tax on miles in Oregon

[gb93433]

Originally posted by gtbuzzarp:
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

Those things are already in every computerized car today. The technicians can easily know how fast someone was driving when involved in an accident. A lot of over the road trucks have GPS. Many tractors today have GPS. I have a friend who owns a large excavation company and he had a piece of equipment stolen. The equipment was tracked to the exact location and the police arested the person who stole it. The equipment was returned to the owner in less than 24 hours after it was stolen.

 

[gtbuzzarp]

But a "black box" only has about 5 seconds worth of info in it, and I don't think you can (yet) remotely monitor the information being collected by them. I don't really have a problem with those things in general.

My brother used his black box as leverage with the insurance company when they tried to say an accident was 20% his fault. He said, "check my black box and you'll see I'm telling the truth." I don't think they ever did, but they ended not making him responsible for 20% of the damages to his vehicle.

My original point was what would stop law enforcement from saying "hey, if they can use GPS to charge taxes, why not use it to monitor drivers? That way we don't have to have as many officers on the streets, we can lower our operating budget (increase revenue), etc."

And after they find that is such a huge success (monetarily, and otherwise) why not install not install RF Id chips into people(which has been talked about) and charge them a sidewalk tax, or public park use tax,or use it to prevent crime?

I like the idea of using GPS to locate a stolen vehicle, but I don't want the goverment monitoring my every move. That's just creepy

 

[Hope of Glory]

I have a 22 year old sports car that is a toy. It may become a necessity to avoid Big Brother soon.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by rbell:
Daisy,

Exactly how much revenue does a state need?

That depends on the state, doesn't it, and what its citizens decide to finance.

Where do powers of government stop?

Is that a rhetorical question? Sometimes I can't tell.

Why is there a mass exodus (of legal US residents) from states such as Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts, and California?

Is there one? For what time span? Evidence, please.

Granted, several answers are there, but one common denominator: progressive, confiscatory tax structures.

Really? What are the actual numbers?

Interestingly, according to the US 2000 census, Alabama has a worse poverty rate than any of the states you named. Perhaps a progressive tax structure has a positive correlation with wealth and decent standards of living.

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.

Or wisely. I've heard that some states actually invest in their infrastructures and attract new and future sources of revenue.

Unfortunately, some governments, like some people, spend far more than they have and descend into debt.

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

That wasn't a dig; I know you have roads there. My question was about state highways as opposed to federal, county and local roadways. In New York, gasoline taxes pay for a lot more than just highway maintenance. Many of our state roads and most the bridges and tunnels are financed by bonds and paid for by tolls and assessments on trucks.

Do you know what your roads are made of? That's just idle interest.

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.

Hmmm, even without nationalized health care, don't you have helmet laws in Alabama? If you don't wear one and get a head injury, won't you wind up as a ward of the state when your private health insurance runs out? As far as I've ever heard, citizens of countries which do have NHC are indeed permitted to eat potato chips, so I think you're afraid of boogeymen.

Your belief, as I see it from your posts: "Who owns me?" The government.

Oh well, you got that one all wrong - really, instead of making ridiculous assumptions, you could've simply have asked me what my beliefs are.

I own me, but I am also a member of society. I don't mind driving on the right side of the road, stopping at red lights, signalling when changing lanes and refraining from talking on my cellphone when driving. I also happen to like the ameneties my taxes pay for such as really nice public parks, libraries, sidewalks, potable water, sewage treatment, fire department, etc. I even want decent housing and healthcare for my less fortunate neighbors. I understand some people do want only what they can scrounge for on their own and I agree with you that such people will do better in a non-progressive state and community.

The government is our caretaker,...

Or our safety net...

...and it is the source of our liberties.

Not our government, but our laws are the source of our civil liberties.
[aside]Odd how many people who claim to be fond of their liberties demonize the ACLU for ensuring that the government does NOT violate them[/aside]

Frankly, that view scares the mess out of me.

Your dog eat dog ethic scares 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.

So if bio-diesel becomes prevalent and gasoline revenues fall drastically, would you vote to have your highways fall apart from lack of maintenance? Is Alabama so different from New York and Oregon that its citizens do not vote on these sorts of tax, revenue and spending referendums?

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.

Some liberties have grown, some have diminished. There are tradeoffs.

 

[rbell]

Daisy,

Really? What are the actual numbers?

from the Census.gov site--2000 population trends: California held the rank of the Nation's fifth fastest growing State during the 1980 to 1990 period, but dropped to the nineteenth position during the 1990 to 1994 period. Its population is still growing, but the rate of growth has declined each year since 1990, and its 1993-94 growth rate of 0.7 percent was well below the national average of 1.0 percent.

California has experienced increasing rates of net domestic outmigration since 1990. Its 1993 to 1994 net domestic outmigration rate reached 1.4 percent, the highest of any State, and represented a net loss of 426,000 migrants to other States. Only its high rates of net international migration and natural increase are allowing California a modest growth rate."

Correlation between high taxes and population loss...source: HERE

Not our government, but our laws are the source of our civil liberties.

Our Creator is the source of our civil liberties. Government here has been set up to secure the rights granted to us by God...not government.

As far as I've ever heard, citizens of countries which do have NHC are indeed permitted to eat potato chips, so I think you're afraid of boogeymen.

Seventeen states currently tax "junk food." SOURCE Many of those states have listed as their reasons for instituting the tax "to promote healthier lifestyles." Apparently it IS the government's concern if I eat chips or not.

Is Alabama so different from New York and Oregon that its citizens do not vote on these sorts of tax, revenue and spending referendums?

Many states do not have I & R (initiative and referendum) as a means to approve taxes & hidden "fees." So yes, in our state (and many others) a dishonest/deceived/bought out senator can sneak it through as an amendment to a 1,000 page bill.

I even want decent housing and healthcare for my less fortunate neighbors.

Define "less fortunate." I was once dirt-poor. I've never received one ounce of welfare. I worked my way out of it...4 jobs at one point--all at or near minimum wage.

Unfortunately, we now have a generation of people who are so dependent on the government, they are unable to lift themselves out of any situation they are in. And many of them continue to engage in behaviors that worsen their condition...they make lots of babies, drop out of school, and don't make efforts to succeed. That kind of person is not "less fortunate," they are "sorry." I have immense concern for those who are truly less fortunate...kids, elderly, handicapped, etc., that cannot help themselves. But someone who is sorry, and won't work, and makes a bunch of babies he/she can't feed, and sleeps around, and draws their welfare check, "crazy check," low-birthweight supplemental check, and all the other checks they can get...more handouts will simply exacerbate the problem.

Some liberties have grown, some have diminished. There are tradeoffs.

You hounded me for evidence; it's my turn to ask for it...show me where our liberties are growing. I bet I can show you ten times the places they are shrinking.

So if bio-diesel becomes prevalent and gasoline revenues fall drastically, would you vote to have your highways fall apart from lack of maintenance?

What a silly example. Bio-diesel is not prevalent. We can't prepare for an uncertain event. But the fact remains...taxes don't come off the table. One of our "telecommunications taxes" helped finance the Spanish-American War in 1898! SOURCE

IMHO, If our founding fathers saw how big our government was, and what they ask, they would wonder why they ever revolted...

 

[billwald]

>Banning studded tires would shut us down up here

How did you exist before 1960?

 

[billwald]

Oregon is the Applachia (sp?) of the west coast. Doesn't matter much what they propose.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by billwald:
>Banning studded tires would shut us down up here

How did you exist before 1960?

Even today, many people still use dog sleds, for what it's worth. At least those outside the cities. In 1960, there were even fewer paved roads, and a lot less automobile travel at the time.

Of course, many people simply use chains when the roads become impassable. I drive a school bus, and even with the studs, sometimes chains are still a necessity.

Also, our population was only about 125,000 in 1960. Many of those lived in remote areas without cars. Snowshoes, dog sleds, etc., and little dependence upon chain grocery stores limited the real necessity of automobile traffic. Except for the military, of course.

I also only got indoor plumbing less than three years ago, and I live in a city of 4,000. Many have no dependence upon highway travel, but those who do would do without if studded tires were banned. Even with studded tires and chains, the highways are often shut down due to conditions caused by avalanches, etc. (But, we have no "snow days" for school; volcanoes on the other hand...)