Oregon Looks At Taxing Mileage Instead Of Gasoline

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

RYAN KOST | January 2, 2009 09:27 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Jim Wierson of Clackamas, talks about the idea of a mileage tax as he stands next to his pick-up in Portland, Ore., Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2008. Facing the possibility of lower tax revenue from gasoline sales, the state is considering a tax not on the number of gallons purchased, but on the number of miles driven. (AP Photo/Greg Wahl-Stephens)

PORTLAND, Ore. — Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with gasoline taxes.

"I'm glad we're taking a look at it before the potholes get so big that we can't even get out of them," said Leroy Younglove, a Portland driver who participated in a recent pilot program.

The proposal is not without critics, including drivers who are concerned about privacy and others who fear the tax could eliminate the financial incentive for buying efficient vehicles.

But Oregon is ahead of the nation in exploring the concept, even though it will probably be years before any mileage tax is adopted.

Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007.

The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways, bridges and transit programs in good shape.

But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

As cars burn less fuel, "the gas tax isn't going to fill the bill," said Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Story continues below
advertisement

The next Congress "could begin to set the stage, perhaps looking at some much more robust pilot programs, to begin the research, to work with manufacturers."

Gov. Ted Kulongoski has included development money for the tax in his budget proposal, and interest is growing in a number of other states.

Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles.

In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge of the state's effort, said he's also heard talk of mileage tax proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota.

"There is kind of a coalition that's naturally forming around this," he said.

Also fueling the search for alternatives is the political difficulty of raising gasoline taxes.

The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and nearly two dozen states have not changed their taxes since 1997, according to the American Road & Transportation Builders Association.

In Oregon's pilot program, officials equipped 300 vehicles with GPS transponders that worked wirelessly with service station pumps, allowing drivers to pay their mileage tax just as they do their gas tax.

Whitty said the test, which involved two gas stations in the Portland area, proved the idea could work.

Though the GPS devices did not track the cars' locations in great detail, they could determine when a driver had left certain zones, such as the state of Oregon. They also kept track of the time the driving was done, so a premium could be charged for rush-hour mileage.

The proposal envisions a gradual change, with manufacturers installing the technology in new vehicles because retrofitting old cars would be too expensive. Owners of older vehicles would continue to pay gasoline taxes.

The difference in tax based on mileage or on gasoline would be small _ "pennies per transaction at the pump," Whitty said.

But the mileage tax still faces several major obstacles.

For one, Oregon accounts for only a small part of auto sales, so the state can't go it alone. A multistate or national system would be needed.

Another concern is that such devices could threaten privacy. Whitty said he and his task force have assured people that the program does not track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies.

"I think most people will come to realize there is really no tracking issue and will continue to buy new cars," Whitty said, noting that many cell phones now come equipped with GPS, which has not deterred customers.

Others are worried that a mileage tax would undermine years of incentives to switch toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.

"It doesn't seem fair," said Paul Niedergang of Portland, that a hybrid would be taxed as much as his Dodge pickup. "I just think the gas tax needs to be updated."

Lynda Williams, also of Portland, was not immediately sold on the idea but said it was worth consideration.

"We all have to be open-minded," she said. "Our current system just isn't working."

PORTLAND, Ore. — Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to instal...
PORTLAND, Ore. — Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to instal...
 
Comments
524
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (18 pages total)

This is a genius way to privatize taxation in Oregon, and soon in your state if you don't see it coming.

Republicans created the gas tax crisis by deficit spending the constitutionally mandated gas tax on pork barrel projects a few years ago. I'm sure they probably had this giant corporate pork barrel in mind when they did it.

How is it a giant corporate pork barrel?

Where are these devices coming from? A non-profit? Nope.

Whomever is paying lobbyists and advocates for this wholly-invasive and totally unconstitutional method of taxation knows where their bread will be buttered.. it will be multi-billion$ in GPS unit sales, installations, gas pump retrofits, signal tracking, data analysis and satellite bandwidth.

That's right, it will cost billions before it raises even one thin dime of road repair money.

Also, this will move the current tax burden felt by triple-trailers to the humblest of Oregon's residents.

And, as you can be sure, all of the travel data will be aggregated by the private sector for an ever-increasing cost. Imagine how safe your data will be. It's easy.. just assume that Diebold or SAIC or another American Empire corporation will be compiling your travel data. They respect human rights... right?!

It must be nice to have representation in government.

We need to either start hiring lobbyists, or start passing very harsh mandatory minimum sentences for political corruption and start putting lobbyists and legislators in prison when they double-cross us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 01/06/2009

For you communist conservatives (Someone who's a mooches off the government and complains about everyone else mooching) the news clip below explains how rural roads get started. You get your road, you buy your house on that road, then you expect that road to be payed by everyone else so you can live in the boondocks. Leaches, if you were real country folk you'd be happy to drive 20 miles to your local wal-mart on gravel.

The shift is technical but has large implications. It would allow Plum Creek Timber to pave roads through Forest Service land. For decades, such roads were little more than trails used by logging trucks to reach timber stands.

But as Plum Creek has moved into the real estate business, paving those roads became a necessary prelude to opening vast tracts of the company's 8 million acres to the vacation homes that are transforming landscapes across the West.

Scenic western Montana, where Plum Creek owns 1.2 million acres, would be most affected, placing fresh burdens on county governments to provide services and undoing efforts to cluster housing near towns.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 01/05/2009

I live in Oregon and I agree with a tax for those that use the roads the most-- Like the tourists! We don't have a sales tax here. We could earn much more revenue to pay for the roads that everyone uses if tourists and residents paid a sales tax.

By the way it costs me $36 every two years to register my Toyota Tacoma in Oregon.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 01/05/2009

When GPS technology was first developed the Federal Government had a plan to install it in EVERY new car, but civil libertarians succeeded in preventing this from being mandatory. The genius of American corporate crypto-fascism then once again proved itself: If you impose something on Americans, they may well RESIST, but if you CHARGE THEM FOR IT they will INSIST on it.

I don't want to be monitored. And I don't like the idea of having to pay an after-the-fact tax, which is a real burden for the self-employed and others on limited budgets. I'd much rather pay at the pump than get a bill later.

The weight tax is a far better idea, but it should only be imposed on new vehicle sales so that it can be amortized via financing. A used vehicle should not be taxed, because it already has been. And certainly, as (if) America moves away from a petroleum-based transportation system, other ways of financing road construction and maintenance must be found, but for the short term raising the gas tax is the fairest, most practical way to do this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:43 PM on 01/05/2009

One solution would be to create a federal registration fee for all vehicles that would vary based on mpg. Newly purchased (both new and used) cars and trucks with high mpg would have the lowest fees, and the lower the mpg, the higher the fee, say up to $500/year for vehicles with 10-15mpg like Hummers.

For already-owned cars, raise the (federal) registration fees 10% annually until they match the ones on new purchases. It would make no difference how many miles you travel, and avoid privacy issues.

That way, we'd gradually get older less-efficient vehicles off the roads, as people would replace their inefficient cars with higher-mileage ones, or pay-to-drive. To not overburden low-income families who have older cars, you could use tax rebates based on income for excess registration fees for 5 years. Commercial vehicles could use a different scale, but also with mpg adjustments.

Use the fees for road maintenance, to help subsidize greener cars, or for mass transit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 01/05/2009

Bullsh!t on the GPS units in each car. I don't want them monitoring me. I'm not doing anything wrong, but I have a right to not be monitored, tyvm.

I'd fight this all the way to the US Supreme Court if I had to. A better option would be to require that the mileage be taken down when the yearly taxes come due (the ones you pay when you get your new tags) and a tax for mileage used during the period be applied at that time, as opposed to allowing the government to see where you are everytime you get in your car. That isn't cool at all. If it really comes to that, I'm Canada-bound. I'll miss the US, but I won't be spied on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. It will place a disproportionate tax increase on middle class schlubs like myself living in the northeast where real estate values are well beyond affordable as you get closer to the cities.

My modest 2000 square foot house costs about $420,000 40 miles west of Boston. In and around Boston, the price tag doubles. My wife and I practically live to pay our bloody mortgage as it is. What the hell are we supposed to do? Things are already tight and no one could accuse us of living high on the hog + my lightweight commuter vehicle gets about 40 mpg and doesn't tear up roads as bad as a soccer mom who drives 10000 miles a year in a hulking suv that uses the same amount of gas that I use to travel 20000 miles. On top of that, I carpool with my buddy who lives in an adjacent town. We take my car everyday because my buddy's ride is an SUV. We only take his ride when we have a snow storm. When I worked at Harvard, we took the train but our office is not along a train line either so even though the rail system is better in the northeast, it's not an option for us.

I might be amenable to the notion if there was an allowance for carpooling and lightweight vehicles.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 01/05/2009

The invasion of privacy issues surrounding the use of GPS to track mileage are numerous - do you really think that's all the Fed will do with all that info? And you know that someone's going to cash in big time if GPS hardware is mandated. Not to mention yet another layer of bureacracy. And what happens if one simply turns off the GPS system?
Everyone benefits from roads that are in good repair. Well-maintained roads mean fewer crashes (lower ins. costs), better mileage, less wear on the vehicles using them etc. Trucks delivering goods (food, fuel, you name it) get where they're going sooner, and that helps everyone who buys anything at any store. Increasing the fuel tax on heavier vehicles (trucks) just means that those goods will cost more.
Singling out part of the driving population to supplement the gas tax revenues is like charging parents more in school taxes because they have children in the public school system. Just as a well-educated populace benefits all of us, so too does a well-maintained transportation infrastructure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

I am a believer, however, that the way to increase revenues is to tax the vices heavily [smoking, drinking, cruising in cars] and to increase ten-fold fines for bad behavior.

Raise red light running to $500 per violation, raise to $50 for each mile per hour people go over posted speed limits, make all misdemeanor traffic fines to $3000 minimum. Enforce littering laws, with a $500 fine per piece of trash.

I think "taxing" the Mercedes driver $750 for going 80 mph in the fast lane would generate some revenue real fast, as fast as the driver is going. :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 01/05/2009

Exactly!!! As opposed to an efficiency and "good behavior" tax. There's a gold mine out there in a bad driving public. Right on!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

i rarely see Mercedes drivers driving fast and anyways if u think going 80 (keeping up with traffic flow) is so bad that ppl need to pay at least 750$ for doing it then u need your head examined. its the slow drivers esp on the highways doing usually below 65 thats causing traffic and whose tires touches the same parts of the roads longer than those who are moving a little bit faster like 80mph which is usually the common speed limit besides no one would pay that ridiculous amount.
and for those who actually think taxing mileage is a great idea must also be slow. I mean a lot of students are commuters too. tuition is almost raised every year, text books are so overpriced (285$ for a stupid general botany book package), commuting students are already taxed at the pump, and the wear and tear on the car to get to and from school cost too. now students also have to pay for the miles driven to and from school. i used to drive round trip in Houston at LEAST 50 miles. dont forget about big city (land size) commuters too. we already spend a lot on gas cuz u have no choice but to drive even when gas is high and public transportation is a joke. point A to point B = two hours not including waiting and transferring to other buses and 4hours round trip. This is a stupid idea to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 01/05/2009

What would happen is that it would place an unfair burden on the people who live in rural areas, those that are generally less wealthy in the first place. People who have to drive a few miles to get to the store, 50 miles round trip to get to work and back, etc, while those who live in the cities and are using more gas idling in traffic will have lower bills because they are only traveling a couple of miles.

The way it's done now is the fairest way to apply the tax. If they are taking a hit because people aren't using as much gas, then they need to come up with another method that can be fairly applied. Perhaps increase the sales tax a percentage point or two. Tack on a sur-tax to the vehicle registration taxes, maybe. Something that doesn't harm the people who can least afford it and give breaks to those who, frankly, should be taking public transportation in the first place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

If the problem has to do with road maintenance, then miles traveled per car would NOT be fair to light-weight automobiles, which include the most fuel-efficient models. The problem is directly tied to weight.

If there is to be such a tax, factor in the total weight of a vehicle. A 6,000 pound SUV/Truck will wreak more wear on roads than a 2,500 pound hybrid or compact car.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 PM on 01/05/2009

This idea is one I have had for years!!! The road condition is taxed far more by the heavier vehicles (the ones that business owners got a tax credit for being over 8000 lbs.) Let's use logic when determining taxation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 01/05/2009

I'm all for that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:48 PM on 01/05/2009

While "sin taxes" can generate a sizable amount of revenue, it becomes more and more difficult to know when to draw the line. My VP decided that his staff should pay a fine for showing up late to a meeting - $1 per minute for each person kept waiting. He changed his mind after showing up 30 mins. late to a meeting with 10 people.
For an example - a bit fanciful, although I can't find the logical flaw - I recommend reading Larry Niven's "The Jigsaw Man".
Synopsis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jigsaw_Man

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 01/06/2009

Stupid white males getting ready to f**ck up again!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

Well, it IS a point that if our entire nation uses electric or hybrid cars, we'll have to find a new way to pay for roads, but that day isn't here yet. Moving to this tax TODAY will penalize fuel efficiency. Its exactly the wrong message to send.

But if electric autos ever become the rule rather than a far-off promise, we may have to move to something like this, or just move road maintenence to general income/property taxes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

That's right. Here in San Francisco they used to charge people $2.50 if they paid their traffic fines online, instead of going into an office to pay.

People said that was the wrong message to send to people, where the City was supposed to be encouraging people to pay online and save the City money by not having to staff the office with as many people, the City getting their money faster, people saving time, saving gas, car wear and tear, etc.

The message was people had to pay money to save money.

After the controversy came to light they got rid of the surcharge and the Mayor said it was ridiculous to penalize people for doing something the City was encouraging them to do [pay online.]

This is the same thing, penalize people for getting a Prius or a MINI [both 30++ MPG cars, I have a MINI.] Talk about a disincentive for Detroit to build fuel efficient cars and for people to be motivated to buy them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

On the privacy issue, it would only be a matter of time before the courts uphold law enforcement using the devices to track people, and eventually for even the people to approve of such use.

Remember the drunk driving road checks / road blocks? Those started with them saying that the police could ONLY look for drunk drivers. Now the police can check registration, insurance and even search cars if they see something "suspicious." In other words, the courts have approved police road blocks to check and search citizens, for anything. In fact, when stopped the police shine their lights inside the entire car, looking for anything.

Also remember the seatbelt law. That started out that the police could not search your car or interrogate you if you were pulled over only for a seat belt violation. Now they can pull you over, search your car, do a record check, etc. if all they see is you not wearing a seatbelt.

Just saying that assurances today that law enforcement will not have access to the GPS is not true. Someday they will, just like law enforcement checks San Francisco Bay Area users FasTrack toll paying devices to determine a person's whereabouts. We were told way back that LE would not be allowed access to FasTrack devices, but they are.

Just sayin.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 01/05/2009

You're right, MSMSucks! It's all about future privacy people!! Big Brother will be tracking you!! Think End Days, The Matrix, or Terminator -- borrowing from pop culture movies. I don't want the gov. or any entity tracking my whereabouts. PERIOD.

Also, heavy vehicles (semi's, trucks, van, large cars) damage roads quicker than fuel-efficient and light-weighted hybrid cars. It's about the weight of the vehicle, not how many miles one drives.

Finally, aren't we taxed enough?!?

Wake up people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 01/05/2009

Agreed. The first time that a murder suspect is caught or a kidnapped child is rescued due to court-ordered access to "private" GPS info, the public will jump on the wagon in droves. These hypothetical examples will be displayed as a must-have benefit, while not mentioning that the information access reg's will be worded such that every gov. agency from Homeland Security on down gets to look at your record without a court order.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:45 PM on 01/05/2009

I agree that this is a bad idea by tax crazed government officials who never think long-term about the impact for any of their decisions.
Only a few months ago, we heard during the elections the need for more fuel efficient vehicles! Then a $25 billion auto bill passed to be used by the "financially troubled" Detroit Three for changing over their product offerings from gas guzzling large vehicles to alternative fuel vehicles with a goal of cutting oil dependance by a minimum of 10% over the next few years!
Solution for the potential tax shortfall due to more fuel effecient vehicles while still attaining the reduction of oil consumption goals does not require movements being tracked via GPS!!! A simple solution: each state has annual vehicle registration requirements, incorporate a mileage fee as part of that registration cost.
EXAMPLE: based on vehicle type the mileage cost would be slightly higher as the engine size goes up and the fuel efficiency down. Based on one of the previous comments, a $0.0025/mile base rate tax on a person driving 12,000 miles would = $30.00 addition to current registration fee, 25,000 miles = $62.50/Yr, etc... The base rate of $0.0025 would be adjusted by $0.00025 or $0.0005 plus or minus around the mid-range engine size set as the standard. This would ensure mileage tax revenue to be shared between states and federal governments without tracking of individual drivers with GPS units!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 01/05/2009

"A simple solution: each state has annual vehicle registration requirements, incorporate a mileage fee as part of that registration cost."

I'd like to go ahead and apologize for stealing your idea. I was so outraged by the very idea of being monitored that I spewed out a response before reviewing other posts.

Personally I like to think that simply because multiple people have independently arrived at this same solution that it is quite obviously a better one than turning over your privacy to the government.

Keep fighting the good fight, man.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 01/05/2009
photo

This is such a bad idea on so many levels, I don't know where to start. I have long considered Oregon to be a progressive state, but now I am not so sure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 01/05/2009

Ah, yes... installation of GPS trackers, the first step to a police state. No thanks. Big Brother doesn't have that much of a reason to know where I drive.

I find it funny that they are now so concerned over the higher fuel efficiency vehicles. Is it any wonder we don't have the kinds of cars they do in other places like Europe where High efficency Diesels are the standard? 50 MPG is pretty good, and the norm.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 01/05/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (18 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect