Oregon testing new GPS-based road tax system
The
Beaver State is investigating a new method of assessing taxes used to bankroll state highways. Instead of collecting
money via gasoline taxes, Oregon is testing a GPS-based system which levels taxes based upon miles driven. By switching
to such a system, the state would not lose revenue with every resident that purchases a more fuel efficient vehicle.
The 'black box' system keeps tabs on how many miles are racked up both in and out of Oregon's borders, as well as during rush hour, and levies taxes on the totals accrued. Predictably, the creation of a database that monitors the travel patterns of drivers raises some troubling privacy concerns, even for those who don't regularly harbor 'Big Brother' conspiracy theories.
As things stand, Oregon derives some 80-percent of its highway funding from its 24-cent-per-gallon tax, thus the move towards more fuel-efficient vehicles stands to negatively impact the state's coffers by millions of dollars.
What do you think, is this a viable alternative to standard gas-based taxation, or are the potential privacy issues too great to overlook?
[Source: UPI]
(Top tip, Chicken!)
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Craig 8:22PM (3/27/2006)
I would like to use stronger language, but for the kiddies reading my post, that's MESSED up!!!
I for one will give 50 dollars to the first kid who slashdots a method for hacking the black boxes.
Reply
LifeTrek 8:31PM (3/27/2006)
Okay, I am one of those who don't usually fear "big Brother" but this really bothers me. Do an annual odometer reading (yea, I know miles outside the state and all) or something, but don't track my every movement with a GPS system - that is scary!
DKK
Reply
Chicken 8:35PM (3/27/2006)
Anytime, Chicken.
Reply
Carlos 8:50PM (3/27/2006)
I think the submitter knows our answer to that last question, no matter what our political persuasions. I too want to use strong language there.
It's also "concerning" that we're getting mixed messages from the government. On one hand, we're pushing (and being pushed) to more fuel-efficient vehicles. On the other, we're moving away from fuel-based taxes.
I'm also going to bite my tongue on debts and deficits, and the similarities to medieval taxes on everything imaginable that led to childrens' stories in which the government was the evildoer...
Reply
Paul 8:51PM (3/27/2006)
Here's a better article on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/national/25gas.html
What a joke: "Mr. Whitty said he had heard of some drivers of fuel-efficient vehicles being upset. Others, though, were feeling guilt about having paid fewer taxes than most drivers, he said."
Reply
Spineless 8:52PM (3/27/2006)
This type of tax collection system is so dumb. The gas tax is so much more effective and here is why...
1. It encourages people to purchase cars that are more fuel efficient. People who make this choice should not be punished.
2. Heavier cars, such as large SUV's cause more road wear and generally use more gas proportionate to their increased weight, thereby effectively paying their part to offset the additional road wear.
3. The gas tax is already an effective usage based tax.
Besides, there are numerous privacy issues regarding a GPS tracking system. If it was up to me, I would just rip the thing out and install it back in the car before I have to get the car inspected again.
The motivation behind implementing the GPS system is greed and short-sightedness. Lighter, more fuel efficient cars cause less road wear, which requires less maintenance and saves money. But besides saving money though less road wear, more efficient cars will also damage the environment less. Very few people factor in the future savings of ecological clean ups relating to cars.
Reply
James Fabin 8:58PM (3/27/2006)
I personally disagree with this GPS reporting/billing method. I have no problem paying the additional taxes at the pump, and if a person doesn't want to pay they can just simply carpool/bike/public transport around. I haven't looked into this, but are we sure this isn't some type of early April fools joke? I'm thinking the cost of these black-boxes with GPS and their installation would take a long time to recover the cost of - and it would take a long time to roll those out to all the cars in the state.
If this topic is serious, I would believe it would be a faster ROI to just increase the gas tax in the state. That's my 1 cent (it was 2 cents, but I thought I'd help Oregon out with the other cent). :-)
Reply
Andrew 9:05PM (3/27/2006)
Huh? Many proposals have good and bad points, but this is just plain dumb in too many ways to mention.
As mentioned above, this destroys incentive for conservation. If same collection is to be maintained, then SUV drivers get a break, subcompact drivers pay more. How eff-ed up is that?!
Also it will be costly to administer and enforce. You have to hire buncha new state workers, buy millions of gps boxes, then use overstretched police and taxpayer resources to enforce. There are many ways of cheating 1. leave the box at home 2. disable box 3. use out of state car.
And what about out-of-state travelers? They would get a free ride or have to install a box upon entering the state. ?!!
I question the whole reason for going to such a tax. First, average car MPG is not moving up significantly. Secondly, why not raise the tax per gallon to compensate?
Stupid.
Reply
charlie 9:37PM (3/27/2006)
Gross. This system doesn't even make sense. It seems like it would be much cheaper to just use the RFID tolling systems that states are already using. I definately support higher tolls with the goal of transfering the cost of using roads onto those who use them, and by transitive discouraging the use of roads (unless its necessary).
I live in illinois, and getting on a toll road costs $.50 any time of the day, with no variation in charges for how long you stay on the road. We finally have the infrastructure for some change- a lot of RFID tolling technology, including new "open road tolling" systems that allow you to maintain highway speeds while getting tolled.
Why would a state go with GPS over this type of tolling system? Because its easier to record mileage on less busy roads? But theres not a good reason to record mileage on less busy roads, because you don't have the need to discourage traffic.
Reply
apollo322 9:42PM (3/27/2006)
". It encourages people to purchase cars that are more fuel efficient. People who make this choice should not be punished.
2. Heavier cars, such as large SUV's cause more road wear and generally use more gas proportionate to their increased weight, thereby effectively paying their part to offset the additional road wear."
I could not sum it up any better than those two points. The gas tax works in pushing people to more efficient cars and you come up with this intrusive device to override that? Whoever proposed this dumb idea should be voted out of office immediately.
Reply
Gunnar Heinrich 9:55PM (3/27/2006)
This is bad news bears. They are pulling something similarly Orwellian in the UK.
http://www.automobilesdeluxe.blogspot.com
Reply
pauln 9:59PM (3/27/2006)
I'm from Oregon, and have been reading about this for quite a while. Apart from the paranioa/privacy issues about the GPS, here is the basic rationale: Oregon's Dept. of Transportation's job is to maintain the roads, not provide social engineering/incentives for fuel consumption efficiencies. Oregon already taxes truckers by the weight-mile, and not through taxes on diesel fuel (seperate pumps). Heavier trucks cause more wear. ODOT is concerned about the intrinsic disparity about what people pay as a tax for using the roads; why should a Hummer pay 5 times per mile than a Prius? (by the way, at the relative low weights of these vehicles compared to semis, there is no measurable/predictable difference in road wear). ODOT thinks the fair thing is for passenger vehicles to pay essentially a flat tax for road usage. They see a future with electrics, fuel cells, etc, and no good way to tax them. By the way, in Europe (Germany), freeway tolls using transponders are now common for trucks, and is considered inevitable for cars soon. Pay for the privelage of using the freeway, cause they're getting more and more expensive to build and maintain.
Hope this helps. I don't necessarily like it, but..
Reply
charlie 10:26PM (3/27/2006)
"10. ". It encourages people to purchase cars that are more fuel efficient. People who make this choice should not be punished.
2. Heavier cars, such as large SUV's cause more road wear and generally use more gas proportionate to their increased weight, thereby effectively paying their part to offset the additional road wear."
I could not sum it up any better than those two points. The gas tax works in pushing people to more efficient cars and you come up with this intrusive device to override that? Whoever proposed this dumb idea should be voted out of office immediately."
But firstly, a per-mile charge doesn't punish people with more fuel efficient cars, it just doesn't advantage them. Secondly, its not only heavier cars that use more gas. Its older cars that less wealthy people might own, or sports cars that might actually be significantly lighter than a Prius. I know sports cars are an easy target because their owners are typically going to be wealthier and who doesnt like to steal from the rich, but if your goal is to tax based on road wear, its not like a per-gallon tax makes sense.
Reply
Paul 10:48PM (3/27/2006)
Yea, I think I would make friends with someone who lives on the Washington border and "arrange" for them to title my car once a year, lol
Gook luck to those who live in Oregon if this passes.
Reply
Corey 11:14PM (3/27/2006)
Can't you all see that the government's helping us? They're laying out the infrastructure for efficient billing.
"Dear Registered Owner,
Attached is your itemized bill for January.
Road tax: $134.52
Speeding Infraction: $250.00
Parking Infraction: $35.00
Please remit in 21 days. Thank you."
Reply
Steve 11:32PM (3/27/2006)
Bad idea from any perspective. As mentioned before why not just raise the fuel tax? We're already programmed to pay it, and it's almost invisible. Another suggestion might be to tax a vehicle yearly on engine displacement. This is a common European tax, and is one of the reasons why so many small displacement engines are popular.
Reply
Micah 11:36PM (3/27/2006)
I agree with Corey. And who is to say that they won't start enforcing speed limits with auto-tickets?
Reply
Micah 11:45PM (3/27/2006)
I wouldn't mind a system like this if the money I paid was directed towards the ROADS I DRIVE ON. Too much money is currently being diverted to the other side of my state; making a lot of people angry. My roads are horrible, but I can't foresee any type of localization for road-use taxes.
Reply
Dick Gilkison 12:06AM (3/28/2006)
our bone headed lustrus guvnur came up with this idea to offset the cars that use less gas and paying less gas tax. Dick
Reply
JIm 12:26AM (3/28/2006)
Look at you... Read your posts... Are you all nuts!!! What a bunch of wimps.
Almost everyone of you say, "I'd rather pay at the pump," or otherwise said, "Yeah, go ahead and tax me more."
If ever there is a time in our history we need to get our elected officials under control it is now. Remember...they work for us, we don't work for them. It's our money, not theirs. Good grief, you don't think the tax we now pay at the pump (or otherwise) is enough.
Oh, but it's about taxes, not keeping track of us. BS. Do you think for one minute that at some point in the future we won't hear, "I'm sorry you were noted by our traffic control driving center in the ___ (insert location here)___ area and that location is off limits for your vehicle. We're impounding your vehicle." It will all be done under some guise; safety, road usage, or whatever. Our ability to move around in our country unimpeded is, for the first time in our history being challenged. It's a right I personnally will not give up without a fight.
Reply