-
INSIDE OREGON NEWS
- Browse by day:
-
Browse by week:
- NEWSLETTER
- Get Breaking News delivered to your inbox:
- OREGONIAN GALLERIES
Foggy Morning in Portland
Uploaded by
-
SE Portland Flooding
Uploaded by
The Oregonian
- OREGONIAN VIDEOS
-
News VideosEconomy-housing
Portland-area band to march in Obama inauguration
- NORTHWEST HEADLINES
-
Headlines delivered to your PC or PDA as soon as they're updated.
- PRINT EDITION
-
The Oregonian
-
The Hillsboro Argus
Oregon envisions gas tax based on miles, not gallons
by Edward Walsh, The Oregonian
Wednesday January 14, 2009, 8:29 PM
Click to enlargeIn Washington, D.C., the incoming Obama administration and Congress are pushing automakers to improve fuel efficiency and build cars that run on some fuel other than gasoline.
All of this would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, but it also would reduce Oregon's revenue from the gas tax, the main source of money to maintain and improve the Oregon highway system.
As a result, the Oregon Department of Transportation is in the early stages of an experiment to meet the expected decline in gas tax revenue by developing a transportation tax system that is based not on gallons purchased at the pump but on miles traveled within the state.
It's called a "vehicle mileage tax," and it's raising concerns over privacy and practicality.
Kulongoski's proposed 2009-11 budget includes $10 million to continue the experiment, which most recently involved a pilot project in Portland using 285 vehicles and two service stations that were equipped with technology that calculates the mileage fee.
"This is not something the governor expects to be in place next year or even in five years," said Anna Richter-Taylor, Kulongoski's spokeswoman. "It's probably eight to 10 years away. But gas tax revenues are not sustainable so he wants to be sure that when we do face that cliff, we don't fall off."
The Oregon Constitution mandates that gas tax revenues can only be spent to maintain and improve the state highway system. They account for about 60 percent of ODOT's highway budget. That budget is getting squeezed from two directions, said James Whitty, manager of the agency's Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding.
One is inflation, driven by the rising cost of building materials and labor, which has been running at about 5 percent a year. The other is a decline in revenues due to improved fuel efficiency that costs the highway budget one-half of 1 percent in each of the past two years, Whitty said.
The Legislature saw this coming. In 2001, lawmakers created a task force to study alternatives to the gas tax.
The result is the proposal that uses Global Positioning System equipment to track miles traveled within Oregon. Whitty said the technology exists but needs to be perfected before a mileage-based tax system could be developed statewide.
How it would work
ODOT conducted the pilot project with help from engineers from Oregon State University. The system requires vehicles to be equipped with GPS devices and for service station pumps to have electronic reading devices to collect mileage data from the vehicles.
The pump reading devices first determine electronically whether a vehicle is equipped to pay a mileage-based fee. If not, the normal gas tax is applied to the transaction. For vehicles with a GPS device, a mileage fee would be added to the cost, and the gas tax would be deducted.
ODOT has concluded that it would be too difficult and expensive to retrofit existing vehicles to pay a mileage-based fee, so the new system would apply only to new vehicles with the necessary GPS devices. Whitty said that means it would take 20 years or more to phase in a new system completely.
Before that process even begins, there are dozens of issues to be resolved.
Zoned fees
The Legislature would have to set the mileage fee and decide whether additional fees should apply for miles traveled in designated zones -- for example, Interstate 5 in Portland during rush hour. A mileage-based tax system would make such "congestion pricing" feasible.
Whitty said the biggest single concern is privacy and public suspicion that a GPS-based system could be used to track motorists. He said the devices used in the pilot project did not send out an identifying signal and did not store any data for later retrieval.
"The device could locate itself but nobody else could track it," he said.
Others have complained that a mileage-based tax would be unfair because gas guzzlers would be charged the same fee as fuel-efficient vehicles driven the same distance. Whitty said depending on what policy makers decide, a fee system could be devised that would reward fuel-efficient vehicles.
There are many other hurdles to clear before Oregon gets close to replacing the gas tax, including the willingness of manufacturers to make the GPS devices standard equipment in new vehicles. But Whitty said the need to do that will become increasingly clear.
"Vehicles are coming that get upwards of 100 miles per gallon and electric vehicles are coming," he said. "They're not too far away, and they won't pay any gas tax. We need a road revenue system that can sustain itself."
Senate Business and Transportation Committee Chairman Rick Metsger, D-Welches, said he is not ready to commit to the $10 million that Kulongoski seeks in his budget, but he supports continued experiments into alternatives to the traditional gas tax. He said the solution will probably have to come from the federal government, but only after states such as Oregon lead the way with such experiments.
"As we look into the future, we have to come up with a way to pay for transportation without assuming the amount of gasoline you buy is the basis for it," Metsger said.
--Edward Walsh; edwardwalsh@news.oregonian.com
If you allow the state to track your movements, don't be surprised if they use the information for other purposes.
"Whitty said the biggest single concern is privacy and public suspicion that a GPS-based system could be used to track motorists. He said the devices used in the pilot project did not send out an identifying signal and did not store any data for later retrieval."
Yeah. Sure buddy!
Be a man, Kulongoski! If you want to try and raise my taxes, try it! Any stupid gooberment politician that tries that during a bad economy is sure to cut his/her throat as well as their party on the next ballot.
Slap Happy Teddy should also know that it will be fought out in the courts, and he and his cronies will lose.
In addition to the privacy issues, any time we let the kind folks in Salem set the rates expect they wil be back for more and back for more and back for more and...........!
I see that the Organ of the Protelariat has decided to write yet another story on this. How many does this make since Christmas, five?
This plan has so many problems aside from the obvious it is ridiculous:
1. How are you gong to do "congestion pricing" for those vehicles who are not on the GPS system? You know, vehicles like mine, which will never be on the system? So, one group of people has to pay the added fee while the other doesn't? Yeah, that's gonna fly.
2. Increased costs of inflation and declining revenues. Newsflash: inflation has been a constant factor. That's nothing new, so you can't claim it as a problem. And raw material prices are declining substantially with the drop in oil prices. Remember that oil prices rose largely due to speculators, not because we were running out of supply or because of the Chinese and Indians. As for fuel efficiency, that has easily been equaled or exceeded by growth in this state over the years. You people always talk about Portland and Oregon growing. Your revenues have been up until gas hit $4 a gallon and the economy crashed. I call BS on this "reason" necessitating such an Orwellian project.
3. There is no way car-makers will put these devices in cars for a puny state like Oregon. And no other state is nearly as serious about a project like this as Oregon (which just goes to show you, once again, how luny Oregon is). As a consequence, this project could never get off the ground unless the feds mandated it nationwide. Good luck with that as many states would never want this kind of a system in place as their residents won't support it. This is just another case of Oregon trying to dictate to the rest of the country what it should do (like the pseudoephedrine situation). Too bad the rest of the country doesn't give the first damn about Oregon and will not allow a bunch of tree-hugging socialists to dictate local policy in the respective states.
4. A system designed to reward fuel-efficient cars? Oh yeah, need to get the buy-in of other Oregon socialists as they are balking as well. This is a new wrinkle. So here's the big question. If fuel-efficient vehicles are already being rewarded under the current taxation system, why create a brand new, intrusive and invasive system just to give those same people a reward for fuel efficiency? Previously the state argued that one reason they needed to move to this plan was because cars were more fuel-efficient. They have apparently abandoned this argument for political reasons, no surprise, to keep the project alive and get buy-in from the Prius crowd.
5. Electric only cars are more than just 5 years away and the state knows it. As the economy languishes in recession and gas prices are way down from their high of just 6 months ago, there is no way the "green" industry will be profitable or even move forward in any serious way. The State should know this and "diversify" the economy. But apparently, Oregon's political leaders aren't bright enough to see that. (Actually, I think they are, but they simply don't care as they will say and do anything to get elected, which is a direct reflection of the stupidity and idiocy of the Oregon electorate, primarily in the Willamette Valley - congrats).
6. So the state wants to raise taxes $2 billion and throw $10 million dollars away in this cycle on this "experiment"? I guess the State has never thought to "delay" the experiment 2 years, at least, until the economy recovers. Apparently, everyone is in a recession except for state government.
All this said, I will NEVER have a GPS in my car that is working for the state in terms of tracking my vehicle. I'll be relegated to Cuban commie-oppressed status and keep my cars running until I am out of this crappy state with their stupid rules. I ain't playing along, and I know I won't be the only one. Another economy killer as substantially less people will buy cars, or will buy the cars out of state just to avoid the stupid GPS thing. But like I said, the cars won't have the GPS thing if other states and the fed doesn't go along with this. I have heard the state talking about requiring dealers to install these things. = Economy killer, not that Oregon gives the first crap about any of that. Embarassing.
So all of the burden goes on the Oregon taxpayer and not out-of-state drivers who CURRENTLY pay a gas tax?
Not to mention the added cost to gas station owners being forced to replace pumps with this silly meter on them. What happens if we drive during a power outage, put gas in from a gas can, drive during rush hour in John Day? all this will do in teach people to drive less, that means less money for tourism, less camping, more internet shopping, more house bound, more small business out of business. How about people visiting from other states? How about big rigs? Why not do away with studded tires?? I see people drive with those things on from november till the take off day, snow or not. need money for road projects? how about tolls? tolls to use bridges and major highways? If I could be sure that tax dollars were going towards smart decisions instead of like you read in the paper where the company ripped off the state for projects, I would not mind higher taxes. right now, higher tag fees, ouch we have 5 vehicles a boat and a travel trailer. I am not going to pay hundreds of dollars to register a trailer that we seldom take out of the driveway. we will risk the ticket for out of date tags.
I whole heartedly agree with all comments posted so far!!!!I cant imagine anyone that values privacy and tired of big brother watching from every street corner that would be in favor of this grossly negligent idea!, not to mention footing the bill for all of our out of town guests. What a ludicris crock...insulting!
The idea for out-of-staters is two-fold if you read the ODOT website:
1. They would pay the existing gas tax per gallon of gas.
2. The goal is that all 3 west coast states would have the same system and that the mileage fees would be divied up among the three (or all 50 if Oregon has it's way) based on where residents of the states drove for that period. A very convuluted system.
I've been tracking this for awhile, and this one issue is emblematic for me in terms of my disdain for this state. I see this as a straw-that-breaks-the-camel's-back sort of thing.
LOL! Kulongoski reminds me more and more of a second rate Stalin! He wants to take more and more money from Oregonians, making us more and more dependent on The State, while also wanting to tell us how to live and watch our every move!
Our state government has gone from ridiculous and wasteful to frightening!
No wonder we have exodus of businesses out of Oregon. Freightliner to start and many to follow.
May be we all can get a jobs installing GPS's for each other!
frankfrank1, I'm going to just give in and try to get a job as a neighborhood snitch for the State. I'll turn in any neighbors that are polluting too much, not carpooling, leaving a light on in an empty room, using to much water on their lawn, not starting each morning walking out of their home to bow toward Salem, etc.
I figure I'll hate myself, but hey, at least I'll be one of the few to be allowed to keep some of my own money!
How about a headline tommorow---
100% OF ALL COMMENTS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE MILAGE TAX!
Right on PeterAsher, only problem is this idiot Gov. Ted, and the band of non caring legislators, dont give a damn what we think. they are bought and paid for by the OPEU and Teachers Unions and must pay them back. They have done all they can to drive business and autos out of Oregon and are still working at it. Start with gps on bikes, that pay nothing to road taxes but, do use up alot of road money for bike pathes.
Most of us in the State obviously realize that something has to change to protect the revenue base for maintaining our roads. A GPS tracking is certainly a possibility even if it is derided at this point. A better idea would be to simply put in place another tax to pick up the needed revenue. We have talked for years about fixing our unstable tax structure in Oregon. Now with a strong progressive group of legislators in Salem, it's probably a good time to look at a Sales Tax. It doesn't need to be referred to the voters any longer. We can simply vote a sales tax or any other tax in place now that the voters have put an overwhelming number of our progressive friends in office.
hbkcdd, you are kidding right? progressive is not a sales tax or the libs in Salem, Taxing more and more of actual workers within the state is a negative thing not a progressive one. It is people with you lack of reason that has gotten us into this mess and you want to tax us more. Again lay off government workers, administrators in education. Cut spending not increase taxes and fees like this idiot Ted wants. He has a legacy already being stupid.
"and electric vehicles are coming," he said. "They're not too far away, and they won't pay any gas tax."
This is the second to last paragraph.
As far as I see it, they still won't with this system.
I think these guys have something up their sleeve.
Why can't we do a recall ??? If our governors are not doing the job they were hired for (do what the majority say) then fire them. Across the river here, our governor is trying to slash the budget to the tune of $6 billion. By raising some service fees and taxes. She too is looking at this system to help fund our roads. Stop and think about this system. Who pays to put it older cars?? We do. Who pays to put it the gas stations ?? WE DO !!! We don't have the money !!! They don't seem to get that.
To John1945 and others- remember, we in this State and across the country voted for progressive candidates to bolster government at all levels. We understand it's going to take a greater sacrifice by all, especially those who have benefited the most, if we are going to come out of this economic downturn. That's why we voted as we did. Government needs additional investments to move forward.
There will be no retrofitting of devices to existing vehicles; those without devices, including out-of-staters, will continue to pay gas tax.
This is not imminent: Oregon had been working on this for a decade; there is much to be worked out yet. The fleet will change to non-gas vehicles over decades.
The legislative committee examined 28 different options and landed on this one 7 years ago.
I haven't seen a suggestion for a better system of funding highways when nobody buys gas in the future, mostly name calling.
I am with ODOT. Check out our website for the facts of this study.
I understand and appreciate the concerns expressed in this article and in some of the comments. If you speak to economists, however, you will hear two things. First, the current gas tax is not sustainable. Either it will have to be raised by an enormous amount or there needs to be a new source of revenue to pay for our roads. Second, if you are truly serious about relieving congestion, the best model for achieving this involves congestion pricing. We can encourage people to telecommute, ride buses, etc, but none of those things combined will have the impact of congestion pricing.
Obviously there are hurdles and concerns that need to be addressed before this takes place, but I am certain it will in my lifetime. In fact, the entire country of Holland will have a congestion pricing system in place in the next 5-10 years. If you are really interested in this topic, I suggest checking out what they are doing.
All of you tax dodgers out there who are screaming about the idea of looking at alternative revenue streams to replace diminishing gas tax revenues as a source to fund our transportation systems are the same bird brains who are going to scream even more loudly "WHY DID THEY NOT SEE THIS COMING?!!" when the inevitable rapid depletion of gas tax revenue turns a medium-term problem into a crisis in ten to fifteen years.
It would be incredibly irresponsible for state government to NOT be looking at an alternative funding scheme to head this off. Truckers have paid a "weight-miles" fee for years. The rest of us will either join them or begin paying property taxes on vehicles (which used to be the case) or a sales tax. Personally, I think it is much fairer to develop a "pay to play" tax to pay for roads - which until recently the gas tax was a reasonable facsimile for. Oh, and it is not going to be just Oregon that instills this system – our neighbors are not immune to the problem and are watching Oregon’s experiment very closely.
This whole concept is just wrong.
First of all, Stalin and Hitler could only dream of a system like this. If you are doing something - anything - that doesn’t pass this test, you are given a clear message that just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good idea to do it. That this is even still being discussed as a feasible option is in itself insane. History is littered with the wreckage of “it won’t turn out that way this time”
On the next level, what possible sane explanation can there be for creating more stuff that will eventually end up in a landfill - oops I forgot, if you just mention that it will be recycled, that makes it OK - never mind that it may or may not ever be actually recycled. Remember the first step in the concept is: REDUCE, reuse, recycle.
Since the political power is concentrated in the Metro area, you know already what is going to happen to the driver in John Day or Joseph; we all know about the horrific commute time traffic jams that last for hours in those areas. Instead of putting the burden on those that use the most congested roads at the worst times, the guy who has a better chance of hitting a deer than a traffic jam will end up paying a disproportionate penalty.
The only rational way to "reward fuel-efficient vehicles" is to base their taxes on - wait for it - how much gas they actually use - a gas tax.
If more revenue is needed to maintain the roads, raise the gas tax, idiot!
This distance-traveled tax is the single stupidest idea I have ever heard from government. It would cost a fortune, and it;'s only benefit is that the government could force it's idea of proper bahavior on the citizens.
Welcome to our Brave New World!
Smart taxation distributes the costs of congestion, pollution and capital projects to those who most drive the cost.
I 5 commuter traffic, during business commuter hours drives the most cost additions, policing and should bear the most burden. We can charge a toll to I 5 commuters during morning and evening rush traffic.
It is very inexpensive and administratively simple to enforce a "ticket-toll" system with photo spot checks at I 5 ON/ OFF ramps. The photo "evidence" may be compared to keyed license numbers in a PC data base from vendor, online, and employer toll purchases. Very simple. Citation may be by mail, and also catch Washington and California licensed commuters.
This requires no expensive toll booths, no 24-7 toll takers, no $ million vendor contracts and involves no compromise of personal and private information.
So far there is NO SUGGESTION the can raise as much money as simply and for as little administrative overhead.
Some of the proceed might be applied to funding more mass transit, that will certainly be needed.
It would be a great challege to imagine a revenue system that operates as simply with such low administrative burden.
...just tax gas like crazy to make up the difference. Much simpler and a better strategy.
Many commentators here seem to be against thing, but only a few for the correct reason.
This system is a "free ride" (or at least, a very inexpensive one) for those who own inefficient vehicles. It is an additional, unwarranted imposition on those who go out of their way and considerable expense to own an efficient vehicle.
Personally, I think those who invest in electric vehicles or vegetable oil conversions deserve the free ride, not those who own Hummers!
Under the proposed system, a Hummer owner (14 mpg) would pay the same tax as a Prius owner (56 mpg), while using four times as much non-renewable fossil fuel. Does this really sound like the direction we should be going?
Back to the "road maintenance" issue, the road tax advocates claim that efficient car owners aren't paying their share. And yet, road damage is proportional to weight -- that's why the trucking industry pays a "weight-mile" tax. So again, the Hummer owner, at four times the weight of the Prius, doing four times the road damage, gets a subsidy.
As a few have noted here, raise the gas tax if you aren't getting enough road maintenance revenue. Don't discourage people from saving gas by making each mile the same!
Where's the liberal ACLU on this one?? Shouldn't they be screaming from the mountain-tops about privacy violations??
Guess it's all good if THEY come up with the idea.
ODOTCOM - "The fleet will change to non-gas vehicles over decades" - Those non-gas vehicles will not run on air if you studied any kind of physics (unless you graduated from Tigard High school's CPM math). They will still need some kind of energy to be propelled - if it is electric vehicle - you only will get so much energy back as much you put in there (charge -less inefficiency losses) so you will still put on taxes on the charging stations, if that’s the hydrogen - you can not just add water and go - you will still need electricity to convert into hydrogen. No matter what the technology, you will need some kind of source of taxable fuel that will be always taxable so don't give us excuse of using GPS. This was put in place by the owners of "gas hogs" owners to give them self break and pass the taxes instead to those with efficient cars. Secondly – you should rethink requiring chains and tearing up the roads – Washington with more snow did not have the pothole problem as we did here in Portland. It appears that the chain up requirement instead of plowing and using salt was to create job security for ODOT’s road repair crew.
They don't need to track movements to implement a mileage tax. They can do it with an odometer that doesn't tell where you've been. Remember if there's a log of everywhere you've driven maintained in your car's gps it can be subpoenaed. I know some ignorant folks are going to ask "If you're not breaking the law what do you have to worry about?" Nothing, at the moment. Just wait until these good green-loving folks tell us we can only drive 50 miles per day or we'll pay a $100 environmental tax. There are many other ways this could be abused. I can't think of a single thing incuding terrorism that I fear more than a goverment that wants to track my every movement.
I can also think of less invasive ways to implement a congestion tax. Put an electronic meter at the beginning of congested corridors that can read a license plate.
I have to believe there are ulterior motives behind this. Even if there aren't, do you really trust the government with this? At least the Patriot act was only used for suspected terrorists. This will be used on everyone.
They don't need to track movements to implement a mileage tax. They can do it with an odometer that doesn't tell where you've been. Remember if there's a log of everywhere you've driven maintained in your car's gps it can be subpoenaed. I know some ignorant folks are going to ask "If you're not breaking the law what do you have to worry about?" Nothing, at the moment. Just wait until these good green-loving folks tell us we can only drive 50 miles per day or we'll pay a $100 environmental tax. There are many other ways this could be abused. I can't think of a single thing incuding terrorism that I fear more than a goverment that wants to track my every movement.
I can also think of less invasive ways to implement a congestion tax. Put an electronic meter at the beginning of congested corridors that can read a license plate.
I have to believe there are ulterior motives behind this. Even if there aren't, do you really trust the government with this? At least the Patriot act was only used for suspected terrorists. This will be used on everyone.
ronport01 - you forgot to mention that they won't need a radar detector to check your speed - they will just check the gps tracking for the speed you have traveled and just mail you the speeding tickets, illegal turns, failing to stop at the stop signs etc as the new gps maps have most of those futures built in already in them
While we talk about the pros and cons of any method to invade our privacy to collect more money for the miles we drive and support road repair, why aren't we getting behind the idea of establishing some sort of excise or sales tax to take care of the shortfall? We all know our tax system is unstable. You can't expect Government to exist with only an income and property tax, do you? That's why our Governor Kulongoski has made it clear he is anxious to get this State moving again with new revenue sources to plug the holes of where additional resources are needed, like our roads. A majority of voters in this State recognize this as well. That is why we voted this past Fall for more progressives in the Legislature to help our Governor get things accomplished. No longer do we have to send tax measures to the voters for approval. We have the numbers in the Legislature to get the job done in a timely manner.
All of you have my apology for having voted for Kulongoski. I was wrong. Saxton may not have been much better, but if I knew then what I know now, he would have had my vote.
So has anyone heard the explanation or argument against having the tax per mile charged when a person renews their registration? (odometer check)
The logistics of a GPS based system with hundreds of thousands of transmitter units = lots of $$$. At what point do those costs get offset and the maintenance fund actually receive additional funding?
I say hike up the gas tax. Yes, it will cost more to own a gas guzzler, but it will bring our economy more in line with the true costs of these vehicles (depletion of non-renewable sources; GHG; and generally endangering everyone else who does not drive a mini-tank).
Another $10 million wasted on those two idiots down at Oregon State.
Hopefully, the legislature will realize this is a fools errand.
frank1 - Jeez good point about the speeding tickets - they would just come in the mail - scary.
ronport1 - here's one arg against the odometer idea: In my car it's as simple as unplugging the connector to the speed sensor and no more miles go on the car (I know this because I just had to replace it)
I for one am appalled that anyone would EVEN PROPOSE an idea as stupid as this.
Ted should be embarrassed.
More wasted spending from uncle Ted. Shcocker not a word from the ACLU. If W proposed this all hell would be breaking loose.
Uncle Ted is a jerk. Just to spite this moron, when the gas prices continue to fall to about 1 dollar a gallon, I will buy a 1966 Lincoln Continental, FULLY LOADED, and he will never be able to track me on GPS. Someone ought to give this idiot a copy of 1984 to read.
Ok, so what about the rural folks?
There is no public transportation system as an alternative. When more metro areas turn to public transport does this mean I will be "punished" for travel and making my home in the rural portion of the state?
What about the rancher or farmer that mostly uses his vehicle on his own property? Do they pay for miles driven there as well? If so, how is that fair? What about the logger that drives mostly on forest service roads? Will all of that mileage be counted too?
So where is the incentive to buy, if you can afford it, a high mileage vehicle equipped with the new mileage tracking device in all of this?
All electric.....great for metro areas but plug-ins are far and few between in rural eastern Oregon and most will not at this point make it from point to point without a recharge in rural areas.
The high mileage rigs that I have seen to date are very "light weight" in order to gain more mileage and simply will not last on the rural gravel byways, let alone do the heavy work that is required of most vehicles in rural areas. There will have to be major advances in technology before those vehicles will be practical in rural areas such as mine.
There really needs to be a lot more thought injected into this process before we have more of the states "unintended consequences".
So hbkcdd:
You said "That is why we voted this past Fall for more progressives in the Legislature to help our Governor get things accomplished. No longer do we have to send tax measures to the voters for approval. We have the numbers in the Legislature to get the job done in a timely manner."
So, you figure that you can just jamb this down our throat and we better just deal with it?
No excise taxes or sales taxes. In a stumbling economy, it hits the folks who can least afford it the hardest.
If it is your contention that we will "just have to deal with it - you better get ready for a revolution.
The state, just like the rest of us will have to live within its means. That means, cut out the pork, and start eating hamburger. This after the gooberment just gave themselves a hefty pay raise?
This stupid idea is just another rip off. I refuse to pay more taxes. When will we here this??? What was the tax rate before the revolutionary war??? Why can't the state just cut out the fat?? How about the state vehicles use the Gps thing first, allowing the public to view the use of the vehicles??? We need new roads, and bridges. How about just tolls?? All the bridges in Portland, major freeways. Highways to the coast, I5, I84. Allow tax breaks for neighborhoods (mostly rural areas, I mean) that maintain their own roads. Tolls for bikes using the bridges and roads also. Those "bike boxes and bike lanes" are not free. And most places with tolls have the readers in the windshields, so its not time consuming. the toll on the lewis and clark bridge at rainier/longview charged for pedestrians and that was what , 60 years ago?
To the "progressives" (I call them socialists)who recommend a sales tax? The answer is no. How many times, and in how many ways must we say it? It's beyond obvious that our legislators and governor can't be trusted with the money they already have. A sales tax has been rejected a good number of times for good reason. The more they have, the more they spend. The more they spend, the more they "need". The more they need, the more they take, ad nauseum. The answer isn't to spend ever more. It's to spend what you HAVE as if it were your OWN instead of like a stupid teenager with rich daddy's "no credit limit" Visa card.
When it comes to taxing by the mile? The answer is no. Many of us outside of the sparkling city of Portland have to drive a good distance to work, to shop or just to do the everyday business that people do. Why penalize those who choose to live in the rural parts of the state?
I'm another guy who will NEVER have a GPS in my vehicle. Whether or not the state intends to track movement for whatever purpose is immaterial. They would have the capability, and eventually someone would come up with a good reason to renege on the original "promise."
I see lots of businesses that work in the public interest (telephone companies, internet providers, electric companies, gas companies, etc,) that somehow, provide us all with what we need without the power of taxation. For the most part they do it at reasonable expense, and FAR more efficiently than the government seems to be able to do. Maybe we should take a look at privatizing the highway system. At least that way, if they start sucking our blood for their service we could "vote" with our pocketbooks, rather than being helpless hostages.
Gosh what a bunch of reactionary sticks in the mud most of the posters on this topic are. Lots of comments but not very many thoughtful solutions to an obvious problem that is sure to get worse. Ah...I have an idea. How about a floor on the price of gas. Keep the price at say, $4.00/gal. If the "real" price drops below the floor, then the difference is a tax. A super-fund could be created with the money to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure. Additionally, $4.00/gal. would discourage consumption of fossil fuels and drive the conversion to alternatives which are going to be needed anyway as we pass peak oil. If the real price increased beyond the floor the tax would revert to what it is now.
Most Commented on OregonLive.com
- JACK OHMAN
-
The Oregonian's award-winning political cartoonistCartoon: Cover Your Assets...
- COLUMNIST
-
Oregonian News Columnist
30-Day Column Archive
- OPINION
