Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
By RYAN KOST, Associated Press Writer Ryan Kost, Associated Press Writer
– Sat Jan 3, 7:38 am ET



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.

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."

I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due. Secondly, I
think if a charge by the mile system is instituted, large trucks MUST
be charged properly. Today's system subsidizes the trucking industry
in a major way. Truckers will not acknowledge this, but the fact are
pretty clear. Of course it is also true that drivers in urban areas
subsidize rural roads and drivers of fuel inefficient vehicles
subsidize Prius owners. A certain amount of unfairness is always going
to be present if we want a good road system not encumbered by
ridiculous tolls.

Ed

Are you stupid, or what?

You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.

Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs associated
with the building and maintenance of roads and highways. These costs are
funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop using gasoline and
the costs associated with the building and maintenance of the roads and
highways continue, where will the funding come from?

I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting together,
but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of fuel-efficiency
is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of the Oregon plans, I
have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs to the big-rigs on the
mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of the need to build and
maintain roads and highways is not the answer.

I think that would be a significantly more fair method to provide
funding than taxing each gallon of fuel. The amount of fuel used per
mile is not consistent from one vehicle to another of similar weight.
However, the amount of required road maintenance per mile driven is
consistent from one vehicle to another of similar weight.

G.S.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:11:38 -0800, Tim Howard
> wrote:

>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.

"Gordon Shumway" > wrote in message
...
>I think that would be a significantly more fair method to provide
> funding than taxing each gallon of fuel. The amount of fuel used per
> mile is not consistent from one vehicle to another of similar weight.
> However, the amount of required road maintenance per mile driven is
> consistent from one vehicle to another of similar weight.
>
> G.S.

That assumes the GPS data will be adjusted for weight. I've never seen any
indication that government is capable of applying such logic to it's plans
for sticking it to the citizens.

Remember, they already tax us every year for stull like electric windows and
air conditioning.

If you buy a base model car with hand-cranks and no A/C, you pay a
registration fee based on the price of the car, not the weight or any other
characteristic for that matter. If you go upscale on the options -- add
power and A/C -- then the cost of the car goes up, and you pay a different
registration fee as compared to the buyer with the base model of the same
car. You pay a tax every year for power windows and air conditioning, along
with all of the other options you selected.

If government was interested in being fair, they would tax you for the
option package in the first year, but not in the subsequent years. They are
not going to charge a different tax for miles driven in a Suburban or a
Yaris.

My guess is that the fuel taxes they collect now will remain in place as
they already are, and the GPS tax will be added on. They _claim_ that is not
going to be the case, but I think they are pulling our collective leg to
sell the GPS idea, then change the plan right before it goes into effect.

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
> Are you stupid, or what?
>
> You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
> received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
>
> Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs associated
> with the building and maintenance of roads and highways. These costs are
> funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop using gasoline and
> the costs associated with the building and maintenance of the roads and
> highways continue, where will the funding come from?
>
> I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting together,
> but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of fuel-efficiency
> is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of the Oregon plans,
> I have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs to the big-rigs on
> the mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of the need to build and
> maintain roads and highways is not the answer.
>

....as the big-rigs will just pass on the additional costs back to you anyway
in the form of higher priced goods....

My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period. Pretty soon, they'll
have a tax for taking a crap. In NY, this Gov. wants to put what basically
amounts to a obesity tax. A 2 litter bottle of Diet Coke will cost $1.30,
while the regular Coke will cost you a $1.50. He must be blind! Taxes are
getting out of control.....Smaller Government & more personable
responsibility will aleivaite much....

IYM

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:30:10 -0500, IYM cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are you stupid, or what?
>>
>> You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
>> received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
>>
>> Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs associated
>> with the building and maintenance of roads and highways. These costs are
>> funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop using gasoline and
>> the costs associated with the building and maintenance of the roads and
>> highways continue, where will the funding come from?
>>
>> I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting together,
>> but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of fuel-efficiency
>> is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of the Oregon plans,
>> I have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs to the big-rigs on
>> the mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of the need to build and
>> maintain roads and highways is not the answer.
>>
>
> ...as the big-rigs will just pass on the additional costs back to you anyway
> in the form of higher priced goods....
>
> My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period. Pretty soon, they'll
> have a tax for taking a crap. In NY, this Gov. wants to put what basically
> amounts to a obesity tax. A 2 litter bottle of Diet Coke will cost $1.30,
> while the regular Coke will cost you a $1.50. He must be blind! Taxes are
> getting out of control.....Smaller Government & more personable
> responsibility will aleivaite much....
>
> IYM

What's worse is that diet drinks don't do crap for controlling weight. The
problem isn't Cokes, the problem is the type of food people eat. What
about those of us that don't drink diet drinks (I hate the taste of the
stuff), and drink the regular formula instead - and... we're not
overweight? So... we get penalized because we can control ourselves?

I can't see where this one has a snowball's chance in hell of standing up.

--

-Mike-

> 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.

How long do you think it will take the aftermarket to sell us
satellite signal scramblers or some such to defeat the device?
Personally, I don't mind paying my fair share for roads if it is
reasonable and fair.
I like good roads...
ben

On Jan 8, 5:06*am, "C. E. White" > wrote:
> I think a moderate gas tax increase is long over due. Secondly, I
> think if a charge by the mile system is instituted, large trucks MUST
> be charged properly.

I agree!
Gas has been essentially gov subsidized for *far* too long.
I believe that at least 2/3 of Exxon's 16 Billion last quarter is
stolen from us with the governments help.
Monopolies are not good for us...

"Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:30:10 -0500, IYM cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
>> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Are you stupid, or what?
>>>
>>> You have posted this all over the automobile-based newsgroups, and have
>>> received many replies that you do not have the ability to discuss.
>>>
>>> Oregon, and all of the other states for that matter, have costs
>>> associated
>>> with the building and maintenance of roads and highways. These costs are
>>> funded through gasoline taxes. If the automobiles stop using gasoline
>>> and
>>> the costs associated with the building and maintenance of the roads and
>>> highways continue, where will the funding come from?
>>>
>>> I'm not particularly in favor of the plan that Oregon is putting
>>> together,
>>> but at least I understand the reasons, and "punishment" of
>>> fuel-efficiency
>>> is not one of them. Having said that I'm not in favor of the Oregon
>>> plans,
>>> I have no better solution. Surely, moving these costs to the big-rigs on
>>> the mistaken notion that they are the sole cause of the need to build
>>> and
>>> maintain roads and highways is not the answer.
>>>
>>
>> ...as the big-rigs will just pass on the additional costs back to you
>> anyway
>> in the form of higher priced goods....
>>
>> My opinion is there are just too many taxes, period. Pretty soon,
>> they'll
>> have a tax for taking a crap. In NY, this Gov. wants to put what
>> basically
>> amounts to a obesity tax. A 2 litter bottle of Diet Coke will cost
>> $1.30,
>> while the regular Coke will cost you a $1.50. He must be blind! Taxes
>> are
>> getting out of control.....Smaller Government & more personable
>> responsibility will aleivaite much....
>>
>> IYM
>
> What's worse is that diet drinks don't do crap for controlling weight.
> The
> problem isn't Cokes, the problem is the type of food people eat. What
> about those of us that don't drink diet drinks (I hate the taste of the
> stuff), and drink the regular formula instead - and... we're not
> overweight? So... we get penalized because we can control ourselves?
>
> I can't see where this one has a snowball's chance in hell of standing up.
>

Well, the sheer volume of Diet <anything> will over power the "diet" part of
whatever it is.

My daughter wanted to go to a forum that was going to cost $2500. She sent
out a letter to the community asking for donations of plastic bottles and
aluminum cans.

One of the respondants asked us to come over and clean out his side yard of
2-liter Diet Pepsi bottles. There were hundreds of them! If he (the family)
was drinking one per day, it would have taken him years to collect all of
these bottles. His kid came out to help load the bottles -- the kid was
perhaps 6 feet tall, and must have weighed in well above 300 pounds. He is
17.

Of course, they could have been getting the Diet Pepsi free with the large
pizza, and that would mean the soft drinks were not the problem.