually record the movements and whereabouts of citizens "for the children" or to "combat terrorism," no siree Bob!
KFG
..,gives you a new meaning to driving in a figure 8
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.
Installing a jammer (or just disabling the GPS otherwise) should be extremely easy, what will happen then? The car can't very well stop (would be an ugly Denial-Of-Driving attack) and you can't really take them to court and require that you must only drive in places where you can get a signal (e.g. no tunnels) either. Oh well...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
This is very interesting...I was in a discussion last night with some friends, which touched on why it was taking so long to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and to come up with alternative methods of powering automobiles. Aside from the obvious commercial interests, the notion that the government itself has a great deal to lose from the increased efficiency of automobiles is something I hadn't considered. Because the government has revenue at stake, it would seem makes any effort to "mandate" increased fuel economy in newer cars somewhat suspect. Even if we set this aside, we certainly couldn't have anything that would adversely impact Bush Oil. No, no...definitely not.
What amuses me the most I think, is what while science has been marching forward with newer technologies to increase fuel efficiency (albeit at a snail's pace), the technology to create a road surface that is less susceptible to the wear and tear imposed by day-to-day traffic is something that appears to be somewhat elusive. Another entrenched interest, perhaps?
Citizens ALREADY have the right to travel. Proof? Check here for documented cases.
--
prairies, n.: Vast plains covered by treeless forests.
- Anonymous
Seems like a bad idea on many fronts, but most importantly that of privacy. I note that they won't "real time track" you, but what do you want to bet that the data regarding where you've been will be downloaded along with the miles driven? My first suggestion is to require that all Oregon elected officials have to make their GPS data publicly available if this system is instituted. That ought to kill it.
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.
As to the "What's to prevent someone from removing their box and driving for free?" argument: If they collect it at the fuel station, it would be hard to get fuel with an illegally modded car.
I preduct a thriving industry in GPS spoofers if this thing passes. It wouldn't be that difficult to generate signals that overwhelm the real GPS and make it look like the car is hardly moving. No mods to the in-car system needed.
This tax pays for roads, thus the mention of higher tax for studded tires. But while a fuel tax to some extent measures likely road wear, a per-mile tax per vehicle is useless for those purposes. What's the incentive to drive a small, light vehicle, when you get taxed the same per mile as someone in their 7700lbs Ford Monstrosity? There's a rather confusing (or confused) suggestion that the current Oregon gasoline tax will be retained as well, and that this tax will be an either/or, but that's hard to believe, as all that would achieve would be to introduce extra administration fees for no extra tax revenue.
The suggestion that real time tracking will be "illegal" is simply laughable. The first time law enforcement has a cause celebre (kidnapped Aryan child?), they'll demand access, and they'll be given it. The only question is whether it will be used routinely by the like of Ashcrofts Federal Illumatus Agency to identify suspicious behaviour. I rather suspect that this will depend entirely on how affordable this turns out to be, not on any question of privacy.
While it's always tempting to see conspiracy theories everywhere, in this case it's very hard to see what else it could be. Who's this going to be good for? Big Oil. Ashcroft's Watchmen. Pretty much nobody else, and certainly not the citizens of the State of Oregon.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
For some reason my car has been parked in the same place for the whole last year..
Got Code?
I live near Philadelphia, and we have this thing called the Pennsylvania Turnpike. You get a ticket when you enter the Turnpike, and you pay a toll when you exit based upon how far you drive. It's completely anonymous because it is cash-based. Granted, there's the new EasyPass which could be used nefariously, but you still have the cash option. To the best of my knowledge the money earned from the tolls is used only for the maintenance of the Turnpike, as well as police enforcement, emergency response and anything else related to it. So, it basically takes the major state-wide highway system out of the budget of the state. This doesn't necessarily resolve paying welfare or anything like that, but it makes for one fewer thing for the state to have to deal with. Does this punish fuel efficient drivers? Not really, because they make out on cheaper gas taxes. Does this punish local residents? Not really, because everybody who uses the road has to pay. Does this solve world hunger? No. But neither will anything else government does. I hated the Turnpike concept when I got here, now I think it's the best. It doesn't solve the problems of maintaining local roadways, but it does solve the highway funding problem.
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.
But the hairy eyeball is the real point of it all, just finding yet another way to tax you is only an added benefit.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Generally, most damage to the roads are caused by heavier, gas guzzling vehicles. By taxing gas, you do a good job of targeting those who damaged the roads the most.
It'd make no sense to tax driven miles to cover damaged highways. For the sake of an extreme example, a Geo Metro that travels 500 miles won't cause the same road damage that a semi-truck would over the same distance. Why would it make sense to tax them the same amount, if they don't cause the same amount of damage?
I would just like to thank the state of Oregon for helping convince people to move into their state Washington and California. It takes a state with a lot of balls to promote the other guy.
I am all for use based taxes, but before they implement such a system they need to get rid of all the other taxes, as use based means you only pay for what you use. If you don't drive, you don't pay, if you don't send your kids to public school you don't pay, etc etc etc. But odds are the systems like these won't be implemented in that fashion. I am sure this new "Road Tax" will simply be implemneted on top of all the existing taxes. Oh well, prepare to be taxed into oblivion.
You can have that now if you want it, you don't need the gub'mint to force you to buy it and to take the information of where you go and decide what they want to do with it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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!
Problem: Oregon can't require all vehicles operating in Oregon to have the GPS units. They can require all vehicles registered in Oregon to have them, but they can't require them on vehicles registered anywhere else and they can't prohibit those vehicles from driving in Oregon. That means they'd either have to keep the gas tax, or lose the revenue from large trucks, tourists and the like. My guess is that they'd need to at least double their estimates of the GPS-based fees to make up for the lost revenue. This will go over real well with Oregonians, I'd imagine.
Finally, widespread proof that Oregon has paved roads, now quit asking me!
good point!
If you look at the OR DOT preliminary report the basic reason is that fuel tax revenue are declining. Why? Increased fuel efficiency of all things! They are particularly concerned about hybrids which you know get double mileage -- and so pay half the tax. You can imagine what horror electric vehicles would bring.
So I guess they are trying not to discriminate against older and larger cars, who would pay much more fuel tax than hybrid, esp. as they raised the tax rate to compensate. An alternative might be a direct ad valorum tax on each automobile, paid with registration -- that would cut against expensive and new cars, unfortunately discouraging trading up.
I am sympathetic with their need to maintain constant income, it's how they maintain the roads. As for their methods?
A bizarre side effect of a good thing, I'll say.
Aftermarket modifications to the GPS box that make you a little old lady who only drives to Church on Sundays.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
The article states that the gas tax will be subtracted from the mileage tax; since inefficient cars use more gas and thus pay more gas tax, they will get a higher gas tax credit, and thus pay a smaller mileage tax.
This method is not equitable by my sensibilities.
Ok, I originally come from Pennsylvania which tends to have rather crappy interstate roads, and there's a simple reason for it - large tractor-trailers.
Pennsylvania a while back passed a law to eliminate studded tires from the road. Sad reality is that roads go worse, as there was more heavy truck traffic. Studded tires didn't really do anything.
If you want to cut costs on maintaining roads and raise money to do so, here's my suggestion:
Again, most of the wear and tear on roads in Pennsylvania is caused by out-of-state heavy-load trucks. Taxing your own citizens based on the mileage they drive their passenger cars taxes the wrong end of people and simply creates more excuses to vacate your state.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
"Good Faith and Credit Clause"
:)
Actually, it's Full Faith. Nothing requires states to act in good faith.
Someone else mentions the right to travel, which refers not to travel so much as discrimination against out-of-state immigrants with respect to things like welfare benefits and voter registration. Irrelevant here; there is nothing discriminatory about requiring everyone to pay for the road they drive on.
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.
I was there once and the lady who insisted on pumping my gas for me then drops the gas cap on the ground, getting it all dirty.
God knows how much gunk got in the engine because of that.
Good thing it was a lease.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
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.
I hope this goes through. It will be a measurement of how willing people are to forfeit privacy for a monetary gain (perceived ability to shift taxes to someone else.)
I spent a week in Washington a couple years ago. I wouldn't mind if they automatically issued tickets for every turn somebody makes without using their turn signal. That alone would double their income for the year.
...and build one of these:
GPS Blocker
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.
- Unsolicited advice to Oregon law makers:
Get rid of the mandated gas station attendants, keep the price of gas the same, pocket the difference and balance your budget.- You can tax congested roads only.
- You can tax places where public transportation is available only.
- You can tax during peak hours only.
In short, the intended effect on drivers' habits can be tuned in a much more fine grained way.Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
What's really sad about this, is that rich people are still less affected (as a percentage of their income) than poor people are. And before you say that poor people can just use Tri-Met or some other public transport, remember how much of Oregon is rural.
By the way, if I still lived there, my first challenge to that law would be to have them prove that my car wasn't on a flatbed truck when it was moving around, with the flatbed truck presumably reporting its own movements for taxation purposes, already. And I'd like to see them try to charge me for building an encasing box for the unit to block GPS reception when I'm not at the inspection site, if they win that battle.
Get off my launchpad!
Big Brother would know how many miles you drove, but not where you went, when you went, and where you are right now.
This idea doesn't account for how out of state visitors fill up. Then again, the current plan doesnt account for them either.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Why in the hell do we need to penalize both corporations and inviduals for doing there jobs and contributing to society? I remember back in the good old days that individuals would actually get tax credits for fuel rather then being charged to do there job so the government can waste there money. Its my car and I will do whatever it is I please (that included removing the boxes) thank you.
http://saveie6.com/
After all, a 10mpg SUV pays more tax than an 80mpg Smartcar for each mile it travels anyway, so what's the problem?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Cooped up in a car for 2-4 hours per day.
Seriously. Go work out how much of your life you'd spend sitting in traffic over say 50 years.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Actually only two in seven people now in Oregon can read English.
As a long time Oregon resident, let me fill in the slashdotters with some background.
One: Oregonians are poor. We have the highest unemployment rate in the country. When you run out of unemployment benefits, you automatically get taken off the unemployment rolls and become 'employed'. Real unemployment is 15-20 percent. Our forest product, tourist, fishing, and electronic industries are decimated.
Two: Oregonians are dumb. We have the shortest school year in the country and are about to shorten it another twenty or so days. We have one of the highest dropout rates in the USA. Most of the jobs requiring advanced skills and education to people moving here from other places.
Three: Oregonians are cheap. We voted down all major tax increases in the past ten years. We defeated the sales tax proposals put forth by our betters five times in the past twenty years. Being cheap is a direct result of being poor and dumb.
Four: Oregon is big. Bigger than New England. A third of the people live in the Portland metro area; one third live in other 'cities'; and the rest live far out in the country and drive lots of miles.
Five: Our state legislators are either over-educated Jane Jacobs followers from Portland or Eugene (the Dems) or dumb-as-dirt bible-thumping morons from the woods (the Repubs). Each side hates each other and would gladly shut down the state rather than cooperate or give an inch on anything. Both sides pride themselves on coming up with truly dumb laws to show that they are meaner than the other side. For example, get caught with any amount of voter-approved medical mar1juana, lose your driver's license for a year.
Or, drop out of high school at age sixteen? Can't get a driver's license until you're twenty-one.
To point of all this? Don't take anything that the Oregonians say or do seriously.
There are just too many problems with this for it to be feasible...
Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.
It's a big federal no-no, just like jamming cell phone signals.
Could you do it anyway? Sure. Would you want to risk 5+ years in the federal slammer for messing with GPS? I don't think so.
paintball
(or rather, doesn't have to be)
The system needs no memory of where you've been, or even how far you've gone.
Each car contains a sealed box with GPS reciever, and a display showing how much money you have left. When you are low on money the box is filled up by a plastic card that you buy on the gas station. (The box checks that the card is digitally signed by the authorities.) Of course the card can't be tracked to you if you pay cash.
If you are ever stopped by the police with the seal on the box broken, or a display blinking "insert coin" you'll be in trouble, unless you ran out of money while racing somebody to the hospital or stuff like that.
They'll never know where you've been, though.
The system could probably be jammed, and there would also likely be counterfeit cards in circulation. Whether that's enought to stop the system remains to be seen. (Counterfeit money hasn't destroyed the economy yet even though they've been around for a long time).
However, there is no privacy issue.
The box would also have a socket for connecting your navigation computer - why waste a perfectly good GPS reciever?
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
course, if those crazy oregonians arent out helping each other die so much ;) they're probably finding ways to switch to biodiesel or something more eco-friendly.
i think that GPS is a pure play for GPS interests, anyone find out how many GPS related tech companies are in oregon? i'm sure there's more than a few in neighboring Cali as well.
like most bad ideas, this one will go down in flames soon enough. perhaps they'll wise up in oregon and start implanting mandatory gps chips IN oregonians. after all, isn't that what the point of doing this with GPS really is????????
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
Oregon has a lot of foolishness surrounding laws. For example, see this: Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash..
A city councilman in Portland, the largest city, tried to promote a law that would require giving people tickets for going through a yellow (not red) light. Of course, the purpose of a yellow light is to warn drivers that the light will soon be red, not to make them stop.
For a while, there was a law in Portland that said you could be fined $400 for jaywalking. This was especially foolish because there are many times when the streets of Portland are empty.
Recently I talked with a programmer friend who said that he had spent a week finding a subtle bug that mildly affected the user interface of one of his company's products.
However, when I talk with people in Oregon government about the major defects in Oregon law, they just dismiss the issue with very little thought. One recently told me something to the effect of, "It would be too difficult to make a more perfect law." Another said, "This is the legislature's responsibility," which I understood to mean, "I don't have to think about it."
Back in the 80s Oregon decided that since their own residents already paid for their State Parks and campgrounds through taxes, that they'd hike the fees up for non-residents. We were shocked to pull into a State campground and see fees of over $20 (this was 20 years ago). So, naturally, we stopped going to Oregon. And, if we drove through Oregon we stopped buying anything there.
But what made them go back to charging the same price for everyone was when Idaho began charging double for Oregon residents at *their* campgrounds.
Although, come to think of it, we still don't buy anything in Oregon or stop there more than absolutely necessary. Their fuel is already high-priced because of their idiotic program to only expose the poor to cancer-causing chemicals in gasoline. In an apparent attempt to weed out high school dropouts, there is no self-service pumping in Oregon... you must use a trained gasoline attendant. Who is paid minimum wage to risk leukemia.
And we NEVER stay at their campgrounds.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
turnpikes drain my pocket change. They waste alot of everyones time. Why use the fast road only to have to count change and wait (sometimes I admit!) at the toll gate.
Having lived where we don't have these things, I am not interested in seeing them.
Not that it does not work though, I just would not like it at all.
Blogging because I can...
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
If someone proposed a law that said that the State should track the movements of your vehicle if you were driving with a gun in your car, that would be shot down by the NRA and 2nd Amendment radicals as unconstitutional usurpation and invasion of privacy of gun owners. But change it so that they the State will track your movements whether you have a gun in your car or not, and then it's just business as usual. Maybe we can get an exemption if we have a gun in our car.
He should get some karma for admitting he lives in Oregon :)
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.
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.)
Yes, I probably should have said "Stood there peeing", but bad American grammar rules allows me to say "I sat there peeing".
Um, that ignores the choice of "their" instead of "there". Those two words have a very different meaning.
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.
I'm sure this thing would suck off the car's power, right? So just send the state a bill for the estimated cost, and throw on some BS charges, totaling in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. I wonder how the state'll like it.
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
One thing (as far as I can tell unmentioned to this point) is the fact that Oregon has the lowest (or one of the lowest) yearly license fees in the nation--just $15. So low is it that the Oregon DOT had signs warning out of state drivers not to come to Oregon and register their vehicles.
/year, and that provides a nice revenue base that the state/local governments can depend on (for road financing) no matter how much people drive, and yet it still is not pricey enough to be severely regressive to the grandma who drives only 500 miles a year.
While some states have a yearly vehicle property tax (like Colorado, Taxachusetts, Rhode Island) that assesses a significant fee per year, most of that goes to local government for schools and stuff.
Most states have a fee of $30-$80
Some states, like Michigan, have an ad valorem, which is based on the value of the vehicle, and so people with more expensive cars pay more (this isn't a property tax because it is a flat percentage, it isn't based on property tax millage, and the money goes to the state for funding roads, not the local government.) It is gently rising, and my friend with a 2002 Corvette pays about $120, which isn't severe for an expensive vehilcle (and it caps off at some value.) That is clearly a progressive system for road financing irrelevant to how much ya drive or how much wear and tear you put on the roads.
New York has a system which has some type of base amount (like $40, but I can't remember what it is) and then adds some surcharge if the vehicle is heavy. That's essentially the same as the fuel tax, but once again, it offers a stable revenue base that fuel taxes can build off of.
Another suggestion is to change the fuel tax system to a hybrid style. Most states that I know of assess a fuel tax on each gallon of gasoline sold (like in Ohio, it's 22 cents...I think.) Instead, Ohio could consider making it 18 cents per gallon sold, then add another 5 cents for every dollar's of gasoline sold. That way, if gas prices go up and sales go down, the revenue stream is a bit more stable (and it still works well if prices go down, and people end up buying more gasoline.
At any rate, Michigan style ad valorem, New York vehicle weight surcharge, hybrid style gasoline taxes or simply raising yearly fees are significantly better ways of road financing than the complexity of a GPS system.)
I actually first heard of this the other night from some friends of mine who are Oregon residents. They're pissed to all hell about this idea.
Still, if they *must* tax drivers for driving, I'm wondering why in gods name the legislators are bothering with GPS? Why not take the route the East went and implement toll roads to increase revenue for the department of transportation? Hell, they could even get creative about it and charge more for road-damaging SUV's, which some other posters have mentioned.
Yeah, this new law seems on the outside that it would raise all kinds of crazy cash, but it would seem to me to be far more expensive to set up and maintain. And then there will no doubt be legal challenges against it. All in all, far more trouble than its worth.
If they really need to levy funds for transportation costs, it would make more sense to me (at least in the near future) to go the Jersey Turnpike route. Make drivers pay tolls every so many miles. The eastern states have been doing this for years, and it seems to work pretty well--i.e. it helps support their highway system, and people there don't mind it too much.
Just a thought!
- - - - - - - -
Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
Essentially, minor rural roads would be free and rural roads generally would be very low cost whereas innner city roads would be extremely highly taxed (in US prices, up to about seventy cents a mile).
The idea isn't nearly as stupid as it first sounds.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
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.
This article reminds me of my parents' first experience with GPS in a rental car a few weeks ago. For some reason, they got some kind of bonus on their rental, and the car they recieved came equipped with a full navigation system. All they had to do was punch in their destination, and it would give them spoken directions.
." until they got disgusted with it and turned it off.
;)
I'm poor and have never seen one of these, but the idea sounds great. My parents decided to test it out while driving around Phoenix, Arizona. Unfortunately, the unit had slightly dated maps, and the freeways in Phoenix are a perpetually changing work of art. They ended up going off the map pretty quick, and the poor GPS unit soon showed them driving around freewheeling out in the middle of the desert. For about a half hour it kept repeating "please make a legal u-turn. . . please make a legal u-turn. .
If the GPS units in Oregon work as well as that one did, I don't think there'll be too many problems with this law after all.
- - - - - - - -
Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
In Ohio, if you ignore an orator on Decoration day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speaker's stand, you can be fined $25.00.
Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.
It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
It is illegal to get a fish drunk.
The Ohio driver's education manual states that you must honk the horn whenever you pass another car.
Participating or conducting a duel is prohibited.
Breast feeding is not allowed in public.
It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.
It is illegal to mistreat anything of great importance.
No one may be arrested on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.
I don't think Oregon has any patent on foolish laws. In fact, they tend to have extremely good ones.
Furthermore, there is a difference between "considering a law" and passing one.
But I guess it's too much to expect the typical slashdot poster or moderator to understand that.
Taxing the miles someone does on the road because you can't upkeep them is about the worst way to deal with it, IMHO. If most of the damage is caused by morons with studded snow tires (tyres), why not outlaw those tyres on the public roads? And other types of tyre which damage the road a lot? And vehicles over a certain weight for anyone but businesses? The police could then make a packet for the state by prosecuting all the people who didn't obey the law.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
but bad American grammar rules allows me to say "I sat there peeing".
So it's an 'official' American grammar rule now that the word 'sat' can be translated as 'stood at a urinal'? Things really are going down hill education wise.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Install a jammer? And that can't very well be violating FCC rules and interfering with legitimate GPS operations.. except it is. Installing a device that broadcast GPS signals would be a very bad idea.
And track your trips to the grocery.. Then what you buy there.
Its none of their damned business.
Note to goverment: Get the hell out of my personal business.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Don't forget Eugene, Portland's granola munching, radical, little brother.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
and what's to stop portland resident from registering their cars in vancouver? that's what I'd do...
I guess in oregon they don't tax by the kilometer, do they?.. No. What a shame...
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
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.
Yipee! We get to participate in our government by complying with the law! Can't wait until I'm allowed to retrofit my car.
I wonder if they will let me do it before they make a national law...?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Is there a member of the Bush family in charge there as well? Oil good! Environment bad!
"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!
...that the miles have to be driven on public roads, or the proceeds spent on said roads? A tax is a tax, it doesn't necessarily matter what's being taxed or why, so long as it's legal. Also, the tax could be said to encourage certain social goals of less pollution. I'm guessing. :)
On the other hand, road taxes are refundable -- if the gas is not used on the roads. Aviation fuel (I don't know about jet) carries a road tax strangely enough. Most casual flyers don't apply for the refund, but my flight school boss was cheap enough to collect other people's fuel receipts as donations. I don't think the refund is a matter of right; it's the gov't being nice. For example, you pay tax on a pack of cigarettes, but they don't care whether you actually smoke them.
The horses are probably OK, despite the methane. (Maybe they should have licenses, like dogs?)
Children receiving more education will incur greater taxes on their parents. Parents will be taxed $1000 for each A, $500 for each B, $250 for each C, and $500 for each summer school or remedial course. Each extracurricular activity will incur a further $500.
Hmmm, so what you are saying is rather then scale back the taxes for schools people will pay the existing taxes that go towards education and then for all the extra classes/programs they will pay more. Seems to miss the point of use based taxes since it is added to the existing taxes that supposedly pay for schools. And another question do people with no children pay no taxes to the schools? Or do people with no children just pay the basic amount, like every other county in the country.
If all these systems were truely use based you would pay nothing up front and only pay when services were rendered, ie you would pay no car registration and only be billed for use of city/state roads (not interstate highways since those are funded by the federal goverment). As for schools you should ONLY pay if you have children in school. Oh well.
A Texan, a Californian, and an Oregonian are out hiking in the wilderness and meet each other and decide to share a camp fire. After dinner, in a flash of showmanship, the Texan pulls a bottle of tequila out of his pack, and takes one long swig out of it. Then the Texan throws the bottle up into the air and whips out a large chromed, pearl-handled revolver and shoots the bottle out of the air. His camp-mates are a bit surprised and comment on the waste of good tequila. The Texan explains:"Oh, it's no loss. Where I'm from we've got more tequila than we can drink." Not to be out-done, the Californian fetches a bottle of Chardonnay from his pack,takes a sip, throws it into the air, whips out a Glock 9mm with laser sight and emptys the clip, breaking the bottle, and then boasts: "Where I come from we have more wine than we can drink." The Oregonian fetches a bottle of micro-brewed, bottle-conditioned Inda Pale ale from his pack, quietly drinks the entire bottle, tosses the empty into the air, pulls out a shotgun, shoots the Californian, and catches the bottle before it hits the ground. Then he explains to the stunned Texan: "Where I'm from, we have more Californians than we need, and this bottle is worth 5 cents."
But seriously, no laws have been passed. All they are doing is studying a problem: "If your roads are paid for by a gas tax, how do you pay for roads when electric and hybrid cars start eating into your gas tax revenues?" That is a good question, worthy of some study. I think there must be a better idean than a transponder to record mileage on Oregon roads. What if you drive on private roads a lot?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Besides the fact you obviously didn't read the article, you also have the wrong concept of a gas tax. The gas tax in most states is designed to pay for highway maintenance, not to mete out environmental justice. Moving to this system is a more *equitable* way of taxing fuel efficient cars.
It's still a stupid idea.
You could implement the same thing without the risk of an Orwellian dystopia. Just implement a gas tax that is adjusted for the known fuel efficiency of the vehicle model and tire type. Say they want to charge you T cents per mile. You pull into the gas station and put G gallons of gas into your car, which has a fuel efficiency of E miles per gallon. So the gas tax is T x G x E. See? No GPS, no need to worry about weird speeding tickets arriving in the mail someday. Of course this complicates things at the pump because E varies from one car to the next. If that's a big deal then they can charge everybody the studded tire, 50 MPG rate at the pump, and the poor overtaxed SUV owners can save their gas receipts for when they do their state taxes in April. Of course people will then say that they drove their SUV everywhere instead of their Geo Metro, but asking for odometer readings would cut down on that a bit. People cheat on their taxes all the time. At some point the state has to drop its surveillance requirements and trust its citizens.
The concern about being taxed for out of state driving is a red herring. Gas bought in Oregon will most likely be burned in Oregon. And unlike the GPS proposal, people driving through Oregon end up paying a gas tax as well. A gas tax is not quite a "fair" way of implementing a per-mile road tax within Oregon, but it's certainly a close enough approximation to fair that GPS should be out of the question entirely. Laying the infrastructure for a future police state is not worth the pennies involved here.
Next thing you know, they're going want cameras in people's bedrooms so they can tax "thingy".
yeah, I dont understand what it is with people in the Willamette Valley (writing from Corvallis BTW), and studded tires. Yes, it rains all winter, but it rarely snows in the valley, and if you want to get over the mountains in bad weather then studs arent enough anyway -you are going to have to carry a set of chains and may end up using them. So why do so many people who dont look like skiers cruise around with studs in the part of the state where it rains all winter?
Now in the eastern side of the state, its a different story, and all attempts to limit stud use becomes a west vs east issue. IMO they should just allow studded tires but ban them from the freeways, or limit vehicles with studs to 30mph; that would split the people who need them from those who only think they do.
Senator Joe: Hey, Dick, we didn't use up our 2002 federal grant for transportation technology. We better come up with some kind of project so we can ask for more money in 2003.
Senator Dick: No problem. My sister in law's consulting firm just lost their FEMA contract because the funding got diverted to Homeland Security. Let's all do lunch.
This whole monitoring is absurd, insane and has nothing to do with road maintenance. It will actually costs taxpayer money. The reason for this is lost revenue from the trucking and shipping companies as well as businesses such as the one I work. With higher taxes comes less profits which equal less taxes. Name one product that is not shipped to the store or does not have all of the parts assembled and shipped from elsewhere?
This argument that I am using is why all of the sudden we have a budget crises in Washington. Sure the tax cut is partially responsible but alot of businesses are reporting losses because of the bad economy so Uncle Sam does not tax them as much.
You mentioned part of the tax rightoff for gas but this whole vehicle monitoring effectively erases the tax benefits a bussiness owner recieves. Luckly my boss pays me a fuel allowance but I would end up losing alot of it in taxes.
http://saveie6.com/
You forgot all the old hippies and bomb-shelter freaks who settled in the woods... that Richard Benjamin movie about moving into a bunker in the Oregon backwoods isn't all that wide of the mark. Really no wonder that Oregon has had spasms of weird laws, and doubtless will again.
...1980s bumper sticker
"Last year in Oregon, 963 people fell off their bicycles -- and drowned"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I have no idea what they are thinking, this was just an idea. On the East coast, where states are smaller, there definitely are issues about people going to the next state to avoid high fuel, alcohol and cigarette taxes. Out west, states are bigger, but it could still be an issue.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
Operating permits on large trucks (from U-Haul sized box trucks on up to 18-wheelers) already run into thousands of dollars a year, per truck.
You know those weight classes that are pasted or stenciled on the side of every 18-wheeler you ever see? (numbers like "48,000" and "180,000" etc.) That's the certified weight, on which each commercial truck is charged a weight fee when they pay for their annual operating permit (whether they ever actually haul that much weight or not). There's a gawdawful tangle of federal fees, state fees for EACH state the truck is licensed to operate in, and proportional fees for trucks licensed in more than one state. And as to ridiculously complicated -- the proportional fees are such *expensive* chaos that many truckers choose to operate only in one state SOLELY because of that.
Oh, and do you know what "weigh stations" are actually for? Any truck that is carrying more load than its *licensed* capacity gets dinged an additional fee for the overage, as determined by these weigh stations. It used to be a common scam to have local scales rigged to cheat out-of-state truckers.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The down side of income taxes is that those who reside out-of-state and don't work in Oregon don't pay for systems that they use when they visit Oregon. In my opinion, the best system would be a combination of use and income taxes.
Take a look at the taxes your city/county/state place on things like hotels and rental cars, travels DO shoulder a larger tax burden. I travel a lot with my job and I see those couple extra percent the cities/counties/states add on, trust me travelers/visitors pay.
As for use base systems being regressive taxes? You lost me there, why shouldn't everyone shoulder the burden equally? I am not saying the poor should pay an equal amount, but I think an equal percentage is more then fair. If someone makes more money why should they pay a higher percentage, especially when they generally don't use the services their money supports. The bulk of the programs that governments in this country run are paid for by the middle class, the group that uses them the least.
Check the article for a technicle solution. Jam the GPS
Hoch
2*31*37*263
Actually, we considered ourselves spoiled for not having to get out of the car! Now I live in a state where you pump your own gas and I hate it. Especially when they make you pay first. You have to run in, give them a twenty, go back, pump, then go back in and get your change. Also, there are a lot of people who simply cannot be trusted with gasoline. They want to get to the nearest whole dollar amount, so they keep squeezing the handle over and over to get the pennies up to 00, oblivious to the growing puddle of gasoline at their feet.
Although when people get a job pumping gas in a full service state, they often forget that collecting the money is the last thing you do. That's the unwritten rule that everyone's used to- once you pay, you're free to go. So take the pump handle out of their tank first, then take their money. If you do it in the reverse order bad things happen- I've seen it twice.
Maybe they should follow the example of road-use fees implemented elsewhere in the US that have been successful since the 17th century, and in Europe at least as far back as the Roman Empire: Toll Roads.
Perhaps points 1 and 3 are somehow connected? If Oregonians generally feel poor, can you blame them for not voting for tax increases? The shortened school year -- a genuine tragedy I agree -- is also a direct result of lack of funds. As to your final point: news flash! Democrats and Republicans typically are at odds with one another.
Let's take a look at a couple of extremely progressive things that Oregon has approved:
I can tell you're pissed of at your state; why then don't you do something about it, like participate in public school board meetings, campaign for tax increases, or run for office?
But with a gas tax, Oregon would have a disincentive against promoting the use of more fuel-efficient cars. Would you do anything to reduce fuel consumption, if it would LOSE you money?
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
umm i think that is what i said. tax the gas. I also think they should provide automobile insurance through a gas tax. the more gas you use the higher your car insurance. but its not that simple as their are good and bad drivers.. but maybe we should let the law work that end out.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
well Oregon should tax any fuel that is used for the purpose of transportation. ie.hybrids do use a fuel of some sort. tax it. presto! not so hard. the consumer demand in oregon would then be higher for small, more efficient vehicles. The government would lose tax money gradually as general car efficiency improves. But i'm sure the government could solve that problem.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
Has anyone ever been to Oregon? This state is so backwards that it's illegal to pump your own gas at the gas station.
Yes, it would be nice if they'd let us pump our own gas. It's amazing how many seemingly reasonable people here seem to support the no-self-serve-choice thing here yet it's OK to choose to kill yourself here.
This is also the state that has pretty much clear cut most of it's forests
Well, this is more of a Federal issue. Most of the timberland in Oregon is Federally controlled and I suspect that we have about the same percentage of the state in clear-cuts as Washington has.
a governor that wouldn't allow anyone new into the state. He went so far as to refuse to give out driver's license unless you were a residence for so many years.
That would have been Tom McCall back in the '70s. Now that most Oregonians are from somewhere else it would be pretty hard for that attitude to still be prevelant here. But yes, back then McCall used to say something like "Come to Oregon for Vacation, but just don't move here!". I think it was mostly because they looked to the south at California and they didn't want that to happen here - some would argue that that was forward thinking, not backward. I'm not sure about the accuracy of your statement about the driver's licenses, though. I don't recall any requirement like that.
I didn't word what I said very well, apparently. The councilman was saying that people should be ticketed for being in an intersection when the light is yellow, so that the yellow light was equivalent to a red light.
A few years ago I was back in Jersey and needed gas for my rental car. I went into the station to pay, and was told by the mechanic that the guy who pumps gas was on lunch break. I went out and pumped my gas, went in to pay again, and got yelled at; I'd forgotten that they had this silliness.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
hm?
bigger tax on gas(per value/litres bought)==you pay less for big fuel consumption? i wish.
this is actually a very good reason to not buy (gas engined) suv around here(finland). gas costs around 1($) per 1 litre, mostly because tax, so buying a car with 15-20 litres/100km consumption is expensive for a commuter vehicle(when you can get some car with 5liters/100km instead..).
oh and to be a little more than just correction post:
in finland they were thinking of using other means for similar tracking system, like using cameras to read the license-plates on cars. gps just aint that smart, and i guess gps would be even more vulnurable
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
EXACTLY! Here in Sweden (I'm an American ex-pat), gas costs, like, ~$3.50-$4/gal., about 75% of which is taxes. You know why? Because they're charging you for the real cost of a gallon of gas, i.e. not just for the material costs, but for road upkeep, emergency response, environmental cleanup, etc. I'm so fscking sick of explaining to my American friends & family why I don't really mind paying a lot for gas here...
I concur. And frankly, people in Oregon should be angry and concerned about this, because it's a very weasly way of getting mandatory tracking equipment installed in all vehicles.
Why should being an Oregonian determine if we are taken seriously or not. I'd like to point out that we have many good things that come out of Oregon.
Have you ever had Tillamook Cheese? or Oregon Nog?
In terms of intelligence, we have excellent engineering schools (Oregon State University) and liberal arts universities (University of Oregon). Personally, I graduated from Chemeketa Community College (in Salem) with an AS degree in Computer Electronics. The electronics department at Chemeketa is one of the best I've seen from visiting various community colleges.
of course, the job market here sucks right now, so I'm stuck working for the state. =)
Another thing about Oregon is the livability. There's the big city living in Portland, if that floats your boat, but then there's the ROOM to live out on a couple of acres if a rural setting suites you more. I spent part of my years growing up on about an acre and a half with lotsa trees. My work in downtown salem was a 15-20 min drive, even at the height of rush hour.
What else is there to cover? We have the big beautiful outdoors! Little known waterfalls, hiking trails, and wilderness areas abound. Personally, I enjoy Abiqua Falls outside of Silverton, as well as the Opal Creek Wilderness area, up at the end of the Little North Fork road. =)
Oh, and Seaside! The beach there is one of the widest on the west coast! They've had beach volleyball championships there. Lincoln City hosts kite flying festivals a little further south. The dunes near Florence and south are a blast to go running around in (on foot or on your favorite atv veh).
And that's just in the northwest area of Oregon -- there's sooooo much to explore here!
As anyone who's ever stayed in a hotel knows, politicians love to shift as much of your tax burden as possible to people who can't throw your sorry ass out of office. Given that such a law would only be enforceable on Oregon residents, this tax works in just the opposite direction.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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
I've been wanting to get my hands on a GPS constellation simulator (like this one)ever since I saw one at GPS ION years ago. The problem is US$20k is a bit over my price range for a toy that would provide such a small window of entertainment. If this law happens, then I expect an open source sim within weeks complete with schematics, borad layouts and of course code.
on a semi OT note: There will be a civil GPS users meeting Downunder in Feb if anyone has any feedback they want to give the US govt about the system.
Umm, isn't the gas tax for making sure that those who use the roads pay more? This is a whole lot simpler & cheaper than putting GPS boxes in all cars. The gas tax has the added advantage of encouraging people to buy vehicles with better gas mileage.
the last few attempts to up it were unsucessful I dont think this would work.
... if your from oregon
In oregon taxes must be approved buy ballote/vote
I wish my fellow Oregonians would open there eyes
the school systems here SUCK
Hmm, you don't say!
There are ways around this.
Ask a truck driver. In the state I live in, there is a significantly higher gasoline tax than a lot of other states, especially those around us.
A lot of trucking companies have taken great pains to plot exactly how far out of their way they can go to still be profitable. In other words paying a truck driver extra milage for almost an extra half a day can be cost effective.
This works the same way when the destination is in my state. They plot the gas fill ups so that they have to get as little gas, definitely not proportional to their road use, in the state.
In DC that many unrelated women living together is automatically considered a brothel. For this reason, there are no sororities in the nation's capital. Weird, eh?
A better idea. Make this road tax, a tax on Gasoline.
Agreed. Gas tax is much much fairer than GPS or car property tax. I'm really sick of property taxes that make people want to drive old dirty cars, and putting a GPS reciever into cars is unconstitutional. I say unconstitutional, because the government could track the activities of protected groups of people and strategically interfere in favor of the government's agenda. GPS data would really be ripe for abuse of all types. It could be a new era of witch hunting (e.g., why was political-enemy XYZ's car at motel ABC on Tuesday morning...)
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I updated my article about the law in Oregon, Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash, to include the GPS law mistake:
Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash.
by Michael Jennings
If you bought a TV in 1970 for $400, you would likely spend another $400 in the next 4 years having it repaired. But then there was a revolution. Famous quality control expert W. Edwards Deming and others helped managers realize the importance of doing things right. Now airplane, computer, television, and drug makers, to give just a few examples, are extremely serious about quality and reliability.
The quality revolution has not yet come to the legal profession. Laws are still allowed to be sloppy. Often imperfect results are simply ignored.
The DMV laws are an example. The auto insurance law in Oregon is based on "belief" and is structured in such a way that you can lose your driver's license because of a clerical error. It doesn't seem to bother the law makers that "belief" cannot be reliably known, and the insurance companies sometimes make mistakes. Amazed? Skeptical? Have a look at Oregon law ORS 806.245 (b).
The laws define driving as a "privilege" in spite of the fact that driving is a necessary freedom for a large percentage of us. Calling driving a "privilege" supports a system in which insurance companies make more profit.
Oregon law ORS 25.750 suspends a person's driver's license for being behind in child support payments. But there are obvious problems with this. Not having a driver's license is likely to make someone, usually a man, less able to pay.
The child support law supports a common fraud: A woman convinces a man she is serious about having a relationship, when in fact she has no serious intent. Even though there is an understanding that they will not have a child, the woman deliberately becomes pregnant. The woman disconnects from the relationship, but gets paid by the man for her personal project of having a baby. The child support also supports the woman, who can quit her full-time job and get an easier part-time job to supplement the money from the man.
Your telephone always works. Electricity is always delivered. The reliability comes from investigating and correcting any problem. In contrast, there is little desire to clean up faulty laws. Lawyers don't want to disturb a system that pays them $100 to $350 an hour. Often laws are allowed to be so confusing that citizens can't understand them.
Part of the reason that laws lack quality control is that there are people who want to use the power of government to make money. If you lose your driver's license in Oregon for a reason not related to safety, once you get your license back you will have to pay about $3,000 extra to some auto insurance company, even though the risk is not greater. It is easy to construct a more perfect auto insurance law, but that would reduce the unearned profit of the insurance companies.
This scheme of using the laws to make unearned profit is used in other areas, also. In Oregon, if a car is towed because of being in a wrong parking place, the cost of the tow to the car owner is far greater the true cost. The extra money goes to the towing company.
Part of the problem of making laws is that lawmakers often don't realize that lawmaking is difficult. The author of this article has, at different times in his life, repaired the automatic flight control systems of aircraft, worked in a Physics research laboratory, and written complex computer programs. None of this is as difficult as making good laws. However, people with no experience recognize that they should not repair aircraft. In contrast, the only requirement to be elected a lawmaker is popularity, and that is considered sufficient preparation.
Why don't judges demand quality control in laws? One reason is that the legislature tells them they can't look before they decide. Oregon law ORS 183.400 (4) limits the power of the Judiciary: A DMV agency rule, for example, can only be examined to see if it (a) violates constitutional provisions, or (b) exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; or (c) Was adopted without compliance with applicable rule-making procedures.
That means that, if the DMV says that black is white, judges must pretend they don't notice. Why? Well, (a) there is nothing in the constitution that prevents someone from saying something that is obviously crazy. (b) As long as the rule is about cars or driving, it is within the authority of the DMV. (c) And, since the DMV mostly makes it own procedures, it is unlikely a rule won't be in compliance.
If you studied American government in high school, you learned that the U.S. Constitution establishes separation of powers. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are not allowed to interfere with each other. In Oregon, there are numerous ways this sensible law is not observed.
For example, the DMV is an agency of the executive branch, but it is allowed to make rules that bind the citizen as surely as any law. The only way an agency rule differs from a law is that it is not called a law.
The DMV has its own judges called ALJs, Administrative Law Judges, who decide whether those rules have been observed. So, the DMV has departments that perform functions of all three branches of government.
The ultimate method of assuring there won't be close scrutiny of the application of law is used in Oregon: The Legislative branch doesn't give the Judicial branch enough money to operate. More than 40 people have told the author that the Courts are under-funded and under-staffed. Starving the judiciary is the surest means of preventing good judicial action.
Do you want to experience for yourself how laws are made in Oregon? The Oregon Department of Transportation is developing a system to charge by the mile for driving in Oregon, and you can participate at the February 14, 2003 meeting. ODOT plans to install GPS radio receivers in every car to track where each car goes.
GPS stands for Global Positioning System. The system uses satellite radio transmissions to show pilots or hikers their position, for example. The GPS would calculate how many miles you drove in Oregon, and you would pay when you bought gasoline. See the December 31, 2002 Associated Press article at StatesmanJournal.com: Oregon drivers may pay more: http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=541 84
Also see the Oregon government's own web site: Road User Fee Task Force, http://www.odot.state.or.us/ruftf/documents.html.)
Lawmaking is made to look very official and respectable. But underneath, it often isn't. One of the Oregon government's web pages says that ODOT's work is based partly on the "results of research of consultants from Oregon State University and Portland State University". However, it takes someone who has a minimal understanding of GPS about 10 seconds to realize that the system they are considering won't work. The GPS system depends on receiving the GPS radio signals. Anyone who covered the GPS antenna with aluminum foil would show that they had driven zero miles in Oregon, and therefore would pay no tax.
Aside from the fact that it won't work, there are so many other problems with this idea that they cannot all be listed here. For example, a system that charges by the mile will make the road taxes for SUVs the same as the cost for fuel-efficient vehicles. At present, owners of SUVs pay more because they pay a tax on gasoline. Another problem is that tracking where each vehicle goes means that there will be no privacy.
See the DMV laws for yourself:
ORS 806.245 (b): http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/806.html
ORS 25.750: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/025.html
ORS 183.400 (4): http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/183.html
January 2, 2003, 9:56 AM, #1 (file lics001h.htm)
Michael Jennings
Futurepower
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
503-233-7820
E-Mail: MJennings AT myrealbox DOT com
(Take out the spaces, change AT to @, and change DOT to a period to e-mail the author. The coded e-mail address helps discourage misuse of the address by computer robots that harvest email addresses for sale to those who send unwanted e-mail.)
Very rarly do the taxes collected by the government only get used on the specific group claimed. rather they are normally thrown into a general fund.. thus cig taxes pay more then cig realted illnesses.
A tax on fuel does not translate one-to-one with road usage, due to variances in fuel efficiency, so there is no "proper level" you can set fuel taxes at.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The law only applies to houses. Apartments are fine. Dorms are fine.
But nobody wants to have a 'sorority house' in a dorm do they?