tax on miles in Oregon

How is taxing actual useage of the highways to pay for maintenance fascistic?

But I suppose it is the tracking method that you're objecting to? I'm unclear on how they plan to implement it. Do they plan on requiring all state residents to carry a tracking device? Would a chip be embedded in the license plate?

Many states on the east coast have the voluntary EZ-Pass system that gives a commuter discount on bridges, tunnels and roads that collect tolls as well as faster passage through tolls. Some people sued their trasportation authority for violating their privacy by sharing the data in criminal investigations (the idiots could have simply removed the tags and paid cash for the tolls if they wanted privacy to sneak around), but that was ruled against.

 

As a commuter I find the idea of taxing me for the miles I am forced by the economy and lack of job to drive to feed my family onnerous in the Nth degree...

At least if the economy improves I would *then* have the option of buying a vehicle with better gas mileage...

This plan, therefore, is decidely NOT Green as it takes away an incentive for commuters to buy fuel efficient vehicles...

Mike Sr.

 

THis is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen from Oregon, which is known for its legislative stupidity.

We have a tax system in place that is ultimatly fair (wrong word). We pay taxes based on gallons purchased. If you drive a gas hog you pay approprietly more per mile than if you drive a Honda Civic. What could be fairer? This ridiculous proposal is an abomination of red tape and administrative overhead. Someone should be run out of town on a rail.

 

Well, I go to church in a little bit here. If I pass someone holding a sign that says "Have rail, will travel", I'll let ya know, ok?

 

This could potentially lead to a great new market for older, refurbished vehicles without the little black box. In states with ridiculous ad velorum (sp?) taxes, people will pay $4-5,000 for a refurbished '85 Honda rather than pay the exhorbitant taxes on a newer one.

 

I think this is a great idea! 911 changed everything, how can the state keep you safe from terrorism if it doesn't record all your travels? If you are giving Al Qeada a ride we need to know about it! And just think when some slob fails to pay his mileage tax the state can shut his engine off by satellite till he pays up.

I think this was a United Nations idea for a global tax at one time btw. So you won't be able to run the person who came up with it out of the country.

 

The amount of gas used doesn't necessarily correlate with highway useage. City driving, with its constant starts and stops uses a lot more gas and wears out a lot less road. Some people may never set wheel on a highway and just use local roads paid for by the town or county.

Highways get a lot of wear and tear and must be maintained - shouldn't the ones who use it, pay for it? Landscaping companies use a lot of gas for machines which never use the road, such as leaf blowers and stumpgrinders.

In New York, where I live, the gas tax revenues are used for a lot of other expenses than road and bridge maintenance, such as mass transporation (which may be justified as those who use mass transit are not clogging up theroads). Gas is about thirty cents a gallon cheaper just over the border in New Jersey.

Part of the gas tax is a disincentive to use it, to help reach clean air goals. I noticed this winter that the snow on the side of the road doesn't turn black in a couple of days like it used to - it's only a medium brown after several weeks. I'm not opposed to this purpose, but it is a different issue than road maintenance.

 

Then the state will pass a law making that illegal. This has more to do with tracking and tracing Americans every move than raising revenue for road upkeep imho. It'll come in handy when the borders are abolished after the FTAA is passed.

 

Passanger cars with normal tires couldn't wear out a freeway in 100 years. Half the wear is from studded tires and the other half from trucks. If stds were banned and truck axle weight allowance was cut in half then highway costs would be cut by at least half.

 

Banning studded tires would shut us down up here, and most of our road damage occurs from the freeze/thaw/freeze/thaw cycle and from breakup in the Spring. How ya gonna tax that?

 

Requiring a black box does seem intrusive and difficult to implement.

HoP, how far north are you? You don't freeze and stay frozen? We have freeze/thaw cycles the from November through early April or late March although some years we have no real snow. Our worst winter in memory had nine snowstorms in stead of the usual three. That spring the potholes were fierce - many an axle got broke. One stretch of concrete highway looked like a moonshot it was so full of craters.

Most of our highways here are asphalt and gravel with concrete running second. A few have the new-fangled recycled rubber and ground glass. I don't know how well those wear, but they feel neat, are quiet and sparkly.

 

Whenever a new, more confiscatory tax is proposed, I always ask the question:

"What is so doggone important here that it allows the government to take, by force, what I have earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it?"

That narrows it down considerably. This law makes it only one step away from being able to control WHERE and WHEN you drive.

Give me liberty over security any day of the week. If this is the way Oregon is being run, give it to North Korea.

--end of rant--

 

I wonder if SCOTUS would have a problem with this legislation if it passed.

 

One would think that the required cost of technology/enforcement might exceed the potential revenue.

 

The paying of driving on highways is done on many highways in the east and midwest. They are called toll ways.

 

That isn't the case here - this is a useage tax to pay for maintenance.

That is being debated re Manhattan during rushhour and during normal working hours. I believe that London has already implemented something of the sort, but I'd have to look that up.

There are already laws regulating WHERE you drive - eg. in the US, on the right side within the painted lines, not off-road in most public parks, etc. Most those laws have been beneficial overall.

It's not yours to give. Why would you want to interfere in how another state chooses to raise revenues to pay for its expenses when it has absolutely nothing to do with you Alabamians? My impression was that this was a revenue bill, not a security one, at least on its face.

Does Alabama have state highways? Where does the money to maintain them come from? Are yours made of tar and seashells like Houston's?

 

Not far behind this is the ability for law enforcement to access the records to issue speeding tickets. Like in this case 5 years ago:
LINK

 

Daisy,

Exactly how much revenue does a state need? Where do powers of government stop? Why is there a mass exodus (of legal US residents) from states such as Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts, and California? Granted, several answers are there, but one common denominator: progressive, confiscatory tax structures.

I want my government to have to wear its belt tight. That is the way that cost-saving measures occur. When a government has copious amounts of money coming in, they WILL spend it all, no matter how stupidly.

Thanks for the dig at Alabama. We do have roads here, and they are primarily maintained with gasoline taxes.

Daisy, you and I have a fundamental disagreement that will put us on the opposite of almost any policy decision: it is the answer to the question, "Who owns me?" (spiritually applied, this has a different answer, so let's look at the political answer)

My belief: "Who owns me?" I do. So the burden of proof should be fairly high before the government limits my freedoms. That's why my "default" setting is to be against taxes, unless a definite, demonstrated need exists. And since government virtually NEVER does a better job than the private sector at ANYTHING (save defense, and maybe a bit of infrastructure), that burden is very, very high. For this reason, I am also against policies that will INDIRECTLY cause a loss of liberty...a chief area being nationalized health care. When you pay my medical bills, then you (read government) get to tell me how to live, when to wear helments, and whether I can eat potato chips.

Your belief, as I see it from your posts: "Who owns me?" The government. The government is our caretaker, and it is the source of our liberties. Frankly, that view scares the mess out of me.

And yes, I do have concerns about an Oregon tax. Because some nincompoop in our state legislature will use some manufactured stat from Oregon's policy as a proof-text to ask for more of my money.

Government inherently will grow. Without it being checked, it ALWAYS gets bigger, more invasive, and more confiscatory. It ALWAYS impedes more liberty over time. Without folks keeping watch, the camel gets its nose in the tent, and we have a problem.