Oregon Considers GPS-based Road Taxes 696
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.
No reason given? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't gasoline taxes do about the same thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Of all these GPS road tax schemes (Score:2, Insightful)
This is Really Dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
Lame idea, but not as bad as it seems... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:No reason given? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus don't forget all the potential for using anti-terror efforts as an excuse for tracking citizens' movements or other bald-faced power grabs.
This is what happens when a bunch of technically- naive (i.e. most) politicians get ahold of a copy of Wired.
Re:Don't gasoline taxes do about the same thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right! Because people who drive heavier vehicles don't cause any more wear to the roads...oh, wait...
Granted, people who drive hybrids or all-electric vehicles (or CNG or propane, for that matter) get a free (or at least discounted) ride with gasoline taxes. I think they deserve it for keeping the state's air cleaner.
If Oregon was really interested in going after the real source of wear and tear on the highways, they'd be taxing the hell out of large trucks--but that wouldn't fly with any number of well-funded lobbyists, so this sort of ridiculous overly complicated scheme comes up instead.
Tantamount to a regressive tax on efficient cars (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cannot be done! (Score:3, Insightful)
But they can -- and probably already do -- require Oregon residents to drive cars registered in Oregon. And they could make the GPS box required to pass inspection, prior to getting registration. This'll only affect Oregonians, unless it works, in which case some blockhead will immediately call for a nationwide system to collect tolls on, say, the Interstates.
Re:Yeah, this'll work (Score:1, Insightful)
All you'd need to do is shield the antenna on the receiver. Your hand over the antenna on a handheld GPS is enough to stop it working for example.
As an Oregonian.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Anything that can be measured will be taxed... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oregon California (Score:1, Insightful)
It's unworkable currently, but a great idea economically when it becomes feasable. Economies run far more efficiently when users of services pay in proportion to that use.
It's an economic no-brainer. And presumably, it would lead to LOWER taxes for people not clogging up the roads and creating air pollution.
There are so many things wrong with this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
To protect drivers’ privacy... (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [cpsr.org]
Re:Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct - that was my point, although perhaps not properly explained. We don't have to drive at all. We have choice in where we live and what kind of car we drive and what kind of job we have. Taxing gasoline or mileage isn't discrimination (in the negative sense of the word) because it's something we can do something about. It would be like taxing cell phone usage. Is it discriminatory against people who use cell phones a lot? Well, yes, but not in a violation-of-rights sort of way.
I'll stop here because I think that we're arguing the same point. Consider this post a further explanation of my previous post.
increase the gas tax instead (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Of all these GPS road tax schemes (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a case of legislators not understanding technology. It amazes me how every time a new technology is invented some legislative body gets wet over how to make money from it. Civilian GPS is *extremely weak* on purpose. It only works if you have a clear *line of sight* to the sky. Which means the GPS antenna would have to be mounted on the roof or the front or back hood of the car to work. How many sports car owners will be willing to screw up their vehicles (vipers, corvettes... etc) and mount this antenna there (not to mention it would look ridiculous)? Then all you would have to do to disable the GPS would be to cover the antenna. The system couldn't report loosing the GPS signal either because you would loose it all the time - in tunnels, in parking structures, in garages, while being towed, under tree cover, during bad weather, etc.
This tax would do create an enforcement nightmare. They would have to create a new department to regulate/distribute/license/collect taxes on the devices, and it would have to be supported by draconian laws and penalties. It would create another measure/counter-measure arms race, and as we've seen in private industry, the enforcer rarely wins.
Lastly, the tax isn't efficient, and this is what scares me the most. Lets say that through mass production, the GPS devices cost 100$ for the consumer, and 50$ to install. Who will have to pay that cost? The taxpayer of course ... now to recover 150$ at the tax rate they mentioned of 1.25 cents/mile you would have to drive about 12,000 miles. Here in California, the normal mileage rate is considered to be 8 - 10k/year. So generously, the first year of taxes are wasted because they could have just collected the 150$ the device cost from you and had the money directly, instead of forcing you to pay for the device, pay for collection and enforcement, and THEN pay a tax.
Re:Don't gasoline taxes do about the same thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
If Oregon was really interested in going after the real source of wear and tear on the highways, they'd be taxing the hell out of large trucks
They do tax the hell out of large trucks. Every state does. In California, anything bigger than a 3/4-ton pickup truck has to pay special fee's based on GVWR every year, and they can go into the $1000's for even small "large trucks" like an F-450. But they're taxing the crap out of you too, you just don't notice it as much because it's folded into the price of gas. As cars get more effecient, they won't generate as much revenue.
Seems to me people need to stop flailing around for ways to generate revenue from "anyone but me" and get used to the idea that they have to pay for govenment services. This is what has so many state's budgets underwater these days. Everyone said "tax the rich, they can afford it" and last year "the rich" didn't do so well. "Doh! Now what do we do?" It's all too easy to label and villify a group, and use it as an excuse to single them out for special treatment while smugly excluding yourself.
Using GPS is a dumb idea.
Temkin
Evil 20mpg diesel Excursion owner...
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The affluent SUV drivers pay alot of money with taxes anyway since their vehicles are gas guzzlers. With the population growing in Oregon and the new statistics showing more then half of the new cars being sold are SUV's and trucks there is no need for a tax increase. Money is pouring in. The problem I see is poor money management. Should the gasoline tax be used for the state and federal department of transporation or to the military for a cold war that no longer exists?
The answer to this is the second option. The government should not pay a fuel tax for other programs and then figure out how to tax drivers yet again to pay for the roads. The department of transporation should recieve most of the gasoline tax but they aren't and believe me the tax is bringing in lots of money thanks to gas guzzlers. IF they did this then they would no longer need to keep track of our driven habits to support more government spending.
Re:No reason given? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether it is disadvantage depends on where you are looking from. Increase in state control over individuals is an advantage for the state (recall the Poindexter's "scientia est potentia"). This is probably why it is being pushed by the bureaucrats.
The same way the internet filters in libraries got rammed through dressed up in 'protecting the children' rationale. Or the never ending 'war on drugs' which has done more damage to privacy and freedom than any other single 'noble cause' (to say nothing of damage to the pocketbooks of public which finances both sides in the war, as victims of increased taxes and other property crimes).
To all the people ragging on Oregon (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cannot be done! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not necessarily true. California started requiring additional pollution control equipment on all cars sold in the state some time in the mid-sixties, I believe. It wasn't until 15-20 years later that you no longer saw cars that fell under the categories of "California model" and "49-state model". I'm not saying that it'd take that long with GPS trackers, but if it took 20 years to homogenize smog equipment on all cars when California required it, how long will such a thing take when a smaller state like Oregon does?
Can't any /. readers THINK logically? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Re:No reason given? (Score:3, Insightful)
This proposal is incredibly counterproductive. I think the gas tax should be raised, regularly (e.g., 5c/year), to discourage heavy consumption. And btw lightweight fuel-efficient vehicles wear out roads less than huge testosterone trucks.
There's a cure for that. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Would you quit blaming California? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oregon California (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why? Here's WHY! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oregon California (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why NJ Doesn't Allow Self-Serve Gas (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the real problem is government attempting to right some imbalance by passing a law and then passing another law to adjust for the new problems created and then passing yet another law when that doesn't quite work... that's why the government is constantly screwing the consumer in areas like cable and satellite TV. They are trying to level the playing field by badaging the symptoms rather than curing the causes and are causing more problems then they solve.
It's also how our Federal tax code got to its ludicrous, elephantine state. Just like in programming, sometimes you have to throw the whole thing out and start over. It will be much less work in the long run.
A flat tax or something equivalent wouldn't be a panacea, but it would sure be a better starting place for adjustments than the status quo. Also, not leading people around by the nose through the tax code (incentives, disincentive and other nonsense, social engineering through draconian bureaucracy...) would be a good idea.