Slashdot Mirror


Oregon Extends Push To Track, Tax Drivers Per Mile

schwit1 writes "Oregon is moving ahead with a controversial plan to tax motorists based on the number of miles they drive as opposed to the amount of fuel they consume, raising myriad concerns about cost and privacy. The problem for lawmakers is that the existing per-gallon gas tax has hit a point of diminishing returns, as Americans drive less and vehicles become more fuel efficient. Economists and civil libertarians are concerned about the Oregon pilot project in large part because some mileage meters can track and record residents' every vehicular move. Rick Geddes, a Cornell University professor, said the basic device is okay because it is simply attached to a vehicle's computer, which cannot track locations. However, Geddes said privacy concerns could resurface should governments expand the program and use SmartPhone or apps to track movements and reward motorists who avoid congested roads and drive during off-peak hours. Mark Perry, a University of Michigan scholar, says the GPS or 'black box' system is 'particularly untenable.'" Per-car tracking and taxation has been a long time coming in Oregon, and it's not the only state where such an idea's been floated.

9 of 658 comments (clear)

  1. Can someone please explain ... by Specter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why we're trying to over-complicate this? Take the odometer reading at annual inspection and be done with it.

    Will there be corner cases where someone gets screwed under this system? Sure.

    Is it worth all the trouble, expense, and privacy violations of being 100% perfect when 80% is good enough? No. Not even a little.

    1. Re:Can someone please explain ... by jmauro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even easier. Raise the gas tax. It'll increase revenue, easier to administer, and encourage even less use of gas.

      Until we reach a world where we use zero gas to transport, this makes the most sense, since gas taxes are both a rough proxy for miles traveled and encourages less fuel use.

    2. Re:Can someone please explain ... by qzjul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, weight x distance is generally fairer than just direct gas usage. But if we're going to go there, why not do it properly?

      Damage to infrastructure is proportional to the 4th power of weight; thus, we should probably tax something like

      ([miles travelled]/1000miles)*([vehicle weight]/1500lbs)^4

      for vehicle registration. That would take into account the proper damage.

      The average american drives 13476 miles and the average fleet curb weight (in 2004, latest i could quickly find) was 3239 lbs; this would give a result of $293 for registration. If you drove the same amount in a vehicle half that, you'd pay like $17, and if you drove a vehicle twice that weight you'd pay $4466.

      That would take into account proper damage incurred on infrastructure.

  2. Partisan BS by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an Oregonian I can say right away, this is a partisan biased post. It isn't the big bad Government floating this idea to take yer moneys. Rather, we have lots and lots of more efficient vehicles, and there is a strong cultural push to move away from Big Oil. So we want to have our tax structure set up so that it is ready for that; if everybody bought a hybrid today, next year almost no road repairs would get done, because we wouldn't have the tax revenue. And with the same number of miles driven, there would be the exact same need for revenue. So if we can succeed in tying those related things together, then we'll have a forwards-looking tax code.

    As for the meters, that is just for a pilot program the real program will not use that, it will use odometer checks. If you've ever lived in Oregon, the idea that we'd require GPS trackers is really funny. Left, right, center, nobody would support that here. And we have well trained politicians because when they do something weird, we just put it on the ballot and over-rule them. And in the State Legislature, people who pushed bills that got overturned by the voters get primaried out... every single time! That is how you do it, people.

    Note to editors: if the story is running on foxnews, you're pushing a biased partisan version that won't have the facts.

  3. Re:This is why I'm keeping my truck for forever by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The last one is the one I care about.

    When did we stop counting the cost of government intrusion into our daily lives? When did people stop dismissing that sort of thing as flatly unacceptable? Is our need to try to force our neighbors to live the way we think in right so strong?

    I shudder to think what this newfound love of intrusive government would turn into if the religious right retook the reigns of power. The same power given the government to turn everyone into good little progressives won't suddenly vanish if next the government wants to turn you into good little worshippers.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. Re:This is why I'm keeping my truck for forever by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember, there has hardly ever been a law by the govt (state or federal) that hasn't usually in the future, been happily expanded or applied to activities and situations that were not the original intent of said law.

    I remember in my state, when they advertised that the "new" seatbelt laws would not be primary reason for pulling a motorist over, they could only ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt IF they pulled you over for something else, and noticed you didn't have one on.

    I think most people see the recent "Click-it-or-Ticket" ads on tv where they definitely say they'll pull you over if they see you not wearing a seatbelt.

    Whether you agree with this (I wear my seatbelt)...this is a quick example of saying one thing to worn a law in with the public, and then soon expanding and changing it to allow more intrusion into your life.

    Hell, these days the RICO act is being used in new imaginative ways not pictured when it was passed...and that's an old well known law structure.

    I can surely see this tracking that is supposedly anonymous now....to be expanded (maybe with help of the Bluetooth article yesterday) to be used for real time tracking, I mean, would that be useful during an Amber Alert???

    Golly gee...remember that both child abuse and terrorism are the new keys to the Constitution, and surely we'd be willing to trade a little more privacy for the sake of the children being abducted by terrorists, wouldn't we?

    :(

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  5. Re:This is why I'm keeping my truck for forever by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or they could just do like almost every other state in the Union and just PASS A SALES TAX. This is an example of the kind of shit that happens when you don't have an equitable and sane tax system and put too many eggs in one basket. By relying way too much on the gas tax instead of a more balanced approach, Oregon fucked itself. They encouraged people to use less gas alright (a good thing), but now they have to come up with crazy shit like this law to replace it.

    Either cut costs or pass a small sales tax, assholes. Slapping some weird device on everyone's car is NOT the sane approach to the problem.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  6. Re:This is why I'm keeping my truck for forever by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or they could just do like almost every other state in the Union and just PASS A SALES TAX.

    I'm sure the more impoverished among us out here would really appreciate your suggestion. I'm doubly certain that all the stores in Portland (esp. those which sell large items, such as furniture) would appreciate seeing a huge drop in business from Washington State shoppers.

    But, you know, unintended consequences and all that.

    Incidentally, income and property taxes out here more than makes up for the lack of sales tax.

    Now your cutting costs idea? I like that.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  7. Re:Simple Solution by scamper_22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm really curious as to the mentality of people.

    Why is it that transit; for both roads as well as public transit always gets hit by people talking about pay per use. As if it is somehow natural and obvious that transit should be pay per use.

    Yet, healthcare... oh no... for that it should be universal (I'm Canadian) or even in the US it should be covered under insurance.

    Or education, it should be public and everyone gets it.

    The irony of it all is that the cost to support transit and roads is miniscule compared to the costs of healthcare and education.

    I'm in Ontario (Canada) and my province spends something like 40% of its budget on healthcare. Transit and roads gets a fraction of it all. Yet, when it comes time to budget. It's always... increase transit fares or put tolls on drivers...

    Transit/roads is something people use day in and day out every single day. If there is such a thing as a public resource, transit and roads are it.

    Yet, it seems these days everyone thinks it is 'logical' to that have it pay per use.

    I'm not against various kind of pricing on things. But I just find it curious how transit/roads get tossed in the bucket of pay per use, but education and healthcare, which consume so much money get thrown into the the government should pay for it bucket.