Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oregon Governor Proposes Vehicle Mileage Tax

Posted by timothy on from the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide dept.

tiedyejeremy writes "As covered by the Crosscut Blog, the Governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, is proposing a change in the funding of the Oregonian transportation system that drops gasoline taxes and, by way of GPS tracking, taxes the number of miles driven, to the tune of 1.2 cents per mile. The reason for the proposed change is that lower fuel consumption via fuel efficiency will leave the system underfunded. The concerns involve government tracking of the movements of vehicles within the state, though this has been denied by ODOT official, James Whitty. I'm wondering how this affects people using the Interstate System and private roads, and if the outputs can or will be used by law enforcement to check alibis."

11 of 713 comments (clear)

  1. Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except for the part where they leave the gas tax in place.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! by Shambly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wouldn't increasing the gas tax thereby further increasing the value of low gas mileage vehicle be preferable? I mean doesn't this just help the pocket book of SUV driving suburbanites vs hybrid driving people?

    2. Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! by edittard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That plus it requires considerably more kit and labor to administer. Whether you agree with fuel tax or not, it has the advantage that it sort of collects itself.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    3. Re:Great idea - it can replace the Gas Tax! by dave562 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the real problem involves electric vehicles, then they could... wait for it... increase taxes on electricity!! There you go. Problem solved. No need for intrusive GPS tracking. If the problem involves the batteries in hybrid cars, then they can pay some mathmeticians to calculate the cost savings of the batteries, and then tax the production or sale of the cars to offset the revenue lost. Once again, no tracking necessary.

      Of course the REAL issue isn't completely related to the loss of revenues from the fuel tax. The real issue is that the government feels like they own us. They believe that they can go crazy with tracking us like merchandise. That is my big, fat, off-topic gripe for this thread. Our government has devolved from our fellow citizens serving their communities, to our fellow citizens trying to dictate our lives to us.

  2. WTF do they need GPS for? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why just use the fancy new technology called an odometer? Check it every time you renew your registration and collect the fees at that time.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:WTF do they need GPS for? by tilandal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they could just... increase the gas tax. I know. Its a maverick idea.

    2. Re:WTF do they need GPS for? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some South American countries use the tire tax, so everyone drives around on "superlast, hard as rocks" tires to beat the tax rate - can't be good for safety.

      I think that taxing each gallon of fuel is the right way to go, if 0.24 isn't enough, make it 0.48 - we just demonstrated that the world doesn't end when gas passes $3 a gallon.

      Taxing fuel:

      • Collects the tax in small, easy to handle increments
      • Rewards fuel efficient vehicles (which tend to be light and easy on the pavement)
      • Still taxes based on roadway usage
      • Doesn't require any potential invasions of privacy
      • Isn't open to potential tampering (beyond bootleg fuel)

      I think the governor is just talking to get himself heard, drivers of big gas hog vehicles (likely the majority of his constituency) will love the idea, but lawmakers would have to have several screws loose to think this is a good or practical idea.

  3. I can solve this problem! by uncreativeslashnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a crazy idea. Instead of raising taxes in a tough economy, how about you do what everyone else is doing and tighten belt and reduce spending? Nah, you're right, that will never work...

  4. Except weight and mileage DOES count... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is, fuel efficient cars weigh less, and therefore do less damage to the road.

    Thus a gasoline tax is actually better at putting many of the costs on the actual source: heavier, less efficient vehicles. As a bonus, fuel taxes encourage smaller, lighter, more efficient cars which are better for society in the long run.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  5. Astoundingly stupid by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The amount of damage done to a road by a passing vehicle is a geometric? exponential? function of the weight of the vehicle. For instance, say a road will fail if a 100,000 pound vehicle drives over it. In that case, a 120,000 pound truck would do much more damage than two 60,000 trucks. At the low end, you reach a point where no damage is done at all. It's not possible to ruin a modern highway with bicycles, for example.

    So you're justified in taxing vehicles proportionally to their weight, since more weight means more damage, which means more expensive repairs. Conveniently enough, gas mileage is a useful proxy for vehicle weight: the heavier they are, the more gas tax they pay per mile.

    I have no love for Priuses, but it's insane to tax them the same as someone in a semi truck. There are two possible explanations that don't involve Gov. Kulongoski being a stark moron:

    • This is a concession to the trucking industry or people who have to pay them, such as lumber companies who want to reduce transportation costs, or
    • Big Brother can't wait to get here.

    Any Oregonians have insight on the matter?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  6. Re:Why not raise the tax on gas? by Myopic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. This solution is so glaringly obvious that there must be some sinister reason they are ignoring it. I mean, seriously? You're going to go with a fancypants expensive satellite-based high-tech solution requiring lots of new legislation, training, infrastructure, and other costs, not to mention the overwhelming privacy violation -- instead of just raising the tax a little bit? What, seriously? I call shenanigans.