Oregon is mulling a change to their tax scheme which would eliminate per-gallon gasoline taxes and replace them with per-mile taxes. The plan being researched by the Oregon Department of Transportation would be implemented by installing a GPS device in every vehicle registered in the state, tracking each vehicle's every move. Can you say "Orwellian"? I knew you could.
This smacks of a gross violation of the constitution on privacy grounds, and the only other way to implement such a plan (using the odometer) would violate the constitution as well. Can you say "Regulation of interstate commerce"? Good job. Because that's what this plan would accomplish. How could the state verify that you're driving all your miles in Portland, Oregon and not in Vancouver, Washington? They couldn't, so they'd have to tax you for miles you drove out of the state.
Of course, I'm not even mentioning the fact that this is basically another subsidy for SUV owners. Yes, because we don't have enough pollution, we need to remove any kind of penalty for driving a Hummer instead of an electric car.
The speed at which this tax is taken off the books by voter referendum going to give the state legislators whiplash.
Posted by Barry at February 16, 2005 11:36 AMwhile the particular implementation of this change might be difficult to reconcile, it does address a problem that will grow quickly as more and more people (hopefully) switch to ultra-fuel efficient vehicles. with a per gallon gasoline tax, more fuel efficient vehicles will contribute less money to upkeep, and that will suck when that new hybrid that you waited 2 years on a waiting list to get breaks an axle because the state can't afford to repair the gaping potholes. and suvs are not going to suddenly have to purchase less gasoline to keep their monstrosities running. i'm not saying that per mile taxes are the answer, but they aren't necessary completely wrong, either. this will take some time and likely some trial and error by the states to figure out how to adapt funding to the changing realities of transportation options. maybe oregon will run with this and it will work wonders, or cause all sorts of legal hastles. at least they are aware of the problem and trying to adapt.
Posted by: ryan on February 16, 2005 03:22 PMYou make some valid points, but I think the problem of a lack of gasoline/diesel purchases is decades away. Are we seriously concerned about significant numbers of people buying ultra fuel-efficient vehicles at this point, or really at any point in the future? Even if we are, the vehicles which would likely be the first to replace internal combustion engine-based ones are proabably going to use fuel cells, and they'll proabably still use gasoline. The people using these vehicles should be rewarded, not punished. However, I'm seeing the opposite in goverment: IIRC there are proposals being floated around to add a tax specifically targeting these vehicles. This is madness. It would make more sense to raise the gasoline tax to compensate for lost revenues, and continue to do so until we've virtually eliminated the use of fossil fuels.
Which vehicles are doing the most damage to the roads, light (let's say less than 2 tons) vehicles, or heavy tractor trailers? The heavy vehicles aren't going away, and they're not going to stop using fossil fuels until our kids are out of college, at the soonest. This just seems perverse to me, like our government is actively trying to thwart attempts to change the status quo.
Posted by: barry on February 16, 2005 04:02 PMcome on
huh why is the middle east being plagued with americans? which companys seem to run this country and drive anyone with an alternative fuel into the ground or buy that idia and dig it a grave.
how can you be playing so naive. are you realy that shocked? this world is a pretty disgusting place at moment, and this country's priorities are not all in in line or even spread out.
are there evin priorities here?
big thank
Posted by: vitamin b5 acne on October 6, 2006 12:40 PM